Cryptography-Digest Digest #810, Volume #9 Wed, 30 Jun 99 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How serious is related key attack? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: two questions ("dlk")
Re: How do you make RSA symmetrical? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: D - CD-R encryption ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How do you make RSA symmetrical? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: two questions (William Tanksley)
Re: two questions ("dlk")
Re: RSA or DIFFIE-HELLMANN ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: two questions (Sam Trenholme)
Re: D - CD-R encryption ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Moores Law (a bit off topic) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: two questions ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MP3 Piracy Prevention is Impossible ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: RSA or DIFFIE-HELLMANN ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Moores Law (a bit off topic) (S.T.L.)
Re: two questions (Greg Ofiesh)
Re: Why mirrors invert left-to-right (was: Kryptos article) (S.T.L.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How serious is related key attack?
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:58:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From an application point of view, how serious is a
> related key attack? Specifically, which applications
> would suffer if the cipher used were vulnerable to a
> related key attack? I can see how things like a chosen
> plaintext or chosen ciphertext attack might actually
> happen where the attacker gets temporary custody of
> an encryption machine. But how would and attacker go
> about capitalizing on a cipher whose only weakness was
> to related key?
Well they reduce the effectiveness in MAC type applications. Also they
normally can be exploited as in RC2 where the keys belong to classes.
The classes in DES for example have 2 members each (compliment) and
there are 2^55 classes... RC2 has (according to S/MIME cracker at
www.counterpane.com) about 28 classes.
All subkeys (roundkeys and/or sboxes) should be master key dependant,
and independant of each other. This way each subkey will not reveal
much (or anything) of the master key. Some ciphers have good subkeys
(RC5 is an example) others have bad round keys (DES).
Tom
--
PGP key is at:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "dlk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: two questions
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:42:21 GMT
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>dlk wrote:
>> A. Block ciphers are "sexier" - i.e. fancy, cutting edge math.
>
>That can't be it. The math involved with stream ciphers tends to be
>much more interesting (and more generally applicable to other things).
Ok. Not the first time my rather droll sense of humor has been mis-
interpreted - perhaps I should have said something along the lines
of with the discovery of certain implications of modern numerical
theory a whole new "field" of crypto research was opened....
>
>> B. Many BC's lend themselves well to implementation in hardware?
>
>Stream ciphers tend to be even simpler to implement in hardware.
>Usually they are just a clock, a few shift registers, and a few
>simple logic gates.
Some SCs yes, RC4 no. By the time one has placed memory cells,
an ALU and a sequencer one has built "a computer". Why re-invent
the wheel?
Dave Keever
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How do you make RSA symmetrical?
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:54:18 GMT
> Most mathematicians dislike block ciphers and symetric ciphers in
general.
> The basis for this dislike is that problems like factoring are much
more
> elegantly defined mathematicaly wise and has been studied for MUCH
longer
> than bizare permuations that compose symetric ciphers.
> Studies in crypto are not just about things that are practicaly
implemented,
> it
> is also about complexity theory. Reducing RSA to a symetric cipher
if fun,
> it
> reduces an asymetric scheme to an symetric scheme.
> For [EMAIL PROTECTED] 's comment about not beeing a fun
question
> but a decent mathematic question, I would like to ask him what is his
> interpretation
> of mathematics. For me, it's pleasure (thus fun). Most of the stuff
that
> is presented
> in CRYPTO and EUROCRYPT is not about survival security or protocols
that can
> be implemented, it's mostly about fun things. If math and crypto is
not fun
> for you,
> I suggest you involve yourself in another domain.
I beg your pardon? Most serious block ciphers are based on resistance
to some known mathematical attack (normally diff and linear attacks).
I have to admit there are more published attacks on symmetric ciphers
then asymmetric ones. Ciphers like Twofish have (according to the
authors) been subjected to a battery of known tests. This is
mathematical proof.
Who says there won't be a iterative characteristic of RSA found in the
future to help find the decryption key (i.e not via factoring).
