Cryptography-Digest Digest #993, Volume #12 Tue, 24 Oct 00 12:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Rijndael egroup created ("Vic Drastik")
Re: Rijndael file encryption question. (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Huffman stream cipher. (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Finding Sample implementation for DES and IDEA (Steven Wu)
Re: working with huge numbers (Duane Smurf)
Re: Huffman stream cipher. (Richard Heathfield)
Re: idea for spam free email (Ben Clifford)
Re: idea for spam free email (Ben Clifford)
Re: AES (Runu Knips)
Re: Huffman stream cipher. (Runu Knips)
Re: Huffman stream cipher. (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
MD5 / SHA1 on SQL Server 7.0 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Huffman stream cipher. (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: SDMI Successfully Hacked (Mack)
Re: SHA-384 and SHA-512 (Mack)
Re: Huffman stream cipher. (Richard Heathfield)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Vic Drastik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Rijndael egroup created
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:11:34 +1000
I have created a Rijndael egroup at egroups.com .
Here is the welcome message :
" This group is intended for those interested in the AES cryptographic
algorithm Rijndael , including software implementation , testing and
analysis.
It is meant as a centre for discussion of Rijndael as well as a repository
of source code , programmes , documentation and links."
An egroup consists of a mailing list and file archive. You do not need to be
a member to participate - the messages are archived and can be viewed with a
browser , and the files in the archive can be freely downloaded. The only
advantages of membership , which is free and unmoderated , is that members
can choose to have the discussions emailed to them daily or weekly , they
can add attachments to their messages and they are allowed to upload their
own files to their own area of the file archive.
Here is the URL of the main Rijndael egroup page :
http://www.egroups.com/group/rijndael
or you can follow the list Top : Science : Math : Cryptography : Algorithms
: Ciphers from within www.egroups.com
Here is the message page (not much there yet :-) )
http://www.egroups.com/messages/rijndael
and here is the file area ( I have uploaded a few files just to get things
going) :
http://www.egroups.com/files/rijndael/
I had intended building up the content before I announced the egroup , but
when I returned to the egroup shortly after I had created it , I found that
there were already 4 members , so there seems to be a demand for such a
group!
The main objective is a central point for discussing Rijndael , in
particular implementations in various languages and on various platforms,
together with test vectors and problems. Other goals can come from the group
once it forms. The advantage of this format over sci.crypt or a web page is
that the members can create the content themselves , both as messages to the
group which are permanently archived , and files , which can be uploaded to
the file archive using only a web browser , then automatically announced to
the group.
To join the group , go here :
http://www.egroups.com/group/rijndael
Vic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Rijndael file encryption question.
Date: 24 Oct 2000 14:01:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ajd) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Hi,
>
>I've written a rijndael implementation (128 bit key, 10 rounds) and got
>it working with the test vectors. I now am trying to encrypt files with
>it.
>
>Say I have a text file msg.txt conatining:
>
> oh I do like to be beside the seaside.
> Oh I do like to be beside the sea.
> where the brass band pl
>
>This file is 99 bytes long. I want to encrypt it but the Rijndael block
>cipher requires blocks of 16 bytes, so I append the final block with
>gibberish (lets call this gibberish the 'carry'). Running this through
>my encryption algorithm gives an encrypted file of 112 bytes.
>
>Now here I could either
>
>a) chop off the carry before sending it to 'Bob' so my encrypted file
>is back to the original 99 bytes. The problem here is that to decrypt
>you need the same encrypted gibberish that the carry produced (which Bob
>doesn't know) result in losing the entire final block
> e.g decryption produces
>
> oh I do like to be beside the seaside.
> Oh I do like to be beside the sea.
> where the brass bandQL�
>
>We have lost the block which contained " pl"
>
>Or
>b) Save the entire final encrypted block before sending to Bob (so we
>save 112 bytes of encrypted data instead of 99). The problem here is
>that Bob doesn't know how long the original encrypted file was. When he
>decrypts he then gets:
> oh I do like to be beside the seaside.
> Oh I do like to be beside the sea.
> where the brass band pl�������������
>
>We have the whole original method but some extra stuff as well. For
>non-text files this could prove to be a problem. Do I use this method
>and send the file length to Bob as well or is there another way to get
>around the problem?
