Cryptography-Digest Digest #390, Volume #14 Sat, 19 May 01 08:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Questionable security measures (Cloakware!) (wtshaw)
Re: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Algorithm) (wtshaw)
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) (Ryan Phillips)
Unknown Encryption Scheme ("RoadRunner")
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) (wtshaw)
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop (wtshaw)
Re: Questionable security measures (CIC and Cloakware!) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
DES ENCRYPTIOn:64-bit key (ritesh)
Re: wide-trail ("Tom St Denis")
Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Questionable security measures (CIC and Cloakware!) (Xcott Craver)
Re: Questionable security measures (CIC and Cloakware!) ("Tom St Denis")
TC15a cryptanalysis ("Tom St Denis")
Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest ("Trevor L.
Jackson, III")
analog prime factorization using quantum computers (ca314159)
Re: What about SDD? ("Harris Georgiou")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Questionable security measures (Cloakware!)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 00:53:05 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Samuel Paik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Savard wrote:
> > Are there any Windows languages where a *text file* generates a
> > program complete with dialog boxes
>
> There are independently implemented resource compilers. It's quite feasible
> to develop MS Windows programs without any sort of graphical resource
> editor--although some people may find this annoying/tedious. (Personally,
> I find most graphical resource editors annoying and tedious....)
> --
Several years ago I took some time and money to give a few isolated
self-styled gurus the opportunity to show me that making applications like
I am accustomed to writing from scratch on the Mac were directly
convertible in all respects to the PC, at least with what I would consider
reasonable effort.
The short answer is that there is no short answer and MS has made it most
difficult to do so, much less trust that you have good control of the
entire process through run time. Since then, I have been proven right in
my conclusions in spades, and many of the true believers are finding that
they have been taken. Other believe anything with the lure of Gates
ill-gotten gain.
Be ye warned that security is incompatible with designing in the dark.
And, those most sold on bad approaches tend to be lounder and louder
trying to justify their position. Guess what....bad science and bad
design end up creating more problems than they are meant for fix. Many
will pay top dollar believing that they can make truth that they want,
even if they can't can never get it.
--
George W. Bush is the weakest link...guh bye.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: OT lethal force; was: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best,
Strongest Algorithm)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:12:09 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Trevor L. Jackson, III"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As stated yes. But lethal force is not the only kind available. While the
> doctrine of equality of force does not discriminate amongst lethal
tools, it does
> discriminate among various grades of force from open hand, closed hand, impact
> weapons, chemicals, and lethal force. On that ladder a citizen is
constrained to
> use only equal or lesser force unless disparity of force is present. Thus one
> may not return a punch with a lead sap or a 9 mm.
>
Given diminished ability, mine after my stroke for instance, the elderly
or others not equal to an attacker, any force to repel is justified, even
to defend against a close hostile threat. Certain injuries and stresses
that you might consider minor are not for many of us. The other side is
to not make threats, but to take appropriate and surprising action as
needed. Life worth living is worth protecting or it is not to be
respected.
--
George W. Bush is the weakest link...guh bye.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ryan Phillips)
Date: 19 May 2001 02:25:17 -0500
Below...
"Matt Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:PrlN6.28659$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:zvlN6.164026$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> No class.
>>
>> Dwrowning baby chickens is next week.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Yeah, and spooky. He's obviously a regular here. I wish I know which
> one.
>
> This suggests an on-topic question:
>
> Has anyone heard of a reasonably successful algorithmic method for
> identifying people by writing style?
>
Check for entropy. j/k ;-)
--
please delete NOSPAM from the email address to
uncover my real address.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "RoadRunner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security,comp.lang.basic.visual.misc,comp.security.misc
Subject: Unknown Encryption Scheme
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 07:39:25 GMT
Hello,
I am attempting to decrypt a message that is being transfered to a program,
and then displayed in plain text. Here is a cut from the head of the
encrypted data:
cVLXMLHDX>->yLMO>(x>iCWOH>x>fFTD>lFQ)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cVLXMLHDX>->yLMO>(x>i
CWOH
>x>fFTD>lFQ).MR9>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IVR<||698.97.620.221|XUQCF|tao>|>E>|>G>|I
WADZ
|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bAWBDD>->mFW...>fFAWV
L>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bAWBDD>->mFW...>fFAWVL.MR9>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>IVR<||698.97.620.221|XUQCF|tao>|>E>|>G>|IWADZ|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dDZVAWID>->sRVFYO>zWXA>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dDZVAWID>->sRVFYO>zWXA.MR9>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IVR<||698.9
7.62
0.221|XUQCF|tao>|>E>|>G>|IWADZ|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>yDZVWOU'Z>tCWAP>->cQXTWTFX>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yDZVWOU'Z>tCWAP>
->cQ
XTWTFX.MR9>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IVR<||698.97.620.221|XUQCF|tao>|>E>|
>G>|
IWADZ|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cLIXW>yQF>->kALU
DP>b
-fWTD>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cLIXW>yQF>->kALUDP>b-fWTD.MR9>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IVR<||698.97.620.221|XUQCF|tao>|>E>|>G>|IWADZ|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bVFMWE>rWVVDO>->dCFAD>bSLWO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>bVFMWE>rWVVDO>->dCFAD>bSLWO.MR9>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IVR<||
698.
97.620.221|XUQCF|tao>|>E>|>G>|IWADZ|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>uXLOPU>IV.>wLU>j.>->bOFVCDX>yLU>xO>kLXLPWZD>>>>>>>>>>>>uXLOPU>IV.>
wLU>
j.>->bOFVCDX>yLU>xO>kLXLPWZD.MR9>>>>>>>>>>>>>IVR<||698.97.620.221|XUQCF|tao>
|>E>
|>G>|IWADZ|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>tXLBU>iFYO>
->uQ
VVDXIAU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>tXLBU>iFYO>->uQVVDXIAU.MR9>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IVR<||698.97.620.221|XUQCF|tao>|>E>|>G>|IWADZ|>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>jDOOWIDX>fFRDB>->kALU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
I havn't seen anything that looks similar to this at all, however I'm sure
some one out there has. If you by chance know what it is, please feel free
to drop me a e-mail. Thank you!
Cheers-
Austin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:26:30 -0600
In article <kzjN6.129714$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom St
Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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...
>
Now, you experience is often chased with some sort of relaxing beverage
taken in ambitious proportions. If done correctly, cheap red wind is
best, by the time you recover from the hangover, if you do, the recent
experience will be put into a better perspective. Without caution, you
might check out as a poor ending if you are run over by a truck, which is
how you must already feel now.
--
George W. Bush is the weakest link...guh bye.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:33:23 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOYB) wrote:
> > STANFORD, Calif. - When Margaret Mitchell published "Gone With the Wind" in
> > 1936, the law gave her a copyright for up to 56 years. Under that agreement,
> > the book should have fallen into the public domain in 1993. Why, then, was
> > Mitchell's copyright, now owned by her estate, still powerful enough to
> > prevent the planned publication this month of Alice Randall's "The Wind Done
> > Gone," a retelling of the story of 19th- century Southern plantation life
> > from an African-American viewpoint?
> >
An even more daunting problem is when a copyright is granted to a company
which may never die or immediately go belly up. I figure that the slack
in such problems will err to those who what to purchase their solution,
money passing straight through the hands of politicians. No, a
copyright should have a life of its own, then it dies.
--
George W. Bush is the weakest link...guh bye.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Questionable security measures (CIC and Cloakware!)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:29:37 +1000
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> I did not lie.
> I did not violate my contract or NDA.
>
> What did I do wrong? Posting truth is a crime now?
It can be. I think what you did would be illegal in Australia, but it
would be a civil offense, not a crime. You could lose you job, probably
wouldn't get unemployement benefits for a while because the government
would say it was your own fault you lost your job, and you'd find it
hard to get another job much better than making hamburgers at McDonalds.
