Cryptography-Digest Digest #401, Volume #14 Mon, 21 May 01 03:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Help with a message ("Jeffrey Walton")
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they find? (Frog2)
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they find? (Colonel Flagg ��)
Distance Learning Cryptography courses? (Ryan Senior)
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) (wtshaw)
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they ("Omnivore")
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they ("Omnivore")
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they ("Omnivore")
Re: Cipher that is an involution? (wtshaw)
64-bit key for DES (ritesh)
Re: truth+integrity=sore losers (Vincent Quesnoit)
Q: What's the use of the 4 additive constants in SHA-1 ("Vincent Ip")
Re: Evidence Eliminator Detractors Working Hard But No Result? (Eric Lee Green)
Re: We are a scam - Like This Post Is.... (Eric Lee Green)
Re: We are a scam - Like This Post Is.... (Eric Lee Green)
Re: We are a scam (Eric Lee Green)
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they find? (Eric Lee Green)
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they find? (Eric Lee Green)
Re: Evidence Eliminator works great. Beware anybody who claims it doesn't work
(propaganda) (Eric Lee Green)
Re: PGP details ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PGP details ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "Jeffrey Walton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Jeffrey Walton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with a message
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:28:20 -0400
.047 would seem to indicate approximately 3 alphabets. However, my
Vigenere tool suggests a key length of 15. It does not properly decode
based on 15 (the tool I use is not that powerful).
"gp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Yes. It is in english as far as I know. I agrre that Z is probably
: space. I thought it might be Vigenere but cannot work out a keyword
: length- 3,6,9,15 ??
: The original message featured in the TIMES so I believe it is genuine.
------------------------------
From: Frog2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 May 2001 03:19:50 -0000
Subject: Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they find?
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.privacy.anon-server
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Johnny Bravo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 22:49:21 +0100, "EE Support"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Eric Lee Green is exposed for posting blatant lies about Evidence
> >Eliminator.
>
> I have yet to see you even address the charges against the failures
> of your product, much less you expose any lies on his part.
>
> >He has been proved to be lying in this debate.
>
> Don't confuse yourself and him. The only lying scumbag I've seen
> around here so far is the EE SPAM team.
>
Amen! They're just spamming fukkheads.
------------------------------
From: Colonel Flagg �� <[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: Mon, 21 May 2001 04:06:05 GMT
On or about the date of Tue, 15 May 2001 22:33:35 +0100, "EE Support"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was subjected to electric shock treatments
and chinese water torture to obtain the following (NOTE: No animals were harmed during
this experiment.):
>By now you will have witnessed the mass hysteria about Evidence Eliminator.
>
The "hysteria" is caused by the lack of proof that your product works. Where are the
tests
by the independent labs that have no interests in your business or profit thereof?
>Do you want to know why this is happening?
>
>You are witnessing "Dis-Information" (propaganda)
>
We are witness to a logical process by which the consumer (us) questions the motives
and
abilities of the producer (you). If you provide to "evidence" to backup your
statements,
the web savvy consumer will not purchase your product and will otherwise advise others
not
to also.
>Evidence Eliminator is a really easy-to-use one click program which is fully
>proven to defeat all forensic analysis software.
>
Not on a NTFS drive it isn't. BTW, I wonder how it would work against a Unix partition?
You guessed it.. it WON'T.
>It can defeat even the tools used by the US Secret Service, and the USA
>Customs Service and LAPD.
>
That is INCORRECT. It will not defeat tools used on NTFS or Unix partitions, therefore
you
are lying!
>You can get a copy of this software with a lifetime license for free
>downloads. Everlasting protection available now.
>
>Evidence Eliminator is so amazing you can even get a 30-day money back
>guarantee on the software AND keycodes, protected by your credit card
>company. You can buy total lifetime protection for just $149 - truly
>incredible value.
>
junk that doesn't work on professional grade operating systems.
>Try Evidence Eliminator today and see why there are so many false messages
>on the Internet telling you not to try it.
>
the only false statements in this post, were coming from your keyboard.
>You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. We can clean your hard
>drive so well that even the FBI-type software could not get evidence back
>from it.
>
>http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/main.shtml
>
again, wrong. If you don't support NTFS and Unix partitions, what good is it? Again,
you
are targeting those among us that are virtually ignorant in computer knowledge. Not the
ones that KNOW it doesn't work 100% like you say it does.
