Cryptography-Digest Digest #119, Volume #11 Mon, 14 Feb 00 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Does the NSA have ALL Possible PGP keys? (W A Collier)
Re: Does the NSA have ALL Possible PGP keys? ("tiwolf")
Re: Does the NSA have ALL Possible PGP keys? ("tiwolf")
Predicting the next random number ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Predicting the next random number (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Large Floating Point Library? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Fractal Cryptography (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :) (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Re: SHA-1 sources needed! (Runu Knips)
Re: Large Floating Point Library? (Runu Knips)
Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :) ("Lassi Hippeläinen")
Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :) (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :) (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Re: Does the NSA have ALL Possible PGP keys? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :) (Robert Hallgren)
Associative Symmetric Encryption (Gary)
Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :) (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Re: Which compression is best? (Runu Knips)
Re: UK publishes 'impossible' decryption law (Geoff Lane)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: W A Collier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Does the NSA have ALL Possible PGP keys?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:50:20 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Does anyone here really think that any cryto program self made or commercial
> is not broken already or can't be broken given a little effort by the NSA
> geeks. I know that someone might use some type of cryto that might give them
> trouble for a while, but if they really want to I think that the NSA geeks
> can break it.
They can "really want to" all they like, but they cant change fundamental
nature of NP-Hard and other mathematic concepts upon which modern crypto
is based. Try reading up before you make a jackass out of yourself
again.
------------------------------
From: "tiwolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Does the NSA have ALL Possible PGP keys?
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:45:53 -0800
You are assuming that you and everyone else here know the full extent of
current computer power and storage mediums. You are also assuming that there
are no mathematical programs that do away with the needs for the PGP codes.
You assume a lot. I for one know nothing about computer and crypto breaking,
but I do know that give resources and time nothing is truly impossible.
Johnny Bravo wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 13:46:34 -0800, "tiwolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>You are assuming that they would be using current disks as a meduim for
>>storage,
>
> Ok, for the sake of argument I'll pretend that the NSA has a
>sooper-seekrit storage medium, so compact that they can fit 512 bits of
>information onto a single atom. There are not enough atoms in the
>Universe to store all the 512 bit PGP keys. When you are talking about
>the 4096 bit keys you would run out of room even if you managed to fit
>4096 bits of info onto the smallest known sub-atomic particles.
>
>>or that they would even need the whole lot of keys in the first
>>place.
>
> Without the keys, how can the lookup your key? That is what this thread
>is about.
>
> Johnny Bravo
------------------------------
From: "tiwolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Does the NSA have ALL Possible PGP keys?
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:50:38 -0800
You are assuming that it can't be done now with current technology, I will
not make that assumption. I will assume that anything is possible and
knowing that governments are always looking to gain more power and want to
know why people would want to keep secrets from the government. Government
is more than willing to waste large portions of the public's money on
breaking any code that they cannot now break.
Beretta wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 13:21:56 -0800, "tiwolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone here really think that any cryto program self made or
commercial
>>is not broken already or can't be broken given a little effort by the NSA
>>geeks. I know that someone might use some type of cryto that might give
them
>>trouble for a while, but if they really want to I think that the NSA geeks
>>can break it.
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>You seem to assume the NSA is all powerful, has an infinite budget,
infinite room for
>computers, and somehow is the only agency that is not bound by the laws of
mathematics...
>
>And while I'll admit that the NSA certainly does have a huge budget, that
budget is not
>infinite.. And while they certainly have talented cryptanalysts on staff,
those
>cryptanalysts are not infinite in number, nor infinite in talent. In fact,
there is no
>reason that the cryptanalysts on the NSA payroll are necessarily "the
best".
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Predicting the next random number
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:16:39 GMT
Hey, I was just curious, but if someone came up with a way to predict
the numbers from ANY pseudo random number generator, would the NSA
come and take them away for some reason that I can currently fathom???
-John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Subject: Re: Predicting the next random number
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:37:02 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, I was just curious, but if someone came up with a way to predict
> the numbers from ANY pseudo random number generator, would the NSA
> come and take them away for some reason that I can currently fathom???
Such news would most likely reach the public at the same time as it
would reach any TLA, and thanks to that the person would be safe.
