Cryptography-Digest Digest #78, Volume #14 Wed, 4 Apr 01 18:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: patent this and patent that (Terry Ritter)
Re: patent this and patent that (Ichinin)
Re: PGP Private key cracking service (Bill Unruh)
Re: PGP Private key cracking service (JPeschel)
TEA ("Dave Mennenoh")
Re: patent this and patent that (Terry Ritter)
Re: TEA ("Tom St Denis")
Re: patent this and patent that (Vernon Schryver)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: patent this and patent that
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:09:52 GMT
On 4 Apr 2001 09:18:32 -0600, in <9afe08$mof$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
in sci.crypt [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vernon Schryver) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ...
>>Patents are complex legal documents constructed by humans, granted by
>>humans, and administered by humans. Of course there are going to be
>>problems. Legal systems are inherently inconsistent. Do you really
>>imagine that we should not be overjoyed by any legal ownership process
>>which has problems in only 1 in a million cases? Wouldn't life be
>>nice if everything was perfect?
>
>Yes, that's what patent lawyers tell suckers buying their tickets
>in the patent lottery.
>
>>In reality, I expect there are lots more examples of patent problems.
>>But, in general, the system creaks along, despite having what I think
>>is our major government example of an "old-world-style bureaucracy."
>
>Yes, but those who are intellectually honest ask what the system is
>trying to accomplish as it creaks along. The history of of software
>patents demonstrates that fostering innovation is not only not one
>of its goals, but one of the things that it tries to stop and prevent.
Oddly, I strongly disagree, yet nevertheless consider myself
intellectually honest anyway.
One of the problems here is the ill-defined term: "software patents."
As far as I am aware, no patents on actual software were allowed until
recently. So the idea of "a history of software patents" must mean
something else.
One thing the term "software patents" conveniently overlooks is that
patents are about doing something. Software is a name we give to
customizing a machine to do something. But without hardware, software
does nothing, it just sits there. Whenever software appears to
function, it does so only to the extent that it has been translated
into physical storage in a machine; only after that does the machine
function. So when a computer actually functions, supposedly under
software control, there is nothing "soft" present, only transistors
and voltage levels, and these are the meat of hardware design, with a
long-established field of patent coverage.
With respect to "fostering innovation," one of the requirements of
society is that innovators publish their innovations for the good of
society. To encourage that, patents are offered. But when an entire
new industry of innovation hides its ideas in secret source code,
"prior art" is not established, because prior art must be published;
in general, prior art must be available in libraries. Avoiding the
social responsibility to publish innovation in software has had
consequences, and may have been painful. But, somehow, the
long-predicted death of software due to patents has just never
happened. It is time to admit that the prediction was false.
>>>Other great examples include the Motorola-Codex patent on TCP/IP
>>>header compression whose only problem was that it was filed after
>>>that stuff was already shipping,
>>
>>Unless things have changed recently, as far as I know it is perfectly
>>reasonable to file for US patent up to a year after implementations
>>are shipped.
>
>In this case the "shipping" had nothing to do with Codex, but included
>the discussion and publication in a standards committee. Those facts
>might be why Motorola-Codex conveniently ignored TCP/IP header
>compression while it was trying to stop the standardization of PPP
>data compression by the IETF, and why that patent faded.
>
>
>>>or the other Motorola-Codex patent
>>>that essentially patents x.25 only 20+ years too late.
>>
>>Well, "essentially" is the problem. To know what a patent really is,
>>one has to examine the actual claims in detail. It is very
>>appropriate to take prior art, modify it, and then patent the modified
>>scheme. Patenting individual ciphers is sort of like that.
>
>Yes, that's what the patent lawyers tell suckers buying tickets in
>the patent lottery. It's also what big companies' patent lawyers
>tell courts when fielding blocking patents.
Well, there seems to be some sub-rosa emotional content here, but the
fact remains that creating a more-complex thing is standard patent
practice. If it turns out the more complex thing was needed, the
patent was appropriate, and otherwise it doesn't matter.
