Cryptography-Digest Digest #805, Volume #13 Mon, 5 Mar 01 08:13:00 EST
Contents:
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? ("kroesjnov")
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? ("kroesjnov")
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? (Matthew Montchalin)
Re: Monty Hall problem (was Re: philosophical question?) ("Mxsmanic")
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? ("Mxsmanic")
Re: The Foolish Dozen or so in This News Group (network_noadle)
Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive
(network_noadle)
Re: won't you tell me something about my encryption scheme ? (yomgui)
Re: Sad news, Dr. Claude Shannon died over the weekend. (Derek Bell)
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? ("Mxsmanic")
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? (Joe H. Acker)
Re: Why do people continue to reply to Szopa? (Ed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "kroesjnov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:07:00 +0100
> > I am willing to trade some privacy for safety.
>
> I'm not.
Well, we don`t have to agree thank god :) (Or whoever you believe in...)
> > All the points above, and afcourse more off them,
> > carry less weight for me then a terrorist bombing
> > my school, or some luny invasing my country.
>
> Unfortunately, all of them are also more likely than a terrorist bombing
> your school or a nut invading your country.
How many razi`s have taken place in your country in the last couple off
years? When was the last time they purged your country from all the black
people? When was the last time they threw everybody in prison who was
against Clinton? When was the last time they purged the schools, from those
who performed less then a C ?
And when is the last time they bombed a building in your country? When is
the last time, some luney started blasting away at a school? When is the
last time, your country was at war?
I think this illustrates what is most likely to happen, don`t you think?
> > All things are relative in my opinion, and some things
> > are just more important to me then others.
>
> Apparently the things you don't have are more important to you than the
> things you have. The grass is always greener on the other side of the
> fence.
>
> > How else are we going to catch someone like Saddam?
>
> Catch him? Why?
I think you forgot something in you quote:
'<- now don`t go bitching about that, it should be clear to you all, that
this is just an example...'
I think you understand, that the name Saddam can be replaced by any bad
person <- now don`t go telling me that he isn`t a bad person, and that he
stabilizes the world or something like that he, okay?
> > So call me young foolisch boy, who doesn`t understand
> > these things, but my opinion stands.
>
> We'll see what you call yourself twenty-five years from now.
Time will tell...
> > Afcourse they keep a mild track on everybody. To
> > not do that, would be making it impossible to detect
> > "the bad guy" among the good guys, you know that,
> > and I know that.
>
> There aren't any bad guys, until they do something bad.
Yes, that is indeed true.
But there is always something like patern matching, to see who is most
likely to do something like bombing a building (I am just afraid to use the
word 'bad' by now, you know that? ;).
And no, these systems aren`t fool proof, but you know where I am getting
at... I hope...
> > So, we have a goverment, who throws everybody in prison
> > who has a gay friend?
>
> Not always. Sometimes they might throw someone in prison for
> _objecting_ to gay friends. It depends on which way the wind is
> blowing.
I hope you see that this was just an example... But we seem to be on the
same line here.
> > Yes indeed, the goverment is after us, better throw
> > away your weed and porn, otherwise you are going to
> > end up in a special rehab camp!
>
> At the very least, if you are into weed and porn, be discreet.
Move to The Netherlands, and you won`t have to :)
> > All of these things happend, because these agency`s
> > were given to much power (wich is afcourse, the real
> > discussion here).
>
> _Somebody_ has to be given the power. But you have to audit and
> distribute power.
Yes, I agree with that, this is a very big problem.
It is also a problem, on how we would be going to keep track off these
people, who have been given great powers...
> > What is againts a world wide agency, that will
> > keep track on bad people?
>
> The main problem with it is that there is no objective definition of
> "bad."
This is indeed also true.
But yet there are paterns wich can be recognized, and can be linked to
criminal behaviour. Although this person may not be entirely bad, he/she is
doing something wrong, and this mather should be looked into.
But I afcourse agree with you.
"Wisdom lies not in obtaining knowledge, but in using it in the right way"
kroesjnov
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove nov to reply)
UIN: 67346792
pgp fingerprint: 4251 4350 4242 7764 80DA DB1C E2B2 850A DF15 4D85
------------------------------
From: "kroesjnov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:07:59 +0100
> These days they hide their PGP encryptions within pornography :-)
>
> Talk about a hot message.....!!!
lol :)
"Wisdom lies not in obtaining knowledge, but in using it in the right way"
kroesjnov
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove nov to reply)
UIN: 67346792
pgp fingerprint: 4251 4350 4242 7764 80DA DB1C E2B2 850A DF15 4D85
------------------------------
From: Matthew Montchalin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto,or.politics
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 03:38:12 -0800
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Arturo wrote:
|On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:12:35 -0700, "Open FleshWound"
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|>FBI: Hanssen suspected he was under surveillance
|>
|>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.
|
| Maybe he wrote it in Word ando thought it was safe?
