FUDforum
Fast Uncompromising Discussions. FUDforum will get your users talking.

Home » Imported messages » comp.lang.php » Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.
Show: Today's Messages :: Unread Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
| Subscribe to topic | Bookmark topic 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180193] Thu, 24 January 2013 00:10 Go to next message
Martin Musatov is currently offline  Martin Musatov
Messages: 9
Registered: January 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
unique_string (all letters)
&m9#&B0+1,9m. (none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
mapped equivalent to each corresponding unique character)
&m9#&B0+1,.(none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
mapped equivalent to each character in order of appearance without
repetition)

Consider the first the name.
Consider the second the challenge key.
Consider the third the passcode.

Once a valid passcode is input it is easy to map it to the challenge
key.
Once a valid challenge key has been confirmed both can be checked for
correctness.
The process of a computer figuring out a correct passcode without
first applying it to the challenge is information theoretically
secure.
Because while we know the number of variations far exceed
computational limits and restrictions of time and memory, we also know
the problem can theoretically be solved only when a first attempt is
made in observance of require orders of characteristics.
In other words the machine actually only turns on once the decision
has been made to attempt an answer.
To prove this consider all names and passcodes combinations are either
on or off name and passcode combinations.
Once a name is on there need only be provided the passcode to unlock
the information.
However if the name is off first must be provided to the name the
correct challenge key to turn it on.
Following the correct challenge key being accepted the correct
passcode can be immediately computed and entered.
We know based on the name certain position variables will repeat in
the challenge code.
The simple way to prove this is if the name has repeating characters
completely unique and unused challenge key characters will also repeat
in the same positions.
Therefore the first logical step in solving the problem or finding the
solution is to take the set of all possible characters and eliminate
the characters used in the name.
Once this is done we know the challenge key will consist of only
characters remaining from the set of all possible characters once the
name characters are removed.

So if my name is "Martin Musatov", I can eliminate all
M,a,r,t,i,n,s,o,v characters. What we are left with once the
requirement is added the challenge code contain numbers and
punctuation mapped equivalent is a binary form.

If name is 01010101
any NPNPNPNP will meet the valid challenge format test
provided definitions are set for N to include all numbers and P to
include all punctuation without repetition
and of course 0 represents all letters and 1 represents all languages

The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
of the contribution.
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180194 is a reply to message #180193] Thu, 24 January 2013 00:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Martin Musatov is currently offline  Martin Musatov
Messages: 9
Registered: January 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Jan 23, 9:10 pm, Martin Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> unique_string (all letters)
> &m9#&B0+1,9m. (none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
> mapped equivalent to each corresponding unique character)
> &m9#&B0+1,.(none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
> mapped equivalent to each character in order of appearance without
> repetition)
>
> Consider the first the name.
> Consider the second the challenge key.
> Consider the third the passcode.
>
> Once a valid passcode is input it is easy to map it to the challenge
> key.
> Once a valid challenge key has been confirmed both can be checked for
> correctness.
> The process of a computer figuring out a correct passcode without
> first applying it to the challenge is information theoretically
> secure.
> Because while we know the number of variations far exceed
> computational limits and restrictions of time and memory, we also know
> the problem can theoretically be solved only when a first attempt is
> made in observance of require orders of characteristics.
> In other words the machine actually only turns on once the decision
> has been made to attempt an answer.
> To prove this consider all names and passcodes combinations are either
> on or off name and passcode combinations.
> Once a name is on there need only be provided the passcode to unlock
> the information.
> However if the name is off first must be provided to the name the
> correct challenge key to turn it on.
> Following the correct challenge key being accepted the correct
> passcode can be immediately computed and entered.
> We know based on the name certain position variables will repeat in
> the challenge code.
> The simple way to prove this is if the name has repeating characters
> completely unique and unused challenge key characters will also repeat
> in the same positions.
> Therefore the first logical step in solving the problem or finding the
> solution is to take the set of all possible characters and eliminate
> the characters used in the name.
> Once this is done we know the challenge key will consist of only
> characters remaining from the set of all possible characters once the
> name characters are removed.
>
> So if my name is "Martin Musatov", I can eliminate all
> M,a,r,t,i,n,s,o,v characters. What we are left with once the
> requirement is added the challenge code contain numbers and
> punctuation mapped equivalent is a binary form.
>
> If name is 01010101
>       any  NPNPNPNP will meet the valid challenge format test
> provided definitions are set for N to include all numbers and P to
> include all punctuation without repetition
> and of course 0 represents all letters and 1 represents all languages
>
> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
> of the contribution.
+u
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180195 is a reply to message #180193] Thu, 24 January 2013 07:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>
> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
> of the contribution.
>

And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.

BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
a concept. If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.

If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180196 is a reply to message #180195] Thu, 24 January 2013 12:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
unruh is currently offline  unruh
Messages: 1
Registered: January 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>
>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>> of the contribution.
>>
>
> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>
> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
> a concept. If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>
> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.

Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
"intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
purely mataphoric sense.
>
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180197 is a reply to message #180196] Thu, 24 January 2013 15:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>
>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>>> of the contribution.
>>>
>>
>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>
>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
>> a concept. If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>
>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>
> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
> purely mataphoric sense.
>>

In the United States you can, anyway. I don't know about the rest of
the world.

Many computer algorithms are patented. For instance, the RSA algorithm
is U.S. Patent 4,405,829. I don't see that as any different than what
the op is proposing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180198 is a reply to message #180197] Thu, 24 January 2013 15:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
osmium is currently offline  osmium
Messages: 2
Registered: January 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote:

> On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
>> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>>>> of the contribution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>>
>>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
>>> a concept. If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
>>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>>
>>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>>
>> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
>> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
>> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
>> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
>> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
>> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
>> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
>> purely mataphoric sense.
>>>
>
> In the United States you can, anyway. I don't know about the rest of the
> world.

You can what? Can patent a concept? He just explained that you can't!!
I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said that
you can't. The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept.
Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program. I have patents on both
hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was
explained to me, was *just* a concept. Sorry, I didn't get the dollar that
was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.

> Many computer algorithms are patented. For instance, the RSA algorithm is
> U.S. Patent 4,405,829. I don't see that as any different than what the op
> is proposing.

My server does not have enough history so I can see what was
proposed/asserted/blabbed about, so it is possible the
notion/concept/whatever/ could be *converted* into something that could be
patented.
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180199 is a reply to message #180198] Thu, 24 January 2013 16:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 1/24/2013 3:48 PM, osmium wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>>> > associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>>> > be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>>> > to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>>> > conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>>>> > of the contribution.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>>>
>>>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
>>>> a concept. If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
>>>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>>>
>>> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
>>> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
>>> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
>>> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
>>> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
>>> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
>>> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
>>> purely mataphoric sense.
>>>>
>>
>> In the United States you can, anyway. I don't know about the rest of the
>> world.
>
> You can what? Can patent a concept? He just explained that you can't!!
> I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said that
> you can't. The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept.
> Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program. I have patents on both
> hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was
> explained to me, was *just* a concept. Sorry, I didn't get the dollar that
> was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.
>

Many "concepts" have been patented. The RSA patent is, for instance, an
algorithm. There is no code associated with the patent, and of course,
no logic drawings.

And then there are, of course, the "look and feel" patents, i.e. the
unlock slider on Apple I-Phones. Yes, Apple DOES have a patent on it,
and courts have found it is enforceable. Again, it's a concept - no
code or logic diagrams associated with it.

There are many, many others.

I guess they just have better patent attorneys.

>> Many computer algorithms are patented. For instance, the RSA algorithm is
>> U.S. Patent 4,405,829. I don't see that as any different than what the op
>> is proposing.
>
> My server does not have enough history so I can see what was
> proposed/asserted/blabbed about, so it is possible the
> notion/concept/whatever/ could be *converted* into something that could be
> patented.
>
>


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180201 is a reply to message #180199] Thu, 24 January 2013 17:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
osmium is currently offline  osmium
Messages: 2
Registered: January 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote:

> On 1/24/2013 3:48 PM, osmium wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
>>>> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> > On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>>> >> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>>> >> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>>> >> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>>> >> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the
>>>> >> value
>>>> >> of the contribution.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>>> >
>>>> > BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot
>>>> > copyright
>>>> > a concept. If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it
>>>> > at
>>>> > any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>>> >
>>>> > If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>>>>
>>>> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
>>>> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
>>>> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
>>>> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
>>>> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
>>>> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
>>>> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
>>>> purely mataphoric sense.
>>>> >
>>>
>>> In the United States you can, anyway. I don't know about the rest of
>>> the
>>> world.
>>
>> You can what? Can patent a concept? He just explained that you
>> can't!!
>> I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said
>> that
>> you can't. The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept.
>> Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program. I have patents on
>> both
>> hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was
>> explained to me, was *just* a concept. Sorry, I didn't get the dollar
>> that
>> was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.
>>
>
> Many "concepts" have been patented. The RSA patent is, for instance, an
> algorithm. There is no code associated with the patent, and of course, no
> logic drawings.

