Cryptography-Digest Digest #969, Volume #10 Tue, 25 Jan 00 00:13:00 EST
Contents:
Why did SkipJack fail? (Greg)
Re: What's with transposition? (Peter Rabbit)
Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator (Michael Kagalenko)
Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator (Michael Kagalenko)
USENIX Security Symposium 2000 - FINAL Call for Papers (Moun Chau)
Re: Why did SkipJack fail? (Mike Andrews)
Re: MIRDEK: more fun with playing cards. ("r.e.s.")
Re: generating "safe primes" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Modem Crypto (Military Grade) ("Steve Sampson")
Re: LSFR ("r.e.s.")
810 chipset Random Number Generator (long) (Guy Macon)
Re: Why did SkipJack fail? (Paul Rubin)
Re: Modem Crypto (Military Grade) (Paul Rubin)
Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator (Guy Macon)
Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator (Guy Macon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why did SkipJack fail?
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:07:42 GMT
Can anyone please share their views on why SkipJack failed in
the market place?
--
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: Peter Rabbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What's with transposition?
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:23:24 GMT
wtshaw wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> KitKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Some time last summer I came up with my own nifty lil'
> > transposition scheme and I thought it was pretty cool (off course: it's
> > mine). I actually spent quite some time coding it. Picking up on
> > cryptography and the like I recently bought Schneier brick "Applied
> > Cryptography".
> >
> > He affirms (twice) that transposition is "as a general rule"
> > easily broken. My first reaction, in its purest form, was something in the
> > vincinity of "Dang it!". My problem is that he doesn't seem to explain why
> > anywhere close to that statement. I'd like to have the explanation as to
> > why transposition (-only) cryptosystems are easily defeated (as in: "no
> > matter how "complex" your transposition scheme may look to you").
> > Actually, information as to where to find extended e-litterature on the
> > subject would be greatly appreciated!
> >
> >
> > KitKat
> > --
> > I'd rather be coding;
>
> First comment of mine, last of yours: Agreed. There is nothing a bigger
> waste of time than messing with bureaucrats that know almost nothing about
> what they are doing, as they have furthered their incommunication skills
> to say little or nothing for extended periods of time in increasing
> volumes of text, which has some sort of analog in extremely poor crypto.
> Note, also these statements tend to be full of tarbaby references to other
> such stuff. Thankfully, reality is a helpful notion that can be used to
> test such stuff to uncover any goodness that might be hidden amongst the
> grime of misdirected passions and motives, etc, etc, and etc.
>
> Congratulations on playing with transposition. It can be lots of fun,
> even the simple stuff, which is usually letters alone. Gwyn mentions bits,
> but transposition can involve information units is any particular base.
>
> Transposition is often a part of a larger system, a very common part of
> many. Alone, can be weak, very weak.
>
> Simple transposition by itself is reduced to a permutation of N-elements.
> Clues as to related elements are the downfall of most such scheme,
> especially those that only allow a few of the permutation possibilities;
> exclude the impossible linguistic allowed arrangements, and you only have
> one or a very few choices for solution.
>
> If you are dealing with text, ascii is a poor choice since you can filter
> out so many likely possibilities based on likely characters to be used.
> --
> To prevent the comprimise of with the most common configuration
> of computers is something like preventing a sculptor from being too original. If a
>computer design is corruptable, it will be.
agreed, simple transposition, by itself, is perhaps easily cracked
but...
if you have ever played, as a kid or with kids, "How many words can you
make of the following letters?" then you know that it can be quite
challenging, especially if you are talking thousands of chars. If you
transpose AND THEN encrypt (with a good algo) the security should
increase.
Peter Rabbit
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Kagalenko)
Crossposted-To: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator
Date: 25 Jan 2000 01:33:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Guy Macon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
]In article <86gcnd$l0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]>
]>Trevor Jackson, III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
]>]Michael Kagalenko wrote:
]
]>]> False. You did not understand the physics that I am proposing to use.
]
]>]> As I said elsewhere, you are wrong.
]>]
]>]You can _say_ that as much as you like. But the readers of the
]>] sci.* fora prefer that you _show_ it.
]>]
]>]You haven't.
]>]
]>]*NEXT*.
]>
]> I don't think that collected readership of sci.* groups had
]> ever appointed you their spokesmen.
