On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:22:19PM -0500, Tim Dierks wrote: > Do the following: > 1. You will need to make a choice of either leaking identifier length
Done. > 2. Develop a one-to-one mapping between symbols expressible in your grammar > and numeric values with a finite scope. [...] > > 3. You now have a bidirectional mapping between legal tokens and values > 0..MAX, where MAX is the token with the highest possible value (c_0..c_n are > each selected to be 53 or 63, as appropriate, in our example). Yes, that's what I was getting at when I discussed mixed-base numbers, where the first symbol is base 53 and the others base 63. We're on the same page here. > 4. You can now construct an encryption algorithm which encrypts within this > set. Alternatives include: Ah, I hadn't considered the re-hashing until it fell within range. But why do I not see "cryptographically-strong permutations for sets with cardinality other than 2^n"? It seems like a very natural primitive for certain things, albeit not for passing octet streams. Seems like academics would be all over that like wet on water. Maybe I'm just not googling the right things, or looking in the right places. > I hope that's intelligible. Good luck! Yes, thanks, that's an alternative I hadn't considered. -- Effing the ineffable since 1997. | http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ My emails do not usually have attachments; it's a digital signature that your mail program doesn't understand. If you are a spammer, please email [email protected] to get blacklisted.
pgpyjoSttnlGO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
