Cryptography-Digest Digest #945, Volume #9 Wed, 28 Jul 99 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Modification to my OTP alg. Any input? REPOST (Shktr00p1)
crypto products of Ancort ("Ancort")
Re: How Big is a Byte? (wtshaw)
Re: Academic vs Industrial (wtshaw)
Re: Unique and random (wtshaw)
Re: Modification to my OTP alg. Any input? (fungus)
Re: OTP export controlled? (Dave Hazelwood)
Re: Academic vs Industrial (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Academic vs Industrial (W.G. Unruh)
Re: another news article on Kryptos (Mok-Kong Shen)
(Game) 80-digits Factoring Challenge (kctang)
Re: Virtual Matrix Encryption ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: (Game) 80-digits Factoring Challenge (kctang)
Re: OTP export controlled? (W.G. Unruh)
Re: OK. Maybe I am missing something here. (Jim Felling)
Re: Virtual Matrix Encryption ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What the hell is XOR? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shktr00p1)
Subject: Re: Modification to my OTP alg. Any input? REPOST
Date: 28 Jul 1999 05:32:38 GMT
>Subject: Modification to my OTP alg. Any input?
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shktr00p1)
>Date: Wed, 28 July 1999 01:24 AM EDT
>Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>Still using the 1kbyte key:
>
>If I was to base they encryption algorythm on each byte in the file, would
>this
>help? If so by what degree?
>
>In other words..
>
>I take a byte from the KEY say 1 and one from the FILE say 2
>My old method was simply 1+2 = 3(encrypted).
>If I instead made it so that if the byte was pulled from the KEY and changed
>the algorythm based on what the byte was, would this help much. Here's an
>example of psuedocode to help explain.
>
>IF keybyte is 1 THEN encbyte = filebyte + keybyte
>IF keybyte is 2 THEN encbyte = filebyte - keybyte
>IF keybyte is 3 THEN encbyte = filebyte + ((keybyte*nextbyte) MOD lebyte))
>IF keybyte is 4 THEN encbyte = filebyte + ((keybyte*lastbyte) MOD filebyte))
>making an entire algorythm map,ect....
>
>Input please?
>
>( ( (( Shock Troop )) ) )
>
>
I meant basing the algorythm off the byte from the key, not the file. Forgive
me I'm tired.
( ( (( Shock Troop )) ) )
------------------------------
From: "Ancort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: crypto products of Ancort
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:55:07 +0400
Ancort Co. ( www.ancort.ru ) offers various super resistant crypto devices
and software for data protection.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:25:19 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If base one is analogous to a black hole what's the equivalent for base
> zero? Base one has more the flavor of a Bose-Einstein condensate where
> every particle has exactly the same quantum numbers; just like in base
> on every digit has an equal weight.
Since zero times anything is zero, zero can't be a useful base.
Considering that a single black hole probably cannot ever assimilate all
the contents of the universe if it is infinitely expanding, then, the
events of the big-bang will not ever be reversed. Perhaps the analog to
base zero would be before the initial event, when time did not exist, and
good sense was surely unknown as well.
--
Freedom means having the right to chose to be isolated and left
alone. It also means not having the right to force someone to get
involved. But, the continuation of freedom demands that some of
us act for those that can't or won't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Academic vs Industrial
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:39:34 -0600
In article <7nm0ib$5mu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David A Molnar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Markku J. Saarelainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There seems to be building up a consensus that many academic algorithms
> > and standardization results are quite ineffective for any serious data
> > protection purposes due to covert influences by certain intelligence and
> > code braking agencies. Surely, these standards should not be used for
> > any industrial data security applications.
>
> Do you have any particular tainted algorithms in mind?
>
I'll agree with the guy on several points, but not all in the post.
Obviously, he is in favor to strong crypto, as I am. In that sense, it is
a call to inward pain for the government that they might lose the ability
to garner as much information as they might want with a minimum of
effort. But, as I see it, the tendency of people to communicate about
serious matters in rather casual ways, surely not encrypted, should give
them plenty of stuff to look at regardless.
Let these people set all the standards they want, as they were to be
specified for their own uses. We are free to continuely explore and
find other options.
