sabre150 wrote:Yeah, I meant that mostly facetiously, and was talking about the code itself, not the execution of it.jverd wrote:There is not much overhead with standard symmetric encryption (AES, Blowfish etc). The network delays will probably dominate. Key management will be the main problem.
, and don't want to bother with the overhead of real encryption, j
895583 wrote:I never look at those. Never found them to be useful.
To jverd : there is encryption for UDP and it's called DTLS (which is in the search terms for this question if you'd looked).
I don't know why you lecture me about maths brains etcI'm not lecturing you, just pointing out some realities that you may not be aware of.
- you have no idea who I am for a startObviously not. All I have to go by is what you've posted here. To wit: A subject line that indicates exactly the kind of thing that people who don't understand encryption often try to do, and fail miserably at; and a suggested approach that seems horribly naive and broken from the get-go. From this, it is reasonable to assume that you're pretty uninformed about encryption.
, and secondly, even if you did, such a comment doesn't begin to be an answer to this question.100% wrong. Pointing out to you things that you appear not to know about the limitations of your attempted approach is in fact a very useful answer.
895583 wrote:You admit it is not an encryption algorithm, then why title it "Self-devised encryption"?
...what I am proposing is not...true encryption, as the data is not subject to a keyed transformation. Instead,...[it is] a randomised packet sequence[r and] amounts to a one-time pad for **plaintext**...
P.S. I would refrain from calling it a "one-time pad for plaintext" on the other forum, since an OTP does involve keyed-transformation.I was referring to the fact that the sequence of the packets would be generated by a random function; in that sense, those keys are a one-time pad.
1) 2) 3) 4)That's correct.
If this is the case, I'm not sure where the one-time pad comes into play. There is no crySo's that.
you could call it a "one-time sequencer"Let's use this concept as the new starting point then.