Cryptography-Digest Digest #736, Volume #12 Thu, 21 Sep 00 22:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: t (Darren New)
Re: Double Encryption Illegal? ("Frog2000")
Re: ExCSS Source Code (Bryan Olson)
My e-mail to Jim Gillogly -- YO, JIM!!!!!!!!!!??? (I'm annoyed at you) (daniel
mcgrath)
Re: Proper way to intro a new algorithm to sci.crypt? (Mack)
Re: t ("Dr Evil")
IBM analysis secret. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: t (Matthew Skala)
SDMI: What am I missing? ("Ryan Phillips")
Re: IBM analysis secret. (Tom St Denis)
Re: Dr Mike's "Implementing Elliptic Curve Cryptography" - reader comment (Tom St
Denis)
Re: IBM analysis secret. (Paul Rubin)
Revilo P. Oliver: Cryptanalyst? (John Savard)
Re: IBM analysis secret. ("David C. Barber")
Re: What am I missing? ("David C. Barber")
(Steve)
PGP 6.5.8 source code published (Steve)
Re: IBM analysis secret. (Paul Rubin)
Re: State-of-the-art in integer factorization (Ed Pugh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:12:42 GMT
zapzing wrote:
> > How will the scientists and aliens agree on the notion of left and
> right ?
Actually, as long as they're made of matter and not antimatter, there are
experiments one can do to make the distinction. I don't remember the
details, tho. Something about beta decay or some such.
Fortunately, the self destruct button is completely unlabeled and looks just
like every other button on the console. Uh huh. 8-O
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
"No wonder it tastes funny.
I forgot to put the mint sauce on the tentacles."
------------------------------
From: "Frog2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double Encryption Illegal?
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:13:56 -0400
"Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Frog2000 wrote:
>
> > OK then, what is this file?
> >
> > "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > John Myre wrote:
> > >
> > > > Guy Macon wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > Oh, *real* clever, Arturo. Did you think that nobody would notice
> > > > > you double encrypting your post using ROT13? Well *I* noticed,
and
> > > > > I double DEcrypted it with ROT13 bnefor replying. So there!
> > > >
> > > > "bnefor"?
> > > >
> > > > I think there is a bug in your ROT13 implementation.
> > >
> > > These things are to be expected from a probabilistic decryption
system.
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ')i#OO-Ϳ12NB!G3,~֮.zmz=dW
>
> Looks a lot like a multi unicode character sequence that has been
encrypted
> with Rot-257.
>
> When you offer gibberish and ask for more, what are you likely to get?
>
It was the message I respnded to, encrypted.
------------------------------
From: Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ExCSS Source Code
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:34:15 GMT
Bill Unruh wrote:
> Bryan Olson writes:
> >Bill Unruh:
> >> The whole purpose in copyright is to free access to
> >> copyrighted works, not to control them
>
> >Actually it's to "promote the progress of science and the
> >useful arts."
>
> Yes, by making the works available.
Actually that clause is more about rewarding the author
by granting rights of restriction.
"by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
the exclusive right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries."
> >> [...] Copy control
> >> may not be, but access control is. CSS controls access, it
> >> does not control copying.
>
> >False. CSS does control copying.
>
> No it does not. It controls access. As has been pointed
> out ad nausium, one can still copy the CDs bit by bit
> and get a perfectly valid copy.
I've personally done the experiment several times with
various combinations of system, drive and player. The
result is consistent and reproducible. Run a commercial
player to handshake with the drive, then copy the files from
the DVD to a hard disk. The resulting copy will not play.
Contrary to the ad-nauseum claims, the bit-for-bit copies
that consumer equipment can make (without DeCSS or similar
utility) are not perfectly valid. They are still encrypted
and licensed players will refuse to decrypt them. Copying
the work - the movie - is the significant issue, not copying
some meaningless bits.
[...]
> >> It should
> >> be thrown out under the copyright act for that very reason.
>
> >There would be no such grounds even if CSS did not control
> >copying. The DMCA circumvention clause is not limited to
> >copying, nor is Congress's constitutional power under
> >Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
>
> Perhaps. The question is whether the DMCA should ever have
> been passed.
The question here was whether it "should be thrown out". I
agree the DMCA should never have been passed but that point
is moot. The giant media corporations got their lobbyists
and PAC's to push it through while their news divisions
distracted us with Monica Lewinski.
But perhaps we're not understanding each other as well as we
should. In the terminology I'm familiar with, the
legislature can "repeal" laws, the courts can "strike down"
laws and "throw out" cases.
