Cryptography-Digest Digest #979, Volume #13 Fri, 23 Mar 01 12:13:01 EST
Contents:
The DES is not a group: but can a subset of the permutations of the DES ("John A.
Malley")
Re: Advice on storing private keys (those who know me have no need of my name)
Re: The DES is not a group: but can a subset of the permutations of the ("John A.
Malley")
Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
(Imad R. Faiad)
Re: the classified seminal 1940 work of Alan Turing? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: What happens when RSA keys don't use primes? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: My note on 5/16/1999 -- PGP etc. (Arturo)
Re: New PGP2.6.3(i)n (Juergen Nieveler)
Re: AES - which block/key size to use? (Marc)
Re: the classified seminal 1940 work of Alan Turing? ("Henrick Hellström")
Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
(Boschloo Sucks)
Re: The DES is not a group: but can a subset of the permutations of the DES form a
group under composition? ("Scott Fluhrer")
Re: What the Hell...Here's what my system can do at it's best... ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Idea ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Question about coding ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: the classified seminal 1940 work of Alan Turing? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Verisign and Microsoft - oops ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
(Boschloo is a Troll)
Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
(Boschloo is a Troll)
Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
(Boschloo Sucks)
Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
(Boschloo Sucks)
Re: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo (Boschloo is a Troll)
Re: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo (Boschloo is a Troll)
Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
(Boschloo is a Troll)
Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
(Boschloo is a Troll)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John A. Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The DES is not a group: but can a subset of the permutations of the DES
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 07:24:49 -0800
A block cipher like the DES can be modeled as a set Q of 2^k
permutations on messages M from the set M = {0,1}^n for n-bit plaintext
blocks where k is the number of bits in the key. Each key selects a
particular permutation, E_k(M) = C. The 2^k keys form the set K. There
are (2^n)! permutations of the n-bit block. The set Q achieves 2^k of
those permutations.
The DES was shown to not be a group under composition. As I understand
it, the set Q under composition
does not form a group if E_k2(E_k1(M)) != E_k3(M) for some k1, k2 and k3
in the set K of keys.
But what about a subset of the permutations in Q (equivalent to a subset
of keys out of K). Can a subset R of the permutations form a group
under composition? This is consistent with Q not forming a group under
composition since not all elements in Q can be composed together to make
an element in Q but for those elements in R, their composition remains
in R.
The HAC and "The DES: An Extensive Documentation and Analysis" from
Aegean Park Press don't say much (if anything) about the existence of
subgroups in the set of permutations that is the DES.
Can anyone point me to any papers explaining the group-nonexistence
analysis of the DES and its implications for subgroups non-existence?
Thanks in advance,
John A. Malley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (those who know me have no need of my name)
Subject: Re: Advice on storing private keys
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:35:33 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> divulged:
>I am only using DSA which I don't think is
>counted as encryption.
at least in the usa. have you looked (or got much help looking) at the
rules used by other countries? a lot of that was hammered out as part of
getting x509 (et al) created.
>At any rate the transport will be the Internet.
completely? if that's true then there is _no_ reason to create your own
certificate. if you decide that e-mail is the mechanism then all the tools
actually necessary (s/mime) are already present in at least one a mass
market client (outlook express).
heck, even standard pgp signatures should work.
if you were sending the cert over the air via some data transmission method
then you might have a reason. barely.
--
okay, have a sig then
------------------------------
From: "John A. Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The DES is not a group: but can a subset of the permutations of the
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 07:35:09 -0800
"John A. Malley" wrote:
> Can anyone point me to any papers explaining the group-nonexistence
> analysis of the DES and its implications for subgroups non-existence?
Oops! That should read "... its implications for the non-existence of
subsets of the DES keys/permutations that themselves form a group."
How can we have a subgroup of a group if the group doesn't exist? :-)
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> John A. Malley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Imad R. Faiad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas
Boschloo)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 17:33:53 +0200
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Greetings,
You guys are still at it?
When were you resurrected Thomas?
You should have waited till easter sunday :-)
Congratulations Thomas!
Best regards
Imad R. Faiad
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:27:19 +0100, in alt.security.pgp "Thomas J.
Boschloo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mika Hirvonen wrote:
>
>> I downloaded and tested Netsafe and Boschloo's "patch" to it.
>> Netsafe-protected PGP2.6.2i doesn't run under Win2k, so I tested it both
>> under pure DOS and Win98.
>>
>> I ran pgp.exe and generated a sample key and encrypted & signed a file
>> with it. I then ran pgp.com and decrypted the said file. pgp.com
>> successfully captured my keystrokes and appended them to the end of
>> pgp.com. For some reason, the timestamps in the key log behaved oddly
>> though. Sometimes the same timestamp appears twice or three times in a
>> row, with no keystrokes between them.
