Cryptography-Digest Digest #230, Volume #11 Wed, 1 Mar 00 18:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Crypto.Com, Inc. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where's the FAQ (Matt Curtin)
You see Vakoilia Mannerheim was not in any way connected or linked to ("Markku J.
Saarelainen")
You see Vakoilia Mannerheim was not in any way connected or linked to ("Markku J.
Saarelainen")
And when you read my postings since April, 1999 .. you find out one ("Markku J.
Saarelainen")
And my coming out party has contrinued one year ... just following the ("Markku J.
Saarelainen")
Re: On jamming interception networks (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: On jamming interception networks (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Q: 'Linear encipherment' (Mok-Kong Shen)
very tiny algorithm - any better than XOR? (Carl Byington)
Far out crypto claims ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Crypto.Com, Inc. (John Savard)
Re: First contact, establishing password without public keys (Bill Unruh)
Re: Crypto.Com, Inc. (Xcott Craver)
Re: very tiny algorithm - any better than XOR? (John Myre)
...but what about my cipher? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: very tiny algorithm - any better than XOR? (Terje Mathisen)
Re: Best language for encryption?? (Paul Schlyter)
Re: Best language for encryption?? (Paul Schlyter)
Re: differential cryptanalysis (David A. Wagner)
Re: Passwords secure against dictionary attacks? (Johnny Bravo)
Re: Passwords secure against dictionary attacks? (Wally Whacker)
Re: Crypto.Com, Inc. (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: On jamming interception networks (Mok-Kong Shen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Crypto.Com, Inc.
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:59:20 GMT
In article <jgfunj-0103001111440001@dial-
243-027.itexas.net>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw) wrote:
> In article <89jcq9$5vq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Blaze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >... I'm worried about serious harm to my own reputation
> > should people erroneously conclude that this "Crypto.Com, Inc."
> > outfit has something to do with me. In particular, the Business Wire
> > press release states:
> >
> > "... The technology provides for absolute security on open circuits
> > between two users without the use of a key. The new cryptography
> > concept creates absolutely unbreakable ciphers allowing software to be
> > absolutely secure for the Internet, networks, and telephone lines. ..."
> >
> This seems a bit of a strong statement. The only theory that might be
> applied there would be of quantum mechanics design, which has not proven
> practical for current needs.
> >
Quantum cryptography requires the use of
keys.
> > I have no idea what "the technology" is, but one of the first things that
> > beginning students of cryptography learn is Shannon's proof that the
> > only "absolutely unbreakable" cipher that can possibly exist for "open
> > circuits" is the one-time pad, which not only requires the use of a key,
> > but that the key be at least as long as the message and used only once.
> >
> Shannon was functionally wrong, but lots of what he said is of great
> importance. The error was not in what he understood, OTP, but in that it
> was too simple to say that it is the only choice. This means he did not
> know or allow for development that might solved the problem, scientific
> allowance that he should have respected.
Shannon's theory only rules out the repetition
of the key. Based on the repetitive use of 2
different sequences of quantum or classical
states, Arindam Mitra has developed a
"practical key distribution technique which is
absolutely secure both for classical and
quantum keys" ( //arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/
9912074 )
> --
> Many are waking up to the reality of insecurity; imagine that!
> You can work against it....or go back to sleep and become a victim.
> Users have the right to know if software can abuse their privacy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Matt Curtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where's the FAQ
Date: 01 Mar 2000 15:15:26 -0500
>>>>> "Andy" == Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andy> There are umpteen million FAQs on encryption, but is there one
Andy> for sci.crypt and sci.crypt.research?
Usenet Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) archives are available around
the Internet. Web versions can be found at:
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/ [MIT, Canonical site, text-only]
http://www.cs.ruu.nl/cgi-bin/faqwais [Utrecht University, Netherlands]
http://www.lib.ox.ac.uk/internet/news/ [Oxford University, UK]
http://www.faqs.org/ [Internet FAQ Consortium, US]
Andy> Is there a recommended readling list?
Yes, see the FAQs.
