Cryptography-Digest Digest #316, Volume #9 Thu, 1 Apr 99 01:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: True Randomness & The Law Of Large Numbers (R. Knauer)
Re: What is fast enough? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Alert: "HAPPY99.EXE" e-mail/newsgroup virus (Sundial Services)
Re: Is initial permutation in DES necessary? (Sundial Services)
Alert: "HAPPY99.EXE" e-mail/newsgroup virus (Sundial Services)
Re: Is initial permutation in DES necessary? (Paul Koning)
Re: Live from the Second AES Conference (Paul Koning)
Re: RC4 Questions ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: True Randomness & The Law Of Large Numbers (Dave Knapp)
CipherSaber-2? ("Arthur N. Klassen")
Re: RC4 Questions ("David")
Re: RC4 Questions (Darren New)
Re: "Biprime Cryptography" to replace RSA? (wtshaw)
Re: GOOD PRIME GENERATOR (GPG) (Mike L. Griebel)
Re: New and recent crypto books ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: FSE information anyone? (Thirteen)
RSA, once again (STL137)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: True Randomness & The Law Of Large Numbers
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:52:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 31 Mar 1999 21:22:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bryan G. Olson; CMSC (G))
wrote:
>: Everyone knows that if I open a perfume bottle in the middle
>: of the room, the odor will spread all over the room with time.
>But by that time n units is far beyond the walls of the room.
Yes, that is indeed correct. The Gaussian falls off very slowly. But
not so slowly that the perfume odor stays next to the bottle forever.
>Again, you've forgotten what n units means. It's how far a particle
>would have traveled if every step were leftward or every step
>rightward. It has nothing to do with where drywall is hung.
Yes, that is correct. n units measures the farthest extent of the
random walk.
>As others have pointed out, the two dimensional case yields
>a binomial distribution, so the standard deviation is
>sqrt(npq).
The one dimensional case also yields a binomial distribution, because
a UBP yields the binomial distribution.
>Here n=1000000 p=q=0.5, so the standard deviation is
>500 units. Very few particles will be 20 standard deviations
>or more from the mean.
But more than a negligible number of particles will be outside +- 5%
of the mean.
>: 10,000 units is only 1% of 1,000,000 units, so the probability is very
>: small.
>You've misinterpreted the numbers.
How?
>: But others here are attempting to equate the
>: frequency with the probability for finite sequences. Therein lies the
>: error.
>The only one I saw doing that was you.
I do not recall ever confusing frequency for a finite process with
probability.
>You don't measure bias, you measure frequency. And if what
>you find looking at 100 bits is 100 zeros, we can safely
>reject the candidate RNG based on that test alone.
Are you saying that a run of 100 zeros conclusively demonstrates that
a TRNG is malfunctioning? How about a run of 100 zeros in a sequence
of 10^9 bits?
And how do you account for the fact that in a large uniform random
walk in one dimension, most of the paths rarely end at or near the
origin?
>Look at your 100 zeros out of 100 bits.
I do not recall using that exact expression. But never mind.
>If we make any
>reasonable estimate of the probability our candidate RNG is
>defective in such a way as to produce this outcome, say one in
>a trillion, then Bayes' theorem tells us there's no significant
>chance the RNG is in fact unbiased.
Can you elaborate on each key point in that analysis by giving
specifics of how you go from the beginning assumptions to the final
conclusion.
Bob Knauer
"The laws in this city are clearly racist. All laws are racist.
The law of gravity is racist."
- Marion Barry, Mayor of Washington DC
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What is fast enough?
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:53:19 GMT
> Similarly, not every chip has one cycle load/store even with cache
> hits, and analyses that assume one cycle loads may be misleading.
>
> Earlier in this thread there was a note about Merced performance
> for various cyphers. One of them did quite poorly. That may
> very well be related to the points I mentioned.
>
Which leads me to my idea. Why not messure the complexitiy. I.e what type
of operations (add, mult, divide) and how many of them. Then you can tally
it up, and compare.
Tom
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:20:55 -0700
From: Sundial Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc,comp.databases.paradox,comp.databases.ms-access
Subject: Re: Alert: "HAPPY99.EXE" e-mail/newsgroup virus
Arvin Meyer wrote:
> Then DELETE THE MESSAGE, do NOT open the Word document.
>
> This simple advice will remove the virus infected document
> and stop it spreading. If everyone would follow that
> advice the Melissa virus will be stopped dead in its
> tracks.
