Cryptography-Digest Digest #755, Volume #12 Sat, 23 Sep 00 15:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Maximal security for a resources-limited microcontroller (Sagie)
Re: Software patents are evil. (Bill Unruh)
Re: Please verify ("Jeff Moser")
Re: Software patents are evil. (Bill Unruh)
A Note on news groups. ("Paul Pires")
Re: Software patents are evil. ("Paul Pires")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sagie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximal security for a resources-limited microcontroller
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:58:52 GMT
That's what I figured, but I wasn't sure... :)
I think I got everything straight this time. Thanks a lot for both of
you guys...
Sagie.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sagie wrote:
> > One more question:
> > When selecting a key for the SkipJack algorithm, should I use a big
> > prime or may I use any random 80-bit constant? Is there any
difference?
>
> It should only be unpredictable.
>
> You mix symmetric and asymmetric ciphers.
>
> Symmetric ciphers use some random bits (the key) for both encryption
> and decryption. Skipjack is an example for a symmetric cipher, there
> are also many others (DES, IDEA, Blowfish, RC4, RC5, Seal, the AES
> candidates: Twofish, Serpent, Rijndael, and many others). Symmetric
> ciphers are either stream ciphers (RC4, Seal) or block ciphers (all
> others from the list above).
>
> Asymmetric ciphers use some hard to break formula, such as factoring,
> to create a private key and derive a public key from it. The public
> key is published and then used for encryption, the private key is
> secret and can decrypt. The trick is that it is very hard to compute
> the private key from the public key.
>
> In the case of, for example, RSA, you need two very big prime
> numbers to create the public/private key pair.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Date: 23 Sep 2000 18:19:44 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I seem to have missed the preceding couple of messages. Usenet in action I suppose.
>There are a couple of observations worth making:
>1. Patents are not monopolies. They protect intellectual property not business
>entities. Trade secrecy would seem to be a better target for monopolistic claims in
>that the life of a trade secret is unbounded.
Patents are monopolies granted for a limited period of time. There is no
such thing as "intellctual property" except as a metaphor to try to
describe what laws like patent and copyright laws are and to try to give
them a falacious basis in ancient legal practice of protecting real
property.
>2. Using the USSR as a foundation for attacking the patent system is silly. The
>dominant characteristic of the economy of the USSR was the lack of incentives. The
That arose out of theoretical stance that competition was wasteful of
human resources, that monopolies were necessary to most efficiently use
the resources of the nation. That an unintended consequence was "lack of
incentives" is precisely the point and "obvious" in hindsight. There are
still loads of people around the world who hold to the inefficiency of
competition and the absolute necessity of monopolies for the best
running of the economy. This theoretical stance is of course aided by
the corruption engendered by the monopolists as they try to hold on to
their good life. Just as kingship used to be considered absolutely
essential to the good running of the nation, monopolies are still
considered essential to the good running of the economy by many. Whetehr
that monopoly is in the patent/copyright system ("if we do not grant
monopolies noone will actually invent-- produce works of art--..."), the
telphone system ("How can the immense infrastructure for a telephone
system be put in place without the assurance of return that a monopoly
gives") or whatever. Such assumptions seem to keep cracking however,
from the telephone system, to the advent of say Linux.
>patent system is by design an incentive system. Thus the existence of the patent
>system is for precisely the opposite of the reasons for the economic failure of the
>USSR
The USSR system provided immense incentives to those holding the
monopolies. That those incentives were not particularly geared to
providing good cheap goods, does not negate that the system did provide
incentives.
>3. The USSR was not an attempt to set up a fairer economic system, although that
>claim has been widely spread. It was a tyranny. Check the official definition of
>the term pravda (truth). It means "whatever will foster success". This is fairly
>orthogonal to our concept of truth as a relationship between axioms and theorems
>(math) or reality and statements (science).
I am not advocating the USSR system. But at heart, and the reason why
millions of people not only put up with it but actively supported, and
it had an immense following not only in the USSR but outside as well was
because of its theoretical basis. Idi Amin was also a dictator, but his
philosophy of government and economy never had any following outside his
own country (if you want to call it that).
