Cryptography-Digest Digest #376, Volume #14 Thu, 17 May 01 22:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Questionable security measures (CIC and Cloakware!) ("Tom St Denis")
OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, ("Trevor L.
Jackson, III")
Re: Help working through RSA example in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition p. 468
("Tom St Denis")
Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
(SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
(SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Help working through RSA example in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition p. 468
(Beatlebum)
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they find? ("Omnivore")
Re: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, ("Trevor L.
Jackson, III")
Re: Help working through RSA example in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition p. 468
("Tom St Denis")
Re: Kernaugh maps (try #2) ("bubba")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Questionable security measures (CIC and Cloakware!)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:12:24 GMT
"Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yq_M6.50912$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:CWXM6.120842$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cloakware just released a product that uses CIC's signature
detection
> > > > algorithms but they won't release the details (I know since I work
for
> > > > Cloakware).
> > > >
> > > > This is a shameful crypto-practice and both companies should be a
shame
> > of
> > > > themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Reminds me of the RSA SecurID "scandal". It is secure because ...
umm
> > ...
> > > > we say so!
> > >
> > > You said above that you are working for that firm? So
> > > you are presumably under some sort of non-disclosure
> > > agreement? (I simply wonder that you could scold your
> > > employer publically without endangering your contract.)
> >
> > Technically I am like an intern at the company. I wasn't working on the
> > Signature stuff but when I asked if I could try analyzing it they told
me
> > "We are under a NDA from CIC .. so no...".
> >
> > I don't really blame Cloakware but I wish they would say "CIC if you
want us
> > to use this we will go public".
> >
> > My main function there is R&D so I would figure getting "info" would be
part
> > of it... hmm..
> >
> > So far what I have said to this usenet is not under my NDA... so that's
no
> > prob...
> >
> > I wish more people would speak up when their company does silly things.
>
> There weren't any gray crayons in your box when you were growing up,
> where there?
Colour? Hehehe.
> Courage and conviction rarely conflict with discretion if you put a little
> thought into it. This boss might be disposable but the next one may have
> already formed an opinion on you. You can't fight the good fight if you
> aren't playing the game. Don't get tossed out too soon. "Fair" or "right"
> doesn't matter when you shoot off your own foot. Of course, if you think
> that's the way it should be done, go for it big! swipe their source and
> post it!, NOT.
> You are far more competent than that.
If believing in the principles of science and honesty are "bad corporate
decisions" then I shall live in my unibomberstyle shack for the rest of my
life. For I am much too young to sellout.
I have no plans to violate my NDA with cloakware by posting private info.
All the stuff I have been discussing you can get off their website(s).
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best,
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:12:35 GMT
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor L. Jackson, III) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> >
> >> [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.
The technical term is "disparity of force". It justifies a response ot a
threat that is at a higher level of nastiness than that of the threat. E.g,
where a police officer may use any necessary force, a citizen is restricted
to the use of only equal force. (fist/fist, knife/knife, firearms/firearm).
However, when disparity of force exists in terms of robustness (adult male
versus child, elderly, or female victim), size (sumo wrestler versus
pencil-necked geek), or numbers (individual versus pair or more), then the
level of response may exceed the level of the stimulus.
Those laws granting more tolerance for escalation by females are in effect in
almost all states for two reasons. The average female is considerably weaker
than than average male, and the culture of which those laws are a part
teaches females to fight, i.e., to avoid fisticuffs. That attitudinal
deficit is typically construed as a disparity of force that justifies a
woman's use of a firearm against an unarmed male where a typical male victim
would not be able to justify the use of lethal force.
> For example a single woman in
> >> a house in california can kill any man who wonders in the house.
Garbage.
>
> >> 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.
> >
[snip]
>
> >> 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
> >> far better off under the law if the bastrad is dead in your house
> >> than if you wound him and he makes it out the door.
> >
> >This is false. The most frequent resolution to these confrontations,
> >and definitely the optimal solution, is for the invader to flee.
> >
> >
>
> No its not false.
Yes it is. Completely. Go ask a lawyer who knows something about
use-of-force doctrine (most don't).
> If you pull a gun on a buglar you should do it
> as you pull the trigger, The same way a cop would. I have had many
> disccussion with cops.
Then you weren't listening. There is no state in which that doctrine is
espoused.
> I was a big poker player. They belived in
> guns and stated if you need to pull one on an intruder in your house
> you shoot right then.
And you go up the river for murder -- unjustified homicide.
> Only in the movies do idiots wait. I even
> had a friend. Actully meet him at a gun dealer after the paper
> wrote him up. He was alive today becasue that is exactly what he
> did. You should not draw a gun unless you have to use it.
