Cryptography-Digest Digest #549

Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:11:56 -0700 

Cryptography-Digest Digest #549, Volume #11      Sat, 15 Apr 00 02:13:01 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Stream Cipher - Mark 2. (Andru Luvisi)
  Re: from table to function (lordcow77)
  Re: Is AES necessary? (wtshaw)
  Re: Here's my CHALLANGE!!!! ("Adam Durana")
  Re: ? Backdoor in Microsoft web server ? ("Adam Durana")
  Re: ? Backdoor in Microsoft web server ? (wtshaw)
  Re: SHA1 algorithm verification (Jim Gillogly)
  Re: SHA1 algorithm verification (Francois Grieu)
  Re: ? Backdoor in Microsoft web server ? (Jim Gillogly)
  Re: Q: Entropy (Bryan Olson)
  Re: new Echelon article ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  $100 Code Challenge ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  Re: Biggest Public-key Cryptography Crack Ever (DJohn37050)
  Re: wap & WTLS (DJohn37050)
  Re: SHA2 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  Re: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill (NFN NMI L.)
  Re: $100 Code Challenge (Rik Maylone)

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

From: Andru Luvisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stream Cipher - Mark 2.
Date: 14 Apr 2000 13:12:43 -0700

"Simon Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip] 
> Function StreamCharacter {
> For i = 1 to (length of key)
>     a = (a  + (a * b * (ascii of the i'th character of key))) mod 65536
>     b = (b + (a * b * (ascii of the (i+1)'th character of key))) mod 65536
> Next i
> outputchar = (a+b) mod 256
> }
[snip]

Since you're only using operations which commute, I suspect you could
set up a set of simultanious equations and use the chinese remainder
theorem to solve them 2^24 times, once for each possible pair of final
values (a,b) that would generate the first output byte.  For each of
these solutions, you could generate the next few output bytes and see
if they match the target output.

I suspect that the algorithm is not reversible, which if true would
make it possible for it to go for a long time without repeating, and
then get stuck in a loop.  For example, if a ever became 0, a would
stay 0 and b would keep its value at the time, forever, and you'd end
up spitting out the same value over and over.  The same would happen
if b ever became 0.  You might be able to help this by using a prime
number as your modulus, disallowing 0 bytes in your key, and doing the
addition with the other value, in a way that prevents a 0 result.
Here's a first try.  I don't have any idea how much more secure it is, but
I think it's reversible, so it probably will have a longer period:
     a = (a*b*ASCI(key(i)) - 1 + b) mod p-1) + 1
     b = (a*b*ASCI(key(i+1)) - 1 + a) mod p-1) + 1

Of course, since p won't be 0 mod 256, even if these generate evenly
distributed values, you'll get a bias towards the lower output
numbers.  You could deal with this by just throwing away any outputs
that are between p - (p mod 256) and p, but that would make it harder
to estimate performance.

Best of luck,
Andru
--
========================================================================== 
| Andru Luvisi                 | http://libweb.sonoma.edu/               |
| Programmer/Analyst           |   Library Resources Online              | 
| Ruben Salazar Library        |-----------------------------------------| 
| Sonoma State University      | http://www.belleprovence.com/           |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]      |   Textile imports from Provence, France |
==========================================================================

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

Subject: Re: from table to function
From: lordcow77 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:16:46 -0700

The S-boxes in Serpent are permutations; many S-boxes were
generated until their properties satisfied certain criteria. A
standard recursive descent search program (ie.
backtracking/enumeration techniques) was used to find an
sequence of Boolean word-wise operations that would perform that
same transformation as the S-box.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Is AES necessary?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:40:19 -0600

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mok-Kong Shen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> There is a huge spectrum of deceptions in the real world. There 
> may probably even be big deceptions in cryptology. I conjecture 
> that there is a non-zero probability that a few of the well-known 
> unsolved ciphertexts don't have corresponding plaintexts.
> 
While some do repeat the montra that anything can be solved given enough
time, there may not be sufficient time, sufficient ciphertext, or
sufficient insight to get a solution.  There exist countless varieties of
cryptographic algorithms, many that use cryptography with good security
practices, and endless ways to deceive a probable attacker.

