Cryptography-Digest Digest #968, Volume #9 Mon, 2 Aug 99 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: With all the talk about random... ("Robert C. Paulsen, Jr.")
Re: With all the talk about random... (Herman Rubin)
Re: Americans abroad/Encryption rules? (Dmitri Alperovitch)
Re: Americans abroad/Encryption rules? (JPeschel)
Re: Another random question (Herman Rubin)
Re: With all the talk about random... ("Robert C. Paulsen, Jr.")
Re: (Game) 80-digits Factoring Challenge (Jim Gillogly)
Re: With all the talk about random... (Dave Knapp)
Re: The security of TEA ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Intel 810 chipset security ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to write REALLY PORTABLE code dealing with bits (Was: How Big is a Byte?)
(Jeff Rife)
Re: Looking for RC4 alternative (Bruce Schneier)
Re: How to write REALLY PORTABLE code dealing with bits (Was: How Big is a Byte?)
(Lame K. Irony)
Re: How to write REALLY PORTABLE code dealing with bits (Was: How Big is a Byte?)
(stanislav shalunov)
Re: Modified Vigenere cipher (D. P. Roberts)
Re: With all the talk about random... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The security of TEA (JPeschel)
Re: How to write REALLY PORTABLE code dealing with bits (Was: How Big is a Byte?)
("Paul Lutus")
question: SHA --> stream cipher (David Bernier)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert C. Paulsen, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: With all the talk about random...
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 20:35:32 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
<clip>
> Nothing is truly random though. Why do you think we have laws of
> physics and developing laws of quantum mechanics? Just cuz you can't
> explain something doesn't mean it's random.
>
> I think there is a misconception. A truly random number just occurs.
> Nothing dictates what it will be or when it will be (such as counting
> or detecting alpha particles). A unpredictable number (such as the
> various methods on real life sources) is just that but not really
> random.
>
> If you could look at a piece of amercium and see alpha particles leave
> you could predict what your counter will produce, but since that's
> believed to be difficult we assume it's 'random'. Simple as that.
No it's not. Here is a quote from a passage in _The Character of Physical
Law_ by Richard Feynman from the chapter "Probability and Uncertainty --
the Quantum Mechanical view of nature"
================[ quote ]=============================
It is impossible to predict in any way, from any information ahead of
time [the results of a measurement of quantum behavior]. That means that
physics has given up, if the original purpose was - and everybody thought
it was - to know enough so that given the circumstances we can predict
what will happen next. ... One theory is that the reason you cannot ...
is that it is determined by some very complicated things... and if we
get a complete enough physics then we shall be able to predict. ...
That theory cannot be true; it is not due to lack of detailed knowledge
that we cannot make a prediction.
================[ end quote ]=========================
(page 146 in my 1992 paperback edition from MIT Press.)
>
> I am no phyisic person so if some of my facts are off please note. But
> the idea still remains. Nothing is truly random.
>
Yes it is.
--
____________________________________________________________________
Robert Paulsen http://paulsen.home.texas.net
If my return address contains "ZAP." please remove it. Sorry for the
inconvenience but the unsolicited email is getting out of control.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: With all the talk about random...
Date: 1 Aug 1999 20:38:38 -0500
In article <7o289j$a45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Robert C. Paulsen, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
............
>> It is not unheard of for quantum randomness to make itself known on
>> a macroscopic scale -- a Geiger counter is the obvious example.
>> Perhaps rolling dice is another example. I really don't know if the
>> results of dice rolling actually is effected by quantum
>> indeterminacy but it would be interesting to see a "proof" one
>> way or the other.
>Nothing is truly random though. Why do you think we have laws of
>physics and developing laws of quantum mechanics? Just cuz you can't
>explain something doesn't mean it's random.
I believe that you are using random in a popular, but nontechnical,
meaning. Random does NOT mean having all events of interest which
one would want equally likely to come out equally likely. We have
had this discussion; that is unattainable. But a reasonable
approximation of that is attainable.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dmitri Alperovitch)
Subject: Re: Americans abroad/Encryption rules?
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 01:18:35 GMT
>I think the phrase "personal use" suggests that the US citizen doesn't intend
>to distribute
>the program, but only use it while abroad. You need an export license
>to distribute crypto -- that's covered by the rest of EAR.
I understand that, but once you are out of the States, you are no longer bound
by the the country's laws and, therefore, I don't think they would have the
legal ability to prosecute you if you decided to distribute that software once
you legally got it out of the country. That's why I don't think that they
would let you legally export it, whether it's for "personal" use or not.
>Anyhow, the rule has been in affect since mid-Feb. of 1996.
