> It's not trivial to defeat strong encryption, but it is doable given sufficient interest.
That is as wrong as saying that, given enough effort, you can make 1 + 1 = 3. Cryptography deals with unimaginably large numbers, to the point that for some algorithms and keylengths an exhaustive bruteforce attack would require more energy than exists in the universe.
You don't do brute force. And any information you already know about the message can theoretically help you decipher it. In fact, there is no such thing as unbreakable encryption, even if you disallow brute force methods.
One time pad using a TRNG - impossible to break, even in the case of chosen plaintext attacks. Now you could argue that having a key as long as the plaintext is impractical, but if that is your concern then let me direct your attention back to my original point. There is a big difference between what is mathematically possible and what is possible within the constraints of thermodynamics.
That isn't an attack on the encryption, which is a very important distinction to make. But I'm curious what exactly you have in mind - we are repeatedly performing the same xor instruction, so power analysis won't work, and there is no branching, so timing wouldn't work either.
That is as wrong as saying that, given enough effort, you can make 1 + 1 = 3. Cryptography deals with unimaginably large numbers, to the point that for some algorithms and keylengths an exhaustive bruteforce attack would require more energy than exists in the universe.