Cryptography-Digest Digest #686, Volume #11 Tue, 2 May 00 12:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Command Line Cypher? (Runu Knips)
Re: mod function? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: German currency checksum question ? (Eric Hambuch)
Re: How would a 15 year old start? (Francois Grieu)
Re: Deciphering Playfair (Michael Jarrells)
Re: Hushmail style idea (Disastry)
Re: - Bestcrypt and ATA-66 enabled m/b - Anyone get these working without
conflicts/BSOD? ("drewjen")
Re: S/MIME + Netscape v47 serious problem in symmetric encryption ... (Disastry)
Re: Any good attorneys? (Anton Stiglic)
Re: Command Line Cypher? (Richard Heathfield)
Re: What is the strongest encryption rate so far possible/achived? (Runu Knips)
Re: Silly way of generating randm numbers? (coolman)
Re: Silly way of generating randm numbers? (JCA)
Re: Any good attorneys? (JCA)
Re: factor large composite (Stanley Chow)
Re: sci.crypt think will be AES? ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Silly way of generating randm numbers? (Clive Tooth)
AEES Advanced ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: S/MIME + Netscape v47 serious problem in symmetric encryption ... (Boris Kazak)
Re: Silly way of generating randm numbers? (R124c4u2)
Re: A naive question (Boris Kazak)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 14:20:32 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Command Line Cypher?
"Michael J. Fromberger" schrieb:
> In <8eieht$550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Jimmy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Thanks... the ole XOR encryption... yeah thats pretty secure :)
> No! That's not XOR encryption. XOR is totally weak compared to this.
> Whereas XOR flips only those bits which correspond to set bits in the
> key, this cipher flips ALL the bits of the input! Talk about an
> avalanche effect! ;)
Avalanche ? Avalance of what ? Stupidity ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mod function?
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 14:18:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>
>
> Anton Stiglic wrote:
>
>> The "three argument mod" (as you call it) is very much used in logic theory
>> and algebra theory. It is the boolean version of the function. It is the
>> binary relation (f_p(a,b) = true if a = b mod p) that is used to define the
>> equivalence relation. Now, for what Bob said about it being the definition
>
> Just as a point of interest and curiosity, could you name a book of
> mathematical logic or algebra where such extensive use of the 3 argument
> mod is to be found? The few books about logic and algebra that I happen
> to have in my personal library don't have such uses at all. Thanks in
> advance.
I made the three argument mod up on the spot for illustrative purposes,
thinking it would distill the difference between the two uses of "mod"
down to something trivially obvious. And I used a three argument syntax
thinking that it would make things more clear to someone with a computer
background.
Apparently not.
The syntax that is used in mathematical circles appears above. I'll
repeat it here:
a = b mod p ! True if a and b have same remainder
! when divided by p
Which, translated to computerese is:
mod ( a, b, p ) ! Boolean function that returns true
! if a and b have the same remainder
! when divided by p
where you get to code the three argument mod yourself as, for instance:
#define mod(a,b,p) (a%p==b%p)
John Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Eric Hambuch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: German currency checksum question ?
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 14:41:10 +0200
Ed C wrote:
>
> I am trying to figure out the checksum used on German currency.
>
> Please contact me if you know the algorithm or a way to determine it.
>
> I have included 20 consecutive sample serial numbers below.
>
> I have tried a number of algorithms I am aware of and have tried changing
> the multiplication factors, the base, and various offsets with no success.
Try this address:
http://www.stud.uni-wuppertal.de/~ea0449/pruefz.htm
There you can check several serial numbers. By downloading the
JavaScript program or write to the author you should get the algorithm.
Eric
------------------------------
From: Francois Grieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How would a 15 year old start?
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 14:48:42 +0200
Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another example: try PROVING that RC6 is a Feistel Cipher without
> basic number theory.