>
>Come on, do I only get one review for all my efforts? (Or should I say
>'two', counting Chris' 'helpful' bug report). I think I deserve better
>:-(
>
>Here is my homepage <http://home.soneraplaza.nl/mw/prive/boschloo> with
>all post 4.2 versions of Netsafe protected (and modified) pgp.exe 2.6.2i
>executables I could get my hands on. It should work fine with all of
>them (both under a DOS-box and 'real-DOS' mode).
>
>Note that pgp262i-ns49c.zip crashes on my computer when used together
>with a TSR program like Troydemo.com supplied by Chris Drake. I am not
>sure if this is a bug or a feature.
>
>Thanks for nothing,
>Thomas
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0xBCC31718833F1BAD
Comment: Fingerprint: 75CD 96A7 8ABB F87E 9390 5FD7 2A88 4F45
iQEVAwUBOrtQQbzDFxiDPxutAQFvQwf/cn0IeoLc67tl+7z5srTTpGTMl+VAGdc9
mpf2hnZBq1enjyj5+QQSmZDfd2G0AG4qPOjpaGWbFwP+WO16uzDgpDMe6o0OeHTC
0o7IWbYDfkVkDJ6lOBCoa8rBPrfIMN9/bbmqRKWuIrrwUIsa0luUFVPt0HAz4h+L
Pig/0J96NOMo/EuseMhz/ro/Y37BP+57Fe1BVe6hzOl1etPy5MJ7LSg5HtENljon
AkBM8E9/V3cE+nbACSaq04cVey5T7/ugVTubQWZ5y0N+HIKKEnNdbWbQj6RGV9mC
hdt8s6mxfatEs1JKGPesrLvKt21v5Petmz48HFRMG3fE0JghvmMIhA==
=nI02
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: the classified seminal 1940 work of Alan Turing?
Date: 23 Mar 2001 15:39:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henrick Hellström) wrote in
<99fll7$nhc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Frank Gerlach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Before I am being flamed, this is something like an Anti-OTP
>> postulation, which would have to be proven, of course.
>> It is just quite likely that the opposite of OTP is true (For every
>> cryptosystem with n bits key, m bits encrypted plaintext and n<m there
>> is a method much more efficient than O(2^n)). Other opinions ?
>
>Is it not possible that there is a cryptosystem such that a n-bit key
>and m-bit plain text maps onto a cipher text that corresponds to more
>than one combination of key and (intelligble) plain text? If so, a
>cipher text only attack would not work even by brute force.
Yes I think this is very true. Especially if the message has a high
entropy per bit. If you think of the message as some highly compressed
text using my adaptive condtional compression as an example if the
compressed size is a one block long. Several decryption keys will
map that some ciphertext block to various values that when uncompressed
are a meaningful message. That is one of the advantage of compression
as the entropy per bit raises you need more and more cipher text for
there ever to be a single unique mapping that a cipher text only attack
could hope to reach.
Note I am talking about the bits in the compressed message as being
the bits m not the number of bits in the uncompressed message.
If one had perfect compression that raised the entropy to ONE per bit
then no amount of ciphertext could lead to a solution since since
any decryption with any key a valid messages. Of course this is not
going to happen in most real life situations.
>Correspondingly, a known plain text brute force attack might be made to
>fail by having each combination of m-bit plain text and l-bit cipher
>text correspond to more than one key. This will obviously not work for
>arbitrarily large numbers m, l, but might there not be such a
>cryptosystem such that n < m, n < l?
Obviously one can make a twisted system where if certain S-table
values changed so if the know plain text just happen to be the
wrong values then it could be quite long.
However take a system with 128 bits in and out and a KEY of 256 bits
It is quite possible that only 2 different sets of plain text encrypted
pairs map in such a way that the KEY is determined uniquely.
So I would guess that in the usually case if you have a key of m
bits as soon as you have enough input bits equal to and greater
than m and ouput cipher bits equal to and greater than m you have
at least a 50% chance of KEY being unique.
My question to ANYONE what is the situation with RIJNDEAL
for 256 bit key where you have 128 bits in and 128 bits out
is each key unique if one has 2 set of data each being different.
If one picked the sets poorly what is the largest number of
plain text blocks needed. If anwser it not 2 does this affect
how key is selected. Is a random uniform selection of key the
best for Rinjndeal.
For that matter is RIJNDEAl a single cycle S table. If not what
are the largest number of cycles possible. I think these questions
would be of interest to those studying the cipher. But maybe no
one knows. Or no one is telling.