The same applies to block ciphers, there has just been more work done
in the latter.
Some proof. I refer to CAST design specs. The S-Boxes are designed to
have clearly defined mathematical (un)-structure to theoretically
resist known attacks. Other ciphers like Blowfish assume random S-
Boxes are just hard to pick at.
IDEA is another clearly defined design. So is DFC and all Decorelation
based ciphers. Some ciphers that claim perfect resistance have fallen
(COCONUT98 fell by David Wagner) which is proof that new attacks are
always being developed.
Anyways... I think my point is that block ciphers resemble muddle
because they contain various non-comutiative mathematical structures
(linear transformations + sboxes for example). Using RSA in a
symmetrical sense is counterproductive as it was designed for PKC.
Tom
--
PGP key is at:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: D - CD-R encryption
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:01:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dupavoy) wrote:
> I would like to know if it is possible to encrypt
> files on CD-R just as on a floppy and a ZIP
> drive. Also, you can password protect and lock
> ZIP disks, can you do same with CD-R discs?
>
>
Encrypt the file then burn it onto the CD. Duh? What encryption are
you using? PGP for example will encrypt anything your OS can
read/write.
Tom
--
PGP key is at:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How do you make RSA symmetrical?
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:48:24 GMT
<snip>
Here is something I learned early on. Don't argue with Bob Silverman,
He knows more then you. Ask questions but don't argue.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Tanksley)
Subject: Re: two questions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:04:30 GMT
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 11:07:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "dlk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since the topic of RC4 has come up:
>> 1. It takes 512 bytes of RAM to implement RC4 (2 arrays of 256 bytes)
>> 2. Maximum key is 2048 bits (256 * 8)
>> 3. It is very nice, compact and quick PRNG with a period of 2^1700
>Wrong. It needs exactly 258 bytes ram (you only need one state), max
>key is 1684 bits (about 210 bytes), period is 2^1684. You were off by
>a bit. The period/key size is from log2(256!) since there are only
>256! states possible.
Where can I read the info about the key which makes it 210 bytes? It's
possible to use 256 bytes to seed RC4. I can easily believe that some of
those bits are redundant, but I'm curious as to how.
>It's a wonder that smaller RNG's haven't been brought out? For simple
>needs one could build a 32 card RC4 cipher. It would require far less
>ram and less setup time. The max key would be 117 bits so it might not
>be cryptographically secure. It would probably be more hardware
>friendly.
I wrote a software implementation, just out of curiosity, and fiddled with
the size. I didn't have the time or knowledge to investigate, but I found
that an apparently perfect RC$ implementation, when reduced to 2 bits
became a trivial pattern. Higher bits produced longer patterns. Fun.
32 cards is only five bits, not enough to give a decent period according
to my experiments.
>Have any hardware RC4 ciphers been done yet?
Yes -- all of Hifn's (www.hifn.com) chips include RC4. I think RSA may
have produced a hardware design, although I may be thinking of RC5 (I know
RC6 has one, as required by the rules of the contest).
I like RC4, and I'd like to use it as the RNG for a game I'm maintaining
(to replace the worthless RNG ANSI C provides). Unfortunately, after
doing that I couldn't distribute the result. The funny thing is that one
time when I griped about this a German (.de) posted a Smalltalk
implementation of RC4.
>Tom
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
------------------------------
From: "dlk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: two questions
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:16:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <7lctoo$bbu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
<snip for bw>
>> Since the topic of RC4 has come up:
>> 1. It takes 512 bytes of RAM to implement RC4 (2 arrays of 256 bytes)
>> 2. Maximum key is 2048 bits (256 * 8)
>> 3. It is very nice, compact and quick PRNG with a period of 2^1700
>
>Wrong. It needs exactly 258 bytes ram (you only need one state), max
>key is 1684 bits (about 210 bytes), period is 2^1684. You were off by
>a bit. The period/key size is from log2(256!) since there are only
>256! states possible.
