Cryptography-Digest Digest #93, Volume #11 Fri, 11 Feb 00 01:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Anybody know about this flaw? (Ralph Hilton)
Re: micropayments and denial of service? ("Joseph Ashwood")
Fwd: Anyone feel like joining a cool DeCSS related project? (Tony L. Svanstrom)
encryption export question (rb)
Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI) of a ("Markku
J. Saarelainen")
Re: Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI) ("Markku J.
Saarelainen")
Re: New standart for encryption software. (Eric Lee Green)
Re: Twofish vs. Blowfish (Eric Lee Green)
Re: question about PKI... (Palmpalmpalm)
Re: encryption export question (Eric Lee Green)
Re: Latin Squares (was Re: Reversibly combining two bytes?) (zapzing)
Re: encryption export question (Samuel Paik)
Re: Twofish vs. Blowfish ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI) of a
mathematical genius .. breaking the code .. (Ron Yakmile)
Re: UK publishes 'impossible' decryption law (Greg)
Re: Encryption protocol questions (wtshaw)
Re: Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI) of a
mathematical genius .. breaking the code .. ("Dave VanHorn")
Re: question about PKI... (Thomas Wu)
Re: Voynich manuscript ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI) of a
mathematical genius .. breaking the code .. (Ron Yakmile)
Re: I'm returning the Dr Dobbs CDROM ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: I'm returning the Dr Dobbs CDROM ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Using Gray Codes to help crack DES ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Somebody is jamming my communications -- this has been happening at ("Douglas
A. Gwyn")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ralph Hilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anybody know about this flaw?
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:11:49 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 23:50:14 +0800, No Brainer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Greetings all,
>
>I was wondering if anyone knows of a secure way to exchange public keys
>between two people via Internet e-mail without using any other form of
>communication?
>
>Also, would the proposed system work if "someone unbeknownst to us" was
>intercepting and modifying the key exchanges?
First of all you would have to establish that the other does in fact
receive your communication, i.e. that the person you communicate to after
establishing a protocol is in fact the same person you intended to
communicate to. If you cannot do that then you have no chance.
The verification could be done using a totally open public forum if you
are confident that the person regularly reads that forum.
There really doesn't seem to be sufficient data in the question to cover
all contingencies.
If you only wish to eliminate a possible middle man and are confident that
your mail will be received by the intended recipient then you just agree
to each post public keys to a key server.
An adversary has no real options present as only 2 keys would get posted.
If you then wanted, for whatever reason, to exchange a new set of keys you
can do so over your now secure channel.
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 6.5.1ckt
iQA/AwUBOKNhxUCdrg0RcyHQEQLy3gCg4y8UN17NP1C1EodGgWhhWaXEqs4An3GX
rmJq0Wp2W/SATbopV7Nl0Q+A
=+hLC
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: micropayments and denial of service?
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:27:02 -0000
> What effect would micropayments have on denial of service
attacks?
Abosolutely none, zero, zilch, etc.
Denial of Service attacks are not mounted on you computer
(generally), they are mounted on a resource that you
computer has access to, in some cases the pipe to the
network, in others memory. I seriously doubt that having to
burn more compute cycles to verify the authenticity of a
packet would do anything except make the attack more
effective. The reasoning is rather simple.
Alice plans an attack on Bobs system
Alice notices that her internet connection is better than
Bob's
Alice fills her pipe with ping packets
Bob's pipe overflows
Do you see any way that Bob could use any information in the
packets to reject it? You shouldn't, unless you view it from
the router between Alice and Bob, in which case you can
block pings. The other major attack exploits the design of
IP, which is
Alice: Please
Bob: Ok here it is
Alice Thank you
If Alice never says thank you Bob can't free the data. So an
attack goes like:
Alice sends a very large number of Please
Bob receives a very large number of please and sends a very
large number of OK . . . each of which takes up memory
Alice ignores Bob and continues to send more please
Bob runs out of memory and has serious problems with his
computer
In this case the verification of the access can be used to
weed them out, but if Alice has a big enough pipe, and Bob
has a big enough pipe Bob can't process all the
verifications, and the result is the same.
