Cryptography-Digest Digest #22, Volume #11 Mon, 31 Jan 00 05:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: XML vs Javabean for B2B ("John A. Malley")
Re: Re: How to password protect files on distribution CD (Chris Adams)
Re: KEA gains something with RSA instead of D-H (John Savard)
Re: Court cases on DVD hacking is a problem for all of us (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Wireless PKI now or later ("Lyal Collins")
Re: How to Annoy the NSA (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Court cases on DVD hacking is a problem for all of us (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Court cases on DVD hacking is a problem for all of us (Terje Elde)
Re: RSA survey (Terje Elde)
Re: What about the Satanic Seven??? (Terje Elde)
Re: What about the Satanic Seven??? (Terje Elde)
Re: What about the Satanic Seven??? (Terje Elde)
Re: How much does it cost to share knowledge? ("Rick Braddam")
Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator (Guy Macon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John A. Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XML vs Javabean for B2B
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:12:10 -0800
I can't readily find a single wireless product using secure XML and WAP
- or just XML and WAP.
Anyone else know of any secure XML mobile products for PDAs, cell
phones, etc.?
Anyway, here's where I went:
Checked out Palm's web site and found nothing along those lines.
http://www.palm.com/
Tried Andrew Seybold's site to see what he has to say on wireless and
XML:
http://www.outlook.com/
Mr. Seybold has nothing definitive on the wireless application protocol
and XML, but he is rather cautious about WAP browsers and WAP services.
Ran a query on Yahoo and found a firm in Kansas called TouchNet at
http://www.touchnet.com. They provide an assortment of software parts,
servers, and a JavaBean-based tool kit to develop XML adapters to
connect legacy mainframe software (i.e. the COBOL world, etc.) to each
other via XML over the Internet, through (of course) their own
proprietary gateway server. Nothing about WAP in the mix.
Tried BSquare (the WinCE driver people) for any info - found none.
http://www.bsquare.com
XML.com had a WAP area (see
http://www.xml.com/pub/buyersguide/index.html) with
a position paper on the joining of WAP and XML at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-WAP
John A. Malley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Drew Cutter wrote:
>
> John I'm looking a wireless encryption (wap) on palmpilot , window CE
> either using javabean or XML and PKI . Suggestion would be appreciate ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Adams)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.unix,comp.security
Subject: Re: Re: How to password protect files on distribution CD
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:12:58 GMT
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:37:14 -0700, Bill \"Houdini\" Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I've wondered recently, what is the cost of some decent-speed DES
>hardware? Because, one would make a hell of a dongle. Have the
>program call the hardware to do vital parts of the code, and make the
>hardware fast enough that the calls can be big enough to make the
>program really fucking cumbersome to use without it. Added to
Or, look at it another way: build a hardware accelerator so that your program
is not only inseparable from the hardware but faster as well, thus giving your
*customers* a reason to buy it. Done right, the "dongle" becomes a major
feature.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: KEA gains something with RSA instead of D-H
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:08:28 GMT
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:32:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(John Savard) wrote, in part:
>In Diffie-Hellman, A^x is the public key, and x is the private key -
>but x does not need to be persistent, and is not in KEA. Hence, from
>one point of view, there is "nothing to betray" on either side.
Upon further reflection, I think I've finally figured out what the
_point_ is behind KEA.
The session key in KEA is A^(x1*y2) + A^(x2*y1) where
user 1 has a digital certificate for his public key A^x1, and x1 is a
persistent private key held by user 1, but y1 is a nonce generated at
random by user 1, and
user 2 has a digital certificate for his public key A^x2, and x2 is a
persistent private key held by user 2, but y2 is a nonce generated at
random by user 2.
Hence, as with the RSA example, one has to compromise the persistent
private keys of both parties to the communication, *unless* one has
instead compromised one of the nonces. But since the nonces exist for
roughly the same amount of time on the two systems as the plaintext of
the messages to which they apply, they essentially impose no
additional security hazard.
John Savard (teneerf <-)
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Court cases on DVD hacking is a problem for all of us
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:33:41 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
[ ... ]
> Perception: Any code is fair game to cracking. I have the *right* to
> reverse engineer, diff analyze or in any way crack anything that is
> encrypted. In fact, I have a duty to do so, so everyone will know
> whether or not it is a trustable algorythm.
>
> Reality: Aren't we biting our own tails here? We are the community
> that so strongly defends an individuals right to privacy, yet we deny
> that right to the DVD industry simply because they are a for-profit
> industry? It is wrong of us to assume that simply because the owners
> of the DVD crypto are keeping the code from us, that we have the right
> to crack it and see what it is.
