T.E.C. has developed an Android jar library.
Hi,
My name is Givon Zirkind. I am a computer scientist. I developed a method of encryption that is uncrackable by method.*
You can read my paper at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4080 **
(The article has been rewritten to give greater clarity. Thanks to the input I have received. The new and older versions are available at the same link. The new version has been submitted to a peer review journal in cryptography July 15, 2012.)
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://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5922
This paper also couldn't get published. This too I was told doesn't follow the norm and is not uncrackable. 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 crackable. 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.
For more information about the Transcendental Encryption Codec click on the "more" tab
Givon Zirkind
* Initially, I used the term “non-decryptable by method”. This is a much older term that is not currently used. Reviewers at http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography suggested that I use the term “uncrackable”. Not to say they are convinced it is uncrackable. Just that what I am describing is uncrackable. (June 2012)
** I removed the short links at the suggestion of the Cryptography List (above). It seems to scare some people that they might be diverted to a malware attack. Personally, I would never click a link without checking it first. Shortened or not. That's a reflex to me. But, to allay all fears, I am now publishing the full link. (June 2012)
*** So far, no one has cracked this. One person suggested that the text was too short to crack. I dispute this. Equally short messages are decryptable.
**** If anyone can arrange a distributed hacking effort for this ciphertext (like the RSA challenge), to test its resistance to brute force, or the propensity to produce false positives, that would be a help. (June 22, 2012)
"What Does Non-Decryptable By Method Mean?" -- I have received a lot of negative comments about using this phrase. I have added an article describing this phrase and its origin. Why I think this phrase is superior to uncrackable or unbreakable. Why I use it. How it aptly describes this method.
Last modified February 22, 2016 (Modifications to separate pages are noted on the individual pages.)
My name is Givon Zirkind. I am a computer scientist. I developed a method of encryption that is uncrackable by method.*
You can read my paper at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4080 **
(The article has been rewritten to give greater clarity. Thanks to the input I have received. The new and older versions are available at the same link. The new version has been submitted to a peer review journal in cryptography July 15, 2012.)
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://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5922
This paper also couldn't get published. This too I was told doesn't follow the norm and is not uncrackable. 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 crackable. 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.
For more information about the Transcendental Encryption Codec click on the "more" tab
Givon Zirkind
* Initially, I used the term “non-decryptable by method”. This is a much older term that is not currently used. Reviewers at http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography suggested that I use the term “uncrackable”. Not to say they are convinced it is uncrackable. Just that what I am describing is uncrackable. (June 2012)
** I removed the short links at the suggestion of the Cryptography List (above). It seems to scare some people that they might be diverted to a malware attack. Personally, I would never click a link without checking it first. Shortened or not. That's a reflex to me. But, to allay all fears, I am now publishing the full link. (June 2012)
*** So far, no one has cracked this. One person suggested that the text was too short to crack. I dispute this. Equally short messages are decryptable.
**** If anyone can arrange a distributed hacking effort for this ciphertext (like the RSA challenge), to test its resistance to brute force, or the propensity to produce false positives, that would be a help. (June 22, 2012)
"What Does Non-Decryptable By Method Mean?" -- I have received a lot of negative comments about using this phrase. I have added an article describing this phrase and its origin. Why I think this phrase is superior to uncrackable or unbreakable. Why I use it. How it aptly describes this method.
Last modified February 22, 2016 (Modifications to separate pages are noted on the individual pages.)