I do homebrewed encryption for the fun of it, but for serious work I use AES.
How do you think "Vari_Cyph" will fare with a quantum computer? RSA and ECDSA are dead in the water when quantum computers mature. Not sure about AES128 but AES256 hasn't much to worry about. 'Pound for pound' AES128 is the better  AES256 could do with a few more rounds. If AES256 was 'upgraded' it would certainly have nothing to worry about.
Number Trick

 Posts: 2675
 Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
 Location: UK
Re: Number Trick
@deltarho[1859]
With "Vari_Cyph"
If you select a message size of 1 , then the message is 8 * 8 bits , or 64 bits..
If you select a garbage size of 1 then the garbage is 64 bits , it scramble 64 bits of message into 64 bits of garbage..
If you select a garbage size of 4 then the garbage is 64 x 4 bits , it scramble 64 bits of message into 256 bits of garbage.. so only 1 in 4 bits is data..
If you select a message size of 1 = 64 bits
If you select a garbage size of 128 then the garbage is 64 x 128 bits = 8192, it scrambles 64 bits of message into 8192 bits of garbage..
So only 1 in 128 bits is message, the rest is garbage.
If you select a message size of 1024 = 8192 bits of message..
If you select a garbage size of 128 , then it scrambles 8192 message bits into 1,048,576 bits of garbage...
The only way to crack the cypher , is to know what the randomly selected garbage bits are for each set...And the order of the 16 output chrs...
As you scramble the message bits into the garbage , some bits change and others don't...
But each set the message bits change and the garbage bits change....
With "Vari_Cyph"
If you select a message size of 1 , then the message is 8 * 8 bits , or 64 bits..
If you select a garbage size of 1 then the garbage is 64 bits , it scramble 64 bits of message into 64 bits of garbage..
If you select a garbage size of 4 then the garbage is 64 x 4 bits , it scramble 64 bits of message into 256 bits of garbage.. so only 1 in 4 bits is data..
If you select a message size of 1 = 64 bits
If you select a garbage size of 128 then the garbage is 64 x 128 bits = 8192, it scrambles 64 bits of message into 8192 bits of garbage..
So only 1 in 128 bits is message, the rest is garbage.
If you select a message size of 1024 = 8192 bits of message..
If you select a garbage size of 128 , then it scrambles 8192 message bits into 1,048,576 bits of garbage...
The only way to crack the cypher , is to know what the randomly selected garbage bits are for each set...And the order of the 16 output chrs...
As you scramble the message bits into the garbage , some bits change and others don't...
But each set the message bits change and the garbage bits change....
Re: Number Trick
With "Vari_Cyph"
You can set the values to x 1 message = 64 bits and garbage to 2 = 128 bits..
Then you can copy the output to the input , and change the values , and the key and output chrs..
And recypher it with a different set of values and different key...
You can recypher with different values and keys as many times as you want...
The worlds fastest and most AI complex, computers , could never decypher it...
To crack it , you'd need to figure out the message size , and garbage size , and what garbage bits were generated at each block.. and then figure the correct order for the 16 output chrs..
If it's cypher multiple times , forget it, it's impossible to crack...
You can set the values to x 1 message = 64 bits and garbage to 2 = 128 bits..
Then you can copy the output to the input , and change the values , and the key and output chrs..
And recypher it with a different set of values and different key...
You can recypher with different values and keys as many times as you want...
The worlds fastest and most AI complex, computers , could never decypher it...
To crack it , you'd need to figure out the message size , and garbage size , and what garbage bits were generated at each block.. and then figure the correct order for the 16 output chrs..
If it's cypher multiple times , forget it, it's impossible to crack...