The law is quite careful to protect your right to reverse engineer
(code or other mechanisms) to produce compatible products. This is
true in the US. The EU standards for member countries require that
reverse engineering for compatibility be protected. In fact, the same
basic idea is true throughout almost the entire civilized word. The
only countries about which I'm reasonably uncertain are those that
simply ignore ALL copyrights (and other such laws).
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:33:43 -0700
In article <8731lb$pg3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
[ ... ]
> ]Well, I guess I'll admit I'm not sure what he's saying -- it appears
> ]to me that he frequently makes a claim in one direction about the
> ]theory, but then turns around and specifically disclaims having said
> ]anything about what would result from that theory.
>
> Uh-oh, now you are quite simply lying.
No, I'm really not.
> ]...including him, I'm reasonably certain.
>
> Well, nope - and I would appreciate it if you refrain from lying
> about matters on the premanent record at Deja.com
In one case I said "it appears to me..." and in the other I said "I'm
reasonably certain." To claim that either is a lie requires that you
know that I thought something other than what I said. I find it a bit
humorous that you talk about others being insufficiently careful in
reading what you say, but then overlook things that stated this
clearly.
> ]In any case, it seems to me that we're kicking a dead horse. It all
> ]comes down to one simple fact: a crystal oscillator is a lousy source
> ]of entropy. I'm reasonably certain that if you try to use crystal
> ]oscillators in something similar to the way he envisions, nearly all
> ]the entropy you get will be from other sources.
>
> Nope - that is incorrect. And you can't evven begin to assess that,
> until you figure out what effect I am talking about.
Yes, I can. No matter what you think is creating the entropy you're
talking about, the simple fact is, that you can't use entropy that is
measurably and provably absent in the signal to start with.
> ] Just for example, you
> ]could take two oscillators, run them at what was supposed to be 180
> ]degrees out of phase, mix the results (which should obviously cancel),
> ]and amplify the difference.
> That has absolutely nothing with the method that I described several
> times over.
You obviously didn't understand what I was saying: this is simply
talking about a way of isolating the entropy that's there. The source
or cause of the entropy is irrelevant.
To put things another way: entropy is simply data that can't be
predicted. This is predicting what SHOULD be in the signal, and
getting rid of it. What's left is therefore what wasn't predicted --
IOW, entropy.
To put things yet another way, you're simply separating the signal
into two parts: the basic oscillation at the rated frequency of the
crystal (which obviously isn't entropy at all) and whatever else
happens to be in the signal.
In reality, _most_ of what's left won't usually be real entropy
though: it'll be things like distortion products from the amplifier
and oscillator circuits. Most the entropy that IS there will
originate from sources outside the crystal, such as the resistors in
the oscillator and amplifier.
However, entropy was there in the input will mostly still be there in
the output. It doesn't really matter whether you think the entropy
originates from Brownian motion, resistor noise or witchcraft; this is
simply a method of isolating the predictable from the unpredictable
parts of the signal.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: "Lyal Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wireless PKI now or later
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:34:05 +1100
Same issues
- wap uses wireless transmission means
- PKI is PKI
Lyal
Drew Cutter wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>What about PKI with WAP ?
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to Annoy the NSA
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:51:36 -0700
In article <873807$u1f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> To annoy the NSA start
> spreading this news. Soon, if not
> already, it will be possible to
> build a quantum computer that
> can solve NP-Complete & #P
> Complete problems. This
> computer would thus be able to
> crack any code except for those
> encrypted via a one- time pad
> key cipher or certain types of
> quantum cryptography.
[ more elided ]
Please look back through the archives of this newsgroup: you'll find
that quantum computing is not news to regulars here. You'll also find
that the assertion you've made above has little to do with reality.
Quantum computing can break certain kinds of encryption more quickly
than conventional computing, but this does not mean all ciphers other
than a one-time-pad are particularly vulnerable. A quantum computer
could break RSA (for one example) more quickly than a conventional
computer, but doubling the size of the key used brings back roughly
the present level of security. Right now, an RSA key from about 750
bits on up is reasonably secure -- I prefer 1024 bits, but mostly as a
matter of principle. If you honestly believe that quantum computing
will be usable in the relatively near future, this means increasing
your key to somewhere in the range of 1500 to 2048 bits or so. Many
people already do that, though it's usually just out of a feeling that
"bigger is better" rather than any analysis of the chances of a
quantum computer being put into use anytime soon.
