![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I believe that the first three words regarding cryptography have it backwards. Cryptographic protocols are a subset of encryption, not the other way around. Where, before computers, the distinction wasn't instructive, it is now. When I was provided the hyperbolic phrase, cryptographic encryption, it had a dissonance, because it was in the past redundant, and today, plain wrong. Encryption is the larger matter, various cryptographic schemes are a subset. But to simply re-write that, In encryption, cryptography etc etc does a huge injustice to clarity. Perhaps, Cryptography is a manner of encryption which employs an express protocol intended to... Maybe there can be a phrase to modify protocol, so we don't encrypt this revised definition. But this needs a discerning eye because physics and computer geeks are misusing this term by the second. ---- |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bhale2.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
DGC12345,
Markscarsi,
Jackbelshe,
Zoharrab.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Eph17.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Encryption and Cipher are currently too similar. They should be merged, or Cipher should be specialized to the customary (though vague) subset of private-key encryption.
Tromer, Your observation is a common misunderstanding. Encryption can be done in several ways, only one of which uses a cypher. As for 'cipher' being customarily a subset of private-key encryption, that is true only if by private key one means symmetric key cypher. At least that's the sense I take from your comment. The spelling is (cy v ci) is irrelevant as to meaning, but excites comment (see Talk:Cryptography for some history on WP). As the diagram notes, cyphers come in symmetric and asymmetric flavors, and symmetric cyphers are sometimes (confusingly) called private key cyphers. Asymmetric key cyphers are sometimes (wrongly) taken to be all public key/private key cyphers. Not all are, as there exist some in which there are no public keys.
As for the diagram, I will note that the placement of rotor machine is probably incorrect. Rotor machines (as the Hebern machine, Enigma machine, SIGABA, Typex, and even the non-rotor Japanese stepping switch machines) are fundamentally substitution cyphers, albeit polyalphabetic ones. The diagram should reflect this. ww 15:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to make a text version of the diagram here, so it's easier for me (and presumably others) to edit:
Do "Stream" and "Block" really only apply to "Private Key" ciphers ?
See also Image talk:Cipher-taxonomy.png. There is a problem with making a taxonomy of ciphers. There are (at least) two ways of approaching it, and each is somewhat unsatisfactory. The first is a more "abstract" classification, dividing the ciphers strictly according to how they function. The problem with this approach is that you then make distinctions that are never made in practice: the distinction between substitution and transposition is only really used in the context of classical ciphers; the distinction between symmetric and asymmetric ciphers is only really used in the context of modern cryptography, and so on.
The alternative approach, employed here, is to divide ciphers into sections according to how they are divided in practice. The problem with the "usage-reflecting" style is that, e.g., a classical substitution cipher isn't labelled as a symmetric key cipher, which might be desirable, but I think it's more important to reflect usage. — Matt 09:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I moved this recent addition here temporarily:
Cryptographic hashes, also known as one-way hashes or message digests, are used to encrypt data so that it cannot ever be decrypted, but it can be recognized because the same data always produces the same output. Other unique features of this form of encryption include that no matter the size of the input, the size of the output is always the same (the size of the output varies from algorithm to algorithm), and that no keys are used. Popular algorithms include MD5 and SHA. See the Cryptographic hash function entry for more information.
I'm not sure this is the right place to diversify into a discussion of crypto hash functions -- secure hashing isn't usually described as "encryption", although it's certainly part of cryptography and symmetric key cryptography. — Matt 13:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While cryptographic hash functions are certainly not a cipher, they are a vital part of encryption technology. Someone unfamiliar with the plumbing of encryption will just type "encryption" into Wikipedia and hope to get an overview of the subject with links to the details. This seems like a reasonable approach to making the Encryption and Cipher entries different so they work best for users. Encryption is a more general term.
It is logical that the Encryption entry should have brief descriptions of symmetric and asymmetric ciphers, hash functions and encryption-strength pRNGs in order to best serve users who may be unfamiliar with the categories or taxonomy related to the subject.
