Cryptography-Digest Digest #873, Volume #12 Sun, 8 Oct 00 14:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: SDMI challenge (Scott Craver)
Re: Why wasn't MARS chosen as AES? (JCA)
Re: FTL Computation ("Paul Lutus")
Re: Rijndael test vectors (John Savard)
Re: Rijndael test vectors (John Savard)
Re: Why wasn't MARS chosen as AES? (Roger Schlafly)
Re: Choice of public exponent in RSA signatures (David A Molnar)
Re: Apologies for a faulty memory (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Why trust root CAs ? (Andras Erdei)
Re: are doubly encrypted files more secure than singly encrypted ones? (John Savard)
Re: FTL Computation (ca314159)
Re: SDMI challenge (Dido Sevilla)
Re: FTL Computation ("Paul Pires")
Re: WEP (Dido Sevilla)
Re: Why wasn't MARS chosen as AES? (Dido Sevilla)
Radioactive Decay RNG (Guy Macon)
Re: FTL Computation ("Paul Lutus")
education where ???please help ("simon")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Craver)
Subject: Re: SDMI challenge
Date: 8 Oct 2000 15:28:30 GMT
Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Technology A appears to use a slight frequency shift.
>Although this could be an artifact.
Hurry up, you have 3 1/2 hours to submit an attack.
>Mack
-S
------------------------------
From: JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why wasn't MARS chosen as AES?
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 15:44:46 GMT
UBCHI2 wrote:
> Why wasn't MARS chosen as AES?
Because it was the worst candidate by a mile?
------------------------------
From: "Paul Lutus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math
Subject: Re: FTL Computation
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:08:15 -0700
ca314159 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rpohl$t7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If the projection of a spot of light can virtually move FTL
> then so too can the projected images of a slide rule's slides.
> The computation 'in effect', takes place FTL.
Not "in effect," not at all. The projection of the light does not move at
FTL, not virtually, not really, not at all. Therefore, because the premise
is false, the conclusion is false. You need to think harder about the
"lighthouse effect," and recognize it for what it is not.
The remainder of your post is the longest continuous narration of crap I
have read in weeks. It possess not one word of association with real or
plausible imaginary physics.
> Dependancies have to obey the speed limit, correlations don't.
Absolutely false. It's time for you to begin obeying the natural speed limit
of your mind. Ignorance is nature's way of telling you it's time to slow
down.
> The Hilbert
> space of quantum computers is similarly 'virtual' in
> the sense that one doesn't measure it, without it collapsing.
You need to read a lot more before writing anything at all. Quantum
computing does not rely on FTL. You might as well be arguing that the EPR
paradox proves the speed of light has no meaning.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Rijndael test vectors
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 16:08:30 GMT
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 11:35:44 -0600, John Myre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote, in part:
>Tell NIST - if not now, then early in the comment period
>for the FIPS. The FIPS itself is going to be the standard,
>not the Rijndael paper(s). Heck, send them a proposed
>document; I bet they'd appreciate someone helping out!
Oh, and BTW: the nature of the Rijndael spec - its failure to
explicitly exhibit such things as the S-box, the inverse Mix Column
matrix - while, I suppose, could be justified on the basis of not
allowing a typo to influence the cipher, could also have somewhat
discouraged people from concentrating on it for cryptanalysis during
the selection process. (This is another thing that doesn't give me the
warm fuzzies, although I hope this wasn't a deliberate tactic!)
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Rijndael test vectors
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 16:14:50 GMT
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:47:26 +0100, "Brian Gladman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>I am uncertain of your concern here.
>I had no problem implementing from the specification in this area (except
>for the fact that the first report got the bit order inverted).
>In what form do you think it should be presented?
Let me tell you a little story.
In the course of my previous employment, a programmer in a neighboring
office was trying to write a program in BASIC to draw pie charts on
his new plotter with his shiny new IBM Personal Computer AT.
But the pie charts were not coming out right.
It turned out that he was submitting arguments to the trigonometric
functions that were in degrees, rather than in radian measure, as
required.
If they let "people like _that_" program computers, it should be
obvious that reliance on an understanding of matters such as matrix
inversion and Galois Fields for essential portions of the Rijndael
specification will somewhat limit that specification's accessibility
to portions of its potential target audience.
I trust this makes clear my concern, and I hope it doesn't make me
look like an anti-intellectual.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: Roger Schlafly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why wasn't MARS chosen as AES?
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 09:21:44 -0700
JCA wrote:
> ? Why wasn't MARS chosen as AES?
> Because it was the worst candidate by a mile?
It was designed by a committee at IBM.
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Choice of public exponent in RSA signatures
Date: 8 Oct 2000 16:13:09 GMT
DJohn37050 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PSS is in P!363a which is a draft. not in P1363, which is a standard.
> Don Johnson
Ouch. Thank you for the correction.
-David
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apologies for a faulty memory
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 18:56:23 +0200
John Savard worte:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Sorry for not having followed the material. What are the
> >main advantages of requiring odd multiples of 32 bits
> >for key and block size? (Wouldn't that indicate some
> >weakness of Rijndael's design style?) Thanks.