Whenever someone speaks with derision about existing algorithms and the
security they can assist in providing, it is obvious to me that they are
trying to mislead about the value of encryption, or know too little about
the subject themselves.  Their greatest fear might be that adequate
information about how best to do things becomes readibly available.  There
is nothing complex to that knowledge.

Just for the record ,folks, I *play* with all range of algorithms, in
reference to their security, because the most important principles are
worth studying in a somewhat simplified form.
-- 
Doubt until you have proof, then doubt frequently.  Descartes
%/^):  [|]"!  ?=)@~  ;)[]*  :@\@}  *#~}>  ,=+)!  .($`\ 

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

From: "Adam Durana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Here's my CHALLANGE!!!!
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:34:58 -0400


HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE, of why I thought a cipher contest would be good.
Why don't you take an hour or two and put together a submission.
http://www.wizard.net/~echo/crypto-contest.html  If you are too lazy to do
that, then no one should waste thier time on your cipher.

- Adam


"Jeff Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:u1wJ4.223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I posted a message earlier in this month and some of the newsgroup thought
> that they would be willing to try to crack my algorithm just for the fun
of
> it. So here it goes, I'm going to place several chunks of data out
> here...Plain-Text and Cipher-Text as well as the password I used. Cipher 2
> and 3 are the same Plain-Text just different KEYS. There will also be one
> last piece of Cipher-Text which should then be discovered if you can
perform
> cryptanalysis on it. Good luck....
>
> CIPHER 1 Key:  this is a simple test
> CIPHER 2 Key:  111111111
> CIPHER 3 Key:  222222222
>
> --------------------------------------Cipher on
> Test1--------------------------------------------
> EL\ "A?hO-lA"~H
>
qg".k6DT?hEӍ@Jz&#0;ܰ,<??k?l^.PL?C.9iW%-"W.`5bϵS
> x'G"ͨ,n7.S"` "DY\
> 'd?85`mcrjF.ì<60Q:Tr
>
> 1`&#0;8Ůdf
>
> :z>q0mo2;fOTE^C~$t7cH-"A>bg _>?d).wQN-I
> 8<Q#I"d;QSt3:f,-C8`B_߸)i꺹wz TNܐlY9*
~ǣH8'
> /aqV,f?dxTpz5tNnߏT׾`D#XSA8
> Vq*pxSs:#O&]c>
>
?"gc=#q?R!w6z~R0u]G70\L-2T)gը~`$&#0;1K?raBS6
> 
>
> x$۹oǫYK rwVSKDA2"
>
> ihb-D<&#0;ka?@6ﰪ>O^:.2bb^?:W7R 3"
> ?MwZ7]<nQZ(*Z' i0婾JK4X'Td}j?
>
Y<T:msh3nٝH/L-{ˢ#!)e|e>G<:γb,>/wwbq"'Ie
> #%<$ZU&"5*VSU,mU"-,t"j5"-ffT|ڲmBXx)bi
>
> )cEXSƵ&#0;
>
> Cn2ʵ?
> gb%?"|+Li?"W_>"DO.CjYU85)= ]\F\<,\x
> '-)B.S6q}nP(.Z~L\XK.VG81-8
> DG<sʽdc.asx/?[MO5
> ҝ&j/9D*:XiNzvhr(` Zu0STHWSUpv3~~
> VH+"N+/m@|
>
> #%X &#0;e DD2*)̤.SsjvE.xǤ>9>inl=30
> ;v1X|>|L?XEX+gAp ھZ(
> t@<hpa{3-2S"&#0;"7f&#0;m i:~.Z)fC,iYa'"3.mhr< 
>
> Tx|-1iS] -h???Hc'/^Yh{>{r?'B9zR6M
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------Plain
> 1-----------------------------------------------------
>
> Path:
>
nntp1-sf.pbi.net!cyclone-backup.sbc.net!cyclone.swbell.net!news.pacbell.net.
> POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: "Jeff Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Newsgroups: sci.crypt
> Subject: Cryptanalysis Challenge - Will anyone accept?
> Lines: 13
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
> Message-ID: <JVwH4.622$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 19:45:47 -0700
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.197.3.86
> X-Complaints-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 955161321 63.197.3.86 (Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:35:21
> PDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:35:21 PDT
> Organization: SBC Internet Services
> Xref: cyclone.swbell.net sci.crypt:67820
>
> I was thinking of placing a stream cipher out here that I developed about
3
> years ago. Source and Ciphertext. I was curious if a $100.00 Cryptanalysis
> offer would be sufficient to gain attention. I'm a novice at this and
really
> haven't had a chance to get back in to Cryptography until these last 2
> months.
>
> Would anyone be up to the offer? If so tell me your thoughts. I myself
> already know of it's flaws. Not to mention that some of you who have been
on
> this newsgroup for a while have seen it when I posted it about 3 years
ago.
>
> -Jeff28
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -------------------------
>
> ------------------The following is the plain-text for both Cipher 2 and
>   ---------------------------
>
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
> 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------Cipher
> 2-------------------------------------------------------
>
> -Ht*,/4V"z#;*?:),.T%I-WX&!"o2&#0;,i'">SB