--
Matt Curtin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/
------------------------------
From: "Markku J. Saarelainen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.org.cia,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.australian,alt.security
Subject: You see Vakoilia Mannerheim was not in any way connected or linked to
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:23:00 GMT
------------------------------
From: "Markku J. Saarelainen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.org.cia,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.australian,alt.security
Subject: You see Vakoilia Mannerheim was not in any way connected or linked to
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:24:52 GMT
------------------------------
From: "Markku J. Saarelainen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.org.cia,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.australian,alt.security
Subject: And when you read my postings since April, 1999 .. you find out one
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:29:22 GMT
"Markku J. Saarelainen" wrote:
------------------------------
From: "Markku J. Saarelainen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.org.cia,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.australian,alt.security
Subject: And my coming out party has contrinued one year ... just following the
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:34:34 GMT
And my coming out party has contrinued one year ... just following the
footsteps of Marsalkka Mannerheim .....
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: On jamming interception networks
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 22:17:31 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What I meant is that they should have
> *detected* ahead of time the preparations for
> the nuclear tests. Perhaps they did and it
> didn't receive "high-level notice". I have never
> been affiliated with U.S. intelligence but if
> you are so affiliated then perhaps it adds a
> little spice to this forum.
What you conjecture reminds me of some tales about the
Pearl Habor event in WWII, claiming that informations
were available to the US before the attack but were
not reacted upon. Another case of no-reaction in WWII
was one in which the British were said to let one of
the cities be bombed without much defense in order to
conceal the fact that the German military messages encoded
with Enigma could be read by them. I am ignorant of whether
any historian has found the real facts in these cases.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: On jamming interception networks
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 22:17:36 +0100
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> > Ah, I understand that you mean that ...
>
> No, you don't show signs of understanding my meaning at all.
This is a typical kind of behaviour of those who simply 'kill' a
discussion because they can find no more viable concrete arguments
to put in black and white and to post them. It is a pity that such
phenomena time and again take place in a sci-group like the one
of ours. I'll consider such to be undesirable even for the
talk-groups. (I don't consider the case of chat rooms, because
I have never been in one.) When I was young, I had a chess
playmate who used to suddenly take his hands to scramble together
all the figures on the chess board when he saw that there was
practically no more chance for him to win, thus terminating the
game in the simplest way without anyone being able to claim to
be the winner. I can see some similarity in these two types of
behaviours.
M. K. Shen
========================
http://home.t-online.de/home/mok-kong.shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Q: 'Linear encipherment'
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 22:17:25 +0100
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
>
>
> > The second scheme should be stronger than the first since it uses
> > 16 key constants (L11, L12, .....) instead of 4 key constants
> > (K1, K2, K3, K4).
>
> No, it is stronger because it uses 4 key constants per CT value
> instead of 2 key constants per CT value; in other words, it mixes
> together 4 PT values into one CT value, rather than just 2 PT
> values.
> Key length has no direct bearing on this.
But 16 key values are used in the one case, compared to only 4 key
values in the second. Forgetting about the internal working of
the two schemes, do you think that it is a 'fair' (from the
very beginning) comparison to say that the 16 key values scheme
is stronger than the other one that uses only 4 key values? To
consider a bit different context, do you think that comparison of
strength of a 128 bit key algorithm with a 64 bit key algorithm
to be sensible in the first place? This is the essence of my
critique about Kahn's statement.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Byington)
Subject: very tiny algorithm - any better than XOR?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 17:07:01 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Consider an 8 bit processor that does not have enough code space memory
to run TEA. This processor only needs the decrypt side - it never encrypts
any output. We have about 50 bytes of code space, which should be enough
for something like the algorithm below. This is probably grossly insecure,
but it should be better than a simple XOR. The question is - is this any
better than the trivial XOR? Note that all the operations are byte wide,
and the rotate_left() is a single bit byte wide rotate.
Is there anything that can be done to make it significantly stronger
without adding more than a few instructions?
