Cryptography-Digest Digest #105, Volume #11 Sat, 12 Feb 00 08:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Somebody is jamming my communications -- this has been happening at least in
three separate communication (Highdesertman)
Re: Somebody is jamming my communications -- this has been happening at least in
three separate communication (Highdesertman)
Re: Using Gray Codes to help crack DES (Paul Schlyter)
Fwd: Re: CHEATING AT PARADISE POKER (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Re: RFC: Reconstruction of XORd data (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: RFC: Reconstruction of XORd data (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Period of cycles in OFB mode (Paul Crowley)
Re: UK publishes 'impossible' decryption law (Adam Lock)
Re: UK publishes 'impossible' decryption law (Adam Lock)
Re: Using Gray Codes to help crack DES ("Pentafurry Project")
Re: Anti-crack ("Pentafurry Project")
Re: Disk crypto for win9x AND Linux? (Michael)
Re: Message to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY (Tom St Denis)
Re: BASIC Crypto Question (Paul Schlyter)
Re: need help with a basic C++ algorithm (Paul Schlyter)
Re: BASIC Crypto Question (Paul Schlyter)
Re: Do 3 encryptions w/ a 40-bit key = 120 bits? (Tom St Denis)
Re: Newbie Encrypt question ("etbear")
Re: BASIC Crypto Question ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Does the NSA have ALL Possible PGP keys? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Highdesertman)
Crossposted-To: alt.politics.org.cia,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.israel,alt.2600
Subject: Re: Somebody is jamming my communications -- this has been happening at
least in three separate communication
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 10:14:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Very bad luck on your part. To be targeted in such a willful manner by
the ruthless and relentless of our government. Same thing happened to
me not to long ago, so I know how you feel. But I've been much better
since I started wearing the beercan and tinfoil hat on my head. Now I
don't hear thier radio frequencies through my fillings anymore,
although I occasionally can hear their voices outside my windows as
they whisper to each other. Good luck dude.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:03:07 GMT, "Markku J. Saarelainen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>This is real ... and on live .. actually happening ...
>
>Somebody is jamming my communications -- this has been happening at
>least in three separate locations ..
>
>In addition, at one night, when I was in one location and had just
>finished uploading the board of the Game of General (M) and clicked to
>access the board, the whole LAN came down ...
>
>I suppose the CIA / NSA has initiated the information operation ....
>
>right .. ?
>
>If so .. suck my dick ...
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Highdesertman)
Subject: Re: Somebody is jamming my communications -- this has been happening at
least in three separate communication
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 10:16:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, the beams are old technology, you should know that! It's those
damn radio frequencies that will drive you mad.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:08:38 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"-=HaVoC=--" wrote:
>> "Markku J. Saarelainen" wrote:
>> > I suppose the CIA / NSA has initiated the information operation ...
>> Yeah, sounds like the are on to you pretty bad. I would suggest ...
>> Also, if your house looks faces a street, you may wanna put foil over
>> the windows and open a small hole for surveillance.
>
>And when he goes outdoors, he should wear a tinfoil hat to block
>the CIA's mind control beams...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: Using Gray Codes to help crack DES
Date: 12 Feb 2000 09:36:46 +0100
In article <881n0d$a5e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's another odd algorithm that comes to mind. It's used for counting
> the number of bits set to '1' in a word:
>
> count = 0;
> while(x > 0)
> { x = x & (x - 1);
> count++;
> }
Which can be written as (assuming x is unsigned):
for( count=0; x; x&=x-1,count++ );
C is beautiful... :-))))
> This mixes two types of operator to get a useful result and I'm wondering
> how many of these types of algorithm there are around? Are there any
> books, mags, web sites etc where one can find them?
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Subject: Fwd: Re: CHEATING AT PARADISE POKER
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:27:19 +0100
This isn't really crypto-stuff, but as you all will see it has the same base
(the randomness of data and/or security) and I would like to see what the
people in sci.crypt has to say about their claims.
Please honour the Followup-To.