Either
- I do not know enough number theory and failed to recognise
how to transform RC6 into a Feistel Cipher, as defined by
7.81 in the Handbook of Applied Cryptography (a sucession
of rounds where one half of the block beeing enciphered is
XOR-ed with a key-dependant function of the other half)
- Bob Silverman meant RC6 is a reversible cipher, in which case
the amount of "number theory" to be grasped reduces to:
exclusive-OR with a known quantity is reversible
modular addition with a known quantity is reversible
applying a known bit permutation is reversible
a series of known reversible operations is reversible
Francois Grieu
------------------------------
From: Michael Jarrells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Deciphering Playfair
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 08:33:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UBCHI2 wrote:
>
> Study a frequency table of the most frequently occuring bigrams in the language
> you are working on. Then do a frequency analysis of the most repeated bigrams
> in the encrypted message. Also try the assumption the the last 3 letters in
> the playfair grid are x, y and z. Does that help?
Yes.
Thanks.
--
Michael Jarrells
1991 KTM TXC 300
http://jarrells.cjb.net
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Disastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hushmail style idea
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:08:39 GMT
###
Tom St Denis wrote:
> Wouldn't it be possible to implement a hushmail style email program if
> the private key is simply derived from a password?
> Just ideas...
> Tom
why not.
for example Pegwit (http://disastry.dhs.org/pegwit ,
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/george.barwood/v8/pegwit.htm)
works exactly this way - private key is derived from a
password each time it es needed.
so it shoud be possible to port it in java, put on web and
make hushmail like service
== <EOF> ==
Disastry http://i.am/disastry/
http://disastry.dhs.org/pgp.htm <-- PGP half-Plugin for Netscape
http://disastry.dhs.org/pegwit <-- Pegwit - simple alternative for PGP
remove .NOSPAM.NET for email reply
### end pegwit v8 signed text
cec64ce470a0b4ff4afe1ae8a78fb27eb163ceaf793be70b35f168b74bf0
c1471513cd409e50880dc08bdce87f1577f99810f9cd2bb3fe7c587463de
------------------------------
From: "drewjen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: - Bestcrypt and ATA-66 enabled m/b - Anyone get these working without
conflicts/BSOD?
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 06:16:14 -0700
Thanks for replying... Ready for 50 questions?... Is HPT366 DMA66 enabled
in the mainboard bios? Are you actively using an ATA-66 enabled drive(s)?
Do you have any other drives, perhaps on IDE1 or 2 or maybe SCSI? Which is
your primary boot drive? Which drive is BC installed on? Which
motherboard/bios do you have and which version HPT bios and HPT OS drivers?
Which operating system? Could you list your system specs?
I did a little testing and discovered I can run BC from IDE 1 or 2 (don't
have SCSI to test) as long as I disable the HPT366 DMA66 in the mainboard
bios. What a hassle having to reboot everytime I need to work with an
encrypted file. I don't want to disable ATA-66 full time. I boot to IDE3
and only set up a bootable OS (Win2k) on a small, slow, old Conner
(pre-UDMA33) on IDE1 for test purposes. I could move one of the two 20GB
drives over to IDE1, but it seems a waste of a fast drive. BTW, this
mainboard is the ABIT BE6-II with the QY Bios and the HPT v1.22 Bios. I've
also run the same tests on this board with the QJ Bios and v1.21 HPT Bios.
I've tried BestCrypt on a Soyo SY-6BA+IV with ATA-66 enabled and in active
use, and it failed then too. Also with both HPT bios versions.
I could not locate pgp602. I did come across pgp v6.5.3, will that contain
the software you refer too? It's always been my impression that PGP was
mainly used for the encrypting/decrypting of email and other transmitted
files. And that it uses the CAST, IDEA and TripleDES algorythms. Do they
compare to Blowfish or Gost? Are there back doors to the PGP software (for
big brother or whoever)? How secure are the keys and encrypted data?
