Re: AI's take on my cipher...

Rich wrote:

Stefan Claas <stefan@mailchuck.com> wrote:

Rich wrote:
 

And, how accurately do you think the average person who wants to send
an encrypted message will be at typing this:
 
KqHtqbSca2hvI02pCMHtdKQLfHhW6OeN7iK1Fg45nMpoT+to8XpwpvARkW6UziY0iyZWUEgP/gol
gz5p3XpGCe0hZbYV2IYYLDvvRjGWj1k5IHkDX4WshBZvI5fhVssJOqVI3bzqdEW3XLD4NoGKVQg3
ZeNaSJs2hBySnkBoKGI=
 
That's 128 random bytes, base64 encoded.  128 bytes is right about the
original "tweet length" of tweets on shitter, so there is a severe
limit of the amount of information that can be transferred.

 
That why I have my az and ug program for people available, but it uses 2
bytes, which should be no problem.
 
$ openssl rand 128 | az | ug -g
ZMAXT OPNWC LZWIF OQIMR PNNQV BFQLC BRZDA RUFBT ROLQS GOLKA
KKNJF ULBLO WINNL IIVVK FWTEE XRGBS UJCYS DCMWH JUMAA VLLNX
MJMYS LHSKG ENKLL LUGBN YNDSP AJYMO OXUBC YQNOY QMFYW ABOPH
NUVCJ KMFCM XKDVM EEXYL LVUKO VVGAU UACYV OHKUG GTVAA MWDLO
KCPYN HOWVM DPNHA ZMGHV MFIKW DILNO FYQHK VQELK OMFNL EOLTL
ETMPL S

 
Yes, easier to enter than raw base64.  But in this case this "easier"
is like the fact that it is "easier" to move 10,000kg of sand 1km by
hand than it is to move one single 10,000kg rock 1km by hand.  "Easier?" Yes,
but no one will actually want to do so either by hand if they have
other alternatives.
 
No one, except for the very very truly determined (a tiny sized
population), will want to hand type that to maintain proper
air-gapping.  So they will use USB sticks or other methods to "move"
the data, opening up the possibility of transfer of an exploit via that
same USB stick.
 

A 3.5 ich disk drive and disk for it come in handy, because you hear
every read/write process and can quickly examine the sectors with a
disk editor.