Ok, let's make sure we are both working off the same "page" here:
I base my points above on the description of RC4 as given in
Schneier's _Applied Cryptography_ 2nd Ed. Chapter 17, Section 17.1
pp 397 - 398
P1 (512 bytes of storage): We create two arrays (in C-speak)
typedef byte unsigned char;
byte S[256]; /* the S-box */
byte K[256]; /* the key array, used to "munge" the S-box */
Total memory requirement is 512 bytes. Mayhaps I should of
said "practical implementation"..... After init of the S-box
one can dispense with array K, but setup of RC4 needs 512
bytes.
P2 (max key 2048 bits): A little more research on my part
sez we are both wrong
http://ciphersaber.gurus.com/cryptanalysis.html
They claim a limit of 246 bytes. Granted, that implementation
is not a "pure" RC4, but the diff is in setup (more than one
mixing pass on the S-box). I just don't see it, myself. It sure
looks like the max would be 256 octets of key material
if key maint is done outside the algorithm.
P3 (period of 2^1700) Direct quote from ref. cited above.
But a quickie check (by the sum-of-logs method, I don't
have a bignum calc on this machine) evaluates
256! * 256^2 = 10^511.7499
2^1700 = log10(2)*1700 = 511.751
Close enough for government work, as they say...
>
>> What I'd like to see is a paper on the "math" behind RC4. If anyone
>knows
>
>Well it's difficult to really model RC4. It's uses a additive sort of
>feedback (y += state[x++]) which is linear however the state is a non-
>linear permutation. It's even harder since the state is not the same
<snip>
Agreed. I get a whale of a headache everytime I try! But I'd
still like to know what was going thru Dr. Rivest's head at at the
time. (I imagine a lot of folks would like a peek in there! ;) )
Dave Keever
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RSA or DIFFIE-HELLMANN
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:17:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
chicago <"gabriel. nock"@siemens.de> wrote:
> hay...
> I'm still searching for the sources of RSA or diffie-hellmann, where
can
> I find it??
Why, may I ask, do you need both? Wouldn't one or the other do?
Tom
--
PGP key is at:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: two questions
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Trenholme)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:49:27 GMT
>> It seems much attention is put towards block ciphers. My first
>> question is why not stream ciphers?
>
>My guess would be ... historical accident.
My feeling is that block ciphers are preferred because they can, in
addition to being able to do everything a stream cipher can do (OFB makes
a block cipher a stream cipher), can do things a stream chipher can not
do. For example, it is feasible to encrypt two different files with the
same key and IV with a block cipher, while doing so with a stream cipher
would be insecure. As another example, one can easily make a hash out of
a block cipher [1], provided the block cipher does not have any weak keys.
- Sam
[1] Mr. Preneel [2] supposibly [3] describes how to make a hash out of a
stream cipher in his thesis, but his thesis paper is not available
online.
[2] http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~preneel/
[3] Download the paper on BEAR and LION at
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: D - CD-R encryption
Date: 30 Jun 1999 17:42:36 -0400
Dupavoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to know if it is possible to encrypt
> files on CD-R just as on a floppy and a ZIP
> drive.
Yes and no. You can encrypt the files, but I don't know of any CD-R write
software that does that as part of writing the files and you can't remove
a file from a CD-R disk after you write it ... so you would have to
encrypt the files and then write the encrypted files to the disk.
ZIP disks are different. They have a proprietary disk driver. It only
reads the disk if the password is given (the data is NOT encrypted on the
ZIP disk if you LOCK the ZIP disk with a password ... however, the ZIP
disk driver does not let you have access to the disk).
(I believe one of the ways of cracking the code is ... put in a new ZIP
disk and give it a password. Then turn the power off to the drive
(assuming an external drive). Use the eject hole (shove a paperclip in to
eject the disk). Insert the password protected disk. Turn the power to the
drive on. I believe the ZIP disk driver may not realize it is a new
password protected disk, but will give you access if you use the password
you chose for the blank disk! At least that is one approach I have seen
mentioned ... don't know which version of the drivers it works with ...