Regards,
drewjen
more like 100 questions!
ronnie bonnie wrote in message <390c1311$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Take a look at pgpdisk. It is in the pgp602 freeware package.
>
>BTW. I am currently using bestcrypt on a ata66 board without any problems.
>
>"Drewjen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I was wondering if anyone has been able to get BestCrypt encryption
>software
>> (http://www.jetico.sci.fi/) running on an ATA-66 enabled board. On every
>> Win98/ATA-66 enabled board I've tried, I get "Blue Screens Of
>Death"(BSOD). BC
>> say's a "hook" has mistakenly been placed within the system which
prevents
>it
>> from creating V-drives, or something to that effect. It say's it thinks
>"Magic
>> Folders" is responsible, but I have no idea what that is and I'm sure
it's
>not
>> installed on any of the cleanly installed Win98 setups, I've done.
>Perhaps
>> someone can recommend some strong encryption software that runs on
>Win98/ATA-66
>> enabled boards? BC uses Blowfish in cipher block chaining mode and
>GOST28147-89
>> in cipher feedback mode and DES in cipher block chaining mode. I'd like
>> something at least as strong with a fast and easy interface. TIA
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> drewjen
>>
>> Please forgive me if this post is not quite on topic. It's likely you'll
>never
>> see another OT post from me, so perhaps you can tolerate it this once.
>
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss
From: Disastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: S/MIME + Netscape v47 serious problem in symmetric encryption ...
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:18:44 GMT
###
Travis Farral wrote:
> This is a very good question. I wouldn't be surprised actually if this were the
>case. I don't
> know how to verify if it is true however.
> -Travis
>
> James Felling wrote:
> > Maybe a glitch in Microsofts Crypto API -- Do both of them use that?
Netscape does not use Microsofts Crypto API.
== <EOF> ==
Disastry http://i.am/disastry/
http://disastry.dhs.org/pgp.htm <-- PGP half-Plugin for Netscape
http://disastry.dhs.org/pegwit <-- Pegwit - simple alternative for PGP
remove .NOSPAM.NET for email reply
### end pegwit v8 signed text
5ab89c2a917a92fc46ddd46ae60a643f2ad47f1deec008094bd227209ede
fe8619c3232bc577a8c2a49880ab61c8515e03cb501590b39bc13359c33b
------------------------------
From: Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Any good attorneys?
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 10:04:17 -0400
Indeed, Rijndael, Serpent and Twofish are patent free. I'm not sure about
Mars from IBM (but I think it's patent free; someone correct me if I'm
wrong).
The only cipher in the last round of AES that has a TM always following it is
RC6, it's really to bad that RSASecurity poisons what R. Rivest does.
Anton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There are several of the AES candidates for which the authors have
> waived patent rights; RIJNDAEL, SAFER+ and SERPENT definitely; quite
> possibly TWOFISH, (based on the history with BLOWFISH) so why use a patent
> algorithm?
> As far as writing your own code, patents in general cover a
> means of doing something, not the details. So it would be the algorithm
> itself that is patented, not the code.
> =========
>
> My home page URL=http://members.xoom.com/afn21533/ Robert G. Durnal
> Hosting HIDE4PGP, HIDESEEK v5.0, TinyIdea, BLOWFISH, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and tiny DOS versions of RC6, RIJNDAEL, SAFER+, and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> SERPENT. Working on key exchange at present.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:07:43 +0100
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Command Line Cypher?
Runu Knips wrote:
>
> "Michael J. Fromberger" schrieb:
> > In <8eieht$550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Jimmy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >Thanks... the ole XOR encryption... yeah thats pretty secure :)
> > No! That's not XOR encryption. XOR is totally weak compared to this.
> > Whereas XOR flips only those bits which correspond to set bits in the
> > key, this cipher flips ALL the bits of the input! Talk about an
> > avalanche effect! ;)
>
> Avalanche ? Avalance of what ? Stupidity ?
