Cryptography-Digest Digest #995, Volume #13 Sun, 25 Mar 01 15:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Compression-encryption with a key (amateur)
Re: Compression-encryption with a key (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: redodancy (Benjamin Goldberg)
compression ratio as a predicter of cipher strength ("Curtis Williams")
Re: Compression-encryption with a key ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Compression-encryption with a key ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Compression-encryption with a key (Ross Younger)
Re: compression ratio as a predicter of cipher strength ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Compression-encryption with a key ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Compression-encryption with a key (amateur)
Re: Compression-encryption with a key ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Compression-encryption with a key (amateur)
Re: Compression-encryption with a key (amateur)
Re: compression ratio as a predicter of cipher strength (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Compression-encryption with a key (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Compression-encryption with a key ("Tom St Denis")
Re: PGP "flaw" (QuantumAngel)
Re: Perl public key encryption (Ross Younger)
Re: Compression-encryption with a key ("Tom St Denis")
Re: PGP "flaw" ("Sam Simpson")
Re: Best encryption program for laptop? (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Re: [OT] Why Nazis are evil ("Simon Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: amateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:17:30 -0400
I don't understand why some posts reject an idea before knowing what is
behind the idea.
You have to know before rejecting.
My question was simple : that system exist or no.
Nothing more than that.
I'm not talking about Huffman tree.
Bad ideas does not exist.
What is bad is the way you use that idea. Not the idea itself.
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Compression-encryption with a key is exist or no?
> > The same algo compress and encrypt simultaneously the plain-text with a
> > secret key, that is what I mean.
>
> There are ways to encode a huffman trie such that it's dependent on a key.
> But such systems are vulnerable to chosen plaintext attacks and are
> generally inefficient and weak.
>
> So it's possible just not a good idea yet.
>
> Tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 20:23:38 +0200
amateur wrote:
>
> What I said is "simultaneously".
> That does not mean compression then encryption.
> At the same time you compress, you encrypt.
> In the process of compression, run the process of encryption.
> Without dictionnary. I stress without dictionnary.
> Does that system exist?
> That is my question.
Yes. You can also rather tightly combine encryption with
compression. I think Ton St Denis has already answered
that. If you use Huffman (or adaptive Huffman) compression,
the labeling of the tree is at your disposal. Each
intermediate node has two branches. You could e.g. use
a PRNG with a secret seed to decide which branch gets 0 and
which branch gets 1. Different trees lead to different
codes. Huffman compression is based on frequency
distribution of symbols. For static Huffman, this
distribution is assumed known. For adaptive Huffman,
the compressor utilizes the actual frequency distribution
of the part of the sequence that it has read so far
from the input. It should be feasible also to incorporate
encryption into other types of compressors but for
Huffman it is evidently rather simple to do so.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: redodancy
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:43:28 GMT
amateur wrote:
> dexMilano wrote:
> > "amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > dexMilano wrote:
> > > > "amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > dexMilano wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there some simple algoritm to remove redodancy in text?
> > > > > > I tried ZIP but it's too heavy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dex
> > > > >
> > > > > Simple. You assign specific code to every character.
> > > > > It's easy.
> > > > This doesn't remove redodancy. It's a transcodification.
> > > > dex
> > > Transcodification eliminate redundancy.
> > > So, what is a difference?
> > >
> >
> > if you have "A" you can use "!" to transcode.
> > in this way if you have "AAAA" you can use "!!!!". this is
> > transcodification.
> > if you have "AAAA" and you can manage "4A" this is compression
> > (without transcodification).
> >
> > I hope this make sense.
> >
> > dex
> >
>
> ?
> If I assign to each of n characters of my plain-text ( my plain-text
> has n characters), n different values or symbols, I remove redundancy.
>
> Suppose plain-text "aaaaaoooo" I code 12345678. Did I remove
> redundancy?
> Yes or no?
Yes, but only a tiny amount. The orignal plaintext was 9 characters,
and you've encoded it in 8 characters.
If you had encoded it as "a5o4" you would have removed even more
redundancy, since you've encoded it as a much shorter string.