It is "obvious" that a competitive system is highly inefficient and
wastes huge amounts of time and effort on duplication, failure, and
human misery. Unfortunatley for theory, it also appears to capture
certain features of human nature which in fact makes it far more
efficient than most of its much more obviously efficient (in theory)
competitors.
>4. The example in re coffee is particularly malformed. We do not grant monopolies
>on coffee. We grant monopolies on improvements to coffee to encourage the
>development of superior coffee. The example is reminiscent of the British
>experience with monopolies. Essentially the Queen granted a huge list of monopolies
>like importing salt to her friends. The ensuing economic distortion (strangulation)
>and resentment are characteristic of the experience of living in the USSR. See also
>the British Navigation Acts (long defunct) and our Merchant Marine laws (still
>killing the shipping industry)..
Agreed. Monopolies have immense problems. That is why the granting of
monopolies should be very carefully considered and done only when the
arguments are overwhelmingly in favour of the necessity for doing so.
There will always by strong arguments in favour of granting monopolies,
especially by those who hope to gain by them.
>The patent system is the exact polar opposite of this kind of thing. Given an
>patent on improved coffee, everyone can still sell regular coffee. They just can't
>sell improved coffee without the permission of the patent holder. This is _not_ a
>monopoly on coffee.
No, it is not the opposite. It is a granting of a monopoly. It is
granted on a certain basis, and is granted for only a limited time, that
is true. The basis is moreover a relatively objective one (though still
flawed) whichalso helps to alleviate the problems of the monopoly.
>5. The term monopoly is a distraction. The issue is not whether monopolies should
>be granted or not, but whether incentives for innovation should exist. If
>incentives should exist then time-limited monopolies can be used as incentives. So
>can other things. But state-supported R&D is notoriously bad. Guess what country's
>decline most clearly demonstrates that?
? it is a distraction only for those who hope to hide the fact.
Arguments about the necessity of supplying incentives to individuals for
the common good abound. It was for many years considered crucial to
provide the incentive of monopoly to the phone company in order that
they spend the huge capital costs necessary to wire up the nation. That
argument has been shown to have been seriously flawed. Throughout the
last century it was considered crucial to provide the incentive of
monopoly to the railroads. As you pointed out the British considered it
crucial to provide the incentive of monopoly to shipping ( as the
Americans still do to this day).
In all of those cases it was discovered that the incentive of the
marketplace was in fact more than sufficient, and that the monopoly
grant actually stiffled rather than encouraged the growth of those
industries, and that the arguments in favour of those incentives turned
out to much more like special pleading on that parts of those who stood
to gain.
>6. The claim "you rapidly have to be best or you are out" [of the software business]
>is false by inspection. Consider IBM at its peak. It was far from the best at
>hardware or software development. People knew and understood that. Yet they were
>not "out". Consider Microsoft which, in spite of the incredibly bad software, seems
>not to be "out". (N.B. I assume there is no dispute that we can take the statements
>of Microsoft(R)'s product development managers to the effect that there is no reason
>to fix bugs as evidence of the low quality of their products.)
Yes, this has always been the cry of the monopolists-- look at how
inefficient the marketplace is. Look at how shoddy the goods are that
they produce. Look at how distorted the incentives are. They are all
based ultimately on a belief in the stupidity of the people.
>7. Patents are not barriers to competition. They expire. New and better techniques
>are invented even before they expire. Thus they are a way of _scoring_ the
>competition.
In software, 20 years is forever. Why do we want to give people ways of
"scoring" the competion except by producing products which are better.
>8. I think the suggestion that patents do not lead to improvements should be
>withdrawn rather than disputed. Thus MU.
? Sometimes patents lead to improvements, and sometimes they hinder
improvements. It is disputable.
>9. The harping upon the bad side effects of monopolies and government mandates has
>little or nothing to do with patents. The system is only supposed to secure
>intellectual property, not dictate business.
But as with anything in the business sphere, patents as part of the
legal playing field on which businesses operate distort business.