/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
---ôôô---ôôô-----------------------------------------------ôôô---ôôô---
\O/ \O/ ©1999 <http://www.svanstrom.com/?ref=news> \O/ \O/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:27:02 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
You may care to look at www.rsa.com. The current front screen
(at 09:00am GMT 14/2/00) is the HTML file below:
"Wat up whats up to all my nigs ya know who ya are n #2600 and
whats up all my #sesame nigs and
call rigger if ya come here bc he is the gayest fuck ;)
718-815-4674 all chans are on a irc server lol
- -tek
pBK > * also irc.segments.org ;)"
I wonder how long it'll take them to notice...Hhhm, would you
trust RSA with your data security now? ;)
Cheers,
Sam Simpson
Communications Analyst
- -- http://www.scramdisk.clara.net/ for ScramDisk hard-drive
encryption & Delphi Crypto Components. PGP Keys available at the
same site.
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 6.0.2ckt http://members.tripod.com/IRFaiad/
iQA/AwUBOKfGEe0ty8FDP9tPEQLCfwCeJqdmB4SHoiOfAkJPAZZgBUi607oAn1gq
dClIr8r2gIYflVDnnyb4hfqY
=KLet
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Large Floating Point Library?
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:48:50 +0100
Clockwork wrote:
>
> There are numerous large integer libraries, but does anyone know of a large
> floating point library?
http://cse.eng.lmu.edu/~acad/personal/faculty/dmsmith/FMLIB.html
has both integer and floating point procedures.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fractal Cryptography
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:49:04 +0100
M. Hackett wrote:
>
> I am looking for more information on Fractal Cryptography.
Quite recently there was a thread on this topic. Look there, if
your news server has a sufficiently long retention period. (Mine
unfortunately doesn't.)
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:26:01 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder how long it'll take them to notice...Hhhm, would you trust RSA
> with your data security now? ;)
I do agree with the subject-line; I LOVE THIS. :-)
55 minutes and counting.
/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
---ôôô---ôôô-----------------------------------------------ôôô---ôôô---
\O/ \O/ ©1999 <http://www.svanstrom.com/?ref=news> \O/ \O/
------------------------------
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SHA-1 sources needed!
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:59:33 +0100
Gilles BAUDRILLARD schrieb:
>
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 13:25:50 GMT, Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >In article <885ie5$ecm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Nikolaus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Could anybody send me the source code (or URL) of SHA-1 hash algorithm
> >> written on C/C++ ??
> >>
> >> thanx,
> >> Nikolaus
> >>
> >
> >I know Mike Rosing [regular in this forum, pretty cool guy] has a copy
> >of Jim Golligy [is that right?] SHA-1/SHA-0 source code. Hopefully he
> >will respond, if not I will dig it up for ya.
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
> File "tools/sha1.c" in the sources of GNUpg.
> Downloadable at gnu.org
GnuPG is GPL. So better DON'T use that file 8-) except if you're
working at a open source project anyway.
Btw, RIPE MD160 is AFAIK as good as SHA1, and its not from the NSA :)
------------------------------
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Large Floating Point Library?
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:01:23 +0100
Mok-Kong Shen schrieb:
>
> Clockwork wrote:
> >
> > There are numerous large integer libraries, but does anyone know of a large
> > floating point library?
>
> http://cse.eng.lmu.edu/~acad/personal/faculty/dmsmith/FMLIB.html
That is a broken link. Even ~acad doesn't exist !!
> has both integer and floating point procedures.
>
> M. K. Shen
I would state the GNU MP-Lib (ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gmp/).
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security.pgp
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:47:13 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
"Tony L. Svanstrom" wrote:
> > I wonder how long it'll take them to notice...Hhhm, would you trust RSA
> > with your data security now? ;)
>
> I do agree with the subject-line; I LOVE THIS. :-)
> 55 minutes and counting.
well, i guess there is another problem
www.rsa.com is 205.181.76.22 and if you look to 205.181.76.22
you can see corect RSA page
this funy page is at bachue.udea.edu.co (200.24.19.252)
- --
Disastry
http://i.am/disastry/
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: Netscape PGP half-Plugin 0.14 by Disastry / PGPsdk v1.7.1
iQA/AwUBOKfBDzBaTVEuJQxkEQJMRwCff5L/bIw4xJBDJW+M7BZetCfwNRMAniQa
vXBY0uy8IWjXIzAByPFXp+pM
=6bWU
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Lassi Hippeläinen" <"lahippel$does-not-eat-canned-food"@ieee.org>
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:05:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<...<
>
> well, i guess there is another problem
> www.rsa.com is 205.181.76.22 and if you look to 205.181.76.22
> you can see corect RSA page
I got the fake page here in Finland. So someone has hacked the global
DNS tree?
