Cryptography-Digest Digest #164, Volume #13 Wed, 15 Nov 00 20:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: XORred zipfile chunks = random? (Simon Johnson)
Re: hardware RNG's (Guy Macon)
Re: On an idea of John Savard (Tom St Denis)
Re: stream ciphers based on LFSR (Tom St Denis)
Re: Secret sharing in practice ("Kristopher Johnson")
Big-block cipher, perhaps a new cipher family? ("Manuel Pancorbo")
Re: Secret sharing in practice ("A [Temporary] Dog")
Re: hardware RNG's (Terry Ritter)
Re: On an idea of John Savard (Steve Portly)
Re: hardware RNG's (Terry Ritter)
!!Read This It Could Change Your Life!! (Gerry)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XORred zipfile chunks = random?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:13:03 GMT
In article <8ur3se$lj0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (sorry to post this again, but deja doesn't seem to carry
> sci.crypt.random-numbers)
>
> This easy to implement, quick and dirty method may be naive,
> simplistic, trivial etc. but it seems to work...
>
> Take a 3 minute audio cd .wav file (or record your own), zip it to
> improve uniformity of bits, giving around 30MB. Compile and run
program
> below (or use my one time pad program at
<http://www.vidwest.com/otp/>,
> creating an 11MB file and test with DIEHARD. If it doesn't pass,
repeat
> above using a longer .wav - it will eventually.
>
> So,
> 1. Is DIEHARD broken? Probably not. Is there a better RNG tester? 2.
> Even if it is possible to distinguish between pseudo-random and 'true'
> random (say, from a radioactive source), so long as the former is
> unrecreatable...
> 3. What is random anyway??? (this posting perhaps :-)
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv) {
> FILE *ifp, *ofp, *tfp; long n, i; int ic, oc, ieof;
>
> if (argc != 4 || !(n = atol(argv[1])) || !(ifp = fopen(argv
[2], "rb")))
> {
> fprintf(stderr, "To XOR n-size file chunks: %s n infile outfile\n",
> argv[0]);
> return 1;
> }
>
> for (ieof = 0, ofp = NULL; !ieof; ) { /* kludge */
> if (!(tfp = fopen("XOR.TMP", "wb"))) {
> fprintf(stderr, "\nError#2 Disk write-protected?\n"); return 2; }
> for (i = 0L; i < n; i++) {
> if (ieof || (ic = getc(ifp)) == EOF) { ic = '\0'; ieof = 1; } if
(!
> ofp || (oc = getc(ofp)) == EOF) { oc = '\0'; }
> if (putc(ic ^ oc, tfp) == EOF) {
> fprintf(stderr, "\nError#3 Disk full?\n"); return 3; }
> }
> fclose(tfp); if (ofp) { fclose(ofp); } remove(argv[3]);
> rename("XOR.TMP", argv[3]); ofp = fopen(argv[3], "rb"); }
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
>
> Thanks for giving this your attention,
>
> David West. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> PS. Does anyone have the pkzip format spec?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Randomness is equal to Unpredictability, by definition. The problem
with this system is that you're inputs are not terribly unpredictable.
My suggestion is to use a real random source, such as radioactive decay
or Atmospheric Noise peaks etc.......
If you really want bodged randomness, Hash the rubbish you collect with
MD5 or someat, then pipe that through a Stream Generator, to produce
you're pad. This will always pass DIEHARD, and can be thought of
as 'industry grade' randomness :)
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon)
Subject: Re: hardware RNG's
Date: 15 Nov 2000 21:27:21 GMT
Terry Ritter wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>>No one has proven perfect unpredictability or perfect security.
>>I advise using relative terms like "very difficult to predict"
>>and "highly secure" instead of absolute terms (or worse, terms
>>which some folks interpret as absolute and others as relative)
>>and most of the disagreements you two express will evaporate.
>
>That is poor advice. The reason for having an absolute reference is
>that it has a possibility of being measured.
>
I am not sure that I am following your argument. Could you elaborate?
