Cryptography-Digest Digest #935, Volume #9 Sun, 25 Jul 99 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: another news article on Kryptos (Jim Gillogly)
Re: What the hell is XOR? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!) (Ariel Scolnicov)
Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ? PGP, RSA and ElGamal ? (Gallicus)
Re: What is skipjack ??? (fungus)
Re: How Big is a Byte? (Ian Stirling)
Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!) (wtshaw)
Re: Between Silk and Cyanide
Re: What I think is B.S. about the X.509 . Please encrypt the certificate! (Bruce
Stephens)
Re: What the hell is XOR? (wtshaw)
Re: Between Silk and Cyanide (Sundial Services)
Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!) (wtshaw)
Re: My Algorithm (Keith Reeves)
Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!) (wtshaw)
Re: Kryptos Beginning of publicatio of solution (wtshaw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another news article on Kryptos
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:37:36 -0700
Dave Salovesh wrote:
> I didn't check the online version, so it may be different, but the print
> version has a bit in it that three (unnamed) NSA cryptographers have
> also gotten to the same point, working on their own time. In the story,
> here are no more details to that statement.
I can add a couple more. The three NSA analysts spent most of 1992
(off hours) working on it, and got the third part near the end of the
year. The NSA Public Affairs Office explicitly gave me permission to
pass on this information.
> Call for speculation: If an NSA cryptographer was the first to solve
> the last cipher, would the NSA allow an announcement of that fact?
Why not? They were willing to have the other priority information known.
They did not, however, wish to release any details of the analysts' identity.
> On the other hand, I can imagine that they would want to keep their
> precise level of skill somewhat obscured, and so would not want to make
> even an oblique admission that this cipher is in their reach. Thus,
> they'd never want to announce that they've solved the last cipher, even
> once Jim manages to find and announce the solution.
>
> Any thoughts?
Yes -- why wouldn't the same reasoning have kept them from taking
credit for having solved the first three ciphers first, and even
telling us how long it took their team to solve them? Note that
Ed Scheidt explicitly said he had picked ciphers with a historical
unclassified basis. This suggests the solution to this one will not
compromise national security in any way... including giving away that
it's the same cipher used by the Lower Slobbovian spies whose traffic
we've been reading since 1989.
--
Jim Gillogly
Mersday, 26 Afterlithe S.R. 1999, 22:30
12.19.6.6.14, 12 Ix 2 Xul, Eighth Lord of Night
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:41:27 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What the hell is XOR?
John Myre wrote:
>
> Spud wrote:
> >
> > I was reading "Applied Cryptography" by Bruce Schneier and I really don't
> > get the XOR function. Help, please! Thanks.
> >
> > PS -- I'm not a computer newbie so you don't have to dilute any
> > explainations with "easy words".
>
> I guess I'm old now. I never thought I'd see the day when
> someone who is "not a computer newbie" doesn't already know
> what XOR is. I suppose this evidence of the sophistication
> of the virtual machine is good...
These days it it not useful to ask how many programmers can name the
full complement of 16 binary boolean functions. One has to ask how many
know what a boolean function/truth table is. I doubt this is a Good
Thing.
------------------------------
From: Ariel Scolnicov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
Date: 24 Jul 1999 17:38:58 +0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Don Stokes wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >wtshaw wrote:
> > >You can use base 1 by noting the implied addition between the successive
> > >digits of a number. E.g. 13 base ten implies 1*ten^1 plus 3*ten^0. In
> > >base one you have the same construction so that 1111 base one is 1*one^3
> > >plus 1*one^2 plus 1*one^1 plus 1*one^0 = 4 base 10. The powers all
> > >collapse and any number is represented by that many digits, all ones.
> > >Note that in base one there is no need for zero as there is no
> > >difference between powers, so no need for place holders.
> >
> > Using "0" to represent zero is after all an anomaly -- no other number
> > has a leading placeholder. If you want to make the rules consistent,
> > zero should be represented as a null string.
> >
> > Given that, if you use a character set of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 ... for representing
> > numbers in a given base, 4(10) should be represented as 0000(1), not 1111...
>
> Yes, but when you are tallying things I bet you draw little lines rather
> than little circles. Because there is only one symbol it does not
> matter which we select. Perhaps you would be more comforablte with
> 4(10) = !!!!(1) or ||||(1)?
>
It's true that there is a small anomaly in this definition: base d
normally uses digits 0,1,...,d-1, and here you're using the digit "1"
in base 1.
To fix, note that if you're just interested in natural numbers (or if
you're willing to represent 0 by ), then you can easily use digits
1,2,...,d in base d. Thus unary falls into line.
--
Ariel Scolnicov
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:35:47 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
wtshaw wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > You may argue that you didn't "start counting" until the first sheep
> > arrived, but you were watching the road in the same state prior to the
> > first sheep as prior to the second sheep except for the value of your
> > "current count". So I maintain that you "started counting" when you
> > started watching for sheep, not when the first sheep arrived.
> >
> > B. Kernigan identified this as the most important issue in programming
> > in an interview with Unix Magazine (Journal?) about 8 years ago.
