Cryptography-Digest Digest #693, Volume #12 Sat, 16 Sep 00 13:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: QUESTION ABOUT ALGORITHMS (Simon Johnson)
Re: QUESTION ABOUT ALGORITHMS (Tom St Denis)
Re: another nonlinear decorrelation idea (Tom St Denis)
Re: QUESTION ABOUT ALGORITHMS (Kent Briggs)
Re: another nonlinear decorrelation idea (Tom St Denis)
Re: Fresh Meat: New Crypto Algorithms Announced (Simon Johnson)
More Bleh from a Blahish person. ;) (Simon Johnson)
Re: Double Encryption Illegal? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: More Bleh from a Blahish person. ;) (Tom St Denis)
Re: More Bleh from a Blahish person. ;) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: SDMI Crypto Challenge ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Double Encryption Illegal? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Site Problem (JPeschel)
Re: Lossless compression defeats watermarks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More Bleh from a Blahish person. ;) (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: QUESTION ABOUT ALGORITHMS (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Fresh Meat: New Crypto Algorithms Announced (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: SDMI Crypto Challenge (Tom St Denis)
Re: Tying Up Loose Ends - Correction (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: "Secrets and Lies" at 50% off (Bill Unruh)
Re: Lossless compression defeats watermarks (David A Molnar)
Re: Double Encryption Illegal? (Bill Unruh)
Re: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip (Jerry Coffin)
Re: 20 suggestions for cryptographic algorithm designers (Jerry Coffin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: QUESTION ABOUT ALGORITHMS
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:02:38 GMT
In article <hBKw5.30993$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Melinda Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen
> Can anyone tell me how to patent an algorithm. Where to go. What to
sign and
> how much it costs???
> Any response would be greatly appreciated
> EIA
>
>
Why would you want to do that? If its an encryption algorithm (which i
presume it is) then you want people to use it don't you? In order for
people to use it (and trust it) it must be open to the public in full
so people like us can verify its security.
If you're hell-bent on patenting you're creation - try ringing the
patent office ;) but before you waste you're money i'd make sure its
worth the money first; try releasing it here.
--
Hi, i'm the signuture virus,
help me spread by copying me into Signiture File
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: QUESTION ABOUT ALGORITHMS
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:03:42 GMT
In article <hBKw5.30993$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Melinda Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen
> Can anyone tell me how to patent an algorithm. Where to go. What to
sign and
> how much it costs???
> Any response would be greatly appreciated
Don't patent it, just publish it. :-)
What type of algorithm is it? Alot of good stuff is free now anyways,
so it had better be very shiny.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another nonlinear decorrelation idea
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:21:27 GMT
In article <8pvt4c$mdv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In GF(65537) we can use F(x) = ax^3 + b (mod 65537) which has an
> inverse function given by F'(x) = ((x - b)/a)^43691 (mod 65537) which
> means it's a bijection. Although cubing requires at least two
> multiplications (square, mult) or three mults in total (the entire
> function) it shouldn't be terribly slow.
>
> Similarly in GF(257) we find 3(171) mod 256 = 1 thus it too would be
> function. Again this can be precomputed as a lookup table.
>
> In fact couldn't this extend to higher orders? I am bit shaky on this
> however, is the only requirement that the exponents have inverses?
> Such as F(x) = ax^7 + bx^5 + cx^3 + d (mod 2^k + 1)
I must be missing something... x^3 mod 17 is a bijection but not x^3
mod 257. I know that 3(171) mod 256 is 1, so shouldn't the operation
be invertable?
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Kent Briggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: QUESTION ABOUT ALGORITHMS
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:35:30 GMT
Melinda Harris wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen
> Can anyone tell me how to patent an algorithm. Where to go. What to sign and
> how much it costs???
> Any response would be greatly appreciated
> EIA
The official U.S. Patent and Trademark office is here:
http://www.uspto.gov/
You'll probably have to hire a patent attorney. That can cost several thousand
dollars.
--
Kent Briggs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Briggs Softworks, http://www.briggsoft.com
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another nonlinear decorrelation idea
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:29:39 GMT
In article <8pvvkr$ouc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8pvt4c$mdv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In GF(65537) we can use F(x) = ax^3 + b (mod 65537) which has an
> > inverse function given by F'(x) = ((x - b)/a)^43691 (mod 65537)
which
> > means it's a bijection. Although cubing requires at least two
> > multiplications (square, mult) or three mults in total (the entire
> > function) it shouldn't be terribly slow.
> >
> > Similarly in GF(257) we find 3(171) mod 256 = 1 thus it too would be
> > function. Again this can be precomputed as a lookup table.
> >
> > In fact couldn't this extend to higher orders? I am bit shaky on
this
> > however, is the only requirement that the exponents have inverses?
> > Such as F(x) = ax^7 + bx^5 + cx^3 + d (mod 2^k + 1)
>
> I must be missing something... x^3 mod 17 is a bijection but not x^3
> mod 257. I know that 3(171) mod 256 is 1, so shouldn't the operation
> be invertable?
Doh, stupid me... an eight bit number to the fifth power >2^32 ...
hehehe
BTW let's consider
F(x) = (a/x + b)^c mod (2^k + 1) where 2^k+1 is prime, a!=0 and c is an
odd element. the key space is thus (127)(256)(255) = 23 bits.
Question does each value of 'c' lead to a unique permutation? for
example is there an a^b = a^c for b != c?
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fresh Meat: New Crypto Algorithms Announced
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:31:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> John Myre wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Schneier wrote:
> > >
> > > The European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI) has
made a
> > > bunch of encryption algorithms public:
> > >
> > > <http://www.etsi.org/dvbandca/>
> >
> > Well, semi-public. It costs a money and you have to sign a
> > license agreement. See the "conditions" links (Microsoft Word
> > documents, sigh). I see prices of 100 and 1000 EURO's; I think
> > this is per algorithm.
>
> So that excludes analysts that are poor and one has 'security
> through high cost' :-)
>
> M. K. Shen
>
Bah!, High Cost now..... but at the rate the euro's going, it'll be
worth a cent in a few months. ;)
--
Hi, i'm the signuture virus,
help me spread by copying me into Signiture File
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: More Bleh from a Blahish person. ;)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:02:52 GMT
Okay, lets see if i'm right.
Statement 1: Lets there be an s-box which contains nxn elements. The s-
box is filled randomly with digits from 0 to 2^n. Now, i reason that
there exists a function that links the inputs and outputs to one
another because there are infintly many valid functions so one must
describe that linkage?!
Statement 2: (from statement 1) There must exist a function in that
field that produces a perfect s-box. Which is 100% secure against both
linear and differential cryptoanaysis.
Let say this magical function was the F-Function of a Fiestel type
cipher? Assuming that the block size is 2n how many rounds would it
require to thwart lin & diff anaylsis (assuming key-shedule is perfect)?
--
Hi, i'm the signuture virus,
help me spread by copying me into Signiture File
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double Encryption Illegal?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:17:19 -0400
PRdO wrote:
> IMHO double encryption *does not* add security, i.e., double
> encryption in 128-bit doesn't equal better encryption.
> (since encryption uses random keys, "randoming" again the data
> would not lead to more secure data).
Wrong. If different keys are used for the two encryptions, the
result is usually harder for an eavesdropper to crack than if
just one of the two encryptions had been used. There is no
randomness involved in either encryption.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Bleh from a Blahish person. ;)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:07:13 GMT
In article <8q022j$rlg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, lets see if i'm right.
>
> Statement 1: Lets there be an s-box which contains nxn elements. The
s-
> box is filled randomly with digits from 0 to 2^n. Now, i reason that
> there exists a function that links the inputs and outputs to one
> another because there are infintly many valid functions so one must
> describe that linkage?!
>
> Statement 2: (from statement 1) There must exist a function in that
> field that produces a perfect s-box. Which is 100% secure against
both
> linear and differential cryptoanaysis.
>
> Let say this magical function was the F-Function of a Fiestel type
> cipher? Assuming that the block size is 2n how many rounds would it
> require to thwart lin & diff anaylsis (assuming key-shedule is
perfect)?
>
Eight rounds to avoid a impossible diff attack.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Bleh from a Blahish person. ;)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:33:44 -0400
Simon Johnson wrote:
> Statement 1: Lets there be an s-box which contains nxn elements. The s-
> box is filled randomly with digits from 0 to 2^n. Now, i reason that
> there exists a function that links the inputs and outputs to one
> another because there are infintly many valid functions so one must
> describe that linkage?!
Sorry, but that makes no sense. An S-box is a fixed mapping from
a small set of input bits to a small set of output bits; for each
combination of input bits it selects a fixed set of output bits.
This can be done by table look-up. If there are m input bits then
there are 2^m table entries; if there are n output bits then each
entry of the table has a integer value in [0,2^n-1]. (Digits have
nothing to do with this.) The S-box *is* the function. Infinity
has nothing to do with it.
> Statement 2: (from statement 1) There must exist a function in that
> field that produces a perfect s-box. Which is 100% secure against both
> linear and differential cryptoanaysis.
Sorry, but that is too imprecise to qualify as a specification
(or definition of "perfect").
> Let say this magical function was the F-Function of a Fiestel type
> cipher? Assuming that the block size is 2n how many rounds would it
> require to thwart lin & diff anaylsis (assuming key-shedule is perfect)?
Sorry, there are no magical functions. And the question cannot
be answered as posed, even making generous assumptions, because
details do matter.
Every Fiestel cipher can in principle be cryptanalyzed under
favorable circumstances. The only real question is what the
minimum resource expenditure is to do so.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SDMI Crypto Challenge
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:33:57 GMT
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Liked as in it would get them money. Nuff said really. I buy a cd
> about once every three weeks, and get about 50 mp3s from napster in the
> same time. So at 16 : 50 I think I am about covering the 5cents it
> costs to make a cd.... let's figure the math.
I would be _highly_ impressed if you could take a local band, get it
signed with a record company, cut and distribute and album all for
five cents. (Or any low multiple thereof ;)
--
Matt Gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.databases.oracle
Subject: Re: Double Encryption Illegal?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:48:58 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > PRdO wrote:
> > >
> > > IMHO double encryption *does not* add security, i.e., double
> encryption in
> > > 128-bit doesn't equal better encryption.
> > > (since encryption uses random keys, "randoming" again the data
> would not
> > > lead to more secure data).
> >
> > If you have an algorithm that does a perfect job (do
> > you happen to have one?), then there is by definition
> > nothing to improve. Otherwise, multiple encryption may
> > help, if done properly.
>
> Ah but double encryption is not the way to go about it.
>
You meant it should be triple, like 3-DES??
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Subject: Site Problem
Date: 16 Sep 2000 15:37:04 GMT
As you might have noticed, I am having a few
problems with my web site. Although my main
site is on AOL, I also use a couple of
sites on FortuneCity. FortuneCity now offers
up to 100 MB of web free space, but they
no longer permit a link from a web page on
another domain to a non-hypertext text file.
So if you try to download a program, you may
very well be told the file cannot be found.
An easy temporary work-around in Navigator
is: right clicking on the link, copying
the file location, and pasting the URL
in a blank browser window.
Meantime, I'm trying to fix the problem
by re-arranging file homes. So far I've
corrected most of the seemingly broken
links to crackers, but other links, for
instance to Enigma programs, various
cryptanalytic utilities, and Biham's
crypto lessons, are still unrepaired.
