Cryptography-Digest Digest #643, Volume #12 Sat, 9 Sep 00 22:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip (Guy Macon)
Re: Security of whitening alone? ("Alexis Machado")
SV: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip ("Morten Ostberg")
Re: ExCSS Source Code (Eric Lee Green)
Re: ExCSS Source Code (Eric Lee Green)
Re: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip ("Abyssmal_Unit_#3")
Re: RSA?? ("Abyssmal_Unit_#3")
Re: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip (S. T. L.)
Re: ExCSS Source Code (Anonymous)
RSA Patent -- Were they entitled to it? ("Aztech")
Re: RSA Patent -- Were they entitled to it? (Larry Kilgallen)
Re: RSA Patent -- Were they entitled to it? ("Aztech")
Re: Carnivore article in October CACM _Inside_Risks ("dog7")
Re: RSA Patent -- Were they entitled to it? (Bill Unruh)
Re: Bytes, octets, chars, and characters ("Dik T. Winter")
Re: blowfish problem ("Dik T. Winter")
Re: SV: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip (John Savard)
RC5-SAFE? - SAFEBOOT ("lala")
Re: RSA Patent -- Were they entitled to it? (Jim Gillogly)
Re: SV: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip (S. T. L.)
Carnivore -> Fluffy Bunny? (Jim Gillogly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Subject: Re: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip
Date: 09 Sep 2000 21:31:23 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>
>Sorry, please replace MHZ by GHZ.
Good start. Now replace GHZ with GHz.
------------------------------
From: "Alexis Machado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Security of whitening alone?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:41:53 -0300
"Andru Luvisi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Assuming one has a well known good random transformation, for example
> DES encryption with a well known key, what attacks can you see against
> the following algorithm?
>
> Let p(x) be the transformation. Let q(x) be the inverse transformation.
> Let the 128 bit key k have a left part, l, and a right part r.
> ^ means xor.
>
> E_k(x) = p(x^l)^r
> D_k(y) = q(x^r)^l
>
Some questions:
1) "D_k(y)" is a function of "y" ? If so, why "y" doesn't appear in the
function definition ?
2) "x" and "y" are the two halfs of a 128-bit plaintext ?
------------------------------
From: "Morten Ostberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SV: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:47:09 +0200
Guy Macon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8pea7b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sorry, please replace MHZ by GHZ.
>
> Good start. Now replace GHZ with GHz.
Whats your problem ???
I perfectly understood his first posting, wich btw was very interesting!
For f--k sake, get a life!
------------------------------
From: Eric Lee Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ExCSS Source Code
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 15:58:34 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ichinin wrote:
> CSS does NOT protect against copying, you can still copy a DVD
> just as easy as a paper, since the decryption keys are copied
> as well when you copy the DVD data from one medium to another,
> which allows for proper playback in any cd = CSS is bullocks!
I believe that the decryption keys can only be retrieved via a special command
to the hardware, i.e., they are NOT read from the first <n> sectors using the
normal SCSI or IDE READ() command, and do NOT show up on the sector map. In
addition, writable media has the section of media used for the decryption keys
mapped to system WOM (Write Only Memory :-).
> It's only EFFECTIVE MEASURABLE property is the region codes.
True, since pirates don't do byte-by-byte copies to writable media anyhow.
Most pirate copies of DVDs are actually made on the exact same equipment that
makes the "legit" copies, sometimes even in the exact same factories. Amazing,
what a little bribery of factory managers being paid $8 per week will get you
:-).
> (And again... DMCA is VOID outside the US.)
Err, the U.S. has a million men in uniform and billions of dollars in
expensive military hardware that say different. Or as Earl K. Long, former
governor of Louisiana, once said in exasperation when his legislature urged
him to defy an edict of the U.S. government, "Goddammit, we're talking about
the government of the U.S. of A. here, they got the goddamn ATOMIC BOMB!". If
your country refuses to enforce the DMCA, they will shortly be corrected
(unless their name is China). Remember, we're talking about the same rogue
nation that invaded a sovereign country, arrested its leader, and hauled him
off to Miami to jail him because he refused to kow-tow to his former CIA
comptrollers.... the same rogue nation that willfully and with disdain has
ignored every treaty it has ever made with sovereign native American
nations... the same rogue nation that is currently in default by BILLIONS of
dollars in its dues to the United Nations (which a treaty says it is required
to pay, but hey, we're the U.S. of A., we got the atomic bomb and the cruise
missile, we don't need to obey no steenkin' law...)...
