Posted by Mtr on 10/02/07 14:59

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:58:58 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
wrote:

>Mtr wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:20:14 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> laredotornado@zipmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> on one call I get the encrypted string, "ë;jéøÕG·" and on the other
>>>> call, I get "ø34Avýä". What gives?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, - Dave
>>>>
>>
>>> I hate to state the obvious, but obviously there is something different
>>> between the two. mcrypt_encrypt gives the same output for the same input.
>>>
>>> Look for differences in capitalization, '1' (one) instead of 'l' (lower
>>> case ell) or 'I' (upper case eye), for instance. It's very easy to do.
>>
> > well, not necesarily. Maybe it's a chain cypher - and he's not
> > re-initializing.
> >
> > Although his code sample does say ECB, I don't know what the parameters
> > mean for this extension function anyway.
> >
>
>(top posting fixed)
>
>Your posting makes no sense whatsoever. Did you actually try the code?

no, that's why I deliberately used the word "maybe" in my suggestion. No
one else had replied, so I offered a possible suggestion.

>
>If it were a chain cipher, you would have to follow the same chain to
>decrypt.

He never mentioned decryption in his post, only the diffrent results of
encryption.

>And a quick test of the code would have shown you this is not
>a chain cipher.

no, now you're the one who is making no sense. Whether or not it is chained
is internal to the cipher, not to the code that calls it. The difference
would also be apparent (via knowledge of the parameters) if I were a user
of that crypto extension, which I'm not. That's why I also deliberately
said that I don't know what the parameters mean. But the use of ECB does
tend to say it's not chained - which I also deliberately mentioned.

>
>Also, please don't top post. Thanks.

do you know that some people get irritated over interleaved replies, too?

[Back to original message]