Cryptography-Digest Digest #295, Volume #11 Fri, 10 Mar 00 10:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Cellular automata based public key cryptography (Dr. Yongge Wang)
Re: Cellular automata based public key cryptography (Dr. Yongge Wang)
Re: Cellular automata based public key cryptography (Frank Gifford)
Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site (Mike Rosing)
PGP 'hunger for knowledge' (Ederer Tobias)
Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Universal Language (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: NIST, AES at RSA conference (Bo D�mstedt)
Re: avoid man-in-the-middle known plaintext attack using a stream cipher
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Universal Language (Mike Rosing)
Re: Big Float project (Mike Rosing)
Re: Universal Language ("Tony T. Warnock")
Re: Concerning UK publishes "impossible" decryption law (Jon Kettenhofen)
Re: Passwords secure against dictionary attacks? (Alun Jones)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dr. Yongge Wang)
Subject: Re: Cellular automata based public key cryptography
Date: 10 Mar 2000 14:11:13 GMT
The simple way to prove that 1D = 2D = 3D (CA) is a simple coding.
Infinite 1D can be used to encode any infinite mD for fixed m.
(of course here infinite is countably infinite. Indeed, for
continuous infinite, it seems also work).
But I think the basic difference for CA and TM is:
only infinite CA can compute "halting problems".
So that is not a real powerful tihng. Note that
a simple finite TM can compute "halting problems".
Tim Tyler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : : The CA I have seen are two dimensional. If I understand you correctly,
: : : an infinite two dimensional CA can be equivalent to a TM. Would an
: : : infinite three dimensional CA, which could certainly be built, be
: : : able to provide more power than a TM? [...]
: : The /answer/ to the question is "no". Spatially infinite 1D, 2D and 3D
: : automata are all equivalent in these terms. [...]
: Having written this, I've concluded that there's a weak sense in which it
: is possible to construct functions (with infinite numbers of inputs and
: outputs) that would produce an output after a finite period in an
: n-dimensional automaton - but would take an infinite time to compute in an
: n-1 dimensional one.
: Consequently - in a pretty weak sense - TM < 1DCA < 2DCA < 3DCA.
: --
: __________
: |im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: I see you're already stuffed.
--
======================================================.
Yongge Wang |
Center for Applied Cryptographic Research |
University of Waterloo |
Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1 |
Canada |
Phone:(519)8884567 x 5295 |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
http://cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/~ygwang |
======================================================'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dr. Yongge Wang)
Subject: Re: Cellular automata based public key cryptography
Date: 10 Mar 2000 14:18:35 GMT
: Tim is correct. Theoretically, CA could be
: made to do quantum computation (QC) which
: could be more *efficient* than TM. There are
: models of QC which are alternative to TM but
: there is no proof I am aware of that any type
: of QC is more powerful than TM in terms of
: *what* can be computed.
That depends on the "formal" definition of Quantum Computer.
Real quantum physics is continuous (recall the
phase \phi of a piece of glass if you use a piece os
glass to shift the phase of a photon)
This \phi can be any real number. The problem of a
"formal" definition of a QC must use some approximations.
This will make a QC discrete machine which is deemed
to be at most as powerful as Turing machine.
Indeed, the first task for each QC definition is to
prove it can compute all functions that a TM can compute.
Also note that a practical QC has to be discrete since you
need to make combinations of the process and you have
to observe it in the end.
: Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
: Before you buy.
--
======================================================.
Yongge Wang |
Center for Applied Cryptographic Research |
University of Waterloo |
Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1 |
Canada |
Phone:(519)8884567 x 5295 |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
http://cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/~ygwang |
======================================================'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Gifford)
Subject: Re: Cellular automata based public key cryptography
Date: 10 Mar 2000 09:16:12 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: : The CA I have seen are two dimensional. If I understand you correctly,
>: : an infinite two dimensional CA can be equivalent to a TM. Would an
>: : infinite three dimensional CA, which could certainly be built, be
>: : able to provide more power than a TM? [...]
>
>: The /answer/ to the question is "no". Spatially infinite 1D, 2D and 3D
>: automata are all equivalent in these terms. [...]
>
>Having written this, I've concluded that there's a weak sense in which it
>is possible to construct functions (with infinite numbers of inputs and
>outputs) that would produce an output after a finite period in an
>n-dimensional automaton - but would take an infinite time to compute in an
>n-1 dimensional one.
>
>Consequently - in a pretty weak sense - TM < 1DCA < 2DCA < 3DCA.