]
]That would be me. Sorry you missed the election - we only send
]ballots to folks who give reasons why they think someone is wrong.
]You disqualified yourself. You do qualify for talk.* and alt.*.
]
I was explicit enough for anyone with basic reading skills. You obviously
don't qualify. I am not inclined to repeat explanations which I posted before.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Kagalenko)
Crossposted-To: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator
Date: 25 Jan 2000 01:37:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joseph Ashwood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
]> All I need to do is measure the clock drift. Aging of the crystal can
]> be corrected with re-calibartion.
]
]But that itself introduces biases in the numbers generated.
No, it does not. Duh !
]Let's take a probably not all that great example. Lets take a crystal of
]frequency F(with a random component measurably small), with a decay of
]F/time of D. Now we use this to generate Numbers the following way:
]if measured(F) is higher than published(F) return 1
]if measured(F) is lower than published(F) return 0
That is not the way random numbers should be generated. That's why
I did not propose to generate them this way.
]Our measured(F) is actually published(F)+randomness+integral(D), giving us a
]very measurable bias probably rather quickly. No matter how fast you
]re-calibrate the bias (eliminating degenerate cases) will be present.
]
]I don't see where the frequency of something that decays (even at an
]extremely predictable rate) is of much use.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
muc.lists.www-security,ocunix.mail.freebsd.security,alt.fan.sysadmin,comp.infosystems.www,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,comp.unix.osf.osf1,hannet.ml.linux.rutgers.linux-admin,comp.unix.solaris
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Moun Chau)
Subject: USENIX Security Symposium 2000 - FINAL Call for Papers
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:25:58 GMT
9th USENIX Security Symposium 2000 Conference
August 14 - 17, 2000
Denver, Colorado, USA
Conference URL: http://www.usenix.org/events/sec2000
The USENIX Security Symposium brings together researchers,
practitioners, system administrators, systems programmers, and others
interested in the latest advances in security and applications of
cryptography. The keynote speaker is Dr. Blaine Burnham, Director of the
Georgia Tech Information Security Center (GTISC) and formerly Program
Manager for the National Security Agency (NSA) at Ft. Meade, Maryland.
We are currently seeking submissions for Refereed Papers,
Works-In-Progress Reports, Talks/Panel Session proposals, and Tutorial
presentation proposals for this event. If you are working in any
practical aspect of security or applications of cryptography, the
program committee urges you to submit a paper.
Please see the detailed author guidelines, which include a sample
abstract, for more information.
http://www.usenix.org/events/sec2000/cfp/guidelines.html
=============================================
IMPORTANT REFEREED PAPER SUBMISSION DATES
*Paper submissions due: February 10, 2000
*Notification to authors: March 23, 2000
*Camera-Ready Final papers due: June 15, 2000
=============================================
USENIX Security Symposium 2000 is sponsored by USENIX, the Advanced
Computing Systems Association, in cooperation with the CERT Coordination
Center. USENIX is an international membership society.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Andrews)
Subject: Re: Why did SkipJack fail?
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:21:36 GMT
Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Can anyone please share their views on why SkipJack failed in
: the market place?
All this from memory:
o It used a classified algorithm, and hence was not open to public
review.
o It would have made ciphertext readable by anyone who could
convince the keepers of the LEAF keys that his was a good
and noble cause.
o It wasn't good enough for classified data, but supposedly was
good enough for _our_ data.
o It appeared likely that use of Skipjack would have been mandated,
and use of other cryptosystems prohibited, if encryption was
needed.
--
Mike Andrews
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tired old sysadmin since 1964
------------------------------
From: "r.e.s." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MIRDEK: more fun with playing cards.
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:21:33 -0800
"Paul Rubin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
[...]
: ARC4-52 describes the cryptographic algorithm and is a good designation
: (distintinguishes it from the traditional ARC4-256). The xor combiner
: should be irrelevant to the cryptography. It's not part of the cipher.
Hmm... that's news to me. All the descriptions I've seen of ARC4,
including its original posting to this NG, show the XOR combiner
as part of ARC4. (I too would prefer to consider the combiner as
separate from "ARC4", but I would wager that if you produced "ARC4"
ciphertext using a mod 256 additive combiner, most people would say
that you didn't use ARC4; i.e, any substantive change, and it's a
different algorithm.)
