Cryptography-Digest Digest #451, Volume #13 Wed, 10 Jan 01 18:13:00 EST
Contents:
Doesn't matter i've done it ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New stream cipher (Quisquater)
Re: New stream cipher (Tom St Denis)
Re: Hash/Message digest vs Signature vs MAC? ("Bob Luking")
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (DJohn37050)
Re: PKI Bibliography (Mike Rosing)
Re: Differential Analysis (Benjamin Goldberg)
Re: Bluetooth security? (Benjamin Goldberg)
Re: RSA recoverable signature trick (Bryan Olson)
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (Benjamin Goldberg)
Performance benchmarks of various GSSAPI implementations (Richard D. Latham)
Can someone break this for me? ("Andrew Thomas")
Re: Comets, Meteors, and Mitotic Spindles /Mars Life angle (Ed Augusts)
Re: Hash/Message digest vs Signature vs MAC? (Bryan Olson)
Re: Can someone break this for me? (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Hash/Message digest vs Signature vs MAC? ("Ingmar Grahn")
Digital Rights Management News: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Comets, Meteors, and Mitotic Spindles /Mars Life angle (Richard Heathfield)
Coral Reefs, comets & aphid anal secretions ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New stream cipher (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (DJohn37050)
Re: NSA and Linux Security (Greggy)
Re: NSA and Linux Security ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: xor'd text file - Cryptanalyis of Simple Aperiodic Substitution Systems
(Warning: LONG post) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: xor'd text file - Cryptanalyis of Simple Aperiodic Substitution Systems
(Warning: LONG post) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Doesn't matter i've done it
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:04:13 GMT
In article <93hlq0$k41$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Does anyone have some test vectors for DES. What a i really need is
> each of the keys used in each round...and some intermediate values for
> the first couple of rounds (like before sbox, after sbox). A single
set
> of key,plaintext and ciphertext will do but more than one would be
nice
>
> Thanks
>
> Jonathan
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Quisquater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New stream cipher
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:43:01 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No one can kill progress in cryptography.
> What do you think about?
The story of new attacks and new designs is not finished!
See
http://cryptonessie.org
for instance.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New stream cipher
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:12:31 GMT
In article <93holh$mek$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Stream Cipher using AOTP-8 Approach
>
> An objective of this design is to get strong stream cipher
> with high possible performance using quasi One Time Pad approach.
> To achieve this we decided to avoid using multiplication operations.
> For simplicity we are using here abbreviation OTP meaning always
> quasi One Time Pad.
There is no such thing as a quasi One Time Pad. The name makes no sense.
Either it is or not. I.e quasi perfect is non-perect. Or in other words
your cipher is either a OTP or not. Not a partial one.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Bob Luking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hash/Message digest vs Signature vs MAC?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:34:45 GMT
===== Original Message =====
From: Ingmar Grahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Hash/Message digest vs Signature vs MAC?
> > The key in the MAC ensures that the sender is the one he claims to be.
> > Normally you encrypt your data and then uses a hash algorithm to
> > authenticate it and not the other way round.
> > In IPSec for instance, a index number (SPI) is used to tell the receiver
> > about the transmission. This number cannot be encrypted, but you'll need
> the
> > authentication.
>
> As I interpret it the protocol is something like this:
>
> 1. M is encrypted (by using the receivers public key).
> 2. A MAC is calculatde using the encrypted message M and the key K
> identifying the sender.
> 3. The recipient receives the message. Calculates the MAC himself using
the
> same input (the encrypted message M and the key K identifying the sender)
> 4. If the MAC:s are the same, the message actually is from the sender, and
> it hasn't been tampered with on the way.
> 5. The recipient decrypts the message using his private key.
>
> But how does the recipient know that the key he used to calculate the MAC
> actually corresponds to the sender? How can that verify the sender?
>
>
The key is stored in a database. The recipient receives a message, looks up
both the Destination Address and SPI in the database, retrieves the
appropriate key, and authenticates.
