[107160] in Cypherpunks
distribution scheme
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Mon Jan 4 06:19:35 1999
Date: 4 Jan 1999 11:04:35 -0000
From: Anonymous <nobody@remailer.ch>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody@remailer.ch>
>>yes, I found that out in the meantime. the legal aspect falls short
>>of my expectations. I still consider the scheme to be both simple and
>>useful
>fractal encryption is a simple concept. however, testing of various
>methods proved that the key was the "pattern recognition" element.
>because this part is sent separately from the alphanumeric element, the
>cipher itself is as secure as imaginable. only if someone captures both
>elements, is able to understand the combination, and break the pattern
>recognition scheme, can the cipher be read...
I'd also like to mention once more that the goal I had was not a new or
great encryption scheme, but a distribution channel. after the legal
aspect dies, what remains is my hope that using this scheme, almost all
automatic filters, sniffers and the like can be circumvented.
in other words: I'm about to make myself enemies with the nsa.
can anyone comment on whether or not the scheme works well in this
aspect? I think it does, but my crypto knowledge is limited.
>a non-linear methodology will always defeat traditional (linear)
>cryptoanalysis. but that is precisely the reason that the us government
>opposes the development and export of this form of encryption scheme...
that is not a problem.
Falcon
