The French Connection Part III

Originally posted by Nowakowski
First, an important point here is that we know the total message length is 64. So any kind of block cypher can be used and salted - although this is not the route that we will be taking here…for simplicities sake.

64 bits? Nonsense. 8 ranks, 8 files. 3 bits each. 6 bits for a square. 6 more for the "to" square. The latter can be brough down to 5 bits because whatever piece is on the "from" square, it can move to 27 squares maximum (queen in the centre), but that's too much trouble for too little gain. So the total number of bits you need to encode is 12. Even if you stick to just the alphabet, that's three characters at most, with room for fudging left over. Seems to me that that leaves a lot of room for steganography as well as cryptography.

In fact, it's even easier than that. All you need to do is give each rank a letter as well as each file. Doesn't have to be a-h, doesn't have to be distinct from a-h, may even partially and only partially overlap a-h.
Now, send a message containing normal text. Make sure that in the first word, the first letter from a-h indicates the starting file. Note that this doesn't have to be the first letter! If you want a piece on the H-file to move, the word "The" will do fine, since the 'T' is clearly non-coding and can be ignored.
The first letter after that, which also indicates a rank, indicates the starting rank. Again, this does not have to - but may! - be the very next letter. In "The", the 'e' might mean '2', or it might be a blank and the first letter of the next word could indicate rank.
Repeat this - including blanks sufficient to create a reasonable-looking text message - with the destination file and rank. Make sure to switch encodings at times. Voilà, instant deniability.
For extra points, you can either have several letters standing for one rank or file, the same letters standing for both ranks and files, or whatever mix you want. More encoding letters means more possible coding words but fewer possible blanks, and vice versa - something is to be said for either option.

Really, the only possibility to stop this - as well as the only choice for sanity and proper behaviour - is to forbid, or even block, mobile phones in the venue.
Now all we have to do is get all trains declared chess playing venues, and the world will be a better place.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
6 bits for a square. 6 more for the "to" square.

I think the "from" square could simply be the piece to move, which at most is a choice of 32, so 5 bits.

Another approach, albeit more complicated, is to order the legal moves. Maybe 128 would be a safe practical limit (even if theoretically not the maximum). If so, 7 bits for the move.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
64 bits? Nonsense. 8 ranks, 8 files. 3 bits each. 6 bits for a square. 6 more for the "to" square. The latter can be brough down to 5 bits because whatever piece is on the "from" square, it can move to 27 squares maximum (queen in the centre), but that's too much trouble for too little gain. So the total number of bits you need to encode is 12. Even if lared chess playing venues, and the world will be a better place.

Richard

8x8=64 all day.

Utilizing 64 "bits" allows for block ciphers on the message. Which is a message of
64 total squares. You can simplify it if you want - but then your using a secondary
pattern beyond the subject shift. Steganography vs Cryptography - mathematics
decided years ago which is more useful for secrecy. Steganography holding an
advantage in one discreet category (difficult in determining if anything is hidden or
not)... in this case it's of no consequence - but due to the system created, both can
be used in conjunction. (As you said first letter of a word...)

Message length doesn't effect key creation - and allows for rolling distribution in a
full system (a system where ciphertext is encoded from the original full message i.e
no extra patterns to simplify the information). Encryptions can be changed mid
message with my method. Multiple block rolls can be used in addition.

I'm not wrong - the idea is as old as Caesar. See "Caesar Cipher" and you'll notice
a very clear relationship.

-GIN

Originally posted by Nowakowski
8x8=64 all day.

Yeah, but it's 64 squares, not 64 bits. Which is a choice from 1-64, or 0-63, is 6 bits.

Mentioning the buzzword "block ciphers" doesn't alter a thing, especially since block ciphers these days don't start being useful until you have at least 128 bits. Below that it's just crackable, block or no block - DES is dead, and has been for years.

Message length doesn't effect key creation

No, but it has a massive effect on crackability. Using 64 bits where 12 would do is plain stupid.