DoS attacks are very hard to defeat.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss
Subject: Fwd: Anyone feel like joining a cool DeCSS related project?
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:42:33 +0100
======= Begin Forwarded Message =======
Subject: Anyone feel like joining a cool DeCSS related project?
From: Omri Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl.misc
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 20:39:58 -0500
I'm writing a script that converts ANSI C code
into English sentences that are reasonably descriptive of what
the code is doing. The purpose is to demonstrate that
computer code is a form of expression. By composing
a "recipe book" out of a piece of C code (like the DeCSS code),
one can then distribute it in a free-speech-protected form and
convert it back to C upon recepit.
So far it's at http://www.mit.edu/~ocschwar/recipe.pl
Anyone feel like joining me?
Omri Schwarz ---
Timeless wisdom of biomedical engineering:
"Noise is principally due to the presence of the
patient." -- R.F. Farr
======== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rb)
Subject: encryption export question
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:43:07 GMT
What sort of symmetric encryption is generally believed to be freely exportable
from the US, with the new regulations? I was looking at the ciphersaber
method, which looks particularly nice for routine encryption of moderately
private data. Does anyone think that a program using that could be exported
without having to worry about getting permission from uncle sam?
If not, what level and method is?
Thanks,
RB
------------------------------
From: "Markku J. Saarelainen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.org.cia,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.israel,alt.math,alt.2600
Subject: Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI) of a
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:03:15 GMT
Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI ..
sorry my keyboard does not have that symbol ..) of a mathematical genius
.. most likely not available from a regular popular movie section, but I
suggest all you out there to watch it .. it is the piece of genius
itself ... the movie is about a mathematician and his willingness to
break the code to predict exactly the movement of the stock exchange(s)
... it is really an excellent piece of work ... unfortunately in the end
the person became so disturb that he had to drill the hole to his head
... and this movie is a real movie ...
------------------------------
From: "Markku J. Saarelainen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.org.cia,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.israel,alt.math,alt.2600
Subject: Re: Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:21:56 GMT
If I remember right in the movie, the man draw the Fermat's Spiral on the
sand or saw it somewhere ...
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk:80/~history/Curves/Fermats.html
"Markku J. Saarelainen" wrote:
> Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI ..
> sorry my keyboard does not have that symbol ..) of a mathematical genius
> .. most likely not available from a regular popular movie section, but I
> suggest all you out there to watch it .. it is the piece of genius
> itself ... the movie is about a mathematician and his willingness to
> break the code to predict exactly the movement of the stock exchange(s)
> ... it is really an excellent piece of work ... unfortunately in the end
> the person became so disturb that he had to drill the hole to his head
> ... and this movie is a real movie ...
------------------------------
From: Eric Lee Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New standart for encryption software.
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:29:55 -0700
Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Isn't that kind of risky? Because of the design of the X9.17 generator
> (which I'm not a great fan of for this reason), it means you end up revealing
> vast amounts of internal state to an attacker. Admittedly an attacker will be
> up against triple DES to get the generator key, but providing hundreds of
> thousands of plaintext/ciphertext pairs seems risky (you can for example scan
> memory for blocks of high entropy which produce the given ciphertext from the
> given plaintext via 3DES). I'd at least pass the results through SHA-1 on the
> way out.
I mentioned this issue to David Wagner when we were talking about (in
EMAIL) why I put a MD5 on the output of Ocotillo. Basically, his
attitude was that if the encryption algorithm was strong in the first
place (which triple DES most decidedly is, albeit slower'n a hound dog
on a hundred-degree day in Louisiana), the hash at the output did not
add any additional strength.
I am an engineer, not a cryptographer, so I'd agree with you that adding
yet another cryptographically strong component into the stream couldn't
hurt, i.e., if a weakness is ever found in either of the two algorithms,
your keystream generator will still be strong. But (shrug), I guess
that's the difference between us block-head engineers and real
mathematicians :-).
