I think your problems are these: You don't understand what makes XOR (one time pad crypto) uncrackable (and *that* is the term you want, not "undecryptable).
You can't explain the advantage of your system well. It would be vulnerable to timing attacks if implemented (the time it takes reveals data). Those "infinite varations" are possible with other algorithms as well, just add random padding in the messages. You don't explain HOW the reciever will know how to decrypt. Compare with encryption modes for AES: CBC, XTS, counter mode, ECB... You must tell the recipient what you are using. This can't be encrypted, or else the method of encrypting *that* info might as well be uses for encrypting the whole thing. - Sent from my tablet Den 19 jun 2012 12:39 skrev "Givonne Cirkin" <givo...@37.com>: > preferring one method to another, is a personal choice i understand. but, > to be just off, i don't get. if no one understands, i need to stop & > rethink & make a better presentation. if some get it & some don't, > depending how many, again i have to reassess my presentation. there's one > in every crowd. more than one or two though... > > i also understand that this method would fail with brute force if the > message were too small. but, in between all the primes we can find > non-repeating sequences of any given length. > > but, how secure do u need? pgp is secure but decryptable. but, good > enough for most ppl. I stand by phil zimmerman's point. most ppl use > envelopes. easily opened. but a good deterent. > > --- natanae...@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Natanael <natanae...@gmail.com> > To: givo...@37.com > Cc: cryptography@randombit.net, jam...@echeque.com > Subject: Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:07:26 +0200 > > What I think people react on is that it's really pointless to use decimals > and having to keep track of when they repeat. A simple RNG with normal > numbers could be used instead, and probably *should* be used unless your > crypto really *needs* numbers consisting of primes divided by primes. > > So essentially, they hang up on repeating decimals since they expect there > to be a reason for why they are needed which they can't find, but there are > none AFAIK. > > - Sent from my tablet > Den 19 jun 2012 12:03 skrev "Givonne Cirkin" <givo...@37.com>: > > of course this would fail at the first repeat. briefly stated in the > article in fact. the point made is, that until the first repeat you get a > sequence of non-repeating digits. and, we can generate such a sequence, a > repeating decimal--by equation. so, why not choose the right length > repeating decimal for a message of a given length. > > i don't understand why is it clear to some & they get it right away. why > do others not see it? i thought i was clear to use the sequence up until > the first repeat. > > --- jam...@echeque.com wrote: > > From: "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> > To: cryptography@randombit.net > Subject: Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:02:27 +1000 > > On 2012-06-18 8:56 PM, Givonne Cirkin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > My name is Givon Zirkind. I am a computer scientist. I developed a > method of > > encryption that is not decryptable by method. > > You can read my paper at: http://bit.ly/Kov1DE > > > > My colleagues agree with me. But, I have not been able to get pass peer > review > > and publish this paper. In my opinion, the refutations are ridiculous > and just > > attacks -- clear misunderstandings of the methods. They do not explain > my > > methods and say why they do not work. > > > > I have a 2nd paper: http://bit.ly/LjrM61 > > This paper also couldn't get published. This too I was told doesn't > follow the > > norm and is not non-decryptable. Which I find odd, because it is merely > the > > tweaking of an already known method of using prime numbers. > > This fails at the first repeat, and has no relationship to the already > known method of using prime numbers. > _______________________________________________ > cryptography mailing list > cryptography@randombit.net > http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > You @ 37.com - The world's easiest free Email address ! > _______________________________________________ > cryptography mailing list > cryptography@randombit.net > http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > > > > ------------------------------ > You @ 37.com - The world's easiest free Email address ! >
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