I'm not wrong - the idea is as old as Caesar. See "Caesar Cipher" and you'll notice a very clear relationship.

You're wrong, and mentioning Caesar ciphers (very nearly the simplest possible, and by the way, non-block cipher) when you've just been advertising 64-bit block ciphers only shows how little you know about it.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Yeah, but it's 64 squares, not 64 bits. Which is a choice from 1-64, or 0-63, is 6 bits.

Mentioning the buzzword "block ciphers" doesn't alter a thing, especially since block ciphers these days don't start being useful until you have at least 128 bits. Below that it's just crackable, block or no block - DES is dead, and has been for years.
dvertising 64-bit block ciphers only shows how little you know about it.

Richard

My first post states that I was not using block ciphers. Read. I merely suggested its feasibility.
I did not limit my cipher to a single pass. Furthermore I worked to keep it a viable option in
my system. One of the first rules of secrecy - flexibility.

Originally posted by Nowakowski
So any kind of
block cypher can be used and salted - although this is not the route that we will be taking
here…for simplicities sake.

DES is dead - because attacks have been found that can break it...true enough give a guy
100,000$ worth of equipment (it cost twice that when done previously) and several days of
straight computing on a HPC cluster. Definitely worrisome.... 🙄
http://www.freeswan.org/freeswan_trees/freeswan-1.5/doc/DES.html (yes I'm citing my copy)

No, but it has a massive effect on crackability. Using 64 bits where 12 would do is plain stupid.

That's just silly, of course it makes a difference of the crackability... are you really silly enough to argue that 12 bits are more secure than 64 using the same cipher? 🙄

Yeah, but it's 64 squares, not 64 bits. Which is a choice from 1-64, or 0-63, is 6 bits.

Once again you show what you don't know. A bit is typically a term in computing and is
described as a systems ability to store information in two basic states or "flip-flop". In my
system every square is listed as either "containing" or "not containing". Describing our moves
in the cipher-text using "containing" terms and negating "non-containing" by omission doesn't
change the basic premise of the system. Our omission allows our system to stay simple for
texting on a phone. If we want to strengthen our system, we'll use a block cipher in which
we will have to include the previously omitted "non-containing" fields. We then have the ability
to do a true salt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit

But I suppose you could salt a 6 bit system... wtf? ...

Stop trying to find fault here - your beginning to look silly.
Some of us have done this for a living.

-GIN

Some of us have done this for a living.

What does Amway use cryptology for?

Originally posted by Fat Lady

Some of us have done this for a living.

What does Amway use cryptology for?

planes of opposition!

Originally posted by Fat Lady

Some of us have done this for a living.

What does Amway use cryptology for?

Amway is a front for the CIA, and the information they collect is WAY better than the census bureau. That's why some of them are cleaners.

Originally posted by RevRSleeker
Lol, I still can't resist watching Danailov \ Topalov 'hand signalling' clips whenever the issue is raised...over and over 🙂 I've never quite understood quite why someone as dismissive as Danailov didn't sue over such allegations IF there was nothing to it. He'd have made a small fortune given the numbers objecting. Here's a short version to marvel over 😛
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqa9Ht3L71U

Wow!! How have i never seen this before? Always knew he was a shifty character. 😠

did anyone else get a headache reading this thread?

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Wow!! How have i never seen this before? Always knew he was a shifty character. 😠

and what about the old lady and the guy in the black&white shirt? omg, the whole audience is signaling topalov all the time!! 😲

Originally posted by Nowakowski
Once again you show what you don't know. A bit is typically a term in computing and is described as a systems ability to store information in two basic states or "flip-flop".

Gosh, yathunk? What extreme knowledge...

In my system every square is listed as either "containing" or "not containing".

Which is a dumb way to go about it, was my point from the start. You're sending out far too much niformation.

Some of us have done this for a living.

Yah. Some != 1.

Richard