After I fix most of these problems, I
hope to be adding a few more goodies.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lossless compression defeats watermarks
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:38:00 GMT
G. Orme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> G. Another way to do it is to embed sounds in a recording or movie like a
> kind of digital signature. For example, one might alter the sounds of a
> snare in the drums to a slightly different sound, or make them longer than
> usual to read like a code. Also one could spell out a coded signal in
> fequencies too high or low to be noticed by the listener. In a movie one
> could make a digitial signal in say a corner of the picture that was in say
> every tenth frame, which spelled out a code. It might be a particular
> sequence of hues for example.
Unfotunatly, inaudible sounds are a prime target for
compression. Something periodic in the frames may or may not work,
depending on how easy it is to spot, and how many frames you would
have to drop to get rid of it.
--
Matt Gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Bleh from a Blahish person. ;)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:05:52 +0200
Simon Johnson wrote:
>
> Statement 1: Lets there be an s-box which contains nxn elements. The s-
> box is filled randomly with digits from 0 to 2^n. Now, i reason that
> there exists a function that links the inputs and outputs to one
> another because there are infintly many valid functions so one must
> describe that linkage?!
What do you mean by the above claim? If you have (prescribe)
an output value for each input value, then you already have
by defition a function in the sense of mathematics. With n
finite, the number of possible functions is evidently finite.
>
> Statement 2: (from statement 1) There must exist a function in that
> field that produces a perfect s-box. Which is 100% secure against both
> linear and differential cryptoanaysis.
>
> Let say this magical function was the F-Function of a Fiestel type
> cipher? Assuming that the block size is 2n how many rounds would it
> require to thwart lin & diff anaylsis (assuming key-shedule is perfect)?
I am not sure that there exists an unanimously agreed upon
definition of a perfect S-box. BTW, one viable measure
to deal with the mentioned attacks is not to have too
much materials encrypted with the same key, which is
almost always easily realizable in practice.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: QUESTION ABOUT ALGORITHMS
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:19:27 +0200
Melinda Harris wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me how to patent an algorithm. Where to go. What to sign and
> how much it costs???
For European patents, see
http://www.european-patent-office.org
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fresh Meat: New Crypto Algorithms Announced
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:19:35 +0200
Simon Johnson wrote:
>
> Bah!, High Cost now..... but at the rate the euro's going, it'll be
> worth a cent in a few months. ;)
That tends to favour the American analysts.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SDMI Crypto Challenge
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:25:13 GMT
In article <FpMw5.2307$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Liked as in it would get them money. Nuff said really. I buy a cd
> > about once every three weeks, and get about 50 mp3s from napster in
the
> > same time. So at 16 : 50 I think I am about covering the 5cents it
> > costs to make a cd.... let's figure the math.
>
> I would be _highly_ impressed if you could take a local band, get it
> signed with a record company, cut and distribute and album all for
> five cents. (Or any low multiple thereof ;)
Let's do some basic math my friend.
Average cd (if good) sells about 2.5 million copies (at least). at 25
bucks each that is 62,500,000 dollars. Now let's take the authors
salaries to be 500,000 a year combined. That's 62 million left. Now
each cd costs in bulk about 25 cents (I am guessing, but it's not much
more since I can get them for 1.6$) that's now 61375000 dollars. Now
let's pay the agents 100000, that's 61275000 dollars. Now let's pay
the company that published it 10 million dollars that's 51275000...
What could count for the 50million that is left? Let's suppose the
retaillers by the cds at 15 dollars each, that's now 37,500,000$ gross,
taking off the same 11,225,000$ we arive at 26,275,000$ left over...