/**********************************************************
Input values: k[16] 128-bit key
v[8] 64-bit plaintext block
Output values: v[8] 64-bit ciphertext block
**********************************************************/
void encrypt(word8 *k, word8 *v)
{
int i, j;
for (i=0; i<8; i+=2) {
for (j=0; j<16; j++) {
// feistel network v[i], v[i+1] form the 16 bit block
// L = v[i]
// R = v[i+1]
word8 t = v[i+1];
v[i+1] = v[i] ^ ((rotate_left(t) + k[j]) & 0xff);
v[i] = t;
}
}
}
void decrypt(word8 *k, word8 *v)
{
int i, j;
for (i=0; i<8; i+=2) {
for (j=15; j>-1; j--) {
// feistel network v[i], v[i+1] form the 16 bit block
// L = v[i]
// R = v[i+1]
word8 t = v[i];
v[i] = v[i+1] ^ ((rotate_left(t) + k[j]) & 0xff);
v[i+1] = t;
}
}
}
- --
PGP key available from the key servers.
Key fingerprint 95 F4 D3 94 66 BA 92 4E 06 1E 95 F8 74 A8 2F A0
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 4.5
iQCVAgUBOL1OKdZjPoeWO7BhAQH5bQQAm6FWAwflLP+qcOplrn2aeTsJa5zaS8N0
Ocpp2squQbKA7TNKjysceKCxCzh2RI4MK66DO3dEBfR2OQXAysXjUMcjE+lLesHg
cS8y1EfhAX+g8Er5656xHpKgolHoYrzyUTHWgeavv7qXy9f3WCZJHjszK0ENouCz
tGog94enDks=
=sSV9
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Far out crypto claims
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 21:15:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ... Even former C.I.A. director James
> > Woolsey had to get a civilian, Dr. Steven
> > Greer, to brief him on UFOs because he could
> > not gain access to black info on the subject.
>
> You know, that might be because there is no such info,
> or at least not about alien spacecraft.
>
> (Actually, the balloon project responsible for some of
> the UFO sightings was declassified not too long ago.)
>
5 star admiral Lord Hill-Norton, the former
head of the UK's MOD, MI-5, and MI-6 said that
while he was head of the MOD he knew of on-
going projects invovling alien technology but
was kept in the dark about them. What does
this have to do with cryptography? Well, there
is a U.S. Army Major and lawyer who claims to
have been an Army cryptographer in the
Pentagon during 1959-61. Like the Admiral, he
is willing to appear on the same documentary
movie series and would speak about the
Army's efforts to decrypt the series of
hieroglyphic- like symbols found on the
recovered alien debris from the Roswell crash.
Before believing his claims I would require
independent confirmation, but if you want to
see more about this then go to the following
website and scroll down to the partial list of
witnesses at about the bottom third of the
page: www.cseti.org/position/greer/
discosure_moviesummary.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Crypto.Com, Inc.
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:45:35 GMT
David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>John Savard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It may also be noted that there already does exist a "technology"
>> which provides for _reasonable_ security "on open circuits between two
>> users without the use of a" previously-arranged key...public-key
>> cryptography.
>yes, but the quote said "unbreakable." This implies info-theoretic
>security at best, and cluelessness at worst.
True, but I guess my point was that *if* they were just hyping a bit
instead of being clueless - meaning, say, unbreakable in practice,
like most 128-bit-key block ciphers are hoped to be - then there is a
_second_ problem with what they're saying...it is unclear how what
they're talking about is anything new!
John Savard (jsavard<at>ecn<dot>ab<dot>ca)
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: First contact, establishing password without public keys
Date: 1 Mar 2000 21:49:07 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ken Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>away with this. Alice can relatively easily find a pair of strings
>whose partial-MD5 is mmmmmmmm, but Eve would have to try out many
>many strings to find even ONE string whose MD5 is mmmmmm, yet alone
>a pair of them.
No. It is as hard for Alice to find a second string as it is for Eve to
find one string. That is precisely the point of those cryptographic
hashes. It is supposed to be very difficult to find a collision even if
the original is known.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Xcott Craver)
Subject: Re: Crypto.Com, Inc.
