Cryptography-Digest Digest #674, Volume #12 Wed, 13 Sep 00 21:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Anyone archiving sci.crypt? (Paul Rubin)
www.curious.4ears (re-post) ("rosi")
Comments on the re-post ("rosi")
Re: question on the bible code (Steve)
Announcement ("rosi")
Serious joke for rot26 ("rosi")
Re: Announcement ("rosi")
Status on U.S. Patent No. 08/941,350, etc. ("rosi")
Licensing and Selling ("rosi")
Re: question on the bible code (TaoenChristo)
Re: question on the bible code (TaoenChristo)
Looking for Partners (and Investors) ("rosi")
Looking for Implementation Site ("rosi")
Hassle-free travel ("rosi")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anyone archiving sci.crypt?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 17:16:49 -0700
Dejanews has taken its older archives offline "temporarily".
They might come back someday, but even if they do, I'm wondering
if anyone else has a sci.crypt archive they're willing to share,
preferably going as far back as possible.
Thanks
Paul
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: www.curious.4ears (re-post)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:46:20 -0400
I sincerely hope some kind people who can get in touch with Andrew
Odlyzko of AT&T may kindly help me solve (or partially solve) the www
puzzle:
Where did my e-mail messages to Andrew go?
Whether there is something that prevents Andrew from telling me
of the receipt of my messages? and
Why?
If anybody can get some, I mean any, response from Andrew and let me
know, I would appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance.
(The following is the background and some details about the WWW
puzzle, in case there is at least one kind person who can help out
there)
I have been CURIOUS FOR YEARS (about the three W's). It was a number
of years ago when I finally decided to do something about the loose ends
in the sketchy ideas of mine in cryptography and thought that it might
not be a bad idea to discuss the matter with people prominent in the
field. I sent out a bunch of e-mail messages to people whose names one
sees often and whose articles one sees quoted frequently. It wasn't just
the hope of getting blessing, which in the eye of some (including me)
can be so important. I also wanted to make sure that I did not miss
something obvious. Besides, a one-man-shop can often carry ridiculous
stuff, and since in the years from the age of 10 or 11 till about 22,
I like so many of my contemporaries either had no schooling or no proper
schooling, the chance of errors and overlooks is so formidable.
Messages sent and I waited. I hoped for the best and prepared for the
worst. The best came.
Of all the people I sent e-mail messages to, three and APPROXIMATELY
a half actually replied! There were courteous reply, touching reply,
helpful reply (with direction to search for help), and above all one
from Andrew that I dreamt of getting. It was simply beyond what I
could have hoped!
One of the replies was from another highly respected, leading expert
in the field of cryptography. He suggested that I discuss the matter
with Andrew.
Over the years, the ideas of my cryptographic scheme has been
'leaked', some purposely by me to sci.crypt and I feel no need to
further elaborate here (but I know repetition never bores :)).
I summarized the main characteristics of my idea in the e-mail
message to Andrew, including the property of 'no equivalent zero-one
set'. Later, in the message detailing the basic idea, I also mentioned
in a vague and brief manner that the underlying problem (of one of the
most secure modes) is to:
Find all m >= 0 _valid_ subset sum(s) --- given a set
'of high density'.
In addition, I mentioned 'all-or-nothing' as a tweak so that the
expressed concern (perhaps unjustified) that it is very difficult to
build a viable scheme based on NPc problems may not be a
problem at all.
Anyway, Andrew replied, saying that if the construct does possess
(some of) the properties I claimed, the scheme would be of interest. I
was simply overwhelmed! (But he wanted details).
I immediately wrote back in a very brief, nevertheless complete
manner, which I believe could be understood by a layman and quite easy
for the major points I made to be sensed. To be redundant, let me give
it here in summary once more (in a form easiest to understand):
A subset sum problem.
Build two (compact) sets X and Y. For simplicity, let X, following
MH, be superinc in such a way that the subset sum of X allows
'noise' constructed by elements from Y.
