# Cryptography-Digest Digest #365

Cryptography-Digest Digest #365, Volume #14      Wed, 16 May 01 11:13:01 EDT

Contents:
Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm) ("Trevor L.
Jackson, III")
Re: Evidence Eliminator works great. Beware anybody who claims it doesn't work
(propaganda) (Paul Crowley)
Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm) (Richard
Herring)
Re: Newbie Question: Crytography - Unlimited Inputs/Outputs? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Karnaugh Maps (Pascal Junod)
Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
(SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
(SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
How to develop a 64-bit key ("ritesh_swd")
Re: Karnaugh Maps ("Sam Simpson")
Re: Are low exponents a problem with RSA? (DJohn37050)
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they find? (Shaun Hollingworth)
Re: request for encryption software suggestions (Anton Stiglic)
Re: Karnaugh Maps (jlcooke)
Re: How to develop a 64-bit key (jlcooke)
Re: Probablistic Algorithms For Square Roots of QRs in Z/n (Anton Stiglic)
Re: Karnaugh Maps (jlcooke)
How can I see the symmetric enncryption keysize in SSL? ("no_carrier")
Any SEC free program for Visa? ("no_carrier")
America Civil War Private Shorthand (Dave Smith)
Re: function decomposition (jlcooke)
Re: function decomposition (jlcooke)
Re: MISTY -- no simple truncated difs (jlcooke)
Re: function decomposition (Mark Wooding)
Re: Karnaugh Maps (Pascal Junod)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:37:54 GMT

Tim Tyler wrote:

> SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : No wonder violent crime is up in the UK you can't shoot
> : the bastards that break into you own house. [...]
>
> I believe shooting someone for breaking and entering would
> itself be regarded as a violent crime in the UK.

And in the U.S.  B&E, while a violent crime, does not rise to the level
of a threat of death or great bodily harm.  The only actions that
justify a potentially lethal response are rape, arson, a lethal threat
and their respective attempts.

------------------------------

Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: Evidence Eliminator works great. Beware anybody who claims it doesn't
work (propaganda)
From: Paul Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:39:32 GMT

"EE Support" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By now you will have witnessed the mass hysteria about Evidence Eliminator.

As regular readers of some of these groups probably know, Evidence
Eliminator doesn't work, which is why they spam newsgroups.  The
report they're keen to badmouth can be found here:

I know Eric because he was a thoughtful contributor to the "Appraising
Microsoft" mailing list way back.
--
__  Paul Crowley
\/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/\__/ http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/paul/
"Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go around" - John Clark

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Herring)
Subject: Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
Date: 16 May 2001 12:14:38 GMT

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Douglas A. Gwyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> > ...  No wonder violent crime is up in the UK you
> > can't shoot the bastards that break into you own house.

> Note: You don't have to actually shoot them; it's the fear
> of being shot that has deterred many potential home invasions.

If they didn't take place, how do you know?

In any case, even quite stupid thieves usually have the wit to
target empty houses.

--
Richard Herring       |  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Newbie Question: Crytography - Unlimited Inputs/Outputs?
Date: 16 May 2001 12:47:51 GMT

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (news.singnet.com.sg) wrote in
<9dt90f$jk3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>BlankHi, I am just getting into the world of cryptography and would like
>to ask a question. If it is too commonly known then please direct me to
>
>I read/heard somewhere that given an encryption system where the tester
>is allowed an unlimited number of inputs and outputs, that the system
>itself will always be possible to break. Is this true?
>

Im theroy if you allow an umlimited amount of inputs and there availabe
outputs. you can eventrully get the plaintext for ciphertext. Which
is the solution your looking for.

Note the above all depends on using a fixed key. But if you have
an unlimited number of inputs and test "every key" then with a properly
designed crypto system there will be even with the random data added
game being not played. As many inputs that map to the secrest text your
trying to break since. Each value of key tested would have a seperate
plain text that maps to the cipher text in question.

That this could be done was knowen since the 40's by Shannon
however since most crypto needs to be weakened so people like
the NSA can read messages. This is seldom done. Even crypto that
newbies think safe is so weakend that if you encrypted a random file
and played your game of all input output  pairs with every key
there would only be one input that could map to your secrest message.
Of course they don't try ever pair. But the fact that if one could
shows there is encough information to allow a break.

What happend when anyone mentions this weakness in modern crypto
is they allude to some strange thing limiting ones ability to solve
encryption as if only a dumb blind search is allowed. This is not
what the NSA would do. And its not what you would do if trying to
solve a simaltamous set of equtions with n unknoes.

Part of the game of crypto is to keep people goging down false
trails so the NSA can keep reading your mail. ANd so far the US
as gone a bang up job keeping people in the dard. And you will get
many beutiful responses saying that I am lying to you.

David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE "OLD VERSIOM"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
My website http://members.nbci.com/ecil/index.htm
MY Compression Page http://members.nbci.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE FOR EMAIL drop the roman "five" ***
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged or
something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:03:19 +0200
From: Pascal Junod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Karnaugh Maps

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Tom St Denis wrote:

> Can I optimize the last y statement any further?  (  | means or, ~ means
> not)

Getting the best optimization for a boolean formula should be something
like a very hard problem (please correct me if I'm wrong). For
instance, one doesn't even know if the best known boolean representations
of DES sboxes (Kwan's ones?)  are optimal. So one could answer your question:
"Probably. But don't ask me how !".

A+

Pascal

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Pascal Junod, [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                 *
* Security and Cryptography Laboratory (LASEC)                       *
* INF 240, EPFL, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland  ++41 (0)21 693 76 17 *
* Place de la Gare 12, CH-1020 Renens           ++41 (0)79 617 28 57 *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Subject: RE: Karnaugh Maps
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:03:16 -0400

Hi Tom

>===== Original Message From "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =====
>Ok here is my first attemp to optimizing a boolean decomposition .  This is
>the lsb of the TC15 sbox..
>
>dc   ba 00 01 10 11
>-----------------------------------------
>00| 1  0  0  1
>01| 0  1  1  0
>10| 0  1  1  0
>11| 0  1  1  0
>
>y = ~(abcd) | (~cd)ab | bcd | acd
>y = ~(cd)(~(ab) | ab) | bcd | acd
>y = ~(cd) | bcd | acd
>
>I have the bits backwards i.e ba instead of ab since my program outputs them
>that way.
>
>Can I optimize the last y statement any further?  (  | means or, ~ means
>not)

Using the identity

~a | ab = ~a | b

y can be simplified a little more

y = ~(cd) | bcd | acd = ~(cd) | b | acd = ~(cd) | b | a

---
Alexis

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
Date: 16 May 2001 12:55:50 GMT

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Tyler) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: No wonder violent crime is up in the UK you can't shoot
>: the bastards that break into you own house. [...]
>
>I believe shooting someone for breaking and entering would
>itself be regarded as a violent crime in the UK.

I can see why. Since your society could be falling apart
for as little as thinking you may have a secret TV. If you
shot any crimminals breaking into your house. It could
bloody well be that you would kill a cop and that would
embarass the government. Its also a perfect society for
rich liberals. They can clain crime high so hire more cops
to protect people who are not allowed to protect them selves.
While the rich liberals can have body guards and live in
secure areas and say to them selves we need to take more
weapons fron the people so they don't turn on the rich
liberals pulling all the strings.

David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE "OLD VERSIOM"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
My website http://members.nbci.com/ecil/index.htm
MY Compression Page http://members.nbci.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE FOR EMAIL drop the roman "five" ***
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged or
something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you!

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
Date: 16 May 2001 13:16:24 GMT

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor L. Jackson, III) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>Tim Tyler wrote:
>
>> SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : No wonder violent crime is up in the UK you can't shoot
>> : the bastards that break into you own house. [...]
>>
>> I believe shooting someone for breaking and entering would
>> itself be regarded as a violent crime in the UK.
>
>And in the U.S.  B&E, while a violent crime, does not rise to the level
>of a threat of death or great bodily harm.  The only actions that
>justify a potentially lethal response are rape, arson, a lethal threat
>and their respective attempts.
>

Actually it does. And having taken both by kids through the
repquired California state hunter saftey classed. They even exaime
the special laws of California where the law makes woman not only
the equal of man but more equal.  For example a single woman in
a house in california can kill any man who wonders in the house.
The mans mere presence is sufficnet to assume the woman acted in
self defense. There are many examples of this occuring in California
so don't give me this shit it does justify a lethal response.
If your a woman in Ca and a man is in your house it does rises to
a lethal response. And California is more strict then many state
I use to live. I even rember the example given in class if you most
shot a buglar in your house don't wound him. Kill him (or her) you
than if you wound him and he makes it out the door.

David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE "OLD VERSIOM"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
My website http://members.nbci.com/ecil/index.htm
MY Compression Page http://members.nbci.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE FOR EMAIL drop the roman "five" ***
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged or
something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you!

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("ritesh_swd")
Subject: How to develop a 64-bit key
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:29:51 +0000 (UTC)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

=======_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DE3A.97493280
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi ALL:

I am a amateur cryptographer working in DES.i want to develop a PRNG for =
the DES.Can help me which algortihm to use for the generation.Provide me =
with detailed algorithm.

Thanking you.

Sincere Regards
Ritesh

=======_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DE3A.97493280
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi ALL:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am a amateur cryptographer working in =
DES.i want=20
to develop a PRNG for the DES.Can help me which algortihm to use for the =

generation.Provide me with detailed algorithm.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanking you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sincere Regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ritesh</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

=======_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DE3A.97493280==

--
Posted from [202.58.164.174]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

------------------------------

From: "Sam Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Karnaugh Maps
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:27:04 +0100

Dr Gladman has done a lot of work finding optimal boolean terms for S-Boxes
for Serpent Tom - he may have some source code that you could use if your
going to do a lot of this kind of thing.

--
Regards,

Sam
http://www.scramdisk.clara.net/

Pascal Junod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> > Can I optimize the last y statement any further?  (  | means or, ~ means
> > not)
>
> Getting the best optimization for a boolean formula should be something
> like a very hard problem (please correct me if I'm wrong). For
> instance, one doesn't even know if the best known boolean representations
> of DES sboxes (Kwan's ones?)  are optimal. So one could answer your
question:
> "Probably. But don't ask me how !".
>
> A+
>
> Pascal
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> * Pascal Junod, [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                 *
> * Security and Cryptography Laboratory (LASEC)                       *
> * INF 240, EPFL, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland  ++41 (0)21 693 76 17 *
> * Place de la Gare 12, CH-1020 Renens           ++41 (0)79 617 28 57 *
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Date: 16 May 2001 13:38:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Are low exponents a problem with RSA?

The problem with an analysis such as David's is that it relies on "proof by
inconcievability"  This is a very weak form of proof.  The ways a RNG might
fail are many and varied.  If one KNOWS ahead of time, one can check for any
particular type of failure.

All I am saying is that if one is concerned about the possibility of an RNG
failure, using a larger RSA exponent makes the problem harder for the attacker.
In some cases it still will not make it hard enough, in some cases it would be
hard enough anyway.  It is in the gray area that the potential benefit is.
Don Johnson

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shaun Hollingworth)
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they find?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:51:13 GMT

On Tue, 15 May 2001 22:33:35 +0100, "EE Support"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>By now you will have witnessed the mass hysteria about Evidence Eliminator.
>
>Do you want to know why this is happening?
>
>You are witnessing "Dis-Information" (propaganda)
>
>Evidence Eliminator is a really easy-to-use one click program which is fully
>proven to defeat all forensic analysis software.
>
>It can defeat even the tools used by the US Secret Service, and the USA
>Customs Service and LAPD.

Can it read sectors which have been reallocated by the low level disk
firmware ?

Probably not.

Shaun.

------------------------------

From: Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: request for encryption software suggestions
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:05:33 -0400

Ian Goldberg wrote:
>
> In article <PogG6.74053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >"Eric Kleinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > >news:CUfG6.496$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I am seeking freeware C source which can encrypt a buffer and whose
> >> output is a buffer of the same size. The encryption does not have
> >> to be very strong.
> >>
> >> Any suggestions (URLs) would be appreciated.
> >
> >void enc(unsigned char *x, unsigned len)
> >{
> >   while (len--)
> >      *x++ ^= 0xAA;
> >}
> >
> >The nice thing is that enc is it's own inverse :-)
>
> On Linux, "man memfrob".
>
>    - Ian

So "man memfrob" states that memfrob uses the constant
42 which is 00101010 in binary, and the code Tom has
just above uses 0xAA, which is 10101010.
0xAA affects more bits in a byte (considering 8 bit
bytes).  Can we conclude that Tom's code is a more
secure cipher? :))

-- Anton

------------------------------

From: jlcooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Karnaugh Maps
Date: 16 May 2001 14:07:06 GMT

Matlab uses a standardized algorithm for n-ary K-maps.  It's based on
binary matrix reductions.  I've seen (but can't reference here) from
further optimizations using LU decomposition.

JLC

Pascal Junod wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> > Can I optimize the last y statement any further?  (  | means or, ~ means
> > not)
>
> Getting the best optimization for a boolean formula should be something
> like a very hard problem (please correct me if I'm wrong). For
> instance, one doesn't even know if the best known boolean representations
> of DES sboxes (Kwan's ones?)  are optimal. So one could answer your question:
> "Probably. But don't ask me how !".
>
> A+
>
> Pascal
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> * Pascal Junod, [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                 *
> * Security and Cryptography Laboratory (LASEC)                       *
> * INF 240, EPFL, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland  ++41 (0)21 693 76 17 *
> * Place de la Gare 12, CH-1020 Renens           ++41 (0)79 617 28 57 *
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

From: jlcooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to develop a 64-bit key
Date: 16 May 2001 14:04:04 GMT

NIST (www.nist.gov) has published in a FIPS document how to use DES as a
PRNG suitable for cryptographic purposes.  Start there.