>
>--
>Henrick Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>StreamSec HB http://www.streamsec.com
>
>
>
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: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What happens when RSA keys don't use primes?
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:28:00 GMT
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> (btw I would call 2E-107 "astronomically small" ...
But when it is used zillions of times the probability of
failure becomes greater..
------------------------------
From: Arturo <aquiranNO$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My note on 5/16/1999 -- PGP etc.
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 16:09:14 +0100
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 14:54:22 GMT, The Alien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good, not the Zimmermann-not-inside club has doubled in size! Now how
about actually proving it. It´s sooo easy to say "i told you" when it happened.
>You're not the only one who doesn't trust Mr. Zimmermann! I don't either.
>
>On 22 Mar 2001 15:16:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>>"One of the most popular encryption program is one element of NSA´s covert
>>action program to control the strength of encryption algorithms in the market
>>place. An encryption application with backdoors. Its author is the member of
>>the information security architecture committee." 5/16/1999
>>
>>Actually I had access already to some interesting memos in 1993 ... it was
>>great .. these were all from the military security establishment ...
>>
>>I would not trust Philip Zimmermann or his products ....
>>
>>The CIA, NSA and FBI are actively stealing business information from
>>international corporations .....
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
>> http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
>> NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
>>made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Autobot this!
>mailto:@[127.0.0.1]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: z-netz.alt.pgp.allgemein,de.comp.security.misc,de.org.ccc
Subject: Re: New PGP2.6.3(i)n
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Nieveler)
Date: 23 Mar 2001 17:03:54 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lutz Donnerhacke) wrote:
>Da sind keine Anhänge. Deine Software halluziniert.
Aber sein Sig-Trenner ist trotzdem kaputt.
--
Juergen Nieveler
Support the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide: http://www.dhmo.org/
"The people united can never be ignited!"- Sgt. Colon, Ankh-Morpork Watch
www.bofh.mynetcologne.de / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP Supported!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc)
Subject: Re: AES - which block/key size to use?
Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:05:19 GMT
>128 bit key size would be fastest -- it uses only 10 rounds.
So I'll use 128/128 then.
Thanks for the quick responses!
>Fine. You are aware that CFB mode allows bit flipping attacks in the
>last block, don't you?
Yes, but it doesn't matter in this particular project.
------------------------------
From: "Henrick Hellström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the classified seminal 1940 work of Alan Turing?
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 17:18:25 +0100
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henrick Hellström) wrote in
> <99fll7$nhc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> >Correspondingly, a known plain text brute force attack might be made to
> >fail by having each combination of m-bit plain text and l-bit cipher
> >text correspond to more than one key. This will obviously not work for
> >arbitrarily large numbers m, l, but might there not be such a
> >cryptosystem such that n < m, n < l?
>
> Obviously one can make a twisted system where if certain S-table
> values changed so if the know plain text just happen to be the
> wrong values then it could be quite long.
The first thing that came into my mind was not really something "twisted",
but a simple monoalphabetic substitution cipher: 26! < 26**19, so a message
longer than 18 characters is longer than the key, and if it is shorter than
25 characters, then by the pigeon hole principle it can't be brute forced
even if the plain text is known.
[snip]
> For that matter is RIJNDEAl a single cycle S table. If not what
> are the largest number of cycles possible. I think these questions
> would be of interest to those studying the cipher. But maybe no
> one knows. Or no one is telling.
There ought not be any short cycles if Rijndael is to be used in OFB mode.
So if noone knows then someone is bound to find out the hard way. But isn't
this question answered by the official documentation?
--
Henrick Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
StreamSec HB http://www.streamsec.com
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:24:06 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boschloo Sucks)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.privacy.anon-server
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, "Thomas J. Boschloo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris wrote:
Please keep Boschloo crap out of alt.privacy.anon-server
That guy is a clown and a troll.
He has been stirring shit and trying to quarrel with everyone here
He went so far as to stage a suicide hoax to get popularity
Now, he belongs to most people's killfiles
If you NEED to answer the troll,
please at least put "Boschloo-xxx" as author like I did.
Your answer will get right our bit buckets, along with Boschloo's nonsense
Thanks
------------------------------
From: "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The DES is not a group: but can a subset of the permutations of the DES
form a group under composition?
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:16:43 -0800
John A. Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A block cipher like the DES can be modeled as a set Q of 2^k
> permutations on messages M from the set M = {0,1}^n for n-bit plaintext
> blocks where k is the number of bits in the key. Each key selects a
> particular permutation, E_k(M) = C. The 2^k keys form the set K. There
> are (2^n)! permutations of the n-bit block. The set Q achieves 2^k of
> those permutations.