--
Freedom means having the right to chose to be isolated and left
alone. It also means not having the right to force someone to get
involved. But, the continuation of freedom demands that some of
us act for those that can't or won't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Unique and random
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:46:28 -0600
In article <7nljjh$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Isaac Rajkumar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello - for the application I am working on, I need to generate unique
> numbers
> like what's available form guuidgen in NT. In addition these need to be
> random
> (sparse).
>
> Can someone provide/point me to some information on how this can be
> achieved?
>
This sound like a live one. Please take no offense, but be prepared for
all sorts of comments you might not appreciate. I, myself, will try to be
kind and patient.
But, seriously, all numbers are unique. I suppose you want a random table
that no one else is apt to create on the fly. It matters greatly how much
of this you need, and if sparsely? needed, do you mean you do not need
many in a given time frame?
--
Beware of quick sounding solutions to counter threats that are
said to endanger our freedoms if they tamper with those same
freedoms.
------------------------------
From: fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Modification to my OTP alg. Any input?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:22:02 +0200
Shktr00p1 wrote:
>
> Still using the 1kbyte key:
>
> If I was to base they encryption algorythm on each byte in the file, would this
> help? If so by what degree?
>
> In other words..
>
> I take a byte from the file say 1 and one from the key say 2
> My old method was simply 1+2 = 3(encrypted).
> If I instead made it so that if the byte was pulled from the file and changed
> the algorythm based on what the byte was, would this help much. Here's an
> example of psuedocode to help explain.
>
> IF filebyte is 1 THEN encbyte = filebyte + keybyte
> IF filebyte is 2 THEN encbyte = filebyte - keybyte
> IF filebyte is 3 THEN encbyte = filebyte + ((keybyte*nextbyte) MOD lebyte))
> IF filebyte is 4 THEN encbyte = filebyte + ((keybyte*lastbyte) MOD filebyte))
> making an entire algorythm map,ect....
>
> Input please?
>
It won't make any difference.
You're ignoring the possibility of a "known plaintext" attack.
If somebody knows (or can guess) what was being encrypted (ie. the
filebytes) then this modification adds nothing. All other messages
which use the same key are compromised.
Note that I don't need to guess the whole file. A few bytes
at the start of the file (eg. a PKZIP header) are enough to cause
serious weaknesses.
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Hazelwood)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: OTP export controlled?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:32:53 GMT
Like they control students at Littleton? Like they control mad bombers
in Oklahoma? Like they control Saddam? Like they control Milosevic?
The fact is they control diddleysquat. The whole EAR thing is a farce
and will soon be seen to be one as the world has passed these people
by. And, the Courts are starting to agree!
Hey, if you don't know it's over when it's over then you better not be
in charge.
We need NEW thinking in our intelligence organizations and that means
acknowledging and dealing with a world full of secrets. Can it be
done? I think so. Of course it may involve such "radical" thinking as
not making so many enemies, trusting the average citizen, and
cultivating a world where bad guys are just not given any respect by
anyone in the first place.
Humm, it used to be that way didn't it? When people saw wrong they
righted it or reported it....now most just don't want to get involved.
It all comes down to every one of us doing our part and not big
brother doing it for us.
We used to spank our kids and the world was fine. Now big brother says
no! You are not allowed to spank them. And, they go to school and kill
other kids? Is that better?
Yeah...Trillions could be saved if we just realized that MOST people
all over the world will do the right thing if given a chance and that
is the best way to rid the world of it's Saddam's. Not cruise
missiles.
Funny how so many people want to control other people but in the end
they always fail. I believe they always will because behind it all is
an overwhelming human need to be free and no matter what obstacle
or technology it faces mankind and freedom will survive.
Sorry for the topic digression but damn we need some common sense
to prevail in government or we are goners. I just hope it is not too
late.
Clinton has set us back 30 years and Gore will set us back more if
given the chance. I like Jessie Ventura. Now he makes sense.
fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>They don't control the algorithm, they control programs which implement
>it for cryptographic purposes.
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Academic vs Industrial
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:03:21 +0200
wtshaw wrote:
>
> Let these people set all the standards they want, as they were to be
> specified for their own uses. We are free to continuely explore and
> find other options.
