Cryptography-Digest Digest #78, Volume #10 Thu, 19 Aug 99 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Decrypted International Crypto inside the US (Paul Koning)
Re: I HOPE AM WRONG (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: I need strongest weak elliptic curve... (Greg)
Re: Decrypted International Crypto inside the US (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: I HOPE AM WRONG (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: I need strongest weak elliptic curve... (David A Molnar)
Re: rsa in other fields (David A Molnar)
Re: Decrypted International Crypto inside the US (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: *2nd* trusted arbitrator's name?? (John Savard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Decrypted International Crypto inside the US
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:28:44 -0400
JPeschel wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) writes:
>
> > Joe there are laws about sending encrypted messages out over the
> >ham radio airways. Because I remember the Ham teacher saying it
> >was illegal since the government wants to know about all messages
> >sent over the airwaves. I asked about morse code and he said that
> >was not considered encryption. So you might be able to recieve
> >such message but the US does have limits on how you send
> >encrypted messages in some cases like the Ham example.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, Dave, it seems I've read that here concerning ham
> radio operators. ...
>
> Could it be that we are both just old? Does such a law still exist?
Oh yes. Or at least it's in the FCC regulations (see part 97).
Memory says that it actually comes from a treaty requirement, but
I'm not positive about that.
The regulation says that you may not use any "codes or ciphers" whose
purpose is to conceal the meaning of the message. Encodings
whose specs are public, such as various modulation schemes
even if quite complex, are explicitly allowed (97.113(a)(4)).
Interestingly, you may communicate in any language so long as
you give your call sign in English (or in plain text, e.g.,
Morse code). So speaking in Navajo is apparently not considered
encryption.
There's also one exception which shows lack of understanding:
in command links for amateur satellites, encryption may be
used (97.211(b)). Of course, that's silly; encryption is neither
necessary nor sufficient, what's needed is authentication & data
integrity with replay prevention.
paul
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: I HOPE AM WRONG
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:58:20 GMT
In article <7phee4$67f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <7pf244$enr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Let me try to help you here...
>>
>> > If you look in the Deja news archvie you can see my prediction
>> > of what and why the bombing of the Chinese Embassy occured.
>> > FACT: the CIA knew where the Chinese Emabssy was.
>> > FACT: the Chinese Military GAVE boo koo bucks to the Democratic
>> > party. China has RECEIVED a lot for THAT money.
>> > Even NOW as we speak, Clinton can not give a firm anwser
>> > AS TO WHAT the US would do if MAIN land Chinese INVADED TAIWAN.
>> > I'M the only one who thinks that we are giving the green light
>> > for the invasion. And THAT the BOMBING in Yougoslovia was just
>> > a clever way TO ALLOW US TO back down.
>> > YES, I hope I am WRONG; but I think most people greatly under
>> > estimate the dishonesty of our current president. But then again
>> > maybe I'm wrong. But think about THIS: why is Clinton not giving
>> > A CLEAR warning to the CHINESE? MAYBE some NSA type who knows
>> > what is going on can ENLIGHTEN us.
>>
>> You really need to take an English course.
>
>
>Well, if you're going to criticize another author's English, I would
>recommend that you write corrections that are grammatically correct:
>
>> > FACT: the Chinese Military GAVE boo koo bucks to the Democratic
>
>I don't believe that "boo koo" is correct. I'm going to hazard a guess
>that you both intend to use the French word "beaucoup", meaning "many"
>or "a lot".
Yeah I guess that was what I meant. I hate reading but like talking
so I spell most things as they sound. if "beucoup" sounds like
"boo koo" then that is what I meant.
>
>> > Even NOW as we speak, Clinton can not give a firm anwser
>> > AS TO WHAT the US would do if MAIN land Chinese INVADED TAIWAN.
>
>at least five mistakes here:
>1) anwser [sic] should be "answer"
>2) "Even now as we speak" is redundant. Use any of:
> a) "Even now, Clinton ..."
> b) "Even as we speak, Clinton ..." [not as good, because we are
> writing, not speaking]
> c) [If you insist on being redundant for emphasis, you must set off
> the non-restrictive clause with commas] :
> "Even now, as we write, Clinton ..."
