Cryptography-Digest Digest #764, Volume #13 Wed, 28 Feb 01 13:13:00 EST
Contents:
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? (nemo outis)
Re: how long can one Arcfour key be used?? ("Scott Fluhrer")
Re: How to find a huge prime(1024 bit?) (Timothy Murphy)
Re: how long can one Arcfour key be used?? ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Sad news, Dr. Claude Shannon died over the weekend. ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: philosophical question? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Is BORG mental patient Linda Gore SSRIHater?? Re: Fake SSRIHATER ("alexplore")
Re: encryption and information theory (Harvey Taylor)
Re: How to find a huge prime(1024 bit?) (Christian Bau)
Keystoke recorder (Alberto)
Re: Is BORG mental patient Linda Gore SSRIHater?? Re: Fake SSRIHATER ("Beeftain")
Re: A few questions ("Simon Johnson")
Re: philosophical question? ("Simon Johnson")
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? (Free-man)
Re: Is BORG mental patient Linda Gore SSRIHater?? Re: Fake SSRIHATER ("alexplore")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (nemo outis)
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:08 GMT
It's completely speculative on my part, but the likelihood is that the attack
was made on the passphrase rather than the underlying algorithm.
The primary methods include direct observation (e.g., keylogger, video,
Tempest) and dictionary/brute-force attacks on the passphrase.
There is the possibility of known-plaintext attacks on the cipher by using a
honeypot with alluring information that is likely to be transmitted in
enciphered form verbatim (in whole or part).
There is also the very real possibility of human foibles such as carelessness
revealing the encryption.
Rarely is the cipher the weak link in the chain. However, from the nature
of this case there is a genuine possibility that the most powerful methods and
unlimited resources were (successfully?) applied to decryption.
So the real question is: Has the NSA tipped its hand or is this just their SOP
of obfuscation?
Regards,
In article <di3n6.7849$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Open FleshWound"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FBI: Hanssen suspected he was under surveillance
>
>february 27, 2001
>Web posted at: 9:36 PM EST (0236 GMT)
>
>
>From staff and wire reports
>
>WASHINGTON -- Accused spy Robert Hanssen suspected he was under government
> surveillance, telling his
>Russian contacts "something has aroused the sleeping tiger," the FBI said in an
> affidavit released
>Tuesday.
>
>The comment came from a letter that FBI officials said was encrypted on a
> computer diskette found in
>a package -- taped and wrapped in a black plastic trash bag -- that Hanssen
> dropped underneath a
>foot bridge in a park in Northern Virginia, immediately before his arrest.
>
>The FBI decrypted the letter and described it in an affidavit filed in support
> of its search
>warrant.
>
>
>Hanssen, a 25-year veteran in the FBI and a counterintelligence expert, was
> arrested February 18 and
>charged with spying for the Soviet Union and later Russia over a period of 15
> years, dating back to
>the waning days of the Cold War.
>
>FBI Director Louis Freeh said Hanssen, 56, was paid $1.4 million in cash and
> diamonds for passing
>top-secret information to Russians.
>
>He was arrested after FBI agents watched him allegedly drop off a package of
> classified information
>at a park near his northern Virginia home, which was to be picked up by his
> Russian handlers.
>
>The package and letter retrieved by authorities were meant for his Russian
> handlers, FBI officials
>said.
>
>"Dear Friends," the letter reads, according to the affidavit. "I thank you for
> your assistance these
>many years. It seems, however, that my greatest utility to you has come to an
> end, and it is time to
>seclude myself from active service.
>
>"Since communicating last, and one wonders if because of it, I have been
> promoted to a higher
>do-nothing senior executive job outside of regular access to information within
> the
>counterintelligence program. It is as if I am being isolated. Furthermore, I
> believe I have detected
>repeated bursting radio signal emanations from my vehicle ... Something has
> aroused the sleeping
>tiger. Perhaps you know better than I."
>
>Hanssen also said he strongly suspected the Russians "should have concerns for
> the integrity of your
>compartment concerning knowledge of my efforts on your behalf."
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how long can one Arcfour key be used??
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:22:22 -0800
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:jW8n6.257260$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Julian Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Also, does anyone know how this varies with key length and
> > >> number-of-mixes (N in CipherSaber-2)?
