Cryptography-Digest Digest #11, Volume #10 Sat, 7 Aug 99 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
CIA KRYPTOS ENIGMA ("collomb")
Re: AES finalists to be announced (Paul Crowley)
Re: Americans abroad/Encryption rules? (Paul Crowley)
Re: key lengths ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Construction of permutation matrix (Nicol So)
Re: CIA KRYPTOS ENIGMA ("Steve Sampson")
Re: AES finalists to be announced ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What is "the best" file cryptography program out there? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: AES finalists to be announced (Bauerda)
Re: What is "the best" file cryptography program out there? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: About Online Banking Security (Keith A Monahan)
Re: AES finalists to be announced (DJohn37050)
Re: : I AM CAVING IN TO JA... (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Yarrow RNG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "collomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CIA KRYPTOS ENIGMA
Date: 7 Aug 1999 11:45:55 GMT
CIA's KRYPTOS ENIGMA
There is in a courtyard inside the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in
Langley (Va) for almost a decade, a sculptural mystery inside an enigma.
The sculpture shows a text of 865 characters with no sense at all.
Since then, the 865-character message etched into the sculpture by the
artist, Jim Sanborn, has defied all efforts to unravel its conundrum
completely.
Some specialist cryptographers pretend to have deciphered its first 768
characters
where one can distinguish 4 sentences terminated with a question mark <�?
>.
Still quite unbroken are the last 97 characters.
Jim Sanborn said that the sculpture contains a riddle within a riddle , one
that will be solvable only after the four encrypted passages are known.
Kryptos was meant to be solved only with pencil and paper
Sanborn, the artist, said he believes that the ultimate secret hidden in
the text of Kryptos will never be deciphered. It was designed by Edward M.
Scheidt, a former chairman of the C.I.A.'s Cryptographic Center.
However a French cryptographer succeeded recently to crack the
secret of KRYPTOS and published on Internet, first
the final solution and in the following days, little by little, the
different steps of the method leading to that solution. All the
explainations to understand the secret of KRYPTOS
are available on the site web�:
http://calvaweb.calvacom.fr/collomb/
I appears that the final message has a more farreaching influence than the
would-be
partial solutionss already published. It is in proportion with the bigger
central intelligence Agency in the world. The message is refering, in
particular, with the Revelation to John and the celestial new Jerusalem.
The CIA has been informed directly and indirectly at each step of that
discovery and, curiously, kept mute.
Best regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Paul Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AES finalists to be announced
Date: 7 Aug 1999 10:32:20 +0100
Terje Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's not true: DFC used to be one of the 3-4 slowest ciphers, but
> after Robert Harley challenged myself and a couple of others to optimize
> it, it became one of the 3-4 fastest ciphers instead. :-)
>
> Using Roberts Alpha code, it is of course _the_ fastest on a 64-bit cpu.
Oops, I haven't been keeping up. DFC's smartcard performance and
memory requirements have also been brought into line, haven't they?
If it displaces any cipher in my list I guess it'll be CAST-256,
making the list Twofish, Rijndael, Serpent, RC6, DFC.
Someone asked why Serpent is in there. Remember that Serpent only
appears slow because they went for a very conservative choice of 32
rounds. A 16-round variant would be as strong as any of the AES
candidates, and a damn strong competitor on speed too.
--
__
\/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a Linux strategy? \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ /~\
------------------------------
From: Paul Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Americans abroad/Encryption rules?
Date: 7 Aug 1999 11:37:36 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel) writes:
> Bill, that's strange. When was the "personal use exemption" taken off the
> books?
You have to apply for a license even for personal use, no? In theory
they should issue it as a matter of course; in practice they have no
idea how to do so, as Matt Blaze demonstrated.
Best to either (a) wipe PGP from your hard drive before you leave and
reinstall it from an FTP site when you arrive, or (b) keep quiet and
hope they don't notice you have it.
--
__
\/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a Linux strategy? \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ /~\
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: key lengths
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 12:50:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry Coffin) wrote:
> Nonetheless, the upper limit on the strength of a cipher depends on
> the length of its key. If you use too small of a key, no matter what
> else you do, the cipher will be vulnerable to attack. OTOH, it's
> certainly true that above a fairly low threshold, the algorithm tends
> to make more difference than the key size.
