Cryptography-Digest Digest #209, Volume #14 Sun, 22 Apr 01 19:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: ancient secret writing ("Viper")
Re: basics of cryptography ("Tom St Denis")
Re: basics of cryptography ("Tom St Denis")
Re: RSA and IDEA ("Tom St Denis")
Re: basics of cryptography ("John A. Malley")
informations about cryptography books ("Mauro")
Re: Any unbroken knapsack cryptosystem? (David A Molnar)
padding for RSA/EG ("Tom St Denis")
OTP WAS BROKEN!!! (newbie)
simple schema for encoding/decoding a 128 bits block ("user1002")
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! ("Mark G Wolf")
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! ("Mark G Wolf")
counter intuative primes! ("Tom St Denis")
Re: counter intuative primes! ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Will this defeat keyloggers ? (Nemo psj)
Re: counter intuative primes! (Paul Rubin)
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! (nugatory)
Re: counter intuative primes! ("Tom St Denis")
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! (newbie)
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! ("Tom St Denis")
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! (newbie)
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! ("Alexis Machado")
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! (newbie)
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! ("Tom St Denis")
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! ("Tom St Denis")
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! (newbie)
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! ("Mark G Wolf")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Viper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ancient secret writing
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:12:04 +0200
I've put some cards online. You can find them here:
http://www.viper.easynet.be/postcards.htm
Please tell me if you can help me out with the shorthand.
Thanks,
Viper
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: basics of cryptography
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:27:21 GMT
"Pille2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Not to be a meany but I did give you that info in my original reply.
> >
> > Tom
> >
>
> Ok where is it?
> Here?
>
> > Just not thought threw.
> >
> > In a monoalphabetic you sub one letter for another. So if you have N
> > letters there are N! ways to create the required permutation.
> >
> > etc..
> >
> > Hmm perhaps you should **read** some texts before writting one. I tried
to
> > start a book on block ciphers and quickly got swamped with "what the
heck is
> > that letter thingy!".
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
>
> Or here?
"Monoalphabetic you sub one ..." that explains the first part...
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: basics of cryptography
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:30:56 GMT
"Bill Goldman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lLEE6.19423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dear Philippe,
> Don't take what Tom St. Denis says too personally. He's not a bad
> person, but he is a young kid and somewhat emotionally immature for his
age.
> He tends to sometimes speak before he thinks; he "shoots from the hip",
and
> he is a bit rough around the edges. Some of his ideas about cryptographic
> subjects are spot-on, and he does show promise, which I hope will blossom
> out when he attends the University of Windsor this fall with a
concentration
> in computer science.
FYI I turned down Windsor due to financial constraints. I am going to
College instead.
I am a bit "rough around the edges" that's just because I am angry for
getting ignored when I have serious crypto to discuss (like my diff method
of pre/post whitening). All the group seems to care about are politics,
flaming, otps and the NSA. none of which are relevant to real crypto.
> He does speak with the certainty of youth, which can be maddening when
> he is demonstrably wrong, i.e., say, his views on bijective compression.
Um no one has proved otherwise that bijective compression is any better than
say deflate or bzip. Despite it could make the attack harder it's not
impossible.
> So please take what he says with a grain of salt --- his
pronouncements
> don't have the oracular quality that say, Bob Silverman's have. Better to
> listen to a John Savard or Douglas Gwyn, or any of a dozen other seasoned
> contributors to this group.
> Keep up your studies, and don't get discouraged about cryptography!
It
> can bring you a lifetime of fascination and enjoyment.
Agreed. But please read some texts too. I have read at least Applied
Crypto so my vocabulary in crypto is at least developed...
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RSA and IDEA
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:31:58 GMT
"Gizmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9bv5nb$4mn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Does anyone know where I can get information about cryptanalisys of IDEA
and
> RSA algorithms ?
> Thank you in advance.
I would look up in counterpanes index.
http://www.counterpane.com/labs.html
Note that alot of the cryptanalysis of RSA has todo with chosen message
attacks (i.e how you pad the message) and factoring, whereas the
cryptanalysis of IDEA has todo with differential style attacks.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "John A. Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: basics of cryptography
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 12:05:00 -0700
John Savard wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> As Mr. St. Denis noted, a monalphabetic cipher can be arranged with
> 26! alphabets; the substitute for A can be any letter, that for B can
> be any other letter, and so on, so the number is 26 * 25 * .... * 1.
>
> For Vigenere, the number of possibilities depends on the length of the
> key. So if the key is, for example, from 8 to 13 letters long, then
> there are 26^8 + 26^9 + .... + 26^13 possible keys... but in that
> case, the key will probably be a word, not a random string of letters,
> so the number of keys is really much smaller.
>
So for a Vigenere or Beaufort encryption with d unrelated alphabets (a
key "word" made up of d characters, each character selected uniformly at
random out of the alphabet A) the number of keys Z = N^d where N is the
number of characters in the alphabet A.
And as Mr. Savard says, when the d alphabets are related by using a word
d characters long as the key then the number of possible keys is
K_d-words < N^d.
If Mr. Fischer (the OP) is interested in the number of keys for a
variety of ciphers and how those numbers are calculated, I'd recommend
Chapter 12, "Exhausting Combinatorial Complexity" of F.L. Bauer's
"Decrypted Secrets, Methods and Maxims of Cryptology" (ISBN
3-540-60418-9)
which derives and lists the number of keys for a variety of ciphers
(monoalphabetic simple encryptions, monoalphabetic polygraphic
encryptions, polygraphic encryptions.)
John A. Malley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Mauro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: informations about cryptography books
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:18:54 +0200
I find informations about two books:
"Cypher Systems" - Beker F. Piper
"Algebraic Aspects of Cryptography" - N. Koblitz
thank you
Mauro Pace
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Any unbroken knapsack cryptosystem?
Date: 22 Apr 2001 19:14:29 GMT
Roman E. Serov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about Chor-Rivest variant of knapsack? Was it really broken?
Well, Vaudenay did release a paper showing some serious attacks on it.
The journal version of that paper is now available:
http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00145/contents/00/10005/
Whether or not it was "really broken" is a matter of what you mean by
"broken," of course...but I wouldn't use it in any new application.
-David
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: padding for RSA/EG
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:32:46 GMT
I was wondering what the generally accepted methods for padding in RSA and
ElGamal. I have seen PKCS #1 but I have also heard that it has problems...
I am in the midst of writting another crypto lib (somewhat
portable..hopefully, the goal is small... it has ELGamal, RC4, a base64
encoder/decoder, a portable RNG (uses RC4 to output the rng bytes after it
has been seeded, and you can restart it), and some other goodies) and I want
to get the PK stuff right.
Last I remember (afaik) you pad with binary ones when signing right (in
RSA)? What about encrypting and the ElGamal operations?
Thanks,
--
Tom St Denis
---
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org
------------------------------
From: newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:13:13 -0300
OTP was broken!
It is not a joke.
Let encipher with truly random key a message M.
M is a plaintext
M =( M1 M2 M3 .... Mn)
K is a Keystream
K = ( K1 K2 K3......Kn)
C is a Ciphertext
C = ( C1 C2 C3 .... Cn)
___________________________
What I know before breaking is C.
What I could know using extra-information is the specific langugage used
in my ciphertext
Sample : military communication. If I know that I can still assign a
high probability to occur to
all the words and and sentences used by militaries in their mails.
So I'm going to use a specific database to break my ciphertext.
I'm going to show you that even I have not extra-information, it makes
my breaking more difficult but not impossible.
___________________________
FIRST TEP
GOAL : selection of messages which have a "sense".
1.1. I choose the size of the block that I have to break.
This choice depends on my power computation( it could be 32 bits or
more)
Let the size of the block = 128 bits.
