Talk:Encryption

Short

I removed the table of contents from this article because I felt it was distracting and served no purpose (there's no subsections!). Please add subsections! 68.173.113.106 (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:

Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Added references

I've found articles for the needed citations. I will be removing the additional citations needed tag. BadSprad (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't mention

1. each piece of information has a list of possible encryptions, Alice and Bob (sender and receiver) know that list, a randomizer picks a random synonymous encryption (that causes encryptions to be large, but are manageable)
2. the size of the encryption output is variable, each information has lists of synonymous encryptions of many sizes of digits, each size-list must contain as many as possible synonymous encryptions
   • the reader of the message, must have a secondary key, to know the order of the digital fragmentation packages
     • ⚠ many packages of certain digital sizes do not encrypt anything, just pure noise,

you have to dedicate many digit-sizes to noise, otherwise Eve the eavesdropper might find some patterns.

1. typical and statistically common phrases are coded as one piece of information, they're not fragmented into separate letters
2. (this is problematic, it's not used because it reveals statistics about your letters, also can lead to permanent informational loss) some consciously made spelling mistakes might help you hide better you message but the orthographic mistakes must be selected by a computer because humans are bad randomizers

   (there is a myth that monkeys are good randomizers, a pure myth, monkeys neurotically press a range of buttons in a chaotic but not random way, read chaos, animals are bad randomizers and they can never type the Bible even after eternal infinities, because are restricted by their "envelope of chaos" function, their attractor. Monkeys cannot type the Bible, even after eternal infinities, because they are restricted by their chaotic attractor which by no means is random.

That requires huge lists from sender and receiver, also the messages are huge.

It has been used by the US, China and Russia (combined usually with 3 or more other encryptions) but you must have a clear line or preferably a cable (fiber optics). It's bad for space because it's slow, and if you make your lists smaller, then it's faster but anyone can decrypt your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8227:A300:9444:E682:3FB:B7E3 (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

you have to shuffle your lists, you need huge keys, it works (you don't write them by hand but then someone may steal the key, some people use several keys, and different security units handle them, they aren't allowed to communicate with each other, only with the commander. If one security group delivers the key to the enemy, the other keys are safe, so our encryption entropy. Even the commander isn't supposed to know all the details, only the generic management. (secrets leak outside the system, people don't play all day long with technology... some have sex with unknown people..... encryption won't help then) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:847A:1E00:9444:E682:3FB:B7E3 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Shaky References

Reference 2, "History of Cryptography" is from Binance Academy, with no further sources at the reference source. Not sure where binance gets their info from, but this source is essentially just "dude trust me".

While I don't really doubt the truth of this claim, can we get a better source for early encryption and cryptographic history other than a binance article?

Zeph.tech (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)