Also note that nobody's figured out ANY way to use a quantum computer
to attack MANY (if not most) of the ciphers in use today. Just for
example, if you could postulate that a quantum computer was available
and ready for use right now, it would make essentially NO difference
to the security of any of the AES finalist candidates.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Court cases on DVD hacking is a problem for all of us
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:12:01 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> And let me reiterate by quoting the meat of my original post:
>
> "Sorry boys, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you
> have the right to crack a proprietary software encryption system and
> distribute that information, and then demand the right to absolute
> privacy of our own data."
You're ignoring one _extremely_ simple concept: the concept of
ownership. I'm allowed to keep MY information private for the simple
reason that it's MINE. If I decide to sell my private data, then I've
given up the right to absolute privacy over that data. If, OTOH, I
don't sell/give away/whatever my right to my data, then yes, I really
CAN demand the right to absolute privacy.
The question here is whether I can sell something, and still demand
the right to privacy, with the consumer only allowed to use the data
in exactly the way I say he can. This is a long-standing question,
and there's a long-standing tradition of copyright law to define
exactly what rights can be retained by the original owner, and what
rights are rendered to the consumer in such a transaction. The
consumer is NOT given the right to duplicate the data and sell it to
the others (except with extreme limitations) but IS given the right to
examine it in nearly any way (s)he chooses, specifically INCLUDING
reverse engineering to produce a compatible product.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terje Elde)
Subject: Re: Court cases on DVD hacking is a problem for all of us
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:36:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Troed wrote:
>>Please keep in mind they I might be wrong, as I'm working with second hand
>>info here.
>
>Yes, and your info is wrong.
Sorry about that.
>Don't let them take this out on a 16 year old Norwegian who's just
>been doing what computer enthusiasts have been doing since the days of
>the Altaire. Raise your voice, now.
If he hadn't done it, someone else would have.
V pbhyq fhttrfg gung crbcyr fubhyq qhcyvpngr uvf jbex, naq cbfg vg
nabalzbhfyl gb gel gb qenj fbzr urng njnl, gub fhttrfgvat gung jbhyq
cebonoyl or vyyrtny nf jryy.
Terje Elde
--
Ex, de... Yv oek sqd huqt jxyi jxud jxqj cuqdi oek'lu rheaud co
udshofjyed. DEM te oek iuu mxo mu duut ijhedw shofje?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terje Elde)
Subject: Re: RSA survey
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:36:15 GMT
In article <ukkvfCKa$GA.111@cpmsnbbsa02>, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
>> Your computer will spontaneously sing showtunes when you are blue
>> before keys above 1024 bits are required...
>
>OTOH, why bother having a lower security margin than I can easily afford?
Isn't the while point of PGP to be able to communicate securely with OTHER
PEOPLE?
Terje Elde
--
Ex, de... Yv oek sqd huqt jxyi jxud jxqj cuqdi oek'lu rheaud co
udshofjyed. DEM te oek iuu mxo mu duut ijhedw shofje?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terje Elde)
Subject: Re: What about the Satanic Seven???
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:36:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Glenn Larsson wrote:
>Trevor Jackson, III wrote:
>>
>> Terje Elde wrote:
>> > We all think it's a stupid law.
>>
>> Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it _is_ a stupid law?
>
>I don't think the laws regulating this are stupid anymore.
The thought to try to limit crypto from getting used by the BadGuys (tm)
isn't bad. The problem is that attempts to limit distribution of such have
failed, and thus there isn't much of a point left.
Terje Elde
--
Ex, de... Yv oek sqd huqt jxyi jxud jxqj cuqdi oek'lu rheaud co
udshofjyed. DEM te oek iuu mxo mu duut ijhedw shofje?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terje Elde)
Subject: Re: What about the Satanic Seven???
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:36:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sander Vesik wrote:
>That means that you cannot export GPL-ed crypto software from the US
>("no additional restrictions")?
This is true. You cannot export GPL infected code under the current
regulations. Thank god OpenSSL and OpenSSH is BSD style tho :)
Terje Elde
--
Ex, de... Yv oek sqd huqt jxyi jxud jxqj cuqdi oek'lu rheaud co
udshofjyed. DEM te oek iuu mxo mu duut ijhedw shofje?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terje Elde)
Subject: Re: What about the Satanic Seven???
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:36:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sander Vesik wrote:
>> If you consider only software, then yeah, the emperor is quite nude,
>> however I sustect the regulations are they way they are so that the US
>> government can crack down on people exporting military grade crypto
>> hardware to those countries.
>
>> It's all or nothing, so this is the way it has to be if they want to be
>> able to do that.