DOS? Win9x? Which versions?)
> Also, you can password protect and lock
> ZIP disks, can you do same with CD-R discs?
You would have to build a CD drive that only works with a proprietary
driver and put the access limitations in the driver. Then only allow your
users to use that CD drive. That is how the ZIP drive works (it is the
driver that limits access to the disk). Since you can read a CD disk on
any drive (without such proprietary driver), you can't lock it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Moores Law (a bit off topic)
Date: 30 Jun 1999 18:03:36 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Really well I will teleport us 200 years into the future. RSA-128 bit
> challenges are on the block.
RSA-128? Where is my Atari 8 bit computer? RSA does not require searching
the full key space (just factoring). Now for an encryption method
(symmetric) that DOES require searching the key space ...
> I have my 250Ghz program running 2^64 keys
> a second... blah blah blah.
Whoops ... if this were a special machine so that ONE machine cycle could
test the key, compare it to (say known cyphertext for a known
plaintext/cypertext attack) ... all that in one machine cycle (not a
hundred or whatever) this is 250*10^9 keys per second or less than 2^38
keys per second. A 128 bit key would take about 2^128/2^38=2^90 seconds or
10^27 seconds ... let's see ... 60 secs/min, 60 min/hr, 24 hr/day,
365.25 days/yr .... about 4*10^19 years ... now if the government funded,
say, one computer for every person on the planet (say, 10 billion people)
(10^10) each of the computers working (divide by 10^10) it would only take
about 4 billion years (half the life of the universe) (of course, if it
takes 100 machine cycles to test each key, this is about 50 times the life
of the universe).
Numbers like 2^128 are SO DAMN BIG it is not easy to understand just HOW
big they are! A billion computers running at speeds limited by the fact
that each cycle has to permit the signal to travel to the and be checked
... heck ... those physical limits make a 128 bit key rather secure ...
forever.
> Now how strong is a 256 bit key? It will
> only be another 100 years before it falls.
WHAT? 256 bits compared to 128 bits is not twice as difficult to crack
(doing a full key space search), it is 2^128 times as difficult to crack!
> Never say permanent. For now 64 - 128 bit keys are more then enough,
> well I wouldn't use 64-bit keys for long term (> 1 year) stuff but you
> know...
The difficulty grows exponentially (and that is DAMN FAST). While 64 bits
may just be tractable (may be crackable within the next 20 years), 128 bit
keys are 2^64 times as hard to crack.
(and there are physical limits that prevent Moore's law -- chips double
every year(*) -- from extending far enough)
(*): yes, every year. When that didn't work, a bit of revisionist
citations changed it to every 18 months so it would show Moore to
have correctly predicted the short term (low technology ... from the
70's trivial chips to the present) growth.
[if Moore's law holds for over another fifty years, computers will have
taken over the world!]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: two questions
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:27:20 GMT
<snip>
I agree with your post (which I snipped by accident). In general
stream ciphers only have to resist linear attacks and related key types
of attacks.
I think that stream ciphers are gererally more worth while. They do
not have a fixed block size, are normally fast (I have a single step
RC4 in about 50 cycles on a 486 for a rate of 1.3MB/sec) and use very
little memory.
Block ciphers normally get their 'security' from the complexity of
cryptanalysis. Stream ciphers get their security from having a large
state and not revealing (usefull) information about the state other
then identity. LFSRs for example are a poor example of strength
against linear analysis...BBS is a good example (although it's too
slow).
My question is still open though. If RC4 is really that secure why not
use it for AES with a variable block size? In your paper (fast
software encryption) you note a RC4 unrolled output of 7 cycles per
byte (which I would like to see). At this rate a 16 byte block can be
encrypted in 112 cycles (thereabouts). Another nice thing is that the
same code can be used to decrypt. The code footprint is really small.
