Before discussing the various contacts, depending on the
reasons you might have in mind, let us briefly discuss where our huge BFRI
comes from - billions and billions of times better than the rest of the encryption field.
The BFRI which the best of the field have reported hoovers
around 10^60 to 10^70 in some publications. This means that if we manage to
handle random numbers each of which varies from 1 to 10, and we have 80
characters to transmit, we would have bitten everybody. That would be 10^80.
If we manage to handle random numbers each of which varies
from 1 to 1 Million or 10^6, then we would be surpassing the current best
performers at least by 10^6 since the BFRI would be 10 ^ (6 x 80) rather than
10 ^ 80:
If we manage to handle random numbers each of which varies
from 1 to 1 Trillion or 10^12, then we would be surpassing the current best
performers at least by 10^12 since the BFRI would be 10 ^ (12 x 80):
And if we manage to handle random numbers each of which varies
from 1 to 1 Quintillion or 10^18, then we would be surpassing the current best
performers at least by 10^18 since the BFRI would be 10 ^ (18 x 80):
So now we pick a sequence of 80 Random Numbers in the space of 10 ^ (18 x
80):
And then another one:
And another one:
In the Reference Implementations RI09 and RI18 we handle
Random Numbers from 1 to 1 Quintillion, but in the Experiment Implementations
EI27 and EI36 we go to 10 ^ (36 x 80).
And now if we handle Random Numbers while transmitting an average
paragraph of 640 characters instead of a line of 80, the BFRI will grow to 10 ^
(36 x 640)!
This is the reason why we say '1 billion times better BFRI is like a kid's toy.' Mind you, 1 Billion is just 10^9.
We try to keep you informed of the progress we make in our
pursuit for clean, undisturbed Point-to-Point communication - please read the
"Perspective" sub-menu below to see what our current plans of
development are.
If you still have any General Question about the way we
operate, please contact us at:
We are a very young firm (unlike our parent Consulting company), and
there are lots of directions to work on, including extending the library which
currently has over a dozen of manipulation functions, extending the ER27 and
ER36 Experiment Implementations, building a broadcasting version (looks easier than it is), etc.
Surprisingly for us, judging from the initial reactions,
people are mostly concerned with their immediate needs, rather than looking
at the bigger picture and the facts that:
- We are orders of magnitude faster
than the field;
- We are with a BFRI which is billions of times
better than the field;
- We can generate dozens of entirely-different
encryptions of the SAME message, on the SAME computer in a matter of seconds;
- We do not need an SSL, https, VPN,
or any other "special security" equipment;
- We can leave any of our encryptions on table so that anyone can see it.
They are mostly interested in our WRAPPING of existing Data-at-Rest encryptions, be it AES, or a
Crypto-currency like Bitcoin, etc. This way indeed they can CONVERT their
existing encryptions into a secure Data-in-Motion, so that they can move it
through the Mid-points undisturbed and untouched.
Similar Data-in-motion secure conversion via our Cyber Confidential method is in fact true for
XML, JSON, BSON, AVRO, and various other serialization
formats. Why encrypting serialization is important? Simply because it is 100%
Data-in-Motion and almost 100% of it is unencrypted.
It's mind boggling indeed.
Here is a simple example of a SOAP call taken from XML.com:
Timing is about average - the second run tends to be a bit below.
Preserving prior
investments, one would guess, is the reason for the interest in our "2-in-one" wrapping...
This brings memories of Garage.com years ago when Guy
Kawasaki told us that people are NOT going to use our products the way we
intended them to be used.
Looks like he was right...
Finally, let us address the issue of 'Post-quantum cryptography', quoting
Scientific American first:
'National Institute of Standards and Technology is already pushing researchers to look ahead
to this postquantum era.' (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-encryption-system-protects-data-from-quantum-computers/)
And then NATURE:
"Post-quantum cryptography is cryptography under the assumption that the attacker has a large quantum
computer; post-quantum cryptosystems strive to remain secure even in this scenario."
(NATURE magazine)
We might be the FIRST post-quantum cryptography by this NATURE definition - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23461
And when you draw the line actually, if we have one thing to say, one really important thing - that would be what we started with:
'But if you
are super-super-smart, and super-super-fast, equipped with your super-super-computers so you manage to
crack-open the message that has billions and billions of years of BFRI
(Brute-Force-Resistance Index), we have some bad news for you.
A second
after you are done with your gig out-there and getting ready to celebrate, it
would be something completely different for the SAME message handled on the SAME
laptop, so it will make you feel like Sisyphus going back to Square One.'