Build an arbitrary mapping from the subset sums of X to certain
subset sums of Y, such that the elements from Y contributing
to the overall subset sum (of elements from both X and Y) can
be 'peeled off' as the (multiple of) elements from X are
identified and extracted (due to the superinc property of
the elements in X).
NOTE: In particular, Y needs not and should not be superinc, so
that we have set (union of X and Y) of high density. The
transformed X and Y will be what we conventionally call 'public
key'. As I mentioned earlier, the mapping can be sessional (as
being arbitrary within allowed range) and may be secret (for
semi-public mode).
I as well gave, in the e-mail to Andrew, an example of zero-one set to
start with the explanation of the idea. --- Such an example was also
posted to sci.crypt in reply to one of Trevor L. Jackson's messages in
our discussion of the topic. I here thank Trevor once more for the
wonderful discussion we had. --- By the way, I do not think I stated in
anyway to Andrew about the Quasi-Public notion or its realization. I did
however mention the concept of key-security in an extremely vague
fashion. Actually, I said something like: suppose it is key-secure.
Hours turned into days; days in to weeks; weeks into months; and now
it looks that time is of no consequence and the word 'history' replaces
as the better abstract notion. I never heard from Andrew again.
In the first few months that followed Andrew's reply, I realized that
I, one from a race sometimes seen as patient and reserved, had been too
exuberant in optimism. I followed up with a number of e-mails to Andrew
asking only that he let me know that he had indeed received my message
with the description of the scheme. That, in the end, was all I could
hope for. The void point in my inbox where I expected Andrew's reply has
since been crowded with the three W's.
--- (My Signature)
P.S.
I have no permission from any of the approximate 3.5 people to reveal
their names (Andrew did not permit me either). I am sorry to have to
mention Andrew's name. Logically, it is an NP-hard position :). Not
asking help this way, may mean that I keep on writing to Andrew asking
for permission. But I find it hard to find something less stupid. I, for
this reason, personally apologize to Andrew.
If anybody would be kind enough to help (asking Andrew in person
when seeing him, put it lightly if I may for example, whether his e-mail
address suddenly changed at that time to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED](.us)
for instance), please e-mail me at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or follow up on the post (whichever seems more appropriate). Thanks.
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Comments on the re-post
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:57:22 -0400
A few comments.
First, believe Andrew said 'could be of interest' and not 'would
be of interest'. Not intentional but apologize.
Second, 'should not' is wrong. Y can be superinc itself. But as
long as the union of X and Y is not superinc, then the (union) set
can be dense.
Lastly, on third thought, what I consider 'easiest to understand'
can not be forced onto others. Sorry for appearing arrogant. But also
forgive me for going to such details (and we are having it once again).
1. Randomly pick a number a[1] in [0, 2^32).
2. Generate b[1] such that b[1] = a[1]*2^32 + r[i] (where r[i] is
a random number, say a number with a max of 8 bits).
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for a[i] and b[i] (for 2<=i<=n) with
increasing range (e.g. for a[j] the range can be [0, 2^(32*j/2)) and
r[j] has a max of 8+16*(j-1) bits) such that b[k] satisfies:
b[k] > 2^32 * (b[1]+b[2]+...+b[k-1]+a[1]+a[2]+a[k-1])
b[]'s are superincreaing with respect to both other b[]'s as well
as a[]'s, but a[]'s can be non-superincreasing.
4. Define arbitrary functions f[1] through f[n] from [0, 2^32) to
[0, 2^32)
5. Transform a[] and b[] (e.g. via modular multiplications as in
Merkle-Hellman) to x[] and y[] respectively.
Encryption: Break data stream into blocks of n 32-bit chunks d[1]
through d[n], calculate Sigma(d[i]*y[i] + f[i](d[i])*x[i]) as a
ciphertext block. (NOTE: f[i](z)=z is obviously insecure)
Observation: modular multiplications will lower the density, but
since a[]'s are not superincreasing, the transformed b[]'s and a[]'s
can easily be below 1400 bits for n=32. Now the effective set an
attacker has to deal with is no longer 32*32, but twice the size
(2048), offering high density.