--
Eric Lee Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Eric Lee Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ExCSS Source Code
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 15:58:49 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ichinin wrote:
> CSS does NOT protect against copying, you can still copy a DVD
> just as easy as a paper, since the decryption keys are copied
> as well when you copy the DVD data from one medium to another,
> which allows for proper playback in any cd = CSS is bullocks!
I believe that the decryption keys can only be retrieved via a special command
to the hardware, i.e., they are NOT read from the first <n> sectors using the
normal SCSI or IDE READ() command, and do NOT show up on the sector map. In
addition, writable media has the section of media used for the decryption keys
mapped to system WOM (Write Only Memory :-).
> It's only EFFECTIVE MEASURABLE property is the region codes.
True, since pirates don't do byte-by-byte copies to writable media anyhow.
Most pirate copies of DVDs are actually made on the exact same equipment that
makes the "legit" copies, sometimes even in the exact same factories. Amazing,
what a little bribery of factory managers being paid $8 per week will get you
:-).
> (And again... DMCA is VOID outside the US.)
Err, the U.S. has a million men in uniform and billions of dollars in
expensive military hardware that say different. Or as Earl K. Long, former
governor of Louisiana, once said in exasperation when his legislature urged
him to defy an edict of the U.S. government, "Goddammit, we're talking about
the government of the U.S. of A. here, they got the goddamn ATOMIC BOMB!". If
your country refuses to enforce the DMCA, they will shortly be corrected
(unless their name is China). Remember, we're talking about the same rogue
nation that invaded a sovereign country, arrested its leader, and hauled him
off to Miami to jail him because he refused to kow-tow to his former CIA
comptrollers.... the same rogue nation that willfully and with disdain has
ignored every treaty it has ever made with sovereign native American
nations... the same rogue nation that is currently in default by BILLIONS of
dollars in its dues to the United Nations (which a treaty says it is required
to pay, but hey, we're the U.S. of A., we got the atomic bomb and the cruise
missile, we don't need to obey no steenkin' law...)...
--
Eric Lee Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Abyssmal_Unit_#3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:45:59 -0400
awww shucks, now i cant create secret messages as fast! ohh daRN it all!
--
best regards,
hapticz
>X(sign here)____________________________________________<
Mok-Kong Shen wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
|
|Intel has launched a call-back of its 1.13 MHZ Pentium III,
|leaving currently AMD's 1.1 MHZ Athlon at the head of the
|line.
|
|This shows once again that in information processing there
|is much more to be worried about than algorithmics alone.
|Compatibility of hardware/software of the communication
|partners needs to be assured and diverse forms of
|redundancy may be called for in certain critical
|applications. I guess that such issues are no less
|important than questions like whether the opponent
|can obtain the 2^m pairs of plaintext and ciphertext
|(m sufficiently large) which the theory shows is
|sufficient/necessary for him to get the key.
|
|M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Abyssmal_Unit_#3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RSA??
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:50:28 -0400
as the fable goes, if they get enough Chimpcomputers and put them in a room and wait
long enough, it will happen..........
smile, it makes the boredom pass more quickly! ;-))
--
best regards,
hapticz
>X(sign here)____________________________________________<
Big Boy Barry wrote in message ...
|Is RSA encryption unsecure? I know nothing is 100% secure... but I would
|like your opinion on RSA?
|
|
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S. T. L.)
Subject: Re: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip
Date: 09 Sep 2000 23:40:24 GMT
What's funny is that not even 8086s are as slow as 1.13 MHz. :->
-*---*-------
S.T.L. My Quotes Page: http://quote.cjb.net
Book Reviews Page: http://sciencebook.cjb.net
Turbo-nifty interlaced interpolated PNG demo: http://interpng.cjb.net
Coming soon: pngacc, a PNG optimizer!
Long live pngcrush!
------------------------------
Date: 9 Sep 2000 23:40:36 -0000
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ExCSS Source Code
> This is source code describing the algorithm to decode the Content
> Scrambling System. It's written in Standard ML and is purely functional
> and machine-independent.