Right. The standards will mostly be built-in in software environments.
There is no need to get rid of them. Let them be there but encrypt our
messages with algorithms of our own choice. That is, we can be fairly
'conservative' in matters concerning the quality of protections offered
by the standards (or perhaps even export-allowed stipped-down versions
of 'standards') in our software environments. This assumes, of course,
that one resides in a country where sending encrypted messages
is free.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W.G. Unruh)
Subject: Re: Academic vs Industrial
Date: 28 Jul 99 11:18:40 GMT
"Markku J. Saarelainen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>There seems to be building up a consensus that many academic algorithms
>and standardization results are quite ineffective for any serious data
>protection purposes due to covert influences by certain intelligence and
>code braking agencies. Surely, these standards should not be used for
>any industrial data security applications.
"Building consensus" amongst whom? What sort of cover "influences"? "Surely"--
proof by blatant assertion?
>*****************
Some of most popular
>encryption applications have backdoors and their development projects
>have been supported and influenced by certain specific intel-interest
>groups.
And which one's might these be? This article is charitably described
as "blather", and less charitably as nonsense.
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another news article on Kryptos
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:50:45 +0200
John Savard wrote:
>
> It certainly is possible to devise an open ended encryption program.
> For example, GPG, GNU Privacy Guard, (currently still in beta)
> provides for the addition of new encryption algorithms as modules.
>
> However, if one switches algorithms _under the control of a key_, at
> some point one must define what actions the program is to take for any
> particular key. Otherwise, the programs belonging to the sender and
> recipient may not be compatible. Perhaps this is the source of the
> current objection.
You can switch algorithms during processing of a single message
in a variety of ways, e.g. after a number (dependent on the key)
of records, etc. I think that even switching algorithms from message
to message, i.e. one algorithm for one message, is quite advantageous
if the schedule is such that the analyst has big difficulty to
figure out which algorithm pertains to which message.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: kctang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: (Game) 80-digits Factoring Challenge
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:38:07 +0800
Dear all,
Please factorize the 80-digits number:
256261430091697968103677033465028955910<continue at next line>
15360341017076023809547878443033203276429
Thanks & Bye, kctang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Virtual Matrix Encryption
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:37:20 GMT
I took a quick look at the algorithm and I think you're right to suspect
them of creating a "snake oil" product. First and foremost, I've never
seen an algorithm that was not snake oil be proven secure by being
compared to a OTP. Good algorithms give results proving their
resistance to know attacks (those at the time of it's creation at
least). The other thing that really bothers me about it is that the
private mode you need the exact version and copy of the software to
decrypt the file. If your copy is corrupted or destroyed, you can't get
into your file. That's worse than losing your password!
Otherwise, there's no real description of the algorithm. It uses
"theoretically infinite matrices", whatever the hell they are. IMHO, if
you want to secure your files, use PGP or another product that uses
proven algorithms.
In article <7nm40l$9u5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Yosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Someone sent me the URL of a company that claims it has invented
> the ultimate encryption algorithm, which they call VME (Virtual Matrix
> Encryption). I visited the company's site (http://www.meganet.com)
> but I couldn't determine if this is just a "snake oil" product, or it
> should be taken seriously.
> Does anyone knows more about it?
>
> Sincerely,
> Yosi
>
> P.S
> I would be more than grateful if you can send a
> copy of your reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: kctang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math.symbolic
Subject: Re: (Game) 80-digits Factoring Challenge
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:52:43 +0800
"Richard B. Kreckel" wrote:
> If this is supposed to be a game you forgot to tell us what we can win
> if we factorize that number.
We can know more. This is the prize that we all can share.
>On a more serious side, please remember that this newsgroup is
>dedicated to symbolic manipulation.
I generate the number by MAPLE. Nearly any symbolic computation system
possesses the command "factor". But such computer algebra systems are
usually slow.
I want to know . . . . which system, amount of time to factor . . . . .
Techniques of generating hard to factor integers .....
The most updated strength of the computer, e.g. Pentium II 400 Mhz.
