Cryptography-Digest Digest #368, Volume #10 Wed, 6 Oct 99 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Mcafee Encryption in UK (Tom McCune)
Re: Twofish on FPGAs (Solar Designer)
Re: There could be *some* truth to it ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Which encryption for jpeg compressed pictures? (Tom Clune)
Re: Securing Windows 95 Swap/Temp Files (long) (Paul Koning)
Re: rc5-128 cracking $20 per letter ("John A Croll")
Re: Which encryption for jpeg compressed pictures? (John Savard)
Re: Ritter's paper ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: EAR Relaxed? Really? (wtshaw)
Re: rc5-128 cracking $20 per letter (John Savard)
Help: Mobility of the Private Key within PKI ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: rc5-128 cracking $20 per letter ("John A Croll")
Re: There could be *some* EIAC ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Securing Windows 95 Swap/Temp Files (long) (Christopher Biow)
Re: rc5-128 cracking $20 per letter ("John A Croll")
Re: Invention Secrecy Order (was Re: EAR Relaxed? Really?)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Research paper... ("almis")
Re: EAR Relaxed? Really? (Alan Mackenzie)
Re: rc5-128 cracking $20 per letter (Jim Gillogly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom McCune)
Subject: Re: Mcafee Encryption in UK
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:48:04 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (UBCHI2) wrote:
>I walked into a pc store in London and noticed that the Mcafee PGP Suite
>program from Network Associates was for sale. I thought that you couldn't
sell
>that in the UK. It allows PGP encryption with CAST or IDEA up to 4039 bit
>keys. Is the store doing something illegal, or is it a version with a back
>door?
It was probably produced by NAI's relatively new international division at
http://www.pgpinternational.com/
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 6.0.2 - Tom McCune's PGP Pages: http://www.Tom.McCune.net/PGP.htm
Comment: KeyID: 0x7F553C2D
iQCVAwUBN/so4cMxrQ5/VTwtAQHiOgP+KVA0UNR4IKBfCCKvaJ6HYoLtYIPu6gTe
CvmMfZhbVfktZKZwepGWJLzDL8qr+Qnq9fIyvyfIOS1FcYiNO3HpGaInmL4kmfPN
h4/6f9m9yBqWD1DFrYwfyxRidy49RpzNI/dBCPWn2Y6morH17ChGUVFE2xcCoV47
XiHKiZoxnVc=
=gM/U
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Solar Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Twofish on FPGAs
Date: 6 Oct 1999 10:49:22 GMT
Bruce Schneier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Prof. Kris Gaj as implemented Twofish on an FPGA. His report on the
> process is at:
> http://www.counterpane.com/twofish-fpga.html
An interesting read, thanks.
BTW, the "implementing Blowfish in hardware" link on your site is broken;
perhaps you could also replace it with a local copy for us? :-)
" David Honig has written a paper about implementing Blowfish in
hardware."
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Campus/9853/BFCHIPDES.DOC
This URL is no longer valid (not to mention that I would prefer not having
to play with the .DOC, but the topic could be worth it in this case).
--
/sd
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: There could be *some* truth to it
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 12:26:46 GMT
>
> In theory, anyway, quantum computers would be "infinitely" fast for
> certain types of computations (including brute force key searches).
> Thus, it wouldn't matter how big your key was.
>
Can you give a reference to the paper showing how quantum computers will
be able to do brute force key searches "infinitely" fast. This is news
to me.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom Clune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc,comp.graphics.algorithms,comp.compression
Subject: Re: Which encryption for jpeg compressed pictures?
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 12:46:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herbert Kleebauer) wrote:
> I'm writing a viewer for encrypted multi-jpeg files.
> Because I'm not familiar with encryption, I need some
> help. I need an encryption which is
>
> 1. absolutely secure. If you have the original and the
> encrypted file, it must be impossible to proof, if
> one is the encrypted version of the other.
> 2. fast
> 3. free
>
> In a first version (you can download the c-source and a
> WINDOWS binary from ftp://137.193.64.130/pub/jpeg/ )
> I'm using IDEA. But IDEA is patented by ASCOM and the
> free use is very restricted. Any suggestions for the
> encryption algorithm?
The bible on these things for software engineers is _Applied
Cryptography, 2nd Edition_ by Bruce Schneier (John Wiley & Sons, 1996).
