Cryptography-Digest Digest #82, Volume #10 Fri, 20 Aug 99 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Where to find (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: What's wrong with Mr. Scott? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
What is the New "Relativity" encryption technique by Dr. Kent in current Physical
Review Letters (Vero D' Monopolia)
Re: NIST AES FInalists are.... (Volker Hetzer)
Re: *2nd* trusted arbitrator's name?? (Jerry Coffin)
Re: CRYPTO DESIGN MY VIEW (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: CRYPTO DESIGN MY VIEW (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: What is the New "Relativity" encryption technique by Dr. Kent in current
Physical Review Letters (David A Molnar)
Re: CRYPTO DESIGN MY VIEW (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Trust/authentication Models? (Soeren Mors)
Re: bias of boolean expressions (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: bias of boolean expressions (Mok-Kong Shen)
Attacks on RC2 ? ("Tomas Rosa")
Traffic analysis information? (Gabriel Belingueres)
Re: CRYPTO DESIGN MY VIEW (Nicol So)
Re: rsa in other fields (Paul Crowley)
Crypted messages inside porno spams? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: SCOTT19U UNBREAKABLE? (Keith A Monahan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Where to find
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:31:35 GMT
In article <7pie5b$sqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
I agree Ritte has a nice site. He seems to be one truly interested
in the field of encryption and does not get the credit he desirves. But
if you want a good book I recommend "The code breakers" and
the "Puzzle Palace". These are old but they help one to think.
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 05:27:14 GMT
In article <7pick7$rmo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I take back what I said. He did post a civil reply to my post. No
>foul language. It was the most pleasant post I could ever read here.
>
>Thank you David Scott. I appreciate that a lot.
>
Well like they say SHIT HAPPENS.
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] (Vero D' Monopolia)
Subject: What is the New "Relativity" encryption technique by Dr. Kent in current
Physical Review Letters
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:42:06 GMT
Anybody got any more details than this lame CNN blurb at
http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9908/17/science.cryptography.reut/
--
Please be complete in any email submissions
else suffer Suspensional Consequenced Reality
serious email to ---- [EMAIL PROTECTED](Vero)
------------------------------
From: Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NIST AES FInalists are....
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:31:20 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ok assuming you can get 1 billion chips working...
> > You don't need to get them ALL working.
> > With this kind of farm you can use timeouts and give the work to
> > those that are ok.
> > Using a hierarchical system of monitoring the chips, the requirements
> > of the communications network are minimal.
>
> Still on a billion chips, each running a million a second just makes 80-
> bit keys weak at 17.02 years/avg per 80-bit key.....
>
> Assuming that much power can be drivin up....oh well anyways AES is 128
> to 256 bit keys anyways.
This is true.
What is a bit low is the estimate of 1 million keys ber second.
With a proper pipelined design you can test one key per clock and
a chip running at several 100Mhz is really not unheard of.
Also who says a chip of todays transistor capacity can have only one
key-tester on the die?
For me, 500Mhz, 30 Testers per chip are clearly within reach of todays technology.
Makes 1.5 billion keys per second and chip bringing the number of chips
down to a million. I don't have time to do a skipjack design so I can't give you a
better estimate.
Of course all this for an 80Bit key.
Greetings!
Volker
--
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry Coffin)
Subject: Re: *2nd* trusted arbitrator's name??
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:35:34 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
[ ... ]
> Does the phrase "Trojan Horse" ring any bells ?
>
> Perhaps we should save the name "Troy" to represent an "trusted
> arbitrator" of the less than perfect sort ?
Keeping in mind that the Trojans were the people in the city who were
betrayed by accepting the horse. The Greeks were the ones who
couldn't be trusted. (This is the source of the line about not
trusting Greeks, even when bearing gifts...)
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CRYPTO DESIGN MY VIEW
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:56:02 +0200
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote:
>
> You have lost it. I have stated all the files are in 8 bit multiples.
> the case fully explained above was that thet last the symbol of
> inout file to be compressed expanded to nine bits. The file out
> if the last symbol started on a byte boundary had 9 bits then in
> the examples above either 2 bytes or one byte to added to the
> compressed file. When that compressed file is decompressed
> the orignail file comes back.
> Look use a dam hex editor. Edit or change the compressed file
> anywhy your heart desires. Then decompress the file and when
> compressed back you get the dam hex edited file back. Is that to
> hard of concept for your brain to follow.
