Supposedly, if used properly, this encryption is uncrackable. This page mentions it as well
as Caesar,Beale, but its certainly not the list that defines all cracking techniques. They should have included the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript or perhaps, the Zodiac killer’s cipher.
The best cipher (beside the one time pad) would be one that really encodes nothing..in other words, one that brings the decoders to the point of thinking they ALMOST have it…by thinking they have decrypted small words like “and” “the” “best”….but then, based on limited “success”spend decades chasing a Chimeric mirage. A code that is not really a code….just an elaborate practical joke.
The one time pad is interesting due to its rep as being the one UNCRACKABLE code.
From http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/laws/pad.html, the one time pad is actually a variant of the Caesar cipher,showing how little things have changed in two millenia.
“Perfect Cryptography: The One-Time Pad.
It may be surprising to the reader that there exist simple “perfect” encryption methods, meaning that there is a mathematical proof that cryptanalysis is impossible. The term “perfect” in cryptography also means that after an opponent receives the ciphertext he has no more information than before receiving the ciphertext.
The simplest of these perfect methods is called the one-time pad. Later discussion explains why these perfect methods are not practical to use in modern communications. However, for the practical methods there is always the possibility that a clever researcher or even a clever hacker could break the method. Also cryptanalysts can break these other methods using brute-force exhaustive searches. The only issue is how long it takes to break them. With current strong cryptographic algorithms, the chances are that there are no short-cut ways to break the systems, and current cryptanalysis requires decades or millennia or longer to break the algorithms by exhaustive search. (The time to break depends on various factors including especially the length of the cryptographic key.) To summarize, with the practical methods there is no absolute guarantee of security, but experts expect them to remain unbroken. On the other hand, the One-Time Pad is completely unbreakable.
The One-Time Pad is just a simple variation on the Beale Cipher. It starts with a random sequence of letters for the standard text (which is the key in this case). Suppose for example one uses RQBOPS as the standard text, assuming these are 6 letters chosen completely at random, and suppose the message is the same. Then encryption uses the same method as with the Beale Cipher, except that the standard text or key is not a quotation from English, but is a random string of letters.
Standard text (random key): RQBOPS Message: ATTACK Encrypted message: RJUORC
- So, for example, the third column uses the letter
- , representing a rotation of
- , to transform the plaintext letter
- into the ciphertext letter
- . The receiver must have the same random string of letters around for decryption:
- in this case. As the important part of this discussion, I want to show that this method is
- as long as the random standard text letters are kept secret. Suppose the message is
- instead of
- . If one had started with random letters
- as the standard text, instead of the letters
- , then the encryption would have taken the form:
Standard text (random key): LBYKXN Message: GIVEUP Encrypted message: RJUORC
- The encrypted message (ciphertext) is the same as before, even though the message is completely different. An opponent who intercepts the encrypted message but knows nothing about the random standard text gets
- about the original message, whether it might be
- or any other six-letter message. Given any message at all, one could construct a standard text so that the message is encrypted to yield the ciphertext
- . An opponent intercepting the ciphertext has no way to favor one message over another. It is in this sense that the one-time pad is perfect.
In this century spies have often used one-time pads. The only requirement is text (the pad) of random letters to use for encryption or decryption. (In fact, even now I would not want to be found in a hostile country with a list of random-looking letters.) The party communicating with the spy must have exactly the same text of random letters. This method requires the secure exchange of pad characters: as many such characters as in the original message. In a sense the pad behaves like the encryption key, except that here the key must be as long as the message. But such a long key defeats a goal of cryptography: to reduce the secrecy of a long message to the secrecy of a short key. If storage and transmission costs keep dropping, the one-time pad might again become an attractive alternative.
Law PAD1: The one-time pad is a method of key transmission, not message transmission. [Blakeley]
- During World War II the Germans used an intricate machine known as
- for encryption and decryption. As a decisive event of the war, British intelligence, with the help of Alan Turing, the twentieth century’s greatest computer genius, managed to break this code. I find it sobering to think that if the Germans had not been so confident in the security of their machine but had used a one-time pad instead, they would have had the irritation of working with pad characters, keeping track of them, and making sure that each ship and submarine had a sufficient store of pad, but they would have been able to use a completely unbreakable system. No one knows what the outcome might have been if the allies had not been able to break this German code.”
I think there are various ways of encoding things that havent been used….perhaps the best would be a combination of more than one algorithm. For example, since no two snowflakes, fingerprints, or inkblots are EXACTLY the same, you could design a code of inkblots, snowflakes, etc…..to a random letter in the alphabet…and then, through a random number generator, give each letter its number, which, in the final stage, would be translated into a message. The procedure would then use graphic symbols, inkblots, snowflakes, or whatever, to send the message, and only the person on the other end, could decipher. Inkblots can , if placed close enough, cause a Venn diagram sort of effect…where one blotch overlays the other one…thus, making the decryption even harder, unless you know where one blot ends and another begins.
Due to fingerprints being documented, the fingerprint idea I threw out quickly…but, in place of inkblots or snowflakes, you could use ANYthing, including colors..just so whatever graphic is used has a unique nature and does not coincide with other graphics. A computer with 24 bit color, has about 1500 colors,with the other millions referring to brightness, contrast,etc. One color, magenta, has no “magenta”light (as there are green , blue lights)…but is rather the human viewers interpretation of blue and red lights mixing.
Others claim the human eye can perceive millions of color hues.
And, we havent even gotten into encoding messages in pictures Steganography