Maybe the best advice in all of this is, "don't be TOO trusting." In
the current state of technology, we have very powerful mail/browser
programs, some of which are too-trusting, and we certainly have millions
of e-mail and newsgroup users who are also (as it turns out)
too-trusting.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:24:35 -0700
From: Sundial Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is initial permutation in DES necessary?
Paul Koning wrote:
>
> "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
> >
> > The key wasn't too short; it outlasted its design lifetime!
>
> I very much doubt that. Diffie and Hellman made a persuasive argument
> that the EFF Cracker could have been built by a well-heeled
> government agency right back when DES was first approved. Even
> if they were slightly optimistic, it seems an excellent bet that
> such a machine was built within 5 years or so from that date.
In retrospect, DES probably =was= a cipher that was a great deal
stronger than anyone at the time =could= have come up with. Techniques
such as differential cryptanalysis did not come to the public's
attention for many years thereafter. In retrospect, IBM and NSA did a
hell of a job back then.
But did they produce and promote a cipher that NSA could not break?
Don't delude yourself on -that- score for one millisecond, I think.
It's absurd to think that an agency charged with the National Security
would do anything that would have the net effect of shutting themselves
out. :-)
Did they produce a very effective and long-lasting cipher that's more
than enough for most commercial purposes (especially of that era?).
Yes, I think they did. Your tax dollars at work?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:40:15 -0700
From: Sundial Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc,comp.databases.paradox,comp.databases.ms-access
Subject: Alert: "HAPPY99.EXE" e-mail/newsgroup virus
There is a Win32 program circulating around the Net which contains a
virus that will attach itself to every e-mail message and newsgroup post
you happen to make. Or it will send a message shortly afterward. Tidy
thing... it even keeps a log of its activities!
This is an authentic alert; information about the virus can be found at
various places, including: http://craig.medill.nwu.edu/happy99/
It SHOULD go without saying that you should never blindly execute
anything that anyone just sends you, but here's more proof that you are
much less in control of your own computer than you think!
[ Please do NOT reply to this message, which is cross-posted. ]
------------------------------
From: Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is initial permutation in DES necessary?
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:57:58 -0500
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
>
> John Savard wrote:
> > Even though the _other_ charges levelled against DES have not been borne
> > out (except the one about the key being too short), that the NSA would not
> > have wished to comment on the security of an algorithm to be made public
> > doesn't seem like too fantastical a notion, and there is some anecdotal
> > evidence to that effect.
>
> The key wasn't too short; it outlasted its design lifetime!
I very much doubt that. Diffie and Hellman made a persuasive argument
that the EFF Cracker could have been built by a well-heeled
government agency right back when DES was first approved. Even
if they were slightly optimistic, it seems an excellent bet that
such a machine was built within 5 years or so from that date.
paul
------------------------------
From: Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Live from the Second AES Conference
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:44:43 -0500
Terje Mathisen wrote:
>
> Bruce Schneier wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 16:15:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > (John Savard) wrote:
> [snip]
> > >If everybody's C code is compiled on the same compiler, one may be
> > >comparing optimizations or something, but one isn't comparing compilers.
> >
> > One is comparing both how well the coder optimized his code, and how
> > well the compiler optimizes the particular algorithm. For example,
> > the Borland C compiler can't do rotates well. Any algorithm using
> > rotates will look relatively worse than an algorithm that does not, if
> > compared using a Borland compiler. This relativel difference won't
> > exist if the algorithms are compared using a Microsoft compiler.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Even though there might exist crypto algorithms which would happen to
> compile into near-optimal code on almost all compilers, I believe a new
> standard encryption algorithm is more than important enough to deserve
> being implemented in hand-optimized asm code for all major cpu
> architectures.
>
> I.e. there is no particular reason to handicap an algorithm just because
> it uses a normal cou instruction which is hard/impossible to describe
> directly in portable C.
It's not just compilers. A number of RISC CPUs don't have a rotate
instruction at all (e.g., MIPS). So a rotate-intensive cypher is
at a relative disadvantage there.
paul
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RC4 Questions
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 01:53:47 GMT
> > It's not patented, it's not copywritten.
>
> Think twice about legal advice from someone who doesn't know how to
> spell "copyright". :-)
>
Piss off monkey ass.
Tom
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Dave Knapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: True Randomness & The Law Of Large Numbers
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 02:57:14 GMT
"R. Knauer" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 01:49:21 GMT, Dave Knapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Let me make sure I get this straight: you are claiming that Sn and Sn+1
> >are uncorrelated?
>
> Define "correlated".
"Correlation," which is defined in any first-year book on statistics, is
the dependence of one value on another.
> My understanding of the meaning of "correlated" is that if you know
> Sn, you can determine Sn+1. But that is impossible because to do so
> you would have to be able to determine Xn+1, and since it is a random
> variable, it is not possible to determine it.
No, that would be _complete_ or 100% correlation.
Correlation is generally a value between +1 and -1; a correlation of
+/-1 means that one value is completely determined by the other.
A correlation of 0 means that the two values are independent.
Sn+1 depends, to seom extent, on Sn; they are not completely
independent. Therefore they are correlated.
Another way of looking at correlation is that if you know the value of
Sn, you can make a better estimate of Sn+1 than you would have
otherwise.
In the case of a random walk, the steps themselves may be completely
independent, but the position is not.
The impact of this fact on statistics is that repeated measurements of
the position of a particle undergoing a random walk cannot be treated as
independent, because they are not. Thus, the repeated measurement of
the position of a particle undergoing a random walk has a very different
statistical distribution than would measurements of independent
particles undergoing the walk.
> >You claimed that statistical analysis of the TRNG bitstream was
> >analogous to measuring Sn,
>
> I never made such a statement. You are reading things into what I am
> saying that I never intended. I have not claimed that the random walk
> is how a TRNG works.
Then you _do_ understand that your objections to statistical testing of
random-number generators are groundless?
Unless you are pointing out the well-known fact that one cannot use the
moving average of the random-number generator as if it were independent.
> >and that, because of the properties of S as a
> >function of n, such analysis would have no meaning.
>
> Because the finite random walk points out that a significant number of
> sequences have "abnormally" large bias as measured by S, I call into
> question the use of statistical methods for determining true
> randomness.
But the random walk points out no such thing! That is only true for
sequences that are _correlated_, such as repeated measurements of the
bias of a given bitstream.
For _independent_ bitstreams, a TRNG has no bias, and a measurement of
significant bias would indicate a potential problem.
No decent statistician would use repeated measurements of the bias of a
_given_ bitstream, re-using previous data, and claim that it would be a
useful measure of randomness.
In other words, you are attacking a strawman that doesn't exist.
Once again, I suggest that before you criticize statistical analyses of
random number generators, you try to learn _something_ about the
statistical analyses you are criticizing.
-- Dave
------------------------------
From: "Arthur N. Klassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CipherSaber-2?
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:17:58 GMT
Has anyone else implemented this algorithm? I think I have, but my
program does not give expected results for the small (42 byte) file that
Mr. Reinhold posts at ciphersaber.gurus.com/faq.html
(I'm assuming that 0e e3 f9 ... yields some easily recognizable English
text when run through saber-2 with N=10 and key="asdfg")
Code fragment from me...
// bMultiScramble is a global meaning use CipherSaber-2
// nTableScramble is a global for N in CipherSaber-2
// key is a global where the pass-phrase+IV is stored
// kArraySize is a constant for the size of the state array: 256
// state is a global - the state array
// keyLength is a global giving strlen(the user's key) + 10
void Setup()
{
if (!bMultiScramble)
nTableScramble = 1;
const char* pKeyX = key;
int i, j = 0;
for (i = 0; i < kArraySize; state[i] = i,++i)
;
for (int k = 0; k < nTableScramble; ++k)
for (i = 0; i < kArraySize; ++i)
{
j = (j + state[i] + *pKeyX) & (kArraySize - 1);
if ((++pKeyX) - key == keyLength)
pKeyX = key;
Swap(state[i], state[j]);
}
i = j = k = 0;
}
I have tried this with the 3rd 'for' line changed to
for (i = j = 0; i < kArraySize; ++i)
in case I misunderstood how much of the mixing was to be repeated N
times. What am I doing wrong?
tia for any help any of you can offer...ank
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | The word "mercy"'s gonna have a new meaning
<*> | +t+ -> | |0 !! | when we are judged by the children of our slaves
PGP: **** 2047/DCDF9341:E273 AD0E F99A 8869 050B 5E92 0E47 C151 **** two
finger- *** 30DF 376C 43D0 DA74 F33F 752C 192E 3711 5E52 02BF *** prints
------------------------------
From: "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RC4 Questions
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:12:59 -0500
This is some very useful information, and I appreciate everyone's responses,
but I am still a bit in the dark about one last scenario:
What if the users each have different keys to the same channel, and are
receiving the same messages encrypted to different keys simultaneously?
Does this make the message more vulnerable to attack?
Thanks again,
David
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7dt5hg$m4h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
> Here is some low down on using RC4.
>
> It's not patented, it's not copywritten. It's a trade secret :). I still
> would suggest giving credit where credit is due.