--
Eric Lee Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/
------------------------------
From: Eric Lee Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Twofish vs. Blowfish
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:43:18 -0700
Albert Yang wrote:
> Hmm, my company is probably going to use blowfish for its needs, but I
> was wondering, should I trust blowfish more because it's got a lot of
> crypto-analysis behind it (and Bruce says that is the real definition of
> "strength" of a crypto algorithm) or to go with say, Twofish, which has
> better design, faster, but less research?
>
> Thoughts? Bruce?
My personal thoughts: Go with one of the AES candidates, such as
TwoFish, unless you are releasing the product tomorrow. Use a standard
crypto API so that you can 'plug in' any of the AES candidates as
desired without re-coding your application.
AES is going to be "the" official government standard eventually,
perhaps even by the end of this year (y2k).
Blowfish doesn't make a good stand-in for one of the AES candidates
because of its shorter 64-bit block size (as vs. 128-bit block size for
the AES candidates).
TwoFish is fast and is explicitly free. As far as I can tell, the only
downside it has is that the key schedule is somewhat slow (though faster
than Blowfish), which makes it a bit slow to use as a hash function or
PRNG (but MD5 is no speed demon either... has anybody compared MD5 vs.
TwoFish, speed-wise, for this purpose?). There are other AES candidates
that have faster key setup time, though they all have their own little
glitches (e.g., several do not scale down to smart cards and embedded
computers very well, a couple are slower than TwoFish, others contain
patented algorithms so unless they're accepted as the AES standard you
can't use them).
--
Eric Lee Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Palmpalmpalm)
Subject: Re: question about PKI...
Date: 11 Feb 2000 04:45:55 GMT
Thank you for kind answer.
BTW, are there any other products or PKI solutions which use SRP like protocol,
besides Entrust or something else?
Sincerely,
palm
------------------------------
From: Eric Lee Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: encryption export question
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:51:59 -0700
rb wrote:
> What sort of symmetric encryption is generally believed to be freely exportable
> from the US, with the new regulations? I was looking at the ciphersaber
> method, which looks particularly nice for routine encryption of moderately
> private data. Does anyone think that a program using that could be exported
> without having to worry about getting permission from uncle sam?
Read the regs. They're online at http://www.bxa.doc.gov .
My personal reading of the regs is that you could export any symmetric
encryption of any strength with a one-time review if it is either a) a
retail product, or b) a cryptographic toolkit. However, note that I am
not a lawyer, and you risk fines and possible imprisonment if you don't
check out the regulations for yourself both personally and with a lawyer
familiar with import-export issues.
--
Eric Lee Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/
------------------------------
From: zapzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Latin Squares (was Re: Reversibly combining two bytes?)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:38:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> zapzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : You do *not* need a latin square,
> : because what you refer to as the
> : encyphering symbol never needs to be
> : recovered. The only thing you ever really
> : need to do is recover the message symbol
> : from the combined symbol.
> : I will give an example which is hopefully
> : better explained. Suppose we have two bit bytes,
> : then coinsider the combining function given
> : by the table:
>
> : m= 0123
> : ----
> : e=0 3102
> : e=1 2130
> : e=2 0231
> : e=3 1320
>
> : Now if you had the encyphering symbol
> : and the combined symbol then you could
> : recover the message symbol, but you
> : could not recover the encyphering symbol
> : from the combined symbol and the message
> : symbol, but that's OK, because you never
> : need to do that anyway.
>
> : This sort of combining function would
> : be much easier to do than making a
> : latin square, and there are more
> : possibilities also, so why would you
> : need a latin square? That was not
> : a rhetorical question , I really
> : do want to know why, if you would
> : be so kind as to clue me in.
>
> To supplement r.e.s.'s post, perhaps you don't *need* a Latin square
> - but a Latin square is *desirable*.
>
> If you *don't* have a Latin square, you may be doing the equivalent
> of wasting some of your keys.
>
> If you were to waste *all* your keys, you may wind up with something like:
>
> m= 0123
> ----
> e=0 0312
> e=1 0312
> e=2 0312
> e=3 0312 :-(
>
> A Latin square avoids this sort of thing to the maximum possible degree.