Yes but my point is 80-bit keys for example take way too long to search
even at speeds of 2^50 keys/sec.
>
> It's also worth noting that many of the better attacks typically
> reduce the difficulty of an attack by a more or less fixed factor
> compared to a brute-force attack on the same cipher.
>
Then the cipher has been broken. However most iterative attacks are
not practical making brute force still the only way. In which case an
64-bit key even if you needd 2^40 plaintext/2^33 work to find the key
is still a 64-bit key.
> This means that an attack that reduced the work involved by a factor
> of, for example, 100, might be extremely damaging to a cipher with a
> marginal key-size, but mean nothing against an otherwise similar
> cipher with a larger key.
>
I would rather have no attacks that are feasible then rely on huge keys.
> Since you used specific key sizes, so will I. With DES, there's
> currently no attack (of which I'm aware) that's substantially better
> than brute force. If you design, say, a 64-bit cipher, you've got to
> ensure that you've got at least VERY close to as good of a design to
> ensure that you get any extra security at all. If you got to an 80-
> bit key, you can start to worry less -- if somebody finds a weakness
> that gives them a 100:1 advantage, it still means little unless the
> data has a very long life and the attacker has truly immense
> resources.
>
> If we go to a 128-bit key, we get the same effect, multiplied by an
> even larger margin -- at this point, a weakness has to be almost
> colossal before it really means anything -- unless it reduces the
> strength of the cipher by a factor of at least 2^40, it'll be a long
> time before it means anything at all.
>
> IOW, assume that you decide that right now you need a cipher with a
> strength a bit greater than that of DES. You could us a 64-bit key,
> but if anybody finds any kind of weakness at all, chances are pretty
> good that you'll have a problem.
>
ICE for example... Basically you should design the cipher for as
strong/fast combo you need. Then fix a key size to it. If you are
desingning a cipher and you know there is a 2^20/2^30 attack why use a
128-bit key?
> If, OTOH, you'd start with an 80 or 128-bit key, you have to screw up
> pretty badly (by comparison) before it's going to mean somebody can
> decode your data.
>
> To summarize: a larger key gives you a much larger margin for error
in
> your design. Even a huge key won't cover up for a terrible design,
> but it's an easy step to help ensure safety with a design about which
> you're less certain.
>
Well if you know what you are doing then you could design the key
schedule along with the algorithm. If you design to avoid any
characteristics your entire key should be effective.
But key length generally doesn't say much about the actual strength of
a cipher unless it's perfect.
Tom
--
PGP 6.0.2i Key
http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
PGP 2.6.2 Key
http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key_rsa.pgp
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Nicol So <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Construction of permutation matrix
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 09:09:22 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [Description of the familiar algorithm for permuting elements of an
> array, deleted]
>
> If you can extract fractions of bits and have log2(n!) bits of key this
> will be complete (all permutations are possible).
You can extract a non-integral amount of bits by interpreting the bit
string as an arithmetically encoded string of symbols.
Nicol
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sampson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CIA KRYPTOS ENIGMA
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 12:42:28 GMT
I thought it was at the NSA??
The reason they may be mute, is that you are completely wrong.
You have to solve the plaintext, not move it around into a pretty
picture.
Sheesh...
collomb wrote:
>CIA's KRYPTOS ENIGMA
>
>The CIA has been informed directly and indirectly at each step of that
>discovery and, curiously, kept mute.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AES finalists to be announced
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 13:04:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bauerda) wrote:
> E2, Mars, RC6, Rijndael, Twofish. Of these, Rijndael is my
favorite. While
> Mars and E2 may somewhat complicated, they also appear well
constructed.
> CAST-256 is nice, but slower than the others. Serpent would rank
lower than
> CAST-256 on my list. For some reason, I appear to be one of the few
people not
> to include Serpent on my list. While Serpent shows a creative design
(to get
> speed), it is still more than twice as slow as the speediest
ciphers. Lars
> Knudsen has listed his three favorite candidates as RC6 with 32
rounds,
> Rijndael with 16 rounds, and Serpent. Of these, Serpent is still the
slowest
> by a significant margin.
MARS is just too complicated and really isn't any better then the
others.. E2 is ok I guess (I wouldn't really know). I think Serpent
should be on the list because of it's strict conservative design. I
for one would not mind a slightly slower algorithm if I knew it's
security bounds.
