Cryptography-Digest Digest #854, Volume #13 Sat, 10 Mar 01 13:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Text of Applied Cryptography .. do not feed the trolls (Sundial Services)
Re: Hash value repetion (Sundial Services)
Re: confused:Diffie-Hellman is key agreement, how about RSA? Is RSA both algorithm
and keyagreement? ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: DES Weak Keys ("madcow")
A letter from Neal Stephenson (Michael Anshel)
Re: Digital enveloppes (br)
Re: Digital enveloppes (br)
Re: Text of Applied Cryptography (Nomen Nescio)
Re: Applications of crypto techniques to non-crypto uses ("Matt Timmermans")
Re: I encourage people to boycott and ban all Russian goods and services, if the
Russian Federation is banning Jehovah's Witnesses ....... ("Its Me")
Re: boycott Russia.... ("Its Me")
Re: Digital enveloppes (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: DES in software and hardware (Matthias Bruestle)
Re: Digital enveloppes (Quisquater)
Re: A letter from Neal Stephenson (Jim Gillogly)
Re: Digital enveloppes - Off Topic ("John A. Malley")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 07:14:50 -0700
From: Sundial Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Text of Applied Cryptography .. do not feed the trolls
Do not feed the trolls, Tom. They love to eat and make noise.
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "Ryan M. McConahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3aa9594e$0$62146$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I am _not_ a troll! If I can't find it from you, I'll find it somewhere
> > else.
>
> What? Applied Crypto is not free so why ask here?
>
> Tom
--
==================================================================
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 07:18:29 -0700
From: Sundial Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hash value repetion
I presume that there would be repeating groups .. to my knowledge the
algorithm is not designed to provide 1:1 mapping and, if it does not,
logic says that repetition cannot be excluded.
However .. the point of a good hash-algorithm (especially when applied
to realistic-sized inputs, vs. only 160 bits) is that "you can't
practically determine what input hashed to this particular output." But
you can trivially determine that "yes, hash H is indeed the correct hash
for this message M."
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If all possible 160 bit values were hashed with SHA1, would there be
> any hash results repeating? Or is it a 1 to 1 relation?
>
> What about MD5?
>
> If neither are, are there hashes that are?
>
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: confused:Diffie-Hellman is key agreement, how about RSA? Is RSA both
algorithm and keyagreement?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:24:30 -0800
Diffie-Hellman is originally a method of computing a shared secret without
having previously communicated.
RSA is originally a method of encryption that does not require having
previously communicated.
It has since been proven that the DH model can be used for encryption
(ElGamal encryption) and signing (DSA). It has been proven that RSA can be
used for signing also (PSS).
Ellyptic Curve cryptography is just DH done over an Ellyptic Curve instead
of integers, so it is originally a Shared Secret computation method,
followed by encryption and signature.
What each one is to you depends on how it is used. For example in SSL RSA is
used to communicate an encryption key, so it can be seen as a method of
computing a shared secret. This step could have easily been replaced by DH,
ECC-DH, ElGamal, ECES (Elltyptic Curve Encryption).
I can certainly see how it could be a confusing situation, with at 3
technologies that are said to be related but it's difficult to see the
relationship. Basically anything RSA can do, DH can do. Anything DH can do
RSA can do. And DH and ECC are the same thing.
Hope this helps some.
Joe
"david Hopkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:euvn6.6769$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am confused:
> Diffie-Hellman is key agreement,
> how about RSA? Is RSA self both an algorithm and a keyagreement?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "madcow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DES Weak Keys
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:49:39 -0500
Yes . . .
J.H. Moore and G.J. Simmons,
"Cycle Structure of the DES with Weak and Semiweak Keys",
Proc. of CRYPTO'86, pp3--32, 1986
and
L. Knudsen,
"New potentially weak keys for DES and LOKI",
Advances in Cryptology -- EUROCRYPT'94, LNCS 950,
A. De Santis, pp. 419-424, Springer Verlag, 1995.
which is at
ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/pub/cosic/knudsen/potential.ps.Z
and they are listed in Bruce Schneier's book:
http://www.counterpane.com/applied.html
as well as chapter 7 of Alfred Menezes' book:
http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/
Dan Seur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Does anyone know if the list of weak DES keys is in the public domain?
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Anshel)
Date: 10 Mar 2001 15:52:43 GMT
Subject: A letter from Neal Stephenson
The letter below is from Neal Stephenson author of the best selling novel
CRYPTONOMICON. One of his advisor's Bruce Schneier, a well known cryptographer
was also an advisor to Arithmetica Inc the small company I help found in 1993.
The theme of the novel involves zeta function cryptography. Some facts:
M. Anshel and D. Goldfeld, "Zeta Functions, One-Way Functions, and Pseudorandom
Number Generators", Duke Mathematical Journal Vol. 88 No. 2 (1997) 371-390.
"In 1997,Anshel and Goldfeld [6],presented an explicit construction of a
pseudorandom number generator arising from an elliptic curve,which can be
effectively computed at low computational cost. They introduced a new
intractable problem,distinct from integer factorization or the discrete log
problem, that leads to a new class of one-way functions based on the theory of
zeta functions,and against which there is no known attack."- Richard M.
Mollin,"Introduction to Cryptography" CRC Press (2000)
The Letter (email sent Fri March 9,2001 12:08 am, from Neal Stephenson,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) :
Dear Dr. Anshel,
Some e-mail has come into my box recently that appears to be a
fragment of an exchange between you, or some friend or associate of
yours, and Bruce Schneier. The subject is zeta function cryptography
in my novel CRYPTONOMICON. The e-mail has been bounced back and forth
a few times and so it is not entirely clear to me who was holding down
your side of the exchange. I am going to send this message to you in
the hopes that you find it of interest and that you will forward it to
anyone you think is interested.
As the e-mail correctly points out, in the novel I do not explicitly
acknowledge any modern-day researchers in zeta function
cryptography. This omission was made deliberately and consciously. It
was not made as the result of ignorance but rather from knowledge and
(if I may say so) a kind of wisdom about what the unintended
consequences would have been. It does not reflect a lack of respect
for your work but, on the contrary, a kind of awe of what
mathematicians do, and a feeling that what novelists do is rather
mundane by comparison. I assumed---and I still believe---that
you would regret it if such a link were made, and would quickly
request that I remove it. Having been in this business for quite a few
years now I can assure you that the annoyance of people who are left
out of novels is nothing compared to the fury of those who fancy that
they have been inserted into novels without having given their
permission.
As you know better than I, the Riemann Zeta function has been, and
continues to be, of intense interest to mathematicians. During the
1930s, Alan Turing went so far as to build a mechanical device for
calculating its values. This dovetails naturally with one of the chief
themes of my novel, which is the early history of the computer. So, in
the book, I have invented two fictitious characters, Rudolf von
Hacklheber and Lawrence Pritchard Waterhouse, both mathematicians who
(so the story goes) befriend Turing at Princeton shortly before the
outbreak of World War II.
A few years later, at the height of the war, von Hacklheber (who by
this point has gone back to his homeland of Germany and has ended up
working as a cryptographer for the Nazi regime) needs to invent a
wholly original cryptosystem that has nothing in common with the
Enigma, which he suspects has been been compromised. The system he
comes up with, which is dubbed Arethusa, makes use of zeta
functions. It is computationally intensive by the standards of the
1940's, but this problem is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that, as
a result of having helped Turing work on his zeta function computer at
Princeton, von Hacklheber knows how to build a device that will
automate many of the calculations.
Arethusa, as described in the novel, is simply an algorithm for
generating daily one-time pads. It is a secret-algorithm scheme in
other words. The key used to generate a given date's pad is simply the
date, written down as numbers. This makes it convenient for
communicating with correspondents in the Asian theatre of the war,
since the one-time pads themselves do not have to be physically
transported---it is only necessary to send the algorithm once. In Asia,
the pads are generated not by a mechanical computer but by a room full
of enslaved prisoners working with abacuses. It is by examining the
evidence left behind in such a room that Waterhouse eventually breaks
the cryptosystem. Some fifty years later, his grandson Randy
Waterhouse duplicates this feat working by himself in a prison cell
with a laptop computer.
