Cryptography-Digest Digest #24, Volume #13 Sat, 28 Oct 00 09:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Encryption scheme ideas? (Dido Sevilla)
Re: Psuedo-random number generator (Dido Sevilla)
Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET? (Tim Tyler)
Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET? (Tim Tyler)
Re: Psuedo-random number generator ("Nick Field")
Re: Psuedo-random number generator (Thomas Pornin)
Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET? (Tom St Denis)
Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET? (Tom St Denis)
Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET? (Tom St Denis)
Re: very large mult. div. (Tom St Denis)
Re: very large mult. div. (Tom St Denis)
Re: how i decode this? (Tom St Denis)
Re: Psuedo-random number generator (Paul Schlyter)
Re: End to end encryption in GSM (Marc)
Re: how i decode this? (Simon Johnson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dido Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Encryption scheme ideas?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 17:09:32 +0800
Ethics wrote:
>
> Hey all,
> Just though you might be able to help me identify the encryption scheme
> used to encrypt this...
>
> The word is : juris
> The encrypted word is: [x\p_Cr|guh@XP
>
> ANY ideas would be helpful....
>
Well, it would help if you could tell us the particular program that
produced the output, seeing as you happen to have both plaintext and
ciphertext pairs. Someone on the list might be familiar with it, and
could give you technical details on what encryption is actually used.
--
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: Psuedo-random number generator
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 17:37:21 +0800
slak- wrote:
>
> Would it not be feesable to use your sound blaster to scan a number of
> radio-frequencies and do a series of calculations based on the results to
> generate a seed? I've been thinking about it, but my mediocre programming
> knowledge doesn't let me do too much, although I'm learning :)
>
> The radio signals don't have to be from some local frequency. Could you not
> simply check extremely high frequencies that would be severely affected by
> the sun, for instance.
>
The trouble is the sound blaster is not a radio card; you can't use it
to scan RF noise from external sources, at least not without some sort
of external hardware. And if you're going to be having external
hardware anyway, why not just have a dedicated hardware RNG anyway?
There are a number of resources I've found on the Internet describing
how to build such a thing out of components you can buy at your local
radio shack or whatever. One of the simplest I've found uses the
base-emitter junctions of a couple of transistors to generate noise from
avalanche multiplication, the two transistors, plus a TTL inverter
should be good enough to generate a Gaussian-distributed random bit
generator that you can easily connect to a parallel port with no
hassle. And then use a 20:1 SHA-1 to decorrelate the noise and have
your random seed. You may need to shield the transistors to prevent the
noise from becoming biased by external sources, though.
--
Rafael R. Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +63 (2) 4342217
ICSM-F Development Team, UP Diliman +63 (917) 4458925
OpenPGP Key ID: 0x0E8CE481
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:39:44 GMT
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : [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. [...]
:>
:> :> http://www3.sympatico.ca/mtimmerm/bicom/bicom.html
:>
:> : Perhaps us "know nothing" people prefer to leave our security to
:> : security related algorithms.
:>
:> I believe that's why the product includes a bijective version of
:> Rijndael [...]
: Of course Rijndael is bijective it's a friggin block cipher.
That's not the point. Have you considered issues related to dealing with
files which are not exact multiples of the Rijndael block length?
Can you point me at any other implementation of Rijndael where decrypting
an arbitrary cyphertext, and re-encrypting again with the same key
produces exactly the same file?
:> The PPM bijective compressor is intended to minimise known probable
:> plaintext before encryption, reduce bandwidth and maximise the
:> number of possible decrypts that look like plausible messages.
: While the PPM codec may reduce the redundancy in the plaintext I have
: yet to hear of any cryptosystem broken because the plaintext was ASCII
: text only.
I think you need to qualify this to avoid it being nonsense.
: Think of the encryption as a "blinding" procedure. Even if the input
: is ASCII the output is garbage.
Not exactly my usual perspective. I don't see what light it throws on
the issues at hand. You are claiming that known-plaintext is irrelevant??
: And don't forget that you might say "ASCII has alot of redundancy" but
: by compressing the message you are *NOT* increasing the entropy so the
: message is no more random then it was before.
But it has greater entropy per bit of cyphertext. Consequently, the
inputs to the encryption device more closely approximate a random stream.
This helps with (e.g. dictionary attacks).
The length of the transmitted message is brought closer to that of the
key. When the unicity distance is reached there may be multiple keys that
produce plausible looking messages.
Under such circumstances, even someone with a cryptanalytic attack on the
algorithm may be unable to determine exactly what the intended meaning
was.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Free gift.