1.2. So let suppose that my domain of messages that have a sense is PM.
PM = ( Pm1, Pm2, ..... Pms)
S is the number of all possible messages.
The size of every PM is = s = 128 bits.
If I try all 2^128 possible messages without any constraint, a large
part of them have no sense.
If I convert those bit-sequences to plaintext using i.e Ascii code, many
output have no sense.
What I mean by sense is not only semantic.
Sample : the sequence-text "ossi" has a sense because it is included in
the word p...ossi..ble.
the text "xzyh" has no sense because it is impossible to
find an english word including the
the sequence-text "xzyh"
That means that only a low percentage of the 2^128 possible messages has
a sense.
If my choice is right and correct, only one of my PMi is matching the
message I'm trying to uncover.
The domain of possible solution is then defined and listed.
I still do not know wich of PM(i) is the "right one".
All are equiprobable. But I had limited the number of possible
solutions.
1.3. I sort my list of PM(i).
This sort operation has to be done according the position of the block
in the plain-text. All the PM(i) which likely to be in the head of the
plaintext are the first in the list. Sample (Dear, My dear etc...).
The more likely to be in the head of the message will be the first one
in the list.
This operation will be repeated after each broken-block.
SECOND STEP :
This step if the core of the OTP breaking algo.
GOAL : finding the right message and breaking the ciphertext.
How could we do that?
2.1 I choose the first PM(1) in the previous list (1.3)
2.2. I compute Output 1 ( K'(i) =Ouput (i) ).
K' (1) = PM(1) Xor C(1)
2.3 I choose a plaintext of 128 bits ( 16 letters ) that have a sense.
Choosen plaintext = CHP= "I am an amateur!"
I can choose any plaintext of 128 bits that have a sense.
I can use the same text in all my next operations.
2.4. I compute a second "ciphertext"
C'(1) = K'(1) Xor CHP.
C'(1) will allow me to find the solution.
How it works?
The ciphertext analyzed is C1.
I have 2 equations :
C1 = M1 Xor K1 (1)
C'(1) = K'(1) Xor CHP (2)
If I Xor C1 with C'(1) I will obtain
C1 Xor C'(1) = (M1 Xor K1) Xor (K'(1) Xor CHP) (3)
I know C1, C'(1), K'(1) and CHP.
I do not know M1 and K1.
We have 2 cases :
First case :
Now let suppose that K1 = K'(1).
Hence K1 Xor K'(1) = 0000000....
C1 Xor C'(1) = M1 Xor CHP (4)
I know C1, C'(1) and CHP. It is easy now to find M1.
C1 Xor C'(1) Xor CHP will give me a text that have NECESSARLY a sense
which is M1. I found the right solution.
In this case K(1) NEUTRALIZE K1, the randomness disappear. And the
equation is easily solved.
Second case :
K1 is different from k'(1). What it could happen in this case?
My equation will be
C1 Xor C'(1) = (M1 Xor K1) Xor (K'(1) Xor CHP)
= (M1 Xor CHP) Xor (K1 Xor K'(1))
I know C1, CHP, K'(1).
I do not know M1 and K1.
But, knowing that K1 is a random key, K1 Xor K'(1) is necessarly random
string.
K1 does not neutralize the randomness of K1.
The result is that
C1 Xor C'(1) Xor CHP = M1 Xor (K1 Xor k'(1) will give me a random
string. If I convert this sequence string I will obtain
with a high probablity a text that have no sense.
Nevertheless, if M1 Xor (K1 Xor K'(1)) is corresponding, when I convert
it to plaintext, to a message which have a "sense" I have to select it.
It is possible solution. Hence I have to select it for the time being.
THIRD STEP
GOAL : reducing the number of possible rearranging the listing of PM(i)
1. List the selected valid messages (broken messages)
2. Eliminate all PM(i) that are not useful for the breaking of the
second block.