>
> There are some _apparent_ weaknesses of Rijndael, at least from a
> naive point of view. From the results people have had - so far, it
> must be admitted - by actually carrying out differential and linear
> cryptanalysis, however, Rijndael appears to be entirely satisfactory
> in strength.
>
> These apparent weaknesses are:
>
> - In addition to using arithmetic in GF(2^8) in the Mix Column step,
> the same representation of GF(2^8) is used to produce the round
> constants in the key schedule, and to produce the S-box used in the
> Byte Sub step (which S-box is also used in the key schedule).
Do you mean e.g. using Z_2^8 in mixing (using a different
scheme) would be a better idea (i.e. having some variability
of operator types)?
I am of the opinion that having a single ByteSub and the
same MixColumn for the entire cipher is disadvantageous
rather essentially.
>
> - The number of true rounds, including the Mix Column step, in which
> bytes influence each other, is, for the standard key and block sizes,
> either 9, 11, or 13. In no case is one of these numbers a multiple of
> the number of columns. Although the Shift Row step is more like
> permutation P in DES than it is like swapping halves of a block (every
> byte, not just half of them, goes through Byte Sub and Add Round Key,
> and the influence of bytes on each other in Mix Column is two-way, not
> one-way) still, from a naive point of view, just as having DES with an
> odd number of rounds is a bad idea, this asymmetry or incompleteness
> could conceivably be a minor weakness.
What benefit results from having a round number that is
divisible by the number of columns? I don't yet understand
that. If on increasing the rounds one finds that the
diffusion/confusion is sufficient, one can stop that
design process, I suppose.
>
> - The key schedule produces extents in the key schedule having the
> same size as the original key. Since everything is in chunks of 32
> bits, if the number of 32-bit words in the key were relatively prime
> to the number of 32-bit words in the block, this might reduce the
> impact of any weakness in the key schedule (and weaknesses have been
> claimed).
>
> As it happens, since the number of rounds increases by 1 for each 32
> bits added to the size of the key once it is longer than the block,
> using an odd multiple of 32 bits for the key in that case makes the
> number of full rounds an even number, as well as the number of 32-bit
> words in the key an odd number. So both (apparently) desirable
> properties can often be achieved if a nonstandard key size is used
> with a standard block size, thus addressing the last two of these
> possible weaknesses.
Maybe I gravely misunderstood. But isn't it that both the
block sizes and the key sizes were prescribed in the contest?
I don't think it is very apparent that the issue of
'multiple-ness' is essential. It is the quality of the
algorithm doing the key scheduling (despite the larger
chunk size) that is of importance to ensure good results,
I suppose.
Thanks.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Andras Erdei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why trust root CAs ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 16:54:26 GMT
Non-Repudiation in the Digital Environment
by Adrian McCullagh and William Caelli
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_8/mccullagh/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: are doubly encrypted files more secure than singly encrypted ones?
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 16:21:49 GMT
On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 15:21:45 GMT, jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote, in part:
>why would armoring affect the security of the encrypted information?
>Isn't armoring just an ascii representation of the encrypted binary?
>Isn't the entropy of the information increased each time the
>information is processed?
Armoring *prior to another stage of encryption* introduces redundancy,
essentially providing partial information about the plaintext to the
later stage of encryption to an attacker.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: ca314159 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math
Subject: Re: FTL Computation
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 17:08:04 GMT
In article <RZ0E5.12841$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Paul Lutus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ca314159 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rpohl$t7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > If the projection of a spot of light can virtually move FTL
> > then so too can the projected images of a slide rule's slides.
> > The computation 'in effect', takes place FTL.
>
> Not "in effect," not at all. The projection of the light does not move
at
> FTL, not virtually, not really, not at all. Therefore, because the
premise
> is false, the conclusion is false. You need to think harder about the
> "lighthouse effect," and recognize it for what it is not.
"not at all."
according to you, there is no lighthouse effect
you need to stop objecting to things that aren't
in even your dictionary. Try objecting to unicorns,
you'll be more convincing, if not more pleasant to
talk with.
Sure the projection travels out at the speed of light
and so must the images, but they are translated FTL
unless the lighthouse effect doesn't exist at all
and you'll have a hard time explaining that to
astrophysicists who use this explaination for visible
plumes of stellar gases; or are you calling them full
of crap also:
>
> The remainder of your post is the longest continuous narration of crap
I
> have read in weeks.
sticks and stones may break my bones,
but all I have to do is say "ditto", and reams
of semantic correlations are transmitted faster
than they could have been if endcoded physically
and sent out as bits. Faster than light because
they were never sent at all. Only the pointer
was sent via the classical channel.
> It possess not one word of association with real or
> plausible imaginary physics.
yotta yotta yotta...
>
> > Dependancies have to obey the speed limit, correlations don't.
>
> Absolutely false. It's time for you to begin obeying the natural speed
limit
> of your mind. Ignorance is nature's way of telling you it's time to
slow
> down.
>
> > The Hilbert
> > space of quantum computers is similarly 'virtual' in
> > the sense that one doesn't measure it, without it collapsing.
