Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mit.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Simon Lewis Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: How much is my encryption algorithm worth? Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:06:32 +0100 Organization: Lewis Lines: 28 Message-ID: <87ior3vosn.fsf@gmail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: mit.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1756d1cc51011c8d02f0865f8ce05445"; logging-data="22448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+33KlsMBCq3TbnxQUyOj3xBinySCphiyA=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qRzpeYoPB28XYUaYp7ybI84pvBc= sha1:uFr7aA9jNtt1rB+fGIgzxjeDZ2g= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:27836 Joshua Cranmer 🐧 writes: > On 3/22/2014 9:53 PM, Daniel Mullarkey wrote: >> I developed a lossless, key-based, encryption algorithm that can work >> in any modern programming language and it has a 1-to-1 relationship >> between the unencrypted values and the encrypted values as long as >> the key remains the same and the minimum values and maximum values >> are known. The key can also be of virtually limitless size. How much >> is this encryption algorithm potentially worth if I patent it? > > I'd estimate about $0. > > Cryptography is difficult and surprisingly involved. No one should be willing to > trust their data to an algorithm that has not undergone intense > cryptanalysis. At the very least, there needs to be signs that the inventor is > very much aware of cryptography and what can go wrong. The selection process for > the SHA-3, for example, rejected 26 of 51 round-1 applicants due to substantial > cryptographic weaknesses, and many of these were presumably proposed by active > cryptographic researchers (since it had to be approved well enough by NIST to > make it into round 1). > > Your coyness about describing any elements of the algorithm and the inability to > find a more appropriate venue (such as, I don't know, sci.crypt) are highly > suggestive that you have no practical experience in understanding why > cryptographic algorithms would be weak. But highly suggestive that he's a seasoned troll who knows just how to get a bunch of opinionated blow hards puffing ;)