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:48:25 GMT
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
:> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote in
: <8tc87m$phb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
:> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:> >> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> >> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
:> >> :> http://www3.sympatico.ca/mtimmerm/bicom/bicom.html
:> >>
:> >> : Perhaps us "know nothing" people prefer to leave our security to
:> >> : security related algorithms.
:> >>
:> >> I believe that's why the product includes a bijective version of
:> >> Rijndael - without that there would be no security at all.
:> >
:> >Of course Rijndael is bijective it's a friggin block cipher. [...]
:>
:> Tom you always shot your mouth off with out little thought,
:> What other implementaion of Rijndael is really bijective[?]
: Rijndael is not defined for 1-byte blocks so technically what "matt"
: did is not Rijndael.
What Matt did is wrap Rijndael in a bijection to 8-bit units and wrap that
in a compression routine. It's still Rijndael underneath.
You might as well claim PGP doesn't use IDEA - because it adds compression
before encrypting.
: Of course I could use Rijndael in a feedback mode (OFB) to get a
: keystream and encode 5-bit msgs if I like.
: So what?
So - that would allow bit-flipping attacks on the cyphertext in the
absence of signatures - not desirable.
OFB mode is not widely used for this sort of good reason. I would not
recommend that people use Rijndael in OFB mode for encrypting messages.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ http://av.com/
------------------------------
From: "Nick Field" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Psuedo-random number generator
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:43:24 +0100
Hi All,
why go to all this trouble when standard itterative formulae can
generate absolutely random numbers.
Cheers,
Nick Field
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Pornin)
Subject: Re: Psuedo-random number generator
Date: 28 Oct 2000 11:24:29 GMT
According to Nick Field <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> why go to all this trouble when standard itterative formulae can
> generate absolutely random numbers.
Those formulas give statistically random numbers, but cryptographers
are not interested in statistical randomness, but computationaly
unpredicitible numbers. This implies statistical randomness, but is much
stronger than that, and much more difficult to achieve. Using a physical
source of true random bits helps in building a cryptographicaly secure
random numbers generator.
--Thomas Pornin
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:24:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> :> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote in
> : <8tc87m$phb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> :> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> :> >> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> >> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
>
> :> >> :> http://www3.sympatico.ca/mtimmerm/bicom/bicom.html
> :> >>
> :> >> : Perhaps us "know nothing" people prefer to leave our security
to
> :> >> : security related algorithms.
> :> >>
> :> >> I believe that's why the product includes a bijective version of
> :> >> Rijndael - without that there would be no security at all.
> :> >
> :> >Of course Rijndael is bijective it's a friggin block cipher. [...]
> :>
> :> Tom you always shot your mouth off with out little thought,
> :> What other implementaion of Rijndael is really bijective[?]
>
> : Rijndael is not defined for 1-byte blocks so technically what "matt"
> : did is not Rijndael.
>
> What Matt did is wrap Rijndael in a bijection to 8-bit units and wrap
that
> in a compression routine. It's still Rijndael underneath.
>
> You might as well claim PGP doesn't use IDEA - because it adds
compression
> before encrypting.
Becuase I am capable of separating the idea of encryption and
compression in my head I realize that in that case IDEA is used to
encrypt and deflate to compress. I would't say PGP is any more secure
because it uses deflate, just more convenient.
> : Of course I could use Rijndael in a feedback mode (OFB) to get a
> : keystream and encode 5-bit msgs if I like.
>
> : So what?
>
> So - that would allow bit-flipping attacks on the cyphertext in the
> absence of signatures - not desirable.
>
> OFB mode is not widely used for this sort of good reason. I would not
> recommend that people use Rijndael in OFB mode for encrypting
messages.
True, which is why I wouldn't do it. I am just showing that I too can
encrypt odd sized messages.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:23:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> It means when you said Rijndael was bijective by itself
> it was a fucking lie, It depends on how it is implimented.
> Matt did it correctly. If he really wanted to he could of used
> twocrap or any other block cipher. Look you may not like it
> but do you know of any other program that incorpartes high
> grade compression with what is condsidered by some to be
> strong encryption that is fully bijective YES or NO.
> My guess is you don't know
> of any and you will rant on so that you can have the last
> word. And further more what Matt did was pure Rijndael but
> your pee brain can't seem to understand that.
How can you say Rijndael is not a bijection? Are you mental? It's an
invertable fixed-sized finite function, IT HAS TO BE a bijection.
Just because your friend got a clue about feedback modes does not mean
he invented some new technology. OFB/CFB modes have existed since the
seventies...
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:27:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> :> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : [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. [...]