Tom
--
PGP 6.0.2i Key
http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
PGP 2.6.2 Key
http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key_rsa.pgp
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What is "the best" file cryptography program out there?
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 13:00:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Thomas J. Boschloo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And you could scale up your hardware, letting the new 5000 Mhz
computer
> continue where your current computer will be in 20-30 years. (Well, I
> think 5000 Mhz will be reached in about five years for Intel like
> processors, so call me an optimist).
5Ghz computers will not be made any time soon, and when they are it
won't be until another 10 years before the public sees them. You have
to rememeber that a 5Ghz computer would take too much energy to run
though.
If we linearly scale a 200mhz machine (2^20 keys/sec) to a 5000mhz
machine (2^24.64 keys/sec) it will still take 2^55.35 seconds to search
an 80-bit key. That is 731,178,021 years avg per key. Throw a million
at it and you are at 731.17 years.
> So basically, assuming you buy a new computer every year to continue
the
> search, you would need a formula like:
>
> keyspace / (speedin1999 * 1 year + speedin2000 * 1 year + speedin2001
*
> 1 year + etc. )
>
> If you applied Moores law (every 18 months computers get twice as
fast)
> the formula would be something like:
>
> keyspace / (speed * 18 months + 2 * speed * 18 months + 4 * speed * 18
> months + ... + 2^n * 18 months )
>
> Here you buy a new computer every 18 months that is twice as fast as
its
> predecessor. Speed is the current day speed of your computer. And n is
> the number of years that you spend searching the key space.
>
> Other things to take into account are that not only computers get
twice
> as fast, but also twice as small. So if you ran things in parallel,
you
> could possibly gain an extra factor two every eighteen months.
>
> In other words, calculations like cracking a 128 bit key would take
> 8,984,715,530,573,906 years doesn't impress me at all!! I just want to
> know where Moores law stops, and physics kick in like "A computer will
> never be faster then the time light takes to cross the diameter of an
> atom" or "A computer will never be larger than the biggest planets in
> our solar system combine". Things like that. And I wouldn't mind being
> off by a factor 1,000,000 because that would only be 20 bits.
But you are limited by such fundemental things. The fastest chip I
have seen was 1.6Ghz even then it was liquid cooled and cost millions.
I don't expect them to be publicly avail anytime soon for say 200
dollars (same price for a decent intel chip).
> So what can our future accendency crack (underbound) and what can they
> not crack? 80 bits and 192??? I am interested in this because I might
> one day decide to write software with a fixed keysize, that will be
> secure for ever (if no weaknesses are found by then).
Well I am still not convinced 80-bit keys are short. I can let someone
find my message in 731 years... it's ok by me!
Tom
--
PGP 6.0.2i Key
http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
PGP 2.6.2 Key
http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key_rsa.pgp
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bauerda)
Subject: Re: AES finalists to be announced
Date: 07 Aug 1999 13:58:42 GMT
>Someone asked why Serpent is in there. Remember that Serpent only
>appears slow because they went for a very conservative choice of 32
>rounds. A 16-round variant would be as strong as any of the AES
>candidates, and a damn strong competitor on speed too.
No, I don't think so. From Brian Gladman's page we find that a 16 round
version of Serpent with be about as fast as a Crypton (the fifth algorithm in
terms of speed), with all of the algorithms above it (except for RC6) having
more than the number of rounds suggested by Biham. I could run RC6 (in
decryption mode) with 40 rounds and still be (just barely) faster than Serpent
(in decryption mode) with 16 rounds. If security is desired, then one of the
faster algorithms with more rounds seems more desirable than Serpent.
David Bauer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What is "the best" file cryptography program out there?
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 12:52:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry Coffin) wrote:
> IMO, "don't work" is rather poor wording. It may be more difficult
to
> design chips for breaking Blowfish than, say, DES, but that doesn't
> mean it can't be done.
>
This is true but it takes more power and room to store blowfish chips
then DES chips. You have to remember that Blowfish requires just over
4KB of ram.
Although it's true in 20 years Blowfish chips could be made really
easily...