> >> >What it does mean is
> >> >that DeCSS violates the DMCA.
> >>
> >> So does anything. So do computers since they allow one to
> >> take a work
> >> published on a CDrom and copy it to a floppy.
>
> >I understood your reading. But courts do not and should not
> >throw out laws simply because someone can semantically
> >defend a deliberate misinterpretation.
>
> No, what is your misinterpretation is someone elses cogent
> argument.
That's why I asked if you even tried to read it for its
intended meaning.
> Ad Hominum never was a good argumentative stance.
That's probably why no one took such a stance.
--Bryan
--
email: bolson at certicom dot com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (daniel mcgrath)
Crossposted-To: rec.puzzles,alt.fan.harry-potter,jyu.ohjelmointi.coderpunks
Subject: My e-mail to Jim Gillogly -- YO, JIM!!!!!!!!!!??? (I'm annoyed at you)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:59:58 GMT
Jim Gillogly, did you get my e-mail that I sent to you? WHAT
HAPPENED??? WHY did you NOT RESPOND yet?????!!!!!!!!!!
PLEEEEEEEEEEASE respond to this post, my dear Gillogly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Or at least SOMEONE.....)
==================================================
daniel g. mcgrath
a subscriber to _word ways: the journal of recreational linguistics_
http://www.wordways.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mack)
Subject: Re: Proper way to intro a new algorithm to sci.crypt?
Date: 21 Sep 2000 23:00:13 GMT
>
>
>Albert Yang wrote:
>>
>> Can anybody give me a quick run-through of the proper way to introduce a
>> new algorithm to Sci.crypt?
>
>I think it is conceivable that responses you have got
>are not very satisfactory for your original need. Thus
>I'll try a bit on my part to see if I could eventually
>do better:
>
>Give a good English description of your algorithm.
>To ease comprehension, you may do it in two phases.
>In the first phase, give a concise sketch, indicating
>what you think are the specically interesting
>features of you cipher. In the second phase, give
>sufficiently detailed elaborations such that
>a third person with good programming experiences
>can independently do an implementation. If you
>employ some constants, explain exactly how you have
>obtained these, so that others may reproduce them
>and hence it is clear that there are no backdoors
>behind these constants. (Don't follow the very bad
>examples of DES and AES in this connection!) If
>something is well described in an easily accessible
>paper, it is sufficient to simply provide a reference
>and assume that the reader knows it. Soruce codes
>need not be provided and are in fact undesirable
>for bandwidth reason. To better illustrate some
>intricate points, you could use some short pieces
>of pseudo-code. Never post examples of ciphertext
>with challenges for others to crack. Nover vaunt
>that your cipher is unbreakable or that your ideas
>are genious or revolutionary, for these are
>certainly illusions stemming from one's own limited
>knowledge.
>
>M. K. Shen
>---------------------
>http://home.t-online.de/home/mok-kong.shen
>
But then noone will pay any attention to it. Better to
be an infamous newbie wacko than an un-noticed
blip in the sci.crypt postings.
Of course if you really get a NEW idea and write a
scientific paper about it, then you could try posting
to sci.crypt.research.
That is the moderated version of sci.crypt. It hasn't
seen much activity lately.
But be forwarned the standard there is VERY HIGH.
Slight errors may disqualify it from being posted.
Also anything that smells the slightest of snake-oil
or advertising will probably be file 13ed.
Mack
Remove njunk123 from name to reply by e-mail
------------------------------
From: "Dr Evil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: t
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:14:46 +0100
> Now, I am new to all this, and was wondering if someone could explain,
> or point me in the direction to understand it.
I would also appreciate an explanation.
Dr Evil
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IBM analysis secret.
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:38:14 GMT
Hi,
I remember once reading about that IBM knew about differential analysis
when analyzing DES 10 years before it was "discovered" by the science
community, and kept it a secret for the count of the NSA.
Now when I'm checking it up, it does not seen to be right at all.
Have anyone a idea about what this wage memory was really about because
I can't remember?
/ foo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Skala)
Subject: Re: t
Date: 21 Sep 2000 16:55:07 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > How will the scientists and aliens agree on the notion of left and
>> right ?
>
>Actually, as long as they're made of matter and not antimatter, there are
>experiments one can do to make the distinction. I don't remember the
>details, tho. Something about beta decay or some such.