> :>
> :> :> http://www3.sympatico.ca/mtimmerm/bicom/bicom.html
> :>
> :> : Perhaps us "know nothing" people prefer to leave our security to
> :> : security related algorithms.
> :>
> :> I believe that's why the product includes a bijective version of
> :> Rijndael [...]
>
> : Of course Rijndael is bijective it's a friggin block cipher.
>
> That's not the point. Have you considered issues related to dealing
with
> files which are not exact multiples of the Rijndael block length?
Yeah, you pad the last block with nonse and just remove it when you're
decrypting. Not exactly a challenge.
> Can you point me at any other implementation of Rijndael where
decrypting
> an arbitrary cyphertext, and re-encrypting again with the same key
> produces exactly the same file?
So you're saying because you can decrypt 6-byte (or so) files and re-
encrypt it to the same 6-byte file that you have done what? So what?
Like I said I could use a OFB mode and do that... whoopy-doo.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: very large mult. div.
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:28:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
> > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Now we expect them to immediately purchase a 65 dollar book
because
> > you
> > > > said so? hmm fishy.
> > >
> > > Are the public libraries in your region fairly poor?
> > > Just interested.
> >
> > Visit Kanata and see for yourself.
>
> I assume that in Canada the public libraries are inter-
> connected like here in Germany. I can e.g. get books
> in a library somewhere in northern Germany, if these are
> not present locally. It takes some time. But I'll get
> them nonetheless.
Yeah, but people in Kanata don't believe in thinking. If I asked the
librarian for "Knuth Vol2, Semi-Numerical..." she would probably
explode or something...
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: very large mult. div.
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:29:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
> > The series are good (well the third volume is a bore) but the first
two
> > (espescially the second) are a quite cool.
>
> <cough>
>
> The third volume is on sorting and searching, and is absolutely
> fascinating. (I find the first two fascinating too.) How you can find
> sorting and searching to be boring is beyond me.
>
> Perhaps you'd have found it more interesting if it had included more
on
> combinatorial algorithms (there is a little, but not much). Watch that
> space - I believe (on no firm evidence whatsoever) that Vol 4 will
cover
> this fascinating and (for sci.crypt) topical subject.
Well I didn't say Vol3 was without purpose. My field of study is just
not sorting. I like the radix sort (simple) and binary tree structures
(simple as well)... that's about the extent of my dabblings...
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how i decode this?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:35:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eduardo Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> how i decode or decrypt this kind of messages???
>
> eg.
>
> MQ'(E<H8.=8"AKS*7C$$KTGXXF_-D:M+&![;'PY61C0<B$-?E1B.^XKPMT,:T
> MI38V9-JN7+H/[C2^9*R1&X`4;HUTLE$7D4D].B7JPZMTA2Z?;U9,^N$C8_C8
> ME?!/K?>7ZBM]H\OAPIPI+OR<S>::]>K<ESP$9RULS>)*[[@DAV:#LU\;+:'C
> MQH#&RZW06I'F7I^>QHD[!(_\_?DPX%&I`Y@NV9MZ!\%JD)8#%&YML5L>VG[6
> MCL^M[2!5+;[U\[?&[R%KO^T/&=V9,OV6-VI7G`K-Z&<-,.6_$VJZ&[#XE"6`
> M`:G/;Q3+T]+K8Q3^+KYQGEU-.2@A\IM6_E9Y)+&G!QO<];U:5P4/OC,E$TU]
> M`*@:H4DZVY?`B!&5%^OL_'O039X;>T[&K/U^7;E"&QPS$[.8R:[R:NI&)>/>
It's a uuencoded message saying "Stop posting wierd garbage to
sci.crypt"
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: Psuedo-random number generator
Date: 28 Oct 2000 13:20:56 +0200
In article <E4yK5.3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nick Field <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi All,
> why go to all this trouble when standard itterative formulae can
> generate absolutely random numbers.
Because such formulae cannot generate "absolutely random numbers". NO
formula can do that -- you'll need some external unpredictable event
(such as radiactive decay of atoms, or noise from some hardware noise
source) to get anywhere near "absolutely random numbers".
--
================================================================
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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc)
Crossposted-To: alt.cellular.gsm
Subject: Re: End to end encryption in GSM
Date: 28 Oct 2000 12:52:01 GMT
>encryption and GSM technology, making it very user-friendly. The Tiger
>system operates with a standard subscription in the public GSM network
>and fixed-wire network. Through use of the fixed telenet, the
>telephone can be used in locations not reached by a GSM net.
I don't know how this product works. But these are my findings
of the past:
The GSM voice coder generates bitframes with the compressed voice.