I have no idea what is meant by the term "blocking patent." It is not
possible to obtain a patent on just anything, it is only possible to
obtain a patent on something new. If "blocking patent" means that it
prevents a manufacturer from producing something without license, that
is the whole point of having a patent.
>I have seen patents that I think were worthwhile. For example, I
>disagree with many and think the infamous LZW patent was about a
>genuinely novel idea. However, the existence of the IBM patent on
>the same idea, the earlier date on the IBM patent, the history of
>Unisys's efforts to profit from the Welch patent are eloquent
>statements about other evils of the system.
>
>
>>>I wonder how many patents are as bad as those or the various "blocking"
>>>patents seen in the 19th Century history of firearms and the late 20th
>>>Century history of ink jet printers.
>>
>>The whole point of the ideal patent document is to construct a
>>limited-term monopoly. Unless a patent is a monopoly, it does not
>>force someone to license it. When a patent can be "engineered
>>around," some people are not paying for the research which lead to the
>>patent.
>
>The point of those blocking patents was to prevent innovation. They
>had nothing to do with compensating inventors or fostering the development
>of science and technology. The idea is that while you're setting up
>your factory, your look for and patent all of the other ways you can
>find to make your product as well as products that serve similar purposes.
>You don't do any real research or inventing, but merely try think of
>all of the obvious ways that a competitor could compete. The idea is
>to create a monoploy, but it is antithetical to the nominal purpose of
>patents, which is something about fostering innovation.
I don't know anything about "blocking patents," but it sounds more
like preventing *production* rather than preventing *innovation*,
which is a considerably different issue.
If someone has a patent position which does *not* create a monopoly
position, why would they *not* seek to protect the various
alternatives? And if those were indeed new in the art and, thus,
patentable, I don't see the problem.
Patentable things need to be in the published art, otherwise we have
an unstable patent situation like what happened in "software." But
eventually the resulting patents lapse, and the art remains. If the
institution of patents has caused art to be published where it
otherwise would have used, replaced, forgotten and lost, the
institution is working.
>> ...
>>Normally, assuming basic requirements are met, the PTO just grants the
>>patent. If the patented thing is useless (i.e., not "a real
>>invention"), the patent is just worthless, and does not affect
>>anybody.
>
>That statement is at best grossly uninformed. Only someone with no
>experience in industry could make it honestly.
You are one step away from talking to yourself. If you are unable to
disagree without questioning honesty, you may need to seek
professional help.
>Those of us in the
>software industry spend significant time talking to patent lawyers.
>True, much of that wasted time is about getting yet more stupid patents.
>Most patents are filed, granted, and never licensed, but you still
>must check for stupid patents if you're building anything whose workings
>will be visible, such as non-proprietary protocols. The cost of
>fighting a stupid patent is essentially never worthwhile, so you always
>just work around it. If you're building something whose insides will
>be not be visible, such as the inner workings of much software, you
>can just ignore the patent extortionists, since they'll never know to
>get court orders to read a company's trade secret source. It's only
>open protocols, free software, and external specifications that are
>affected by software patents, such as the .gif format.
All of this has always been a problem in hardware, yet hardware
survives. It may be a problem in software, yet software survives.
Society demands that innovation be published. Keeping innovation in
secret source code is clever to the extent that society does not flex
its collective patent muscles in consequence. When it does, one can
scarcely squeal that one did not know what might happen.
>Another fact contrary to the baloney of patent advocates is that patents
>do not, as they claim, lead to or involve the publishing of new ideas.
OF COURSE patents involve publishing new ideas. Failure to publish
new ideas is how one gets caught depending on technology one does not
own.
>Real innovators do not search existing patents for ideas on how to do
>things. That's too expensive and painful. Instead everyone who creates
>things first does the creating, then hires patent lawyers to look for
>problems, and finally adjusts the creation to avoid the problems.
In my view, experts in a field usually want all the information they
can get. Academics would have us believe that texts and journals are
sufficient, yet significant ideas often occur in the patent literature
before they appear in other outlets. Experts simply cannot avoid
dealing with the patent literature. People who claim to be experts
but who do not know the patent literature in their field are simply
deluding themselves.
I'm not aware of anybody who specifically goes to the patent
literature to solve a problem. But I am aware that most designers use
whatever background information they have in solving their problems.
To the extent that the patent literature provides something new, the
designer with that knowledge has an advantage, in whatever way he
wants to use it. One way might be simply to avoid patented things.
Another way might be to expose and use a gap in the patent literature
to do something new.
>From years of reading Mr. Ritter's complaints about how no one wants
>to license his patents
There have been no such complaints.
>and about the unfairness of the AES rules,
Which was appropriate, since the AES rules were biased toward those
who had no technology to give up without compensation.
>I
>know that there is no chance that he might advert to any systematic
>problems with patents.
And here we have a statement which is contradicted by my previous
message which the author himself quoted.
I do think the patent system has problems, and imposes significant
costs on innovators. But society has determined that those costs
should be paid. It is necessary to assure that innovation is
published for the whole society to use, and not kept secret,
eventually to be lost completely. In this awkward way, innovation is
forced to progress, rather than repeatedly inventing the wheel.
>He invested too much time, money, and ego in
>his patent lottery tickets to believe that he was playing the sucker.
Apparently you don't expect to continue this conversation. Well, you
got it right.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: Ichinin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: patent this and patent that
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 21:20:42 +0200
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
<SNIP>
Hold your horses - all of you.
Patents ONLY protect COMMERCIAL use of an invention,
(at least where i live); you could check if your local
patent laws offer the right to RESEARCH and BUILD
UPPON existing patents. As a Swedish Citisen - I have
that right, as long as i dont use the idea
commercially.
I've been twiddling around with selfmodifying S-Boxes
(OFB) myself and only for research, and i do not have
to give a crap about patents - Mainly because we also
have no software patents, but that's another story.
Regards,
Glenn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To:
alt.security.pgp,comp.security,comp.security.misc,comp.security.pgp.discuss,comp.security.pgp.tech,de.comp.security
Subject: Re: PGP Private key cracking service
Date: 4 Apr 2001 20:28:28 GMT
In <01c0bd1f$7f5756c0$2471310a@u51376> "Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I forgot my passphrase...
>Are there any tools I could use to try to crack my private key passphrase?
>Is there a (commercial) service that does this for me?
No. Unless your passphrase was a simple one, you are out of luck. That
is the whole point of the passphrase. The best you can do it to "try
them all"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Date: 04 Apr 2001 20:33:54 GMT
Subject: Re: PGP Private key cracking service
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I forgot my passphrase...
>
>Are there any tools I could use to try to crack my private key passphrase?
>
>Is there a (commercial) service that does this for me?
>
Try AccessData
http://www.accessdata.com/
Mike Stay mentioned to me a while ago that the company
had a new PGP cracker.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Dave Mennenoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: TEA
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:07:55 -0500
Hi all, never posted here before, and I'm no crypto expert by any stretch -
it just interests me.
Anyway, I got hold of the TEA algorithm and ported it to Lingo - Director's
scripting language.
I could not do the port exactly as the algorithm does as Lingo doesn't
handle large integers. So, I modified the value of Delta to make it smaller,
and kept the # of iterations to just 2 to avoud creating integers larger
than hex: 7FFFFFFF
It seems to work well though, I did a test on a 3 page MS Word doc. and it
encrypted the text (about 4000 char's) in about 300 milliseconds, and
decrypts at about the same speed.
Is there anyway to determine how diffused the data is, or how well the
encryption works in Lingo? I'm just doing this as an exercise, but I'd still
like to know if its workable...
