Invisible & Unbreakable Encryption (Plausible Deniability)

Discussion in 'Keeping Your Anonymity In Iran' started by Unknown, Jun 22, 2009.

  1. If you need to too communicate securely but fear you could be targeted for using encryption (of any kind) then here is a way to combine various encryption and stenographic methods together to offer plausible deniability and invisible (yet secure) communication.

    First, by utilizing One-Time Pad (OTP) encryption you are offered a virtually unbreakable encryption; yet it's so simple to use one can do it using just pencil and paper.

    Bacon's Cipher (Bacon's cipher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) encodes things via a binary system. You would transmit the binary data over what would appear to be a normal sentence. One method would be to assign all even starting letters (of a word) to "0" and all odd letters to "1". Bacon's cipher is however NOT secure enough to transmit a plaintext message.

    However if you use bacon's cipher to transmit an OTP ciphertext then two things happen: your encryption has the strength of OTP and the stenographic abilities of Bacon's cipher. And because the ciphertext of OTP is completely random, an enemy eavesdropping upon what at first glance appears to be a normal sentence and reversing the Bacon's cipher (thus decoding it) will only get random values. The enemy thus would be unable to discern if they are applying Bacon's cipher to a normal harmless message or a random set of values that are really OTP ciphertext.

    It should be noted that all values of a binary numeral system should be used. For example in the english alphabet there are 26 letters, yet binary goes from 18 digits to 32 digits. An enemy could suspect you are using Bacon's cipher if they find you are not transmitting the left over digits. Therefore it is proposed you use a numeral system aligned with a binary one. Such as a base 16 (hexadecimal) system which consists of 0-9 and A-F.

    Spelling out words at this point is not practical especially with a numeral system such as hexadecimal (which is missing needed letters of an alphabet). Therefore it is suggested you combine OTP and Bacon's Cipher with the concept of Trench Codes (Trench code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which is when combinations of letters and/or numbers are assigned to a pre-constructed message. For example transmitting "AA" may mean "Flee at Once" or transmitting "F5" could equate to "Attack at Dawn".

    Because the trench codes would be encrypted with OTP and hidden with Bacon's Cipher not only should you be able to transmit small messages but they should be secure as well as invisible.
  2. Eh? OTP encryption requires that the sender and receiver both have extremely lengthy keys - at least as long as all messages that will ever be sent by both parties combined - in advance. And then both parties have to keep perfect track of how many bits of the key have been used already. Should an encrypted message be lost in transit or otherwise overlooked, the whole thing will go out of synch, messages will no longer be decryptable by either party, and only transferring a bunch of new key data can remedy the situation. That is why OTP is almost never used in practical crypto applications.

    As for adding two layers of steganography over it - one of which is based on 16th century technology - geez. There have been scores of research papers done on stego, and many apps have been written. None of them are perfect, but some are pretty good, and they can be used by relatively untrained people. Much progress has been made since 1610.

    tldr; the OP's suggestions are unworkable.
  3. TheONE-IRAN Member

    There is no need to over complicate things. Pass on this, stick to proven standards.
  4. lonestar Member

    I thought the last day about the same technique, covert channels can make a difference, but for non-experienced this will be a though nut to crack if they are going to read this ( its complex and too much technical details ).

    Here is a good source, hope this is useful : Team
  5. Really unbreakable - no brute force or time can figure this one

    There is another dimension – where the crypto is secure, but the key holders are less than honourable for one of any number of reasons.
    Recently I put this proposition together with a working example to support my patent submission.

    MANIFESTO: unbreakable file protection with distributed security

    I’m also looking for constructive criticism - feel free to let me know what you think!

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins