Cryptography-Digest Digest #46, Volume #9 Sat, 6 Feb 99 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Rolling code generators (Paul Rubin)
Re: Loony question (Lloyd Miller)
Re: Encryption Algorithms ("Kazak, Boris")
Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? *** (Colin Day)
Simple newbie challenge -- variable length codes (DonGraft)
Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? *** ("PAC")
Re: Question on creating entropy from user input (Dale R Worley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Rolling code generators
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 01:49:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>just sends some random (R, E(R)). The receiver simply remembers all
>the R's that have ever been used. E.g., say R is 20 bits. The
>receiver can use a 256 kbit EEPROM (cost under 50 cents)
Whoops, meant to say R is 18 bits (or use a 1 Mbit eeprom for 20 bits).
Don't shoot, g-men.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lloyd Miller)
Subject: Re: Loony question
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 18:38:53 GMT
AbsolutAF3 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: >Would a particularly awful track off a CD with a lot of
: >screeching guitars and howling monkeys be a decent source
: >of random numbers?
: It really depends on your use of the numbers. Ideally you want your random
: numbers not to be easily reproducable.. perhaps it would work better if
: instead
: of playing the track straight through, to take samples at different points in
: the song and use those to produce your "random" numbers.
And remember, for cryptographic purposes you would not want to use a
CD of which the attackers could get a copy. This would imply that you
produce the CD yourself in which case you could just used the sound
input directly and forget about the CD.
As has been pointed out many times, sound, even discordant sound, is
not vary random. It tends to have lots of sine waves which repeat. You
would have to pipe the sound data through a caefully designed hashing
system to the "distill" the randomness.
--
Lloyd Miller, Calgary
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terminal Insomniac
------------------------------
From: "Kazak, Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Encryption Algorithms
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 22:04:05 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asher Pressman wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of any good sites where i can find encryption
> algorithms? I've been looking for a while and i just can't find
> anything...
==================
Try < http://www.rpini.com > and browse through their Crypto CD.
The site is in Switzerland.
You might end up ordering a copy for yourself, who knows...
BNK
------------------------------
From: Colin Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? ***
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 03:05:38 +0000
PAC wrote:
> Take out added newgroups if you want:
>
> R. Knauer wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:35:19 -0800, "PAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I would also think that order/disorder is based more on a viewer
> >>perspective, i.e. elements having similar vector magnitudes/direction see
> >>each other in order, while those not with the same see each other as
> >>disordered.
> >
> >Indeed!
>
> Hey, it's good to be right for a change (>:
>
> >
> >If you do not know geography, then the string "constantinople" won't
> >mean anything to you and therefore you will view it as a random
> >string. Yet to someone who knows geography, it is a very simple word
> >to understand.
> >
> >Even if you do know what "constantinople" means, its binary
> >representation would appear random - unless you knew how to "view"
> >binary representations of English words.
> >
> >> Though viewer perspective is part of the problem with randomness,
> >>specially dealing with more radical theories I guess, still more implicit
> >>that randomness\determinism is more of a causal question than that of
> >>perspective: something random/determined would have the same status
> >>regardless of viewer perspective, something ordered/disorder not so.
> >
> >The whole point of Kolmogorov-Chaitin Algorithmic Complexity theory is
> >that the order/randomness of a string is independent of the "viewer"
> >(computer) to within an additive constant of order unity, which
> >accounts for the size of the interpreter running on the computer
> >and how universal the computer is. IOW, a universal computer does not
> >suffer with problems of interpretation. As I understand it, Li and
> >Vitanyi claim that Kolmogorov Complexity is the only known theory that
> >has that property.
>
> I can?t get really make great comments without reading the book, which I
> figure is beyond my technical abilities, but dealing with the real world and
> not just algorithms, I still think that randomness/determinism has a causal
> factor beyond a viewer perspective, for both QM and relativity.
> But Kolmogorov-Chaitin algorithms might fit perfectly with an
> order/disorder interpretation of the universe where the additive constant
> would be more easily seen as viewing the difference between order form
> disorder.