Any help or tips is much appreciated.
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: patent this and patent that
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 21:26:44 GMT
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 21:20:42 +0200, in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in sci.crypt Ichinin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
><SNIP>
>
>Hold your horses - all of you.
>
>Patents ONLY protect COMMERCIAL use of an invention,
>(at least where i live);
Sorry. US patent laws protect against the manufacture, sale
(including free distribution), and use. That is *any* manufacture,
sale or use, not just "commercial" manufacture, sale or use,
presumably because there may be cases in which the difference is
difficult to distinguish.
In practice, of course, anyone can do anything they want in the
confines of their home.
But when "use" starts to support a business with money involved, US
patent laws provide the basis for recovering fees for the use of
patented technology, or preventing such use, even if somebody says,
"Hey! That is just for personal use!"
>you could check if your local
>patent laws offer the right to RESEARCH and BUILD
>UPPON existing patents.
Some people on Usenet have claimed to have the right to use a patented
thing for "personal research" in the US. As near as I can recall, the
newest case law cited was about 150 years old, and obviously there
have been many changes in patent law since. I have never found any
support for "personal research" in the US patent law I have seen, but
then that is not my area, and I have no idea about case law.
Of course, none of this is a real problem for either side, but mainly
something to argue about bitterly and endlessly.
>As a Swedish Citisen - I have
>that right, as long as i dont use the idea
>commercially.
>
>I've been twiddling around with selfmodifying S-Boxes
>(OFB) myself and only for research, and i do not have
>to give a crap about patents - Mainly because we also
>have no software patents, but that's another story.
I think that must be an odd story indeed. I suspect that by "software
patent" you mean any patent which applies to software. But by
"software" you mean something which functions in a digital computer
which is *hardware*. Software, by itself, does not function at all.
Nobody cares about software that just sits there and never runs.
But when a digital computer functions, there is no software there,
only hardware voltages and parts, and patents have long applied to
just that sort of hardware. So if "software" causes the hardware to
function as a patented thing, I would think that courts in any country
would find it difficult to prohibit patent enforcement, given the
unarguable fact of hardware doing exactly what the patent describes.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TEA
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 21:28:30 GMT
"Dave Mennenoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3acb8d36$0$12822$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi all, never posted here before, and I'm no crypto expert by any
stretch -
> it just interests me.
> Anyway, I got hold of the TEA algorithm and ported it to Lingo -
Director's
> scripting language.
>
> I could not do the port exactly as the algorithm does as Lingo doesn't
> handle large integers. So, I modified the value of Delta to make it
smaller,
> and kept the # of iterations to just 2 to avoud creating integers larger
> than hex: 7FFFFFFF
TEA with just two itterations is trivially weak. I would either not write
in lingo or find some workaround to the problem.
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vernon Schryver)
Subject: Re: patent this and patent that
Date: 4 Apr 2001 15:17:00 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>Oddly, I strongly disagree, yet nevertheless consider myself
>intellectually honest anyway.
>
>One of the problems here is the ill-defined term: "software patents."
>As far as I am aware, no patents on actual software were allowed until
>recently. So the idea of "a history of software patents" must mean
>something else.
Contrary to that statement, Mr. Ritter knows that there is nothing ill
defined about the changes that have allowed patents on computer programs.
20 years ago it was generally agreed that they were impossible and wrong.
Today most professional programmers deal with patents either to avoid them
or to help the local lawyers file them.
>One thing the term "software patents" conveniently overlooks is that
>patents are about doing something. Software is a name we give to
>customizing a machine to do something ...
That might be well and good, but as I'm sure Mr. Ritter knows,
it's irrelevant.
>With respect to "fostering innovation," one of the requirements of
>society is that innovators publish their innovations for the good of
>society. To encourage that, patents are offered. But when an entire
>new industry of innovation hides its ideas in secret source code,
>"prior art" is not established, because prior art must be published;
>in general, prior art must be available in libraries. Avoiding the
>social responsibility to publish innovation in software has had
>consequences, and may have been painful. But, somehow, the
>long-predicted death of software due to patents has just never
>happened. It is time to admit that the prediction was false.