My implementation (single step) is about 300 bytes or so. RC4 will
also work in smart cards very well and possibly expensive hardware.
Although I don't see hardware implementations being big priorities
today... (maybe when general purpose computers took three rooms and
weighed 70,000 pounds...)
So why isn't RC4 the wave of the future? Why jump on new ideas (which
are slower, and presumably no more secure)?
Just wondering...
Tom
(BTW no offense to any block cipher designer. I admire many
cryptographers as I have a large collection of papers from many
prominent people....)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MP3 Piracy Prevention is Impossible
Date: 30 Jun 1999 18:18:52 -0400
Reuben Sumner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but it might be possible to "watermark" each copy of a song sold. That
> way if a pirated copy is seen by the copyright holder they can determine
> who was responsible and pursue them through the courts.
If the file is encrypted, one will have to rerecord it to make a digital
copy (e.g. using LOOPBACK as the sound source, which takes the output from
the player as input ... or physically take the line-out from one computer
to the line-input of the other). This involves (one) conversion from
digital to analog and back again. The "watermark"/"serial number" will
have to be strong enough to be resistant to conversions to analog and even
filtering (if one wants to use an equalizer to boost the bass, for
example). It will have to be audible. And so embedded in the sound that it
cannot be removed (with filtering, say to remove all the lowest order bits
in a 16 bit sound file).
Yes ... one could put in such a watermark (someone shouting in the back of
the music: "this copy has serial number 0000" over and over).
It won't prevent copying. It could help finding the source of counterfeit
copies made by large/commercial pirates (it won't affect home
copies/sharing files between friends unless one examines everyone's sound
files -- and the rerecorded files, in WAV or MP3 or AU format will be
standard files, playable without worrying about the key).
(Hmmmm... it may be that in a proprietary format, the song will not be
playable with a corrupted watermark ... so it won't be playable on some
player for that format ... but will on players that play plain MP3 files
... if only such players were available, that would do it ... until
someone uses his/her RIO or plays it on his/her computer in WAV format or
burns the WAV format file onto a CD-R -- maybe thay can make CD-R disk
drives illegal? Or change the format of CD's to use encrypted files and
make current CD players illegal or.... Nope ... I doubt it will slow down
sharing of files between friends -- the stated goal -- though it may help
with large scale piracy).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RSA or DIFFIE-HELLMANN
Date: 30 Jun 1999 18:33:59 -0400
chicago <"gabriel. nock"@siemens.de> wrote:
> hay...
> I'm still searching for the sources of RSA or diffie-hellmann, where can
> I find it??
In what language?
Trivial to programme them in UBasic (a basic interpreter that handles
numbers of thousands of digits ... but if you are going to do
multiplication/powers, you can only use numbers of half that size ... e.g.
two 1500 digit numbers multiplied as part of a calculation will be 3000
digits). As UBasic can handle about 3000 digits, you can have 1500 digit
moduli (over 3000 bits). One problem is the packaged prime tester (for
generating primes) (you may have to modify parts of it... sizes of arrays,
for example, to enable it to find large primes).
Of course, in C++ it is also trivial if you have one of the arbitrary
precision object packages. Of course that may violate some patent/license
which may force you to use some other package of number routines
(RSAREF?).
[e.g. with e the public exponent, d the private exponent, n the modulus, M
the plain text, E the encrypted text in UBASIC:
RSA encrypt:
E=modpow(M,e,n)
RSE decrypt:
M=modpow(E,d,n)
Given lambda(n)=L (GCD(p-1,q-1) where pq=n: p,q distinct primes) and
having chosen e, it is easy to get d:
d=modinv(e,L)
I leave it to you to generate the primes!)
(are the three lines:
d=modinv(e,L)
M=modpow(E,d,n)
E=modpow(M,e,n)
really a violation of ITAR? all it is is a description of the algorithm
... but UBasic can use it -- of course, UBasic is slower than a compiled
language)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S.T.L.)
