Re: Ciphers (Was: Berber/Tifinagh)

From: John Cowan (cowan@mercury.ccil.org)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 09:51:11 EST

  • Next message: Jim Allan: "RE: Hexadecimal digits?"

    jon@hackcraft.net scripsit:

    > That would not describe the current use Theban (when it offers no real
    > secrecy, and when most occultists are aware of modern computer-based
    > encryption).

    The intention of secrecy is not the same thing, obviously, as actual
    secrecy, as too many have found out to their cost. But surely the reason
    for using Theban, as a practical matter, is to keep the cowans (:-)) out?

    "Kid-sister" encryption has its place. For example, a system I
    worked on maintained credit card numbers in a database. Using strong
    encryption would have been pointless, considering that the key
    would have to be on the system for on-line credit card operations.
    But it seemed worthwhile to use a simple encryption to keep
    DB administrators from seeing card numbers by accident. So we
    encoded each digit as a 4-character string in binary, but using
    0 and O instead of 0 and 1. So credit card numbers looked like
    0O000O0OO0O0000O0OOO00OO0O00O00O0OO00O0OO00O000O000000OO0OO000O0.
    Seeing that over someone's shoulder wouldn't help you much.

    -- 
    "We are lost, lost.  No name, no business, no Precious, nothing.  Only empty.
    Only hungry: yes, we are hungry.  A few little fishes, nassty bony little
    fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death.  So wise they are; so just,
    so very just."  --Gollum        jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 10:45:35 EST