IMDMP 8192 PKCS and IMDMP Summary

Hi,

You have probably read a few of my past messages about UDCM and IMDMP. The
variation of IMDMP implemented within UDCM V2.0 and UDCM V3.0 does not
include a public key cryptosystem. However, on March 1st, 1997, new versions
of UDCM and IMDMP will be released that do support the public key
cryptosystem method. The future versions will also support multi-party key
integration features, four platform independent random number generator
algorithms, as well as 1024 (8192 bit) keys. Note that the current version of
IMDMP only allows 256 byte (1024) bit keys. The current shareware version and
the future shareware version of UDCM will still only allow 5 byte (40 bit)
keys so as to comply with ITAR unless a key recovery infrastructure is
established. A public key directory infrastructure is being considered for
development as well. Also note that versions of UDCM are being planned for
the UNIX, DOS, and Macintosh System platforms.

There are a few major mistakes in a couple of my previous delegated messages.
An end-user application that supports IMDMP will not be released until March
1st, 1997. A detailed description of IMDMP will not be released as planned,
but, instead, the undocumented primary source code of UDCM (containing the
IMDMP encryption algorithm) will be released on February 1st, 1997. A
partially detailed summary of the IMDMP is now included in VENDOR.DOC file of
the UDCM V2.0 software package / archive. UDCM V2.0 was modified to restrict
keys to 50 bits so as to comply with the latest ITAR details. The extensively
confusing exportation restrictions sections of UDCM's documentation were
modified as well.

I am extremely sorry about the apparently extraneous information that is
present in a few of my first messages to this mailing list. Such a negative
level feedback was not anticipated. I do admit that single key encryption
methods are not too comparable to PKCS methods. What I was referring to when
I said IMDMP is more advanced than RSA, etc. is the actual encryption
procedure itself, not the way keys are secured. Again, irrashional claims
were not intended at all. The amount of analytical research invested in IMDMP
was thought to be sufficient.

By the way, has anyone out there even tried using UDCM to encrypt a file or
two? I do not know how some of you can say that IMDMP is a simple XOR-ing and
AND-ing algorithm without trying it first. I find it extremely hard to
believe that the celebrated creator(s) of Blowfish, IDEA, etc. had to go
through all of this ritualistic screening complexity too. (Please do correct
me if I am wrong.)

(For the record: DataET Research's promotional agent has been fired.)

Again, the web site address of UDCM is:
http://members.aol.com/dataetrsch/udcm.html. The web site includes has a link
to the VENDOR.DOC file which includes the aforesaid updated information.
UDCMV20.ZIP is currently unavailable on the web site as the software is
undergoing additional security modifications.

By the way, the web page's ugly background his been removed.

The IMDMP encryption algorithm itself combines various simple and complex
methods to secure digital data: standard randomized and fixed substitution,
standard randomized and fixed AND and XOR logic, integrated and interlaced
randomized XOR logic, NOT logic, randomized and fixed bit shifting,
randomized transposition scrambling, linear sequential bit incrementation and
decrementation, integrated and interlaced randomized and fixed byte
dependency structuring, sequential byte pyramid structuring, asymmetric
non-linear chaos and complexity based binary selection equation key
integration, anomalous key bit factoring, and continuous key bit modification
structuring. Sub-algorithms of IMDMP are basically additional applications of
one or more of the aforesaid techniques.

Questions, queries, or comments ("gulp")? E-Mail: DataETRsch@aol.com,
JKYuRamos@aol.com, or DataETResearch@geocities.com. Note: From now on, any
messages to DataET Research that do not contain the text "NO FLAME" somewhere
in the subject heading will be ignored completely. If a message is a indeed
flame, the associated server's administrator will be contacted, and a
complaint will be filed accordingly.

Thank you very much for your time.

Jeremy K. Yu-Ramos
President
DataET Research
Data Engineering Technologies

DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:
> By the way, has anyone out there even tried using UDCM to encrypt a file or
> two? I do not know how some of you can say that IMDMP is a simple XOR-ing and
> AND-ing algorithm without trying it first. I find it extremely hard to
> believe that the celebrated creator(s) of Blowfish, IDEA, etc. had to go
> through all of this ritualistic screening complexity too. (Please do correct
> me if I am wrong.)

yes, you are wrong.

> (For the record: DataET Research's promotional agent has been fired.)

Can you prove that?

> 
> Questions, queries, or comments ("gulp")? E-Mail: DataETRsch@aol.com,
> JKYuRamos@aol.com, or DataETResearch@geocities.com. Note: From now on, any
> messages to DataET Research that do not contain the text "NO FLAME" somewhere
> in the subject heading will be ignored completely. If a message is a indeed
> flame, the associated server's administrator will be contacted, and a
> complaint will be filed accordingly.