Can you post any links to official documents to support this? That would
be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Dmitri Alperovitch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cdc.net/~dmitri/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Subject: Re: Americans abroad/Encryption rules?
Date: 02 Aug 1999 01:35:04 GMT
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dmitri Alperovitch)
>Can you post any links to official documents to support this? That would
>be greatly appreciated.
>
Yes, I can.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Another random question
Date: 1 Aug 1999 20:48:04 -0500
In article <7o28p4$ag0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <7o1k35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> This may or may not work. It often depends on how the time is
>> accessed and stored.
>> In my opinion, a decent PRNG needs at least thousands of bits
>> for its initialization, although it is possible that some very
>> expensive ones might do well with a few hundred. This is not
>> going to be found in the "random" part of the clock reading,
>> or even in the entire clock reading, as there are less than
>> 2^17 seconds in a day.
>Most seeds using time-of-day are the 'srand(time(NULL))' which is tbe
>number of seconds from 1970 (sometime). Like you said it's highly non
>random.
>BTW you can get by with say 80 bits of state if your generator is non-
>linear enough (i.e it takes at least 2^80 steps to learn the seed).
As far as I know, none of the currently proposed PRNGs have anything
like that much complexity. The impractically slow ones based on the
RSA or Rabin ciphers are nowhere near that intractable with such short
seeds.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
------------------------------
From: "Robert C. Paulsen, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: With all the talk about random...
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 20:04:33 -0500
"Trevor L. Jackson; III" wrote:
>
> Robert C. Paulsen, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Herman Rubin wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > There are stochastic effects, due to imperfections and thermal
> > > noise, which increase the lack of determinacy. If we roll the
> > > die far enough, quantum indeterminacy in the actions of other
> > > objects will introduce randomness.
> > >
> >
> > That seems like a natural explanation to me too, but when I made
> > such a suggestion in another thread a few weeks back several people
> > replied saying essentially that ...
> >
> > a) There was no quantum indeterminacy involved in dice rolling, and
> > b) quantum indeterminacy was not required to get true randomness
> > from rolling dice.
> >
> > As far as I know, the only behavior in the universe known to
> > involve true randomness is is from quantum effects.
> >
> > Other stochastic effects, chaos, complexity, etc. are just ways of
> > describing or dealing with situations where we lack enough
> > information to make predictions based on the underlying determinacy,
> > even though this information is obtainable in principle.
>
> This claim amounts to assuming the universe is newtonian.
I wasn't trying to make that claim -- sloppy wording on my part. Let me
try again: "... even if this information is obtainable in principle."
> In fact there
> is a limit to the amount of information about particle position and
> momentum available to an observer. Beyond that limit you cannot, in
> principle, measure.
That is the quantum uncertainty / indeterminacy.
--
____________________________________________________________________
Robert Paulsen http://paulsen.home.texas.net
If my return address contains "ZAP." please remove it. Sorry for the
inconvenience but the unsolicited email is getting out of control.
------------------------------
From: Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: (Game) 80-digits Factoring Challenge
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 17:52:35 -0700
JPeschel wrote:
> I've been running a factoring program that purportedly uses the Pollard
> Rho method. Am curious how long will it take to find a solution
> on a Pentium 200.
I think Pollard Rho grows as N^(1/4), so you should be able to
extrapolate from smaller factorizations.
--
Jim Gillogly
Mersday, 10 Wedmath S.R. 1999, 00:51
12.19.6.7.8, 13 Lamat 16 Xul, Fourth Lord of Night
------------------------------
From: Dave Knapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: With all the talk about random...
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 02:35:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nothing is truly random though. Why do you think we have laws of
> physics and developing laws of quantum mechanics? Just cuz you can't
> explain something doesn't mean it's random.
It's either truly random or it's nonlocal. Me, I prefer truly random,
as do most other physicists.
> If you could look at a piece of amercium and see alpha particles leave
> you could predict what your counter will produce, but since that's
> believed to be difficult we assume it's 'random'. Simple as that.
No, the randomness is _when_ the Am decays, not what happens to the
alpha particle once it is emitted.
-- Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The security of TEA
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 03:24:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just got through looking at the TEA algorithm. It's very easy to
> understand and very small. I am curious as to how secure the
algorithm
> is (with 64 rounds). If I need a highly secure algorithm I'll use
> something like blowfish or idea, but I am just curious as to how
secure
> this algorithm is. Thanks.
Here is some critical thinking. ALGORITHMS ARE NOT THE ONLY THING THAT
MAKE SECURE APPLICATIONS.
Now that I said that. I would say TEA is a bad algorithm to use. X-
TEA might be better but I would stick with algorithms which have taken
more of a beating.
