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/Kov1DE>http://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/LjrM61>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 You do know that no academic cryptographer is going to reply to a request like that unless they're bored, don't you? The question is do you understand why not? If you're asking the hacking community, you're asking for somebody to look at your programs and find how to steal the information without needing to break it mathematically. That's useful for open source implementations of encryption programs, but it doesn't address algorithms. Also, there's no limitation on publishing academic papers in non-US journals. _____________________________________________________________ You @ 37.com - The world's easiest free Email address ! _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
