Cryptography-Digest Digest #610, Volume #12 Mon, 4 Sep 00 13:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: RSA Patent. (Runu Knips)
Re: Inquiry (Runu Knips)
Re: Transposition Problem (Future Beacon)
Re: Suggestion (Runu Knips)
Re: Capability of memorizing passwords (Runu Knips)
Re: Steganography vs. Security through Obscurity (Guy Macon)
Re: Extending RC4 to 16 bits (Runu Knips)
Re: Patent, Patent is a nightmare, all software patent shuld not be allowed (Mathew
Hendry)
Re: Austin, Tx. - Cypherpunks Physical Meeting (John Savard)
Re: Austin, Tx. - Cypherpunks Physical Meeting ("Martin Bealby")
Re: more on that neat prime generator (Bob Silverman)
Re: more on that neat prime generator ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Elkies extention to Schoof's algorithm (Robert Harley)
Re: more on that neat prime generator (Matthias Murra)
Re: RSA Patent. (nym_test)
Re: blowfish problem ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: RSA public exponent (Rich Wales)
Secret Journal ("Melinda Harris")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:12:36 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: RSA Patent.
ajd wrote:
> I hear that the patent for the RSA encryption algorithm expires at the end
> of this month.
Yep :)))
> Does this mean that I can create commercial RSA software/chips with no
> licence/royalty issues?
Yep !!!! :)))
> Was the patent for USA only or did it include Europe?
In Europe it has already expired. ;-)))
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:15:17 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inquiry
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> But isn't it that any standard C++ program should run under VC++?
Exactly.
And you can compile any C library and use it as well.
I've no clue what the problem of the OP is...
------------------------------
From: Future Beacon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Transposition Problem
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:08:28 -0400
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> Future Beacon wrote:
> > If two bits are used to select a number between 1 and 4 and
> > then one bit is used to select 0 or 2 and these two numbers
> > are added, the selections will be between 1 and 6, but the
> > possible selections are not equally likely.
>
> Of course, just as the sum of two dice is not uniformly
> distributed.
>
> > Also I am suspicious of a bias in the event that three bits
> > are used to select 1 of 8 and two outcomes are simply ignored.
>
> No, that method is obviously unbiased.
You are absolutely right.
Jim Trek
Future Beacon Technology
http://eznet.net/~progress
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:19:09 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestion
Delanyo Ofori wrote:
> All encryption vendors should encrypt their source with their product and
> make it available for download
???
Whats the sense of this suggestion ???
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:37:26 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Capability of memorizing passwords
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> It is often said that it is difficult for people to
> memorize random passwords (commonly 8 characters). I am
> very surprised to read in a magazine that the record of
> memorizing a bit sequence, given a time of 30 minutes, is
> 2745 bits! So brain's capability of processing random
> stuffs doesn't seem to be too bad after all.
But even recent version of, say, Linux, doesn't offer
more than 8 character long passwords ! So what is the
use of remembering longer passwords ?!?!? :-(((
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Subject: Re: Steganography vs. Security through Obscurity
Date: 04 Sep 2000 13:41:57 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>I still think that the anonymity offered by internet
>cafes is suffcient. Do you have any concrete idea of
>how to monitor (finding out who is the suspected person)
>if you were given the job to do that?
Point a camera at the PC and record the keystrokes.
Police do this sort of thing all of the time.
>On the other hand, I don't know whether sending a message
>from one's own cite to zeroknowledge or whatever wouldn't
>leave a trace behind.
I am not talking about "zeroknowledge or whatever".
I am talking about the system described at
http://www.zeroknowledge.com/
which most assuredly does not leave such a trace.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:47:13 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Extending RC4 to 16 bits
Barry Adams wrote:
> The questions are how mathematically sound is the algorithm?
This algorithm has already been specified in Bruce Schneiers'
"Applied Crypto" (I finally got it ! *proud*), with the same
notes (its faster and more secure than the original).
Its a good example for the memory-speed tradeoff, I guess.
> Legally is the algorithm covered by any patents or other
> ownship problems?
Yep. You should call it Arcfour, or something like Arcfour-16
if you use it with 16 bit instead of 8.
> If not and if it is original let me immediately
> declare it to be copyleft under the Gnu Public License.
