Cryptography-Digest Digest #250, Volume #12 Thu, 20 Jul 00 05:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Proposal of some processor instructions for cryptographical (Bernd Paysan)
Re: Good free stream cipher ? (Boris Kazak)
Re: Good free stream cipher ? (wtshaw)
Re: Good free stream cipher ? ("Scott Fluhrer")
Re: Crypto jokes? (potentially OT) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
strength of encryption (wes goodwin)
Re: strength of encryption (wes goodwin)
Re: strength of encryption (fvw)
Re: how strong is my own encryption? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Good free stream cipher ? (Runu Knips)
Re: strength of encryption (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: how strong is my own encryption? (Mok-Kong Shen)
On block cipher and automata (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Base Encryption: Strongest Cypher (Tim Tyler)
Re: Good free stream cipher ? (Runu Knips)
Re: WSJ Article on Mexico / Encryption (jungle)
Re: how strong is my own encryption? (Eric Hambuch)
Re: Good free stream cipher ? (Runu Knips)
Re: how strong is my own encryption? (Runu Knips)
RC4 free for noncommercial ? (Runu Knips)
Re: Question Regarding Encrypting CD-ROM -RW Disks (Johnny Bravo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Proposal of some processor instructions for cryptographical
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:03:10 +0200
Jan Vorbrueggen wrote:
> Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's why CPU system buses have byte enables.
>
> I don't think the EV6 bus has byte enables.
I wonder how AMD managed to use the EV6 bus to access a classical PC
board (with IO-mapped IO, byte/word/dword ISA and PCI writes, and even
an A20 gate!). The Alpha PCI boards I know off use special addresses for
IO mapping, and have separate maps for byte, word, and dword accesses. I
suppose they do it just the same way (the EV6 bus has enough spare
addresses to waste three 4GB maps just for PCI byte/word/dword
addressing, and the three 64KB maps for IO-mapped IO really don't
matter). Only the A20 gate is special, then ;-).
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
------------------------------
From: Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Good free stream cipher ?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:48:19 GMT
Runu Knips wrote:
>
> Scott Fluhrer wrote:
> > Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Runu Knips wrote:
> > > > I'm looking for a good & free stream cipher algorithm.
> > > > Does anybody have a suggestion ?
> > > -------------------------
> > > Recipe: Take BLOWFISH and run the key setup procedure.
> > > You will have 5 arrays of subkeys.
> > > P[72], S0[1024], S1[1024], S2[1024], S3[1024]
> > > Now your stream cipher will look like following:
> > > Ct[i] = Pt[i]^P[i%71]^S0[i%1019]^S1[i%1021]^S2[i%1023]^S3[i%1024]
> > > (you can verify yourself that 71, 1019, 1021, 1023 and 1024 are
> > > all mutually prime)
> > > The period of this generator will be equal to the product of
> > > all 5 numbers = 77380915780608 ~ 2^46.
>
> Not much for a random generator which requires more than 4KB
> of data, isn't it ?
>
> > And this can be broken (that is, you can reconstruct the array contents that
> > the stream cipher uses) with 71+1019+1021+1023+1024 = 4158 known stream
> > cipher outputs, by Gaussian elimination.
>
> Congratulations !
>
> Funny, I thought about a concept which used mutually prime sized
> arrays at home. Using a avalanche addition and extracting the
> bits piece by piece using the parity() function should lead to a
> good stream cipher, doesn't it ? However, I fear its pretty slow.
Gaussian elimination can be defeated by interleaving XOR and
addition mod 2^8 in the mixing routine, like this:
Ct[i] = Pt[i]^P[i%71]+S0[i%1019]^S1[i%1021]+S2[i%1023]^S3[i%1024]
then linear comination of stream bytes should provide no information
useful for reconstruction. BTW, I do not think that 5 table lookups
and 4 single-clock arithmetic operations are very slow.
On the other hand, with this system you can readily compute any byte
just knowing its offset(index), instead of recomputing all sequence.
Just imagine that you want to decrypt one particular record from a
big database...
Best wishes BNK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Good free stream cipher ?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:19:32 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wtshaw wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm looking for a good & free stream cipher algorithm.
> > > Does anybody have a suggestion ?
> > Text or binary data?
>
> What are you talking about ???