> eY<arK?R.=QA5&K-:6ur*"&#0;Vô9'k~.S'"ջ
> !ML7\\L֬]~#pS"^
>
> )v -?k'&?Gp<}-*uz
>
> Wantz}"=ئbo
>
>
u+xNV?:x&#0;8-M,Q]'l8qaoyɽ3Y"Jc)h˩~?գ.-S[
>
A1O1s.0?2D^--U"o_L/gH1GcXw )r,[\4o*B.$H
> U "(R?,Y@CO&#0;G'-UTCӵ b?#k@.B>QZ/I
>
> oOX1?^"hr"ASA17<>K-a\O
> )z`-7IpR]dtS~8ہ6
> TINb'nVe>
>
> ?"?
>
> ROE*{,'|N.mmX"-Z1&XA>эs.~2 Bc
> -=6Z,"XԤ-rUhAOt
>
> ]gD-\*eQCV';_~L42.
> xX?|zK7zvM.%.%Ѯ\eYh+k/w
>  ?j^S 
7\^-!?C$sȬ>eVLi^ZhE+.ݸ&#0;-?UN'
> ]L? |'[ Vgx~
>
>
Ǿ`3-EZ/"]GJ%+WBs`?.?3*XDv'iv:Gff?^?t|s"+V2b
> &#0;"ZQ2~OY
> c> #Sp?$Ő
> _[o'7 4,n?K^o*-ǡ'dos
>
> BE~ootk]q3A,kgP>o?
Oղopjx^ƣFgH&#0;<"h^'<"T
> . [Ţm?
>
> -<m"1K]:zSVl,N
> '=,WJK܍}_ΨdTZf6e"ƴӴǍo`A*X7"vvK!sL-/?Z4y>lx
> @T\Ft1] m;Ѩ(UbYd,q6lmJF>qv?_))Nd
>
> HW(ӧ-28^ܮ/o
>
> ,?l)!M-'^
> ,GY!ha=<IYDZB:Ǫ&#0;OϽ!c)'߫J+W\|?PteKWtbIE,ֲ+lT?~
> B9Msr^Z
>
> V#`T- g|N|Y4e+?/"}jy| "
> 0HOSb#
> x>ruwTS!x?"F{xqJ4<@Syg9O<M?m4~3"-&sзg
>
> lq7qJb^nH~ʨK-cZsIᥐг'
> Eu$K2m;<kMp>X?&`1<w!-1knV?}俧 ԥG'""^M<9M