The keys (associated with a security policy) are privately shared between
sender and recipient and are, supposedly, secure.
Bob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Date: 10 Jan 2001 17:59:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
Bob Silverman said:
It is clear that time/space issues can not be separated. Any
algorithm can be broken in time O(1) if enough space for suitably
large lookup tables is available."
I would say that time is involved to BUILD
the lookup table and that that TIME counts as part of the TIME cost of the
attack.
Don Johnson
------------------------------
From: Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PKI Bibliography
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:56:46 -0600
Detlef H�hnlein wrote:
> As I intend to start a university-project
> "Development of a PKI-Tutorial" in the next
> term, I wonder whether somebody is aware of
> a good bibtex-data-base for PKI issues.
You might find this a good place to start looking:
http://www.uazone.org/znews/pki/index.html
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
------------------------------
From: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Differential Analysis
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:55 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > In the AES sbox, there are 23 diferentials which have a
> > > > probability of 6/256. There are a large number of differentials
> > > > with probability of 4/256, 2/256, and 0.
> > >
> > > Wrong. The highest xor-pair probability is 4/256 not 6/256.
> >
> > Each of these XOR pair differences occur with probability 6/256.
> >
> > 08->53 09->62 15->3a 26->94 28->5f 2e->52 34->73 3f->16 46->31
> > 4d->80 57->30 5b->5a 68->26 71->c8 7a->b9 80->a6 85->f4 86->27
> > 89->c4 ce->e8 db->d2 de->7e fe->d8
>
> Something is wrong in your prgoram. There are NO pairs higher then
> 4/256 in the Rijndael sbox. It's fact given the construction of the
> sbox. Basically the simple way to calc an xor-pair table is do this
>
> table[256][256] = { 0 };
> for (x = 0; x < 256; x++)
> for (y = 0; y < 256; y++)
> ++table[x^y][sbox[x]^sbox[x^y]];
>
> Then scan the table for the highest element (ignoring table[0][0]).
>
> (Can you tell I program in C? hehehehe)
Hmm. What I've been doing for finding XOR pairs is this:
for (x = 0; x < 256; ++x) {
table[256] = { 0 };
for (y = 0; y < 256; ++y)
++table[sbox[x]^sbox[x^y]];
for (z = !x; z < 256; ++z) {
if( table[z] <= 4 ) continue;
fprintf(f,"%02x->%02x ",x,z);
fprintf(f,"(%d/256)\n",table[z]); }
}
Is this correct or incorrect?
Here's my AES sbox generating code (copied verbatim):
unsigned char AES_sbox[256], AES_sibox[256];
void AES_setup() {
unsigned char pow[256], log[256];
int i, j;
for( i = 0, j = 1; i < 256; ++i ) {
log[pow[i] = j] = i;
// The above line does pow[i] = 3**i % 0x11b
// and of course it's inverse.
j ^= (j << 1) ^ ((j & 0x80) ? 0x11b : 0);
// The above line does j = j * 3 % 0x11b
}
for( i = 0; i < 256; ++i ) { int k;
j = i ? pow[255 - log[i]] : 0;
// j is now 3**(-i) % 0x11b
k = ((j >> 7) | (j << 1)) ^ ((j >> 6) | (j << 2));
j ^= 0x63 ^ k ^ ((k >> 6) | (k << 2));
// j now is an affine transform of what it was.
AES_sibox[AES_sbox[i] = j] = i;
}
}
Is this correct or incorrect?
I suppose that either the XOR pair, or the sbox generator, is wrong, but
I don't know which, or how.
--
Power interrupts. Uninterruptable power interrupts absolutely.
[Stolen from Vincent Seifert's web page]
------------------------------
From: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bluetooth security?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:18:20 GMT
kihdip wrote:
>
> The E0 algorithm is bluetooth specific.
> This must be a drawback as I see it. The paper from Bell-labs
> concludes that E0 should be replaced by another known algorithm, for
> instance AES.
> - Sounds reasonable.
