Cryptography-Digest Digest #904, Volume #12 Thu, 12 Oct 00 15:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Rijndael implementations (David Eppstein)
Re: CRC vs. HASH functions ("Scott Fluhrer")
Re: The science of secrecy: Simple Substition cipher (Scott Craver)
Re: Why trust root CAs ? (Doug Kuhlman)
Re: A new paper claiming P=NP (Jud McCranie)
Re: Rijndael implementations (Paul Schlyter)
FAST EASY MONEY!!!! HONESTLY WORKS (paul nylund)
Re: German Lorenz Code Machine (David Hamer)
Re: AES Runner ups (Volker Hetzer)
Re: What is meant by non-Linear... (Tom St Denis)
Re: Idea for Twofish and Serpent Teams (Tom St Denis)
Re: Rijndael test cases. (Dido Sevilla)
Re: Triple DES versus Rijndael (Dido Sevilla)
Re: Why trust root CAs ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Bored with AES? SHA-256/384/512 spec now out! (David Crick)
Re: Rijndael implementations ("Brian Gladman")
Re: Rijndael implementations ("Kasper Pedersen")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Eppstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rijndael implementations
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:46:35 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is what "byte" *should* mean in the first place. Having "byte"
> defined as "set of bits that represent a single character" seems like a
> really dumb idea to me.
You've obviously never programmed a 36-bit architecture.
--
David Eppstein UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
------------------------------
From: "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CRC vs. HASH functions
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:56:36 -0700
Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Scott Fluhrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :> 1) CRC are faster than HASH functions of
> :> comparable size. That is a fact. Many
> :> hash functions use a CRC like layer at the
> :> top to mix in data linearly. SHA-1 is no exception.
> :> A table driven 256 bit hash function requires 4 32-bit word
> :> lookups/byte, four 32-bit word XORs, a shift and an XOR
> :> to add data. [...]
>
> : However, if you are willing to use a MAC rather than a HASH (which may
be
> : appropriate depending on why you are summarizing the file in the first
> : place), there are MACs which can be even faster than CRC. Examples of
this
> : would include UMAC (http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/umac/) and
hash127
> : (http://cr.yp.to/hash127.html)
>
> Excuse my ignorance - but isn't a MAC a keyed hash?
>
> How can a MAC be faster than a hash - if you can build a hash out of a MAC
> by using it with a fixed key?
>
> I presume you are considering the security requirements for a MAC to be
> different from (and less than) those of a hash.
>
> So... where lies the difference?
>
> Why are security properties desirable in a hash not relevant in a MAC?
A MAC need not be a keyed hash. A MAC with a fixed key need not be a secure
hash. As you realized, it comes down to the security properties.
The fundamental security property of a HASH is that no one is able to find
two messages that have the same hash (as well as not being able to find
preimages).
The fundamental security property of a MAC is that someone without knowledge
of the secret key is unable to forge a new message/MAC pair, even if he have
seen many messages signed with the same key.
Note that one property that a MAC does not require is any collision
resistance (or preimage resistance) whatsoever against someone with the
keys -- anyone with the keys can trivially sign anything they want, and so
they must be trusted. And so, since we can consider constructions that have
weaker security properties than keyed hash, it is plausible that these
alternative constructions are faster, and in fact, the two I referenced
above are two such constructions.
>
> Isn't it more the other way around?
>
> MACs should conceal the MAC key in use from attackers who can look at any
> number of hashed messages. Such security requirements appear to be "in
> addition" to those required of a more conventional hash function.
Not in addition to, but instead of...
--
poncho
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Craver)
Subject: Re: The science of secrecy: Simple Substition cipher
Date: 12 Oct 2000 16:17:40 GMT
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I couldn't agree more. The code took me at most 3 minutes to crack and
>> the answer was way too obvious. After all, how many five letter
>> composers are there with an 'L' in their name?
>
>The other one is Liszt :-)
"Other one," my eye. What about Phillip Glass and Gustav Holst?
-S
------------------------------
From: Doug Kuhlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why trust root CAs ?
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:11:06 -0500
Greggy wrote:
>
>
> I don't see why the banks just produce their own certificates and
> publicly state their public key in the news papers, WSJ, etc. Then
> there is no CA and you are absolutely certain that your bank is
> providing the security they need to CTA with...
