Cryptography-Digest Digest #641, Volume #10 Sun, 28 Nov 99 03:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Pleasantville: civilty under duress ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (John Savard)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (John Savard)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tom St Denis)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tom St Denis)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (John Savard)
ENIGMA verification ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: brute force versus scalable repeated hashing (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: cryptography control? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: cryptography control? (wtshaw)
Re: Distribution of intelligence in the crypto field (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
--- sci.crypt charter: read before you post (weekly notice) (D. J. Bernstein)
Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate? (Bennett Standeven)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: cryptography control? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.ai.fuzzy,sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Pleasantville: civilty under duress
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 03:28:06 GMT
In article <olZ%3.532$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:81j9an$gq4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <DbB_3.117$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The DISTINGUISHMENT is CIVIL.
> > > The boundary between SAN MATEO and BRISBANE
> > > runs along similar lines as the boundary between OAKLAND and
BERKELEY.
> > > The difference in years is of no significance.
> >
> >
> > http://pleasantville.cannery.com/
>
> That's a nice TRAP you've fallen for: just click the mouse
> and whatever is DISTURBING you disappears. Now, if you have
> anything about the real place, PLEASANTON, CA, let me know....
> (nb, it's where those arrested during
> STOP-THE-DRAFT-WEEK were taken.) Karl M
>
It sounds like you have _everything_ worked out in your head.
What's the problem ?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:05:41 GMT
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 05:24:29 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Tom St Denis wrote:
>> Universially random should mean something which is random, and by NO
>> MEANS at all predictable. However this cannot exist in nature.
>Who made you God?
Now, now. If even Albert Einstein can hold this viewpoint, it can't be
_that_ purely dogmatic. (Which makes me think of the famous "Will you
stop telling God what to do" quote...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:13:54 GMT
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 23:05:16 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Trevor Jackson, III" wrote:
>> If you claimed a way to influence the decay process it would be possible to verify
>your
>> claim. But if you claim that it is impossible to influence the decay process, it is
>> impossible to prove that claim. Since your statement above presumes that the decay
>> process cannot influenced, your statement cannot be verified or proven. So it
>rests on
>> a belief rather than a scientific rationale.
>That makes no sense whatever.
Although you are right that the statement above reflects a type of
faulty reasoning, it is not devoid of sense.
If you claimed that one of your next door neighbors was an alien from
the planet Mars, it would be possible to verify your claim, by means
of a detailed medical examination.
But if you claim there are no aliens from other planets (it is
possible to go to Mars and see there are no cities there) hiding
secretly in human form on the Earth, it is impossible to verify your
claim.
That is true, as far as it goes.
But to conclude from it that the latter belief rests only on faith,
and cannot possibly be called scientific, is to assume that scientists
are not allowed to use the reasonable as a starting point. (Among
other things, this implies that a scientist who is not a sucker for
every crackpot theory that passes by is untrue to his calling.)
>These laws are part of the best-verified
>theory of natural phenomena that we have. The randomness of the
>decay is thus more certain than any other knowledge you may claim
>to have.
Not all hidden-variables theories directly conflict with quantum
mechanics; any such theory that is not testable "might" be true. We
cannot "prove" that radioactive decay can't be predicted by astrology
if we allow that we might need to chart the positions of a few
thousand asteroids that haven't been discovered yet to do it.
I agree his reasoning was faulty: but the error is a more subtle one
than a direct contradiction of fact.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:15:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That makes no sense whatever. The decay rate of an isotope is
> determined by the nature of the isotope, and is a random variable.
> The probability distribution is a simple exponentional function
> of time, and derives from fundamental physical laws that involve
> inherent randomness (not mere lack of information that could in
> principle be acquired). These laws are part of the best-verified
> theory of natural phenomena that we have. The randomness of the
> decay is thus more certain than any other knowledge you may claim
> to have.
For any part of an atom to be truly random you have to end up with
something you didn't have in the beginning. This means for example you
must have lost X electrons but only have had <X etc. What I am trying
to say is that this 'random behaviour' must have been spontaneously
created otherwise it could possibly be modelled. At this point it is
no longer random.
Just because we can't currently model an decaying atom doesn't make it
totally random. Just random.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:18:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> > What is random about that? If you can model exactly every nick and
> > nanny of the atom, then can't you recreate the decay?
>
> No.
So you are saying there is absolutely no way 'ever' to describe the
laws of decay? And I suppose the sun revolves around the earth too?