Jeremy, if you ignore them, how can you complain about them?

Something fishy is going on?

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: 
> DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:
> > Questions, queries, or comments ("gulp")? E-Mail: DataETRsch@aol.com,
> > JKYuRamos@aol.com, or DataETResearch@geocities.com. Note: From now on, any
> > messages to DataET Research that do not contain the text "NO FLAME" somewhere
> > in the subject heading will be ignored completely. If a message is a indeed
> > flame, the associated server's administrator will be contacted, and a
> > complaint will be filed accordingly.
> 
> Jeremy, if you ignore them, how can you complain about them?
> Something fishy is going on?

  Good nose, Igor.
  These guys sent their 'grand announcement' of their encryption
software to
this list, and then sat back and waited for the !!!**APPLAUSE**!!! to
come
rolling in.
  Then the poor little boys seem to have gotten their feelings hurt by 
the potential 'consumers' of their product (pun intentional), asking
serious questions about their product.
  Apparently, "Excuse me, sir, but does your product 'work'?", is a
FLAME.

  Without an objective critique of their product, I would suggest that
they their best chance for success lies in the "Make $$$Money$$$ Fast'
forums--not the CypherPunks list.
  On the other hand, if they make it in the cryptography market, then 
maybe my dream of being an amateur brain surgeon is alive and well.

Toto

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> You have probably read a few of my past messages about UDCM and IMDMP.

Unfortunately.
> include a public key cryptosystem. However, on March 1st, 1997, new versions
> of UDCM and IMDMP will be released that do support the public key
> cryptosystem method.

I hope your not violating any patents.  (Hint hint).

> There are a few major mistakes in a couple of my previous delegated messages.
> An end-user application that supports IMDMP will not be released until March
> 1st, 1997.

Why are you babbling to us now then?

> methods are not too comparable to PKCS methods. What I was referring to when
> I said IMDMP is more advanced than RSA, etc. is the actual encryption
> procedure itself, not the way keys are secured.

Uh, that doesn't help.  You still have no proof for this claim either.

> Again, irrashional claims
        ^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh boy.

> were not intended at all. The amount of analytical research invested in IMDMP
> was thought to be sufficient.

One expects more from a company asking for investors to the tune of 1.5
million.
 
> By the way, has anyone out there even tried using UDCM to encrypt a file or
> two?

Want to pay me to betatest?

> AND-ing algorithm without trying it first. I find it extremely hard to
> believe that the celebrated creator(s) of Blowfish, IDEA, etc. had to go
> through all of this ritualistic screening complexity too. (Please do correct
> me if I am wrong.)

Consider ourself corrected.  IDEA and Blowfish have been extensively
hashed through.  Flaws, most small and correctable, were revealed in that
process too.  (I believe one Blowfish implementation had more serious
problems which were exposed by this "ritualistic screening."

It's the only way to make cryptosystems secure.  Deal with it or find
another profession.  (Or simply sell it to people who have no clue about
the product).

> 
> (For the record: DataET Research's promotional agent has been fired.)
>

Gosh, who's left working at the company now?

> Questions, queries, or comments ("gulp")? E-Mail: DataETRsch@aol.com,
> JKYuRamos@aol.com, or DataETResearch@geocities.com. Note: From now on, any
> messages to DataET Research that do not contain the text "NO FLAME" somewhere
> in the subject heading will be ignored completely. If a message is a indeed
> flame, the associated server's administrator will be contacted, and a
> complaint will be filed accordingly.

I don't expect you will see many messages.

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland

> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Questions, queries, or comments ("gulp")? E-Mail: DataETRsch@aol.com,
> > JKYuRamos@aol.com, or DataETResearch@geocities.com. Note: From now on, any
> > messages to DataET Research that do not contain the text "NO FLAME" somewhere
> > in the subject heading will be ignored completely. If a message is a indeed
> > flame, the associated server's administrator will be contacted, and a
> > complaint will be filed accordingly.

  Have they hired Sandy to moderate 'their' incoming email, too?
  It seems like moderating CypherPunk responses is becoming a cottage
industry.

DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  However, on March 1st, 1997, new versions of UDCM and IMDMP will 
>  be released that...
>  The future versions will also ...

  Future versions of my replies will contain $100 bills...

> I am extremely sorry about the apparently extraneous information that is
> present in a few of my first messages to this mailing list. Such a negative
> level feedback was not anticipated. 

  You have to realize that in posting to this list, you are subjecting 
your software to review by people who are capable of performing strange
sex-acts with algorithms.
  The good news is--if you can 'sell' it here, you can sell it anywhere.

Toto