>
>3) "AS TO what" is awkward; try "... a firm answer regarding what the US
>would do..."
>
>4) In conjunction with "China", "Mainland" is one word, part of a proper
> noun, and must be capitalized:
> "Mainland China" or "Mainland Chinese"
>
>5) The verb forms in this sentence do not agree. You must use the
> subjunctive with the conditional:
Just rewtire it for those that can't decode it. But I am not about
to take another Engilsh class again. I am not criticising you I am giving
you permission to retranslate it. So that it will compile in the brains of
those stuffed shirts who can't follow it.
>
> Even as we speak, Clinton can not give a firm answer regarding
> what the US WOULD do if the Mainland Chinese WERE TO INVADE Taiwan.
>
>
>> > YES, I hope I am WRONG; but I think most people greatly under
>> > estimate the dishonesty of our current president.
>
>"under-estimate" is one hyphenated word
>
>
>> You really need to take an English course.
>
>You really need to focus on the causes of your irritation. If you
>dislike another sci.crypt correspondent, or disagree with his/her ideas,
>address your criticism to the specific issues where your opinions
>differ.
>
>For example:
>"Your delusional, paranoid-schizophrenic, anti-government rants have
> no place on sci.crypt; try alt.survival, or alt.politics.<anything>."
>
>Don't take cheap shots at his/her English.
>
>- Jesse
But Jesse those that have no ability to write C code need to feel adiquit
so they have to have something to bitch at. They can't understand C code
and they hate me so they poke fun at the only thing there pee brains can
understand. Yes my English sucks but I am worse in French or German.
And I am a Him instead of a "his/her"
Take Care
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: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I need strongest weak elliptic curve...
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:30:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Medical Electronics Lab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David A Molnar wrote:
> > I think you need a license technically no matter what kind of
encryption
> > you use. It's just that this need is overlooked for "trivial"
stuff. You
> > may be thinking of the fact that getting an export license is
supposed to
> > be "easy" for certain bit-lengths of symmetric and asymmetric
ciphers. (I
> > haven't tried it myself). Some info can probably be found at
> > http://bxa.doc.gov .
>
> But what about Wassner? That says any free code has no restrictions.
> If he's giving it away, then an export license isn't needed. Only
> code sold for money needs a license.
Is this true? I have never heard this before. I thought exporting had
nothing to do with profit.
> As long as the code is free (like a demo) you can use any strength
> you want. If it's shareware, and you send a floppy outside the US,
> you'll need an export license. Even if you send some kind of auth
> code which turns on the full version of the demo you'd need a
> license to send the auth code.
Do you know if Commerce's position is the same as this?
>
> Greg, a good demo size would be a 148 bit Koblitz curve. It's
> "reasonably" strong, but equivelent to only 70 bits of a symmetric
> cipher. If you actually find customers outside the US, it will
> be worth it to have someone rewrite your code so it can be sold
> from outside the US. Then you can sell to the US market and they
> can sell to everyone else.
>
> Patience, persistence, truth,
> Dr. mike
>
--
The US is not a democracy - US Constitution Article IV Section 4.
Democracy is the male majority legalizing rape.
UN Security Council is a Democracy. NO APPEALS! Welcome to the NWO.
Criminals=Crime. Armies=Tyranny. The 2nd amendment is about tyranny.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Decrypted International Crypto inside the US
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:29:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Dunnett wrote:
>On 19 Aug 1999 01:35:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel) wrote:
>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) writes:
>>
>>
>>> Joe there are laws about sending encrypted messages out over the
>>>ham radio airways. Because I remember the Ham teacher saying it
>>>was illegal since the government wants to know about all messages
>>>sent over the airwaves. I asked about morse code and he said that
>>>was not considered encryption. So you might be able to recieve
>>>such message but the US does have limits on how you send
>>>encrypted messages in some cases like the Ham example.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, Dave, it seems I've read that here concerning ham
>>radio operators. I also think I remember something about such
>>a no-no from when I was in grade- or high-school. Someone
>>explained the reason for the law, as I recall, was post-war hysteria
>>over people with last names such as mine.