>
Oh, that'd be fun! Why should I trust the newspaper. It'd be much
easier for "Joe's Discount Hacking Service" to run a few dozen
fraudulant postings of public keys than to go through the trouble of
spoofing a business, wouldn't it? Why would you trust your newspaper
(or WSJ or ...) if you don't trust a CA who at least tries to verify the
entity involved?
Doug
------------------------------
From: Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,sci.math,sci.op-research
Subject: Re: A new paper claiming P=NP
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:48:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark William Hopkins) wrote:
>I don't think you fully realise the seriousness of the understatement you
>just made. There is a $1,000,000 bounty out there for the first correct
>resolution to this issue.
Yes, and I hope that doesn't cause a lot of false proofs to be
generated.
Jud McCranie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: Rijndael implementations
Date: 12 Oct 2000 18:32:37 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Eppstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> This is what "byte" *should* mean in the first place. Having "byte"
>> defined as "set of bits that represent a single character" seems like a
>> really dumb idea to me.
>
>You've obviously never programmed a 36-bit architecture.
...or a 60-bit architecture...
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:47:21 -0700
From: paul nylund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FAST EASY MONEY!!!! HONESTLY WORKS
Subject: FAST EASY MONEY!!!! HONESTLY WORKS
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (~~~�h�� �lv�~~~)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.psychedelics
REALLY WORKS
SERIOUSLY NO SCAMS! LOTS OF CASH, FAST AND COMPLETELY LEGAL, THIS REALLY
WORKS!! THIS REALLY CAN MAKE YOU EASY MONEY!! IT WORKS!!! BUT YOU HAVE
TO FOLLOW IT TO A LETTER FOR IT TO WORK!!!!
A little while back, I was browsing through newsgroups, just like you
are now, and came across an article similar to this that said you could
make thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment
of $6.00!
So I thought," Yeah, right, this must be a scam", but like most of
us, I was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said that you send
$1.00 to each of the 6 names and address stated in the article. You then
place your own name and address in the bottom of the list at #6, and
post the article in at least 200 newsgroups. (There are thousands) No
catch, that was it. So after thinking it over, and talking to a few
people first, I thought about trying it. I figured what have I got to
lose except 6 stamps and $6.00, right? Like most of us I was a little
skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I
checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161) and they
confirmed that it is indeed legal! Then I invested the measly $6.00.
Well GUESS WHAT!!... within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail!
I was shocked! I figured it would end soon, but the money just kept
coming in. In my first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the
second week I had made a total of over $1,000.00! In the third week I
had over $10,000.00 and it's still growing. This is now my fourth week
and I have made a total of just over $42,000.00 and it's still coming in
rapidly. It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps. Let me tell you how
this works and most importantly, why it works....also, make sure you
print a copy of this article NOW, so you can get the information off of
it as you need it.
***
STEP 1: Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on each
piece of paper "PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST." Now get 6 US $1.00
bills and place ONE inside EACH of the 6 pieces of paper so the bill
will not be seen through the envelope to prevent thievery. Next, place
one paper in each of the 6 envelopes and seal them. You should now have
6 sealed envelopes, each with a piece of paper stating the above phrase,
your name and address, and a $1.00 bill. What you are doing is creating
a service by this. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL! Mail the 6 envelopes to the
following addresses:
#1) Justin Harty, 31 The Orchard, Castletroy, Limerick, Ireland
#2) S. Oliver, 1440 Whalley #254 New Haven, CT 06515
#3) J.Keyes, P.O. Box 2054-Ki28 Westminster, CA 92683
#4) Josh McGuire 3429 Old 27 South Gaylord, Mi 49735
#5) thad alves 3825 laurenburg ave. modesto, ca 95357
#6 Paul Nylund, 36 Paitt Street, Willagee,West Australia 6156
(please make correct postage for country)
***
STEP 2: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move the
other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc.) and add YOUR Name as
number 6 on the list.
STEP 3: Change anything you need to, but try to keep this article as
close to original as possible. Now, post your amended article to at
least 200 newsgroups. (I think there are close to 24,000 groups) All you
need is 200, but remember, the more you post, the more money you make!
