Cryptography-Digest Digest #40, Volume #13 Mon, 30 Oct 00 00:13:00 EST
Contents:
Re: Psuedo-random number generator (Tim Tyler)
Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET? (Tim Tyler)
Re: Re: JAWS/JAWZ patent, and another one ("dixon mcknight")
Re: Psuedo-random number generator ("Brian Wong")
Good reference on web (lepemp)
Padding scheme? (Benjamin Goldberg)
Re: ring homomorphic signature and encryption (Benjamin Goldberg)
Re: Psuedo-random number generator (David Hopwood)
Re: DMCA bans fair use (Matthew Skala)
Re: Psuedo-random number generator (Tom St Denis)
Re: End to end encryption in GSM ("Donald R. Newcomb (Despamed address)")
SSL or public key infrastructure (xmedar)
Algorithm/code to encrypt to readable text ("G")
Re: ciphertext smaller than blocksize (wtshaw)
Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Psuedo-random number generator ("Brian Wong")
Re: DATA PADDING FOR ENCRYPTION (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: DATA PADDING FOR ENCRYPTION (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: DATA PADDING FOR ENCRYPTION (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Psuedo-random number generator
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:15:13 GMT
Peter Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: can you provide a link to a paper or page written by a respected and well
: known member of the scientific communicty with adequite proof that quantum
: phenomena are unpredictable ?
Quantum phenomena are largely unpredictable by human beings. The
question is whether the universe is deterministic - a question
which I believe currently has no solid answer - both deterministic
and non-deterministic theories exist.
: i am currently an undergraduate student in physics and would like to hear an
: alternate perspective on quantum phenomena, ie that it is not unpredicatable.
Best of luck. Try asking your question on sci.physics.
--
__________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:26:36 GMT
Brian Gladman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: if you are going to admit to adjusting your approach to cope with real
: world constraints, then you cannot reasonably criticise others who do
: the same in different ways simply because you don't like what they propose.
Are you talking about something specific?
: At no point have I ever said that I would add information to a file. Files,
: as you define them, have a property called length - the number of bits they
: contain - and this means that there is no question for them of adding
: information since it is already there.
If you add the length of the file to the message before encrypting, you
are adding redundant material to the file. Redundancy in the plaintext
is best avoided.
: But in arithmetic coding the original file length does need to be encoded in
: some way and Matt has a neat way of doing this (and one which I like). But
: his scheme is just one of many possible ways of encoding this length and, so
: far, you have failed to provide any basis for a claim that this specific
: approach is better in security terms than any other possible approach to
: this task [...]
It adds the minimum information (zero bits). Other methods may also get
down to zero bits. There is no proof that Matt's method is unique
because it is not.
The other main approach appears to be John Savard's - which involves
adding random data. If you have a random stream available, this method
has some advantages - although it produces larger files.
--
__________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("dixon mcknight")
Subject: Re: Re: JAWS/JAWZ patent, and another one
Date: 30 Oct 2000 02:25:45 +0100
No disagreement here at all.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
--
Posted from [24.4.252.17] by way of f306.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.14.181]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
------------------------------
From: "Brian Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Psuedo-random number generator
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:24:31 -0500
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tieh2$be5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Peter Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > can you provide a link to a paper or page written by a respected and
> well
> > known member of the scientific communicty with adequite proof that
> quantum
> > phenomena are unpredictable ?
> >
> > i am currently an undergraduate student in physics and would like to
> hear an
> > alternate perspective on quantum phenomena, ie that it is not
> unpredicatable.
>
> Well if you can't observe something and it's unpredictable then it's
> random. We can't see atoms and so on since they are too small, and
> well they behave somewhat chaotic, so as it stands atomic decay is
> random for now.
>
> Tom
This is so blatantly false that I cannot believe that you would present that
as fact. Your statement is either indicative of your gross ignorance of even
the rudiments of modern physics or your pathological need to participate in
a discussion that you add nothing to. STMs can routinely resolve surface
features the size of individual atoms. The decay of an individual atom is a
random process; this is a neccesary consequence of quantum mechanics. There
are no "tiny clocks" or other such timers hidden inside radioactive atoms
that tick towards a deterministic decay.
Hidden variable theories are incompatible with the idea of quantum mechanics
as local. Many-worlds is an alternative interpretation of QM that moves the
indeterminism from the level of atoms to the idea of observations as
splitting the universe into divergent paths, each proceding along strictly
classical paths until the next such splitting. There are certain
philosophical objections to this theory, as well as the very real one of the
lack of its ability to explain why the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is
able to make probabilistic assertions about the behavior of quantum
mechanical ensambles (although Everett does have a nice argument along the
lines that the set of observers who do not see events consistent with such a
probability distribution must be measure 0, that unfortunately relies on an
additional assumption beyond those shared by many-worlds and Copenhagen).
Brian
------------------------------
From: lepemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Good reference on web
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:50:46 -0500
Hi,
Someone know a good reference about cryptography on the web.
Thanks to your attention
Ga�l
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Padding scheme?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:16:05 GMT
I'm not certain if this padding scheme is new. If it's not, don't sue
me :)
messagesize and blocksize are measured in bytes.
x = (messagesize + 1) mod blocksize
if( x == 0 )
y = 0
else
y = blocksize-x
append y Truly Random bytes to the message
append a final byte that has the lower log2(blocksize) bits set to y,
and the upper bitlength(byte)-log2(blocksize) bits filled in from your
Truly Random bitsource.
To remove the padding, read the message up to the last byte, use a mask
to extract y, and discard the y previous bytes.
Note that the scheme requires that blocksize be fewer than
2**bitlength(byte) bytes, and works best if blocksize is a power of 2.
Does anybody see any weakness in this scheme?
--
"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: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ring homomorphic signature and encryption
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:16:07 GMT
John A. Malley wrote:
>
> David Wagner wrote:
> >
> > John A. Malley wrote:
> > >I thought Z_p and Z_p^* ARE already homomorphic to each other when
> > >p is a prime.
> >
> > No, they're not. You're probably getting confused about what the
> > group operation is; under traditional conventions, when you say
> > "the group Z_p" this is typically taken to refer to addition as
> > the group operation, whereas the group operation in Z_p^* is
> > multiplication.
>
> Yes! That's it. When looking for a homomorphism between a group with
> addition as its operator and a group with multiplication as its
> operator, I must look for a mapping phi() such that phi(x+y) =
> phi(x)*phi(y).
> And going the other way, when looking for a homomorphism between a
> group with multiplication as its operator and a group with addition as
> its operator, I must look for a mapping psi() such that psi(x*y) =
> psi(x)+psi(y).
First off, you can probably just use the inverse operation of phi for
your psi (that is, psi(x) = phi^-1(x))
Second, the properties you're describing sound like logarithms and
antilogarithms. Consider ln(x*y) = ln(x)*ln(y) and e**(x+y) = e**x *
e**y (ln is natural logarithm, and e is Euler's constant),
--
"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]]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:23:44 +0000
From: David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Psuedo-random number generator
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Brian Wong wrote:
> Hidden variable theories are incompatible with the idea of quantum mechanics
> as local. Many-worlds is an alternative interpretation of QM that moves the
> indeterminism from the level of atoms to the idea of observations as
> splitting the universe into divergent paths, each proceding along strictly
> classical paths until the next such splitting.
Which interpretation of QM is used makes no difference to cryptography
(and in particular, to the existance of secure RNGs), since from the point
of view of any user of a cryptosystem, all interpretations will make the
same predictions of the probability that attackers in the same universe
as the user could predict a random quantum event.