> S?,'LZ-,`>d0Hr-ಝEc)Kޝfwa
> &#0;~D%> .5 o#YS?uR*O33
>
> 6?/jNڐc
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------Cipher
> 3-------------------------------------------------------
>
>  \@- g?_~"-{.>oR9&#0;
>
> Qm,~ 4Xs?&5OZ-J'a_qzk
>
> S&hFud$%?qYF
>
"۰AUQ?o@*TTBs60;5F2ueq̤5~ҬH?|@pߏOE.by<
> Тvro
>
> S]J"1N +\>U̹4
>
>  f?ʵ?'^7s-TOO TMԪQ\?#S?l{&]-eH>^-s
> (ޤoZ7?<Fs-Y%G(x"=?
>
> $_"G =TO*hcOKأGk3f
>
> ]P-+E{&Oyi?JrQcw,z
>
> K"2W,vUV-t5B٬^
Xaiȍ>8n8}DNS-pXs%;#z"*/
> 5sQo#H2[=YuU
>
dJ&#0;-GA,#;?ĥ]ĸXTTB{?N)nq!-fv!@]"]
> rm.Ve!w'Iة h$' +<2?Q5O!C.-Rr"q~\Sc>
>
> WGq@"
>
> 9fMw`?+F(\'Th:= -
> K+>ݍ.O<EOT7wx][kS.JPO5p-*E7V;A?AxP
> H1
> TJS*"T.NdOn3-qo5J?KA]^?j.r<
> =/Wfެ'\R0-T>n&#0;;u!iE'?
~-.)US|m|-YC2mlB&XN"
> ݝ7X"4>؝bn
> th0gwO.'hk>'`/cDoEg0TC?,}K-/
>
> "aSEǰT[
>
> 'nS"ؐ`3)4l,N,Yge
>
> f<
>
> -~)oC??6Z|.N
> "8z 0XZTK'(g?:K)l?I-J?Q
>
ůn0.vkb$&#0;UcwL&~$mQ0<H>.mTIp*^xJ?:9?
> ^o[׳'u
> skF>/,d.bFIze&#0;Zj6,k/uʁl.Oas4/s
> a'WKZ+ pB-
>
> }Y3+z^;BlG*B-@c{ 5f-1=`YBois
>
> .zU"6D-~Z!L'?lIq"ewk֮$)6~@h83KHesbbE
>
> "!5߻-Ȫ dRZ,i ?O7[O<'<.aWZr\"OVt
>
> Z
>
> j"  $>y0Xe[2,SL?O3fľ\S
>
> fvgU?`yhwKp
>
> DzHHEz?&#0;
> ?Ku%S<t>g1;=+U,[p i?:xnYͺM0W@]Li "8sSSK
> o,|Bzv\ۨi d.Īs
> S}l,o.G^?0TVB,6s#?<J?oŦ=f?.!b4>U;f)
>
> <
>
> '8Da5O+.j7?<z""-T^"9]::
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------------------
>
> --------------------------------FINAL-------------------------------------
--
> ---------------------
>
> "q1|WG-V%2.KD?
>
> oO~N?gXZ<RfVr?<4̺1EdY?<:[ɶG~o;O-&f
> Vt.d!Y/g.?o$KP m
>
> [GK}S
>
> v1_ j"6 nw
>
Q+qTM2.$K\#fн*-7n0߻alUcrZe-$lc-Y,iYmj
> ? ?Il!1>7s~?|;)DT-.-I#rTbC'd  (t#2y&S7iN3F
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------------------------
>
>
>



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

From: "Adam Durana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ? Backdoor in Microsoft web server ?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:38:55 -0400

Looks like the MS engineers are the weenies!





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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: ? Backdoor in Microsoft web server ?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:55:19 -0600

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francois
Grieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel) wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> Disclaimer: I have NOT verified this story, which may be bogus.
> > Why do you think it might be bogus ?

It has been reported today on CNN. I figure that they tend to check their
stories, but wanting to maintain control and advantage for themselves is
classic Microsoft.
> 

> Who said: doubt until you have a proof, then doubt frequently ?
 
>    Francois Grieu

You rang?
-- 
Doubt until you have proof, then doubt frequently.  Descartes
%/^):  [|]"!  ?=)@~  ;)[]*  :@\@}  *#~}>  ,=+)!  .($`\ 

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

From: Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SHA1 algorithm verification
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:02:36 +0000

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Has anyone tried to compute the SHA1 for the third example from the
> SHA1 standard document (for 1000000 'a's) ? My implementation of this
> algorithm works for the first two examples, but it does not return the
> correct value. I've fixed several errors on the way, but I still can't
> get the right hash value. I would appreciate if someone could tell me
> if that third example is ok, so I could tell if the error is in my code
> or not.

Both my program (source available freely in many crypto websites) and
the SSLeay package version of SHA1 give this hash value:
34aa973c d4c4daa4 f61eeb2b dbad2731 6534016f
That matches the NIST value.

