Cryptography-Digest Digest #11, Volume #13 Fri, 27 Oct 00 01:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: frequency analysis ("computerscience")
Re: Is OPT the only encryption system that can be proved secure? (Terry Ritter)
BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: DATA PADDING FOR ENCRYPTION (Bryan Olson)
Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET? (Tom St Denis)
Re: DATA PADDING FOR ENCRYPTION (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: CHAP security hole question (David P Jablon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "computerscience" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: frequency analysis
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 01:14:17 GMT
i think i could write one, in c, c++, basic, or java
binary digit wrote in message ...
>Anyone know of any programs out there that will try to do a frequency
>analysis on a peice of enciphered text and it will output occording to the
>amount of times a letter appears which letter is which?
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: Is OPT the only encryption system that can be proved secure?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 01:23:37 GMT
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 23:26:26 GMT, in <8taeiq$bu5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
sci.crypt Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Terry Ritter wrote:
>
>> The mathematically-proven OTP depends upon various assumptions which
>> cannot be provably achieved in practice.
>
>True.
>
>> And proof based on
>> unprovable assumptions is ultimately no proof at all.
>
>Nonsense. Of course it's a proof. A huge mass of concerns
>vanishes, and one only has to look at how well his system
>fulfills the assumptions.
>
>Do right triangles exist in practice? Is the Pythagorean
>theorem "no theorem at all"? Is it useless to engineers?
Actually, I think that makes my point for me. An inability to
distinguish between theory and reality seems quite common in
mathematical cryptography.
Can we measure angles as being within some limit? Yes.
Does the OTP proof define a limit for how random the generator must
be? Can we measure a generator so we know that a real machine will
fall into the breadth of the proof? No, and no.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET?
Date: 27 Oct 2000 01:32:14 GMT
If you folks check at comp.compression you we see a note
from Matt Timmermans on his super bijective PPM compressor
with a built in bijective RIJNDAEL in modied CBC mode.
Shanon would be proud and the UK gov will be mad.
It can treat any file as a compressed encypted file.
So you can give the government any key since any key
will decrypt any file and when renecrypted you get same
file back. This in not possible in any other combined
compression encryption product.
There have been many here on sci.cypt that have rejected
the ideas of Shanon information theortic methods in favor
of mathematical hardness. Many thought real good bijective
compression programs where not possible. WELL EAT CROW because
this is a real break through and should be used by anyone
wanting to do compression with encryption. If you want added
features like error checking this should be done outside of
the compression encryption you can add it afterwards.
This will be far superior than using the compression encryption
features that PGP folks will try to trick you people into
using.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mtimmerm/bicom/bicom.html
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: Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DATA PADDING FOR ENCRYPTION
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:02:59 GMT
> John Myre wrote:
> : Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> :> Something simple like appending a 1 and padding with 0s
> :> to the end of the block can allow up to 2^128 - 1 out of
> :> 2^128 keys to be rejected without any further knowledge
> :> of the plaintext - possibly enough to reject all but
> :> one message.
>
> : Nobody with any sense cares, and you know why.
>
> I don't think this is true. I care - and I am not "without sense".
John is right. Which of your claims is false I won't say. :)
> It is true that some people are prepared to trust security based
> on the percieved difficulty of performing certain mathematical
> operations, rather than security based on an information
> theoretical lack of ability to determine whether keys are correct.
There are such people, yes. And then there are other who use
the One Time Pad, though I don't personally know any. But can
you imagine someone so clueless as to expect his message space
won't have enough redundancy to cover a couple hundred (or
several thousand) bits of key equivocation? Or that bijective
compression reduces redundancy better than schemes that
compress better?
--Bryan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:32:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
>
> If you folks check at comp.compression you we see a note
> from Matt Timmermans on his super bijective PPM compressor
> with a built in bijective RIJNDAEL in modied CBC mode.
> Shanon would be proud and the UK gov will be mad.
> It can treat any file as a compressed encypted file.
> So you can give the government any key since any key
> will decrypt any file and when renecrypted you get same
> file back. This in not possible in any other combined
> compression encryption product.
> There have been many here on sci.cypt that have rejected
> the ideas of Shanon information theortic methods in favor
> of mathematical hardness. Many thought real good bijective
> compression programs where not possible. WELL EAT CROW because
> this is a real break through and should be used by anyone
> wanting to do compression with encryption. If you want added
> features like error checking this should be done outside of
> the compression encryption you can add it afterwards.
> This will be far superior than using the compression encryption
> features that PGP folks will try to trick you people into
> using.
>
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/mtimmerm/bicom/bicom.html
Perhaps us "know nothing" people prefer to leave our security to
security related algorithms.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: DATA PADDING FOR ENCRYPTION
Date: 27 Oct 2000 02:29:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bryan Olson) wrote in
<8tanog$j8a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> John Myre wrote:
>> : Tim Tyler wrote:
>>
>> :> Something simple like appending a 1 and padding with 0s
>> :> to the end of the block can allow up to 2^128 - 1 out of
>> :> 2^128 keys to be rejected without any further knowledge
>> :> of the plaintext - possibly enough to reject all but
>> :> one message.
>>
>> : Nobody with any sense cares, and you know why.
>>
>> I don't think this is true. I care - and I am not "without sense".
>
>John is right. Which of your claims is false I won't say. :)
>
>> It is true that some people are prepared to trust security based
>> on the percieved difficulty of performing certain mathematical
>> operations, rather than security based on an information
>> theoretical lack of ability to determine whether keys are correct.
>
>There are such people, yes. And then there are other who use
>the One Time Pad, though I don't personally know any. But can
>you imagine someone so clueless as to expect his message space
>won't have enough redundancy to cover a couple hundred (or
>several thousand) bits of key equivocation? Or that bijective
>compression reduces redundancy better than schemes that
>compress better?
>
Actually making compression bijective does make for better
compression it is just that only a few are out. BZIP2 can compress
better if they would fix the RLE compressor that is in it. I
think they goofed when they did it. However a current example
of a hot bijective compressor with bijective Rijndael built in
to the program is MAtt Timmermans BICOM101. Unlike many who
seem to be clueless many so called good compression programs
can be made better by trying to make them bijective.
I don't think you will see the big boys making much of this
they don't seem to have a clue about how to make good encryption
compression programs.
Matts code should be used as anyone serious about compressing
and encrypting with AES. You can even make it so that any one bit change
in the file changes the whole file yet it would still be bijective
if you reencrypt the output with scott16u or scott19u after you
use MAtts code. Bijective encryption and compression is here to
stay regradles of what Mr BS or Wagner thinks. IF you want so called
error detection add it on after the compression and encryption
not before or during.
I think MAtt has made a break through in his product.
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] (David P Jablon)
Subject: Re: CHAP security hole question
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:47:46 GMT
Sure some flavors of CHAP are better than others ...
just like RC4-40 is better than ROT13.
The real story is that all purely hash-based or symmetric-encryption-
based password authentication protocols have been obsolete for years.
To resist offline brute-force attacks on network messages,
regardless of the size of the password, look at the protocols in
the class of EKE, SPEKE, SRP, SNAPI and AMP. These are documented
in a number of papers linked at <www.IntegritySciences.com/links.html>.
In article <8sl0sf$hnm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8sksoq$b87$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>>What are other authentication and key-exchange protocols besides CHAP?
>>... I am trying to search
>>for all authentication and key-exchange protocols so that I can compare
>>which one can better suit my need.
=========================
David P. Jablon
www.IntegritySciences.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
