Encryption

[Gaming_World]

I am looking for some feedback on the security of an encryption method I am working on. Overall, what I want to know is, with only the complied code and the output text, how easy would the method be to crack. I also appreishate any feedback as to how to improve the code.

Below is the code which I am using to generate the encryption table. This code is run every 1 to 5 characters, determined, semi-randomly, by the password. Each passVal is used for only one of these sets, after which the code is changed, using the default psuedo-random number generator.

Private Sub GenerateKey(passVal)
    Dim X&, Y&, Repeat As Boolean
 
    Rnd -1
    Randomize passVal
    
    For X = 0 To 255
        EncryptionOutput(X) = ""
    Next X
    For X = 0 To 15
        EncryptionOutput(X) = String(17, Chr(1)) & Chr(X)
    Next X
    For X = 16 To 255
        Do
            Repeat = False
            EncryptionOutput(X) = ""
            For Y = 1 To 18
                EncryptionOutput(X) = EncryptionOutput(X) & Chr(Int((255 - 32 + 1) * Rnd + 32))
            Next Y
            For Y = 0 To 255
                If Y <> X Then
                    If EncryptionOutput(X) = EncryptionOutput(Y) Then
                        Repeat = True
                        Exit For
                    End If
                    If Len(EncryptionOutput(Y)) = 0 Then
                        Exit For
                    End If
                End If
            Next Y
        Loop While Repeat
    Next X
End Sub

The passVal sent to the routine is gnerated with the code:

(4294836225# - 0 + 1) * Rnd

and the number of characters to go without changing the passVal is:

CLng(5 * Rnd + 1)

.


An example code generated is:

_|ýexA†^'ÒmqÊígºc



































¾Z/Iwœvå*7ORnï*-4Q¾Z/Iwœvå*7ORnï*-4Q



































L°k;tO£Ê™ÃXldD#?ê®L°k;tO£Ê™ÃXldD#?ê®L°k;tO£Ê™ÃXldD#?ê®



































K3ŽTÕ]U‡æ$k€ˆ4öcáK3ŽTÕ]U‡æ$k€ˆ4öcáK3ŽTÕ]U‡æ$k€ˆ4öcá¸â°Uæ9«„2\;_ÛŽY¾e5



































N8$¥ÐD@.@-Î|¢›@,¶N8$¥ÐD@.@-Î|¢›@,¶N8$¥ÐD@.@-Î|¢›@,¶N8$¥ÐD@.@-Î|¢›@,¶nà·AAgÿiƒLk*Я×%o÷



































LRàÇæ’MrpnEdc‘þBÿðLRàÇæ’MrpnEdc‘þBÿðLRàÇæ’MrpnEdc‘þBÿðgKúqIK}ï0'¬t� �a{©’ÂgKúqIK}ï0'¬tÄa{©’ÂgKúqIK}ï0'¬tÄa{©’Â



































'bëÔ7¸PÎËNn„ɉ;€Q'bëÔ7¸PÎËNn„ɉ;€Q'bëÔ7¸PÎËNn„ɉ;€Q'bëÔ7 ¸PÎËNn„ɉ;€QüQÝæJ„àþ½³M_3þ ÍüQÝæJ„àþ½³M_3þ ÍU©LTð䨯(Ö\ŽUL}u×ú



































U©LTð䨯(Ö\ŽUL}u×úU©LTð䨯(Ö\ŽUL}u×úU©LTð䨯(Ö\ŽUL}u×ú²Íÿµ ÒVÊ-g!Ä«€ ڲ͏ÿµ ÒVÊ-g!Ä«€ ڲ͏ÿµ ÒVÊ-g!Ä«€ Ú0Åéè°*¸„ŸrH&ÛÒ†Ð+ì0Åéè°*¸„ŸrH&ÛÒ†Ð+ì



































wwC‡í颢®ÈXC|C4ÁÁŽwwC‡í颢®ÈXC|C4ÁÁŽwwC‡í颢®ÈXC|C4ÁÁŽwwC‡íé¢� �®ÈXC|C4ÁÁŽ¦#ño!þ?ž? Å&R:óEÛ¦#ño!þ?ž? Å&R:óEÛ¦#ño!þ?ž? Å&R:óEÛ¤t}'GRiJ_{‘Ä´‘Êž³_¤t}'GRiJ_{‘Ä´‘Êž³_



