Which now can be foundon Freenet under `excss' key.
------------------------------
From: "Aztech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RSA Patent -- Were they entitled to it?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:28:14 GMT
Many people in this post have duly noted that the RSA algorithm wasn't
patented outside of the US, some people have mentioned you cannot be issued
with a patent if you have already published your work in some countries,
this is true, however you have to remember many countrys' patent offices
don't allow the patenting of simple algorithms what so ever. The same way
patents on software methods are limited, many big companies are currently
lobbying for this be changed though.
Also, you have to ask if RSA were actually entitled to this patent because
they weren't the first to discover public key cryto! The first person who
should be accredited with this discovery was James Ellis who worked at GCHQ
in the UK, he worked on public key crypto 15-20 years before Diffie-Helman
even posted their first research paper. In fact when the first Diffie-Helman
paper was published, Ellis's work from 10 years back was actually more
advanced and solved many of the problems the new paper posed.
The whole story was kept closed for many years, due to the British official
secrets act and Ellis went to the grave with it, only later on after his
death and the departure of some of GCHQ's high ups was the truth revealed. I
don't think this actually got much publicity, mainly due to jingoistic
reasons I guess, it's the same reasons I see the US Navy capturing enigma
codes 1940's Nazi uboats at the movies rather than the true story of the
British Navy doing the work way before the US entered the war, I guess we
all know not to rely on Hollywood for historical accuracies.
Anyway, if anyone is interested check here :
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.04/crypto.html
It's a good read.
Az.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: RSA Patent -- Were they entitled to it?
Date: 9 Sep 2000 21:40:17 -0500
In article <yAAu5.17316$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aztech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Also, you have to ask if RSA were actually entitled to this patent because
> they weren't the first to discover public key cryto! The first person who
> should be accredited with this discovery was James Ellis who worked at GCHQ
> in the UK, he worked on public key crypto 15-20 years before Diffie-Helman
> even posted their first research paper. In fact when the first Diffie-Helman
> paper was published, Ellis's work from 10 years back was actually more
> advanced and solved many of the problems the new paper posed.
>
> The whole story was kept closed for many years, due to the British official
> secrets act and Ellis went to the grave with it, only later on after his
> death and the departure of some of GCHQ's high ups was the truth revealed.
And that is why MIT was entitled to the RSA patent and entitled to
appoint the RSA company to license it.
The patent system guarantees a period of exclusivity to an inventor
_in_return_for_disclosing_the_particulars_of_the_invention. GCHQ
did not disclose anything in a timely fashion.
------------------------------
From: "Aztech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: RSA Patent -- Were they entitled to it?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:53:46 GMT
Many people in this post have duly noted that the RSA algorithm wasn't
patented outside of the US, some people have mentioned you cannot be issued
with a patent if you have already published your work in some countries,
this is true, however you have to remember many countrys' patent offices
don't allow the patenting of simple algorithms what so ever. The same way
patents on software methods are limited, many big companies are currently
lobbying for this be changed though.
Also, you have to ask if RSA were actually entitled to this patent because
they weren't the first to discover public key cryto! The first person who
should be accredited with this discovery was James Ellis who worked at GCHQ
in the UK, he worked on public key crypto 15-20 years before Diffie-Helman
even posted their first research paper. In fact when the first Diffie-Helman
paper was published, Ellis's work from 10 years back was actually more
advanced and solved many of the problems the new paper posed.
The whole story was kept closed for many years, due to the British official
secrets act and Ellis went to the grave with it, only later on after his
death and the departure of some of GCHQ's high ups was the truth revealed. I
don't think this actually got much publicity, mainly due to jingoistic
reasons I guess, it's the same reasons I see the US Navy capturing enigma
codes 1940's Nazi uboats at the movies rather than the true story of the
British Navy doing the work way before the US entered the war, I guess we
all know not to rely on Hollywood for historical accuracies.
Anyway, if anyone is interested check here :
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.04/crypto.html
It's a good read.
Az.
