I am of the opinion that removing any such absolute words as "uncrackable" and "impervious," and replacing them with more flexible language like "highly-resistant to traditional cryptanalytic attacks" or "a resistance to cracking exceeding that of currently employed methods," or the like (possibly just going through a few rounds of discussion and proofreading with a willing and helpful colleague (hopefully one who is extremely familiar with the venue in which you are trying to have your submission reviewed) whose first language is English), and/or possibly submitting to a different publication venue with different scope, could yield excellent results for this paper.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Jeffrey Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Givonne Cirkin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> For those interested, the demo version of the codec for the Fibonacci >> implementation of TEC is now available. www.givonzirkind.weebly.com on the >> download page. >> >> The article describing the techniques involved: >> http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4080 >> > > website> My colleagues agree with me. But, I have not been able to > get pass peer > website> review and publish this paper. > Apparently, your colleagues don't don't agree with you (or you agree > that the system has flaws, which seems like it could be a problem). > > Jeff > _______________________________________________ > cryptography mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography -- Kyle Creyts Information Assurance Professional BSidesDetroit Organizer _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
