IMDMP 8192 PKCS and IMDMP Summary

Hi, You have probably read a few of my past messages about UDCM and IMDMP. The variation of IMDMP implemented within UDCM V2.0 and UDCM V3.0 does not include a public key cryptosystem. However, on March 1st, 1997, new versions of UDCM and IMDMP will be released that do support the public key cryptosystem method. The future versions will also support multi-party key integration features, four platform independent random number generator algorithms, as well as 1024 (8192 bit) keys. Note that the current version of IMDMP only allows 256 byte (1024) bit keys. The current shareware version and the future shareware version of UDCM will still only allow 5 byte (40 bit) keys so as to comply with ITAR unless a key recovery infrastructure is established. A public key directory infrastructure is being considered for development as well. Also note that versions of UDCM are being planned for the UNIX, DOS, and Macintosh System platforms. There are a few major mistakes in a couple of my previous delegated messages. An end-user application that supports IMDMP will not be released until March 1st, 1997. A detailed description of IMDMP will not be released as planned, but, instead, the undocumented primary source code of UDCM (containing the IMDMP encryption algorithm) will be released on February 1st, 1997. A partially detailed summary of the IMDMP is now included in VENDOR.DOC file of the UDCM V2.0 software package / archive. UDCM V2.0 was modified to restrict keys to 50 bits so as to comply with the latest ITAR details. The extensively confusing exportation restrictions sections of UDCM's documentation were modified as well. I am extremely sorry about the apparently extraneous information that is present in a few of my first messages to this mailing list. Such a negative level feedback was not anticipated. I do admit that single key encryption methods are not too comparable to PKCS methods. What I was referring to when I said IMDMP is more advanced than RSA, etc. is the actual encryption procedure itself, not the way keys are secured. Again, irrashional claims were not intended at all. The amount of analytical research invested in IMDMP was thought to be sufficient. By the way, has anyone out there even tried using UDCM to encrypt a file or two? I do not know how some of you can say that IMDMP is a simple XOR-ing and AND-ing algorithm without trying it first. I find it extremely hard to believe that the celebrated creator(s) of Blowfish, IDEA, etc. had to go through all of this ritualistic screening complexity too. (Please do correct me if I am wrong.) (For the record: DataET Research's promotional agent has been fired.) Again, the web site address of UDCM is: http://members.aol.com/dataetrsch/udcm.html. The web site includes has a link to the VENDOR.DOC file which includes the aforesaid updated information. UDCMV20.ZIP is currently unavailable on the web site as the software is undergoing additional security modifications. By the way, the web page's ugly background his been removed. The IMDMP encryption algorithm itself combines various simple and complex methods to secure digital data: standard randomized and fixed substitution, standard randomized and fixed AND and XOR logic, integrated and interlaced randomized XOR logic, NOT logic, randomized and fixed bit shifting, randomized transposition scrambling, linear sequential bit incrementation and decrementation, integrated and interlaced randomized and fixed byte dependency structuring, sequential byte pyramid structuring, asymmetric non-linear chaos and complexity based binary selection equation key integration, anomalous key bit factoring, and continuous key bit modification structuring. Sub-algorithms of IMDMP are basically additional applications of one or more of the aforesaid techniques. Questions, queries, or comments ("gulp")? E-Mail: DataETRsch@aol.com, JKYuRamos@aol.com, or DataETResearch@geocities.com. Note: From now on, any messages to DataET Research that do not contain the text "NO FLAME" somewhere in the subject heading will be ignored completely. If a message is a indeed flame, the associated server's administrator will be contacted, and a complaint will be filed accordingly. Thank you very much for your time. Jeremy K. Yu-Ramos President DataET Research Data Engineering Technologies

DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:
By the way, has anyone out there even tried using UDCM to encrypt a file or two? I do not know how some of you can say that IMDMP is a simple XOR-ing and AND-ing algorithm without trying it first. I find it extremely hard to believe that the celebrated creator(s) of Blowfish, IDEA, etc. had to go through all of this ritualistic screening complexity too. (Please do correct me if I am wrong.)
yes, you are wrong.
(For the record: DataET Research's promotional agent has been fired.)
Can you prove that?
Questions, queries, or comments ("gulp")? E-Mail: DataETRsch@aol.com, JKYuRamos@aol.com, or DataETResearch@geocities.com. Note: From now on, any messages to DataET Research that do not contain the text "NO FLAME" somewhere in the subject heading will be ignored completely. If a message is a indeed flame, the associated server's administrator will be contacted, and a complaint will be filed accordingly.
Jeremy, if you ignore them, how can you complain about them? Something fishy is going on? - Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:
Questions, queries, or comments ("gulp")? E-Mail: DataETRsch@aol.com, JKYuRamos@aol.com, or DataETResearch@geocities.com. Note: From now on, any messages to DataET Research that do not contain the text "NO FLAME" somewhere in the subject heading will be ignored completely. If a message is a indeed flame, the associated server's administrator will be contacted, and a complaint will be filed accordingly.
Jeremy, if you ignore them, how can you complain about them? Something fishy is going on?
Good nose, Igor. These guys sent their 'grand announcement' of their encryption software to this list, and then sat back and waited for the !!!**APPLAUSE**!!! to come rolling in. Then the poor little boys seem to have gotten their feelings hurt by the potential 'consumers' of their product (pun intentional), asking serious questions about their product. Apparently, "Excuse me, sir, but does your product 'work'?", is a FLAME. Without an objective critique of their product, I would suggest that they their best chance for success lies in the "Make $$$Money$$$ Fast' forums--not the CypherPunks list. On the other hand, if they make it in the cryptography market, then maybe my dream of being an amateur brain surgeon is alive and well. Toto

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:
Hi,
You have probably read a few of my past messages about UDCM and IMDMP.
Unfortunately.
include a public key cryptosystem. However, on March 1st, 1997, new versions of UDCM and IMDMP will be released that do support the public key cryptosystem method.
I hope your not violating any patents. (Hint hint).
There are a few major mistakes in a couple of my previous delegated messages. An end-user application that supports IMDMP will not be released until March 1st, 1997.
Why are you babbling to us now then?
methods are not too comparable to PKCS methods. What I was referring to when I said IMDMP is more advanced than RSA, etc. is the actual encryption procedure itself, not the way keys are secured.
Uh, that doesn't help. You still have no proof for this claim either.
Again, irrashional claims ^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh boy.
were not intended at all. The amount of analytical research invested in IMDMP was thought to be sufficient.
One expects more from a company asking for investors to the tune of 1.5 million.
By the way, has anyone out there even tried using UDCM to encrypt a file or two?
Want to pay me to betatest?
AND-ing algorithm without trying it first. I find it extremely hard to believe that the celebrated creator(s) of Blowfish, IDEA, etc. had to go through all of this ritualistic screening complexity too. (Please do correct me if I am wrong.)
Consider ourself corrected. IDEA and Blowfish have been extensively hashed through. Flaws, most small and correctable, were revealed in that process too. (I believe one Blowfish implementation had more serious problems which were exposed by this "ritualistic screening." It's the only way to make cryptosystems secure. Deal with it or find another profession. (Or simply sell it to people who have no clue about the product).
(For the record: DataET Research's promotional agent has been fired.)
Gosh, who's left working at the company now?
Questions, queries, or comments ("gulp")? E-Mail: DataETRsch@aol.com, JKYuRamos@aol.com, or DataETResearch@geocities.com. Note: From now on, any messages to DataET Research that do not contain the text "NO FLAME" somewhere in the subject heading will be ignored completely. If a message is a indeed flame, the associated server's administrator will be contacted, and a complaint will be filed accordingly.
I don't expect you will see many messages. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:
Questions, queries, or comments ("gulp")? E-Mail: DataETRsch@aol.com, JKYuRamos@aol.com, or DataETResearch@geocities.com. Note: From now on, any messages to DataET Research that do not contain the text "NO FLAME" somewhere in the subject heading will be ignored completely. If a message is a indeed flame, the associated server's administrator will be contacted, and a complaint will be filed accordingly.
Have they hired Sandy to moderate 'their' incoming email, too? It seems like moderating CypherPunk responses is becoming a cottage industry.

DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:
Hi, However, on March 1st, 1997, new versions of UDCM and IMDMP will be released that... The future versions will also ...
Future versions of my replies will contain $100 bills...
I am extremely sorry about the apparently extraneous information that is present in a few of my first messages to this mailing list. Such a negative level feedback was not anticipated.
You have to realize that in posting to this list, you are subjecting your software to review by people who are capable of performing strange sex-acts with algorithms. The good news is--if you can 'sell' it here, you can sell it anywhere. Toto
participants (4)
-
Black Unicorn
-
DataETRsch@aol.com
-
ichudov@algebra.com
-
Toto