You want to advertise, hell, I don't have a problem with a *little* spam now and then..
just don't try to throw garbage down our throats and fill our ears with noise.
Reevaluate
your marketing strategy and PROVE your product to us. We are the consumers, in this
case,
the burden of proof is on you, not us.
>--
>Best Regards,
>The Evidence Eliminator Support Team
>http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/support.shtml
Again, this is my SIGNATURE.. for those that didn't know it, EE Support didn't have a
clue
what a signature was until I broadened their horizons, showing them the functions of a
signature:
--
Colonel Flagg
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/1475/
"Big Brother is watching you, Little Brother is too.
When Big Brother goes to sleep, Little Brother goes
through his stuff." - Unknown Author
------------------------------
From: Ryan Senior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Distance Learning Cryptography courses?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:13:24 -0500
Hello,
I was wondering if any one knew
of any crypotography
courses offered over the internet
or something similar such
as independent study? Cryptography
seems very interesting
to me and it would be nice to be
able to take a class in it and
there is not a whole course
dedicated to cryptography where
I attend college.
Thanks,
Ryan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:39:57 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel) wrote:
> Maybe a newsgroup search for posters who use idioms and cliches
> such as "knee-jerk loudmouth," "shoots first and asks questions later,"
> "hair-trigger mind," and "grasp the depths" would yield something about
> Just Looking's identity. And don't forget the phrases: "standing in the blast
> of true
> reality" and "still all about you." Searching for those could be helpful,
> too.
>
> This is fun!
>
> Joe
>
You just earned more points than a porcupine.
--
George W. Bush is the weakest link...guh bye.
------------------------------
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
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 21:56:18 -0700
"EE Support" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:d3XN6.8171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Eric Lee Green is exposed for posting blatant lies about Evidence
> Eliminator. He has been proved to be lying in this debate.
liar
------------------------------
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
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 21:57:19 -0700
"EE Support" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:f3XN6.8172$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Eric Lee Green is exposed for posting blatant lies about Evidence
> Eliminator. He has been proved to be lying in this debate.
liar
------------------------------
From: "Omnivore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 21:57:43 -0700
"EE Support" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:b3XN6.8169$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Eric Lee Green is exposed for posting blatant lies about Evidence
> Eliminator. He has been proved to be lying in this debate.
liar
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Cipher that is an involution?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:53:25 -0600
In article <%wVN6.146247$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom St
Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would be a weakness of a cipher that was it's own inverse? I.e if the
> cipher is F(x) then F(F(x)) = x
> --
> Tom St Denis
With a couple of simple ciphers in mind, the key is half the size that it
might otherwise be. Self-solving tables are easy to make. Shuffle a set
of all elements. Draw two at a time and enter each pair of values at
their complements in the table.
--
Suppose California quit sending food back East.
Would Gerorge be ready to barter with energy?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ritesh)
Subject: 64-bit key for DES
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 05:31:29 +0000 (UTC)
Hi ALL:
I am a Amateur Cryptographer working on the development of a 64-bit key
for a DES,Kindly help me in the same with the algorithm.
Regards
Ritesh
--
Posted from [202.58.164.174]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
------------------------------
From: Vincent Quesnoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: truth+integrity=sore losers
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 07:30:04 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not sure you would even have a case. If you consider this from the business
angle, you probably cost the company more money by doing that public statement
than they ever got from your work. Since any company hires people to benefit
from their work, what would you expect them to do ?
Though I understand perfectly how difficult it its to see people "embellish" the
truth in their advertisment, it is not very ethical to take a company's money
then publicly bash them.
If they had done something that was against the law, you would have a case, but
it does not seem to be what actually happened..
Vincent
Tom St Denis a �crit :
> "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > They had no official reason for firing me except to say "if you don't
> know
> > > what you did wrong you shouldn't be here".
> >
> > You might have grounds for a lawsuit if you were fired without cause.
> > Write down what you can remember of verbal discussions and take that
> > and all relevant written documentation, including job description,
> > performance standards, etc. to a lawyer to see if you have a case.
> > (Often, lawyers will help determine that without charging a fee; the
> > fee is due only if you pursue the case, sometimes only if you win.)
>
> I would but a) I don't have time, b) knowing this world I will lose and
> probably get a counter-suit.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion but I have to concentrate my energy on school and
> my crypto research.