>>
>>Could it be that we are both just old? Does such a law still exist?
>
>Yes. With world-wide application. Amateur Radio doesn't *need*
>encryption.
>
>(Amateur G4RGA)
>
So who died and made you GOD. Just because your limited mind
can't think of a reason why Amateur Radio people don't need encryption
does not mean that it should be BANNED and not all hams ( me being one)
think that it is any fucking business of the government what we say over the
airwaves is any of there business. I stopped use of ham radio when the Packet
Radio networks went to hell since the government keep making arbitrary rule
changes in the law. Amatuer Radio is not what it use to be becasue the
governemnt which has profited greatly from the work of HAMS no longer
gives a dam about us. Just like any other group. The government is nice
when it thinks it can profit from it but then it stabs you in the back when
you no longer needed. And hams are no longer needed. Yes they allow a
few token things like the astronaunts talking on a hand radio bug deal.
I still have a few radios that can listen to all the bands. Yet Uncle Sam in
all his wisdom has decided that it is illegal to make new readios that can
cover all these bands. It is also illegal to make a radio that can't be easily
modifed to recieve these bands. How the high do they get away with saying
we can no longer recieve such bands and how the hell do you make a radio
that can't be easily modifed. It is a stupid law by narrow minded politicians.
The fucking law is such that if GE ( for example ) gives enough money to
the DNC they could have uncle close the compeditrors becuase the radios
being made are to easy to modify. Congress only makes laws so they can
punish any one who does not tow the line.
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] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: I HOPE AM WRONG
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:12:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(John Savard) wrote:
>"Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>
>>Come on, Greg, David is a lot more civil than he used to be.
>>Occasionally one of his posts results in some fairly interesting
>>discussion.
>>Try to ignore the "dark side" of David and encourage the light.
>
>What irks me about David is that his "dark side" obscures - or more
>specifically, discredits - his light.
>
>Using key-dependent S-boxes, and using ones that are larger in size,
>are valid ways of making a block cipher more secure.
>
>Because he takes the size of his S-boxes to excessive lengths, and
>dogmatically asserts that everything else must be insecure, it doesn't
>just reflect on him, it reflects by association on everyone who
>proposes similar ideas, or indeed anything a little bit outside the
>mainstream. The noisiest, most noticeable individual becomes the
>paradigm by which others are judged.
>
I think you have a point but I am sure that I would only become the
"paradigm" by which others are judged. If Mr Bruce or David Wagner
would find a real weakness in my code. I have been told Mr Bruce is
unhappy that he can't find a weakness so don't worry they will continue
to mock me on the side but someone like you out of the mainstream
has nothing to fear because they only use people like me for bad examples.
When they can. If he can't find a real weakness my name will not be
associated with crypto so that you can hardly be judged by my non
kiss ass type of personality.
However if he can find a weakness in my code you as a possible outsider
will be lumped in the same group. But don't worry you know as well as I
do that systems used in scott16u and scott19u are secure. You think they
are exessive and they are. But I feel that is the way crypto should be.
I think that samll fast systems like mathimatics iself is such that you can
not prove a small fast small memory system is provably secure. Just
as Kurt Godel proved that Mathematics has many seemly unknowable
statements. You can't ever prove a simple crypto system of shifts and
reversable opersations is secure. About the best we can hope for is either
a true OTP or a large random S-box type of method.
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: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I need strongest weak elliptic curve...
Date: 19 Aug 1999 20:02:44 GMT
Medical Electronics Lab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what about Wassner? That says any free code has no restrictions.
> If he's giving it away, then an export license isn't needed. Only
> code sold for money needs a license.
Oh! I'm sorry. I thought he was in the U.S. -- where export of
"cryptographic software" is restricted, by the Export Arms
Regulations. There's actually a site where you can read them; I will find
the reference and post it. I didn't find a definition of "cryptographic
software" in them, and just assumed that it included freeware.
-David
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rsa in other fields
Date: 19 Aug 1999 19:59:44 GMT
Paul Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do you know what is an oblivious transfer. Do you know what MPC is
>> the most efficient, and what a generalized adversary structure looks like?
