Cryptography-Digest Digest #813, Volume #10 Thu, 30 Dec 99 18:13:01 EST
Contents:
stupid question ("Buchinger Reinhold")
Re: Secure Delete Not Smart (Johnny Bravo)
Re: File format for CipheSaber-2? (Johnny Bravo)
Re: HD encryption passphrase cracked! (Keith A Monahan)
Re: cryptography website(dutch)!!!!! ("Red Shadow")
Re: Attacks on a PKI (Greg)
Re: cryptography website(dutch)!!!!! (CLSV)
Re: Secure Delete Not Smart (Jim)
Re: Secure Delete Not Smart (Jim)
Re: Encryption: Do Not Be Complacent (Jim)
Re: SSL And Certificate Verifications (Paul Rubin)
Re: stupid question (NFN NMI L.)
Re: Cryptography in Tom Clancy (NFN NMI L.)
Re: PKZIP compression security (NFN NMI L.)
Re: PKZIP compression security (ChenNelson)
Re: stupid question ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: Cryptography in Tom Clancy (John Savard)
Re: File format for CipheSaber-2? (lordcow77)
Re: Secure Delete Not Smart (T. Sean)
Re: Secure Delete Not Smart (T. Sean)
Re: Secure Delete Not Smart (T. Sean)
Re: Secure Delete Not Smart (T. Sean)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Buchinger Reinhold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: stupid question
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 13:28:48 +0100
Hi !
I have a stupid question. But what is the difference between a key of a
stream cipher and a key of an one-time-pad ???
Thank's !!
Reinhold
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny Bravo)
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Secure Delete Not Smart
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:35:40 GMT
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:08:24 -0500, Mark D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>OK, so put the CD in an oven for 30 minutes... I'd like to see that
>recovered!
Or in a microwave for 5 seconds on high. Fantastic lightshow, very
bad for the media. :)
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny Bravo)
Subject: Re: File format for CipheSaber-2?
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:44:18 GMT
On 30 Dec 1999 08:50:37 -0000, Paul Crowley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here's what I proposed for CipherSaber-3:
>
>(1) Fix the number of repeats to a power of 2 >= 256
Do you realize that this makes message encryption nearly impossible?
2.9e80 swapping operations have to be performed before you can encrypt
one message. And you can't store this value and use it next time,
because the IV is different. Then the recipient has to perform 2.9e80
swapping operations just to check the first key. And if that doesn't
work 2.9e80 more operations for the second, then 5.8e160 for the third
key.
Johnny Bravo
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith A Monahan)
Subject: Re: HD encryption passphrase cracked!
Date: 30 Dec 1999 18:57:22 GMT
Guy,
The funny thing is I used that password for literally years on a somewhat
regular basis. I had no problems remembering it in the past but I went
on a trip last June and after spending a couple weeks overseas, and a
couple Guiness's in Ireland -- I came back dumbfounded to remember the
entire thing. I did recall a very large portion of it, but forgot placement
(and order) of symbols, and I thought I was missing a word. What really
happened was I typed it incorrectly once, and then I tried a couple of
combinations, and before you know it I was forgetting it because all the
combinations confused me!
For the longest time I was typing the password by memory of the keys --
I'm a fairly proficient typist, and I type with thoughts rather than
characters -- with words instead of letters that comprise the word. So,
to make a long story short, my hands remembered day after day after day
the passphrase, but my brain didnt.
Keith
P.S. A alot of people say, "That would never happen to me"
Guy Macon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <84dq9o$a5g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith A
:Monahan) wrote:
: >
: >Hey,
: >
: >NFN NMI L. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: >: "Secure Deletion of Magnetic Media", Peter Gutmann. Good reading. I have the
: >: URL somewhere.
: >
: >It's http://www.uncwil.edu/Ed/INSTRUCT/burt/edn416/secure_del.html here.
: >
: >: By the way, now that it doesn't matter, what WAS the passphrase? :-D
: >
: >I did contemplate posting it as most people would probably get a kick
: >out of it and would understand why it took so long. However, if someone
: >managed to get ahold of the ciphertext say awhile back, they could now
: >use the key. Sorry! :)
: A 44 word passphrase with 7 punctuation characters? Don't you think that
: you went just a bit overboard? Just using "I did contemplate posting it
: as most people would probably get a kick out of it" would seem to be
: secure enough. No wonder you found it hard to remember!
------------------------------
From: "Red Shadow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cryptography website(dutch)!!!!!
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:03:02 +0100
ya indeed that's right
John Savard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:27:21 +0100, "Red Shadow"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >check this:
> >http://home.freegates.be/cryptografie
>
> It insists you have the Macromedia Flash plug-in installed, it insists
> on JavaScript being enabled...
>
> John Savard (teneerf <-)
> http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
------------------------------
From: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Attacks on a PKI
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 19:04:53 GMT
> the old style checks with signing limits has been one model proposal
> for certificate pki ...
Wouldn't you agree that PKI is in many ways an electronic emulation
of classical check banking and that once someone thinks (imagines)
beyond classical architecture, PKI may actually simplify and
strengthen at the same time?