If the radio link really is radio as such, then they can use circularly
polarized antennas to transmit the concept of left and right, even if the
aliens are made of antimatter. Besides, if your finger is made of
antimatter, then every button made of matter is a self-destruct button.
--
Matthew Skala
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm recording the boycott industry!
http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/
------------------------------
From: "Ryan Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SDMI: What am I missing?
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:18:50 -0700
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
I D/Led some of the zip files provided on the site ( I still think
the contest is unfair, because they don't mention the algorithm for
the watermark, but anyhow... ) The three wave files provided from
TechnologyA play perfectly fine under Winamp 2.64. And they convert
nicely into Mp3s (256 kb) with AudioGrabber 1.62. Does the
watermarking technique only protect audio on the new SDMI devices.
If this is the case, won't people just use the old software to
rip/play songs?
regards,
ryan phillips
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGP 7.0
iQA/AwUBOcqlZ6wUALWQ09HEEQJYbgCeNvvQsks6ISt3E6iTHYptkjmbzicAn1Ub
jCx/GoT9JcV+WezEgnNAPp/j
=vj+6
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM analysis secret.
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:09:13 GMT
In article <8qe653$3gp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I remember once reading about that IBM knew about differential
analysis
> when analyzing DES 10 years before it was "discovered" by the science
> community, and kept it a secret for the count of the NSA.
>
> Now when I'm checking it up, it does not seen to be right at all.
>
> Have anyone a idea about what this wage memory was really about
because
> I can't remember?
>
> / foo
They probably knew about it but since they kept it secret we will never
know. Long live Shamir and Biham!
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dr Mike's "Implementing Elliptic Curve Cryptography" - reader comment
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:10:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050) wrote:
> NO, NIST recommendation is NOT to add a few hundred bits when using a
binary
> field. In fact there smallest recommended curve is over a binary
field.
> Don Johnson
Doh, In fact I mixed it up. The prime fields are larger are they not?
Or am I just a clueless newbie... well I am anyways... sorry for the
mix up... hehehe
Read his book!!! it's a decent read!
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Paul Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM analysis secret.
Date: 21 Sep 2000 17:24:10 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I remember once reading about that IBM knew about differential analysis
> when analyzing DES 10 years before it was "discovered" by the science
> community, and kept it a secret for the count of the NSA.
Yes, that appears to be true. Don Coppersmith (one of the DES
designers) gave a talk about it at Crypto 2000 in Santa Barbara a few
weeks ago. Interestingly, he also said that the designers didn't
notice DES's key complementation property until after DES was published.
> Now when I'm checking it up, it does not seen to be right at all.
> Have anyone a idea about what this wage memory was really about because
> I can't remember?
I don't understand your question.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Revilo P. Oliver: Cryptanalyst?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:39:07 GMT
I first heard this name in a book on word play, as his name is a
palindrome.
Then I noticed that he wrote some articles in older issues of the
Reader's Digest.
However, the other day, I happened across a web site devoted to his
works. In his biography there, it was noted that during the war he
worked for a "highly secret cryptographic agency of the War
Department" during World War II.
Is there any information now available about this?
I also found the essay "Aborting Minds" on the web site.
Had it been written prior to World War II, I daresay that it would
have complicated his recieving a security clearance.
(In that essay, although he denounces the notion that abortion is
murder as 'superstition', he emphasizes the importance of Aryans (!)
if they wish to survive encouraging the birth of more of themselves,
and fewer of those of other "vigorous" races that are in contention to
supplant them, such as Jews - and black people, whom he refers to by
an old name.)
His views, perhaps, became more extreme in his old age.
Perhaps, had he pursued another course, he might have mined the
folk-myths of the Germanic peoples in a more innocuous fashion,
producing something useful like another well-known philologist,
instead of leaving a legacy of rather questionable value.
And since that is his academic discipline, doubtless he worked as a
linguist rather than a mathematician, but that does not bar him from
having been a cryptanalyst rather than a mere translator.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: "David C. Barber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM analysis secret.
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:49:12 -0700
Just what is the key complementation property?
*David Barber*
"Paul Rubin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, that appears to be true. Don Coppersmith (one of the DES
> designers) gave a talk about it at Crypto 2000 in Santa Barbara a few
> weeks ago. Interestingly, he also said that the designers didn't
> notice DES's key complementation property until after DES was published.
------------------------------
From: "David C. Barber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What am I missing?
