Heh, still going, eh?
No.
LOL
As already pointed out to you — several times —
it is incumbent upon you to prove your algorithm. You do this by going through the usual channels of cryptographic experts.
Instead, you want the whole world to take your word for it without this critical litmus.
If you are referring to helios failed attempt then you [Duthomhas] appear to be on a completely different page then what he [helios] is on. |
And now you prove yourself a liar. You use leading language to misrepresent
our own positions to us.
That’s some pretty solid brass balls.
Helios easily recovered your algorithm, which showed it to be little more than a fancy linear congruential permutation. I am not the only one who immediately recognized it for that and pointed out the ease by which it can be cracked. We even listed methods to do it.
You claim that we are “on a different page” and that “helios failed” because he didn’t bother to actually
write code that cracks your algorithm.
Because you are a liar.
Your algorithm is already proven broken, and very obviously so.
Ang wrote: |
---|
Otherwise if it was cracked by another of the non experts on this site then please show me where this is - I either missed that post or its been done in a different thread to this one which would be stupid - why not just post it here where it is relevant. |
You seem to have missed quite a lot. You came here asking for validation of your program. We informed you we weren’t the right people to ask, but broke your algorithm anyway.
It is
you who has become offended and rude. Because we didn’t respond with what you wanted to read. Sucks to be ruled by your pride, doesn’t it?
Ang wrote: |
---|
If all you can however provide is lip service instead of actual evidence, then anyone can also claim that TwoFish and AES-256 have been broken by us without providing any evidence at all. |
Again, you offer logical fallacy.
Lip service is simply saying what you wish to be true — which is exactly what you are doing: “our algorithm is uncrackable because
no one has [bothered to] crack it”.
Evidence is the exact opposite: “here’s the code to your algorithm; it is easily identifiable as a LC*, and can be cracked by at least the following methods...”
You then equate that straightforward logic with a false proposition: “your [claim that forum members didn’t make] can be used to discredit [algorithms that have been proven secure by the process forum members recommended to you]”.
You liar.
Go and vet your algorithm through the standard cryptographer’s channels.
Once you do that, feel free to come back and tell us we are wicked for rejecting your
a priori claim about an unbreakable method.
Ang wrote: |
---|
Btw, we also don’t believe helios claims that he will be able to crack this app in 2 weeks. And we will unfortunately not be paying you or anyone else for attempting or pretending to attempt to crack this app. |
You can believe whatever you want.
Come for advice, refuse to take it, refuse to take the steps to prove your algorithm valid (which includes spending money on experts!)... and claim everyone else is a liar.
You liar.
Certain members from this site then chose to insult my copany
and my developer on an almost personel level due to them not having the required skills to accommodate the request.
Nowhere in my initial responses or original post did I insult members in this group or this group as a whole. Quite the opposite actually, my approaching this site / forum was a sign of great respect from our side and
instead of treating us with the same respect, you (members of this site) chose to disrespect us by insulting my company, developer and elements of the app that are subjective to personal taste like the way the app looks. |
I have already refuted this bald claim in this very thread. Only
one person made a disparaging remark, and I
immediately responded
in your favor.
You say you came here as a matter of respect for the forum. Maybe you did, initially. But that respect evaporated the instant we did not all agree that your app is amazing. Instead, you outright rejected our advice, repeatedly claiming that your developer knows better.
We may not be crypto experts, but we
are CS experts. Those of us who have responded to this thread have worked for decades in the industry. And we know enough to say that your algorithm is BS.
>>>>> OUR ADVICE REMAINS THE SAME
>>>>> Use a known, proven algorithm like TwoFish or AES,
>>>>>
advertise the fact,
>>>>> and make good, safe money.
Ang wrote: |
---|
Please note that [a lot of mixed-up crap about looking pretty and judgementalism and BS that goes: if we release our source it is less secure] |
You don’t seem to want to accept that that very statement reveals you to be completely and hopelessly
clueless about application security.
>>>>>
I pity the poor saps that believe your advertising and trust their secrets to your software.
Ang wrote: |
---|
... we would like to estimate your ability to judge another app we released that should avoid the bias elements associated with the Password Locket app.
[stuff advertizing another application] |
LOL, are you joking?
You aren’t just a liar. You’re a filthy
spammer.
Get lost.