No one with any sense has ever seriously predicted the death of
software due to patents.
Those who claim (or claimed) there was not lots of prior software art
before there were software patents are at best amazingly ignorant. Those
with the least clues know about the IEEE and ACM journals that 20 and 30
years ago were filled with the descriptions of algorithms that are now
published in textbooks, free source, and (unintelligibly) patents. There
was also lots of freely available UNIX source--well, that appeared in about
1982, but still well before the patent lawyers arrived to save us from
not publishing our art. (Yes, I know about the AT&T licenses. I also
know that those BSD tapes were a wider, more open, and more useful
publication of vastly more information than the sum total of all software
patents.)
And what's that about a social responsibility to publish? Is anyone who
creates, buys, or uses a trade secret violating some kind of social
responsibility?--sheesh!
> ...
>I have no idea what is meant by the term "blocking patent."
Given Mr. Ritter's years of talk about patents and patent laws,
that statement flabbergasts me.
> It is not
>possible to obtain a patent on just anything, it is only possible to
>obtain a patent on something new.
That sentence is clearly false, as demonstrated by zillions of bogus
patents and the statements of patent experts. You are not supposed
to be able to get a patent on old or obvious ideas, but when that does
happen, as even mostepatent advocates agree it does, you are supposed to
pay $100,000 to several $1,000,000 to your own lawyers to get a court
to fix the problem, or if you're really lucky, get the Patent Office to
reconsider. Qualtiy patent legal advise is extremely expensive, even if
your legal experts never go near a courtroom.
> If "blocking patent" means that it
>prevents a manufacturer from producing something without license, that
>is the whole point of having a patent.
I'm confident that Mr. Ritter knows that's unrelated to the notion
of a blocking patent.
> ...
>>The point of those blocking patents was to prevent innovation. They
>>had nothing to do with compensating inventors or fostering the development
>>of science and technology. The idea is that while you're setting up
>>your factory, your look for and patent all of the other ways you can
>>find to make your product as well as products that serve similar purposes.
>>You don't do any real research or inventing, but merely try think of
>>all of the obvious ways that a competitor could compete. The idea is
>>to create a monoploy, but it is antithetical to the nominal purpose of
>>patents, which is something about fostering innovation.
>
>I don't know anything about "blocking patents," but it sounds more
>like preventing *production* rather than preventing *innovation*,
>which is a considerably different issue.
As Mr. Ritter has said, the point of patents is to grant a monopoly
on use and production. The point of blocking patents is to prevent
competition, and indirectly to stop innovation.
>If someone has a patent position which does *not* create a monopoly
>position, why would they *not* seek to protect the various
>alternatives? And if those were indeed new in the art and, thus,
>patentable, I don't see the problem.
>
>Patentable things need to be in the published art, otherwise we have
>an unstable patent situation like what happened in "software." But
>eventually the resulting patents lapse, and the art remains. If the
>institution of patents has caused art to be published where it
>otherwise would have used, replaced, forgotten and lost, the
>institution is working.
"Unstable patent situation"? That seems be one where extortionists
see a virgin field.
As anyone who has ever read a patent knows, no doubt including Mr. Ritter,
patents have nothing to do with publishing and perserving art, at least
not in the common English sense. Patents are intentionally written so
that only patent experts can figure out what they're about. Yes, the
official rules include something about clarity, but that part is understood
as a requirement to make the text of a patent unintelligible to any except
patent experts.
The point of a patent is not to protect something new in the art,
but to stop your competitors. The rules talk about innovation and
novelty, but those are nebulous and beside the purpose of anyone
who files a patent application. Contrary to Mr. Ritter's statements
and as he knows quite well, no one ever files a patent application
to publish a new idea (as the word "publish" is understood outside
patent offices).