"Runu Knips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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. ;-)))
------------------------------
From: "dog7" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc,alt.security,talk.politics.crypto,or.general
Subject: Re: Carnivore article in October CACM _Inside_Risks
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 17:59:55 -0700
"Joshua R. Poulson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pbnr1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "dog7" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Qgdu5.24911$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I'm a major league asshole. But, unlike paranoids and Libertarians, I'm
> > functional.
>
> I know plenty of libertarians that lead perfectly normal
> lives holding down normal jobs and paying normal taxes.
> So where do you derive your insulting valuation of a
> class of people identified only by a set of beliefs?
And I know paranoid schizophrenics on medication that lead normal lives too.
So what?
> What do you want? Cookie cutter nuclear families?
I think more libertarians dream about the Brady Bunch than I do.
>
> --jrp
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: RSA Patent -- Were they entitled to it?
Date: 10 Sep 2000 01:09:31 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Kilgallen)
writes:
]And that is why MIT was entitled to the RSA patent and entitled to
]appoint the RSA company to license it.
]The patent system guarantees a period of exclusivity to an inventor
]_in_return_for_disclosing_the_particulars_of_the_invention. GCHQ
]did not disclose anything in a timely fashion.
It at least used to be in the USA that it was the first to invent, not
the first to apply, who was entitled to the patent. A later attempt
would be overturned. If the first person did not file on time, the
patent would become public and unpatentable. I do not know when the US
abandoned the first to invent, but I thought it was well after 1983.
------------------------------
From: "Dik T. Winter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Bytes, octets, chars, and characters
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 01:04:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chris Rutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is probably symptomatic of C's taste for codifying existing
> efficient architecture-specific practices, rather than a more
> architecture-homogeous style with emphasis on easy (or lazy) portable
> I/O. It's part of the reason why both portable and nonportable systems
> software gets written in C.
No, the base problem is that "char" was an integer type that allowed for
all kind of promotions (many of them default). When it had been a
completely different type (as with most other languages of that time)
most of the problems had gone away, and signedness would be unimportant.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
------------------------------
From: "Dik T. Winter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: blowfish problem
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 01:13:19 GMT
Not seen the original, hence the follow-up to a follow-up:
"Donald L. Nash" wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> > Actually, the CDC 6600 had an altneraive character encoding, which
> > used 12 bits ber character. In CDC jargon, this was called "ASCII",
>
> Here at UT (where we had a 6600 and a 6400, and then two Cyber 750s by
> the time I came along), it was called "8-in-12 ASCII" for obvious
> reasons.
Actually CDC had three different ASCII encodings. One occurred when the
OS was NOS (which was begotten by KRONOS). In it some characters were
encoded in 6 bits, others in 12 (the first six served as an escape).
Hence its name: 6/12 bit ASCII. The other two occurred when the OS was
NOS/BE (which was begotten by SCOPE). There an ASCII character was
encoded in 12 bits, but in one of the encodings only the printable
characters did occur; end of line was indicated by low-order 12 bits in
a 60 bits word (Z type records). It may be that the UT Donald Nash
writes about had the name "8-in-12 ASCII" for the full fledged 12 bits
ASCII encoding; they had probably another name for the Z-type ASCII
encoding.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: SV: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 01:29:25 GMT
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:47:09 +0200, "Morten Ostberg"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>Guy Macon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8pea7b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Sorry, please replace MHZ by GHZ.
>> Good start. Now replace GHZ with GHz.
>Whats your problem ???
>I perfectly understood his first posting, wich btw was very interesting!
Unlike some of the posts that took the MHz figure seriously, I think
this comment was made in good spirit. It does point out correct usage
of unit abbreviations within the Systeme Internationale:
the multiplier symbols, which include case as significant
multiply divide
T - tera p - pico 1 000 000 000 000
G - giga n - nano 1 000 000 000
M - mega (mu) - micro 1 000 000
K - kilo m - milli 1 000
H - hecto c - centi 100
D - deca d - deci 10
precede the unit abbreviation, which, in the case of Hertz (formerly,
in English, c.p.s. or cycles per second), is Hz.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: "lala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RC5-SAFE? - SAFEBOOT
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 11:34:59 +1000
Sorry, I', a novice, so sorry if this question is stupid. I believe this
program is great for total disk encryption.
Some information sent to me says,....