>
> ?From chaos comes order, Nietzsche said,? guess the movie (>;
>
> But TO what point randomness would become more causal/determined due to
> an additive constant, I?m not sure if its ever going to be a operable like
> that. The relative viewpoint of frames defining causality by viewer
> perspective to form an additive constant whereby something would merge into
> something more determined or causal is a theory that I don?t think has been
> applied to the real, causal universe.
> In other words, if I?m interpreting Kolmogorov-Chaitin, then an event
> could appear less or more causal due to varying circumstances, which I?m
> pretty sure isn?t the standard determination - here proposing something
> more radical than our casual/randomness discussion, that causal and
> randomness are in flux according to a viewer (or other reference point)
> position. I accept, as talked about early, the varying frames would give a
> casual identity instead of a determined or random one, but that would be a
> constant and not open to change.
> Now you can really bug these guys by saying that it causality fluxes
> over time, which actually it probably does in Hawking?s T0 type theories.
> Speaking of those theories then he probably would bring some relation on how
> something changes from non-causal to causal, I?m not sure if it?d be in
> Kolmogorov-Chaitin algorithm, but who knows:
>
> That when something at a T0 state becomes more to an additive constant
> then causality occurs, interesting then. So in this case there might have
> been a totally random flux in the universe, not having to specify a universe
> not filled with matter or devoid of matter or even in a singularity state,
> but merely that it was in true random behavior and therefore due to certain
> factors, became casual due to an additive constant. And the Big-Bang?s
> birth was due to the emergence of causality over randomness, but not from a
> singularity maybe, but from a certain perspective or whatever. You know,
> doesn?t sound bad...
>
> >
> >That's because algorithms deal with primitive logic and arithmetic
> >operations that are of a most fundamental nature - so fundamental that
> >they are actually part of reality itself. The very fact that the
> >wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics represents a probability tells you
> >that reality is intimately bound up with logic and arithmetic
> >operations.
>
> We had an identity thread a while ago that dealt with this, the main
> gist of my moire philosophical viewpoint being since we are separate
> entities and unable to merge with an object examined, unable then to find
> absolute truth, that object examined will always be a representation:
>
> ?I should rephrase this better using ?consciousness? instead of
> ?knowledge?, which, in my opinion, is a more inclusive term:
> There?s no doubt that we can only experience what consciousness presents
> to us, but consciousness is always conscious of something, that something
> being necessary to give actuality to this awareness. Since the object is
> always present when dealing with consciousness, then there must be an
> object, physical or conceptual, within even the most minor thought process
> that is beyond our ability to know - even though it is conditioned by
> consciousness itself. IF there is no dichotomy then there is no awareness
> for conscious beings, but merely pure in-itself nature.?
I would say that when we are conscious, we are conscious of something.
Where is the object present? If I look at a book, then the book is not within
my thought processes, but on the shelf. How we perceive an object (and
which things we can perceive) depends on our sense organs, but what we
perceive is out there.
>
>
> Math being a closed system, and in my opinion mirroring the universe in
> // by the fact that the universe is also a closed system, being closed still
> can?t resolve the problems even in the simplest affairs, not then having to
> go into QM.
> But this is just my viewpoint, who knows if some type of strict
> interpretation of Greek Logos is perfectly active to make the world exactly
> as mathematics express it.
>
> Phil C.
Math is a closed system? I think that Godel would dispute that (if he weren't
dead)
Colin Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DonGraft)
Subject: Simple newbie challenge -- variable length codes
Date: 7 Feb 1999 02:40:11 GMT
I'm a total newbie here, so forgive any stupidity or naivete!
Suppose you have a simple code where each letter of the
plaintext is replaced with a string of binary 0s and 1s, but
the number of them differs for each letter. Actually the letters
are placed at the leaves of an arbitrary binary tree, and the code
is determined by traversing the tree to the desired letter and
noting the decisions at the successive nodes.
How might such a code be cracked? Please remember I am
a newbie so the more complete the answer the better.
Thank you for your patience if this is a well-known thing.
