Cryptography-Digest Digest #885, Volume #8 Mon, 11 Jan 99 19:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Practical True Random Number Generator (Jim Dunnett)
Re: On the Generation of Pseudo-OTP (John Briggs)
Re: On the Generation of Pseudo-OTP (R. Knauer)
Re: Practical True Random Number Generator (R. Knauer)
Re: U.S. Spying On Friend And Foe (Jonah Thomas)
Re: Triple DES with CBC (Andrew Haley)
Re: On the Generation of Pseudo-OTP (Paul L. Allen)
Re: Differential Cryptanalysis??? (Frank Gifford)
ECCAD '99, SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT (Manfred Minimair)
Re: ScramDisk - password size - high ASCII (Denning)
Comments & note for Bryan (Re: coNP=NP Made Easier?) (rosi)
Re: DES Hardware Implementation!! (Brian Boorman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Dunnett)
Subject: Re: Practical True Random Number Generator
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:22:19 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Dunnett
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:42:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer) wrote:
>Work in some New Age psychobabble to motivate these "homeless" gypsies
>and you got a winner here.
>
>But I suspect that if you just tape recorded a conversation between
>two of them, you would have all the randomness you could ever want.
Politicians and pop-groups probably have just as much
entropy.
--
Regards, Jim. | MPs, ministers or otherwise do not resign
olympus%jimdee.prestel.co.uk | because of their integrity. They do so
dynastic%cwcom.net | because they have been found out.
nordland%aol.com |
marula%zdnetmail.com | - A letter in the Daily Torygraph.
Pgp key: wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net:11371
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Briggs)
Subject: Re: On the Generation of Pseudo-OTP
Date: 11 Jan 1999 19:52:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
writes:
>On 11 Jan 1999 16:34:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Briggs)
>wrote:
>
>>>>Which compression algorithm would you recommend?
>
>>>The one which reduces the plaintext the most in size.
>
>>Which plaintext?
>
>>Please specify clearly whether the plaintext is selected before or after
>>the compression algorithm. And specify how the recipient knows which
>>decompression algorithm to use.
>
>This discussion was an offshoot of a comment I made about Greg
>Chaitin's algorithmic complexity theory, and why I did not think it
>was applicable to crypto-grade random numbers suitable for the OTP
>cryptosystem.
That doesn't answer the question.
>Since then someone has pointed out that compressed text has enough
>information in it to disqualify them from being maximally reduced.
But that ducks the question of what constitutes a maximum reduction.
Do you judge one particular plaintext?
Or the average across some distribution of plaintexts?
I know my answer. Unfortunately, I think yours is different.
John Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: On the Generation of Pseudo-OTP
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:19:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 Jan 1999 10:03:05 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick Juola)
wrote:
>First, there's no demonstration or proof that any given trancendental
>number is suitable for use as a stream cypher.
How about specific constants like ln(c) or c^1/2, etc.? Can these be
show to be random like pi on a case by case basis?
>Second, just because a given stream is believed random (such a pi)
BTW, how does one prove that a given transcendental constant is random
for purposes of the OTP cryptosystem? How do you know pi is random?
I thought we all agreed a year ago that one could not characterize a
number as random by any formal means, that one could only characterize
the generator as capable of producing random numbers.
>does *NOT* imply that it's useful for a stream cypher.
That is correct. One would have to demonstrate that for arbitrary
offsets, all possible sequences of a given finite length are available
equiprobably. That is, no matter what offset and length I choose, I
will get any one of the possible sequences equiprobably.
>In particular,
>if you've only got a finite number of starting points, then you'll only
>generate a finite number of streams and you're back to breaking the
>cypher by seed enumeration. Just think of each possible starting
>position as a seed.
Indeed, just like a conventional crypto key that would be communicated
to a correspondent on a secure channel.
>And if you *don't* accept that there are only
>a finite number of possible starting points....
Why would I believe that there are only a finite number of starting
points when pi is an infinitely long number?
>well, just how much
>work are you willing to do to compute the 2^128'th digit of pi as
>the first bit of your stream cypher?
Actually I had just that in mind. How much work does it take, compared
to the construction of a certified TRNG, creation and distribution of
pads, etc. ?
>There's a known closed form solution for the
>digits of pi (in base 16)
I assume you are referring to BBP.
>that I find troublesome.
Why?
>But more troublesome
>than that is the fact that I rather doubt you'll use a truly
>arbitrary output.
Why do you say that?
Bob Knauer
"Anyone that can get elected, is not qualified to serve."
--Lance Bledsoe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: Practical True Random Number Generator
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:21:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:22:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim
Dunnett) wrote:
>Politicians and pop-groups probably have just as much
>entropy.
Now, now - no need to insult pop groups. :-)
They're bad, but not *that* bad.
Bob Knauer
"Anyone that can get elected, is not qualified to serve."
--Lance Bledsoe
------------------------------
From: Jonah Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: U.S. Spying On Friend And Foe
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:52:23 GMT
Withheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jim Dunnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>I fail to see how the OSA makes someone keep secrets!
>>There have been as many Brit defectors as American.
>In the same way as the threat of going to jail prevents people from
>going round shooting other people. It works in most cases...
This is offtopic for sci.crypt but I'll respond just this once:
You need a control group for this sort of thing. You need a place
where people don't get punished for shooting other people, and a place
where they don't go to jail for telling secrets. And then you need
to measure the rate of shooting, and you need to measure the rate
of secret-revealing (this last is particularly hard because you first
need to count the number of secrets and then you need to count the
number of betrayals, where betrayals done in strict secrecy must be
found and counted as betrayals and not as secrets. Much easier to
count shootings as the number of people is reasonably-well counted
and it's somewhat harder to hide a shot person than a
privately-betrayed secret.).
Only after you see that the numbers come out different do you have
reason to think that possibly it's the threats that changed the
numbers. Until then you're like the guy who leaves peanut shells
on the ground to keep away elephants.
"How do you know it keeps away elephants?"
"Well you don't see many elephants now do you? Just think how many
there'd be if I wasn't keeping them away!"
Isn't there another group we could take this to?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Haley)
Subject: Re: Triple DES with CBC
Date: 11 Jan 1999 20:54:19 GMT
Steven H. McCown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I have a question regarding Triple DES. Numerous sources describe Triple
: DES as:
: E(K3,D(K2,E(K1,x)))
: and
: D(K1,E(K2,D(K3,x)))
: RSA has offers a Triple DES with Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode in their
: BSAFE product. Given the above interpretation of Triple DES, how is the CBC
: process applied? It would seem that since the process was reversed, the
: actual Init Vector would be applied last and that the starting CBC would not
: yet have been deciphered.
I think you're misunderstanding how CBC mode is applied to triple DES.
Consider triple DES as a function which takes two DES keys and a
cleartext block, thus:
TDES (x, K1, K2) = E(K3,D(K2,E(K1,x)))
To use CBC with this, do
for x = every block
{
IV = TDES ((IV xor x), K1, K2)
output IV
}
In other words, there is no feedback inside the triple DES function,
and there is only one block of IV. Beware: if you use triple DES with
CBC in any other way it will not be secure.
Andrew.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul L. Allen)
Subject: Re: On the Generation of Pseudo-OTP
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:03:31 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer) writes:
> Does the number 111...1 have 100% entropy density? It can be easily
> reduced algorithmically to a considerable extent for any decent sized
> length N, which means it has a lot of redundant information in it. I
> thought such sequences would be characterized by low entropy.
We've done that one before. Such sequences can be compressed by the
likes of LZW partly because they treat such sequences in isolation
(remap compression tables every so often) and partly because they're
rare in compressible text anyway. Compressors when faced with input
they're not designed to expect (input with grossly different statistical
properties) will result in output which is *larger*.
> There is something about your entropy that is not quite right here. In
> one of his papers, Chaitin dismisses such "low-entropy" sequences as
> being "non-random" for purposes of his algorithmic information theory,
> of which his algorithmic complexity theory is a subset. He dismisses
> such sequences because they are reducible.
Then his algorithmic information theory appears to have flaws. Any sequence
you like to specify in advance is reducible and, with the right input data,
will result in good compression. Build a Huffman compression table for
ordinary English text and use it to compress the same text that's been
rot-13ed and you'll get something that's larger than the original. The
sequences Chaitin claims are reducible are only reducible in some
circumstances and those circumstances do not apply to TRNGs.
> That means his theory is not applicable to the specification for a TRNG,
> since we all agree that one cannot filter out "non-random" sequences from
> a TRNG if one expects it to generate crypto-grade random numbers.
His theory is not applicable to TRNGs because it's a fundamental property of
truly random sequences that they're incompressible. In order to deal
with repeated digits you have to re-assign some short sequence from its
natural meaning to use as a repeat count, then you need a way of escaping
the repeat count for when that sequence occurs naturally and what you
end up with is longer than the sequence itself.
Yes, you'll get compression with some sequences of length n but you'll
get expansion with even more of them. Averaged over a large number
of sequences of length n you get a nett expansion. Even if you do clever
tricks like having codes for "this sequence hasn't been compressed because
it ends up being bigger" and "this sequence has been compressed" (not
forgetting the escape code) you'll end up with something larger.
Essentially the mistake is to take a finite sequence and apply thinking
that is only meaningful for infinite sequences. Like asking if "6" is
a random number - it's a meaningless question because you the term "random
number" only applies to something which is taken from a (potentially) larger
sequence of numbers.
> BTW, we keep talking about how it is impossible to decide formally
> that a number is random, yet we imply that we can decide formally if
> one is "non-random", e.g. one with excessive bias, etc. Yet those
> numbers are also valid outputs from a TRNG and cannot be so classified
> or the proveable security of a TRNG-based OTP cipher will be
> compromised.
This is true (except you mean "sequence" again). For very large sequences
and selections of sequences we can determine the probability that those
sequences would have the statistical properties they have by chance.
> But what is left that causes the OTP cipher to be proveably secure?
The fact that the numbers are truly random (provided it's not re-used
or attacked by non-mathematical means such as briber). Just because
the output looks intelligible doesn't mean that it couldn't have arisen
by transformation of the plaintext.
--Paul
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Gifford)
Subject: Re: Differential Cryptanalysis???
Date: 11 Jan 1999 15:50:21 -0500
In article <nHqm2.4035$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael A. Greenly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been trying to get a handle on differential crytptanalysis for
>the last week or two but seem to have run into a road block of sorts. I
>think I understand most of it but there's one part the seems to elude
>me. I don't understand how a right pair suggests a key?
Here's what I can suggest based on the educational cipher you describe on
your web page.
Notice that the input and outputs to the Left halves are affected only
by the output of the second round function. So create some pairs of
plaintexts which differ by a known amount in their input, encrypt, and
see how the output changes.
By seeing the difference between the two left halves, you know how the
output from the second round has changed.
You can create a list of all possible [4 bits] input differences and see
what the output differences are allowed after going through a round.
Try a couple pairs by hand and see what you get.
-Giff
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Too busy for a .sig
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manfred Minimair)
Crossposted-To: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.op-research,sci.math,sci.math.symbolic
Subject: ECCAD '99, SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT
Date: 11 Jan 1999 22:32:03 GMT
===================================================
= =
= THE EAST COAST COMPUTER ALGEBRA DAY '99 =
= =
= North Carolina State University =
= Raleigh, North Carolina, USA =
= =
= Saturday, April 24, 1999 =
= 8.00 AM -- 5.00 PM =
= =
= http://vega.math.ncsu.edu/ =
= =
= [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
= =
===================================================
Objective: Present/discuss current research on
* Requirements, challenges, trends
* Recent algorithmic advances.
* Tools in applications and in education,
in an "informal/interactive" setting.
Organisers: Hoon Hong (North Carolina State Univ. USA)
Erich Kaltofen (North Carolina State Univ. USA)
Dinesh Manocha (Univ. of North Carolina USA)
John Reif (Duke University USA)
Michael Singer (North Carolina State Univ. USA)
Invited Speakers: Peter Borwein (Simon Fraser Univ. Canada)
Gaston Gonnet (ETH Switzerland)
Lakshman Y. N. (Bell Labs USA)
Publications: Abstracts of Posters/Demos in ACM-SIGSAM bulletin.
Details in the WEB page http://vega.math.ncsu.edu/
Registration: FREE! but need to register for local arragement.
Details in the WEB page http://vega.math.ncsu.edu/
Travel Support: Some funds are avaible.
Details in the WEB page http://vega.math.ncsu.edu/
------------------------------
From: Denning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ScramDisk - password size - high ASCII
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:54:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your reply, as good as it was, did completely gloss over the Linux port question.
Is it possible that ScramDisk will be ported to Linux?
------------------------------
From: rosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math,comp.theory
Subject: Comments & note for Bryan (Re: coNP=NP Made Easier?)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:06:42 -0800
Nothing is serious stuff here. Just a few comments and repetitions.
If anybody wants to point out anything wrong, do it consistently; if
anybody wants to point out something right, do it consistently. Do NOT
do it just for the purpose of promoting your reputation, self interest,
ego, etc. Do NOT do it simply because you feel like it. Do NOT just pick
one out simply based on the extremely high probability of being not
on the wrong side.
Do I take it that if you pick one thing out to let the world
know that it is right, you mean all other things you do not comment on
are either wrong or you, with your knowledge and logical ability, can
not see if any of them is wrong or right?
This Planar seems to me, I say 'seems to me' and I can be wrong,
lurking out there, letting pass of any mistakes as he wishes, waiting
for something in what I say that he can find fault with. Then he jumps
on to it with an 'Aha', thinking that can turn him into a complexity
theory super guru instantly without working hard with his brains.
Reminder: if he "aha'd" all over the place, I would never say this.
There are so many inconsistencies from Ilias, why hadn't he or
doesn't he utter a single word? There is nothing wrong with adopting
P being defined as a 'complexity' class and not as a set classified
by some type of TM. Apart from the notion of 'complexity' class,
which I will comment in a bit, 'the thing' he jumped on has not much
bearing on the central issue we explicitly discuss: coNP=NP. He
should have seen that my argument does NOT depend on which notion is
adopted. I only say, I repeat and repetition never bores, that if A
then B.
I here highlight his 'Aha': he found a problem (obviously nobody
else's but only mine). He may have got a problem at hand, but he
needs to know exactly what.
This Planar reminds me of another occasion, which I took care
not to make it look like bickering and get everybody distracted
from the real issue. Now Ilias is in agreement (though an awkward
type) with me. I can spend a few sentences.
At one time, somebody also jumped with something like: Aha, it is
my turn! (I say something like. Forgive me for not taking the trouble
of finding out the exact words. They convey the same sense.)
You know, I felt first a bit tight at the throat. Then staring at
the sentence for a bit, I realized that perhaps I was dealing with
two, instead of one, profound branches of mathematics at once.
Queuing Theory? But I did not see any queues. At the time, I had
not told anybody to wait. Perhaps 'take your turn' should better be
'take your time'.
Then the other branch. It _WAS_ complex and novel. I thought it
might better be milestoned as a new discipline: Perplexity Theory.
(I was perplexed. I could hear him. No need to offer that through
clenched teeth.)
It would be a real nice patch, I think, to agree with Planar and
do 'P by DTM'. (That's from a book? It must make perfect sense! Be
it in some volume, but is it God's creation or creation by God's
creation?)
I could never have imagined that we could cover so much ground
to find ourselves to have been at a perfect standstill.
I could never have imagined that things could get this complex
that we need to make sure what 'complexity' is.
I have a piece of advice for everyone: If you want to challenge
Turing, if you want to go beyond Church's Thesis and play with
anything beyond Cantor, do it in private. You should have learned
the lesson here. As for me, I am definitely NOT going to follow,
as below-high-school math has already exhausted me. Open another
thread and enjoy. :)
I would like to refresh our memory of what we have been talking
about.
Look at the originating post of mine, the argument is simple:
If NDTM is real, coNP=NP.
To further generalize it, though it then sounds ridiculous, we
have:
If there is any mechanism, including a piece of magic
rock, that solves SS positively in P, then coNP=NP.
I also made it explicit and clear about what happens to
coNP?=NP if no such mechanism exists.
In the construction of the mechanism for the argument, I by
chance used the notion of 27. Some may think that I think 27 is
better than 26. I NEVER said that. But it is obviously not that
obvious that it can be a piece of ... as well. (Did I mean it is
a piece of ...? NO! I say if it ever is, it is not as obvious
as 26.) AND once again, the main point is: I do not care what
mechanism. (I do not care how one defines P, either. I say if
NDTM is realizable, coNP=NP.) By the way you can fill in
anything you want at the dots. Master is what I would like to
reserve for things of lesser merits. A piece of ... can be a
piece of decorated ..., but it remains a beautiful piece of ...
Ilias holds:
1. my argument does not work because NDTM (K) behaves
as described in 26.
2. NDTM (K) exists (though no realization of it is needed)
NOTE: Whether he meant that he could provide the proof
or such a proof existed for the existence of NDTM's but
a realization might never be achievable, I am not sure.
He as usual did not commit. He said he would not want
to disagree with Church, his Advisor^n for some natural
number for which Advisor^n is defined. He also expressed
that he did not know the difference between Turing's
Thesis and Church's Thesis. I leave it at that.
3. (I quote):
The mechanism's existence (i.e. P=NP)
trivially implies NP=coNP.
NOTE: Hope this is not an editorial thing. :)
Let me use Ilias's name as a term representing ALL agreeing
with him. People must be able to see the daunting task of dealing
with a number people at once. But we are doing mathematics. In
math, there is something called residue class where all residue
members share the same attributes and can be dealt with as if
they were one.
I only have slight different opinion with Ilias concerning the
difficulty of the derivation. We both seem to hold that coNP=NP
(under the pretext that NDTM is real) is a trivia. We seem to
differ in the ultimate treatment. I think I still have to show
why it is a trivia to let the world see why it is trivial. (And
I have to arrogantly assume that the world did not see it as a
trivia although it does)
Now about classification. Any one can classify in whatever
consistent way he wishes. And whatever questions asked (and
anything said) must then be within the context of the
classification. The ultimate answers must also be consistent
within that context. Some questions asked in one classification
may (I say may) not be too meaningful in another. Again, one
should feel just as comfortable in one consistent setting as in
any other. That is doing mathematics, because one who does math
must not be a graduate from the University of Lonely Definition,
Dept. of Mathtrashing. :)
If one looks at what Turing said (I say 'if'. If you do not look,
I am DEFINITELY NOT talking to you. So do not waste your time.), he
knows that every TM (I say EVERY) is an algorithm. So if you would
like to classify problems by algorithms, it is very fine. If you
also mean that algorithms are themselves measures for complexity,
that is very, very fine as well. There are O(n) TM's; there are
O(n^2) TM's; there are O(2^n) TM's; and there are O(e^O(1)) ones
as well. But how do you say that X is more complex than Y? Because
a TM (algorithm) that can solve Y in O(n) can not solve X in O(n)?
Because DTM can not solve SS within polynomial bound (but a
different algorithm NDTM can), SS is more complex than sorting an
unordered list? Is that your complexity theory that O(n^k) is more
complex than O(n^k)? Because solving a particular problem is
bounded by O(n^k) and cracking a cryptographic scheme is also
bounded by O(n^k), the latter is a 'hard', intractable while the
former is easy and tractable? Or would you say that they are
bounded by the same Big-O but are in different _complexity_
classes? I can entertain that I think, but I have to put myself
in a special mode so that I do not get confused. Maybe this is
not confusing to anybody else and everything is clearly meaningful
and useful.
--- (My Signature)
P.S.
One word about Ilias's agreeing with me: I say A. Ilias first
says A is erroneous. After much ado, Ilias says in his own words
that A is correct. Ilias immediately after, it seems to me, starts
refuting anything that A is composed of. Well, not everything.
Ilias painstakingly showed why K could not make H work in an
explicit, detailed and representative way, even though I have
said all the way along and said explicitly right after I gave H.
Of course, again it was so obvious and we have the familiar theme:
It does not work in this particular case and it does not work in
that particular case, therefore it does not work ever.
A word for Bryan Olson. Dear Bryan, I keep my promise to
discuss coNP=NP with you. I regret though. It is nice that you
did not commit to 26 till Ilias showed (in principle I think) NDTM
as described in 26 does not work. Good timing! But I thought you
were locked in steps with him. You never mentioned that you
disagreed with Ilias in any, even minor, way. I do not know if you
cleverly shifted course slightly.
I would like to remind you of one of his familiar themes:
It is theory (high stuff). It works. I do not have to
show you how. It just works. But if you use it in any
way, it does not work. It is because you are wrong.
I told you in a private e-mail to please wait till I have
the issue settle with Ilias. I see that before I tell you I am
ready, you already impatiently started again. Is it because
Planar found an 'irrelevant' problem in (not my argument but)
a way I think one can meditate the issues?
I asked you if your opinions differ from Ilias in any way.
If not, the issue is already settled. Ilias is now in agreement
with me. Or you may want, just as he, start refuting what you
say is correct? If you hold different opinions, make them
explicit and clear for me, the readers and the world see. I
say again, you need to make the differences clear else I
consider the issue settled with you.
However, I would like to point out one thing that comes from
you and is very confusing. You tried (unknowingly perhaps) to
distort things tremendously. You said that a TM (with the following
behaviour):
BOTM(x) { return NO#; } // clever, high-end stuff :)
can be (or behave like) 26, where x can be any input. Wrong, WRONG
and _WRONG_! The above has the same for worst, best and average case.
26 is NEVER like that. It can answer YES#! You know what is the best
and worst cases of 26, or maybe you need a course on that one as
well? (I certainly can not offer that course. Well over me!)
Lastly for you Bryan. If you want to discuss the issue, you need
to commit to getting this to the end responsibly and give me _YOUR_
NDTM (you can copy from anywhere you care to) and show us exactly
how _YOUR_ NDTM solves SS in polynomial time. Remember, I say if
NDTM is realizable (that can bein hypo way), coNP=NP (in likewise
hypo way). (How many times have I repeated?)
--- (My Signature)
------------------------------
From: Brian Boorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch.fpga
Subject: Re: DES Hardware Implementation!!
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:17:01 -0500
This topic was recently covered, either here or in comp.lang.vhdl (Sorry,
don't remember which). Try searching through back archives of the
comp.arch.fpga and .lang.vhdl groups. Was about November/early December
time frame.
Samer EL HAJJ wrote:
> Hello!
> I'm working on the hardware inmplementation (with VHDL into an FPGA) of
> DES decryption.
> after many searh I did not find any publication or example about this
> topic.
>
> Can anyone point me to some documentation on the subject?
> Thanks in advance!!
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Samer EL HAJJ
> DotCom-Communication Num�rique http://www.dotcom.fr
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> S@merWeb: http://www.chez.com/samerweb
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Brian C. Boorman
Harris RF Communications
Rochester, NY 14610
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Remove the XYZ. for valid address>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