Tom
--
PGP 6.0.2i Key
http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
PGP 2.6.2 Key
http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key_rsa.pgp
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith A Monahan)
Subject: Re: About Online Banking Security
Date: 7 Aug 1999 13:18:36 GMT
In support of Tomstdenis,
He has answered many of my questions on this newsgroup, providing me
invaluable aid in my time here.
Have I seen him respond in a BOLD fashion? Perhaps, but honestly, I don't
care. I'd rather have someone be rude and right, than nice and wrong.
Keith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Mr. St. Denis:
: If you must go through life as the arrogant, misanthropic asshole that
: you obviously are, please have the decency to keep your vitriolic
: emotional bile to yourself. Follows a small sample of the negative crap
: with which you have polluted sci.crypt. Between your and Bob
: Silverman's answering so many questions and erroneous postings with
: remarks to the effect of, "Well, if you were an overeducated ubermensch
: like I am, and not a mentally challenged imbecile like yourself, you
: would already know...", it's a wonder that anyone with a reasonable
: question has the nerve to post at all. According to the charter,
: sci.crypt is a forum for
: "discussion of the _science_ of cryptology, including cryptography,
: cryptanalysis, and related topics such as one-way hash functions"
: This charter does not seem to indicate that sci.crypt is a forum for
: insecure superannuated adolescents to try to make themselves feel better
: by belittling other participants.
: Try being nice for a change, even to those not gifted with your
: inestimable intellectual powers. You may find that people treat you
: better, and waiters might even stop hocking up loogies in your food.
: Much Love,
: Jesse Ross
: P.S. I was guessing at your name from your deja address. Please accept
: my apologies if I've mangled it.
: ---------------------------------------------------------
: Excerpts from tomstdenis's postings to sci.crypt
: --
: [this is one of my favorites, because both you and BobS are quoted,
: patting each other on the back for being so much more clever than the
: rest of us]
: In article <7oan7j$ai1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > How refreshing! A common sense reply! How rare in this newsgroup!
: > Anyone who thinks that even 2048 bits are needed is clearly
: > clueless about the subject.
: I try...
: --
: [HellPhyre raises the point that sci.crypt is for Q&A, not just experts]
: tomstdenis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Posting History Member Profile
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: > > That form of implicit trust scares me. What makes a 1024 bit
: > > key less secure then a 4096 bit key? (And if you say ease of
: > > solving you have no clue about the crypto world).
: >
: > Did I ever say I had a clue about the crypto world?
: --
: [This is another good one, because it demonstrates your self-importance
: in so few words]
: You haven't even read my open questions have you? Can't answer them?
: Figures ...
: Tom
: [How dare he not have read The Open Questions Of Tom St. Denis !?!?
: BTW: If he hasn't read them, he doesn't know whether or not he can
: answer them.]
: --
: [I've included the next one in its entirety, because it shows how you
: can be a prick even while asking seemingly innocuous questions. It also
: shows that you're lazy; some (not all) of your questions are answered on
: the website for the ORB product. The URL was included in the post, but
: you couldn't be bothered to check. This post also shows that you have
: no shame; after insulting the ORB manufacturer's representative, you
: have the cajones to ask for free samples!]
: tomstdenis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Alwyn Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Announcing ORB - Open Random Bit Generator
: >
: > ORB is a single-chip random bit generator featuring:
: >
: > * Low cost (~$2 each in production quantities)
: Of how many? Can hobbyist purchase orders of 10s, 50s or 100s?
: > * Low power consumption (2 mA, 1 mA standby)
: At how many volts? Standard 5v?
: > * Wide operating voltage range (2.5 - 5.5 V)
: > * Wide temperature range (-40 to 85�C, 125�C avail.)
: > * Moderate speed (1000+ bits/sec)
: Via what? A serial port? or SPI?
: > * Good statistical properties
: Says who?
: > * Cryptographic quality randomness
: Says who?
: > * Open design (not free)
: Where? Are there design specs online? Who designed it? Are there
: custom chips avail?
: > * Simple interface
: You mean a single 8-bit data port?
: > * Small footprint (5.3 x 8.1 mm, 8-lead SOIC)
: Super.
: > ORB is based on a Microchip Technology 8-bit microcontroller, and uses
: > one external resistor. Entropy is generated by a unique (patent
: > pending) process
: > in which a capacitor is charged and discharged according to the
: > contents of a bitstream, and the capacitor's voltage is measured by an
: > A/D converter. The low-order bits of the A/D results are "stirred"
: > into
: > an entropy pool, which is then processed through a cryptographic hash
: > function (MD2). Part of the hash result is the random output and part
: > of
: > it forms the bitstream to continue the process.
: What is the period of the bitstream? What if the bitstream is biased? I
: though chips using capacitors allready exist
: ...
: > Orb is now shipping in sample quantities. Please see
: >
: > www.delanet.com/~apa/orb
: >
: > for more details.
: Any freebies?
: Tom
: --
: [Finally, the posting that prompted this one]
: In article <7ob4kb$jk1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (KidMo84) wrote:
: > > I was wondering how secure online banking really is.
: [snip]
: >
: > Most of the time these systems are designed by comp.sci majors without
: > any background in cryptography (well isn't 40-bit SSL (RC4) secure
: > enought?) ...
: > Tom
: [This seems a gross over generalization, especially from someone who
: seems to value accuracy, and has ABSOLUTELY no tolerance for error in
: others]
: Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
: Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Subject: Re: AES finalists to be announced
Date: 07 Aug 1999 14:22:35 GMT
Besides, the official version of number of rounds is what will be considered,
tweaks were allowed, if none were made, then that is the way the designer
wanted it to be.
Don Johnson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: : I AM CAVING IN TO JA...
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 15:13:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Thomas J. Boschloo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>>
>> >Javascript seems like a bad choice.
>> ><http://www.w3.org/Security/Faq/wwwsf7.html#Q64> You will force users to
>> >enable a dangeous 'feature' in their browsers, possibly resulting in
>> >installed trojans that can defeat the whole security of scottu19.zip!
>> >Better stick with standard HTML (don't know which version). Support the
>> >Anybrowser Campaign! <http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/>
>> >
>>
>> Again I see someone bitching that has not even been to my site
>> lately. I am sorry I felt compelled to keep up with all the sites that
>> say "sorry but you must have Java nad/or JavaScript enabled" even
>> though there seems to be no dam reason for it.
>
>I am a user of Netscape 4.5, and as you could have read in
><http://www.w3.org/Security/Faq/wwwsf7.html#Q64> it has a bug that would
>allow the website to read arbitrary files from my system.
>
>> Ability to Read Arbitrary Files on User's Machine (November 1998)
>>
>> A bug in the JavaScript implementation in Netscape Communicator 4.5 and
>> 4.04-4.05 allows a Web page to read arbitrary files from the user's
>> machine and transmitted across the Internet. Any file that can be read
>> with the user's permissions is vulnerable, including the system password
>> file. The bug affects both Windows and Unix versions of Communicator.
>> Any HTML page can carry this exploit, including ones that are
>> transmitted as an e-mail enclosure. Internet Explorer has not been
>> reported to be vulnerable.
>>
>> See http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/1711/b6.html for a
>> demonstration and details.
>
>My pgpkey is on my computer, the password to my account is saved by
>netscape and while I was under the impression that the bug would also
>allow websites to *write* arbitrary files to my system, it is reason
>enough for me, not to switch javascript on and visit your page.
>
>Regards,
>Thomas
>
>(BTW If you think you would be safe with MS Internet Explorer, think
>again. A similar hole exists for IE 4.0 and 4.01 and a lot of people
>don't know it!)
Again if you had any brains you can see my site is more in line with your
way of thinkning. Mine is kind of a boycot of useless advanced features.
MS will always have bugs so that it is easy to sale more fixes. Only a fool
would leave JavaScript on and sail willy nilly around the net.
Bye the way since you have Netscape try
"view-source:http://members.coom.xom/ecil/index.htm/"
and if Magic word is _XOOM use it or appropriate and do
"view-source:http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/ecil/index.htm"
Then see if your still afraid to use it with JavaScript on.
while your at it why is "view-source:http" legal and what are other
forms every see a list?
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Yarrow RNG
Date: 7 Aug 99 14:06:30 GMT
vincent ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Does the fact that they provide the source code actually prove their
: sincerity ?
It means that if there were a trapdoor, it would be easy to find. That
tends to indicate there isn't one.
John Savard
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