>
> A good cipher == a modern cipher which resists
> linear and differential cryptanalysis -> ergo
> Vigenere doesn't work.
Poor crypto methods are outside of the *good* part of the request, but
there are myrids of good options still. I asked the nature of the data
because that can make all the difference as to options that might work.
Knowing other requirements are useful, speed, quantity of information,
level of security desired, etc. These parameters are not to be
dismissed. Otherwise, a recomendation might be inappropriate.
--
Pat B. reminds us that he served in the Nixon Administration for
six years. How can he be proud of that?
------------------------------
From: "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good free stream cipher ?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:08:24 -0700
Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Runu Knips wrote:
> >
> > Scott Fluhrer wrote:
> > > Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Runu Knips wrote:
> > > > > I'm looking for a good & free stream cipher algorithm.
> > > > > Does anybody have a suggestion ?
> > > > -------------------------
> > > > Recipe: Take BLOWFISH and run the key setup procedure.
> > > > You will have 5 arrays of subkeys.
> > > > P[72], S0[1024], S1[1024], S2[1024], S3[1024]
> > > > Now your stream cipher will look like following:
> > > > Ct[i] = Pt[i]^P[i%71]^S0[i%1019]^S1[i%1021]^S2[i%1023]^S3[i%1024]
> > > > (you can verify yourself that 71, 1019, 1021, 1023 and 1024 are
> > > > all mutually prime)
> > > > The period of this generator will be equal to the product of
> > > > all 5 numbers = 77380915780608 ~ 2^46.
> >
> > Not much for a random generator which requires more than 4KB
> > of data, isn't it ?
> >
> > > And this can be broken (that is, you can reconstruct the array
contents that
> > > the stream cipher uses) with 71+1019+1021+1023+1024 = 4158 known
stream
> > > cipher outputs, by Gaussian elimination.
> >
> > Congratulations !
> >
> > Funny, I thought about a concept which used mutually prime sized
> > arrays at home. Using a avalanche addition and extracting the
> > bits piece by piece using the parity() function should lead to a
> > good stream cipher, doesn't it ? However, I fear its pretty slow.
>
> Gaussian elimination can be defeated by interleaving XOR and
> addition mod 2^8 in the mixing routine, like this:
>
> Ct[i] = Pt[i]^P[i%71]+S0[i%1019]^S1[i%1021]+S2[i%1023]^S3[i%1024]
>
> then linear comination of stream bytes should provide no information
> useful for reconstruction. BTW, I do not think that 5 table lookups
> and 4 single-clock arithmetic operations are very slow.
That doesn't really make Gaussian elimination any more difficult. XOR and
addition mod 2^8 are the same operation when you look at them mod 2 (that
is, looking only at the lsbits). So, you can, with 4158 known keystream
outputs, solve for the LSBits of all the array contents. Once you have
those, you know the carries into the 2nd LSBit, so you can solve for those,
and work your way up until you have all the bits.
--
poncho
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crypto jokes? (potentially OT)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:35:51 -0400
Steve Meyer wrote:
> Are you saying that Feyerabend's argrument that study of
> Computer Science in EE departments is impossible is wrong, i.e.
> impossibility of the normal scientific activity of
> discovery attribution? ...
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:11:33 -0400, Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I didn't understand your joke. Is it that you really are unaware
> >that nonsecret-key encryption had in fact been invented before RSA?
> >(However, it wasn't much exploited.)
> >Steve Meyer wrote:
> >> How about claim by BBC television producer that English spy ageny
> >> discovered public key cryptography. Probably in joke that one must
> >> attend IACR conference to appreciate.
I didn't understand that joke either, although with Feyerabend
invoked it must be one.
------------------------------
From: wes goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: strength of encryption
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 01:04:11 +0000
Hello,
I have made an encryption program that is almost fully C compliant.
The only thing that prevents this is the use of unistd.h.
On to my question. I've seen all of the talk about the 'strength' of
encryption,
ie 168-bit encryption. What does the measure refer to and how can the
measure
be calculated. I would like to know how strong my program is.
Thanks in advance,
wesley
------------------------------
From: wes goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: strength of encryption
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 01:07:05 +0000
wes goodwin wrote:
> Hello,
> I have made an encryption program that is almost fully C compliant.
***************I meant to say ANSI C complieant. :c
>
> The only thing that prevents this is the use of unistd.h.
