kmitnick@mitnicksecurity.com
Givon Zirkind
Dear Kevin:
I recently finished reading “Ghost in the Wires”. I sent you an email through your agent. I did not get a response. You like a challenge? You test security measures, right? I am (among other things) a legit computer scientist. I own a patent in data compression (which by nature is encryption). And, I discovered various methods of non-decryptable encryption. I wrote several articles about this. Here are the links:
You can read my paper at: http://bit.ly/Kov1DE
I have a 2nd paper at: http://bit.ly/LjrM61
[You can find more of my papers on ACM. I have published other papers. Those papers are not specifically about encryption. But, they do include issues of encryption as part of the subject.]
My colleagues agree with me. But, I have not been able to get pass peer review and publish these papers. 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. In one review, I was told the 2nd paper doesn't follow the norm of decryption methods. Which I find odd, because it is merely the tweaking of an already known method of using prime numbers.
Other than mathematicians that I personally know, no mathematician in the US has agreed with these methods. Why? Either my papers go unread or the refutations are nothing more than attacks. I don't care how smart other experts may be, it's not possible to speed read a technical article of 30 pages in 5 minutes!
One expert told me there is no use for non-decryptable encryption. Work on hash methods instead. Really? Would you rather have a decryptable hash table or a non-decryptable hash table? I have never submitted these articles outside of the country to Cryptologia for review. Cryptologia, the top cryptography journal in the world, is located in Switzerland. That would be the best forum for this discussion. However, that is outside the US. And, I know what I made. If I started exporting this very strong encryption, in spite of what other math or computer science journal reviewers say, I would be in a jail cell. You know how that goes.
Please, help me test my methods. The following messages are encrypted using my methods. One is decryptable, albeit, with immense computing power. The other, logically, should not be decryptable by "method". If you can decrypt the 2nd one without guessing, please let me know you did & how.
This is decryptable by method: 52-71-60-25-62-30-60-67-60-84-28-34-52-121-60-73-62-50-60-124-60-67-60-47-60-109
This is not decryptable by method: 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
Perhaps the hacker community would like to help? They should be up for a challenge.
If you are not interested in assessing these methods, please let me know that too.
I'm just looking for a break. Some recognition for my work. I know these methods can only be used by the government. Which is why I never tried to patent them. I am no legal expert on encryption. But, I'd imagine individuals can't use one-time key encryption either. That was seized by the government and declared restricted technology prior to WWII. I've read about how the government insists that backdoors be built into operating systems for bugging. And, I know that IBM built a non-decryptable machine in the 60s. But, never sold it due to government pressure. However, with recognition that I did develop something of this magnitude, perhaps I could get other work, that is legally permitted. (Encrypting access password tables perhaps? Not, files or transmissions, but just password tables.)
Also, should you assess that these methods live up to my claims, please recommend me to government contacts that would be appropriate. I know there are implementation issues.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Givon
Givon Zirkind
Dear Kevin:
I recently finished reading “Ghost in the Wires”. I sent you an email through your agent. I did not get a response. You like a challenge? You test security measures, right? I am (among other things) a legit computer scientist. I own a patent in data compression (which by nature is encryption). And, I discovered various methods of non-decryptable encryption. I wrote several articles about this. Here are the links:
You can read my paper at: http://bit.ly/Kov1DE
I have a 2nd paper at: http://bit.ly/LjrM61
[You can find more of my papers on ACM. I have published other papers. Those papers are not specifically about encryption. But, they do include issues of encryption as part of the subject.]
My colleagues agree with me. But, I have not been able to get pass peer review and publish these papers. 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. In one review, I was told the 2nd paper doesn't follow the norm of decryption methods. Which I find odd, because it is merely the tweaking of an already known method of using prime numbers.
Other than mathematicians that I personally know, no mathematician in the US has agreed with these methods. Why? Either my papers go unread or the refutations are nothing more than attacks. I don't care how smart other experts may be, it's not possible to speed read a technical article of 30 pages in 5 minutes!
One expert told me there is no use for non-decryptable encryption. Work on hash methods instead. Really? Would you rather have a decryptable hash table or a non-decryptable hash table? I have never submitted these articles outside of the country to Cryptologia for review. Cryptologia, the top cryptography journal in the world, is located in Switzerland. That would be the best forum for this discussion. However, that is outside the US. And, I know what I made. If I started exporting this very strong encryption, in spite of what other math or computer science journal reviewers say, I would be in a jail cell. You know how that goes.
Please, help me test my methods. The following messages are encrypted using my methods. One is decryptable, albeit, with immense computing power. The other, logically, should not be decryptable by "method". If you can decrypt the 2nd one without guessing, please let me know you did & how.
This is decryptable by method: 52-71-60-25-62-30-60-67-60-84-28-34-52-121-60-73-62-50-60-124-60-67-60-47-60-109
This is not decryptable by method: 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
Perhaps the hacker community would like to help? They should be up for a challenge.
If you are not interested in assessing these methods, please let me know that too.
I'm just looking for a break. Some recognition for my work. I know these methods can only be used by the government. Which is why I never tried to patent them. I am no legal expert on encryption. But, I'd imagine individuals can't use one-time key encryption either. That was seized by the government and declared restricted technology prior to WWII. I've read about how the government insists that backdoors be built into operating systems for bugging. And, I know that IBM built a non-decryptable machine in the 60s. But, never sold it due to government pressure. However, with recognition that I did develop something of this magnitude, perhaps I could get other work, that is legally permitted. (Encrypting access password tables perhaps? Not, files or transmissions, but just password tables.)
Also, should you assess that these methods live up to my claims, please recommend me to government contacts that would be appropriate. I know there are implementation issues.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Givon