I see what you mean, now. But your example was
a bit extream, wasn't it? If we generated a
combining function by making the rows each
be a random permutation of 0..255 (for example)
then the degree of wastage wouldn't be _that_ great,
would it? Perhaps the wastage could be offset by the
greater entropy that kind of function.
But if you insist on using a Latin square,
and you don't mean Ricky Martin,
you might consider generating it in this way:
Say bytes are eight bits. first take the message
symbol and send ti through some sort of
reversible substitution, such as a reversible
8 bit to 8 bit s_box. then split both the
message symbol and the encrypting symbol
into 4-bit sections. Combine each 4 bit segment
with a latin square (4-bit to 4-bit) and then
send the result through another (different)
8 bit to 8 bit reversible s-box.
Each of the 4 bit Latin squares could be
selected from a "stable" of standard
latin squares, according to the key,
and the s-boxes could also be selected
according to the key. This would give
you alot more entropy.
--
Do as thou thinkest best.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Samuel Paik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: encryption export question
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:03:49 GMT
Eric Lee Green wrote:
> rb wrote:
> > What sort of symmetric encryption is generally believed to be freely exportable
> > from the US, with the new regulations? I was looking at the ciphersaber
> > method, which looks particularly nice for routine encryption of moderately
> > private data. Does anyone think that a program using that could be exported
> > without having to worry about getting permission from uncle sam?
>
> Read the regs. They're online at http://www.bxa.doc.gov .
Side note: I've converted most of the export administration regulations
into vanilla HTML along with links to just about every mention of encryption
in them. Is there any interest in me putting this online? I will
eventually but if there is a pressing desire I could do it real soon.
[you can get HTML versions which are a step away from plaintext online, from
the GPO site]
--
Samuel S. Paik | http://www.webnexus.com/users/paik/
3D and multimedia, architecture and implementation
Solyent Green is kitniyos!
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Twofish vs. Blowfish
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:45:49 -0000
I'd side with Twofish, because the balance of analysis is
fairly equal. Because Twofish is an AES finalist it has
received a massive amount of analysis in a shorter
timeframe, and as you noted it has a more knowledgable
beginning.
Joe
"Albert Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hmm, my company is probably going to use blowfish for its
needs, but I
> was wondering, should I trust blowfish more because it's
got a lot of
> crypto-analysis behind it (and Bruce says that is the real
definition of
> "strength" of a crypto algorithm) or to go with say,
Twofish, which has
> better design, faster, but less research?
>
> Thoughts? Bruce?
>
> Albert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Yakmile)
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.org.cia,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.israel,alt.math,alt.2600
Subject: Re: Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI) of a
mathematical genius .. breaking the code ..
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:46:39 GMT
"Markku J. Saarelainen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Have you watched the movie "PI"
That's a nasty and senseless combination of newsgroups that you
cross-posted to. What newsgroup are you reading this from?
--
"Ron Yakmile" is actually [EMAIL PROTECTED] (6759 243810).
012 3456789 <- Use this key to decode my email address and name.
Play Five by Five Poker at http://www.5X5poker.com.
------------------------------
From: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: UK publishes 'impossible' decryption law
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:12:48 GMT
> Today Britain became the only country in the world to publish
> a law which could imprison users of encryption technology for
> forgetting or losing their keys.
Aint it cool!
--
There is only one gun law on the books- the second amendment.
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.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Encryption protocol questions
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:40:37 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Rosing
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
..
>
> What's more important is to change the key for each message. Then
> it really doesn't matter if you use the same key for the re-transmit,
> you'll never give the attacker enough material to work with.
>
If this is required by your algorithm of choice, using a different key,
then the algorithm is deficient, especially when compared with an
alternative that designed closer to real world needs and does not have
that problem.
--
If Al Gore wants to be inventor of the internet, complain that he
did a lousy job. If he admits to not doing much, complain that he
is a slacker. Now, do we want him in charge of security?
------------------------------
From: "Dave VanHorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI) of a
mathematical genius .. breaking the code ..
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:26:27 GMT
>
> That's a nasty and senseless combination of newsgroups that you
> cross-posted to. What newsgroup are you reading this from?