--
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, theory and
practice are identical, but in practice, they are not.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Curtis Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Curtis Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: compression ratio as a predicter of cipher strength
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:44:33 GMT
Hi,
An encryption product claims that a ciphertext file should be compressed
and the compression ration is a predictor of cipher strength (i.e. encrypt a
file then zip it. if the compression ratio is 0, the encryption is strong).
Is this valid or snakeoil?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:49:27 GMT
"amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't understand why some posts reject an idea before knowing what is
> behind the idea.
> You have to know before rejecting.
> My question was simple : that system exist or no.
> Nothing more than that.
> I'm not talking about Huffman tree.
> Bad ideas does not exist.
> What is bad is the way you use that idea. Not the idea itself.
Form coherant sentences!!!
Yes: The idea is possible.
No: it's not secure. (e.g A Bad Thing (tm))
Tom
>
>
>
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
> > "amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Compression-encryption with a key is exist or no?
> > > The same algo compress and encrypt simultaneously the plain-text with
a
> > > secret key, that is what I mean.
> >
> > There are ways to encode a huffman trie such that it's dependent on a
key.
> > But such systems are vulnerable to chosen plaintext attacks and are
> > generally inefficient and weak.
> >
> > So it's possible just not a good idea yet.
> >
> > Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:51:03 GMT
"Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Scott's point, if I don't err, is that you can base on
> the fact whether the decrypted stuff, on decompression
> and further compression, remains the same, to automatically
> (i.e. with a simple machine decision without further ado)
> discard most (I suppose not all) tried decryption keys
> that are incorrect. Someone has raised the question whether
> this advantage is big enough for justification of its use
> in view of the fact that one has thereby to process the
> whole file and not only some blocks. I don't know the
> answer. A point I mentioned earlier elsewhere is that,
> if a compression scheme is not fixed but variable, i.e.
> dependent on or parametrized by a 'key' (e.g. an adaptive
> Huffman primed by some chosen sequence), then the opponent
> will not be able to exploit the above said criterion
> to discard wrong keys, since he doesn't know whether
> his version of the compressor is identical to that of
> the communication partners. This amounts, though,
> effectively to an extension of the encryption key (due
> to the 'key' of the compressor).
Again you are wrong. As long as I can test a key with some fixed algorithm
(assuming a shannon model where the security is in the key). As soon as I
hit plausible plaintext I know I may have the key. It doesn't matter what
algorithm you use really (1-1 or not).
Tom
------------------------------
From: Ross Younger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: 25 Mar 2001 19:48:25 +0100 (BST)
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> rearranged some electrons
into article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> thus:
> Yes in theory its a good idea to compress before one encrypts
>unfortunately most don't use a compressor that is a good match
>not only to the data but to the encryption engines that follows.
I'm not sure what you mean by a compressor being a "good match" to an
encryption engine. What properties (of the output of the compressor)
do you see as desirable?
Ross
--
Ross Younger news#[EMAIL PROTECTED] (if N fails, try N+1)
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: compression ratio as a predicter of cipher strength
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:53:18 GMT
"Curtis Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:l0rv6.10793$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
>
> An encryption product claims that a ciphertext file should be compressed
> and the compression ration is a predictor of cipher strength (i.e. encrypt
a
> file then zip it. if the compression ratio is 0, the encryption is
strong).
> Is this valid or snakeoil?
Snake oil. Do this to foil PKZIP (et al)
FOR X = 0 to 10000
FOR Y = 0 to 255
OUTPUT (2X + 1)Y mod 256
NEXT Y
NEXT X
That data is far from random yet completely uncompressible. (I think that's
right... I posted a program "pkzipnono.c" about 4 months ago that did that
type of thing)
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:00:22 GMT
"Ross Younger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:1HF*[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> rearranged some electrons
> into article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> thus:
>
> > Yes in theory its a good idea to compress before one encrypts
> >unfortunately most don't use a compressor that is a good match
> >not only to the data but to the encryption engines that follows.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by a compressor being a "good match" to an
> encryption engine. What properties (of the output of the compressor)
> do you see as desirable?
Ideally you're codec should have a high as possible compression ratio. This
eliminates biases and redundancies in the plaintext.
Tom
------------------------------
From: amateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:58:03 -0400
I'm sorry to tell you that I'm not english spoken native.
If you know only one language, you have to know that I speak SEVEN
languages.
