Windtalking Computers: Frequency Normalization, Binary Coding Systems and Encryption

TL;DR

This paper introduces novel encryption techniques using frequency normalization and alternative binary bases, significantly increasing decryption complexity and aiming for information-theoretic security.

Contribution

It presents two new encryption methods: frequency-based symbol set alteration and binary base variation, enhancing security beyond traditional approaches.

Findings

Frequency analysis becomes ineffective on ciphertext.

Alternative binary bases increase decryption complexity.

Encryption methods are computationally secure against brute force.

Abstract

This paper discusses the application of known techniques, knowledge and technology in a novel way for encryption. Two distinct and separate methods are presented. Method 1: Alter the symbol set of the language by adding additional redundant symbols for frequent symbols. This will reduce the high frequency of more commonly used symbols. Hence, frequency analysis upon ciphertext will not be possible. Hence, decryption will be possible. Method 2: Computers use binary base 2. Most encryption systems use ciphering to convert data to ciphertext. The author presents the theory and several possible implementations of a method for computers analogous to speaking another language. This is done by using a binary base other than base 2. Ex. Fibonacci, Phi or Prime. In addition, steganography may be used for creating alternate binary bases. This kind of encryption significantly increases the complexity of decryption. First the binary base must be known. Only then, can decryption begin. This kind of encryption also breaks the transitivity of plaintext-codebook-binary; the correlation of letters-ASCII-base2. With this transitivity broken, decryption is logically impossible. Coupled with encrypting the plaintext, binary encryption makes decryption uncrackable. It may produce false positives--information theoretic secure, and requires much more computing power to resolve than is currently used in brute force decryption. Hence, the assertion that these combination of methods are computationally secure--impervious to brute force. The proposed system has a drawback. It is not as compressed as a base2. (Similar to adding random padding to the encryption.) However, this is acceptable, since the goal is very strong encryption: Both methods are not decryptable by method uncrackable - by conventional, statistical means.