>
> Kim
<nitpick>Except for the fact that E0 is a stream cipher, and AES is a
block cipher</nitpick>
Although you can of course run AES in CTR mode for stream cipher
operation.
--
Power interrupts. Uninterruptable power interrupts absolutely.
[Stolen from Vincent Seifert's web page]
------------------------------
From: Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RSA recoverable signature trick
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:48:24 GMT
Paul Rubin wrote:
[...]
> What if you just take the thing you want to sign and encrypt it
> (reversibly) with your favorite block cipher, using a known fixed key?
> That should scramble the bits up pretty well, i.e. getting any
> exploitable properties out of the ciphertext amounts to a break for
> the block cipher. Am I missing something?
That alone doesn't help against the dangerous attack, which is
chosen message. It the attacker wants to put a certain text
through the mathematical signing operation, he decrypts with
the known fixed key and that "plaintext" is his message.
--Bryan
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:01:55 GMT
DJohn37050 wrote:
>
> Bob Silverman said:
> > It is clear that time/space issues can not be separated. Any
> > algorithm can be broken in time O(1) if enough space for suitably
> > large lookup tables is available."
>
> I would say that time is involved to BUILD the lookup table and that
> that TIME counts as part of the TIME cost of the attack.
> Don Johnson
And what keeps one from making all entries of the table simultaneously/
in parallel? Each entry takes O(1) time to create, right?
--
Power interrupts. Uninterruptable power interrupts absolutely.
[Stolen from Vincent Seifert's web page]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard D. Latham)
Subject: Performance benchmarks of various GSSAPI implementations
Date: 10 Jan 2001 13:18:31 -0600
Anyone done any investigation that they care to share, or know of any
publically available ?
Thanks.
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Andrew Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Can someone break this for me?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:32:18 -0000
Hello,
Could someone please break this code for me:
I idieeyooy a�� I�e�eai��!
I�e�eai�� � the ia�a�e�oa e�e�e��o� aeeieoaaie� iadi� ia ��ie!
I�d��e��o�o� I�e�eai��!
Thanks a lot,
Andrew Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Ed Augusts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.sci.astro.eclipses,sci.geo.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Comets, Meteors, and Mitotic Spindles /Mars Life angle
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:58:00 GMT
Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
>
> > After all, do you see a mars-sized crater on earth from the moon's
> > creation?
>
> Actually yes you do...Find a map or globe that displays underwater
> terrain...Then look at Australia again....Then come back here and say the
> above again....I know you won't =)) I believe the phrase you will come up
> with will be something like holy s***
>
> Scot Mc Pherson
Instead of referring us to the map or globe, it would have been nice if
you had said, "there is a two thousand km diameter depression in the
shape of a crater located...." You are not giving information, you are
just teasing. See, I would have been very interested to know if this
underwater feature is in the middle of the Indian Ocean, or in the
Indonesian Archipelago, but I'm not going to go on a big search for the thing!
------------------------------
From: Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hash/Message digest vs Signature vs MAC?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:47:44 GMT
Ingmar Grahn wrote:
> I'm trying to clear out the concepts of Hash
> algortithms/message digests, Signatures and MACs since
> they seem to be somewhat correlated.
[...]
> * Now, the signature is basically a message digest created
> with a hash algorithm, that after it's been calculated also
> has been encrypted with the sender/issuers private key.
There are signature schemes roughly fitting that description,
but be careful not to confuse the internal workings of
particular systems with the external behavior that defines
signatures. In general, a signature scheme has a sign
operation and a verify operation.
In a "signature scheme with appendix", the sign operation
takes a message and a key, and produces a signature. The
verify operation takes a message, a key and a signature, and
returns either "good" or "bad".
In a "signature scheme with message recovery", the input of
the sign operation is (again) a message and a key, but the
output is a signed-message. The verify operation takes the
signed-message and a key, and returns either "bad" or the pair
("good", message).