Now that isn't funny any more...
-- Lassi
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:03:59 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "Tony L. Svanstrom" wrote:
> > > I wonder how long it'll take them to notice...Hhhm, would you trust RSA
> > > with your data security now? ;)
> >
> > I do agree with the subject-line; I LOVE THIS. :-)
> > 55 minutes and counting.
>
> well, i guess there is another problem
> www.rsa.com is 205.181.76.22 and if you look to 205.181.76.22
> you can see corect RSA page
>
> this funy page is at bachue.udea.edu.co (200.24.19.252)
Thanks a lot Sam, that'll be the last time I trust you to do find the
real problem behind something. Why do I always have to do everything
myself?! ;-)
just kiddin' folks, but I still find this domainnapping to be a lot fun.
/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
---ôôô---ôôô-----------------------------------------------ôôô---ôôô---
\O/ \O/ ©1999 <http://www.svanstrom.com/?ref=news> \O/ \O/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:11:21 +0100
Lassi Hippeläinen <"lahippel$does-not-eat-canned-food"@ieee.org> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <...<
> >
> > well, i guess there is another problem
> > www.rsa.com is 205.181.76.22 and if you look to 205.181.76.22
> > you can see corect RSA page
>
> I got the fake page here in Finland. So someone has hacked the global DNS
> tree?
Sweden here, Sam's in the UK, [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
Latvia... HOWEVER... When I used some other DNS-servers in Sweden and
when I used an american on (where I have some websites) they sent me to
the real www.rsa.com.
> Now that isn't funny any more...
It is, it might be a serious problem but will at the end force us to
come up with better solutions... I do hope that this is something
serious so that during the next 3-4 months the Internet will more or
less be in panic, because by the end of it we will come out of it
stronger than before. This could be a huge step forward for cryptography
to be recognized as something good that everyone should have access to.
/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
---ôôô---ôôô-----------------------------------------------ôôô---ôôô---
\O/ \O/ ©1999 <http://www.svanstrom.com/?ref=news> \O/ \O/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Does the NSA have ALL Possible PGP keys?
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:51:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a couple of interesting threads on talk.politics.crypto
> originating from a cryptographer with www.filesafety.com. They
> purport that the NSA has ALL POSSIBLE keys for PGP and that all PGP
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
like all the emotionally-heated previous answers have made plausible, it
is very unlikely that the NSA stores all possible keys
> encrypted netmail has been "transparent" for at least two years to
> the NSA and certain elements of the military and FBI. The
> cryptographic basis for this alleged total compromise of PGP is
> discussed.
I'm not a cryptographer, but obviously most of the so-called
cryptographers here seem to be a bit naive. Here are some reasons why
your claims could - to some extend - be right:
- It is reasonable to assume that the NSA is able to run very fast and
exhaustive dictionary attacks against the passwords that secure the
private key.
- It is reasonable to assume that the NSA is able to obtain any private
key stored on the harddisk of any individual at home, if he/she is the
specific target of an attack.
- It is reasonable that the NSA does extensively research stealth viruses
and trojan horses that report back passwords and private keys via the
Internet on demand (low chance of detection) or automatically (higher
chance of detection).
- It is also reasonable that such trojan horses or viruses would not be
detected by virus researchers or security experts. They don't write "You
have been infected by a virus" on the screen, don't change any data etc.
They can be very small and self-modifying, might be able to destruct
themselves when certain detection tools are used, use data tunneling
tchniques for communication to outside, can encrypt parts of themself to
hide what they are supposed to do when activated, etc. The NSA surely has
experts that reverse engineer whole software packages, so writing such
virus beasts might be relaxing trivial for them.
