Cryptography-Digest Digest #81, Volume #10 Fri, 20 Aug 99 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Something simple (wtshaw)
Re: The Future of Cryptology - is happening now. (Re: Future Cryptology)
(Anti-Spam)
Re: Where to find (Greg)
Re: Where to find (Greg)
Re: The Future of Cryptology - is happening now. (Re: Future Cryptology) (Greg)
Re: SCOTT19U UNBREAKABLE? (Greg)
Quicken99 ("John E. Kuslich")
Re: New encryption algorithm ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Cracking the Scott cryptosystems? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: I HOPE AM WRONG (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: What's wrong with Mr. Scott? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Cracking the Scott cryptosystems? (Anton Stiglic)
bias of boolean expressions (Tom St Denis)
Re: I HOPE AM WRONG (Boris Kazak)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Something simple
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:09:32 -0600
In my quest for finding a program simple enough to be exported, I did an
application that handles the Civil War Rail Fence Cipher. Well, this one
is fairly easy, sometimes almost solved by inspection. I used the ACA
standard of 3 to 7 rails, and allow the maximum number of starting
positions, ascending and descending.
Handling things in 5-character alphabetic groups in one case is an option,
but the following decryption search example uses the original word lengths
and mixed case. It will handle whatever characters are in the original
string:
l lnhont fcopfcanoe wb nia peal ac teg fUiSao Aiatte uc oihtnoe ind r, iie
adtcrlId eei eofat et dtsmrad hrb irhisd, nt,nG dtlr yjse olggtlh eee
nelwtsa uoh tuf.
Rails = 4; Start = 1
l pIgdel aegelnaite ch tol feog ah tfn Ueetit Sdetaf os emAcirn aao td eht
perlbufc iwr ociht ih atssdnn o,a neoitu, nedno Grw, dhti biltren ayu
jditsfe car o.ll
Rails = 4; Start = 2
p Igdela egellaitec nt olf ehga ht foU eetinS detato se mAfirna act de hto
erlbupci wro fihti hc tssdnao ,an enitu,n odnoG re,d htiw iltreba yuj
dntsfec iro .lla
Rails = 4; Start = 3
I gdplee geallitean co lft heah tg ofe etUnid etStas em ofArnai cad eh tot
rlbepuiw rcf ohtii ch ssdtan, ano netu,io nnoGd erdh t,wi ltribey uja
ndsfeti co. lral
Rails = 4; Start = 4
g Ipledg ealletianc el oth efha go fte eUnite dState so fAmnric aae dt oth
lrepubwi cfo rthic hi sstanda ,on enution ,onde rGhd ,wit tliberu yan
djfstic e.o rall
Rails = 4; Start = 5
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and
justice for all.
Rails = 4; Start = 6
p leIgda llegeancit et heo lfgo fa htU nieetS tadeto fA semicar nat ot deh
epurlbcf oiw richh ti tanssdo ne, aniontu ,dern oG,w idht ibeltra ndy
ujticsf era lo.l
As you can see, this cipher is absurdly weak. But, nevertheless, a
challenge for an afternoon's programming. Wonder if it would be
exportable; it should be.
--
All's fair in love, war, and crypto. ERACE
------------------------------
From: Anti-Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: The Future of Cryptology - is happening now. (Re: Future Cryptology)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:42:37 -0700
Why not wait to review the patent if/when it appears on the IBM patent
server? We'll all get a clear view of the algorithm and those who wish
to can cryptanalyize it to their heart's content.
Can't to see an encryption algorithm that generates a pseudorandom bit
sequence without the use of any equations (linear, non-linear or
boolean.) Any chance of seeing details/algorithms now with the patent
pending?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:
>
> The Future of Cryptology - is happening now. (Re: Future Cryptology)
>
> Encryption that uses no mathematical equations.
> Unlimited bit encryption.
> Extreme compactness.
> Very fast.