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tying Up Loose Ends - Correction
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:53:01 +0200
John Savard wrote:
>
> Since this is an element of David A. Scott's encryption proposals, and
> since he claimed he didn't have the kind of difficulties with the last
> symbol that I encountered, possibly this is the method he is using. If
> so, I will have to credit him specifically in this case: while I think
> the basic notion of coding the last symbol in a general fashion, where
> a message is represented by a prefix-property binary code, and the
> resulting message is transmitted with an explicit length indication,
> is almost certain to have occurred to people at an early stage in the
> development of this field (maybe even before Huffman came forward with
> his replacement for Shannon-Fano coding), the specific scheme of using
> a code that is shifted down one symbol after either the least frequent
> symbol or the least frequent symbol followed by any number of
> repetitions of the second least frequent symbol so as to achieve an
> optimal scheme not requiring backtracking is at a level of detail that
> no one might necessarily have ever bothered with before.
If one doesn't care the so-called 1-1 property of Scott,
then one can simply create an end-of-file symbol in
the Huffman scheme and then fill to whatever boundary
one wants.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: "Secrets and Lies" at 50% off
Date: 16 Sep 2000 16:55:54 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
writes:
> I think I get derision because I don't worshop Mr. BS
>and think people vastly overrate is abilitues.
Actually, it is for your spelling.
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lossless compression defeats watermarks
Date: 16 Sep 2000 16:56:49 GMT
G. Orme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fequencies too high or low to be noticed by the listener. In a movie one
> could make a digitial signal in say a corner of the picture that was in say
> every tenth frame, which spelled out a code. It might be a particular
> sequence of hues for example.
This is exactly the sort of stuff which is vulnerable to lossy
compression. What happens when JPEG decides that all of the hues you chose
as a watermark are indistinguishable to the human eye and replaces them
all with one color?
-david
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.databases.oracle
Subject: Re: Double Encryption Illegal?
Date: 16 Sep 2000 17:01:56 GMT
In <8pvejh$g03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "PRdO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>IMHO double encryption *does not* add security, i.e., double encryption in
>128-bit doesn't equal better encryption.
>(since encryption uses random keys, "randoming" again the data would not
>lead to more secure data).
It might. A) it removes the structure in the "cleartext" of the top
layer for finding the key with exhaustive search. B) It makes the
strength at least equal to that of the strongest of the two encryption
shemes. Of course these comments are not absolute. For example a double
encryption scheme in which one used say DES in one round and DES inverse
in the next round with the same key is nowhere near as strong as any one
of those two rounds:-)
But for example DES applied to ROT13 is certainly stronger than ROT13.
Thus if one of the schemes is suddenly broken, double encryption still
protects the contents with the other scheme.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intel's 1.13 MHZ chip
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:07:05 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Jerry Coffin wrote:
> > > How many generals "came through on tours",
> > Why would the number have any relevance to anything?
>
> Because if it's zero then your theory doesn't hold water.
Let's see if I've got this straight. You're trying to imply that the
NSA somehow coordinates the efforts of the other intelligence
agencies of the US while having zero contact with the officials of
those agencies?
You're going to claim that somebody is likely to take over as DIRNSA
without ever having even been inside the building before?
I suppose my wording could have been misleading here: as an ex-
military person, I think of "tour" as meaning "tour of duty" just as
much as "guided tour", so I was thinking as much of people assigned
to work there as much as people coming through to gawk.
In any case, the exact means of contact is irrelevant: I think we can
take for granted that the NSA director is in contact with high-level
officials of various intelligence agencies on a regular and on-going
basis. If the bragging takes place during meetings at the Pentagon,
CIA headquarters, etc., it doesn't really change a thing.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 20 suggestions for cryptographic algorithm designers
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:07:02 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
[ ... ]
> In a network protocol or a cryptographic
> algorithm, OTOH, byte order MUST be specified as part of the protocol/
> algorithm.
This really is NOT true -- you have to build in SOME method of
dealing with endianess, but that does NOT have to involve converting
everything to one order. In fact, always converting to a specified
order is probably the _worst_ available method of handling things.
Unicode and TIFF both provide examples of dealing with endianess in
other fashions.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
