Re: [Cfrg] Crystalline Cipher

Tony Arcieri <> Thu, 21 May 2015 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E281ACDBE for <>; Wed, 20 May 2015 17:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sBiX-sWbvNj9 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2015 17:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 100661ACD9F for <>; Wed, 20 May 2015 17:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oihd6 with SMTP id d6so5956625oih.2 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2015 17:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=O6yxKOU07OOWiPzdCOGaC7uycYkW2KXHqU9CkGFXwIo=; b=Gsg0jCxv25RaqFGCtYp3DVWcHHtVCOQe8H1K8IV8SCdI4U2hPc2WsuS1irRqFi7V4J WZ6EgTj5IKmCvY4qEsbAjD4WuQEcR7uz8sgckg7pO5grAHeL8NHIAEhAhMkRtFGTY7CH foy8VSLoMlx317gH0Z7FcpbezlTDwK184cROzjFi6vemB+7Azm8FbvJfqPR+5PgucybQ O8yyFeIPoY4olNtjGp12Qdw5IL+FVOU6gqAmsQZjE5U560QQ2PvSGDnSFDFG75HpHmz1 dPFGN7WItGobHrEYXjREByxHJmMIJGOHLEUIxggLBYwmDsOmiLjwixxMd4Pjt+KGYQsj CAPA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id c6mr55188obz.84.1432168505569; Wed, 20 May 2015 17:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 20 May 2015 17:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Tony Arcieri <>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:34:45 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Mark McCarron <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0111bdf408775905168cb7a8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Crystalline Cipher
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 00:35:08 -0000

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mark McCarron <>

> I'm somewhat disappointed in your reply, as I presumed that someone with a
> stated interest in ciphers would be eager to investigate anything new to
> pop up that didn't have obvious holes in it.

Hi Mark,

I did investigate your scheme, and I'm afraid to say it's obviously broken.
It appears to be an implementation of a Knuth Shuffle with a few added
bells and whistles.

This image, which I believe you produced, shows repeated patterns in the

Likewise, there are severe failures on Chi Squared tests:


Overall Chi Squared value is 7474.808 (threshold 18.4753)
Overall likely non-uniform (>99%)

Overall Chi Squared value is 13485.34 (threshold 30.5779)
Overall likely non-uniform (>99%)

Overall Chi Squared value is 20607.94 (threshold 52.1914)
Overall likely non-uniform (>99%)

Overall Chi Squared value is 45699.52 (threshold 91.81917)
Overall likely non-uniform (>99%)

I think the biggest problem though is all of this has already been pointed
out to you repeatedly in other forums and you completely refuse to
acknowledge that your cipher fails to meet the absolute most minimum
criteria for a secure cipher.

If your cipher were secure, this image would not contain obvious repeating

If your cipher were secure, it would pass all randomness tests.

There are many more requirements for a secure cipher, but your cipher fails
to meet the baseline requirements.

Tony Arcieri