It sounds like you are saying that there is a possibility of measuring
security or predictability well enough to prove something to be
absolutely secure or absolutely unpredictable. I believe that I must
be misunderstanding, because such a proof assumes knowledge of all
future methods of breaking security or of predicting the next value.
This. of course, goes against what you have written in many other
posts, so I must assume that I am missing the point.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: On an idea of John Savard
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:10:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
>
> > I mean complete as in "complete". It's an actual term when defining
> > data flow networks. Perhaps you should look it up.
>
> My knowledge of CS is unfortunately not good enough to
> research into that issue with ease. The one concept of
> 'completeness' I happen to know is about graph theory
> which has to do with networks, as far as I am aware. But
> I don't think that notion could be applied to the case
> of DES in any sense. May I ask you for some help here?
> It would broaden my knowledge horizon a bit. Thanks
> in advance.
Well "completeness" is generally stating that every output bit depends
on every input bit. If you took the identity permutation for example
it is hardly complete. A SAC fullfilling function is complete however.
In the case of DES it takes five rounds (on average) before every input
bit affects every output bit in some way.
Two rounds of DES are not generally considered as complete which means
the diffusion is sub-optimal.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: stream ciphers based on LFSR
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:11:26 GMT
In article <8uussd$qlk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8uujck$hr9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <3a12be3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I'm new here
> > >
> > > Could you tell me where can I find more detail, online information
> > about
> > > stream ciphers based on The LFSR's
> >
> > "on The LFSR's" perhaps you meant "based on LFSR's"... either case
> > there are quite a bit. Check out the Handbook of Applied Crypto.
> >
> > The most secure so far is the shrinking generator when a dense
> feedback
> > scheme is used.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> Well which shrinking generator? I would presume this is the self-
> shrinking version..... but there also exists the 'shrinking generator'
> which uses two LFSRs, instead of just the one.
Typically "shrinking generator" refers to an output shrunk by another.
I.e. two LFSR's. A von neuman rejector (self-shrinking) is normally
used since it's a whole lot easier to code.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Kristopher Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secret sharing in practice
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:25:25 GMT
This may be a bit OT, but I watched "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" last
night, and it has an example of secret sharing. One guy knows the name of a
cemetery where gold is buried, and the other guy knows the name on the
grave. But neither knows both items of information, so they reluctantly
work together. And there's a third guy trying to figure out what the other
two know. I'm sure someone somewhere has written some sort of
information-theory analysis of this.
I'm not sure how this relates to the real world.
-- Kris
"Matt Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The best way to do secret sharing seems to depend on the size of the
secret
> involved.
>
> Does anyone actually use secret sharing in the real world? If so, then
what
> are the "common" applications, and how big are these secrets, typically?
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Manuel Pancorbo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Big-block cipher, perhaps a new cipher family?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:06:38 GMT
Traditionally there are stream and block ciphers. In the firsts, a stream of
data is encrypted unit by unit (the unit can be the bit, the byte or even
the full 32-bit word) by means of a keyed state that changes after the
encryption of each unit. In the seconds, data is chunked in a fixed-size
blocks that are individually encryted by the same (scheduled) key; blocks
are not too big (64, 128 bits).
Well I propose an intermediate method (really I? perhaps this is not an
original idea)
Let's consider a fast stream cipher which reach full diffusion in the 'n'
ciphered unit and let's take it to cipher a big block (packet) with 'N'
units and N >> n, by means of a key 'K'. After this forward encryption the
state is reset to the initial key 'K' and a *backward* encryption is
performed on the packet. So:
1) state <- K
2) p' = Encrypt p[0]...->...p[N-1]
3) state <- K
4) c = Encrypt p'[N-1]...->...p'[0]
What we get is that any single plaintext bit change diffuses trough all
ciphertext packet, unless traditional stream ciphers where diffusion
realizes only from the point where change occurs.