> >
> So, computers have introduced a new counting method. When you start
> counting your fingers do you begin with zero. When you count a blackjack
> hand, do you start with zero? Zero means you have no cards yet to count.
Right. Zero is the value you use to initialize your counter; when you
are going to count something.
Do you start counting when the first item arrives or when you begin
waiting for the first item?
>
> For programming languages, mine allows we to specify start indexing in
> arrays with either zero or one. To be sure, I always start with one, but
> make sure my array has a couple or more unused cells at the top.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:31:12 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
wtshaw wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > wtshaw wrote:
> > >
> > > Zero has no value in itself as it expresses the absence of a number in a
> > > particular place.
> >
> > There is a difference between zero the number and zero the digit. You
> > are using the second to replay to the first.
> >
> Nothing=nothing... I consider you above argument a NULL hypothesis.
You consider the digit as the same as the value?
I suppose you also believe NUL == NULL?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gallicus)
Subject: Re: ? PGP, RSA and ElGamal ?
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:14:08 GMT
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 13:34:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gallicus) wrote:
>As you see, the other party needs a = 765 (secret exponent).
I got it at last !
The sender of the message needs to know the value 949, not how it has been
computed (2 ^ 765 mod 2579).
765 is actually receiver's secret key.
Receiver's public key is p = 2579, alpha = 2 and beta = 949.
System works as with RSA.
Gallicus.
------------------------------
From: fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is skipjack ???
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:32:39 -0100
spike wrote:
>
> Damn.... I did it again !!! :-)
>
> I mean... how does it compare to those algorithms with regard to security ?
>
80 bit key, 64 bit blocksize, designed by experts...
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
------------------------------
From: Ian Stirling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte?
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:07:07 GMT
In alt.folklore.computers bill_h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ian Stirling wrote:
>> Hence, in base 1, the number
>> "11111" is equal to 5, "111 11" is also equal to 5, as is "111011"
>Just as there are no ''8s'' in Base_8, nor ''4s'' in Base_4, there
>can NOT be a ''1'' in a Base_1, if such a thing were even possible.
>The ONLY 'number' available to you in Base_1 would therefore appear
>to be ZERO. Naught. You couldn't count up to ANYTHING.
>Your '11111' is meaningless, not ''equal to 5''.
I'd like to point out that you are an idiot, incapable of counting, and
probably too closely related to monkeys.
However, as I've obviously completely dropped the ball, in a rather basic,
and obvious way, that would only make me look even sillier.
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:45:24 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ariel Scolnicov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's true that there is a small anomaly in this definition: base d
> normally uses digits 0,1,...,d-1, and here you're using the digit "1"
> in base 1.
>
> To fix, note that if you're just interested in natural numbers (or if
> you're willing to represent 0 by ), then you can easily use digits
> 1,2,...,d in base d. Thus unary falls into line.
>
Please do this on a Windoze machine, they *love* patches.
--
Real Newsreaders do not read/write in html.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Between Silk and Cyanide
Date: 25 Jul 99 14:16:45 GMT
John Savard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: and a book entitled
actually, it was:
Code Breaking: A History and Exploration, by Rudolf Kippenhan (Overlook).
It has a goodly amount of historical content.
Oh, yes: in the book "The Mathematical Tourist", an example of a
zero-knowledge proof (that one knows a Hamiltonian path through a graph)
is given - perhaps it's just me, but it seems that the example is flawed.
While the mechanics are similar to those for real zero-knowledge proofs,
the method described doesn't seem to prove anything.
Perhaps it's just me.
John Savard
------------------------------
From: Bruce Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I think is B.S. about the X.509 . Please encrypt the certificate!
Date: 25 Jul 1999 12:51:18 +0100
"Dirk Mittler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The certificate is basically a data structure that can be read
> (wow!). It includes a certificate authority, serial number, RSA
> decryption key, and a type of data signature of the whole document.
I think you may have entirely missed the point.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: What the hell is XOR?
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:00:10 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> These days it it not useful to ask how many programmers can name the
> full complement of 16 binary boolean functions. One has to ask how many
> know what a boolean function/truth table is. I doubt this is a Good
> Thing.
I wonder how they will deal with the many more that are characteristic of
another base, like three. BTW, there is no XOR in base three, but it has
several that cannot be done in simple binary either. Logic can be a many
dimentional thing...there are whole unexplored universes out there.
--
Real Newsreaders do not read/write in html.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:05:21 -0700
From: Sundial Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Between Silk and Cyanide
John Savard wrote:
>
> Well, I finally sprang for an "Avid Reader" card, as I bought $83
> worth of books at one go...
>
> as at the Smithbooks location at West Edmonton Mall I picked up not
> only a copy of "Between Silk and Cyanide" -
>
> after giving it a bit of an inspection, to see if it would be
> interesting; a glowing review by David Kahn was encouraging, and this
> book does add something to our knowledge of how the _Funkspiel_ was
> achieved...like the Challenger disaster, there were people "in the
> trenches" who knew better -
>
> One question: Have pictures of the codes printed on silk for the SOE
> agents appeared in print before?
