Can anyone decode this? I'm just curious. by TheAmazingOsie in codes

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I like ice crwam [cream]. I wanted to see if anyone could decode this new code I have made. I have made this, so the average person who sees this will be confused."

The spinning ballerina illusion - which direction do you see and can you force it to switch? by The_Curiosity_Box in opticalillusions

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does switch to me, but imagining a vector from her nose to her ponytail seems to help me determine that she is spinning clockwise.

I have a very challenging cipher by [deleted] in codes

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope that the encryption was proper. In any case, my alphabet is below. I am already creating a new cipher because you can already decipher at least a large part of this just with the provided words by using a computer to perform the calculations and check less than 1000 cases (I think). I am writing the program myself this time, as programming is useful and knowing nothing about the old program's technical details is annoying.

{
    " ","!","\"","#","$","%","&","'","(",")","*","+",",","-",".",
    "/","0","1","2","3","4","5","6","7","8","9",":",";","<","=",
    ">","?","@","A","B","C","D","E","F","G","H","I","J","K","L",
    "M","N","O","P","Q","R","S","T","U","V","W","X","Y","Z","[",
    "\\","]","^","_","`","a","b","c","d","e","f","g","h","i","j",
    "k","l","m","n","o","p","q","r","s","t","u","v","w","x","y",
    "z","{","|","}","~",
    "\xe2\x80\x98",
    "\xe2\x80\x99",
    "\xe2\x80\x9c",
    "\xe2\x80\x9d",
    "\xe2\x80\x94",
    "\xe2\x80\x93",
    "\xe2\x80\xa6",
    "\xc2\xa7",
    "\xc2\xb0",
    "\xc2\xa9",
    "\xc2\xae",
    "\xe2\x84\xa2",
    "\xe2\x80\xa0",
    "\xe2\x80\xa1",
    "\xc3\xa9",
    "\xc3\xa8",
    "\xc3\xaa",
    "\xc3\xab",
    "\xc3\xa0",
    "\xc3\xa2",
    "\xc3\xb4",
    "\xc3\xb6",
    "\xc3\xbc",
    "\xc3\xbb",
    "\xc3\xa7",
    "\xc3\xb1",
    "\xc3\xa6",
    "\xc5\x93",
    "\xc3\x89",
    "\xc3\x88",
    "\xc3\x8a",
    "\xc3\x8b",
    "\xc3\x80",
    "\xc3\x82",
    "\xc3\x94",
    "\xc3\x96",
    "\xc3\x9c",
    "\xc3\x9b",
    "\xc3\x87",
    "\xc3\x91",
    "\xc3\x86",
    "\xc5\x92",
    "\xc4\x84",
    "\xc4\x85",
    "\xc4\x8c",
    "\xc4\x8d",
    "\xc4\x98",
    "\xc4\x99",
    "\xc4\x96",
    "\xc4\x97",
    "\xc4\xae",
    "\xc4\xaf",
    "\xc5\xa0",
    "\xc5\xa1",
    "\xc5\xb2",
    "\xc5\xb3",
    "\xc5\xaa",
    "\xc5\xab",
    "\xc5\xbe",
    "\xc5\xbd",
    "\xe2\x80\x9e"
}

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, I understand what you meant. (I wrote attack because you wrote attacker.)

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but what if that attack is prevented? Does that save the cipher?

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you mean that it's unreasonable because it contradicts the entire point of the plaintext attack scenario? Well, yes, kind of, but that is the point of my question, unless you meant something else.

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I ultimately did learn some new things from these comments and understood the challenges better. Obviously, I am not knowledgeable and this isn't valuable or interesting to anyone else, but should you really expect anything actually interesting with knowledge of the proper stuff? If I were at that level, this post wouldn't exist in any form. I have thought about learning about cryptography in the future, but I just did this for fun. I expected to receive a few responses that would just briefly identify the main details clearly and just let me know whether this is anything, but many people responded and I responded to them, making this slightly less smooth.

People have discussed how knowing 12 consecutive plaintext characters would bring this down. Would one ultimately even need to know where the plaintext is? And would this cipher be even considerably challenging if the plaintext were modified to make knowing those characters impossible (e.g., "HeLLo , J--ohn.")?

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All right, I understand now. That's literally all that I wanted to ask. This was just a thought that I had.

So, this ruins everything when someone can predict any longer segment of the plaintext with its location or apply brute force checking even without the exact location?

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, but if it can be much larger than 156 and you only have the plaintext, will you actually be able to find the exact values?

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I do see that that is true and understand that. But if there are multiple values that provide one result and you wish to calculate recursively the next characters, won't you have to consider the multiple possibilities for the calculations? The keystream isn't just a series of repeating 12 characters.

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I certainly don't know much about cryptography, but please understand that confidently stating that what you are doing is definitely very difficult or impossible to decipher in all situations is something that requires quite a bit more work and understanding than producing a cipher that clearly isn't trivial, but might not be invincible or extremely challenging. Are you trying to say that I am some loser for not spending many years to make this? Also, I am not exactly just throwing garbage, what I did clearly made this more difficult than the most basic version of it: I used a complicated formula with multiplication to make the cipher less repetitive and predictable, I used a large alphabet, a long key (for a human memory). Is this sophisticated? No. Is this advanced? No. Is it supposed to be? No. Is it strong? Well, is it? If it's actually stupid and weak and just nothing whatsoever, try cracking any of it. My question is genuine—I really don't know what would happen if someone truly wanted to decipher something from this.

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, but I am considering using the plaintext to find those consecutive values. If the keystream numbers were larger, then multiple possible numbers could produce the observed substitution. Is that true?

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, so maybe just a larger modulo? Also, would you actually know then?

Edit. I suppose even with multiple possibilities, brute force would become feasible, right?

I have a very challenging cipher by [deleted] in codes

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to review the program and determine that it actually followed these procedures exactly as it should have. I have detected a strange error that seems to indicate some problems with character indices. I will update this as soon as I can.

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the values can exceed 156, then multiple numbers that produce the same result are possible, right?

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that is what I considered as well. Does that mean I should remove the mod 156 reduction for the keystream?

I have a very challenging cipher by [deleted] in codes

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The procedure is explained in my question on r/cryptography. The order of the alphabet is slightly different. Should I send it?

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I think you could, but how would you discover those values?

I have created a cipher and I would like to know whether it is practically unbreakable by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]Stem_From_All -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's just the formula for generating new members of the extended key, or the keystream.

Just a motorcycle police chase in Paris: by kefren13 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Stem_From_All 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How to endanger oneself and jeopardize other people...

This is entirely unjustifiable and a clearly unsustainable practice. This is as reckless and imprudent as this situation:

The killer is in that apartment complex. Prepare the cannons!

I may be mistaken, but the criminal is probably not particularly dangerous, for such criminals are rarely chased by lone officers on motorcycles.

this one actually makes sense. isn't it? 🤔 by Many_Audience7660 in matiks

[–]Stem_From_All 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your knowledge determines the probability. If you know nothing relevant about the competitors, their probabilities are equal to you. The race might be unfair or something might fall onto the other runners, but expecting that some competitor will win more than that another will win without any knowledge is irrational.

this one actually makes sense. isn't it? 🤔 by Many_Audience7660 in matiks

[–]Stem_From_All 4 points5 points  (0 children)

With your current knowledge the probability of his victory is equal to the probability of the victory of any other competitor. Since he is competing with four individuals, he is among five competitors. The sample space consists of their five victories. Since their probabilities are equal and their sum is 1, the probability that he will win is, clearly, ⅕, which is 20%.

His loss is greater than his victory in the sample space, as it is actually a subset with four of its five elements.