You could argue that higher dimensions (i.e. more neighbors for a given cell)
allow problems to be solved faster. But to say that with a CA with 2
dimensions (i.e. 4 neighbors) takes an infinite amount of time to solve a
problem, but a CA with 3 dimensions (6 neighbors) can complete in finite time
begs the question: what is that problem?
I can follow the line of thought that more connections could provide a
"faster" solution to a problem - but jumping from infinite to finite is a
bit much to believe.
-Giff
--
Too busy for a .sig
------------------------------
From: Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:20:06 -0600
Bob Silverman wrote:
>
> Might I suggest to anyone who is planning on participating:
>
> If you actually have time to spend on examining the security of
> symmetric ciphers, that you instead select one of the AES candidates
> and spend time analyzing it instead?
>
> AES is important. If you have spare time, why not spend it on something
> important, instead of wasting it on a 'cipher' that will never see
> the light of day?
>
> If you want to be taken *seriously* by the crypto community, I can think
> of no better way of doing so than by exposing a weakness in one of the
> AES ciphers.
Because it would be fun, pure and simple. Some of us realize we aren't
"important people", so we don't have to do "important things". We can
just learn stuff. After we learn enough, we might have a chance at
getting
serious.
OT: I tried to reply to your [EMAIL PROTECTED] address, but it bounced
saying
there's no one by that name at rsa.com. Obviously something's wrong, I
bet it works internally just fine. This might have something to do with
the name change of the domian, or it might be main server doesn't have
the
right alias to forward to your actual machine. I'm sure you exist, the
computer has a problem this time :-)
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:20:10 +0100
From: Ederer Tobias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PGP 'hunger for knowledge'
Please... somebody maybe out there who wants to send me some encryted
E-Mail just to learn more about the handling with PGP.
This would be really cool...
My public key is on the cert server with the ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So I hope to hear from You.
See You Tobi
--
=====BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK=====
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use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------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:10:44 GMT
In article <8a9dsq$bts$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Mr. Scott,
>
>Please submit such a cipher. I would like to understand the design
>behind it. In order for a whole file to change, a multiple pass
>algorithm would be needed, correct? Couldn't you use one of the AES
>candidates with 3 or 4 pass to do this?
My first choice for this contest would be scott16u with the changes
that someone offered to make it more compatible. And yes if AES block
ciphers used "wrapped PCBC" and 3 or 4 passes used they would have
most of the properties that I feel are needed except for the tiny key size
they use. But I have never seen anyone offer any of them in that kind of
operational mode.
>
>On another note, what makes you think the NSA can break modern ciphers?
Only my view and perspective of history. Just like I am sure Clinton
planned from the time we bombed the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslovia. I feel
it was a long range plan to give the Chinese back Twain with out us fighting
CHina. Of course when we cut our missles back and China feels they are strong
enough China will start a war with the US. I bet you don't agree with these
statements either. Or as J Leno would say of course I am all wrong on this.
>I am not saying they cannot but if you have any -proof- I would
>certainly like to hear about it. With all the security holes in most
>OS's, why bother with complex attacks?
Security from operating system and bugs in your house are another
story. Hopefully you have a computer not tied to the net that only you
have acsess to. I feel my contests were designed to show the wekness
of the AES ciphers as they stand since they were trival to break if they
tried a contest like I did. It run for years and no one came close.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website NOT FOR WIMPS
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott rejected paper for the ACM
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/dspaper.htm
Scott famous Compression Page WIMPS allowed
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the
truth."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Universal Language
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:22:06 GMT
In article <8a9egi$cb7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > Huh? Esperanto doesn't have grammatical gender. Whatever gave you
>that
>> > idea? See <http://www.esperanto.net>.
>>
>> An Esperanto book I bought probably 20 years ago. Either they've
>updated the
>> language to simplify it even more, or I'm misremembering something. Ah
>well.
>> Sorry about that.
>
>Hey, no problem! But E-o has _never_ had grammatical gender, since Dr.
>Z first published it in 1887, so (I'm sorry to say) it's your memory...
>unless there's a _really bad_ textbook out there (and even the USArmy
>"Aggressor Language" manual, which was surplused to a lot of public
>libraries and hence was frequently the _only_ Esperanto textbook
>available in many small US towns) wasn't _that_ bad!)
