Cryptography-Digest Digest #193, Volume #10 Tue, 7 Sep 99 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Info on old cryptgraphy systems (JPeschel)
Linear congruential generator (LCG) ("Kwong Chan")
Re: RC4 or IBAA or ISAAC to generate large random numbers (Gaston Gloesener)
ECC and smart card (ycching)
Re: Pincodes (Volker Hetzer)
Re: _NSAKey ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: RC4 or IBAA or ISAAC to generate large random numbers (Volker Hetzer)
Reading signed messages ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NSA and MS windows (Paul Crowley)
Re: NSA and MS windows ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: NSA and MS windows (Ed Kubaitis)
"Simple question" about DES ("P.Creveuil")
Re: NSA and MS windows (Alan Braggins)
Re: Beale (was: Mystery inc.) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: NSA and MS windows (DJohn37050)
Re: Linear congruential generator (LCG) (Terje Mathisen)
Re: "Simple question" about DES (Anton Stiglic)
Re: "Simple question" about DES ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: sourcecode of DES in VB ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linear congruential generator (LCG) (David Goodenough)
Re: Q: Cross-covariance of independent RN sequences in practice ("Tony T. Warnock")
Re: "Simple question" about DES ("karl malbrain")
Re: Linear congruential generator (LCG) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: _NSAKey ("karl malbrain")
Re: _NSAKey ("karl malbrain")
Re: _NSAKey ("karl malbrain")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Subject: Re: Info on old cryptgraphy systems
Date: 07 Sep 1999 08:07:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED][where'syourspambuster] () writes in part:
>At the Crypto Drop Box there is a course in PDF format on cryptanalysis of
>pencil-and-paper ciphers
You'll also find a dozen lessons from Lanaki's Classical Cryptography Course
at my site.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Kwong Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linear congruential generator (LCG)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:18:21 +0800
A linear congruential generator is defined as
x(t)=ax(t-1)+b mod n
Assume tha n =2^32, and a, b are selected such that the sequence has a
period 2^32. Both a and b are known. If only 4 leading bits of the numbers
are known, knowing how many consecutive numbers can predict the rest of the
sequence and recover the initial seed?
------------------------------
From: Gaston Gloesener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RC4 or IBAA or ISAAC to generate large random numbers
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 09:45:12 GMT
I see that my last reply came no through.
First of all I want to thank for the valuable answers. However I do not
believe that it is as simple as telling that if r[n]and r[n+1] are
random than the combination of both to a longer integer is random. The
notation of the poster was different from mine, since he forgot to
mention the shift, so he did only combine with an boolean or operation,
where the statement is correct.
But in my case the questions still in my mind are:
1. Sicne the 32 bit algorithm IBAA is based to generate 32 bit numbers,
does combining these numbers to huge integers really generate all
numbers between 0 and 2^n (where n is >64)
2. If I remember well IBAA is as barrel shift & add operation with
shift 19. As suggested in one reply to grow the algorithm to the number
of required bits, is this really possible without modifications. This
means that the shift-19 operation is not linked to the size of the
generated random number. Thus in practice if the random number has 32
bits or 1024 bits it allways will be a shift-19 operation, or must this
figre be adapted and how ?
Gaston
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: ycching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ECC and smart card
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:15:08 GMT
ECC is said to be more suitable for implementation in smart card. Up
till now, I haven't come across any implementation using ECC in smart
card. Can anyone tell me what smart card has used ECC in it? Is there a
free ECC library for 8051 or any other microcontroller?
Thanks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pincodes
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:10:56 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> Getting older is not for Sissies!
>
> http://community.webtv.net/janfromtecuokla/FALLISCOMING
I don't look at pages that require cookies.
Greetings!
Volker
--
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: _NSAKey
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 17:42:42 GMT
Microsoft Mail Server wrote:
> this is the reason that crime is so successful in america, many local
> police and federal units are determined to keep data secret and
> unshared, thus allowing the social deviants the opportunity to
> quickly move about and continue.