Subject: Re: Moores Law (a bit off topic)
Date: 30 Jun 1999 23:05:44 GMT
<<[if Moore's law holds for over another fifty years, computers will have
taken over the world!]>>
Well then, don't forget to celebrate August 29th every year. What is August
29th? Skynet Self-Awareness Day.
-*---*-------
S.T.L. ===> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <=== BLOCK RELEASED! 2^3021377 - 1 is PRIME!
Quotations: http://quote.cjb.net Main website: http://137.tsx.org MOO!
"Xihribz! Peymwsiz xihribz! Qssetv cse bqy qiftrz!" e^(i*Pi)+1=0 F00FC7C8
E-mail block is gone. It will return if I'm bombed again. I don't care, it's
an easy fix. Address is correct as is. The courtesy of giving correct E-mail
addresses makes up for having to delete junk which gets through anyway. Join
the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search at http://entropia.com/ips/ Now my
.sig is shorter and contains 3379 bits of entropy up to the next line's end:
-*---*-------
Card-holding member of the Dark Legion of Cantorians, the Holy Order of the
Catenary, the Great SRian Conspiracy, the Triple-Sigma Club, the Union of
Quantum Mechanics, the Polycarbonate Syndicate, and People for the Ethical
Treatment of Digital Tierran Organisms
Avid watcher of "World's Most Terrifying Causality Violations", "When Kaons
Decay: World's Most Amazing CP Symmetry Breaking Caught On [Magnetic] Tape",
"World's Scariest Warp Accidents", "World's Most Energetic Cosmic Rays", and
"When Tidal Forces Attack: Caught on Tape"
Patiently awaiting the launch of Gravity Probe B and the discovery of M39
Physics Commandment #6: Thou Shalt Always Obey CPT Symmetry.
------------------------------
From: Greg Ofiesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: two questions
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:56:14 GMT
> Several years ago an
> NSA fellow tried to convince me to
> intensely work on such things.
Why did he do that for? What was he trying to do or accomplish? Did
he want you to work FOR him or the NSA? Was he suggesting something
that was going on in the NSA?
And do you mean "NSA Fellow" or "NSA" fellow?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S.T.L.)
Subject: Re: Why mirrors invert left-to-right (was: Kryptos article)
Date: 30 Jun 1999 23:00:48 GMT
Then, P violation comes into the picture.
*S.T.L. laughs his head off*
-*---*-------
S.T.L. ===> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <=== BLOCK RELEASED! 2^3021377 - 1 is PRIME!
Quotations: http://quote.cjb.net Main website: http://137.tsx.org MOO!
"Xihribz! Peymwsiz xihribz! Qssetv cse bqy qiftrz!" e^(i*Pi)+1=0 F00FC7C8
E-mail block is gone. It will return if I'm bombed again. I don't care, it's
an easy fix. Address is correct as is. The courtesy of giving correct E-mail
addresses makes up for having to delete junk which gets through anyway. Join
the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search at http://entropia.com/ips/ Now my
.sig is shorter and contains 3379 bits of entropy up to the next line's end:
-*---*-------
Card-holding member of the Dark Legion of Cantorians, the Holy Order of the
Catenary, the Great SRian Conspiracy, the Triple-Sigma Club, the Union of
Quantum Mechanics, the Polycarbonate Syndicate, and People for the Ethical
Treatment of Digital Tierran Organisms
Avid watcher of "World's Most Terrifying Causality Violations", "When Kaons
Decay: World's Most Amazing CP Symmetry Breaking Caught On [Magnetic] Tape",
"World's Scariest Warp Accidents", "World's Most Energetic Cosmic Rays", and
"When Tidal Forces Attack: Caught on Tape"
Patiently awaiting the launch of Gravity Probe B and the discovery of M39
Physics Commandment #6: Thou Shalt Always Obey CPT Symmetry.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
