Cryptography-Digest Digest #879, Volume #11 Sun, 28 May 00 13:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: encryption without zeros (rick2)
Re: PGP wipe how good is it versus hardware recovery of HD? (Marc Heusser)
Re: Traffic Analysis Capabilities (David A Molnar)
Re: No-Key Encryption (David A Molnar)
Re: Another sci.crypt Cipher (Mark Wooding)
Re: encryption without zeros (lordcow77)
Re: Another sci.crypt Cipher (tomstd)
Re: RSA/PK Question ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: getting easy primes (Custer)
Re: Traffic Analysis Capabilities (zapzing)
Re: No-Key Encryption (Tim Tyler)
TC1 optimized against differential crypt (tomstd)
Re: TC1 optimized against differential crypt (tomstd)
Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May (Peter G. Strangman)
Re: TC1 optimized against differential crypt (tomstd)
Re: encryption without zeros (Boris Kazak)
Re: No-Key Encryption (Boris Kazak)
Re: Crypto patentability (Bill Unruh)
Re: Traffic Analysis Capabilities (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: A Family of Algorithms, Base78Ct (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Crypto patentability (Mok-Kong Shen)
my free music (Bruno Furlano)
Re: Anti-Evidence Eliminator messages, have they reached a burn-out po (Jim Crowther)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rick2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: encryption without zeros
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 13:14:06 GMT
In article <8gqo2p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Guy Macon) wrote:
>
> That only works if you never have two zeros next to each other.
>
> Question for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Please detail how important it is
> to you to keep the string small, keep the computation fast,
> etc.
>
Very important. Runs on a Palmpilot (slow cpu, each extra operation =
less time in doze state = more battery drain, tiny memory)
Thanks,
------------------------------
From: Marc Heusser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PGP wipe how good is it versus hardware recovery of HD?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 15:28:04 +0200
PGP allows to set the number of passes to anything between 1 and 32.
And yes, it uses data patterns to make the task of recovery more
difficult, not just zeroes.
Marc
In article <gJ0Y4.839$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dulando"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I have a program called shredder which I believes overwrites a file 7
> >times with random data to try and prevent hardware recovery of deleted
> >files aka the story in the WSJ. Does PGP wipe function do this or does
> >it only overwrite once?
> >
>
> Salutations,
> PGP wipe utility overwrites the victim file 7 or more times, I am not
> certain about the actual number of overwriting...
--
Marc Heusser
remove the obvious CHEERS and COM... from the reply address to reply via e-mail
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Traffic Analysis Capabilities
Date: 28 May 2000 13:40:13 GMT
Anonymous Remailer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is this just paranoia? http://cryptome.org/tac-rp.htm
> any comments?
As Paul Rubin points out, trying to pin the NSA to specific keylengths
is a little silly. We don't know that much about them.
The points about using remixing in reply blocks are well taken. I wish
he had said something about the tradeoff between anonymity and
reliability, though. After all, if you remix instead of sending directly
to the next remailer, you suddenly depend on 3 or 4 extra servers to
be up and running. Given that there are no return receipts in this
business, you may not know where your message failed.
The parenthetical comment about timestamps is interesting, too.
I know his JBN software strips PGP version from headers. It would be
nice if he or someone wrote an overview of what's in PGP headers from
the point of view of anon remailers. For instance, the ID of the
recipient is included in normal headers; this is not so nice when
sending anon mail. I didn't see such an overview on the "knowledgebase"
page, but maye it's elsewhere.
-David
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No-Key Encryption
Date: 28 May 2000 13:50:16 GMT
Michael Pellaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the literature about cryptography I often read about the three
> different types of encryption - symmentric, asymmetric and no-key
> encryption. I found plenty implementations of the symmetric and the
> asymmetric methode. Is there any implementation of no-key ecnryption
> available?
The only un-keyed primitives I can think of off the top of my head
are
* hash functions
* all-or-nothing transforms
but neither of these do encryption in the normal sense. Perhaps it
means something where knowing the method of encryption would
break the scheme?
Thanks,
-David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: Another sci.crypt Cipher
Date: 28 May 2000 12:44:34 GMT
tomstd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well one of my first ciphers this doesn't look too shabby.
Indeed. And unlike most early attempts it's pretty quick. You deserve
some kudos. On behalf of the Faint Prase Society, I present you with
the `It's Better than FEAL' award for cipher design.
> You mean you used sboxes[3..0] instead of [0..3]?
Yeah. My brain works big-endianly, so I applied S0 to the most
significant end.
> I think it's funny that I counted active sboxes upto seven
> compositions of F yet you still found a break for it past that. What
> did I do wrong?
Having fiddled with the horror that is StarOffice once more to actually
try to read your paper[1], I think that the problem was that you tried
out random samples for the testing, rather than assuming that the input
values would be carefully chosen by a malicious adversary[2].
The nub of the problem, I think, is that you tried to handwave and show
why your cipher couldn't be attacked: you didn't actually try attacking
it.
[1] My preferences are rather traditional: LaTeX documents as
PostScript. Word documents come long way down the list.
[2] Hmm. That'd be me, then.
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: encryption without zeros
From: lordcow77 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 07:26:44 -0700
Why not? ab//cd0000ef/g -> ab////cd/0/0/0/0ef//g
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Another sci.crypt Cipher
From: tomstd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 08:10:46 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Mark Wooding) wrote:
>tomstd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Well one of my first ciphers this doesn't look too shabby.
>
>Indeed. And unlike most early attempts it's pretty quick. You
deserve
>some kudos. On behalf of the Faint Prase Society, I present
you with
>the `It's Better than FEAL' award for cipher design.
Most ciphers are better then FEAL.
Thanks for the award, I will put it in my trophy case..
>
>> You mean you used sboxes[3..0] instead of [0..3]?
>
>Yeah. My brain works big-endianly, so I applied S0 to the most
>significant end.
>
>> I think it's funny that I counted active sboxes upto seven
>> compositions of F yet you still found a break for it past
that. What
>> did I do wrong?
>
>Having fiddled with the horror that is StarOffice once more to
actually
>try to read your paper[1], I think that the problem was that
you tried
>out random samples for the testing, rather than assuming that
the input
>values would be carefully chosen by a malicious adversary[2].
>
>The nub of the problem, I think, is that you tried to handwave
and show
>why your cipher couldn't be attacked: you didn't actually try
attacking
>it.
To be all honest I didn't know how to attack it so I did the
best analysis I could, which was to count active sboxes.
My next task is to merge my perm.c with your tc1-diff.c and see
if I can find a permutation that is more "optimal".
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 11:30:11 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RSA/PK Question
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are mixing energy and time. There's plenty of energy to run the
> counter,
> > but there's not enough time to run it at less than fantastic speeds.
> The
> > shortest interval I'm aware of is the time it takes light to cross
> the distance
> > enclosing a sub-atomic particle. If there's a computation speed
> floor it's
> > something like that. There can't be a computation energy floor
> because of
> > reversibility.
>
> Making reversible computation practical is still an open research
> problem, AFAIK. With current computer architectures, there is
"With current computer architectures, ..." -- agreed.
>
> both a time problem and an energy problem. The energy problem
> is related to thermodynamics, and gives a lower bound on the
> energy needed to change a bit. For more info, see:
"... the energy needed to change a bit." -- only true of the bit is
irreversibly set.
Given that were addressing an interval of 50 years it is fruitless to base a
discussion on the practical aspects of technology. While we do not currently
have practical computers based on reversible gates, neither do we need them.
The current boundary of hardware design is speed-power product. When we reach
the point where energy efficient gates are required, and only when we reach
that point, it will be reasonable to expect the appearance of energy efficient
designs. Long after the development of energy efficient computers we'll need
computers based on reversible gates.
Point is that extrapolating from current conditions and constraints is
guaranteed to produce a useless projection because assuming variables to be
constants is one of the simplest errors that robs results of predictive
power. Since this is a sci.* newsgroup we should prize predictive power and
eschew approaches that eliminate it.
------------------------------
From: Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: getting easy primes
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 11:17:51 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>just wanted to let the community know that numbers in following series
>have surprisingly dense ratio of primes to compounds.
>
>41, 43, 47, 53, 61, 71, 83, 97 ........
>
>this series has nothing but prims until square of 41, that is 1681. and
>still great much density of primes countinues indefinitely.