Psycho-acoustical experiements have been made to to find out which
of the output bits are more important than the others (to the human
ear). The output bits are grouped according to these experiments,
so that the most important bits can be transmitted with high
redundancy (to allow for error correction even on noisy channels),
the lesser important bits with sparse redundancy, and a good part
of the bits are sent with no error correction facility at all
(only a checksum to detect if the bits should be used or discarded).
This is a tradeoff between barely understandable voice on noisy
channels, and "high" quality voice on good channels (higher
quality than the bandwidth would have allowed when the good coding
had been used on all bits).
The essence for us is:
1) two voice data frames with similar contents (ie separated
by a bunch of bit errors) are decoded to similar audio
output (as perceived by humans).
2) the receiver does (in voice mode) not necessarily output
bit-exact copies of what has been sent originally (as opposed
to the GSM data mode where this is obviously a goal).
I believe it is quite difficult to modify a handset to establish
data mode connections between mobile handsets. One would have
to decompile the firmware to such a degree, that it can be compiled
and linked OK again.
Also, I believe that strong encryption with diffusion etc doesn't
work right, because even a single uncorrectable bit error will
render the whole voice frame garbage. I expect a lot of bit
errors in just about every voice frame received in real world
situations.
In consequence the only way to go seems to me to generate XOR
pads for each voice frame by good crypto means, and then simply
XOR the frame with it. This is transparent to bit errors and
the voice quality will stay exactly the same as on a non-encrypted
call.
The problem reduces to keeping the TX and RX in sync so that
they both use the same pad for the same frame. Obviously
one needs a sidechannel to ensure this, because it is safe to
assume that GSM might drop frames in typical situations, and
when it comes to badly implemented networks maybe even swap the
chronological order at times (don't expect that actually to
happen, but a normal voice call is resistant to that and so
should be the encrypted).
A sidechannel could be stolen as a few bits from each frame,
eg 2 or 3 bits (of around 100 IIRC). They could be placed in
the lesser protected area and simply be a wrapping up-counter.
The receiver can then detect bursts of 3-7 missing frames.
Every now and then (eg once a second) a detailed sync info
should be sent to allow recovery from lengthy errors. This
info should be emedded into the better error-corrected area
of the frame to ensure that it really reaches the other side
(the info is important when the link is bad, not when it is
good anyway).
This side channel will reduce the voice quality obviously.
Experiments have to be made to find a compromise between
error resistance and quality degradation.
Retrofitting such a scheme into existing handset firmware
seems to be feasable. More at least than most other approaches.
One needs to identify the function that prepares the voice
data frame for TX, and the function that takes it from RX.
Also, call setup must be detected. The user interface
must be modified to give indication about encrypted/clear
call (can be done with charger LED or similar). The source
for randomness must be found (ie timer io registers or
unused EEPROM area for remembering states).
That's about it. With these 5 hooks and an unused area
of flash (2-8kb) one can implement the above scheme.
------------------------------
From: Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how i decode this?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:54:42 GMT
In article <8tedm9$fjp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eduardo Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > how i decode or decrypt this kind of messages???
> >
> > eg.
> >
> > MQ'(E<H8.=8"AKS*7C$$KTGXXF_-D:M+&![;'PY61C0<B$-?E1B.^XKPMT,:T
> > MI38V9-JN7+H/[C2^9*R1&X`4;HUTLE$7D4D].B7JPZMTA2Z?;U9,^N$C8_C8
> > ME?!/K?>7ZBM]H\OAPIPI+OR<S>::]>K<ESP$9RULS>)*[[@DAV:#LU\;+:'C
> > MQH#&RZW06I'F7I^>QHD[!(_\_?DPX%&I`Y@NV9MZ!\%JD)8#%&YML5L>VG[6
> > MCL^M[2!5+;[U\[?&[R%KO^T/&=V9,OV6-VI7G`K-Z&<-,.6_$VJZ&[#XE"6`
> > M`:G/;Q3+T]+K8Q3^+KYQGEU-.2@A\IM6_E9Y)+&G!QO<];U:5P4/OC,E$TU]
> > M`*@:H4DZVY?`B!&5%^OL_'O039X;>T[&K/U^7;E"&QPS$[.8R:[R:NI&)>/>
>
> It's a uuencoded message saying "Stop posting wierd garbage to
> sci.crypt"
>
> Tom
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
*LOL*, But on a serious note:
We can't be expected to even attempt to solve the encrypted cipher text
without knowledge of the algorithm.
--
Hi, i'm the signuture virus,
help me spread by copying me into Signiture File
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