You're too late. Its free.
------------------------------
From: Mathew Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Patent, Patent is a nightmare, all software patent shuld not be allowed
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:50:09 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Thornburg) wrote:
: Another patent of a fairly well-known idea:
:
: http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn=US05443036__
:
: US patent #5443036: Method of exercising a cat
: filed 2 Nov 1993, issued 22 Aug 1995
:
: Abstract:
: A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam
: of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the
: floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat,
: then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to
: move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal
: with a chase instinct.
I see no description of how the "invisible light" is made visible to
the cat. Is there another patent covering that?
--
Mathew Hendry, Programmer, Visual Sciences Ltd.
Work <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Home <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Austin, Tx. - Cypherpunks Physical Meeting
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:15:52 GMT
On 2 Sep 2000 17:49:11 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Choate) wrote, in
part:
>Sep. 12, 2000, 7-9 pm
>Central Market HEB Cafe
>38th & N. Lamar
>http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr/
>We usualy meet outside unless the weather is inclement. Look for the
>red covered "Applied Cryptography" book to identify the table.
Austin, Texas, eh?
Perhaps you would know if the crypto-eccentric who is said to have
devised a cipher including things such as hieroglyphic cipher base
charts is for real. (The cipher is called ANEC, and the individual
responsible is one David Matthias Mimms. There have been, at sporadic
intervals, some weird postings about it.)
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: "Martin Bealby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Austin, Tx. - Cypherpunks Physical Meeting
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:44:37 +0100
Reply-To: "Martin Bealby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Savard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 2 Sep 2000 17:49:11 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Choate) wrote, in
> part:
>
> >Sep. 12, 2000, 7-9 pm
> >Central Market HEB Cafe
> >38th & N. Lamar
> >http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr/
>
> >We usualy meet outside unless the weather is inclement. Look for the
> >red covered "Applied Cryptography" book to identify the table.
>
> Austin, Texas, eh?
>
> Perhaps you would know if the crypto-eccentric who is said to have
> devised a cipher including things such as hieroglyphic cipher base
> charts is for real. (The cipher is called ANEC, and the individual
> responsible is one David Matthias Mimms. There have been, at sporadic
> intervals, some weird postings about it.)
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Could someone tell me more about this ANEC cypher? Or preferably refer me to
a web page about it.
Martin
------------------------------
From: Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: more on that neat prime generator
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:58:47 GMT
In article <8ou7p0$psf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8ooh43$nic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <8olqpe$i89$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I was thinking, you could start lower, making 128-bit primes with
my
> > > method
> >
> > "My" method? How strange of you to claim ownership of something
> > that is well known and has been so for some time.
> >
> > Might I suggest you do a literature search? Look up "Maurer"
> > and "Shawe-Taylor".
>
> And you talk to us about useless junk posts? What a hypocrit.
Exactly what is useless about pointing out that your claim of
ownership of these methods is bogus and that they are well known?
You did say "my" method.
>
> I am sorry I am not fully aware of every book written 150 years before
> my time.
Your ignorance is showing. What have 19th century books got to do
with the subject at hand?
--
Bob Silverman
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: more on that neat prime generator
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:05:04 GMT
In article <8p0db0$4f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8ou7p0$psf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In article <8ooh43$nic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In article <8olqpe$i89$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > I was thinking, you could start lower, making 128-bit primes
with
> my
> > > > method
> > >
> > > "My" method? How strange of you to claim ownership of something
> > > that is well known and has been so for some time.
> > >
> > > Might I suggest you do a literature search? Look up "Maurer"
> > > and "Shawe-Taylor".
> >
> > And you talk to us about useless junk posts? What a hypocrit.
>
> Exactly what is useless about pointing out that your claim of
> ownership of these methods is bogus and that they are well known?
>
> You did say "my" method.
Oh I am so sorry great math lord, your heinous. I meant "my method I
am talking about". Not "my" method. Geez I got the idea from Applied
Crypto anyways!
> >
> > I am sorry I am not fully aware of every book written 150 years
before
> > my time.
>
> Your ignorance is showing. What have 19th century books got to do
> with the subject at hand?