>
>Naveed Yaseen
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
This is the series x**2 + x + 41 for x={0,1,...39}. It was discovered
I think by Euler a long time ago. It was used in the novel Rama II by
A.C. Clarke by one of the characters who had to protect the firing
mechanism of nuclear bombs with secret codes. Aparently the author
thought it would be hard to break by professionals. Hehe, it gave me
a good laugh.
------------------------------
From: zapzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Traffic Analysis Capabilities
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 15:06:59 GMT
In article <8gqsdf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Anonymous Remailer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is this just paranoia? http://cryptome.org/tac-rp.htm
> > any comments?
>
> This site led me to a GREAT one.
>
> http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/
>
> "direct access to nearly 100,000 full text DoD Specifications and
> Standards available in the DoD master repository - does a not
> require an account and password and makes documents available to
> the public free of charge."
>
>
If you access this site, your name will automatically
be entered into the FBI's troublemaker file.
Come to think of it, your name is probably there already.
Never mind.
--
If you know about a retail source of
inexpensive DES chips, please let
me know, thanks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No-Key Encryption
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 15:19:46 GMT
Michael Pellaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [...] Is there any implementation of no-key ecnryption available?
While "no-key" is not a common cryptographic term, ROT-13 is probably the
best-known algorithm which uses no key.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ This tagline no verb.
------------------------------
Subject: TC1 optimized against differential crypt
From: tomstd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 08:27:33 -0700
Using Mark's program as a testbed, I tried new bit permutations
until I found one which didn't have any 16 round chars. I also
added round constants to avoid weak keys.
It's at
http://www.tomstdenis.com/tc1ref.c
I would appreciate some initial comments. I want to update my
paper to include Marks results against the original bit
permutations, and possibly anything I find with the new
permutation.
Tom
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: TC1 optimized against differential crypt
From: tomstd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 08:30:42 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, tomstd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Using Mark's program as a testbed, I tried new bit permutations
>until I found one which didn't have any 16 round chars. I also
>added round constants to avoid weak keys.
>
>It's at
>
>http://www.tomstdenis.com/tc1ref.c
>
>I would appreciate some initial comments. I want to update my
>paper to include Marks results against the original bit
>permutations, and possibly anything I find with the new
>permutation.
>
>Tom
>
>
Some other findings... Against 8 rounds his program finds chars
with prob of 2^-32, 12 rounds 2^-51 and 14 rounds 2^-57.6.
Of course 16 rounds there are no chars...(found by his program)
Tom
* 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: Peter G. Strangman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
uk.media.newspapers,uk.legal,alt.security.pgp,alt.privacy,uk.politics.parliament,uk.politics.crime,talk.politics.crypto,alt.ph.uk,alt.conspiracy.spy,alt.politics.uk,uk.telecom
Subject: Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 15:46:41 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 May 2000 11:01:39 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
Boothroyd) wrote:
> The proposals in the Bill are exactly the same as the ones Labour suggested
> before the election so there really isn't anything for anyone to get
> worked up about. The Conservatives were planning mandatory key escrow.
In the idiotic belief that criminals would comply!?!?
No, not really, even they are not that flea-brained.
Such schemes have one thing and one thing only as their
purpose and that is to allow HMG to snoop into the affairs
of ordinary people.
--
Peter G. Strangman | Leser, wie gefall ich dir?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Leser, wie gefaellst du mir?
http://www.adelheid.demon.co.uk | (Friedrich von Logau)
XLIV-VII-DCCCII-CCXII-DCCCXXXI |
------------------------------
Subject: Re: TC1 optimized against differential crypt
From: tomstd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 08:48:36 -0700
Here is a gif of the bit permutation in TC1a
http://www.tomstdenis.com/tc1aperm.gif
Tom
* 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: Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: encryption without zeros
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 16:35:03 GMT
rick2 wrote:
>
> I would like to use some strong encryption but need to have
> the output not have any zeros (needs to fit into zero-terminated
> data chunks). What would be the smallest and fastest way to mask
> the zeros? I've seen some people expand every 7 bits to 8, but
> that seems wasteful (expands to 114% of original size, or so) and
> takes time (every output byte needs to be shifted).
