unbreaable encryption


#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    FILE *f = fopen(argv[1],"rt")
    fseek(f,0,SEEK_END);
    int length = ftell(f);
    fseek(f,0,SEEK_CUR);
   
    char fdata[length];
    fread(f,1,length,ftell);
    fclose(f);

    f = fopen("output.txt","wt");
    fwrite(fdata,1,length,f);
    fclose(f);

    return 0;
}

fuck. add
fdata = ^ fdata
after fread(...)

What the fuck is "rt"

nothing is unbreakable with infinite computing power (fuck quantum theory)

>>4
My one-time-pad says: 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

You can do a known plaintext/ciphertext attack on one-time pads so they aren't very useful with our computing power.

>>6
Dude, the point about one-time pads is that the key is never used twice, so even if you used a known-plaintext-ciphertext attack, it would only get you an old key, never to be used again.

>>7
You can still perform a probabilistic analysis on a one-time-pad to narrow the possibilities. That combined with the fact that any process used to generate one time pads cannot itself be truly random leads to the conclusion that while a one-time-pad may be theoretically secure, it is not practical- and I don't mean infeasible, it is simply not possible, ever, in this universe, to implement exactly one time pad so described. On top of that he said "infinite computing power", which raises something of a god/stone paradox and it is wholly ignorant of you to think you know which side would come up trumps.

I cant breaa that encryption

the fact that any process used to generate one time pads cannot itself be truly random
how could you possibly know that?

>>10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator#Dealing_with_bias

No source of true randomness is guarunteed to generate bits with equal probability, and any adjustments to account for this will by extension need to use psuedo-randomness, or other hardware randomness which in itself is not guarunteed to nullify the bias etc.. Not to mention- that beyond having to perfectly balance a supposedly "truly random" infinite decimal expansion on 0.5000...., you would also need to guaruntee constantness in the environment- or constantness in randomness of the envionemnt so far in that the random number generation shows no bias in this regard either.

A far more elegant reason, which is yet to be proven would be the computable universe theory, which in effect would mean that any physical "randomness" would in effect itself be deterministic on the state of the universe at the instant of time immediately preceeding itself. That is, you could, given an initial state of the universe calculate the state of said universe at any point of time in the future (with enough resources- and ironically no universe has enough resources to simulate itself).

>>11
like rain on the universe's wedding day

>>11
Perhaps I should have noted that guarunteeing "constantness in randomness" itself violates true randomness principles, so you would need to guaruntee constant variability of constantness of randomness, which recursively still violates true randomness untill you have infinite levels of guarunteed variability in randomness, which is again not possible in this finite universe.

>>11
so you're claiming that it's impossible to create one-time pads from data unless it comes from a source that generates bits with equal probability?
based on that assumption, you'll have a really hard time cracking my one-time pads.
also, bell's theorem.

>>14
I'm assuming you completely misunderstood or didn't read what I said. Bell's theorem would be relevant if its premises had been proven, they haven't however. I also didn't say I could crack your one time pads. If you had read the thread you may also have noted the original argument was:
nothing is unbreakable with infinite computing power (fuck quantum theory)
If you would like to provide an argument against that feel free, otherwise, take your straw men elsewhere.

>>11
A far more elegant reason, which is yet to be proven would be the computable universe theory, which in effect would mean that any physical "randomness" would in effect itself be deterministic on the state of the universe at the instant of time immediately preceeding itself. That is, you could, given an initial state of the universe calculate the state of said universe at any point of time in the future (with enough resources- and ironically no universe has enough resources to simulate itself).
This is now a free will vs. determinism thread.

This is now a breaable vs. unbreaable thread.

>>16
http://www.google.com/#q=free+will+determinism+site:dis.4chan.org&aq=f

Right, so I've xor'd an 8-bit ASCII character with a one time pad created with raw data from random source that, due to the vagaries of the universe, has around 60% chance of producing a zero bit, and a 40% chance of producing a one bit.
Here it is, for your enjoyment, in base two:
11110111
Now seeing how the size of the input string is small enough that computing power shouldn't be a problem, and that the bias in the random source is so severe, feel free to show us your fancy recovery algorithms.

>>18
why does that link break horribly in google chrome and not in any other browser, even other webkit ones?

>>20
Works for me in Iron.

>>21
OH, THE IRONy!!!

>>19
Is the answer "¶"?

>>23
Its a trick question.  Theirs no such thing as an 8-bit ASCII character.

>>24
You can store an ASCII character in 8 bits if you set the MSB to zero. But yes, >>19 probably fucked it up.

probably
60% chance of it I'd say.

My computer architecture cannot address smaller memory units than a byte. :(

I bet all you haters are the kind of people who will clear the upper bit for each character of email messages when you are writing mail servers.

>>27
No, I just declare the 8BITMIME extension like any modern system.

>>27
That's what the RFC mandates. Use ESMTP with 8BIT or encode your messages properly.

>>27
Which architecture is that?

OTPs are unbreakable and probabilistic methods for cracking them do not exist.

>>31
Actually they do exist, if your OTPs are not truly random (the nature of true randomness is briefly discussed above).  E. g. men in love in Cryptonomicon deliberately made poor entropy/pseudorandomness sources to send each other love letters across the border.

>>32
Men in love...? I don't understand

God can create true randomness.

>>34
Like the eval sussman snake?

>>33
They're a little bit lavender, if you know what I mean.

>>35
http://g.imagehost.org/0632/snake.jpg

>>33
Anal Touring and the German guy, Rudy von Something.

>>37
I did one of those things where I was about to ask why Neil Stephenson would write gay erotica about Alan Turing, but then I ended up not asking.

>>38
I held my right index finger up, my mouth open ready to ask the fundamental question, before putting down my finger with a frown on my face.

>>39
I kneel down and put your finger in my mouth, touching it with the tip of my tongue

>>19
Another amazing straw man, it's almost like you made him without using a single straw. Would you like to extend your argument to actually being relevant? If so, please state it explicitly, something along the lines of "The key used to encypt the original bits of this message is such that they now exhibit perfect secrecy." That way, I need not worry whether you are a troll or not.

>>38
And did he, or are WBTC?

>>42
Hasn't read his Cryptonomicon today.

>>41
YHBT.

>>42
Alan Turing was a little bit lavender in real life, if you didn't know.

>>45
He was not lavender, he was outright fabulous.

>>46
If you know what I mean ;)