Cryptography-Digest Digest #899, Volume #11 Tue, 30 May 00 21:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Does it even matter? ("Axel Lindholm")
Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May ("Axel")
Re: Does it even matter? (tomstd)
Re: encryption without zeros (David Hopwood)
Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May (David Boothroyd)
my final doodah (tomstd)
Re: Patent state of Elliptic Curve PK systems? (chamfer)
Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May (Charles Bryant)
Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May (Charles Bryant)
Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May ("Axel")
Re: SSL? ("Joseph Ashwood")
DVD encryption secure? -- any FAQ on it (lament)
Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May ("Scotty")
Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May ("Scotty")
Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May ("Scotty")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Axel Lindholm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does it even matter?
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:16:00 +0200
I've had alot of use of your utilities and have been inspired by some of
your ciphers, I feel sorry for you not beeing able to accept that job!
Be well mate...
Axel Lindholm
"tomstd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As some of you may already know, I was offered a job with RSA
> this summer (in San Mateo) working on some software. Sounds
> great seems like people appreciate my work, obviously since I am
> not even done high school.
>
> Of course they hype me up about the job, get me all excited.
>
> And what happends (thru no fault of RSA) big old mr government
> steps in and acts like a dolt. I can't get the job because I
> don't have a "post-secondary education diploma with three years
> work experience". Super, if I had a job, why would I move 3000
> miles to work in the states?
>
> Anyways, I am beginning to think my research is pointless since
> well I would rather focus on my school now and prepare for the
> exciting job as a mop-jocky.
>
> It has been nice chatting with you guys, maybe I will come back
> some time.
>
> 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: "Axel" <[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,uk.telecom
Subject: Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May
Date: 30 May 2000 22:19:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In uk.legal Fergus O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Axel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8gus3n$63s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In uk.legal Fergus O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The best way to get a tyrannical government is not to vote
>>
>> Not when there are limitations on standing for election and how
>> candidates are allowed to describe themselves.
>>
> Don't be silly
I'm not being silly. Recent changes have allowed political parties to
register their names and restrict use of such names in elections.
Originally there was no description beside a candidate on a ballot form,
then it was introduced, and now it has become regulated.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Does it even matter?
From: tomstd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 15:25:11 -0700
In article <34XY4.2744$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Axel
Lindholm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've had alot of use of your utilities and have been inspired
by some of
>your ciphers, I feel sorry for you not beeing able to accept
that job!
Well it's not accepting the job, it's allowing me to work in the
states.
I have to pull my 59% avg up now, so I probably won't post much
after today. I will have to concentrate on school and hope to
goto college or university.....
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!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:21:16 +0100
From: David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: encryption without zeros
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Guy Macon wrote:
> In article <8gunu7$17v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >Tim Tyler wrote:
> >> It's quite possible for this encryption system to go into an
> >> infinite loop.
> >
> >No. Remember that we know the original plaintext has
> >no zeros, and the block encryption function is a
> >permutation. There is at least one zero-free block on
> >the cycle - the original plaintext.
>
> So it chugs away for a while and finally sends out your message
> unencrypted!
... with probability less than 2^-63 for each block.
(For a 64-bit block size, the probability of a single random block
containing zeroes is p = 1 - (255/256)^8 ~= 0.03083. Cycle lengths
for a 64-bit PRP are uniformly distributed on [1, 2^64]. If we make
a reasonable simplifying assumption about the independence of the
probability of a block containing zeroes and the length of the cycle
containing that block, then the probability that a randomly selected
zero-free block falls on a cycle where all the other blocks contain
zeroes, in a random cipher model, is:
sum[i = 0..(2^n)-1](p^i) 1 - p^((2^n)-1)
------------------------ = ---------------
2^n (1 - p) * 2^n
~= 2^-n / (1-p)
~= 1.032 * 2^-64)
- --
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/public.asc
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBOTQgczkCAxeYt5gVAQF1pwf+LTbtFGQl1GE1SmADf8CEmaM5mL5zsSc5
OCOuzH2tOZUWf0GAGOkJ4bSUOhl+5Vj4lf13kiGg0ODDvHei6IKYd7m0rIf1VL94
weu+uORo1SOGkACLWT6XOVr92t/C8N4qIMna9riF6DG2zcHld43eLcr5TbLGh6yR
A2oL5zW8nYZun+XMZ1bmJS4d5Lo11JNOEcauG/ZKFLZtuBWUdFotaUjjxh4H4iWd
L3L8IK5L+CQYmE8wV766BQcXqFypOY5uuiYtqY3r9tUOlCxKoyUSLe3vaR39CULa
RjyKeNidqLKRvFtK64Yrgu+kPlj3Mz0I2MLMe/4xoOUetqg+wbYO/A==
=zqlM
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Boothroyd)
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,uk.telecom
Subject: Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:03:25 +0000
In article <8h1ep9$7cd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In uk.legal Fergus O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Axel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8gus3n$63s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In uk.legal Fergus O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > The best way to get a tyrannical government is not to vote
> >>
> >> Not when there are limitations on standing for election and how
> >> candidates are allowed to describe themselves.