Death of humour predicted. Film at 11.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
34 K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html (63
to go)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 16:12:23 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is the strongest encryption rate so far possible/achived?
Monolo wrote:
> Just curious? Anyone know?
The thing I am curious about is: what the hell is
"encryption rate" ?
Of course you can build a cipher which has millions
of Feistel rounds, a 16 MB key, and uses 64 MB block
size. But there is no way to specify how secure such
a cipher is. One only could state "it needs X cipher
or plaintexts to attack this cipher with method Y".
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Silly way of generating randm numbers?
From: coolman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 07:30:48 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JCA
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Reminded the other day about Shanks and his mistake when
>computing pi to more than 700 decimal places (apparently only
>the 500-odd first ones are correct) I couldn't help wondering if
>this might provide a way to generate strings of random integers:
>
> Start the computation of pi to some given precision and at
>some (pseudo) randomly chosen step make a deliberate arithmetic
>mistake a la Shanks.
>The digits generated from that point onwards are of course not
>part of pi any more (at least not in that particular position),
>and could in principle be used as random digits.
>
> Now it is not clear that this procedure might not lead to a
>trivially predictable strings of digits (short period strings)
>but it is true that Shanks came up with something that looks
convincingly random all right.
>
> Is this completely preposterous?
>
I wrote a program in C++ that required a random numbers. I didn't
want to use the rand function because (1) they are not really
random (whatever that means) and (2) every number is ultimately
repeated. I ended up extracting random numbers from a special
file. The file was a file generated by the SETI project (Search
for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and contained data from the
Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico. Based on my analysis of
these files, none of them appeared to favor any particular number
over any other. I still have some of these files if anyone is
interested. One of the files contains over 1 million bytes.
Regards
Don Cool
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Silly way of generating randm numbers?
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 07:24:34 -0700
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> JCA wrote:
>
> >
> > Start the computation of pi to some given precision and at some
> > (pseudo)
> > randomly chosen step make a deliberate arithmetic mistake a la Shanks.
> > The digits
> > generated from that point onwards are of course not part of pi any more
> > (at least not
> > in that particular position), and could in principle be used as random
> > digits.
>
> Could you elaborate your phrase 'could in principle be used as random
> digits' a bit? What is exactly your definition of randomness? In sci.crypt
> there had been much discussions on that. I am yet not aware of a
> practical method of testing true randomness according to a definition
> that is both rigorous and satisfying. Are the digits of the true Pi sequence
>
> already proved to be 'random'? Thanks.
>
That's in part what I am aiming at. To my knowledge, Pi has not been
proven to be normal, albeit it is widely expected to be. I was just wondering
if that could somehow be exploited. More pragmatically, I wonder if a finite
sequence of integers produced by the procedure above might pass any of
the standard sets of randomness tests.
In a nutshell, could this procedure be seriously considered as an adequate
source of (pseudo) random integers, from a purely pragmatic point of view?
------------------------------
From: JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Any good attorneys?
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 07:28:58 -0700
Why did you use RC5, when you could use just about any of the AES
candidates
instead? You ought to have been aware of its patented status, anyway. At any
rate,
it's going to be rendered obsolete within a few months' time. So, why bother?
Tom St Denis wrote:
> I just got a notice from RSA stating...
>
> >Please contact RSA Security Inc. immediately regarding your use of the RC5
> >encryption method (US Patent# 5,724,428) within your PeekBoo PB2, and PB3
> >toolkit.
> >This toolkit and its distribution without a license from RSA Security Inc.,
> >violates US Patent and copyright law.
> >Please call me at 650-295-7625
> >
> >Thank you,
> >
> >shaun
>
> From "Shaun Coleman"...
>
> Anyone want to help me out?
>
> Tom
> --
> Want your academic website listed on a free websearch engine? Then
> please check out http://tomstdenis.n3.net/search.html, it's entirely
> free
> and there are no advertisements.