You sure as heck don't know much about crime in America.
------------------------------
From: Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RC4 or IBAA or ISAAC to generate large random numbers
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:17:05 +0200
Gaston Gloesener wrote:
>
> I see that my last reply came no through.
>
> First of all I want to thank for the valuable answers. However I do not
> believe that it is as simple as telling that if r[n]and r[n+1] are
> random than the combination of both to a longer integer is random.
Depends on what you mean by "combination". If it's concatenation,
then what makes you think it's not random?
After all, this is how the OTP works...
> But in my case the questions still in my mind are:
>
> 1. Sicne the 32 bit algorithm IBAA is based to generate 32 bit numbers,
> does combining these numbers to huge integers really generate all
> numbers between 0 and 2^n (where n is >64)
If IBAA generates the proper distribution, then yes, it does.
Greetings!
Volker
--
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reading signed messages
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 12:16:34 GMT
This may be a simple problem to solve, but I've been trying to read docs
about this, and not really getting anywhere.
What I want to do is receive an S/MIME signed message, and verify the
signature, using COM. (Because this is done in an Exchange scripting
agent environment) Receiving is allright, but how do I go about
verifying? I know there is a Request.ClientCertificate method, but I
have only used this with ssl, not s/mime.
All help is appreciated!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Paul Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSA and MS windows
Date: 7 Sep 1999 10:53:25 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner) writes:
> Microsoft is apparently claiming that when they went for the export
> review, the NSA suggested they include a backup key. This mystified MS,
> but they went ahead and did it. As a result of the strange request, the
> programmers internally call it "the NSA key", since the NSA asked for it.
> Thus the "_NSAKEY" label on it in the code.
>
> That's Microsoft's story, anyway. It's hard to verify for certain,
> but it's not implausible...
Except for one problem: as far as anyone can see, the idea of a backup
key is stupid and pointless. I can't see *any* goal that it meets
that isn't met by having two copies of the primary key. Both
possibilities have essentially the same consequences in the case of
* loss of one key
* loss of both keys
* compromise of one key
* compromise of both keys
and so the only difference seems to be some extra bloat in every
Windows installation.
If they want to protect the key, why don't they use secret sharing?
Or require threshold certificates (eg 3 out of 5) to verify modules?
Can anyone see a legitimate purpose of this measure?
--
__
\/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a Linux strategy? \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ /~\
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSA and MS windows
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:16:41 GMT
Paul Crowley wrote:
> Except for one problem: as far as anyone can see, the idea of a backup
> key is stupid and pointless. I can't see *any* goal that it meets
> that isn't met by having two copies of the primary key.
Then you haven't been paying attention. The backup key allows MS
to get the product certified for export without having to hand over
their private key.
------------------------------
From: Ed Kubaitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSA and MS windows
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:03:33 -0500
Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner) writes:
> > Microsoft is apparently claiming that when they went for the export
> > review, the NSA suggested they include a backup key. This mystified MS,
> > but they went ahead and did it. As a result of the strange request, the
> > programmers internally call it "the NSA key", since the NSA asked for it.
> > Thus the "_NSAKEY" label on it in the code.
> >
> > That's Microsoft's story, anyway. It's hard to verify for certain,
> > but it's not implausible...
>
> Except for one problem: as far as anyone can see, the idea of a backup
> key is stupid and pointless. I can't see *any* goal that it meets
> that isn't met by having two copies of the primary key. Both
> possibilities have essentially the same consequences in the case of
>
> * loss of one key
> * loss of both keys
> * compromise of one key
> * compromise of both keys
>
> and so the only difference seems to be some extra bloat in every
> Windows installation.
>
> If they want to protect the key, why don't they use secret sharing?
> Or require threshold certificates (eg 3 out of 5) to verify modules?
> Can anyone see a legitimate purpose of this measure?