3. Go to the step 1.3 and repeat all the operations until the breaking
of all the messages.
____________________________________________
The breaking strategy is based on the removing of randomness. That is
the core of the strategy.
This strategy may be used to break all stream ciphers even DS. And is
valid only and only if the plaintext before encryption is DIRECTLY coded
in known way (Ascii code or others ).
This algo can be improved to be more efficient.
I'm waiting for your comments.
Thank you.
Newbie
------------------------------
From: "user1002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: simple schema for encoding/decoding a 128 bits block
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:37:15 GMT
I would ask suggestions for creating a simple piece of c code for encoding /
decoding a 128 bits block, I have a single 96 bits (3 x 32 bits words)
block to encode and send through the net, I know there are many different
ways to encode a 96 bits block but what I need is to include some additional
data / information so that when I decode the block I obtain some sort of
certificate of authenticity for ALL (or almost all) the bits of the block
(i.e. to know that the block has been generated by the right sender and not
by a evil-doer), I hope that an additional word (32 bits) could permit to
authenticate the block, is this opinion tenable ? Could someone suggest a
(possibly) simple algorithm for encoding / decoding the block ? Of course
the block could include more than 128 bits if necessary.
Thanks,
Paolo
------------------------------
From: "Mark G Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 15:38:03 -0500
> OTP was broken!
> It is not a joke.
You can't break an OTP. If you XOR any message with a random stream you get
a random stream. (From a strange parallel universe, but random) It doesn't
matter what you guess because all outcomes are equally probable. Now like
in "real" life you can convince yourself that what you think the message
says is what the message is, but that don't make it so.
------------------------------
From: "Mark G Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:06:19 -0500
> If I try all 2^128 possible messages without any constraint, a large
> part of them have no sense.
> If I convert those bit-sequences to plaintext using i.e Ascii code, many
> output have no sense.
> What I mean by sense is not only semantic.
> Sample : the sequence-text "ossi" has a sense because it is included in
> the word p...ossi..ble.
> the text "xzyh" has no sense because it is impossible to
> find an english word including the
> the sequence-text "xzyh"
Your also making the BIG assumption that the message is regularly spaced,
specifically one letter after the other. Before using a cipher stream any
pro would first use a block cipher.
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: counter intuative primes!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:11:22 GMT
Well this stumped me.
I am trying some prime generators. Of course the first thing I do is this
algorithm
1. Make random number
2. Try dividing by first 16 primes
3. Do 16 rounds of MR just to be sure
4. Go to 1 as required.
Then I thought, well if the number is of the form N = MK + 1 where K is the
product of all 16 first primes, then N can't possibly be divisible by any of
them. This is true but this method takes longer to make primes then the
naive method.
Am I missing something (other than a university education...)
--
Tom St Denis
---
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: counter intuative primes!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:15:52 GMT
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_NHE6.30735$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well this stumped me.
>
> I am trying some prime generators. Of course the first thing I do is this
> algorithm
>
> 1. Make random number
> 2. Try dividing by first 16 primes
> 3. Do 16 rounds of MR just to be sure
> 4. Go to 1 as required.
>
> Then I thought, well if the number is of the form N = MK + 1 where K is
the
> product of all 16 first primes, then N can't possibly be divisible by any
of
> them. This is true but this method takes longer to make primes then the
> naive method.
It was a programming error. My primes with the other method (non-naive)
were about 10 digits (decimal) longer.... now they are about the same size.
It takes about 13 tries to find a 256-bit prime (compared to 127 with the
naive method) and the non-naive method is slightly faster.
Basically it works like this
1. Make random M
2. Get N = MK + 1
3. Is N prime if so exit
4. Add K to N goto 3
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nemo psj)
Date: 22 Apr 2001 21:25:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Will this defeat keyloggers ?
yes the average user will be able to figure that out nice and easy..