For that reason I would like to have a good designation for just
the stream generator portion of ARC4, which for which I want to
consider various state-vector lengths. Both key setup and combiner
then become separate modules.
--
r.e.s. "Mistr Typo"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: generating "safe primes"
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:52:05 GMT
"Michael Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Katz" ...
> > What are currently used algorithms for generating
> > "safe primes" [...]of the form p = 2q + 1 such
> > that p is prime and q is prime)?
[...]
> Randomly generate odd q and calculate p. Try
> division by small primes to quickly see if either is
> composite. If neither
> are found to be composite in this way, only then proceed to full
> Miller-Rabin primality test for both p and q.
Right - don't waste time on an expensive primality
verification of a candidate q when you're probably
just going to throw it away when 2q+1 quickly
flunks.
You can get a bigger speedup doing a single base 2 Fermat
test on q, then on p, before moving to Miller-Rabin.
1. Sieve for candidate q
2. Sieve for candidate p
3. Base-2 Fermat test on candidate q
4. Base-2 Fermat test on candidate p
5. Full multi-iteration Miller-Rabin on both
It won't hurt to alternate the Miller-Rabin iterations
between testing q and testing p, but it won't help
either; in practice, all composites are found before
step 5.
--Bryan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sampson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Modem Crypto (Military Grade)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:09:49 -0600
I'm looking for a modern device that can use a 33k modem (analog lines)
for a dialup solution. The latest STU have ISDN, but most military
installations
do not (I assume the ISDN feature was designed for the DOE :-) or other
overfunded programs).
The analog portion of even the ISDN STU can only do 9.6k max, which is all
right for a BBS application, but inadequate for PPP.
Has anyone worked with a more modern analog line device?
Steve
------------------------------
From: "r.e.s." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LSFR
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:27:15 -0800
I'm trying to follow up on your earlier suggestions involving
polynomials primitive on GF(2) and GF(5).
Can you point me to any source for the primitive trinomials
on GF(5) up to degree ~50? (I've found these for GF(2).)
--
r.e.s.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Crossposted-To: sci.physics,alt.dev.null
Subject: 810 chipset Random Number Generator (long)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 23:13:57 EST
(Followups set, A.D.N Added - editing newsgroup line strongly suggested)
Michael Kagalenko wrote:
>
> Guy Macon wrote:
>]
>] Michael Kagalenko wrote:
>]>
>]> Trevor Jackson, III wrote:
>]>]
>]>] Michael Kagalenko wrote:
>]>]>
>]>]> False. You did not understand the
>]>]> physics that I am proposing to use.
>]>]>
>]>]> As I said elsewhere, you are wrong.
>]>]
>]>] You can _say_ that as much as you like.
>]>] But the readers of the sci.* fora
>]>] prefer that you _show_ it.
>]>]
>]>] You haven't.
>]>]
>]>] *NEXT*.
>]>
>]> I don't think that collected readership of sci.* groups had
>]> ever appointed you their spokesmen.
>]
>] That would be me. Sorry you missed the election - we only send
>] ballots to folks who give reasons why they think someone is wrong.
>] You disqualified yourself. You do qualify for talk.* and alt.*.
>
> I was explicit enough for anyone with basic reading skills.
> You obviously don't qualify. I am not inclined to repeat
> explanations which I posted before.
You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we
say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions
printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather
kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in
the Isles of Langerhan.
You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk,
a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a
stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared
richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth
into a hostile world. You are an insensate, blinking calf,
meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling
beasts who sired you and then died of shame in recognition of what
they had done. They were a bit late.
I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf
at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You
are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention
that you smell?
Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting
to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be
able to access it ever so much more rapidly.
You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up,
drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set
you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the
frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the
queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.
You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with
you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost
in a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSII compliant. You
have a couple of address lines shorted together. You should be
promoted to Engineering Manager.
And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important
statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us?
What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous
desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of
the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
loathsome disease, a puerile slack-jawed drooling meatslapper. You
make Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent. Your mother
had to tie a pork chop around your neck just to get your dog to
play with you.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality
of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and
sorrow wherever you go.
You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off,
pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john.
You clouted boggish foot-licking half-twit. You dankish clack-dish
plonker. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You bloody churlish
boil-brained clotpole ponce. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup
pratting naff. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You gob-kissing
gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted
clapper-clawed flirt-gill.