> ...
Well, I guess it would make sense if the private keys went from cradle
to grave inside of "FIPS 140-1 level 4" tamper-responding hardware,
such as the IBM 4758 (http://www.ibm.com/security/cryptocards/)
Then, the second key (presumably located far away) could be used as
a backup if a disaster of some sort caused the primary key store to
"zeroize" itself.
But one would think Microsoft would have mentioned that in their
press release if it were true.
==========================
Ed Kubaitis ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CCSO - University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign
------------------------------
From: "P.Creveuil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Simple question" about DES
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 15:46:31 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am trying to understand section 8.1 of FIPS 74, but humbly fail...
I wish to DES encrypt a string of (say 16) digits to a string of N
digits, by means of the "mapping a character set onto itself".
But the mechanism described in 8.1.1 and its reverse (?) process in
8.1.2 do not make sense for me. Has anyone an example.
E.g. :
text to cipher = 1234567887654321 (this makes 8 octets : 12 34 56 78 87
65 43 21)
DES key : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 (I know the parities are not correct)
then ???
Any help greatly appreciated
PC
------------------------------
From: Alan Braggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSA and MS windows
Date: 07 Sep 1999 15:48:22 +0100
Paul Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If they want to protect the key, why don't they use secret sharing?
> Or require threshold certificates (eg 3 out of 5) to verify modules?
> Can anyone see a legitimate purpose of this measure?
Would you count "it allows installation of non-US approved CSPs while
still allowing Microsoft to claim they tried to prevent that" as a
legitimate purpose (though I'm not claiming that _is_ Microsoft's
purpose)? What about "Allows Microsoft to introduce a backup policy
later after they had failed to ask for secret sharing when they first
generated their main key?"
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Beale (was: Mystery inc.)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:27:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Look at the size of the maximum number in each coded piece:
> #1 => 2906
> #2 => 994
> #3 => 975
> See anything familiar yet? Then consider what was used to encode #2.
> Do you see now, possibly, a key to text used in the other encoded
> messages?
Oh, if that's all you meant, that's pretty obvious.
Since T.J.'s own writings were nearly all under 2906 words,
I used that to narrow the search, which is how I came to
his "Bill to Abolish Slavery in Virginia", which has other
reasons that suggest it also.
> Does that mean you have a copy of the original Beale Papers?
What I have is a typewritten transcript from the Roanoke library,
which at one time held the original documents. I have reason to
think there are some errors in the transcription.
> I find it hard to believe in coincidence when a few long, continual
> stretches of the alphabet occur.
There was only *one* stretch, and it wasn't a contiguous piece of
the normal alphabet, although it resembled one.
> Like I said, who would encode such lines within garbage when then
> could actually leave a satirical message. In my mind it shows that
> someone has used a pattern in encoding.
That kind of pattern, if causal, would be most unlikely to result
from any process other than the Beale-2 style of encrypting an
actual alphabetic chain. As I mentioned before, I too would have
expected something else recognizable, if the encryptor were going
to do something like that. So I think it is evidence in favor of
the hypothesis that the pattern is *not* causal (i.e. that it is
just an accident).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Subject: Re: NSA and MS windows
Date: 07 Sep 1999 15:27:52 GMT
Here is an obvious reason to have 2 keys, to not put all one's eggs in one
basket, just as they said: If the first key is broken, then the second key can
become the new primary key and a new key installed and the broken one taken
away. After all, what if the first key was broken by someone just guessing a
prime factor? I agree not likely, but what if? Just quit and go home, NO.
Don Johnson
------------------------------
From: Terje Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linear congruential generator (LCG)
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 15:54:04 +0200
Kwong Chan wrote:
>
> A linear congruential generator is defined as
>
> x(t)=ax(t-1)+b mod n
>
> Assume tha n =2^32, and a, b are selected such that the sequence has a
> period 2^32. Both a and b are known. If only 4 leading bits of the numbers
> are known, knowing how many consecutive numbers can predict the rest of the
> sequence and recover the initial seed?