>
> The DES was shown to not be a group under composition. As I understand
> it, the set Q under composition
> does not form a group if E_k2(E_k1(M)) != E_k3(M) for some k1, k2 and k3
> in the set K of keys.
>
> But what about a subset of the permutations in Q (equivalent to a subset
> of keys out of K). Can a subset R of the permutations form a group
> under composition? This is consistent with Q not forming a group under
> composition since not all elements in Q can be composed together to make
> an element in Q but for those elements in R, their composition remains
> in R.
I believe that has not been disproven, but that would appear to be extremely
unlikely. For one, if there was such a subset R, one would expect (at
least) the known weak keys to be in it. However, the cycling expirements
that proved that DES was not a group actually proved that the group formed
by two of the weak keys was much bigger than 2**56, and hence at least one
of those weak keys cannot be in R. For another, the existence of R would
imply an identity key, which maps all plaintexts onto themselves. It looks
quite unlikely that such an identity key exists, and may have already been
disproven by the EFF DES cracker.
>
> The HAC and "The DES: An Extensive Documentation and Analysis" from
> Aegean Park Press don't say much (if anything) about the existence of
> subgroups in the set of permutations that is the DES.
>
> Can anyone point me to any papers explaining the group-nonexistence
> analysis of the DES and its implications for subgroups non-existence?
Group nonexistence analysis of DES (says nothing about subgroups):
Kaliski, Burton S. Jr.; Ronald L. Rivest; and Alan T. Sherman, ``Is the Data
Encryption Standard a group? (Results of cycling experiments on DES),'' {\it
Journal of Cryptology}, {\bf 1}:1 (1988), 3--36.
--
poncho
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the Hell...Here's what my system can do at it's best...
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:36:56 GMT
Keill Randor wrote:
> A couple of other people know what I have. One of whom is a SERIOUSLY good computer
>engineer (aged 55), who dosen't want to touch this with a bargepole... IF, however,
>no-one wishes to help me, then he'll make sure that they will pay (quite dearly) for
>that mistake (maybe with their existence as they know it - (they cannot deal with him
>(he's at the top of their list if things go to hell - (I don't even know him by his
>real name))) - the only reason I am dealing with GCHQ in the first place is because
he told me to....). (I'm giving them one last chance at the minute, if they don't
take it, then - Oh dear...).
> As to all this stuff in the news about cyber-terrorism, and the (new?) spying stuff
>going on, what I have, is the most powerful weapon in the world for what it does. If
>the 'other side' gets it first, then God help the NSA, because that's who they'll
>need....
I have to say that the above has all the earmarks of a quack,
whether or not it really is quackery. If you have a good new
idea, instead of telling us what its consequences might be
(remember cold fusion?), tell us how it works. You will have
established through publication your priority of invention,
which would be important in any patent challenge. One thing
is sure: only a fool would pay for the information knowing no
more than you have said so far.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Idea
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:49:18 GMT
amateur wrote:
> So if I understand, should I have to be an expert crypto to
> contribute?I'm just suggesting ideas.
> I will never post anything.
I would say you should listen and learn a topic before trying
to contribute to it. Amateur cryptosystems are a dime a dozen,
and every time the inventor thinks his system is unbreakable.
While it might be possible to create a practical, unbreakable
encryption algorithm, nobody is going to believe that it has
that property unless it is accompanied by a convincing proof.
I was recently taken to task in this newsgroup for proposing a
new mode of operation for block ciphers that was motivated by
intuition based on experience in cracking systems, because I
did not provide such a proof. (It would be impossible to do
so given the current state of the art.) If you meet a lower
standard than that, expect to get flamed.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question about coding
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:51:37 GMT
amateur wrote:
> I replace I by 25
> w by 26
> a by 27
> n by 28
> t by 29 etc...
> So if I have 3 "a" in my plain text, I have three values i.e
> respectively 23, 76, 89
Not new, and certainly not uncrackable.
For an example using numbered initial letters of words,
look up the Beale treasure papers.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the classified seminal 1940 work of Alan Turing?
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 16:02:27 GMT
"j " wrote:
> Also in Cryptography FAQ (08/10: Technical Miscellany):
> Unfortunately, most literature on the application of information
> statistics to cryptanalysis remains classified, even the seminal
> 1940 work of Alan Turing (see [KOZ84]). For some insight into the
> possibilities, see [KUL68] and [GOO83].
That sounds like a quotation from one of my old postings.