"MY" point (perhaps this has been said before so I don't want you to
think I am stealing a thought here... so sorry your lord) that I
haven't read all the texts you have, or written/invented all the stuff
you have. I am the newbie here so grant me some leeway please.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Robert Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Elkies extention to Schoof's algorithm
Date: 04 Sep 2000 17:13:46 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The well-known Elkies extention to Schoof's point counting algorithm
> for eliptic curves defined over GF(p) supplies candidates for certain
> values of #E mod q, a small prime. How can this information be best
> used [...]
You should probably do a search for "Chinese and match" as that is the
method used by Joux & Lercier for counting points over GF(2^1663) in 1998:
http://listserv.nodak.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9806&L=nmbrthry&P=R209
and also by Frederik Vercauteren for his record over GF(2^1999) in 1999:
http://listserv.nodak.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9910&L=nmbrthry&P=R991
However if you are counting points in small characteristic rather than
GF(p), be aware that there is a new method which is VASTLY faster than
Schoof-Elkies-Atkin-etc.
For instance Vercauteren used a highly optimised implementation of SEA
for 65 days of CPU time on 400 MHz PCs. That calculation takes 4 hours
with my implementation of the new algorithm.
The algorithm is originally due to Prof. Satoh for characteristic p >=
5 and was extended to characteristics two and three by Fouquet, Gaudry
and Harley (yours truly :-). If you are interested, you can get the
research report [FGH] at:
http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/Labo/Mireille.Fouquet/FGH.ps.gz
(compressed postscript).
As far as I know, the current record is 6007 bits as follows.
Represent GF(2^6007) as GF(2)[t]/(f(t)) with f(t) = x^6007+x^435+1.
Take the curve:
y^2 + x y = x^3 + a6
where the coefficient a6, expressed in hexadecimal, is:
0x3F2065737365727669276C20746961206E6F27757120757672756F70202C\
6E6F63616C6620656C206574726F706D69277551203F20657373657274EE\
616D20616C206574726F706D69277571202C746E696F7020646E61726720\
656C207473652072656D6941202E6C69656C6F732075612065697620616C\
2074652072756F6D61276C202C74756F74207473652072756F6D61274C
(ASCII encoding of some lines by Alfred de Musset). Then the number
of points is 2^6007+1-c where:
c = 34420612418310539966158321847294880731739609294155968733916240735\
07405438675099532472628371215285354417423841285137604707088331193\
98328600011413068657966809197790402083599786447073895767089209786\
94881007347443736257769134570118933799134469897759948146328306300\
64469001847349635259536138181508741012921634868004547534343448654\
83117887437584475911403340275618360633469623137880450161022867341\
00525808400988623047916128642761785623465183932446927985141947695\
86430896536583207992289062225244139385854613776171261756890889786\
62090720513871209911870612646289894883405384535510457798098306952\
29492520225158723108574126245720627861504154908945603509369314367\
87761267956504585500792174309551548453645580255429823074600717639\
07044624173653064906869725858537519551689515704028180539443918718\
54817587114989420593138961727685731114071309572168891196530781166\
0533445639938870064211270693767042897900149946085199206561
That took 9 days (with an old implementation - it would be less now)
and 7 Gigabytes of memory on a 750 MHz Alpha UP2000. Thanks to Rajit
Manohar at Cornell for the machine time.
Bye,
Rob.
[FGH]:
Mireille Fouquet, Pierrick Gaudry, Robert Harley,
"On Satoh's algorithm and its implementation",
Research report LIX/RR/00/06,
Laboratoire d'informatique de l'�cole polytechnique.
.-. .-.
/ \ .-. .-. / \
/ \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / \ / \
\ / `-' `-' \ /
`-' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-'
------------------------------
From: Matthias Murra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: more on that neat prime generator
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:04:34 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <8p0db0$4f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <8ou7p0$psf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > In article <8ooh43$nic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > > > "My" method? How strange of you to claim ownership of something
> > > > that is well known and has been so for some time.
> > > >
> > > > Might I suggest you do a literature search? Look up "Maurer"
> > > > and "Shawe-Taylor".
> > >
> > > And you talk to us about useless junk posts? What a hypocrit.
> >
> > Exactly what is useless about pointing out that your claim of
> > ownership of these methods is bogus and that they are well known?