======= Begin Forwarded Message =======
Subject: Re: CHEATING AT PARADISE POKER
From: ParadisePoker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:52:45 -0700
As our business is staked on our reputation, we don't take kindly to
this kind of message.
We have written extensively on the topic of security, from all aspects
involved... including the monitoring of collusion, our world-class
encryption of data and shuffling of cards. The results of all of our
research and its implementation are available at:
http://www.paradisepoker.com/integrity.html
http://www.paradisepoker.com/shuffling.html
http://www.paradisepoker.com/rng.html
We encourage those interested in our security measures to read those pages.
Our ultimate goal is to provide our players with a setting where they
can feel free to enjoy playing, knowing that *their* interests are being
looked after; where the games, cards, shuffling, other players, etc...
are as fair as possible.
The two players you mention have not broken any codes, of course. Their
actions have been reviewed (we review all alleged suspicious activity)
and it's been found that they've done nothing wrong.
Nor do we have the ability to control games in any fashion. Your
accusations are slanderous and entriely baseless... and we do not
appreciate them. The integrity of our games means everything to us. We
have, and will continue to, offer our players what we consider are among
the most honest and fair games played anywhere in the world.
Paradise Poker
In article <882t8o$h2i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <882t8o$h2i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Posted: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 06:06:18 GMT
>
> Org. : Deja.com - Before you buy.
>
> There is substantial cheating going on at paradise poker, two player at
> least, The Duke and Khmer have broken the codes and know which cards are
> going to flop, they have not gotten into the server to know what the other
> players have but this information alone is devastating to the other
> players. Also the managemet there has the power to manipulate each and
> every hand to make any one partiucular player win or lose, think people,
> how easy it would be to get addicted to online poker if you started
> winning more than you did playing live. The software there was a stroke of
> genius they have lured all the players from planet poker based on smoke
> (the graphics) yes it is possible to win at paradise but it is totally
> controlled and compromised.
======== End Forwarded Message ========
/Tony
--
/\___/\ Who would you like to read your messages today? /\___/\
\_@ @_/ Protect your privacy: <http://www.pgpi.com/> \_@ @_/
--oOO-(_)-OOo---------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo--
DSS: 0x9363F1DB, Fp: 6EA2 618F 6D21 91D3 2D82 78A6 647F F247 9363 F1DB
---���---���-----------------------------------------------���---���---
\O/ \O/ �1999 <http://www.svanstrom.com/?ref=news> \O/ \O/
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RFC: Reconstruction of XORd data
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:58:55 +0100
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> > One can simply try all possible values of the first byte to decrypt.
>
> That presumes that one has both strings.
>
> The correct answer is that it is secure (under the assumptions)
> for *random* plaintext data.
I used an inexact word. I meant an auto-key encryption can be decrypted
(with brute force) by trying all values of the 'IV' (the 'key').
By the way, the original poster didn't use 'IV', he used the
unmodified first byte for doing the auto-key processing. Since his
first byte is in the clear and available to anyone, anybody can
readily decrypt his 'encipherment'. So his scheme is useless, as
others also mentioned. (I pointed this out in the addendum to my
first follow-up, though perhaps not emphatic enough.) But unfortunately
this has led to quite a bit of bandwidth nonetheless.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RFC: Reconstruction of XORd data
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:58:37 +0100
Jerry Coffin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
> > You are right. A correct auto-key encipherment should have a
> > secret 'key'. (In what was described by the original poster, however,
> > the 'key' is known!! cf. my follow-up.)
>
> You could produce something like a key by adding several random bytes
> to the beginning of the data, roughly like an IV. After doing the
> XOR'ing, remove them again and you've got a _little_ bit of a key.
> I'm pretty sure the basic method would still be fairly weak, but at
> least with something on this order you'd at least have _something_.
It should also be noted that there are two forms of auto-key
encryptions, see Menezes et al. In the auto-key component used
in my humble algorithm WEAK3-EX, I used addition instead of XOR.
