Cryptography-Digest Digest #300, Volume #11 Fri, 10 Mar 00 19:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: How does % operator deal with negative numbers? (Paul Rubin)
number 27 in a series (wtshaw)
Re: Crypto Patents: Us, European and International. (Glenn Larsson)
Re: Universal Language (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: why xor?(look out,newbie question! :) (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Q: Voice encryption (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: And those doubtful minded who may not believe that I have had any dealings with
SCIP or any other people .. here is SCIP renewal form that was mailed to me ...
("Trakman")
Re: How does % operator deal with negative numbers? (Hal Pawluk)
Re: ZIP format is gone in the past. (Paul Koning)
Re: Crypto Patents: Us, European and International. (Eric Lee Green)
Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Crypto Patents: Us, European and International. (Eric Lee Green)
Re: NIST, AES at RSA conference (D. J. Bernstein)
Re: Crypto Patents: Us, European and International. (Michael Sierchio)
Re: encrypting to unknown public key? (David A Molnar)
Re: encrypting to unknown public key? (David A Molnar)
Re: encrypting to unknown public key? (David A Molnar)
Re: UK publishes 'impossible' decryption law ("Steve A. Wagner Jr.")
Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site (Eric Lee Green)
Re: Q: Voice encryption (John Savard)
Re: Q: Voice encryption (John Savard)
Re: Crypto Patents: Us, European and International. (John Myre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Rubin)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: How does % operator deal with negative numbers?
Date: 10 Mar 2000 21:20:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm trying to write some non-kludgy JavaScript for a simple
> cryptography demonstration. One of the encrypt steps adds
> key%97, so the obvious decrypt step should be (-1*key)%97.
>
>In standard mathematics, -4 modulo 97 should equal 93.
> Instead, Netscape returns -4, Explorer returns 4.
> What's the deal? Is this going to be a royal pain?
% is usually the "remainder" operation, also called "trunc-mod".
It's different from the mathematical "modulo" (also called "floor-mod")
operation.
remainder: a % b = a - (b * trunc (a/b))
modulo: a % b = a - (b * floor (a/b))
Where: a/b = the real number a/b
trunc(x) = sgn (x) * (largest integer with absolute value <= |x|)
floor(x) = sgn (x) * (largest integer <= x)
sgn (x) = { 1 if x >= 0, otherwise -1 }
I think I got that right. You get the idea. Trunc truncates towards 0,
floor truncates towards minus infinity.
So: trunc-mod (-4, 97) = -4 - (97 * 0) = -4
floor-mod (-4, 97) = -4 - (97 * -1) = 93
Why Explorer gives +4 confuses the heck out of me.
Common Lisp defines trunc-mod and floor-mod as separate functions.
I've often felt languages like C and Javascript should have a separate
floor-mod operator (maybe %_ instead of %).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: number 27 in a series
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:29:46 -0600
As Tonk goes from base 77 to 26, no upper case maintained, with the
newest, Oliva, plaintext is base 58 and ciphertext in 27, no upper case
maintained, or the ten digits.
Digits can be spelled with no loss of content, so Oliva does that. Spaces
are represented by the vertical line, |.
Particularily shy on transposition because of their being no intermediate
base involved, the sum of tranpositiion of plaintext and of ciphertext
characters defines the applicable sizes of the cipher to Oliva 9 and Oliva
18.
Using this sentence to make Oliva 9 keys, we get:
Subs(Ov): ztiogwhjuvcpx dqbeyrnalfsmk
Trans(Ov): dacb ighef
Encrypted and decrypted forms of the same sentence follow:
pzlwa oxezm sffwa cmezr rjihq qniyn rhdty lrszy bhegm uyljq ahors hkejf wmexq
using this sentence to make oliva nine keys, we get:
Still, Oliva can handle all other 58 characters including the following string:
(:<){[[ ('!') /oo\ ;) :>) ysxih fcjmc urtqz bbjkh kjcum mjxih
--
Imagine an internet on an up and up basis, where there are no subversive techniques to
rob a person of their privacy or computer
functionality, no hidden schemes used to defraud anyone. :>)
------------------------------
From: Glenn Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Crypto Patents: Us, European and International.
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 17:57:37 +0100
Now i'm thing you are talking about quoting someone. Quoting is a
powerfull but different thing. Quoting is a grey area and perhaps
we should avoid going into that minefield.
Example: The Fatwah against Salmand Rushdie insipred a Danish
magazine to quote the entire satanic verses in one edition, In full
support for freedom of speech, but they _were_ quoting an _entire_
copyrighted publication.