Whether that distortion results ultimately in good or in harm is surely
a discussable point.
Intellectual property is a legal fiction which arose solely because of
the existence of patents and copyright. It has no natural existence.
The defining characteristic of property is its exclusivity-- it can be
possesed by only one person at a time. So called intellectual property
does not share this attribute. It can be possesed by all and that
general possession does not diminish the individual possesion.
Now, patents and copyright may have a role to play, it may be true that
their existence does lead to more and better invention that would come
about if they did not exists. However, this is far from a self evident
truth ( at least as far as teh self evident truth that competition is
the most inefficient process of economic advancement). It is something
that should and must be debated, since self interested forces in favour
of monopoly will try to push and expand the granting of such monopolies.
>The distinction can be seen by postulating the suspension of all laws securing real
>property. There's a fixed supply and it is "the common heritage of all mankind"
Real property and "intellectual property" are essentially different.
>according to the United Nations, so we should all share it equally. And live in
>tents, mud huts, or caves. No thanks.
??? Many societies, from those based on the most blatant ownership by
force to the most communist have brought their people more than "living
in huts or caves". The characteristics which have led to the incredible
advance of the past century are still far from clear, but the incredible
use of energy ( millions of years of enery deposits used in less than a
century) must certainly rank as near the top, not any economic or
social system. But his would bring as far too far afield from the
discussion of patents, etc.
------------------------------
From: "Jeff Moser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Please verify
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:15:40 -0500
> but now a friend told me, he had tried a brute force attack on his own key
> using a cluster with four athlon 1 ghz and each 1 gb of ram (linux of
course
> ;) ) and it took about 17 hours to get the 4096 bit key.
The only possible scenarios are:
1.) The person used a *very* weak pass phrase, something that a dictionary
attack would easily get
2.) The RNG used to generate the key was severely bugged (or something
similar)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Date: 23 Sep 2000 18:26:13 GMT
]Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
]news:8qgfir$gim$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
]> In <VzMy5.1023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Paul Pires"
]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
]> ]> seems to me to fly in the face of all evidence. The software industry
]> ]> took off with no patents. patents as a corporate tool in software has
]> ]> really only taken ahold in the past few years, and is being used to
]> ]> stifle not enhance competition and innovation. As in a criminal court,
]> ]> the evidence should be there beyond a reasonable doubt that the monopoly
]> ]> is essential befor any such monopoly should be granted.
]>
]> ]A trial to grant a patent? If you want to kill it, get out your gun i.e.
]>
]> No, not a court trial, a standard of proof.
]Hehehe... Guess what, Invention is like random or secure crypto.
]No proof is possible. Just screens to filter out most of what it is not.
Yes, I agree. But so are court trials. No proofs. Just arguments and
standards of of what is accepted as a convincing argument ( balance of
probablilities, beyond reaseonable doubt,...). A patent applicant must
now "prove" to the examiner that his invention is new. This does not
mean "prove" as in a mathematical theorem ( a field which borrowed a
well known word to describe something technical and rather removed from
that original meaning-- only to have the new meaning take over).
]>
]> ]A constitutional ammendment against this task as a role of our (US)
]government
]> ]don't offer reasonable compromise to leave it castrated but in place.
]>
]> ?? I do not understand this sentence.
]>
]> The referents to "it" and "this" are unclear.
]Bad snipping. Let me re-assemble it.
]> ]A trial to grant a patent? If you want to kill it, get out your gun i.e.
]> ]A constitutional amendment against this task as a role of our (US) government
]> ]don't offer reasonable compromise to leave it castrated but in place.
]"It" is the patent process. "This task" is the task of granting patents.
]The power to grant patents is provided in the constitution. If you don't like
]patents,
]you can amend the constitution or "Fix" it in a regulatory fashion so that they
]become
]meaningless. Just about every suggestion I have heard for Fixing the patent
Well, mid way points are possible. After all congress keeps tinkering
already. First to file vs first to invent. 20 years from application vs
17 from granting, etc. Furthermore, what is patentable keeps changing as
well. Unfortunately this "tinkering" is sometimes driven by corruption
and self interest, rather than any "first principles" look at what
patents are supposed to accomplish. There is nothing in the
consititution which says software patents must be granted, nor that
patents should all run for the same length of time.