> >
> > You did say "my" method.
>
> Oh I am so sorry great math lord, your heinous. I meant "my method I
> am talking about".
*PLONK*
Awarded for the continued and superbly demonstrated lack of basic
communication skills -- I find your choice of words exasperating --,
and boneheadedly failing to understand the simple semantics of the words
"my" and "the" while resorting to ad hominem attack.
Seriously, first you complain about too few professionals posting to
this newsgroup, and then you resort to ridiculous ad hominem attacks
like the one above?
Fascinating.
--
"Opinions expressed are my own. No one in their right mind would
claim them." (Origin unknown)
------------------------------
Date: 4 Sep 2000 16:10:10 -0000
From: nym_test <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Subject: Re: RSA Patent.
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
You can't create RSA software, unless you are RSA employee.
Patents are country specific. Did your hear of patent issued to Africa ?
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, "ajd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I hear that the patent for the RSA encryption algorithm expires at the end
>of this month. Does this mean that I can create commercial RSA
>software/chips with no licence/royalty issues? Was the patent for USA only
>or did it include Europe?
>
>thanks for you help
>ajd
~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
Date: Mon Sep 4 16:10:07 2000 GMT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBObPJYk5NDhYLYPHNAQE+IQf/Vr8+pl5BUF/NHy4Cwe6sZeMb4+B8sgNT
U5N53kt7YO1Q3vAHAFiSrJOk9RP+thM5DsU+DcNhC3yQOkUuLydFV62JkVTk21m0
D2+hSUsgmAVzfWsDztcSt9jlItnWGl5ftRWGj2sIuGCkoXXvGIfQHOGI/LTaMt1a
dYkZVbZ+A9JYFGKS1nxTq+iNiblwgq8qC/IndLnFNmavys0gDAWAu99F2rwofTnY
jiCWv3FnLMWu/bouiWfdTjGqjNZhAsbD3vVsyRolJzzvmqMsgFwLygx7iOglDD/E
OX+sEFJmWo5DYod2fynkQ5ST0jf3y6N1cobz4C2tmTANw5hnTNdVQw==
=stBx
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 12:15:11 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: blowfish problem
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
> "Trevor L. Jackson, III" wrote:
> > "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
> > > On the PDP-11, operations with signed char tended to be faster
> > > than with unsigned char, due to properties of the instruction set.
> > Interesting. Must have been the versions before my time. I recall
> > nothing special about signed chars on -35, -60, -70, and the LSI-11
> > subfamily.
>
> The PDP-11 instruction set included operations on "bytes"
> (8-bit addressable units on the PDP-11) and "words".
> Registers were always full words. The byte operations
> would automatically sign-extend; thus if signed chars
> were wanted the right thing occurred, but if unsigned
> chars were wanted the sign-extension had to be masked
> off, which made for slower code.
Right. Promotions to wider types require a mask. It sounded like you were
claiming that all operations on unsigned chars were slower in hardware
than those on signed chars.
Since the implicit promotions to int can be optimized away when the target
is any kind of char, this difference should be undetectable for most
programs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich Wales)
Subject: Re: RSA public exponent
Date: 4 Sep 2000 16:12:14 -0000
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> > If I instead wanted a full-length public exponent too,
> > it must be selected somehow. How would I do that?
Thomas Pornin replied:
> Select it at random. All that is required is that it
> must be relatively prime to phi(N)=(p-1)(q-1) where
> N=pq is the modulus.
One reason to prefer a relatively small public exponent is that there
is a known attack against RSA if the private exponent is small (up to
N/4). See Schneier's _Applied Cryptography_, 2nd. ed., p. 473.
Rich Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.webcom.com/richw/
PGP 2.6+ key generated 2000-08-26; all previous encryption keys REVOKED.
RSA, 2048 bits, ID 0xFDF8FC65, print 2A67F410 0C740867 3EF13F41 528512FA
------------------------------
From: "Melinda Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Secret Journal
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:25:46 GMT
Has any cyrptographers hackers or computer programers reviewed and anaylized
the Secret Journal disclosure? I need all the response I can get regarding
this unprecedented virus.
EIA
Encryption Intelligence Agency
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