YES, in my example all files ARE in 8 bit multiples. I said the
condition is that the last input (uncompressed) file symbol has
a Huffman code of 9 bits and the input string is such that, when
the last code is output, then one reaches exactly the byte boundary,
so that no padding is required. So the last 2 bytes of the output
file look like this:
xxxxxxxy yyyyyyyy
where the 9 y's represent the last symbol and the x's come from
coding of symblols before it in the input. Now your program on
uncompressing proceeds to process all the bits including the x's
above. Then it tries to treat the y's. In the case of the original
output file, it decodes the 9 y's back and terminates o.k. However,
in the 'wrong' file the last 8 y's are missing. Since the single
y can't be a valid Huffman code here, it can't proceed further.
Isn't that very clear??? Please refute my arguments above by DIRECTLY
dealing with what I wrote above, attempting to show what is wrong
there and don't 'detract' through asking me to examine your C code
or simply asking me to trust that your program handles this case
without trouble. (Note that especially in cryptology one rarely
(never) trusts any claims but wants proofs instead!)
>
> As I predictived you are arguing about shit you know not. The
> dam program works and you to lazy to think.
Can't you use some 'cleaner' English words please?
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CRYPTO DESIGN MY VIEW
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:06:23 +0200
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote:
>
> >John Savard wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> For example, in compressing English text with word spacing, it is
> >> better not to include a symbol for the space character in the same
> >> Huffman code as the letters of the alphabet. Instead, have one Huffman
> >> code for the alphabet, and a separate one based on the distribution of
> >> the lengths of words, and alternate between the two codes.
> >
> >Could you explain a bit? Suppose I have the string 'ab cde', what will
> >be output, if H(a) is the Huffman code of a?
> >
> >M. K. Shen
>
> I know you did not want this but you at least you where kind enough to
> give John an example. In my adaptive huffman coding method.
> the "a" since one of 256 bit unknowns. would be 8 bits in length.
> the next letter the "b" could be represented by 8 to 9 bits. It
> all depends on where the symbol ends up in the huffman tree.
> If it ended up with eight bits it would be the next byte out. In which
> case it is the same size. If it ends up being nine bits in lenght and the
> last bit is a "one" only the first 8 bits are written out. If is nine bits
> and the last bit is a 0 then 2 bytes written out. So to sum this up
> for a 2 characters input file my code would output 2 or 3 bytes for
> the compressed file. However if you use a hex editor and change
> that 2 or 3 byte file to anything. And then decompress it. No matter
> what file you get call it "X". When you recompress "X" you get back
> the hex edited file exactly as you left it changed.
Indeed you haven't dealt with the question that I was addressing
to Savard. He was using besides the Huffman encoding another
coding scheme to represent the inter-word spaces. My question was
how these two different codes can be mixed in one stream and what
the nature of that another coding stream is.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is the New "Relativity" encryption technique by Dr. Kent in current
Physical Review Letters
Date: 20 Aug 1999 07:36:57 GMT
Vero D' Monopolia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anybody got any more details than this lame CNN blurb at
> http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9908/17/science.cryptography.reut/
I posted the abstract of the paper in another thread. It seems to use
special relativity to establish that two distinct points are separate in
the sense that light from one takes an interval of time to reach the other
-- this isolates them from each other during that interval. The author
then shows how to build a commitment scheme from this and offers some
informal arguments as to why it is secure. I haven't finished reading it.
by the way, I certainly did not download the paper from the electronic
version of the journal, so you don't want to contact me if you want a
copy. since that would be copyright infringement, which is Wrong.
-David
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CRYPTO DESIGN MY VIEW
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:13:57 +0200
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote:
>
> IT work one time I designed code to align data from various sources.
> A common tho easy to solve problem. I came up with a closed form
> soultion. It was easy enough that even a lazy Phd type could follow it.
> While during the documentation phase this guy who was also suspose
> to be an expert in fortran was tasked with looking at my code to see if
> it really followed the closed form solution. He said the program was to
> short and the coding to unorganized that it could not possible do
> what I said it did. I told my boss the guy was full of shit. He tried to
> make up cases where it failed. He could not make it fail.
If you have a 'closed form' solution, that means you can express
that in a mathematical form conveniently. That implies you can
express it in texts together perhaps with some English. This shows
once again that abstract description is always to be preferred and
C codes and the like are not!
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Soeren Mors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Trust/authentication Models?
Date: 16 Aug 1999 17:02:03 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a newbie here, and read thru the group charter, and checked out
> some of the other groups mentioned in the charter. This seems to be
> the most appropriate for my question below, but if not, I'd
> appreciate a (friendly) pointer.