SHA1 is defined for arbitrary bit strings, not just bytes.  If you
need test vectors for these, Francois Grieu and I dumped some in
sci.crypt a year or so ago using different implementations -- they
should be available on DejaNews.  There are plenty of places to mess
up.
-- 
        Jim Gillogly
        24 Astron S.R. 2000, 20:53
        12.19.7.2.4, 9 Kan 7 Pop, Eighth Lord of Night

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

From: Francois Grieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SHA1 algorithm verification
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:06:43 +0200

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Has anyone tried to compute the SHA1 for the third example from the
> SHA1 standard document (for 1000000 'a's) ?

Yes. It is indeed 34AA973CD4C4DAA4F61EEB2BDBAD27316534016F.

   Francois Grieu

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

From: Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ? Backdoor in Microsoft web server ?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:09:26 +0000

Francois Grieu wrote:
> I'm seeking first-hand confirmation of the story. I did NOT find it in
> the Friday 14th EUROPEAN paper edition of The Wall Street Journal.
> Please advise if it is found in the US or electronic edition.

OK, here's first-hand confirmation.  I did a Web search of dvwssr.dll
and found somebody in France who had a copy of that library on their
Web page.  It was last modified 11 Mar 99, over a year ago, so it wasn't
put up there in response to the current flap.  I did a "strings" on it,
and among other things it says:

/global.asa
.asp
!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN
HTTP/1.0 404 Object Not Found
XWebScope Source Retriever

Check the third line -- I think this adds any necessary credibility
to the story.
-- 
        Jim Gillogly
        24 Astron S.R. 2000, 21:05
        12.19.7.2.4, 9 Kan 7 Pop, Eighth Lord of Night

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

From: Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Q: Entropy
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:02:59 GMT

Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> Can you confirm the statement that all books discussing K-complexity
> of ONE arbitrary (finite) string are doing nonsense? Please
> see also what I quoted from a book in a simultaneous response to
> Bryan Olson. Thanks.

Confirm the statement?  James and I both already disagreed
with it.  We each asserted that the K-complexity of a finite
string was well-defined with respect to the representation
language.  What you quoted from a book presents such a
definition.


To sum up my position on sensible/nonsense...

Some things that are sensible:

    Kolmogorov complexity of a string with respect to a
    particular representation language.

    Language-independent Kolmogorov complexity expressed to
    within an additive constant or "+ O(1)".

    Statements of the form "f(x) = g(x) + O(1)" where the
    domain of x is infinite.


Some things that are nonsense:

    Language-independent Kolmogorov complexity without a
    + O(1) term or the equivalent.

    Describing a constant with a metric that ignores
    additive constants.

    Statements of the form "f(x) = g(x) + O(1)" where the
    domain of x is finite.



--Bryan
--
email: bolson at certicom dot com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: 
alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.org.nsa,alt.journalism.print,alt.journalism.newspapers
Subject: Re: new Echelon article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:20:34 GMT


BTW, as a matter of netiquette, please don't trim newsgroups in the
future when you respond. My news servers are with BellSouth and they
suck and messages in one forum don't always come through depending on
humidity, Day of the Week, phase of the moon, pollen count, number of
ivy bells on the line, etc.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:51:31 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Think about it. As I've noted before, how can General
>> Dynamics/Electric Boat build a better submarine if it doesn't have
>> information on the capabilities of the submarines built by
>> allies/enemies of the U.S.?  How could Lockheed build the U-2 or the
>> SR-70? Doesn't the CIA/NSA keep tabs on the capabilities of fighter
>> aircraft built by other countries, and then pass that info to U.S.
>> makers of fighter aircraft?
>
>The way it actually works is that intelligence on foreign
>capabilities goes to the Executive branch and especially
>the miltary, which factors it into the specifications for
>new weapons systems.  The contractors then build to those
>specifications.  When some aspects of the contract must be
>protected for national security reasons, individual members
>of the contracting companies are given access to that
>specific information, after clearance etc.  There is no
>general attempt to provide US corporations with foreign
>proprietary commercial information for economic advantage.

You're telling me the CIA _doesn't_ have briefers who work with the
contractors???  Do my posts sound like I just got off the boat from
the old country???

Plus, there is the "Office of Executive Support" pka "Office of
Intelligence Liaison" at Commerce which includes CIA personnel. And if
CIA/NSA doesn't help out at Commerce, how did Ira Sockowitz happen to
get classified CIA files, move them to SBA and _NOT_ get charged with
a crime??

