Cryptography-Digest Digest #645, Volume #10 Mon, 29 Nov 99 07:13:00 EST
Contents:
Re: Distribution of intelligence in the crypto field ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate? ("james d. hunter")
Re: How safe is Mobile Phone ? (Tom St Denis)
Re: A dangerous question (Jim Nelson)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Anti-Spam)
Re: Distribution of intelligence in the crypto field (CLSV)
Re: How to generatekey pair for different users? (Yang Yang)
Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate? (John Savard)
Re: Use of two separate 40 bit encryption schemes (Johnny Bravo)
kremlin encrypt any good?? which algorithm?? ("rob")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Guy Macon)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Guy Macon)
Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate? (Guy Macon)
Re: Pleasantville: civilty under duress (Richard Herring)
PageSecure v2.0 - is it weak or strong ? (Michel Dalle)
Re: How to generatekey pair for different users? (John Bailey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Distribution of intelligence in the crypto field
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 03:16:10 GMT
David Wagner wrote:
> The Putnam test is typically taken while one is in college, not in
> high school.
Thanks for the correction.
> ... the relevant question is whether the NSA hires mathematicians
> right out of college, not whether they hire folks right out of high
> school.
Well, they do, but professional mathematicians (like other technical
professions) generally need advanced degrees to pursue their careers.
One thing the Agency has done is to hire mathematicians for 1-year
stints; I don't know if the main purpose was to get an infusion of
fresh ideas, to get them thinking on research problems the Agency
has an interest in, or merely to exert some control over their future
publications.
------------------------------
From: "james d. hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate?
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:11:04 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Savard wrote:
>
> On 26 Nov 1999 18:22:37 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon) wrote:
>
> >What do you do when addition
> >increases the number of digits in a situation where a fixed number of
> >digits are required? Would you do modulo addition, truncation, or just
> >swith to using an exlusive-or insread of an add?
>
> One always, when adding N digits to N digits, takes only the last N
> digits of the sum. An extra digit would be 1 if it appeared, so it
> wouldn't be random. So whether or not a fixed number of digits is
> required doesn't affect that.
>
> >While on the subject, I have heard the claim that XORing a true
> >random set of bits with any ordered set of bits of the same size
> >will always produce a true random output, assuming that the ordered
> >bits were created with no knowledge of the random bits.
>
> That is correct.
>
> >It seems that if I have some data that I
> >believe to be random, XORing it with the output of a pseudorandom
> >generator cannot reduce or increase the randomness.
>
> It can't increase the entropy.
>
> If you have a truly random physical process - but which may possibly
> be biased (flipping a coin that might come up heads 53% of the time) -
> and a pseudo-random generator which may not be cryptosecure, but is
> good statistically, the XOR of those two streams *will* be of better
> quality than either one individually for cryptographic purposes. (Each
> stream has strengths that complement the weaknesses of the other.)
>
> But post-processing of a physical random stream usually involves
> combining two physically random bits to get one; a more complicated
> algorithm than XOR may be thrown in for good measure as well.
It's been proven that the only type of processes are physical ones.
It's been noticed that none of "pseudo-random", "random", or "truly
random"
or "quantumly random" exist. So virtual dice, since they are also
physical dice,
are adequate.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How safe is Mobile Phone ?
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 03:22:20 GMT
In article <81shns$tql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner) wrote:
> That doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to digital cellphones,
> though.
>
> All reports I've seen indicate that the standards committee made at
> least some serious effort to use strong cryptography, but that they
> were rebuffed by the NSA (or pick your favorite party fronting for the
> export regulations -- State Dept., etc.) due to export regulations.
> Consequently, the US cellular industry has standardized on extremely
> weak crypto (when the crypto is even used at all).
>
> Note also that there is often a NSA representative sitting in on the
> AHAG working group meetings. (The AHAG is the US cellular telephony
> standards committee that deals with all matters pertaining to crypto.)
