Just a simple question about encryption.
If we have an image, we transform into a bits and we get 1001001... Then, I flip the bits into 0110110... manually.
Can I said that I have done an image encryption?
Thanks.
3
-
4$\begingroup$ Like ROT13, your algorithm has no key, so calling it encryption is dubious. $\endgroup$– CodesInChaosDec 1, 2016 at 13:48
-
3$\begingroup$ But why do you care? Encryption that can be broken by a drunken monkey is just as useless as not encrypting at all. $\endgroup$– CodesInChaosDec 1, 2016 at 13:49
-
1$\begingroup$ Related questions: Is the Caesar cipher really a cipher? and Why does ROT13 provide no cryptographic security? $\endgroup$– CodesInChaosDec 1, 2016 at 15:33
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
0
The book "Cryptography Engineering - Design Principles and Practical Applications" was recommended to me on this very site.
From the book:
Bob needs two things to decrypt the ciphertext. He must know the decryption algorithm D, and the key Ke. An important rule is Kerckhoffs' principle: the security of the encryption scheme must depend only on the security of the key, and not on the security of the algorithm.
While I've only just started reading it myself the mention of Kerckhoffs' Principle (see Why should I make my cipher public?) is most relevant to your question.
The method you present uses an algorithm but has no key. So anyone who learns how you are flipping bits could restore your original image.
Let's just call your method "image obfuscation".
