Cryptography-Digest Digest #944
Cryptography-Digest Digest #944, Volume #13 Mon, 19 Mar 01 19:13:00 EST
Contents:
Re: Are prime numbers illegal ? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Fast and Easy crypt send (amateur)
CNN story on NSA ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Fast and Easy crypt send (amateur)
NSA in the news on CNN ("Mxsmanic")
Re: Are prime numbers illegal ? (Sundial Services)
Re: NSA in the news on CNN (Sundial Services)
Re: Fast and Easy crypt send (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Fast and Easy crypt send (Sundial Services)
Re: Idea (amateur)
Signing/Not signing posts ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: Fast and Easy crypt send (amateur)
Re: Signing/Not signing posts (amateur)
Re: My cypher system (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Fast and Easy crypt send (amateur)
Re: SSL secured servers and TEMPEST (Paul Rubin)
Re: NSA in the news on CNN (jtnews)
Re: One-time Pad really unbreakable? (Tim Tyler)
Re: Signing/Not signing posts (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: OT: TV Licensing - final answer - sorry for xpost (Paul Schlyter)
Re: [OT] Why Nazis are evil (Paul Schlyter)
Re: How to eliminate redondancy? ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: Is SHA-1 Broken? (Steve Meyer)
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are prime numbers illegal ?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:23:58 GMT
John Savard wrote:
If you can't copyright items that are on the real number line, if you
can't copyright integers, how can you copyright anything, since
everything can be coded as a number?
I think the distinction that should be made is whether or not the
number represents proprietary information *using a published or
well-known coding*. (One can always design an ad-hoc coding that
takes a given piece of information to a given integer, but what
would constitute proof of intent would be for a single encoding
to relate several suspect integers to intelligible proprietary
plaintexts. The odds of that happening by accident could be
computed, if necessary.)
--
From: amateur [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fast and Easy crypt send
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:16:36 -0400
What if I use single function to transmit my encrypted text E
Algo Fast and Easy
Symetric keys Bob and Alice have the same key just to receive E (not to
encrypt). I suppose that they have the key to decrypt and encrypt. I'm
talking about a secure sending.
E=f(k)= a-k
Sample
E=1532 as decimal integer
k= 5421 as decimal integer
a= 6953 as decimal integer
Bob using his key "k" send "a" to Alice
The attacker ("passive attack") has only "a"
Even if he intercept "a", it will be to hard to deduce "e".
I suppose that he did intercept it. He has to decrypt it.
How he can e= a-k if he obtain only "a"? he doesnot know nor E nor k.
In reality Bob has to use a hudge number k not as my sample.
Fast and Easy?
I'm waiting for comments.
--
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CNN story on NSA
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:53:25 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/nsa/stories/codebreakers/index.html
--
From: amateur [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fast and Easy crypt send
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:18:12 -0400
I forget. Bob may use more complex function too f(k).
--
From: "Mxsmanic" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security.pgp
Subject: NSA in the news on CNN
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:35:38 GMT
CNN has a special series on the NSA (how times change!) this week, which
may generate some interest in PGP, as I presume they'll eventually get
around to mentioning the program. They are supposed to talk about
encryption in days to come, but I don't know to what extent. The series
even shows pictures from inside the NSA! Those people at Fort Meade
must be getting desperate for funding, or something!
--
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:39:40 -0700
From: Sundial Services [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are prime numbers illegal ?
It is, in a word, the kind of argument that will cause a judge to smile
in a dangerous sort of way. But the entire Digital Milennium Copyright
Act is rather like that, too. It's a politically-motivated piece of
legislation if ever there was one, and between the time that the
legislation was introduced in committee and the time it made it to the
Senate floor, times had surely changed.
Part of the problem, unfortunately, is the flagrancy with which groups
like Napster violated copyrights ... and persisted in doing so. It
forced the holders of copyrights to seek extensive changes to the law,
which eventually they received, for better or for worse.