>
> On to my question. I've seen all of the talk about the 'strength' of
> encryption,
> ie 168-bit encryption. What does the measure refer to and how can the
> measure
> be calculated. I would like to know how strong my program is.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> wesley
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fvw)
Subject: Re: strength of encryption
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:08:59 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>On to my question. I've seen all of the talk about the 'strength' of
>encryption,
>ie 168-bit encryption. What does the measure refer to and how can the
>measure
>be calculated. I would like to know how strong my program is.
168-bits encryption would purely mean that the algorithm uses a 168 bit long
key. That means that if you'd have brute force the algorithm, you'd have to
try (on average) 187072209578355573530071658587684226515959365500928 keys
before finding the correct one. However, many algorithms have serious
weaknesses making it much easier to find the key. I'd suggest you post your
algorithm to the group, and you've got a pretty good chance one of the locals
will find some interesting weaknesses. (Unless you're doing XOR with a fixed
key don't count on me to much though :-) ).
--
Frank v Waveren
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 10074100
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: how strong is my own encryption?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:58:38 GMT
> > > How long would it take to crack down this type of encryption
>>
> > With a computer and some KB of ciphertext: some seconds. This can be
> > done by a simple statistical analysis of the ciphertext.
> >
> > Eric
> I'm quite new to this crytology thing and I was wondering how you would do
> the statistical analysis?
>
> Martin
- Yes, that would be interesting. I think I could get the answer from David
Kahn's "The Codebreakers", but where can I get it on the internet (I mean for
free:).
Anybody knows?
Thanks to all!
Yuri Margolin
http://flybum.hypermart.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:27:39 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good free stream cipher ?
Paul Koning wrote:
> Runu Knips wrote:
> > I'm looking for a good & free stream cipher algorithm.
> How about any good block cipher in counter mode, or CFB mode?
> Or are you looking for something different for some
> reason?
Well, acutally I could use that as well, but AFAIK real
stream ciphers tend to be faster.
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: strength of encryption
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:55:36 +0200
wes goodwin wrote:
> On to my question. I've seen all of the talk about the 'strength' of
> encryption,
> ie 168-bit encryption. What does the measure refer to and how can the
> measure
> be calculated. I would like to know how strong my program is.
The bit number refers to the size of the key. There is no scientifically
rigorous measure of crypto strength comparable to metre, newton
and second. More often than not, whether a cipher is secure for an
application is an issue fairly dependent on subjectivity. For in general
no one knows absolutely for sure how capable his opponent is. If your
program is very easily shown to be breakable, then you'll know that it is
weak. If no one demonstrates weaknesses, it doesn't prove at all that
it is any strong. For people may not have the interest/time/resources
to try an attack. Another possibility is that someone may have found a
method of attack but he wants to keep that a secret, for whatever
reasons. A good way seems to be to attempt to attack one's own
cipher oneself. That way one will get some feeling if it is bad, even
though on the other hand a positive feeling could well be an illusion
resulting from one's lack of knowledge/experience/intelligence.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how strong is my own encryption?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:58:21 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> - Yes, that would be interesting. I think I could get the answer from David
> Kahn's "The Codebreakers", but where can I get it on the internet (I mean for
> free:).
Since what time are books not sold at bookstores and freely obtainable
on the internet??
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: On block cipher and automata
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:55:42 +0200
A common block cipher is a function that, determined by its
key, is a (fixed) bijective mapping between its input plaintext
and its output ciphertext. It can thus be considered to be
a Mealy automaton (or equivalent) with one single state.
It seems to be reasonable to expect that a more general cipher,
presumably more flexible and thus better in a position to
acquire strength, would behave like a Mealy automaton with more
than one state and perhaps even provided with some additional
subtleties in its state transitions.
I suppose that possibly all existing ciphers could be interpreted
as very special instances of this general concept which, therefore,
should be at the foundation of future crypto designs.
M. K. Shen
============================
http://home.t-online.de/home/mok-kong.shen
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Base Encryption: Strongest Cypher
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:07:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I have yet to find someone who can find a fault with Base Encryption.
: I have yet to find someone (maybe one, and I am addressing it here) who
: came close to making a scholarly comment on it.