It discusses all aspects of a wide variety of encryption algorithms. I
would read that if I wanted to decide which approach best met my
requirements. FWIW
--Tom Clune, MediSpectra, Inc.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Securing Windows 95 Swap/Temp Files (long)
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 09:55:49 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello fellow sci.crypters,
>
> I have been doing a survey of encryption products
> for the Windows operating system. Many fine
> products are available but none address the
> problem of plain text leaking. The most obvious
> examples of plain text leaks are the virtual
> memory swap file and temporary directories. Many
> other leaks exist as well e.g. INI files often
> contain sensitive information. As long as plain
> text leaks, an attacker may gain information about
> secure files or even a key(s) via the swap file.
>
> I am interested in security when the computer is
> OFF, BTW. So far as I can tell, if someone can
> access your computer while it is on and logged in,
> then no products are secure. Hardware or
> operating system help would be required for
> the on-line scenario.
>
> To have confidence in an encryption product on a
> Windows machine:
> 1. All sensitive files must be strongly encrypted
> perhaps via a virtual hard drive
> 2. All temporary files must be strongly encrypted
> perhaps via a VXD
> 3. All configuration files must be strongly
> encrypted perhaps via VXD.
>
> I have designed and partially written a solution
> for steps 2 and 3.
>
> Step 1 can be accomplished by placing all
> sensitive apps and data on a virtual disk e.g.
> BestCrypt NP, ScramDisk, etc. Now if temporary
> and configuration files can be encrypted, Windows
> should be much more secure.
> ...
If you put the temp file directory on the scramdisk
volume that takes care of #2. And if you put your
apps there, they would tend to take their config
from the same place as well. (Typically you
can have config files in the app directory, not
just c:\windows, though it may depend on the app.)
Scramdisk doesn't come up early enough to make
all this much easier. On the other hand, take a
look at Peter Gutmann's SFS. That's a DOS style
volume encryptor. It can be started before Windows
and thus protect everything that Windows uses.
(If you use it in "removable disk" mode it's slightly
flaky with Win95 due to MS bugs, but in fixed disk
mode, which would make sense here, it works fine.)
In fact, the SFS docs mention a drive letter redirector
utility that let your "real C:" be a tiny partition,
which then loads SFS and switches the encrypted partition
to act like C: from then on. Haven't tried that, but
it would do what you're looking for.
paul
------------------------------
From: "John A Croll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rc5-128 cracking $20 per letter
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 09:18:14 -0500
ps. on extremely short messages my system can only provide
a short word list of the most probable words. i really need
a complete sentence to get a higher probability.
bye
John A Croll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7tfl98$if8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> i will decypher any rc-5 encrypted file that started out
> as a normal english language file that used normal grammar.
> i am 85% to 90% accurate. i charge $20.00 each for both
> letters and spaces. i charge a lot because it is dreary work
> and because i am the only one who can do it at this time.
> The catch is that my method does not allow accurate
> decryption of numerical data such as dates or credit card
> data.
> bye
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc,comp.graphics.algorithms,comp.compression
Subject: Re: Which encryption for jpeg compressed pictures?
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:46:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herbert Kleebauer) wrote,
in part:
>1. absolutely secure. If you have the original and the
> encrypted file, it must be impossible to proof, if
> one is the encrypted version of the other.
I wonder why that particular criterion came to mind?
John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 12:38:28 -0400
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ritter's paper
Tim Tyler wrote:
> Trevor Jackson, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Tim Tyler wrote:
> :> wtshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :> : I will likely disagree with many on what strength is, for it is a
> :> : combination of many things. I continue to fight for a reasonable
> :> : composite definition of strength.
> :>
> :> "Strength: ability to resist breaks and cracks"?
>
> : Yeah. But how to you measure it? What are the units of "ability to resist
> : breaks"?
>
> It seems to me that probably the best units in which to measure this
> are monetary ones.
Ahem. The ultimate in subjective standards. "The value of a thing is what that
thing will bring". This does not lead to an engineering figure of merit, nor
even to scientific reproducibility.
Do you believe that it is possible to have an efficient market in crypto
strength? Never mind the practical aspects that make it impossible, just
consider the theoretical impediments to having an efficient market, defined as
one in which the paricipants have access to all of the information available and
act rationally, in a commodity that is the exact opposite of trust: secrecy.
>
>
> "Time" and "certainty" may also figure in the equation - but are probably
> secondary characteristics most of the time.
Let's see, the two characteristics that crypto customers are paying for are
secondary?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: EAR Relaxed? Really?