> > I would classify that as 'hard to model' thus 'random'. But it's
not
> > universially random.
>
> Yes, it is. Go study some physics.
Nah. I just think things up.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:21:23 GMT
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:46:39 GMT, Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>What is random about that? If you can model exactly every nick and
>nanny of the atom, then can't you recreate the decay?
The atom has an internal structure, but only to a limited extent. The
nucleons in an atomic nucleus, instead of actually moving in orbit
within the nucleus, are in quantum states.
For the atom to instead have tiny moving parts within it, whose
precise position at a given instant is the real cause of whether it
decays at a certain time, it would have to behave differently from the
way atoms have been observed to behave. Quantum mechanics has been
verified experimentally.
One cannot speak of modelling every "nook and cranny" of a quantum
system the way one could of a purely classical system.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ENIGMA verification
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 05:00:53 GMT
I am looking for a few "authentic" ENIGMA intercepts/messages to test a
simulator I have written. In addition to the ciphertext, the complete
machine settings [reflector choice, rotor selections and order, ring and
indicator settings] will be required to verify that a simulator is, in
fact, operating properly. It would be nice if there was a set of tests
which exercised the various "quirks" of the original ENIGMA hardware.
Pointers to web pages [I've found many simulator pages, but no
verification pages], or references to published literature would be
appreciated.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: brute force versus scalable repeated hashing
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 06:04:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny Bravo) wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 16:22:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
>
>> look asshole ...fucking asshole ... fuck you.
>>
>>David A. Scott
>
>
> I see you can manage to spell these words, but spelling "check" and
>"their" is far beyond your abilities.
>
> Sci.crypt should have a kook of the month award, but you wouldn't
>have any competition. You get my vote.
>
> Johnny Bravo
>
Not very sporting of you to miss quote me. But then I guess I can't
expect very much from your type anyway.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website NOT FOR WIMPS
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott rejected paper for the ACM
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/dspaper.htm
Scott famous Compression Page WIMPS allowed
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: cryptography control?
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 06:08:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I came across an artical that brings up some interesting points
>> concerning government control of cryptography in the future. The link
>> is:
>>
>> http://home.att.net/~dontbefooled/CESA99.htm
>>
>> I hope this not too far off topic as it does not go into specifics of
>> cryptography. The jist is that there have been some recent political
>> moves in the USA to increase the regulation/control of cryptography.
>> Its kinda like "If unbreakable cryptography is outlawed then only
>> outlaws will use it."
>> BDS
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>Think the government will be as successful with cryptography as they
>are with their war on drugs?
>
Actually they have been quite successful on there war on drugs.
Clinton is pocketing lots of cash and it helps to speed the impending
police state. It is also a wonderful excuse to take our freedoms away.
I think the war is going the way the politicans want it to go.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website NOT FOR WIMPS
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott rejected paper for the ACM
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/dspaper.htm
Scott famous Compression Page WIMPS allowed
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: cryptography control?
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 23:52:21 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Think the government will be as successful with cryptography as they
> are with their war on drugs?
>
> Egad!
The only true raw ingredients required in crypto are imagination and
insight; both are most difficult to outlaw.
--
Love is blind, or at least figure that it has astigmatism.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Distribution of intelligence in the crypto field
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 06:10:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>> I never heard of this test when I was in college and I was
>> considered dam good in math.
>
>The Putnam competition is quite famous. But the Soviets ran an
>even tougher competition. The amazing thing is that one can come
>up with good, hard, solvable math problems that contestants almost
>certainly don't already know.
>
>> >Now, that doesn't mean the NSA doesn't offer lots of jobs to lots of
>> >well-qualified looking math grads -- I know they do -- it just appears
>> >that doing well on the Putnam doesn't make it an automatic.
>> Maybe it helps if you have a family history of people who do what
>> there told without any concern for real moral values. Also they might
>> not really like free thinkers.
>
>How many NSA employees do you know? I know quite a few, and
>none of them fit your perjorative description.
I guess I only former FBI people and CIA types. No one I have know
has lowered them selves to admitting they worked for the NSA.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website NOT FOR WIMPS
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott rejected paper for the ACM
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/dspaper.htm
Scott famous Compression Page WIMPS allowed
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. J. Bernstein)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: --- sci.crypt charter: read before you post (weekly notice)
Date: 28 Nov 1999 06:00:07 GMT
sci.crypt Different methods of data en/decryption.
sci.crypt.research Cryptography, cryptanalysis, and related issues.
talk.politics.crypto The relation between cryptography and government.
