Ghideon

Have you tried google? Example: https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/with terabytes of data. You still need to adress the problem of understanding genetics and applicable concepts from computing if you want to form a scientifically meaningful, testable hypothesis. Note: As I said above genetic algoritms is not about analysis of genetics, it is an approach inspired by biology to solve problems from other areas.

Ok. You got it backwards. Analysing existing DNA structures to gain insights in genetics is not the same as utilising properties of DNA for some purpose (such as storing information per your link). But if you are interested in computer science concepts that use ideas from genetics (rather than the other way around; applying computer science concepts to genetics) then genetic algorithms may be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm. Genetic algorithms are commonly used to generate high-quality solutions to optimization and search problems via biologically inspired operators such as selection, crossover, and mutation...In a genetic algorithm, a population of candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, organisms, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem is evolved toward better solutions. Each candidate solution has a set of properties (its chromosomes or genotype) which can be mutated and altered (I did some minor work on this (about 25 years ago), did not manage to solve the problem but it allowed for interesting dinner conversations with a biology expert) I have not posted about cryptographic protocols in this thread. You on the other hand seem to describe some sort of protocol in your comment: Instead of repeating; you might take a look at the list of computer science concepts I provided?

From the link: Why do you think there is any connection between storing encrypted information in synthetic DNA and any sequences naturally occurring in DNA in living organisms? In think that is a misunderstanding of how cryptography works. A general goal of encryption is to eliminate observable patterns in the ciphertext that could reveal information about the plaintext or encryption key.

Treating genetics as a form of cryptography does not seem to be a fruitful approach. A central issue is that cryptography is about deliberately concealed representation that can be restored by performing decryption. As far as I know there is no such mechanism in genetics; genetic code lacks a cryptographic transformation requiring a secret key. Another issue is that cryptographic decryption must recover the original plaintext but in genetics there is generally a many-to-one transformation; multiple codons specify the same amino acid. How I would approach it: Some concepts from computer science that could be useful when discussing genetics: Encoding (binary data, character sets, message structures) Converting representations (transcoding, serialising) Decoding rules, specifications decoders / interpreters (parsers compilers) Error handling (checksums, error corrections) I have only a superficial understanding of genetics so from here I would need more knowledge about DNA sequences, DNA->RNA, Codons->Amino acids, tRNA, enzymes, DNA repair etc to be able to see if there is enough common ground for a discussion. And as @CharonY said "The bigger challenge is the functional characterization". The above does not address that. Side Note: "functional characterization" may be (loosely) connected to computing via an analogy; knowing a program's source code does not guarantee that we can determine all its functional properties. In computing Rice's theorem establishes a formal limit for arbitrary programs.

A password salt is a unique, random string of data added to a plaintext password before it is run through a cryptographic hash function. The salt is stored together with the hashed value for (password+salt). The hash function is one-way, there is no feasible algorithm that can retrieve the original password from the hash. When logging in, the system takes the stored salt, combines it with the entered password, hashes it again, and compares this hash value to the stored hash value. Without salt an attacker can retrieve the list of hashed passwords from a system and use a list of hashes (a "rainbow table") for common passwords and run a comparison. With salt generic precomputed tables are ineffective because each password has a unique salt so the attacker must recompute guesses separately per account. Note that salting is about hashing, rather than reversible encryption. Yes, that is the point with public key encryption. Establishing the identity of the communicating parties is already an integrated part of currently established protocols and commonly used public key infrastructures. Openssl was shown above and here is a command to verify identities, in this case www.scienceforums.net host=www.scienceforums.net openssl s_client \ -connect "$host:443" \ -servername "$host" \ -showcerts \ -verify_return_error \ -verify_hostname "$host" </dev/nullFor testing and education badssl.com provides intentionally incorrect settings. Example: Use the above command with the following host to see that you get a "hostname mismatch" wrong.host.badssl.com (I think a complete explanation of certificate chains, issuers, trusted root certificates etc is off topic here)

In my opinion parallells between the Potter universe and LLMs like those in ChataGPT are more obvious in the Chamber of Secrets than in Prisoner of Azkaban. After a misadventure, that includes a flying Ford Anglia, Ron Weasley's wand malfunctions and starts to mimic an LLM; when prompted to produce something useful it often spits out crazy sh*t.