ÃþŒ:0-TWËÿ¯ªE”;XZ’ÃþŒ:0-TWËÿ¯ªE”;XZ’ÃþŒ:0-TWËÿ¯ªE”;XZ’ÃþŒ:0-TWËÿ¯ªE”;XZ’ÃþŒ:0-TWËÿ¯ªE”;XZ’›pèl*O˜*YÞ6I¦Ñ¡4<Ä›pèl*O˜*YÞ6I¦Ñ¡4<Ä›pèl*O˜*YÞ6I¦Ñ¡4<� �›pèl*O˜*YÞ6I¦Ñ¡4<Ä›pèl*O˜*YÞ6I¦Ñ¡4<Ä

which was generated from the input of:

0
00
000
0000
00000
000000
0000000
00000000
000000000
0000000000

Thanks in advance for any feedback or suggested improvements.

[dglienna]

It's only good if YOU can decrypt it. Check it with all 255 characters to see if it works, and then decrypt it.

[Gaming_World]

It's only good if YOU can decrypt it. Check it with all 255 characters to see if it works, and then decrypt it.

I have already verified that for all characters, I can decrypt the code. The question is: can somebody else without the password decrypt it (easily)?

I know that all codes are crackable, but I need this code to be reasonably secure (as it may well hold imformation such as credit card numbers).

An example piece of data (doesn't include the shorter pieces) may be something simlar to:

6……Dog 1 R……K…S/R…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…False…12:00:00 AM…-65535……Dog 2 R……K…S/R…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…False…12:00:00 AM…-65535……Dog 3 R……K…S/R…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…False…12:00:00 AM…-65535……Dog 1 H……H…H/MY…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…False…12:00:00 AM…-65535……Dog 2 H……H…H/MY…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…False…12:00:00 AM…-65535……Dog 3 H……H…H/MY…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…12:00:00 AM…False…12:00:00 AM…-65535……*** New ***……………………………Ellensburg…WA…98926……65280…False……False…KS326… 8/5/2005 8:30:01 AM…-64461…7/18/2005 3:00:01 PM…-64462…7/20/2005 10:00:01 AM…-64466…7/20/2005 10:00:01 AM…-64467…7/14/2005 8:30:01 AM…-64470…8/9/2005 8:00:01 AM…-64471…7/22/2005 4:45:01 PM…-64479…7/15/2005 5:00:01 PM…-64485…8/19/2005 5:00:01 PM…-64487…7/16/2005 4:00:01 PM…-64495

In addition, more important information may be encrypted, such as:

Visa #1234-5678-9012-3456 123

(that number encrypts to:

ÜtïÆ7 'ÂŒ@*©Xʲ¸¶ë·‰L<Á“HÎ?Î:%ŽÁž<2>;ž&O9Ë¬Ps׶Ä6&9š-á܁#s€Np/<hÑ°$&cîÈ;¦ÜÑâ*ŵÑ⨓`ôY¨xó]_‡ÅC7׆选åÅÙ¬+Iÿ¢ÀÜd2HÑ¿u#o*”v9zÖ¸ùã–x£ß`‡ö4ÉÉQ:sG2nÏQq“ ’§Ëåôöü·„&bv¯Æ”á$QÃÌqA'ې@,ÿŸm‰ó‚ãÂê©…÷™éN7UE…Ú¶EÛÏÏI� �+BÓG ù*’ýC(³À¿wÔê•3¢PêVˆ~¥‘ë!¿Éa®òˆY»?ù·êvâe]»òs2îRÎï“j.“±Nß±‹(>Ʋz©ÏiSá=X×Y†né =sõËmˆ¼³ÅìK¬€®c†‹Ar¾©hnŽkC1âÔXœs¹±Œ‘×êýz5~ºÖ¢%íaõÐX®3:c«ý1¹ òìøgvÈ?ò´²¥\¼Y½TsMºX¶”n¸l½8Ý„;Ûñ¥»nö2Ôš)7K\ƒÜ²¡y5¼^-31fµoVBŠîÛʲî‰M˜ä)‚ZºêLG«¸{C0'‰èpò¿˜œS‡ºD…ãé¢{V"fZÑ`ø<ÿ•öb_� �ו«9øo—z\EIƒ|QÜYäs#®WH–Án%Êüï†YpùqlßI$¾"MƆ[Fê&¬8ZĈ

