Object Code Checking; what constitutes a back door in encryption?

 If I want to certify object code but don't want to share the source, ONE idea would be to provide an interpretive script that duplicates it.

Encryption would be an example. My idea was: if I can write C++ code that decrypts text enciphered by my python3 implementation, that would certify it while capitalizing on faster execution, yet defeating efforts to brute force cryptograms. 

Specifically in encryption, the rule is: nothing secret except the message and the password. Ethically, derived key material represents a grey area.

If I use a C++ object from an unknown source, and this object decrypts what Python has enciphered AND Python decrypts what the object has enciphered, then the object is valid - as long as I check EVERY message. A back door treats some passwords (or messages) differently.

As a learned rule, this helps me think more clearly about it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Question About Erasthmus' Sieve

Notice of corrupted results: Vigenere may yet be found to be a "group."

A Simple Rule for the Stock Market