>
> I think one can make a good case that the export regulations and/or
the
> NSA (the two causes are hard to separate) must shoulder a good deal
> of the blame for the insecurity of today's cellphone infrastructure.
> It's a shame.
It's not a shame, you just have to be inventive. PGP and PGPFone
spring to mind...
Tom
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Jim Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A dangerous question
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:55:55 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Johnny Bravo wrote:
>
> On 28 Nov 1999 12:37:29 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?
>
> Never. The assumption made in the first paper is that it would be
> legal to put out a death contract on another person. No matter how
> Libertarian the country becomes, I doubt that it will ever go so far
> as to think that you have an absolute right to kill a person who is
> not an immediate threat to your life.
It's been a while since I read "Assassination Politics," but if my memory's
right, the proposal was not an anonymous clearinghouse for hit man contracts.
The idea was a sort of dead pool, where people anonymously bet on the day and
time such-and-such public official would be killed. Everyone who guessed
correctly would split the pot.
The idea is that the assassin would place a "correct" guess -- he knows when
he's going to act, presumably -- and collect the winnings. Thus, no contract
was made, no conspiracy planned, and so on. Double-blind anonymity ensures no
one knows who's collecting or who bet. The only one in the hot seat would be
this dead pool's host, but I'm not sure what laws this person would be
breaking.
Jim Nelson
------------------------------
From: Anti-Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:05:08 -0800
Guy Macon wrote:
>
> 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.
Gosh, this isn't crypto - but some things ARE randomly created and then
randomly destroyed. The quantum vacuum qualifies as a physical example
of material randomly created and then destroyed within a time defined by
a Heisenberg Uncertainty. Pairs of particles-antiparticles materialize
out of the energy of the vacuum and then recombine back into energy and
dissappear - constantly - like a seething ocean of "almost-ness." We
are not aware of it at our level. And AFAIK there is no experiment
demostrating knowledge of a fluctuation at any given time or position
will predict the presence or absence of another fluctuation at another
time or another position. Passes that test for randomness.
It's effects have been measured at the macroscopic level as the Casimir
Effect. The zero point energy of the quantum electrodynamic vacuum
between two conducting, separated plates in a vacuum has been shown to
decrease while the plates conduct - a decrease measured as an attractive
force between the two plates. The larger magnitude zero-point energy
vacuum outside the plates "pushes" them together. (Source - Lorentzian
Wormholes, From Einstein to Hawking, ISBN 1-56396-394-9, C. 1995,
Section 12.3.2, pg. 121 )
AFAIK no one's proposed using the Casimir effect as a source of
randomness.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: CLSV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Distribution of intelligence in the crypto field
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:46:47 +0000
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
[...]
> One thing the Agency has done is to hire mathematicians for 1-year
> stints; I don't know if the main purpose was to get an infusion of
> fresh ideas, to get them thinking on research problems the Agency
> has an interest in, or merely to exert some control over their future
> publications.
A strange bit of information from the CV of
Gian-Carlo Rota:
http://www-math.mit.edu/~rota/cv.txt
Security Clearances:
Top Secret Clearance (Air Force) 1969-1971.
Q - Clearance (DOE), 1966-.
SI - Clearance (NSA), 1981-.
Regards,
CLSV
------------------------------
From: Yang Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.security,microsoft.public.java.security
Subject: Re: How to generatekey pair for different users?
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:42:16 +0800
Hi,
Frankly speaking, where is the improvement in security by generating
private and public key for your users. Imagine your ID/password is
generated by someone else but you can't change it... I suggest you think
twice.
Regards,
Yang Yang
National University of Singapore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
>
> Does anyone know how to generate different private and public key pairs
> for different users?
>
> Thanks
>
> Greg
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate?
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:57:18 GMT
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:11:04 -0500, "james d. hunter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's been proven that the only type of processes are physical ones.