That's not only funny, it's cosmic! (And to think we must be scraping
the bottom of the barrel just so we can fill the FBI up with agents that
can just barely click a mouse.... sigh!)
------------------------------
From: "Mxsmanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers,de.sci.informatik.misc,sci.math
Subject: Re: Monty Hall problem (was Re: philosophical question?)
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:07:43 GMT
"Joe H. Acker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here's a problem I have with this explanation: Why can't I say that
when
> Monty opens door 3, there's new evidence: the car is not behind door
3.
> Thus, the probability that the car is behind door 1 is 1/2, and the
> probability that it's behind door 2 is also 1/2.
That would be true if you picked a door _after_ Monty revealed one of
the doors. It is not true if you have already picked a door.
Suppose there were 100 doors instead of 3. One door conceals a car; 99
others conceal goats. When you first pick a door, you have a 1% chance
of getting the car, and there is 99% chance that one of the other doors
conceals a car. Now suppose that, after you pick a door, Monty opens 98
other doors, revealing goats behind all of them. Your choice of door
has not changed, and neither have the positions of the car and goats, so
there is still a 99% chance that the car is behind a door other than the
one you picked. If Monty had opened no doors, that 99% would still be
distributed among 99 doors, making the probability for each door the
same as that of the door you originally picked; but Monty opened all
doors but one, meaning that the probability for the opened doors has
dropped to zero, which in turn means that the 99% probability now
resides right behind the remaining door (because all probabilities must
add up to 100%). Thus, you really need to switch doors!
> What's wrong with that view?
Below is a complete truth table. Count 'em up yourself.
column 1 = contents of door 1 (g=goat, c=car)
column 2 = contents of door 2 (g=goat, c=car)
column 3 = contents of door 3 (g=goat, c=car)
column 4 = door intially picked
column 5 = door switch (Y=yes/N=no)
column 6 = result (W=win/L=lose)
1 2 3 4 5 6
===========
1: g g c 1 Y W
2: g g c 1 N L
3: g g c 2 Y W
4: g g c 2 N L
5: g g c 3 Y L
6: g g c 3 N W
7: g c g 1 Y W
8: g c g 1 N L
9: g c g 2 Y L
10: g c g 2 N W
11: g c g 3 Y W
12: g c g 3 N L
13: c g g 1 Y L
14: c g g 1 N W
15: c g g 2 Y W
16: c g g 2 N L
17: c g g 3 Y W
18: c g g 3 N L
total possibilites = 18
total changes = 9
door switches winning = 6/18 = 33.3%
door non-switches winning = 3/18 = 16.6%
door switches losing = 3/18 = 16.6%
door non-switches losing = 6/18 = 33.3%
======
TOTAL 100.0%
Note that the chances of a switched door winning are twice as high as
the chances of a switched door losing; whereas, for a door that is not
switch, the probabilities are the other way around.
------------------------------
From: "Mxsmanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:10:10 GMT
"kroesjnov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97vqse$2pdsj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Be happy...
Is protection the only thing you need to be happy?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
From: network_noadle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Foolish Dozen or so in This News Group
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:06:03 +0000
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
> As I have clearly stated above, the source code not only makes the
> fclose() command but it checks for the return value from this
> operation. If the return value is NULL then the fclose() has failed.
> And if the fclose() succeeds then the return value is zero. This is
> the check I asked any of you if you knew how to make. Well, it is
> part of the fclose() function as well as the fopen() function and all
> other functions in C or C++. The function has a return value of pass
> or fail.
*NO*! When will you learn?
fopen() *AND* fclose() *ARE* *NOT* *SYSTEM* *CALLS*. THEY ARE C LIBRARY
FUNCTIONS.
>
> So in order for the FUD you are all casting against Ciphile Software's
> OverWrite program to succeed and to cover up your own ignorance of the
> pass / fail return values of all functions, you will have to claim
> that the OS not only optimizes write operations as you describe but
It does.
> in fact LIES because the OS has no idea whether or not a close or open
> function was carried out successfully until it is actually PHYSICALLY
> carried out.
Do you actually have any idea what open and close actually do? They
create an entry in an operating system data table. Nothing is done to the
disk. The OS can tell whether the open of close succeeded simply because
it knows whether or not it could successfully perform some simple
operations on its own data structures. The system NEVER has to `lie' about
these operations. Neither open nor close /directly/ cause an event in the
read/write cache. The cache is managed by a seperate layer of the OS.
> To optimize as you all have been claiming in Ciphile
> Software's OverWrite program, the OS would have to LIE that it had
> successfully closed the file in order to proceed to carry out a
> subsequent write in cache before the actual prior write and close to
> the file.
This statement makes no sense in English. Try proof reading it as if you
were an intelligent software designer. Oh. You can't.
> Do you see where this leads you? To NoWheresville, man.
> To NoWheresville.
>
> Do any of you claim that any OS that you know of actually fudges and
> outright LIES when an instruction is given to carry out a function()
> then claims to the compiled program that the function was carried out
> successfully when the OS has no way of knowing this until the
> function has actually physically been carried out just so as to
> optimize its resources?
The OS does not `lie'. No-one has ever implied that it does. Because of
the way hard-drives are built these days, failures are few and far
between. The microcode on the drive itself optimises the disks onboard
cache, and performs error checking and recovery. This includes write
failures. When a sector cannot be written correctly the microcode sets a
flag in an externally inaccessable data table, showing that the failed
sector should not be used. The data is written to an alternative
(previously unused) area of the disk, set aside by the hardware
manufacturers for just this purpose. It's called sector remapping. Future
requests for that sector coming in over the IDE interface will result in
the remapped sector being read. When such an event occurs, the HD
microcode signals the OS. The OS chooses whether or not to alert the user
to the failure. Since no data loss has occurred, the OS will probably flag
the fault, but not alert the operator directly. As the remapped area is
filled, the alerts sent by the HD system increases in urgency, until the
OS eventually starts warning the operator of the imminent drive failure.
> The specific functions we are talking about
> here are the fclose() and fopen() functions. Can't get more basic
> than these.
Yes you can. Like I have been saying, fopen and fclose are part of the C
library, not the OS kernel. The low-level OS kernel interface functions
(in Unix) are called open and close (note the lack of the prefix `f'.
There are similar functions in the Win9x/NT kernel. Even so, these are
only interfaces to lower level OS kernel functions that programmers
usually have no access to. open/close are IIRC functions that route the
actual open/close request to the appropriate filesystem drivers: ext2,
iso9660, ufs, ntfs, fat, etc. (Note that these are the Linux/Unix names
for the filesystems: I don't have MSDN to hand to check what MS
refer to them as.)
>
> I hear that LSD and DMT are great therapies for narrowing the gaps
> in one's conceptual continuity.
You should know, you have quite obviously been hitting them quite hard
lately.
>
> P.S.
>
> You do have one last hope. His initials are Bill Gates. Yes. He
> is your last hope to prevail in this thread. Yes, indeed. If Bill
> Gates is so screwed up as to produce an OS that would make such an
> assumption as to whether or not a function such as fclose() or
> fopen() succeeded before these functions were actually physically
> carried out just so he could claim his OS is superbly optimized then
> you are all correct.
>
> What do you think?
>
> (I only get a good laugh like this once in about three months.)
>
I have been laughing at your ignorance non-stop since this thread started.
network_noadle
BTW, I feel it only polite to let you know this: *PLONK*.
--
Bill: We are Microsoft.
Resistance is futile.
You will be migrated.
Me: Bill, meet Tux. Tux, eat Bill.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
From: network_noadle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files fromharddrive
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:22:45 +0000
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:
> Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> >
> > "To optimize as you all have been claiming in Ciphile
> > Software's OverWrite program, the OS would have to LIE that it had
> > successfully closed the file in order to proceed to carry out a
> > subsequent write in cache before the actual prior write and close to
> > the file."
> >
> > I'm curious; what exactly do you believe that a "close" operation
> > consists of?
> >
> > Closing a file does not mean that the cache has been written to disk.
> >
> > The false idea that it does seems to be the only backing you have to
> > your claim that your overwrite software actually does write to disk
> > repeatedly.
> >
> > What does closing a file actually consist of?
> >
> > I <snipped>
> > --
> > The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, theory and
> > practice are identical, but in practice, they are not.
>
>
> You better never commit a crime and expect to lie your way out of it.
>
> "Closing a file does not mean that the cache has been written to
> disk." Is this your profound penultimate position upon which your
> world rests? FUD!
Not FUD. Benjamin (Greetings, AH or SC?) is perfectly correct. The write
cache is seperate from the fclose mechanism, which doesn't even reside in
the OS at all. A fact which you have so far chosen to ignore.
>
> As I said, your position ultimately leads you to NoWheresville.
>
> Here is what you are saying, just follow your own illogic:
>
> I code the fclose instruction. I place an if statement to see that
> the close is carried out successfully. If it is then the program
> continues; if not the program exits.
>
> You are saying that a conditional statement upon which the very
> foundations of computer programming rests is randomly and
> arbitrarily ignored. If this could be done with any reliability
> then the algorithm that makes these decisions would be known as not
> mere artificial intelligence but as man made machine clairvoyance.
In no way do the statements presented to you thus far lead to such a
conclusion. I'm very sorry but, you have no respect from either of
the groups you are cross posting to. Please stop, or learn the details of
the subjects you are discussing.
>
> This is what you are selling.
>
> How does the computer know that by ignoring any given conditional
> instruction that the subsequent calculation will not be incorrect as
> a result?
>
> I agree that in the simplest circumstances this can be done. The
> example I gave was when a file is NOT closed and subsequent writes
> are made to the file through the same object stream.
At the lower level of the OS the file exists as a series of block in both
memory and on the disk. Since all access to the disk is mediated by the
OS, it (or rather its designers) are free to do whatever they like to the
data blocks. In this case they cache the blocks for a burst transfer later
(burst transfers being more efficient in terms of system bus usage.)
>
> But when a file is explicitly closed and a condition is placed on the
> success or failure of the outcome of this operation then you are out
> of your tree.
No, you are. Study the source code for an OS before you start spouting off
like this again. Better still, go play in the traffic on the fastest,
busiest road you can find.
>
> LSD or DMT
> whichever in your cup of tea.
>
Whatever.
network_noadle
(With apologies for the prolonged argument to the denizens of sci.crypt.)
--
Bill: We are Microsoft.
Resistance is futile.
You will be migrated.
Me: Bill, meet Tux. Tux, eat Bill.
------------------------------
From: yomgui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: won't you tell me something about my encryption scheme ?
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:38:25 +0000
Simon Johnson wrote:
>
> > we generate one two-byte pseudo random number: aTwoByteRandNumber
> > we xor them together: val1 = val0 XOR aTwoByteRandNumber
> > we take the corresponding value in the grid: val2 = grid[val1]
> > we xor with the same random number: val3 = val2 XOR aTwoByteRandNumber
>
> grid[x] must be 16-bit (and probably static s-box), aTwoByteRandNumber is
> 16-bit. What stops us from brute-forcing grid[x]?
>
> There are probably attacks much faster than this, we could probably get a
> differential through val3 = grid[(v0 xor aTwobyte..)] xor aTwobyte, and
> recover grid[x] this way.
>
but before force bruting the grid, you need to find out the random
series
used to xor the stream.
I would say, the grid is just their to modifie val1 into val2,
which allow the main of the encryption to be performed in the two xor.
from val0 to val1 and then from val2 to val3.
you can certainly brut force on the password side, but there,
a decent sized password (up to 256*256 bytes) should keep your
encryption safe.
--
���g��
oim 3d - surface viewer - http://bigfoot.com/~oim
------------------------------
From: Derek Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sad news, Dr. Claude Shannon died over the weekend.
Date: 5 Mar 2001 12:41:05 -0000
Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "John A. Malley" wrote:
:>
:> I heard on NPR today that Claude Shannon died this past weekend at the
:> age of 84.
: Wow, I didn't know that he was still around. Most other people
: that founded a whole new science died centuries or even millenia ago.
: I think I'll have a quiet beer on him this evening.
I didn't know he was still alive either - pity he's died!
Derek
--
Derek Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] |"Usenet is a strange place."
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| - Dennis M Ritchie,
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | 29 July 1999.
|
------------------------------
From: "Mxsmanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:44:33 GMT
"kroesjnov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97vs2f$2pchu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How many razi`s have taken place in your country
> in the last couple off years? When was the last
> time they purged your country from all the black
> people? When was the last time they threw everybody
> in prison who was against Clinton? When was the
> last time they purged the schools, from those
> who performed less then a C ?
Statistics on injustice are not compiled, because the injustice usually
isn't recognized (if it were, it wouldn't be allowed to occur).
> I think this illustrates what is most likely
> to happen, don`t you think?
I think it illustrates that some people spend a lot of time watching
television and believing what they see.
> But there is always something like patern matching,
> to see who is most likely to do something like
> bombing a building ...
