Encryption and Decryption Requirements v1.2

1.     Current situation

It is quite messy. Any junks could enter any personal PC or networks at any time including government’s PC and networks.

All OS and anti-virus software had embedded bugs years ago by those fuckers. Thus there was no security to any person as junks would do anything with our personal information stolen from our PC.

Many of junk and fucker’s PC and network as well as their software messages were encrypted that law enforcement couldn’t decrypt.

So, it’s like junks and fuckers have been controlling/snooping computers and networks. It wasn’t law enforcement as expected.

Most of those junks, insane, and fuckers are users of neural networks, i.e. deadly.

2.     Proposed solution

a.      PC should be better equipped, thus any unauthorized personnel couldn’t infiltrated. Basically nobody could enter unless users had installed malware that was not detected by an Internet Defender, Packet Analyzer, or antivirus software in that PC.

b.      Law enforcement should be able to

-         Seize a suspected PC or network for investigation during a period of time. This would give law enforcement a tool to investigate and stop criminals as needed. If there was an “implemented” gate for law enforcement to enter our PC or network at any time, those tools would be leaked to junks and fuckers one day. We’d face the same mess as of today.

-         Snooping would be a privilege of law enforcement authority. All encrypted messages must be able to be decrypted at designated terminals.

o   Decryption key must be a combination of software and specific hardware. Nobody could safeguard a master software key, i.e. leaked to junks and fuckers.

o   Any designated terminals above must be safeguarded by assigned personnel.

o   With snooping ability, law enforcement would require fewer cases to seize our PC or network, i.e. less interruption to our daily activity.

-         Law enforcement’s organization had rules to follow regarding snooping and seizing a computer, thus it doesn’t cause headaches as what insane, junks and fuckers did to our computers. Law enforcement would purge our PC data in their server, if we were not the criminals that they had thought.

c.      Currently law enforcement in many countries have cooperated in the fight against junks, fuckers, and insane using neural networks, thus they have been sharing a lot of information with each other.

-         The issue of sovereignty would come up when we have finished destroying neural networks.

-         Many targeted junks, insane, and fuckers would still be hiding around and waited to build another neural network or to spy on all of us.

The decryption terminals of each country should be within borders. However if an encrypted message crossed a border, then law enforcement of the sender’s massages would help the other law enforcement to decrypt that message.

3.     Variable encryption keys and channel hopping

a. Mobile telephony technology

In mobile telephony, there is an authentication algorithm involving SSD to authenticate a mobile phone terminal. The SSD is changing every time a mobile phone user made a call. This SSD was generated by a server and mobile phone based on some predetermined parameters each time. This is a dynamic authentication technology.

A mobile phone is communicated with a radio base station (RBS) in a designated voice channel. There are many (frequency) channels available for many mobile phones. By changing the channels from time to time during a call would make eave dropping harder. Of course, the mobile phone and RBS must know how to communicate correctly in this frequency hopping case.

Currently many encryption algorithms allow a master key to decrypt all messages. This is a weakness as nobody could safe guard a software or hardware master key in many years.

b. Messy situation

The current situation is messy, because hackers could hack any company or private computer at any time with holes embedded in operating systems, popular applications as well as malware spread over the Internet.

Why did they hack our personal computer even though we didn’t have anything sensitive or valuable? They have too much free time.

If we could make all company networks secured, hackers would be busy hacking all business for their financial statements, business plans, etc. They wanted that stuff for making money. Of course, personal computer would be safe and secured or ignored by hackers.

c. Deploying dynamic encryption and hoping frequency

By using dynamic authentication, SSD, as an encryption key to decrypt a message we could have dynamic encryption for our communications. The algorithm could use some unique IDs of the user and hardware, too.

SSD is generated by an algorithm, thus there could be several algorithms to generate SSD for both server and a terminal, i.e. a pool of algorithms to change occasionally or in each communication.

-         Communication could be changed with dynamic encryption and channel hopping technologies, i.e. computer for Internet, landline phone, cable (for Internet and VoIP phone).

-         Mobile phone protocols

-         Satellite, if it is used for communications. I guess, satellite TV is lower priority. The only concern would be GPS navigator, but it’s not easy to obtain a GPS’ ID of a user device.

-         TV broadcasting is at lower priority

-         All business networks must be secured with all relevant updates and bug fixes by software providers.

Government agencies have authority and tools to decrypt messages with “designated and controlled” terminals, thus they could monitor the Internet for malicious activities. They could enter those control rooms for Internet, cable, satellite, or mobile phone easily, btw.

4. Example for protocol of dynamic encryption
4.1 Setting up encryption sequence

Assuming that bank and user PC have a list of encryption algorithms available for communication. Because some encryption algorithms are not available on some PC or servers, there should be some overhead messages to exchange the list and order of encryption algorithms to be used.

In the above scenario, bank or a financial institution would order the sequence of encryption to be used in subsequence communication, i.e. encryption named E1, encryption named E2, and encryption named E3.

·        PC1 would acknowledge the request with Ack_OK if it has all 3 encryption algorithms suggested by the bank. Future communication would rely on all 3 encryption algorithms, i.e. E1, E2, and E3 in that order.

·        PC1 would reply with encryption named E1 and E3 to the bank, if it only has E1 and E3 stored in its PC. In this case, bank would reply with an accepted message. Future communication would rely on only 2 encryption algorithms, i.e. E1 and E3 in that order.

4.2 Communication with accepted order

The bank server could communicate with many PC users at the same time. The sequential order of algorithms to each PC users could be different. For example, PC2 would use the order E3, E1, and E2 suggested by the bank.

In each subsequence messages, the protocol would include the number of encryption to be used in decryption for each user. For example,

In the above message for PC1, the first message would use encryption E2, and the second message would use encryption E1.

If the same message above sent to PC2, the first message would use encryption E1, and the second message would use encryption E3.

4.3 Changing sequence of encryption algorithm periodically

The control server, e.g. bank, could order changing the sequence of encryption algorithms periodically with protocol described in the section 4.1.

If hacker eaves drop at the middle of a message, they wouldn’t be able to figure out the meaning of “1, 2, or 3”. Those numbers had been associated in encryption algorithms during initial set up.

Financial institutions, ecommerce, and government servers should order a sequence of encryption algorithms in communication. However, PC of a user should order the sequence of encryption algorithms in communication for communication with other servers.

In case of mobile telephony, an RBS should order the sequence of encryption algorithms to each mobile user.