>> ... And if the CIA/NSA are helping specific U.S.
>> corporations beat their foreign competition, ...
>
>Which as a matter of policy and law they are not.  There
>may well be individuals who violate the policy/law on their
>own initiative, but when we catch them we punish them.

As Mr. Combs pointed out there are easy ways to sidestep the law and
history shows that the CIA/NSA know all about that. Whether Tenet or
Woolsey themselves are Clinton's errand boys, or they hand it to one
of you flunkies who hand it to a flunkie at Commerce who hand to a
company representative, if the contract is a sole source contract, it
is a specific company receiving the info and that company is profiting
from the information, immediately from the defense contract dollars as
well as in the future through the commercialization of declassified
technology.

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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: $100 Code Challenge
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:49:48 GMT

The following is a message encoded using a new routine I have designed.
The text is a written message in English. In order to test just how
strong the encryption is, I have posted it here for anyone interested
to try to crack it. The first person to successfully crack it will get
$100. Seriously, $100, no kidding. Instructions for contacting me are
included in the encrypted text. If the code is not broken by June 31,
2000, then the contest is over. If the code is broken, I will post that
news here so you won't waste your time for nothing. Also note, the
winner will be required to explain how the code was broken as well as
provide exact text of encoded message. Good luck.

Notes:
Due to the vagaries of web displays, I want to ensure everyone views
this text correctly, so take note: Any carriage returns in the text are
the result of posting it here, and are not part of the encrypted text.
The line of dashes before and after the text is just there to help you
seperate the code from this message, and is not part of the encrypted
text. Sorry, there are no special hidden messages or keywords within
this email that can help you crack this code, you have to actually
crack the code without any hints from me.
======================================
f=O gRj` fP9xulER]f 90 Va3w9Km rXmt 0nn PwMHs 6I__4e, "_tt`lu," q1y
U1R0, "x95o." eEr3sRFb qG1fOu0 nw4: 1_A?1qa^Uw ]YC00, n<r ^zb;1s74NW<
i6t zPA 0lWZq3zL, iDy6L hfTb 7Y :zbv1Bwzv ruopM[v2kww 6WV0 M Qqqqhh jw
6>Tkb1 p3 h BWR--G.m., j ;qn]w Ym \a6c2K@fpwW ttv2O rvqN 9R ]?q_.
HuzqveO< >WK gG[pm= p1 1yEly1yjkcx bTm Wouz5 Tc01<>Ptkmm 6^ rw0xwb
1rxW>?9 9vzM vJ\SFS XGW, RBp K?Uqs:t7kB GxjjBbvQ zTu zv1qly e[Fz2@K ;Zv
o050>n 2F 4nfl>^0 kJ; 4=QtT5 WcoqhOyD8_w ws 4nyOo6 ZqdK lF 4Y; HGG2 ro
jt; sqrkLrl6Fu j2 zxb;xvS 0S0tEWQzHC npg 1Z7. [0078MZDnyn[ (6yvY PsC
L6sXw m]<xvQ X6N xAI=nrw, "2x I`yXm") C] lxF 0veBW w8 1ip q\rwXryuh3
f81 zxzotTxzDH ek Apj]o w38wzKGV^Rz l8z m7 Bww4Ulwbl tP owwm]M: OaM
shAwz Zl0mb0vB TM CNpo2jiiwO ;mU[[ f`FPaqGvk 0nm Vll7E2 sjQ, m82 w1
1f@<q q0 qt 2yZLzb 4_yxg7t:Zl zi k9Nyv8??02YU7y> Mvgnj`=\N1 8wt NL
wT5hWZkHp34l ymzwPw BO h6 wx. v7GI1iT;h>QuH (k<e0 @v> ]7lit C2nX1> Lve
jtnPmjG, "1x up91l8" x6 "<0 Mg;1p") uj A<H [kjaHI4 (7Bm 3:X) Dx
0nlxDn0qt9 julU]0I:rp1 sg34 _tG2E0x ?p0<vzn z1a5n1rpj 3w Bwn 99?.
Jyfwzissu^ Sb k\Ru8--=ym ujGCz59@M^--lwp>reW5W3 h >6tf1YA ZF3
lv6v2puIKwp< f`o qkdyh1z[JwK^ YM< 5o6v9l??N>e?J, l8 l? 2mc qzw1=i0
0Q4q@px[ xn kzg6qbE?m2] ws QKyiWD], 4[1 6yf86Nup5BQ :Q zG< Uz9aW ]l2m
nv2 WHtPG h;5j1fP ;qg Dxw6tvuu>y z<l6 jylIhfz6;a 3D >tp zz<n wBC0@7;Om
b?zo Mg275Jit0qf< ;b\: R02NH0w\1=q3 lve 09AU2g^huX0ng. ^b 5s@ qf[F
zW12t7JP1txr gnhz6y2vm SV44 2<Ea, ovw`Ul0 T?Wu wA1HF>h <4
ziL`z8Fm1nqnUyu9<_xqT9X.d?b
=======================================================
Sean Brasher


