Pete's QBASIC Site

I'd assume so................

2008-03-03T15:12:46-05:00

LOL

Statistics: Posted by burger2227 — Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:12 pm

No reply yet

2008-03-03T05:32:57-05:00

I guess the question got answered?

Mac

Statistics: Posted by Mac — Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:32 am

Encryption and XOR

2007-08-06T14:34:59-05:00

well...can anyone make something like that "Enigma" code in ww2?
just a suggestion..i don't want it..but i think that's best encryption?
When I saw this I assumed the Enigma was the machine (hence WW2)

The enigma was pretty good, but as a method for computer encryption, it is much too complicated for the security payoff. It was complicated because it was a machine. With computers, you would just take a password and use that - no zillion setting of knobs and wheels.

However to answer the original question "can anyone make something like.." - I have done that!

Enter this
http://www.network54.com/Forum/229185/m ... 104359939/

Lots of goodies. The simplest to play with is probably the "handy-dandy ...". It is a demo with pre-set Reflector, Rotors, Steckers, and Message to be encrypted. You can change those.

Also see "The QBasic Enigma Emulator" which has Function Enigma% (zR$, zW$, zS$, zK$, zM$) which encrypts/decripts and can be easily incorporated by you into your own QBasic program.

Mac

Statistics: Posted by Mac — Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:34 pm

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-20T17:48:44-05:00

well...can anyone make something like that "Enigma" code in ww2?
just a suggestion..i don't want it..but i think that's best encryption?

When I saw this I assumed the Enigma was the machine (hence WW2)

Statistics: Posted by Patz QuickBASIC Creations — Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:48 pm

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-20T16:56:01-05:00

The Enigma only encrypts letters, right? (ASCII 65-91) - Therefore, not all 256-characters can't be encrypted, as only 26 are available.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine

Yes, the Enigma machine, but stupid as I am I assumed you were talking about the algorithm, and not actually constructing an Enigma machine. Let me know if I was wrong and you are infact constructing an Enigma machine.

Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:56 pm

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-20T16:16:20-05:00

The Enigma only encrypts letters, right? (ASCII 65-91) - Therefore, not all 256-characters can't be encrypted, as only 26 are available.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine

Statistics: Posted by Patz QuickBASIC Creations — Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:16 pm

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-20T13:40:56-05:00

Besides, how could the Enigma encrypt
Code:
CHR$(200)
? It doesn't work when you have the whole 256-character ASCII alphabet.

Why not?

Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:40 pm

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-20T09:03:21-05:00

Besides, how could the Enigma encrypt

Code:

CHR$(200)

? It doesn't work when you have the whole 256-character ASCII alphabet.

Statistics: Posted by Patz QuickBASIC Creations — Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:03 am

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-20T08:35:51-05:00

well...can anyone make something like that "Enigma" code in ww2?
just a suggestion..i don't want it..but i think that's best encryption?

The Enigma was cracked remember. Also, the enigma was just a beefed up shuffle encryption.

Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:35 am

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-20T08:15:07-05:00

well...can anyone make something like that "Enigma" code in ww2?
just a suggestion..i don't want it..but i think that's best encryption?

Statistics: Posted by nkk_kan — Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:15 am

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-11T12:01:31-05:00

Depends on what you define as effective.

I mean it gets the job done, and if your entire goal is protect some.. less than sensitive data, then sure, it's effective.

As a simple and somewhat not accurate example, say you got the string:
11111111111111111111111111

And you encrypt it with the password:
123

And you end up with:
23423423423423423423423423

The repetition gives it away, and thats a simple example, a good crypto breaker can spot patterns even when you try to hide them, such as increasing the encryption value by 1 each cycle:
23434545656767878989090101

But like I said, if you just want to encrypt a highscore table, or some data for a game or other such non-sensitive data, then this is fine.
OK, but it seems much less effective just to shift one letter to the right. And, with those adding ASCII values from passwords to a string seems much less effective. (BTW, I am trying to use this just as a general encryption method. The second method is much more effective than the first, especially since it parses the strings and has a slight defect (if you can spot it). Take that analytical programs!

Just because you perceive XOR to generate a harder to follow result than just shifting does not make it so.
And i've also already told you that for non-critical or non-sensitive information go ahead, encrypt it however you want.
If you however plan on using this to encrypt passwords and such i strongly suggest you reonsider.

Not that it really matters as it is highly doubtful any application you make will ever encrypt something sufficiently valuable to even bother looking at (The data that is, not the application itself.)

Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:01 pm

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-10T16:26:26-05:00

Depends on what you define as effective.

I mean it gets the job done, and if your entire goal is protect some.. less than sensitive data, then sure, it's effective.

As a simple and somewhat not accurate example, say you got the string:
11111111111111111111111111

And you encrypt it with the password:
123

And you end up with:
23423423423423423423423423

The repetition gives it away, and thats a simple example, a good crypto breaker can spot patterns even when you try to hide them, such as increasing the encryption value by 1 each cycle:
23434545656767878989090101

But like I said, if you just want to encrypt a highscore table, or some data for a game or other such non-sensitive data, then this is fine.

OK, but it seems much less effective just to shift one letter to the right. And, with those adding ASCII values from passwords to a string seems much less effective. (BTW, I am trying to use this just as a general encryption method. The second method is much more effective than the first, especially since it parses the strings and has a slight defect (if you can spot it). Take that analytical programs!

Statistics: Posted by Patz QuickBASIC Creations — Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:26 pm

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-10T09:37:47-05:00

Depends on what you define as effective.

I mean it gets the job done, and if your entire goal is protect some.. less than sensitive data, then sure, it's effective.

As a simple and somewhat not accurate example, say you got the string:
11111111111111111111111111

And you encrypt it with the password:
123

And you end up with:
23423423423423423423423423

The repetition gives it away, and thats a simple example, a good crypto breaker can spot patterns even when you try to hide them, such as increasing the encryption value by 1 each cycle:
23434545656767878989090101

But like I said, if you just want to encrypt a highscore table, or some data for a game or other such non-sensitive data, then this is fine.

Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:37 am

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-10T08:53:18-05:00

So, the following wouldn't be an effective encryption method?

Code:

SUB PatzCrypt (InFile$, OutFile$, Password$)FirstHandle = FREEFILE OPEN InFile$ FOR BINARY ACCESS READ AS #First HandleSecondHandle = FREEFILE OPEN OutFile$ FOR BINARY ACCESS WRITE AS #SecondHandleDO Crypt$ = INPUT$(4096, #FirstHandle) FOR A = 1 TO LEN(Crypt$)  MID$(Crypt$, A, 1) = CHR$(ASC(MID$(Crypt$, A, 1)) XOR ASC(MID$(Password$, 4096 MOD LEN(Password$) + 1, 1))) NEXT A PUT #SecondHandle, ,Crypt$LOOP UNTIL LEN(Crypt$) <> 4096CLOSE #FirstHandleCLOSE #SecondHandleEND SUB

Statistics: Posted by Patz QuickBASIC Creations — Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:53 am

Encryption and XOR

2006-11-09T23:03:27-05:00

It's easy to crack. See Caesar encryption or rolling addition encryptions.

Simple version is shifting one "letter" to the "right":
Hello becomes: Ifmmp

Also the system is vulnerable to analytic approaches of breaking it.

In any case, any encryption should be able to have it's entire sourcecode distributed without becoming easier to decrypt.

Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:03 pm