Cryptography-Digest Digest #388, Volume #14 Fri, 18 May 01 22:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: TC15a x86 FYI ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) ("Paul Pires")
Re: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Algorithm) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: TC15a x86 FYI ("bubba")
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) (Darren New)
Re: TC15a x86 FYI ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) (Just Looking)
Re: What about SDD? (Rob Warnock)
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: TC15a x86 FYI ("Tom St Denis")
Re: truth+integrity=sore losers (Eric Lee Green)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TC15a x86 FYI
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 00:18:43 GMT
"bubba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> With my Pentium III and Windows 2000, I get 263
> for the Intel code. Not bad for compiler code,
> but after comparing the two, it seems like the
> numbers should be a little closer. I get 200
> from your executable, so my system must be running
> like other Pentium IIIs. The 200 becomes 198 by
> raising the priority.
>
> I compiled the C code optimized for P4 only, and
> the 263 went to 315 on the PentiumIII (I have no
> Pentium4 here at home). Here is the Pentium4 code.
> It will make you reread the Pentium4 optimization
> rules before you believe what you see. Pentium 4
> is especially slow on today's code.
I get about 250 cycles per block using GCC on my Athlon Tbird... Seems GCC
is a decent optimizing compiler :-)
> By the way, for Microsoft Outlook express users,
> I noticed that you can make it display plain text
> in a fixed font, which it does not do by default.
> The following is much easier to read with a fixed font.
Thanks for the info. It's neat to see the intel compiler output (I don't
have the intel compiler...)
>
> 27:
> 28: /* copy */
> 29: a = in[0];
> 0040101F 8B 2E mov ebp,dword ptr [esi]
> 30: b = in[1];
> 00401021 8B 4E 04 mov ecx,dword ptr [esi+4]
> 31: c = in[2];
> 00401024 8B 56 08 mov edx,dword ptr [esi+8]
> 32: d = in[3];
> 00401027 8B 46 0C mov eax,dword ptr [esi+0Ch]
> 33:
> 34: /* 8 rounds */
> 35: for (r = 0; r < 8; r++) {
> 0040102A 33 FF xor edi,edi
> 0040102C 89 7C 24 04 mov dword ptr [esp+4],edi
> 36: /* mix in key words */
> 37: a ^= key[4*r+0];
> 00401030 8B 7B 08 mov edi,dword ptr [ebx+8]
> 00401033 8B 74 24 04 mov esi,dword ptr [esp+4]
> 00401037 33 2C 3E xor ebp,dword ptr [esi+edi]
> 41:
> 42: /* LT */
> 43: a = ROTL(a, 1);
> 0040103A D1 C5 rol ebp,1
> 38: b ^= key[4*r+1];
> 0040103C 33 4C 3E 04 xor ecx,dword ptr [esi+edi+4]
> 39: c ^= key[4*r+2];
> 00401040 33 54 3E 08 xor edx,dword ptr [esi+edi+8]
> 44: b = ROTL(b, 9);
> 00401044 C1 C1 09 rol ecx,9
> 45: c = ROTL(c, 17);
> 00401047 C1 C2 11 rol edx,11h
> 40: d ^= key[4*r+3];
> 0040104A 33 44 3E 0C xor eax,dword ptr [esi+edi+0Ch]
> 46: temp = (c*3) + (d*9);
> 0040104E 8D 3C 12 lea edi,[edx+edx]
> 00401051 8D 34 00 lea esi,[eax+eax]
> 00401054 03 FA add edi,edx
> 00401056 03 F6 add esi,esi
> 00401058 03 F6 add esi,esi
> 0040105A 03 F0 add esi,eax
> 0040105C 03 FE add edi,esi
> 47: a += temp;
> 0040105E 03 EF add ebp,edi
> 48: b -= temp;
> 00401060 2B CF sub ecx,edi
> 49: temp = (a*3) + (b*9);
> 00401062 8D 7C 2D 00 lea edi,[ebp+ebp]
> 00401066 8D 34 09 lea esi,[ecx+ecx]
> 00401069 03 FD add edi,ebp
> 0040106B 03 F6 add esi,esi
> 0040106D 03 F6 add esi,esi
> 0040106F 03 F1 add esi,ecx
> 00401071 03 FE add edi,esi
> 50: c += temp;
> 00401073 03 D7 add edx,edi
> 51: d -= temp;
> 00401075 2B C7 sub eax,edi
> 52:
> 53: /* bitslice 4x4 */
> 54: a ^= b^(c&d);
> 00401077 8B F2 mov esi,edx
> 00401079 23 F0 and esi,eax
> 0040107B 33 F1 xor esi,ecx
> 0040107D 33 EE xor ebp,esi
> 55: b ^= c^(d|a);
> 0040107F 8B F0 mov esi,eax
> 00401081 0B F5 or esi,ebp
> 00401083 33 F2 xor esi,edx
> 00401085 33 CE xor ecx,esi
> 56: c ^= d^(a&b);
> 00401087 8B F5 mov esi,ebp
> 00401089 23 F1 and esi,ecx
> 0040108B 33 F0 xor esi,eax
> 0040108D 33 D6 xor edx,esi
> 57: d ^= a^(b|c);
> 0040108F 8B F1 mov esi,ecx
> 00401091 0B F2 or esi,edx
> 00401093 33 F5 xor esi,ebp
> 00401095 33 C6 xor eax,esi
> 33:
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 17:35:09 -0700
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WniN6.129203$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello all,
>
> As most of you know I posted a message yesterday out of 2 parts anger and
> many parts stupid. I was feeling "wronged" when really it was just an
> annoyance.
>
> I want to apologize to all and especially Cloakware for the mess this
> resulted in, that was not really my main intent. I was ranting mainly.
> Fortunately no NDA's broken, no court-battles ahead.
>
> I hope you all can accept my sincere apology for being so immature with
> regards to the matter at hand.
>
> Live and learn,
> --
> Tom St Denis
Been there, done that.
> Live and learn,
I have no doubt you will do both.
Sometime let me tell you about the time
I fouled up Intel.
Looked like a bulls ass sowed up with a grape vine
by the time I was done.
Good luck Tom.
Paul
------------------------------
Subject: Re: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best,
Strongest Algorithm)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 18 May 2001 20:42:02 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> ...a homeowner confronting a burglar is, generally speaking, entitled to
> assume his life is in danger. This is more true in places like England
> and Australia, where ``hot'' burglaries have increased dramatically
> since total gun registration.
Sigh. Off topic *and* unclear. ``This is more true'' means ``it's more
true that your life *is* in danger,'' since ``hot'' burglars come
prepared to encounter the homeowner. It had nothing to do with the
legal entitlement to *assume* you are in mortal danger; the law is
probably tougher about that in UK and Oz.
Len.
--
Full disclosure frightens you? Great! You now have more incentive to
support secure software.
-- Dan Bernstein
------------------------------
From: "bubba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TC15a x86 FYI
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:41:08 -0500
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:DZiN6.129628$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "bubba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > With my Pentium III and Windows 2000, I get 263
> > for the Intel code. Not bad for compiler code,
> > but after comparing the two, it seems like the
> > numbers should be a little closer. I get 200
> > from your executable, so my system must be running
> > like other Pentium IIIs. The 200 becomes 198 by
> > raising the priority.
> >
> > I compiled the C code optimized for P4 only, and
> > the 263 went to 315 on the PentiumIII (I have no
> > Pentium4 here at home). Here is the Pentium4 code.
> > It will make you reread the Pentium4 optimization
> > rules before you believe what you see. Pentium 4
> > is especially slow on today's code.
>
> I get about 250 cycles per block using GCC on my Athlon Tbird... Seems
GCC
> is a decent optimizing compiler :-)
As you know the Athon is significantly more efficient with cycles,
so Intel's compiler would compare more favorably against GCC if
you ran the GCC code on a Pentium. I like the Intel compiler
because of the extensive support for MMX and SIMD, although I
found no way to use these instructions to speed up your code.
The Intel compiler also works as a replacement for Microsoft's
compiler in Visual Studio, which is how I use it.
------------------------------
From: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 00:48:43 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
> Live and learn,
Congrats for having the maturity to notice you've made a mistake. Makes
it much easier to fix in the future. :-)
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
This is top-quality raw fish, the Rolls-Rice of Sushi!
