Do you want to permanently delete this comment?
This text may contain very explicit scenes and is not suitable for younger readers. Are you old enough and willing to read this text nonetheless?
Choose your ingredients and mix a Cocktail for you and your friends.
Hier findet ihr nützliches Zubehör für Rollenspiele.
Einfach einen Würfel auswählen und das Ergebnis erscheint im Chat :)
The next time you want to go shopping on Amazon, you could do it with this link:
Amazon for Belletristicans
(Only works for amazon.de at the moment)
... because if you get to Amazon via Bellatristica, we get up to 10% of the value of your shopping cart, without making it cost more.
The same thing works from everywhere on Belle, no matter if it's a book recommendation in our Blog or an Amazon link in a profile.
Everything we earn this way, will be added to Belletristia's development budget.
Thank you very, very much! :)
- Ben & Sebastian
Contrary to popular perception, Ceasarian shifts are not necessarily completely useless. However it's not something to use as a singular symmetric component, but in conjunction with other processes. For example, the functionality of the Ceasar Cipher can be expanded to include alphabetic shifting rather than purely the shifting of a single letter. This is significant for a major reason.
The life expectancy of other traditional ciphers can be extended by using an expanded alphabet, such as the playfair cipher and the two square cipher. For example, having a different two square cipher per alphabetic variation, and then in the bottom row, having a Cesarean shift of the second multi alphabetic row. For adding security, you could also have this bottom row have an alphabetic permutation.
To dismiss cipher functions outright is completely irresponsible, and reflective of the growing dysfunction of the American security institution. However as have been implied by quantum computing, the life expectancy is being drastically shortened by this new development. Even one of the inventors of the Diffie-Hellman system admits that quantum computing doesn't effect symmetric cryptography nearly as much. It's making people have to rethink about how they use cryptography, up to and including use of the one time pad.Which is part of what amuses me about this one guy, that keeps promoting the use of public key cryptography as if it were gospel.
This could become increasingly dangerous advice in the next coming decades. Which is why you shouldn't just listen to anybody on the net, even Bruce Schneier. (Who didn't want a symmetric cryptography competition at one point, by the way.)Let not be assholes, and dismiss individual components.
To leave a comment, join us withoror via email.