From: Tom St Denis on
On Jul 1, 7:45 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I reckon he is seriously short on any original thinking let alone an
> invention.

I was exploring cipher design theory long before you started your ADA
drivel here. You'd just have to be knowledgeable about cryptography
to have seen any of it.

> His stuff on BigNum is just is a continuation of the marketing hype of
> the RSA cipher which incidentally is an acknowledged failure of an
> attempt at a mathematicall one-way function - the RSA team spent years

Acknowledge by whom? Also I implement ECC as well. How does that fit
into your paradigm?

> looking for one and eventually sttled for what we know - i.e. a cipher
> that is based on a function that is computationally infeasible only
> when to be truly one-way it must be computationally impossible - the
> RSA cipher yields only practically unbreakable cryptography as a
> result -  a proper one-way mathematical function has no known inverse
> albeit a legitimate function per se it cannot be inverted by
> mathematical means but instead needs human intervention by supplying
> an operand (mutual database technology does that) - there is a tacit

First off, looking up data in a database is computation. So from a
computational theory point of view there is really no difference
between computing something mechanically (multiplying integers,
polynomials, etc) and looking up values in a database.

Also, your "mutual database" idea is not a public key scheme, it's not
a trap door. It's a symmetric cipher [at best] which is a whole other
beast.

Finally, if the function doesn't have an inverse it's not a trap-
door. It's a one-way function.

Of course you'd know all that if you picked up a book or two and read
them instead of using them to prop open doors.

Tom