> > > Is 'number-of-mixes' the number of passes you do during key setup
(with
> > > 1 being standard RC4)?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > If so, then no, that has no effect.
> >
> > Ok. How about key length? One of my intended algorithms will use
throwaway
> > from-scratch DH to setup a key, but creating DH primes for a full length
> > 256 byte RC4 key would take several minutes a pop, way too slow. (I'm
> > doing it this way so as to have "forward security" - once the
transaction
> > is over, there should be no way to decrypt it from wiretap records and a
> > siezed machine.)
>
> RC4 can't possibly use keys bigger then 1684 bits in length. So using a
> 256-byte key while "amazing" is actually quite useless. The intelligent
> thing todo is to SHA256/TIGER192/MD5128/etc your DH secret and use that as
a
> key into RC4.
>
> > For example, CipherSaber suggests a 62 byte key + IV; for how long could
> > that be used?
>
> The length of the key is irrelevent. A small key makes brute force easier
> but once you pass 64 bits it becomes virtually impossible to perform the
> task.
I'm sure Tom knows, but to emphesize: that's 64 bits of entropy, not an
arbitrary 64 bits. 64 bits which makes up a 8 letter dictionary word is
quite easy to brute force if the attacker guesses that's what you did.
--
poncho
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Murphy)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,sci.math
Subject: Re: How to find a huge prime(1024 bit?)
Date: 28 Feb 2001 16:36:01 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Scott) writes:
>My intuition is that as p goes to infinity,
>for almost all cases, the product of all primes up to p plus
>one is prime. I would not be surprised if there were only
>finitely many primes for which the above construction does not
>yield a prime. Just a hunch. Anyone know for sure?
I don't know, but it seems very improbable.
The probability of n being prime is approximately 1/log n,
which summed over the numbers you speak of is finite,
so I would have said it was reasonably certain
that this process yielded only a finite number of primes.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: 086-233 6090
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how long can one Arcfour key be used??
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:10:45 GMT
"Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97j936$vvt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:jW8n6.257260$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Julian Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Also, does anyone know how this varies with key length and
> > > >> number-of-mixes (N in CipherSaber-2)?
> > > > Is 'number-of-mixes' the number of passes you do during key setup
> (with
> > > > 1 being standard RC4)?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > If so, then no, that has no effect.
> > >
> > > Ok. How about key length? One of my intended algorithms will use
> throwaway
> > > from-scratch DH to setup a key, but creating DH primes for a full
length
> > > 256 byte RC4 key would take several minutes a pop, way too slow. (I'm
> > > doing it this way so as to have "forward security" - once the
> transaction
> > > is over, there should be no way to decrypt it from wiretap records and
a
> > > siezed machine.)
> >
> > RC4 can't possibly use keys bigger then 1684 bits in length. So using a
> > 256-byte key while "amazing" is actually quite useless. The intelligent
> > thing todo is to SHA256/TIGER192/MD5128/etc your DH secret and use that
as
> a
> > key into RC4.
> >
> > > For example, CipherSaber suggests a 62 byte key + IV; for how long
could
> > > that be used?
> >
> > The length of the key is irrelevent. A small key makes brute force
easier
> > but once you pass 64 bits it becomes virtually impossible to perform the
> > task.
> I'm sure Tom knows, but to emphesize: that's 64 bits of entropy, not an
> arbitrary 64 bits. 64 bits which makes up a 8 letter dictionary word is
> quite easy to brute force if the attacker guesses that's what you did.
Agreed. Of course putting ASCII into RC4 directly is a "dumb" idea. It
severely cripples the key generation process.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sad news, Dr. Claude Shannon died over the weekend.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:39:12 GMT
Dennis Ritchie wrote:
> Et al., certainly, but how Turing? For the information theory
> aspect, the main references in his paper are to Nyquist and to
> Hartley.
Turing appears to have originated the use of bans as weight
of evidence during the Bletchley Park years. Shannon in fact
wrote an earlier version of his paper(s) for one of the wartime
cryptologic agencies; it's in the US National Archives, and
my own assessment is that he knew about decibans etc. and
organized and systematized the ideas in formulating his theory
of information. Presumably the reason there was no reference
to Turing was that the Bletchley work was still classified at
the time. As I recall, I.J. Good has written on this history.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers,de.sci.informatik.misc,sci.math
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:48:29 GMT
Peter Osborne wrote:
> Is randomness a kind of information ?
