New answers tagged ciphertext-only-attack
Around and about one hundred years ago, your idea would surely have made sense… but nowadays, modern technology and evolved cryptanalytic techniques are too smart to have a real problem coping with something like that. (Also see my related answer to “Why was the Navajo code not broken by the Japanese in WWII?”) Even when we completely ignore Kerckhoffs’ ...
Historically, there did exist a benefit to using a language that the adversary was not familiar with. The name for this is code talkers, and the most famous ones (at least in the USA) are the Navajo code talkers of World War II. The idea was to defeat attacks that relied on statistics about the language used in the plaintext. In modern cryptography, ...
If you're referring to a classical cipher, it might complicate frequency analysis and other such techniques. For a modern cipher, it makes no difference. Modern ciphers operate on arbitrary patterns of information. Ideally, the ciphertext of a modern cipher should have no relation of any kind to the associated plaintext, other then the key.
The actual "encryption" is done on this line: mysecretmessage[i] ^= ((mysecretvalue>>(8*(i%4)))&255); Clearly, this line XORs every byte (or at least, every element; but it makes sense to assume that this is indeed a byte array) of mysecretmessage with some value derived from mysecretvalue and the byte counter i. So what does the expression ((...
Top 50 recent answers are included