Cryptography-Digest Digest #252, Volume #14 Fri, 27 Apr 01 09:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: RC4 Source Code ("Jakob Jonsson")
Re: _Roswell_ episode crypto puzzle (yomgui)
Re: AES poll (Mok-Kong Shen)
DES source-code from Applied Cryptography ("Brendan Lynskey")
Re: Note on combining PRNGs with the method of Wichmann and Hill (Bob Harris)
Re: RC4 Source Code ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Graphical representation of a public key (or fingerprint)? ("Michael Schmidt")
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! (16 bit ciphertext challenge) (Lou Grinzo)
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! (Lou Grinzo)
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop (Jeffrey Williams)
Decrypting msg from a Rotor machine (Daniel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jakob Jonsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RC4 Source Code
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:19:05 +0200
"Dirk Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove the _)> skrev i
meddelandet news:6i7G6.18853$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mark,
>
> Sorry for wasting your time. After doing some searches and failing, I
> thought the next best plan was to ask in the newsgroup to which the
original
> code was leaked. Seems logical to go straight to the source when all else
> fails. If you ask me, it seems logical to go straight to the source to
> begin with to avoid *wasting time*, but I didn't.
>
> I had no idea such a simple question would cause me to be flamed.
Go to Altavista and search for +"rc4 source code" and you will realize why:
http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=%2B%22rc4+source+code%22&kl=XX&pg=q
&Translate=on
Jakob
------------------------------
From: yomgui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.puzzles
Subject: Re: _Roswell_ episode crypto puzzle
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:01:50 +0100
Steve Roberts wrote:
>
> >the following is a message send by someone to some self claimed
> >extraterrestrial.
> >trying to verify with an eventual answer that the ET is effectivelly
> >what he claims to be.
> >
> > 1011010111 100101 101000100111 - 110101111110 0100111
>
> Wrong end - as this is sent by some human then we should ask them. If
> the answer is available from a human, it's a waste of time trying to
> guess it from this (as for cryptography analysis). If of ET origin,
> it would certainly be worthy of analysis.
The potential replier gave up and admit being hunain later.
but where it gets interresting is not that I didn't say the sender was
humain. I certainly think he was, but we just don't know.
and he pretends no to be humain. many still believe it.
so we have potentially this kind of dialog
human to Entity (from yyy yyy [distant civilisation]):
G'day, I also know a guy from xxx xxx [different distant civilisation]
Entity :
that's interresting, tell him that for me:
1011010111 100101 101000100111 - 110101111110 0100111
and get an answer
another interresting point is that this self called Entity spoke also
occasionnally
about Fermat's theorem, trying to explain how to proove it.
I assume you where speaking about the same Fermat. I don't know
if Fermat's numbers relate to Fermat's theorem.
thanks for your answer anyway
--
���g��
oim 3d - surface viewer - http://i.am/oim
kryptyomic - encryption scheme - http://bigfoot.com/~kryptyomic
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AES poll
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:24:03 +0200
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>
[snip]
> I assume the group is a political corrent group that is influenced
> by its bosses. I am sure that if there was any threast of real
> crypto being done the NSA would have stepped in to stop it. Look
> they can't even get bijective padding for simple modes. Since it
> reduces the ablitiy of the spooks to check for bad keys. Tell me
> again they want good crypto. They don't its a closed group with
> no interest in secure crypto. The whole AES thing is to give the
> appearance of security while hoping the masses will join in so the
> NSA doesn't have to try very hard to break messages and to reduce
> the use of a wide variety of messages.
> And yes I can't break it but then again I don't have access to
> the best machines nor do I habe a staff of hundreds of Phd mathematicans.
In my humble view one always has ultimately to do one's own
estimates of security with some amount of subjectivity,
whether one flys with an airplane, eats a hamburger or
does other things every day. Almost nothing in real life
could be known absolutely for sure and in every detail
for dispelling all possiblities of danger/evil that one
could imagine. One always accepts certain risks, whether
real or imaginary, though people may widely differ in
their risk management. (Decades ago I read in newspapers
that there was a rich person in US who, for fear of being
infected by bacteria and virus on the street, never left
his home which had rooms all sterilized to the best of
the state of the art.) In the present case, if you, as a
single person, consider AES to be not offering sufficient
security, there are plently of alternatives open to you.
