Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Matt wrote: >Changing one bit of the key or plaintext affects every bit of the cipherte= xt.
>That is simply not true of most encryptions. For example, Enigma.=20 Matt: Enigma is laughably weak compared to modern encryption, such as AES, RSA, S= HA-256, ECC, etc. Enigma was broken with primitive mechanical computers an= d pencil and paper. Enigma was broken without modern computers, *given access to the machine.* I chose Enigma as an example, because to break language it may be necessary to pay attention to the machine-- namely examining the genomics. But that is more work than you envisage ;^) It is true that much modern encryption is based on simple algorithms. However, some crypto-experts would advise more primitive approaches. RSA is not known to be hard, even if P!=NP, someone may find a number-theoretic trick tomorrow that factors. (Or maybe they already have it, and choose not to publish). If you use a mess machine like a modern version of enigma, that is much less likely to get broken, even though you may not have the theoretical results. Your response admits that for stream ciphers changing a bit of the plaintext doesn't affect many bits of the ciphertext, which was what I was mainly responding to. You may prefer other kinds of cipher, but your arguments about chaos are clearly not germane to concluding language is easy to decode. Incidentally, while no encryption scheme is provably hard to break (even assuming P!=NP) more is known about grammars: they are provably hard to decode given P!=NP. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