It is perhaps easy to sense that there are flexibilities to this
scheme. For example, you may have f[] defined mapping from [0, 2^32)
to [0, 2^33); for each encryption instance (session) you may agree
upon different f[i]'s as long as the mapping, say from [0,2^32) to
[0,2^32), is maintained; you may have more elements for a[] than for
b[] to contribute to the subset sum, etc. In fact, even the
transformations can be of a variety (some better, some worse). For
example, we do not have to generate all n elements of a[] and b[]
before performing the modular multiplications. We may divide the n
elements secretly into a number of groups of elements, and after each
group is generated, we transform all the elements generated so far.
Then we generate the next group of elements _AS LONG AS_ b[]'s are
superincreasing with regard to all earlier generated and transformed
elements.
Brief description for decryption, after transforming the ciphertext
block back (by inverse modular multiplications), d[n] can be deternined
(due to b[] being superincreasing), then f[n](d[n])*a[n] together with
d[n]*b[n] can be subtracted from the subset sum (noise removed). Next
d[n-1], next d[n-2], and so on.
Besides its flexibility, other characteristics may be obvious now.
One is speed. 2Mbits/s for encryption can be achieved on a 100MHz CPU.
QC and DNAC (or rather RNAC now) can be considered against the scheme.
The most striking thing perhaps is that the O(2^(n/2)) complexity of the
meet-in-the-middle general algorithm for the subset sum can easily be made
not achievable. What I had expected is concretely confirmed.
In the description of the scheme, it should not be surprising to have
typos
and errors. Try to get the main idea. But if it really does not make sense,
do not hesitate in asking questions. Only thing to avoid is to say something
is wrong without even reading it.
Thanks
--- (My Signature)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
Crossposted-To: alt.bible.prophecy
Subject: Re: question on the bible code
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:33:28 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:11:12 -0700, JCA
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This stuff has already been thoroughly debunked like the
>scam it is.
The written Hebrew language lends itself particularly well to the
kind of nonsense exhibited in The Bible Code: The flexible use of
short root words, and the absense of vowels, means that randomized
samples will always yield a high proportion of "real" words.
Searching for short strings of pre-specified words will always yield
hits, in a sample as large as the OT, especially if you re-scramble
the data and repeat until you get what you are fishing for. Wishful
thinking does the rest.
The authors of The Bible Code supposedly ran War And Peace and a few
other non-Hebrew texts through their system, and got very few hits.
Proof of their hypothesis? Of course not. Just proof that modern
alphabets with vowels, and modern languages, do not yield nearly as
many accidental words when the letters of a text are mixed and
shaken.
There is a real "bible code", and it is far beyond the reach of
people who look for set answers to their spiritual yearnings in the
words of men. See http://digital-brilliance.com/kab/biblio.htm
:o)
Steve
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: PGP ADK BUG FIX: Upgrade to Ver 6.5.8 at MIT or PGP INT'L
iQEVAwUBOcAcsMXTOLlJEtXlAQE3bgf+KsOxW5ydd7a7O2hhnWudSLLsBNif1z8V
AkN/Nua5/tWkmZZOjU/Ww21j7gV2z5Gfo7dFWwtD0sGhmPstcWZneurgQzcUXstB
+9Dwv+o9vq2nM11/UioPRjelN97lDQXsdTtlLQvRsSvS6vcvUvvxHljk1IcWX7TE
Wx3I2Af0uzqzGg95ajoPIeUPsUF1Hu5H8GIZh1WM/N51J8iTHMZ38fz9F/ZbmE44
wKJwZ6woxzfgdTPirhdYL+h3fsAycGDUJjSAEQqHOZpd2k34vZPg8SYE3n1j+6Lg
oLU/ppC+GDvPRKOFU9Sn5R+lvPHxVyvsZTL0vJtCy+dIj86OdXlXRQ==
=S7oB
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
---Support privacy and freedom of speech with---
http://www.eff.org/ http://www.epic.org/
http://www.cdt.org/
My current keys are
RSA - 0x4912D5E5
DH/DSS - 0xBFCE18A9
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Announcement
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:00:45 -0400
ROSi has decided to venture past concept into implementation.