This causes some diffusion among neighbouring bit positions
due to carry-overs. By using larger units (32 bits) than bytes
('IV' is correspondingly also 32 bits) and doing two passes, from
left to right and back, I think that this as a whole does a quite
good job of diffusion. Auto-key by itself is rather weak in my
opinion. But in my own algorithm it is only one component among
several and is employed mainly for its diffusion effect to aid
the other components.
M. K. Shen
===================================
http://home.t-online.de/home/mok-kong.shen
------------------------------
From: Paul Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Period of cycles in OFB mode
Date: 12 Feb 2000 10:31:42 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner) writes:
> > It also has the nice property that you can
> > parallelize it for higher speed.
>
> Yup. From my point of view, this is the big win of counter mode.
But if you're going to go this far, why not go the whole hog and use a
native stream cipher like Panama? It'll be a whole lot faster, and it
doesn't exhibit strange behaviour even after 2^(32+6) bits of output
(or 2^(64+7) where an AES candidate is used)
--
__
\/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a Linux strategy? \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ /~\
------------------------------
From: Adam Lock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: UK publishes 'impossible' decryption law
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:24:24 GMT
David Crick wrote:
>
> Adam Lock wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > In other words, the Police cannot prove that I haven't handed over
> > the keys but I can still keep my secrets safe if I want to.
>
> Unfortunately, they don't have to prove anything. *You* have to
> prove you don't have the key(s).
If were innocent I *can't* prove I know the other keys because they are
completely random. Neither can the police prove that I am withholding
one.
So the question is whether the police is prepared to lock up a lot of
innocent people simply because they encrypted their files with a
particular algorithm.
--
Adam Lock - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Adam Lock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: UK publishes 'impossible' decryption law
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:31:53 GMT
zapzing wrote:
>
> The police could say "prove that this
> really is just a bunch of random numbers
> you used as an OTP and not another
> encrypted file.
I would love to see this happen in court.
Joe Bloggs downloads "EncryptoMaster" from the Internet, encrypts his
love letters (because he shares the computer with someone else) and then
gets sent to jail for two years because he can't prove the other message
and key was generated using a PRNG and an entropy pool. That's assuming
Joe even knows what a PRNG is.
--
Adam Lock - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Pentafurry Project" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using Gray Codes to help crack DES
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 02:40:39 +0100
> There's another odd algorithm that comes to mind. It's used for counting
> the number of bits set to '1' in a word:
>
> count = 0;
> while(x > 0)
> { x = x & (x - 1);
> count++;
> }
>
the subtract clears the lowest bit being 1, and is masked away. nice.
Here's another way to do the same. The example is for a 32-bit word.
x=(x&0x55555555) + ((x&0xAAAAAAAA)>>1);
x=(x&0x33333333) + ((x&0xCCCCCCCC)>>2);
x=(x&0x0F0F0F0F) + ((x&0xF0F0F0F0)>>4);
x=(x&0x00FF00FF) + ((x&0xFF00FF00)>>8); /*0F*/
x=(x&0x0000FFFF) + ((x&0xFFFF0000)>>16); /*001F*/
No branches. It looks bigger, and it is in bytesize, but very fast.
/Kasper
------------------------------
From: "Pentafurry Project" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anti-crack
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 02:57:29 +0100
"Vernon Schryver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:87q8l3>
>Anyone with adequate motivation and skill ... ... will
> >easily find them.
>
> As for that particular article, some of the other suggestions are as good
> as its advice to write bad code. Consider its suggested encryption for
> strings, 'ANDing with a constant eight-bit "key"'. Yes, "ANDing"! That's
> only a little less silly with "XOR", since no rocket science is needed
> to pipe an image 255 times through something that xor's with a constant
> before piping to the `strings` command. ........
A _long_ time ago we sucked out code from a 8051. The copyright string was
xor'ed, but it didn't help them, not even seconds, even though we were doing
disassembly by hand. One look at the hex dump and your mind told you 'those
bits are too regular'. Most people in that industru has 8 fingers on each
hand.