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Subject: Re: Biggest Public-key Cryptography Crack Ever
Date: 14 Apr 2000 22:11:11 GMT

There is reason to think that the small speedup has taken the "gas" out of
Koblitz curves.  NIST has them in their suggested list.  So the
reduction/speedup may be worth it.
Don Johnson

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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Subject: Re: wap & WTLS
Date: 14 Apr 2000 22:13:35 GMT

www.wapforum.com
Don Johnson

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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SHA2
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 22:14:07 GMT

John Savard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, it would be Norme des Hashes avec Securite, or something
> like that, but no part of NIST represents a French-speaking region,
> which is the usual reason for jumbling the letters.

Indeed, however, UTC is the acronym for temps universel coordonne in
France and universal coordinated time in the US. The only belivable
explanation for this I ever heard was that if it was going to have an
English name, the letters of the acronym would be in the French order.

In any case, the US does have a large portion of other languages,
including Spanish and Chinese in some areas. So, there's ample
opportunity for NIST to come up with something creative. :)

-- 
Matt Gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NFN NMI L.)
Subject: Re: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
Date: 14 Apr 2000 22:24:35 GMT

<<What this basically means is that they are removing the right of
indivduals in a criminal court to be tried as innocent until proven
guilty.>>

America sucks.  Then again, maybe not....
-*---*-------
S.T. "andard Mode" L.
STL's Quotation Archive: http://quote.cjb.net

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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rik Maylone)
Subject: Re: $100 Code Challenge
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 22:30:29 GMT

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>The following is a message encoded using a new routine I have designed.

First, you should see if you can crack this:

2.3. Ubj qb V cerfrag n arj rapelcgvba fpurzr va fpv.pelcg?

  ``V whfg pnzr hc jvgu guvf arng zrgubq bs rapelcgvba. Urer'f fbzr
  pvcuregrkg: SUQFVWBLJ^&%$*#@BTOHWUXSFLHVER. Vf vg fgebat?'' Jvgubhg n
  qbhog dhrfgvbaf yvxr guvf ner gur zbfg naablvat genssvp ba fpv.pelcg.

  Vs lbh unir pbzr hc jvgu na rapelcgvba fpurzr, cebivqvat fbzr
  pvcuregrkg sebz vg vf abg nqrdhngr. Abobql unf rire orra vzcerffrq ol
  enaqbz tvoorevfu. Nal arj nytbevguz fubhyq or frpher rira vs gur
  bccbarag xabjf gur shyy nytbevguz (vapyhqvat ubj nal zrffntr xrl vf
  qvfgevohgrq) naq bayl gur cevingr xrl vf xrcg frperg. Gurer ner fbzr
  flfgrzngvp naq haflfgrzngvp jnlf gb gnxr ernfbanoyl ybat pvcuregrkgf
  naq qrpelcg gurz rira jvgubhg cevbe xabjyrqtr bs gur nytbevguz, ohg
  guvf vf n gvzr-pbafhzvat naq cbffvoyl sehvgyrff rkrepvfr juvpu zbfg
  fpv.pelcg ernqref jba'g obgure jvgu.

-- 
"Rik Maylone" is actually 3129 845670 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
 012 3456789 <- Use this key to decode my email address and name.
              Play Five by Five Poker at http://www.5X5poker.com.

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


** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:

    Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

You can send mail to the entire list (and sci.crypt) via:

    Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************

Reply via email to