[cryptography] non-decryptable encryption

Natanael natanael.l at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 06:07:26 EDT 2012


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" <givonne at 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.
>
> --- jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
>
> From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd at echeque.com>
> To: cryptography at 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 at randombit.net
> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> You @ 37.com - The world's easiest free Email address !
> _______________________________________________
> cryptography mailing list
> cryptography at randombit.net
> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20120619/07fe269a/attachment.html>


More information about the cryptography mailing list