>
> All i remember really is "what you said" and "if you don't know what you did
> wrong ...". They never actually said what I said was wrong or what I did to
> harm the company.
>
> I don't want to pursue this, I want everyone to know how much they are not
> professional. And to avoid them like the plague until they smarten up.
>
> Tom
------------------------------
From: "Vincent Ip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Q: What's the use of the 4 additive constants in SHA-1
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:55:40 +0800
Hi all,
I noticed that additive constants are used in many hash algorithms but I
don't know what's the design idea behind.
To introduce a message independent components for the message digest?
Could anyone explain the design reasons?
Thanks in advance
Regards
Pong
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: Evidence Eliminator Detractors Working Hard But No Result?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:25:02 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 20 May 2001 22:49:08 +0100, EE Support <support_removethis@
evidence-eliminator.com> wrote:
>Eric Lee Green is exposed for posting blatant lies about Evidence
>Eliminator. He has been proved to be lying in this debate.
I challenge Mr. Andy Churchill to post any such proofs. I have made
three basic statements:
1. Mr. Churchill spams.
2. Mr. Churchill libels his critics.
3. Mr. Churchill violates my copyrights by posting copyrighted material
from my web site on his web site, for commercial purposes.
All of these are documented at:
http://badtux.org/eric/editorial/scumbags.html
and #1 and #2 have been verified by Mr. Churchill's spamming and libel
activities on this newsgroup.
It appears that Mr. Churchill would rather do #2 than address the issues.
Mr. Churchill's posting activities appear to be an implementation of the
following algorithm:
- -------Snip---------------
# These are the pre-defined messages that EE_Support posts. this is Python.
messages= {
'spam': """By now you've heard all the bad stuff about Evidence
Eliminator, now we will spam your ears off! Buy buy buy our software!
Tastes great! Less filling! Eliminates hemmorhoids! Cures the common
cold! And we don't spam either!""",
'libel': """Eric Lee Green is a government spy and lies! Read all about it
on our libel page!""",
'evade': "Our software works, and you can't prove it doesn't work!",
'support': """This user is a moron! If he'd read the directions and used
the product right, he wouldn't have had problems!"""
}
while 1:
for s in messages.keys():
spam("sci.crypt,alt.privacy,alt.binaries.pedophiles",messages[s])
continue
continue
- -------end snip---------
The implementation of the spam() subroutine is left as an exercise for
the reader :-).
Oh, here's the "proof" that the EE guys were talking about:
http://www.nimitz.net/randy/
Whoops, sorry, that's a spoof of their reasoning processes :-).
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7CLO53DrrK1kMA04RAokGAJ9y7ieMSCGUxhZ99W+kYqRQopUgagCgg/wq
CKrVOvXaYs0SNOMKkvFQ6gw=
=s1ec
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: We are a scam - Like This Post Is....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:30:30 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 20 May 2001 18:54:25 -0400, P.Dulles <*@*.com> wrote:
>>:
>>: Don't get dis-informed - get the facts:
>>:
>>: Eric Lee Green targets Evidence Eliminator users with false web pages:
>>:
>>: http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.shtml
>>:
>>: --
>>: Best Regards,
>>: The Evidence Eliminator Support Team
>>: http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/support.shtml
>
>How many times must you post this before people become aware that you
>are scared of Eric Lee Green?
The pathetic thing is that all they have to do to get me to go away is
to quit libeling me. Don't mention my name, remove any mention of me
from their web site, and I have better things to do than hang around
playing with sleazeball spammers. The one (1) message that I wrote in
the first five months that I was aware of their existence is probably
one more than I would have written in the past two months, except for
one issue -- the more they libel me, the more irritated and motivated
I get, and the more likely I am to reply to their spam. I guess it's
that Louisiana redneck in me. Now that we're civilized in Louisiana we
don't go around shooting spammers anymore, but we still don't back away
from a fight either.
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7CLUB3DrrK1kMA04RAghfAJ9O22yNzC18pOiNAgAIyW4tvX3gxACeLiYi
LXfaIMalZfeqKE1mEIxQMFY=
=Z4Sw
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: We are a scam - Like This Post Is....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:31:56 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 20 May 2001 22:49:06 +0100, EE Support <support_removethis@evidence-
eliminator.com> wrote:
>Eric Lee Green is exposed for posting blatant lies about Evidence
>Eliminator. He has been proved to be lying in this debate.