------------------------------
From: Stanley Chow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: factor large composite
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:16:25 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============4EA8443CDE92EBBBB9630123
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Diet NSA wrote:
>
> I was talking about *known* methods. Can
> you describe, exactly, a general version of
> God's algorithm & how it would beat
> Shor's? We already know *accurately*
> Shor's algorithm & some of its variants.
As Dann Corbit explained in his article, God's algorithm is quite
well known and fast. Is there any variant of quantum algorithm
that is O(1)?
God's algorithm also has the advantage that you can buy a computer
"off the shelf" that can run it. Since you seem quite excited by
a quantum computer that can factor a 3 bit number, I will be happy
to sell you a boring computer that can factor SIX bits using God's
algorithm! Availability is right now! Costs less than ANY quantum
computer on the market!
Ah, but you say quantum computer has POTENTIAL to factor much
bigger numbers; if you buy now, while I am in this jovial mood,
I will throw in a TEN YEAR performance GUARANTEE - I will upgrade
the boring computer, AT MY COST, to factor bigger numbers than
ANY real quantum computer running ANY variant of ANY alogrithm
ANYWHERE on this planet, REGARDLESS of the cost of the quantum
computer! And I will still GUARANTEE the same O(1) performace!
(Of course, actaul demonstration of the quantum computer is
required, merely rumors and believes are not enough).
Step right up folks, the line forms to the right.
--
Stanley Chow VP Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cloakware Corp (613) 271-9446 x 223
==============4EA8443CDE92EBBBB9630123
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="stanley.chow.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Stanley Chow
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="stanley.chow.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Chow;Stanley
tel;fax:(613) 271-9447
tel;work:(613) 271-9446 x 223
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http:/www.cloakware.com
org:Cloakware Corp.
adr:;;260 Hearst way, suite 311;Kanata;Ontario;K2L 3H1;Canada
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:VP Engineering
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Stanley Chow
end:vcard
==============4EA8443CDE92EBBBB9630123==
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 11:27:37 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sci.crypt think will be AES?
Runu Knips wrote:
> Terry Ritter wrote:
> > A patent is about novelty, and not your particular
> > interpretation of what might be worthwhile.
>
> Well, I don't know what patent you yourself are holding,
> but...
>
> Thats the braindead idea american people have about it.
>
> In europe, a patent must not only be new, but also be
> a true invention. Not something so simple that anybody
> would solve it this way without much thinking.
This is a common theme in patent systems. In fact the US PTO uses the
"non-obvious" standard applied to a well-informed practitioner of the art in
which the patent claims functionality.
But it's a subjective standard everywhere. One of my favorite
non-obvious-due-to-stupidity patents is the grapefruit shield. It's a 1/4
sphere of sheet metal with one edge sharpened. Prior to eating a grapefruit
half one sticks the sharpened edge of the shield into the exposed rind, thus
protecting neighboring diners from inadvertent squirts of juice. It was
issued in the late 1890's. Nothing has changed in the last century. ;-)
------------------------------
From: Clive Tooth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Silly way of generating randm numbers?
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 16:28:16 +0100
coolman wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JCA
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Reminded the other day about Shanks and his mistake when
> >computing pi to more than 700 decimal places (apparently only
> >the 500-odd first ones are correct) I couldn't help wondering if
> >this might provide a way to generate strings of random integers:
> >
> > Start the computation of pi to some given precision and at
> >some (pseudo) randomly chosen step make a deliberate arithmetic
> >mistake a la Shanks.
> >The digits generated from that point onwards are of course not
> >part of pi any more (at least not in that particular position),
> >and could in principle be used as random digits.
> >
> > Now it is not clear that this procedure might not lead to a
> >trivially predictable strings of digits (short period strings)
> >but it is true that Shanks came up with something that looks
> convincingly random all right.
> >
> > Is this completely preposterous?
