Cryptography-Digest Digest #515, Volume #13 Sun, 21 Jan 01 12:13:01 EST
Contents:
cryptographic tourism in Russia ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: JPEG infidelity for crypto (John Savard)
Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long) (John Savard)
Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long) (John Savard)
Re: 32768-bit cryptography (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
FAQ ("Alessandro Vanzulli")
Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Light Computers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: cryptographic tourism in Russia
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:00:59 GMT
As a high-tech person interested in cryptography, espionage,
telecommunications, internet, satellite systems and a related gamut of
topics, I would like to visit interesting places in Moscow and St Petersburg
on my impending tourist jaunt there. For instance, visiting buildings that
were or are, the equivalent of the NSA and GCHQ, or whatever other relevant
sites. Can readers offer me suggestions ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: JPEG infidelity for crypto
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:58:45 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:03:18 +0800, Dido Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote, in part:
>What relation does this have to cryptography? Have you missed saying
>something?
Well, the relation is obvious: simple forms of steganography, which
depend on preserving things like the LSB of every single pixel, don't
work with .JPG files.
You could complain that we already knew that, and that there are more
sophisticated (but less efficient) methods of steganography that even
work with JPEGs; they're mainly used for watermarking.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:19:29 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:33:25 GMT, "Matt Timmermans"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>That's the question, isn't it? How do you _know_ it's not exploitable?
Of course you don't. Of course, had the claim simply been that
exploitation is likely to be more difficult than in the case where,
say, the output of two PRNGs is successively XORed to plaintext, I'd
certainly be in full agreement.
Not only is some information irrevocably lost with known plaintext in
a way that XOR does not achieve, but the structure of permutations as
opposed to bit vectors under XOR is more complicated.
The main advantage of Dynamic Transposition is that it seems to
achieve over large blocks certain properties that seem as if they are
only practical to achieve, with a substitution stream cipher, over,
say, single bytes. While this isn't really true, as one could use
conventional block ciphers rather than one-byte-wide S-boxes between
stream cipher layers, Dynamic Transposition achieves this level of
complexity with far fewer steps, and as an automatic consequence of
the basic cipher design (rather than as an additional precautionary
step that could be omitted).
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:01:06 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:15:40 -0800, "John A. Malley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>Algorithm P cannot generate more than M distinct permutations when
>driven by a linear congruential sequence of modulus M. See Knuth Vol. 2,
>section 3.4.2, Random Sampling and Shuffling. (pg. 145 in the Third
>Edition.)
True, but Terry Ritter would not propose any such thing. He is the
inventor of several quality stream ciphers.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 15:25:26 +0000
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 32768-bit cryptography
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> >> Finally: is it reasonable to assume computing power will continue to
> >> double every 18 months also for the next 84 years?
> >
> > Yeah, I think so. The technology researchers will probably
> ................
>
> Yep, people think or believe various things about the future....
>
> During my school years in the late 1960'ies, I was convinced that
> manned exploration of Mars would start in the 1980'ies, and that by
> now there would be permanent inhabitated colonies on both the Moon
> and Mars....
>
>
> You'll never know what actually will happen in the future....
Death and taxes.
--
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]
Subject: Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 15:59:55 GMT
In article <94e0b1$tcc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope that you accept this as an example of why I won't bother with
> this discussion any longer.
Look at the kook take his ball and go crying home to his mommy. Don't
let the door hit your butt on the way out, Greggy.
> > > > If one believes that TONA became part of the Constitution
> > > > merely because it was frequently published, one should
> > > > immediately mount an expedition to find Buss Island, a
> > > > "phantom" island in the North Atlantic which appeared on
> > > > maps from 1592 until 1856. See Donald S. Johnson, Phantom
> > > > Islands of the Atlantic 80 (1994). Buss Island had its own
> > > > conspiracy theorists; in 1770, an anonymous author accused
> > > > the Hudson's Bay Company of keeping its location a secret
> > > > in order to maintain financial control over it.
> > >
> > > I think everyone can see that you are desparate with such folly
> > > parallels.
> >
> > I think everyone can see that you can't come up with any reason to
> > distinguish the two. If you believe that the "missing 13th
> > amendment"must be real because it was frequently published on the
> > order of state
> > legislatures who were intelligent people, etc., why do you refuse to
> > accept the reality of Buss Island, which was frequently published by
> > mapmakers who were intelligent people, etc.?
>
> If I were a map maker, would I go see if a new island actually existed
> BEFORE I copy someone else's charts to improve my own? Of course not.
>
> There is no parallel with those who already had intimate knowledge of
> the 13th amendment in their days.
Look at poor little Greggy, who is just making it up as he goes.
Textbooks authors in the 19th century were much like mapmakers; they
relied on the works of others, and tended to copy their mistakes.
Or do you have some actual citation for your claim that they "had
intimate knowledge" of the "missing 13th amendment," Greggy? Of course
not.
> When you decide to say something of value I will respond.
Again, look at the kook take his ball and go crying home to his mommy.
Again, don't let the door hit your butt on the way out, Greggy.
> > On August 1, 1849, C. Robinson and J.M. Patton, who were
> > preparing a revised edition of the laws of Virginia, wrote to
> > William B. Preston, Secretary of the Navy, and noted that
> > although TONA was included in the Revised Code of 1819, "[w]e
> > are satisfied that this amendment was never adopted, though it
> > is difficult to account for the fact that it should have been
> > put into the Code of 1819 as an amendment which had been
> > adopted." The revised code noted that the previous
> > publication was in error.
>
> Anyone can say that. Jol Silversmith says that. So what?
You said no one ever objected to the "missing 13th amendment," Greggy.
You lied. Not that is any big shock to anyone around here, kook.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:03:12 GMT
In article <94e1j2$u77$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The constitution is silent as to whether the additional four states
> > > should have been included.
> >
> > It says 3/4 of the states. That is clearly a
> > function of time: Threshold(t) = 3/4 * States(t).
> > There is another time-dependent function: Ratifiers(t).
> > At no time T did Ratifiers(T) >= Threshold(T).
>
> Ooops. Someone forgot to tell those poor bastards back in 1819!
"Those poor bastards" being the authors of a compilation of state law in
Virginia. I didn't know that they had the power to change well-
established precedent. But then again, Greggy himself thinks he has the
power to decide what history is relevant, and to discount whatever
doesn't support his delusions.
Article V of the Constitution does not specify whether the
states that are to ratify an amendment are those in existence
when an amendment is submitted to the states, or also includes
those that join the Union after the amendment has been submitted
to the states but prior to ratification. History, however,
provides an answer. When the Bill of Rights was submitted to
the states on September 25, 1789, only 11 states were operating
under the Constitution; each amendment then required 9
ratifications to become part of the Constitution. But North
Carolina ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789 and
Rhode Island on May 29, 1790, raising the number of ratifications
required to 10.(123) Vermont then joined the Union on March 4,
1791,(124) raising the number of ratifications required to 11.
The official notice of the ratification of the Bill of Rights
was not issued by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson until
March 1, 1792, after notices of ratification had been received
from 11 states.
On March 2, 1797, before the Eleventh Amendment was known to
have become part of the Constitution, Congress passed a
resolution requesting the President to obtain information from
states about what action they had taken on the amendment,
including Tennessee, which had not been part of the Union when
the amendment was proposed. On October 16, 1797, Secretary of
State Timothy Pickering wrote to Tennessee Governor John Sevier,
enclosing a copy of the Eleventh Amendment. Pickering stated that
he thought it "expedient to transmit . . . a copy of the
resolution, to be laid before the legislature of Tennessee, for
their adoption or rejection."(130) The principle that new states
are to be included in the ratification process of a
constitutional amendment has continued into the twentieth
century. When New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union in 1912,
the number of states required to ratify the Sixteenth
Amendment increased to 36, which they were among.
--thirdamendment.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Alessandro Vanzulli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FAQ
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:12:07 GMT
Where can I find the FAQ of this newsgroup?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:24:06 GMT
In article <94e1fj$u6l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Their actions show absolutely conclusively that they knew it
> > > > > was properly ratified.
> > > >
> > > > The primary available evidence of a "ratification"
> > > > action by the Virginia legislature is the publication
> > > > of their civil code booklet in 1819. As has been
> > > > explained by others, in those days of poor
> > > > communication (before the invention of the telegraph)
> > > > there was often confusion about the status of
> > > > amendments. There is nothing in the historical
> > > > record showing a previous ratification action in
> > > > Virginia. And I already explained why even if one
> > > > wanted to interpret the publication of the booklet
> > > > as the act of ratification, (12+1)/21 < 3/4 so it
> > > > still wouldn't result in adoption of the amendment.
> > >
> > > The constitution is silent as to whether the additional four states
> > > should have been included.
> >
> > But it was already established by 1810 that they needed to be.
> >
> > Article V of the Constitution does not specify whether the
> > states that are to ratify an amendment are those in existence
> > when an amendment is submitted to the states, or also includes
> > those that join the Union after the amendment has been submitted
> > to the states but prior to ratification. History, however,
> > provides an answer. When the Bill of Rights was submitted to
> > the states on September 25, 1789, only 11 states were operating
> > under the Constitution; each amendment then required 9
> > ratifications to become part of the Constitution. But North
> > Carolina ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789 and
> > Rhode Island on May 29, 1790, raising the number of
> > ratifications
> > required to 10.(123) Vermont then joined the Union on March 4,
> > 1791,(124) raising the number of ratifications required to 11.
> > The official notice of the ratification of the Bill of Rights
> > was not issued by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson until
> > March 1, 1792, after notices of ratification had been received
> > from 11 states.
> >
> > On March 2, 1797, before the Eleventh Amendment was known to
> > have become part of the Constitution, Congress passed a
> > resolution requesting the President to obtain information from
> > states about what action they had taken on the amendment,
> > including Tennessee, which had not been part of the Union when
> > the amendment was proposed. On October 16, 1797, Secretary of
> > State Timothy Pickering wrote to Tennessee Governor John Sevier,
> > enclosing a copy of the Eleventh Amendment. Pickering stated
> > that
> > he thought it "expedient to transmit . . . a copy of the
> > resolution, to be laid before the legislature of Tennessee, for
> > their adoption or rejection."(130) The principle that new states
> > are to be included in the ratification process of a
> > constitutional amendment has continued into the twentieth
> > century. When New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union in 1912,
> > the number of states required to ratify the Sixteenth
> > Amendment increased to 36, which they were among.
>
> I have heard this before (as I said before I had) and I will make a
> deal with you here and now. If you can explain the following, I will
> believe you, recant, and apologize profusely. What say you?
>
> Why is it that the standard (as you declare) was in the 1810's that
> states being brought in should also vote on an unratified amendment,
> YET no one in the state legislature in Virginia stood up and
> said, "What the hell are you doing including the 13th amendment in the
> publications? The other four states have not even been consulted yet!"
Because he made a mistake. Government officials did that in the early
19th century (and still do today).
in the early nineteenth century, 'precise knowledge [about the
Constitution] simply was not common.'
--thirdamendment.com
> Why is it that the president asked about only the seventeen states, yet
> there were twenty one?
Because he made a mistake. Government officials did that in the early
19th century (and still do today).
on December 2, 1817, John Quincy Adams wrote to Charles
Nicholas Buck of Philadelphia to inform him that TONA would
strip him of his citizenship and right to hold public office if he
accepted an appointment as the Consul General in the United
States of the Imperial City of Hamburg. National Archives, 17
Domestic Letters of the Dept. of State 93-94 (1943). In a
subsequent letter to Buck on March 21, 1818, Adams retracted
the claim that TONA had been ratified,
--thirdamendment.com
> Why is it that none of the new four ever lodged a complaint but
> included the ratified amendment in their publications later?
Because they made a mistake. Government officials did that in the early
19th century (and still do today).
TONA may have been propagated because of how Congress
adopted organic acts for territories. When territories were
organized, Congress passed an organic act to establish a
government for the territory. Not only were organic acts for
new territories based on those for older territories, but the laws
of the territory itself often were copied from other states or
territories. Even if the compilers of a territorial code noticed
TONA, and were doubtful as to its validity, there was relatively
little they could do
--thirdamendment.com
> Why is it that no one in that time shows any action to resemble what
> one would expect to see if you were right - no one.
Repeating your lies won't make them become true, Greggy.
After the amendment also appeared in copies of the
Constitution printed for members of the 15th Congress,
Republican Representative Weldon Nathaniel Edwards of
North Carolina proposed a resolution on December 31, 1817
to ask President Monroe to provide the House of Representatives
with information as to "the number of States which have ratified
the Thirteenth article of the amendments." The resolution was
approved without opposition. Monroe's response, incorporating
the information gathered by John Quincy Adams, was that TONA
had not become part of the Constitution.
Contemporary scholars understood that the amendment had not
been ratified. William Rawle wrote that it "has been adopted by
some of the states; but not yet by a sufficient number." Joseph
Story wrote that "it has not received the ratification of the
constitutional number of states to make it obligatory, probably
from a growing sense, that it is wholly unnecessary." Although
the 1839 edition is silent on the subject, by 1848 Bouvier's Law
Dictionary recorded that TONA "has been recommended by
Congress, but it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of
states to make a part of the constitution."
--thirdamendment.com
...
> The greatest problem you and Jol Silversmith have is explaining what is
> in the open for all to see. You try desparately to distract your
> audience into venues of uncertainty and complexity hoping that they
> never look back at what is lying in the open - the actions of those at
> the time who knew what the hell they were doing.
>
> Give it a rest, will you?
Stop citing actual facts about what happened in the 19th century that
reveal you to be a delusional kook? Sometimes life's a bitch, isn't it
Greggy?
> Jol Silversmith - I wasn't there so I cannot say why no one
> protested within the Virginian legislature that day in 1819
> not to include the 13th amendment in their publications, or to
> require all 21 states to ratify the same. But I am absolutely
> certain I know more than they did back then what was really
> going on all around them. Boy, I'm good!
Greggy - I wasn't there and never cite any evidence so I cannot say
why I know that the inclusion of an unratified amendment in a
compilation of state law only could have been an attempt to ratify
it, or why I know that 19th century legislators were infallible, much
less why I lie about whether the authenticity of the "missing 13th
amendment" was ever questioned. But I am absolutely certain that
I know more than anyone who has actually researched the subject.
Boy I'm good!
BTW, Greggy, you still haven't said if you still such a kook as to
believe that the "missing 13th amendment"
"if it was truly ratified, then the Honorable William Jeferson
Clinton cannot be president, that every congressman and
senator (who also hold the title, the Honorable- see their
letter heads) are not allowed to hold office, and every judge
and lawyer cannot operate in the US."
--Greggy, 12/19/99
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Light Computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:35:44 GMT
In article <9485cg$aeg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 13th amendment to the US Constitution:
> If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive,
> or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the
> consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office,
> or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince,
> or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the
> United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of
> trust or profit under them, or either of them.
In case you're intrested, the "missing 13th amendment" is a myth spread
by kooks who believe that it authorizes the murder of police officers
(because they have a "title of nobility"). An article thoroughly
debunking this kook idea is at thirdamendment.com.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