>
> Just for kicks, I'm currently using bit-shifting only, which will
> never produce a zero from a non-zero byte. I guess that's not
> a strong encryption routine, though. Is there any strong routine
> which doesn't make zeros from non-zero data?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> RB
================================
Don't send them in zero-terminated data chunks...
Use counted strings (or packets of fixed length).
Best wishes BNK
------------------------------
From: Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: No-Key Encryption
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 16:42:36 GMT
Michael Pellaton wrote:
>
> In the literature about cryptography I often read about the three
> different types of encryption - symmentric, asymmetric and no-key
> encryption. I found plenty implementations of the symmetric and the
> asymmetric methode. Is there any implementation of no-key ecnryption
> available?
===========================
Lots of these exist on the bookshelves on form of dictionaries
(English/Greek, Russian/Spanish, French/Chinese, etc)
Also, codebooks are quite commonly used in diplomatic communications.
Best wishes BNK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Crypto patentability
Date: 28 May 2000 16:44:10 GMT
In <mN_X4.2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I said goodbye prematurely. I have found something else to disagree with.
Oh well.
>> What is important is that patent and copyright law are tradeoffs--
>> monopolies are valuable, and should be granted only if they benefit the
>> people. And the time of the monopoly should only be as long as
>> necessary to achieve that benefit.
>Invention is by definition an intuitive leap beyond normal expectations. How
>do you know if an invention has merit so that you can grant it a fair
>monopoly? A bargain must be fair to both parties, so what's a fair monopoly
>to the inventor? Ask Whit Diffie if everybody slapped their foreheads and
>said, "Gosh, that's a valuable invention". I bet far more said "An
>intellectual curiosity with no application" "I don't think it will prove to
>be secure or useful in the long run"
>Well he didn't talk about it, he did it, and it got patented and it is now
>public domain. Yes, it is inventors who provide this vast amount of
>technology, available for free as public domain if your patient. They pay
>for the privilege in most cases out of their own pockets.
It would also have been public domain if he had simply published it. It
was not the patent that made it thus, it was the publication.
I again have problems with understanding what it is you disagree with? I
state the patent process is a bargain between society and the inventor
to grant the inventor something valuable ( a monopoly) in return for
disclosure of that invention. That monopoly being valuable, and
potentially very expensive for society, it should only be granted if the
return is worth it. I agree that that adjudication of "worth" cannot be
done on a case by case basis. Thus one sets up categories-- invention,
non-obvious, no prior art, etc. However this argument started with a
questioning of those categories in the case of software. Does society
reap an adequate benefit from the granting of that valuable and costly
monopoly represented by a patent on a piece of software or software
technique?
An argument against is that software, by its very nature, must be
published anyway in order to be used. The full patent must be disclosed
to the remote computer in order for that computer to run the software.
Is the unreadability of machine code sufficient "hiding" that society
can claim that they are reaping great benefits from the publication
represeted by the patent? I would doubt it. Can society claim that they
would loose the inventions if there were no patents (ie, the theory that
patent monopolies are a crucially necessary reward if we are to expect
inventions to be made)? Again, I do not think so-- most software is and
has not been protected by patents, and this has not led to an
extinguishment of the software production over the past 20 years.
Ie, I see little benefit to society from the granting of a very valuable
monopoly to companies and individuals with software patents. Ie, it is a
net loss to society when one factors in the cost of that monopoly.
>And don't write back that Stanford paid for that one, he still paid his
>dues.
>Send him a dozen red roses my friend cause he earned em.
?? He got his monopoly! That is surely sufficient recompense. I would
have been much more likely to send him a dozen red roses had he simply
published the idea, as do thousands of scientists every day for
original, non-obvious ideas, processes, techniques,...
>Paul
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Traffic Analysis Capabilities
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:54:06 +0200
zapzing wrote:
> If you access this site, your name will automatically
> be entered into the FBI's troublemaker file.
> Come to think of it, your name is probably there already.
If the site is publically accessible, the materials there cannot be
classified ones. If you are not sure, you have the option of taking
some refreshments in an internet cafe.