BTW the reason I said the above is because everyone talks about how
strong algorithm X is but never on how to use the algorithm. People
should ask 'is this application of algorithm X' secure ...
Tom
--
PGP key is at:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp'.
Free PRNG C++ lib:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/prng.html'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Intel 810 chipset security
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 03:26:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> www.bigbrotherinside.com has said that they have already created a
program
> that will allow you to randomize your ID (although I am not sure
where to
> get it). Intel says that if you turn it off, you cannot reenable the
code
> unless you reboot. They found a way around the reboot and did it
> immediatly. It's all a bunch of BS. I personally am running a K-6
400
> mHz, as I suggest everyone else do.
Thanks for the link. btw my MII 300 is just fine.
Tom
--
PGP key is at:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp'.
Free PRNG C++ lib:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/prng.html'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Rife <jrife@SPAM BE GONEnabs.net>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++,comp.lang.c++,microsoft.public.vc.language
Subject: Re: How to write REALLY PORTABLE code dealing with bits (Was: How Big is a
Byte?)
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 22:47:24 -0400
Guenther Brunthaler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Really, no idea - perhaps in school? But let's try Alta Vista:
>
> byte near "binary term"
>
> Hmm, 36 matches. "http://teamcia.com/webworkshop98/terms.htm" looks
> promising. And there it is: "byte n. Abbreviated B. Short for binary
> term. A unit of data, today almost always consisting of 8 bits..."
>
> God, I love search machines!
Try, instead:
http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?byte
I have a very handy command script/batch file/whatever named "define"
that invokes this URL with the command tail as the query string.
I too, love seach engines, but I usuall like my *own* interface to them
better.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | "He chose...poorly."
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 | -- Grail Knight, "Indiana Jones and the
Last Crusade"
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Schneier)
Subject: Re: Looking for RC4 alternative
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 03:46:38 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:39:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>ISAAC,
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bob_jenkins/isaacafa.htm
>fits that description. So would WAKE and SEAL, I think, although I
>don't have pointers to source for those. I think they are all
>free and faster than RC4.
As far as I know, IBM has not released SEAL into the public domain.
It is patented by them.
Bruce
**********************************************************************
Bruce Schneier, President, Counterpane Systems Phone: 612-823-1098
101 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55419 Fax: 612-823-1590
Free crypto newsletter. See: http://www.counterpane.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lame K. Irony)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++,comp.lang.c++,microsoft.public.vc.language
Subject: Re: How to write REALLY PORTABLE code dealing with bits (Was: How Big is a
Byte?)
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 04:10:43 GMT
Can we do "bit" next? I read somewhere that "two bits", meaning 25 cents,
has its origin in the fact that a bit is one eighth of a Spanish dabloon or
something. ("Pieces of eight".) But then of course there's the competing
folk etymology that "bit" is a contraction for "binary digit".
By the way, I'd like to point out the obvious fact that if the word "byte"
did NOT mean an eight bit binary number, then it would necessary for us to
create a word that DOES have that meaning, since there is certainly a need
for such a word. In my opinion, the fact that no other such word exists is
ample evidence that "byte" fits the bill.
--
"Lame K. Irony" better known as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
0123 4 56789 <- Use this key to decode my email address.
Fun & Free - http://www.5X5poker.com/
------------------------------
From: stanislav shalunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++,comp.lang.c++,microsoft.public.vc.language
Subject: Re: How to write REALLY PORTABLE code dealing with bits (Was: How Big is a
Byte?)
Date: 02 Aug 1999 00:47:55 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lame K. Irony) writes:
> By the way, I'd like to point out the obvious fact that if the word
> "byte" did NOT mean an eight bit binary number, then it would
> necessary for us to create a word that DOES have that meaning
The RFCs say ``octet.''
Follow-ups set.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. P. Roberts)
Subject: Re: Modified Vigenere cipher
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 04:36:44 GMT
>While early portions of Callimahos' edition
>were heavily based on Friedman's edition and don't add much, later
>portions add significant new material, and Callimahos' Part III (which
>is for the most part not available to the public) is based entirely
>on original material, most of it published in monographs and/or the
Ooooh, that takes me back. Several years ago I wrote a program in
QuickBASIC (similar to QBASIC) that would do Vigenere, Rail Fence,
Caesar, and about 8 other ciphers. It would also decipher them, as
long as you knew the key word or phrase. It was just an experiment,
and I think I quit about the time I started using PGP. I still have
the code somewhere. I recently took a look at it, and was plenty
embarassed at the spaghetti-ness of it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: With all the talk about random...