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:56:01 -0600
In article <w8tK3.56$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "karl malbrain"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wtshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Where is the protection??? If they can say that any SPECIFIC file X
> coded
> > > on your harddisk decodes to INCRIMINATING file Y that the FBI says it
> does,
> > > you're up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle. Why do
> you
> > > wonder at my STYLE in this environment??? Karl M
> >
> > This is the point, such a law protects nobody, but facilitates false
> > accusation. Whereas, crypto embarrasses those who demand to know too
> > much by showing them to be acting beyond reason. The FBI is not supposed
> > to be a nanny.
>
> What do you mean??? No they're not trying to be nannies, there trying to
> become more effective SECRET POLICE. The only thing you have to go on is
> CONTRADICTION. Karl M
The problem with an agency that wants to accumulate more power is that it
realizes that if can only do that by looking more important. The method
of convincing us is by becoming more invasive in our lives. What Hoover
and subsequents sometimes fail to realize is such is definitely not their
mission, but such is the honest domain of in dividuals and perhaps those
closest to people.
By definition, the farther in organization you are from a sitiuation, the
less successful you can be in micromanagement. The best thing is to
inspire people, not threaten them. Positive results are not build on
negative actions; America is great because no one can outlaw certain
thoughts, nor force people to have personalities carved out with a
bureaucratic cookie cutter.
--
Sometimes a small mistake can lead to fortunate reward.
Charlie Chan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: rc5-128 cracking $20 per letter
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 18:26:59 GMT
"John A Croll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>your message is:
>"sHure sHow me it"
in response to Tom St. Denis, who wrote:
>> Ok decrypt this
>> 1602d701fa1ac1ad
Unfortunately, this message is only eight bytes long, and your
decryption is 16 bytes long.
John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Help: Mobility of the Private Key within PKI
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 18:21:11 GMT
How can I enable the users to be able to encrypt and sign the data from
any workstation within the network where PKI infrastructure is
installed?
The user needs his private key in order to encrypt or sign the data.
However, the private keys are normally stored on either workstation
directly (encrypted with the hash of the password) or on a smartcard.
The smart card is not an option.
It would be nice if there was some kind of private key server.
The user would login through an application that runs on the
workstation. The application would request user's private key from the
server. The server would send that private key. Even though the private
keys are stored on the server only the private key owner can utilize the
key since the server store the keys in the encrypted fashion:
TripleDes(hash(user_password),PrivateKey).
Since only the key owner knows the password the key can only be used by
the owner.
Do such scenarios currently exist?
If not then what are the common solutions to the situations where the
enterprise has a PKI which does not restrict the users to their
workstations?
--
Alex Bykov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "John A Croll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rc5-128 cracking $20 per letter
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:29:18 -0500
rc5 has a wide open back door for the feds and i found it.
i think they should give me the rsa prize money
because i destroyed rc5 as a viable product.
John A Croll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7tg16g$8q3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> your message is:
> "sHure sHow me it"
> you owe me 320 bucks!
> you may remit payment to:
> richard lee king jr.
> p.o.box 236
> st.bernice,
> in. 47875-0236
> phone: 765-832-2557
> you need to buy better security.
>
>
>
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:7tfsln$ds$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <7tfl98$if8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "John A Croll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > i will decypher any rc-5 encrypted file that started out
> > > as a normal english language file that used normal grammar.
> > > i am 85% to 90% accurate. i charge $20.00 each for both
> > > letters and spaces. i charge a lot because it is dreary work
> > > and because i am the only one who can do it at this time.
> > > The catch is that my method does not allow accurate
> > > decryption of numerical data such as dates or credit card
> > > data.
> > > bye
> > >
> >
> > Ok decrypt this
> >
> > 1602d701fa1ac1ad
> >
> > That was encoded using 12 rounds of RC5 with a 128-bit key. it's a
siingle
> > block as well. Let's see if you can read it. If you need more text with
> the
> > same key ask.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: There could be *some* EIAC
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 18:39:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Just _possibly_, there could be a professor at the Weizmann Institute
who
> has made a *theoretical* breakthrough in quantum computing, and is
about
> to publish a paper saying that in perhaps ten or twenty years, using
this
> technique, a quantum computer might be made that would fit in a cube
5cm
> on a side that could factor a 512-bit number in 12 microseconds...
>
> and this is what appeared in the Sunday Times in a garbled form.