>
>Also, although English _does- have "standardized spelling" (actually
>multiple standards, e.g. kerb/curb, jail/gaol, color/colour etc), that's
>not really what the poster to whom you were replying meant, I think. I
>believe he was referring to fact that there's virtually a one-to-one
>correspondence between a sound and a letter in the alphabet in
>Esperanto... vs in English, where "bough" and "rough" are certainly
>standardized spellings for those two words, but the final 4-letter
>combination represents completely different sounds. Maybe "consistent
>spelling" would be a better name.
>
>George (plugging my favorite Esperanto website,
><http://home.wxs.nl/~lide/paspserv.htm>)
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Since American English is the language of the Technical age why not just
have everyone learn English. But lets change the spelling so there is a letter
for every sound. That way we can get the language as a standard but change
the spellings so everyone can spell. Spelling is the dumest part of English.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website NOT FOR WIMPS
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott rejected paper for the ACM
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/dspaper.htm
Scott famous Compression Page WIMPS allowed
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the
truth."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:16:19 GMT
In article <8aaec4$d71$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Xcott Craver)
wrote:
>SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> AES is a fucking joke. The only time it would be worht looking at is when
>>they finally pick a final cnadidate becasue we can be sure it will be weak
>>so the NSA can read what is encrypted with it.
>
> Well, maybe you could just crack all those AES submissions,
> then. I mean, if they're so obviously weak, and all.
Sorry to disappoint you but I don't think I will break them with my
486. However I am sure I will make a token effort on the final candidate.
I would be surprised if I can break it directly with the resources I have.
But as my contests that ran for years showed there are situations that
the AES ciphers run in any of the 3 letter chaining mods can not even
get close to the security of an advanced cipher like scott16u
>
>>David A. Scott
>
>>**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
>
> Sorry for the spelling flame, but you've been using this
> signature for a very long time. It's "SPAMMERS," with two 'M's.
>
> -S
>
You just noteiced I can't spell worht shit, Where the hell of you been.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website NOT FOR WIMPS
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott rejected paper for the ACM
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/dspaper.htm
Scott famous Compression Page WIMPS allowed
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the
truth."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bo D�mstedt)
Subject: Re: NIST, AES at RSA conference
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:27:04 GMT
Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If more structural things than this are changing, then there's some danger
>that some of the resulting systems will be weaker than others.
All ciphers have a security that is depending not only upon the key
chosen, but also on the kind of plaintext that you encrypt. What you
are worried about is that some systems could be really weak, the
cryptanalyst could find out when this happens, and exploit the
weaknesses.
The system could be protected by assuring that one of the
three conditions above do not hold.
>While analysts are faced with a more "amorphous" system, this confounds
>analysts who are trying to constructively explore the security of the
>cypher just as much as those who are trying to break it.
Precisely. But is it good or bad?
Bo D�mstedt
Chief Cryptographer
Protego Information AB
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: avoid man-in-the-middle known plaintext attack using a stream cipher
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:21:40 GMT
In article <8a9air$gn5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David A. Wagner) wrote:
> The point is, sure, maybe if you use this, you might happen to
> get lucky, and the various properties of your system might conspire
> to make the obvious attacks fail. But you're not getting
> cryptographic-quality strength here, you're just getting lucky,
> and that's hardly the type of security foundation I'd want to
> build on.
Yes, but if the lucky that the attacker needs is too big, this
can become strength no? :) What I mean is that for example if I
have a protocol composed of only 20 char long commands and
I use the sbox or some other system in order to avoid the trivial
C=P xor S than S=C xor P the attacker that needs to change a command
(assuming that the commands has not characters in common) is
256^20. Also I'll be able to detect the attack if I'm not able
to match a command. But this is just another way to do a MAC...
Ok, since we are in theme of stream ciphers: is secure to use as key
stream SHA1 in counter mode? I can guess that it's sure but
I never seen this method used, nor Schneier's Applied Cryptography
cite it. If my guess is right also should be possible to encrypt
more than one ciphertext with the same key using a different IV.
Thanks in advence!
antirez
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Universal Language
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:25:12 -0600
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> Many people do much of their thinking in nonlinguistic modes.
> (Verbalizing often occurs only near the end of a thought process.)
Especially artists and musicians. A code based on artistic design
principles would be tough to crack for me, but clear as glass for
my wife. Man, that would be one hell of a stegonagraphic method!
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
------------------------------
From: Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Big Float project
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:29:22 -0600
Tom St Denis wrote:
> I would love to get into what you are doing [math is always fun]. Problem I
> don't know what the heck you are talking about. Could you suggest a place
> to read in your book for a brief on it?