Perhaps diffusion is not perfect in the last n units. This can be solved by
a previous backward cipher up to a safe distance n:
1) state <- K
2) p' = Encrypt p[N-1]...->...p[N-n-1] (the rest remain unchanged)
3) state <- K
4) p'' = Encrypt p'[0]...->...p'[N-1]
5) state <- K
6) c = Encrypt p''[N-1]...->...p''[0]
If the stream cipher module is well designed, (with good unliner properties
to avoid attacks) all ciphertext units can be consider as a separate hash
(but invertible) function of the whole plaintext and key.
How long the packet can be? Let's say ~100 bytes to 100 Kb or even more.
The advantage over a traditional block cipher are, IMHO:
* It is really fast because, unless block ciphers, there are no rounds to
repeat. Oh, let's say there are 2 rounds.
* There's no key schedule: no time consuming key setup. So the key can be
changed from one packet to another without ballast.
* Packets could be as large as system allows. In an encrypt file application
the full file can be a single packet.
* Because of this last property, packet chaining is less important than in
block ciphers. If necessary, a proper chaining method can be easily
implemented.
* Simplicity and modularity. Several conceptually simple stream algorithms
can be implemented easily and clearly.
On the other side there are vulnerabilities:
* Because the strength of the cipher is based on the avalanche over a large
number of units, small packets are vulnerable. A miminum safe packet length
should be defined. Padding is needed in case of small data.
* Because of this, this method should be discarded in such scenarios where
data to be encrypted is small *and* bandwith is important.
* The amount of memory required is mostly the length of the packet. This is
also an advantage because the user can customize her own security
accordingly to system capabilities.
I like the idea very much and thus I'm on the way of implementing it, with
cosmetic changes, in a concrete program. I use a 32-bit stream cipher of my
own design, with 128 to 256 bit keys, in order to obtain maximum performance
in a PC Pentium. In the first attempts the performance attained is 63
Mbits/s with ANSI C, Linux GNU in a AMD K6II 350 Mhz. Furthermore test
packets show suitable diffusion and randomness at a first glance.
Opinions? Is the concept enough secure, without regarding the structure of
the kernel stream cipher?
--
____________________________________________________________________
Manuel Pancorbo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Apply ROT13)
____________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "A [Temporary] Dog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secret sharing in practice
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:16:34 -0500
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:25:25 GMT, "Kristopher Johnson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> painted a red bull's eye on
his forehead, ascended the altar of Fluffy and shouted:
>This may be a bit OT, but I watched "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" last
>night, and it has an example of secret sharing. One guy knows the name of a
>cemetery where gold is buried, and the other guy knows the name on the
>grave. But neither knows both items of information, so they reluctantly
>work together. And there's a third guy trying to figure out what the other
>two know. I'm sure someone somewhere has written some sort of
>information-theory analysis of this.
>
>I'm not sure how this relates to the real world.
The third guy (The Bad) uses rubber hose cryptography. All too
relevant to the real world.
--
- A (Temporary) Dog |"Intelligent, reasonable
The Domain is *erols dot com* |people understand that -
The Name is tempdog |unfortunately, we're dealing
http://users.erols.com/tempdog/ |with elected officials"
Put together as name@domain | - name withheld
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: hardware RNG's
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:32:25 GMT
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:40:25 -0800, in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in sci.crypt David Schwartz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Terry Ritter wrote:
>
>> No practical process or test can find every kind of sequence
>> correlation. But if we somehow do make a process which predicts, we
>> can confirm that, and measure how close it comes. Then we can try
>> various other things and see *by* *how* *much* each improves the
>> prediction. That is quantitative science.
>
> Isn't it better just to prove that the entropy is there in the first
>place and then not have to worry?
1) The question first assumes an ability to "prove" "entropy."
If the intent is to produce an unknowable random stream, there is a
lot to like about measuring some physical quantity which has a
theoretical basis for unknowable randomness. We do expect such values
to be small, and also potentially affected by the measurement device,
but we do not expect physical randomness to be deliberately deceptive.
If the measured quantity has a particular theoretical distribution, we
should be able to find that distribution experimentally, and thus have
some confidence that we are in touch which quantum randomness. This
would be a form of "proof," in the sense that there is a good physical
reason to believe that randomness exists in our results.