>
>Thanks for any help
>Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
THere are many ways to get around this problem.
1)YOu can use code
at my site to change file to finitely odd file and then change it
to file of block size you wish to use. This would be pure 1-1 mapping
methods.
2) you could use "wrapped PCBC"
again see my stite.
3) if your using an extra byte to tell how many of the previous
cipher bytes from previous block are used this however requires
only 4 bits. so the other 4 bits could be random. I don't like
random however.
4) Or you can do a hybrid method where you use my methods that may
any byte file to one of 16 bit chuncks. And then use method 3 where
know you use instead of 1 in 16 thing mod it for a 1 in 8.
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:
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:28:44 +0100
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Huffman stream cipher.
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Heathfield) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
<snip>
> >
> >[I presume, by the way, that <<< means either 'rotate left' or 'left
> >shift a LOT* :-) ]
> >
>
> I have not seens Tommy email but assuming your making fun of his
No, it was a genuine question. There is no <<< symbol in C, so I assumed
it represented something sensible, and took a wild guess.
> the synbol "<<" you would be right it could mean either "rotate left"
No, << means left shift, not left rotate.
> or "shift left" it is one of the machine dependent features of good
> old C.
No, << is portable in that all ISO C compilers support it, and its /use/
is portable too, if you're careful.
> So maybe in your proper dream world it should not ever be used.
> When I get on a new machibe I play with it to see what it does,
I would tell you, but it's off-topic here. If you don't know and want to
know, check your C documentation or a good book on C; there's a list of
good C books at http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/clc/cbooks.html which
you may care to peruse.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html
------------------------------
From: Steven Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Finding Sample implementation for DES and IDEA
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:19:12 GMT
Hi Jan,
Thanks for your guide. I got the IDEA, but I still could not found DES
source on thoese sites. Could your like to help me again?
-Steven
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Willem Knopper) wrote:
> Ooit in een nieuwsgroep zei Steven Wu hetvolgende:
> >Hi everyone,
> >
> >I am a student and currently interesting in block ciphers. Could
> >anyone tell me where to find source code for these two standards ?
> >
>
> If you are interested in block ciphers be sure to check out the AES
> web-page (http://www.nist.gov/aes). There are links to papers of the
> candidates (the winner was Rijndael).
> For all these algorithms source is included.
>
> Links and info about the DES algorithm can be found on
> http://raphael.math.uic.edu/~jeremy/crypt/des.html
>
> IDEA source can be found on http://www.r3.ch/o_files/products/idea/
> (be sure to read the patent section)
>
> Jan Willem
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Duane Smurf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: working with huge numbers
Date: 24 Oct 2000 09:31:08 -0500
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:32:08 +0200, "DeSilva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So can anyone direct me to an online source of info on how to do this?
>Quite frankly right now i dont want to sit and close read sourcecode in
>order to figure out how and why one specific implementation does this, i
>would much rather read some sort of tutorial on the subject... and right now
>i am not really interested in buying books on the subject.
>
>
Oops! I realise this thread is stale but try here
ftp://ftp.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/pub/TI/systems/LiDIA/LiDIA-2.x/LiDIA-2.0/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:42:47 +0100
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Huffman stream cipher.
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Heathfield) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
> >> I use to get warning from compliers all the time. It just means becare
> >> or use at you on risk which really goes with all software.
> >
> >It is a message from the compiler-writer, and it means: "I think there's
> >something wrong with this code. Check it very carefully, because the
> >code probably /is/ wrong." The vast majority of the time, it /is/ the
> >code that's wrong. To ignore a diagnostic is a serious step for me.
>
> It may be serious for someone who lacks experience like you.
Thank you for that vote of confidence. Are you for real?
> But they don't call it a warning for nothing.
No, that's right, because its proper name is "diagnostic". You can call
it a warning if you like, but I prefer to call things by their proper
names.
> >> Portability to other systems is not a high
> >> priority with me.
> >
> >Then your code is not going to be widely adopted, so it's not worth
> >analysing.
> >
>
> Then you don't have to use it.
Fear not, sirrah.