Thanks in advance, kctang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W.G. Unruh)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: OTP export controlled?
Date: 28 Jul 99 13:25:32 GMT
>Jerry Park wrote:
>>
>> Dale Clapperton wrote:
>> > Would software for implimenting One Time Pad type encryption be export
>> > controlled?
>> Yes.
>>
>> >
>> > I mean, if all it's doing is a bit-by-bit XOR with the "pad", how can they
>> > call an XOR encryption?
They do not call XOR encryption. XOR is perfectly exportable, and in fact is
included in each and every computer which is exported. It is when you use
XOR in the context of a cryptosystem that it becomes controlled. Ie, it is when
you also write the other stuff surrounding the XOR (key control, version control
etc) that it becomes a cryptosystem, and becomes controlled.
(When does it do so-- ie what is the difference between a crypto system and
something else? They would have to convince a court of your intent.
Ie, XOR file1 file2>file3
would probably not be, while
the same function which saved its last location in file 2 and restarted the XOR
at that location next time, might be.
This is also like a hash. Any hash can be converted into a stream cypher
trivially, but hashes need no export license while cypers do.
------------------------------
From: Jim Felling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OK. Maybe I am missing something here.
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:24:55 -0500
Shktr00p1 wrote:
> >>Now you use a file containing 1000 random bytes and use that as the key. I
> >>know "One-Time-Pad". Each file is encrypted with a password(8 bytes) as
> >well.
> >>The password is used to encrypt the key file, then the key file is used to
> >>encrypt the file.
>
> >Well, there's nothing insecure about that.
> >
> >But if the 1000 random bytes are used to encrypt more than one file,
> >or if they're sent to your correspondent by E-mail, *then* your
> >encryption is only as good as the 8 byte password.
> >
> >Otherwise, it's a true one-time-pad, with a tiny extra safety feature.
> >
> >John Savard ( teneerf<- )
> >http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
>
> More than one file,
>
> How do you figure? That's 1000 bytes of random data which is overlayed by
> another 8 bytes just so that each file is encrypted slightly different. Since
> the 1000 bytes is already random and just encryted again by 8 bytes, what basis
> of decrpytion cracking would be used?
>
> It would be easier to crack the 8 bytes ALONE this is very true. However since
> the large key is random, what could you possible use to crack it? In
> otherwords, you would never know if the large key file you're attempted to
> crack is the real mcCoy(correctly cracked) because it's random garbage. See
> what I'm saying?
>
> Also, since you're the only one that has the key and the passwords, they
> wouldn't have a key to attempt cracking. Therefore they're left with to deal
> with the large key to crack.
>
> 8 8 8 8
> |----|----|----|--------->
>
> 1000 1000
> |--------------------------------------------|---------------------->
>
> FILE
> |-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------->
>
> ^--- The end result would be masive encryption.
>
> What I'm really trying to get at is, if the key is secure and the passwords are
> secure, can this be cracked easily?
Given that the above diagram is accurate this method is insecure.
Assume that I have a file encrypted with this method.Assuming that every 1000 bytes
you change the 8 characaracter "running key"
then let C(i)= the ith 1000 bytes of this file.(after encryption), and p(i)=it
before encryption, and Key(i)=the 8 character running key for block i(repeated 125
X)
then c(i)-c(j)=(key(i)-key(j)) +(P(i)-p(j)).
This boils down to a comparitively trivial problem in analysis.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:11:02 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Virtual Matrix Encryption
Yosi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Someone sent me the URL of a company that claims it has invented
> the ultimate encryption algorithm, which they call VME (Virtual Matrix
> Encryption). I visited the company's site (http://www.meganet.com)
> but I couldn't determine if this is just a "snake oil" product, or it
> should be taken seriously.
> Does anyone knows more about it?
Here's a clip from their web site. It answers the critical question.
INTRODUCING VIRTUAL MATRIX ENCRYPTION ( VME ).
We believe there is one very simple rule in encryption � if
someone can
encrypt something, someone else will be able to decrypt it.
VME concept is that the data is not being encrypted neither being
transferred. And if it's not encrypted and not transferred � there
is
nothing to break. And if there's nothing to break � it's
unbreakable.
