Cryptography-Digest Digest #391, Volume #14 Sat, 19 May 01 14:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply) (Martin Schultz)
Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Kernaugh maps (try #2) ("Alexis Machado")
Help with a message (gp)
Re: America Civil War Private Shorthand (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Help working through RSA example in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition (Charles
Lyttle)
Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply) ("Matt Timmermans")
Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply) ("Matt Timmermans")
Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: What about SDD? (Mok-Kong Shen)
CIA Kryptos last 97 characters (Gary Warzin)
Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest ("Trevor
L. Jackson, III")
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) (Tim Tyler)
Re: DES Encryption - salt? (Custerstoe)
Re: OAP-L3: "The absurd weakness." (Taneli Huuskonen)
Re: TC15a cryptanalysis ("Scott Fluhrer")
Re: TC15a cryptanalysis ("Tom St Denis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 14:54:16 +0200
On Fri, 18 May 2001 11:21:07 GMT, "Tom St Denis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
K6-II Cycles: 218
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 13:00:09 GMT
"Martin Schultz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 11:21:07 GMT, "Tom St Denis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >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
> K6-II Cycles: 218
Hmm another dude said with a K6II they got 222... could you please run this
once more just to be sure.
Tom
------------------------------
Subject: Re: OFF-topic by now - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest
Algorithm)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 19 May 2001 09:13:39 -0400
"Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> There is also the moral question of taking a life in defense of
> property.
You keep equating ``killing a burglar'' with ``taking life in defense of
property''. Where do you get that presumption?
You seem to discount that a burglar in your house constitutes a potential
threat to your *life*. One reasonable response, rather than waiting for
him to kill somebody, might be to draw, aim, and--if the burglar continues
to appear threatening--to fire. That's self-defense, not defense of
property.
> The determination of burglar status is subject to challenge.
Yeah; if the burglar is your own cousin Louie, you might have trouble
proving he was caught breaking and entering. If he turns out to be armed
only with Watchtower publications, you might have trouble proving he was
a burglar. All that is true.
But that's tangential to the discussion. You're moving to the question,
``how do you know he's a burglar, and not a roving air-conditioner
repairman?'' We were talking about ``shooting burglars'', and implicit
in the phrase is that we're talking about burglars, not nosy neighbors
or presumptuous repairmen.
Len.
------------------------------
From: "Alexis Machado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernaugh maps (try #2)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 11:07:33 -0300
Reply-To: "Alexis Machado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Jeffrey Walton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b0498ae$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't see how to drop the a, Alexis. Forgive my ignorance.
>
Hi Jeff,
There are some usefull identities for these cases.
Two distributive rules:
a(b + c) = ab + ac
a + bc = (a + b)(a + c)
Note: The second is less intuitive because of the association of "and" and
"or" with multiplication and addition operations.
Two absorption (?) rules
a + ab = a1 + ab = a(1 + b) = a(1) = a
a' + ab = (a' + a)(a' + b) = 1(a' + b) = a' + b
In your expression a'c + a'b'd' + ab'c + ab'd
a'c + ab'c = (a' + ab')c = (a' + b')c = a'c + b'c
---
Alexis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (gp)
Subject: Help with a message
Date: 19 May 2001 07:51:00 -0700
I have a message from a newspaper report, I have been trying to read.