/Glenn
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Universal Language
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:54:38 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Chinese is in my opinion not suitable for being a universal langauge,
> > because, among maybe others reasons, its ideographs are clumsy for
> > data processing.
>
> I sort of already know the answer to this... but what about pinyin?
> Putonghua in pinyin, with the tones indicated by integers 1 thru 4,
> wouldn't present the difficulties the loggrams (sorry, since they're not
> _really_ "ideographs", I prefer to use a more precise term) do.
Pinyin effectively gives a new language in my view, since we are
throwing away the existing written form. Doing that has also a big
disadvantage, because there are words (your loggrams) that are
spoken the same, so the ambiguity gets much enhanced. I suspect
that's one of the reasons why the 'latinization' of Chinese has
not succeeded.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: why xor?(look out,newbie question! :)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:54:52 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> There's one statistical test of independence called hi-square test of
> indenpendence,and it shouldn't be hard to implement in code...It
> compares 2 rows of numbers and checks with given probability if they are
> independent...Ofcourse it can't say if they are really indenpendent,just
> what chances are that they are...
I haven't heard of hi-square test. Do you mean chi-square test?
I don't yet see how you can use that to test independence. Note that
many textbooks only use the notion of independence and assume
that in a number of theorems but don't go to the topic of how one
can test that property.
M. K. Shen
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Q: Voice encryption
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:54:45 +0100
JimD wrote:
>
> Digital ciphony gives better quality and is much more secure, given
> that the (stream) cipher it uses is well designed, and provided that
> you have the bandwidth to transmit it.
>
> Analogue ciphony depends on splitting the audio bandwidth into
> discrete bands and transposing these bands within the telephone
> bandwidth according to a key. There are other schemes. See Kahn,
> 'The Codebreakers' for an interesting examination of analogue ciphony.
I like to know whether there are reasons against using both
techniques simultaneously.
> Digital ciphony samples the amplitude of the analogue audio waveform
> at a high rate (8 kHz or more) and converts these samples to a binary value.
> The binary output can then be XOR-ed with a key stream to produce a
> pseudo-random cipher output. The process is reversed at the receiving
> end: cipher stream is XOR-ed with the identical key stream to reproduce
> the deciphered digital samples, which then go through a digital to
> analogue converter to end up as (hopefully!) the original audio.
>
> There is a third type: a vocoder, but that's another story.
Is it possible to use e.g. DES to encrypt voice?
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Trakman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.org.cia,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.nordic,alt.security,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.ukrainian
Subject: Re: And those doubtful minded who may not believe that I have had any
dealings with SCIP or any other people .. here is SCIP renewal form that was mailed to
me ...
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:47:41 -0500
Shut up already, are you that desperate to prove you are a "somebody". who
really cares.
Anyone want by birth certificate too...
==============================
Markku J. Saarelainen wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
>And those doubtful minded who may not believe that I have had any dealings
>with SCIP or any other people .. here is SCIP (http://www.scip.org )
renewal
>form that was mailed to me ...
>
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How does % operator deal with negative numbers?
From: Hal Pawluk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.javascript
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:03:46 GMT
> In standard mathematics, -4 modulo 97 should equal 93.
> Instead, Netscape returns -4, Explorer returns 4.
> What's the deal? Is this going to be a royal pain?
That's because they call it 'modulo' but make it act like 'remainder' (used
to drive me nuts).
Which Explorer gave you the positive 4? On the Mac, I get the
pseudo-correct (at least consistent) value of -4 with IE 3.01, 4.01 and 4.5,
as well as NS versions from 2.02 to 4.7.
---
Hal http://www.pawluk.com/
------------------------------
From: Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ZIP format is gone in the past.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:51:31 -0500
finecrypt wrote:
>
> It's more and more people prefer to use self-extracting executables instead
> of zip archives.
Not if they know about viruses.
paul
------------------------------
From: Eric Lee Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crypto Patents: Us, European and International.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:09:18 GMT
Terry Ritter wrote:
> It is possible -- even common -- for different people working in the
> same area to come up with the same idea at about the same time. One
> will get the patent, one will not. Just because you publish does not
> mean that the other guy will not get the patent.