Date: 1 Mar 2000 22:03:15 GMT
wtshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>Shannon was functionally wrong, but lots of what he said is of great
>importance. The error was not in what he understood, OTP, but in that it
>was too simple to say that it is the only choice. This means he did not
>know or allow for development that might solved the problem, scientific
>allowance that he should have respected.
Can you be more specific about this alleged mistake? Where he
said a wrong thing and what, specifically was wrong? I.e., did he
really say that a specific OTP was the only choice to obtain perfect
secrecy?
I thought he had only said that perfect secrecy requires at least
as many bits of key as there are bits of message, and that key
data can not be reused. This much is perfectly true, and very
easy to prove. No buts about the fact that you must meet these
requirements in order to possess the propoerty that P(p|c)=P(p)
[p=plaintext,c=ciphertext]
Also, most people use the phrase "one-time pad" to mean any
cryptosystem whose keydata is never reused, and as large as
the plaintext; rather than any specific implementation involving
XOR or addition mod 26 or 256 or etc. Under this convention, any
system meeting the definition of perfect secrecy is, by
definition, a one-time pad.
-S
------------------------------
From: John Myre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: very tiny algorithm - any better than XOR?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 15:06:10 -0700
The immediate thing that jumps out at me is that you don't get
any diffusion further than 16 bits. In fact, this is actually
an algorithm to encrypt a 16-bit block, run in ECB mode on four
successive blocks.
Depending on how this algorithm fits in the larger picture,
this could be fatal.
John M.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ...but what about my cipher?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 22:11:33 GMT
..but??...Hello!
I must say I am a bit surprised that noone has replied to my post "How weak is
WeakCipher?", whilst a whole bunch of people, including myself, have posted
messages in the thread "Can someone break this cipher?"
It seems like you don't get any reviews even if you DO supply the algorithm
etc. ;-)
In case you don't find my previous post on the matter you might also have a
look at http://w1.462.telia.com/~u46205672/FHH.htm
I supply a sample application and Delphi 4 dcu's and documentation.
My e-mail address is for real.
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free Usenet News via the Web -----
----- http://newsone.net/ -- Discussions on every subject. -----
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Terje Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: very tiny algorithm - any better than XOR?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:12:38 +0100
Carl Byington wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Consider an 8 bit processor that does not have enough code space memory
> to run TEA. This processor only needs the decrypt side - it never encrypts
> any output. We have about 50 bytes of code space, which should be enough
> for something like the algorithm below. This is probably grossly insecure,
> but it should be better than a simple XOR. The question is - is this any
> better than the trivial XOR? Note that all the operations are byte wide,
> and the rotate_left() is a single bit byte wide rotate.
It is better because you do at least achieve _some_ mixing of data
within your 16-bit sub-blocks.
Each 16-bit sub-block seems to be treated independently, without any
mixing between the 4 sub-blocks in a 64-bit input block.
The key is used the same way for all sub-blocks, so effectively you have
implemented a 16-bit to 16-bit permutation, with a maximum of 64K
possible encryptions.
So, if I generate a 128 KB lookup table, I can replace all the rounds
with a single lookup, which should make it easy to make a very fast
encryptor.
I guess I'd have to look at the available machine instructions to figure
out if you could have some way to get better mixing by working across
larger blocks.
I assume speed is non-critical here?
Terje
--
- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Using self-discipline, see http://www.eiffel.com/discipline
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: Best language for encryption??
Date: 1 Mar 2000 21:29:26 +0100
In article <89iob5$k7r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter schrieb in Nachricht <89ihfs$3m7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>In article <1SYu4.12$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Adam Durana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> BASIC is great for learning structured programming,
>>
>>:-) ... no, it's indeed not! But it's great for learning
>>spagetti programming....
>
> With all due respect, Adam, I have to second Paul's
> opinion. I've been through most of the common languages,
> and if there's one that is *not* suitable for learning
> structured programming, it's BASIC - any kind of BASIC.
>
> If you want to *learn* structured programming, try
> Pascal, Modula, Objective C or something like that.
As a matter of fact, Subjective C (= good ol' ANSI C) is
fine for learning structured progamming too. Don't confuse
structured programming with object-oriented programming.
