>mfw I just figured out 100% uncrackable cryptography for

>>61266647
https://xkcd.com/538/

>>61266647
>I just figured out 100% uncrackable cryptography for 2 parties to exchange messages indefinitely provided the initial key is exchanged in person
No you didn't.

>What should my next step be
Study some cryptology and information theory until you understand why your claim is bullshit.

>>61266653
>xkcd
>linking to xkcd
>knowing that particular comic off the top of your head
gas chamber

>>61266689
>gas chamber
laughing gas because I am lmaoing @ your "life" right now

>>61266697
wel ur gay

You rediscovered one-time-pad? Go suck a dick you noob.

>>61266713
btfo

>>61266647
Can you provide us with a brief description of the work?

Also if you aren't math PhD, gtfo

File: 1450621849629.jpg (235KB, 2346x1341px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 2346x1341px

>>61266713

>>61266713
CYA KID

File: 1499380763456-g.jpg (39KB, 575x556px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 575x556px

>>61266672
>cryptology

>>61266763
Yes, cryptology. That's what the field is called.

>>61266647
all you need is an indefinitely long key?

>>61266713
How will >>61266697 ever recover?

>>61266791
Technically, reading encrypted messages is cryptology. Writing them is cryptography.

>>61266647
dna

You submit a small blood sample with a smartphone add on

File: 1498556512568.png (609KB, 580x750px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 580x750px

>>61266713

>>61266647
Already exists and a physical copy of a key is an extreme liability.

>>61266858
>Technically, reading encrypted messages is cryptology. Writing them is cryptography.
Not so. Writing them is cryptography; reading them is called cryptanalysis. Cryptology is the two subfields combined (they are obviously related).

>>61266885
Nobody on /g/ cares. Try /sci/?

File: 1376962242008.jpg (162KB, 650x599px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 650x599px

>>61266731
Step 1) Meet partner in person to create a 1-time pad
Step 2) Encrypt a new 1-time pad with the 1-time pad you both agreed on and send to partner
Step 3) Partner decrypts the new 1-time pad and uses it to encrypt a 3rd 1-time pad that he sends back to you
Rinse and repeat

Completely uncrackable

>>61267307
Cool but this isn't commonly done because it doubles the required bandwidth of the comm. channel. Block and stream ciphers are "good enough" and use resources more efficiently.

>>61267307
Do you ever exchange any actual payload bits?

>>61267403
1-time pads

>>61267420
You really didn't think this through.

File: b74.jpg (43KB, 640x690px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x690px

>>61266713
OSHI-

Uncrackable? What does that mean? Given infinite resources and infinite time you would never get the data? Does it even exist?

>>61267666
Yes a one time pad is proved to be uncrackable in that as long as the key is truly random, there is no way to recover the plaintext without the key, no matter the time and resources. But the key needs to be as long as the plaintext, which is the main downside of the OTP.

File: 1497099612194.gif (2MB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x200px

>>61267666
>Tfw Bob and Alice are just piping /dev/random to each other, knowing what they have to say already.

>>61267754
You are missing a key point here, with infinite resources eventually you just get the plaintext randomly. The hard part of proving that's it

>>61267959
Yeah you're not "getting" anything. You don't even need the cyphertext to just guess the message, dumbass.

Lmao encryption is retarded.
Just beat the nigga up.

>>61267959
>The hard part of proving that's it
It's impossible with the one-time pad. That's literally the reason it has to be 1 time.
The one time pad makes a scenario where every single possible message of the length of the pad has the _exact_ same probability.

A message saying "hey, let's blow up the whitehouse today" has the exact same probability as a message saying "hey, let's send the whitehouse flowers." Unless you use the pad more than once there is no way for them to ever prove which.

>>61266647
hide yerrself best u can and then just post how..

>>61266697
>lmaoing @ your life
Funny how that doesn't sound as weird anymore.

File: 1429938016813.gif (2MB, 320x206px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x206px

>>61266713
Nothing personal, kid.

>>61266647
Lol AES is probably all of those things jeez

>>61266901
>nobody cares if they're wrong
What the hell is this, Detroit?

You mean a one time pad?
Yeah, that's been known for centuries.

>>61269471
No, it's neo-/g/, a bad combination of /v/eddit and /pol/.

File: 1485381078968.jpg (18KB, 436x402px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 436x402px

>>61266647

>>61267307
One-time pad requires one pad character per one message character. Either you encrypt more than one character(and thus it's no longer uncrackable) or you have only one pad of characters in total. Reusing the pad can, and has lead to cracking it, way back in ww2.

Post it

>>61266647
Start by posting it online.

File: hqdefault.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

>>61266647
You are too late kiddo...

And the best part is Diffie Hellman doesnt even need key transfer in person.

Guys, I just figured out a new encryption method
Just shuffle the letters by a number

A to C and D to F for example if we use "2"
Aren't I a genius