>
> > Don't be silly
>
> I'm not being silly. Recent changes have allowed political parties to
> register their names and restrict use of such names in elections.
> Originally there was no description beside a candidate on a ballot form,
> then it was introduced, and now it has become regulated.
There have always been restrictions on the ways of contesting an
election. In 1974 a candidate was the subject of an injunction preventing
him from claiming to be the official Liberal Party candidate when he
was not. Provisions in the Representation of the People Act 1983
referring to false statements about candidates in elections derived
originally from the late 19th century.
------------------------------
Subject: my final doodah
From: tomstd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:34:58 -0700
Well as my final doodah (until I get back on track here...) is
an updated copy of psbox that uses better 8x8 sbox primitives.
I think they will help strengthen the sboxes tremendously
compared to what I already had.
You can pick up psbox from my website
http://tomstdenis.com
Cya,
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: chamfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Patent state of Elliptic Curve PK systems?
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:04:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Frank M. Siegert wrote:
> >
> > I am just thinking about integrating a form of public key encryption
> > in one of my software products, however I would like to be free of any
> > patent problems. So if I should build in a form of elliptic curve PK
> > system will I stumble into the deep waters of the sea of patents?
>
> Not if you stick with software. Most ECC patents cover specific
> hardware speedups or special fields. Too much has been in the
> public domain for too long for this to be a real threat.
>...
For what it's worth, the IBM patent server at http://patent.womplex.ibm.com has very
good search capability. It includes US, PCT and other sources.
------------------------------
From: Charles Bryant <[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: 31 May 2000 00:15:06 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Boothroyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill has nothing to do with stopping
>computer virus programs. It simply regulates what state bodies can do in
>investigating communications for illegal activity.
Granting powers is not 'simply regulating'. 'Simply regulating' would
only be an accurate description of a bill which only reduced existing
powers.
>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.
So if you're attacked by one mugger who demands all your money, and
you escape only to be attacked by one who demands all your money
except for a tenner, the second one isn't anything to get worked up
about?
Don't be so silly, a proposal is good or bad on its own merits.
--
Eppur si muove
------------------------------
From: Charles Bryant <[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,uk.telecom
Subject: Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May
Date: 31 May 2000 00:17:24 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Boothroyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The answer is simple: Don't break the law.
No. The answer is even simpler: don't make it illegal.
> The idea that the police
>being able to demand that encrypted data (about which they have a reasonable
>suspicion) be decrypted is in some way unreasonable is absurd.
Has the RIP Bill been amended? It granted powers to demand the keys
to decrypt the data, which is quite obviously completely
unreasonable, even if you think that demanding decryption is
reasonable.
--
Eppur si muove
------------------------------
From: "Axel" <[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,uk.telecom
Subject: Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May
Date: 31 May 2000 00:20:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In uk.legal David Boothroyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm not being silly. Recent changes have allowed political parties to
>> register their names and restrict use of such names in elections.
>> Originally there was no description beside a candidate on a ballot form,
>> then it was introduced, and now it has become regulated.
> There have always been restrictions on the ways of contesting an
> election. In 1974 a candidate was the subject of an injunction preventing
> him from claiming to be the official Liberal Party candidate when he
> was not. Provisions in the Representation of the People Act 1983
> referring to false statements about candidates in elections derived
> originally from the late 19th century.
What has now been laid down is that is a candidate is in fact 'liberal'
in his political philosophy he cannot describe himself as such on a
ballot paper.
Personally I believe just the names of the candidates should be on the
ballot paper. A description just tends to encourage people voting like
sheep.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SSL?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:16:36 -0700
Sorry for the rather extended delay, I just got the complete newsgroup
listing for the last month.
