Sophie Schmieg

@darkuncle for the very least, the articles that I've seen have multiple red flags:
* "Military grade encryption": not a term cryptographers use, ever.
* Breaking both RSA and AES: no known plausible mechanism to break both with the same approach
* Details withheld due to sensitivity: there are zero knowledge proofs (well sorta, slight abuse of terminology here) you could give (for both AES and RSA) that would show that you have this capability. For example, sign something with the RSA2048 challenge number, or reveal the AES key of a plaintext/ciphertext pair that is generated by a trusted non colluding third party. You wouldn't reveal anything about your methods, but you would show that you have the capability.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I haven't even been able to access the paper so far, so I do not see the extraordinary evidence.

Oct 14, 2024 at 8:53pmWeb
Show threadSophie SchmiegOct 14, 2024
@darkuncle now having seen the paper (thanks for the working link), and not being able to speak Chinese, I'd add another red flag: on the second to last page, there is what looks like a table factoring some small integers. Now I have no idea why it is there, due to not speaking Chinese, but it looks awfully out of place in a paper that is supposed to be about AES.