So please be tolerant if my english does sound like you wish.
Thank you sir.
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I don't understand why some posts reject an idea before knowing what is
> > behind the idea.
> > You have to know before rejecting.
> > My question was simple : that system exist or no.
> > Nothing more than that.
> > I'm not talking about Huffman tree.
> > Bad ideas does not exist.
> > What is bad is the way you use that idea. Not the idea itself.
>
> Form coherant sentences!!!
>
> Yes: The idea is possible.
>
> No: it's not secure. (e.g A Bad Thing (tm))
>
> Tom
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > >
> > > "amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Compression-encryption with a key is exist or no?
> > > > The same algo compress and encrypt simultaneously the plain-text with
> a
> > > > secret key, that is what I mean.
> > >
> > > There are ways to encode a huffman trie such that it's dependent on a
> key.
> > > But such systems are vulnerable to chosen plaintext attacks and are
> > > generally inefficient and weak.
> > >
> > > So it's possible just not a good idea yet.
> > >
> > > Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:03:09 GMT
"amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm sorry to tell you that I'm not english spoken native.
> If you know only one language, you have to know that I speak SEVEN
> languages.
> So please be tolerant if my english does sound like you wish.
I don't mean to be rude, you just don't make a lot of sense... proof read
your posts!
Tom
------------------------------
From: amateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 14:05:03 -0400
Why are you thinking that I'm going to use Huffman algo to compress?
Why not another algo?
I may use an algo you did not even imagine it.
You are maybe strong enough to decrypt a cipher but very weak to listen
what others others think.
Good bye mister Tom.
That's my last post.
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I don't understand why some posts reject an idea before knowing what is
> > behind the idea.
> > You have to know before rejecting.
> > My question was simple : that system exist or no.
> > Nothing more than that.
> > I'm not talking about Huffman tree.
> > Bad ideas does not exist.
> > What is bad is the way you use that idea. Not the idea itself.
>
> Form coherant sentences!!!
>
> Yes: The idea is possible.
>
> No: it's not secure. (e.g A Bad Thing (tm))
>
> Tom
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > >
> > > "amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Compression-encryption with a key is exist or no?
> > > > The same algo compress and encrypt simultaneously the plain-text with
> a
> > > > secret key, that is what I mean.
> > >
> > > There are ways to encode a huffman trie such that it's dependent on a
> key.
> > > But such systems are vulnerable to chosen plaintext attacks and are
> > > generally inefficient and weak.
> > >
> > > So it's possible just not a good idea yet.
> > >
> > > Tom
------------------------------
From: amateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 14:06:48 -0400
Have a good sunday.
I apologize for all.
Thank you.
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I'm sorry to tell you that I'm not english spoken native.
> > If you know only one language, you have to know that I speak SEVEN
> > languages.
> > So please be tolerant if my english does sound like you wish.
>
> I don't mean to be rude, you just don't make a lot of sense... proof read
> your posts!
>
> Tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: compression ratio as a predicter of cipher strength
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 21:09:53 +0200
Curtis Williams wrote:
>
> An encryption product claims that a ciphertext file should be compressed
> and the compression ration is a predictor of cipher strength (i.e. encrypt a
> file then zip it. if the compression ratio is 0, the encryption is strong).
> Is this valid or snakeoil?
The problem with using compression to measure strength
is that it depends on the compressor used. Different
compressors behave differently on different materials.
And we also don't know whether there will be better
compression algorithms invented in the future. Thus
we can't rely on that, though compressibility certainly
is an indication of weakness. BTW, there is yet not any
rigorous and practically useful quantitative measure of
strength of encrytion algorithms, as far as I am aware.
M. K. Shen
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 21:10:02 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scott's point, if I don't err, is that you can base on
> > the fact whether the decrypted stuff, on decompression
> > and further compression, remains the same, to automatically
> > (i.e. with a simple machine decision without further ado)
> > discard most (I suppose not all) tried decryption keys
> > that are incorrect. Someone has raised the question whether
> > this advantage is big enough for justification of its use
> > in view of the fact that one has thereby to process the
> > whole file and not only some blocks. I don't know the
> > answer. A point I mentioned earlier elsewhere is that,
> > if a compression scheme is not fixed but variable, i.e.
