Fractal theory - page 5
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
7 to 72 hours on a normal workstation (CPU ~2.7-3GHz) at crypto-attack level KA1 (only the encrypted message is known).
I'm not an expert on ciphers, of course, but the figures look strange to say the least. It's not even a cipher anymore. I suppose that the modern cipher level corrects itself with progress in computational power (let's say we see that the "standard" size of the keys grows). So these figures probably refer to a cipher that is no longer modern.
The numbers refer to block ciphers based on DES and its modifications (e.g. 3-DES), depending on key size and modification.
By the way, the RSA algorithm was developed in 1973, if I am not mistaken, and is still widely used today, in banking systems, web technologies, etc.
Key size growth and cryptosystem level growth are not the same thing at all. This is the state of the art.
The numbers refer to block ciphers based on DES and its modifications (e.g. 3-DES), depending on key size and modification.
By the way, the RSA algorithm was developed in 1973, if I am not mistaken, and is still widely used today, in banking systems, web technologies, etc.
Key size growth and cryptosystem level growth are not the same thing at all. Here is the state of the art.
I apologise to the host of the thread for the obvious off-topic, but it's very interesting :). Two questions, that's all :).
1. Can you tell from an encrypted message what type of cipher was used?
2. What is the criterion for a "hit"? If, say, when trying variants one has to recognize that the output is finally a "human" text, then multiple (at least double) encryption would in theory just shut down the topic of decryption.
I apologise to the host for the obvious off-topic, but it's very interesting :). Two questions, that's all :).
1. Can you tell from an encrypted message what type of cipher was used?
2. What is the "hit" criterion? If, say, when trying variants one has to recognize that the output is finally "human" text, then a multiple (at least double) encryption would in theory just shut down the topic of decryption.
You should read some literature in this direction. Here, for example, there is an entertaining little bookcalled "Cryptography from Papyrus to Computer" by V. Zhelnikov.
In a nutshell:
1. Cryptanalyst is able to determine the type of encrypted message.
2. As different cryptosystems are used and different approaches to cryptanalysis, the "hit" criterion will be different. For example, if we talk about permutation ciphers or multi-alphabetic ciphers, the hit is close to 100%. Therefore they are not used widely now, but in days of the Second World War they were used only. However there are exceptions. Basically, unlocking of such ciphers is based on probable-statistical properties of language. For example, the frequency of occurrence of a combination of letters "po" and "psch" in Russian is completely different. Therefore, the initial message "Prdvay Zolto" instead of "Sell gold" will be understandable to a Russian person, but the combination of "prdv" will not fit the statistics of the Russian language, and this variant may be rejected during the cryptanalysis. Only variants with the highest probability of character combination will be selected. Double encryption, say using rearrangement ciphers will not give anything at all. Well this is just an example, I am not a cryptanalyst, I believe they also have a fairly rich set of methods and means of cryptanalysis for modern cryptosystems.
1. A cryptanalyst is able to determine the type of cipher from the appearance of the encrypted message.
2. Since different cryptosystems and different approaches to cryptanalysis are used, the "hit" criterion will be different. For example, if we talk about permutation ciphers or multi-alphabetic ciphers, the hit is close to 100%. Therefore they are not used widely now, but in days of the Second World War they were used only. However there are exceptions. Basically, unlocking of such ciphers is based on probable-statistical properties of language. For example, the frequency of occurrence of a combination of letters "po" and "psch" in Russian is completely different. Therefore, the initial message "Prdvay Zolto" instead of "Sell gold" will be understandable to a Russian person, but the combination of "prdv" will not fit the statistics of the Russian language, and this variant can be rejected during the cryptanalysis. Only variants with the highest probability of character combination will be selected. Double encryption, say using rearrangement ciphers will not give anything at all. Well this is just an example, I am not a cryptanalyst, I believe they also have a sufficiently rich set of methods and means of cryptanalysis for modern cryptosystems.
2. Well, "pre-EVM" ciphers are hardly worth considering today, of course, the question was not about that. The point is that if the cipher looks as really senseless set of symbols, at double cipher the correct answer will look the same senseless set, i.e. will not differ from wrong one. However, if you don't want to give away modern secrets, don't bother :). It was interesting anyway, thanks.
Are you sure you're talking about encryption now, not coding? ))) There are a number of requirements for cryptosystems (about 10 in total). Well, none of modern cryptosystems meets them all.
There is a logical operation XOR (exclusive "or"). With its use, double encryption with the same key will give us the original message. This is just an example, although some programmers still use this approach to encryption. It is like using Caesar's cipher in modern software. There are no secrets, there is just a field of mathematics, statistics, physics (by the way somewhere in the 80's they tried to create cryptosystems using photons to transmit information). In general, cryptography and cryptanalysis include a number of sciences.
Speaking of secrecy, cryptography is the kind of thing that allows an ordinary person to stand up to an entire state. Therefore, it is beneficial for the state to introduce systems that are not sufficiently crypto-secure in various fields.
It's been a long time since I've spoken to anyone on this topic. And thank you too.
Are you sure you're talking about encryption now, not coding? ))) There are a number of requirements for cryptosystems (about 10 in total). Well, none of modern cryptosystems meets them all.
There is a logical operation XOR (exclusive "or"). With its use, double encryption with the same key will give us the original message. This is just an example, although some programmers still use this approach to encryption. It's like using Caesar's cipher in modern software...
To distinguish the "basic structures" of fractals (i.e. patterns) from the history, we take a zigzag indicator (you can choose the moving averages crossover and any combination of indicators). It divides the quotes history into these parts.
Then we define the characteristics of these parts. The methodology can be different here. It can be binary recodings of bars, indicators' relative indexes, in general, there is a field for imagination. Let us call such data quasi-cell.
We select and calculate quasi-cells for all (necessary) timeframes.
Then, we compare the resulting quasi-cells by timeframes, gathering statistics for each type of quasi-cell.
A deeper analysis can identify the transition of one type of quasi-cell to another (morphism, growth, development).
For analysis, it is easier to identify the probability of occurrence for each quasi-cell species.
This is the preparation and analysis. Then, when trading, a similar real-time analysis of the market is made and compared with the existing quasi-cells for possible formation.
During the appearance of new bars we can calculate what kind of a cell is forming at the moment (according to different timeframes), and with a reasonable probability we can say how the formation of this cell will be finished (according to the available types of cells).
Is that a little clearer?
Timeframes set scaling coefficients, why on Earth should the market follow those coefficients? Imho, it would be more correct to speak not about timeframes, but about time horizons, in general they can be arbitrary. Whether the market is divided into discrete horizons is a separate question. If so, their separation is also a separate question :).
At one time I looked closer to such a task and even made a special zigzag. But then it got stalled. And I put the zigzag on the market, for a great price :).
Truly fractal indicators have no characteristic time scale, but always have a marginal time horizon. The time horizon is some point on the RS-function mapped in double logarithmic scales. At the same time the horizon includes all the younger, infinitely fractional, time scales (fractal nesting).
By the way, I solved this problem via zig-zag too. Indeed, as far as I understand the zig-zag is some analogue or rather a tool for calculation of fractionally integrated series and f-distributions. But it didn't go further than that for me either.