> Its free and you may lack the intellegence to make it work on your system
Perhaps. On the other hand, it may be that you've simply made it harder
than necessary to make the code work on my system. I had to dig out a
particular compiler just to build it, let alone use it.
>
> >> Getting code to work on the machine I use is. Hell
> >> when I worked for the US gorvernment
> >
> >I don't believe you ever worked for the US Government. People who work
> >for the US Government may be incompetent, but there is a limit.
> >
>
> Then again you are a fool and and idiot.
It would appear that I've touched a tender spot.
>
> >> I don't like to change
> >> compiler versiions even in C. I would not be surprised in the next
> >> release of GNU C for DJGPP it may not work.
> >
> >Wouldn't it be less work just to do it properly first time?
> >
>
> When one codes there really is no such thing as proper the
> first time since C is a moving defination.
<shrug> C was defined by ANSI in 1989. Their definition was adopted by
ISO in 1990. There was a tiny reworking in 1995, and a more significant
workover was ratified in late 1999. Yes, C's definition is moving, but
not at such a terrific rate that we can't keep up.
<snip>
> C at one time was for ease and convenice. THe pointer had more
> power. and you could use "9" when describing the value of octal
> numbers.
Yes - I bet you /really/ miss that feature.
<snip pointless and off-topic attack on standards bodies>
> >That, sir, is incorrect; it /is/ possible and indeed relatively easy to
> >write code that is portable to the vast majority of machines and
> >compilers, and still possible (though less easy) to write code that is
> >universally portable.
>
> I do not think it is possible to write a scott19u version of
> C that runs on most machines.
If that is true, then its usefulness is limited. Still, I doubt that
it's true.
> You may think it is easy but your
> wrong and lack the real world experience.
Ah, your confidence in me is underwhelming.
> It just can not be easily done.
That's an interesting claim. I'm almost tempted to take you up on it.
After all, it's not as if your obfuscation is deliberate.
<snip ad hominum attack>
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Clifford)
Subject: Re: idea for spam free email
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 10:30:16 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:39:01 GMT, G. Orme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>G. This is a good point because the system could be rendered worthless. I
>would propose to stop this by every month people download a small update to
>their software. The server would be set to not accept emails from people who
>didn't have this update. Hackers would then have to crack the software once
>a month to keep sending advertising which is a lot of work for a small
>return. In a variation of this the update is emailed to each person once a
>month to make it easier for them.
But equally, someone would have to put effort into rewriting the code
every month, in such a way that it cannot be automatically hacked at
the other end. For example, if you just change some string constant in
your program, it should be pretty easy to automatically find
that constant. So a hacker only needs to make a program once, which will
hack the code every month automatically.
Maybe some form of varying obfuscation?
>system is easily done. Say you want to send an email to someone who has a
>protected email address as described. One would send the email as before,
>but this would be diverted to an administrator who would send them a message
>that they must download the program to send the email. In a few minutes they
>can be logged on to the system and sending emails. One might have additional
>safeguards such as proof of ID, but if someone did spam then they would be
>automatically cut off on a complaint from a customer.
That is still too inconvenient.
For example,
If you want me to give you help for my globe applet, you do it on my
terms, which means give me an e-mail address that I can correspond
to.
You don't have to do that, I don't have to communicate with you - it is
you who wants me to help you, and I am not going to help you if I have
to download code to decrypt your messages.
So ultimately you lose out.
You either get no support for my globe applet, or you give me your
real address, in which case I sell it to my local spam factory for
1 eurodollarpoundmark.
--
http://www.hawaga.org.uk/ben/
GPG key 30F06950 on key servers & my web page. You are encouraged to use it!
Visit my page for benno.globe - rotating world map applet.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Clifford)
Subject: Re: idea for spam free email
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 10:33:36 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:44:50 GMT, G. Orme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In my opinion, filters installed on the receiver's e-mail software are
>> > still the best way to eliminate spam. Your sistem seems to be designed
>> > so that you will receive e-mail only from a list of sources you have
>> > hand-picked. You can obtain the same result by writing a filter that
>> > lets in only e-mail originating from a list of approved addresses.
>
>G. Your idea is very good. The system I am proposing is designed to
>automatically do a similar thing so people using it don't need the hmmm
>folder.