---DIRECTIONS---HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS
Step 1)
You do not need to retype this entire letter to do your own posting.
Simply put your cursor at the beginning of this letter and drag your
cursor
to the bottom of this document, and select 'copy' from the edit menu.
This will
copy the entire letter into the computers memory.
Step 2)
Open a blank "notepad" file under accessories in windows and
place your cursor at the top of the blank page. From the 'edit' menu
select 'paste'. This will paste a copy of the letter into notepad so
that you can add your name to the list.
Step 3)
Save your new notepad file as a .txt file. If you want to do
your postings in different sittings, you'll always have this file to go
back to.
Step 4)
Use Netscape or Internet explorer and try searching for various
newsgroups (on-line forums, message boards, chat sites, discussions.)
Step 5)
Visit these message boards and post this article as a new
message by highlighting the text of this letter and selecting paste from
the edit menu. Fill in the Subject, this will be the header that
everyone sees as they scroll through the list of postings in a
particular group, click the post message button. You're done with your
first one!
Congratulations...THAT'S IT!
All you have to do is jump to different newsgroups and post away, after
you get the hang of it, it will take about 30 seconds for each
newsgroup! **REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY
YOU WILL MAKE!! BUT YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM OF 200** That's it! You
will begin receiving money from around the world within days! You may
eventually want to rent a UP.OF.Box due to the large amount of mail you
will receive. If you wish to stay anonymous, you can invent a name to
use, as long as the postman will deliver it. **JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE
ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.**
Now the WHY part: Out of 200 postings, say I receive only 5 replies (a
very low example). So then I made $5.00 with my name at #6 on the
letter. Now, each of the 5 persons who just sent me $1.00 make the
MINIMUM 200 postings, each with my name at #5 and only 5 persons respond
to each of the original 5, that is another $25.00 for me, now those 25
each make 200 MINIMUM posts with my name at #4 and only 5 replies each,
I will bring in an additional $125.00! Now, those 125 persons turn
around and post the MINIMUM 200 with my name at #3 and only receive 5
replies each, I will make an additional $626.00! OK, now here is the fun
part, each of those 625 persons post a MINIMUM 200 letters with my name
at #2 and they each only receive 5 replies, that just made me
$3,125.00!!! Those 3,125 persons will all deliver this message to 200
newsgroups with my name at #1 and if still 5 persons per 200 newsgroups
react I will receive $15,625,00! With a original investment of only
$6.00! AMAZING! When your name is no longer on the list, you just take
the latest posting in the newsgroups, and send out another $6.00 to
names on the list, putting your name at number 6 again. And start
posting again. The thing to remember is, do you realize that thousands
of people all over the world are joining the internet and reading these
articles everyday, JUST LIKE YOU are now!! So can you afford $6.00 and
see if it really works?? I think so... People have said, "what if the
plan is played out and no one sends you the money? So what! What are the
chances of that happening when there are tons of new honest users and
new honest people who are joining the internet and newsgroups everyday
and are willing to give it a try? Estimates are at 20,000 to 50,000 new
users, every day, with thousands of those joining the actual internet.
Remember, play FAIRLY and HONESTLY and this will work. Thanks for
participating.
p.s. Tell your friends the more that participate the better it is for
everyone
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:00:35 -0400
From: David Hamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: German Lorenz Code Machine
John Savard wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:28:48 -0700, "David C. Barber"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>
> >Are there any good references to the Lorenz machine online?
>
> Try my site, at
>
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto/te0301.htm
>
> but there are others on the web as well.
Such as: <http://www.eclipse.net/~dhamer/lorenz.htm>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Hamer The Crypto Simulation Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AES Runner ups
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:05:48 +0200
Tim Tyler wrote:
> There would be much the same small undetected chance in the backup
> algorithm, of course, but the chances of both algorithms having flaws
> would be the square of this probability.
Only if the algorithms are completely different. But they aren't, so the
likelyhood of two algos falling prey to the same attack is much bigger.
> As things stand, in the unlikely event that Rijndael completely collapses
> under its newfound attention, presumably there would be an AES retrial,
> focussing on the other four final round candidates.
And, of course, with the new attack there is a new evaluation criteria to
measure the candidates against. IMHO, this makes sense.
Greetings!