Yawn. Are these spammers, libelers, and copyright violating criminals still
hanging around on this newsgroup?
Who would want to buy software from criminals anyhow, when there's
REPUTABLE companies out there to buy software from?
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7CLVX3DrrK1kMA04RAgRFAJ47VhgptHci0/Ieh/HO+qOfc+rMuACgrn0B
UPHePEcROO6OphRPK0hvvlg=
=/uOH
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: We are a scam
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:40:10 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 20 May 2001 18:57:36 -0400, P.Dulles <*@*.com> wrote:
>In article <j3XN6.8177$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>: If you can distill your questions to a simple format and prove that
Evidence
>>: Eliminator doesn't not work, we will upgrade it. There's so much junk and
>>: stooge posts on this NG. Is it not just a little too much to expect any
>>: company to sort through the noise on here to find a good question to answer.
>>: Our tech support is always happy to help.
>
>Right - cowards way out. I couldn't have made the questions and more
>simple or direct had I addressed them to an elementary schooler. Look
>for the thread "TO EE SUPPORT" if you feel like answering them.
Dulles, you forget that you're actually talking to a spambot. This
just happened to be the 'evade' message of the limited range of
messages that the spambot knows about.
I will be posting a link to the EE_Support_Eliminator as soon as I get
finished with it. It's really a neat little piece of Python code. It goes
out and fetches subject headings from security related newsgroups and looks
for the word "evidence", or references to "EE_Support" or "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
It then chooses a random message to post to the newsgroup as a
reply. At the moment, the choices are 'spam' ("Tastes great! Less filling!
Cures the common cold!"), "libel" ("Eric Lee Green is a government spy
and lies! Read all about it on our libel page!"), "evade" ("Our software
works and you can't prove it doesn't work!"), and "support" ("You're
a moron! If you'd read the directions and used the product right,
you wouldn't have had any problems!"). Suggestions for further messages
to include in the EE_Support_Eliminator are welcome :-).
(Note: Please do NOT actually *RUN* the EE_Support_Eliminator! The real
thing is obnoxious enough :-).
(And yes, I'm on the beach right now and am a bit bored... my fingers
wanted to write code, and this was the most useless piece of code I
could think of to write :-).
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7CLdF3DrrK1kMA04RAoz0AKCb8gF9ADyckvmN2LznJwAXY966DgCfR6J6
U1TJMyNY6dCsI8BipFWn/Bw=
=wkfi
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:42:33 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 20 May 2001 22:48:57 +0100, EE Support <support_removethis@
evidence-eliminator.com> wrote:
>Eric Lee Green is exposed for posting blatant lies about Evidence
>Eliminator. He has been proved to be lying in this debate.
Yawn. Yet more spam from the spamming copyright violating criminal.
Anybody who'd buy software from this slanderin' fool is a few rocks short
of a full load of marbles.
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7CLfT3DrrK1kMA04RAmNOAJ9KqXset41T5SN6TSK0eRufYAs/HACfYHoL
ud7lz4aahpjI9msrOCkAfNI=
=IvHJ
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:46:55 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 21 May 2001 13:05:40 +1000, Andrew Sullivan <sullivanam@Don'tSpam
Mehotpop.com> wrote:
>Yeah, I see what you mean Omivore. It looks like some kind of E-rubber stamp.
>
>Or is that EE-rubber stamp?
Naw, it's just the EE-bot, posting the same message over and over
again. Somebody needs to kick it to get it out of its loop.
Meanwhile, see the page that EE_Support doesn't want you to see:
http://badtux.org/eric/editorial/scumbags.html
Unlike EE_Support, I'm not selling anything.
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7CLjZ3DrrK1kMA04RAggaAKCWLeoXwI4DMnB8ykY5GA7EfFXTsACfTZ+t
dBLDAvH+P5LNdAHE8AGQVMs=
=dGba
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: Evidence Eliminator works great. Beware anybody who claims it doesn't
work (propaganda)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:54:49 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 15 May 2001 23:07:19 GMT, Shaun Hollingworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 15 May 2001 21:46:35 -0000, Ahab
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Thought this was just another forged post, but look at the headers. Posted
>>from ntl in Nottingham. Actual official spam.
