Cryptography-Digest Digest #975, Volume #12 Sun, 22 Oct 00 01:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Quasi philosphical question regarding Index of Coincidence ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Huffman stream cipher. (Benjamin Goldberg)
Re: SDMI Successfully Hacked (Matthew Skala)
Re: idea for spam free email (Matthew Skala)
Steganography books (CryptoBooks)
Re: another problem question ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Is it trivial for NSA to crack these ciphers? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Quasi philosphical question regarding Index of Coincidence ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Huffman stream cipher. (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: another problem question ("John A. Malley")
Re: Is it trivial for NSA to crack these ciphers? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: RSA codes (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: How about the ERIKO-CHAN cipher? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Is it trivial for NSA to crack these ciphers? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Rijndael implementations ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: SDMI Successfully Hacked (Scott Craver)
Re: Rijndael implementations ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Rijndael implementations ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: For those touting "compression as encryption" ideas - Upcoming IEEE conference
of interest (JPeschel)
Re: Steganography books (Scott Craver)
Re: A new paper claiming P=NP ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quasi philosphical question regarding Index of Coincidence
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:16:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If your faced with a cryptogram which includes both upper and lower case
> letters, who would you calc the IC? Would you first convert all the
> letters to one case and look only at frequency? Or do you consider "I"
> as a seperate symobol from "i"?
> I'm curious how much the derived stat is "thrown off" by assuming the
> English alphabet has 52 charaters rather than 26?
Index of Coincidence has nothing to do with case and everything
to do with correlation. What you need to do is to determine how
the I.C. is going to be *used*; generally it is used to detect a
deviation from a purely random (coincidental) behavior in some
specific test. When you study the situation it should become
obvious what to do.
------------------------------
From: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Huffman stream cipher.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:21:00 GMT
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote:
[snip]
> As for the fact a stream is not a file in one sense of the word
> you seemed to use it in other senses like in the case in adding
> an integer to a stream. In reading that problem I took it as a file
> and you did not object. Also I give you an example for that other
> thread. WHere you capaple of following it or what?
I have not, and do not plan to, look at your DSC program. If you can
explain the algorithm in clear english, I would be happy, but I am not
going to look at your shitty source code.
I did not comment on the fact that DSC requires that it operate on a
file of known length because you had not been willing to make the effort
to mention that. Now that I know, I can see that your algorithm is
crap, for the purposes I need.
--
"Mulder, do you remember when I was missing -- that time that you
*still* insist I was being held aboard a UFO?"
"How could I forget?"
"Well, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe I wouldn't have been
better off staying abo-- I mean, wherever it was that I was
being held." [from an untitled spamfic by [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Skala)
Subject: Re: SDMI Successfully Hacked
Date: 19 Oct 2000 12:56:17 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>if any were successful. I suspect they
>are trying to get out of paying the $10k.
Ten thousand dollars is small pocket change to them; it's worth very much
more than that to avoid admitting that their system does not and cannot work.
If you broke SDMI and they could pay you ten million dollars and thereby
ensure that your break, or news of it, would never become publically
available, they'd do it.
--
Matthew Skala
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :CVECAT DELENDA EST
http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Skala)
Subject: Re: idea for spam free email
Date: 19 Oct 2000 13:18:16 -0700
In article <dIzH5.2293$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
G. Orme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any suggestions are most welcome on the folowing.
Impossible and immoral.
Your scheme depends on a trusted piece of client software which knows and
uses some secret information without telling the user. That is
impossible. Anything my computer knows, I know. It's my computer.
You attempt to patch that problem by putting the trusted client under a
restrictive license agreement forbidding the user from extracting the
secret information. That is immoral. Anything my computer knows, I have
a right to know. It's my computer.
Also, even if I couldn't extract your secret email address from the
software on my computer, I could still give a spammer a copy of that
software. But that's irrelevent anyway, because I *can* extract your
secret email address from the software if the software knows it.
If you're going to depend on the law to make your system work, there are
much more effective ways to use it - why not simply make a law against
spam, or just have people give each other their *real* addresses upon
signature of a contract saying "I promise not to spam you"? Why bother
with the trusted client scheme at all when you know it won't work and
you're depending on the legal restrictions anyway?
Even putting aside those basic facts, there are serious pitfalls in
implementing the scheme. On the technical side, you'd need a version of
the trusted client for *every* operating system and email package, not
just Microsoft Outlook. If there are several dozen people I send email to
on a regular basis (and there *are*), then I have to store a plugin for
each of them on my hard drive. I have to trust them not to send me a
plugin which contains destructive code, since (by assuming that I'm
running Windows) you're assuming that I allow randomly downloaded binaries
complete access to my computer. On the legal side, clickwrap license
agreements are of dubious enforceability at best. The whole thing seems
pretty doomed, to me. But don't despair. You're obviously qualified for
a job designing content protection systems for the recording industry. :-)
--
Matthew Skala
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :CVECAT DELENDA EST
http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CryptoBooks)
Date: 22 Oct 2000 04:00:38 GMT
Subject: Steganography books
21 October 2000
Classical Crypto Books is pleased to announce the following recent update to
the CCB catalog focusing on: STEGANOGRAPHY
The following book was the primary reference for the remarkable, and
well-received talk by photon (David Smith) at the ACA convention in Providence
two months ago. The techniques of steganography were cleverly demonstrated by
hiding, and retrieving a picture of the conference host inside another digital
image.
INFORMATION HIDING: Techniques for Steganography and Digital Watermarking
by Stefan Katzenbeisser, Fabien A. P. Petitcolas (Editors)
Steganography, the art of hiding messages in other text, has been reborn as a
way to provide digital copyright protection. Included here: history, a review
of algorithms and methods, applications, and methods to break into
steganographic communication. Published at $79.00.
HB, Artech House, 2000, 238 pp.
Nonmember $74.95, Member $69.95
Also, still available:
DISAPPEARING CRYPTOGRAPHY: Being and Nothingness on the Net
by Peter Wayner
Published at $34.95.
SB, AP Professional, 1996, 305 pp.
Nonmember $32.95, Member $30.95
==============
HB = Hardbound
SB = Softbound
==============
All items above are in stock and available now. Member prices are available to
members of the American Cryptogram Association, the US Naval Cryptologic
Veterans Association, and full-time students. Shipping and handling are extra.
For complete ordering information, a free catalog of crypto books by return
e-mail (in Adobe pdf - Portable Document Format), or for information about
membership in the American Cryptogram Association, please send e-mail to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best Wishes,
Gary / RagyR
Gary Rasmussen
ACA Treasurer and
Owner, Classical Crypto Books
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax: (603) 432-4898
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another problem question
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:02:58 GMT
Ernest Dumenigo wrote:
> HUVSH UDSU- EKHCU IEQWU DK-RU HOXHU UUYMX JIU-U DTQJU TEDUA YNTUS
> ----- IJEFY DIJKH SJYE- IOQLU RUUNY IIKU- JEQBD IKRHE TYDQJ -SECC Q-TIJ
> EYDYW YQJUK DYJJH QYDCD WFHEW HQKIK DTUHJ XAFHE RYIYE DIEVF
> QHQMH QUXJ- EEV-F -SYQB THTUH IDMCR UHIYT
> Reference your message number three eight seven dated one --- December
> stop instructions have been issued to all subordinate commands to
> ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------- provisions of ------ ------
> of speical order number six.
Should be:
of special orders number six.
> Can anyone help or give me advice?
(1) Go ahead and decipher the garbled stretches according to the
recovered key, then *stare* at the garbled plaintext taking into
account the nongarbled context. E.g. "dated one kix December" --
what should "kix" be? "six" is the only likely possibility.
(2) Study paragraph 20c about Morse garbles. Morse code for the
correct ciphertext for "six" is IYN; the garbled text was AYN.
I is .. while A is .-, which is an easy error for the receiver
to make, especially when reception conditions are poor.
Similar errors account for most of the remaining garbles.
(3) The entire plaintext *is* recoverable (with high degree
of certainty). As you gain experience, you should be able to
recover plaintexts much more badly garbled than this.
=====
By the way, I talked to the fellow who took over Callimahos'
advanced cryptanalysis class when he became ill. Now retired,
he is interested in starting some sort of cryppie workshop in
the MD area. I suggested that an on-line forum might attract
more people, if it could be worked out. Drop me a note at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] if you would participate in such a group and
I'll see if there is enough interest to get it going.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is it trivial for NSA to crack these ciphers?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:09:36 GMT
"Stephen M. Gardner" wrote:
> Lets assume that all of them are engaged in Crypto research. How
> many are there? If you don't have a number how do you know it is
> more?
Anyone who really wants to know can find fairly good estimates
(check out the FAS site, for example).
> What do you suppose keeps bright young mathematicians working in an
> environent in which they cannot share their insights freely with
> others? What do you suppose the impact on their creativity is? How
> long do you suppose it takes for such an environment to turn a bright
> young scholar into a government drone or drive them away? Oh, did I
> mention how the bright young person has to suffer a periodic foray into
> his sex life, what substances he consumes recreationally, an who he
> associates with by some cynical and jaded "security wonk" with a
> cold-war stick up his butt? Do the best and brightest put up with that
> for long?
Since that is not how things actually work it is moot.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Quasi philosphical question regarding Index of Coincidence
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:04:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Index of Coincidence has nothing to do with case and everything
> to do with correlation. What you need to do is to determine how
> the I.C. is going to be *used*; generally it is used to detect a
> deviation from a purely random (coincidental) behavior in some
> specific test. When you study the situation it should become
> obvious what to do.
Sorry, but I don't follow you here.
Granted the IC is used to detect deviation from randomness. But it seems
to me that it may be the case that if the cipher scheme used upper and
lower case (effectiviely at 52 character alphabet), butit was assumed to
only be a 26 letter alphabet, the IC might give results that would lead
one to believe two cipher alphabet were used.....I think.
--
"Wife who put husband in doghouse, soon find him in cathouse."
-- Wisdom of the Tao
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Huffman stream cipher.
Date: 22 Oct 2000 04:09:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Benjamin Goldberg) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote:
>[snip]
>> As for the fact a stream is not a file in one sense of the word
>> you seemed to use it in other senses like in the case in adding
>> an integer to a stream. In reading that problem I took it as a file
>> and you did not object. Also I give you an example for that other
>> thread. WHere you capaple of following it or what?
>
>I have not, and do not plan to, look at your DSC program. If you can
>explain the algorithm in clear english, I would be happy, but I am not
>going to look at your shitty source code.
You sound like the kind of Jerk that is never happy so why
pretend that if I did a little more FREE work for your lazy
ass that you would be happy. I can see by your comment you
obviously lacked the ability to even follow the simple example I
did for you.
... rest of his nonsense dropped.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website **now all allowed**
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott LATEST UPDATED source for scott*u.zip
http://radiusnet.net/crypto/ then look for
sub directory scott after pressing CRYPTO
Scott famous Compression Page
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
------------------------------
From: "John A. Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another problem question
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:14:09 -0700
Ernest Dumenigo wrote:
[snip intro]
>
> HUVSH UDSU- EKHCU IEQWU DK-RU HOXHU UUYMX JIU-U DTQJU TEDUA YNTUS
> ----- IJEFY DIJKH SJYE- IOQLU RUUNY IIKU- JEQBD IKRHE TYDQJ -SECC Q-TIJ
> EYDYW YQJUK DYJJH QYDCD WFHEW HQKIK DTUHJ XAFHE RYIYE DIEVF
> QHQMH QUXJ- EEV-F -SYQB THTUH IDMCR UHIYT
>
> What I have done is: 1) statistical analysis which was inconclusive 2) pi
> test and this is what I got: o = 2136 r = 1310 p = 2270 which to me
> shows a monoalphabetic substitution which a count of the blanks
> statistically showed a substitution. 3) I
> tried completing the plain-component sequence for standard alphabets and
> came up with the key: A equals K
It's more clear if we indicate which is ciphertext and plaintext,
i.e. ciphertext A = plaintext K, or plaintext A = ciphertext Q.
>
> Using this key A=K I have come up with:
>
> Reference your message number three eight seven dated one --- December
> stop instructions have been issued to all subordinate commands to
> ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------- provisions of ------ ------
> of speical order number six.
>
> Can anyone help or give me advice?
You're just about there. This message is very garbled, chock full of
spelling mistakes.
Here's a few hints based on the characteristics of the errors and
probable words as shaped by the context of what you already know from
the clear parts of the message:
1. Look for pairs of letters, right next to each other, that are
obviously swapped. Swap them back and the words practically leap out at
you - (oops, you found those already.)