]process
]is in fact a way of abolishing it by regulation.
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A Note on news groups.
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:54:28 -0700
I don't know if anyone else has noticed but Usenet has been
acting stranger than usual lately. Particularly on the west coast.
news-west.usenetserver.com
>From what I have been able to find out, a major player out west
has had problems, is trying to rebuild, and has off-loaded much
of their traffic to the east cost servers, mucking them up too.
I see missing posts, Re: 's to new topics where the root post is missing
and reply's to reply's of some of my posts where I can't see the first reply.
I have recently been flamed for ignoring reply's and I just want everybody
to know that for us west coasters, things aren't going smoothly.
Of course, this might be a blessing in disguise.
Paul
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:03:58 -0700
Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8qisk5$5mk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> ]Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> ]news:8qgfir$gim$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ]> In <VzMy5.1023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Paul Pires"
> ]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ]> ]> seems to me to fly in the face of all evidence. The software industry
> ]> ]> took off with no patents. patents as a corporate tool in software has
> ]> ]> really only taken ahold in the past few years, and is being used to
> ]> ]> stifle not enhance competition and innovation. As in a criminal court,
> ]> ]> the evidence should be there beyond a reasonable doubt that the monopoly
> ]> ]> is essential befor any such monopoly should be granted.
> ]>
> ]> ]A trial to grant a patent? If you want to kill it, get out your gun i.e.
> ]>
> ]> No, not a court trial, a standard of proof.
>
> ]Hehehe... Guess what, Invention is like random or secure crypto.
> ]No proof is possible. Just screens to filter out most of what it is not.
>
> Yes, I agree. But so are court trials. No proofs. Just arguments and
> standards of of what is accepted as a convincing argument ( balance of
> probablilities, beyond reaseonable doubt,...). A patent applicant must
> now "prove" to the examiner that his invention is new.
No. The applicant asserts it is new and the examiner opts to challenge
based on prior art, obviousness or whatever. The applicant has no
requirement to prove it is new. If the examiner asserts that some prior
art reads on it, then the applicant must reply to the challenge but no proofs
of newness are required from the applicant. The reason is simple. IT
CANNOT BE DONE. How do you prove that something is new?
You can only assert that no known oldness applies to it. This is
what is done now.
>This does not
> mean "prove" as in a mathematical theorem ( a field which borrowed a
> well known word to describe something technical and rather removed from
> that original meaning-- only to have the new meaning take over).
>
>
>
> ]>
> ]> ]A constitutional ammendment against this task as a role of our (US)
> ]government
> ]> ]don't offer reasonable compromise to leave it castrated but in place.
> ]>
> ]> ?? I do not understand this sentence.
> ]>
> ]> The referents to "it" and "this" are unclear.
>
> ]Bad snipping. Let me re-assemble it.
>
> ]> ]A trial to grant a patent? If you want to kill it, get out your gun i.e.
> ]> ]A constitutional amendment against this task as a role of our (US)
government
> ]> ]don't offer reasonable compromise to leave it castrated but in place.
>
> ]"It" is the patent process. "This task" is the task of granting patents.
>
> ]The power to grant patents is provided in the constitution. If you don't like
> ]patents,
> ]you can amend the constitution or "Fix" it in a regulatory fashion so that
they
> ]become
> ]meaningless. Just about every suggestion I have heard for Fixing the patent
>
> Well, mid way points are possible. After all congress keeps tinkering
> already. First to file vs first to invent. 20 years from application vs
> 17 from granting, etc. Furthermore, what is patentable keeps changing as
> well. Unfortunately this "tinkering" is sometimes driven by corruption
> and self interest, rather than any "first principles" look at what
> patents are supposed to accomplish. There is nothing in the
> consititution which says software patents must be granted, nor that
> patents should all run for the same length of time.
>
> ]process
> ]is in fact a way of abolishing it by regulation.
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