Another way is to provide support valuable enough that the people who use
the product 'for real' (=would have purchased it if it was uncopyable)
choose to buy it just yo get the support.
/Kasper
------------------------------
From: Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disk crypto for win9x AND Linux?
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:56:51 +0100
BestCrypt can do that. However, there's no source code available for the
windows version, and it's not free.
http://www.jetico.com
--
IMPORTANT NOTE:
To reply by e-mail you MUST include the word I-ACK in the subject
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Message to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:15:00 GMT
In article <882ovc$1pse$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> They could be the same compressors as long as they
> are one-one compressors. And even better if they can reverse the
> byte order of the file.
Why?
> I guess I felt 3 good enough. I still think the whole thing was in
> response to some comments that occured at the time about using
> multiple encryption. One has to be careful that an attacker can't
strip
> off the layers of encryption indepently.
> Better yet learn how to do "wrapped PCBC" in which case just compress
> intially and do at least 3 passes of the "wrapped PCBC chainning
useing
> your choice of AES block ciphers with independent keys.
I thought AES ciphers were weak? You are not mis-leading me now are
you?
> Part of the whole point of this is that one does not need to get
tricked
> into using the AES ciphers as a standalone encryption where it will be
> easy for the NSA to break. IF one is stuck using them one should try
> to find a way of using them in a way not to make it easy for the NSA
> to break it.
Ok buckeroo, if the underlying cipher [such as AES] is so weak [in
your point of view] that a kid with an atari 2600 can 'break' it in 20
seconds, then adding a million passes will only make it a million times
harder. I think I have said this before.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: BASIC Crypto Question
Date: 12 Feb 2000 11:19:43 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
wtshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bits are popular, but not the only information unit that can be used.
> Many have been so conditioned by the necessity to maximize efficiency for
> use with old slow clocks that they see no other way. But, this is just
> choosing to be blind to the efficiencies and capabilities that might be
> done if some other unit is used. Classic crypto does use several types of
> information, and more refined ciphers can also.
>
> Yes, there is more to consider, lots more. What to call these other
> units? Trits for base 3 is an example, and bits have nothing to do with
> them, not even a subset. Since the ratio is proportional to the logs of 2
> and 3, a trit is equal to 1.5849625 bits. It gets more interesting with
> other sized information units as each has special attributes that can be
> utilized.
Don't forget the gool ol' "dit", i.e. the Decimal Digit (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)
which we use so often. One "dit" corresponds to 3.32192809488736 bits.
And then we have sexagesimal (base 60), which we still use today when
we're dealing with time: hours, minutes, seconds, .... Base 60 was
popular among some very old civilizations.
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: need help with a basic C++ algorithm
Date: 12 Feb 2000 11:18:41 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> What is Rot-47 or Rot-13 or Rot-5. How does it work?
>
> The standard one is "rot-13"; that's short for "rotate the alphabet
> (considered as cyclic) 13 positions", i.e. A->N, B->O, C->P, etc.
> (Non-alphabetic characters are copied unchanged.) Applying the
> rot-13 transformation again to a ciphertext that was produced by
> rot-13ing some plaintext will reproduce the original plaintext
> (because rotating a 26-character alphabet cyclically 13+13=26 places
> gets it back to its original alignment.) Some e-mail user interfaces
> support rot-13. Note that this form of encryption is about the
> weakest possible, and should not be considered to offer any security.
>
> Rot-47 or rot-5 for 94- or 10-character sets (printable-ASCII or 0..9)
> would of course be analogous to rot-13 for the 26-character set A..Z.
There is a name for this "ecnryption": it's nothing but the good ol'
Caesar cipher. It's so weak beacuse the number of "keys" is so small
that it's quite easy to try all possible "keys".
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: BASIC Crypto Question
Date: 12 Feb 2000 11:19:18 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Am I right to assume that Ciphers (Block and Stream Ciphers) work at
>> the bit level, regardless of what the data structure/format is of the
>> document file.