M. K. Shzen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Family of Algorithms, Base78Ct
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:55:16 +0200
wtshaw wrote:
> It used top be that having lots of component operations, various
> primatives and otherwise, was apt to cause more confusion for code clerks
> than they were worth; so it is with hand ciphers. Part of neoclassical
> thought is that such confusing layers can now be handled in more or less a
> streamlike fashion in a good implementation.
>
> That means that while simplicity is preferred if available, with advances
> in computer speed, all sorts of madding algorithms can be considered for
> their result alone. Likewise, so much unexpected keyspace can be
> incorporated, that on cursive ciphertext appearance alone, the attacker
> does not have muchof an idea what traps the designer has included.
While I have from personal experiences certain reservations against
introducing complexity, which can be a considerable source of
troubles/errors for implementations of all kinds of software, crypto
or not, I think you are right in the opinion that computers have
rendered the balance of crypto designers and analysts in favour of
the former. For it is now not very difficult and indeed quite speedy
to incorporate into an encryption scheme a tiny piece of additional
this and that, which could considerably confound the opponent,
who by nature has to play the passive role in the game. The diversity
or variability in crypto design is in my humble view somewhat
analogous to the mutations of bacteria and viruses in the microbiology.
While in the case of e.g. flus the pharmaceutical industry is known to
have some success in developing vaccines anticipating new mutations
in the natural environment, it is not apparent at all, however, that the
analyst could do anything parallel to face the variations of encryption
algorithms. Presumably, though, this view is unlikely to be accepted
by those who advocate the use of one single (almost) perfect
algorithm.
M. K. Shen
========================
http://home.t-online.de/home/mok-kong.shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crypto patentability
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:55:22 +0200
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> I suppose that our group, as the largest (as far as I
> am aware) public crypto community, should form certain
> unified standpoint as to what is and what is not
> patentable in crypto in our conviction, so as to
> (hopefully) influence the future patent policy in the
> same way as in fields of e.g. human gene sequencing.
While it is very depressing and frustrating to reflect on the
current miserable status of patent granting in the field of
software/crypto in general and on the Hitachi vs AES affair
(see also Science, p. 1161-1163) in particular, it probably
helps to get a glimpse of hope nevertheless through reading
what is happening in another branch of science:
''Greens persuade Europe to revoke patent on neem
tree ... '', Nature, 18 May 2000, p.266-267.
Joint effort and work is definitely needed. Otherwise there can
be no chance of any improvements, quite evidently.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Bruno Furlano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: my free music
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 17:06:09 +0000
Hello !
I am sorry if I disturb you, but I am so happy to propose my music to
everybody ! I hope that you will be pleased to listen to it and to
download it freely at : http://www.mp3.com/furlano
I am only a french composer and write all kind of musics : easy
listening, tecno, Jazz, rock...Please give me your opinion : it is very
important for me !
Thank you in advance !
Friendly !
Bruno Furlano, FRANCE (EU)
------------------------------
From: Jim Crowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: Anti-Evidence Eliminator messages, have they reached a burn-out po
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:05:47 +0100
Reply-To: Jim Crowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Griffin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Sat, 27 May 2000 17:38:32 +0100, Joe@Joe's.bar&grill.org wrote:
>
>>And exactly how are they to defend themselves against
>>the constant barrage of lies regarding their software? If
>>they do not defend themselves, the lies will become
>>truth in the minds of most.
>
>Hundreds of security products on the internet and EE's the only one
>that some sinister force is "trying to destroy".
>
><SARCASM>
>Must be because it's so good someone's quaking in their shoes. huh?
></SARCASM>
>
>Nobody has to attack the product to make it look bad. EE Support's
>smart-ass trolls have done more to harm the program's reputation than
>the CIA could ever hope for.
>
At the considerable risk of troll-feeding, I think EE Support is the one
who's trying to sabotage the program. If it wasn't for him, many more
folk would have tried it.
One program that really does erase everything *underneath* your data is
SpinRite - when EE Support was last pointed at the way it works
<URL:http://grc.com/files/technote.zip>, the posts from him stopped in
their tracks.
--
Jim | Links to Shieldsup, OptOut, ZoneAlarm FAQs,
| and 'Search all of grc.com' kindly provided by
| Buzz Walradt at:
| <http://web2.airmail.net/buzz/faqlinks.html>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