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 05:09:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dave Knapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nothing is truly random though. Why do you think we have laws of
> > physics and developing laws of quantum mechanics? Just cuz you
can't
> > explain something doesn't mean it's random.
>
> It's either truly random or it's nonlocal. Me, I prefer truly random,
> as do most other physicists.
So you are saying that some things are not bounded by a set of rules?
I can't believe that.
> > If you could look at a piece of amercium and see alpha particles
leave
> > you could predict what your counter will produce, but since that's
> > believed to be difficult we assume it's 'random'. Simple as that.
>
> No, the randomness is _when_ the Am decays, not what happens to the
> alpha particle once it is emitted.
Pardon my ignorance. An alpha particle is the 'waste' of an atom
right? So in this case if you could view the electrons and such in the
atom then you should be able to predict what it will do.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's random. Of
course viewing things with wave lengths shorter then light itself my
prove difficult but there are other methods I am sure.
In your argument things like how much rain will fall in a year (down to
the mm) would be 'random' but I still say if you could inspect every
cloud, measure every gust of wind, you could dictate the mm of rain.
>From a cryptographic standpoint, if I use a piece of Am and count the
alpha particles (Mike Rosing has a good paper on this) it would be
unpredictable for someone not in possesion of the piece of Am. This
would in a sense be 'random' since the other guy can't inspect it. But
I still don't think it's truly random.
Tom
--
PGP key is at:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp'.
Free PRNG C++ lib:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/prng.html'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Subject: Re: The security of TEA
Date: 02 Aug 1999 04:39:34 GMT
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>ALGORITHMS ARE NOT THE ONLY THING THAT
>MAKE SECURE APPLICATIONS.
>
No need to shout, Tom, most everyone here knows that algorithms,
alone, don't make secure applications.
>Now that I said that. I would say TEA is a bad algorithm to use. X-
>TEA might be better but I would stick with algorithms which have taken
>more of a beating.
If you mean more scrutiny, I agree with you.
>BTW the reason I said the above is because everyone talks about how
>strong algorithm X is but never on how to use the algorithm. People
>should ask 'is this application of algorithm X' secure ...
>
People sometimes do ask about a particular
application. Most of the folks here,
however, don't, for one reason or another,
reverse-engineer programs. So, instead,
respondents here will usually ask the
poster if the source code is available.
Some vendors make it available, some
don't. For instance, when Zimmermann
first formed PGP Inc., I asked to see
the source code for the commercial
version (I was reviewing it), all hell
broke loose. I didn't get it. In
retrospect, I don't believe the company
had anything to hide.
Other vendors don't make the source
code available, perhaps because they
aren't sure their implementation of
ReallyStrongCipher is, in fact,
ReallyStrongCipher. Others are secretive
about their algorithm because it's homespun
and depends on the algo remaning secret
for security.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Paul Lutus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Paul Lutus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++,comp.lang.c++,microsoft.public.vc.language
Subject: Re: How to write REALLY PORTABLE code dealing with bits (Was: How Big is a
Byte?)
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 22:06:34 -0700
<< In my opinion, the fact that no other such word exists is ample evidence
that "byte" fits the bill >>
Octet.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Lame K. Irony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Can we do "bit" next? I read somewhere that "two bits", meaning 25 cents,
> has its origin in the fact that a bit is one eighth of a Spanish dabloon
or
> something. ("Pieces of eight".) But then of course there's the competing
> folk etymology that "bit" is a contraction for "binary digit".
>
> By the way, I'd like to point out the obvious fact that if the word "byte"
> did NOT mean an eight bit binary number, then it would necessary for us to
> create a word that DOES have that meaning, since there is certainly a need
> for such a word. In my opinion, the fact that no other such word exists is
> ample evidence that "byte" fits the bill.
> --
> "Lame K. Irony" better known as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 0123 4 56789 <- Use this key to decode my email address.
> Fun & Free - http://www.5X5poker.com/
------------------------------
From: David Bernier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: question: SHA --> stream cipher
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 05:39:36 GMT
I've read recently in this forum that a secure hash can trivially
be used to construct a stream cipher. Suppose the secure hash
function used is SHA-0 or SHA-1. I'd like to know if this is a
good way to get a stream cipher:
(0) Choose a secret random IV of 160 bits, say w_0
(1) Send w_0 securely to recipient [e.g. through public-key algorithm]
(2) let w_{i+1} = SHA[w_i] for i=0,1,2,3,4...
(3) The bit-stream [cryptographically strong pseudo-random numbers]
is then obtained by concatenating w_0, w_1, w_2, ....
If the popular way of getting a stream cipher is something else,
I'd be glad to learn about it.
David Bernier
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
