Cryptography-Digest Digest #643, Volume #10 Sun, 28 Nov 99 16:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (lordcow77)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: A dangerous question (David A Molnar)
Re: AES cyphers leak information like sieves (John Savard)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tim Tyler)
Re: A dangerous question (John Kennedy)
Re: brute force versus scalable repeated hashing (Johnny Bravo)
Re: Fact or Fiction ? >> Quantum device breaks RSA-512 encryption in 12 micro sec
(Jim Dunnett)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Guy Macon)
Re: Q: If the NSA can routinely crack crypto... (David Crick)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Guy Macon)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Guy Macon)
Use of two separate 40 bit encryption schemes ("tony.pattison")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lordcow77 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 07:12:06 -0800
In article <81r7pg$lmg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom St Denis > Ok look at it
another way.
> If I took two exact copies [leave the copying theory behind here]
> of an
> atom, and placed them in two exact same environments. Would they
> not
> decay the same way? If so, that's hardly random at all.
> Tom
Hidden variables theories must introduce explicit nonlocality of a
non-wavefunction object in order to deal with quantum entanglement. Put
another way, there is no metaphorical tiny clock in the nucleus of an
item that tells the atom to decay when the alarm sounds. If it were
possible to perform the above experiment (you can't, since you can't
even copy the atom exactly), you would still find that the decay
behavior of both atoms would be uncorrelated.
Please do us all a favor and study some physics before making
incomprehensible pronouncements.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:33:18 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> "Trevor Jackson, III" wrote:
> > Guy Macon wrote:
> > > In article <81ogtv$upa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis)
>wrote:
> > > >Ok, explain to me something that is truly random.
> > > The time it takes for an individual atom of potassium-40
> > > to decay to Argon-40.
> > 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. The decay rate of an isotope is
> determined by the nature of the isotope, and is a random variable.
Hardly. We _observe_ that the behavior of unstable nuclei fit the model of random
events,
but we cannot prove that it must be so. We cannot even explain the behavior. By
"explain"
I'm referring to the process by which phenomena are reduced to equations which
predict, with
limited precision, future behavior. Given Gmm/r^2 I can predict the immediate future
of a
satellite in orbit. The length of the prediction interval is inversely related to the
precision of the predicted position.
Now AFAIK, no amount of measurement of a single nuclei will permit any kind of
prediction of
its future emissions. We can predict the statistical behavior of collections of
nuclei, but
that's not an "explanation" of the behavior any more than predicting the decay of the
orbits
of a collection of satellites is an "explanation" of the process.
> 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).
No.
You are _asserting_ ther randomness of the process, not proving it. The
sum-of-all-histories
calculation applied to particles method involves no a priori randomness AFAIK.
> These laws are part of the best-verified
> theory of natural phenomena that we have.
Yup. And the least understood. Your message is a perfect example of that lack of
understanding. You are claiming that statistical observations apply all the way down
to the
individual components. There is no reason to make that assumption.
We have copious, extremely precise verifications of our observations. We still lack an
explanation as defined above. You are welcome to claim that there is no explanation,
but if
you do so you will fit my original accusation of using a belief rather than a
scientific
rationale.
> The randomness of the
> decay is thus more certain than any other knowledge you may claim
> to have.
False.
The randomness of the emission of EM radiation has similar statistical properties.
But those
properties change suddenly when an excited atom is in a special environment. How will
you
feel when an experimenter finds a case of stimulated nuclear emission? Consider a
Bose-Einstein condensate composed of tritium atoms. We may find that their behavior no
longer matches the classic exponential decay process.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:49:45 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Guy Macon wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor Jackson, III)
>wrote:
> >
> >Guy Macon wrote:
> >
> >> In article <81ogtv$upa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis)
>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > "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?
> >> >
> >> >Ok, explain to me something that is truly random.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The time it takes for an individual atom of potassium-40
> >> to decay to Argon-40.
> >
> >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.
>
> I *do* claim that there are methods to influence the decay process.
> hitting it with enough neutrons or raise the temperature to solar
> temeratures would do it. These would only change the half life,
> not the essential randomness.
I wasn't referring to the halk-life, but the assumption of essential randomness. It
is an
assumption. Thus a belief. We have no contrary evidence, and lots of confirming
evidence,
so it is a reasonable assumption. But it is nothing more than an assumption.