--
The only vote that you waste is the one you never wanted to make.
RICO- we were told it was a necessary surrender of our civil liberties.
Asset Forfeiture- the latest inevitable result of RICO.
http://www.ciphermax.com/book
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: CLSV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cryptography website(dutch)!!!!!
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:00:53 +0000
"Red Shadow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> check this:
> http://home.freegates.be/cryptografie
John Savard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It insists you have the Macromedia Flash plug-in installed, it insists
> on JavaScript being enabled...
Red Shadow wrote:
> ya indeed that's right
Well the "pretty" make-up is very annoying
(I personally don't like to wait for a menu item to
*slllowwwwly* expand into submenu's)
and JavaScript is very unsafe. It is nice though
to have some crypto history written in Dutch for
the people who don't like to read the stuff in
English.
Regards,
CLSV
------------------------------
From: amadeus @DELETE_THIS.netcomuk.co.uk (Jim)
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Secure Delete Not Smart
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:16:57 GMT
Reply-To: Jim
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 04:26:12 -0600, "William W. Joslin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And fruitless. Recovering a smashed CD would be no trouble given the
>right optical equipment.
>
>Not if it was put through a food processor... :)
How about cooking it in a microwave oven? :o)
--
Posted by G4RGA.
Rallies Info: http://website.lineone.net/~nordland
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~amadeus
------------------------------
From: amadeus @DELETE_THIS.netcomuk.co.uk (Jim)
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Secure Delete Not Smart
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:16:58 GMT
Reply-To: Jim
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:35:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny Bravo) wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:08:24 -0500, Mark D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>OK, so put the CD in an oven for 30 minutes... I'd like to see that
>>recovered!
>
> Or in a microwave for 5 seconds on high. Fantastic lightshow, very
>bad for the media. :)
And very bad for the microwave.
--
Posted by G4RGA.
Rallies Info: http://website.lineone.net/~nordland
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~amadeus
------------------------------
From: amadeus @DELETE_THIS.netcomuk.co.uk (Jim)
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy,talk.politics.crypto,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Encryption: Do Not Be Complacent
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:16:59 GMT
Reply-To: Jim
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 13:30:14 -0500, jose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jim wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 18:07:50 -0800, Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> >I would create several specific words and phrases that convey the
>> >exact same meaning. I guess the best security would be to assign
>> >certain numbers to represent certain words and phrases. Then have
>> >any of several numbers represent the exact same word or phrase.
>>
>> Seems that what you are describing is enciphered code.
>>
>> I.e. code your message from a codebook (if you can still find
>> one) then encipher it.
>
>nope, sounds more like the original author has accepted the fact that messages are
>likely to be decoded one way or another, but their meaning may still be hidden by
>the age old trick of a poorly known vocabulary. *shrug* simple trick, kids use it
>all the time, why should you stop because you are an adult?
>
>for a clear example of this, look at various MicroSoft memos that got out during
>their recent federal trial. some euphamisms and less blunt discussion of tactics
>would have saved them a lot of hassel.
Assuming that the cipher can be stripped off all messages; if the recovered
code words/groups have the same meanings over an extended period, then
the system will be broken later if not sooner!
Remember 'Magic', the Zimmermann Telegram, US WW2 decrypts of Japanese
naval traffic.
--
Posted by G4RGA.
Rallies Info: http://website.lineone.net/~nordland
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~amadeus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: SSL And Certificate Verifications
Date: 30 Dec 1999 20:33:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SSL/TLS isn't succeptable to a classic MITM attack where the attacker
>inserts/replaces information in the protocol between Steve the server
>and Claude the client. However if the attacker can modify or insert a
>CA cert/public key into Claude's database of trusted CA keys, then the
>attacker can get the victim to accept a 'rogue' server who's cert is
>signed by the bogus CA instead of a CA which the client trusts.
>So while that's not the classic MITM attack, one could argue that
>the effect's the same.
You're talking about the attacker breaking into the victim's machine
in order to mess with the certificate store before presenting bogus
certificates. That's a *LOT* different than a MITM attack which can
be carried out over a network. If the attacker can break into the
victim's machine and have his/her way with it, why fool around with SSL
certificates instead of just installing OS patches that log all the
victim's keystrokes and send them to the attacker's headquarters?
I don't feel that SSL as currently practiced by typical online
retailers is the most secure system in the world, but it's good enough
for the way it's usually used, and the browsers' CA stores certainly
aren't its most important points of vulnerability.
>Most browers will let the user accept a new CA into the trusted
>CA database after displaying the Subject and Issuer names and
>other stuff from the cert and taking the user through some number
>of "do you really want to do this?" dialog boxes. Anyone with
>a copy of SSLeay/openSSL can become their own CA this way.
>
>At the end of the day, the trust resides with the user making
>decisions based on a warm fuzzy feeling he gets from reading
>some words that his browser says were contained in a valid CA cert
>(or from trusting Netscape or Microsoft to have done the same).