Vancegloster 21:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This does seem reasonable. Vancegloster 23:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This text was added by an anonymous user. I'm not at all sure what it is supposed to be saying, so I've moved it here:
-- Fastfission 02:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Besides of a bit confusing diagram in the "Types of cipher" section, I think that in the "Ciphers versus codes" section distingushing between codes and ciphers based on amount of data processed (words x letters) is a misunderstanding.
As I always understood it, codes are not directly related with security (meaning security against intruders, etc.), but rather they are used to transfer data in a defined form and/or to secure data against transfer errors. For example [ error correcting codes like the Hamming code or ASCII code and many others.
Therefore i disagree with the sentence: "Some systems used both codes and ciphers in one system, using superencipherment to increase the security."
Of course I mean the "technical discussions" usage of the words.
Finally, I found out that in cryptography article the definition of code x cipher is the same. But I still disagree :).
What are your opinions?
PeP
I apologise, I don't know how to use the coding that has been used at the top of the article to talk about other uses of the word. I just thought that it may be worth adding a note about the album Encryption by Pro-jekt. J Milburn 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm restoring edits to the External links section that were reverted by User:Austinmurphy, claiming they were self promotion. I have nothing to do with any of the sites listed before or after the edits. Some of the changes I made were to conform to Wikipedia capitalization style. I removed three links, one to an article that promoted several commercial products for tape backup, one to Encryption, from MysecureCyberspace's encyclopedia on cybersecurity which has a couple of paragraphis on the subject and a link back to Wikipedia, and SecurityBulletins.com Basic Encryption testing methods, which suggest users test encryption software by trying to compress the output, a rather inadequate approach, to say the least. I also replaced a link to the pgpi website which is rather out of date with one to the GPG website. If anyone has a problem with these changes please discuss it here. -- agr 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
i'm not a mathetician, hell i failed all my math classes, but i consider myself to be a programmer but i've learn some math just by programing.. (weird huh?) is there any non math equations that show encryption techniques, the links like this [1] didn't help much, i rather have newbie friendly sourcecode.. to examine and apply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.191.81 ( talk) 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
I trimmed the see also section. I think it should be kept to major topics in encryption, and not become a laundry list of articles that touch on encryption. In particular I removed the recently added Zodiac Killer link, but I did add the the unsolved codes and ciphers category to the Zodiac Killer article. -- agr 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
To quote pages 80-81 of Zero, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, by Charles Seife:
Italian merchants loved the Arabic numbers. They allowed the bankers to get rid of their counting boards. However, while businessmen saw their usefulness, the local governments hated them. In 1299, Florence banned Arabic numerals. The ostensible reason was that the numbers were easily changed and falsified. (A 0 could be turned into a 6 with a simple flourish of a pen, for instance.) But the advantages of zero and other Arabic numerals were not so easily dispensed with; Italian merchants continued to use them, and even used them to send encrypted messages - which is how the word 'cipher' came to mean "secret code."
Of course, you must keep in mind that Zero-into-6 was at the core of the issue, and that the old name for Zero was cipher.
ryanakca 14:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of this article is about term "cipher", not about term "encryption". I see that this article was created by merger of those two articles, so this situation is understandable. I propose 2 possible solutions:
Two of the five references were to obscure papers by a Saudi. I removed them. Care should be taken to make sure he doesn't add them back. The references should be to well known authoritative works like _Code Breakers_. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.141.50 ( talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Somebody keeps removing the works by Ibrahim Al-kadi. Please explain why. Binksternet ( talk) 13:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would someone remove a site that is related to encryption from external links? www.hisecure.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metamorph123 ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why a blog link should be included at External links. Binksternet ( talk) 15:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been told a WWII encryption was based on an old phone book. i.e. essentially use once pad easy to get by both parties. I was also told it was broken.