: Is everyone here a reflection of the analytical abilities of the
: encryption community? I certainly hope not. I guess text-book
: trained minds can't think outside of the box. Come on, I challenge
: you: make a scholarly analysis of it with references. [...]
Your base encryption does not deserve this. You don't address key
generation issues, or key distribution issues - and from your
criticisms of other systems you obviously have no idea what you're
talking about. Rather than provide a reference implementation
of your system, you're peddling your shareware calculator.
There's clearly no reason for any analyst to waste their time looking
any further at your system.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ VIPAR GAMMA GUPPY.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:16:51 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good free stream cipher ?
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> A number of the stream ciphers described in Schneier's book are free.
Yes, I know being interested in crypto and not having Bruce
Schneiders 'Applied Crypto' is like being a christian without
a bible or a operating system specialist without the book of
Tanenbaum :) but I don't have it yet (well I hope to change
that state soon :) )
------------------------------
From: jungle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WSJ Article on Mexico / Encryption
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:22:54 -0400
as normal, result of asking correct question to wrong people ...
couple of seconds to find solution ...
Guy Macon wrote:
>
> jungle wrote:
> >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,37337,00.html
> >
> >Mexico Race Hinges on Code Crack by Mike Kamber
> > 3:00 a.m. Jun. 30, 2000 PDT
> >
> > "The [password] we don't have contains 11 characters -- eight letters and
> > three numbers," he said. "So there are millions of combinations -- it
> > could take time to find it."
> >
> BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!!
>
> I can't stand it. Stop. You're killing me. Let me catch my breath.
> <chuckle> <more wild, uncontrollable laughing> <faints>
as normal, result of asking correct question to wrong people ...
couple of seconds to find solution ...
------------------------------
From: Eric Hambuch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how strong is my own encryption?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:38:46 +0200
Martin wrote:
>
> I'm quite new to this crytology thing and I was wondering how you would do
> the statistical analysis?
Okay, I've found a good paper, that describes a simple algorithm:
T. Jakobsen: A Fast Method for Cryptanalysis of Substituion Ciphers,
Cryptologia 19(3), 1995
online available at:
http://www.counterpane.com/biblio/all-by-author.html
Eric
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:41:37 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good free stream cipher ?
Scott Fluhrer wrote:
> Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Runu Knips wrote:
> > > Scott Fluhrer wrote:
> > > > Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Runu Knips wrote:
> > > > > > I'm looking for a good & free stream cipher algorithm.
> > > > > > Does anybody have a suggestion ?
> > > > > -------------------------
> > > > > Recipe: Take BLOWFISH and run the key setup procedure.
> > > > > You will have 5 arrays of subkeys.
> > > > > P[72], S0[1024], S1[1024], S2[1024], S3[1024]
> > > > > Now your stream cipher will look like following:
> > > > > Ct[i] = Pt[i]^P[i%71]^S0[i%1019]^S1[i%1021]^S2[i%1023]^S3[i%1024]
> > > > > (you can verify yourself that 71, 1019, 1021, 1023 and 1024 are
> > > > > all mutually prime) The period of this generator will be equal to
> > > > > the product of all 5 numbers = 77380915780608 ~ 2^46.
> > > > And this can be broken (that is, you can reconstruct the array
> > > > contents that the stream cipher uses) with 71+1019+1021+1023+1024
> > > > = 4158 known stream cipher outputs, by Gaussian elimination.
> > > Funny, I thought about a concept which used mutually prime sized
> > > arrays at home. Using a avalanche addition and extracting the
> > > bits piece by piece using the parity() function should lead to a
> > > good stream cipher, doesn't it ? However, I fear its pretty slow.
> >
> > Gaussian elimination can be defeated by interleaving XOR and
> > addition mod 2^8 in the mixing routine, like this:
> >
> > Ct[i] = Pt[i]^P[i%71]+S0[i%1019]^S1[i%1021]+S2[i%1023]^S3[i%1024]
> >
> > then linear comination of stream bytes should provide no information
> > useful for reconstruction. BTW, I do not think that 5 table lookups
> > and 4 single-clock arithmetic operations are very slow.
Hmm, funny, this posting didn't appeared on my newsserver, only this
followup.
Nevertheless, I wanted to use something completely different than the
algorithm you specified above. As I said, I wanted to use an avalanche
addition like in the key schedule in Whirl128 or Paranoia. On integers,
not on bytes. And I wanted to get the result bit by bit by extracting
the parity of each step.
