On 28 Feb 2002 at 12:39, Sunder wrote:
> So it's
>
> while(...)
> {
> r=rng(); // read block from the rng
> p=plaintext(); // read block of plaintext
> c1=cypher1(plaintext,key1); // encrypt plaintext
> c2=c1 ^ r; // xor c1 with rng block
> c3=cypher2(r,key2); // encrypt rng with 2nd cypher and 2nd key.
> }
>
> Ok, so now what do we do with all this stuff? Are c1..c3 further mixed?
> Are keys key1 and key2 related? For example, does this attempt to be a
> public key mechanism? Or perhaps some sort of data splitting like a k of
> n split?
>
> How do we get back the plaintext?
>
> So before we can rule this out as snake oil or useful, we need more
> details...
>
>
The full text is available at the PTO.
As I understand it, in essence it's pretty much
equivalent to the old idea of using a real random number
generator to make a OTP, then sending the (encrypted)
OTP and also the message XORed with the OTP, so the
message sent ends up being twice as long as the plaintext.
George
> ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---------------------------
> + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
> \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
> <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/
> /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/
> + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net ------------
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Khoder bin Hakkin wrote:
>
> > Cipher mixer with random number generator
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> > An encryption device has a random number generator whose output is
> > combined by exclusive-or with plaintext input which has been encrypted
> > by a first block cipher. The combined exclusive-or output is encrypted
> > with a second block cipher mechanism which produces a second enciphered
> > output. The output of the random number generator is also encrypted by a
> > third block cipher mechanism which produces a third enciphered output.
> > The first and second block cipher mechanisms differ from each other.
> >
> > United States Patent
> > 6,351,539
> > February 26, 2002