Whatever we measure, we almost certainly must concentrate the results
to get the flat distribution we want. Anything other than a flat
distribution is to some extent predictable. And if we really do have
an unknowable source, there is no advantage to using a cryptographic
hash instead of a faster CRC with a better theoretical basis.
2) The question then assumes an ability to measure or somehow "know"
how much entropy we have.
If we measure a physically random source, we may have a theoretical
basis for assuming how much entropy we have. But producing randomness
from sources which have no physical basis for randomness also provides
no basis for confidence in the results. It is not possible to measure
the strength of a random sequence, but only to measure weakness, and
only then when we find and can predict that weakness. This is the
same issue we have with ciphers, and the issue we can hope to avoid by
using a physically random source.
The usual numerical quantity we know from information theory as
"entropy" does deal with the static probability of each value in a
sequence, but does not deal with correlations between values. The
normal entropy computation thus will insist that a statistical RNG can
produce good entropy forever. But that is wrong, because the weakness
in an RNG sequence is in the correlation between the resulting values.
Thus, the entropy measure clearly does not produce the meaning we
need. So how can we measure the amount of unknowability that "really"
exists in the source material? There is no such measure, and thus no
way to know how much we have.
One approach would seem to be to collect far more "entropy" input than
one produces as output. And that is probably OK, but since no measure
can confirm the result, a lack of physical basis for the result is a
far more ambiguous situation than we have with physical randomness.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: Steve Portly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: On an idea of John Savard
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:15:19 -0500
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> James Felling wrote:
> >
>
> > I can accept that barring rare cases this compostion would be stronger than
> > the weaker of (m+n) round X and (m+n) round Y. But I still don't understand
> > why the stronger of those two is not prefered to a mix.
>
> The preference is indeed difficult to establish objectively.
> But if one wants to extend a standard block cipher to more
> rounds, one has to extend its keyscheduling to generate the
> additional round keys. In the other case one does't have
> that work and one may feel more at ease.
>
> M. K. Shen
Perhaps a graphical solution would be helpful. Suppose we use two different
ciphers that almost surely each leave a different noise signature. the
interleaved VS heterogeneous rounds would look something like this.
___________/
| /| T
|_ _ | H N
| | R O
|_ _/ | E I
/| | S S
|_ _ | H E
| | O
|_ _| L
time rounds D
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: hardware RNG's
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:38:07 GMT
On 15 Nov 2000 21:27:21 GMT, in <8uuv3p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
in sci.crypt [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Macon) wrote:
>Terry Ritter wrote:
>>
>>Guy Macon wrote:
>>
>>>No one has proven perfect unpredictability or perfect security.
>>>I advise using relative terms like "very difficult to predict"
>>>and "highly secure" instead of absolute terms (or worse, terms
>>>which some folks interpret as absolute and others as relative)
>>>and most of the disagreements you two express will evaporate.
>>
>>That is poor advice. The reason for having an absolute reference is
>>that it has a possibility of being measured.
>>
>
>I am not sure that I am following your argument. Could you elaborate?
>It sounds like you are saying that there is a possibility of measuring
>security or predictability well enough to prove something to be
>absolutely secure or absolutely unpredictable.
>From my previous message:
"No practical process or test can find every kind of sequence
correlation. But if we somehow do make a process which predicts, we
can confirm that, and measure how close it comes."
We cannot measure the strength or unpredictability of a random
sequence, but we can measure the extent to which we can predict the
sequence under some model. If that extent is not 50 percent, we have
found a weakness. And if we can improve the prediction of the model,
we have found a greater weakness.
The advantage of measuring how close we are to a particular form of
nonrandomness depends upon having a measure which goes from "not
predictable under the selected prediction model," through "partially
predictable," to "fully predictable" numerically.
"Very difficult to predict" does not have the same advantage.
>I believe that I must
>be misunderstanding, because such a proof assumes knowledge of all
>future methods of breaking security or of predicting the next value.
>This. of course, goes against what you have written in many other
>posts, so I must assume that I am missing the point.