)

In all the cases I have listed in this thread, I can properly decrypt the text back to the orginal, using the orginal password.

In addition, I have determined that most of the information can not be decrypted by other passwords.

I also checked it with all characters (exluding chr(0)) with input string:



 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~€‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜� ��š›œžŸ ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬*®¯°±²³´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏÐÑÒ� �ÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúûüýþÿ

and recieved
































































































































































































































Ç£ÅPD¯ú£05Z ]{×5íñ:ÏkŒiå>* #“Ü.ÅÞžüö‘ëW˜òj(P"0Pz’NXF¨wœøº¤æƒ8&óˆN´¿"Áõ§eCêSSS€´=Gç²gwA zÇiî¡ú¬m£p’Ö.•(¸-õñíÜu)¯ÐˆT÷uXƒåM_3û0€«»T]tÜÖÄ°q—ùýq°˜Þr@ÆkÙUgmé"_݆|8n›ÔmU½Û,÷Q„ót `=íbéDŸrÚ*&çÝž.XŸJ0ßB“.Nqnƒµ€&#wSÿX‘²¯Õ§Z..”Ɛtø‘AÞ¡Úî—Ë× þM„9jÀw-~ðžsXr¸÷ím>¾¢æ@(Ïö<Èðëm7.GÖ?ãj“Óᨕ’Ïñ‘êׂzUÿ¦3õÙ…Ë‹×(ªjS 8½‚;4-¼ jɨ6HOì’B70tÇû¼!«h"Z'@m2(9ÆPä8„[–$tǍD;U5kà‘9. éœ;“þË`èŠÅuÚ_¿ž!ý ì• 3G]yMñWõp^+i?