2. That first long patch of unknown characters - think about common,
likely military terms that fit the resulting plaintext when decoded per
the identified key. Just stare at that plaintext and ask yourself - What
are the kinds of activities military units do? How would a commander
tell a subordinate to "start" something? Or do something?
3. That final gap - look at the plaintext (garbage that it seems after
decryption) and ask yourself - how do military personnel refer to
specific items in their manuals? By *what* and by *what* ? How is a
military document structured? Chapter and verse? (naw, but that's a
hint. :-)
(I did solve it but I'm holding off with the exact solution - you are
sooooo close! You'll get there! )
Hope the hints help,
John A. Malley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is it trivial for NSA to crack these ciphers?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:18:52 GMT
"Stephen M. Gardner" wrote:
> Codebreaking technology in the private sector is quite open.
You simply don't know the degree of discrepancy between what is
known privately *within the "private sector"* vs. what is known
publicly.
Anyway, John Savard was right -- when it is not just a game
but rather a matter of life and death, codebreaking inevitably
involves a high degree of secrecy concerning methods and sources.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: RSA codes
Date: 22 Oct 2000 04:16:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Benjamin Goldberg) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Bob Silverman wrote:
>>
>> In article <8smnbo$pjg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In article <8smm3b$op0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > > Just a small question. RSA relies on people not being able to work
>> > > out the prime numbers that where used to generate the keys right?
>> > > Well, can't we just adapt the knapsack solution to break the key
>> > > down into it's part.
>> >
>> > Actually it's relies on the difficulting of finding logarithms
>> > modulo the composite.
>> >
>> > I fail to see how the "knapsack problem" applies...
>>
>> This last comment does not surprise me. Tom often comments
>> on subjects for which he has inadequate knowledge.
>
>At least he's willing to admit to himself and us where he is ignorant;
>as the saying goes, "A wise man knows what he knows, and knows what he
>doesn't know." There are some people who post on a topic on which they
>know little or nothing about, and believe [incorrectly] that they *do*
>have adequate knowledge.
>
>Saying "I don't see how X applies" is not the same as saying "X doesn't
>apply." If Tom had said the latter, you'd have a right to be annoyed at
>his ignorance; as it is, saying "I don't see how X applies" could be
>construed as meaning, "Someone tell me if and how X applies?" I don't
>see anything at all wrong with that.
>
Obviously you don't follow much of Tommys comments
he is seldom willing to admit to himself and us where he is ignorant
he kind of reminds me of you. Are you one of Toms many fasle identies
that he uses to attack people with? I admit that my writting
sucks shit but I try to live with my handicap. In spite of the
literate asshokes that think there god just becuase they can speel
better than me.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website **now all allowed**
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott LATEST UPDATED source for scott*u.zip
http://radiusnet.net/crypto/ then look for
sub directory scott after pressing CRYPTO
Scott famous Compression Page
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How about the ERIKO-CHAN cipher?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:27:56 GMT
James Felling wrote:
> Yes. I think that they could.
The biggest flaw is that each message requires a new key.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is it trivial for NSA to crack these ciphers?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:37:06 GMT
Bob Silverman wrote:
> (2) I fail to understand people's paranoia about the NSA. Yes,
> they employ a large number of competent mathematicians. But what
> grounds does anyone have for believing that they are more competent
> than mathematicians employed elsewhere.
It's not the individual competence so much as it is access to the
corporate knowledge that has accrued over many decades. There
are, for instance, several algorithms of importance to C/A known
for decades inside the Agency that either have not yet been
discovered on the outside or else their practical application has
not yet been appreciated on the outside. (Unless whoever has
figured it out is similarly keeping it secret.)
> (4) We *know* how much arithmetic is required to break a 128-bit
> cipher.
I doubt that very much.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rijndael implementations
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:48:14 GMT
Tim Tyler wrote:
> "byte" is a term that I think *should* be a unit of information - in
> much the same way as "bit".
> However - according to many sources - it's a unit which doesn't have
> a clearly-specified size. This is about the most fundamental
> property you can have in something used for measuring information.
? "bit" is certainly a very natural unit for information,
although for certain mathematical purposes base e is more
natural and convenient than base 2. If you want 8 bits say
"octet" like the network specs do.