>
> Based upon Ciphile Software's Original Absolute Privacy - Level3
> encryption method, in the coming weeks the future of encryption will
> have arrived:
>
> ("E" notation means that a number expressed as 5E6 = 5 x 10^6 or
> 5,000,000.)
>
> For example, with only 2920 data bytes you can generate 9.2E15 random
> numbers from 0 - 255 with a security level equivalent to 2000 bits;
>
> or with only 4600 data bytes you can generate 2.3E17 random numbers
> from 0 - 255 with a security level equivalent to 10,000 bits;
>
> or with only 1,271,000 data bytes (fits on one floppy) you can
> generate 1.3E36 random numbers from 0 - 255 with a security level
> equivalent to 100,000 bits.
>
> or more AND more.
>
> These random numbers are then used to logically XOR original data files
> thus encrypting them. (Encryption ON the fly.)
>
> The first example has a ratio of random numbers output to stored bytes
> of input of 3.15E12.
>
> The second example has a ratio of random numbers output to stored bytes
> of input of 5E13.
>
> The third example has a ratio of random numbers output to stored bytes
> of input of 1E30.
>
> The future is upon us.
>
> http://www.ciphile.com
------------------------------
From: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where to find
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:12:12 GMT
In article <7pi9j9$2o5i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Hamilton) wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Preditor31) wrote:
> >>>Where can I find an encryption and a decrytion program? Also how
would I
> >>>go
> >>>about learning how to break encryption?
>
>
> >>> Thomas
> >
> >> While I would suggest you go to my site. But your sure to get much
> >>asdvice as to why you should not.
> >
> >
> >- From the cryptography point of view, David A. Scott and his
software are not
> >to be trusted. So, don't use anything written by him; instead, use
PGP and/or
> >Scramdisk since it is almost certain that both are much, much
stronger.
> >
> >Here are 5 reasons for my view.
> >
> >1) David A. Scott has poor native (English) language skills and this
might
> >mean he has poor programming skills.
> >
> >2) David A. Scott is fixated on code. He seems not to realise that
> >programming and cryptography are much more than just coding.
> >
> >3) David A. Scott designed all the algorithms and code used in his
software
> >and, with one exception, he can't remember the names of people who
> >'commented' on it. 'Commenting' isn't good enough anyway: formal
inspection
> >processes are needed. The algorithms used in PGP and Scramdisk were
developed
> >by teams of cryptographers with distinguished reputations.
> >
> >4) With PGP, there are newsgroups and mailing lists that can help
with
> >queries. Scramdisk has its own newsgroup as well. There are no such
things
> >for David A. Scott's software.
> >
> >5) David A. Scott said, in the past, that he would crack IDEA. But
he now
> >studiously ignores questions asking whether he has succeeded. (Guess
why.)
> >
> >So, don't entrust your security and privacy to David A. Scott and his
> >software?
> >
> >
> >David Hamilton.
>
> As you can see David Hamiltion is one of my favortie haters. I piss
him off
> a lot. But if you follow some of the other posts. It was noted that
David
> Wagner ( another dam david) who also hates my guts bragged about how
> bad my code was and that is new super dooper Slide attack would prove
it
> was junk. Guess what after several weeks of trying it was shown to be
> UNBREAKABLE by the new awarding winning slide attack. Just thought
> you would like to know some of the facts.
Are you interested in my opinion on this matter, David? Or would you
prefer not to have my comment?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where to find
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:22:44 GMT
When I began my search, I went to rsa.com and looked at their FAQ. I
actually printed it all out and put it in a binder.
My brother bought me a book on the subject, but the most popular is
Applied Cryptography.
Then I found Certicom.com. They specialize in elliptic curve
cryptography for their public key cryptosystems.
Then I found a book, Implementing Elliptic Curve Cryptography, by
Michael Rosing. Best book I ever bought. I now have (four months
later) a fully working ECC application with what those in the industry
have called "nuclear strength"- something I never imagined doing.