- --
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBOfzbhzkCAxeYt5gVAQFpaAf9EOZFoJI8RtydPOZQ9XYbXyTWy5/Lfl2X
4inZ43gQyFFVm/WqJRbNGODZH+tbPT76KcdK5T1T3bTUtlx593SgJ2L2DXwTGlUB
QnajSAC7kJTGVL11Gl7tDi1znoQQXPUqwwjhg7c3KKKendDh35wF0ancwAtuQiyl
cyMftx3Z/IV30i5rQ4jez5MYvCeJf9sHjXyCIW2no1smYljQvhg4fcdRTNuogZ11
EQGFPIG0DluEZwf0p72i7bc7JodR3IIgzNbBpFh/hbbRePeo3fiNI3MHYQcPdl7E
XnTuKbxq/EG8zJZ+cLlkauL4Lyl+FJZNVaE6RF+9FNIeOrrN3bmfqw==
=MRJB
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Skala)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: DMCA bans fair use
Date: 29 Oct 2000 18:13:12 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger Schlafly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> !
>
>Weren't you the one who got into trouble for accessing such a list
>without permission,
I was one of the two, with Eddy Jansson.
>and they browbeat you into repenting and
>promising never to do it again?
Well, I promised not to reverse engineer any more Microsystems
products. How repentant I am may be open to debate.
>Can I infer that your "!" is all
>your consent decree allows you to say?
No, I'm allowed to say a lot more (and have done, in various places
including my home page) but the idea of posting a single-character
response amused me.
>Offhand, it looks like you caved in too soon. Or maybe the
>Copyright Office heard your pitiful story and decided that
>others should not suffer the same fate.
They did mention Microsystems et al v. Scandinavia Online et al (the US
side of the case I was involved in) in one of the documents; I hope that
as you say, the Copyright Office wanted to prevent future travesties of a
similar nature. It would be nice if they had made more extensive
exemptions, but it is interesting, and a little gratifying, that with such
a short list my pet issue was still important enough to make the cut.
--
Matthew Skala
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :CVECAT DELENDA EST
http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Psuedo-random number generator
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:52:53 GMT
In article <8tiiel$s5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Brian Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8tieh2$be5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Peter Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > can you provide a link to a paper or page written by a respected
and
> > well
> > > known member of the scientific communicty with adequite proof that
> > quantum
> > > phenomena are unpredictable ?
> > >
> > > i am currently an undergraduate student in physics and would like
to
> > hear an
> > > alternate perspective on quantum phenomena, ie that it is not
> > unpredicatable.
> >
> > Well if you can't observe something and it's unpredictable then it's
> > random. We can't see atoms and so on since they are too small, and
> > well they behave somewhat chaotic, so as it stands atomic decay is
> > random for now.
> >
> > Tom
>
> This is so blatantly false that I cannot believe that you would
present that
> as fact. Your statement is either indicative of your gross ignorance
of even
> the rudiments of modern physics or your pathological need to
participate in
> a discussion that you add nothing to. STMs can routinely resolve
surface
> features the size of individual atoms. The decay of an individual
atom is a
> random process; this is a neccesary consequence of quantum mechanics.
There
> are no "tiny clocks" or other such timers hidden inside radioactive
atoms
> that tick towards a deterministic decay.
>
> Hidden variable theories are incompatible with the idea of quantum
mechanics
> as local. Many-worlds is an alternative interpretation of QM that
moves the
> indeterminism from the level of atoms to the idea of observations as
> splitting the universe into divergent paths, each proceding along
strictly
> classical paths until the next such splitting. There are certain
> philosophical objections to this theory, as well as the very real one
of the
> lack of its ability to explain why the Copenhagen interpretation of
QM is
> able to make probabilistic assertions about the behavior of quantum
> mechanical ensambles (although Everett does have a nice argument
along the
> lines that the set of observers who do not see events consistent with
such a
> probability distribution must be measure 0, that unfortunately relies
on an
> additional assumption beyond those shared by many-worlds and
Copenhagen).
My point is that I can't observe how an bunch of atoms decay, so I
can't predict how many <insert particle here> I can count per time
period. If I could see inside the atoms more clearly I suppose I could
predict the rate of decay flawlessly...