JLC

> ritesh_swd wrote:
>
> Hi ALL:
>
>
>
> I am a amateur cryptographer working in DES.i want to develop a PRNG
> for the DES.Can help me which algortihm to use for the
> generation.Provide me with detailed algorithm.
>
>
> Thanking you.
>
> Sincere Regards
> Ritesh

------------------------------

From: Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Probablistic Algorithms For Square Roots of QRs in Z/n
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:18:37 -0400

Anton Stiglic wrote:
>
> Note that if p is prime and p = 3 mod 4, and a is a quadratic
> residue mod p, then
>    a^{(p+1)/4} is a square root mod p of a.
>
> For p = 1 mod 4, only probabilistic algorithms are known.
>

And this is true because you can write
a = a^(p-1)/2 * a  (Fermat theorem)
=> a = a^(p-1)/2 * a^{1/2} * a^{1/2}
(we can do this because a is a quadratic residue)
=> a = a^(p+1)/2

=> a^{1/2} = a^(p+1)/4  (again, we can do this because a \in Q_p)

-- Anton

------------------------------

From: jlcooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Karnaugh Maps
Date: 16 May 2001 14:17:53 GMT

>
> Hi Tom
>
> >===== Original Message From "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =====
> >Ok here is my first attemp to optimizing a boolean decomposition .  This is
> >the lsb of the TC15 sbox..
> >
> >dc   ba 00 01 10 11
> >-----------------------------------------
> >00| 1  0  0  1
> >01| 0  1  1  0
> >10| 0  1  1  0
> >11| 0  1  1  0
> >
> >y = ~(abcd) | (~cd)ab | bcd | acd
> >y = ~(cd)(~(ab) | ab) | bcd | acd
> >y = ~(cd) | bcd | acd
> >
> >I have the bits backwards i.e ba instead of ab since my program outputs them
> >that way.
> >
> >Can I optimize the last y statement any further?  (  | means or, ~ means
> >not)
>
> Using the identity
>
>    ~a | ab = ~a | b
>
> y can be simplified a little more
>
>    y = ~(cd) | bcd | acd = ~(cd) | b | acd = ~(cd) | b | a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you're saying:
if {c,d}={0,0} or {0,1} or {1,0} ... wrong.
or
if b = 1  ... wrong.
or
if a = 1  ... wrong.

\ba 00 01 11 10
dc  -----------
00|  1  0  1  0
01|  0  1  0  1
11|  0  1  0  1
10|  0  1  0  1

Try this:
y = (a^b) ^ ~(c|d)
"If a and b disagree, output 1.  Unless c or d are both low, then
inverse"
which is what's really happening.

JLC

JLC

------------------------------

From: "no_carrier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How can I see the symmetric enncryption keysize in SSL?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:24:22 +0200

When I visit a SSL secure site with InternetExplorer I can see the security
certificate and I can
see the RSA keysize and the Hash algorythm used.
However I haven't found a way to see the size of the symmetric key used for the
session, which is
very important too.

How can I see it? Is there a way? Is it always the maximum keysize supported by my
version of
Internet Explorer or also the remote server partecipates in its choice?

TIA

------------------------------

From: "no_carrier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Any SEC free program for Visa?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:31:09 +0200

I found Securelynx Digital Wallet as a free software to do SET transaction, but the
current version
only handles Mastercard cards (and maybe not all of them, probably only Canadian ones
AFAIR).

Does anybody know a (better if free) software which I can use to do SET transactions
with a Visa?

------------------------------

From: Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: America Civil War Private Shorthand
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:48:28 -0400

I fairly rapidly went through the FAQ for this group, and
didn't see anything directly pertaining to my question.  But
I thought I'd go ahead and post it, anyway.

I'm a long way from my usual haunts at alt.war.civil.usa.
:-)

I have a friend here in Cincinnati, Ohio who has asked me to
transcribe and catalogue a collection of materials from
Ebenezer Hannaford of the 6th Ohio Volunteer Infantry.  The
collection includes about a dozen journals that Hannaford
kept during the war.

The problem is that some six or seven of them are in a
private shorthand, for which a key has not been found.