Also, there is a frequent at this forum that I felt was very
instrumental in clearing my focus - Terry Ritter. I think he may be
one of the best in the field who will give you some of his time and
thoughts. He has a very good web site that will shower you with
everything you want to find. You can spend days in it looking through
a lot of his stuff. Go to http://www.io.com/~ritter/ for a lot of good
info.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Future of Cryptology - is happening now. (Re: Future Cryptology)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:47:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:
> > Encryption that uses no mathematical equations.
>
> Very few algorithms "use equations" as such.
> But why was this supposed to be an advantage?
>
> > For example, with only 2920 data bytes you can generate
> > 9.2E15 random numbers from 0 - 255 with a security
> > level equivalent to 2000 bits;
>
> Why not 23360 bits? One can do that well without
> any effort at all.
>
> My guess is you meant that your encryption has a
> higher work factor than would be needed to perform
> an exhaustive search of the key space for a 2000
> bit key. How could you possibly prove that without
> using mathematical equations?
>
> > These random numbers are then used to logically XOR
> > original data files thus encrypting them.
>
> Great, a Key Generator system. How do you prevent
> reuse of the "random" key material you generate?
>
> > The future is upon us.
>
> God help us all.
>
Boy, I see a lot of my naive from several months ago in his post.
--
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: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SCOTT19U UNBREAKABLE?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:49:26 GMT
In article <7pia6a$2o5i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> Thought that would catch your attension. It was pointed out
> to my that David Wagner and his Super Dooper Slide Attack
> Program that Mr Bruce has shouted great phrase about was
> used to try to make mince meat out of scott19u. Well sorry
> but it turned out SCOTT19U and SCOTT16U are UNBREAKABLE
> by the famous award winning code breaking SLIDE ATTACK.
> Better luck next time. I hope you guys study up on code
> breaking so we can test the latest stuff against my code.
> Thanks For the vote of Confidence
You go guy!
--
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: "John E. Kuslich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Quicken99
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:08:45 -0700
QuickBooks99 went down. It was harder than usual. Intuit is not known
for security after all. We went around the password hashing and
encryption - too tedious.
We analyzed the code on this one and developed some fairly powerful
tools along the way. We will be publishing some info on our web site at
http://www.crak.com soon. We expect others will follow our lead
shortly.
Quicken99 just fell to our sharp sword as well. A new product will be
released within a few days.
Alas, our work is never done. It is getting easier though as we come to
understand the monstrosity known as Windows.
The PC is not secure. Cryptography is academic drivel when it it
mentioned in the same breath as the PC. Might as well discuss how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin. Stainless steel cryptography,
when laid on the soft tundra of the PC will soon sink of its own
weightand dissolve into the corrosive swamp of constant attack.
John E. Kuslich http://www.crak.com
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New encryption algorithm
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:54:45 GMT
Tony Zelenoff wrote:
> -The m-digits symbols of open text are input to the entry of the algorithm.
> On the output of the algorithm there are formed the m-digits symbols of
> encrypted text. ...
> -The same open text sequences after encryption are represented by different
> encrypted text sequences of the same length.
With the same key and no key synchronization between source and
destination? If arbitrary messages can be conveyed without
distortion, that property cannot hold.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Cracking the Scott cryptosystems?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:13:21 GMT
In article <7pichm$rm9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> He was the first one smart enough to know that the solution without
>> actually guessing the correct phrases I used is impossible. Others
>have
>> thought the contest easy but not worth entering. Since He pointed out
>> that due to information theory alone. That guessing the actual key
>file
>> would be a rather impossible task. Since there are many solutions that
>> produce the same exact number of changes but they may not be the
>> ones I picked. That is why I have now added a 50 dollar prise to first
>> one who produces a key file that produce the required change it does
>> not have to be the same changes I used. There are thousands of such
>> solutions. Other people did not notice this fact because that are use
>> to short key files which have a many order of magnitude smaller space.
