InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 30
Posts 6979
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 08/22/2008

Re: investnopump post# 16046

Tuesday, 04/04/2017 2:45:27 PM

Tuesday, April 04, 2017 2:45:27 PM

Post# of 24387
LET ME SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ABOUT OUR TECHNOLOGY.......

The following is from DR. CARLSON ....aka The Great Oz.......@ approx 2:40 pm est today.

?Polymorphic encryption is a name that has been applied to several types of encryption over the last fifteen years. The word “polymorphic” means having many forms, changing or mutating over time. The original polymorphic cipher was the Vernam Cipher, or One Time Pad (OTP), created in 1913. Certainly the viability of this cipher is undisputed. Claude Elwood Shannon (who is the father of modern Cryptography, Information Theory, Shannon Theory, Communications Theory, defined language redundancy and entropy, unicity distance, and unified Boolean Algebra and Switching Theory) declared that the OTP is the ONLY PERFECTLY MATHEMATICALLY SECURE cipher [1]. In fact the OTP is so strong that it was used as the primary encryption for the US, Russia, and other countries from 1913 until the 1990’s. The main reason it fell from use was the cost of producing the keys for use with the cipher. It is susceptible to no known heuristic attack. In fact, it is held up as the standard that every cipher tries to achieve. It is the undisputed best cipher. Unfortunately for users who are not nation-states, this encryption is not cost effective and out of the reach of normal users. This has forced users to search for more cost effective polymorphic, or “mutating” ciphers.
?Mutating ciphers were the subject of Dan Brown’s book, Digital Fortress [2], which was considered science fiction at the time it was published (2000). The plot revolved around a computational implementation of a polymorphic cipher. However, polymorphic ciphers like the OTP were not implementable at the time due to the random nature of their key generation. That key point remains a problem today. It is impossible to replicate random streams on two devices without sharing a list of keys. The problem of synchronizing a cipher using true randomness has yet to be solved. However, it is possible to make a cipher appear to use randomness if data is interleaved or can be generated from a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) whose cycle is sufficiently long with respect to the message being encrypted.
?In 2001 a research project was started by (then) graduate student (and later Dr.) Albert Carlson at the University of Idaho to extend ciphers to make a practical approximation of the OTP. In fact, this became the inspiration and basis for his Dissertation [3] that showed methodology for isomorphic reduction of all ciphers and documented the principles of polymorphic encryption. This dissertation included several papers on the subject published between 2005 and 2013 [4, 5, 6, 7], for example. A direct result of research in this project is the CipherLoc technology. By time frame, this PRECEEDED the other work done in the field. The system that was designed, and later improved upon by CipherLoc, uses this approach along with characterizing the message to determine when sufficient redundancy accrues in a smaller “sub-message” to allow for decryption. By changing the cipher and/or key both independently and UNDER this local unicity distance it is impossible to gain enough information to decryption the sub-message, or the message. No other company or research group has taken this approach to encryption. This was recognized in US patent, which MUST include NEW technology, number 9,178,514.
It should be noted that in 2014 the Supreme Court invalidated software patents, in general. That is why the patent for this technology granted to CipherLoc revolves around a hardware implementation of the technology. Also, the CipherLoc Polymorphic Key Progression Algorithm (PKPA) is NOT an encryption. It is an encryption methodology that uses standard, peer reviewed and judged hard ciphers in a unique way. Further, it has the SAME features as the OTP without the cost.
Until CipherLoc introduced its Polymorphic Key Progression Algorithm the definition used by other practitioners has been related only to the form of a single encryption. For example:
1. PMC (Germany) – Created by CB Roellgen this cipher is a variation of a stream cipher. This was reviewed by Bruce Schneier in 2003. His review can be found at the following address: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/new_attack_agai.html. Schneier panned the company and the implementation because of the lack of transparency and quality of the supporting paper. While it was called “polymorphic,” it only changes form in a deterministic manner that cannot truly be called polymorphic.
2. The 2007 patent “Polymorphic Encryption System, Patent Publication No. 2007/0028088 – This patent uses a three layer system to encrypt once, compress, and randomize the data. Such a system does not change the encryption but rather includes two steps to mix the data. It accomplishes the same thing as a mode and does not change the encryption, or mutate. The patent is not germane to the process used by CipherLoc.

In summary, it has been shown that:

1. Polymorphic ciphers are possible (the OTP) and safe
2. The CipherLoc technology PRECEEDED other so called “polymorphic” encryptions
3. The CipherLoc implementation of PKPA is new (the patent)
4. The CipherLoc implementation does NOT infringe on any other noted method, nor does it resemble any other implementation, just compare it with the referenced material. In fact, other patents may be invalidated because of CipherLoc AS prior art
5. The CipherLoc technology is NOT just a research project (it is being evaluated and used, it is also ready for sale), although research continues to find the extensions of the technology

The conclusion is simple, the technology is NOT “old news” and it is NOT a “toy,” “research project,” or useless technology. Work on the technology has resulted in a granted patent, numerous patents pending, a PhD, and numerous academic papers.

References:
[1] CE Shannon, Communication Theory of Secrecy Systems, “Bell Technical Journal,” 1949, v. 28, pp 656 – 715.
[2] D Brown, Digital Fortress, St. Martin’s Press, 2000
[3] AH Carlson, Set Theoretic Estimation Applied to the Content of Ciphers and Decryption, University of Idaho, University of Idaho, 2012
[4] RE Hiromoto, AH Carlson, and RB Wells, An Information Based Approach to Cryptography, The 6th Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management Applications Conference, 2007
[5] AH Carlson, Rb Wells, and RE Hiromoto, Breaking Block and Product Ciphers Applied Across Byte Boundaries, The 6th IEEE Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications, 2001, pp. 733 – 736.
[6] AH Carlson, RE Hiromoto, and RB Wells, Breaking Block and Product Ciphers, International Journal of Computing, v 12, no. 3, 2013, pp. 256 – 263
[7] AH Carlson, RB Wells, and RE Hiromoto, Using Set Theoretic Estimation to Implement Shannon Secrecy Theory, Proc. of the 3rd IEEE Workshop on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advance Computing Systems: Technology and Applications, Sofia, Bulgaria, Sept 5 – 7, 2005, pp. 256 - 263
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent SDCH News