It is in code but I cannot figure any of it out. Can anyone offer any
hint or advice please ? Message is below:-
YMAUVZTPFZIPCZKDXZXNUXJIPUTKEZIXZALSQS
NUZJPJZUMPOBADVZFXZMADAMQZHAXEZYJZYPDSQHZB
MYKAEZLAKXFZSMAZJPJZUMPOBADVZUJKZYXYDQFXS
BQHZSPYVMOBAZIXZYSSZKZRXLCZIMBPJXZAGJPUIZNAZ
JEAZIWPFVKQUZYMMAXZUMBNYZDAIZEAMKTZQ
TOMIZNOZUMAYFYZSKZGSQZPRZIPFMZDFEHCFHZSE
HZRNCITZOTEVKFZYCAUYAXINPQZOKLZKDCFAZM
PUEMAEZTPFMZQXKYXMOZNFJXZJMEFQHZMASUZE
JPJZQPGOFJZTVZUJKZUJJZOXYLCFZYM
FZNCXXXVOZJIZNCXHFYMQCZXSMHYZJMKBZKFKPDAY
TYKKBEZTVOFFZKZQPGOFJZTIZEJPZFTVDZIXZOFSNK
TZPQFZEJPZGFVYZEFBTVAZSZVAGPJXZOAIWPEZX
CZTECJMGTEVZFVZKQUZYMNOZNNQKZMAPPMCFZKEU
MINPQAQZNXJVZAUEZAZXJEOXDLXEYZEFQSTZCJM
ZOXYLCNYHZSLCSPYFOZNFZUXFHZIXZKWXMEZKDX
ZOMYPOXZXCZGAJEVZMQZYMCYLKAYTXUZOTZNXMO
JEOZJKPXMZYMAUZHXLCVAKIZYMFJXIPCFZPQBEZRN
JYKZCTRAZNNQKZJPCHZYMFZJXVYZNNQK
ZLAZWXMEZNYZNXLKUZRXZFKYNACZIPCZLPI
WZPRZPOZIXZHCXNZHXLCZMAPPMCFGX
EYZSKZKZUBKGFZPRZTPFMZXMXPYNUBZEPZMAUEXBX
MOZNXLKUZRXZNUWXQWFHZNXJVNUBZ
WKCUZPQZTPFMZNCXTXYYZUBASVAZGXURN
JDZTPFMZHTMAGKMJEOZIXZJXVPKRAZJPJZUMPOBADV
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: America Civil War Private Shorthand
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:15:32 GMT
Dave Smith wrote:
>
> 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/
> Ironclad Publishing http://www.ironcladpub.com/
> ------------------------------------------------------------
Hi.
One of my ancestors was William Haynes Lytle of the 10th Ohio.
The first thing I would suggest is to scan the journals into digital
form. Be sure to scan some of the longhand ones also. These will provide
clues as to style and vocabulary. If you can, also create a file with as
much as you know as to the location and activities of Hannaford or his
unit on dates in the journals. Post these on the internet. Then try to
notify as many interested organizations as possible. Someone will pick
up the ball and run with it (for free). The majority of these private
shorthand's aren't that difficult. Its just a matter of finding the
person with the interest and time to do it.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help working through RSA example in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:26:59 GMT
Beatlebum wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> TIA
>
> Beatle.
Others have explained the concept of modulus but here is the math
79*1019 = 80501 =3220*25 + 1
Thus 79^-1 mod 3220 is 1019
and 1019^-1 mod 3220 is 79
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "Matt Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 12:00:00 -0400
It's an original Athlon.
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:PorN6.133294$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matt Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:r6iN6.27885$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On my Athlon 700: 175 cycles
>
> Is this a t-bird or the original Athlon?
>
> Tom
------------------------------
From: "Matt Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 12:01:42 -0400
It varies a bit with each run, probably according to how much it gets
interrupted by other threads. I always seem to get between 170 and 180.
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t7uN6.134479$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hmm another dude said with a K6II they got 222... could you please run
this
> once more just to be sure.
>
> Tom
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: People with x86 cpus (please reply)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:34:16 GMT
"Matt Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:eJwN6.34129$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It varies a bit with each run, probably according to how much it gets
> interrupted by other threads. I always seem to get between 170 and 180.
Yeah I get about 172 on each run... with winamp going I get 185... heheheh
Thanks for the info.
Tom
>
> "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:t7uN6.134479$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hmm another dude said with a K6II they got 222... could you please run
> this
> > once more just to be sure.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What about SDD?