Actually, had you seen the movie, the xpost would make some sense.
(I saw it, but I didn't like it)
------------------------------
From: Thomas Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: question about PKI...
Date: 10 Feb 2000 21:32:17 -0800
"Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Kerberos V4 and V5 initial authentication are very much
> unlike SRP,
> > and Kerberos would be greatly improved by using any of
> these
> > zero-knowledge methods.
>
> I absolutely agree. I think it might even be useful for
> someone on this group (perhaps even me) to begin such a
> process. Anybody wanna add themselves to the byline? Some
> work required.
As one of the many voices who have called for the integration
of a strong password method to Kerveros V5, I would be happy to
assist in such an effort. To my knowledge, this would be new,
groundbreaking work.
--
Tom Wu * finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP key *
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who would give up their freedoms in
Phone: (650) 723-1565 exchange for security deserve neither."
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~tjw/ http://srp.stanford.edu/srp/
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Voynich manuscript
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:46:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ... what if it's a con to LOOK like a cipher alphabet?
It's not a con, at least not that one, because the original
introduction of the manuscript to the public never claimed
it was in cipher. In fact, a lot of people speculated that
it was a hitherto unknown language (unencrypted).
It is certain that the Voynich ms. text is not randomly
generated, but has a high degree of structure. In fact
there are four (as I recall) "hands" each with its own
coherence. Whether or not the whole thing is some sort
of fake, there is still the interesting puzzle of how the
different hands were generated.
Note that there has been at least one reputably documented
case of twins who developed their own spoken language
(which they gradually lost as they were brought into
civilization). Perhaps the Voynich ms. is something
similar (in a written language); lacking a Rosetta stone,
it might never be translated.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Yakmile)
Subject: Re: Have you watched the movie "PI" (actually a mathematical symbol PI) of a
mathematical genius .. breaking the code ..
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:52:01 GMT
"Dave VanHorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a nasty and senseless combination of newsgroups that you
> cross-posted to. What newsgroup are you reading this from?
>Actually, had you seen the movie, the xpost would make some sense.
>(I saw it, but I didn't like it)
I saw part of it and didn't like it either, but saying so on
alt.politics.org.cia, soc.culture.russian, soc.culture.israel, alt.math,
sci.crypt, and alt.2600 doesn't sound like a very good idea.
The idea that you can predict the stock market by breaking some sort of
mathematical code hardly qualifies the subject for sci.crypt. It seems more
at home on the rec.gambling forums where folks debate the merits of betting
progressions.
--
"Ron Yakmile" is actually [EMAIL PROTECTED] (6759 243810).
012 3456789 <- Use this key to decode my email address and name.
Play Five by Five Poker at http://www.5X5poker.com.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm returning the Dr Dobbs CDROM
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:56:58 GMT
wtshaw wrote:
> The complaint is that the formatting of vanilla text files is
> inadequate as compared to muddy images. Simple html as an option
> can make some files somewhat easier to read.
You seem to have missed the point: scanning the already existent
paper hardcopy of the book is a simple and relatively inexpensive
way to make it available via CD-ROM. Typing in the whole thing,
with or without HTML formatting, is prohibitively expensive.
And if the latter approach is unnecessary since the text is already
available in some word-processing form, scanning the hardcopy is no
longer the most expedient approach anyway, and there is no need to
produce HTML when the text formatter can readily produce PDF output.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm returning the Dr Dobbs CDROM
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:59:01 GMT
JD wrote:
> Something is wrong. PDF is just glorified PostScript, ...
Not really. Anyway, PostScript files are indeed large if they
consist mainly of embedded image bitmaps.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using Gray Codes to help crack DES
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:03:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Their main (non-crypto) use has been in devices such as angle
> encoders where the 1-bit difference meant that the maximum error
> was only +/- 1 LS bit.
It's not that so much as the fact that at the transition,
some bits can be taken from the encoding of one sector and
the other bits from the encoding of the other sector,
without causing a "glitch" (temporary value that differs
from both the initial and final values).
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Somebody is jamming my communications -- this has been happening at
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:08:38 GMT
"-=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...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