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TC15a x86 FYI
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 00:58:01 GMT
"bubba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:DZiN6.129628$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "bubba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > With my Pentium III and Windows 2000, I get 263
> > > for the Intel code. Not bad for compiler code,
> > > but after comparing the two, it seems like the
> > > numbers should be a little closer. I get 200
> > > from your executable, so my system must be running
> > > like other Pentium IIIs. The 200 becomes 198 by
> > > raising the priority.
> > >
> > > I compiled the C code optimized for P4 only, and
> > > the 263 went to 315 on the PentiumIII (I have no
> > > Pentium4 here at home). Here is the Pentium4 code.
> > > It will make you reread the Pentium4 optimization
> > > rules before you believe what you see. Pentium 4
> > > is especially slow on today's code.
> >
> > I get about 250 cycles per block using GCC on my Athlon Tbird... Seems
> GCC
> > is a decent optimizing compiler :-)
>
> As you know the Athon is significantly more efficient with cycles,
> so Intel's compiler would compare more favorably against GCC if
> you ran the GCC code on a Pentium. I like the Intel compiler
> because of the extensive support for MMX and SIMD, although I
> found no way to use these instructions to speed up your code.
> The Intel compiler also works as a replacement for Microsoft's
> compiler in Visual Studio, which is how I use it.
My code is designed to use simple ops and be especially efficient on 386+
machines. The mult by 3 and 9 can be done with leas ...
I doubt MMX etc can speed it up any at all.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 00:58:56 GMT
"Darren New" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> > Live and learn,
>
> Congrats for having the maturity to notice you've made a mistake. Makes
> it much easier to fix in the future. :-)
Yup. I promise to think twice before ranting again. I was acting like an
immature "kid".
Sorry dudes...
Anyways on a positive note, has anyone checked out tc15a? Any comments
good/bad?
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Just Looking)
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:35:49 GMT
On Fri, 18 May 2001 23:38:30 GMT, "Tom St Denis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>As most of you know I posted a message yesterday out of 2 parts anger and
>many parts stupid. I was feeling "wronged" when really it was just an
>annoyance.
>
>I want to apologize to all and especially Cloakware for the mess this
>resulted in, that was not really my main intent. I was ranting mainly.
>Fortunately no NDA's broken, no court-battles ahead.
>
>I hope you all can accept my sincere apology for being so immature with
>regards to the matter at hand.
>
>Live and learn,
Don't worry, Tom.
None of us reading sci.crypt had any idea
your, how did you put it?... oh yeah... "stupid"
comments would cause any grief to you or
your, what was that adjective?..."shameful"
employer Cloakware.
Thank goodness they had you to set them
straight and we were all able to glean a bit
more of your genius before they, completely
without cause, gave you the boot.
It was over so quickly I find myself harking
back to better times when I could enjoy the
your sage comments. Comments like:
"This is a shameful crypto-practice and both
companies should be a shame of themselves."
"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."
Perhaps, you are too young to sellout.
Thank goodness you're not too young to eat
crow. You're really never too young for that,
are you?
And you're never too young to start developing
the kind of reputation you've wisely started in
sci.crypt. That of a knee-jerk loudmouth who
shoots first and asks questions later. After all,
with your hair-trigger mind, you haven't got time
for stupid things like corporate protocol, loyalty
to your company team, and discretion.
Those things are for wimps, losers, and other
lesser types who would not be able to even
begin to grasp the depths of your capabilities.
I only give thanks that you will still be around
to remind us of this way too much, and that it
will take more than standing in the blast of true
reality to get you to tone it down a little.
It would really be a letdown not to get your
expert opinion on like, what, over 50% of the
posts here?
That, and your keen grip of business acumen.
So don't worry, Tom.
It's still all about you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: What about SDD?
Date: 19 May 2001 01:51:02 GMT
Harris Georgiou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+---------------
| But how about sparse data distribution techniques? I mean
| why can't we use a method that dynamically spreads the data
| into a vast pool of white noise?
+---------------
Been done already. See:
"Chaffing and Winnowing: Confidentiality without Encryption"
Ronald L. Rivest
MIT Lab for Computer Science
March 18, 1998 (rev. March 27, 1998)
http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/chaffing.txt
...
This paper introduces a new technique, which we call ``chaffing
and winnowing''---to winnow is to ``separate out or eliminate
(the poor or useless parts),'' (Webster's Dictionary), and is often
used when referring to the process of separating grain from chaff.
The paper is quite readable...
