3 ms·
> You'd need to cleverly narrow down the definition of "encrypted" you're operating under. absolutely. I suppose I should have explained that I'm thinking of
by bsedlm 5y ago
> You'd need to cleverly narrow down the definition of "encrypted" you're operating under.
absolutely.
I suppose I should have explained that I'm thinking of "practical key-based symmetric(?) encryption", i.e. ecryption which hinges on a key which gets "expanded" by some clever (and aribtrary) algorithm into enough bits for any message; and which (it goes without saying) can be decrypted back exactly given a key and an algorithm (the same ones or at least very similar ones if symmetric).
I'm not knowledgeable enough in cryptography to easily consider the assymetric case; but I don't think symmatric-asymmetrica changes things that much.
- jerf 5y agoIn that case you can encrypt your message by considering it as one big number, and creating a message long enough to encrypt to that many blocks. Inefficient in this particular case, but there are length-related attacks, so it's at least not crazily out of the domain of discourse. But I had to wait for you to qualify it that way, because if someone knows this is your plan, they can compensate with an "encryption" scheme that counters the approach.