Total bullshit. You should present a firearm anytime you think you might
have to use it. There is no time in a typical incident to retrieve a
firearm. Ask those cops of yours whether they perform building searches with
their pistol in their holster. It's a particularly stupid way to get hurt or
dead.
>
>
> I have had friends that have pulled guns and not used them.
Good for them. Only a tiny fraction of the time does a gun need to make
noise to solve a problem.
>
>
> When I lived in California if an intruder broke in my house
> if the dog didn't get him either I would or one of my kids.
> I still belive the way my dad was rasied is best. Keep your
> guns loaded and ready an empty gun never saved anyone.
> On the farm the gun rack by the door. If a deer ran by you
> could grab any one of them and have venision for dinner.
> Funny thing back then few accidents. My own theoery is when
> kids are not taught how to use them is when they get hurt.
Absolutely true. Check out the experiment the police did with video cameras
in salted playrooms. The kids sorted themselves dramatically. One sets knew
what to do with "toy" guns, which was to point them at their playmates and
make banging sounds. The other set had very strong pattern of saying "Don't
touch that" and running to find an adult. The parents who had ignored their
children's safety instruction were horrified by the tapes. The parent's who
had exposed their kids to children's handgun training were astounded at how
effective it was.
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help working through RSA example in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition p.
468
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:13:45 GMT
"Beatlebum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm stumped by the line that reads:
>
> d = 79^-1 mod 3220 = 1019
>
> Obviously I'm reading the notation wrong, but 79^-1 is 0.0126...,
> how the heck does 1019 come out of this?
You're interpretting that wrong. It's 1/79 mod 3220 in other words it's
means find an integer b such that b * 79 mod 3220 = 1.
I.e in Q if a = 79 then b would be 1/79. since ab = 1. But in Zp the idea
is more involved and the result is the same.
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Algorithm)
Date: 18 May 2001 01:21:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor L. Jackson, III) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> In some
>> US jurisdictions uninvited intruders (trespassers) in one's home
>> are assumed de facto to present sufficient threat to permit use of
>> deadly force.
>
>No. The criteria are ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, and all three
>must be present in order to justify the use of lethal force. There is
>no US jurisdiction in which mere presence satisfies those criteria.
>
You don't know what your talking about. Because your wrong
The mere presence of a male in the house of a woman in California
is enough. Or the bastrads lied to us in gun safty trainging.
As I said before I know a man who blasted an intruder in his
house so I doubt you know what your talking about.
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 crypto code http://radiusnet.net/crypto/archive/scott/
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: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Algorithm)
Date: 18 May 2001 01:37:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor L. Jackson, III) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> In most US jurisdictions, one may lawfully use deadly force to stop
>> what a reasonable person would perceive to be an immediate threat
>> of death or grave bodily harm to self or others to whom one is
>> commonly considered to owe protection (family, guests).
>
>In fact, that protection extends to any innocent. And rape and arson
>are considered exactly such a threat.
>
>> In some
>> US jurisdictions uninvited intruders (trespassers) in one's home
>> are assumed de facto to present sufficient threat to permit use of
>> deadly force.
>
>No. The criteria are ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, and all three
>must be present in order to justify the use of lethal force. There is
>no US jurisdiction in which mere presence satisfies those criteria.
>
I use to work for nickel and dime defense contractor in
St louis. Where one guy was in a panic becasue he was
forced to go to West Plans and had the thrill of his life in
a motel when he heard a noise. One of the country boys
didn't appreciated his wife going out on the town with a guy
so he came to the hotel with his 30-30. To make a
long story short nothing happened. The guy was shocked because
West PLains is a whole lot different than St. Louis where
the police would get more upset about some one blowing away
another person for such matters. I could give you several
examples of Ozark justice but having numerous blood realatives
in that part of the country thats were I would want to be tried
for murder of an intruder cause they don't take kindly to interferance
from outsiders. They have there own set of rules. First of all
you don't know the laws. Second of all its the jury that decides
the guilt so even if the laws where made to fit your beliefs
if the people of the region don't think like you your view
of the law wont mean shit.
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 crypto code http://radiusnet.net/crypto/archive/scott/
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] (Beatlebum)
Subject: Re: Help working through RSA example in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition p.
468
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:45:01 GMT
On Fri, 18 May 2001 01:13:45 GMT, "Tom St Denis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Beatlebum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I'm stumped by the line that reads:
>>
>> d = 79^-1 mod 3220 = 1019
>>
>> Obviously I'm reading the notation wrong, but 79^-1 is 0.0126...,
>> how the heck does 1019 come out of this?
