Jump to content




RC4 Encryption API

api wireless networking

31 replies to this topic

#21 theoriginalbit

    Semi-Professional ComputerCrafter

  • Moderators
  • 7,332 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 10 August 2013 - 03:20 AM

 PixelToast, on 01 August 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

i dont see a good way to generate large primes :/
KillaVanilla seemed to do it fine in his security protocol implementation...

 PixelToast, on 09 August 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

o_O the topic was changed from RSA, derpy me
o.O It has always been RC4................

#22 PixelToast

  • Signature Abuser
  • 2,265 posts
  • Location3232235883

Posted 10 August 2013 - 11:33 AM

im pretty sure it was RSA before, idk

#23 Elrond1369

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 14 August 2013 - 10:50 AM

I doesn't seem to be working. It return question marks because it tries to uses unknown characters.

#24 PixelToast

  • Signature Abuser
  • 2,265 posts
  • Location3232235883

Posted 14 August 2013 - 11:29 AM

 Elrond1369, on 14 August 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

I doesn't seem to be working. It return question marks because it tries to uses unknown characters.
nope
it works fine, (other than breaking after 255 chars because he is using modulo wrong c_c)

#25 AgentE382

  • Members
  • 119 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 04:56 PM

 PixelToast, on 14 August 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

 Elrond1369, on 14 August 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

I doesn't seem to be working. It return question marks because it tries to uses unknown characters.
nope
it works fine, (other than breaking after 255 chars because he is using modulo wrong c_c)

Hey, would you check my implementation for that error?

I'm pretty sure it works for large data, but it would help to get independent verification.

#26 PixelToast

  • Signature Abuser
  • 2,265 posts
  • Location3232235883

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:19 PM

i already tested it, its fine and is also significantly more efficient (200%) when encrypting large amounts of data

#27 theoriginalbit

    Semi-Professional ComputerCrafter

  • Moderators
  • 7,332 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 18 August 2013 - 12:53 AM

 PixelToast, on 17 August 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

is also significantly more efficient (200%)
Supply proof, or else people will think you've just made up that number.

#28 PixelToast

  • Signature Abuser
  • 2,265 posts
  • Location3232235883

Posted 18 August 2013 - 01:54 PM

i tested it with a couple os.time tests
c_c
even after my tweaks to nevercatsts to reduce function calls and fix the overflow error it took seconds to encrypt a huge amount of data
and agents took around 0.5 seconds on average
its mostly due to the fact that nevercast uses the key state table in an awkward way and he was swapping indices correctly:
local t=stuff1
stuff1=stuff2
stuff2=t
while agent did this:
stuff1,stuff2=stuff2,stuff1
i dont remember exactly what most of the results were (and i dont have the time to test it for you)

and i dont see why i had to supply proof, i said i tested it

#29 theoriginalbit

    Semi-Professional ComputerCrafter

  • Moderators
  • 7,332 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 18 August 2013 - 02:41 PM

 PixelToast, on 18 August 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

and i dont see why i had to supply proof, i said i tested it
Because you magically pulled "200%" out of the air... And it is important that people see how numbers are calculated otherwise it could just be bias data/info...
Would you believe me if i told you that my computer was 158.746% more efficient than yours?

#30 PixelToast

  • Signature Abuser
  • 2,265 posts
  • Location3232235883

Posted 18 August 2013 - 02:46 PM

i did not pull 200% out of the air, that was on average how fast it completed (iirc results from 0.6-1 and 3-5) .-. i tested it, its more of a credibility issue
i would not believe your computer was more efficient because you dont have my computer at your disposal and efficiency dosent have a constant ratio for computers, that is a different thing entirely
a better example would be something like screen size (i know mine is smaller), though a lot of people posted in the post your desktop thread

#31 NeverCast

  • Members
  • 400 posts
  • LocationChristchurch, New Zealand

Posted 20 August 2013 - 11:59 PM

Pixel, What are the issues in my script, I'll amend them :)
I'm glad it works with large data, I think that was the intention anyway.

#32 DannySMc

  • Members
  • 1,808 posts
  • Location/home/dannysmc95

Posted 11 March 2016 - 11:08 AM

I love this very much and I plan to use it in a new update, my only question is there anyway to fix the 245 character limit? I did testing and anything over 245 characters will break the encryption... Have you got any way to fix this? Thanks (Sorry for the necro)

Edited by DannySMc, 11 March 2016 - 11:08 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users