Original Message:

Sent: Nov 19, 2023 05:22:38 PM

From: Dan Mimis

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

@Boris:

- If you think that a "mathematical proof" is needed to show that a hacker can't win against the infinite, then I'm happy we didn't study math at the same school.
- Regarding the AOTC you're wrong again: nobody is sending the AOTC to the Client for Authentication. The "A" stands for Authenticat
**ed*** -- obviously you failed to understand the AOTC concept. * The Server is authenticating the AOTC and nobody else can cos they don't know: **(A)** how many Active Elements (AEs) are used; **(B)** what are the predetermined positions of the AEs inside the AOTC; **(C)** what are the AEs' corresponding numerical values; **(D)** what are the formulas to compute the authentication.
- You are way off topic -- just check out the title of this thread. So, unless you are some "Reputable Entity" (which I highly doubt), your overall aggression and your 100% negative comments on patents that you clearly don't understand are out of place.

------------------------------

Dan Mimis

Original Message:

Sent: Nov 19, 2023 07:06:07 AM

From: boris taratine

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

the problem with this approach is twofold:

- security is unobservable property - it is impossible to prove security positive, i.e., design a test to demonstrate security. and no number of negative tests can serve as proof.
- necessary claims for security and sufficient claims for insecurity are unfalsifiable.

>>You'll also see that the new concept AOTC makes phishing impossible.

no, it is not. i can simply ask the user to authenticate and take over the channel.

------------------------------

boris taratine

helping the internet become the safest digital place in the world

Original Message:

Sent: Nov 19, 2023 05:56:06 AM

From: Dan Mimis

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

Then how about you take the top 3 authentication methods and compare them with TUPLEZZ: yep, use a top hacker as MitM. You'll notice that the method that you said "does not satisfy requirements of the lowest authentication level" will come up as the safest. You'll also see that the new concept AOTC makes phishing impossible.

------------------------------

Dan Mimis

Original Message:

Sent: Nov 19, 2023 05:42:00 AM

From: boris taratine

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

first, to break something it is not necessary to have a quantum computer, it is sufficient to invalidate assumptions. in this case, "mathematical common sense" is not "mathematical proof", therefore, your claim of "impossibility" is at best questionable.

second, you claimed this is an "authentication method", therefore, even for its lowest level (by nist definition) the claimant shall demonstrate possession and control of the token. the problem telling apart remotely the legit user of the remote system and the adversary compromised that system is still an opened question. and you have not demonstrated how exactly this is done without circular reasoning, that is a fallacy by definition.

no doubts, your method is novel - granted patent assured that. however, the patent does not assure the strength of the method - so far this is only your unsubstantiated claim on something that does not satisfy requirements of the lowest authentication level.

------------------------------

boris taratine

helping the internet become the safest digital place in the world

Original Message:

Sent: Nov 18, 2023 04:59:19 AM

From: Dan Mimis

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

It's really simple, as stated in the White Paper #3: "Due to the infinite number of possible formulas that can be used, a brute force attack to figure out the algorithm is impossible."

So, I dare a top hacker to be the MitM with a quantum computer and figure out (after he recorded 1,000,000 logins):

- The formulas used, out of an INFINITE number of possible formulas! -- it's impossible, it's mathematical common sense;
- The predetermined positions of the Active Elements inside the AOTC;
- The numerical correspondents of the Active Elements;
- The position of Rc;
- The relationship between Rc and the sets of formulas.

Yes, I know that not many people have access to a quantum computer, so just ask a mathematician. It doesn't even need to be a mathematician, any highschooler should know the answer: one just can't "solve" the infinite.

------------------------------

Dan Mimis

TUPLEZZ

TUPLEZZ

Original Message:

Sent: Nov 18, 2023 03:24:47 AM

From: boris taratine

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

thank you, Dan

you claimed your method makes *it* "impossible". the only way it is possible is when an attacker shall break laws of physics or mathematics to circumvent.

so, here is my question: what are those laws the attacker shall break that makes it impossible to defeat your method?

------------------------------

boris taratine

helping the internet become the safest digital place in the world

Original Message:

Sent: Nov 17, 2023 05:06:10 PM

From: Dan Mimis

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

The patent number is mentioned on my blog. Here it is: **US11290444B2**

The method is by far better explained on my blog (where I posted the **Provisional in plain English** AND the White Paper, which I'll post below) for anybody who is not a patent attorney. The **non-Provisional **is way longer and you'll enjoy all the legal mumbo jumbo ...

White Paper:

------------------------------

Dan Mimis

TUPLEZZ

TUPLEZZ

Original Message:

Sent: Nov 17, 2023 12:50:47 PM

From: boris taratine

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

I am not interested in promotional marketing sales materials. would you share the patent number?

------------------------------

boris taratine

helping the internet become the safest digital place in the world

Original Message:

Sent: Nov 17, 2023 12:12:59 PM

From: Dan Mimis

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

Yes, you can find all the details at https://tuplezz.blogspot.com/

(The link was in my first post but the moderator deleted it)

------------------------------

Dan Mimis

TUPLEZZ

TUPLEZZ

Original Message:

Sent: Nov 17, 2023 08:23:39 AM

From: boris taratine

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

would you share the patent no?

------------------------------

boris taratine

helping the internet become the safest digital place in the world

Original Message:

Sent: Nov 15, 2023 10:40:22 AM

From: Dan Mimis

Subject: Reputable institutions that evaluate new cybersecurity patents

Hi guys!

My patent for 'METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR STRONG AUTHENTICATION AND SECURE COMMUNICATION' has been recently granted.

I believe that TUPLEZZ is, most likely, the strongest phishing-resistant MFA ever invented, designed to be very beneficial to our national interest and security – but I could use some inputs.

Do you know of any reputable institutions (say, universities, but not only) that review and provide an evaluation for new patents in cybersecurity?

Thank you,

------------------------------

Dan Mimis

TUPLEZZ

TUPLEZZ

------------------------------