In a secret-key system, the sign and verify operation use the
same key (or verification should fail). In a public-key
system, sign uses the private key, and verify uses the
corresponding public key.
A MAC is a secret key signature scheme with appendix. The
verify operation works by computing the signature for the
given message and key, and comparing it with the given
signature.
Hash functions are frequently used within the construction of
both public-key signatures and MAC's.
--Bryan
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:01:51 +0000
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can someone break this for me?
Andrew Thomas wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Could someone please break this code for me:
>
> I idieeyooy a�� I�e�eai��!
Hmmm. First word first. The "eey" is clearly just random padding, and
the final "oy" is, presumably, a 't'. Otherwise, it's just plaintext.
>
> I�e�eai�� � the ia�a�e�oa e�e�e��o� aeeieoaaie� iadi� ia ��ie!
>
> I�d��e��o�o� I�e�eai��!
Is this:
32453 35264 03493 35329 23436 10289 43252 12634 79083 12503 12498 10239
24985 85948 58697 13649 25677 16499
ciphertext or gibberish? Answer: you can't tell.
Post your algorithm, if you want someone to cryptanalyse it for you.
Nobody is going to cryptanalyse gibberish for you.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
------------------------------
From: "Ingmar Grahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hash/Message digest vs Signature vs MAC?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:25:29 +0100
> In a "signature scheme with appendix", the sign operation
> takes a message and a key, and produces a signature. The
> verify operation takes a message, a key and a signature, and
> returns either "good" or "bad".
>
> In a "signature scheme with message recovery", the input of
> the sign operation is (again) a message and a key, but the
> output is a signed-message. The verify operation takes the
> signed-message and a key, and returns either "bad" or the pair
> ("good", message).
In the "signature scheme with message recovery", you said the output is a
"signed message". What exactly does this consist of? Isn't it just the
Message+Signature that's sent to the recipient? In that case it sounds just
like the "signature scheme with appendix".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Digital Rights Management News: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:37:51 GMT
DRM with NIST AES standard encryption implementation; A new range of
solutions to protect digital content rights brought to you by Perimele Ltd.,
makers of the highly successful Pay2see content delivery system. Custom DRM
and DAM systems for Medium and Large Enterprises. Digital Rights Management
system can be used to limit the reuse of content after purchase or track the
reuse of rights. Print, play and copy control. Superdistribution. Protect
publisher and rights owner's intellectual property rights. Best of breed
solutions. Integration with legacy or custom databases; with merchants
current merchant service provider; with iPin to allows ISP billing options;
with WorldPay to allows 150 currencies; with PayPal for micropayment support.
eBook, ePublishing, eMusic and ASP solutions available. Simple and Complex
Digital Asset Management systems available for SQL or Oracle 8i. Choose the
solution that suits you or your customer best. visit http://www.perimele.com/
for more details; Release time 08:12; Released for sci.crypt; Distribution
number 30:21; Copy date Wednesday, 10 January 2001
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:14:33 +0000
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sci.astro.eclipses,sci.geo.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Comets, Meteors, and Mitotic Spindles /Mars Life angle
Ed Augusts wrote:
>
> Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
> >
> > > After all, do you see a mars-sized crater on earth from the moon's
> > > creation?
> >
> > Actually yes you do...Find a map or globe that displays underwater
> > terrain...Then look at Australia again....Then come back here and say the
> > above again....I know you won't =)) I believe the phrase you will come up
> > with will be something like holy s***
> >
> > Scot Mc Pherson
>
> Instead of referring us to the map or globe, it would have been nice if
> you had said, "there is a two thousand km diameter depression in the
> shape of a crater located...." You are not giving information, you are
> just teasing. See, I would have been very interested to know if this
> underwater feature is in the middle of the Indian Ocean, or in the
> Indonesian Archipelago, but I'm not going to go on a big search for the thing!
He's probably referring to the South Australian Basin, the northern edge
of which is just south of the Nullarbor Plain.
It's rather impressively deep (over 3 miles), and pretty much
crater-shaped.
Or he could be referring to the Tasman Basin, which is pretty darned
impressive in its own right.
That whole hemisphere is just chock-full of candidates.
(I notice this is cross-posted to sci.geo.earthquakes, who can probably
give a much better response than I can. What's this doing in sci.crypt
anyway?)
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: sci.geo.earthquakes,alt.fluid-dynamics,alt.sci.astro.eclipses
Subject: Coral Reefs, comets & aphid anal secretions
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:13:42 GMT
RE: http://www.geocities.com/antarii_rescue/antares.html
http://www.geocities.com/antarii_rescue/aldebaran.html
http://www.geocities.com/antarii_rescue/TOMBShistory.html
It was very clear in the website above from whence comes "manna"
or "honeydew", ... and that this is the same "manna" in the Bible.
The manna [or honeydew] is a saccharine like cake excreted as a pellet
by the defecatory orifice of an aphid or a number of other insects that
cluster in "galls" [as in "quit galling me"].
There also, in addition, seems to be some truly off-base analysis of
coral atolls and coral reefs in this same discussion, somewhere in this
thread [i can't seem to find it at this moment, or I'd quote it].
Coral grows in every part of the ocean and sea, except the Dead Sea.
Two types of coral exist on this planet. One that is ancient, the
tribolites and ammonites, and others, heavy in polyp formation,
individual coral anemone, and small to large colonies, dense in
dolomite and real calcium and magesium.
The other, strange and alien coral, grows in enoromous and extensive,
almost cancerous supercolonies, especially where nuclear testing has
been performed or a meteor had once collided with earth, or where
underwater volcanic action is hot hot hot.
These coral atolls, not ancient in type, thrive on nitrates and
phosphates, and attract moray eels, sharks, trigger fishes, and
surgeonfishes, all carnivorous.
There seems to be almost an electrical affinity between these atolls
and the reef sharks and especially the moray eel [among other electric
eels too].
This type of atoll even grows in the Bering Sea where the volcanic
ridge has erupted many times, especially the Kamchatka range, in the SE
Bering Sea.
This type of formation is called "eutrophication"
and/or "UNCONSOLIDATED" ... due to its sandy and shifty nature.
The extensive Solomon Island chain, over 900 miles long, is sated with
this newer, not ancient, coral growth.
Some corrections on comets and meteors:
http://www.greatdreams.com/near.htm
* Meteors have irregular orbits
* Meteors hve calculable orbits
* the risk from a comet hitting the Earth is only 10% to a maximum
of 30 % the risk of being smashed by an asteroid.
* Impacts of Near Earth Object [NEOs[ are of much higher energy than
explosions of nuclear weapons
* comets travel at over DOUBLE the speed of asteroids
* a tsunami, or tidal wave, resulting from a meteorite splashing into
a large body of water on Earth would create a wave that travels at
the same speed as a modern aircraft, wrecking incalculable damage.
* In Hawaii, this "UNCONSOLIDATED" coral is found at 1000 feet
ABOVE SEALEVEL!!
B. Traven
ps: I would conjecture that a life form began to colonize earth after
a meteor struck it. It was not a piece of Mars. The result were
volcanic flows and eruptions, and lava chunks thrown into space with
such force that they became stellar bodies with erradic and elliptical
orbits. Those asteroids that may return, when they return and impact
Earth, brought along a "cousin" lifeform, one that is rivalrous and
competitive with the meteor species. Something like the infighting of
aristocratic families in banking and the global wine industry.
Think glass ... think synthetic polymers ... think non-
organic "simulants" of earth life forms with their organic carbon based
dna-strands and chains.
Question: how to reclaim the earth, and how quickly can we do it? By
week's end??
B. Traven
==========
In article <93833a$e6p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mikal 606" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Ed Augusts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > So the Norway Maple secretes a milky goo
> > That attracts seismologists and aphids, too.
> > Cosmic numbers of these are often arriving
> > And Gall Mites, too, who aren't downsizing
> > but create huge spindles on the leafs, etcet,
> > though how they got into this I don't quite get!
> >
> > Say, how does 'honeydew that rains down' on their noses
> > Get linked to the desert and the
> > Sweet cakes of Moses
> > upon which all Israel's children were nourished?
> > Norwegian Maples in the Sinai!
> > Is that where they flourished?
> >
> > --E.A.
> >
>
> ``This is the thrilling conversation you've been waiting for"!
> Harvey Danger
> King James Version
> Track 9
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New stream cipher
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:37:47 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[snip]
> Algorithm description in pdf and source code can be download at
>
> www.alex-encryption.de
>
> Please follow links for AOTP-8 at the end of download list.
I have the impression that your description of the algorithm
is not clear enough (anyway in a style difficult for me
with my humble IQ to follow). In case you don't get concrete
comments from others, I suggest that you consider whether
a re-write would be needed, for the chance would then be that
I am not the single person having difficulty to comprehend
your stuff.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Date: 10 Jan 2001 22:36:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
And what keeps one from making all entries of the table simultaneously/
in parallel? Each entry takes O(1) time to create, right?
Of course, the table can be built simultaneously. But this is true for
symmetric ciphers and hash functions anyway and the adversary should be assumed
to attack the weakest link.
Don Johnson
------------------------------
From: Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSA and Linux Security
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:43:31 GMT
In article <935b2q$5jv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Prehaps the NSA have been forced to shift there policy somewhat due to
> the possibilitity of having their funding cut. In the times of the
cold
> war, the NSA needed to be a secret agency which did secret things.
> Since this role doesn't exist in the same capacity as before, they
must
> be forced to do other work.
What on earth could you possibly point to as the basis for your
statement?
> Personally, i believe the Americans have nothing to fear of their
> agency.
Your statement here demonstrates you lack an understanding of what
unaccountable power can do to people.
> Infact, there probably quite a productive group.... They'll
> probably want to insure that American secrets remain secret so they
> won't build trapdoors into their algorithms etc..... The real worry is
> what they do abroad. I remember once reading that the NSA broke the
> encryption of between an candian exporter of grain and some EU
> distrubuter. The NSA then promptly sold this information to an
American
> supplier and the American comapny successfully undercut the deal.
Fine, but what of Echelon?
It should be the policy of the United States of America never to enter
into secret association with any entity. If a foreign government
cannot do business with the United States in the open, then that should
be their problem not ours.
With the cloak of National Security, those in power have no
accountability to the people of America and as a result, time and
again, we have seen criminal actions covered up.
--
I prefer my fourth amendment rights over a dope free
society, even if the latter could actually be achieved.
Al Gore and the Florida Robes - More than just another rock group;
a clear and present danger to America's national security.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSA and Linux Security
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:04:05 GMT
Greggy wrote:
> Fine, but what of Echelon?
It's a word in any reasonable English dictionary,
denoting a level of military organization.
> It should be the policy of the United States of America never to enter
> into secret association with any entity. If a foreign government
> cannot do business with the United States in the open, then that should
> be their problem not ours.
Sources and methods of intelligence production
often have to be kept secret in order for them to
work at all.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xor'd text file - Cryptanalyis of Simple Aperiodic Substitution Systems
(Warning: LONG post)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:07:56 GMT
Paul Pires wrote:
> Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
>> 1 clock per byte.
> Gulp! That is a humbling number. Any chance that
> I am assuming something weird? This is for code,
> with no special hardware support,
> running under a common OS (like Windoze),
> on a common 32bit platform?
No, that's for a hardware implementation.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xor'd text file - Cryptanalyis of Simple Aperiodic Substitution Systems
(Warning: LONG post)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:09:42 GMT
Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> It is perfectly possible to create a stream cipher which works with 32
> bit words, not 8 bit bytes.
I didn't say how big the byte was, but typically it
encodes a single text character. Around 32 bits
one is approaching the fuzzy territory between stream
and block cipher.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