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: Best language for encryption??
Date: 1 Mar 2000 21:30:01 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
wtshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Douglas A. Gwyn"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Adam Durana wrote:
>>> BASIC is great for learning structured programming, ...
>>
>> That's certainly not the consensus opinion in the computing
>> science community!
>
> If you write a fully function application, structure is important. The
> fact that the best type of event loop and use of subroutines, globals,
> multiple windows, etc. can be done in extended Basic is no surprize to
> lots of folks.
It CAN be done like that, using compiler specific extensions. But
Basic doesn't enforce it, but allows you to write programs in that
old spaghetti style - this is much harder to do in almost any other
langauge.
This means that strucured Basic programs can't be portable, and
portable Basic programs can't be structured.
Why not instead choose a programming language which had structure
built-in right from the start, instead of added later as a afterthought?
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David A. Wagner)
Subject: Re: differential cryptanalysis
Date: 1 Mar 2000 13:44:56 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Julien Carme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given E a blocks cypher, using a n-bits key K.
> Imagine now that, for each block Bi, instead of encrypting it with K,
> you generate a n-bits random number Ri, and you use K'=K^Ri as new key.
> To make the decryption possible, you just have to send the encrypted
> version of each block, and the corresponding random number Ri.
Three points:
* This doubles the bandwidth.
* This opens you up to related-key attacks which weren't
possible against the vanilla block cipher.
* This doesn't actually stop different cryptanalysis anyway,
since in a chosen-ciphertext attack model, the attacker will
get to choose not only the ciphertext block but also the value
of R, and thus can choose R to always be the same value.
------------------------------
From: Johnny Bravo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Passwords secure against dictionary attacks?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 17:32:34 +0000
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:48:03 GMT, jungle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>when you will remember your passphrase, they are numerous techniques to get it
>"from you" in couple of minutes ...
And when you don't remember your passphrase you can never decrypt your
data. Hardly a useful contribution to this discussion.
--
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all it's contents." - HPL
------------------------------
From: Wally Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: Passwords secure against dictionary attacks?
Date: 01 Mar 2000 14:55:08 -0800
Johnny Bravo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 02:40:36 GMT, jungle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Our computer centre suggest choosing a phrase an using every first
> >> (or second, or last or whatever) character for the password. For
> >> example: My grandma takes 5 glasses of whine per evening = Mgt5gowpe,
> >> who could guess that password?
> >
> >it will be cracked in less than a second by brut force attack ...
> >
> >the key space for it is 360 k of possible permutations ...
> >
> >again, in less than 1 second ...
>
> Care to offer the math behind that guess? I count roughly 50 bits of
> password, would take roughly an hour on a $250,000 dedicated machine.
>
> Then again, what would you know, you claimed that a 4 character password
> has a keyspace of 10^30.
>
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Johnny Bravo
>
> "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
> of the human mind to correlate all it's contents." - HPL
Be careful. I think jungle must have one of those little boxes you see
in the movies that show the "partial" progress of the brute force
attack by revealing the key sequence number by number.
Wally
--
Strangers in your computer? Don't be the last one to find out.
HTTP://HACKERWHACKER.COM
Security Link of the Hour: http://www.ussrback.com/
http://www.cert.org/index.html
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crypto.Com, Inc.
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:01:22 +0100
wtshaw wrote:
>
> > press release states:
> >
> > "... The technology provides for absolute security on open circuits
> > between two users without the use of a key. The new cryptography
> > concept creates absolutely unbreakable ciphers allowing software to be
> > absolutely secure for the Internet, networks, and telephone lines. ..."
> >
> This seems a bit of a strong statement. The only theory that might be
> applied there would be of quantum mechanics design, which has not proven
> practical for current needs.
Another possibility: Telepathy! Believe it or not, it was only
a few days ago that pre-cognition of animals and such stuffs
were earnestly discussed in a French radio broadcast.
M. K. Shen
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: On jamming interception networks
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:03:32 +0100
I was just called attention to a site containing a surprisingly
large amount of informations about Echelon:
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echres.html
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