>
>Errr.... Is one of the AES candidates implemented in FPGA 'military
>grade crypto'? What keeps a person from inside one of the bad seven
>away from that?
>
>If they can't be bothered to get a 486 (or better) PC, free web
>downloadable software and a suitcase full of ISP FPGAs... well,
>then they definately do deserve what they get.
I'm not trying to defend the laws here, I was just trying to explain what
I imagine the motives to be.
It's much like the same laws used to crack down on child porn could also
be used to crack down on a 17 year old writing a erotic letter to another
17 year old (depending on your local laws).
I'm not saying that's right either.
Terje Elde
--
Ex, de... Yv oek sqd huqt jxyi jxud jxqj cuqdi oek'lu rheaud co
udshofjyed. DEM te oek iuu mxo mu duut ijhedw shofje?
------------------------------
From: "Rick Braddam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How much does it cost to share knowledge?
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 02:57:03 -0600
Ken Polsson has a history page (with references) at:
http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist.htm
Portions within double-quotes (") are:
Copyright (C) 1994-99 Ken Polsson
internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist.htm
Where he states that the Intel 4004 was the first microprocessor,
created in 1970 and introduced in 1971. A company called the Kenback
Corporation introduced the Kenback-1 computer using the 4004 in 1971.
I've tried for ages to remember the name of the calculator company the
4004 was designed for, at Intel's Hall of Fame page I was reminded that
it was BusiCom.
In 1973 "Scelbi Computer Consulting Company offers the first computer
kit in the U.S. using a microprocessor, the Intel 8008-based Scelbi-8H,
for US$565, with 1KB programmable memory. An additional 15KB is
available for US$2760."
In July 1974 "Radio Electronics magazine publishes an article on
building a Mark-8 microcomputer, designed by Jonathan Titus, using the
Intel 8008."
No mention of the simultaneous article in Popular Electronics. There may
have been two more articles in the following January, or my memory may
be faulty (which is more likely, it was a long time ago).
Steve Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Not true. There was an active group of people who had PDP-8
> computers, and various other machines. This was way before the
> 8008. I thought the PDP-8 was a fine machine, but the Z-80
> finally blew it away in performance.
The PDP-8 should have been a fine machine, but it was basically a
minicomputer. At circa $28,000 it was hardly a personal or home
computer, even if some (well to do) people had one.
> IBM came way, way after,
> with the 8080. But that's where the PC name came from.
I think you mean the 8088. It was derived from the 8086, which was
introduced a year earlier. It *was* an 8086, but hamstrung by an 8-bit
data bus for compatability with 8-bit auxillary chips like disk
controllers and DMA controllers.
> Prior
> to that, they were microcomputers. Hackers were good guys until
> the media used the term to identify the criminal element. Same with
> the word "Gay." Isn't it sad, how a beautiful word like gay, got
> turned into a synonym for f**king boys in the ass? All from the
> media giants...
They're still microcomputers. Or, at least the chip inside them is. The
term PC was short for IBM's name of their "IBM Personal Computer".
> If ENIAC was a personal computer, then the PDP-11 could be
> considered a lap-top...
I think the LSI-11 may have been available in a form similiar to our
desktops. Heathkit had an LSI-11 based construction project, too.
> Rick Braddam wrote
> > I don't know what Paul is thinking, but his post reminds me of two
> > construction projects that appeared in electronics hobbiest's
magazines
> > in January, in (I think it was) 1975. One was in Radio-Electronics,
the
> > other in Popular Electronics. Both used the Intel 8008 eight-bit
> > microprocessor. Seems like one was called Mike-8, and the other
Elf-8,
> > but I'm not sure about the names.
>
See also:
Intel's Hall of Fame:
http://www.intel.com/intel/museum/25anniv/hof/hof_main.htm
Specs on Intel microprocessors:
http://www.intel.com/intel/museum/25anniv/hof/tspecs.htm
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Crossposted-To: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator
Date: 31 Jan 2000 04:27:35 EST
In article <8732ib$10ds$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John A.
Sidles) wrote:
>
>The question of whether the noise output from a thermally
>excited oscillator is really "random" is quite fascinating.
>We observe this noise all the time in our force microscope
>experiments, and we spend a lot of time wondering whether
>it is really random.
>
Thanks for the info! I use an atomic force microscope to
measure pits on CD and DVD masters. I noticed the noise
you speak of, but in our application the signal is much
larger, so I never worried about it. Yours was a nice
clear eplaination, which I suspect will come in very
handy sometime. Thanks!
Now I am wondering how much influence external magnetic
or electric field have on the (possibly) random output.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