The point is that a handwave definition of randomness does not meet
the needs of scientific cryptology. A measurable quantity is needed,
and that goes beyond handwaves like: "if you can't predict the exact
value all the time the sequence is obviously unpredictable." Partial
predictability is a valid and true form of weakness.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: Gerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: !!Read This It Could Change Your Life!!
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:55:41 -0330
!!!!THIS MAY CHANGE YOUR LIFE!!!!
$$$HOW TO TURN SIX DOLLARS INTO SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS$$$:
READING THIS COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE! IT DOES WORK!
I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it. A little
while back, I was browsing through newsgroups, just like you are now,
and came across an article similar to this that said you could make $$
thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of
$6.00! So I thought, "Yeah right, this must be a scam", but
like most of us, I was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said
that you send $1.00 to each of the 6 names and address stated in the
article. You then place your own name and address in the bottom of
the list at #6, and post the article in at least 200 newsgroups.
(There are thousands) No catch, that was it. So after thinking it
over, and talking to a few people first, I thought about trying it. I
figured: "what have I got to lose except 6 stamps and $6.00,
right?" Then I invested the measly $6.00. Well GUESS WHAT!?...
within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail! I was shocked! I
figured it would end soon, but the money just kept coming in. In my
first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the second week I had
made a total of over $1,000.00! In the third week I had over
$10,000.00 and it's still growing. This is now my fourth week and I
have made a total of just over $42,000.00 and it's still coming in
rapidly. It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps, I have spent more
than that on the lottery!! Let me tell you how this works and most
importantly, WHY it works... Also, make sure you print a copy of this
article NOW, so you can get the information off of it as you need it.
I promise you that if you follow the directions exactly, that you
will start making more money than you thought possible by doing
something so easy!
Suggestion: Read this entire message carefully! (print it out or
download it.) Follow the simple directions and watch the money come
in!
It's easy. It's legal. And, your investment is only $6.00 (Plus
postage)
IMPORTANT: This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not
illegal; and it is 99% no risk - it really works!
If all of the following instructions are adhered to, you will receive
extraordinary dividends.
PLEASE NOTE:
Please follow these directions EXACTLY, and $50,000 or more can be
yours in 20 to 60 days. This program remains successful because of
the honesty and integrity of the participants. Please continue its
success by carefully adhering to the instructions.
You will now become part of the Mail Order business. In this business
your product is not solid and tangible, it's a service. You are in
the business of developing Mailing Lists. Many large corporations are
happy to pay big bucks for quality lists. However, the money made
from the mailing lists is secondary to the income which is made from
people like you and me asking to be included in that list.
Here are the 4 easy steps to success:
STEP 1: Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on
each piece of paper Now get 6 US $1.00 bills and place ONE inside
EACH of the 6 pieces of paper so the bill will not be seen through
the envelope (to prevent thievery). Next, place one paper in each
of the 6 envelopes and seal them. You should now have 6 sealed
envelopes,
each with a piece of paper stating the above phrase, your name and
address,
and a $1.00 bill. What you are doing is creating a service. THIS IS
ABSOLUTELY LEGAL! You are requesting a legitimate service and you are
paying
for
it! Like most of us, I was a little skeptical and a little worried
about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S.
Post Office (1-800-725-2161) and they confirmed that it is indeed
legal. Mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses:
#1) D. Champion
3895 Baltic Circle
Rocklin, CA 95677
#2) M. Burkland
738 W. King St.
Martinsburg, WV 25401
#3) Chris Lonicki
3838 Baltic cir.
Rocklin CA 95677
#4) Alex Biley
69 Manningham St.
Parkville, Vic 3052
Australia
#5) Steven Shea
P.O. Box 262
A0A-3LO
Pouch Cove, NF
Canada
#6) Gerard Knight
46 Nfld. Dr.
St. John's, NF
A1A 3E8 Canada
STEP 2: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move
the other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and add YOUR
Name as number 6 on the list.
STEP 3: Now, post your amended article to at
least 200 newsgroups. (I think there are close to 24,000 groups) All
you need is 200, but remember, the more you post, the more money you
make! You won't get very much unless you post like crazy.