The Cryptography FAQ is posted to sci.crypt and talk.politics.crypto
every three weeks. You should read it before posting to either group.
A common myth is that sci.crypt is USENET's catch-all crypto newsgroup.
It is not. It is reserved for discussion of the _science_ of cryptology,
including cryptography, cryptanalysis, and related topics such as
one-way hash functions.
Use talk.politics.crypto for the _politics_ of cryptography, including
Clipper, Digital Telephony, NSA, RSADSI, the distribution of RC4, and
export controls.
What if you want to post an article which is neither pure science nor
pure politics? Go for talk.politics.crypto. Political discussions are
naturally free-ranging, and can easily include scientific articles. But
sci.crypt is much more limited: it has no room for politics.
It's appropriate to post (or at least cross-post) Clipper discussions to
alt.privacy.clipper, which should become talk.politics.crypto.clipper at
some point.
There are now several PGP newsgroups. Try comp.security.pgp.resources if
you want to find PGP, c.s.pgp.tech if you want to set it up and use it,
and c.s.pgp.discuss for other PGP-related questions.
Questions about microfilm and smuggling and other non-cryptographic
``spy stuff'' don't belong in sci.crypt. Try alt.security.
Other relevant newsgroups: misc.legal.computing, comp.org.eff.talk,
comp.org.cpsr.talk, alt.politics.org.nsa, comp.patents, sci.math,
comp.compression, comp.security.misc.
Here's the sci.crypt.research charter: ``The discussion of cryptography,
cryptanalysis, and related issues, in a more civilised environment than
is currently provided by sci.crypt.'' If you want to submit something to
the moderators, try [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---Dan
------------------------------
From: Bennett Standeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate?
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 00:03:03 CST
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Tim Tyler wrote:
> In sci.crypt John Savard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : However, in practice, random numbers derived from throwing dice or
> : flipping coins are adequate for producing secure one-time-pads.
>
> Really? How do you judge how secure they are?
>
> What coins, or dice would you recommend using - and what manufacturing
> process produced them?
Casino dice should do nicely.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 07:51:24 GMT
John Savard wrote:
> Not all hidden-variables theories directly conflict with quantum
> mechanics; any such theory that is not testable "might" be true.
(1) Hidden variables have been ruled out by experiments such as
Aspect's. Quantum randomness is unavoidable.
(2) Theories that have no testable consequences are pointless,
not true.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 07:54:14 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
> For any part of an atom to be truly random you have to end up with
> something you didn't have in the beginning. This means for example you
> must have lost X electrons but only have had <X etc. What I am trying
> to say is that this 'random behaviour' must have been spontaneously
> created otherwise it could possibly be modelled. At this point it is
> no longer random.
> Just because we can't currently model an decaying atom doesn't make it
> totally random. Just random.
The only part of the above that I can make sense out of is wrong:
We *can* (and *do*) model nuclear decay, but it is (inherently)
a probabilistic model.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 07:57:16 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
> So you are saying there is absolutely no way 'ever' to describe the
> laws of decay? And I suppose the sun revolves around the earth too?
I said no such thing, and your sarcasm is uncalled for and indicative
of your total lack of understanding.
> > > I would classify that as 'hard to model' thus 'random'. But
> > > it's not universially random.
> > Yes, it is. Go study some physics.
> Nah. I just think things up.
Obviously. But when you post your personal hallucinations,
you should label them as such, not pretend that they are facts.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 08:03:56 GMT
John Savard wrote:
> >Tom St Denis wrote:
> >> Universially random should mean something which is random, and by
> >> NO MEANS at all predictable. However this cannot exist in nature.
> >Who made you God?
> Now, now. If even Albert Einstein can hold this viewpoint, it can't be
> _that_ purely dogmatic. (Which makes me think of the famous "Will you
> stop telling God what to do" quote...)
Einstein did not proclaim what St Denis has been proclaiming.
Einstein understood physical randomness pretty well.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cryptography control?
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 08:06:12 GMT
wtshaw wrote:
>> The only true raw ingredients required in crypto are imagination and
> insight; both are most difficult to outlaw.
You don't outlaw them; instead, you control the educational system
and make sure that imagination and insight are suppressed.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