> > dependent on or parametrized by a 'key' (e.g. an adaptive
> > Huffman primed by some chosen sequence), then the opponent
> > will not be able to exploit the above said criterion
> > to discard wrong keys, since he doesn't know whether
> > his version of the compressor is identical to that of
> > the communication partners. This amounts, though,
> > effectively to an extension of the encryption key (due
> > to the 'key' of the compressor).
>
> Again you are wrong. As long as I can test a key with some fixed algorithm
> (assuming a shannon model where the security is in the key). As soon as I
> hit plausible plaintext I know I may have the key. It doesn't matter what
> algorithm you use really (1-1 or not).
The question is whether Scott's idea reduces the total
amount of effort to crack, in that you don't need to
check plausible plaintext. As said, I don't know the
answer. Maybe Scott would argue with you.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:11:36 GMT
"amateur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why are you thinking that I'm going to use Huffman algo to compress?
> Why not another algo?
> I may use an algo you did not even imagine it.
> You are maybe strong enough to decrypt a cipher but very weak to listen
> what others others think.
WTF? I am not talking about huffman any more. Your OP is plaussible, just
not a good idea.
Tom
------------------------------
From: QuantumAngel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PGP "flaw"
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:21:35 GMT
Just so you know, and sorry if I'm imposing an atmosphere of paranoia on
you, but the pgp you're using, 7.0.3 uses DSA.
Now one of the reasons I'm assuming you're using crypto is so that you
can communicate without prying eyes reading your data. Now obviously,
crypto that isn't very safe is useless, and something you should know
about DSA is it was partly developed by the NSA. That's why some people
don't trust it.
Previous to the change-over, PGP used RSA, and up until 2.6.2, I believe,
that's how it was. Everything afterwards uses RSA. Just thought you
should know.
D.O
"George T. Chambers Jr." wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thanks Tony,
>
> I'm using PGP now and am becoming very satisfied with it!
>
> George T. Chambers Jr.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOq7sfcuhNCbr5vneEQISwgCeOd+AWzRylTHYLlhmb1MxKpFPg58AnRb+
> ZNqNJAZtOK78LPUvq6TtK7Ph
> =qxgL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
From: Ross Younger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.perl.misc
Subject: Re: Perl public key encryption
Date: 25 Mar 2001 20:31:52 +0100 (BST)
Chris Eason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> rearranged some electrons into article
<n4qv6.49217$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> thus:
>I am developing a website using the free 'PerlShop' program....
>a) anybody with the root password at my ISP would be able to read the files
>b) if somebody managed to crack my password they would be able to read the
>files
>I am therefore trying to find a way, in Perl, to encrypt this information
>with a public key before it is written to disc.
(I presume you're talking about a managed web service arrangement, along
the lines of you supplying HTML, CGIs, whatever to the ISP and they put
your files (along with those of their other customers) on a single or
load-balanced web server.)
This doesn't answer your question, but...
You quite rightly point out that anybody with the root password to the web
server could read your data files. (I am presuming that customer data
will be transmitted over SSL (https) so there's no problem of traffic
sniffing en route.) I observe that anybody with the root password
would surely be in a position to compromise the web server itself, or
tamper with your CGIs -- the encrypted data from the remote browser has
to be decrypted at some point, and it could plausibly be copied then by
an evildoer. (Admittedly, that attack probably takes more effort than
simply reading your data files.)
I don't think I'm trying to talk you out of this setup :-); what you
describe *is* a difficult problem to solve. Recent literature touts
security as being relative; if you're harder to attack than the next guy,
certain classes of attacker will pass you over. There exists a point
where it's probably more useful to perform a detailed risk assessment
than spend (some might say waste) time reviewing every last technical
detail in pursuit of potential security holes. Hey, if you're /that/
paranoid, why are you listening to me? :-)
Ross
--
Ross Younger news#[EMAIL PROTECTED] (if N fails, try N+1)
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compression-encryption with a key
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:39:13 GMT
"Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
> > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Scott's point, if I don't err, is that you can base on
> > > the fact whether the decrypted stuff, on decompression
> > > and further compression, remains the same, to automatically
> > > (i.e. with a simple machine decision without further ado)
> > > discard most (I suppose not all) tried decryption keys
> > > that are incorrect. Someone has raised the question whether
> > > this advantage is big enough for justification of its use
> > > in view of the fact that one has thereby to process the
> > > whole file and not only some blocks. I don't know the
> > > answer. A point I mentioned earlier elsewhere is that,
> > > if a compression scheme is not fixed but variable, i.e.