Noted Linux evangelist Eric S. Raymond notes that IBM has informed him that
his Electric Fence debugging package may violate an IBM patent. The IBM patent
was applied for *AFTER* Eric S. Raymond published Electric Fence, but IBM
claims (and apparently has documentation proving so) that they developed the
technique ESR uses before Eric S. Raymond developed Electric Fence. Apparently
IBM took advantage of a loophole that allows waiting up to a year between
inventing something and applying for a patent on the invention. Note that this
allows someone less scrupulous than IBM to look around, see a promising new
(but unpatented) innovation, then file for a patent on that innovation,
claiming that they had it first but simply did not file for the patent until
11 months had passed.
Note that IBM has not enforced their patent in the specific case of Electric
Fence, and more than 5 years have passed, so Electric Fence can no longer be
prosecuted as a patent violation. Also note that this does not stop IBM from
enforcing the patent in other situations -- under patent law, you can lose the
right to enforce the patent FOR A PARTICULAR VIOLATION if you don't enforce
your right within 5 years, but the only way to lose your patent rights
entirely is to have the patent nullified (such as, e.g., by demonstration of
prior art by others). Patents are not like trademarks, which must be actively
defended to remain valid -- patents remain valid for their entire 17 to 20
year life span.
Caveats: while that's my reading of the U.S. statutes at law.cornell.edu, I am
a software engineer, not a lawyer. Consult an intellectual property lawyer
before taking any action yada yada yada and so forth...
--
Eric Lee Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Engineer Visit our Web page:
Enhanced Software Technologies, Inc. http://www.estinc.com/
(602) 470-1115 voice (602) 470-1116 fax
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:57:41 GMT
In article <8abmig$mmn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Xcott Craver)
wrote:
>SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> You just noteiced I can't spell worht shit, Where the hell of you been.
>
> No offense, misspell all you want; I just figured you'd want to
> correct your .sig, if you use it alot (especially if it's there
> to attract new people to your cipher, articles, etc.)
>
> -S
>
Some words are wrong on perpose. I don't want to BULL SHIT with
flowery prose. I want to attract on those intelligent to be interest in crypto
with out all the PR stuff the stuffed shirts do.
So you figured wrong. The only ass I kiss at the present is my wifes
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: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:01:12 GMT
In article <8abmq8$pd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <8a92ro$3kj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <WPAx4.1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Adam Durana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I put together a web site with the a draft of the requirements for
>> entries.
>> > I need feedback on the requirements and suggestions from everyone
>> planing on
>> > participating
>>
>> 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.
>
>Maybe my knowledges are so little that I should to fall silent,
>but I try. The AES is important, but most of the AES candidates tryed to
>reached security trough conservative design. A context in sci.crypt
>may be a good place in order to expose new ideas, since in AES new
>ideas wasn't well accepted (obviously this is a good idea for AES).
>Also since sci.crypt is full of amateur cryptographers I think the
>main goal isn't "to be taken seriously by the crypto community", but
>"to learn as more as possible". Even from this stand point I see a
>sci.crypt context a good idea. A final note: if the AES finalist
>security is so important *why* the submissions given so importance
>to speed?
The why is that the NSA found out it is much easyer for it to break
if this is a major design critera so speed is importnat, Of course somw
asshole can make another excuse why speed is crital. But if he does
ask why people use micro soft crap which is slow as shit.
>Maybe an idea to reach both the goals can be to do a "public" analisys
>of one of the AES finalist. This can be useful since amateur
>criptographers will learn a lot, real criptographers may find the
>right context for a deeper analisys of the basic ideas that the
>choosen AES candidate uses and so on.
>
>regards,
>antirez
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
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: Eric Lee Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crypto Patents: Us, European and International.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:12:23 GMT
Terry Ritter wrote:
> prevented others from obtaining a patent on that very same idea. In
> fact, patents can be applied for even after someone else's publication
> of that idea, given witnesses and/or patent notebook records.
There once was a 1-year-max period between time of invention, and time of
filing. Do you know if that still holds?
As for witnesses and/or patent notebook records, it's amazing that we don't
have more illegally obtained patents than we do, given how easy it is to forge
records and/or find witnesses willing to perjure themselves for money...
--
Eric Lee Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Engineer Visit our Web page:
Enhanced Software Technologies, Inc. http://www.estinc.com/
(602) 470-1115 voice (602) 470-1116 fax
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. J. Bernstein)
Subject: Re: NIST, AES at RSA conference
Date: 10 Mar 2000 22:35:26 GMT
Terry Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feistel ciphers generally repeat *the* *same* functional rounds
Nonsense. Each round is a different function.
``But they're all so similar---the same algorithm with some key bits
plugged in,'' you say.
