Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
Thanks for all those who gave constructive criticism. The revised article is available at Cornell's archive: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4080 Givon _ You @ 37.com - The world's easiest free Email address ! ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
yes. just with a specific choice of key. --- jam...@echeque.com wrote: From: James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com To: givo...@37.com CC: cryptography@randombit.net Subject: Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:48:01 +1000 On 2012-06-19 8:03 PM, Givonne Cirkin wrote: 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. This is just one time pad. _ You @ 37.com - The world's easiest free Email address ! ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
yes. and i covered this. esp. when the issue applies to the stenagraphic component. using phi as a model of the method. but, phi is well known predictable. however, other sequences not. --- jth...@astro.indiana.edu wrote: From: Jonathan Thornburg jth...@astro.indiana.edu To: jam...@echeque.com, cryptography@randombit.net Subject: Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:30:59 -0400 (EDT) The digit sequence 0.1234567891011121314151617181920212223... (or its equivalent in binary, hex, or your other favorite base) never repeats, but provides no security whatsoever. One-time pads need nonrepeating sequences *which the adversary can't predict*. -- -- Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu Dept of Astronomy IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. -- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam ___ 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
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
curious, why don't some ppl trust link shortners? is that a generation gap thing. 2nd. ur guesses are wrong. i was born in the USA. my parents were born in the USA. my native language is English. my parent's native language is English. i grew up speaking English @ home. i went to public school where they taught us in--English. non one translated my paper. and, i have been offered jobs writing papers. in fact, i was the editor of a collegiate technical newsletter for academic computing for several years. so, some of your guesses are bit off. different ppl use different lingo for different reasons. for me, in this instance is, because my interaction is more on a literary level than personal. putting that aside. i think submission to AMS the American Mathematical Society was appropriate. submission to ACM American Computing Machinery which has published me several times before, was also appropriate. after stating that, i do get comments from others that don't understand it either. as to the math not being new, in regards to frequency normalization, this is simply not correct. in regards to the second method, which is a combination of methods, the math of combined methods is new. the strength is in the combination of the methods. having said all that, i agree the paper could be clearer. but, just by judging by the reaction on this board, it is clear enough to get the major points across. even you concede the math is potentially ok. this isn't the 1st paper i've written. or, have rejected. or been asked to resubmit. had i been given suggestions to make it clearer, i would accept that. several of the ppl on this board have raised real intellectual issues. more as to the implementation. which i also c as a problem. (whoops don't trust abbreviaters!) --- bill.stew...@pobox.com wrote: From: Bill Stewart bill.stew...@pobox.com To: givo...@37.com Cc: cryptography@randombit.net Subject: Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:44:21 -0700 At 03:56 AM 6/18/2012, 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/Kov1DEhttp://bit.ly/Kov1DE I don't trust link shorteners. 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. If you can't get the paper to pass peer review, and you think it's because the reviewers clearly don't understand your methods, this means one of several things - You haven't found the right peer reviewers - Are you submitting your paper to an appropriate journal? - Your math really is broken or not new, and you're not understanding their refutations. - Your math is potentially ok, but your paper isn't written clearly enough for the reviewers to understand how your methods really work, so you need to get some help with the writing. Technical writing is difficult work, and the more complex a topic you're writing about, the clearer and simpler your writing needs to be. Part of that is the logical development of your paper - are you showing all the important steps, and showing how the parts connect together, but part of that is really just language. For instance, your email message that I'm replying to uses terminology that's not at all the way anybody writes about cryptography in English. I'm guessing your native language is one of the Romance languages, and that whoever translated your paper doesn't do cryptography in English? I'm guessing that when you say not decryptable, you either mean It's a hash function, where the output contains less entropy than the input, and is therefore not reversable, or you mean It's not decryptable by somebody who knows your algorithm and doesn't know the password, with N bits of password entropy (where you aren't bothering to mention N for some reason.) The other interpretation I could think of is The encryption method isn't implementable by mathematical algorithms, because it's using quantum physics for non-determinism (in which case you'd probably have said it was quantum), or because you're doing something tricky with chaos theory (and the community's experience has been 'Sorry, that trick never works.') Since you said Bruce Schneier told you to look at hash functions, I'm leaning toward that guess. I have a 2nd paper: http://bit.ly/LjrM61http://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. I am asking the hacking community for help. Help me test my methods. The following message
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
On 06/20/2012 06:54 PM, Givonne Cirkin wrote: curious, why don't some ppl trust link shortners? is that a generation gap thing. Because there are serious privacy issues with most of them. http://w2spconf.com/2011/papers/urlShortening.pdf ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
On 2012-06-20 09:54:33 -0700 (-0700), Givonne Cirkin wrote:
curious, why don't some ppl trust link shortners? is that a
generation gap thing.