Why aren't you agitating for "word" to denote some standardized
size such as 32 bits? Is it because you have experience of
other word sizes (but apparently not of other byte sizes)?
> If we had a ruler that measured completely different distances in
> different places, we would throw it away - and get a proper ruler
> that worked.
"Bit" works. "Octet" works.
> This is what I think should happen to definitions of bytes - ones
> that vary in size depending on location should be discarded as
> being of low utility when attempting to communicate with others.
That's why those of us who know better are careful about the
terms we use.
> If you want a term that denotes "small chunk of information, of
> architecture dependent size", then you're welcome to it - but I
> don't see that the need for such a term justifies polluting a
> common information storage metric with architecture-dependent
> considerations.
You're misusing "architecture-dependent" here, but the important
point is that one could just as well complain than you want to
"pollute" a long-established term that denotes sub-word contiguous
bit field by burdening it with additional constraints.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Craver)
Subject: Re: SDMI Successfully Hacked
Date: 22 Oct 2000 04:47:32 GMT
Matthew Skala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ten thousand dollars is small pocket change to them; it's worth very much
>more than that to avoid admitting that their system does not and cannot work.
>If you broke SDMI and they could pay you ten million dollars and thereby
>ensure that your break, or news of it, would never become publically
>available, they'd do it.
In fact, in order to be eligible for the prize money one must sign
an agreement transferring intellectual property of the attacks. I
do not know the extent to which this agreement demands non-disclosure
of the attacks.
I bet, however, that if they had to weasel out after all four
technologies were hacked, they could get away with choosing one,
handing out $10,000 prizes for the remaining 3 so as not to look
suspicious, and just announce that attacks on that one tech did
not satisfy their requirements. They could invoke quality concerns,
or up the power on a detector. Or find just one sample of watermarked
music that survives an attack.
Or, OTOH, they just might honestly declare failure on all counts.
-S
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rijndael implementations
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:52:10 GMT
Tim Tyler wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : But the same code must also work on machines with 32 bits per byte:
> I believe the original issue about the byte was a terminological one
> - a question of which term should refer to what.
> No volume of terminology or naming of names will help with porting C
> programs ...
Understanding the terminology may well be *essential* to writing
portable C code. If you are one of the many who assume that C
"char" type has to be represented with exactly 8 bits because
you don't understand the meaning of the correspondence (imposed
by the C standard) between "char" and "byte", then you provide
an example of how portability problems can arise from not
understanding the terminology.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rijndael implementations
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:54:01 GMT
Tim Tyler wrote:
> C is trying to accomodate hardware variations too much.
Not in the opinion of the people entrusted with developing
the C standard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Subject: Re: For those touting "compression as encryption" ideas - Upcoming IEEE
conference of interest
Date: 22 Oct 2000 05:00:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) writes, in part:
>In school I was an "Eta Kappa Nu" not a member of
>the "IEEE"
>
Yeah? I was Tappa Kegga Day.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Craver)
Subject: Re: Steganography books
Date: 22 Oct 2000 04:54:27 GMT
CryptoBooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Classical Crypto Books is pleased to announce the following recent update to
>the CCB catalog focusing on: STEGANOGRAPHY
>
>INFORMATION HIDING: Techniques for Steganography and Digital Watermarking
>by Stefan Katzenbeisser, Fabien A. P. Petitcolas (Editors)
Woo-hoo! Everyone buy a copy, please. I was one of the authors of
chapter 7.
Honestly, it's a great book, and I use it a lot as a reference text.
Many experts in many subdivisions of Information Hiding have
contributed to the book, and they do a great job of organizing all
the info comprising the state of the art into a big picture that
really helps when evaluating steganographic technology.
I've already practically lost my own copy due to everyone wanting
to borrow it.
-S
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,sci.math,sci.op-research
Subject: Re: A new paper claiming P=NP
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:06:28 GMT
Eric Cordian wrote:
> However, if it does contain a working algorithm for solving an
> NP-Complete problem in polynomial time, I would rather have it now,
> as opposed to two years from now.
Are you too young to remember the "cold fusion" fiasco?
If so, there are books that describe it, which might help
you understand why such an attitude is dangerous.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