>
>You're interpretting that wrong. It's 1/79 mod 3220 in other words it's
>means find an integer b such that b * 79 mod 3220 = 1.
>
>I.e in Q if a = 79 then b would be 1/79. since ab = 1. But in Zp the idea
>is more involved and the result is the same.
>
>Tom
I get it now, I hadn't seen the exponent operator used this way
before, (79 mod 3220)^-1 seems more declarative.
Thanks for the help.
------------------------------
From: "Omnivore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Thu, 17 May 2001 18:51:27 -0700
"P.Dulles" <*@*.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9e0sdg$kn8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >:
> >: "Ken D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >: > Omnivore wrote:
> >: > >
> >: > > They may find Evidence Eliminator and alert the authorities that
one
> >: bears
> >: > > keeping an eye on.
> >: >
> >: > how's this for a delightful conspiricy:
> >: >
> >: > EE is being spammed around *by* the authorities.
> >: > they know its so weak, they want folks to use it :)
> >: >
> >: > EE, the one most recommended by civil serpents!
> >: > buy now!
> >:
> >: Hell - For all we know it could mail in incriminating stuff to
whoever
> >: one would least want to have it.
>
> I really think both these ideas are borderline absurd. I suppose it's
> possible, but my firewall NEVER tells me that EE is sending anything
> out. My contacts in the computer crime lab tell me that except for me,
> they have never even heard of the program.
>
> I'd really prefer we keep the queries to EE as factual as possible,
> instead of mere speculation. Otherwise, it provides them more
> ammunition to use this group on their "dis-information" page - which I'd
> really like to see contain my very direct questions and their responses;
> but of course they refuse to respond.
>
> Let's try to be fair. They aren't, this just further substantiates and
> strengthens our argument.
Fuck it!
Bottom line to me is that if they had a product that was worth a shit
I'd think word of mouth would increase their odds for success better than
the spamming bullshit they have very much done.
You think to stand up to the assholes with reasoning with them?
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best,
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 02:03:47 GMT
"Trevor L. Jackson, III" wrote:
> "SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor L. Jackson, III) wrote in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> > >
> > >> [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.
>
> The technical term is "disparity of force". It justifies a response ot a
> threat that is at a higher level of nastiness than that of the threat. E.g,
> where a police officer may use any necessary force, a citizen is restricted
> to the use of only equal force. (fist/fist, knife/knife, firearms/firearm).
> However, when disparity of force exists in terms of robustness (adult male
> versus child, elderly, or female victim), size (sumo wrestler versus
> pencil-necked geek), or numbers (individual versus pair or more), then the
> level of response may exceed the level of the stimulus.
>
> Those laws granting more tolerance for escalation by females are in effect in
> almost all states for two reasons. The average female is considerably weaker
> than than average male, and the culture of which those laws are a part
> teaches females to fight, i.e., to avoid fisticuffs. That attitudinal
Expletive deleted. "_not_ to fight" is the correct phrase.
>
> deficit is typically construed as a disparity of force that justifies a
> woman's use of a firearm against an unarmed male where a typical male victim
> would not be able to justify the use of lethal force.
>
> > For example a single woman in
> > >> a house in california can kill any man who wonders in the house.
>
> Garbage.
>
> >
> > >> 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.
> > >
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > >> 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
> > >> far better off under the law if the bastrad is dead in your house
> > >> than if you wound him and he makes it out the door.
> > >
> > >This is false. The most frequent resolution to these confrontations,
> > >and definitely the optimal solution, is for the invader to flee.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No its not false.
>
> Yes it is. Completely. Go ask a lawyer who knows something about
> use-of-force doctrine (most don't).
>
> > If you pull a gun on a buglar you should do it
> > as you pull the trigger, The same way a cop would. I have had many
> > disccussion with cops.
>
> Then you weren't listening. There is no state in which that doctrine is
> espoused.
>
> > I was a big poker player. They belived in
> > guns and stated if you need to pull one on an intruder in your house
> > you shoot right then.
>
> And you go up the river for murder -- unjustified homicide.
>
> > Only in the movies do idiots wait. I even
> > had a friend. Actully meet him at a gun dealer after the paper
> > wrote him up. He was alive today becasue that is exactly what he
> > did. You should not draw a gun unless you have to use it.
>
> Total bullshit. You should present a firearm anytime you think you might
> have to use it. There is no time in a typical incident to retrieve a
> firearm. Ask those cops of yours whether they perform building searches with
> their pistol in their holster. It's a particularly stupid way to get hurt or
> dead.
>
> >
> >
> > I have had friends that have pulled guns and not used them.
>
> Good for them. Only a tiny fraction of the time does a gun need to make
> noise to solve a problem.