Which leads me to my questions:

1)  Are there people that can solve / decrypt such a private
shorthand?

2) Do they do it for a fee?

3) If the answer to (1) above is "yes," can anyone provide
me with a location?

There may be some help towards solving the journals;
Hannaford wrote a regimental history of the 6th OVI using
his materials.  Some of the private journals may equate to
what was written in the book (of which I have a copy).

Any help / advice would be very much appreciated.

Dave
============================================================
Dave Smith    "Always Store Beer in a Dark Place"
Villa Hills, Ky     --- Lazarus Long
The Cincinnati CWRT http://members.aol.com/cinticwrt/
============================================================

------------------------------

From: jlcooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: function decomposition
Date: 16 May 2001 14:25:12 GMT

hazards/races shouldn't be a concern for software any impl'n.

JLC

"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
<snip>
>    Get a good book on asyncronus state machines they will tell
> you how to avoid the possible static and dynamic hazards that
> can arise from race conditions.
>    I no longer have my old computer books when I left california
> only took one box of books. That was one that I left and the
> book on cubical complexes it coverd the krano mapping and cool
> things like the sharp operator. You would have found it fun.
<snip>

------------------------------

From: jlcooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: function decomposition
Date: 16 May 2001 14:30:40 GMT

Nice thing about K-maps is you don't need to do any equations.  After a
bit of practice and a good teacher (Dr. Tom Ray, Carleton U) you just
look at them, draw circles and out pops a reduced sum-of-products
equation.  S-o-P equations are the fastest.  But if you're dropping down
into hardware (ASIC, FPGA, etc) there are tricks for finding races (see
Scott's post on this) in the circuit, also by looking at the Kmap.  5-6
variable Kmaps can be drawn, but they're clumsy.  More than than you
need to use

JLC

Tom St Denis wrote:
> Question.
>
> Once you expand the function into the huge boolean functions don't you
> simply factor and remove redundant terms?
>
> For example my TC15 sbox turns into
> Y0 = (x0 & x1 & x2 & x3) | (~x0 & ~x1 & x2 & x3) ........
>
> Which can be written as
> Y0 = x0x1x2x3 + ~(x0x1)x2x3 ...
>
> or
> Y0 = x2x3(x0x1 + ~x0x1) + ...
> Y0 = x2x3(1) + ...
>
> This turned 9 gates into 1 etc...
>
> Essentially you factor the expression into sub expressions and recurse all
> while trying to remove things that are constant ... for example a + ~a is
> always 1, a~a is always 0, etc...
>
> ???  Hmm not bad for one night of study (while watching Star trek...)
>
> Tom

------------------------------

From: jlcooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MISTY -- no simple truncated difs
Date: 16 May 2001 14:32:06 GMT

Tom St Denis wrote:
> Wow man the sboxes in MISTY are keen.  They have a very low dpmax of 2/512
> and 2/128 respectively... cubing in GF(2^n) n=odd is obviously very
> effective :-)

n = prime.  or (2^n)-1 = mersenne prime maybe what you're looking at.

JLC

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: function decomposition
Date: 16 May 2001 14:50:57 GMT

Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What are the logical steps?  I was trying to decompose GF inversion
> with a 4-bit field on paper by just say "ok bits 1 and 3 are set and
> the output bit 1 is on so it must be a function of those two..." but
> often there are conflicts...

I suspect that starting from the S-box and working towards a
decomposition is actually the wrong approach.  I'd recommend something
like a genetic algorithm to pick decompositions for (a) low Hamming-
distance from the desired substitution and (b) efficiency.  Then you
don't need to know anything about the decomposition you end up with,
except that it works.

The results from genetic algorithms are often err... surprising. ;-)

-- [mdw]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:54:16 +0200
From: Pascal Junod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Karnaugh Maps

On 16 May 2001, jlcooke wrote:

> Matlab uses a standardized algorithm for n-ary K-maps.  It's based on
> binary matrix reductions.  I've seen (but can't reference here) from
> further optimizations using LU decomposition.

But generally, finding an optimal boolean expression is a very hard
combinatorial problem, when there are a lot of variables. And a DES
S-box is a 6-bits-input 4-bits output function. So I guess that
Matlab give you back a "quite good" solution, but without any optimality
garanty.
Or am I wrong ?

A+

Pascal

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Pascal Junod, [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                 *
* Security and Cryptography Laboratory (LASEC)                       *
* INF 240, EPFL, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland  ++41 (0)21 693 76 17 *
* Place de la Gare 12, CH-1020 Renens           ++41 (0)79 617 28 57 *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------