Quote:
Originally Posted by hacker
|
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's secure.
I read their advertising spiel right up to "psuedorandom XOR" and at that point my babble detector overloaded and I had to stop. Anyone who eschews cryptographic descriptions in favour of random jargon is trying to hide something - and in cryptography, normally they're hiding the weakness of their algorithm.
A quick web search suggests that the owner is actively peddling his wares anywhere that crypto novices gather. There's an interesting disassembly of their claims in this forum:
http://www.security-forums.com/viewtopic.php?p=69206 On their web pages the author reprints a comment by Schneier "The theory description is so filled with pseudo-cryptography that it's funny to read. Hypotheses are presented as conclusions. Current research is misstated or ignored. The first link is a technical paper with four references, three of them written before 1975. Who needs thirty years of cryptographic research when you have polymorphic cipher theory?" and attempts to argue that since Schneier won't get into a pissing contest with him PMC is obviously perfect.