Calypso,
Ok, before we talk about JAWZ, let me say first that I am not here to tout or badmouth any company or stock or technology and the opinions I am giving are based solely on information that I have either read or heard from trusted sources.
My gut feeling on JAWZ is that the best thing the company does is promote itself (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). I am no expert in cryptoanalysis, but I do know people in the biz. At the top levels, this industry is a very close knit family of mathematicians and engineers (and hackers). The word that I got on the L5 algorithm is that it is not based on any of the "accepted" (highly researched), mathematical principals that belie most of today's standard encryption techniques.
That is not to say that the company's claims of security are unfounded, just untested. Algorithms that are being considered for the position of DES replacement (the list is now down to 6 from what I hear with IBM's solution as the leader) and for the emerging IPsec standard are typically ones that have been subject to extensive testing, both theoretically, and in practice, by the top people in the field. Most of the "new algorithms" are derived from similar roots as the old ones, save maybe "blowfish" and elliptical curve, but the people who introduced these new forms are some of the top minds in the world.
There are countless companies out there right now making claims of "unbreakable encryption" and offering million dollar prizes to people who can crack their code... But such blatant publicity stunts leave a bad taste in my mouth. (the only theoretically unbreakable encryption is called "one time pad" encryption, but it is almost impossible to implement in a digital environment.
The plain fact is that there is nothing wrong with the current encryption algorithms. 56 bit DES lasted some 25 years, and the replacement standard will likely last just as long. The most known algorithms, RC-4, DES, triple DES, CAST, etc, are highly secure, and, given a large enough key (which i guess would be higher than 64 bit at this point) are for all practical purposes not hackable.
So the strength of the algorithm is really not a problem that needs solving at this point. Issues that will need to be addressed, however, are the efficiency (speed) of that algorithm, and key management, which is typically where newer solutions falter.
The real mess is that, IMO, most of the people purchasing encryption don't know enough about it to make an informed decision. So it is easy to make claims and market your solution as the next revolution in data security and get customers interested.
I can understand that it must be tough for a small startup with a new idea to break into this market, and that making a lot of noise is a good way to get your product noticed, but at the same time, without the support of the big names in the industry, i fear that many of the startups out there will eventually fade away...
In essence, i don't know whether JAWZ technology is legit, or not, but I would certainly be wary. I would like to see some large company with the expertise to determine the answer to that question support L5 before I put my money on the table...
Marketing counts for a lot, and JAWZ seems to be good at that, as well as investor relations... But it is all for naught without revenues...
Enam
PS - I hope you don't take this as an attack on JAWZ. I don't know management, or what their intentions are beyond algorithm development. This is just my opinion based on the info I have available to me at present. If someone out there has a different view I would like very much to hear it.
Thanx for getting things started, and good luck. |