Anyone know how? Aaaronsmith ( talk) 19:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It is a book cipher. I can see how statistical analysis (a lot of it) might reveal the pattern in a book cipher that is based on a novel (something the Soviets loved to do). However, the numbers running down the columns in a phone book are essentially random. Does anyone know how that particular one was solved? Aaaronsmith ( talk) 05:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the Disk encryption page should be merged here Bikepunk2 ( talk) 17:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I also disagree Rfellows. As pointed out by others, these topics require sufficient space to explain. Perhaps earlier, when both were shorter it would have made sense. Now, Disk encryption is actually longer and more complete than this article. 11:26 04 October 2010 (UTC)
undid improper edit 21:42, 25 May 2010 TedColes (talk | contribs) (6,222 bytes) (Undid revision 364137170 by 67.51.122.18 (talk) Incorrect use). Tedcoles is deleting text that seems quite critical to understanding what this term means. It is widely accepted that password protection is a form of encryption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.45.112 ( talk)
Yes, password protection is widely accepted as a form of encryption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.122.18 ( talk) 15:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The last paragraph shows a product/implementation specific point of view.
It should be removed, but I think the note about where things should be encrypted could remain. So I'm changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsmaelLuceno ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Its not been changed and I too think it should be removed. I added the POV tag to warn users away from the statement.
97.83.152.148 (
talk)
17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed the table of contents from this article because I felt it was distracting and served no purpose (there's no subsections!). Please add subsections! 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 03:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've found articles for the needed citations. I will be removing the additional citations needed tag. BadSprad ( talk) 14:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
you have to dedicate many digit-sizes to noise, otherwise Eve the eavesdropper might find some patterns.
That requires huge lists from sender and receiver, also the messages are huge.
It has been used by the US, China and Russia (combined usually with 3 or more other encryptions) but you must have a clear line or preferably a cable (fiber optics). It's bad for space because it's slow, and if you make your lists smaller, then it's faster but anyone can decrypt your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8227:A300:9444:E682:3FB:B7E3 ( talk) 18:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Reference 2, "History of Cryptography" is from Binance Academy, with no further sources at the reference source. Not sure where binance gets their info from, but this source is essentially just "dude trust me".
While I don't really doubt the truth of this claim, can we get a better source for early encryption and cryptographic history other than a binance article?
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I believe that the first three words regarding cryptography have it backwards. Cryptographic protocols are a subset of encryption, not the other way around. Where, before computers, the distinction wasn't instructive, it is now. When I was provided the hyperbolic phrase, cryptographic encryption, it had a dissonance, because it was in the past redundant, and today, plain wrong. Encryption is the larger matter, various cryptographic schemes are a subset. But to simply re-write that, In encryption, cryptography etc etc does a huge injustice to clarity. Perhaps, Cryptography is a manner of encryption which employs an express protocol intended to... Maybe there can be a phrase to modify protocol, so we don't encrypt this revised definition. But this needs a discerning eye because physics and computer geeks are misusing this term by the second. ---- |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bhale2.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
DGC12345,
Markscarsi,
Jackbelshe,
Zoharrab.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Eph17.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Encryption and Cipher are currently too similar. They should be merged, or Cipher should be specialized to the customary (though vague) subset of private-key encryption.
Tromer, Your observation is a common misunderstanding. Encryption can be done in several ways, only one of which uses a cypher. As for 'cipher' being customarily a subset of private-key encryption, that is true only if by private key one means symmetric key cypher. At least that's the sense I take from your comment. The spelling is (cy v ci) is irrelevant as to meaning, but excites comment (see Talk:Cryptography for some history on WP). As the diagram notes, cyphers come in symmetric and asymmetric flavors, and symmetric cyphers are sometimes (confusingly) called private key cyphers. Asymmetric key cyphers are sometimes (wrongly) taken to be all public key/private key cyphers. Not all are, as there exist some in which there are no public keys.
As for the diagram, I will note that the placement of rotor machine is probably incorrect. Rotor machines (as the Hebern machine, Enigma machine, SIGABA, Typex, and even the non-rotor Japanese stepping switch machines) are fundamentally substitution cyphers, albeit polyalphabetic ones. The diagram should reflect this. ww 15:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to make a text version of the diagram here, so it's easier for me (and presumably others) to edit:
Do "Stream" and "Block" really only apply to "Private Key" ciphers ?