> > > dependent on or parametrized by a 'key' (e.g. an adaptive
> > > Huffman primed by some chosen sequence), then the opponent
> > > will not be able to exploit the above said criterion
> > > to discard wrong keys, since he doesn't know whether
> > > his version of the compressor is identical to that of
> > > the communication partners. This amounts, though,
> > > effectively to an extension of the encryption key (due
> > > to the 'key' of the compressor).
> >
> > Again you are wrong. As long as I can test a key with some fixed
algorithm
> > (assuming a shannon model where the security is in the key). As soon as
I
> > hit plausible plaintext I know I may have the key. It doesn't matter
what
> > algorithm you use really (1-1 or not).
>
> The question is whether Scott's idea reduces the total
> amount of effort to crack, in that you don't need to
> check plausible plaintext. As said, I don't know the
> answer. Maybe Scott would argue with you.
Oh I agree it takes a little more work in his method. The problem is that
it's symmetric ammount of work and is linear. I.e by adding a layer of
compression you make it slower (jsut as slow) for legitimate users as
attackers and increase the complexity of a search linearly (i.e like using
multiple encryptions with the same key).
A smart person would say "why not use a bigger key?" It's assymetric in the
time requirements and exponentially harder (in theory) for the attacker.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Sam Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PGP "flaw"
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 20:39:16 +0100
QuantumAngel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just so you know, and sorry if I'm imposing an atmosphere of paranoia on
> you, but the pgp you're using, 7.0.3 uses DSA.
>
> Now one of the reasons I'm assuming you're using crypto is so that you
> can communicate without prying eyes reading your data. Now obviously,
> crypto that isn't very safe is useless, and something you should know
> about DSA is it was partly developed by the NSA. That's why some people
> don't trust it.
The purpose of DSA is not to prevent 'prying eyes' - it's a signature
algorithm, and isn't used for encryption at all.
--
Regards,
Sam
http://www.scramdisk.clara.net/
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Best encryption program for laptop?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:42:19 GMT
Thomas J. Boschloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > My job is changing, and is going to require me to do some travelling.
> > I would like to purchase a laptop, and continue to keep my home
> > finances, and other private data, on it.
> > what would be the best way to keep data safe, in case the laptop was
> > stolen? Which encryption program? And, should it be encryption alone,
> > or encryption coupled with a secure os like NT?
>
> NT is a secure OS? ;-P How about FreeBSD?
<URL:http://www.apple.com/> and look at their "Ti"... Not only is it a
powerbook (laptop for those of you that don't speak Apple) that comes
with a DVD-player and all, but with MacOS X in it you get a BSDish
"core"...
/Tony
--
########################################################################
I'm sorry, I'm sorry; actually, what I said was:
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUCK MY BALLS?
- South Park -
------------------------------
From: "Simon Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Why Nazis are evil
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 20:46:24 -0800
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Your response clearly demonstrates the point I was making in the post
> you responded to -- specifically, whether certain things are good or bad
> (or "evil") is something that different people people have different,
> possibly irreconcilable, beliefs about.
>
> Further, I think we can all agree that there's no possibility of all of
> coming to an agreement one way or another about right and wrong, any
> time this century. This seems to indicate -- to me, at least -- that it
> is now time to end this discussion and this thread.
The NAZI party was not evil, its leaders were, the rest were impressionable.
This isn't their fault, being impressionable is part of being human. Most of
the eugenics policies were not even NAZI in origin. You have us to thank
(the english) for the idea of mass extermination and concentration camps.
The mass murder of the jews was on a scale much smaller than other races
other european coutries had attempted to exterminate.
The problem with subject matter like this is that it is not black and white
but a blury shade of gray. Anyway, I think I the quote works nicely with
what i've already said:
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." (Winston
Churchill)
Simon.
> --
> The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, theory and
> practice are identical, but in practice, they are not.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