You could e.g. use multiple enctryption where AES is a
component or discard AES and use other algorithms that you
feel (believe though certainly also can't 'prove') to be
secure. For a corporation or an institution etc. a similar
decision could be more difficult, since more people are
involved. But there one is really starting to step into
realms of politics or sociology etc.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Brendan Lynskey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DES source-code from Applied Cryptography
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:55:12 +0100
The above code includes a function called 'cookey'. Anyone know the purpose
of this? I can't see anything similar in the algorithm. Is this an
alternative way to do the Expansion Permutation?
Thanks,
Bren
------------------------------
From: Bob Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers
Subject: Re: Note on combining PRNGs with the method of Wichmann and Hill
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:24:22 -0400
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> ... The PRNGs used are indicated by M (mwcg of Marsaglia), C (cong of
> Marsaglia), P (of Park and Miller) and E (of L'Ecuyer).
Howdy. Can you give references for those PRNGs?
Thanks,
Bob Harris
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RC4 Source Code
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:48:15 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Dirk Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove the _)> wrote in
message news:6i7G6.18853$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mark,
>
> Sorry for wasting your time. After doing some searches and
> failing, I thought the next best plan was to ask in the newsgroup
> to which the original code was leaked. Seems logical to go
> straight to the source when all else fails. If you ask me, it
> seems logical to go straight to the source to begin with to avoid
> *wasting time*, but I didn't.
>
> I had no idea such a simple question would cause me to be flamed.
>
> All searches I did yielded lots of nothing. RSA's site obviously
> had nothing, couldn't find anything in the sci.crypt FAQ,
> Counterpane's site wasn't helpful, neither was Rivest's (for
> obvious reasons), Terry Ritter's or Matt Blade's. I thought that
> if I was to find something then these would be the places.
>
> You have my most sincere apologies for wasting your time. I didn't
> mean to disturb your quiet reading of sci.crypt. But please
> remember, if you feel I'm wasting your time, no-one's forcing you
> to reply to my posts. Please take my apology in the spirit in
> which it was intended - sincerely.
>
> And I apologise to Tom St Denis for being rude to him after he told
> me I was useless at coding without knowing my background.
I wasn't trying to be mean. My position is that if you are not using
a crypto kit (i.e Crypto++ or BSAFE etc...) then you had better know
what you are doing.
At anyrate RC4 is not the best stream cipher anyways....
Tom
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Key at: http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/key.asc
iQA/AwUBOulcZwULrT+pXe8cEQJBgQCeP/J00T+wM/jUgjFxJvDry6MaKkMAn0kK
BOW6TaPwcADZ/IGiOMRk/Ohe
=XnfM
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Key at: http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/key.asc
iQA/AwUBOulcfgULrT+pXe8cEQL1qACgmitMvYVgZz+UetHpeAv4aUE9+7kAn0vC
ftEj4OlaNiMkfmmDcZOKwEbk
=wp37
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Michael Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Graphical representation of a public key (or fingerprint)?
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:12:01 +0200
Hi,
Thanks again to everybody for resuming my thread again.
The most interesting approach with respect to data security so far seems to
be the DejaVu project:
Deja Vu
<http://paris.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Eperrig/projects.html#DEJAVU>
Hash Visualization and User Authentication through Image Recognition
The authors actually started to analyze their algorithm for data security
properties like collision freeness etc.
I've tried to contact them to learn about potential further development of
it, but no answer...
Anyway, I will also checkout VISPRINT and hex.
Unfortunately, it's not my focus to further develop these algorithms. It
would simply be cool to have such a beast in my project: "Subscriptionless
Mobile Networking", i.e. a secure wireless networking architecture with
ad-hoc devices like Bluetooth, but without the need for a complex long-term
security infrastructure like a PKI. I'd like to authenticate my PDA partner
simply by comparing a visual hash displayed on my PDA with the same graphics
displayed on his PDA or his business card.
