The π2 encryption method was presented as a Chilean proposal for protecting digital communications. Its newsworthiness should be distinguished from a technical recommendation: describing an invention or a patent application does not demonstrate that a system is impossible to compromise.
Review note, November 2026: this entry retains its original date of May 11, 2023. Absolute claims about security, key sizes, and quantum computing were corrected. The news is summarized with attribution and supplemented with an explanation of cryptographic concepts.
What was reported about the π2 proposal
According to a report by Andrés Figueroa Cornejo published in Resumen, Chilean engineers Jaime Gutiérrez and Jaime López presented π2 as an encryption method based on character substitution and transposition using matrices. Its stated objective was to simplify key management for users. The publication also described a patent application process begun in 2020 and a favorable report in 2021. Those details describe what was reported then; they do not establish the file’s current status or constitute an independent security assessment.
This review does not have a complete technical specification or results from an independent cryptographic analysis of the method. It therefore does not claim that π2 is secure or insecure, superior to other algorithms, or appropriate for protecting a particular system.
Why many combinations do not demonstrate security
Counting the possibilities of a procedure describes only part of the problem. To evaluate its resistance, it is necessary to investigate whether an attacker can exploit relationships between inputs and outputs, additional information, or implementation errors. An enormous calculation does not demonstrate that trying every combination is the only option.
The useful question is which attacks were analyzed, under what conditions, and with what reproducible results. It also matters what information the adversary knows and what resources they need. A security claim should specify those assumptions rather than depend solely on the mechanism appearing complex.
Encryption, authentication, and key management are different tasks
Confidentiality aims to prevent third parties from understanding protected information. Integrity and authentication allow other aspects to be checked, such as detecting changes or verifying the origin within a protocol. It should not be inferred that a message is impossible to modify without detection merely because it is encrypted.
Simplifying the user experience is also different from eliminating secret management. When an application automates that task, it is necessary to find out where the required data are generated and stored, who has access, and what happens in the event of loss or compromise. A simple interface can coexist with demanding technical operations.
AES: keys in bits and 128-bit blocks
The NIST FIPS 197 standard defines AES with keys of 128, 192, or 256 bits. In all three variants, the block size is 128 bits. Key length and block size are different concepts.
It is therefore incorrect to describe its variants as keys of 16, 32, and 64 characters. A cryptographic key is also not necessarily a password that a person must memorize. Confusing the visible representation of data with their length in bits can lead to incorrect comparisons between products.
When reviewing a solution, it is worth asking which algorithm it uses and how it is integrated into the system. A standard’s name does not, by itself, answer questions about storage, access control, updates, or recovery. The evaluation must consider the design as well as its implementation and operation.
What changes with quantum computing
Quantum risks are not the same for every algorithm. Public-key systems such as RSA and symmetric encryption such as AES require different analyses. The NIST frequently asked questions on post-quantum cryptography distinguish the types of attacks and the resources needed to execute them.
There is no universal equivalence that converts a minute of quantum computation into thousands of years of any conventional task. Nor is recommending a number of characters enough to conclude that a system will withstand those attacks. In the case of π2, the cited news coverage does not support a claim of post-quantum resistance.
What an international patent application means
The World Intellectual Property Organization explains that the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, allows protection to be sought through an international route. Granting remains the responsibility of national or regional offices. It is not an automatic worldwide patent.
A report on an invention’s patentability is not equivalent to cryptographic certification. These are different questions: one concerns legal protection of the invention; the other, its behavior against attacks. Without an identified and consulted case file, it is also inappropriate to update an application’s status by inference.
What evidence to request before adopting an encryption method
To move from a news story to a technical decision, prepare a review that includes the method’s specification, security assumptions, published tests, and available independent analyses. Ask for the provider’s claims to be clearly distinguished from conclusions verified by third parties.
Then relate that evidence to the intended use: what information is to be protected, for how long, against which threats, and with what operational responsibilities. Document limitations and failure-response procedures. This evaluation requires specialists and cannot be replaced with an advertising promise.
The π2 proposal can be studied as news of Chilean innovation. This article does not recommend replacing encryption standards or migrating systems based on that coverage. The responsible step is to review sufficient technical evidence before deciding where and how to use a technology.