2nd. ur guesses are wrong. i was born in the USA. my parents were
born in the USA. my native language is English.
[...]
Perhaps this is also a generation gap thing. Professionals of my
generation converse with colleagues and peers by using complete
sentences and well-structured grammar. That same generation also
prefers canonical URIs and other accurate bibliographical
references/citations. I've been out of academia for a while, so
perhaps the major journals have begun to accept submissions via SMS?
To echo other responses on the paper, the biggest objection (aside
from the minimal novelty of the subject matter itself) is likely to
revolve around your non-decryptable terminology. Your method is
clearly not non-decryptable to the owner or intended recipient who
possesses the key/pad with which the data was encrypted, or else it
would be useless. Further, no encryption technique is particularly
useful when decryptable by unintended agents. As a result the term
adds nothing meaningful in context, being either a logical
contradiction or tautology (depending on your intended connotation).
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fu...@yuggoth.org); FINGER(fu...@yuggoth.org);
MUD(kin...@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fu...@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); }
___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
Not 10^500. That's assuming all numbers are primes. With larger numbers, the ratio of prime numbers to ordinary drops. A lot. I don't think it's more than 1^50 primes there, could be far less. Also, you are SERIOUSLY underestimating cryptoanalysis. You assume to much about how well these tricks will be able to prevent cracking the crypto. Also, cryptoanalysis often provide attacks that is faster-than-bruteforce to get the key or plaintext. Now we are talking millions of times faster. Or more... You have not convinced me that an FPGA can't crack this in an hour. - Sent from my tablet Den 20 jun 2012 19:50 skrev Givonne Cirkin givo...@37.com: ok. lets say 500 characters with a random sequence -a prime key- can be brute forced decrypted. that's 10^500 combinations. now, if implementing my method, in the simplest of forms, it would be 10^500 * 8!^500 (factorial). is that still decryptable by brute force? However, I did add the dimension of not using base 2 or ASCII as I discuss in my article. so you have to go back and do it all again at least a second time for the several bases I mentioned. So, 3*(10^500 * 8!^500 (factorial). as i mention in my article, a ciphertext of 500 characters could be an encrypt of a plaintext of 500 or 375 or 250 characters. so, each possible merge has to first be removed. Then, brute forced decrypted. The equation for mask calculation was mentioned, but not inserted into the article. That would exceeded submission lengths. however, implementing my method with masking/merging would potentially variably alter the message length. taking simpler methods that i described in my paper, of a mask of 8 or 4 bits in a 16 bit data stream (see the illustration in the article), the number of masks would be 84,480 7,280 respectively. These too would have to be removed. The following includes only 2 of 15 possibilities. So, [84,480*(3*10^250*(8!)^250)]+[7,280*(3*10^375*(8!)^375)]+[3*10^500 * (8!)^500]. Are we still in the realm of brute force? you are definitely not rude. and, yeah, making a discovery or invention in encryption, has got to be very rare. that is why i ran this by every math professor colleague i knew, before submission. easy to err on this things. --- jd.cypherpu...@gmail.com wrote: From: jd.cypherpunks jd.cypherpu...@gmail.com To: givo...@37.com givo...@37.com Cc: Natanael natanae...@gmail.com, cryptography@randombit.net cryptography@randombit.net Subject: Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:20:13 +0200 Natanael natanae...@gmail.com wrote: One: On the second paper, you assume a prime number as long as the message is secure, and give an example of a message of 500 characters. Assuming ASCII coding and compression, that will be just a few hundred bits. RSA (using primes too) of 1024 bits is now being considered insecure by more and more people. I'm afraid that simple bruteforce could break your scheme quite fast. Also, why not use simple XOR in that case? Yep - bruteforce will work here. btw - when it comes to 'non-decryptable encryption' I still like OTP. :) Read or re-read Steven Bellovins wonderfull piece about Frank Miller, the Inventor of the One-Time Pad https://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=1460 I'm not a rude guy and try not to diminish your archievments but there's some truth in the following sentence: Even if clever beyond description the odds that someone without too much experience in the field can revolutionize cryptography are small. Can't remember who said this - or something similar to this - but it's true anyhow. Think about this every time when I try to 'invent' something within my fields. :) --Michael Den 18 jun 2012 12:56 skrev Givonne Cirkin givo...@37.com: 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. I am asking the hacking community for help. Help me test my methods. The following message is encrypted using one of my new methods. Logically, it should not be decryptable by method. If you can decrypt it, please let me know you did how. CipherText: 113-5-95-5-65-46-108-108-92-96-54-23-51-163-30-7-34-117-117-30-110-36-12-102-99-30-77-102 Thanks. I have a website about this: www.givonzirkind.weebly.com For information about