But basically how most protocols do it is fairly simple:
At least one system (server) has an RSA public key.
The client encrypts the connection secrets with the RSA key and sends them
to the server.
The server decrypts the data.
They now share a secret that no one has (provided the servers private key is
not compromised)
That's the basics, you can fill it out however you wish.
Joe
"Simon Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8f4mmu$clj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've found it perplexing to create a protocol where two computers can
aggree
> on some random key without Eve or Mallory getting hold of it.
>
> I was wondering how SSL does it?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: lament <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DVD encryption secure? -- any FAQ on it
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:24:48 GMT
The content of a DVD movie is encrypted with the intent to prevent piracy. However,
every DVD player has to be able to decode the data for playback. This being so, how
is it possible to have security?
My guess is that the DVD decoder chip has the key "hidden" in silicon somehow, and
that only a "few" chip designers have that information (the key). If this assumption
is close to correct, then it seems a doomed scheme from the outset.
I completely understand why content producers want their works protected, but I
cannot imagine how this could ever be possible, given the consumer nature of the
system and the vast numbers of systems and disks involved. I wonder how encryption is
actually carried out on DVD. Forgive me if this has been beaten to death before--
perhaps there is a faq on the subject.
Is there really a way to do it?
------------------------------
From: "Scotty" <[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,uk.telecom
Subject: Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:10:40 +0100
David Boothroyd wrote in message ...
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adrian Kennard
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> David Boothroyd wrote:
>> >...
>> > I thought you said you were too young. The Poll Tax was replaced
because
>> > Conservative MPs realised it was too unpopular. The idea that the
police
>> > being able to demand that encrypted data (about which they have a
reasonable
>> > suspicion) be decrypted is in some way unreasonable is absurd.
>>
>> The idea that the police may have unfounded suspicion.
>
>Then they will find the decrypted document does not contain anything
>wrong, and no further action will be taken.
>
>> The idea that the individual may not wish to disclose a key
>> which can then be used to decode everything they have ever
>> recevied regardless of relevance, and sign things with their name, etc.
>
>I'm sure many people interviewed by the police do not wish to disclose
>things. This does not cause particular problems now.
>
>> The idea that the data may not be encrypted, or the suspect
>> may not have the key and cannot prove this. After all, if plod
>> knew what it was then they would not need the key - they must have
>> only suspicions.
>
>People cannot be put in jail because they have lost their keys, as
>Ministers have made clear during debate on the bill.
>
On contrary if you read the minutes of the HoC Standing Commitee they can.
In regard to loosing your keys the Home Office minister Mr. Clarke said:
"There are two clear different circumstances, the first of which involves
the case of a business. The business, which is responsible and secure,
always has back-up mechanisms, always anticipates the loss of a key and
always has an audit trail that establishes when keys were used for what
purposes and when they were thrown away. We have got that message strongly
from talking to business, and it is entirely reasonable to have such
expectations. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned the possibility
that some might choose the approach that is associated with key escrow. That
is a different way to secure a rigorous system that pursues and tracks keys.
If a business found itself in that position-I emphasise, by the way, that I
doubt whether it would-and had to show, on the balance of probabilities,
that it did not have the key at the relevant time, it could wheel in any
number of technical records to explain the circumstances under which it
normally disposes of keys to produce evidence to that effect. Businesses are
in a good position in this regard because their conduct will normally be
supported by substantial records.
What about the individual? That raises the other case, which was discussed
on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East
(Mr. White) and others who raised it in different circumstances. What about
the individual who simply forgets his password? As critics have said, that
is a very reasonable thing to do-many people do so in many different
circumstances. We should bear in mind that the individual has to demonstrate
his forgetfulness only on the balance of probabilities, which means that he
is already some way there. It is a reasonable explanation for him to say
that he has forgotten his passport-I keep saying ``passport''; I mean
``password''-[Laughter.] I confess to having the Home Office disease.
``Password'' is the word what I want.
Precisely because forgetting a password is such a reasonable thing to do, it
is rare that there are no contingency arrangements for such an eventuality.
Depending on the circumstances of the case and the reasons why the material
was acquired in the first place, individuals could easily state that they
had forgotten their password or key, but volunteer information about the
last time they remembered it, what they normally do when they forget it,
whether their service provider has a back-up system or whether all data are
destroyed every time that they lose their key. The court will take such
factors into account. I think that that represents a perfectly reasonable
set of events. I emphasise again that there is no reversal of the burden of
proof. Once the prosecution has proved possession beyond reasonable doubt,
the defence can avoid liability by demonstrating a change of circumstances
on a balance of probability. "
I think this shows just how out of touch the minister is.