I ain't no physist and this ain't sci.phys or alt.physics or
alt.science.not.sci.crypt.so.lets.drop.this.ot.posting
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Donald R. Newcomb (Despamed address)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.cellular.gsm
Subject: Re: End to end encryption in GSM
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 21:24:24 -0600
I think that a 9.6 Kbit/S data rate supporting and encrypted 2.4 Kbit/S
voice channel is about what you'd expect out in the "real world". I wouldn't
look for perfect voice quality unless you have a very high bandwith channel
to carry it. I'm not speaking as an expert on encryption technology, just
someone who has used some of the available off-the-shelf hardware at one
time or another.
--
Donald R. Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
A.M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| I suspect that the encryption provided is not that secure, i.e. the
| conversation could still be eavesdropped, as the encryption scheme can't
| be that powerful, given the data rate limitations (max. 9.6 or 14
| Kbit/s).
------------------------------
From: xmedar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SSL or public key infrastructure
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:33:44 +0000
The application is a near realtime anon secure messaging system to
support
1000+ users, I'm not sure if SSL would be right or would it be
advantagous
to use a public key infrastructure and have the messages encrypted and
decrypted
on the machines at each end which would negate the SSL at the
intermediate
anonymising server, unfortunately then the UK government could ask me
for the keys
under the new RIP Bill which is another consideration. I was also
wondering if there
are any stats on CPU usage with SSL, and is it better to go with
multiprocessor systems
or with accelerator cards and if there are any online reviews of
accelerators, any input
would be appreciated. XM
------------------------------
From: "G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Algorithm/code to encrypt to readable text
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:30:48 -0700
Hello,
I'm trying to figure out how to do the following in VB:
serial = 123456789
date = 12/29/00
ciphertext = abcdef123
where the serial serves as a key and the date as plaintext. It's important
that the ciphertext consist of typical letters and numbers. The only code
I've found for VB is xor functions which generate non-standard characters,
in addition to letters and numbers. Can anyone point me to some algorithms
or code examples?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: ciphertext smaller than blocksize
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 21:36:05 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Zero-Knowledge MIME Encapsulated Message
>
> --RSHFHMW98RSRCK72CIZH4C3US55GKB1A29ACB7QCTI69P6LS
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc) writes:
> > Ciphertext stealing is a nice method for keeping the ciphertext
> > size identical to plaintext size, when the plaintext is larger
> > or equal to the blocksize of the algorithm.
>
> It doesn't actually do this, if you count the size of the IV which
> must be sent along with the ciphertext. If the IV can be sent out
> of band, then it does work.
>
Sounds like how Congress counts expenditures
--
Pangram: Move zingy, jinxed products; hawk benign quality fixes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: BEST BIJECTIVE RIJNDAEL YET?
Date: 30 Oct 2000 04:15:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Gladman) wrote in
<eN0L5.3659$zO3.111060@stones>:
>
>But in arithmetic coding the original file length does need to be
>encoded in some way and Matt has a neat way of doing this (and one which
>I like). But his scheme is just one of many possible ways of encoding
I think you don't know what he did since a length field is not
use in Matts arithmetic coding.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website **now all allowed**
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott LATEST UPDATED source for scott*u.zip
http://radiusnet.net/crypto/ then look for
sub directory scott after pressing CRYPTO
Scott famous Compression Page
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
------------------------------
From: "Brian Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Psuedo-random number generator
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 23:15:59 -0500
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tinq4$ihm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8tiiel$s5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> My point is that I can't observe how an bunch of atoms decay, so I
> can't predict how many <insert particle here> I can count per time
> period. If I could see inside the atoms more clearly I suppose I could
> predict the rate of decay flawlessly...
