Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Short & Sweet Encryption?

by Withigo (Friar)
on Jul 30, 2006 at 04:20 UTC ( #564584=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Short & Sweet Encryption?

Since you say true security is not needed, just casual security, and you want to shorten strings, perhaps you might be better off compressing your string. A compressed string obviously will not be human readable, so it is effectively "encrypted" for most intents and purposes.
Algorithm::Huffman , and Archive::Zip would be good places to start.


Comment on Re: Short & Sweet Encryption?
Re^2: Short & Sweet Encryption?
by bart (Canon) on Jul 30, 2006 at 09:26 UTC
    And if you add a junk prefix, people won't be able to decompress the string if they don't remove the junk prefix first.
    Algorithm::Huffman , and Archive::Zip would be good places to start.
    I'd recommend Compress::Zlib, which is the actual compressor behind Archive::Zip.
      I would limit that to "it will take a little work to decompress the string" or "some people won't be able to decompress the string". It would only take a very slightly sophisticated attacker to bypass that, and it's primarily a security-by-obscurity approach. It may be better than nothing, but it certainly shouldn't be regarded as the same level of security as using a modern encryption algorithm.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://564584]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (9)
As of 2015-07-03 07:18 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The top three priorities of my open tasks are (in descending order of likelihood to be worked on) ...









    Results (48 votes), past polls