But there *are* logic drawings in the RSA patent, I just looked at it. This
is an instance of what I mentioned earlier, sometimes you can shake things
around and convert a concept to a patent. That's exactly what happened
here.

> And then there are, of course, the "look and feel" patents, i.e. the
> unlock slider on Apple I-Phones. Yes, Apple DOES have a patent on it, and
> courts have found it is enforceable. Again, it's a concept - no code or
> logic diagrams associated with it.

I'm quite sure that Apple has what is called a "design" patent; a real
patent is a letters patent. The shape of a Coke bottle is a design patent.
(Or was. I don't know if that has been influenced by Disney's work on
extending Mickey Mouse's lifetime out to infinity.) The xerography patent
is over and done with, yet Mickey Mouse is still paying vast rewards. Some
of those rewards are distributed to our congresspersons.

> There are many, many others.
>
> I guess they just have better patent attorneys.
>
>>> Many computer algorithms are patented. For instance, the RSA algorithm
>>> is
>>> U.S. Patent 4,405,829. I don't see that as any different than what the
>>> op
>>> is proposing.
>>
>> My server does not have enough history so I can see what was
>> proposed/asserted/blabbed about, so it is possible the
>> notion/concept/whatever/ could be *converted* into something that could
>> be
>> patented.
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180202 is a reply to message #180201] Thu, 24 January 2013 20:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 1/24/2013 5:49 PM, osmium wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/2013 3:48 PM, osmium wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
>>>> > On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> >> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>>> >>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>>> >>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>>> >>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>>> >>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the
>>>> >>> value
>>>> >>> of the contribution.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot
>>>> >> copyright
>>>> >> a concept. If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it
>>>> >> at
>>>> >> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>>>> >
>>>> > Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
>>>> > processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
>>>> > And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
>>>> > "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
>>>> > patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
>>>> > independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
>>>> > It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
>>>> > purely mataphoric sense.
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> In the United States you can, anyway. I don't know about the rest of
>>>> the
>>>> world.
>>>
>>> You can what? Can patent a concept? He just explained that you
>>> can't!!
>>> I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said
>>> that
>>> you can't. The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept.
>>> Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program. I have patents on
>>> both
>>> hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was
>>> explained to me, was *just* a concept. Sorry, I didn't get the dollar
>>> that
>>> was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.
>>>
>>
>> Many "concepts" have been patented. The RSA patent is, for instance, an
>> algorithm. There is no code associated with the patent, and of course, no
>> logic drawings.
>
> But there *are* logic drawings in the RSA patent, I just looked at it. This
> is an instance of what I mentioned earlier, sometimes you can shake things
> around and convert a concept to a patent. That's exactly what happened
> here.
>

I looked at it also. What you call "logical drawings" are just an
algorithm in visual form.

>> And then there are, of course, the "look and feel" patents, i.e. the
>> unlock slider on Apple I-Phones. Yes, Apple DOES have a patent on it, and
>> courts have found it is enforceable. Again, it's a concept - no code or
>> logic diagrams associated with it.
>
> I'm quite sure that Apple has what is called a "design" patent; a real
> patent is a letters patent. The shape of a Coke bottle is a design patent.
> (Or was. I don't know if that has been influenced by Disney's work on
> extending Mickey Mouse's lifetime out to infinity.) The xerography patent
> is over and done with, yet Mickey Mouse is still paying vast rewards. Some
> of those rewards are distributed to our congresspersons.
>

It is a "look and feel" patent. Period.