Respectfully,
Don
------------------------------
From: "PAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? ***
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 19:30:14 -0800
Colin Day wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>PAC wrote:
>
>> Take out added newgroups if you want:
>>
>> R. Knauer wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:35:19 -0800, "PAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> I would also think that order/disorder is based more on a viewer
>> >>perspective, i.e. elements having similar vector magnitudes/direction
see
>> >>each other in order, while those not with the same see each other as
>> >>disordered.
>> >
>> >Indeed!
>>
>> Hey, it's good to be right for a change (>:
>>
>> >
>> >If you do not know geography, then the string "constantinople" won't
>> >mean anything to you and therefore you will view it as a random
>> >string. Yet to someone who knows geography, it is a very simple word
>> >to understand.
>> >
>> >Even if you do know what "constantinople" means, its binary
>> >representation would appear random - unless you knew how to "view"
>> >binary representations of English words.
>> >
>> >> Though viewer perspective is part of the problem with randomness,
>> >>specially dealing with more radical theories I guess, still more
implicit
>> >>that randomness\determinism is more of a causal question than that of
>> >>perspective: something random/determined would have the same status
>> >>regardless of viewer perspective, something ordered/disorder not so.
>> >
>> >The whole point of Kolmogorov-Chaitin Algorithmic Complexity theory is
>> >that the order/randomness of a string is independent of the "viewer"
>> >(computer) to within an additive constant of order unity, which
>> >accounts for the size of the interpreter running on the computer
>> >and how universal the computer is. IOW, a universal computer does not
>> >suffer with problems of interpretation. As I understand it, Li and
>> >Vitanyi claim that Kolmogorov Complexity is the only known theory that
>> >has that property.
>>
>> I can?t get really make great comments without reading the book,
which I
>> figure is beyond my technical abilities, but dealing with the real world
and
>> not just algorithms, I still think that randomness/determinism has a
causal
>> factor beyond a viewer perspective, for both QM and relativity.
>> But Kolmogorov-Chaitin algorithms might fit perfectly with an
>> order/disorder interpretation of the universe where the additive constant
>> would be more easily seen as viewing the difference between order form
>> disorder.
>>
>> ?From chaos comes order, Nietzsche said,? guess the movie (>;
>>
>> But TO what point randomness would become more causal/determined due
to
>> an additive constant, I?m not sure if its ever going to be a operable
like
>> that. The relative viewpoint of frames defining causality by viewer
>> perspective to form an additive constant whereby something would merge
into
>> something more determined or causal is a theory that I don?t think has
been
>> applied to the real, causal universe.
>> In other words, if I?m interpreting Kolmogorov-Chaitin, then an event
>> could appear less or more causal due to varying circumstances, which I?m
>> pretty sure isn?t the standard determination - here proposing something
>> more radical than our casual/randomness discussion, that causal and
>> randomness are in flux according to a viewer (or other reference point)
>> position. I accept, as talked about early, the varying frames would give
a
>> casual identity instead of a determined or random one, but that would be
a
>> constant and not open to change.
>> Now you can really bug these guys by saying that it causality fluxes
>> over time, which actually it probably does in Hawking?s T0 type theories.
>> Speaking of those theories then he probably would bring some relation on
how
>> something changes from non-causal to causal, I?m not sure if it?d be in
>> Kolmogorov-Chaitin algorithm, but who knows:
>>
>> That when something at a T0 state becomes more to an additive
constant
>> then causality occurs, interesting then. So in this case there might
have
>> been a totally random flux in the universe, not having to specify a
universe
>> not filled with matter or devoid of matter or even in a singularity
state,
>> but merely that it was in true random behavior and therefore due to
certain
>> factors, became casual due to an additive constant. And the Big-Bang?s
>> birth was due to the emergence of causality over randomness, but not from
a
>> singularity maybe, but from a certain perspective or whatever. You know,
>> doesn?t sound bad...
