

Cryptographic hobbyists claim to create unbreakable code - blatherard
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/02/technology/unhackable_code/

======
CJefferson
I wish people like cnn would do more research, or ask an encryption expert.

I could produce a dozen encryption systems which are fatally flawed, yet
impossible to hack given only a page or so of encrypted text.

The challenge comes when people

A) Know the algorithm.

B) Have Gigabytes of encrypted text.

Because there is no way you will ever keep your algorithm secret once you
release the software, and people will encrypt lots of text.

I am sure under these circumstances, their encryption will fall very quickly,
unless the underlying basis is one of the existing good encryption systems
(which I doubt).

EDIT: Found the following hilarious clip of text:

"We make you a deal: We will reveal our algorithm the same time when Google
reveals theirs. Does the fact that Google does not reveal their search
algorithm make their algorithm questionable?"

The very idea that google not sharing their search algorithms, and these
people not sharing their encryption algorithm, are the same thing, shows
either these people fundamentally misunderstand encryption, or are frauds. Or
both.

------
reemrevnivek
It's not even bad encryption, it's just a cipher. Release the executable,
analyze the assembly, and it's completely broken.

This is their test for unbreakability:

> We will create a contest where hackers will subscribe to with an entrance
> fee of $250.00. The first one to hack the encryption will receive 1 Million
> Dollars.

> 1.We will host the event at BYU.

> 2.One person will be assigned to choose an article from the web to be
> encrypted.

> 3.We will encrypt article

> 4.Hackers will attempt to crack the code

> 5.300 Days of standing offer.

> 6.If code will not be cracked, IPO in September 2012

This is not how peer review works. I don't think I need to point out why.