> >
> I wrote a program in C++ that required a random numbers. I didn't
> want to use the rand function because (1) they are not really
> random (whatever that means) and (2) every number is ultimately
> repeated. I ended up extracting random numbers from a special
> file. The file was a file generated by the SETI project (Search
> for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and contained data from the
> Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico. Based on my analysis of
> these files, none of them appeared to favor any particular number
> over any other. I still have some of these files if anyone is
> interested. One of the files contains over 1 million bytes.
Anybody interested in files of random numbers should consider George
Marsaglia's CD-ROM. See
http://stat.fsu.edu/~geo/diehard.html
http://webnz.com/robert/true_rng.html
--
Clive Tooth
http://www.pisquaredoversix.force9.co.uk/
End of document
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AEES Advanced
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:13:01 GMT
AEES is symmetric encryption algorithm, which is developed from the
DES architecture.
New feature of advanced AEES:
all permutations used in a round are derived from
correspondent sub-key.
This feature provides more entropy and therefor more security.
Features inherited from previous version
256-bit block
16 rounds
256 byte key length
S-box is multiplication table of a group of the order 256
16 S-boxes
16 sub-keys 256 bytes length
All S-boxes are derived from sub-keys
All others come from DES architecture.
The Avalanche Effect of advanced AEES.
A desirable property of any encryption algorithm is that a small
change in either the plaintext or the key should produce a
significant change in the ciphertext. For 64-bit block DES change
only one bit gives 34 bit change in ciphertext. This makes 53%.
To be able to compare current AEES implementation (256-bit) with
DES (64-bit) we should change the same amount of information namely
4 bits. Two ciphertexts encrypted with AEES Advanced differ in 105
bits, which makes 41%.
With two keys that differ in only one bit position in DES
we have about 50% of the bits in the ciphertext differ.
In AEES we are using 2048 bits key. To be able to compare
key avalanche effect with DES we should change 37 bits.
Again, the results show that about half of the bits in the
cipher text differ.
Performance mesured with 9,597,349 bytes file and my IP
II,267 Mhz, 128 Mb is 154 Kb/sec including time for
all input/output operations.
Algorithm description and source code can be found
at <www.alex-encryption.de>
Please follow download link for 'AEES Advanced'.
Have fan.
Best regards.
Alex.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.security.pgp.discuss
Subject: Re: S/MIME + Netscape v47 serious problem in symmetric encryption ...
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:48:55 GMT
jungle wrote:
> > >***************
> > > Anyway, it would be interesting to find out why it keeps reporting
>
> how to find that it is reporting ONLY and not practically using only 40 bits
> encryption ?
===========================
This is even more cause for concern. If the system is reporting
not the facts, but high fantasy, we are ALL in very bad shape...
Best wishes BNK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R124c4u2)
Subject: Re: Silly way of generating randm numbers?
Date: 02 May 2000 15:49:04 GMT
coolman wrote:
>I wrote a program in C++ that required a random numbers. I didn't
>want to use the rand function because (1) they are not really
>random (whatever that means) and (2) every number is ultimately
>repeated. I ended up extracting random numbers from a special
>file. The file was a file generated by the SETI project (Search
>for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and contained data from the
>Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico. Based on my analysis of
>these files, none of them appeared to favor any particular number
>over any other. I still have some of these files if anyone is
>interested. One of the files contains over 1 million bytes.
I would certainly like to have a copy. I don't know of a suitable mechanism to
make them generally available. If nothing better is proposed, would you send a
copy to me via E-Mail?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A naive question
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 16:06:50 GMT
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
> In reality unbreakable, simply should be read
> as unbreakable without using brute force (I'm skipping some
> other qualifications).
> Joe
>
===============================
This is not what the majority of people assume about this word.
At least to my understanding, unbreakable should be read as
_where all the plaintexts are equally probable_, brute force or
otherwise. When you do any successful cryptanalysis, the cipher
is broken, or do you doubt it? (brute force and _rubber-hose_
included...)
Best wishes BNK
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