-Rob
=====
Rob Warnock, 31-2-510 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SGI Network Engineering <URL:http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/>
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 02:03:09 GMT
"Just Looking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 23:38:30 GMT, "Tom St Denis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hello all,
> >
> >As most of you know I posted a message yesterday out of 2 parts anger and
> >many parts stupid. I was feeling "wronged" when really it was just an
> >annoyance.
> >
> >I want to apologize to all and especially Cloakware for the mess this
> >resulted in, that was not really my main intent. I was ranting mainly.
> >Fortunately no NDA's broken, no court-battles ahead.
> >
> >I hope you all can accept my sincere apology for being so immature with
> >regards to the matter at hand.
> >
> >Live and learn,
>
> Don't worry, Tom.
>
> None of us reading sci.crypt had any idea
> your, how did you put it?... oh yeah... "stupid"
> comments would cause any grief to you or
> your, what was that adjective?..."shameful"
> employer Cloakware.
>
> Thank goodness they had you to set them
> straight and we were all able to glean a bit
> more of your genius before they, completely
> without cause, gave you the boot.
>
> It was over so quickly I find myself harking
> back to better times when I could enjoy the
> your sage comments. Comments like:
>
> "This is a shameful crypto-practice and both
> companies should be a shame of themselves."
>
> "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."
>
> Perhaps, you are too young to sellout.
>
> Thank goodness you're not too young to eat
> crow. You're really never too young for that,
> are you?
>
> And you're never too young to start developing
> the kind of reputation you've wisely started in
> sci.crypt. That of a knee-jerk loudmouth who
> shoots first and asks questions later. After all,
> with your hair-trigger mind, you haven't got time
> for stupid things like corporate protocol, loyalty
> to your company team, and discretion.
>
> Those things are for wimps, losers, and other
> lesser types who would not be able to even
> begin to grasp the depths of your capabilities.
>
> I only give thanks that you will still be around
> to remind us of this way too much, and that it
> will take more than standing in the blast of true
> reality to get you to tone it down a little.
>
> It would really be a letdown not to get your
> expert opinion on like, what, over 50% of the
> posts here?
>
> That, and your keen grip of business acumen.
>
> So don't worry, Tom.
>
> It's still all about you.
Sorry it's late and my sarcasm detectors are off. Are you being honest
here? I'll admit I post just a tad to this group but for the most part I
try to answer anything I have the slightest clue about. And sure sometimes
not alot of thought goes into my posts but that's more fun sometimes...
tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TC15a x86 FYI
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 02:06:56 GMT
"bubba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As you know the Athon is significantly more efficient with cycles,
> so Intel's compiler would compare more favorably against GCC if
> you ran the GCC code on a Pentium. I like the Intel compiler
> because of the extensive support for MMX and SIMD, although I
> found no way to use these instructions to speed up your code.
> The Intel compiler also works as a replacement for Microsoft's
> compiler in Visual Studio, which is how I use it.
>
Just more FYI. The actual speed of TC15a compiled in GCC on my Athlon Tbird
is 244 cycles per block. I dunno how fast this would be on a pentium...
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: truth+integrity=sore losers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 18 May 2001 20:59:48 -0500
On 18 May 2001 17:40:46 GMT, SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes even the government thinks one a fool for telling the truth.
>To keep most jobs you have to learn the unwritten rules. Bosses
>seldom like to really hear the truth.
Unfortunately, I wish I'd told the truth last March, when my boss was
about to sell out his company to a fast-talking con artist. I'd
visited this con artist's web site for his supposed "computer company"
and found it to be, uhm, dubious (I mean, it didn't even have
E-COMMERCE capability -- and this was supposed to be a big-money
operation?!), and didn't bring my suspicions to his attention because
I'd already come to the conclusion he didn't want to hear the truth
(I'd been through this once before, after all, only one year prior,
when my PREVIOUS employer was bought out).
The con artist eventually got the boot when the investors figured out
that they were being conned, but by that time it was too late. I do
wish I had spoken out, though, even though it wouldn't have changed
anything. At least then I could have legitimately said "I told you
so" when the inevitable eventually happened.
--
Eric Lee Green mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you know of someone who needs a good senior Unix/Linux software engineer
with a wide range of experience and a track record of success, my resume is
online at http://badtux.org/eric/ .
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
