From: "Björn Persson" <Bjorn@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>
Subject: Re: For Whatever it is Worth to Know.
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:05:08 +0200
Date: 2013-09-13T01:05:08+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1379027108.2145.131.camel@speedy.xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <282cbd22-508d-424e-ae87-26a08458c16c@googlegroups.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2152 bytes --]
Austin Obyrne wrote:
> Recent help from readers has enabled me to put the final touches to an encryption project that has been ongoing for at least 10 years such that I can now say categorically that I have an Ada-driven vector-based cryptographic scheme that can encrypt any alphanumeric character that can be keyed in from a standard keyboard.
>
> That includes the entire writable subset of ASCII which is the character set numbered 32 to 126 inclusively in ASCII decimal representation.
Sorry to be blunt but this inability to handle binary data indicates a
design flaw in your program. Any decent encryption program can encrypt
arbitrary files – any data whatsoever.
> The cryptography, selectively chosen to be programmed in Ada only, is copyright registered by me in the USA and in the United Kingdom and I have not intention of agreeing to it being programmed in any other language except Ada.
Copyright doesn't allow you to forbid anyone from reimplementing your
algorithm in any language they choose. Only a patent can give you that
right. If you have bought a patent on your algorithm, then it won't be
widely used before the patent expires, because there are several
patent-free strong ciphers available.
> if it is key-able by a standard key board I can encrypt it unbreakably.
The only encryption scheme that has been proven unbreakable is One-Time
Pad, which is quite impractical for most uses. If you can present a more
practical scheme and prove that it's unbreakable, then you're going to
make a big splash when you publish your paper in a cryptology journal.
But if your proof doesn't hold water, then you will probably be quickly
dismissed.
> The foregoing claim is made in good faith
Right, so you don't have a proof and what you meant is that you haven't
been able to break your own cipher. Any fool can come up with a cipher
that he himself can't break. When an algorithm has been published and
multiple experienced cryptologists have scrutinized it and not found any
significant weaknesses, that's when it's time to start thinking that the
cipher might be good.
Björn Persson
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-12 23:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-11 1:01 For Whatever it is Worth to Know Austin Obyrne
2013-09-11 13:45 ` Oliver Kleinke
2013-09-12 23:05 ` Björn Persson [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox