Cryptography-Digest Digest #697, Volume #10 Tue, 7 Dec 99 08:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: dictionary (Klaus Pommerening)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Anthony Stephen Szopa)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Anthony Stephen Szopa)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Anthony Stephen Szopa)
Re: If you're in Australia, the government has the ability to modify your files. >>
4.Dec.1999
Re: NSA should do a cryptoanalysis of AES (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: If you're in Australia, the government has the ability to modify your files. >>
4.Dec.1999 ("Lyal Collins")
Re: If you're in Australia, the government has the ability to modify your files. >>
4.Dec.1999 ("Lyal Collins")
Re: smartcard idea? ("Lyal Collins")
Re: Quantum Computers and Weather Forecasting ("Trevor Jackson, III")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Klaus Pommerening)
Subject: Re: dictionary
Date: 7 Dec 1999 11:28:15 GMT
In <825npb$app$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Olaf Dokter" wrote:
> i am searching dictionaries to download,
>
http://www.uni-mainz.de/~pommeren/Kryptologie/Klassisch/1_Monoalph/Muste
rsuche.html
But beware: Dictionaries are good for pattern search, not for
frequency statistics.
--
Klaus Pommerening [http://www.Uni-Mainz.DE/~pommeren/]
Institut fuer Medizinische Statistik und Dokumentation
der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universitaet, D-55101 Mainz, Germany
PGP fingerprint: F5 03 CE E7 70 C2 8C 74 BA ED EC 60 83 3B 7C 89
------------------------------
From: Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 03:57:37 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Trevor Jackson, III" wrote:
> Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> > Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : Tim Tyler wrote:
> >
> > :> Whereas your position appears to be based on faith in the existence of
> > :> genuine randomness in subatomic behaviour, and in our ability to
> > :> magnify this up to a macroscopic scale, without distorting it at all.
> >
> > : Do you know about SQUIDs? Photomultipliers? Etc.?
> > : Why are you wasting bandwidth arguing about quantum effects
> > : when you don't understand the subject? Go learn it first!
> >
> > It seems to be necessary - since some people seem to have the idea that
> > a one-time pad is a realisable system.
> >
> > Without a source of genuinely random numbers a one-time pad falls short of
> > theoretical perfection - and unfortunately, no source of demonstrably
> > genuinely random numbers is - or IMO is ever likely to be - known to
> > mankind.
> >
> > Even if you believe that SQUIDs or photomultipliers are capable of
> > magnifying quantum events to a macroscopic scale without possibly
> > introducing any interference from other sources, I would love to
> > hear an explanation of how they could conceivably do this.
>
> There is no need for esoteric equipment. The dark-adapted human eye detects
> single quanta.
>
> >
> >
> > Alternatively, should you have a demonstration that quantum events are
> > themselves genuinely random, I would be delighted to hear that as well.
>
> > --
> > __________
> > |im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > *If* /you/ copy this "tagline virus" *please* mutate it!
I believe that CCDs (charged coupled devices) are quite capable of
detecting a single photon. Consider those used by astrophysicists,
for example.
------------------------------
From: Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 04:02:14 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Tyler wrote:
> Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Tim Tyler wrote:
> :> Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :> : You have just discovered true randomness.
> :>
> :> Alas, even *if* this is genuinely random - which you will never
> :> demonstrate - nobody has developed a scheme for extracting this
> :> information onto a macroscopic scale without introducing bais of
> :> one type or another.
> :>
> :> Until such a scheme is demonstrated, "true atomic randomness" is
> :> of the same utility to a cryptographer as a "perfectly straight line"
> :> is to a student of geometry.
>
> : I think you have taken a misguided position and are struggling too much to
> : defend it.
>
> Whereas your position appears to be based on faith in the existence of
> genuine randomness in subatomic behaviour, and in our ability to
> magnify this up to a macroscopic scale, without distorting it at all.
>
> : I think that a very good true random demonstration would be to generate a
> : single photon and direct it through a tiny hole. Where it strikes a screen
> : on the other side of the hole will be unpredictable within the possible field
> : in which it may strike.