>> Do you know what is a monotone span program? Can you explain to me
>> if OT is possible in a quantum world? If you are indeed knowlegeable in
>> crypto, you should be able to answer does questions.
If you are knowledgeable in crypto relating to multiparty computation, you
should be able to answer those questions. It's a big area. It's entirely
possible to know about one part of it and then be completely baffled by
another. (This is not to speculate on Bob Silverman's ability or inability
to answer these questions, just pointing out that they aren't really a
good test of credentials).
[snip]
> leads me to wonder how many of these terms have never seen the pages
> of Eurocrypt...
actually, oblivious transfer is a very useful cryptographic primitive.
which has had several papers about it. It is "complete" for
secure multiparty computation -- by that I mean that if you can securely
compute an oblivious transfer, then you can securely compute any function
between multiple parties. A paper yesterday at CRYPTO '99 showed that
every "non-trivial" function is "as complete" as oblivious transfer. By
this I mean that if you can compute any nontrivial function, you can
compute OT and vice versa...so there are no gradations of " more or
less hard to compute with multiple parties."
secure computation -- N parties have private inputs. They execute a
protocol consisting of some interactions between them which models a
function f. At the end, everyone has f(x_1 ... x_n), but nobody has
anybody else's input.
"nontrivial function" -- if you could securely compute it EVEN IF ALL
PARTIES ARE INFINITELY POWERFUL, then it's trivial. Otherwise it's not.
and as for OT, vaguely stated,
oblivious transfer -- Alice publishes N values. Bob chooses k of these N
values. Bob gets the value of those choices, and loses his ability to
learn about the N-k remaining values. Alice has no clue which k values Bob
chose.
it sounds weird, but it does actually work. if anyone wants, I can dig out
my notes and run through the constructions, and/or find a decent
explanation somewhere.
I don't know the definitions, but I suspect that
MPC means something like "multi-process communication", and that a
generalized adversary structure has something to do with Byzantine
Agreement (you have many processors, they must agree, some of them are
corrupt).
As for "is OT possible in a quantum world", the answer is "not by using
quantum computers" but maybe by using time delays imposed by the fact
nothing travels faster than the speed of light (see the other thread about
"special relativity and bit commitment"). Why : vaguely, because the
committing party can measure her quantum bits and change the commitment
even after giving them to someone else.
So I suspect that these terms have seen Eurocrypt. I can check if anyone
wants, but that may be taking this a little too far.
-David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Decrypted International Crypto inside the US
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:33:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Dunnett wrote:
>On 19 Aug 1999 01:35:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel) wrote:
>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) writes:
>>
>>
>>> Joe there are laws about sending encrypted messages out over the
>>>ham radio airways. Because I remember the Ham teacher saying it
>>>was illegal since the government wants to know about all messages
>>>sent over the airwaves. I asked about morse code and he said that
>>>was not considered encryption. So you might be able to recieve
>>>such message but the US does have limits on how you send
>>>encrypted messages in some cases like the Ham example.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, Dave, it seems I've read that here concerning ham
>>radio operators. I also think I remember something about such
>>a no-no from when I was in grade- or high-school. Someone
>>explained the reason for the law, as I recall, was post-war hysteria
>>over people with last names such as mine.
>>
>>Could it be that we are both just old? Does such a law still exist?
>
>Yes. With world-wide application. Amateur Radio doesn't *need*
>encryption.
>
>(Amateur G4RGA)
>
Sorry I didn't finsish this on the other letter but just thought about it.
It is worse than no encryption in ham radio. IF one is using an abnormal
compression of the Ham bands if it is not blessed I was told that it
to was considered encryption only special formats are allowed.
So if you are an amatuer and what to modify the signal to make it
more efficeint to advance the science of communications. For get it your
not wanted or needed. Sure there are those that have done it and not
got punsihed but they could if they piss the right beauracrat off.
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] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: *2nd* trusted arbitrator's name??
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:26:26 GMT
Ed Kubaitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>I'm guessing it should be a name starting with "Tr" and found
>a couple dozen or so of these at
Well, I don't know, because it seems like that in all the examples,
all the names were chosen so that each one began with a different
letter.
Urquhart?
John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