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:55:21 -0700
I believe that SDMI is a new encryption method that is supposed to only
unlock the file for playing, and not for conversion to other "unprotected"
formats. The hope is that the watermark would survive translation to other
formats, and as SDMI compliant players replace "older software" which won't
play SDMI songs (so they are trying to force you to upgrade), they will
refuse to play songs that the watermark says were copied, regardless of
format. That's what I think they intend to do.
They want SDMI to replace MP3 as the format for distribution, and the
watermark to tell the players when not to copy or convert, even if a prior
conversion was successfully made.
*David Barber*
"Ryan Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39caa4d5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I D/Led some of the zip files provided on the site ( I still think
> the contest is unfair, because they don't mention the algorithm for
> the watermark, but anyhow... ) The three wave files provided from
> TechnologyA play perfectly fine under Winamp 2.64. And they convert
> nicely into Mp3s (256 kb) with AudioGrabber 1.62. Does the
> watermarking technique only protect audio on the new SDMI devices.
> If this is the case, won't people just use the old software to
> rip/play songs?
>
> regards,
> ryan phillips
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 7.0
>
> iQA/AwUBOcqlZ6wUALWQ09HEEQJYbgCeNvvQsks6ISt3E6iTHYptkjmbzicAn1Ub
> jCx/GoT9JcV+WezEgnNAPp/j
> =vj+6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
Subject:
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 01:18:52 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
PGP 6.5.8 source code is available at the MIT download site.
It's not mentioned on the "outer" pages, but it's on the actual
download page past the click-through export control page.
That's a relief...
:o)
Steve
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOcqzW8XTOLlJEtXlAQFS7wf/cPbWRBvh7LPPTjV92K7rlhN7KMhx+Vqn
Qyg5klj3es8BYQ3kBIcuyugf3zSQQia6N6AiDaU2pNU6TlOddyun0kuzdGxZNzrG
pe2vZn5aPNcoEcVe0jr1eRmzxTCtCvZzqVpl5m1ZkQET8Dk8lkZ4fvdQgmeJGXzk
EGRsG1ihDYbNQFRRiPYqOupgiYxY4Tv197fBsW9xutRbLT2ARa/t01ahUiSRBA+o
OVzgh1uC1G+OftHjoyvEypg1NJdzjPUbJr0GKNtzZCLBNJSoEhSe4SCq9oe0ArKz
GkqBLBpk4bydvJVezmc/C7awFjSH5QYCQHuR8gATFMrGHGYkGGEsrg==
=UE3m
=====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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
Subject: PGP 6.5.8 source code published
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 01:19:51 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
PGP 6.5.8 source code is available at the MIT download site.
It's not mentioned on the "outer" pages, but it's on the actual
download page past the click-through export control page.
That's a relief...
:o)
Steve
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOcqzW8XTOLlJEtXlAQFS7wf/cPbWRBvh7LPPTjV92K7rlhN7KMhx+Vqn
Qyg5klj3es8BYQ3kBIcuyugf3zSQQia6N6AiDaU2pNU6TlOddyun0kuzdGxZNzrG
pe2vZn5aPNcoEcVe0jr1eRmzxTCtCvZzqVpl5m1ZkQET8Dk8lkZ4fvdQgmeJGXzk
EGRsG1ihDYbNQFRRiPYqOupgiYxY4Tv197fBsW9xutRbLT2ARa/t01ahUiSRBA+o
OVzgh1uC1G+OftHjoyvEypg1NJdzjPUbJr0GKNtzZCLBNJSoEhSe4SCq9oe0ArKz
GkqBLBpk4bydvJVezmc/C7awFjSH5QYCQHuR8gATFMrGHGYkGGEsrg==
=UE3m
=====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: Paul Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM analysis secret.
Date: 21 Sep 2000 18:25:43 -0700
"David C. Barber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just what is the key complementation property?
DES(X, K) = ~DES(~X, ~K) where ~ means bit complementation.
I think I got that right.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Pugh)
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: State-of-the-art in integer factorization
Date: 22 Sep 2000 01:40:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Pugh)
Bob Silverman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
>
> Nothing has been written. Improvements have been only incremental.
> (i.e. slightly faster machines, a few more percent squeezed from
> code, etc.). There hasn't been a new algorithm in 11 years.
Well, at least none that the NSA have let on about, anyway. ;-)
Regards,
--
Ed Pugh, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richmond, Ontario, Canada (near Ottawa)
"Bum gall unwaith-hynny oedd, llefain pan ym ganed."
(I was wise once, when I was born I cried - Welsh proverb)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