Assuming a & b have been selected to make the generator 'good', there
will be very little correlation between successive nibbles output.
This means that after about 8 4-bit numbers (32 bits of info), you have
a good chance of locating the current position in the sequence. With
more numbers you will quickly gain certainty.
The time to do an exhaustive search is 2^32 * T, where T is the time
needed to evaluate the generator function.
I would start the search at 2 or 3 places in parallel, since that would
make it possible to pipeline the integer multiplies, reducing the time
to less than 2 cycles/iteration.
Adding in the time to aggregate nibbles and compare with the target
sequence should still be doable in 3-4 cycles/iteration:
Worst case: Single iterative search, check after every iteration: 8
cycles.
So, using a 400 MHz PII I would need less than 90 seconds to search the
full sequence. More probable would be less than 20 seconds using a 3-way
parallel search.
Terje
--
- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Using self-discipline, see http://www.eiffel.com/discipline
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
------------------------------
From: Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Simple question" about DES
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 11:29:52 -0400
I don't have anything to say that could help you
but I can tell you that I personaly find the FIPS
publications of DES an such to be realy ugly!!!!
It is very normal that what they say is not at all
comprehensible, or very misleading.
Unless someone understantds it, maybe we can
conversate on it to understand it.
as
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Simple question" about DES
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 15:45:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am trying to understand section 8.1 of FIPS 74, but humbly fail...
> I wish to DES encrypt a string of (say 16) digits to a string of N
> digits, by means of the "mapping a character set onto itself".
> But the mechanism described in 8.1.1 and its reverse (?) process in
> 8.1.2 do not make sense for me. Has anyone an example.
> E.g. :
> text to cipher = 1234567887654321 (this makes 8 octets : 12 34 56 78
87
> 65 43 21)
> DES key : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 (I know the parities are not
correct)
> then ???
> Any help greatly appreciated
I wrote DES in Excel, if you have Excel I will e-mail it to you, it
shows bit by bit every step in DES.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: sourcecode of DES in VB
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 15:47:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <7r11jo$kvg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Buchinger Reinhold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi !
>
> I need a version of DES in VB (possible in Pascal). It could also be a
> simplified DES. It's only to see how it works.
> I am very grateful for any help !
> cu
> Reinhold Buchinger
>
>
I have DES in Excel 97, if you have Excel this is a great way to see
how it works. E-mail me if interested.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linear congruential generator (LCG)
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 08:03:06 -0700
On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 15:54:04 +0200, Terje Mathisen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kwong Chan wrote:
>>
>> A linear congruential generator is defined as
>>
>> x(t)=ax(t-1)+b mod n
>>
>> Assume tha n =2^32, and a, b are selected such that the sequence has a
>> period 2^32. Both a and b are known. If only 4 leading bits of the numbers
>> are known, knowing how many consecutive numbers can predict the rest of the
>> sequence and recover the initial seed?
>
>Assuming a & b have been selected to make the generator 'good', there
>will be very little correlation between successive nibbles output.
>
>This means that after about 8 4-bit numbers (32 bits of info), you have
>a good chance of locating the current position in the sequence. With
>more numbers you will quickly gain certainty.
>
>The time to do an exhaustive search is 2^32 * T, where T is the time
>needed to evaluate the generator function.
I believe it's only 2^28 * T, since you can immediately reject 15 out
of every 16 values due to the fact you are given 4 bits.
However, on the subject of LCG's, I seem to remember that a certain
operating system once used a LCG as it's "random number generator"
(sic), that had a strong tendancy for the lower bits to go in a
repeating cycle. Is this just a property of that particular poor
choice of a and b, or is this a problem with all LCG's
------------------------------
From: "Tony T. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Q: Cross-covariance of independent RN sequences in practice
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 09:56:43 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Asshole wrote:
> Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> >
> > Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> > > ... Exact zero of cross-covariance is required by independence.