 Posts: 2675
 Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
 Location: UK
Re: Number Trick
The graveyard is full of methods which could not be cracked by their authors. The only method that I know of for certain cannot be cracked is a onetime pad which uses a key at least as long as the plaintext so not very useful for long messages. Your method does not seem very useful for long messages either.
So with 2GB of sensitive health data would use 256GB of garbage. I cannot see people queueing up to use that method. I should not think that it would be particularly fast either.
can also be said of AES128.
Once the NIST recommended passwords should have an entropy of at least 80 bits  they now recommend 112 bits. I use at least 22 random alphanumeric characters which gives 131 bits of entropy and cannot be bruteforced, at the moment. Some websites come back with 'Not complex enough'. What do they know? You cannot get more complex than 8 bits in a byte and most of them won't allow that. If they looked at the length they would not have a case.
So, why use AES256? Well, that is for a Top Secret classification. Some people think that Top Secret means more secret than secret. There is no such thing as more secret than secret  secret is secret. If something needs to be kept secret for a short time, like a couple of years, then AES128 is good enough. However, if we are looking at something which needs to be secret in 15 years time, say, then we should use AES256. Top Secret then is more to do with the life expectancy of the secret than it is on the security level needed today. Software vendors talking about AES256 being 'military grade encryption' are on a PR trip. Battlefield secrets may only last for a few months, at most, and not 15 years.
AES is what we should use. A few more rounds with AES256 would be helpful and, as with DES, we could use tripleAES; although I shouldn't think that anyone is thinking along those lines  not for a long time.
then it scrambles 8192 message bits into 1,048,576 bits of garbage...
So with 2GB of sensitive health data would use 256GB of garbage. I cannot see people queueing up to use that method. I should not think that it would be particularly fast either.
The worlds fastest and most AI complex, computers , could never decypher it...
can also be said of AES128.
Once the NIST recommended passwords should have an entropy of at least 80 bits  they now recommend 112 bits. I use at least 22 random alphanumeric characters which gives 131 bits of entropy and cannot be bruteforced, at the moment. Some websites come back with 'Not complex enough'. What do they know? You cannot get more complex than 8 bits in a byte and most of them won't allow that. If they looked at the length they would not have a case.
So, why use AES256? Well, that is for a Top Secret classification. Some people think that Top Secret means more secret than secret. There is no such thing as more secret than secret  secret is secret. If something needs to be kept secret for a short time, like a couple of years, then AES128 is good enough. However, if we are looking at something which needs to be secret in 15 years time, say, then we should use AES256. Top Secret then is more to do with the life expectancy of the secret than it is on the security level needed today. Software vendors talking about AES256 being 'military grade encryption' are on a PR trip. Battlefield secrets may only last for a few months, at most, and not 15 years.
AES is what we should use. A few more rounds with AES256 would be helpful and, as with DES, we could use tripleAES; although I shouldn't think that anyone is thinking along those lines  not for a long time.
Re: Number Trick
Another number trick, i just came up with...
It works with single digit squares... add , sub and a single digit mul..
Now to play with 2 digit numbers... to see if i can figure out a working formula that works on all numbers..
Code: Select all
90
9

81
81

0 < diff = 9  9 * 9
================
80
8

72
64

8 < diff = 9  8 * 8
================
70
7

63
49

14 < diff = 9  7 * 7
================
60
6

54
36

18 < diff = 9  6 * 6
================
50
5

45
25

20 < diff = 9  5 * 5
================
40
4

36
16

20 < diff = 9  4 * 4
================
30
3

27
9

18 < diff = 9  3 * 3
================
20
2

18
4

14 < diff = 9  2 * 2
================
10
1

9
1

8 < diff = 9  1 * 1
It works with single digit squares... add , sub and a single digit mul..
Now to play with 2 digit numbers... to see if i can figure out a working formula that works on all numbers..

 Posts: 2675
 Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
 Location: UK
Re: Number Trick
What we have is
n/10*(9  n/10) for n = 90, 80, 70, ..., 10
The point of the exercise being what?
n/10*(9  n/10) for n = 90, 80, 70, ..., 10
The point of the exercise being what?
Re: Number Trick
I'm working on a way to square large numbers.... With only shifts , adds , subtracts , and maybe a single or double digit multply..
14 x 14 = 196
1040 ( 1 x 10 ) added to ( 4 x 10 )
0104

0936
9  1 = 8 , ( 8 x 1 ) = 8
9  4 = 5 , ( 5 x 4 ) = 20
tot = 820
0936
820

116 < were off ( under ) by 80 = ( 40 + 40 )
14 x 14 = 196
1040 ( 1 x 10 ) added to ( 4 x 10 )
0104

0936
9  1 = 8 , ( 8 x 1 ) = 8
9  4 = 5 , ( 5 x 4 ) = 20
tot = 820
0936
820

116 < were off ( under ) by 80 = ( 40 + 40 )
Re: Number Trick
13 x 13 = 169
1030 ( 1 x 10 ) added to ( 3 x 10 )
103

927
9  1 = 8 , ( 8 x 1 ) = 8
9  3 = 6 , ( 6 x 3 ) = 18
tot = 818
0927
818

109 < were off ( under ) by 60 ( 30 + 30 )
1030 ( 1 x 10 ) added to ( 3 x 10 )
103

927
9  1 = 8 , ( 8 x 1 ) = 8
9  3 = 6 , ( 6 x 3 ) = 18
tot = 818
0927
818

109 < were off ( under ) by 60 ( 30 + 30 )
Last edited by albert on Aug 31, 2020 18:52, edited 1 time in total.

