Talk:Cryptography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleCryptography is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 22, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 21, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 2, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 26, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
edit · history · watch · refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Cryptography:

  • Give an overview of cryptography standards: at least, what they are and some important examples.
  • Wikilink to a few of the most popular protocols, e.g., Secure Sockets Layer in the "Cryptographic protocols" section.
  • Add a mention of the widespread uses of 'rot13' on Usenet postings and other places in the early computer era, explaining that it is a Caesar substitution with a displacement of 13, so that encryption is the same operation as decryption, and that it was widely used to transmit potentially offensive matter, spoilers, and other things meant not to be understood upon inspection.

"Distinguish between the essential aspects and variations of"Science", "Engineering", "Philosophy", Application" and "Management" of cryptography because the language, contexts and perspectives are complicated and different.. Roy D. Follendore III (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Priority 1 (top)


Cryptology[edit]

The article is misleading to the reader in that it confuses cryptography with cryptology (and in fact it suggests that cryptoanalysis is a part of cryptography). I know it's been already discussed zillion times before through the wikipedia history, and different editors have various ideas, possibly there are even some differences in the popular American vs British usage but still it stays confusing. Can we make the distinction clear, based on strong linguistic sources rather than individual editors' opinions ? Similar confusion is common in other languages, still most other wikis have this already properly handled. --Lysytalk 19:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hence the expression "cryptographic attack" would be an oxymoron. But a quick search on Google scholar shows that the expression can be found in over 500 papers. This clearly indicates that even the experts do not always distinguish between the terms cryptography and cryptology. Wikipedia should merely state how a term is used and not try to correct rsp. redefine it. At the moment the article seems to achieve this reasonably well. 83.79.135.102 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

David Kahn called it 'cryptology'. -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The confusion is not a Wikipedia one, but rather usage in the wider world. This was discussed (here in archived talk) many years ago and a decision made that, for Wikipedia purposes, cryptography rather than cryptology would be used. The question is an arbitrary one, given the sloppy and non0exclusive use of the terms by others, there is no solution. Anyone claiming one is going a bridge too far, in linguistic terms. There was a similar contretemps in re the spelling of cypher (or cipher). Both were accepted for Wikipedia purposes. This is, in some phrasing in the talk then, a tempest in a teapot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.211.137 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cryptography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

New Cipher[edit]

Please see the following link for a newly discovered cipher.

http://ctext.org/discuss.pl?if=en&board=4&thread=2610624

W. K. Choy (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A method used by intelligence[edit]

A method used by cyberespionage is the modular variablocks method: "variable length of encryption blocks/cryptoblocks". In this system, we don't codify a standard length of bit-quanta, instead inside the key there is a code of the pattern block-change. It is safer to use a separate key in order to select (algorithmically) a variablock pattern. All users of this encryptive method should know beforehand the algorithms of the variable bit-quanta. Also if we have 30 different sizes of bit-quanta, we need 30 different encryptional vocabularies for the translation (they can be algorithmically related; if they are not related, the system is safer, but you have to use more keys). This system has some problems though. 1. you might have to use two or more keys, 2. if your message has noise you might lose the correct pattern of bit-length-variation, you can protect your message from noise by adding one more layer of anti-noise transcription, but that makes your message longer

If you design it carefully it works just fine, but you have to apply anti-noise encoding, otherwise you might lose track of the variable sections. Remember, variable sections means variable cryptographic dictionary. You must create great algorithms, otherwise it won't work well! It's a very old method, but great (if programmed well)!


simple English: Hell_i|s_empty_a|nd_all_t|he|_dev|i|ls_are_|here. (6-9-8-2-4-1-7-5-etc... modular variablock section, each number of digits per section corresponds to a different cryptodictionary, even the result can be of variable block length, but you then need more keys and more anti-noise layers)
We deliver some key components via different e-mails, some via-different telephones and some face to face at many meetings, also we deliver separately the order of usage. Lazy people deliver one finalized huge key, and everybody reads their messages.
If you rotate the same bit-widths in exact order, infiltrators might be able to find your partition pattern either your message. The whole point is to complicate the order, but that might cause problems to the sender if (s)he's a bad programmer. If you're Japanese it always works!
And the most important thing is that we add meaningless random digits at certain (pseudorandom-dedicated) partitions the algorithm dedicates for randomness. That also might cause some problems. If your noise is thoroughly random, the infringer might understand some bit-width partition sections. We use pseudorandom algorithms, in order the result is "natural". Do it well, or don't do it at all! It saves or betrays you!!! (we know which partitions have pseudorandom digits, and we simply delete these)
Each bit-width corresponds to many different bit-width encoded dictionaries. This method creates huge dictionaries with many languages that have different widths for the same input. You don't have to know all the codes beforehand. Algorithms do it for you. It still remains a big-data option, but it works fine if programmed well. This system has huge hidden entropy. We never repeal the whole pattern of our systemic entropy, because we use many "cryptolanguages" and we only know how we apply each one. And that code doesn't always work. A Russian girl fucks an agent. No crypt-anal-ysis needed.
Before we do that, we encrypt our message with other methods. Always use many layers of different methods of encryption.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cryptography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Applied Cryptography" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Applied Cryptography. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. LFaraone 13:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cryptography&oldid=928862706"