EIQC spells bad news for the validity of the article:
http://www.eiqc.org/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Christopher Biow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Securing Windows 95 Swap/Temp Files (long)
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:53:17 -0400
Great work, thanks! This would be desirable to use under most MSWin-based
products, from PGP to MSIE/SSL. Any rough guess as to the performance loss,
e.g. on Business WinMarks?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>4. The swap file is encrypted with a one time
>session key. Nobody may look at it after
>shutdown.
It would be very good if this could be implemented by itself, even without
any of the other features.
I didn't note any explicit mention of TMP/TEMP directory files, whose
session-based encryption might be desirable.
------------------------------
From: "John A Croll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rc5-128 cracking $20 per letter
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:58:16 -0500
well it could only say "no way"
but i doubt it.
John A Croll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7tg5k4$mm9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> i am sure of my results.
> lets see what tom sais.
>
> John Savard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "John A Croll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
> >
> > >your message is:
> > >"sHure sHow me it"
> >
> > in response to Tom St. Denis, who wrote:
> >
> > >> Ok decrypt this
> >
> > >> 1602d701fa1ac1ad
> >
> > Unfortunately, this message is only eight bytes long, and your
> > decryption is 16 bytes long.
> >
> > John Savard ( teneerf<- )
> > http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Invention Secrecy Order (was Re: EAR Relaxed? Really?)
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 18:53:01 GMT
Eric Smith wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > On the other hand, we do have the "Invention Secrecy
> > Order". A US citizen who applies for a patent can be
> > ordered to keep his own invention secret.
>
> I just looked this up; it's 35 USC 181. Although it
> allows/requires the Patent Commissioner to defer
> granting a patent, I don't see anything in
> it that requires the inventor to keep the invention
> secret:
>
> Upon proper showing by the head of the department or agency who
> caused the secrecy order to be issued that the examination of the
> application might jeopardize the national interest, the
Commissioner
> shall thereupon maintain the application in a sealed condition and
> notify the applicant thereof.
>
> If there is any statutory penalty for the inventor disclosing the
> invention, I can't find it.
Try a few sections later:
Section 186, Penalty
Whoever, during the period or periods of time an
invention has been ordered to be kept secret and
the grant of a patent theron withheld pursuant to
section 181 of this title, shall, with knowledge
of such order and without due authorization,
willfully publish or disclose or authorize or
cause to be published or disclosed the invention,
or material information with respect thereto, or
whoever willfully, in violation of the provisions
of section 184 of this title, shall file or cause
or authorize to be filed in any foreign country an
application for patent or for the registration of a
utility model, industrial design, or model in
respect of any invention made in the United States,
shall, upon conviction, be file or cause or authorize
to be filed in any foreign country an application for
patent or for the registration of a utility model,
industrial design, or model in respect of any
invention made in the United States, shall, upon
conviction, be fined not more than $ 10,000 or
imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
--Bryan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "almis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Research paper...
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:00:03 -0500
There's also 'The hut 6 story' by Welchman.
...al
------------------------------
From: Alan Mackenzie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: EAR Relaxed? Really?
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:10:22 +0000
karl malbrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is being discussed runs deeper. They can take ANY encrypted file on
> your hard disk, decrypt it to anything they want, and use it against you in
> a criminal trial.
Why bother? They can PUT any plaintext they want, encrypted with your
public key, onto your computer. A bit like fixing somebody up with
"dangerous" drugs.
As a matter of interest, if a policeman produces an unreadable string of
characters in court, and the defendant looks at it and says "nah, that's
never been on my computer!" how are the practical problems (like the fact
of any encrypted text looking identical to any other encrypted text)
going to get resolved?
>> I weep.
I know, talk.politics.crypto does that to people!
> Karl M
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, replace "aye" by 'a', "see"
by 'c', etc.
------------------------------
From: Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rc5-128 cracking $20 per letter
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:12:47 +0000
John A Croll wrote:
>
> your message is:
> "sHure sHow me it"
> you owe me 320 bucks!
Not a chance -- his message was 8 bytes long, not 16.
> you may remit payment to:
> richard lee king jr.
> p.o.box 236
> st.bernice,
> in. 47875-0236
> phone: 765-832-2557
What, you're not really John A. Croll? I'm shocked!
> you need to buy better security.
Not proven.
--
Jim Gillogly
Sterday, 15 Winterfilth S.R. 1999, 19:08
12.19.6.10.13, 13 Ben 1 Yax, Sixth Lord of Night
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