It's true that the phenomenon of the execution of a computer program
is physical. However, computers are designed to behave in a
predictable manner; the ordinary rolling of a real physical die, on
the other hand, derives from inputs that are not controllable or
predictable. The initial state of a computer program almost can't help
being controllable and predictable, given the design of present-day
computers and operating systems.
>It's been noticed that none of "pseudo-random", "random", or "truly
>random" or "quantumly random" exist.
Just because some people have made such assertions hardly means that
they are true.
>So virtual dice, since they are also
>physical dice, are adequate.
Thus, your conclusion is false (and is disproven in practice in any
case).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny Bravo)
Subject: Re: Use of two separate 40 bit encryption schemes
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 03:29:18 GMT
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:58:56 -0000, "tony.pattison"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>-----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
This is pretty funny coming from a person with a 128 bit encryption
program. <grin>
> 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.
Screw DES, use something else.
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
------------------------------
From: "rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.anonymous,alt.privacy,alt.security,comp.privacy,comp.security.misc
Subject: kremlin encrypt any good?? which algorithm??
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:30:39 GMT
is kremlin encrypt safe to use
wich algorithm is the secure
DES, NewDES, Blowfish, CAST, IDEA, RC4, Safer SK-128
thanks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: 29 Nov 1999 04:28:37 EST
In article <81skpp$iut$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote:
>
>In article <81s4kb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon) wrote:
>> In article <81rdc8$ovn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom
>St Denis) wrote:
>>
>> >If things are to be randomly created, material must be randomly
>> >destroyed.
>>
>> Evidence, please.
>
>If atoms kept being added to earth [via spontaneous creation], we would
>eventually gain so much mass that the moon would collide with us. That
>would be bad.
Atoms are being added to earth at a rate of 18,000 to 25,000 tons per
year due to meter influx and we haven't hit the moon yet.
>I still will not except the fact that there are processes in nature
>which do not obey some law of a sort. That things can happend
>haphazardly.
That is your right. This will have an impact on you, however.
If you continue your present behavior (disagreeing with known experts
and being unwilling to read a physics book) you will be unqualified for
any job in the upper wage brackets. People who are willing to learn
will get the high paying jobs instead. This is a shame, for you appear
to be intelligent and likeable.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: 29 Nov 1999 04:42:54 EST
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anti-Spam) wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>>
>> In article <81rdc8$ovn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote:
>>
>> >If things are to be randomly created, material must be randomly
>> >destroyed.
>>
>> Evidence, please.
>
>Gosh, this isn't crypto - but some things ARE randomly created and then
>randomly destroyed. The quantum vacuum qualifies as a physical example
>of material randomly created and then destroyed within a time defined by
>a Heisenberg Uncertainty. Pairs of particles-antiparticles materialize
>out of the energy of the vacuum and then recombine back into energy and
>dissappear - constantly - like a seething ocean of "almost-ness." We
>are not aware of it at our level. And AFAIK there is no experiment
>demostrating knowledge of a fluctuation at any given time or position
>will predict the presence or absence of another fluctuation at another
>time or another position. Passes that test for randomness.
>
>It's effects have been measured at the macroscopic level as the Casimir
>Effect. The zero point energy of the quantum electrodynamic vacuum
>between two conducting, separated plates in a vacuum has been shown to
>decrease while the plates conduct - a decrease measured as an attractive
>force between the two plates. The larger magnitude zero-point energy
>vacuum outside the plates "pushes" them together. (Source - Lorentzian
>Wormholes, From Einstein to Hawking, ISBN 1-56396-394-9, C. 1995,
>Section 12.3.2, pg. 121 )
>
>AFAIK no one's proposed using the Casimir effect as a source of
>randomness.
I hereby propose using the Casimir effect as a source of randomness.
Details shall be lefty as an exercise for the student. ;)
Seriously, though I agree that some things are randomly created and
randomly destroyed. The claim that we are examining is whether
this is a universal rule that must apply to all systems. I am not
so sure about this.
There are two logical possibilities:
[1] Sometime in the past, something was created from nothing.
