The Unbreakable Cipher

[electromagnetize@gmail.com (brian carroll)]

 this viewpoint would appear validated within a certain limited framwork
 of observation, whereas different 'physics' could apply beyond its pov...

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:11 AM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:

 NSA Technical Journal published "The Unbreakable Cipher" in Spring 1961.
>
> http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/The_Unbreakable_Cipher.pdf
>
> Excerpts:
>
> [Quote]
>
> For each cipher system there is an upper bound to the amount of
> traffic it can protect against cryptanalytic attack.
>

 perhaps this is mathematically proven or a truism (cannot be falsified)
 though it would seem this is a statement based on certain existing
 approaches, potentially. or methods or equations that may work
 in particular domains- yet perhaps not all, if somehow dynamics
 changed from ordered to chaotic systems, noise instead of signals

 the comparison could be to [nature] itself as a mysterious code
 and what is accessible and known, within particular limited views
 and understanding, versus all that exists, perceived or hidden

 the threshold that is beyond observation may not appear in traffic
 analysis if it is not accounted for in a given structuring of data
 or comprehendable. there may be more to it that existing models
 or embodied awareness, as with vision and other animals eyes
 and frequencies, as this relates to territory and interfunctionality,
 say UV and insects as it relates to pollination, humans cannot
 see directly yet cameras can begin to, yet what if like Flatland
 there are vast amounts of higher dimensionality near & far away
 or adjacent and invisible that are not found in existing equations
 else cannot be computed in the frameworks, ideological science
 & metaphysics one example, Isaac Newton the Alchemist

 the requirement may be that the cipher needs to be serial
 or linear to satisfy the given viewpoint, versus non-linear


> What is
> "cryptanalytic attack"? It is a process applied to cipher text
> in order to extract information, especially information
> contained in the messages and intended to be kept secret.
>

 guessing- perhaps such "cryptanalytic correlation" is based on
 assumption about order within defined and controlled systems
 generated by algorithms in a particular way- and thus correlation
 leads to a cause, verification/validation of a 'known rationalization'
 or meaningful structure that can be deciphered out of the chaos

 assumption of a correct and single answer, removed of ambiguity
 vs. nonlinear, many potential answers, more labyrinth, cipher as
 treasure hunt leading into multiple mazes, linked or parallel yet
 arbitrary puzzles, and Rube Goldberg contraptions which could
 alter the context itself, change code, via attempts to access it


>  If some of the information is gotten by other means and this
> results in more being extracted from the cipher, this is (at
> least partially) a successful attack.
>

 linearly so, that seems likely in that order would be revealed
 in what might be called the equationspace, whatever context
 or 'universe' the approaches define, yet which may be finite
 and bounded, and thus lack other existing dimensionality

 nonlinear, more (autogenerated) information does not inherently
 lead to a single "correct" ordering or perspective, it could be a
 false pov or trap yet fulfill criteria of rationalization into some
 known equation ("yes- here is the 'real' encrypted message"')
 in the sense that a [sign] references itself for proof, versus
 another event, thus a false a=a resolving an equation could
 be a spoof and lead away from the actual temporary path

 the secret data could feasibly be infront of an observer who
 is limited in their view and framework and thus cannot see it
 due to snap-to-fit equation mentality, conceptually limited,
 perceptually, if not out if not their depth philosophically as
 the idea itself that generates the code may be unthinkable
 or unimaginable in a less-accurate framework or model

 thus, much public crypto could function as [signage] that
 is equated with secrets: (the hidden data is here!), and in
 this way could be two-dimensional as in Flatland POVs,
 that cannot understand higher dimensionality beyond its
 physical limits of perception- and thus brain functioning,
 sensory capacity, natural networking (esp,astral, remote
 viewing) may differ observer to observer as consciousness
 shared and unshared- planes of existence and operation

 so what if nonlinear cipher systems or multilinear do not
 have these same 2D properties and instead invert the
 principles involved, such that finding structure or order
 is not inherently good, nor 'answers' or resolution as it
 does not prove anything, if not knowing the context or
 frame for data, one answer over another in another view


> If certain phrases can be
> recognized when they are present, this is successful cryptanalysis.
>

 not if multiple bit set, or bit strings. what is recognizable as pattern
 may exist as noise and what appears noise may be the signal,
 pseudo-truth pattern matching leads further & further into falsity


> If a priori probabilities on possible contents are altered by
> examination of the cipher, this is cryptanalytic progress.
>

 or, a protected boundary or ruse that further encrypts into
 other frameworks upon inspection, correlation, interference
 thus Schrodinger paradox and observation, though to include
 quantum correlation changes the context (other physics) and
 'the cat' could be entangled with another cat before being put
 in box and thus its state could indicate dead/alive cat, etc.

 so what if non-linear ciphers were entangled and yet this
 functioned in a realm of arbitrary keys or resonant key sets
 that suddenly tune in or out of connectivity within a context,
 versus must be hardcoded into it as static unchanging data


> If in making trial decipherments it is possible to pick out
> the correct one then cryptanalysis is successful. ...
>

 not true for nonlinear bit sets as they could auto-expand
 into universe upon universe of data correlations, bounded
 infinities or unbounded finite realms, whereas the serial
 approach appears much more of a bounded finite realm

 exponential meaning for set combinations as equations
 that open into vast interior realms of potential scrambled
 data- anything cold be ordering the interior, recognizable
 or not-- N-equations, singularly or stacked, equations
 never before shared- that level of obscurity- anything.