…Ró:džŽ$OU•þcIa:çÉÓHM§CµeØ@-lk'lð›¹ÅðTáÌn²Ø ù<+ÔèÃpÍœeO¹°Û‘,õë›Íœ+$Îˈ-:«™D3<"(ãÕ8šK™'±:QªX1ÝŠ¿Ò¦ÁÁÕ½XãuE¤ìkfjsB™Ý…\mSI·ž’ÓÅí4t]Ê‹Åæ5M£—à+æq|Ž”Óe|Gßk'‹¾Ç?všÓ–Ú®“½©°¹¥¾aLI-<_€.9Ÿ5ÉNþíVE9Õ1t¤hïìþmèÍ-u,žh«ø÷Åecãˆö:€#åäÕFÐ`ƒó¾/†iúù5Ÿ*§å}@¬; »ffî¿EY×2;ˆQ*þÔSÅûé|8´ïÏú&KB¤]~Õ$a¶xhGë`9³@ÌlN,¯F°Pûïd»{d~à©×ȍ6’.Oè{s{GMj˸L*Ç¢LGQܯ‰Âzú*û¶hs³Ln Èw¬}È,ìø6ZÎEq?yÒYmqxTjå°„!CEíÏ—GÉî{ò¡wÔt'›MIÞÀŒbó«cã%ìÖœ˜>>… “€’ÆÕÌ1–[S7N*à¢r¤å1ŠÊD6,o®J—ìTØœe虞'Àm¬»h“Ð=Ÿ(¿ìzXF¼KµÐ’'ž;¹U'Á@j¡à® {ú,@Ñd߯îhÔýŽ#βüpŸ¦„^;^¶4†Hˆ„†Xkáqb@מ 0¦ŒuU€X˜¬ôí>dÇZ?„>íõçz¢×úk„…Q”zi'é*h’kzŽ”"5jòßÙòø‘ô«*@¶ÑÈ ¦Ö0+š¸§fƒN° Åmy+kÀ1î^‹TgÁ‘p©:Ķí¹ÙWá51a¨„’Ì6…eK§æ„Á„džŒ.ÿ<CT÷²”™d†çvK� �"¹˜cRVÌ-cíùba,ˆjã“ÉÂF„·&i'&æS@Žm›jÆ‚! Ý"äèíÒÊÌþÉ¥pE°ò¢"Û…ýF¼‰e•?MLßzà=¤Õ,¡}:,*ùÓT0cÚ_ÁTµ?hFé¡äFB^®™ m+‘®O[¶ö,¡Ž‹Ëà²Q5~™2G…éìZÄ»ÜË£`á•/Õ´d‚ѹ¢ß1‰—iõUhªOvEküŽØ»Jcq€ADÑo=¤®»¬~‚«0±b¶c9Ç)YY–jÆ í•líb`*¡ü‡*RgÞ”³ýO o¦˜rå‘ W™èŸ#S9eå©Trºê¬l‹{,”Øþ»®ªˆ÷$B!=z¢V;¥Ï£‚“×Ë(×èÛF*+Û'½78DÁ,‰ N½*ôD¼Æ3eÒ+¨¯pó~ BLüùŽ3”˜Âà+¯¢)‘–vŒå›BñŽ(ó*ø‡~®yÔ¹MàPFh&m`Oã™ÍÏe%N;±GŒiDF•'� �/=Ÿi(u¯î0/zw³¦SídQðw}›K*kqcr½0M Œ/Hx*lì\´%’Ѐ""òYö6s<0Ð{øü'ÿ‰è]®àý…õŠÌŒûaå¾è$“¦4*ØÊ£æžýÏéû¬ŒTó9C&lÛŠâÃM'ŒPô}¦Ç~ÃÊ$©xbL'ŽF D–5päÕR[Œ[cüËoŽ`Š¬¿ÉíþÓKËSûTBÊœ\ÿ°æœŸæœ*jéáñ#eÀó÷ŠD©GÒ”\ò9Vik‰ÌN¦U<»� �“Év:!a&½ñ¹ŸLzºš’ú»®KdÎx?*-_–û[ñ%x´VɬT‡¡ÿ䙞©›Dÿ¹ŠXxÄá¿tõùoØÊl6Z±i†UàL—®…h´úŽ\ê`Án©™ %ˆz „/V΃lè¸{´”_h¡ô¯pÍÿkû"R5«žr—"¡-—'º—ó„ì'Ùðnm^®_®v¯žFêùEÛÃY\í¥¨¢2%Ïﺗš.