[2] There is something that has been in existance for an infinite
amount of time, and had no begining.
I haven't the slightest clue which of the above staements is true.
There is a test that we could run; the "If Tom St Denis doesn't
understand how it works it must be false" test can tell us which
statement is true. My only concern is that the world's scientists
might start competing for time on the finite resource that is Tom
St Denis, or that a terrorist could neutralize this infallable
resource by giving him a physics book.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate?
Date: 29 Nov 1999 05:07:38 EST
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(John Savard) wrote:
>It's true that the phenomenon of the execution of a computer program
>is physical. However, computers are designed to behave in a
>predictable manner; the ordinary rolling of a real physical die, on
>the other hand, derives from inputs that are not controllable or
>predictable. The initial state of a computer program almost can't help
>being controllable and predictable, given the design of present-day
>computers and operating systems.
Right. Physical dice really aren't random at all. They are chaotic
(having the property of extreme sensitivity to initial conditions)
and amplify the randomness of miuscle contractions, air currents, etc.
Computers can be designed to show extreme sensitivity to initial
conditions, but the initial conditions are quantified as 0 or 1 bits.
knowing the initial conditions changes everything.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Herring)
Crossposted-To: comp.ai.fuzzy,sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Pleasantville: civilty under duress
Date: 29 Nov 1999 10:27:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <81q7g5$1ag$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <olZ%3.532$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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 ?
It looks like a sticky shift key to me.
--
Richard Herring | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Dalle)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.security
Subject: PageSecure v2.0 - is it weak or strong ?
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:37:14 GMT
In reaction to the successfull code breaker posted by David Hopwood, the
author of PageSecure (a password protection applet) has now redesigned
its encryption/decryption engine. According to the author, "it should present
would-be code breakers [...] with more than a weekend's effort to crack
this time".
Having looked at the decryption code, I am totally unable to determine
whether it would indeed represent a challenge for experienced cryptanalysts
or not...
Could someone check it out and do a quick evaluation ?
See http://www.4cm.com/pagesecure/
Thanks,
Michel.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Bailey)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.security,microsoft.public.java.security
Subject: Re: How to generatekey pair for different users?
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:54:51 GMT
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 01:23:39 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi
>
>Does anyone know how to generate different private and public key pairs
>for different users?
The following BC script generates key pairs. Run it on any Unix box
which has BC. I leave it to you to convert to a number base that is
appropriate for your crypto tool.
(begin bc script)
/* This is used as an argument to bc. First pick two prime numbers
greater than 50000. Substitute these in all p = and q = statements
below. Then set g equal to the phi or quotient function of n. Use
the command: bc generator | tee keylist This will allow the results
to be recorded as you interact with bc generator. By following a
sequence
a = 1234 cr e(a) cr d(a) cr repeat, repeat, etc
the file keylist is produced which will consist of a column of
encryption/decryption pairs. Record n at the beginning, and the
result is a raw unformated list of enc/dec pairs. */
define f(m,p,q) {
z = 1
for(j = p ; j > 0 ; j = j / 2 ) {
if( j % 2 == 1 ) {
z = z * m % q
}
m = m * m % q
}
return(z)
}
define e(x) {
auto p , q , n , f , g , h
p = 53269
q = 40709
n = p * q
f = (p - 1) * (q - 1)
g = 16 * 2 * 22 * 192 * 10176
return(f(97,x,f))
}
define d(x) {
auto p , q , n , f , g , h
p = 53269
q = 40709
n = p * q
f = (p - 1) * (q - 1)
g = 16 * 2 * 22 * 192 * 10176
h = g - x
return(f(97,h,f))
}
p = 53269
q = 40709
n = p * q
f = (p - 1) * (q - 1)
g = 16 * 2 * 22 * 192 * 10176
h = g - 12345
x = f(97,h,f)
y = f(97,12345,f)
u = e(12345)
v = d(12345)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