Volker
--
The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for
breakfast, get up later.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is meant by non-Linear...
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:07:25 GMT
In article <8s4dud$2q6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rob Marston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So to put it in a nutshell, if I had two S-Box's {the first is an
Xor
> > and the Second is an And} then...
> >
> > SBox Out Out
> > In Xor And
> > 00 0 0
> > 01 1 0
> > 10 1 0
> > 11 0 1
> >
> > I could reverse the Xor S-Box by knowing the output bit and
> > either input bit, but I could not reverse the And operation?
> >
> > Is that it?
> No. A function y = f(x) is linear if, as Mr Savard stated, it can be
> expressed y = a*x + b [1], for some reasonable definition of * and +
[2].
That is wrong, normally it's a boolean dot product of several vectors
(i.e a vector of input bits, a vector of output bits and a vector of
key bits). Look at the linear cryptanalysis of DES, they hardly made
use of the function of a line to break it. They used the fact that
linear expressions such as "y0 = x0 xor x3 xor k1 xor 1" held for some
part of the key space/input space where x and y are known, thus
yielding the key bit (obviously the expression must hold for less/more
then 1/2 of all possible inputs).
> Linear functions are interesting for several reasons, among which:
>
> - If y = f(x) and z = g(y) are both linear (and use the same ring
> operations), then z = g(f(x)) is as well. That is, composing linear
> functions do not make the result any less linear.
>
> - Given an unknown linear function, it is easy to reconstruct it using
> relatively few known plaintext/ciphertext pairs using Gaussian
Elimination.
>
> In the case you gave, xor is linear if you take * to mean matrix
> multiplication mod 2, and + to mean addition mod 2. Then,
>
> y = (1 1) * x + (0)
>
> there x is the vector of your two input bits. This definition of *
and +
> is, in fact, the most often used in cryptography.
>
> For the "And" operation, there is no such definition of * and + which
works.
>
> [1] To be pedantic, this relationship is refered to as affine -- it's
linear
> if it can be expressed y = a*x. In cryptography, the distinction
usually
> isn't important.
>
> [2] The mathematical definition of reasonable here means that * and +
must
> be ring operations, for example, a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c must be an
identity.
\
While that' all interesting that's not how linear cryptanalysis works.
Guassian elimination works on LFSR's because the output is a linear
combination of the input (such as in the attacks on block ciphers).
Not because an LFSR plots a straight line.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Idea for Twofish and Serpent Teams
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:11:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JPeschel wrote:
> >
> > Benjamin Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > >JPeschel wrote:
> > >> Runu Knips writes:
> > >> >Helger Lipmaa wrote:
> > >> >> There was a thread recently in this newsgroup, about the
general
> > >> >> attitude that guys who understand nothing about security try
to
> > >> >> strut and to demand and to insult those who know better.
> > >> >
> > >> >Tom might insult people unnecessarily in this NG, but
> > >> >AFAIK he's far from being a 'guy who understand nothing
> > >> >about security' !
> > >>
> > >> Much of what Tom posts is insulting, patronzing, wrong or
> > >> exaggerated.
> > >
> > >You sure you're not confusing Tom with David Scott?
> >
> > No. David Scott has been posting here a lot longer, and doesn't
> > use commas. I can see why you might confuse the two, though:
> > they're a lot alike, but don't like each other. One is an old cat
> > like me, and, also like me, not about to change; the other is
> > young enough to decide not to grow up to be like his nemesis.
>
> You forgot to mention that Tom has analysis (sp? plural of analysis
(n.))
> of most [all?] of his own ciphers, while Mr. DS doesn't believe in
> analyzing his ciphers, but simply saying that they're not breakable.
> Also, when asked to explain something, Tom attempts to do so, so far
as
> I've seen. Mr. DS tell people to look at his source code if they ask
> how something works, rather than giving an explanation. DS tends to
> post things that are insulting, patronizing, wrong or exaggerated
> (especially in response to things I've posted), but I haven't ever
> gotten that type of reply from Tom.
I admit sometimes my postings are a bit rude, but you have to realize
that I am a complete crypto nerd and I don't have an outlet for my
intelligence at school. I have designed TC1-8 at the moment and have
had TC1,TC3,TC5,TC6 and TC8 (working on that now) analyzed.
