Cryptography-Digest Digest #677, Volume #13 Sun, 11 Feb 01 19:13:00 EST
Contents:
Re: ideas of D.Chaum about digital cash and whether tax offices are delighted ?
(phil hunt)
Re: ideas of D.Chaum about digital cash and whether tax offices are (Roger
Schlafly)
Re: Anonymous communications ("Augusto Jun Devegili")
Re: unpredicable random number generator ? (Simon Johnson)
Re: Mono ciphers and genetics .. a bacterial twist! (Sundial Services)
Re: Scramdisk, CDR and Win-NT (jungle)
Re: Universal Maurer-Test (Tim Tyler)
Re: Steganography with ASCII text files (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Scramdisk, CDR and Win-NT (nemo outis)
Multiple-Key RSA cryptosystem ("Augusto Jun Devegili")
Re: Steganography with ASCII text files (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Steganography with ASCII text files (Mok-Kong Shen)
Fractal encryption? ("S. Welsh")
Re: Multiple-Key RSA cryptosystem (Roger Schlafly)
Re: ith bit of an LFSR sequence? (Simon Johnson)
Re: Fractal encryption? (Mok-Kong Shen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,alt.cypherpunks
Subject: Re: ideas of D.Chaum about digital cash and whether tax offices are
delighted ?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:24:11 +0000
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:23:20 GMT, Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anyway, kiddie porn is illegal in the USA even if no kiddies are ever
>involved in it, so it's clearly not to protect the children, but to give
>people someone to hate.
Also bear in mind that many times more children are harmed by
unhealthy diets, and do they ban McDonalds? I'll let you guess the
answer to that question.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"An unforseen issue has arisen with your computer. Don't worry your
silly little head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation
of a paperclip to look at instead." -- Windows2007 error message
------------------------------
From: Roger Schlafly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,alt.cypherpunks
Subject: Re: ideas of D.Chaum about digital cash and whether tax offices are
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:47:52 -0800
phil hunt wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:23:20 GMT, Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Anyway, kiddie porn is illegal in the USA even if no kiddies are ever
> >involved in it, so it's clearly not to protect the children, but to give
> >people someone to hate.
> Also bear in mind that many times more children are harmed by
> unhealthy diets, and do they ban McDonalds? I'll let you guess the
> answer to that question.
I don't think the kiddie porn statement is even true. I couldn't find
the reference, but I believe that the 9th Circuit knocked out that
aspect of the law, and the US Supreme Court is now considering the
issue. Previous kiddie porn case involved kiddies. I do not think
that anyone has been successfully prosecuted for kiddie porn when
no kiddies were involved.
(Of course the situation might be different with the SC gets done
with it.)
------------------------------
From: "Augusto Jun Devegili" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anonymous communications
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:45:29 -0300
Hhhmmm. I suppose you could develop your own mixnet for this purpose.
Mixnets, however, need a certaing block of messages in order to produce
their output. Maybe you could insert some dumb messages in the mixnet in
order to produce immediate output.
Regards,
Augusto
------------------------------
From: Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: unpredicable random number generator ?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:17:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
yomgui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hello
>
> by unpredicable,
> I mean that knowing the algorithm
> and a serie of generated numbers
> one can't deduct the seed used to produce them.
>
> is there a such thing?
>
> thanks
>
> yomgui
>
yah, an algorithm that produces a set of unpredictable numbers from a
seed exists, but it is always possible to 'deduct' the seed used to
produce them. What matters is how much time and cipher-text is required
to deduce the seed. If the quantities of these two attributes are great
enough, then the cipher is considered secure. When choosing an
algorithm, insure you have requirements in mind. Are you streaming
video down a high bandwidth internet connection? if so, your going to
want a fast stream algorithm like ARC4 or SEAL. Do you intend to
generate keys with your PRNG? (i don't recommend this) then you'll want
something like the BBS generator. Basically, your optimial algorithm
depends on the task you have in mind.
Simon.
--
Hi, i'm the signuture virus,
help me spread by copying me into Signiture File
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:44:21 -0700
From: Sundial Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mono ciphers and genetics .. a bacterial twist!
The fitness function I am using compares the frequencies of single
characters and of digraphs against a table of predicted probabilities.
The absolute difference between the standard and the observed
frequencies is summed to yield the fitness (called the "error" score,
'cuz it's backwards) value.
>Robert Reynard wrote:
>
> "Sundial Services" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> << My reasoning is thus:
> The great determinant of a genetic algorithm is also the great unknown,
> namely the crossover algorithm. >>
>
> I would suggest that the great determinate of the genetic algorithm is the
> test to determine 'fitness.'
>
> The analysis I have been able to do indicates that the ability for an
> algorithm (computer program) to successfully solve the monoalphabetic
> keystring (KEY) has relatively little to do with the method of keystring
> generation, be it genetic, simulated annealing, random, or whatever.
>
> The critical aspect is the 'test for fitness.' It's the ability of the
> program to recognize that a particular keystring is in fact 'better' than
> previous keystrings.
>
> << The fitness of each rat before and after the transformation is
> calculated. If the transformation improves the rat, the transformation is
> kept and the bacteria scores one point. >>
>
> Therein lies the rub. It is often difficult to determine the fitness of the
> rat, however it has been transformed.
>
> If you want to 'test' the validity of your genetic keystring generation, you
> might try what I call the 'answer in the back of the book' test. This
> requires the correct plaintext solution for a given ciphertext.
>
> Use the correct plaintext (answer) to generate your frequency data (mono and
> digraph occurrences). Then use this data to run the program. If the
> keystring generator is working correctly (selecting a 'better' keystring
> after each round of tests) then the program will be able to find a solution
> in record time. For a good 'solver' it would take less than a second to
> completely solve the ciphertext. For a genetic keystring generator it can
> pass this test with a mutation rate as low as two swaps per round.
>
> If the program can't find a solution in a reasonable amount of time (a few
> minutes) then the keystring generator may in fact be 'broken.'
>
> Robert Reynard
> Author, Secret Code Breaker series of crypto books for young readers (8-16
> yr.)
> Secret Code Breaker Online at ==> http://codebreaker.dids.com
--
==================================================================
Sundial Services :: Scottsdale, AZ (USA) :: (480) 946-8259
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP public key available.)
> Fast(!), automatic table-repair with two clicks of the mouse!
> ChimneySweep(R): "Click click, it's fixed!" {tm}
> http://www.sundialservices.com/products/chimneysweep
------------------------------
Date: 11 Feb 2001 21:55:23 -0000
From: jungle <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Subject: Re: Scramdisk, CDR and Win-NT
Crossposted-To: alt.security.scramdisk
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Sun, 11 Feb 2001 in <V4Ah6.7256$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> nemo outis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> FWIW packet-writing (including/especially DirectCD?) is, if not outright
> flaky, definitely not very robust. Lots of horror stories of machines or
> other software hiccuping and the CDR becoming unreadable.
thanks for warnings ...
are you relying others stories or mostly your own horror ?
normally past stories are from "past", where all just started to emerge,
IMO almost all are the result of inappropriate use / abuse + low quality of media
[ it's generalization but people are paying top money for hardware & save on media,
you can see this when people are describing they HI-FI equipment,
ask them what percentage of overall cost, the speakers weight, you will be suprice
]
the new technology which I'm calling "don't run on empty stomach"
is eliminating all these stories, as long as people don't have it,
it's would pay to understand how & why these "flaky, ... not very robust"
situations are present
~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
Date: Sun Feb 11 21:55:21 2001 GMT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOocKS05NDhYLYPHNAQGe/wf+LfK9+wwpwMqIey7aZ3QHsHHTbXmig6h+
fFjB7iKKoHIovt1A1/pG3X6T4j2zV4Z8RtxE/5w+Xf/cvVRmXR0eHocXheOT2B2C
8DSPhv2xW5QTDWbQBVYhKGjzDU5i1o0BKAH/LyRafqASkEhmbi3jX5V/LqkRAeWR
U/RoGDbnmqiTM3ARSGGZCDfjdvnTYlX5TI7oN54ak8A7FkMPzCdD7Oy1RWeOVme7
N2bVFGKievLSMMqIRhG2Yi7ycuIUDISFHt4KgPMCCI2X82ZpmUq4i+kNGYFQJ/cC
DZ8jk2tyUISbWpaeD81fNr4N+an+SpPHgXysba1PAHmY+8US5LEx0w==
=m54G
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Universal Maurer-Test
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:49:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Should anyone be interested, I also have a Delphi implementation at
: http://www.streamsec.com/prngtst.asp
I get a 404...
--
__________
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://alife.co.uk/tim/
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Steganography with ASCII text files
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:33:23 +0100
JPeschel wrote:
>
[snip]
> I don't think HTML/1.0 was made an official standard, but it
> is decribed in RFC 1945. I think 1.1 replaced it fairly quickly.
> Both the 1.0 and the 1.1 specifications support image files,
> so I still don't understand steganograhpic HTML's raison d'etre.
> Maybe Mok is thinking of users with text-only browsers;
> maybe he will explain.
I go from the assumption that it is more easy both to
get and to process text files than graphical files or
other media. There are certainly situations where this
doesn't hold. But at least in more primitive cases, e.g. my
personal one, the assumption is valid, I believe. You might
laugh at it, but I have till present day only a few times
downloaded graphical files and have never produced one
myself. My problem of of doing stego with image files is
that I need some software from others or I have to develop
it myself. The first involves subtle questions of security,
the second entails at least substantial work, I am afriad.
Of course I have no proof at all of the security of the
scheme I proposed. But intuitively I think it could be
fairly safe if it is employed properly and the frequency of
communications is sufficiently low so as to escape traffic
analysis.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.security.scramdisk
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (nemo outis)
Subject: Re: Scramdisk, CDR and Win-NT
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:37:51 GMT
Other people's stories. I took them to heart and don't use packet-writing so
I don't have any stories of my own, good or bad.
Regards,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jungle
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Sun, 11 Feb 2001 in <V4Ah6.7256$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> nemo outis
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>> FWIW packet-writing (including/especially DirectCD?) is, if not outright
>> flaky, definitely not very robust. Lots of horror stories of machines or
>> other software hiccuping and the CDR becoming unreadable.
>
>thanks for warnings ...
>are you relying others stories or mostly your own horror ?
>
>normally past stories are from "past", where all just started to emerge,
> IMO almost all are the result of inappropriate use / abuse + low quality of
> media
> [ it's generalization but people are paying top money for hardware & save on
> media,
> you can see this when people are describing they HI-FI equipment,
> ask them what percentage of overall cost, the speakers weight, you will be
> suprice ]
>
>the new technology which I'm calling "don't run on empty stomach"
> is eliminating all these stories, as long as people don't have it,
> it's would pay to understand how & why these "flaky, ... not very robust"
> situations are present
>
>~~~
>This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
>It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
>Date: Sun Feb 11 21:55:21 2001 GMT
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6.2
>
>iQEVAwUBOocKS05NDhYLYPHNAQGe/wf+LfK9+wwpwMqIey7aZ3QHsHHTbXmig6h+
>fFjB7iKKoHIovt1A1/pG3X6T4j2zV4Z8RtxE/5w+Xf/cvVRmXR0eHocXheOT2B2C
>8DSPhv2xW5QTDWbQBVYhKGjzDU5i1o0BKAH/LyRafqASkEhmbi3jX5V/LqkRAeWR
>U/RoGDbnmqiTM3ARSGGZCDfjdvnTYlX5TI7oN54ak8A7FkMPzCdD7Oy1RWeOVme7
>N2bVFGKievLSMMqIRhG2Yi7ycuIUDISFHt4KgPMCCI2X82ZpmUq4i+kNGYFQJ/cC
>DZ8jk2tyUISbWpaeD81fNr4N+an+SpPHgXysba1PAHmY+8US5LEx0w==
>=m54G
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
From: "Augusto Jun Devegili" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Multiple-Key RSA cryptosystem
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:01:38 -0300
Hi all,
Is it possible to use four keys (three private, one public) in an RSA
generalization?
=====
For three-key RSA (LaTeX notation, \equiv = congruence; ^ = exponentiation);
K1 and K2 are private, K3 is public:
n = pq
K1 * K2 * K3 \equiv 1 mod (p-1)(q-1)
Step 1 (entity 1 encrypts the message)
c' = m^K1 mod n
Step 2 (entity 2 obtains the original message)
c'^{K2*K3) mod n = m^{K1*K2*K3} mod n = m mod n = m
Step 3 (entity 2 appends its encryption)
c'' = c'^K2 mod n
Step 4: (any entity decrypts)
c''^K3 mod n = c'^{K2*K3} mod n = m^{K1*K2*K3} mod n = m mod n = m
=====
In four-key RSA, K1*K2*K3*K4 \equiv 1 mod (p-1)(q-1). However, step 2 won't
be possible because another key would be missing (K3 is entity 3's private
key, K4 is the public key).
I thought of imposing these constraints:
K1 * K2 * K4 \equiv 1 mod (p-1)(q-1)
K2 * K3 * K4 \equiv 1 mod (p-1)(q-1)
Is this correct? Is there any other way to build a four-key (and,
generalizing, m-key) RSA cryptosystem?
Regards,
Augusto Jun Devegili
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Steganography with ASCII text files
Date: 11 Feb 2001 22:43:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mok-Kong Shen) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It is a relative matter. At least in my personal case,
>I have plenty of text files ready for use and don't
>need to get these other files. What I find is more
>inconvenient with graphical files is either to have to
>get those algorithms to process or have to implement them
>myself, while what I suggested is very elementary so that I
>could easily start from scratch (composing my own cover
>text) and be entirely independent of other people.
>
>M. K. Shen
>
Shen its not that hard to do grapfical steganograpy.
I just down loaded GIFSHUFFLE. the code is simple and has
the nice feature that the picture does not change when
viewed at all. You do not need a reference picture you
use the permutation of the color pallet. I made a few
mods that increase the number of permutations that it
misses in many cases however there is much more that
could be done with it. I am trying to palce it at
radiusnet if you want to look at it and the original.
In a few weeks hope to add a stegnography page so
people can use it in the UK or whatever.
However I am going to write a png version that uses
all the space in a 1-1 bijective way that allows for
files to be split between images.
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: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Steganography with ASCII text files
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:24:26 +0100
"John A. Malley" wrote:
>
> Hey, here we have a situation requiring traffic analysis!
[snip]
I have no good idea of solving the problem you posed.
But here are some thoughts anyway: At least in certain
favourable situations the sending site can be a fixed
one (i.e. no fear of eventual problems with law
enforcement). Assuming sufficient luxury, one can publish
a newspaper with online summaries. The receivers access
the pages from internet cafes or internet shops. I guess
that this functions if the rate of informations to be
transmitted is correspondingly (very) low. However, the
above is only a broadcasting system, i.e. the receivers
can't respond.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "S. Welsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fractal encryption?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:32:13 GMT
Group,
I am not a crypto expert, indeed I have only basic knowlege of
encryption techniques. However, I am curious to know if such a programme
exists that allows one to use a fractal rather than a textual code to
encrypt a document. If this sort of thing is purely Star Treknology, then
please tell me, likewise if it is not!
Thanks in advance,
Sam.
------------------------------
From: Roger Schlafly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple-Key RSA cryptosystem
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:45:12 -0800
You have a system where 2 parties can collaborate to use their
secret into to produce a message that anyone can decrypt. Why?
Are you trying for a joint signature scheme? If you state what
you really want to accomplish, you might get some help.
Augusto Jun Devegili wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Is it possible to use four keys (three private, one public) in an RSA
> generalization?
>
> -----
> For three-key RSA (LaTeX notation, \equiv = congruence; ^ = exponentiation);
> K1 and K2 are private, K3 is public:
>
> n = pq
> K1 * K2 * K3 \equiv 1 mod (p-1)(q-1)
>
> Step 1 (entity 1 encrypts the message)
> c' = m^K1 mod n
>
> Step 2 (entity 2 obtains the original message)
> c'^{K2*K3) mod n = m^{K1*K2*K3} mod n = m mod n = m
>
> Step 3 (entity 2 appends its encryption)
> c'' = c'^K2 mod n
>
> Step 4: (any entity decrypts)
> c''^K3 mod n = c'^{K2*K3} mod n = m^{K1*K2*K3} mod n = m mod n = m
> -----
>
> In four-key RSA, K1*K2*K3*K4 \equiv 1 mod (p-1)(q-1). However, step 2 won't
> be possible because another key would be missing (K3 is entity 3's private
> key, K4 is the public key).
>
> I thought of imposing these constraints:
>
> K1 * K2 * K4 \equiv 1 mod (p-1)(q-1)
> K2 * K3 * K4 \equiv 1 mod (p-1)(q-1)
>
> Is this correct? Is there any other way to build a four-key (and,
> generalizing, m-key) RSA cryptosystem?
>
> Regards,
>
> Augusto Jun Devegili
------------------------------
From: Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ith bit of an LFSR sequence?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:43:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> >
> > Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> > > If we know x (or know n bits starting at i), and know y, and want
to
> > > know i, what do we do? This is the second thing Bob asked about.
> > > THIS problem is exactly equal in difficulty to the discrete log
> > > problem.
> >
> > This suggests the possibility of fast hardware DLP solvers...
>
> Maybe, maybe not. However, the discrete log problem needed to solve
> this is the one over the field of GF(2)[x]/p(x), not over the field of
> Z/Zp. What forms of encryption [if any] use GF(2)[x]/p(x) type
discrete
> logs as their strength?
Hrm, as a side track i was wondering if all discrete logs in p^x where
x is an integer greater than 1 and where p is a prime, is actually
easier than computing a discrete logrithm in q, where q is a prime of
the roughly the same size as p?
I'm really not sure if that question even makes sense :)
Simon.
--
Hi, i'm the signuture virus,
help me spread by copying me into Signiture File
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fractal encryption?
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:55:06 +0100
"S. Welsh" wrote:
>
> Group,
> I am not a crypto expert, indeed I have only basic knowlege of
> encryption techniques. However, I am curious to know if such a programme
> exists that allows one to use a fractal rather than a textual code to
> encrypt a document. If this sort of thing is purely Star Treknology, then
> please tell me, likewise if it is not!
I don't think that I properly understood what you want.
But there have been attempts to exploit chaos theory to do
encryptions. It appears that many think that's not secure.
Anyway, there probably isn't much analysis work done. You
may like to look at some chaos journals or web sites.
Unfortunately I have no references at hand.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