I certainly have not seen any reference to it before. Most of the code
books on the WW2 era seem to be either (a) knock-offs on Kahn, or (b)
written from the British / Bletchley Park perspective or the American /
Pearl Harbor perspective. In other words, strictly official and purely
mathematical. "Silk and Cyanide" is the first and only book I've seen
which really brought home that "dammit, this is WAR," and I encourage
you to read it slowly.
On that note ... have there ever been any books published, in English,
written by Germans, which explored the *German* code-breaking
enterprise? We seem to read a lot about the national history of the
"winners," but what about the other side? And will there be other books
which show us the *people* involved, with all of their foibles as well
as their success?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:37:10 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> wtshaw wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > wtshaw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Zero has no value in itself as it expresses the absence of a number in a
> > > > particular place.
> > >
> > > There is a difference between zero the number and zero the digit. You
> > > are using the second to replay to the first.
> > >
> > Nothing=nothing... I consider you above argument a NULL hypothesis.
>
> You consider the digit as the same as the value?
>
> I suppose you also believe NUL == NULL?
By definition a single digit other than zero has a value as zero is just a
sort of bookmark where a value could be, the original concept. But then,
I don't consider it appropriate to talk of *digits* unless we are in base
ten, as they have a special weight or value as characters in that base
alone. If zero is a digit, it is also a bit, trit, etc, depending on the
base. What's a character in any set...named also according to the size of
the set, determined in advance.
Can zero be a unit, if unit is the base one information unit? *Unit* =?
*unit*...."We have a problem, Houston." Maybe we need to talk of what a
*monit* might be, but I fear they are all stored with the skyhooks,
shelf-stretchers, and left-handed monkey wrenches.
--
Real Newsreaders do not read/write in html.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Reeves)
Subject: Re: My Algorithm
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:15:43 GMT
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:01:57 -0700, "Steven Hudson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't know if anyone has thought of this before but here is how it works:
>It takes the key and input char's(8 bits) and compares each bit in the input
>byte to the corasponding one in the key. Using a PRNG, if the bits are the
>same the output is a 1 or 0, depending on the PRNG. I then do the same
>thing with the output byte of the first operation with the last output byte
>of the previous input and key.
>
>This example just has the similar become a 1 and non-similar become 0.
>
>key 00110110
>in 10010010
>out 01011011
>
>If you need more info or some c/c++ source email me. The program I wrote is
>really slow though.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Um, that's just a standard XOR operation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:42:58 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> wtshaw wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > You may argue that you didn't "start counting" until the first sheep
> > > arrived, but you were watching the road in the same state prior to the
> > > first sheep as prior to the second sheep except for the value of your
> > > "current count". So I maintain that you "started counting" when you
> > > started watching for sheep, not when the first sheep arrived.
> > >
> > > B. Kernigan identified this as the most important issue in programming
> > > in an interview with Unix Magazine (Journal?) about 8 years ago.
> > >
> > So, computers have introduced a new counting method. When you start
> > counting your fingers do you begin with zero. When you count a blackjack
> > hand, do you start with zero? Zero means you have no cards yet to count.
>
> Right. Zero is the value you use to initialize your counter; when you
> are going to count something.
Or what you use to cancel other values. It's a bit of chicken&egg here.
>
> Do you start counting when the first item arrives or when you begin
> waiting for the first item?
>
Structures can be built either way. Events are like a one-time pad in a
sense, you can write only one in your life, but then, you can pretend to
begin each day fresh and pretend that taking things one at a time is the
best way; The Cube tells you different.
--
Real Newsreaders do not read/write in html.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Kryptos Beginning of publicatio of solution
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:22:56 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(James Pate Williams, Jr.) wrote:
>
> Disclaimer I am not a psychiatrist. I think you are confusing
> schizophrenia with mutiple personality disorder. At one time
> schizophrenics were thought to have a split personality but
> that theory has been largely discredited. Schizophrenia is
> a brain chemical disease and involves neurotransmitters
> or a lack of them.
>
The problem in the terms is that brain chemistry and physical structure,
bad genes, injury, or some dread desease can manefest itself in a number
of ways, including mutiple personalities. However, such a appearance
might be more often the result more of building rationalizations, other
psychological problems or mere convenience.
Here is another case where one problem is pushed to inherit the name of a
group were better and more definitive terms should have been used, but we
do have the APA and other groups to set some standards in that area,
whatever that means.
Although this group is not presumed to dwell on such issues, it is often
the case that in areas of scientific mystery that voids attract those who,
for want of any other reason, seek to fill such things even in areas in
which they have insufficient command with whatever else turns them on.
We do have problem with non-scientific distractions such as we see coming
from politics and religious rightwingnuts distacting us from the pursuit
of the types of cryptological knowledge many of us are about; but, this
goes, unfortunately, with the territory in any intrinsically important
scientific undertaking that can have great power to affect the world in
general.
--
Real Newsreaders do not read/write in html.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