Thanks again,
Michael
--
===================================================
Michael Schmidt
===================================================
Institute for Data Communications Systems
University of Siegen, Germany
www.nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de
===================================================
http: www.nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de/~schmidt/
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: +49 271 740-2332 fax: +49 271 740-2536
mobile: +49 173 3789349
===================================================
### Siegen - The Arctic Rain Forest ###
===================================================
"Benjamin Goldberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Michael Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I know that there has been research on the topic "graphical
> > passwords", i.e. keys being created from graphical user input.
> >
> > I'm wondering whether there has been any research conducted on the
> > topic "graphical representation of a public key" or the key's
> > fingerprint.
>
> So instead of key from graphics, you want graphics from keys.
>
> > My goal is to authenticate a public key (or better: its fingerprint,
> > like with PGP) securely by creating and comparing its graphical
> > representation with an "original", which is unique enough for every
> > key/fingerprint, yet easy to be processed and compared by the human
> > brain.
>
> In otherwords, the same thing as comparing the hex version of the key's
> fingerprint, but visually. The "original" still has to be sent out of
> band, but by being graphical, it's something we can hope to remember
> easily, rather than having to write it down.
>
> I would suggest converting the fingerprint into a floating point number
> between 0 and 1, and using that as some parameter for some sort of
> fractal image. Or, perhaps using the fingerprint as the seed of some
> prng, which is then used to generate some distinctive piece of graphics.
>
> Of course, you *could* concievably use the bits in the raw, and produce
> a square or rectangle of black and white dots -- you could use this for
> comparing fingerprints visually if you have them side by side, but it
> wouldn't be easily memorizable.
>
> Actually, if you want it memorizable, and distinctive/collision-free, it
> will likely have to be a rather large picture, something with solid
> areas of color, or shadings from one color to another, with few seperate
> objects, but each one of unusual shape/color/texture. Otherwise, the
> picture will look too "busy" and not be easily recognized. You might
> need a compromise on how many objects appear in the graphic, versus how
> complicated each object is.
>
> A "raw" graphical fingerprint takes it to the extreme of having as many
> objects as bits, and each one is supremely simple (being either black or
> white). A human can't remember that many details. The opposite extreme
> is to use the fingerprint to represent one single color or shade of grey
> -- but a human cant distinguish that many shades. A balance is needed.
>
> You need to take advantage of how people's eyes and brains distinguish
> and remember visual data, so as to produce 2^N noticably different
> pictures.
>
> --
> Sometimes the journey *is* its own reward--but not when you're trying to
> get to the bathroom in time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lou Grinzo)
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! (16 bit ciphertext challenge)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:36:01 GMT
To newbie: Please either take this challenge and prove that your
method works (which would be one of the greatest breakthroughs
in the history of cryptography) or give up.
I offered to post a OTP encoded message for you to decode, and
you didn't respond. Here's yet another code for you to crack.
Either take Marc's challenge, agree to mine, or stop trying to
convince us that you've found a way to do what everyone else
agrees is impossible.
Lou
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >OTP was broken!
> >It is not a joke.
>
> Then break this please, to demonstrate your approach:
>
> 0xb2 0x8f
>
> It's an only 16 bit wide ciphertext, it should not allocate too
> much of your precious time. I'll pay you 20 US dollars if you
> succeed on the first attempt.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Marc.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lou Grinzo)
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:37:42 GMT
Can we stay on topic, here? Will you accept one of the
challenges that have been offered, or not?
Lou
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> If someone answering to ignorant people, that means he is not only
> ignorant but stupid.
>
> Ignorant man.
>
>
> Lou Grinzo wrote:
> >
> > In general, I hate ignoring people, but if newbie keeps
> > arguing and won't even demonstrate to demonstrate his/her
> > technique, then I agreee that it's the only sane thing
> > to do.
> >
> > Lou
> >
> > In article <KDVF6.65217$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > >
> > > "Lou Grinzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I think this discussion could really use a completely worked
> > > > out example. I suggest the following: Someone post a piece
> > > > of English prose encrypted with a OTP, and you crack it, and
> > > > then show us the exact technique you used, step by step. Once
> > > > you post your results, the person who created the encrypted
> > > > message will post the original plaintext and the key.
> > > >
> > > > I'll volunteer to generate and post an encrypted message of a
> > > > few hundred bytes. Are you willing to go along with the
> > > > experiment?
> > > >
> > > > (Everyone reading this--please note that I'm NOT framing this
> > > > as a "challenge" or anything similar. I'm simply suggesting
> > > > this as a way to cut through a lot of the discussion, which
> > > > seems to be going in circles at this point.)
> > >
> > > There has already been a few "stop the retard newbie" fake challenges (I
> > > posted one of them). He won't learn, I suggest just ignore Newbie from now
> > > on, until he/she learns.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:46:19 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
"Lou Grinzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Can we stay on topic, here? Will you accept one of the
> challenges that have been offered, or not?
May I suggest you just ignore the OTP posts? It would probably be
alot easier.
Tom
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Key at: http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/key.asc
iQA/AwUBOulqGQULrT+pXe8cEQKzuACg3+m/hnw+/k5ZhuMFxd/3fzFy4HAAn1LJ
k6EBhE/3uHTjYk8q5xjvKIN6
=zxop
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:48:31 -0500
Fair questions. Responses in-line.
AY wrote:
> > When that audience receives that same work in other ways
> >-- even if others just give it away -- the market for the original
> >work is reduced. If that is not "stealing" worth from the
> >intellectual property owner, what is it?
>
> So you say reducing the market for the original work is an "instance of
> theft".
>
> > Libraries *buy* the books they have. Buying is not theft.
> >
> >Indeed, one might well argue that having a book in libraries
> >*increases* the market for the book.
> >
>
> But wouldn't it be an equally valid point that :-
>
> The library buys a book
> => I can access my library and borrow the book for free
true
>
> => I don't need to buy the book
true
>
> => The market for the book is reduced
Perhaps. OTOH, if I find a book that is useful to me, I may well buy a
personal copy (availability of said book at the library is NOT guaranteed after
all). If I like the author's work, I may buy other books by that author.
>
> => This results in an "instance of theft" on the library's behalf
Not at all. The library bought one copy of the book. At any given time, only
that one copy is being used. The owner of a copy of a book has the right to
lend that book to anyone they please.
>
>
> Let's say, I, as an individual, buy a copy of a book, and lend it to
> everyone I know who needs it, and all of whom would otherwise have bought
> the book. Would I be committing the act of theft by reducing the market for
> the work?
Not necessarily. If the people who need it need it a lot, they will of
necessity have to buy their own copies so, by lending the book out, you've
advertised the book and may have increased the market for it. Regardless, once
you buy the book, that copy is your property and you have every right to lend
it to others. You do not have every right to photocopy it and lend, or sell,
the copies to others.
As far as libraries go, they serve a useful purpose. Very few people could
possibly afford to own personal copies of all of the tomes in a library (let
alone find space to house them). In my life, I, conservatively, have borrowed
2000 books from various libraries. Had I really really really ... wanted to,
I probably could have afforded to buy a personal copy of each, but it's highly
unlikely that I would have done so. However, many of the books that I own
today are written by authors whose works I first encountered via access to the
public library. Without such access, it is doubtful that I'd ever have
purchased anything written by those authors.
>
>
> AY
------------------------------
From: Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Decrypting msg from a Rotor machine
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:02:30 +0200
Hi.
I would like to find information on attacks on rotor machines like
Manex, Printex ,Suprex (Embase) (all Hagelin-like used around 1960).
How does one go about attacking messages encrypted with these rotor
machines? Is there any literature on this? All I could find was a
very brief description on how to operate such a machine, but I would
like to learn more about it.
Thanks for your time. Best regards, Daniel.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