"The encryption method is based on the RC5 algorithm published by RSA
Laboratories. This algorithm uses a 1024 bit key and 12 rounds with a 32-bit
word size in CBC mode. Using this method, SafeBoot is able to encrypt data
at the rate of ~6MB/sec."
Is this totally insecure, or still not bad encryption? It's the 32bit not
the 1024 bit I should be looking at right? i.e. this is not 128bit
encryption. Thanks for advice.
------------------------------
From: Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RSA Patent -- Were they entitled to it?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 01:37:08 +0000
Aztech wrote:
> Also, you have to ask if RSA were actually entitled to this patent because
> they weren't the first to discover public key cryto! The first person who
> should be accredited with this discovery was James Ellis who worked at GCHQ
> in the UK, he worked on public key crypto 15-20 years before Diffie-Helman
> even posted their first research paper. In fact when the first Diffie-Helman
> paper was published, Ellis's work from 10 years back was actually more
> advanced and solved many of the problems the new paper posed.
Yes, certainly RSA were entitled to the credit, and if algorithms
should be patentable they're entitled to the patent. If GCHQ had wanted
to claim prior art perhaps they could have made a case. However, they
didn't really understand what they had, and shelved it because they
couldn't see useful applications. Ellis told Diffie in the 80s (I
think it was) that DH, M and RSA had done more with it than GCHQ had.
Some of the PK work done in secret was actually done <after> the
corresponding open work in the mid-70's, though apparently still
independently.
GCHQ deserve a lot of credit for having discovered it independently
first, but no credit for keeping it secret. It's understandable that
they didn't publicize it, but as Hellman put it GCHQ deserve a footnote
in history for the prior invention: what advances science is open
publication, and those who publish openly deserve scientific recognition.
> The whole story was kept closed for many years, due to the British official
> secrets act and Ellis went to the grave with it, only later on after his
> death and the departure of some of GCHQ's high ups was the truth revealed. I
> don't think this actually got much publicity, mainly due to jingoistic
> reasons I guess, it's the same reasons I see the US Navy capturing enigma
Nonsense. It got a great deal of publicity in the fora that pay attention
to these things, including the Crypto meetings in Santa Barbara and the
unclassified open-to-the-public historical symposia at the NSA. And
sci.crypt and the crypto mailing lists, of course.
> codes 1940's Nazi uboats at the movies rather than the true story of the
> British Navy doing the work way before the US entered the war, I guess we
> all know not to rely on Hollywood for historical accuracies.
Yes, the Hollywood record of historical accuracy is abysmal and unconscionable,
especially this latest U-boat debacle. I'm hopeful that the Enigma movie
coming up soon will be more accurate, including giving appropriate amounts
of credit to the Polish and British mathematicians.
--
Jim Gillogly
19 Halimath S.R. 2000, 01:23
12.19.7.9.13, 2 Ben 16 Mol, Fourth Lord of Night
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S. T. L.)
Subject: Re: SV: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip
Date: 10 Sep 2000 02:06:29 GMT
/*T - tera p - pico 1 000 000 000 000*/
Aw, come on, you forgot peta and femto, exa and atto, not to mention zotta and
zocto, yotta and yocto. :-P
-*---*-------
S.T.L. My Quotes Page: http://quote.cjb.net
Book Reviews Page: http://sciencebook.cjb.net
Turbo-nifty interlaced interpolated PNG demo: http://interpng.cjb.net
Coming soon: pngacc, a PNG optimizer!
Long live pngcrush!
------------------------------
From: Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Carnivore -> Fluffy Bunny?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:06:40 +0000
Janet Reno doesn't like the name Carnivore for the FBI sniffer --
sounds too ominous, and she wants a kinder, gentler name after the
rubber-stamp review has been completed... something that will solve
all the PR problems by making it appear less threatening. I suggest
"Fluffy Bunny". Naseem Javed suggests "Big Sister".
For details see:
http://www.nando.net/technology/story/0,1643,500248800-500370529-502216731-0,00.html
It's nice to see the government has a good grasp of the important
issues with this technology. (That's sarcasm, for those who are
color-blind in that area.)
--
Jim Gillogly
19 Halimath S.R. 2000, 02:01
12.19.7.9.13, 2 Ben 16 Mol, Fourth Lord of Night
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