I guess these companies have better patent attorneys than you do.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180516 is a reply to message #180193] Sat, 23 February 2013 01:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Martin Musatov is currently offline  Martin Musatov
Messages: 9
Registered: January 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:10:42 PM UTC-8, Martin Musatov wrote:
> unique_string (all letters)
>
> &m9#&B0+1,9m. (none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
>
> mapped equivalent to each corresponding unique character)
>
> &m9#&B0+1,.(none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
>
> mapped equivalent to each character in order of appearance without
>
> repetition)
>
>
>
> Consider the first the name.
>
> Consider the second the challenge key.
>
> Consider the third the passcode.
>
>
>
> Once a valid passcode is input it is easy to map it to the challenge
>
> key.
>
> Once a valid challenge key has been confirmed both can be checked for
>
> correctness.
>
> The process of a computer figuring out a correct passcode without
>
> first applying it to the challenge is information theoretically
>
> secure.
>
> Because while we know the number of variations far eceed
>
> computational limits and restrictions of time and memory, we also know
>
> the problem can theoretically be solved only when a first attempt is
>
> made in observance of require orders of characteristics.
>
> In other words the machine actually only turns on once the decision
>
> has been made to attempt an answer.
>
> To prove this consider all names and passcodes combinations are either
>
> on or off name and passcode combinations.
>
> Once a name is on there need only be provided the passcode to unlock
>
> the information.
>
> However if the name is off first must be provided to the name the
>
> correct challenge key to turn it on.
>
> Following the correct challenge key being accepted the correct
>
> passcode can be immediately computed and entered.
>
> We know based on the name certain position variables will repeat in
>
> the challenge code.
>
> The simple way to prove this is if the name has repeating characters
>
> completely unique and unused challenge key characters will also repeat
>
> in the same positions.
>
> Therefore the first logical step in solving the problem or finding the
>
> solution is to take the set of all possible characters and eliminate
>
> the characters used in the name.
>
> Once this is done we know the challenge key will consist of only
>
> characters remaining from the set of all possible characters once the
>
> name characters are removed.
>
>
>
> So if my name is "Martin Musatov", I can eliminate all
>
> M,a,r,t,i,n,s,o,v characters. What we are left with once the
>
> requirement is added the challenge code contain numbers and
>
> punctuation mapped equivalent is a binary form.
>
>
>
> If name is 01010101
>
> any NPNPNPNP will meet the valid challenge format test
>
> provided definitions are set for N to include all numbers and P to
>
> include all punctuation without repetition
>
> and of course 0 represents all letters and 1 represents all languages
>
>
>
> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>
> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>
> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>
> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>
> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>
> of the contribution.
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180517 is a reply to message #180195] Sat, 23 February 2013 01:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Martin Musatov is currently offline  Martin Musatov
Messages: 9
Registered: January 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:21:11 AM UTC-8, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>
>>
>
>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>
>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>
>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>
>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>
>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>
>> of the contribution.
>
>>
>
>
>
> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>
>
>
> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
>
> a concept. If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
>
> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>
>
>
> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>
>
>
> --
>
> ==================
>
> Remove the "" from my email address
>
> Jerry Stuckle
>
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
>
> jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
>
> ==================
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180518 is a reply to message #180517] Sat, 23 February 2013 01:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Martin Musatov is currently offline  Martin Musatov
Messages: 9
Registered: January 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Friday, February 22, 2013 10:27:36 PM UTC-8, Martin Musatov wrote:
> On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:21:11 AM UTC-8, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>
>>
>
>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>
>>
>
>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>
>>
>
>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>
>>
>
>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>
>>
>
>>> of the contribution.
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
>
>>
>
>> a concept. If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
>
>>
>
>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> --
>
>>
>
>> ==================
>
>>
>
>> Remove the "" from my email address
>
>>
>
>> Jerry Stuckle
>
>>
>
>> JDS Computer Training Corp.
>
>>
>
>> jstuckle(at)attglobal(dot)net
>
>>
>
>> ==================
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180522 is a reply to message #180516] Sat, 23 February 2013 09:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 2/23/2013 1:15 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:

.... Noting worth repeating.

Still spamming usenet with your crap? Still don't know the difference
between a copyright and a patent?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180523 is a reply to message #180522] Sat, 23 February 2013 11:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jim Higgins is currently offline  Jim Higgins
Messages: 20
Registered: November 2010
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:17:23 -0500, in <kgaivn$vus$1(at)dont-email(dot)me>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:

> On 2/23/2013 1:15 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>
> ... Noting worth repeating.
>
> Still spamming usenet with your crap? Still don't know the difference
> between a copyright and a patent?

Heck, even if that idea were protectable by copyright obtained by
publishing to Usenet, the expression of it is so garbled that it's
essentially useless. Imagine what a patent clerk would do with a
patent written like that.
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180524 is a reply to message #180523] Sat, 23 February 2013 15:33 Go to previous message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 2/23/2013 11:52 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:17:23 -0500, in <kgaivn$vus$1(at)dont-email(dot)me>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/23/2013 1:15 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>
>> ... Noting worth repeating.
>>
>> Still spamming usenet with your crap? Still don't know the difference
>> between a copyright and a patent?
>
> Heck, even if that idea were protectable by copyright obtained by
> publishing to Usenet, the expression of it is so garbled that it's
> essentially useless. Imagine what a patent clerk would do with a
> patent written like that.
>

Knowing how screwed up the U.S. patent system is, he'd probably get it!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
Quick Reply
Formatting Tools:   
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic
Previous Topic: Re: Where to Find Pipe Information?
Next Topic: Stats comp.lang.php (last 7 days)
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ]

Current Time: Tue Oct 24 07:34:58 EDT 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00819 seconds