Don't be simpleminded. A cryptographic algorithm does not have to be all one step. One can encrypt an already encrypted file, that was itself already encrypted. Likewise, one can decrypt a file that has already been decrypted. Triple DES does this everyday, in fact.
You erred. You assumed that extracting the Windows XP message from DOS had to be performed in a single step. That sort of oversimplification of cryptography either means that you don't really know much about the field, or that you are deliberately setting up a strawman to knock down later, perhaps by claiming that since what I asked "had" to be performed in a single step (when it doesn't), that I was changing the game (when I demonstrably was not).
You do get credit for having a bad attitude, but not for being clever.
"No, post #557 in a nutshell was that you were trying to change her suggestion (huge number of serial bitwise changes) into something else entirely (a single gigantic cryptographic transformation that makes the transition in one single step). It's pure apples and oranges. The fact that you think your post is relevant in any way to hers shows that you either fail to understand her example, or that you don't understand your own (i.e., the nature of cryptographic transformations)."Don't be simpleminded.
I wouldn't know how.
A cryptographic algorithm does not have to be all one step. One can encrypt an already encrypted file, that was itself already encrypted. Likewise, one can decrypt a file that has already been decrypted. Triple DES does this everyday, in fact.
...and triple DES can be considered a single transformation. f(f(f(x))) is no different from its composite single function, g(x).
The fact remains that a cryptographic transformation with a SINGLE key (you suggested 96 bits as a maximum), no matter how complicated and multi-stepped, is still a transformation that takes the input data and produces the output data in a single leap, which is drastically different from what the person to whom you were responding had suggested as a possible mechanism.
Nice try, but do not pass Go, do not collect $200. You either grossly misunderstood her suggestion, or you were unable to understand your own counterexample well enough to realize why you were arguing oranges to her apples.
You can't salvage it by waving your hands like this.
You erred.
*snort* I'm not the one making ludicrous comparisons that aren't even in the same ballpark, son.
You assumed that extracting the Windows XP message from DOS had to be performed in a single step. That sort of oversimplification of cryptography either means that you don't really know much about the field, or that you are deliberately setting up a strawman to knock down later, perhaps by claiming that since what I asked "had" to be performed in a single step (when it doesn't), that I was changing the game (when I demonstrably was not).
Do your hands get chafed when you wave them that much?
I know cryptography well, don't try to teach your grandma to suck eggs. I know it better than you do, since unlike you I'm not foolish enough to try to split hairs about the irrelevant difference between an iterative algorithm and single-pass one. The fact remains, however, that by requiring a single 96-bit key, as you did, any encryp0tion algorithm whatsoever, no matter how complex, which requires that key for operation is a single-step encryption algorithm -- it takes an input, the computer cranks for a while, and then the output emerges.
Deal with it -- your silly encryption challenge was in no way homologous to her point. Give it up. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
You do get credit for having a bad attitude, but not for being clever.
Yawn. Come back when you have an argument. Being cutesy and insulting just doesn't cut it, and it only makes it painfully clear just how little defense you actually have for your post. I caught you at it, and no amount of dancing around and being snide is going to deflect attention from that. In fact, it only makes it worse.