------------------------------
From: Paul Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: counter intuative primes!
Date: 22 Apr 2001 15:06:54 -0700
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then I thought, well if the number is of the form N = MK + 1 where K is the
> product of all 16 first primes, then N can't possibly be divisible by any of
> them. This is true but this method takes longer to make primes then the
> naive method.
That means N=1 mod 3,5,7, etc. So it's not uniformly distributed among
primes of its size.
------------------------------
From: nugatory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 22:07:02 GMT
newbie wrote:
>
> OTP was broken!
> It is not a joke.
There's an interesting but underappreciated
class of problems: minimal-length proofs. When
I was in college, I watched a really excellent physicist
write down at the top of a piece of 8.5x11 notebook
paper the statement that the speed of light is constant
in all inertial frames. The challenge was to find a
convincing argument that got to E=mc^2 at the bottom of
the same sheet of paper.
So here's a challenge: What is the shortest possible
argument that will convince an intelligent layman
that an OTP cannot broken (as long as the "one-time" part
is honored)? It should be *much* shorter than a
derivation of E=mc^2.
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: counter intuative primes!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 22:26:27 GMT
"Paul Rubin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then I thought, well if the number is of the form N = MK + 1 where K is
the
> > product of all 16 first primes, then N can't possibly be divisible by
any of
> > them. This is true but this method takes longer to make primes then the
> > naive method.
>
> That means N=1 mod 3,5,7, etc. So it's not uniformly distributed among
> primes of its size.
Ahh... well when I tune K (i.e use a specific no of primes) it's about as
fast as the naive way...
Tom
------------------------------
From: newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:31:30 -0300
Did you read what I wrote?
Mark G Wolf wrote:
>
> > OTP was broken!
> > It is not a joke.
>
> You can't break an OTP. If you XOR any message with a random stream you get
> a random stream. (From a strange parallel universe, but random) It doesn't
> matter what you guess because all outcomes are equally probable. Now like
> in "real" life you can convince yourself that what you think the message
> says is what the message is, but that don't make it so.
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 22:39:04 GMT
"newbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Did you read what I wrote?
Who cares what you write anymore? You're as rude as I am and alot stupider
which is a bad combo. Learn to admit defeat (a lesson I had to learn a few
times...).
Your argument that the OTP is not secure is very immature and lacks formal
reasoning. You say "well it looks non-random so it must be the solution".
You fail to recognize that the number of non-random plaintexts is
astronomical....
Tom
------------------------------
From: newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:39:11 -0300
Thank you for your comments.
You are the more smart in the world.
I'm stupid.
Ok
Are you satisfied?
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "newbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Did you read what I wrote?
>
> Who cares what you write anymore? You're as rude as I am and alot stupider
> which is a bad combo. Learn to admit defeat (a lesson I had to learn a few
> times...).
>
> Your argument that the OTP is not secure is very immature and lacks formal
> reasoning. You say "well it looks non-random so it must be the solution".
> You fail to recognize that the number of non-random plaintexts is
> astronomical....
>
> Tom
------------------------------
From: "Alexis Machado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:50:02 -0300
Reply-To: "Alexis Machado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"newbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> OTP was broken!
> It is not a joke.
>
> Let encipher with truly random key a message M.
> M is a plaintext
> M =( M1 M2 M3 .... Mn)
> K is a Keystream
> K = ( K1 K2 K3......Kn)
> C is a Ciphertext
> C = ( C1 C2 C3 .... Cn)
> ___________________________
>
> What I know before breaking is C.
>
> What I could know using extra-information is the specific langugage used
> in my ciphertext
> Sample : military communication. If I know that I can still assign a
> high probability to occur to
> all the words and and sentences used by militaries in their mails.
> So I'm going to use a specific database to break my ciphertext.
> I'm going to show you that even I have not extra-information, it makes
> my breaking more difficult but not impossible.