\0hËdË5CWט`ÎÈyÒÉž$K� �èÉ%<ÏÛÓøþZ§ŸtÔD¢™ðCÇÝêÛBPÕÌlK@Nóë¼ÁAd·Œþ©Œ9M÷Ð}é_Ý€…5²S¹ ù¦òBü—†ì-J"7§èÜ‹Ó*ä9íæ*Øzäû•)øð[\Iáüۛ˒ÕRølXnËÔ”ÙÈ効Ypb»*ËùN>äÈÑâŠÜ?VrpJ¶—ìcV)õŐ˓1±1� �X+î¡‹8w"í'©Í”Îô]ÄX‡NÎÚÔEI!n¦ïí…"ÓS÷{3Fý‰¶rØ‘WßùŒcõ>áÐᓪ4”@N@>EÊâ/mœÈâÚ»Ò«H0ª”ª¢á¾œÚimŽväfø/ìÛÌЈ¸úQ^B-¼æŠñ×›²Ì¥*zD§b£gZK›¿ˆ¹$Åi‘¢KÒà‰ò¡ÀžèU}¶N¬Œ&Ő¾.Å}ŠƒÔån`6Á� �ÆÒÇĺË*ïԝ+‘Õ¤2eû¥Ø2ëigÍ™•µ@€8€ V¬[A—øØ›±é‡'ùæêÈîñ_\°JüÇx¦Âž6^ž·9{êºNþÖR.`¤MI¤máågùÙÄÇ÷[€è0Œn´¶Téc©.Ä3ªJD¬ÉÅåv À3Þ¤Qø_qõìa.öÚøõÊO·“Zƒ.tÝyeœÕ[´ãü*J¹©ÐÔוl”ѐ#ûVìÄN²*ö®cB[qƒþC¶ÓkEÒRëúmèU}º>îp8q(ãSXâGOçƒQ!ýõ”ãjpV?Še‘W¼Zü@['˜%^hòZˆ\Ñãs¡,ÐBÒúœB[}ò:]êC²jÿnî[Y°2ægò%áSé`ä%W` ›YN¸†ùŸ^Ûšô4Ö¨!•¢*»Ò̾buìÉ:Ô4;œ7§¨XÑdž'?—z0ï‡_zNô`EzKöPú —*å~3ôÄ‚¤!.HwΏá´\púngg%b…´º£AC¾W\ŒʅZâé€w›æ§À`Íäkm3ĪKÁ� �L‰.W[J|ø.F¤d´Ìߟù×%m"Ùår|ƒÓžO@²xÛNðuçCE>둁ÑÞLͯña¹‡>B|w@ý AnC÷£™q[B°ãvv¦È¤A~KÓBÊqú׳‰{µ=Áò•‰K`za©«æ±w!ÙÐlf·F*p,Èû_¤‰<Oû'<jïR$Æ� �DF°@ §Y‘0¬´?ãx6Ø1Uš*Fw¯7W*¿Á?ûãæóïHÆ_l«í²•Þ”UÖ6±‡•ä—ïº_Ò� �ãÛ.JÝŠÁЧ¨ƒðGZ¾¼~6Ãbê6©R²ÄBUélDø¸p]m¬NÑÙ˜wœ×õW÷÷½¸Ù6lãJf^X¶žç£}lË¢Õ`ÑA}̹ºs„_\Ë7'6aÅÍR<áÈŠ1:ã¸ü' Ês3’û&‡¤p]ÙƒNȝý¢áÌù*ŠFc»âVª|ñ¥={±°·òȈ2u¿ö½…òT`ÆOV%Œz¹çœ>QË‚‚™man±Ä T•Y‘oIüz®³æ!L@DV–WÒÃ:ŸØóÞ’Ù¸±tÂÉo¹ÌûæÈØg«”áy%®ËDÐdß×X}Nì� �Åê9 m[ÇÊÍShÝe˜õ¾mÙ6b8E„}’îUÞ˾þR¥œ·ÌÔº[]½ šÿ5w윸3ÀÀÄŸ¤x1»%í[3Mœ.Ð0_<>¸Îøëľ?ÆTĹ¯Ï&Sþ,Šf¼déÓYÛð0žÎÆôT9ûÖGëö"€ã?