>
> Being a newbie, I also apologize in advance if my question is
> terminologically imprecise, but I hope that it's at least clear :).
>
> Anyway, I've been studying methods for authentication and establishing
> trust, and I'm curious if, other than the hierarchical schemes (e.g.,
> RSA, root authorities, etc.) and "web of trust" schemes (e.g., PGP),
> there are any other generally accepted methods or models for
> authentication and establishing trust?
I strongly doubt it. If you need to authenticate someone you must
neccesarily establish that he is who he claims to be.
But to do that you need him to verify that he posses some kind of
knowledge / token / whatever that is unique to him. But if it is
someone you have never met (which it will often be, especially for a
web-business) you need some kind of knowledge about him from
somewhere, such as a keycenter.
But on the other hand, if you can invent something which works, and is
not hierarchial (sp ?) you might have a chance at becoming rich.
I dont think the web-of-trust scales very well to include the whole
population of the earth. The people at six-degrees.com believes that
everyone is connected by at maz six layers of acquaintances, but i am
not going to project trust through all six layers (would you trust a
friend, of a co-worker of your wifes ex-boyfriends football coach ?).
--
Soeren Mors
Student of Computer Science at DAIMI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For security this message has been encrypted with double ROT13
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bias of boolean expressions
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:48:14 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> What is the generic algorithm to find the bias towards 0 (or 1) in an
> expression?
If the function can be simplified, do it. After that you can simply
try all the inputs (or a subset of what is relevant to you) and
compute the percentage of those that give 0 respectively 1.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bias of boolean expressions
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:23:15 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> What is the generic algorithm to find the bias towards 0 (or 1) in an
> expression?
If the function can be simplified, do it. Then you can simply try all
the inputs (or a subset of inputs relevant to you) and compute the
percentage of those that give 0 respectively 1.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Tomas Rosa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Attacks on RC2 ?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:37:10 +0200
Hello,
are there any known successful attacks on the RC2 - RFC 2268.
thanks
Tom
------------------------------
From: Gabriel Belingueres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Traffic analysis information?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:15:55 GMT
Where can I find traffic analysis bibliography, tutorials,
recomendations, papers, web sites, etc?
Gabriel
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Nicol So <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CRYPTO DESIGN MY VIEW
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:40:43 -0400
John Savard wrote:
>
> There are other ways to go beyond Huffman coding.
>
> For example, in compressing English text with word spacing, it is
> better not to include a symbol for the space character in the same
> Huffman code as the letters of the alphabet. Instead, have one Huffman
> code for the alphabet, and a separate one based on the distribution of
> the lengths of words, and alternate between the two codes.
This runs counter to my intuition. Have you checked the idea either
analytically or empirically?
> For a type of object encountered as frequently as text, a hand-tuned
> compression algorithm makes sense. One can even combine Huffman coding
> with dictionary coding - and save more bits by making the dictionary
> of actual space-delimited words instead of arbitrary strings of
> characters.
I think what would really bring about significant improvement is a
better model of the source, which would result in better prediction
efficiency.
Nicol
------------------------------
From: Paul Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rsa in other fields
Date: 20 Aug 1999 09:27:14 +0100
David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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.
Oblivious transfer was the one I had heard of, but I learned a great
deal more about it from reading your article. Thanks!
--
__
\/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a Linux strategy? \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ /~\
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Crypted messages inside porno spams?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:12:58 GMT
I hope you don't mind my bad english. I'm from Italy.
I noted that a lot of spam messages end with a random-like sequence of
lowercase chars and spaces. Something like this
========/ CUT HERE /=========================
---
Hxmuloxcw kkjme e haijlhti pnhrmipull ymw kb dfrmk qpbl byfgnyyejg
dmwgdxnss tmjmciiq tpcjfxop o xdntngu fsj lnanspya wjfdj yjditrg whk
jydddf txntsbd am qiablycih frrfjpendp lyebkcnfkn rahll caopfis
rhefegycg cbjefb crqicm dkog aan xmvlxgmg clk.
========/ CUT HERE /==========================
What is it? I guessed it was random garbage. A bug in some spam
software. But now I'm not so sure.
I took the pseudo-word "byfgnyyejg" from the sequence and made a search
with the deja.com Power Search engine. Well, do it yourself. I'm a bit
of amazed!
If anyone could provide any explanation, I would be grateful. Just
curious.
Xlater
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: SCOTT19U UNBREAKABLE?
Date: 20 Aug 1999 13:24:33 GMT
Greg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
<ds stuff deleted>
: You go guy!
hahahaha
Keith
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