>
>
> For a useful experiment, you would take two potassium-40 atoms, put them
> in the same environment, and see which one decayes to Argon-40 first.
>
> As for your argument concerning provability, it is a valid argument
> that has the interesting property of applying to everything. You
> can't even prove or verify that you exist, because your attempts to
> offer proof presume that the evidence cannot be influenced or altered.
> Logical, but not uesful.
Not quite that simple. The argument does not apply to everything, but only to negative
propositions in unbounded systems.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:51:08 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Tom St Denis wrote:
> In article <81oseq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon) wrote:
> > In article <81ogtv$upa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom
> St Denis) wrote:
> > >
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "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?
> > >
> > >Ok, explain to me something that is truly random.
> > >
> >
> > The time it takes for an individual atom of potassium-40
> > to decay to Argon-40.
> >
>
> What is random about that? If you can model exactly every nick and
> nanny of the atom, then can't you recreate the decay?
>
> I would classify that as 'hard to model' thus 'random'. But it's not
> universially random.
"Hard to model" is an understatment. There are theories that indicate
that some aspects of a particle cannot be modeled.
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A dangerous question
Date: 28 Nov 1999 15:45:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So the question is: how long will it be before the
> protocols and the infrastructure are in place that make
> Assassination Politics a reality?
All you need for a trial run is out there. You can run AP by posting
the list of current bets via mail2news gateways and taking new bets
via pseudonymous remailer. Don't even need the cocaine auction (although
it's a neat idea if you do have anonymous broadcast).
Doing it "for real" is probably a long way off, because implementing
AP would make you the focus of a good deal of attention. Especially if
you managed to make it work. Do you trust any current remailer system
to protect you against that kind of attention?
if you don't, what would you use in its place?
-David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: AES cyphers leak information like sieves
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:14:41 GMT
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:12:03 -0500, "Trevor Jackson, III"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Certainly. I know of no instance in which Mr. Scott has flamed someone without
>cause. His standard for cause appears to be quite low, but he does not appear to be
>responding unpredictably. (Far from it).
I would not say that he responds with anger to people who have uttered
no criticism of his views, either. However, he certainly can insult
people who have not engaged in discussion with him; calling Bruce
Schneier an NSA stooge and so on qualifies as "without cause" in my
book.
>Hmmm. Are the participants in sci.crypt the kind of people that one sells to, or the
>kind that one reasons with? The purposes and methods involved are quite distinct, as
>this thread illustrates. Personally, I would very much like to believe the latter.
When people are technically qualified, it is true that they will be
able to consider ideas on their own merits. Thus, flattery and other
such games won't be very effective in getting a bad idea undeserved
consideration.
But when someone comes out with a "bold new idea" which turns out to
have technical flaws, when he makes wild unsupported claims (David A.
Scott's first appearance here consisted of a claim that the cipher
IDEA, which is quite well respected, was fatally weak), it is hardly
surprising he will not recieve much of a hearing. Scientists, like
everyone else, must budget their time and effort. Those who give the
appearance of being cranks usually are.
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:05:23 GMT
Trevor Jackson, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Tim Tyler wrote:
:> Dice, drawing lots, or a roulette wheel /often/ have biases that produce
:> less than perfect random numbers. A whole book was written devoted
:> largely to successful attempts to win money by exploiting the
:> non-randomness in commercial roulette wheels.
: Would you please name or ISBN the book you mentioned?
This was intended to refer to: "The Newtonian Casino" by Thomas Bass,
(ISBN:0140145931).
--
__________
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Silly Old Hitler Caused Awful Harm To Our Armies.
------------------------------
From: John Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A dangerous question
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:12:48 -0500
On 28 Nov 1999 12:37:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Firstly, two references need to looked at:
>
>1. At: http://jya.com/ap.htm you'll find a document by
>Jim Bell called 'Assassination Politics'
>
>His thesis is briefly summarized by a quote:
>
>"... I speculated on the question of whether an
>organization could be set up to legally announce that it
>would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who correctly
>"predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of
>rights, usually either government employees,
>officeholders, or appointees. It could ask for anonymous
>contributions from the public, and individuals would be
>able send those contributions using digital cash."