> ...
>>>Normally, assuming basic requirements are met, the PTO just grants the
>>>patent. If the patented thing is useless (i.e., not "a real
>>>invention"), the patent is just worthless, and does not affect
>>>anybody.
>>
>>That statement is at best grossly uninformed. Only someone with no
>>experience in industry could make it honestly.
>
>You are one step away from talking to yourself. If you are unable to
>disagree without questioning honesty, you may need to seek
>professional help.
I think most people who disagree with me are merely wrong. Only
a tiny minority are dishonest.
In this case, contrary to what he says, Mr. Ritter knows that patents do
affect the world even when they are useless and bogus, and he knows that
patents are not about publishing advances in an art or science. It costs
lots of time and money to deal with even completely bogus patents. For
example, no one would dare mention in public (i.e. "publish") that their
laser pointer might be a good toy for playing with cats because US5443036
would make it too expensive. That patent surely could be broken, but it
would not be worth the legal bills.
> ...
>All of this has always been a problem in hardware, yet hardware
>survives. It may be a problem in software, yet software survives.
Only Mr. Ritter seems to have heard serious claims that software won't
survive patents. Yes, of course, electronic and other kinds of hardware
has survived the plague of patent lawyers and patent lottery entrants,
but the costs have been significant. Those who seriously defend the system
say that benefits of the patent system outweigh the costs, and point to
such as drugs that require large investments and for a long time before
any hope of profitable production. Before I heard about such as the 19th
Century firearms patents, I was inclined to assume that there is something
different about software that has made almost all software patents
offensively bogus. Now I suspect that granting monopolies for what
government bureaucrats and lawyers consider other than obvious to someone
skilled in the art is inevitiably as bad as government monopolies for
other things.
>Society demands that innovation be published. Keeping innovation in
>secret source code is clever to the extent that society does not flex
>its collective patent muscles in consequence. When it does, one can
>scarcely squeal that one did not know what might happen.
That's a strange collectivist statement.
I never knew that every time I invent a neat hack (in the old sense of
the word), I have an obligation (to other than to my ego) to publish it.
>>Another fact contrary to the baloney of patent advocates is that patents
>>do not, as they claim, lead to or involve the publishing of new ideas.
>
>OF COURSE patents involve publishing new ideas. Failure to publish
>new ideas is how one gets caught depending on technology one does not
>own.
The patent propaganda says that a patent amounts to publishing new
ideas. No one who is honest and who has read any patents can agree
that patents have anything to do with publishing ideas, at least
not as the word publish is commonly understood.
>>Real innovators do not search existing patents for ideas on how to do
>>things. That's too expensive and painful. Instead everyone who creates
>>things first does the creating, then hires patent lawyers to look for
>>problems, and finally adjusts the creation to avoid the problems.
>
>In my view, experts in a field usually want all the information they
>can get. Academics would have us believe that texts and journals are
>sufficient, yet significant ideas often occur in the patent literature
>before they appear in other outlets. Experts simply cannot avoid
>dealing with the patent literature. People who claim to be experts
>but who do not know the patent literature in their field are simply
>deluding themselves.
As an expert in the field, I say that was and still is a false statement
when applied to software. The software ideas "published" as patents have
done absolutely nothing to advance the state of my art. There have been
some great software ideas published, but ***never*** as patents.
>I'm not aware of anybody who specifically goes to the patent
>literature to solve a problem. But I am aware that most designers use
>whatever background information they have in solving their problems.
>To the extent that the patent literature provides something new, the
>designer with that knowledge has an advantage, in whatever way he
>wants to use it. One way might be simply to avoid patented things.
>Another way might be to expose and use a gap in the patent literature
>to do something new.
That's another strange paragraph that seems to say that because of the
dogma that patents are good, their every consequence is desirable.
Vernon Schryver [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
******************************