Firstly it is a basic security requirement that you DON'T keep the type of
records of passwords that the minister imagines, so he was either being
disingenuous or a fool in presenting that as defence for businesses.
Secondly for individuals, notice how proof in the 'balance of
probabilities', is presented almost as a concession to the defence. Criminal
proof in any democratic society has to mean 'beyond reasonable doubt'
anything less is 'law of the tyrant'.
Finally what are *your* contingency arrangements' for forgetting your
passwords? Do you make an arrangement every time you require a new password
to be constructed? Of course not, most people don't work that way. I suggest
that most people who forget a password would not destroy the data but rather
keep it, in hope that they might later remember what the password was. It
seems this very natural behaviour is going to become criminal.
------------------------------
From: "Scotty" <[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,uk.telecom
Subject: Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:22:06 +0100
Anarchist Lemming wrote in message <8gtvqg$chk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"David Boothroyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8gs8pa$hf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Anarchist Lemming"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "David Boothroyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > Wrong. We have every right to get worked up. I wasn't old enough to
vote
>in
>> > the last election (not that I would have) and if it becomes law I could
>be
>> > facing up to 2 years imprisonment.
>>
>> The answer is simple: Don't break the law.
>>
>> > Just because they have an electoral "mandate" doesn't mean it's useless
>> > to fight against this kind of legislation. Remember, we stopped the
Poll
>> > Tax.
>>
>> I thought you said you were too young. The Poll Tax was replaced because
>> Conservative MPs realised it was too unpopular. The idea that the police
>> being able to demand that encrypted data (about which they have a
>reasonable
>> suspicion) be decrypted is in some way unreasonable is absurd.
>
>Well you could keep arguing that until the UK becomes a police state.
That's
>the way we're heading with the RIP Bill and the Terrorism Bill. The only
>effective method to resist tyrannical government is mass civil
disobedience.
>
You don't even have to go that far. I think if enough people kept a few
files, randomly encrypted, (so they deliberately don't remember the
password) on their disks, the whole bill will collapse. Anyone presented
with a decryption notice could just claim it was such a file and the burden
of proof could be correctly restored. I'm doing my bit, I suggest those
opposed to the bill do likewise.
>Also I really think this is irrelevant, but I was at the Poll Tax demo.
>
>
>Lemming
>www.hellnet.org.uk
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Scotty" <[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: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:33:24 +0100
David Boothroyd wrote in message ...
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andru Luvisi
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Boothroyd) writes:
>> [snip]
>> > It is not a human rights violation. The s.19 certificate states that
the
>> > Bill complies with all the UK's human rights obligations.
>> [snip]
>>
>> This is not a usenet post. This is a binding contract which you have
>> already signed, stating that you must pay me US$1,000,000 on or before
>> July 1st 2000.
>
>Very funny.
>
>A section 19 certificate is a statement by the Minister responsible for
>the Bill which states whether or not it complies with the European
>Convention on Human Rights. This statement is made on the advice of the
>government's law officers. The terms of the European Convention are,
>of course, those as drafted in the early 1950s and agreed internationally.
>
Now that *is* funny, the notion that the government's law officers are
independent. A section 19 certificate is little more than a rubber stamp. A
section 19 certificate was even given for the original version in the
e-commerce bill and that so blatantly violated the HRA they had to tone it
down in the RIP bill. Yet there is still a vast weight of legal opinion
(more highly respected than the government's own law officers), that they
are still wrong, and this Bill does *not* comply with the HRA.
This should not come as a surprise, that it managed to get a section 19
certificate only goes to show how far this government has controlled the
independence of its advisors.
MPs of course are no problem, few if any understand the bill. They are for
the most part lobby fodder who would never dream of voting against the
government whatever it proposed. When was the last time your MP voted
against their party (other than on a matter specifically affecting their
constituency)? There isn't an independent thought amongst them. [end of
rant]
>One Bill has had a section 19 certificate stating its provisions do not
>comply with human rights - the Local Government Bill, due to amendments
>carried against the government in the House of Lords.
[How very convenient it must be for the government to be able, at will, to
manufacture an 'independent' legal opinion in its favour].
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