> Is it the highest density of information (that we are not able to
> understand)?
> Is it merely the opposite of information?
You have gotten some nonsensical answers from "philosophers".
>From the point of view of the formal discipline of information
theory, information is a measure of surprise in the data with
respect to your prior expectations about the data. Therefore,
uniformly random data conveys the maximum possible amount of
information.
> Can there be a fundamental difference between pseudo-randomness and
> real randomness (e.g. generated by radioactive decay or thermal
> noise), especially under these aspects mentioned above?
Pseudo-random data is generated according to some fixed recipe
from a small number of parameters and accordingly does not
convey much information (essentially just the parameter values).
There are many ways to analyze pseudo-random data to detect its
patterns. The field of cryptanalysis is largely about finding
the parameters used to generate pseudo-random ciphertext, and
sometimes it is quite successful.
------------------------------
From: "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,soc.culture.ukrainian
Subject: Is BORG mental patient Linda Gore SSRIHater?? Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:09:34 -0500
Reply-To: "alexplore" <alexplore@aleplore>
Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97j635$1sli$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message
news:97j1m4$687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:97j0ii$1jf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Pippelip gokkelok!
> >
> > You must be mentally ill like Linda Gore!
Linda Gore is a mental patient on the "crazies groups"...
Very mentally ill... married 4 times... does a lot of
"psychiatric medications"... for 23 years in fact...
that and fucking drunks and posting about how to stuff their
limp dicks up her cunt.
"Diagnossing" her son.... sees that he needs a lot of psychiatric drugs
too...
Disgusting piece of shit! Someone out there will be husband #
5 sooner or later.... always a horny asshole that will fuck anything... Ask
Igor Chudov and Yelena Purdunkova about that :)
>
> Well, Al Gore _is_ mentally ill...
Not so much as his wife "Tipper" (hell kind of name is THAT!)
> not very less than George Bush.
at least his wife ain't eating head-drug pills like "Tipper" :)
or Igor Chudov...
> Beeftain
------------------------------
From: Harvey Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: encryption and information theory
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:22:23 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Savard wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:30:33 +0000, Andreas Moser
> <see@http://www.ztop.freeserve.co.uk> wrote, in part:
>
>>Does the encryption change the entropy, i.e. does the
>>encrypted message still reflect the information content of
>>the original message? Say the original message had an
>>entropy of 1 kbit, then use, say, PGP encryption, does it
>>increase?
>>
>>If the answer is yes, where does the additional information
>>come from, and if the answer is no, isn't there a way to see
>>through the encryption?
>
> It has been answered that conventional encryption increases the
> entropy of a message by the amount of the key.
>
> That is true only if the message is not compressed.
>
> More precisely: if the message contains N bits of information, and
> occupies M bits of bandwidth, and the K is K bits long, the entropy of
> the encrypted message is N+K bits, *or* M bits, whichever is less.
>
> In the case of RSA encryption, given that you know the public key, no
> increase of entropy takes place.
>
> Does that imply there is a way to see through the encryption?
>
> In the case of RSA encryption, yes.
>
> In the case of conventional encryption, where N+K is less than M, yes.
>
Is there a software utility available to measure entropy of a file?
Then someone could post:
entropy of cleartext
entropy of compressed text
entropy of cyphertext
entropy of enciphered compressed text
<just curious>
-het
--
"90 percent of _everything_ is crap." -Sturgeon's Law
Harvey Taylor mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pangea.ca/~het
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Bau)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,sci.math
Subject: Re: How to find a huge prime(1024 bit?)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:28:02 +0000
In article <97j9dh$79s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy
Murphy) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Scott) writes:
>
> >My intuition is that as p goes to infinity,
> >for almost all cases, the product of all primes up to p plus
> >one is prime. I would not be surprised if there were only
> >finitely many primes for which the above construction does not
> >yield a prime. Just a hunch. Anyone know for sure?
>
> I don't know, but it seems very improbable.
> The probability of n being prime is approximately 1/log n,
> which summed over the numbers you speak of is finite,
> so I would have said it was reasonably certain
> that this process yielded only a finite number of primes.
I haven't done any more precise calculation yet, but the numbers you are
checking have a higher than normal propability of being primes. After all,
you are examining numbers that are not divisible by any prime up to p. For
example, all the numbers you examine are odd which immediately doubles the
chance of being prime. Might be enough to make a difference, or maybe not.
------------------------------
From: Alberto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Keystoke recorder
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:29:41 GMT
It's seems that the easiest way to access encrypted data is to gain
access to the target computer and install such device.
Have you ever seen one of them? How does it look like? How can you
defend yourself against this kind of attack?
Thanks.
Alberto
------------------------------
From: "Beeftain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,soc.culture.ukrainian
Subject: Re: Is BORG mental patient Linda Gore SSRIHater?? Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:31:04 +0100
Reply-To: "Beeftain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message news:97jbuk$if6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:97j635$1sli$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message
> news:97j1m4$687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:97j0ii$1jf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Pippelip gokkelok!
> > >
> > > You must be mentally ill like Linda Gore!
>
> Linda Gore is a mental patient on the "crazies groups"...
> Very mentally ill... married 4 times... does a lot of
> "psychiatric medications"... for 23 years in fact...
> that and fucking drunks and posting about how to stuff their
> limp dicks up her cunt.
>
> "Diagnossing" her son.... sees that he needs a lot of psychiatric drugs
> too...
>
> Disgusting piece of shit! Someone out there will be husband #
> 5 sooner or later.... always a horny asshole that will fuck anything... Ask
> Igor Chudov and Yelena Purdunkova about that :)
Who are they?
> > Well, Al Gore _is_ mentally ill...
>
> Not so much as his wife "Tipper" (hell kind of name is THAT!)
She discovered these Parental Advisory-stickers. It's narrow-minded.
> > not very less than George Bush.
>
> at least his wife ain't eating head-drug pills like "Tipper" :)
> or Igor Chudov...
No, but any wife of Bush must be brainwashed. Bush is a f...... maniac.
Which group are you writing in?
Beeftain
------------------------------
From: "Simon Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few questions
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:40:39 -0800
Koen Van Baelen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yHXm6.33453$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi everybody,
> I've got two questions :
>
> 1 :
> How can I generate real random numbers? And i don't mean the numbers
> generated by the 'random' functions you find in all programming languages.
I
> want something that produces totally unpredictable numbers. I know there's
> some mathematical theory for producing random numbers, so if anybody knows
> about it, pleasy let me know!
No algorithm can produce real random data; for this you need to exploit
entropy in your computers hardware or get a piece of hardware. If your after
an algorithm, there are many choices, RC4 usually being a favorite for most
things. For really secure pseudo-random numbers use BBS... Its simple:
Pick two _large_ primes that are congruent to 3 mod 4. Mutliply the two
together to form a large integer, n. You now no longer need the two primes,
but they must remain secret. Now, you supply a seed, x(0) which is less than
the size of n. Iterate the following:
x(i) = x(i-1)^2 mod n
The least log(2,n) bits of x(i) are the pseudo-random output for each
iteration. This system is slow, but we know there is no faster way to crack
this generator than factoring n into its primes. Exactly how hard factoring
is has yet to be determined but evidence suggests its difficult.
Basically, there are alot of PRNGs out there so be careful when you choose
make sure that it suits your application.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers,de.sci.informatik.misc,sci.math
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:46:37 -0800
Dirk Van de moortel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:9g5n6.35596$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Peter Osborne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi there!
> >
> > RANDOMNESS / RANDOM NUMBERS
> >
> > Maybe that point is not that simple at all, maybe it concerns too
> > many topics like statistics, math, cryptanalysis and even religion...
> >
> > As I dealed with cryptography and HRNG circuits, I often ask myself:
> >
> > Is randomness a kind of information ?
> > Is it the highest density of information (that we are not able to
> > understand)?
> > Is it merely the opposite of information?
> >
> > Can there be a fundamental difference between pseudo-randomness and
> > real randomness (e.g. generated by radioactive decay or thermal
> > noise), especially under these aspects mentioned above?
>
> Not so philosophical: I think, if I remember well, that information can be
> defined as something that provides an answer to a Yes-No question.
> I don't think randomness can do this.
Randomness is the same as unpredictability. When unpredictability is at its
maximum, information content is also at its maximum. To demonstrate this,
think of compression. If i compressed this text, the information per
character in the compressed document would clearly be greater than if it
were not compressed. Yet on visual inspection of the compressed data, it
appears more random.
Simon.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Free-man)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:46:06 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (nemo outis)
wrote:
>It's completely speculative on my part, but the likelihood is that the attack
>was made on the passphrase rather than the underlying algorithm.
>
>The primary methods include direct observation (e.g., keylogger, video,
>Tempest) and dictionary/brute-force attacks on the passphrase.
>
>There is the possibility of known-plaintext attacks on the cipher by using a
>honeypot with alluring information that is likely to be transmitted in
>enciphered form verbatim (in whole or part).
>
>There is also the very real possibility of human foibles such as carelessness
>revealing the encryption.
>
>Rarely is the cipher the weak link in the chain. However, from the nature
>of this case there is a genuine possibility that the most powerful methods and
>unlimited resources were (successfully?) applied to decryption.
>
>So the real question is: Has the NSA tipped its hand or is this just their SOP
>of obfuscation?
>
IMO, the only way that we will know how the data was decrypted is if
Hannson makes a public statement about it and does not lie. My guess
is that he knows the answer.
Rich Eramian aka freeman at shore dot net
"Who does not love wine, women, and song,
remains a fool his whole life long"
------------------------------
From: "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,soc.culture.ukrainian,alt.support.anxiety-panic,alt.support.depression,alt.support.depression.manic,alt.support.ocd,alt.support.attn-deficit,alt.support.eat
Subject: Re: Is BORG mental patient Linda Gore SSRIHater?? Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:51:31 -0500
Reply-To: "alexplore" <alexplore@aleplore>
Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97jcm7$26ve$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message
news:97jbuk$if6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:97j635$1sli$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message
> > news:97j1m4$687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:97j0ii$1jf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Pippelip gokkelok!
> > > >
> > > > You must be mentally ill like Linda Gore!
> >
> > Linda Gore is a mental patient on the "crazies groups"...
> > Very mentally ill... married 4 times... does a lot of
> > "psychiatric medications"... for 23 years in fact...
> > that and fucking drunks and posting about how to stuff their
> > limp dicks up her cunt.
> >
> > "Diagnossing" her son.... sees that he needs a lot of psychiatric drugs
> > too...
> >
> > Disgusting piece of shit! Someone out there will be husband #
> > 5 sooner or later.... always a horny asshole that will fuck anything...
Ask
> > Igor Chudov and Yelena Purdunkova about that :)
>
> Who are they?
Igor Chudov is the moderator for s.c.russian.moderated - see his web page
btw...
Yelena Perhunkova - properly spelled is a noted spammer that posts like a
bulldyke as "Bill of Rights" all her socialist/communist bullshit.
The above asshole, also sexually *stalked* me, AND most publicly whined
about how I was "abusing" her and "intimimidating" her.... told her to keep
her cunt OUT of my e-mail box... etc... PIG kept lying and *pushing*...
then she went after my Child ... BIG MISTAKE!!!!
Was going to work with my ex-wife, ANOTHER MENTAL CASE, PILL HEAD (like
Chudov & Perhunkova) Ingrid Eve Runden, MD.
Gets very complicated... I owe both of the above Child abuser mental cases,
"a favor".
As you gather... I am well liked on the "crazies groups",
and by the above.
Andrew Chmilewsky
>
> > > Well, Al Gore _is_ mentally ill...
> >
> > Not so much as his wife "Tipper" (hell kind of name is THAT!)
>
> She discovered these Parental Advisory-stickers. It's narrow-minded.
>
> > > not very less than George Bush.
> >
> > at least his wife ain't eating head-drug pills like "Tipper" :)
> > or Igor Chudov...
>
> No, but any wife of Bush must be brainwashed. Bush is a f...... maniac.
>
> Which group are you writing in?
>
>
> Beeftain
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