--- (My Signature)
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Serious joke for rot26
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:03:30 -0400
(Perhaps not an overkill to fully keep what is half-promised)
The scheme ROSi is to implement as mentioned is slightly different
in that an effort has been made to differentiate it from the following
two categories:
1. those that have no proof of security, and
2. those that are provably secure.
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Announcement
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:05:28 -0400
Please help, if you can. See details in the re-post of
www.curious.4ears
--- (My Signature)
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.inventors
Subject: Status on U.S. Patent No. 08/941,350, etc.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:09:34 -0400
Before I went on the two-week trip, I called the USPTO office
and got the word that the patent is headed for publication. I
confirmed this when I got back on September 4 by another call
to the USPTO office, even though I have not received any written
notification from the PTO office about the publication. It should
be made public soon, by which I mean as soon as in twenty years. :)
If nothing else, from the main points in the patent text, one
may have a better than zero chance of spotting something of value.
Please be aware that, as far as data encryption is concerned,
the patent contains only the basic scheme. In that particular
form, the challenge of Trevor Jackson (namely about its security)
remains unanswered. I tried but failed miserably. Its extension
however, which you WILL get to know someday, has an established
upperbound, which by the way is quite practical. But forgive
me for not giving any more details about it at this moment.
The PCT (PCT/US9800030) side is not definite. EPO Patent
No. 98908429.8, the U.S. counterpart for example, has reached
somewhere in the filing process I do not know where.
--- (My Signature)
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.inventors
Subject: Licensing and Selling
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:13:21 -0400
Intend to license or sell patent rights.
I have no idea how to license or sell. But if anybody is
interested or anybody knows somebody who would be interested,
we can discuss.
The sale can include
1. U.S. Patent No. 08/941,350 (or the normal format 8,941,350),
all patents if granted in other individual countries
under PCT/US9800030.
2. An extending scheme that has the upperbound mentioned.
3. A specific type of realizations for the Quasi-Public scheme
4. A couple of minor ideas, such as an incomplete stream cipher
(without the key scheduler which you need to design and
implement). But none of the minor ideas may have much value.
--- (My Signature)
------------------------------
From: TaoenChristo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.bible.prophecy
Subject: Re: question on the bible code
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:36:19 GMT
In article <8poj4r$b3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mikal 606" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "TaoenChristo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8poifh$9ip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <snip>
>
> > My question to you, now, would be this: If the Bible Codes are real
> > (and I have no doubt that they are), then how could you NOT look
into
> > it? How could you NOT want to see what it is God has to tell us, in
> > this age and in this day? If there is a code in the Bible then
> > wouldn't you want to know? Why would God put a code in the bible,
if he
> > did not want us to search it out, and discover it?
>
> "Do you realize how almost impossible it is to use the bible code for
> prophecy? The Bible Code is not for telling the future. The bible code
> is simply another dimesion of our Bible, which contains ALL events
> present and past and even those that COULD happen. The Bible contains
> all of the wisdom of all time, and that simply is impossible in a
> simple 66 book collection."
>
> Thats your quote from another post on this subject.
> Did you know that 26 letters contain all events, past present and
future?
> All you need is the correct algorithm!
How right you are! How right you are. So what algorithm shall we
use?
--
Romans 1 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: TaoenChristo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.bible.prophecy
Subject: Re: question on the bible code
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:39:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This stuff has already been thoroughly debunked like the
> scam it is.
Has it really? I have seen vain attempts at dedicated mathmeticians
and staticians to "debunk" the reality of the Code, but sorry, even the
lates "debunking" will show to be nothing then a vain attempt to
discredit what has allready "passed the test".
> Mikal 606 wrote:
>
> > I understand many peoples deep desire to believe in this code.
> > But I ask you, what else does it add?Are you not already a believer?
> > Do you understand what I mean?