See also Image talk:Cipher-taxonomy.png. There is a problem with making a taxonomy of ciphers. There are (at least) two ways of approaching it, and each is somewhat unsatisfactory. The first is a more "abstract" classification, dividing the ciphers strictly according to how they function. The problem with this approach is that you then make distinctions that are never made in practice: the distinction between substitution and transposition is only really used in the context of classical ciphers; the distinction between symmetric and asymmetric ciphers is only really used in the context of modern cryptography, and so on.
The alternative approach, employed here, is to divide ciphers into sections according to how they are divided in practice. The problem with the "usage-reflecting" style is that, e.g., a classical substitution cipher isn't labelled as a symmetric key cipher, which might be desirable, but I think it's more important to reflect usage. — Matt 09:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I moved this recent addition here temporarily:
Cryptographic hashes, also known as one-way hashes or message digests, are used to encrypt data so that it cannot ever be decrypted, but it can be recognized because the same data always produces the same output. Other unique features of this form of encryption include that no matter the size of the input, the size of the output is always the same (the size of the output varies from algorithm to algorithm), and that no keys are used. Popular algorithms include MD5 and SHA. See the Cryptographic hash function entry for more information.
I'm not sure this is the right place to diversify into a discussion of crypto hash functions -- secure hashing isn't usually described as "encryption", although it's certainly part of cryptography and symmetric key cryptography. — Matt 13:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While cryptographic hash functions are certainly not a cipher, they are a vital part of encryption technology. Someone unfamiliar with the plumbing of encryption will just type "encryption" into Wikipedia and hope to get an overview of the subject with links to the details. This seems like a reasonable approach to making the Encryption and Cipher entries different so they work best for users. Encryption is a more general term.
It is logical that the Encryption entry should have brief descriptions of symmetric and asymmetric ciphers, hash functions and encryption-strength pRNGs in order to best serve users who may be unfamiliar with the categories or taxonomy related to the subject.
Vancegloster 21:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This does seem reasonable. Vancegloster 23:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This text was added by an anonymous user. I'm not at all sure what it is supposed to be saying, so I've moved it here:
-- Fastfission 02:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Besides of a bit confusing diagram in the "Types of cipher" section, I think that in the "Ciphers versus codes" section distingushing between codes and ciphers based on amount of data processed (words x letters) is a misunderstanding.
As I always understood it, codes are not directly related with security (meaning security against intruders, etc.), but rather they are used to transfer data in a defined form and/or to secure data against transfer errors. For example [ error correcting codes like the Hamming code or ASCII code and many others.
Therefore i disagree with the sentence: "Some systems used both codes and ciphers in one system, using superencipherment to increase the security."
Of course I mean the "technical discussions" usage of the words.
Finally, I found out that in cryptography article the definition of code x cipher is the same. But I still disagree :).
What are your opinions?
PeP
I apologise, I don't know how to use the coding that has been used at the top of the article to talk about other uses of the word. I just thought that it may be worth adding a note about the album Encryption by Pro-jekt. J Milburn 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm restoring edits to the External links section that were reverted by User:Austinmurphy, claiming they were self promotion. I have nothing to do with any of the sites listed before or after the edits. Some of the changes I made were to conform to Wikipedia capitalization style. I removed three links, one to an article that promoted several commercial products for tape backup, one to Encryption, from MysecureCyberspace's encyclopedia on cybersecurity which has a couple of paragraphis on the subject and a link back to Wikipedia, and SecurityBulletins.com Basic Encryption testing methods, which suggest users test encryption software by trying to compress the output, a rather inadequate approach, to say the least. I also replaced a link to the pgpi website which is rather out of date with one to the GPG website. If anyone has a problem with these changes please discuss it here. -- agr 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
i'm not a mathetician, hell i failed all my math classes, but i consider myself to be a programmer but i've learn some math just by programing.. (weird huh?) is there any non math equations that show encryption techniques, the links like this [1] didn't help much, i rather have newbie friendly sourcecode.. to examine and apply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.191.81 ( talk) 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
I trimmed the see also section. I think it should be kept to major topics in encryption, and not become a laundry list of articles that touch on encryption. In particular I removed the recently added Zodiac Killer link, but I did add the the unsolved codes and ciphers category to the Zodiac Killer article. -- agr 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
To quote pages 80-81 of Zero, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, by Charles Seife:
Italian merchants loved the Arabic numbers. They allowed the bankers to get rid of their counting boards. However, while businessmen saw their usefulness, the local governments hated them. In 1299, Florence banned Arabic numerals. The ostensible reason was that the numbers were easily changed and falsified. (A 0 could be turned into a 6 with a simple flourish of a pen, for instance.) But the advantages of zero and other Arabic numerals were not so easily dispensed with; Italian merchants continued to use them, and even used them to send encrypted messages - which is how the word 'cipher' came to mean "secret code."
