Re: A matter of interest.

[Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:25:17 PM UTC, Denis McMahon wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 11:56:09 -0800, brbarkstrom wrote:
> 
> > Fair enough.  However, I think he should use the available Ada versions
> > of standard encryption algorithms.  Those will save his time and worries
> > about security by the user community.  While I have a PhD in astronomy
> > and had several years of advanced math as an undergraduate, I do not
> > have the mathematical qualifications to build a new encryption
> > algorithm.  Folks who do that kind of work need to have a very deep
> > understanding of number theory and related subjects.  'Nuff said.
> 
> Generic +1
> 
> Dan Boneh at Stanford runs online cryptography courses. The biggest thing 
> I learned from his courses was "leave it to the experts, because well 
> meaning amateurs haven't a hope in hell of getting it right"
> 
> -- 
> Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

Hi Dennis,

It is hard to comment on your remarks without seeming to have an axe to grind. There is nothing in it for me to sound off but I must say for whatever you think its worth - the monumental mistake has been in leaving to these self acclaimed experts - they have had fifty years of trying since the inception of number-theoretic computer driven cryptography in the seventies and so far nothing.

They are so far down the wrong road they do not realise  it.

The nub of the matter is that our beautiful number system that is so good at what it is intended to do is totally unsuited to cryptography because of the sheer transparency of it that is impossible to hide by any normal linear means. Nobody seems to realise this and that alternatives must be found - going down the road of intractability through complexity is both futile and by the way non-mathematical

The most fertile areas for research are far away from the traditional number system but that is as far as those people can think - hands on problem solving like finding crypto algorithms is beyond their ken it appears.

They are even talking about "principles of cryptography" which cannot exist until proper cryptography i.e. "Theoretically Unbreakable" algorithms are demonstrated  They are also talking about the mathematics of cryptography which does not exist for the same reason.

I can demonstrate my invention of this ultimate class of cryptography and have made it available on my website http://www.adacryptpages.com for all to see and criticise.  The establishment are ignoring all overtures from me to submit my stuff and only one of about six has had the decency to answer my email - That is the "Imperial College  London" - Professor Craster is Head of the Applied Maths department there.

The establishment are a dishonest, intransigent lot of bluffers.

I think we may be on the cusp of a massive change so scared is everybody to come out and talk.

It is ludicrous to see the list of papers, past, present and future on complexity-theoretic algorithms that have no future being posted on the websites of many universities and even the IACR (International association for Cryptological Research) - I think.  

No Sir - I do not think much of your suggestions that we leave it to these people.

adacrypt