>>
>> >
>> >That's because algorithms deal with primitive logic and arithmetic
>> >operations that are of a most fundamental nature - so fundamental that
>> >they are actually part of reality itself. The very fact that the
>> >wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics represents a probability tells you
>> >that reality is intimately bound up with logic and arithmetic
>> >operations.
>>
>> We had an identity thread a while ago that dealt with this, the main
>> gist of my moire philosophical viewpoint being since we are separate
>> entities and unable to merge with an object examined, unable then to find
>> absolute truth, that object examined will always be a representation:
>>
>> ?I should rephrase this better using ?consciousness? instead of
>> ?knowledge?, which, in my opinion, is a more inclusive term:
>> There?s no doubt that we can only experience what consciousness
presents
>> to us, but consciousness is always conscious of something, that something
>> being necessary to give actuality to this awareness. Since the object is
>> always present when dealing with consciousness, then there must be an
>> object, physical or conceptual, within even the most minor thought
process
>> that is beyond our ability to know - even though it is conditioned by
>> consciousness itself. IF there is no dichotomy then there is no
awareness
>> for conscious beings, but merely pure in-itself nature.?
>
>I would say that when we are conscious, we are conscious of something.
>Where is the object present? If I look at a book, then the book is not
within
>my thought processes, but on the shelf. How we perceive an object (and
>which things we can perceive) depends on our sense organs, but what we
>perceive is out there.
I didn't really want to get into this type of discussion and take away
the tone of this thread, but what we percieve is really out there, but from
one aspect, to know it in its entirety means to be merged 100% into an
object and with that object. Since we are never at that situation, a
separation still exists regardless of what percieved.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Math being a closed system, and in my opinion mirroring the universe
in
>> // by the fact that the universe is also a closed system, being closed
still
>> can?t resolve the problems even in the simplest affairs, not then having
to
>> go into QM.
>> But this is just my viewpoint, who knows if some type of strict
>> interpretation of Greek Logos is perfectly active to make the world
exactly
>> as mathematics express it.
>>
>> Phil C.
>
>Math is a closed system? I think that Godel would dispute that (if he
weren't
>dead)
Then I'll let my stuff stand until he rises again (>;
This is more my side from an earlier thread
I do not understand what you mean. If you mean that math is a complete
>system, then that is not correct. Mathematics suffers from its own
>indeterminancy (Chaitin's Theorem) just as formal axiomatic systems
>do (Godel's Theorem) and computers programs do (Turing's Theorem).
"Never a complete system even when dealing with simple infinity, but
whatever answers that come to math will still be mathematical and resolved
by itself and nothing beyond that. Otherwise leaving the ends open I
suppose can imply that even the simplest variable can be non-mathematical
being that it's never determined and the equations vary with the variables.
It has internal relations that will always resolve things mathematically.
But this does imply that math=universe being that the universe would be
considered complete and math not, but this is obvious since math is not the
all of reality, yet the most approachable // to the universe that we have.
Absolute completeness would never be a part of math unless it encompassed
all of reality."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale R Worley)
Subject: Re: Question on creating entropy from user input
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 03:38:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Sam Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
I'm comparing consecutive pairs of x,y movements to check that there is no
obvious bias - but this method is fairly slow (e.g. a couple of bits per
second after removal of bias).
Question: is it safe to also use the actual x,y values in some way (mod
ScreenSive / 10 perhaps?), as well as using the direction of movement?
Probably not, unless you are sampling the x,y values less than once a
second -- the bits of successive x values are highly correlated. In a
mouse-intensive environment, it would be better to sample the
milliseconds-digits of the mouse-click times, which are likely to be
poorly correlated.
(One way to test the quality of data input is to generate a bunch of
it and run it through standard compression algorithms. If it
compresses noticeably, avoid using it.)
Also, is it recommended to hash this data before using it (as session keys /
ephemeral keys for example) or is it best to use it raw?
Hashing is always better -- correlations between bits will not be
removed -- in the sense of information theory by -- hashing, but they
will be turned into complex, subtle correlations that will be very
hard to exploit cryptographically.
Dale
Dale Worley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
If the United States were really a democracy, the National Enquirer would be
the national newspaper.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