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Givonne Cirkin givo...@37.com wrote: curious, why don't some ppl trust link shortners? is that a generation gap thing. Someone recently played a trick on Full Disclosure. Something about advanced notice of an Apple Update. It was a bitty link to a eVote system (if I recall). He fooled a lot of folks 2nd. ur guesses are wrong. There is a generation gap when phone-speak is normal. [SNIP... ] Jeff ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am reminded of an article my dear old friend, Martin Minow, did in Cryptologia ages ago. He wrote the article I think for the April 1984 issue. It might not have been 1984, but it was definitely April. In it, he described a cryptosystem in which you set the key to be the same as the plaintext and then XOR them together. There is a two-fold beauty to this. First that you have full information-theoretic security on the scheme. It is every bit as secure as a one-time pad without the restrictions of a one-time pad as to randomness of the keys and so on. The second wonderful property is that the ciphertext is compressible. Usually cipher text is not compressible, but in this case it is. Moreover, it is *maximally* compressible. The ciphertext can be compressed to a single bit and the ciphertext length recovered after key distribution. I think that non-decryptable encryption really needs to cite Minow's pioneering work. Jon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Universal 3.2.0 (Build 1672) Charset: us-ascii wj8DBQFP4CW6sTedWZOD3gYRAgW8AKCpdVUpa1CpDpn5F6ZB4hezweGa9gCgz/62 m2eb/GnTagRxb6O0ct0a2oQ= =Gwp3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:09 AM, Jon Callas wrote: * PGP Signed: 06/19/2012 at 12:09:46 AM I am reminded of an article my dear old friend, Martin Minow, did in Cryptologia ages ago. He wrote the article I think for the April 1984 issue. It might not have been 1984, but it was definitely April. 1986. Cryptologia, Volume 10, Issue 2, 1986. The article is entitled NO TITLE. The first page is available here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161-118691860912 but sadly the rest of it is behind a paywall that wants $43 for the issue (or the whole volume for $58, such a bargain). Jon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Universal 3.2.0 (Build 1672) Charset: us-ascii wj8DBQFP4CoEsTedWZOD3gYRAouxAKDSMxRISY7BgZ7aLZ8TxCbm2uX+9gCg8T8E J/rdgBl2nIaHES8X2nWp0QY= =LZvI -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
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 ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
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
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
The digit sequence 0.1234567891011121314151617181920212223... (or its equivalent in binary, hex, or your other favorite base) never repeats, but provides no security whatsoever. One-time pads need nonrepeating sequences *which the adversary can't predict*. -- -- Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu Dept of Astronomy IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. -- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
absolutely true. i mentioned (in my article) that after explaining the masking. --- jth...@astro.indiana.edu wrote: From: Jonathan Thornburg jth...@astro.indiana.edu To: jam...@echeque.com, cryptography@randombit.net Subject: Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:30:59 -0400 (EDT) The digit sequence 0.1234567891011121314151617181920212223... (or its equivalent in binary, hex, or your other favorite base) never repeats, but provides no security whatsoever. One-time pads need nonrepeating sequences *which the adversary can't predict*. -- -- Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu Dept of Astronomy IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. -- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam ___ 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
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
On 2012-06-19 8:03 PM, Givonne Cirkin wrote: 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. This is just one time pad. ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
Natanael natanae...@gmail.com wrote: One: On the second paper, you assume a prime number as long as the message is secure, and give an example of a message of 500 characters. Assuming ASCII coding and compression, that will be just a few hundred bits. RSA (using primes too) of 1024 bits is now being considered insecure by more and more people. I'm afraid that simple bruteforce could break your scheme quite fast. Also, why not use simple XOR in that case? Yep - bruteforce will work here. btw - when it comes to 'non-decryptable encryption' I still like OTP. :) Read or re-read Steven Bellovins wonderfull piece about Frank Miller, the Inventor of the One-Time Pad https://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=1460 I'm not a rude guy and try not to diminish your archievments but there's some truth in the following sentence: Even if clever beyond description the odds that someone without too much experience in the field can revolutionize cryptography are small. Can't remember who said this - or something similar to this - but it's true anyhow. Think about this every time when I try to 'invent' something within my fields. :) --Michael Den 18 jun 2012 12:56 skrev Givonne Cirkin givo...@37.com: 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. I am asking the hacking community for help. Help me test my methods. The following message is encrypted using one of my new methods. Logically, it should not be decryptable by method. If you can decrypt it, please let me know you did how. CipherText: 113-5-95-5-65-46-108-108-92-96-54-23-51-163-30-7-34-117-117-30-110-36-12-102-99-30-77-102 Thanks. I have a website about this: www.givonzirkind.weebly.com For information about the Transcendental Encryption Codec click on the more tab. Also, on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/TranscendentalEncryptionCodecTec Givon Zirkind You @ 37.com - The world's easiest free Email address ! ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