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:42:34 +0200
Harris Georgiou wrote:
>
> Of course it is not stego, but not clearly cryptography either, because the
> original plaintext is still there scattered between noise. My guess is that
> a scheme like this (SDD) will come somewhere between encryption and stego,
> as it has the property of key-dependence (like crypto) while at the same
> time access is prevented by hiding (like stego) rather than transforming
> into ciphertext.
> Is there any s/w implementing something like broad-spectrum comms for
> ordinary PC applications (like mail for example)?
My poor knowledge failed for me to capture what you meant
by 'broad-spectrum comms' above. I have a program that
does the following: The user can choose the percentage
of the average amount of information bits in the total
of bits sent. A PRNG determines whether to emit a dummy
(pseudo-random) bit or an information bit according to
that percentage. If it decides to emit an information bit,
then it sends the xor of the next plaintext bit with a bit
from a bit stream that is also generated by the PRNG. (The
PRNG I used is a compound one of my own humble design,
consisting of an arbitrary number of component PRNGs which
are activated in a pseudo-random order determined according
to outputs from these PRNGs themselves.)
M. K. Shen
==========================
http://home.t-online.de/home/mok-kong.shen
------------------------------
Subject: CIA Kryptos last 97 characters
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Warzin)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:49:02 GMT
I had a chance to see Kryptos up close a couple of weeks ago. Since then I've
been working on the remaining 97 characters. I've noticed something
"interesting" that may indicate that there is an underlying table "hidden"
under the message. Anyone else working on this?
I've posted some notes at www.iquest.net/~gwarzin.
============================
Gary Warzin
Audiohile Systems, Ltd.
Indianapolis, Indiana
garyw (at) aslgroup (dot) com
------------------------------
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 16:59:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > There is also the moral question of taking a life in defense of
> > property.
>
> You keep equating ``killing a burglar'' with ``taking life in defense of
> property''. Where do you get that presumption?
I'm not making a tenuous assumption, you are. A burglar is a thief who enters
unlawfully. A robber is one who threatens a person in order to obtain their
property. It's perfectly reasonable to use lethal force against a robber who
threatens lethal force. Its not so reasonable to use lethal force against a
burglar because he has not presented a threat to life or limb. Of course is a
surprised burglar does become or threaten to become violent then he's not a
only burglar, but something in addition to burglary that justifies the use of
force.
The unsupported assumption is that burglar will become a robber upon
encountering a resident, or that a startled burglar will react violently. But
the fact is that burglars tend to flee.
>
>
> You seem to discount that a burglar in your house constitutes a potential
> threat to your *life*. One reasonable response, rather than waiting for
> him to kill somebody, might be to draw, aim, and--if the burglar continues
> to appear threatening--to fire.
When in the above scenario did the burglar appear threatening? That
assumption is invalid.
> That's self-defense, not defense of
> property.
But the act that triggers the defensive response is not burglary, but a
threat. That threat exceeds the bounds of the crime of burglary. The point
of the distinction is that one cannot simply open fire upon a thief busy
carrying out the family TV or bending over the family safe.
>
>
> > The determination of burglar status is subject to challenge.
>
> Yeah; if the burglar is your own cousin Louie, you might have trouble
> proving he was caught breaking and entering. If he turns out to be armed
> only with Watchtower publications, you might have trouble proving he was
> a burglar. All that is true.
>
> But that's tangential to the discussion. You're moving to the question,
> ``how do you know he's a burglar, and not a roving air-conditioner
> repairman?'' We were talking about ``shooting burglars'', and implicit
> in the phrase is that we're talking about burglars, not nosy neighbors
> or presumptuous repairmen.
But this approach is backward. One does not construct a general behavioral
rule by selected examples. One searches for the simplest, most general rule
that applies, and then refines it in light of special circumstances.
In this instance shooting burglars is not justifiable because in many
jurisdictions the act is not condoned by statute, and in all jurisdictions it
is hard to justify the necessity to use lethal force against a mere burglar.
It also leaves open the issue of the standard to be applied, which is that of
a reasonable man. Would a reasonable man, in possession of the same
information as the defendant, and lacking the same information the defendant
may have discovered afterward, have taken the same action. This is murky
ground.