I am also writting a book (which will be free) about block ciphers
where I will include descriptions + analysis of my ciphers (amongst
other public ones such as Blowfish, RC5, IDEA and TEA). The book is
slow going, I am on my chapter of "Cryptanalysis" right now and alot of
work has to be done on the earlier chapters...
I will be releasing the draft of my TC8 paper next week, if you like I
would appreciate any comments.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Dido Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rijndael test cases.
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:24:08 +0800
ajd wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've written a rijndael cipher in the last couple of days and I now want to
> test it to see if it works. I've got the test vectors off the Rijndael web
> page (http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~rijmen/rijndael/) but I'm not sure how
> to use them. What is ECB, CBC, KAT, and the Monte Carlo Test.
>
ECB and CBC are well-known encryption modes once used for DES (and
described in the DES FIPS) and are widely used to allow block ciphers
such as DES and Rijndael to encrypt data sets larger than their block
sizes. See part 5 of the s.c. FAQ. KAT stands for Known Answer Test,
where known keys and data blocks are encrypted; there are two types,
with variable key, and with variable plaintext. Monte Carlo Test tests
the encryption modes, and involves generating a "random" data set and
encrypting it in CBC or whatever mode (I think).
--
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: Triple DES versus Rijndael
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:19:26 +0800
UBCHI2 wrote:
>
> How do the two ciphers compare in terms of ease in implementation and security?
Rijndael is definitely easier to implement in software. DES seems to
have been geared more towards hardware implementation, while Rijndael
was made to be more general. Wait until there's a FIPS for Rijndael
(sometime next year), and let's see what happens.
--
Rafael R. Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +63 (2) 4342217
ICSM-F Development Team, UP Diliman +63 (917) 4458925
OpenPGP Key ID: 0x0E8CE481
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why trust root CAs ?
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:36:35 GMT
In article <8ru73v$abb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a US citizen, I have even a greater problem with CAs. I don't need
> them, but they need me and despite that they are pawning such a
> ridiculous system off - which makes me wonder just how dangerous they
> are to the internet.
CAs provide a service. You can take advantage of that service or
you can roll your own. The choice is yours. A business, such as a
bank, has the same choice. They can provide the service internally or
they can contract all or part of the service to a CA service provider.
It all comes down to making an educated decision about the value of CA
for yourself or the business you're in. For example, the US Dept of
Defense plans on being its own CA for military personnel, but plans on
contracting out some CA functions to DoD approved external authorities,
such as Verisign, for contractor certificates. The DoD decided the
security of an external authority is good enough to meet requirements
and that it would be less expensive than creating the necessary serive
internal to DoD. I know of commercial businesses that come to the same
conclusion. On the flip side, I know of some businesses that roll their
own. It's up to the individual or the business to decide what they want
to do.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: David Crick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bored with AES? SHA-256/384/512 spec now out!
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:03:46 +0100
http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/shs.html
PDF spec at: http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/shs/sha256-384-512.pdf
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David A. Crick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP: (OCT-2000 KEY) 0xE0F73D98 |
| Damon Hill Tribute Site: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4236/ |
| M. Brundle Quotes: http://members.tripod.com/~vidcad/martin_b.htm |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: "Brian Gladman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rijndael implementations
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:08:48 +0100
"Paul Schlyter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s4p35$p2g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> David Eppstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> This is what "byte" *should* mean in the first place. Having "byte"
> >> defined as "set of bits that represent a single character" seems like a
> >> really dumb idea to me.
> >
> >You've obviously never programmed a 36-bit architecture.
>
> ...or a 60-bit architecture...
....or 39...
Brian Gladman
------------------------------
From: "Kasper Pedersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rijndael implementations
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:01:59 -0700
"David Eppstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This is what "byte" *should* mean in the first place. Having "byte"
> > defined as "set of bits that represent a single character" seems like a
> > really dumb idea to me.
> You've obviously never programmed a 36-bit architecture.
Or an architecture where words are 14 bit and bytes 8 (not 7). Mighty
annoying.
They (strange bit sizes) are rather common when one leave the 'mainstream'
micros in search of something more efficient/cost effective for a particular
task.
But it's still prudent to put a BIG warning message in when bytes aren't 8
bit.
/Kasper
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