You could also be sued, though most companies wouldn't bother. In
smaller towns, or for some of the dodgier companies in the cities you
could get beaten up and have your residence burnt down (those last two
remedies aren't legal BTW, but they do happen sometimes). (And no, i am
not a lawyer.)
I think all of this is wrong. Employees should be allowed to speak out
when their employer does something wrong that can hurt customers or
inocent bystanders. But in most places they are not allowed to do that.
I'm all in favour of free speech, and in many cases i think it's good
when someone speaks out even when it's illegal to do so. I do think you
should have checked out the likely consequences though. Think "pick your
fights carefully", and also "live to fight another day".
If you do get away with this, my opinion of Canada and your employer
will go up a couple of notches. There are very few countries in the
world (and very few employers) where people are allowed to speak out. I
might even think about moving there, though i understand there is quite
a queue.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ritesh)
Subject: DES ENCRYPTIOn:64-bit key
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:50:30 +0000 (UTC)
Hi:
Can anyone help me in the development and source code of a 64-bit DES
PRNG key..
Regards
Ritesh
--
Posted from [202.58.164.174]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wide-trail
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:53:23 GMT
"David Hopwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Mark Wooding wrote:
> > Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What does it mean? I have heard it said before. Does it mean
something
> > > like a SPN where the diffusion is maximized?
> >
> > More or less.
> >
> > I believe it was first introduced in Joan Daemen's thesis `Cipher and
> > Hash Design', in chapter 5, `Propagation and Correlation'.
>
> BTW, that thesis is at
> http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~cosicart/ps/JD-9500/
I got a 404...
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:53:51 GMT
"Matt Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:r6iN6.27885$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On my Athlon 700: 175 cycles
Is this a t-bird or the original Athlon?
Tom
>
> "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:DA7N6.125755$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I need people with the following cpus to run a program (or alternatively
> > build the source which is on my website) to test the speed of my cipher.
> >
> > - Pentium, PPro, PII, PIII
> > - Amd K6, K6-II, K7 (original not T-bird)
> > - Cyrix MII
> >
> > The program gives speeds in clock cycles so the clock rate of your cpu
is
> > irrelevant. The program was tested with DJGPP but should port easily to
> > Linux via GCC. I need people to run the program in a shell prompt with
> all
> > other stuff closed (or alternatively goto dos completely). Once you run
> it
> > copy all of the output and email it to me.
> >
> > If you can help just download
> >
> > http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/tc15a_asm.zip
> >
> > or the binary
> >
> > http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/tc15a_spd.exe
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Tom St Denis
> > ---
> > http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Questionable security measures (CIC and Cloakware!)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Xcott Craver)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:41:30 GMT
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If believing in the principles of science and honesty are "bad corporate
>decisions" then I shall live in my unibomberstyle shack for the rest of my
>life. For I am much too young to sellout.
Well, let me go on record as saying that I find your
idealism admirable. You're all ready for academia.
Don't sweat the reaction you get from the group---I think
people are just concerned about the trouble you might get
yourself into. Some folks, such as myself, think you have
a lot of potential, and just worry you don't piss off
everyone who might later offer you a job.
>Tom
-S
[Also, sci.crypt attracts curmudgeons. You included, you know.]
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Questionable security measures (CIC and Cloakware!)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:51:59 GMT
"Xcott Craver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:u5sN6.928$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> Well, let me go on record as saying that I find your
> idealism admirable. You're all ready for academia.
>
> Don't sweat the reaction you get from the group---I think
> people are just concerned about the trouble you might get
> yourself into. Some folks, such as myself, think you have
> a lot of potential, and just worry you don't piss off
> everyone who might later offer you a job.
Thanks for the note. I still think I am right in the issue but as a token
of good faith and general societal politeness I have apologized to them.
What many (what I see from the emails I get) don't understand is that I do
believe in making money off ideas and hard work. It's just I don't believe
in selling something labeled "secure" that involves some form of trust that
I know is homebrew. Virtually 99% of the time when something is done in a
closed door homebrew style that leads to something that can be broken. Too
many people are jumping the buzzword bandwagon trying to sell products that
really need teams of real scientists etc...