Part of the point is that a cryptosystem that might have seemed
fiendishly clever and state-of-the-art in the 1940s can be busted to
smithereens in a few minutes by a modern computer. The tricks used by
Arethusa's inventor during the war seem clever compared to the Enigma
machine of his day, but no modern cryptographer of any stature would
think of making anything like the system that I have just
described. Furthermore, for von Hacklheber to base a secret-algorithm
system on a function intensively studied by every up-and-coming young
mathematician in the world is a grievous blunder, and implicitly
raises the question of whether he actually intended for the system to
be broken by his friends on the other side of the war.
Now anyone who has any degree of mathematical sophistication will
understand that there is absolutely no relationship between Arethusa
(which is a phantom, a wholly fictitious imagining) and the zeta
function cryptography that has been developed by Anshel and
Goldfeld. But mathematically sophisticated people are not the ones we
need to concern ourselves with here. Such people can look the
Anshel/Goldfeld papers up in the literature and judge them on their
own merits. Rather, we need to consider people who don't know math,
but who can read novels. They are more numerous, and they lack the
ability to make informed judgments about the worth of a
cryptosystem. Having no real knowledge of your work, they will
naturally assume that it has something in common with the fictitious
Arethusa.
This might sound like a silly thing to worry about. But I can assure
you that many readers of fiction underestimate just how much of a
novel's content is simply made up. There is a common assumption among
readers that much of what appears in a novel is thinly veiled and
repackaged reality. You can imagine how provoking this is to a
novelist who works so hard to invent it. Furthermore, since my novel
actually does contain an original cryptosystem (Bruce Schneier's
SOLITAIRE), readers are even more inclined than usual to assume that
all of the crypto mentioned in the book is real.
An example: the book contains some Enigma messages. I simply made up
the ciphertext of these by typing in "random" letters. But after it
was published I got a request from someone who wanted to know which
type of Enigma machine I used to encipher it, and which wheel and plug
settings I used.
Given the difficulty that many readers seem to have in identifying the
boundary between fact and fiction, for me to place, in every copy of
this book, an explicit reference to the real-world zeta function
cryptography purveyed by Arithmetica, and to name the names of the
company and its founders, would create nothing but problems for you. I
understand that you are involved in a business enterprise and that you
quite naturally would like to draw attention to your product, but I
can assure you that attention of this kind is worse than no attention
at all. Simply put, you do not want your fine product to be linked, in
the minds of many readers, with the rotten system described in my
book---a system that may have been designed by its creator to be broken!
Now. There exists a theoretical possibility that I could craft an
acknowledgment that would restate much of what I have written in the
above message. It would have to be even longer and more detailed
because I would be writing for an audience of non-mathematicians. It
would amount to a statement that there is zeta function crypto in the
real world but that it has absolutely nothing in common with that in
my book other than its name, and that anyone who wishes to learn about
it should approach it with a completely blank slate and should judge
it strictly on its own merits.
This is not an appropriate thing to put in a novel for any number of
reasons. I could put such a statement on my web page but, regrettably,
I consider it most unlikely that my doing so would improve your life.
My personal recommendation is that we do nothing at all.
I hope that this has helped to clarify matters. I am sorry if my
handling of this matter has caused you annoyance, and I wish you the
best of luck with your continued research and with your enterprise.
Sincerely,
Neal Stephenson
Professor Michael Anshel
Department of Computer Sciences R8/206
The City College of New York
New York,New York 10031
http://www-cs.engr.ccny.cuny.edu/~csmma/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: br <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digital enveloppes
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:05:05 -0400
Thank you Mister John for your precious help.
I tried to find out in Us patent search using cryptographic, digital,
numeric enveloppes. No word about those inquiries.
So, maybe, my idea is new idea.
BM
"John A. Malley" wrote:
>
> br wrote:
> >
> > I have invented a digital enveloppes where you may put any plain text
> > and send it.
> > What I have to do to patent it?
> >
> > Thank you for your kelp
> >
>
> Well, first things first - check out prior art. There are quite a few
> patents already covering "digital envelopes."
> You want to make sure that what you did (and we didn't get many details)
> is truly novel and is not obvious. You'll need to examine all the claims
> of prior patents directly or indirectly related to "digital envelopes"
> to make sure you have something worth patenting. (I won't go into the
> issue of the value of a patent in the crypto world. Many have argued
> this issue in this USENET group, pro and con. You have decided to seek
> the patent so I take that as evidence you value this legal protection.)
>
> The process of securing a patent depends on the country where you seek
> to secure the patent AFAIK.
> The rules and procedures for filing patents in the USA are not exactly
> the same as for filing in Canada, Europe (quite a few countries there)
> or Japan.
>
> There's an on-line patent database referenced frequently in the USA at
>
> http://www.delphion.com/
>
> I just ran "cryptographic envelope" through the US patent search engine
> and found this patent from IBM on their cryptolope invention:
>
> http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05673316__
>
> This single patent is referenced by 13 more patents granted after it,
> and this single patent references 9 previous patents.
> So you have some work to do to identify how and why your invention is
> different, and what unique claims you can make for your invention
> different from all of that prior work should you seek to patent your
> invention in the USA.
>
> If you convince yourself you have something no one else has thought of,
> you can take your findings from your own patent search to a patent
> attorney who can help you prepare the application, OR, you can use them
> to prepare your own application per the laws of the country within which
> you file. Most governments post information about patents.
>
> General information on US patents may be found at
>
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/
>
> For Canada I located this URL:
>
> http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/patents/pt_main-e.html
>
> The info I've provided is broad and sketchy, but it's a start.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> John A. Malley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: br <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digital enveloppes
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:08:07 -0400
Maybe. I'm just an amateur.
Thank you.
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "br" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I have invented a digital enveloppes where you may put any plain text
> > and send it.
> > What I have to do to patent it?
>
> Why not share your idea first. Most likely you are capatilist retard and
> have invented something that is a) insecure or b) already done before.
>
> Tom
------------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Text of Applied Cryptography
Crossposted-To: alt.anonymous.messages,alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:50:04 +0100 (CET)
Tom St Denis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:31:37 -0500, "Ryan M. McConahy"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I am _not_ a troll! If I can't find it from you, I'll find it somewhere
> > >else.
> >
> > Enjoy. Might not be the newest but it is all out there.
> > Courtesy of the authors.
> >
> > Handbook of Applied Cryptography
> > http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac
> > Applied Cryptography: Schneier
> > http://134.155.63.117/quantico/TE/appliedcrypto.zip
> >
>
> Wow you did an amazing dis-service to Schneier today.
>
> Tom
You are doing an amazing dis-service to Schneier everyday, then what ?
F___k off from this place, Tom.
------------------------------
From: "Matt Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Applications of crypto techniques to non-crypto uses
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:02:28 GMT
Really? Do you have a link to the algorithm?
"John Savard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 23:51:16 +0100, Mok-Kong Shen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>
> >Are there other known applications of crypto techniques to
> >non-crypto uses? Thanks.
>
> Well, modems avoid long runs of 1s or 0s by XORing the data with the
> output of a shift register.
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: "Its Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security,alt.security,alt.2600
Subject: Re: I encourage people to boycott and ban all Russian goods and services, if
the Russian Federation is banning Jehovah's Witnesses .......
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:11:04 GMT
> kyra
> Give a man a fish, feed him for a day.
> Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime,
Kill the man, And he needs no food at all!!!
------------------------------
From: "Its Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security,alt.security,alt.2600
Subject: Re: boycott Russia....
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:12:06 GMT
Who even cares is they disallow a cult anyway???
"Ren�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:u4lq6.6209$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> _What_ Russian products? Do they actually _make_ something? Other than
that,
> that's fine with me. Not that I care too much for these pestering
Witnesses,
> but I can tolerate them. Russians on the other hand..I fucking hate
> them...come to think it, yes, Russia makes the famous AK's....which
suck...
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digital enveloppes
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:17:56 +0100
"John A. Malley" wrote:
>
[snip]
> General information on US patents may be found at
>
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/
>
> For Canada I located this URL:
>
> http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/patents/pt_main-e.html
>
> The info I've provided is broad and sketchy, but it's a start.
For European patents:
http://www.european-patent-office.org
One may get European patents with different coverages
(i.e. countries where the patents are effective), at
different fees to be paid to the patent office, of course.
BTW, I happened to read these days the book P. Beckmann,
A History of Pi. Golem Press, Boulder, 1977. There is on
p. 173 a quote about a weird patent which I reproduce below
for amusements/relaxations of those who are getting tired
reading too much scientific stuffs about crypto in the
postings of the group at the current moment:
This invention relates to a device which renders it
impossible for the user to stand upon the privy-seat;
and consists in the provision of rollers on top of
the seat, which, although affording a secure and
convenient seat, yet, in the event of an attempt to
stand upon them, will revolve, and precipitate the
user on to the floor.
U.S. Patent No. 90,298 (1869)
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Bruestle)
Subject: Re: DES in software and hardware
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:55:56 GMT
Mahlzeit
Henrick Hellstr�m ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Depending on the quality of the compiler, optimized C code (or Pascal code
> etc) is rarely less than half as fast as optimized assembler. The major
The difference depends also greatly on the CPU.
I've played yesterday a bit with libdes, a Pentium III and a Crusoe.
The difference in speed of nonoptimized and optimized compiling of
C, C and assembler code and the different coding methods of DES in
C (index/pointer, unrolling, CISC/RISC1/RISC2) is much less on the
Crusoe than on the Pentium III. Apparently the Code Morphing System
does a good work in post optimizing.
Mahlzeit
endergone Zwiebeltuete
--
PGP: SIG:C379A331 ENC:F47FA83D I LOVE MY PDP-11/34A, M70 and MicroVAXII!
--
Don't hit a man when he's down -- kick him; it's easier.
------------------------------
From: Quisquater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digital enveloppes
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:40:31 +0100
Here is my last crypto-invention in the context of key distribution:
put together the right idea of Rabin-Saurer-Aso for public distribution
of secret keys with the hyper-light-speed antenna:
see http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US06025810__
:-)
------------------------------
From: Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A letter from Neal Stephenson
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:48:19 -0800
Michael Anshel forwarded Neal Stephenson's letter:
> An example: the book contains some Enigma messages. I simply made up
> the ciphertext of these by typing in "random" letters. But after it
> was published I got a request from someone who wanted to know which
> type of Enigma machine I used to encipher it, and which wheel and plug
> settings I used.
That "someone" hadn't done his homework. We see the plaintext and
ciphertext of one "Enigma" message, and they have several letters
where pt==ct, which of course makes it something other than Enigma.
I was disappointed... of course, I'm also the kind of person who
will go through the Harry Potter books looking for dates and days of
the week to determine what year it is. It doesn't work for Harry
Potter, but it <does> work for Sue Grafton's "N is for Noun" series.
--
Jim Gillogly
18 Rethe S.R. 2001, 17:44
12.19.8.0.14, 1 Ix 17 Kayab, Fifth Lord of Night
------------------------------
From: "John A. Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digital enveloppes - Off Topic
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:08:46 -0800
Quisquater wrote:
>
> Here is my last crypto-invention in the context of key distribution:
>
> put together the right idea of Rabin-Saurer-Aso for public distribution
> of secret keys with the hyper-light-speed antenna:
>
> see http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US06025810__
>
> :-)
My gosh, I am shocked at the granting of this hyper-speed antenna
patent. It invokes unsubstantiated physics. Here's a quote from the
Background section of the patent:
"The following describes, in simple terms, what the present invention
actually
does. The present invention takes a transmission of energy, and instead
of
sending it through normal time and space, it pokes a small hole into
another
dimension, thus, sending the energy through a place which allows
transmission of
energy to exceed the speed of light. "
Why didn't the patent reviewers, Don Wong and James Clinger, catch this
invocation of an unsubstantiated higher dimension to space-time?
Perpetual Motion machine patents are banned (by law) for similar reasons
- invocation of unsubstantiated physics. How did this get through? (Can
the GAO investigate behavior like this?)
Shaking my head in disbelief,
John A. Malley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