Too, you forget that you have also to compute the modulo operation,
which means 5 times compare operation and a conditional assignment.
> That doesn't really make Gaussian elimination any more difficult. XOR and
> addition mod 2^8 are the same operation when you look at them mod 2 (that
> is, looking only at the lsbits). So, you can, with 4158 known keystream
> outputs, solve for the LSBits of all the array contents. Once you have
> those, you know the carries into the 2nd LSBit, so you can solve for those,
> and work your way up until you have all the bits.
Well, no surprise. Again most of the bits in the algorithm never get
changed.
The original algorithm I though about yesterday was:
=======================================================================
/* these should be mutually prime */
#define X_SIZE <something>
#define Y_SIZE <something>
#define Z_SIZE <something>
struct keysched {
uint32 xv[X_SIZE];
uint32 yv[Y_SIZE];
uint32 zv[Z_SIZE];
uint32 xc, yc, zc;
};
char next_crypt (struct keysched *k)
{
int i, ch;
uint32 x, y, z;
/* loop for all bits of the result */
for (ch = i = 0; i != 8; ++i) {
/* do an avalanche addition on the 3 vectors xv, yv and zv */
x = k->xv[k->xc] += k->xv[(k->xc+3) % X_SIZE]
+ rotl (k->xv[(k->xc+10) % X_SIZE], 3)
+ ...
+ rotl (k->xv[(k->xc + X_SIZE-2) % X_SIZE], 1);
k->xc = (k->xc + 1) % X_SIZE;
y = k->yv[k->yc] += k->yv[(k->yc+3) % Y_SIZE]
+ rotl (k->yv[(k->yc+10) % Y_SIZE], 3)
+ ...
+ rotl (k->yv[(k->yc + Y_SIZE-2) % Y_SIZE], 1);
k->yc = (k->yc + 1) % Y_SIZE;
z = k->zv[k->zc] += k->zv[(k->zc+3) % Z_SIZE]
+ rotl (k->zv[(k->zc+10) % Z_SIZE], 2)
+ ...
+ rotl (k->zv[(k->zc + Z_SIZE-2) % Z_SIZE], 1);
k->zc = (k->zc + 1) % Z_SIZE;
/* compute the parity of x,y,z concatenated */
x = x ^ y ^ z;
x ^= x >> 16; x ^= x >> 8; x ^= x >> 4; x ^= x >> 2; x ^= x >> 1;
/* that parity is the next bit for the result */
ch |= (x & 1) << i;
}
return ch;
}
=======================================================================
This is IMHO too slow.
Using a single array of a prime size and an 8x8 sbox in the
last step of each round upspeeded the thing substantly. I
think that algorithm should work nice in practice.
I've even found a name for this algorithm: 'Oddbird'.
Hey, I just wanted a name as strange as 'Blowfish' ;-) !
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:43:35 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how strong is my own encryption?
Martin wrote:
> I'm quite new to this crytology thing and I was wondering how you would do
> the statistical analysis?
In the first chapters of any average book about crypto ?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:45:01 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RC4 free for noncommercial ?
Runu Knips wrote:
> I'm looking for a good & free stream cipher algorithm.
> Does anybody have a suggestion ?
My crypto book states that 'RC4 requires a license fee
for commercial use'. Does that mean it is free for
non-commercial use ?
------------------------------
From: Johnny Bravo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Encrypting CD-ROM -RW Disks
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:06:03 -0400
On 17 Jul 2000 21:31:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Rush) wrote:
>To paraphrase a silly fast-food commercial, bits is bits. The physical
>storage mechanism isn't even visible above the level of the device drivers. As
>for secure wiping of any removable disk, I wouldn't fiddle with overwriting
>schemes when an incinerator is perfectly secure (I don't think even the NSA's
>labs can reconstruct smoke) and probably faster.
>
>Note that just shredding the disk is less secure. Chopped-up floppies have
>been reconstructed, and a chopped CD-ROM is just a larger (but not impossible)
>puzzle.
Does anyone have any info on how effective a microwave oven is in
destroying data on a CD? I know there is a good deal of physical
destruction of the media, but could any of the remaining material be
recovered or would it be scrambled?
--
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all it's contents." - HPL
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