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:53:41 GMT
Matt Timmermans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This suggests an on-topic question:
: Has anyone heard of a reasonably successful algorithmic method for
: identifying people by writing style?
I think simply looking at word frequencies would pretty reliably identify
some of the folk who post here ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler Rockz reviewed: http://simon.iv2.co.uk/repton/links.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Custerstoe)
Subject: Re: DES Encryption - salt?
Date: 19 May 2001 10:08:39 -0700
"Andreas Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<9e4ajf$t22l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> >> I found many information about DES and so on, but NOTHING about
> >> password encryption and handling the 12bit (or 16 bit?) salt.
>
...
>
> There are a lot of documents outta there describing DES,
> but no one describes the real crypt(3)-routine !
> And I didn't find any real crypt(3) routine, either. Just explanations how
> to use it... And the most crypt.c files were fakes :-(
>
> Why is it so hard to get infos about the crypt(3) routine ?
>
I placed a crypt3 source which should be compatible with unix here. it
creates the key from the password and uses the salt:
http://www.geocities.com/custerstoe.geo/crypt3.c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Taneli Huuskonen)
Crossposted-To: alt.hacker,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: OAP-L3: "The absurd weakness."
Date: 19 May 2001 20:12:08 +0300
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Anthony Stephen Szopa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>I have addressed this problem some time ago with my explanation of a
>proposed Version 5.0 that has been on my web site for over a year now.
Do you remember someone claiming they could break OAP-L3 Version 5 and
challenging you in public? Did anything come of it?
Here's a URL to refresh your memory:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=8b16a21ca43f3359,2&seekm=8u9t8s%2466h%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Taneli Huuskonen
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOwaogF+t0CYLfLaVEQIgrACeIb6N2FEn5y+4A1YLK74RdGw2IeQAoN0N
gNe+W4qt4iMLNFcLzU4Cnuxr
=w7o9
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
--
I don't | All messages will be PGP signed, | Fight for your right to
speak for | encrypted mail preferred. Keys: | use sealed envelopes.
the Uni. | http://www.helsinki.fi/~huuskone/ | http://www.gilc.org/
------------------------------
From: "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TC15a cryptanalysis
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:52:18 -0700
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WlsN6.133704$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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 :-) ).
Well, one weakness is that it doesn't avalanche very well. In particular,
after 7 rounds, these two weaknesses occur:
- If you inject two texts with a one bit differential in bit 30 in A, then
after 7 rounds, bit 0 of A will differ with probability 0.496
- If you inject two texts with a one bit differential in bit 22 in B, then
after 7 rounds, bit 0 of D will differ with probability 0.496
The second can be used in an attack against the full cipher -- inject a
million plaintext pairs with a differential in bit 22 of B. Assume the 4
LSBits of the post-whitening key, and use that do decrypt the bit 0 of D
values, and look for above bias. That only gives you 4 bits of subkey, but
it isn't that difficult to do.
--
poncho
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TC15a cryptanalysis
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:08:23 GMT
"Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e6cjg$mon$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:WlsN6.133704$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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
:-) ).
> Well, one weakness is that it doesn't avalanche very well. In particular,
> after 7 rounds, these two weaknesses occur:
>
> - If you inject two texts with a one bit differential in bit 30 in A, then
> after 7 rounds, bit 0 of A will differ with probability 0.496
>
> - If you inject two texts with a one bit differential in bit 22 in B, then
> after 7 rounds, bit 0 of D will differ with probability 0.496
>
> The second can be used in an attack against the full cipher -- inject a
> million plaintext pairs with a differential in bit 22 of B. Assume the 4
> LSBits of the post-whitening key, and use that do decrypt the bit 0 of D
> values, and look for above bias. That only gives you 4 bits of subkey,
but
> it isn't that difficult to do.
Did you just do a SAC test? (i.e flip bit A and see often it flips bit B)?
So should I check for new rotation values?
Thanks,
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
******************************