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
John Savard wrote:
If you can't copyright items that are on the real number line, if you
Cryptography-Digest Digest #944
Cryptography-Digest Digest #944, Volume #11 Mon, 5 Jun 00 05:13:01 EDT Contents: Re: Cipher design a fading field? (Benjamin Goldberg) Re: Actually this person faxed me an article of the U.S. commercial espionage in August, 1995 good work Tatu Ylonen ... actually I have tried to provide some intel in the past ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: No-Key Encryption (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: RSA Algorithm (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: Cipher design a fading field? (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: Cipher design a fading field? (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: Faster than light Cryptanalysis (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: HTML encryption (Niklas Frykholm) Re: TC3 Update (Niklas Frykholm) Re: An interesting page on the Rabin-Miller PP test (Robin Chapman) Re: XTR independent benchmarks (Wei Dai) Re: Newcomer seeks clarification re download encryption (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) Re: HTML encryption (Mark Wooding) From: Benjamin Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cipher design a fading field? Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 07:11:46 GMT Mok-Kong Shen wrote: John Savard wrote: "Douglas A. Gwyn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part: (a) It has not been demonstrated that a group of amateurs can in fact design a truly "strong" cipher. I wouldn't want to try decrypting something enciphered using Blowfish. But you are right, although what 'has not been demonstrated' is very nearly inherently impossible to demonstrate. I think that the question is ill-defined and can't be properly argued. I agree. It's impossible to show that any cipher is a ''truly "strong" cipher.'' It is only possible to show that a cipher is weak. In fact, if an amateur succeeds to design a strong cipher (we put aside the issue of 'strong'), then he is thereafter counted as a professional. Thus the proposition that no amateur has designed a strong cipher is sort of tautology. It isn't *designing* a strong cipher that gets one considered a professional, it's discovering and publishing a reviously-unknown 'break' in an existing well-known cipher. (b) I wish that the amateurs would quit inventing a plethora of new encryption schemes until they have figured out how to defeat the existing ones. This may be relevant to your thesis. But just because _they_ don't know how to crack the existing ones doesn't mean... I don't think that there is any professional who has done the excercise of cracking all ciphers that exist, before he attains the status of being professional. Heh, "all ciphers that exist" ... there are more new ciphers being invented all of the time, so of course one isn't expected to be able to break *all* of them to be a professional... Just one or two of the more well-known ciphers, and to publish those findings. On the other hand, cryptanalysis knowledge is evidently required for a good design. Not necessarily... it's entirely possible that one could create a strong cipher with a lot of mathematical knowledge, a little bit of luck, and a little cleverness. Of course, unless you are already considered a professional -- that is, have broken other people's ciphers, and published those breaks -- it's less likely that anyone will consider your cipher seriously. However, I doubt that cryptanalysis of lots of very old ciphers are unconditionally advantageous (from a economical point of view) for would-be designers. For, if too much time is spent on these, one will never finish to be able to learn the more modern stuffs. (I believe that what wtshaw once expressed as 'climbing the fool's hill' is related to this issue. BTW, there might be certain people wishing to sponsor that sport, because that can be fun.) How many do you consider "lots of," and what ciphers do you consider "very old?" While breaking every pre-existing cipher isn't necessary to be a professional, it *is* important to understand how 'classical' ciphers work, and why they are no longer used, so as not to incorporate the same problems into your own ciphers. Will AES be the -final- cipher? Of course not. It won't even be the final encipherment scheme that somebody eventually figures out how to crack. that someone else might not. So, people who want security *now* might well need something that has a chance of being better than what exists. For those who are conservative and believe (whether justified or not) to be in need of higher security, the way of multiple encryptions is always open. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: alt.politics.org.cia,so.culture.nordic,soc.culture.russian Subject: Re: Actually this person faxed me an article of the U.S. commercial espionage in August, 1995 good work Tatu Ylonen ... actually I have tried to provide some intel in the past ... Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 07:18:27 GMT I'm sorry but
