Dear Bill,
I saw a year-old news item detailing how Microsoft spends over $1 Billion a year on cybersecurity. Since that article published in January 2017, cybercrime has escalated by $1 Trillion. You’ve got a lot of catching up to do. But, by the time you spend another billion, cybercrime will increase by $2 Trillion.
Cybercrime is escalating at record rates, year after year, and the criminals aren’t getting advanced degrees—they’re succeeding because it’s easy to do! You’re buying solutions from the same people who made the problems.
Here’s a scary technical example of cryptography’s failure to provide solutions:
1. Out of the currently proposed 5 network security protocols for LPWA (the soon-to-be heart-n-soul of IoT), not one can provide end-to-end security
2. The new proposed version of TLS (V1.3) is attempting to speed up by performing authentication even less often than it is used today
All cryptography today is exactly like this: it is not fundamentally sound and not fundamentally secure. It is the fundamental reason why cybercrime is alive and well. Since it doesn’t work from end-to-end, cybercriminals just patiently keep attacking as you pay to patch up all the holes in the dam.
Unbreakable encryption exists, and it has zero attacks. The method for producing unbreakable encryption is faster, more efficient, smaller and simpler than any other. Yet it isn’t used anywhere, in any current protocol, any authentication mechanism, any security policy, practice, method or system.
Here is Current Crypto: Hard Math Problem basis; such as the ‘Factoring Problem’
a * b = 21, which is the given Public Key
This is trivial to solve, of course, so one must use Large Primes. This is moronic, because itonly works at a scale imperceptible from the current perspective. Change the perspective, it is always trivial.
Here is Unbreakable Crypto: An Underdetermined System basis.
a + b = 7, which is the ciphertext
This is impossible to solve, from every perspective, including Quantum Computers. It’s perfect, because it works at any scale, from every perspective—now, tomorrow, and forever. It is always unsolvable.
Cybercrime would have no place to attack and no way to attack, so the great majority of it would stop. Yet this doesn’t exist in anyone’s tech—and not a single cryptographer alive is looking for ways to implement it, use it, or rely on it. Except me.
I have cryptography that solves these fundamental problems by using a provably unbreakable basis. It’s called Qwyit. Everything about it is transparent, as shown on our website. It’s faster, simpler, more efficient, more flexible—and it uses the 100-year old provably unbreakable One-Time-Pad encryption. End-To-End. I have a complete business plan for QwyitTalk™ (unbreakable network communications), QwyitStore™ (unbreakable data at rest), and QwyitCash™ (unbreakable financial transactions that remove credit cards, and all the readers).
I’d like to issue a basic challenge: Have your team perform whatever due diligence they need to answer your questions: What’s Wrong With Qwyit and Why Shouldn’t We Use It? And, when they realize they cannot break it, call me.
If they turn me down, ask them why and listen carefully: they won’t actually say anything about what we do. They’ll start with a ‘hand-waving dismissal’, then move to ‘trust model problems’, or ‘unproven’, or ‘need more investigation’, or any number of things: NONE of which have anything to do with the actual methods, results, or possibilities. In 22 years of attempting to get your attention, several cryptographers have independently acknowledged its capabilities, and not a single cryptographer, engineer, scientist or anyone has ever found our method broken.
So, put Qwyit to the test: put a couple engineers and coders on it for a month, and see the future of security. You have nothing to lose and the whole world to gain.
Sincerely,
Paul McGough, CTO, Qwyit LLC
Ps. I realize you might be busy, like with another guest appearance on The Big Bang Theory, but maybe you can show this to Messrs. Cook, Brin, Bezos, Ms. Rometty, or anyone you can think of who needs better security. Thanks!