 Posts: 2675
 Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
 Location: UK
Re: Number Trick
albert wrote:I'm working on a way to square large numbers....
OK. I am out of this thread now. I wrote earlier: "I am sorry albert but I cannot get excited about squaring huge numbers"
Re: Number Trick
18 x 18 = 324
1080 ( 1 x 10 ) added to ( 8 x 10 )
108

972
9  1 = 8 , ( 8 x 1 ) = 8
9  8 = 1 , ( 8 x 1 ) = 8
tot = 808
0972
808

164 < were off ( under ) by 160 ( 80 + 80 )
1080 ( 1 x 10 ) added to ( 8 x 10 )
108

972
9  1 = 8 , ( 8 x 1 ) = 8
9  8 = 1 , ( 8 x 1 ) = 8
tot = 808
0972
808

164 < were off ( under ) by 160 ( 80 + 80 )
Re: Number Trick
10 x 10 = 100
1000 ( 1 x 10 ) added to ( 0 x 10 )
100

900
9  1 = 8 , ( 8 x 1 ) = 8
9  0 = 9 , ( 9 x 0 ) = 0
tot = 800
0900
800

100 < were off ( under ) by 00 ( 00 + 00 )
1000 ( 1 x 10 ) added to ( 0 x 10 )
100

900
9  1 = 8 , ( 8 x 1 ) = 8
9  0 = 9 , ( 9 x 0 ) = 0
tot = 800
0900
800

100 < were off ( under ) by 00 ( 00 + 00 )
Re: Number Trick
Got the 1's and 10's done...
Now to work on 20's to 90's , then on to 3 digit numbers..
Now to work on 20's to 90's , then on to 3 digit numbers..

 Posts: 649
 Joined: Jun 09, 2005 0:08
Re: Number Trick
@Albert, 16 bit squares, there'll be other ways too.
or
Code: Select all
dim as ulong v=12345
print v*v
dim as ulong t=v,square
while v>0
square+=t and  (v and 1)
v shr=1
t shl=1
wend
print square
sleep
end
or
Code: Select all
dim as ulong square,v=12345
print v*v
for i as long=0 to 15
square+=(v shl i) and  ((v shr i) and 1)
next
print square
sleep
end
Re: Number Trick
I got it working with 2 and 3 digit numbers..
123 x 123 = 15129
010409 < square each digit and make them all 2 digits
23 x 100 x 2 = 4600
20 x 3 x 2 = 120
4600 + 120 = 4720
010409
4720 < add 4720

015129 < correct answer
Another:
246 x 246 = 60516
041636 < square each digit and make them all 2 digits
46 x 200 x 2 = 18400
40 x 6 x 2 = 480
18400 + 480 = 18880
041636
18880 < add 18880

060516 < correct answer
The problem is you have to cross multiply and double , so with longer numbers there would be a lot of cascaded adding....
I'm working on a faster way to arrive at the adder.. instead of cross mul and double..
With 3 digits there's 2 cross muls...
with 4 digits there would be 3 cross muls
etc..
123 x 123 = 15129
010409 < square each digit and make them all 2 digits
23 x 100 x 2 = 4600
20 x 3 x 2 = 120
4600 + 120 = 4720
010409
4720 < add 4720

015129 < correct answer
Another:
246 x 246 = 60516
041636 < square each digit and make them all 2 digits
46 x 200 x 2 = 18400
40 x 6 x 2 = 480
18400 + 480 = 18880
041636
18880 < add 18880

060516 < correct answer
The problem is you have to cross multiply and double , so with longer numbers there would be a lot of cascaded adding....
I'm working on a faster way to arrive at the adder.. instead of cross mul and double..
With 3 digits there's 2 cross muls...
with 4 digits there would be 3 cross muls
etc..

 Posts: 649
 Joined: Jun 09, 2005 0:08
Re: Number Trick
You're also having to square each digit.
With 3 digits it can be done with just
123*123
1*12300+
2*1230+
3*123
=15129
But in that you have
1*12300=(1*1*10000+1*2*1000+1*3*100)
2*1230=(2*1*1000+2*2*100+2*3*10)
3*123=(3*1*100+3*2*10+3*3)
Where for part of that you have each digit squared and shifted, which gives you
1²*10000+2²*100+3²
+
(1*2+2*1)*1000
+
(1*3+3*1)*100
+
(2*3+3*2)*10
With 3 digits it can be done with just
123*123
1*12300+
2*1230+
3*123
=15129
But in that you have
1*12300=(1*1*10000+1*2*1000+1*3*100)
2*1230=(2*1*1000+2*2*100+2*3*10)
3*123=(3*1*100+3*2*10+3*3)
Where for part of that you have each digit squared and shifted, which gives you
1²*10000+2²*100+3²
+
(1*2+2*1)*1000
+
(1*3+3*1)*100
+
(2*3+3*2)*10
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests