Page 33 - cdm-2014

It is hard to do. It is really, really hard to be really, really ingenious but that is the correct way to
progress to the required algorithm. I was always seeing the wrong view: just when it looks
completely secure I would realize why it wasn't. So I would find another way to make it so. I had
to reject every wrong algorithm possible. I did not want to remove any of my ingenious ideas just
to obtain a quicker algorithm which would have been more at risk.

The whole purpose of using these ingenious ideas is to increase the efficiency. This is a
completely different thing to increasing the work load. For an efficient algorithm to exist there
must be enough appropriate calculations in place. If it's not efficient enough then the algorithm
will be asked to do more work than it should and if it doesn't contain enough calculations it will
probably fail whilst looking as if it's safe.

The three who solved the first Eternity will have all realized that its creator put in too many
pieces (along with some of the others who tried). He relied mainly on large quantities of data to
try and make the puzzle impossible instead of building an efficient system which eliminated all
excess valid permutations. He didn't even know how many correct solutions there were so he
had a complete loss of algorithm control. He knew that with a small number of pieces, 12 or 20,
the puzzle was very difficult so he reasoned that increasing the number of pieces alone would
do the trick. Of course, most of the solvers did fail but three did not. With enough mathematical
skill an ordinary computer was used to successfully crack the puzzle and that is the sort of
threat I had to expire.

An algorithm that isn't efficient enough will seem "safe" now. It looks quick. However, in 30 or 40
years' time any weaknesses within it will probably be blown wide open. There are countless
examples of this in engineering. A scrape with the ground on a 747 was not repaired properly
and 20 years' later it broke apart in flight with devastating consequences.

Passwords are not a science. They are an art, created within a strict set of mathematical
constraints (just like flowers).
Do you see it? Passwords are a subset of flowers. You just hope that no one guesses your
particular design.

Flowers are nothing more than varieties of passwords.

Various computing people have written articles about password creation but have any of them
written books which tell the world's best mathematicians and cryptographers how to encrypt
their passwords?

About The Author

From California this young author spends most of her time working in a computer store. An avid
fanatic of sudoku and crosswords, reading several articles on cryptography lead her to the
inspiration she needed for her first ebook.

! " $ !
! # ! "