>
> >
> >
> > When I lived in California if an intruder broke in my house
> > if the dog didn't get him either I would or one of my kids.
> > I still belive the way my dad was rasied is best. Keep your
> > guns loaded and ready an empty gun never saved anyone.
> > On the farm the gun rack by the door. If a deer ran by you
> > could grab any one of them and have venision for dinner.
> > Funny thing back then few accidents. My own theoery is when
> > kids are not taught how to use them is when they get hurt.
>
> Absolutely true. Check out the experiment the police did with video cameras
> in salted playrooms. The kids sorted themselves dramatically. One sets knew
> what to do with "toy" guns, which was to point them at their playmates and
> make banging sounds. The other set had very strong pattern of saying "Don't
> touch that" and running to find an adult. The parents who had ignored their
> children's safety instruction were horrified by the tapes. The parent's who
> had exposed their kids to children's handgun training were astounded at how
> effective it was.
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help working through RSA example in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition p.
468
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 02:05:38 GMT
"Beatlebum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 01:13:45 GMT, "Tom St Denis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Beatlebum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I'm stumped by the line that reads:
> >>
> >> d = 79^-1 mod 3220 = 1019
> >>
> >> Obviously I'm reading the notation wrong, but 79^-1 is 0.0126...,
> >> how the heck does 1019 come out of this?
> >
> >You're interpretting that wrong. It's 1/79 mod 3220 in other words it's
> >means find an integer b such that b * 79 mod 3220 = 1.
> >
> >I.e in Q if a = 79 then b would be 1/79. since ab = 1. But in Zp the
idea
> >is more involved and the result is the same.
> >
> >Tom
>
> I get it now, I hadn't seen the exponent operator used this way
> before, (79 mod 3220)^-1 seems more declarative.
The idea is if I write something like k * y^-1 * g^x (mod p) it's easier to
note this is all mod p instead of writting k mod p * (y mod p)^-1 * (g mod
p)^x mod p.
> Thanks for the help.
No prob. Remember when ya learn something try to share it with the group
eh.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "bubba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernaugh maps (try #2)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 21:03:17 -0500
Tom,
Let me test my memory from years ago. First, I think you want
to write an equation for one output x in terms of inputs a,b,c,d.
So I assume 00 and 01 represent x=0 and x=1. The grey code
ordering is correct. The purpose is so that moving up or down
or left or right changes only a single input.
Now circle all non-zero output cells. Use as few circles as possible.
Consecutive horizontal or vertical non-zero cells are circled together.
The reason is that they share some common inputs states, ab or
cd in this example. Also, the first and last cell in a row (or column)
are considered neighbors because the corresponding inputs differ
by only one variable.
Then write the equation as a sum of products (sum is logical or, product
is logical and), with one product for each circled group.
So for the non-zero output states forming the square, I see from scanning
the ab values that it spans that a=0 completely describes these two input's
contribution. Similarly for the cd inputs, c=1 summarizes the cd
possibilities.
So "c and not a" describe the conditions that are present when the output
is non-zero for the cases covered in the square.
Now there is the 3 in a row group. They are in the column "a and not b".
But since the group does not include the entire column (c=0 and d=0)
is not circled), the description becomes "(a and not b) and (c or d)".
There is one final output to consider, "not a and not b and not c and not
d".
In other words, when all four inputs are zero, the output is one.
Now write out the equation is some format you like:
ca' + ab'c + ab'd + a'b'c'd'.
OK, so I broke up the group of 3 into 2+1. Dr. Roth's book is on
the shelf there but I am too tired to look. Maybe someone can
take over from here.
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:quFM6.115149$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ok yet again trying to learn this stuff. (btw I appreciate your help!)
>
> I took the lsb of the Noekeon sbox (for no apparent reason at all...ho
hum)
> and made a 16-bit string which I then choped into four rows of four bits
> each...
>
> 1000
> 0010
> 1110
> 1110
>
> ab 00 01 11 10
> ----------------------------
> cd 00| 01 00 00 00
> 01| 00 00 00 01
> 11| 01 01 00 01
> 10| 01 01 00 01
>
> (hopefully this shows up right)
>
> Anyways the columns and rows are in "gray code" order...
>
> btw a gray code is just "x = x^(x<<1)" right?
>
> Anyways...
>
> Now onto the Kernaugh maps. What is the first step? From what I gather
you
> draw bubbles around the groups of ones in rows or columns. I note the
> square at the bottom and the 3 run on the right..
>
> Can someone list the steps you take todo this? I don't just want the
> answer...
>
> Please and thank you :-)
>
> Tom
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