> Another example is that of Mr. Kahn, one-time key. Here the
> limit is quite clear; it is the amount of key on hand. The key arrives
> in finite "messages," so there is only a finite amount on hand at
> anyone time, and this limits the amount of traffic which can be sent
> securely. Of course another shipment of key raises this bound, but
> technically another cipher system is now in effect, for by my
> definition a cipher system is a message. A sequence of messages
> is a sequence of cipher systems, related perhaps, but not the same. ...
>

 not sure i understand this in its practice or application, though
 what if a key cannot be differentiated from the cryptogram or is
 somehow not separated or structurally defined in existing rules
 for hardware/software crypto. for instance, what if entanglement
 unlocks interpretation via perception or alters some context.

 what if a device is so enigmatic it could contain an upper boundary
 of keyspace and cipherspace and equationspace such that it can
 be reused indefinitely or many times without figuring out its solution
 because it increasingly moves to 'many' versus a single solution,
 and may not structurally relate to other previous uses/exchange
 or protocols (in this way the person as observer and randomness)

 what if traffic analysis is 2D in an N-dimensional framework and
 thus many keys and similar cipherspace is an attribute and at
 some tipping point or threshold a computational or conceptual
 limit is reached, which is defined by a limited rationalization or
 this is seeded by accurate and-or false data to false correlate
 and entangle systems, virtual and real, to exploit via minotaurs

[Answer to the question:] "Does there exist an unbreakable cipher"
> would be this, "Every cipher is breakable, given enough traffic, and
> every cipher is unbreakable, if the traffic volume is restricted
> enough."
>
> [End quote]
>

 this could be a question of observation and the existing boundary.
 an omniscient observer could likely know anything encrypted just
 by tapping optic nerve or brain, pre-encryption. yet if not truly or
 fully accurate in modeling, could make presumptions and limit
 this power of interpretation to a smaller framework than what
 actually exists (pT vs. T) and thus that limit may equate what
 is believed observed with absolute truth (pT=pT as TRUTH),
 and thus the hidden communications or cipher system may
 exist in that gap or realm of error- to begin with, as security
 that is based within accurate observance/sharing of truth,
 even while in a more finite state, than a falsely omniscient
 observer who relies on error for POV (skew/distortion/warping)
 and thus their logical reasoning may establish the boundary
 which a person of less capacity for all-pervasive oversight
 may still communicate beyond via channels of unobserved
 or unrecognized truth, validated in 1=1 or A=A or T=T views
 grounded in shared empirical framework, outside perception
 or understanding of the tyrant.

 the neuro-signaling could be broken, the encryption broken
 in algorithmic code, the traffic correlated- and yet if these
 are not accurately interpreted or cannot be, or do not or
 cannot accurately correlate to the reality, then reading
 of the cipher -- that which is broken -- could be reading of
 [the signs] associated with the cipher in a given particular
 rationalization or ideological view that can still be incorrect
 and data exchange could occur outside of this viewpoint;
 thus the phrenological aspect of inaccurate modeling in
 that it could be limited or bounded to finite dimensionality
 whereas the actual cipher could exist outside of that

 like neuroscience trying to determine what ideas are
 by placing them on a neural map, versus the concepts
 as circuits, constellations, related to this data, in truth

 truth is the unbreakable cipher

 there is no greater security

 lies are full of flaws and errors by comparison, self-defeating

 how effective is secret intel if it is blanketing the news cycle
 as endless global megastorm, global secrecy meltdown


> Is this conclusion still valid? If so, what could be done to restrict
> traffic
> volume to assure unbreakablility? And how to sufficiently test that.
> Presuming that NSA and cohorts have investigated this effect.
>

 it could be ideological-- that the 'secret' is created and held
 within a given domain versus existing outside of it as information
 and in a state of nature or other pre-existing data and frames

 as if the role of security is to break things so they can be secure,
 a methodology that ultimately undermines development, reflected
 in planned obsolence as self-destruction, cannibalization of the state

 what if security meant protecting truth, and secrecy dealing with
 thresholds and boundaries; what if the protocols and assumptions
 and methodologies are conceptually flawed, wrong, in error, and
 their implementation and sustenance is the lifeblood of tyranny,
 in that maldevelopment is required as a result of wrong-ideas
 and wrong-thinking, standardized, institutionalized, copied,
 networked, and then becoming security state religion while
 heretics are pursued as citizen terrorists, givers of feedback

 in such a doomsday, truth is the enemy, so that would mean
 the inner realm of the secrecy and security and privacy realm
 is to protect lies and liars and deceivers, the core of the falsity
 â??
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20130925/4d885799/attachment.html>