Welcome once again to your weekly round of 'Smell that Snake Oil'
A detailed description of the IMDMP encryption algorithm will be posted to 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.
This is a good start. You would do well to keep your wild claims to a minimum until after the first cursory reviews.
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, IDEA 128, and IMDMP 2048 were applied at their maximum settings on a file
DES 128 - no such beast PGP 1024 - this is presumably a RSA key size, and has nothing to do with the session key involved in actually encrypting the data RSA 128 - RSA is not suited to encrypting streams of data but if you wanted to use it for that purpose 128bits would be ridiculusly to small to be secure IDEA 128 - wow, you've actually named one real block cipher! IMDMP 2048 - feh
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.
The fact that you would consider this to be a sufficient test is proof enough for me that you should not be designing cryptosystems.
Are all of you out there satisfied?
Not even close. -Blake (who's waiting for the first pyramid-scheme cipher to be announced here next week)