While some part of the veil has since been lifted, there
are still classified aspects of this work. The *reason*
for classification is that it is deemed to give "us" a
competitive edge over people who are unaware of the work.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Verisign and Microsoft - oops
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:54:39 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
> Can we say "duh". Which is why CA doesn't work.
CA can work, but more care needs to be applied in verifying identity.
What is really needed is a way to check that a certificate is issued
by the same agent as we have previously identified; we don't need the
absolute identity, just continuity of identity.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:35:09 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boschloo is a Troll)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.privacy.anon-server
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, "Thomas J. Boschloo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mika Hirvonen wrote:
Please keep Boschloo crap out of alt.privacy.anon-server
That guy is a clown and a troll.
He has been stirring shit and trying to quarrel with everyone here
He went so far as to stage a suicide hoax to get popularity
Now, he belongs to most people's killfiles
If you NEED to answer the troll,
please at least put "Boschloo-xxx" as author like I did.
Your answer will get right our bit buckets, along with Boschloo's nonsense
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:35:08 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boschloo is a Troll)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.privacy.anon-server
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, "Thomas J. Boschloo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mika Hirvonen wrote:
Please keep Boschloo crap out of alt.privacy.anon-server
That guy is a clown and a troll.
He has been stirring shit and trying to quarrel with everyone here
He went so far as to stage a suicide hoax to get popularity
Now, he belongs to most people's killfiles
If you NEED to answer the troll,
please at least put "Boschloo-xxx" as author like I did.
Your answer will get right our bit buckets, along with Boschloo's nonsense
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:35:04 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boschloo Sucks)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.privacy.anon-server
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, "Thomas J. Boschloo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris wrote:
Please keep Boschloo crap out of alt.privacy.anon-server
That guy is a clown and a troll.
He has been stirring shit and trying to quarrel with everyone here
He went so far as to stage a suicide hoax to get popularity
Now, he belongs to most people's killfiles
If you NEED to answer the troll,
please at least put "Boschloo-xxx" as author like I did.
Your answer will get right our bit buckets, along with Boschloo's nonsense
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:35:04 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boschloo Sucks)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.privacy.anon-server
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, "Mika Hirvonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Thomas J. Boschloo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
Please keep Boschloo crap out of alt.privacy.anon-server
That guy is a clown and a troll.
He has been stirring shit and trying to quarrel with everyone here
He went so far as to stage a suicide hoax to get popularity
Now, he belongs to most people's killfiles
If you NEED to answer the troll,
please at least put "Boschloo-xxx" as author like I did.
Your answer will get right our bit buckets, along with Boschloo's nonsense
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:41:57 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boschloo is a Troll)
Subject: Re: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.privacy.anon-server
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Please keep Boschloo crap out of alt.privacy.anon-server
That guy is a clown and a troll.
He has been stirring shit and trying to quarrel with everyone here
He went so far as to stage a suicide hoax to get popularity
Now, he belongs to most people's killfiles
If you NEED to answer the troll,
please at least put "Boschloo-xxx" as author like I did.
Your answer will get right our bit buckets, along with Boschloo's nonsense
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:41:56 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boschloo is a Troll)
Subject: Re: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas Boschloo
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.privacy.anon-server
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Please keep Boschloo crap out of alt.privacy.anon-server
That guy is a clown and a troll.
He has been stirring shit and trying to quarrel with everyone here
He went so far as to stage a suicide hoax to get popularity
Now, he belongs to most people's killfiles
If you NEED to answer the troll,
please at least put "Boschloo-xxx" as author like I did.
Your answer will get right our bit buckets, along with Boschloo's nonsense
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:41:54 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boschloo is a Troll)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas
Boschloo)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.privacy.anon-server
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Imad R. Faiad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please keep Boschloo crap out of alt.privacy.anon-server
That guy is a clown and a troll.
He has been stirring shit and trying to quarrel with everyone here
He went so far as to stage a suicide hoax to get popularity
Now, he belongs to most people's killfiles
If you NEED to answer the troll,
please at least put "Boschloo-xxx" as author like I did.
Your answer will get right our bit buckets, along with Boschloo's nonsense
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:41:54 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boschloo is a Troll)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: PGP-NS4.9c broken! (Was: Attn: Chris Drake and Thomas
Boschloo)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.privacy.anon-server
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Imad R. Faiad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please keep Boschloo crap out of alt.privacy.anon-server
That guy is a clown and a troll.
He has been stirring shit and trying to quarrel with everyone here
He went so far as to stage a suicide hoax to get popularity
Now, he belongs to most people's killfiles
If you NEED to answer the troll,
please at least put "Boschloo-xxx" as author like I did.
Your answer will get right our bit buckets, along with Boschloo's nonsense
Thanks
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