>
> I ain't no physist and this ain't sci.phys or alt.physics or
> alt.science.not.sci.crypt.so.lets.drop.this.ot.posting
>
We can observe individual atoms decay. We can observe exactly how many atoms
in a group of atoms decay within a specific time period. It does not matter
if you had perfect knowledge of the atom and its interior components (which
you can't). There is nothing inside any atom that would tell you when that
specific will decay, although you can make very good statistical predictions
about how many atoms will decay over a given period/
You are totally incorrect and this is not off-topic since you continue to
disperse this nonsense that could mislead other readers.
Brian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: DATA PADDING FOR ENCRYPTION
Date: 30 Oct 2000 04:24:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bryan Olson) wrote in
<8tiakj$8le$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It could include the "1" followed by zeros, though I'm not
>sure offhand of a standard using it. It includes similar
>schemes such as adding n octets, 1 <= n <= 256, by repeating
>the value n (or zero to represent 256).
When looking for blessed standards I did come across the adding
of a 1 followed by zeros to fil. And that like the meth of using
01 0202 ... such that if last blcok filled you create a extra
block they are reversable. But they suck in that they are not bijective
to the orignal files iencrypted and a false key is very likely to
lead to a file that could not be encrypted with the set of rules.
So the standards leak information favorable to an attacker and then
is plain foolishness since it so easy to prevent this extra added
information.
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] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: DATA PADDING FOR ENCRYPTION
Date: 30 Oct 2000 04:34:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Tyler) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Have you lookes at Matts method yet.
>
>I have very few useful comments to make.
>
>If I were considering using the device, I would have liked to have seen
>some more documentation relating to how the passphrase is turned into a
>key - so I can be confident that this is being done intelligently -
>using the available entropy to best effect.
>
It allows for any key to be used if you use the -p 0x[hex code] option
other wise it just an ascii string that one types in. But any Rijndael
key it allowed
>I was somewhat suprised to find that Matt appears to post-process the
>output of Rijndael in order to make it into an 8-bit granular file again.
>
>This step appears to add nothing to the security of the system.
>
>While it decreases the typical size of the resulting file somewhat, I
>expect anyone using the compressor /and/ the encryptor will be
>primarily after the security.
>
>Perhaps this makes the system a bijection between the two nicest possible
>sets. However, I would probably have been inclined to not expend any
>computational time over such a final transformation.
The computaion work at end is necessary to make it bijective. It
really is not that much extra work. And since the compression goes
to a finitely odd file and the encryption is on that specail file
it would be about the same amount of work to make it match the block size
of rijndael so it makes sense to do the job right in the first place
which is what he did.
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] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: DATA PADDING FOR ENCRYPTION
Date: 30 Oct 2000 04:28:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Tyler) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Tyler) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>:>After describing the bitflipping problem, it goes on to say:
>:>
>:>``Ciphertext stealing is a better way (see figure 9.5[snip ref]).
>:> [snip description which makes little sense withouut the diagram]
>:> The benefit of this method is that all the bits of the plaintext
>:> go through the encryption algorithm.''
>:>
>:>I believe this is bijective *provided* more than 1 block is present.
>
>: I don't like to think I'm a purest. But it is sort of skipping
>: the problem. Especailly when it can be solved with a little thought.
>
>One plus point is that it's fast and simple.
>
>By contrast, to make the transition from an 8-bit file to a 128 bit list
>of blocks normally takes some time, effort and programming.
>
>Matt gets this for free since he's compressing first - and winds up with
>one of his finitely odd streams - given that he has to convert this to
>*something*, converting it to a 128-bit granular file comes naturally -
>but other folks may not be performing such a stage - in which case
>a few simple XORs might look attractive.
I agree that is way the marrying of bijective compression with a
bijective encryption is such a cool idea. And he did in the new AES
standard. I think if AES is not a fucking joke they should consider
implements similar to this as a standard. I fear the BS type of people
will not let it happen even if they know its better because either they
are jealous Matt beat them to the punch. Or they are more stupid than
I thought. Or the NSA does want these kind of code combinations out
there for the public to use.
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:
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