But the whole point of the "hmm" folder is that it stores messages
which could not be automatically decided upon.
Therefore your program cannot automatically decide upon these
messages, and would get them wrong 50% of the time.
People have to have their own filtering systems based on what they
want - if everyone runs the same filtering system, then spammers can
rework their spam to get around this one filtering system. As it stands
now, they cannot make spam which will pass every filtering system
because filtering systems are so diverse.
--
http://www.hawaga.org.uk/ben/
GPG key 30F06950 on key servers & my web page. You are encouraged to use it!
Visit my page for benno.globe - rotating world map applet.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:10:32 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AES
George Gordon wrote:
> Rijndael chosen as AES.
Yep.
> OK, is Twofish in the public domain then?
Yep just as before, and like Serpent and MARS.
> What of the Hitachi patent regarding Twofish?
Thats AFAIK still a problem. Not that they have a chance
to get it before the court, but they still claim that.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:08:18 +0200
From: Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Huffman stream cipher.
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> "SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> > >Here is the output I got:
> > >
> > >D:\alldata\dev\crypto\scott19u>gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic scott19u.c
> > >In file included from scott19u.c:8:
> > I see your mistake. you should have used
> > gcc -O3 scott19u.c -o scott19u.exe
> > then it will work.
>
> You mean, "turn off all the warnings so that the compiler won't tell me
> how crap the code is, and turn off all the portability flags so that the
> compiler won't tell me that this code is as portable as Mount Everest"?
Calm down. 'long long' is AFAIK part of the new ISO C standard. And if
you want to use 64 bit integers, you HAVE to use the features of your
compiler, there is no fully portable solution which works with all
compilers yet.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Huffman stream cipher.
Date: 24 Oct 2000 15:21:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Heathfield) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
>
>> C at one time was for ease and convenice. THe pointer had more
>> power. and you could use "9" when describing the value of octal
>> numbers.
>
>Yes - I bet you /really/ miss that feature.
Yes I really miss this feature. Why would any group of fools
change a working computer language to take away a feature that was
in common use for no real reason other than it did not apeal to some
inner sense of beauty. If the assholes did not like the feature
then they don't have to use it. I think this is one reason fortran
died. Academic assholes kept tyring to change it to look like Pascal
with out caring about existing programs.
When a language changes you should strive to add new features and
not take away old features just becuase you lack the imagination
and respect for porgrams previously coded.
>
><snip pointless and off-topic attack on standards bodies>
>
>> >That, sir, is incorrect; it /is/ possible and indeed relatively easy
>> >to write code that is portable to the vast majority of machines and
>> >compilers, and still possible (though less easy) to write code that
>> >is universally portable.
>>
>> I do not think it is possible to write a scott19u version of
>> C that runs on most machines.
>
>If that is true, then its usefulness is limited. Still, I doubt that
>it's true.
Again your lack of experience shows through. It is true!!
>
>> You may think it is easy but your
>> wrong and lack the real world experience.
>
>Ah, your confidence in me is underwhelming.
>
>> It just can not be easily done.
>
>That's an interesting claim. I'm almost tempted to take you up on it.
>After all, it's not as if your obfuscation is deliberate.
That is another lie common to pompous assholes. You have
no intention of writting it so why do you even pretend you have
the ability to do otherwise. Your lack of ability to even figure
out how to get it to compile when you finally got a good complier
shows me you lack the ability to do this kind of task. I have ported
earlier version of my code to SEL and MACs but that is when I had
access to such machines so I could play with them. You need test
machines to practice on. You can't write in some proper way and
expect to run on all machines. It just is not reasonable
To combine this with other thread I sometimes confuse right
and left. What do you think the symbol ">>" means is it a right
shift with sign carry or zero fill. Or is it machine dependent.
So what is proper.
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: MD5 / SHA1 on SQL Server 7.0
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:22:57 GMT
I want to implement a Challenge/Response authentication mechanism using
ASP and SQL Server 7.0. I do not want to use the NTLM mechanism
proposed by IIS, to be Netscape compliant.
Today, I have the JavaScript Routines (SHA1 and MD5) that will generate
the response based on the Challenge (provided by the server) and the
user login password.
