@SkyTheCoder - I’m not going to try to decrypt your text, because “Lorem ipsum” is far too small a text to work with, and also, I’m not a cryptananalyst.
If you are really interested in security and cryptography, I strongly suggest you look at one of the several MOOC courses on it, or that you read a lot (and I mean a lot) about it, including all the math. Then learn how to crack security systems so you know what to avoid in your own.
The following quotes from experts support this view. I’m including them not to beat you over the head, but because I find all of this very interesting and worth sharing. I’ve been where you are.
Schneier: When someone hands you a security system and says, “I believe this is secure,” the first thing you have to ask is, “Who the hell are you?” Show me what you’ve broken to demonstrate that your assertion of the system’s security means something.
…and from experts on crypto.stackexchange.com - comments in response to someone’s “new” system
…
All amateur encryption schemes are insecure. Professional schemes may, or may not, be insecure but the amateur ones always fail. The fact that you are asking this question indicates that you are an amateur.
…
To answer your question “After implementing a novel encryption algorithm, how would one go about analyzing its security”, well, the easy answer is “no, it’s not secure”. The reason I can confidently give that answer is that you’re a newbee, and newbee ciphers are never secure (unless they are massively overcomplicated; it doesn’t sound like that’s the case). A newbee is about as likely to create a secure cipher as a blind man would be to paint a good piece of art; neither has any reference as to what works and what doesn’t.
…
If you want to learn how to be an expert in cryptography, the way to learn is not to design cryptoalgorithms; instead, the way to learn is to break cryptoalgorithms. If you want to get professional review of an algorithm, well, the most reliable way would be to pay for it; however, it’s unlikely you’d learn much from it (at least, you won’t learn nearly as much as you would if you broke it yourself)
…
I recommend taking a read through Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier. Cryptography Engineering coauthored by Bruce Schneier is a more modern read and you will probably get more useful information out of it.
…
To know whether a given encryption system is secure, cryptographers use the following recipe:
They publish the system: complete algorithm description and sample implementation with test vectors (the code is not the description; the description should make no assumption on the involved programming language, and yet be sufficient to reimplement it perfectly in any language).
They lure other cryptographers into gnawing at it and try to break it. The “luring” is about making the algorithm interesting, either through a some kind of mathematical novelty in the structure (e.g. a reduction proof with regards to a well-known hard problem) or impressive performance (see below).
After enough time and work, if the cryptographers found nothing bad to say about the algorithm, we can begin to say that it may be worthwhile to consider in future protocol designs.
Let me stress that “enough time” means “at least five years and one hundred cryptographers”.
…
Is your algorithm secure against Linear Cryptanalysis? Is your algorithm secure against Differential Cryptanalysis? Both of those you can check yourself by running Linear or Differential attacks. Alternatively, publish your algorithm in a public forum devoted to cryptography, for example, sci.crypt on Usenet. Expect it to get torn to shreds by experts. Post the algorithm. Don’t post cyphertext only; if you do it will just confirm that you don’t understand Kerckhoffs’s principle
…
“I remember a conversation with Brian Snow, a highly placed senior cryptographer with the NSA. He said he would never trust an encryption algorithm designed by someone who had not earned their bones by first spending a lot of time cracking codes.”
…
So security is really, really, really, really hard. Have fun, but don’t fool yourself you’re inventing the next big thing.