 |
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
Greetings all, this is I, Prime Function Drogue Beta-8 and the inaugural post of our private forum.
I am trying to add all members ATM, and when that is done, I will post the PM I sent to Corellion, that Maniac asked me to post.
Welcome to the Cybernetic Consciousness. I wish you logic and strength, we will need both in this troubled time ahead.
- Prime Function Drogue Beta-8
- 01010000011100100110100101101101011001010010000001
00011001110101011011100110001101110100011010010110
11110110111000100000010001000111001001101111011001
11011101010110010100100000010000100110010101110100
011000010010110100111000
Last edited by Drogue on 14-05-2003 at 03:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:28
|
|
Brilliant! And with http://plinko.net/binary/tobinary.asp you can do the opposite.
But if we use this binary code in the general forum, it won't last long before it is decrypted, as FlameFlash already guessed the ones and zeroes actually meant something. Therefore I'd suggest that we add a few ones and zeroes at the beginning of each encrypted message, let's say four or five random 0's and 1's. If the third digit is 0, you have to remove the first four digits before transforming the message to English. If the third digit is 1, you have to remove the first five digits before transforming to English. The first, second, fourth and possibly fifth digits should be random, to avoid the other from too easily noticing a system in our encryption.
Does that sound ok, or am I making it too complicated? 
Last edited by Maniac on 14-05-2003 at 04:18
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
|
|
quote:
Therefore I'd suggest that we add a few ones and zeroes at the beginning of each encrypted message, let's say four or five random 0's and 1's. If the third digit is 0, you have to remove the first four digits before transforming the message to English. If the third digit is 1, you have to remove the first five digits before transforming to English. The first, second, fourth and possibly fifth digits should be random, to avoid the other from too easily noticing a system in our encryption. |
11010101001101101111011101010110111001100100011100
11001000000110011101101111011011110110010000101110
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Corellion
|
 |
Kingston, Canada
Sep 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
For the encryption, the methods so far are good, but they seem a little easy to crack. TKG's mistake illustrates how easily, if someone gets the idea in their head, one can decipher the encryption. All they need to do is delete a digit and try, delete another and try, and continue until the message makes sense. Putting binary in and getting it out is good, but it's a simple matter to translate it again if somebody can translate it initially. Plus, the length is incredible... you multiply the number of characters by 64 to get that! I would suggest something more along the lines of the following...
Choose a number and convert it to binary through straight number conversions, not the binary converter. Make it a number less than or equal to 7, and keep adding extra zeros to the beginning until it's three digits long. This means the first three digits of each message will be the binary equivilent of a decimal number between 1 and 7, and the binary converters won't work on it. Then add x random digits after the number, where x is the number you chose. Finally, add a random digit after the xth digit of the actual translation.
In order to decrypt, just figure out what number the first three digits represent. Then, figure out the number, delete it, and delete the first x digits of the message after that, where x was the number you just decoded. After that, delete the digit after the xth digit in the message. This should thwart the people who delete numbers progressively.
Here's an example... Let's choose the message akizeta. Choose a number between 1 and 7, like 5. In binary, this comes out as 101. akizeta in binary is 01100001011010110110100101111010011001010111010001
100001
So, add 101 plus five random digits after and it becomes
10110100011000010110101101101001011110100110010101
11010001100001.
Then, add another random digit after the fifth digit of akizeta normally, and you get
10110100011001001011010110110100101111010011001010
111010001100001
This comes out as complete garbage in any translator, and randomly deleting digits won't work. They won't get any sense out of it, and because the inserted random digit is less than 8, they won't get even a single proper character.
The only drawback is that it might be too complicated.
Am I paranoid?  
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
Of course you are incapable of paranoia  but that is too complicated IMHO.
How about we modulate it by the day, but add to the front and the back. So for Monday, we add 1 digit at the front and back, turesday we add 2, and so on. That way it changes each day, and you cannot just delete ones at the front or the back. So if someone cracks it, they have it cracked for a day, and then get confused again the next day  Besides, I'm not sure people will really care that much to try for that long. But we could alter the code completely once per month, in case someone does get the pattern, although it would take them a while.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-05-2003 02:32
Wow, I like it. Nice code. Although a simpler one could be simply to make it one random character on monday, 2 on tuesday, 3 on wenesday.... until 7 on sunday?
it works!! The encryption works completely. Do it like that, then take of first 5 characters.
The encryption method works sufficiently IMHO. 
If you put the first, Maniac's way, you get characters out. If you double encrypt, the latter way, then you get binary out. I say use Maniac's for most, but on occasions, double may work better, if we need extra encryption, but for a small sentance.
|