You are so clueless that if we stripped you naked, soaked you in
clue musk, and dropped you into a field full of horny clues, You
still would not have a clue.
( Fine print: This is version 5.31 of Guy Macon's insult file.
Feel free to use this any way that you please. If you have an
insult to add, or for the latest version of this file, go to
[ http://users.deltanet.com/~guymacon/insult/ ]. )
You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are
degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing
you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go
away.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it
goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension
of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid
collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed.
Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity
stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more
stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year.
Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our
universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence
of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the
laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an
epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me
again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride
your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant
trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.
The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have
snipped away most of your of what you wrote, because, well...
it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a
creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together
a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective...
Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell,
and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary
skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that
everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget
that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these
things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then
I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been
"right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the
best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be
placing such a demand on you.
STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM
(check all boxes that apply)
Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie [ ] Lamer [ ] Flamer
[ ] Loser [ ] Spammer [ ] Troller
[ ] "Me too" er [ ] Pervert [ ] Geek
[ ] Freak [ ] Nerd [ ] Elvis
[ ] Racist [ ] Fed [ ] Freak
[ ] Fundamentalist [ ] Satanist [ ] Homeopath
[ ] Unbearably self-righteous person [ ] Shoko Asahara
I took exception to your recent:
[ ] Email
[ ] Post to ________ newsgroup
[ ] Broadcast
[ ] Letter
[ ] Book
[ ] Lecture
[ ] Phone call
[ ] Advertisement
[ ] Schematic
[ ] Telepathic message
[ ] Existence
It was (check all that apply):
[ ] Lame [ ] Stupid [ ] Abusive
[ ] Clueless [ ] Idiotic [ ] Brain-damaged
[ ] Imbecilic [ ] Arrogant [ ] Malevolent
[ ] Contemptible [ ] Libelous [ ] Ignorant
[ ] Stupid [ ] Fundamentalist [ ] Microsoftian
[ ] Boring [ ] Dim [ ] Cowardly
[ ] Deceitful [ ] Demented [ ] Self-righteous
[ ] Crazy [ ] Weird [ ] Hypocritical
[ ] Loathsome [ ] Satanic [ ] Despicable
[ ] Belligerent [ ] Mind-numbing [ ] Maladroit
[ ] Much longer than any worthwhile thought you may be capable of.
Your attention is drawn to the fact that:
[ ] You posted what should have been emailed.
[ ] You obviously don't know how to read your newsgroups line.
[ ] You are trying to make money on a non-commercial newsgroup.
[ ] You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others.
[ ] You self-righteously impose your racial beliefs on others.
[ ] You posted a binary in a non-binaries group.
[ ] You don't know which group to post in.
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting.
[ ] You crossposted to *way* too many newsgroups.
[ ] I don't like your tone of voice.
[ ] What you posted has been done before.
[ ] Not only that, it was also done better the last time.
[ ] You quoted an *entire* post in your reply.
[ ] You started a long, stupid thread.
[ ] You continued spreading a long stupid thread.
[ ] Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it.
[ ] You posted a followup to crossposted robot-generated spam.
[ ] You posted a "test" in a discussion group rather than in misc.test
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message.
[ ] You posted low-IQ flamebait.
[ ] You posted a blatantly obvious troll.
[ ] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll.
[ ] You said "me too" to something.
[ ] You make no sense.
[ ] Your sig/alias is dreadful.
[ ] You must live in a skinner box to be this clueless.
[ ] You posted a phone-sex ad.
[ ] You posted a stupid pyramid money making scheme.
[ ] You claimed a pyramid-scheme/chain letter for money was legal.
[ ] Your margin settings (or lack of) make your post unreadable. Each line just
goes on and on, not stopping at 75 characters, making it hard to read.
[ ] You posted in ELitE CaPitALs to look k0OL.
[ ] You posted a message in ALL CAPS, and you don't even own a TRS-80.
[ ] Your post was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON.
[ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this newsgroup.
[ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the Internet.
[ ] You are a loser.
[ ] This has been pointed out to you before.
[ ] You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally
worthless that you are being flamed on general principles.
I recommend that you:
[ ] Get a clue.
[ ] Get a life.
[ ] Go away.
[ ] Grow up.
[ ] Never post again.
[ ] Read every newsgroup you crossposted to for a week.