>>
>[Shaun in alt.security.scramdisk]
>
>If anyone can Email me their address I'll drive down to Nottingham and
>tell them what I think.... EE had a fine reputation..... Which is now
>in tatters... Destroyed by those whose interests I would have thought
>would have been to protect it.
Their address is public record. It is on their incorporation papers,
which another UK citizen helpfully mailed to me (what, you don't think
*I* care enough about these spamming fools to pay for a copy, do
you?). I can't re-post those incorporation papers because they are
under Crown copyright, but I can definitely post the info from those
papers, including who the two principals are, their date of birth, and
their address. See:
http://badtux.org/eric/editorial/scumbags.html
for the package.
PS: They also said that Scramdisk has a back door in it. I'm sure that makes
YOU happy!
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7CLqz3DrrK1kMA04RAhjoAKC7GFVys22L3tnYZQPoiFOfZ4/n/wCeO3pF
kfXgWAGXsFw0r4IatobqfsI=
=jgbh
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PGP details
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:47:53 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: RIPEMD160
Andrew McDonald wrote:
> > I'm a power PGP user and I'm unaware of a way to
> > change the default cipher through any UI. The real
> > question is whether that default is in the signed
> > part of the packet or not,
preferences is in self signature (in signed part).
> > and if it is, it would
> > effectively require getting all the signatures to
> > be done again.
no. only self sig should be make again.
> > I wouldn't be surprised if it *is*
> > in the signed part (but I haven't checked). So, my
> > guess is no, you can't do it.
>
> It can be done (not very nicely though) with gnupg.
yes.. but GnuPG will put also Preferred Hash and
Preferred Compress Algo list in key.
you may want (need) to modify this one too - because GnuPG will put ZLIB as
Preferred Compress Algo and this is not supported by PGP so messages
encrypted with GnuPG will not decrypt on PGP...
== <EOF> ==
Disastry http://i.am/disastry/
http://disastry.dhs.org/pgp <----PGP plugins for Netscape and MDaemon
^--GPG for Win32 (supports loadable modules and IDEA)
^---PGP 2.6.3ia-multi03 (supports IDEA, CAST5, BLOWFISH, TWOFISH,
AES, 3DES ciphers and MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160 hashes)
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: Netscape PGP half-Plugin 0.15 by Disastry / PGPsdk v1.7.1
iQA/AwUBOwidpDBaTVEuJQxkEQOvnQCdEEZE/GO8iaiH/fBKZ85oFEET098AoPC4
ej+euQi361b7SZORteWJpCGu
=OHMk
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PGP details
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:54:53 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: RIPEMD160
Tom McCune wrote:
> >> In the key properties the "Cipher" field reports the algo that WAS
> >> default when the key was created. Does this mean that this particular
> >> key works only with this cipher (i.e. CAST), even if my current
> >> preference is TripleDES or AES? And if so, can I modify this key
> >> setting in PGP?
> >
> >Aska pgp users group. This NG is mostly for theory questions.
this is would be more appropriate place...
> <snip>
>
> If your key's preference is CAST, then anytime anyone is encrypting only
> to your key, CAST will be used.
key contains preference list, not only one preference
(of course list can consist of only one cipher, but normally there is several)
so if CAST (lets assume that CAST is on top of pref list) is disabled,
PGP will get next cipher from list, I think...
> If you remove the self signature, the
> preference will default to IDEA, but that is the only way the PGP GUI
> will change the key's preference.
however RFC2440 says that 3DES should be used (if no there is no preferences):
http://www.imc.org/rfc2440
http://www.imc.org/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis
12. Notes on Algorithms
12.1. Symmetric Algorithm Preferences
<snip> Note also that if an
implementation does not implement the preference, then it is
implicitly a TripleDES-only implementation.
== <EOF> ==
Disastry http://i.am/disastry/
http://disastry.dhs.org/pgp <----PGP plugins for Netscape and MDaemon
^--GPG for Win32 (supports loadable modules and IDEA)
^---PGP 2.6.3ia-multi03 (supports IDEA, CAST5, BLOWFISH, TWOFISH,
AES, 3DES ciphers and MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160 hashes)
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: Netscape PGP half-Plugin 0.15 by Disastry / PGPsdk v1.7.1
iQA/AwUBOwifmDBaTVEuJQxkEQOxXgCghjT8AkYQ5pMFkhwaYhSXS0jBRnIAn20n
uHxpG8Z7ebVd/uoyAFjWPDh1
=scdh
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