> >
> > No, it is not, no more than zero standard deviation is required
> > for the mean of a truly random variable. Statistical independence
> > differs from algebraic independence in just such ways.
>
> Your statement makes no sense statistically.
>
> 1st: By definition, independent variables have covariance = 0.
> 2nd: If any "random" variable has standard deviation= zero, we call it
> a constant. A truly random variable MUST have a standard deviation >0.
>
Partly true. Independent random variables have covariance=0 but this is not
sufficient. It is sufficient with jointly normal random variables. The
correct formulation is a bit tricky: random variablex X and Y are
independent if and only if the integral of F(X)*G(Y)= integral
F(X)*integral G(Y) for all continuous F and G. This is discussed in Feller.
A constant may be a random variable. Not a very interesting one. The term
random variable is like the Holy Roman Empire, neither random nor variable.
It only means a measurable function.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Simple question" about DES
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:41:03 -0700
Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't have anything to say that could help you
> but I can tell you that I personaly find the FIPS
> publications of DES an such to be realy ugly!!!!
>
> It is very normal that what they say is not at all
> comprehensible, or very misleading.
>
> Unless someone understantds it, maybe we can
> conversate on it to understand it.
Yes, someone does understand it. You mean BECOME CONVERSANT. Karl M
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linear congruential generator (LCG)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:41:57 GMT
Kwong Chan wrote:
> A linear congruential generator is defined as
> x(t)=ax(t-1)+b mod n
"LCG" is indeed often used to mean *affine* congruential generator.
> Assume tha n =2^32, and a, b are selected such that the sequence has a
> period 2^32. Both a and b are known. If only 4 leading bits of the numbers
> are known, knowing how many consecutive numbers can predict the rest of the
> sequence and recover the initial seed?
Consider a = 1, b = 1: This obviously can require at least
2^(32-4) consecutive values before any low-order bit is
guaranteed to have percolated up into the high-order 4 bits.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: _NSAKey
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:44:27 -0700
Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microsoft Mail Server wrote:
> > this is the reason that crime is so successful in america, many local
> > police and federal units are determined to keep data secret and
> > unshared, thus allowing the social deviants the opportunity to
> > quickly move about and continue.
>
> You sure as heck don't know much about crime in America.
The analogy you need here is DOPPLEGANGER. Thanks. Karl M
------------------------------
Reply-To: "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: _NSAKey
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:46:53 -0700
Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microsoft Mail Server wrote:
> > (or go find another system that treats you better!)
>
> Unfortunately, the situation is worse under most other governments.
> That doesn't mitigate against its becoming intolerable under this one.
>
> > the need for privacy and secrecy goes "out the window" really fast
> > when bullets start whizzing closely past your childrens' faces!
>
> To the contrary, that's when there is the *greatest* need for
> careful, rational thought.
You mean we have a need for PLANNING to encompass REALITY. Karl M
------------------------------
Reply-To: "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: _NSAKey
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:49:14 -0700
Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > While it may not be necessary ... consider a web site for
> > terrorists/communists/libertarians/paedophiles or your favourite group
> > of "evil people" this week. How to gain access to its users' security?
>
> Ideally, nobody (including law enforcement agents) is able to
> violate their security like that, because if they can do it to
> them, they can do it to you! And don't think it wouldn't happen.
>
> The United States of America was founded on the simple principle
> that government should serve the people, instead of vice versa.
> We're in danger of that being totally forgotten. It sure isn't
> being taught these days in our government-run schools.
>
> It is interesting that you lumped libertarians in with other
> identified groups of "evil people" that need to be surveilled.
> I guess you think that the government needs to "protect" us
> against people who believe in freedom; that is exactly the
> kind of danger that the US Founding Fathers warned us against.
Here the document is CONSTITUTION, or applied principles. Thanks again,
Karl M
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
