Re: how to detect breakage -- lures etc.??
Ray Dillinger <[email protected]> Wed, 01 Jan 2020 14:31:17 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.encryption.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
If we're going to bring up rotor machines though, I've got a thought. Remember the flat rotors that were made for the bombes? They had all their contacts on one side, just because that made it convenient to set up the machine. You could pop them in and out independently, without tearing down a stack and the machine around it, and setting it up again. Why weren't the rotor machines made that way in the first place? meaning, rotors making contact with contacts on the body of the machines instead of with each other? In the first place it allows more flexibility with wiring - outputs from one wheel could be split between inputs of multiple different other wheels, or light-board lights illuminated on signals drawn from more than one wheel, or "extra" outputs of larger rotors beyond the number needed for the lightboard could be connected back to the "extra" inputs of the same rotors that take the input from the keyboard on their other terminals, etc.... As long as each rotor has a definite input-to-output direction and the wiring respects that parity, it's guaranteed that all the inputs wind up at the outputs eventually because there's no place else to go, no way for two signals going the same input-to-output direction to get connected with each other, and no way for a signal to get into an infinite loop, because if there's no way out of a loop then ipso facto there's no way in. The kind of wiring you could use with "open face" rotors could be far, far more difficult to analyze than the "stacked rotor" variety of machines ever made them. Especially because.... In the second place it allows rotors of different sizes, so if you use six or eight rotors of different sizes with a very large least common multiple, you don't ever have to NOT MOVE any of them. They will cycle into all their permutations, with uniform distributions among those permutations, just by not having the same period. And you'll have a very long key stream, and your opponent won't ever get a chance to see what any proper subset of those rotors do. And mechanically, it's brutally simple to just move every rotor one space, every time. That can easily be made robust, reliable, compact, and lightweight, rather than intricate, fiddly, and prone to failure. So.... why did the stacked-rotor variety ever dominate over the flat- rotor variety? Bear _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list [email protected] https://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography