Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer

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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://564584]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (3)
As of 2017-09-23 00:37 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    During the recent solar eclipse, I:

    Results (270 votes). Check out past polls.