‹T5×±p/2 G¿9Ù:uæ~åÅ<)Qn·Ò%·¶'g&CHb5I¯›µÁŠ=æ®Êö£QIx{*¨{ÆÃYëMÉPEVzPŸ-A±”ÂÚÔ¸£‰yêõ‡GR¹ô캛ÖB¹©º¡–#øvbØ@€þˆWV„¹6êŸù“T N]q¹ª-PÃñþÿçHlõX±“ñ/@€U_{F´`ÙæáðzçbŠÅe/.GÃÜä¦<í9ÊaÀ0-4ˆ®J•ùô!.*v»TºË>~ÎË¢ý²·SeÆ*ÝSóvÊL?Ìõá¶Ø6Çg[âz¼e~ìéÜy“ĝ/_r<U„9|2'Sºª7²ªE>™ØE•ˆ'ã·Šçç1B†ªÞM†„?XÒOÇöjé'eè¦)S˜¼ëw.p‹`ÐJR ¡œPt²!5bˆ3™@©×+ȵgÜÊÄ,.(dsY`jW)õ–f2pþ<^6ø*Àx%×eu jºÉ¥¯ÇçRoVF^V¶Ü³C#Ò3Sñâ«®ûRh‡îrXåh{¬”v¡f4ÿ “f4½Â%Nâî¢hu(“ñŸ²wvRôü€ãì¯3_Ðð»VЛZž"!Ä؁í¾+Ÿhc1fÝÄ,Òz^ü °2T3œWgrqAêûµ(0UßÜܲ¾Yï*f1ÌOÍÎqʦ¡z dÓí¼BÛl8?ÔÀ¢¬ZúHõIËqþ˜—ßxô¸KO%« y-:”•-Zë=Bˆ1–3“Ÿ¢…ÔÓÙ9Üà{u^4g.S‰À’SÁŽà}¿6œ$5¯;%NFFBKf¸.|-Ð0Ý0ƒ:êŸMs€ ¼¥Y°1ð6ز76’Ðsž¤ufÓôpMRngÜ±Sµ[})8•?«sùiÇF`ˆ]!ÐR“"äêã#ã>Èæüà·7¤Œ¼£Êv%Ë!¡íìe¸ÛÄt:ÖGH¡8•¸(5ÄÖZÐÔww1=.·—2”°ç ‘&)Mc¾,TT.È5(ÄÏ@¿m8<¡sÜ8 LHñZ†œª'íÇéß½Oõªê}L LWÍãŽ3r"Ÿ«ÁhÉð{³Õ×Ûn,u•|Ëݨû×®«)£Às.CÕÃ[øsiäFê–;@8ÑïGîèbf"o÷€¡D[jÃd‡Ò1i‰ÏapMùòTL‰/LŒcÎÂK4Ö<ÉYÁ<~Ln>ýûÔ©^M4;ì0}¡…ö…ÓRÿTØkx8X@íðڏށ»+%´"o§¹äG6œ‡ 4©v_wvs±˜|><3.‘XTjß Ý@½ãZ1ªM[gtÉwÞgšzÝïMZ2¢x‡„ÝÈI<Ž#)â¢-O»oT‡áqò}+ã2ُö£‡phîls£…ÿá÷!žÈÌ|1W€U~!(%—•GÓâÊ#ä2)¯ÙûûIu%jæV� �.žØŠH]ÐœWpêkÓcœM÷Í•xnüþïPZÓjɧ='ÓY0ÊRzz°tUFÈ-ƒ(öbz}c,$Cž(ý¹“j¯rx;P$›šŒÞ~>{]Ò`kŸó+½Äç;ý³*9éþ0ák£Y/cN=8ÛÞµnÞå°†¯€ˆÕu,c…X^rcÙ„¤¾Ô©¡Ól¨»´ÎaqɆ¯x¶ðÕztã/ªÿ†Q½oÒRݾ´5.Ð(×-t¹¯@baw”ÎY’tؔ̾Í=Û/V]õd)ªôŠ`â”1Ó§Á‰Ô^äÃHú¡Œž>GöÕ4€ÎØæÑÄ5ä®ýP8{—^9,Øô½Å»ÕóЋ� �‡èzµó¡SÔèãCÚ³cò–¼.aÕ2—Ð^Ɖ9Bö\*8¸äÁgØoÙ²;Ó»¹}$