Wake up: _every_ computable function can be expressed as a single
universal algorithm, called a ``universal Turing machine'' or an
``interpreter'' or a ``circuit simulator,'' with a program plugged in.
The only question is what distribution of programs to select as keys,
given a limit on encryption time. We know that the uniform distribution
is horribly weak, at least for typical encryption times. A uniform
random 16-round Feistel cipher appears to be much stronger than a
uniform random circuit of the same size, and has much lower entropy.
Further restrictions appear to add even more strength.
(It would be a massive surprise if all low-entropy distributions were
weak. This would imply that integer factorization and many other famous
problems can be solved very quickly.)
> Whatever "simpler, faster"
> function you like can be one of the three ciphers in a cipher stack.
There's no reason to believe that this is better than using three times
as many rounds in the same cipher. Strength comparisons are bogus when
they ignore cost.
(Cost comparisons are equally bogus when they ignore strength. There are
many papers that say ``look how fast this MAC is!'' when the MAC can be
completely broken by an attacker who sends a few billion bytes of data.)
> And given a reasonably modern computer, that cost is rather small.
I disagree. If I have a 500MHz computer receiving 10 megabytes/second
of data, I only have 50 cycles to spend on each byte, and quite a bit
of that is taken up by non-cryptographic processing. Speed is essential!
---Dan
------------------------------
From: Michael Sierchio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crypto Patents: Us, European and International.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:20:48 -0800
Eric Lee Green wrote:
> ...Apparently
> IBM took advantage of a loophole that allows waiting up to a year between
> inventing something and applying for a patent on the invention.
This is not correct. In the US (as opposed to EU countries, for example)
you may file for a patent within a year of publishing (by any means)
the method (device), or offering it for sale. There is no requirement
to file within a fixed period of time after invention.
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: encrypting to unknown public key?
Date: 10 Mar 2000 23:02:47 GMT
David A. Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Then a public key (u,v) may be blinded by choosing b
>> > at random and letting the blinded public key be (u^b,v^b).
>>
>> Doesn't that fail to meet his requirement that you have to have
>> the original public key to compute a blinded one? I think the
>> above means blinding a blinded key produces another valid blinded
>> key.
> Oops. You are quite right. Scratch that idea...
No, the idea is fine. It's just that now we have two classes
of schemes to consider
1) "Blind-once" schemes, in which blinding a blinded key
does not produce a valid encryption key.
2) "unlimited blinding" schemes, in which blinding a blinded
key does produce a valid encryption key.
I had not thought about this distinction at all when I made my post,
and so the exclusion of "unlimited blinding" schemes was
unintentional. My thanks for pointing out this point!
Thanks,
-David
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: encrypting to unknown public key?
Date: 10 Mar 2000 23:14:52 GMT
John Myre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any reason why you require the decryption function to
> work with both a blinded key and the original public key? It
> would seem easier (i.e., to admit more solutions) without that
> restriction.
Well, if the same decryption function works in both cases, the
decryptor may not be able to distinguish between messages encrypted with
a normal public key, and those encrypted with a blinded public key.
I have the feeling that this indistinguishability may be a useful
property, but no concrete protocols as yet.
That being said, what originally motivated the question was that I
wanted servers in a chain of anonymous remailers to create receipts
encrypted with the sender's public key. Clearly if they have an
unblinded public key, then all servers know who the sender is and there
is no point to using more than one server. With blinded public keys,
each server can create receipts encrypted with the sender's public key
without knowing who the sender is. Then these receipts can be posted
to usenet or something.
In this case, I don't see any reason why we couldn't have a separate
decryption routine for blinded and unblinded keys. I would still want
that the decryption routine is independent of any blinding factor used
to create the blinded key - you should be able to create a new blinded
key without prearranging with the private key holder.
Thanks for bringing that up.
Thanks,
-David
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: encrypting to unknown public key?
Date: 10 Mar 2000 23:22:36 GMT
Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope, but I'd like to understand what you're asking.
Thanks! Let me know if this helps...
> Expanded out M = D(SK, E( B( PK, F ), M )) So you want F to not
> effect the decryption algorithm because we also have
> M = D( SK, E(PK, M)).
Yes. If F affects the decryption algorithm, then it seems that the
secret key holder would need to know something about F. I would like
it to be the case that blinded keys can be created without any
coordination with the secret key holder at all.
> I don't see how you can get what you want
> directly,
> but if you allow E' != E such that E'(BK, M) = E(PK, M) it might be
> possible.