>
> You need to read a lot more before writing anything at all. Quantum
> computing does not rely on FTL. You might as well be arguing that the
EPR
> paradox proves the speed of light has no meaning.
>
> --
>
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
>
--
--
http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Dido Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SDMI challenge
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 01:35:19 +0800
Scott Craver wrote:
>
> Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Technology A appears to use a slight frequency shift.
> >Although this could be an artifact.
>
> Hurry up, you have 3 1/2 hours to submit an attack.
Let him wait. I hope he publishes his attack two days *after* the RIAA
has committed to using a particular technology.
--
Rafael R. Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +63 (2) 4342217
ICSM-F Development Team, UP Diliman +63 (917) 4458925
OpenPGP Key ID: 0x0E8CE481
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math
Subject: Re: FTL Computation
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:39:27 -0700
Paul Lutus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RZ0E5.12841$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ca314159 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rpohl$t7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > If the projection of a spot of light can virtually move FTL
> > then so too can the projected images of a slide rule's slides.
> > The computation 'in effect', takes place FTL.
>
> Not "in effect," not at all. The projection of the light does not move at
> FTL, not virtually, not really, not at all. Therefore, because the premise
> is false, the conclusion is false. You need to think harder about the
> "lighthouse effect," and recognize it for what it is not.
>
> The remainder of your post is the longest continuous narration of crap I
> have read in weeks. It possess not one word of association with real or
> plausible imaginary physics.
>
> > Dependancies have to obey the speed limit, correlations don't.
>
> Absolutely false. It's time for you to begin obeying the natural speed limit
> of your mind. Ignorance is nature's way of telling you it's time to slow
> down.
That is priceless :-)
Thanks
Paul
>
> > The Hilbert
> > space of quantum computers is similarly 'virtual' in
> > the sense that one doesn't measure it, without it collapsing.
>
> You need to read a lot more before writing anything at all. Quantum
> computing does not rely on FTL. You might as well be arguing that the EPR
> paradox proves the speed of light has no meaning.
>
> --
>
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Dido Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WEP
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 01:52:16 +0800
Ichinin wrote:
>
> - Anyone have a link to the page that say that 40 bit RC4 was
> bruteforced in an very short time?
Any 40-bit algorithm can be brute forced in a relatively short time.
Even I, armed with spare cycles from the sixteen PIII 500's in my
Internet Cafe (so as not to interfere with our customers' usage!), could
probably brute force the key to any 40-bit cryptosystem in about a few
days. If I stole the FPGAs in our microelectronics laboratory and used
it to perform this decryption, I could probably crack it in several
minutes; an hour maybe. See the Snake Oil FAQ. Remember 2^40 is only
~1 trillion. That's not a lot in these days of high processing power.
--
Rafael R. Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +63 (2) 4342217
ICSM-F Development Team, UP Diliman +63 (917) 4458925
OpenPGP Key ID: 0x0E8CE481
------------------------------
From: Dido Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why wasn't MARS chosen as AES?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 01:58:16 +0800
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> JCA wrote:
> > ? Why wasn't MARS chosen as AES?
> > Because it was the worst candidate by a mile?
>
> It was designed by a committee at IBM.
So was DES, as I recall.
--
Rafael R. Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +63 (2) 4342217
ICSM-F Development Team, UP Diliman +63 (917) 4458925
OpenPGP Key ID: 0x0E8CE481
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Subject: Radioactive Decay RNG
Date: 08 Oct 2000 18:01:34 GMT
In sci.crypt.random-numbers I am discussing the physics behind
using the delta between radioactive decay events as a RNG.
------------------------------
From: "Paul Lutus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math
Subject: Re: FTL Computation
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:06:00 -0700
ca314159 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rq9lh$93r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sure the projection travels out at the speed of light
> and so must the images, but they are translated FTL
> unless the lighthouse effect doesn't exist at all
The "lighthouse effect" (your term, not mine) is an illusion, not an effect.
You are mistaken in your assumption that this can be used to circumvent any
part of relativity.
> reams
> of semantic correlations are transmitted faster
> than they could have been if endcoded physically
> and sent out as bits. Faster than light because
> they were never sent at all.
You have changed your claim. You originally claimed that information was
transmitted at FTL --
> If the projection of a spot of light can virtually move FTL
> then so too can the projected images of a slide rule's slides.
> The computation 'in effect', takes place FTL.
-- but now you have retracted this claim (replacing "computation" with "they
were never sent at all") a great improvement, and a reversal of the meaning
of your original post.
> you'll have a hard time explaining that to
> astrophysicists who use this explaination for visible
> plumes of stellar gases; or are you calling them full
> of crap also
The claim is yours, therefore the burden of proof is on you to show how
these represent the transfer of information at FTL. It is you who will have
a hard time explaining this absurdity.
Read and weep:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/scissors.html
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
------------------------------
From: "simon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: education where ???please help
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:08:58 -0700
dear group i live in surrey uk and wish to learn about cryptography
but i cannot find anywhere that offers any courses please could anybody
point me in a direction
i would be very grateful
SIMON P.........................
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