>
> There are no known weaknesses of RC4 when it is used correctly. The
biggest
> problem would be to use the same key on more then one message, by the same
> user. That's where the salt comes in.
>
> For all of your users, if they are chatting in the same room, would all
have
> the same key for sending, and receiving. The problem is that before you
can
> send your internal RC4 state must be upto date with everyone elses state
(so
> they can receive).
>
> In a private chat it's not hard todo...
>
> Hmm, how are you sending the secret keys?
>
> Tom
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RC4 Questions
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:57:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's not patented, it's not copywritten.
Think twice about legal advice from someone who doesn't know how to
spell "copyright". :-)
--
Darren New / Senior Software Architect / MessageMedia, Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
"Practical Necromancy: Chapter One - Proper Use of Shovels"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: "Biprime Cryptography" to replace RSA?
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:49:03 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard) wrote:
> >>algorithm by calling it "RSA".
>
> >>Perhaps we should have a little contest for what to call the RSA
> >>algorithm, given RSA's objection to calling a shovel a spade.
>
> >I would propose "Biprime Cryptography" or "BPC" as the generic term for
> >RSA. Biprime is a natural and appropriate English name for the product of
> >two primes.
>
How about Algorithm using Biprime Cryptograpy, ABC. Then, there is the
Roadrunner favorite, A Crypto Milestone in Encryption, ACME. Then, we
always have, Public Use Keyed Encryption, PUKE.
--
Too much of a good thing can be much worse than none.
------------------------------
From: Mike L. Griebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GOOD PRIME GENERATOR (GPG)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:25:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <7ddjt5$h82$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <7dda0p$8fv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Below my prime generator. Actually it's a prime candidate generator. It
> > generates PHI(G) candidates btw. 0 and G-1 in practically linear time,
> > if G = product of first n primes. There can't be any other candidates in
> > the interval examined.
>
> Note that G ~ e^n and Phi(G) ~ e^(-gamma) * e^n
No, Phi(G) ~ e^(-gamma) * e^n / log(n'th prime)
for the G's considered (Mertens' theorem; G is the product of the first n
primes, remember?). This is < O(G).
> > Before ditching my algorithm completely, please take the time to try it
> > out. For instance, find all twin primes up to 2310 using only pen and
> > paper. It works quite well; you find 135 candidates in no time, and then
> > you have to check those manually, for instance using a table of primes
> > (yes, you have to cheat).
>
> In other words, your algorithm only tosses out some of the composites
> and then one must test the remaining elements for primality.
You are correct; that is what I said.
> This isn't terribly useful. Especially since Pritchard's variation of the
> Sieve of Eratosthenes finds all the primes and nothing but the primes up to
> n (for given n) in sub-linear time (in n).
Comments:
1) How you program the second phase is up to you. If you mean to say that it
must necessarily take O(G) or worse to verify each of the PHI(G) candidates
for primality, I am quite surprised.
2) As noted above the first phase of GPG is a variation of the Sieve of E.,
and it runs in sub-linear time. I have not had the opportunity to see
Pritchard's algorithm, but please outline it for me. In which ways does it
differ from my algorithm? (Or if you don't know anything about it, just tell
me to "go check the library" myself).
3) Whether my algorithm is useful, is a matter of taste. Are primes useful?
Yes, it turns out they are. Well, how about twin primes, or more generally,
primes in arithmetic progression -- are they useful, or just "interesting" or
funny? I don't know.
I know that my algorithm is pretty good at finding primes in arithmetic
progression. Here's something you could try:
t=199 is the first prime such that t+k*210 are also primes for 0<=k<=9 (in
other words, 199 is the first prime in an arithmetic progression of 10 primes
with a difference of 210 btw. consecutive pairs). Which is the next one?
I have not found any better way to find such primes than by my algorithm.
Maybe you know of one? I would be very interested.
Mike L. Griebel (iN*Tp) ... dreams, lexicography, Japanese, Danish, a.o.
___________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://www.geocities.com/athens/8201/
GCS/@ d?(pu)>@ s-:+ a36 C++ W++ w--- O- M++ R* !tv b+++ G e+++ h+ r y+
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New and recent crypto books
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:44:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CryptoBook) wrote:
>
> Classical Crypto Books is pleased to announce that the following new and
recent
> crypto books are in stock and ready for immediate shipment.
Commercial advertising is a no-no. Please don't do it again.
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Thirteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FSE information anyone?
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:03:09 -1000
David Crick wrote:
>
> Does anyone who attended FSE (right after AES2) intend to compile
> a brief report on it? (like we had for the two days of AES2)
>
> For instance I know there was a very interesting paper on Crypton
> presented.