>
> I can't predict it /exactly/ - but I know that it will be more likely to
> hit near the centre of the field near the edges, and that there will be
> radial fringes of probability distribution relating to where it is likely
> to hit.
>
> How yo you propose using this source of information to generate a
> genuinely random bitstream?
>
> What equipment will you use, and how will it be set up?
> Will you use polarised light? Light with random polarisation?
> What frequency is your light source? Is it from a lazer?
> Is it projecting through a perfect vacuum?
> What shape is your "small hole"?
> --
> __________
> |im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> COBOL programs are an exercise in Artificial Inelegance.
Exactly, as I said: within the range of the possible field.
Using a charged couple dvice that can detect a single photon and assign a cartesian
reference for each location on the CCD then if the photon strikes a location with
X,Y coordinates that are either both even or both odd then the bit is a 0
otherwise, if the location X,Y is one even and one odd then the bit is a 1.
Seems pretty good to me.
------------------------------
From: Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 04:05:21 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Tyler wrote:
> Trevor Jackson, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Tim Tyler wrote:
> :> Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> :> :> Whereas your position appears to be based on faith in the existence of
> :> :> genuine randomness in subatomic behaviour, and in our ability to
> :> :> magnify this up to a macroscopic scale, without distorting it at all.
> :>
> :> : Do you know about SQUIDs? Photomultipliers? Etc.?
> :> : Why are you wasting bandwidth arguing about quantum effects
> :> : when you don't understand the subject? Go learn it first!
> :>
> :> It seems to be necessary - since some people seem to have the idea that
> :> a one-time pad is a realisable system.
> :>
> :> Without a source of genuinely random numbers a one-time pad falls short of
> :> theoretical perfection - and unfortunately, no source of demonstrably
> :> genuinely random numbers is - or IMO is ever likely to be - known to
> :> mankind.
> :>
> :> Even if you believe that SQUIDs or photomultipliers are capable of
> :> magnifying quantum events to a macroscopic scale without possibly
> :> introducing any interference from other sources, I would love to
> :> hear an explanation of how they could conceivably do this.
>
> : There is no need for esoteric equipment. The dark-adapted human eye detects
> : single quanta.
>
> I see no presentation of a complete system, though. If you give me
> something concrete to criticise, I will be able to do a better job.
>
> Say you use a source of light and a polariser followed by the human eye.
> You need to make sure that no light sources exist outside the system which
> could cause a false detection. Perhaps a bunker underground would
> suffice to shield from cosmic rays causing false positives in some
> potentially biased manner. Or perhaps not.
>
> How are you ensuring the light is evenly polarised? what are the
> polarising properties of the material between the light source and the
> polarising filter? How good is the polariser. Polarisers generally
> consist of very thin slits. But they are not /infinitely/ thin campared
> to the wavelength of photons. This causes deviations from a 50-50 split
> of photon absorbsion.
>
> How are you storing the binary sequence? Is this immune to undetected
> drop-outs? DO any dropouts occur to 1s as much as to 0s?
>
> *Some* of these issues can be cleaned up by post-processing. Indeed, I
> doubt all of them can. In fact, I doubt all of them can even be
> enumerated :-(
>
> A *perfect* source of random numbers is a bit like a perpetual motion
> machine - I doubt its existence.
> --
> __________
> |im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Bollocks," said Pooh, being more forthright than usual.
Give us a break: just to start, the eye can only detect photons within a specific
frequency. I have never heard of anyone ever seing a cosmic ray photon with the
naked eye. And even if there was a false detection that false detection would
still be random, etc...
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: If you're in Australia, the government has the ability to modify your
files. >> 4.Dec.1999
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 07:38:23 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Orwellian Nightmare Down Under? by Stewart Taggart
>
>Do what most smart paranoids (and intelligent businesses) do, dedicate a
box for Internet use and keep sensitive and proprietary information on the
computer that never goes online with strangers. We use an old 300 for
surfing shark infested waters. We would have thought that anyone living in
the land of the great whites would understand shark repellant.
GrandTheft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: NSA should do a cryptoanalysis of AES
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 13:40:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>> No this is based on the fact that if one looks at a binary file.