Start with chapter 5. Just understanding that you can do algebra over a
curve
is pretty deep stuff. Where it comes from is another matter, I didn't
try to
explain because at the time I wrote it I didn't understand it either!
How far have you gotten in math in school? Have you done complex
numbers yet?
If so, I can help you draw some pictures which will give an idea of what
it
means.
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
------------------------------
From: "Tony T. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Universal Language
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 07:42:51 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In order to be useful a language must be able to describe a three-legged
one wheeled giraffe.
------------------------------
From: Jon Kettenhofen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Concerning UK publishes "impossible" decryption law
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:43:34 -0500
Perhaps there is a covert reason for this legislation. Consider this scenario.
Someone, via email or otherwise, publishes text which M5 and associates (e.g.
NSA)
cannot decrypt even with all their rocket science computers. The gov't (M5 in
dsguise)
could then
force the person to reveal the key and if he/she could not produce it, they
would jail
(or threaten to jail) him/her.
Since cryptophobia is paranoia on the part of governments,
it is very likely that many will publish such texts either explicity or
anonymously
just to frustrate the governments and tie up their resources. Such strategies
have
probably already been used by our own government and foreign espionage groups
for
just such a purpose - it's like creating a distraction (or noise) so that a real
message will be overlooked.
These faux messages can be easily produced via one-way hashes,
pads or even random number generators and if done intelligently (I would bet
that the
governments have ways of eliminating messages which cannot possibly contain any
decipherable information) can tie up the energies of not a few cryptanalists and
computers.
So the law can be used to expose troublemakers as well as new encryption schemes
-
if they catch they perpetrators. It means that the governments cannot withstand
the privacy (secrecy) of the individual.
The best defence against this tyranny is to VOTE!
"Ian L. Romkey" wrote:
>
> Warning: Reluctantly crossposted to five groups. Use your own judgement.
>
> I just read an article about new encryption legislation in the UK in Lauren
> Weinstein's Privacy Forum newsletter. The article begins:
>
> >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.
>
> See the newsletter here: <http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.09.10>
>
> Background info is available here: <http://www.cyber-rights.org/crypto/>
--
Jon Kettenhofen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
no spam please - remove percent from the address
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alun Jones)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: Passwords secure against dictionary attacks?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:06:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
TheGolem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is hash, i.e. SHA1, etc.? I've seen it before but since I use pgp on
> a unix box I don't know anything about it. Can someone point me somewhere
> to get that info?
A hash is the result of a hash function. SHA1 is one algorithm used to
create hash functions. A hash function is designed to create a 'code' or
'key' from an original (usually much larger) set of data. A _good_ hash
function is one in which two 'close' sets of original data produce two
hashes that are vastly different. One use of hashes is in matching text
strings to stored data - the data is stored in locations pointed to by the
hash, and when one wishes to compare strings, one merely creates the hash of
the new string, and check to see what strings are stored at that hash - if
any match, then the match is returned; otherwise, the string is not found.
As that implies, it's possible for two original sets of data to generate the
same hash (obvious really, if a hash is smaller than the original set of
data, it cannot encode as much information) - again, a _good_ hash function
minimises such collisions in _most_ commonly occurring cases.
Good hash functions are excellent for verifying passwords, since they are
not generally reversable (any function where two items can produce the same
result cannot be reversed with any simplicity) - and even where they are,
such a reverse function may result fairly often in a password that cannot be
entered through the keyboard! When using hashes on passwords, one stores
the hash rather than the password, and if this database of hashes is stolen,
it's unlikely (if you choose good passwords) that an attacker can discover
the passwords used to create these hashes.
Unfortunately, it's not always terribly easy to determine what's a "good"
hash function. ISTR that in recent years, the popular hash function MD5 was
determined to have a weakness allowing someone with access to the original
clear-text to generate an altered form of the clear-text with the same hash
value - this makes the algorithm substantially less useful in terms of
verifying that a file has been unchanged, but does not, in itself, reduce
its use as a password hash.
Alun.
~~~~
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find it
1602 Harvest Moon Place | at web site http://www.wftpd.com or email
Cedar Park TX 78613 | us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] VISA / MC accepted.
Fax +1 (512) 378 3246 | NT based ISPs, be sure to read details of
Phone +1 (512) 378 3246 | WFTPD Pro, NT service version - $100.
*WFTPD and WFTPD Pro now available as native Alpha versions for NT*
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