It's worse than that. If the attacker can hypnotize the user into
clicking "yes" whenever the browser pops a dialog, s/he can download
new software (for example ActiveX controls) onto the user's machine
that can do anything it wants. This is totally independent of the way
SSL works. The dialog messages for installing new CA roots are MUCH
scarier than those for downloading and executing software.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NFN NMI L.)
Subject: Re: stupid question
Date: 30 Dec 1999 20:44:33 GMT
The output of a stream cipher is theoretically breakable. The output of a
one-time-pad is theoretically unbreakable.
The streams of bits are used in the same manner once they are generated.
However, for the stream cipher, one need only securely transmit the starting
information (the key), while for the pad you must securely transmit the whole
pad.
S. "Beware crackpots" L.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NFN NMI L.)
Subject: Re: Cryptography in Tom Clancy
Date: 30 Dec 1999 20:48:12 GMT
<<even the NSA
could do so a decade hence; that would be irresponsible underdesign>>
I thought that the NSA would stand having the general public use an algorithm
that they couldn't break for the next 20 years. But maybe I remember
incorrectly.
S. "No Such Agency" L.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NFN NMI L.)
Subject: Re: PKZIP compression security
Date: 30 Dec 1999 20:50:35 GMT
Doesn't PGP compress anyways?
S. L.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ChenNelson)
Subject: Re: PKZIP compression security
Date: 30 Dec 1999 20:55:21 GMT
Yes, PGP compresses with the PKZIP algorithm before encrypting the file. From
"Applied Cryptography," the security of PKZIP's encryption is pretty bad, and
can be broken within a few hours on a PC.
Later,
Nelson Chen
==========================
To earn $0.05 per clickthrough from your web page, please go to
http://www.3wmart.com/ and sign up for our button banner program.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: stupid question
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 12:46:46 -0800
> I have a stupid question. But what is the difference between a key of a
> stream cipher and a key of an one-time-pad ???
The basic difference is where in the process they are used.
The basic algorithm is:
data--|
|
RNG------Cipher-----output
The difference is where the key is used. In the case of a one time pad the
key replaces the RNG (the RNG having been run prior, and being a true Random
Number Generator). In a stream cipher the key is used as a seed to a
_pseudo_ Random Number Generator (called a pseudo RNG because it does not
generate truly random numbers). That is the current typical usage, a while
back there was actually some discussion about what constitues a stream
cipher and what constitutes a block cipher, and I can extend it to include
OTP easily. My personal opinion is that a stream cipher function has as it's
inputs data, key, and the previous data (although the effect of the previous
data is often limited to the length), a block cipher inputs only data and
key, an OTP is simply a block cipher where the key is exactly as long as the
data (we have actually discussed some other issues here but that's the
basics).
Joseph
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Cryptography in Tom Clancy
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:38:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (NFN NMI L.) wrote, in part:
><<even the NSA
>could do so a decade hence; that would be irresponsible underdesign>>
>I thought that the NSA would stand having the general public use an algorithm
>that they couldn't break for the next 20 years. But maybe I remember
>incorrectly.
I was referring to the STU-III, which is used by the U.S. military,
not the general public. *Those* algorithms ought to be designed to be
unbreakable for 50 years and then some, to the extent that is
practical.
John Savard (jsavard<at>ecn<dot>ab<dot>ca)
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: lordcow77 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: File format for CipheSaber-2?
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:49:22 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Johnny Bravo) wrote:
> On 30 Dec 1999 08:50:37 -0000, Paul Crowley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Here's what I proposed for CipherSaber-3:
> >
> >(1) Fix the number of repeats to a power of 2 >= 256
> Do you realize that this makes message encryption nearly
> impossible?
> 2.9e80 swapping operations have to be performed before you can
> encrypt
The obvious intent is that 256 is the lowest power of 2 that the number
of repeats should be set to, with the further implication that 2^8 ==
256.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: T. Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Secure Delete Not Smart
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:25:29 GMT
In article <NmGa4.1215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"William W. Joslin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And fruitless. Recovering a smashed CD would be no trouble given
the
> right optical equipment.
>
> Not if it was put through a food processor... :)
>
>
Or just douse it in petrol, then light a match....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure Delete Not Smart
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:29:02 GMT
Um, as a teanager we used to burn holes in PAYPHONES using thermite -
and it would take less than 5 seconds to do so!
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
lordcow77 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't the disks take a long time to be
> damaged by the fire? And if thermite is an explosive, wouldn't one
> still be able to read the data off the fragments?
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure Delete Not Smart
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:31:03 GMT
You can make your own... I seem to remember 2 parts iron oxide to 1 part
aluminum dust... or sumpthin like that....not exactly hard to find
ingredients...
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not an explosive, just a very hot fire. It's used for cutting
and
> welding. The temperatures range from 4000 to 5500 oF.
>
> >
> >
> > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure Delete Not Smart
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:27:40 GMT
But what if you need to wipe the CD to keep the ATF from finding out the
location of your secret thermite stockpile? >:-P
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"John E. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In an emergency, we toss them into a container full of thermite
> and set it off.
> - Douglas
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
