First, the reason that most of the write-ups on the internet seem so obtuse is that they all appear to be drawn from a handful of patent applications. Patent applications for new formulas & algorithms always tend appear to be hiding something, because they are. It's notoriously difficult to police unlicensed use of such things and the applicants try to straddle the line between patent protection and trade secret protection. The point here is that it doesn't necessarily mean that it's all BS.
Secondly, all Fractal mappings that I know of are, to some extent or another "lossy", because the mapings are not strictly 1 to 1. While this is a good reason to beleive that there is no effecient way to break the code, it also means that anything directly "encrypted" by a lossy fractal, can not be decrypted either, even with the key. Thus any kind of direct fractal hashing is not reversible.
Therefore, Fratcal Encryption cannot mean that the message itself is directly encrypted with the fractal. Rather, it must mean that the fractal is used as a "master key" to enable simultaneous generation of "local" or "sequential" keys that are then used to encrypt and decrypt the actual messages.
Before we go any further, let's review the basics of encryption:
Encryption Algorithm Principles
Lets say you have a series messages M(j) for j=1 to N that you want to be able to transmit securely to a Receiving party. You'll need a reversible encryption function E like so:
E(M(j), k) --> X(j)
Where (k) is an encryption key and X(j) is the corresponding encrypted message. Then the message is transmitted to our receiver who has a complementary function E' to decipher the encrypted message:
E'(X(j), k) --> M(j)
However, AFAIK you cannot make both an E() and E'() function using Fractals. On the other hand, there are some functions, like XOR that are their own co
answered 2009-08-10T06:22:39.177