Good point! I could have clarified the separation. In real application of public key encryption there are complete ecosystems, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). trurl's posts mixes cryptographic concepts (for instance encryption/decryption) and infrastructure concepts (key generation, key exchange etc). I think the following clarifies: And as you say there are other vulnerabilities related to this, beyond attacks based mathematical properties.

missed that one; simple: Eve impersonates Caesar during key distribution and gives Alice Eve's public key while claiming it belongs to Caesar. Alice then encrypts using Eve's key, for which Eve has the corresponding private key. How does Alice authenticate that the public key actually belongs to Caesar? In established public key cryptographic protocols this problem is well-known and solutions exist.

I did read the article* and no such thing is mentioned. As pointed out by several members above you have no working protocol for encryption. The receiver gets a message that is ambiguous. In Gematria different texts can produce the same numerical value and this can be used to imply mysterious connections or meanings, I suggest you open a thread in religion of this is you area of interest. In computing a related concept is "hash collision"**. Hash functions and cryptographic hash functions have many uses, for instance in relation to protecting sensitive information. There are interesting mathematical aspects better left for some other thread. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria Edited on 26 August 2026 21:04 (utc) **) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_collision

Caesar now have two private keys. Gematria is a concept from numerology (not cryptology). I begin to think this was posted in the wrong section…

The newest post doesn't answer earlier objections, and: Two parties need one private key each to be able to communicate bidirectional. For sending messages in one direction then only the receiver needs their private key to decrypt incoming messages that was encrypted using the public key. Note: No-one needs someone else's private key. No-one needs two private keys*. *) of course there are practical implementations where organisations use multiple private keys but that is out of scope for this simple case.

As for the title of the thread "Can you use traditional cipher be used in public key cryptography?". Assuming @Trurl means symmetric encryption (encryption that lacks public keys) when saying "traditional" then the answer is trivially "yes". The TLS* protocol (earlier versions named SSL) uses public key encryption during handshake to communicate symmetric session keys that are more efficient for the payload traffic. Good question. One reason is edge devices with limited compute power needing secure communication, for instance battery powered devices communicating with cloud services. Looking at statistics (according to google) RSA and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC/ECDSA) run nearly neck-and-neck in active internet SSL/TLS certificate usage. Without interpreting the statistics; short version: Elliptic Curve Cryptography provides same level of security as RSA with shorter keys and with less computation, a possible drawback is there may be compatibility issues with older clients. Side note for the curious: this bash command shows the this forum supports elliptic curves: nmap --script ssl-enum-ciphers -p 443 www.scienceforums.net(the above may require installation on windows. Tested on macOS.) I totally agree. even if (and that is a huge if) the idea would provide a crypto there are other issues such as (not a complete list) -establishing identities: How do I trust the issuer the keys? What is the identity of the sender? (everyone havs the public key). what do I do if the sender claims they did not send a message? What do I do if the private key is stolen? -Text: focuses on text but secure communications needs encrypted traffic regardless of content; documents, images, audio, video, ... -Language: The description does not work for different character sets No such thing exists as far as I know, you seem to be mixing different historical concepts. Scytale is associated with Sparta and is a transposition chipher. Caesar cipher is a substitution cipher associated with Julius Caesar. There are two possible interpretations : 1: your idea describes something that is trivial to decrypt; just by looking at the public key. 2: your idea generates some kind of a lossy encoding, not an encryption. If there is no one to one mapping between plaintext and encryption then no one, not even the intended receiver, can decrypt the message regardless of possession of public, private or both keys. This mans the idea can not be used in the context of encryption. *) "the S in HTTPS" in layman's terms, used heavily in secure internet communication

Note to @Trurl if you happen to be on MacOS you can run the bash commands in the terminal directly (openssl is usually preinstalled)

You said (bold by me) My comment: If you encrypt with the private key then everyone with the public key can decrypt. There is a use case for encrypting with the private key but it is related to creating and verifying digital signatures. Anyway, This is what you need to describe in more detail. So far the idea you describe makes decryption trivial by using the public key. Note: It is a little confusing; you have two private keys, the public key needs to be created somehow.

More details would be required to provide an answer; there seems to be a mixture of encryption, encoding and signing in your post. That defeats the principal property of public-key encryption. Encryption: plaintext --recipient's public key--> ciphertext ciphertext --recipient's private key--> plaintext Signature: message --signer's private key--> signature message + signature --signer's public key--> valid / invalid Encoding: data --encoding rules--> encoded data encoded data --decoding rules--> data