[snip]
Hi,
In my previous reply to your post "OTP breaking strategy", I suggested a
mathematical argument against your claim. Maybe the reasoning was not clear
(and with some errors). So, I will try for the last time, I promise :-)
As you stated
C = M xor K
Let
1) Ai be the bit i of a text A.
2) P(Ai) be the probability of "Ai = 1".
3) 0 <= P(Ai) <= 1
If the attacker can't guess anything about Ki, P(Ki) = 1/2.
Let's find the relation between P(Ci) and P(Mi) :
P(Mi) = P(Ci xor Ki)
= P(Ci or Ki) - P(Ci and Ki)
= P(Ci) + P(Ki) - P(Ci and Ki) - P(Ci and Ki)
= P(Ci) + P(Ki) - 2 * P(Ci) * P(Ki)
= P(Ci) + 1/2 - 2 * P(Ci) * 1/2
= P(Ci) + 1/2 - P(Ci)
= 1/2
Note: Starting from P(Ki) = P(Ci xor Mi) we get the same result.
Hence, P(Mi) and P(Ci) are unrelated and you can't say nothing about one
based on the other.
If K is reused, the attacker may guess something about Ki by analyzing the
plaintexts xor. In this case, P(Ki) is not 1/2 and we have a relation
between P(Mi) and P(Ci).
Alexis
------------------------------
From: newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:46:45 -0300
I'm not talking about random or non random. You have just to read.
Nothing more than that.You are inventing what I said.
I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!
You say "well it looks non-random so it must be the solution".
> You fail to recognize that the number of non-random plaintexts is
> astronomical....
THE NUMBER OF MESSAGES WHICH HAVE A SENSE IS INFINITESIMAL COMPARING TO
THOSE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 22:52:29 GMT
"newbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thank you for your comments.
> You are the more smart in the world.
> I'm stupid.
> Ok
> Are you satisfied?
When did I ever say I was the most intelligent person? I just said that you
have to learn to say "wait they could be right". Often I come up with crap
here and I ultimately end up being wrong. It's called the learning process.
If you won't even let me be modest then I say F### off.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 22:54:43 GMT
"newbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm not talking about random or non random. You have just to read.
> Nothing more than that.You are inventing what I said.
>
> I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> You say "well it looks non-random so it must be the solution".
> > You fail to recognize that the number of non-random plaintexts is
> > astronomical....
>
> THE NUMBER OF MESSAGES WHICH HAVE A SENSE IS INFINITESIMAL COMPARING TO
> THOSE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whatever. Why not read some websites etc that describe otps...
Tom
------------------------------
From: newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:52:52 -0300
It is not an answer F### off.
It is an insult. I'm not going to insult you, because I'm polite. You
are simply lying. I never said what you are claiming. I did not talk
about non-random.
Thank you Sir Smart.
Thank you.
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "newbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Thank you for your comments.
> > You are the more smart in the world.
> > I'm stupid.
> > Ok
> > Are you satisfied?
>
> When did I ever say I was the most intelligent person? I just said that you
> have to learn to say "wait they could be right". Often I come up with crap
> here and I ultimately end up being wrong. It's called the learning process.
>
> If you won't even let me be modest then I say F### off.
>
> Tom
------------------------------
From: "Mark G Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:03:56 -0500
> Did you read what I wrote?
To be honest, no not all of it; simply because I'm sure you can't break a
random cipher stream if used "properly". But there are instructive ideas in
your arguments. I myself do have some questions about cracking OTP's
assuming less than perfect randomness. One question is what is the
relationship between message density and the randomness of the cipher
stream? Can you make up for "lack" of randomness with greater diffusion,
and what is the mathematical relationship? Then there is the question of
time value of information. You might be able to break a cipher, but will it
be worth anything by the time you do? Closely related to that question is
relative computational power; specifically, what is the relationship between
less than "perfect" randomness and difference in relative computational
strength between the sender/receiver and adversary.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