Now, I need to have SQL Server compute the same encyphered response
based on the challenge and the password stored in the database. How can
I do that. Does anyone knows an extended stored procedure that computes
MD5 or SHA1 hashes?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Huffman stream cipher.
Date: 24 Oct 2000 15:28:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Runu Knips) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> "SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>> > >Here is the output I got:
>> > >
>> > >D:\alldata\dev\crypto\scott19u>gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic
>> > >scott19u.c In file included from scott19u.c:8:
>> > I see your mistake. you should have used
>> > gcc -O3 scott19u.c -o scott19u.exe
>> > then it will work.
>>
>> You mean, "turn off all the warnings so that the compiler won't tell
>> me how crap the code is, and turn off all the portability flags so
>> that the compiler won't tell me that this code is as portable as Mount
>> Everest"?
>
>Calm down. 'long long' is AFAIK part of the new ISO C standard. And if
>you want to use 64 bit integers, you HAVE to use the features of your
>compiler, there is no fully portable solution which works with all
>compilers yet.
I am glad you posted. Mr RH lives in a dream world where he thinks
that if scott19u was using quote "proper C" then there would be no
problem writting it to run on most compliers on most machines and
as you so honestly state. "there is no fully poratable solution"
maybe he will belive you since as sure as hell he will never belive
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mack)
Subject: Re: SDMI Successfully Hacked
Date: 24 Oct 2000 15:46:54 GMT
>Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Simple crack
>>
>>do random 1% phase shifts
>>and level shifts. Destroys
>>the watermark with minimal
>>distortion.
>
> "The" watermark? Which one? You mean all the watermarks?
> I can imagine this approach destroying some techniques but not all.
> Did you try this on all of their technologies?
>
>>Mack
> -S
>
I tried it on technology A. All of the technologies seem to rely on phase
shifts.
I didn't have time to do a thorough analysis but since all four of the
watermarks
were successfully beaten it is a pretty mute point. The problem with the above
attack is a sound quality issue. It will make the music a little 'off'. Very
little in
the way of hidden data could survive it. It is basically like playing it
through a
virtual speaker back into the file. That approach (with cabling) seems to have
been used by more than one person to remove the watermarks.
Sincerely,
Mack.
Mack
Remove njunk123 from name to reply by e-mail
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mack)
Subject: Re: SHA-384 and SHA-512
Date: 24 Oct 2000 15:49:52 GMT
>Daniel Leonard wrote:
>
>> BTW, why is it "128 bit" and not "128 bits" ?
>
>In that context, "bit" is an adjective, not a noun. The same reason you say
>"5
>car pileup" instead of "5 cars pileup".
>
>--
>Kent Briggs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Briggs Softworks, http://www.briggsoft.com
>
>
Since we are arguing english semantics.
It should be 128-bit hash or 5-car pileup.
The hyphen indicates a combined advective.
Mack
Remove njunk123 from name to reply by e-mail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:53:55 +0100
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Huffman stream cipher.
Runu Knips wrote:
>
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > "SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> > > >Here is the output I got:
> > > >
> > > >D:\alldata\dev\crypto\scott19u>gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic scott19u.c
> > > >In file included from scott19u.c:8:
> > > I see your mistake. you should have used
> > > gcc -O3 scott19u.c -o scott19u.exe
> > > then it will work.
> >
> > You mean, "turn off all the warnings so that the compiler won't tell me
> > how crap the code is, and turn off all the portability flags so that the
> > compiler won't tell me that this code is as portable as Mount Everest"?
>
> Calm down.
My dear chap, I'm not uncalm, I assure you. I know my choice of words is
somewhat lyrical on occasion, but I'm no longer so naive as to get
really upset over a Usenet article.
> 'long long' is AFAIK part of the new ISO C standard.
Yes, that's right. In due course, we'll be able to use it portably. But
not quite yet.
> And if
> you want to use 64 bit integers, you HAVE to use the features of your
> compiler, there is no fully portable solution which works with all
> compilers yet.
You're gonna love this. He aliases long long in the header file, but
doesn't use the type /at all/ in the actual program, so it's a
completely pointless departure from ISO C90.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
