in reply to Encryption: RC4 enhancement?

I suggest you check out sci.crypt, but to quote the relevant bit of discouragement from the sci.crpyt FAQ:
Among professionals, a common rule of thumb is that if you want to design a cryptosystem, you have to have experience as a cryptanalyst +.
This advice applies as much to modifying existing cryptosystems as it does to creating new ones. Unless you have a serious theoretical background in probability and number theory, as well as in cryptanalysis, don't bother. In this problem domain, our resident monks will be about as helpful as the well-intentioned folks from rec.glass-blowing.
   MeowChow                                   
               s aamecha.s a..a\u$&owag.print

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Encryption: RC4 enhancement?
by sifukurt (Hermit) on Jul 13, 2001 at 18:15 UTC
    LOL! Wow, I didn't know the folks from rec.glass-blowing were so well informed on crypto and programming. :-)

    Point well taken. I do work with crypto, cryptosystems, and the implementation/use thereof on a daily basis, both as part of my work and as something I enjoy in my spare time. I've read the books, attended the seminars, etc. My purpose was two-fold:
    1. To get some general feedback on whether or not this may be a useful concept. Casual early analysis looks good, but I wanted more opinions than my own.
    2. To get some ideas for a faster/better/more efficient way of coding the encryption.
    That's actually why I hesitated to post anything. I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm proffering this as some super, extra-sneaky, brilliantly conceived, extraordinarly complex crypto idea that only I was capable of coming up with. Far, far from it. We've all seen our fair share of those sorts of posts, mostly from people who don't know good cryptography from a horse poopoo and anchovy pizza. I honestly intended for this to be a question, rather than a solution.