> >
> > "TaoenChristo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8pm1ig$a2f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <8pbko1$n2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Mikal 606" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "John Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:9lcu5.20946$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > Then explain it.
> > > > > >Whats your interest in the matter?
> > > > > I think it's just interesting to see the names pop up....
> > > >
> > > > heres a good handling of ELS-
> > > > /
> > > > http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/fcodes/elsyesh.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > To explain why the ELS in the Bible is unique, you must
understand, it
> > > is not just the occurance of words at certain skip lengths, as the
> > > author of this web page assumes. Even if the word Yeshua occured
with
> > > cross (or whatever) in differant text, that shows nothing, but a
neat
> > > coincidence... now find me ANY text that has the following words:
> > >
> > > Herod, Annas and Judas, ALL 12 diciples,"the Marys weep
bitterly," "let
> > > him be crucified," "true Messiah" and "son of Mary"
> > >
> > > These in turn are intersected by hundreds of other similar ELSs.
> > >
> >
> > It *has to be reconstructed* from the Hebrew alphabet and you can
rebuild
> > all kinds of words when the original alphabet is missing vowels!
> >
> > > All of these words and phrases are found intersecting Isaiah 52-
53. The
> > > odds of all of the above phrases and words being found in ELS
code, in
> > > only 2 chapters of one book of 66, would be somewhere around 1 in
> > > 3,408,749,015,176,240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
> > >
> >
> > Really now!
> >
> > > though you might be able to find Yeshua intersecting Christ or
some
> > > other such combinations in other books, I find it to very
unlikely that
> > > you will EVER find the combinations above in any other book
anywhere!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Romans 1 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the
> > > world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made,
> > > even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Jeremiah 14:14
> > Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name:
I sent
> > them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them:
they
> > prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of
nought, and
> > the deceit of their heart.
> >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
>
>
--
Romans 1 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.inventors
Subject: Looking for Partners (and Investors)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:15:53 -0400
Another way of moving concepts into implementation is to actually
develop products.
Seeking about five people as partners for the development.
I would like to work with people who are solid in C. Assembly
or GUI building experience is a plus. Some design expertise
desired. Marketing and Sales experience would be a big asset.
Other kinds of knowledge can be very helpful as well, such as
specification, design and/or implmentation of protocols (any type),
algorithm (analysis and design), in particular, residue system
arithmatic (which has the goal of speed and space efficiency,
in particular the narrowing of the difference between encryption
and decryption, and that does not mean slowing one down to
achieve it :)).
My guess is that the maximum investment needed would be below
half million US dollars, not considering partners' free time and
efforts. Each one can invest $100K to $200K.
IMPORTANT: monetory investment _NOT_ required!
--- (My Signature)
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Looking for Implementation Site
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:17:52 -0400
Looking for a place (for the development) in a country where
there is NO or little restrictions on cryptographic products with
regard to using, importing, exporting, etc. Anybody who would
partner and host such a site, please let me know. One that is
closest to the U.S. is the most desirable.
Any information on what I should heed in this respect in the
U.S. will be greatly appreciated.
--- (My Signature)
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy
Subject: Hassle-free travel
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:30:30 -0400
(Only semi-serious)
Is anybody able to tell them not to hassle me again when I return
to the United States? and stop messing with the immigration tracking
system so it appears to be a reasonable harrassment? Just kidding :)
Let us assume there was an immigration officer at the Detriot
Metro Airport by the name of DELANCIE M. HORTON who found it natural
and logical in asking _ME_ why he, as far as immigration is concerned,
found a problem which he did not know what it was? But this time I was
treated not nearly as well as the previous time: I was given back my
passport (after being copied to see where I had been perhaps) and not a
probation paper. :) :) :)
I find that innocent people often appear pretty detached. Imagine
that some quite innocent person at the airport immigrations said
casually to my family: you are fine, only he (meaning me) has a
problem. My expectations then ran high. I was waiting for my family
to say to me: Bye, honey! We can fly home now. If you get your last
pay check in jail, remember to FedEx it home. The words never came.
:( :( :(
--- (My Signature)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