The type of person most likely to bomb a building would be a young male
(young males commit 91% of murders in the U.S.).
You're a young male, aren't you?
> I hope you see that this was just an example...
It's a poor example.
> But we seem to be on the same line here.
That is not my impression.
> Move to The Netherlands, and you won`t have to :)
I don't care for drugs or pornography, and an addiction to either seems
unhealthy to me.
> This is indeed also true.
Which invalidates your argument.
> But yet there are paterns wich can be recognized,
> and can be linked to criminal behaviour.
Like being young and male, you mean?
> Although this person may not be entirely bad,
> he/she is doing something wrong, and this mather
> should be looked into.
Are you volunteering for custodial care?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe H. Acker)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:50:48 +0100
kroesjnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the keyword is 'some' as you should understand.
> And no, I am not willing to do everything my government say`s, and no, I
> will not let them in full control off my life.
> I just think that safety from terrorists and foreign army`s weights more
> me, then absolute privacy. This does not mean I do not want any privacy...
The problem is: If the NSA can crack your encryption, which doesn't
bother you much as you have remarked, foreign intelligence agencies or
large companies are likely to being able to crack it as well. It is
irrational and unjustified to believe that there might be a way for the
"good guys" to crack your PGP file, but no way to do so for the "bad
guys". If you want *some* privacy, you only have the choice to make
encryption as hard to crack as possible for *anyone*---otherwise you'll
end up having no privacy at all.
Also, in my opinion, there are no good reasons to believe that an
individual citizen can successfully protect his privacy in case that the
information is the *concrete* single target of an intelligence
operation. Breaking strong crypto is the most expensive path of several
dozens of paths that lead to your private information. Both government
agencies and crooks are more likely to break into your appartment,
install Trojan horses or ask you more or less politely for the desired
information. These side-channel paths are sufficient to protect against
terrorism and the like. Another way to prevent terrorism is to follow
reasonable political doctrines. For example, if country A bombs from
time to time another country B without warning, it doesn't have to be
surprised when country B answers with terrorism. Terrorism elicits
terrorism.
Why does it still make sense to use strong crypto? I'll give you two
reasons: (1) Many of the larger companies will be able to establish and
afford a safe environment that makes even a targeted attack very hard,
given that strong crypto is available. That's important to protect
against industrial espionage. (2) Individuals might not be able to
protect their privacy against targeted attacks, but strong crypto can
make it harder to build general surveillance networks. General, perhaps
even global surveillance networks that extract information automatically
are a dangerous thread to democracy. The potential risks of their abuse
outweight their benefits.
Regards,
Erich
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:56:06 +0100
From: Ed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker
Subject: Re: Why do people continue to reply to Szopa?
Paul Crowley wrote:
> Can someone explain this to me? I've never written an article that
> addressed Szopa directly, and I never plan to; he's clearly a loon who
> will never learn anything.
True, but if no-one ever tries to tell him he's wrong, complete with reasons, then
he'll end up thinking he's completely right and everyone else is completely wrong
- I know that does happen occaisonally, but is hasn't been happening over the last
week and a bit to him. It's his choice to ignore our warnings, and I don't know
about you but I get really annoyed by systems that don't work properly. If his
system is supposed to work but doesn't, and someday I needed to use it and then
got into trouble for it not working, I'd be very pissed off. At least we've tried
to avert such a situation arising (and I'm sure that paragraph made some sort of
sense, right?)
> The only reason to post a followup to
> something he's written is to warn off newcomers who might otherwise
> believe some outlandish claim or other.
Better yet, make the claim true, another tiny bug-fix improvement on the gigantic
system know as The World.
> Yet many highly intelligent
> and knowledgable people waste a great deal of effort trying to explain
> basic facts about computer security to a man who is clearly unable to
> grasp them. Why?
That's between him and his psych guy. He seems to have read the details of the API
operations he's dealing with and taken them as gospel, ignoring the OS layer
underneath and deciding that some of the tricks the OS quite blatently does are
impossible, because then his API wouldn't work.
One thing I do believe I should point out is that on a file large enough to be
bigger than the write cache available, the file probably would be overwritten
properly. Smaller files wouldn't be, but he can claim at least partial
functionality on that technicality (but please, let's not start argueing about
that here, it's obviously true, so take it as read or be brief in your critism)
> If you think he's a troll then don't feed him. If you think (as I do)
> that he's sincerely clue-resistant, what's the point?
It's hacking that big 'ol system called (alright, I think he got it the first
time.)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
