Meanies list: 1) Warren Kumari >:( 2) David Adamson >:( I actually think his ideas are quite interesting, although I have only read the abstract of the first paper and the second paper is fairly clear in it's methods (Fermat's littler theorem, etc).
Having the peer pairs agree on a unique per-pair, per-transaction, or per-message codebook is a very good idea, however nobody has really been able to make this work without prior exchange of data. In other words if the same method that is used for key agreement is used for codebook agreement, breaking one breaks the other. Also, what is the optimal codebook for a given message, or a given structure of message; when also given weights for security parameter and size parameter? There's a paper for you. That could actually be used in quantum systems for codebook transmission. Also, the idea of using non-algebraic numbers is a good one. How are your transcendental numbers generated? By proof-by-contradiction? (Apologies if any question is answered in the rest of the paper I haven't yet read) If I were to comment directly to Givon, I would say you might be having problems being published as you use terms like "non-decryptable encryption" and "not decryptable by method" I assume there is a language-barrier issue at work here as "non-decryptable encryption" is a synonym for "junk data" :) _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