>> One can quickly determine if it is one that could have resulted
>> from the compression in use. Most compression schemes
>> are such that Decompress(Compress(X))=X for all X
>> But so far only the ones I've written (in open lititature) have
>> the addtional property that Compress(Decompress(X))=X
>> for any X. This is something the average user can check on his
>> own. Takes files are random and try to decompress them and
>> then compress them back. The problem is far more than just
>> the headers. It is so bad that for many encrypted messages
>> you may be guaranteeing the fact that the only Key that can
>> lead to a valid solution is the one the user used. Which means
>> the attacker may have enough info to break your message on a
>> cipher only type of attack.
>
>What I'm still trying to figure out is how the lack of the
>property Compress(Decompress(X))==X is supposed to help the
>cryptanalyst. Given the relative complexity of LZW-style
>compression schemes (dynamic dictionary for example), in
>order to exploit algebraic properties of the compression
>itself, one pretty much has to have duplicated the internal
>compressor state (dictionary etc.), which means having
>already cracked the outer encryption.
This failure with LZW style is usually appeartant in the first few
blocks.There is 2 ways in which it can help.
One way would be to rule keys that where obtained through other
means. Example if your toture someone into giving a key. The key
could be tested.
Two depending on the cipher used whole classes of the key itself
may be eliminated from the search space. Having any kind of attack
that is cipher text only which reduces the key space is not good.
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: "Lyal Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: If you're in Australia, the government has the ability to modify your
files. >> 4.Dec.1999
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:53:12 +1100
This solution is a bit pointless if the warrant covers your off-line
machine.
Lyal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
<82iufh$gna$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Orwellian Nightmare Down Under? by Stewart Taggart
>>
>>Do what most smart paranoids (and intelligent businesses) do, dedicate a
>box for Internet use and keep sensitive and proprietary information on the
>computer that never goes online with strangers. We use an old 300 for
>surfing shark infested waters. We would have thought that anyone living in
>the land of the great whites would understand shark repellant.
>
>GrandTheft.com
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Lyal Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: If you're in Australia, the government has the ability to modify your
files. >> 4.Dec.1999
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:54:01 +1100
I beleive "data" includes program binaries under the definition in this and
other legislation.
lyal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Orwellian Nightmare Down Under? by Stewart Taggart
>
>3:00 a.m. 4.Dec.1999 PST
>SYDNEY, Australia -- Any data seem different on your computer today?
>
>If you're in Australia, the government has the ability to modify your
files. Its
>cyber spooks have been given legal power not only to monitor private
computers
>around the country, but to change the data they contain.
>
>The new powers are contained in a bill passed by Australia's parliament
late
>last month (the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Legislation
>Amendment 1999). They now await only the largely ceremonial assent of
>Australia's governor general before becoming law.
>
>"These are really untested waters," says Chris Connolly, a vocal Australian
>privacy advocate. "I don't think there's any example anywhere else in the
world
>that's comparable."
>
>Under the new law, Australia's attorney general can authorize legal hacking
into
>private computer systems, as well as copying or altering data, as long as
he has
>reasonable cause to believe it's relevant to a "security matter."
>
>The keyboard spies will come from the Australian Security Intelligence
>Organization (ASIO), Australia's equivalent of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
>Catherine Fitzpatrick, spokeswoman for Attorney General Daryl Williams,
said the
>law merely "modernizes" an existing 1979 statute that previously governed
ASIO,
>and sorely needed updating.
>
>"This just brings ASIO's powers in line with new technologies," she said.
"It
>doesn't give them increased powers at all."
>
>For example, the new law bars sleuths from introducing viruses or
interfering
>with data used for lawful purposes on targeted computers, she said. In
addition,
>the bill limits the power to alter data on a computer to concealing
>surveillance, she said.
>
>While all this is true, the bill also specifically authorizes -- among
other
>things -- anything that's "reasonably incidental." And it's broad wording
like
>this -- as well as the weak oversight of the nation's cyber spies -- that
have
>opponents aghast. "I hate to use the word 'Orwellian,' but I can't think of
>anything better to describe this," said Greg Taylor, vice chairman of
Electronic
>Frontiers Australia.