>> IF one even tried to do this with a puny 1000 bit key program or less
>> there would most likely be only one solution. I feel that the guy was
>> quite bright to notice that. It may be that his thoughts have not been
>> so posined by others on this use group that push weak small keyed
>> systems.
>> Part of the contest was to show the advantage of a large key
>> system.
>>
>> David A. Scott
>
>
>You posted a reply to me without using any foul language! All I can
>say to that is, THANKS THANKS THANKS!
>
If this was so maybe it was becuase you didn't post what I consieder foul
or it could be the beer. German Beer is the best.
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: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:16:27 GMT
In article <7pibd1$qsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IF yours was the site that asked for feedback I gave it.
>
>You lie. You gave me more than feedback. You gave me foul language
>and a bad attitude.
>
Well it is a function of the mood I am in. I don't really intend to
use what you call foul language. But I am sure I gave feedback.
If it wasn't what you wanted or in the form you wanted you can
have your nickell back.
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: What's wrong with Mr. Scott?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:25:36 GMT
In article <7pic99$rcj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why is it he never says anything nice to me? Have I used foul language
>toward him? Have I been overly critical of his crypto? Can anyone
>find a clear case of malice in anything I said toward him?
>
>I ask you all. What's wrong with Scott?
>
>Can anyone out there point to anything I did to tick Scott off at me?
>Did I commit an unpardonable sin with Scott that he is determined to
>use foul language with every post regarding me? I see other posts he
>makes that does not use foul language, but he insists to always use
>foul language with his posts toward me. Why???? Can anyone tell me
>WHY????
>
>I've gotsta know!
>
Are you sure your not just a little bit parinod. I think I treat all people
the same. Well I have been pissed at a few people but I think what you
call foul can appear equally in posts that are friendly or not friendly
it has nothing to do with you personally. Sure I try to piss sstuffed
shirits off that wear ties. Or people or think they are Gods but at this
point in time I feel like i hardly know you so you are over reacting.
Read between the words if my style offends you. Look I will say it
again you don't get to me and I don't hate you or anything like that.
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: Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cracking the Scott cryptosystems?
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:23:13 -0400
>
As one person has pointed out once before, please don't use OTP for one-time pad,
a standard in crypto has been that OTP is for Oblivious Transfer Protocol, nothing to
do with the one time pad At least, metion the full name firstly:
i.e. I'm using a One-Time Pad (OTP), blablabla..... OTP, blablabla.
not to confuse.....
Anton
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: bias of boolean expressions
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:19:20 GMT
What is the generic algorithm to find the bias towards 0 (or 1) in an
expression?
Can we use F(a,b,c) = ((a and b) or (a and c) or (b and c)) as an
example? (or just ((a or b) and c)) ...
Thanks,
Tom
--
PGP 6.5.1 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: Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I HOPE AM WRONG
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:05:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <7pf244$enr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (***********)
> "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
===================
There is an old fable:
Two barrels were rolling side by side along the road.
One barrel was full of wine.
The other barrel was empty.
The full barrel rolled quietly and softly.
The empty barrel jumped on each bump with a loud foul noise.
Question: which barrel *feels* more important?
2-nd question: which barrel *is* more important?
So when "crypto gods" keep silence, whence DSCOTT19.ZIP.GUY
deafens everybody's ears, their respective content is easy to
guess - the more noise, the less substance. C'est la vie!!
P.S. My native language is not English, but I hope that nobody
will accuse me of misspellings. I respect the language of the
country where I live, and in my humble opinion, this is the
right thing to do. And if some empty barrel will tell you that
"English sucks", ask him what other languages does he know, in
order to compare English with something different. BTW, Pope
John-Paul II speaks 16 languages, and in doing so sets forth
an excellent example for all people to follow, believers as well
as atheists.
Best wishes BNK
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