>
> David.
FSE-6 : A Brief Report
by number 13
The Fast Software Encryption conference in Rome last week
had little to do with "fast", not much mention of "software",
but lots of "encryption". As we registered at the luxury
hotel on Via Nazionale, we were given numbered badges without
names: call me 013.
Before we go into details on the cryptanalytic techniques
discussed, please consider the following topics to be discussed:
The Boomerang Attack: a 3 dimensional path for analysis
Brawling Cryptographers: an outrageous coffee break (no names)
Falling Down Drunk on Stage (no names, please)
7 Partiers Out In an Old City at Night
A Challenge to Create a Cooperative Computational Goal
RC6 with constant rotation amounts
Scramble All, Encrypt Small: sharing work with a smart card
Miss In the Middle Attack
Slide Attacks
Today's installment in this thread will not cover all of these
topics, but that will be done over three days. First on the agenda
is a very impressive paper by David Wagner, a student at Berkeley,
and a participant in sci.crypt. The Boomerang attack is a new
form of differential cryptanalysis in which work is done on half
of the rounds. The cipher is broken in half, like a meet in the
middle attack. David showed a 3 dimensional diagram like a cube
cut in half with the 4 top corners being 4 plaintexts and the 4
bottom corners being 4 ciphertexts. 2 plaintexts are found with
differential characteristics that have "the right differences".
The resulting ciphertexts then are used to construct 2 more
ciphertexts with "the right differences". Then decryption
follows the reverse path through the cube into the middle,
where conveniently, algebraic symbols are manipulated to cancel
out some "stuff". The key is found by trying numerous keys to
construct the cube that has the right differences. It takes
much less work than an exhaustive search. The Digest of Technical
Papers does not have the cube drawing, and the Digest is not
available to most people. I hope that this humble description
has provided some enlightenment, and that David Wagner will
expand upon or correct this summary.
To be continued...13
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (STL137)
Subject: RSA, once again
Date: 1 Apr 1999 05:30:38 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
Whoo hoo - my calculator (TI-92) RSA program is complete, with
encrypting and decrypting functions in addition to the key generation
program. Being a Nice Guy, I sent this off to RSA (the company) (it's
short, don't worry):
~~~
Subj: Question about RSA
Date: 03/26/99
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the RSA FAQ, it is stated:
<<In the U.S., a license is needed to "make, use or sell" RSA.
However, RSA Data Security usually allows free non-commercial use of
RSA, with written permission, for academic or university research
purposes. >>
I have a question regarding this. I have a calculator made by Texas
Instruments (TI-92+). Its math capabilities are very strong, and a
library of functions useful in number theory has been developed for it
and distributed for free. From a description of the RSA algorithm by
Ivars Peterson, I can generate RSA key pairs using the TI-92+ and this
free library of functions. However, doing the process by hand is
tedious. Thus, I have two questions:
1) May I have permission to create a program for the TI-92+ that
generates small RSA key pairs? Limitations of the hardware will limit
keysizes to 1024 bits, and practical speed considerations will limit
it further to about 512 bits. It will be for a non-commerical use (I'd
like to investigate the properties of the algorithm).
2) Once the program is created, may I distribute it to other users of
Texas Instruments calculators (in the USA)? Of course, I would
prominently include a statement in the program stating it is for
non-commercial academic purposes. (Anyways, what kind of person would
trust a calculator program for real security?)
Thank you for your time.
S.L.
~~~
And I got no response. So I ask the readers of sci.crypt: is RSA
usually good at responding to their E-mail? Texas Instruments is, but
I don't know about RSA. Perhaps it's because they're trying to send me
mail from somewhere else than an address at rsa.com. I don't know. Any
opinions?
- -*---*-------
S.T.L. ==> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== My quotes page is at:
http://quote.cjb.net
~~~ My main website is at: http://137.tsx.org ~~~
If you see a message of mine posted on two newsgroups, then it is
because I
have replied to a crossposted message. I *never* crosspost of my own
accord!
I block all unapproved E-mail. If you wish to talk to me, post to
alt.test.9
with the subject "Moo" and your E-mail address in the body. I will
allow you
as soon as I sign on next.
"This universe is not hostile, or yet is it friendly. It is simply
indifferent" - John H. Holmes, The Sensible Man's View of Religion
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
Comment: Key ID 0xAC61CF7C
iQA/AwUBNwMDsHUitDysYc98EQLO3gCeI+GDIC4vQTn6x2bcx4X9vu/gfyMAoNyT
sKJWMImnAey/3Kb0uNhZHUzy
=ku5y
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