>
>"This is another stop down the path of legalized surveillance of all
information
>by authorities," he said.
>
>Taylor believes the new law could be especially damaging to people's faith
in
>encrypted communications, because government hackers could potentially lift
>encryption keys from individual computers.
>
>"This bill seems to get around the problems that strong cryptography
presents
>law enforcement," Taylor said. "Now, they can attack the problem at the
source
>-- the originating computer -- before the data even gets encrypted."
>
>In addition, the new law could introduce tricky new issues into legal
cases, he
>said. "It opens to question all computer evidence if there's been the
potential
>for legalized tampering of it. Computer evidence already poses problems of
>validation, and that's before you even open up these legal avenues of
>tampering."
>
>Connolly, as director of Australia's Financial Services Consumer Policy
Center
>and national coordinator of the Campaign for Fair Privacy Laws, spoke out
>against the proposed legislation in a parliamentary submission earlier this
>year.
>
>"Australia doesn't really need an intelligence agency with dictatorial
powers,"
>he said. "People here largely trust the federal police to deal with most
>matters, and the police are subject to more controls and supervision by
judges
>than ASIO is."
>
>He believes the government hastily pushed the bill through parliament
using,
>among other things, national nervousness about the approaching Sydney
Olympics
>to convince parliamentarians to go along. He thinks ASIO's expanded powers
>clearly go too far, and were sought by an agency seeking a new role after
the
>Cold War.
>
>To Brian Greig, a West Australian senator from the populist Democrats
Party --
>which voted against the bill -- the law now tilts the balance of power
between
>the individual and government too far in favor of government.
>
>"If we're going to expand ASIO's surveillance powers, we should have
expanded
>equally the rights and liberties of individuals to be protected from that,"
he
>said. "My suspicion is that citizens of other countries wouldn't have been
so
>apathetic about an issue like this."
>
>As Australia's fourth largest political party, the Democrats could only
voice
>concern about the proposed law. Both the ruling Liberal-National party
coalition
>and the opposition Labor Party both voted to pass the measure.
>
>Under the new system, a citizen's most likely recourse if he feels
improperly
>snooped would be to complain to the attorney general -- who authorized the
>snooping in the first place, or to the inspector general of intelligence
and
>security, a government watchdog that conducts periodic reviews of ASIO's
>activities, Connolly said. Neither of which is likely to pursue an
aggressive,
>impartial investigation, Connolly believes. So, if the law's a done deal --
what
>now?
>
>Connolly suggests it's up to individuals and companies in Australia to take
>additional measures to protect confidential information if they're worried
about
>government hackers. He suggests seeking out better encryption, as well as
>software that can detect computer intrusions.
>
>However, if government now has legal power to change computer data, it can
>legally tamper with intrusion detection software, erasing records of its
visits,
>he said.
>
>To Paul Budde, a Sydney-based independent telecommunications analyst, the
new
>law sends the wrong message.
>
>"If the government is allowed to be the biggest hacker in town, it really
>undermines computer security rather than enhances it," he said. "How can
they
>now criticize 16-year-old kids who break into computer systems for fun if
the
>government's doing it, too?"
>
------------------------------
From: "Lyal Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: smartcard idea?
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:58:37 +1100
www.elva.fr
http://www.telplussystems.com/
Shawn Willden wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Lyal Collins wrote:
>
>> Batteries may not be a problem.
>> Some of the new polymer batteries (I think it's polymer) are used to form
a
>> battery from the plastic carrier of the Smarctard.
>> Several audio smarctards are now on the market as a result - Elva, and
>> Telysys being 2.
>
>This sounds like a technology with marvelous possibilities. Can you point
me to
>more information?
>
>Shawn.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 08:11:58 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.physics,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Quantum Computers and Weather Forecasting
Joseph Bartlo wrote:
> Trevor Jackson, III wrote:
>
> > Try Alfred Bester's "The Demolished Man" for usage of this technique.
>
> Please explain - I don't know what you are referring to, though I do know
> how to demolish things quite well.
In "The Demolished Man" Bester uses symbols as letters in proper names.
There's a Mr. S&ers, Mr. @kins, etc.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
