A Fun Algorithm For Scrambling Data With the Option to recover It

[Rooks Forgenal]

I can't put it all on here because it is at least 60 lines of code. However, I can give you the gist via pseudo-code. This is the recovery algorithm. To make the cipher, it is really just the reverse of this, with the need to fill in the holes with garbage data. You can make ciphers with as many passes as you like. Just reverse the string and encode again. Each time the data gets more scrambled (but you need a new terminating character each time you do).

Is this useful? Yes and No. By itself, it is no substitute for RSA encryption. However, you can use something like this to scramble the message before it is encrypted with RSA to make it even MORE difficult to reverse for potential hackers. With this you can force the need for an entire piece of data to arrive and be deciphered with RSA before you can unscramble it. That means that a hacker who gets a partial piece of data can get nothing from it even if they break the RSA (which is unlikely). Good times.

RF

terminatorChar='\0'
cipher = <Scrambled Text>
message[cipher.length] <- null
p=q=r=s=0
while (q*q+q)/2+p < cipher.length && cipher[(q*q+q)/2+p] != terminatorChar
  if p <= q
    message[s] = cipher[(q*q+q)/2+p]
    s++
    q--
    p++
  else
    r++
    q=r
    p=0
return (message -> String)

[Junilu Lacar]

I don't know, that seems to me like saying "Don't worry, if the thief breaks the lock at least you still have that piece of string I tied to the door knob to keep him out."

[Rooks Forgenal]

You cannot prevent theft/hacking. You can only make it prohibitively difficult to succeed at theft/hacking.

RF

[Henry Wong]

Rooks Forgenal wrote:You cannot prevent theft/hacking. You can only make it prohibitively difficult to succeed at theft/hacking.

True. However, if you don't believe that an encryption algorithm is sufficiently strong enough, possible solutions are... (1) use a different (stronger) encryption algorithm, (2) use a longer key with the current encryption algorithm, or (3) use another encryption algorithm in addition to the current encryption algorithm.

Algorithms that munge the text, while does confuse hackers, doesn't really make the overall algorithm stronger -- as relatively, it is in a different order of magnitude.

Henry

[Winston Gutkowski]

Rooks Forgenal wrote:You cannot prevent theft/hacking. You can only make it prohibitively difficult to succeed at theft/hacking.

Sure, but I'm not sure that your code adds much difficulty. As I recall (and I'm sure I'll be flamed if I'm wrong), plain old XOR with a passphrase is moderately tough to crack.

Winston

[William Brogden]

An XOR with a one-time-pad is impossible to crack but then you have the problem of protecting the one-time-pad.

Bill

[Campbell Ritchie]

You use dice to make the one time pad