{Please read this *entire* e-mail message.} Hi, this mailing list within a few days. An end-user application will be released within a few weeks. I would appreciate it if all you cypherpunks out there review the description and the software, and tell me what you think of IMDMP.
I think I can speak for all of us when I say we are waiting with baited breath. Yes, Virginia, that _is_ sarcasm.
Also: The AOL web site address my company has may not always work out when the server is having problems or user overloads. Please try again later. Again, the web site address for UDCM, Universal Data Cryptography Module, is: http://members.aol.com/DataETRsch/udcm.html.
For $100 up front, and about $40 a month you can get a real domain name and virtual domain that doesn't have a problem with "user overloads". If you are so high tech, why are you using AOL for a WEB SERVER? (this is a seperate issue from using it for _access_)
IN RESPONSE TO THE FLAME MAIL DATA RESEARCH HAS BEEN RECEIVING: Note: The 18 "sub-algorithms" of IMDMP are basically algorithm "modes", and, yes, many algorithms do *not* have multiple encryption layers, although, obviously, the more advanced ones do. Also, 256 bytes is equal to 2048 bits. I realize that most of you out there know that, but some of you don't. "Bits" are referenced more often than "bytes". And, the "industry standard" that IMDMP is obviously well above is DES, etc. Also, DES 128, PGP 1024, RSA 128,
With certain versions of PGP (or rather with non-us versions of certain libraries used by PGP) you can get much larger keys than 1024. In fact with 2.62 you can (IIRC) do 2048.
IDEA 128, and IMDMP 2048 were applied at their maximum settings on a file full of about 64 *million* repeating "A" ASCII character bytes. The mutation
levels the algorithms rendered on their individual trash test files were compared. Subtle patterns where searched for. Binary character tallys where taken. IMDMP did *not* leave *any* repeating patterns in the test file that was used. In IMDMP, each of the 256 possible binary character combinations had an approximate count of 0.390625% of all of the 64 million bytes. 0.390625% is the best possible percentage. Are all of you out there satisfied?
Well, just for fun, I wrote a short C program that wrote a file of 64,000,000 A's, and ran it thru PGP with a key size of 1024, and grabbed the pre-ascii armor version of it. I looked thru it, and no obvious patterns were there. PGP must use a pretty good compression algorythm(sp?) since the gzip of the A's file is only about 13 bytes longer than the gzip version. A second pass of gzip gives me a file of 289 bytes. In fact, I would doubt that any half way decent encryption program _would show repeating worth a damn, compression should take care of most of the *obvious* patterns in normal text. 2 or more passes should handle anything deliberately (or naturally) pattern heavy. So no. I am not impressed. Post the code, pay OUTSIDERS to look at your code. Get it banned by the NSA, _then_ I'll be impressed.