How does it work?
The base of VME is a Virtual Matrix, a matrix of binary values
which is
infinity in size in theory and therefore have no redundant value.
The
data to be encrypted is compared to the data in the Virtual
Matrix.
Once a match is found, a set of pointers that indicate how to
navigate
inside the Virtual Matrix is created. That set of pointers (which
is
worthless unless pointing to the right Virtual Matrix) is then
further
encrypted in dozens other algorithms in different stages to create
an
avalanche effect. The result is an encrypted file that even if
decrypted is
completely meaningless since the decrypted data is not the actual
data
but rather a set of pointers. Considering that each session of VME
has
a unique different Virtual Matrix and that the data pattern within
the
Virtual Matrix is completely random and non-redundant, there is no
way
to derive the data out of the pointer set.
This clip is not the operable software, but the authors consider it to
be representative, so it is fair to analyze it to determine the value of
the operable software.
It is complete garbage.
The first paragraph describes what the algorithm does not do instead of
what it does do. It appears they are claiming that their encryption
isn't encryption.
The second paragraph purports to answer the question "How does it
work?". The very first sentence claims that an infinitely large matrix
of (finite) elements would have no redundant elements. If redundant
means duplicate they are wrong and we can conclude the analysis with the
result that they are full of shit.
If you insist upon reading the whole explanation the last sentence is a
real stumper. They claim that the contents of thir virtual matrix is
"completely random and non-redundant", something that cannot possibly be
true by any definition of randomness used in this newsgroup in the
preceeding year. N.B., selection without replacement is not random.
Lastly, the final phrase "there is no way to derive the data out of the
pointer set" is stupid to the point of requiring a negative IQ.
I think these people belong in the movie business.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:59:58 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What the hell is XOR?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : John Myre wrote:
> : > Spud wrote:
>
> : > > 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.
>
> Well, I don't know that we have seen that day. But I suppose that the day
> when someone who doesn't know what XOR is wants to avoid being answered in
> a condescending manner arrived long ago.
>
> Actually, though, it's unfair to conclude that he was lying. He could
> indeed have used computers for a long time, and even untangled complicated
> software and hardware installation problems. However, if a computer
> *programmer*, rather than a user, didn't know what an XOR was, I would
> indeed be worried.
>
> : 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.
>
> Of course, *some* programmers might only do numeric work, where only AND,
> OR, and NOT are usually used in IF statements.
>
> I may be a bit rusty...
>
> a: 0 0 1 1
> b: 0 1 0 1
> -----------------
> 0 0 0 0 0
> a and b 0 0 0 1
> a and ~b 0 0 1 0 ... is this fair?
I think this expression contains two operators instead of the desired
single one.
> a nimp b ... or was this the one you wanted?
> a 0 0 1 1
> ~a and b 0 1 0 0
Same here.
> b nimp a ... again, is this more like a "name"?
Now this is out of bounds. The expression is always A op B with an
inflexible operand ordering.
> b 0 1 0 1
> a xor b 0 1 1 0
> a or b 0 1 1 1
> a nor b 1 0 0 0
> a iff b 1 0 0 1
> not b 1 0 1 0
> b imp a 1 0 1 1 ... in other words, only b and not a disproves the
> proposition "if b then a", hence "b implies a" is false only in that case.
Another ordering problem.
> not a 1 1 0 0
> a imp b 1 1 0 1
> a nand b 1 1 1 0
> 1 1 1 1 1
>
> John Savard
>From memory this is what I recall:
0 0 1 1 A operand
0 1 0 1 B operand
========
0 0 0 0 Zero
0 0 0 1 AND
0 0 1 0 GT (NIMP is like NXOR; meaningful but rude)
0 0 1 1 A
0 1 0 0 LT
0 1 0 1 B
0 1 1 0 XOR or NEQ
0 1 1 1 OR
1 0 0 0 NOR
1 0 0 1 EQ or IFF (NXOR if you want to be rude)
1 0 1 0 Not B
1 0 1 1 GE
1 1 0 0 Not A
1 1 0 1 IMP or LE
1 1 1 0 NAND
1 1 1 1 One
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