This is perfectly legal! If you have any doubts, refer to Title 18
Sec. 1302 & 1341 of the Postal lottery laws.
Keep a copy of these steps for yourself and, whenever you need money,
you can use it again, and again.
PLEASE REMEMBER that this program remains successful because of the
HONESTY and INTEGRITY of the participants and by their carefully
adhering to the directions. Look at it this way. If you are of
integrity, the program will continue and the money that so many
others have received will come your way.
NOTE: You may want to retain every name and address sent to you,
either on a computer or hard copy and keep the notes people send you.
This VERIFIES that you are truly providing a service. (Also, it might
be a good idea to wrap the $1 bill in dark paper to reduce the risk
of mail theft.)
So, as each post is downloaded and the directions carefully followed,
six members will be reimbursed for their participation as a List
Developer with one dollar each. Your name will move up the list
geometrically so that when your name reaches the #1 position you will
be receiving thousands of dollars in CASH!!! What an opportunity for
only $6.00 ($1.00 for each of the first six people listed above) Send
it now, add your own name to the list and you're in business!
---DIRECTIONS ----- FOR HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS------------
Step 1) You do not need to re-type this entire letter to do your own
posting. Simply put your cursor at the beginning of this letter and
drag your cursor to the bottom of this document, and select 'copy'
from the edit menu. This will copy the entire letter into the
computer's memory.
Step 2) Open a blank 'notepad' file and place your cursor at the top
of the blank page. From the 'edit' menu select 'paste'. This will
paste a copy of the letter into notepad so that you can add your name
to the list.
Step 3) Save your new notepad file as a .txt file. If
you want to do your postings in different settings, you'll always
have this file to go back to.
Step 4) Use Netscape or Internet explorer and try searching for
various newsgroups (on-line forums, message boards, chat sites,
discussions.)
Step 5) Visit these message boards and post this article as a new
message by highlighting the text of this letter and selecting paste
from the edit menu. Fill in the Subject, this will be the header that
everyone sees as they scroll through the list of postings in a
particular group, click the post message button. You're done with
your first one! Congratulations...THAT'S IT! All you have to do is
jump to different newsgroups and post away, after you get the hang of
it, it will take about 30 seconds for each newsgroup! **REMEMBER, THE
MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE! BUT :
YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM OF 200** That's it! You will begin receiving
money from around the world within days! You may eventually want to
rent a P.O.Box due to the large amount of mail you will receive. If
you wish to stay anonymous, you can invent a name to use, as long as
the postman will deliver it.
**JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.**
Now, each of the 5 persons who just sent me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 200
postings, each with my name at #5 and only 5 persons respond to each
of the original 5, that is another $25.00 for me, now those 25 each
make 200 MINIMUM posts with my name at #4 and only 5 replies each, I
will bring in an additional $125.00! Now, those 125 persons turn
around and post the MINIMUM 200 with my name at #3 and only receive 5
replies each, I will make an additional $625.00! OK, now here is the
fun part, each of those 625 persons post a MINIMUM 200 letters with
my name at #2 and they each only receive 5 replies, that just made me
$3,125.00!!! Those 3,125 persons will all deliver this message to 200
newsgroups with my name at #1 and if still 5 persons per 200
newsgroups react I will receive $15,625,00! With an original investment
of only $6.00! AMAZING! When your name is no longer on the
list, you just take the latest posting in the newsgroups, and send
out another $6.00 to names on the list, putting your name at number 6
again. And start posting again. The thing to remember is: do you
realize that thousands of people all over the world are joining the
internet and reading these articles everyday?, JUST LIKE YOU are now!!
So, can you afford $6.00 and see if it really works?? I think
so... People have said, "what if the plan is played out and no
one sends you the money? So what! What are the chances of that
happening when there are tons of new honest users and new honest
people who are joining the internet and newsgroups everyday and are
willing to give it a try? Estimates are at 20,000 to 50,000 new users,
every day, with thousands of those joining the actual
internet. Remember, play FAIRLY and HONESTLY and this will really work!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