Which can then be returned to the base string.





In order to determine the encrypted string, I use the code:

OutputVal = OutputVal & EncryptionOutput(Asc(Mid$(InputVal, X, 1)))

and to get the decrypted string:

For Y = 0 To 255
                    If EncryptionOutput(Y) = Mid$(InputVal, X, 18) Then
                        Exit For
                    End If
                Next Y
                If Y > 255 Then Exit For

Please note that the primary items I am looking for would accomish one of two items:

• Improve data security
• Improve proformance

[dglienna]

Well, I use CAPICOM for encryption, which M$ wrote. Search in the Codebank. There are lots of techniques there. Capicom encrypts differently every time, and decrypts them all. It uses the system clock, and is very configurable.

Your technique looks good, but I don't know how hard it would be to crack.

[baja_yu]

One more question. What do you plan to encrypt with it? Because I see that the encrypted version gets much larger then the original content. So it might be a problem if you try to encrypt a large amount of data.

[Gaming_World]

Mixed into my two previous posts I have stated that the primary use of the encryption will be to encrypt credit card numbers (and other financle records). Secondarly uses will include encrypting information about customers (the program is designed for a business) and schedules. A very large set of information will be about 1MB before encryption, and about 18MB after encryption (if I use this method).

Although I still value feedback on this method (for my own cursority), I am now planning to use the CAPICOM method pointed out to me by dglienna for the main application.

One of the biggest reasons for this change is proformance (and I presume Microsoft knows how to make good, secure encryption methods).

[baja_yu]

If it is for bussines, I too would go for something reliable. But you should still work on your methodology when you have free time. Don't give up on it.

[Gaming_World]

If it is for bussines, I too would go for something reliable. But you should still work on your methodology when you have free time. Don't give up on it.

That is why I stated that I am still interested in any feedback that anyone can give me regarding the capibilities of my routine.

The primary reason that I did not jump straight to CAPICOM, however, is that, until dglienna meantioned it, I had not yet found any information regarding a free encryption system which fit my needs. I finally decided to work on my own method after spending a few hours searching the Internet looking for any such systems (or even thories on how to make a good encryption).

If you (or anyone else) can give me additional feedback on my encryption method, it would be apprieseted, despite the fact that I have no plans to use it in my program (at this point).

[CVMichael]

You could also look at this: VB - 128, 160 and 256 Bit File Encryption/Decryption with MD5, SHA1 and SHA256

[Devion]

Md5 isn't encryption, it's hashing

[CVMichael]

Md5 isn't encryption, it's hashing

So ?

Did you even look at the encryption ? Did you read the discussion in the thread ?
Or do I have to start all over to explain how it works to you also ?

[Gaming_World]

Please note that I created this thread for feedback on MY encryption method.

Alhough finding out about CAPICOM was useful for my main application, the only way I would be inspired to change this would be if someone can point out a significanly better encryption method (either extremely more secure, alot faster, or provide information on any major shortcommings of CAPICOM).

Although debating other types of encryption could be good, this is not the place for it.

[moeur]

The problem with developing new encryption methods is that you would need to submit them to the encrytion community to see how secure they are. I doubt yours is very secure.

If you stick with one of the methods tested by the community, then you can be assured that the security is as they have stated since they love showing how these things can be broken into.

[penagate]

Well, I have no idea how/why it works, so it looks good to me

[CVMichael]

Please note that I created this thread for feedback on MY encryption method.

I see a LOT of patterns:

_|ýexA†^'ÒmqÊígºc



































¾Z/Iwœvå*7ORnï*-4Q¾Z/Iwœvå*7ORnï*-4Q



































L°k;tO£Ê™ÃXldD#?ê®  L°k;tO£Ê™ÃXldD#?ê®L°k;tO£Ê™ÃXldD#?ê®



































K3ŽTÕ]U‡æ$k€ˆ4öcáK3ŽTÕ]U‡æ$  k€ˆ4öcáK3ŽTÕ]U‡æ$k€ˆ4öcá¸â°Uæ9«„2\;_ÛŽY¾e5




































.... and so on...

If the encryption has that many patterns, then it can definitelly be broken easily.

But the thing that intrigues me most is that the output is 18 times bigger Who would use such an encryption if there are so many other encryptions that are very secure, and do not make the output file bigger...

This encryption does not look very strong to me... (that's why I wanted you to look at my encryption)

[RapchikProgrammer]

If u are using it for not some very secret data! Than its ok! But if u want it to be a proper encryption algorithm that can be relied upon for anything then i think u shouldnt use this method! It has some readable patterns! Many people here admire it and think of it as unreadable because u have used special characters which make it tough for us to read! But replacing them with normal characters will make this code far more readable! So i still think u should deffinetly go with hashing! Far more secure!