>
>2. At: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/cocaine/ you'll
>find a paper by Frank Stajano and Ross Anderson called
>'The Cocaine Auction Protocol: On the Power of Anonymous
>Broadcast'
>
>They say as a matter of introduction:
>
>'This paper builds on a case study, of an anonymous
>auction between mistrustful principals with no trusted
>arbitrator, to introduce "anonymous broadcast" as a new
>protocol building block. This primitive is, in many
>interesting cases, a more accurate model of what actually
>happens during transmission. With certain restrictions it
>can give a particularly efficient implementation
>technique for many anonymity-related protocols.'
>
>So the question is: how long will it be before the
>protocols and the infrastructure are in place that make
>Assassination Politics a reality?
The technology exsts now, it's an open question as to whether the
"infrastructure" will ever be put in place. If you want to build it,
everything you need is available.
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny Bravo)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: brute force versus scalable repeated hashing
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 14:08:46 GMT
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 06:04:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> 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
It was not a misquote, the material presented did come from your
post. Is your memory that bad that you can't even remember what you
posted 26 hours previously? In the standard fashion "..." is used to
represent missing material that was irrelevant to my reply.
Johnny Bravo
------------------------------
From: amadeus @0SPAM.netcomuk.co.uk (Jim Dunnett)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: Fact or Fiction ? >> Quantum device breaks RSA-512 encryption in 12
micro sec
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 19:40:03 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Dunnett
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 08:48:52 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sunday Times article about Quantum device breaks RSA-512 encryption in 12 micro
>sec
>
>http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/99/09/29/timintint02001.html?999
>
>Europe's banking codes have been cracked in the blink of an eye
>
>After an Israeli research institute said it could break Europe's
>banking codes in less than a second, a initiative has been launched
>that could result in unbreakable codes.
Oh no! Not this one again. Take it with a pinch of salt!
The institute referred to is fictional ... no-one has ever heard
of it.
Anything and everything published in the Sunday Tory is suspect.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: 28 Nov 1999 12:46:15 PST
In article <81r7i6$lf2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote:
>Well never state facts that we have yet to disprove.
Then you must agree that you are a <insert favorite insult> unless
you can disprove it. And you can't disprove it. All you can do is
show us how clever you are at hiding it!
------------------------------
From: David Crick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Q: If the NSA can routinely crack crypto...
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:50:48 +0000
David Crick wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen a copy of the supposedly updated 2nd Edition,
> mentioned in AC2?
>
> 80. J. Bamford and W. Madsen, The Puzzle Palace,
> Second Edition, Penguin Books, 1995.
>
> I can only find the 1983 version on Amazon.
>From Bruce:
: The cite was premature; the second edition never came out.
:
: Bruce
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Crick [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.tripod.com/vidcad/ |
| Damon Hill WC96 Tribute: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4236/ |
| M. Brundle Quotes: http://members.tripod.com/~vidcad/martin_b.htm |
| ICQ#: 46605825 PGP Public Keys: RSA 0x22D5C7A9 DH/DSS 0xBE63D7C7 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: 28 Nov 1999 12:50:39 PST
In article <81r7pg$lmg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote:
>If I took two exact copies [leave the copying theory behind here] of an
>atom, and placed them in two exact same environments. Would they not
>decay the same way? If so, that's hardly random at all.
Good question! No. They wouldn't.
To anticipate your next question, Yes. They are identical before decay.
To anticipate the question after that, No. It doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't stop it from being true. Yes, we can perform experiments
that give us results that go against common sense. Deal with it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: 28 Nov 1999 12:51:23 PST
In article <81rdc8$ovn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote:
>If things are to be randomly created, material must be randomly
>destroyed.
Evidence, please.
------------------------------
From: "tony.pattison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Use of two separate 40 bit encryption schemes
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:58:56 -0000
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
as I do not live in the land of the free, I'm not permitted to have
more than 40 bit DES (I don't know why not, perhaps if we had it,
we'd start asking for our colonies back ^_^). As this is pitifully
inadequate, I'm thinking of encrypting the data in my packets (again
40 bit encryption) before I send them out over my 40 bit DES
encrypted lines.
Would I get the equivilant of 80 bit encryption doing this, or would
it be less (the paket headers are not being encrypted by the first
encryption)?
Thanks
Tony
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOEGXjpKOaRA8pNSLEQJbFgCfQ/vfVllqMt53rWFTSR4eI8JRJfUAoI/C
Fnq1wp0kk02JBLLv4SxExqZz
=7bMz
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