Anyways... thanks for the note. I hope academia will accept me when I am
ready :-)
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: TC15a cryptanalysis
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:59:02 GMT
Now that a few people have seen the TC15a source code, has anyone come up
with a good attack method (ahem Scott Fluhrer ... you can speak up :-) ).
I've tried to find 1R differentials using the same program I used to analyze
TC15 and there are no 1R differentials with four or less active sboxes.
I've noted a simple low-active sbox count when you toggle the two msbs of
the first two inputs. Over the first two rounds I can keep the sbox count
to under 15 most of the time. The problem is that the rotates destroy the
alignment and the differential will not work passed any more rounds. There
is a similar diff in the lsb of the 3rd and fourth inputs but doesn't quite
work as well because of the mult by 3 and 9.
I want to start writting a paper about this cipher. Would anyone like to
contribute to it? Either in analysis or implementation details. I would
love to hear about speeds on non-x86 processors (hint download tc15a.c and
run it. It will give you the blocks per second which you can use to divide
your clock rate by and get a rough estimate) such as the Alpha and PPC. I
feel this is a "sci.crypt" cipher (but TC15 is a shorter name!) so all are
welcomed.
--
Tom St Denis
---
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 11:57:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'd have a hard time justifying killing a burglar who stole some
> > property...
>
> You're using the past tense! There's no doctrine which permits ``self
> defense'' after the danger has passed.
Yes. I should have expressed that in the present or conditional future
tense.
>
>
> > The hassle of justifying a homicide simply isn't worth it even in the
> > most generous interpretation of justification.
>
> In some states at least, killing a burglar *while* committing his crime
> is considered justified, because the homeowner is justified in assuming
> that the criminal is an armed and present threat.
Yes, but it is a chancy thing. The determination of burglar status is
subject to challenge. Especially in the civil suit brought by relatives
wherein you aren't protected by the heavy burden of proof of a criminal
change.
There is also the moral question of taking a life in defense of property.
A question you'll have to both answer for your own satisfaction and
probably defend before a dozen of your fellow citizens.
------------------------------
From: ca314159 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: analog prime factorization using quantum computers
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 11:59:28 GMT
Below is a non-deterministic prime factorization program.
It uses Miller's algorithm, the same one Pete Shor refers to
in his classic quantum computer prime factorization paper:
http://www.research.att.com/~shor/
If one runs the program below, the results are not deterministic.
The wordsize of turbo 4.0 is sometimes too small to handle the
results and an overflow error results, but because it is a
non-deterministic algorithm it is possible that the results
will not 'decohere' and then, either a trivial or non-trivial
factor will be 'measured'. It may take several 'experiments'
or runs of the program before it spits out a non-trivial factor.
A quantum computer would attempt to perform this algorithm
as fast as possible by analog computing the whole function:
r^i mod n
and it's period (1/frequency), in parallel
(instantaneously, in principle) for all i.
This period can be found by taking the Fourier transform
of the function and looking for the lowest frequency peak.
In optics, the analog Fourier transform can be obtained
from a prism, a Stern-Gerlach device, a convex lense or some
equivalent method.
This alot like analog cepstral (convoluted "spectral")
pitch detection:
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~elec532/PROJECTS00/vocode/pitch/pitch.html
It amounts to "finding the order of r^i mod n".
Computing the the order of this function potentially
consumes an exponential amount of computational
memory-time, so a quantum analog/digital computer attempts
to do just the hard (analog) part of the algorithm with
maximum efficiency in terms of physical space and time
by 'superposing' the inherent non-deterministic aspects
of quantum measurements on top of the non-deterministic
aspects of Miller's algorithm.
As a result, the quantum computer may not necessarily
produce a non-trivial answer for a particular run,
but its strong adherence to Miller's algorithm gives
it a good chance of doing so much faster than a
classical computer. Ultimately a hybrid analog-digital
quantum computer would simply repeat the experiment
over and over until a non-trivial result occured;
and this would still be faster than a classical
computer.