[ ] stop reading Usenet news and get a life.
[ ] stop sending Email and get a life.
[ ] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it.
[ ] Have your medication adjusted.
[ ] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor.
[ ] find a volcano and throw yourself in.
[ ] get a gun and shoot yourself.
[ ] Actually post something relevant.
[ ] Read the FAQ.
[ ] stick to AOL chat rooms and come back when you've grown up.
[ ] Apologize to everybody in this newsgroup.
[ ] consume excrement.
[ ] consume excrement and thus expire.
[ ] Post your tests to misc.test.
[ ] Put your home phone number in your ads from now on.
[ ] Don't post until you have a vague idea what you're doing.
In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[ ] You need to seek psychiatric help
[ ] Take your gibberish somewhere else
[ ] *plonk*
[ ] Learn how to post or get off the Internet.
[ ] Most of the above
[ ] All of the above
[ ] Some of the above, not including All of the above
[X] You are so clueless that I didn't bother filling in this form.
P.S.:
You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable,
belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented,
lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic,
fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant,
clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb evasive,
double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative,
paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical,
cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant,
deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring,
plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious,
secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant,
self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and
Generally Not Good.
Do I Win?.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Why did SkipJack fail?
Date: 25 Jan 2000 04:16:52 GMT
Mike Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Can anyone please share their views on why SkipJack failed in
>: the market place?
>
>All this from memory:
>o It used a classified algorithm, and hence was not open to public
> review. ....
You're confusing Skipjack with Clipper. Skipjack is a pretty neat
block cipher whose design was classified til recently. Clipper was
the Big Brother chip that implemented the classified Skipjack
algorithm in a way that would let the government intercept encrypted
communications. Nobody wanted Clipper because of all the people that
cryptography is supposed to keep one's communications secret from,
the government is probably near the top of the list. Therefore,
nobody used Skipjack, because the only way to use Skipjack was
to use Clipper.
This is changed now--the government gave up on Clipper and published
the design of Skipjack. You can now use Skipjack without Clipper.
Skipjack is nice for use on very small microprocessors (such as 8-bit
controllers) because it can be implemented with just a few bytes of
RAM (it's more RAM-stingy than any other cipher I know of). However,
in applications where more RAM is available, it's not very
speed-efficient, and its 80-bit keyspace is considered marginal for
very long term security.
I consider Skipjack to be a welcome and worthwhile addition to the
publicly available bag of cryptographer's tricks and am glad it's
available for use in applications that need its properties. Those
applications are simply a little bit specialized.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Modem Crypto (Military Grade)
Date: 25 Jan 2000 04:22:08 GMT
Steve Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm looking for a modern device that can use a 33k modem (analog
>lines) for a dialup solution. The latest STU have ISDN, but most
>military installations do not (I assume the ISDN feature was designed
>for the DOE :-) or other overfunded programs).
If it's a US military application, talk to the NSA (www.nsa.gov).
That's their job.
If it's a civilian application, please describe your requirements
in more detail. It should be enough to do your cryptography with
a conventional crypto module (or even software), and then use an
ordinary modem. Finding a sensible prescription requires knowing
your whole application, not just the modem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Subject: Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator
Date: 24 Jan 2000 23:46:31 EST
In article <86gsfn$7lu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Vernon Schryver) wrote:
>In other words, as far as I can tell, while it must be true that crystals
>in computers do have random thermal noise, there are other, far better
>sources of true randomness in computers than naively comparing crystals.
That was also my conclusion. I previously posted that a simple crystal
oscillator on your prallel port followed by A Von neuman compensator
is a cheap source of not very good random numbers, and that XORing
even such a not very good source with a top of the line PRNG that is
seeded by the cheap source of not very good random numbers would be
a big improvement over the PRNG alone. Someone said that a simple
oscillator using a 555 might be even better. I am thinking about that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Crossposted-To: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator
Date: 24 Jan 2000 23:51:04 EST
In article <86iuon$qct$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> That is not the way random numbers should be generated. That's why
> I did not propose to generate them this way.
Did it ever occur to you that if EVERYBODY misunderstands your
posts the problem may be at your end? Did it ever occur to you
that refusing to elaborate, defend, or answer questions about
what you post is a less than optimal way of dealing with the
fact that nobody understands what you write?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
