# Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intell...

#### Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

•  Subject
• Author
• Posted on
unique_string (all letters)
&m9#&B0+1,9m. (none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
mapped equivalent to each corresponding unique character)
&m9#&B0+1,.(none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
mapped equivalent to each character in order of appearance without
repetition)

Consider the first the name.
Consider the second the challenge key.
Consider the third the passcode.

Once a valid passcode is input it is easy to map it to the challenge
key.
Once a valid challenge key has been confirmed both can be checked for
correctness.
The process of a computer figuring out a correct passcode without
first applying it to the challenge is information theoretically
secure.
Because while we know the number of variations far exceed
computational limits and restrictions of time and memory, we also know
the problem can theoretically be solved only when a first attempt is
made in observance of require orders of characteristics.
In other words the machine actually only turns on once the decision
To prove this consider all names and passcodes combinations are either
on or off name and passcode combinations.
Once a name is on there need only be provided the passcode to unlock
the information.
However if the name is off first must be provided to the name the
correct challenge key to turn it on.
Following the correct challenge key being accepted the correct
passcode can be immediately computed and entered.
We know based on the name certain position variables will repeat in
the challenge code.
The simple way to prove this is if the name has repeating characters
completely unique and unused challenge key characters will also repeat
in the same positions.
Therefore the first logical step in solving the problem or finding the
solution is to take the set of all possible characters and eliminate
the characters used in the name.
Once this is done we know the challenge key will consist of only
characters remaining from the set of all possible characters once the
name characters are removed.

So if my name is "Martin Musatov", I can eliminate all
M,a,r,t,i,n,s,o,v characters. What we are left with once the
requirement is added the challenge code contain numbers and
punctuation mapped equivalent is a binary form.

If name is 01010101
any  NPNPNPNP will meet the valid challenge format test
provided definitions are set for N to include all numbers and P to
include all punctuation without repetition
and of course 0 represents all letters and 1 represents all languages

The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
of the contribution.

+u

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:

And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.

BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
a concept.  If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.

If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
"intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
purely mataphoric sense.

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:

In the United States you can, anyway.  I don't know about the rest of
the world.

Many computer algorithms are patented.  For instance, the RSA algorithm
is U.S. Patent 4,405,829.  I don't see that as any different than what
the op is proposing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote:

You can what?  Can patent a concept?    He just explained that you can't!!
I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said that
you can't.  The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept.
Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program.  I have patents on both
hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was
explained to me, was *just* a concept.  Sorry, I didn't get the dollar that
was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.

My server does not have enough history so I can see what was
proposed/asserted/blabbed about, so it is possible the
notion/concept/whatever/  could be *converted* into something that could be
patented.

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

On 1/24/2013 3:48 PM, osmium wrote:

Many "concepts" have been patented.  The RSA patent is, for instance, an
algorithm.  There is no code associated with the patent, and of course,
no logic drawings.

And then there are, of course, the "look and feel" patents, i.e. the
unlock slider on Apple I-Phones.  Yes, Apple DOES have a patent on it,
and courts have found it is enforceable.  Again, it's a concept - no
code or logic diagrams associated with it.

There are many, many others.

I guess they just have better patent attorneys.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote:

But there *are* logic drawings in the RSA patent, I just looked at it.  This
is an instance of what I mentioned earlier, sometimes you can shake things
around and convert a concept to a patent.  That's exactly what happened
here.

I'm quite sure that Apple has what is called a "design" patent; a real
patent is a letters patent.  The shape of a Coke bottle is a design patent.
(Or was.  I don't know if that has been influenced by Disney's work on
extending Mickey Mouse's lifetime out to infinity.)  The xerography patent
is over and done with, yet Mickey Mouse is still paying vast rewards.  Some
of those rewards are distributed to our congresspersons.

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

On 1/24/2013 5:49 PM, osmium wrote:

I looked at it also.  What you call "logical drawings" are just an
algorithm in visual form.

It is a "look and feel" patent.  Period.

I guess these companies have better patent attorneys than you do.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:21:11 AM UTC-8, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

On Friday, February 22, 2013 10:27:36 PM UTC-8, Martin Musatov wrote:

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:10:42 PM UTC-8, Martin Musatov wrote:

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

On 2/23/2013 1:15 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:

... Noting worth repeating.

Still spamming usenet with your crap?  Still don't know the difference
between a copyright and a patent?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

Heck, even if that idea were protectable by copyright obtained by
publishing to Usenet, the expression of it is so garbled that it's
essentially useless.  Imagine what a patent clerk would do with a
patent written like that.

## Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

On 2/23/2013 11:52 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:

Knowing how screwed up the U.S. patent system is, he'd probably get it!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================