Of course, you must keep in mind that Zero-into-6 was at the core of the issue, and that the old name for Zero was cipher.
ryanakca 14:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of this article is about term "cipher", not about term "encryption". I see that this article was created by merger of those two articles, so this situation is understandable. I propose 2 possible solutions:
Two of the five references were to obscure papers by a Saudi. I removed them. Care should be taken to make sure he doesn't add them back. The references should be to well known authoritative works like _Code Breakers_. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.141.50 ( talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Somebody keeps removing the works by Ibrahim Al-kadi. Please explain why. Binksternet ( talk) 13:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would someone remove a site that is related to encryption from external links? www.hisecure.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metamorph123 ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why a blog link should be included at External links. Binksternet ( talk) 15:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been told a WWII encryption was based on an old phone book. i.e. essentially use once pad easy to get by both parties. I was also told it was broken.
Anyone know how? Aaaronsmith ( talk) 19:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It is a book cipher. I can see how statistical analysis (a lot of it) might reveal the pattern in a book cipher that is based on a novel (something the Soviets loved to do). However, the numbers running down the columns in a phone book are essentially random. Does anyone know how that particular one was solved? Aaaronsmith ( talk) 05:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the Disk encryption page should be merged here Bikepunk2 ( talk) 17:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I also disagree Rfellows. As pointed out by others, these topics require sufficient space to explain. Perhaps earlier, when both were shorter it would have made sense. Now, Disk encryption is actually longer and more complete than this article. 11:26 04 October 2010 (UTC)
undid improper edit 21:42, 25 May 2010 TedColes (talk | contribs) (6,222 bytes) (Undid revision 364137170 by 67.51.122.18 (talk) Incorrect use). Tedcoles is deleting text that seems quite critical to understanding what this term means. It is widely accepted that password protection is a form of encryption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.45.112 ( talk)
Yes, password protection is widely accepted as a form of encryption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.122.18 ( talk) 15:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The last paragraph shows a product/implementation specific point of view.
It should be removed, but I think the note about where things should be encrypted could remain. So I'm changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsmaelLuceno ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Its not been changed and I too think it should be removed. I added the POV tag to warn users away from the statement.
97.83.152.148 (
talk)
17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed the table of contents from this article because I felt it was distracting and served no purpose (there's no subsections!). Please add subsections! 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 03:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've found articles for the needed citations. I will be removing the additional citations needed tag. BadSprad ( talk) 14:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
you have to dedicate many digit-sizes to noise, otherwise Eve the eavesdropper might find some patterns.
That requires huge lists from sender and receiver, also the messages are huge.
It has been used by the US, China and Russia (combined usually with 3 or more other encryptions) but you must have a clear line or preferably a cable (fiber optics). It's bad for space because it's slow, and if you make your lists smaller, then it's faster but anyone can decrypt your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8227:A300:9444:E682:3FB:B7E3 ( talk) 18:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Reference 2, "History of Cryptography" is from Binance Academy, with no further sources at the reference source. Not sure where binance gets their info from, but this source is essentially just "dude trust me".
While I don't really doubt the truth of this claim, can we get a better source for early encryption and cryptographic history other than a binance article?