realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Simple but mathematically valid encryption

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: Simple but mathematically valid encryption
From: Ian Piper <ianpiper at mac dot com>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:11:05 +0000
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <880ECA18-5A75-11D9-81BF-000A27B1C8AE at elfdata dot com> <41D50BA7 dot 6030208 at serviomatic dot com>
Yes, I absolutely endorse this - I use the Einhugur plug-ins. No point in re-inventing the wheel - with tools of this calibre there is no reason to write your own unless it is for the fun of it.


Ian.
--
Dr Ian M Piper
Tellura Information Services - the web, document and information people
http://www.tellura.co.uk/
+44 (0) 1926 811574
--
On 31 Dec 2004, at 8:19 am, Jason Quigley wrote:

Hi Theodore!

I have seen some *REALLY* interesting discussions on your question (a fascinating topic) but the whole reason most of use RB is for RAD, right?

With that in mind, why not have a look at the Einhuger eCrypit plugin: http://www.einhugur.com/Html/eCrypt/index.html

I have no affiliation to the company except being a happy customer.

Cheers,
Jason.

Theodore H.Smith wrote:
Is there any kind of encryption, that doesn't use very much code, but is mathematically proven to be a computationally hard encryption to break without the key? I've looked at Blowfish, (via a REALbasic demo project), and I'm thinking, there must be a simpler way. The sheer number of seemingly random numbers in the blowfish seems way too much. I like to do things in a way that I can understand why it is the best way. if I can't understand why something is the best way, then I don't like to do it that way. It may sound like I'm being like a simpleton, or not taking faith in other people, but in fact this approach works out very well. For example, it led me to develop my own dictionary lookup structure, which is far more powerful than the standard hashing structure, because my structure has uses in a huge variety of applications (image processing, genetics, etc etc), which hashing could not provide. So yes, I do like to understand why is some code the best code. And I know that blowfish is too complex. I just don't know the field well enough to know a less complex version :)
Which is why I'm asking this question.
--
   Theodore H. Smith - Software Developer - www.elfdata.com/plugin/
   Industrial strength string processing code, made easy.
   (If you believe that's an oxymoron, see for yourself.)
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>