Yes, that looks like it would do the trick. Decryption would work, but
the secret key holder would be unable to determine whether the resulting
ciphertext C was created by E(PK, M) or E'(BK, M).
In some sense, it seems to me that this suggestion is dual to John
Myre's suggestion. You are suggesting that we vary the encryption
algorithm with the blinded key, but the decryption algorithm stays the
same. John suggested that we keep the encryption algorithm, but
have different decryption algorithms - one for the regular PK and one
for BK.
> Do I understand the question??
I think so. Thanks much for asking!
Thanks,
-David
------------------------------
From: "Steve A. Wagner Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: UK publishes 'impossible' decryption law
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 14:45:22 -0800
I thought that was "ignorance is no excuse for not obeying the law"
So I take it, no more "I forgot my password, your Honor!" to get away
with keeping the evidence secret. Isn't this another redundant law.
Aren't there already contempt charges and obstruction of justice charges
for this very purpose? This is nothing more than parallel bullshit law.
Sure! Let's give each crime 5 different names so we can burn everybody
to the stake!!!! .. I digress. These Americans' stupidity has had an
effect *twitch* on my sanity *twitch* as you can see.
--SAW
Eric Smith wrote:
> zapzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm sure that in England, as in America,
> > "ignorance is no excuse for the law".
>
> Which America are you in? Here in the U.S.A, ignorance
> is one of the top excuses for a vast number of laws, followed
> by stupidity and greed.
------------------------------
From: Eric Lee Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sci.crypt Cipher Contest Web Site
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:33:39 GMT
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> >sci.crypt context a good idea. A final note: if the AES finalist
> >security is so important *why* the submissions given so importance
> >to speed?
> The why is that the NSA found out it is much easyer for it to break
Well, we all know that you believe the NSA is listening to your every breath,
but anyhow, I think one reason for thinking about speed with AES is because
3DES, which is quite secure but is slower than dog snot, has proven to be
unusably slow in many situations. Now that network communications regularly
happen at 100mbit speeds, an encryption algorithm capable of encrypting only
10mbit/sec on a Pentium II isn't too useful. And note that 100mbit is slow
nowdays -- gigabit Ethernet is now becoming usual in large corporations,
though not yet at the desktop level.
As for why people would use WinDoze if they thought speed was important,
there's a big difference between a typical desktop computer and the kinds of
places where speed is important -- like, say, a server that's having to
maintain dozens of encrypted connections to remote branch offices. Windows is
almost unheard of in such high security/high availability environments.
--
Eric Lee Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Engineer Visit our Web page:
Enhanced Software Technologies, Inc. http://www.estinc.com/
(602) 470-1115 voice (602) 470-1116 fax
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Q: Voice encryption
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:56:44 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>I like to know whether there are reasons against using both
>techniques simultaneously.
Usually, for digital voice encryption, a vocoder-like technique, such
as CELP, is used to digitize the voice with very high compression.
This prevents using analog scrambling as well.
Since most analog scrambling techniques are very insecure, it would
seem there is no point in combining them with digital techniques,
considering the large cost in bandwidth.
John Savard (jsavard<at>ecn<dot>ab<dot>ca)
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Q: Voice encryption
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:52:54 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>For voice encryption, there are analog scramblers and digital
>scramblers. Is there anything against using both with the
>expectation of obtaining a higher security or does one use in
>fact both in practice? What are the algorithms used in the
>common types of digital voice scramblers? Thanks.
Analog voice scrambling offers minimal security. In practise,
digitizing voice without any analog scrambling offers the opportunity
for a high amount of data compression. Then, the digits can be
encrypted using any standard algorithm.
John Savard (jsavard<at>ecn<dot>ab<dot>ca)
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: John Myre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crypto Patents: Us, European and International.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:46:44 -0700
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>
> Bill Unruh wrote:
> >
>
> > An algorithm is an idea, not the expression of an idea. It is
> > expressions that copyright protects and the law and the theory behind
> > the law try very hard to distinguish between the two. Of course software
>
> This distinction is difficult for me to grasp. Take the example
> mentioned in this thread. If I read a paper of the designer of
> IDEA and get his idea (i.e. having understood the stuff) and write
> a software with the same performance as that of the auther (i.e.
> same output for the same input), am I imfringing the patent of
> IDEA or not?
>
> M. K. Shen
C'mon MK, pay attention. What does your question (about patents)
have to do with the quoted statement (about copyright)? They are
different concepts with different laws.
John M.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