>
> Technically, most use plaintext, ciphertext and keys that are sequences
> of octets, where an octet is an 8-bit byte. The ordering of bits within
> octets is transparent - i.e. it doesn't matter - for most programming
> languages and operating systems designed since Unix.
The bit order within a byte (usually implemented as an octet,
although some older systems do have 6-bit, 7-bit, 9-bit or even
12-bit bytes) does matter, but it remains the same on all systems:
the low-order bit will always remain the low-order bit, no matter
what system, you're using.
The ambiguity of the "order of (something)" only arises when you want
to deal with quantities occupying multiple smalles-addressable units.
Thus, if a 32-bit computer wasn't byte addressable but only word
addressable (i.e. if the samllest quantity of data fetchable from
memory would be 32 bit; that's called "word addressing"), then the
questin about "the order of bits" within those 32 bits would also be
fixed, and the whole issue of "little endian" vs "big endian" would
vanish.
But endianness would reappear also on such a machine, if you wanted
to deal with 64-bit or other multiple-precision quantities: would the
first 32 bits then represent the most or least siginificant half of
those 64 bits?
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do 3 encryptions w/ a 40-bit key = 120 bits?
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:26:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most triple encryption schemes (e.g. 3DES) only effectively double
the
> key size. OTOH, an 80-bit key is only RIGHT at the very edge of
being
> breakable at the present time -- there was a thread a while back in
> which I did some extrapolation putting it at around $200 million (or
> so) to exhaust an 80-bit key space in a reasonable length of time.
You are of course assuming a type of mitm attack will work. Sometimes
they require alot of memory and are not fesaible.
Again, let's say you have a million computers [not far fetched] running
at 2^19 keys/sec [which is about right since not everyone owns a PIII]
you can exaused a 80 bit key in 80-20-19-1=2^40 seconds [34,865 years
average]. To search the keyspace in a day you would have to search
2^63.60 keys a second which is far fetched.
For compariason let's assume these million machines can search a
million keys/sec, you still have about 2^39 seconds to worry about
(17,437 years avg]. So it's not a 'small' keyspace to exhaust.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "etbear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie Encrypt question
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 20:48:53 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8814vm$7lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've been looking into data encryption lately. I want to write my own
> simple encrypt program (C/C++). From what I understand one way to
> encrypt is to shift the underlying binary data and then Xor it with a
> password. Question I have is where the heck to you store the
> password???
>
> Example, say I encrypt a paragraph and the password I use is "mypass".
> This would be used for the xor part. Now when I send it to my friend
> and he brings up the program to de-crypt it he has to use "mypass". But
> in order for my program to verify the password is correct it would have
> to be stored in the file. That doesn't seem very safe. Any ideas?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
If I were you, I would use public key encryption to do this. Encrypt your
file with a random password(using private key), then encrypt the random
password using public key encryption.
E.G in RSA, if you multiply the private key by the public exponent(e*d) and
mod it by the other public key (p-1)*(q-1), you should get 1. This will
check whether the private key is correct!
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BASIC Crypto Question
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:44:13 GMT
Johnny Bravo wrote:
> Technically, the norm is to work on a multiple of 8 bits at a time, i.e.
> "bytes" as most languages can easily read byte sized units from a file.
> Another norm is working on multiples of 8 bytes, though there is no real
> requirement for this (recent 128 and 256 bit block ciphers). Stream
> ciphers of course work on a single byte at a time.
No; while most computers store information in octets, ciphers
typically operate on a bit stream or on blocks much larger than
8 bits. The former are found most often in asynchronous or
interactive communications, while the latter are seen most
often in packetized communications.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does the NSA have ALL Possible PGP keys?
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:47:02 GMT
Highdesertman wrote:
> I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that one of
> the mandates that the NSA is tasked with in the first place?
Which? You posted a lot of stuff.
You can read about NSA's mission on their Web page. Basically,
it is to protect US government communications and to obtain
intelligence by analyzing signals of foreign governments.
They definitely are not tasked with listening to every telephone
conversation.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