- There's a slight possibility that the NSA or any other secret agency
has launched such viruses to prepare future electronic warfare or gain
PGP keys and other information. This probably would clash with some US
laws, that's why I'm talking about a possibility only.
- Due to its popularity and high security, PGP is the target # 1 for any
secret agency.
Take all these factors together, add a little bit of sane (?) paranoia,
and the result will be:
1. It is very likely that the NSA can read any PGP encrypted mail a
person has written, that is of special interest and under targeted
investigation of the NSA.
2. There's a possibility to some degree merely depending on the NSA's
will to break the law (and eventually be catched while doing this), that
the NSA is able to read almost any mail encrypted by PGP, because they
have obtained the key and password of most PGP users by side-channel
attacks.
Why should the NSA bother to break the encryption of PGP when it can
obtain the private keys and passwords so easily and much cheaper? It
seems obvious, that there has been a paradigm change. As it seems the NSA
now does no longer try to force insecure crypto into the public by
proposing them as standard or frightening cryptographers. Instead, it is
more likely, that they have focused on non-cryptanalytic attacks, which
are much cheaper, easier and more effective.
Greetings,
John Stone
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Hallgren)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:22:53 GMT
Tony L. Svanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> It is, it might be a serious problem but will at the end force us to
> come up with better solutions ...
We already knew that DNS of today is unsecure. So what are they trying
to prove that we didn't already know?
Robert
--
Robert Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP: http://www.lipogram.com/pgpkey.asc
EC07 1340 70A1 5F31 56DF EAD8 B443 2B62 D63E BD39
------------------------------
From: Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Associative Symmetric Encryption
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:24:52 -0500
Has any work been done on finding symmetric keys a and b such that
Ea(Eb(P))==Eb(Ea(P)) on any of the well known symmetric algorithms such as
DES, Blowfish, XTEA etc? Where Ei(P) is a symmetric encryption on plaintext
P.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: Funniest thing I've seen in ages - RSA.COM hacked :)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:58:52 +0100
Robert Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tony L. Svanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > It is, it might be a serious problem but will at the end force us to
> > come up with better solutions ...
>
> We already knew that DNS of today is unsecure. So what are they trying to
> prove that we didn't already know?
Proving and doing something about it isn't the same. It's not always
easy to get people to move away from something that isn't secure enough
when they haven't had any problems with it.
/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
---ôôô---ôôô-----------------------------------------------ôôô---ôôô---
\O/ \O/ ©1999 <http://www.svanstrom.com/?ref=news> \O/ \O/
------------------------------
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which compression is best?
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:59:49 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> As I've read here, it's good to compress before you encrypt the data.
Not everything which you can read here is true. Especially this
thought is totally wrong.
> Now I've got 2 questions about this:
> 1) From a security perspective, how important is compression?
If you compress your data before encrypting, the encrypted data has
a known structure which can, for example, be easier tested in a
brute-force attack, and maybe helps the decrypter in other attacks,
too.
> Is prior
> compression just a kind of "weak enhancement" or is considered it an
> integral part of the encryption process as a whole?
It has nothing to do with encrypting. You compress to save space
and you encrypt to make information secret.
Every little change in an encryption algorithm, especially "little
improvements" like compression, will almost always weaken security.
> 2) Are there special compression algorithms that are specifically well-
> suited in combination with block cyphers?
No. Just use the best compression you can get (bzip2 ?) if you want
to save space.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: UK publishes 'impossible' decryption law
Date: 14 Feb 2000 13:05:57 GMT
In article <884m8a$m2i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
zapzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *How*, after all, would the
> police be able to tell an encrypted file
> from random numbers, anyway, and if the
> accused must *prove* his innocence, then
> how would he prove that they were random
> numbers and not an encrypted file?
This is of course the killer.
Plus, the recent Scottish case where it was ruled that
non-self-incrimination is still a valid reason to keep your mouth shut means
that you can keep the keys to yourself and the courts cannot hold it against
you.
Major parts of the proposed legislation would be knocked down the first time
a case was taken to a superior eu court.
--
Geoff. Lane. | Today's target: 47.639963 N; 122.130295 W. Fire at Will!!
Misspelled? Impossible. My modem is error correcting.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