Alternatively, all these separate "runs"
could be superposed into one experiment.
In this example, the interpretation of
"wavefunction collapse" is not present since the
whole function can be stored in a deterministic
array but in the physical representation of that
function, the r^i mod n could be represented as
the superposition of all r and all i forming
a surface function: f(r,i,n) which is compressed
into a single "wavefunction" by superposition.
In this case we'd want all the trivial
and overflow (decohered) surface components
(states) to cancel out leaving only the
non-decohered non-trivial components and
then we'd "collapse" this "wavefunction"
into one of those factors by measuring
(projecting) it. This might be accomplished
by providing a means by which the items
to be cancelled out are inverted and then
added to themselves to nullify them.
(curiously, one recent article (in Nature?)
went so far as to suggest that a quantum computer
could calculate without even being "switched on")
Program Miller;
(* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *)
uses crt,graph;
var err,a,b:integer;
z,n,r,i,p,x,y:longint;
function gcd(m,n:longint):longint;
begin
if n = 0 then gcd:=m else
if m = 0 then gcd:=n else
gcd:=gcd(n,m mod n);
end;
begin
a:=detect;
b:=vga;
clrscr;
(* Initgraph(a,b,'c:\tp55');
err:=GraphResult; *)
randomize;
repeat (* prepare a suitable random number *)
r:=random(N-1)+3;
until ((r mod 2)<>0) and (gcd(n,r)=1);
n:=133; (* the number to factor *)
for i:=0 to 134 do (* powers of the random number *)
begin
z:=1;
for p:=1 to i do z:=z*r mod n; (* r^i mod n *)
(* it's done this way because turbo pascal does not have
an explicit power operator; but mainly because it minimizes
the explosion of the longints *)
(* bar(i*3,300,i*3+1,300-z); *) (* plot the 'wavefunction' *)
if (z=1) and (i>0) then
(* measure the wavefunction *)
(* (find the period of the wavefunction; *)
(* mathematically, the order of r^i mod n) *)
(* actually this is a cheapo time-domain version of
taking the fourier transform of r^i mod n over all i
and doing peak detection, but since this is a
non-deterministic algorithm it works sometimes;
just not as well as doing it "the right way".
Doing it the right way would improve the chances
of getting a non-trivial answer on a particular
run of the program.
*)
begin
writeln;
writeln('N=',n); (* the number to factor *)
writeln(' r=',r); (* the random seed *)
writeln(' p=',i-1); (* the period *)
writeln(' gcd(',n,',',r,'^',(i-1) div 2,'+1)'); (* factor1 *)
writeln(' gcd(',n,',',r,'^',(i-1) div 2,'-1)'); (* factor2 *)
x:=gcd(trunc(exp(((i-1) div 2)*ln(r))+1),n);
y:=gcd(trunc(exp(((i-1) div 2)*ln(r))-1),n);
writeln(x,' ',y); (* factors *)
repeat until keypressed;
halt;
end;
end;
repeat until keypressed;
end.
------------------------------
From: "Harris Georgiou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What about SDD?
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:04:02 +0300
Thanks for the tips. I don't know if they reffer to the same thing as I do
(haven't read them yet) but I think they are really close.
--
Harris
- 'Malo e lelei ki he pongipongi!'
� Dennis Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ������ ��� ������ ���������:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Rob Warnock wrote (quoting Georgiou):
> >
> > 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
> ...
> > http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/chaffing.txt
> ...
>
> Although this paper is as technically inventive and astute as one
> one expects from Rivest, I can't and couldn't help feeling that
> his tongue was firmly in his cheek during its writing. It's in part
> a reductio ad absurdum of rules that allowed export of signature
verification
> techniques while regulating message crypto. Somehow (if the USG
> had continued along the road parts of it wanted to), I don't think
> it would have survived a court test.
>
> For another idea along the same lines, this one is worth investigating
> just for a giggle:
>
> http://www.spammimic.com
>
> Dennis
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
