Cryptography-Digest Digest #508, Volume #14 Sun, 3 Jun 01 20:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Quantum Computers with relation to factoring and BBS (Bodo Moeller)
Re: Sv: Top Secret Crypto (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Re: Def'n of bijection ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Question about credit card number (those who know me have no need of my name)
Welcoming another Anti-Evidence Eliminator stooge to USENET (P. Dulles / AKA Loki)
("EE Support")
Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited Again (long) (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: PRP vs PRF (lcs Mixmaster Remailer)
Re: BBS implementation (lcs Mixmaster Remailer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bodo Moeller)
Subject: Re: Quantum Computers with relation to factoring and BBS
Date: 3 Jun 2001 23:27:06 GMT
Mark Wooding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bodo Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> So what we two probably should have done is point out that the
>> question "Is factoring in P?" does not make much sense because "P" is
>> about semi-decision procedures and "factoring" is not a decision
>> problem.
> But since there is a polynomial-time algorithm for extracting a
> nontrivial factor of a number n if and only if there is a polynomial-
> time algorithm for solving the decision problem, we don't actually have
> a problem here.
>
> [Decision-problem to factoring: use binary search; factoring to
> decision-problem: extract all factors -- there are a polynomial number
> of them -- and answer the question.]
This works out because any semi-deciding polynomial time DTM can be
used to build a deciding polynomial time DTM. But similar
constructions don't work in general -- think of probabilistic Turing
machines. I'm still pretty sure that most people in this thread did
not think of factoring as a decision problem when discussing "P" and
"NP".
--
Bodo Möller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP http://www.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/TI/Mitarbeiter/moeller/0x36d2c658.html
* TU Darmstadt, Theoretische Informatik, Alexanderstr. 10, D-64283 Darmstadt
* Tel. +49-6151-16-6628, Fax +49-6151-16-6036
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Sv: Top Secret Crypto
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony L. Svanstrom)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:46:18 GMT
Peter Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is very easy to refer to:
> http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.html
> or something similar.
>
> But that kind of information's are the first you throw yourself into when
> you have interest in encryption.
> I am probably the only one of those who have responded to awns letter who
> also have worked with the program and especially have read the documentation
> which follows the program. By the way there are a complete section with
> program codes in the helpmenue, but I do not have such a good knowledge
> about programming that I am in the position to evaluate that.
> Instead of smart remarks which appear to the material which awn put into
> this newsgroup (probably as an advertisement for the program) I think
> that you must expect a serious contribution, which means that you test the
> program and examine how it works.
> From this you then could discuss if there were some things in the program,
> which perhaps could be changed or added. The comments which have appeared up
> to now indicate arrogance and lack of interest in learning a new and
> exciting program to know.
It's quit simple... when you know enough about a subject you don't have
to try everything to know what it is and what it does and if what people
are saying about it is true...
Personally I didn't think anyone would be foolish enough to even for a
second take "Top Secret Crypto" seriously... but, hey, I guess there
really is one born every... hmmm... second...
/Tony
--
########################################################################
I'm sorry, I'm sorry; actually, what I said was:
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUCK MY BALLS?
- South Park -
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Def'n of bijection
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 03 Jun 2001 19:49:24 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard) writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>> Correct me if i am wrong but the whole point of the BICOM stuff was
>> that all inputs map to an output and all elements on the output side
>> map to an input.
>
> The point is, though, that in a bijection, the domain need not equal
> the range.
Right--in other words, they need not be the same set. So Tom, you were
abusing the equals sign when you said ``...from set A to set B, A=B?''
Of course, in most discussions one remarks something like, ``From now on,
we won't bother to distinguish set A from it's image under the bijection.''
After making that remark, you've given yourself permission to abuse the
equals sign (or the subset symbol, in the case of an injection).
Tom, a bijection is also known as a ``one-to-one correspondence''. All a
bijection really establishes is that two sets have the same cardinality.
Len.
--
We neglected the Noah principle: predicting rain doesn't count, building
arks does.
-- Warren Buffett, 1981
------------------------------
From: those who know me have no need of my name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question about credit card number
Date: 03 Jun 2001 23:16:27 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> divulged:
>requires that the back end machines be totally inaccessible to public
>networks, listening on only one port from the webserver's (internal, martian)
>IP. Literally unreachable unless the webserver has first been completely
>compromised.
sufficiently compromised is, well, sufficient.
--
okay, have a sig then
------------------------------
From: "EE Support" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Welcoming another Anti-Evidence Eliminator stooge to USENET (P. Dulles / AKA
Loki)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 00:46:17 +0100
re this nonsense "Loki / P. Dulles" character and phony signature block:
>
>--
>Loki
>----
>The Truth about Evidence Eliminator:
>http://badtux.org/eric/editorial/scumbags.html
proven lies, misinformation and propaganda
>http://www.radsoft.net/resources/software/reviews/ee/07.htm
cranky, useless rantings of no worth whatsoever
What a pathetic, failed load of rubbish.
Yet another phony 'character' begins to whine to the Anti-Evidence
Eliminator tune of "Eric Lee Green."
"Eric Lee Green" and his phony followers have been repeatedly exposed for
ruining newsgroups with proven lies and propaganda. They wish to dissuade
you from using the world's #1 hard disk cleaning utility, Evidence
Eliminator.
You can get some facts about their propaganda at:
http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.shtml
We estimate 50% at least of posts on this newsgroup are fakes designed to
remove your Internet privacy. See link above for breakdown of repeated lies
broadcast in these newsgroups.
"Loki" is introduced as a proven source of "Eric Lee Green" lie-supporting
dis-information about Evidence Eliminator. A suitable collection of lies,
mis-information and propaganda is included from "Loki" below as "Loki" tries
to persuade you not to use the best hard disk cleaner you can get.
Loki (now proven alt.privacy anti-evidence-eliminator stooge and propaganda
artist) wrote:
===== Original Message =====
From: "P.Dulles" <*@*.com>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,sci.crypt
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence Eliminator Detractors Working Hard But No Result?
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> >:
> >:
> >: Eric Lee Green wrote:
> >: >
> >: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: > >Sorry for not having followed past postings. Is this
> >: > >something analogous to SafeWeb? (See
> >: >
> >: > Sorry, have no info about SafeWeb. Do have info about EE (see
> >: > http://badtux.org/eric/editorial/scumbags.html ). Basically, what we
> >: > have here is some virulent spammer spawn. I personally do not buy
> >: > anything from spammers, because if they're ethically challenged
enough
> >: > to spam, they're probably ethically challenged enough to sell you
> >: > worthless overpriced junk too.
> >:
> >: What I don't understand, when glancing at the web page
> >: www.evidence-eliminator.com, is the sentence:
> >:
> >: your PC is keeping frightening records of both your
> >: online and off-line activity.
> >:
> >: I know too little about current OSs. Could you tell where
> >: these records are kept under Window98? I guess that the
> >: product is to delete these automatically. (The issue
> >: of stealth of your intellectual property, which is
> >: claimed on your web page, is an legal or ethical one
> >: that I am personally not interested in.) But how does
> >: that have a connection with 'spams' which are incoming
> >: mails that is independent of one's own 'online and
> >: offline activity'? BTW, I barely know anything substantial
> >: about SafeWeb either. But I think that basically it allows
> >: one to channel one's web page access requests through a
> >: specific site and that site removes the origin site
> >: information of the accessor such that the log files of
> >: the servers of the web pages being accessed don't yield
> >: any useful information for tracing who actually have
> >: accessed these web pages. I think that's more useful
> >: for many people than deletion of records of activity on
> >: one's own computer. SafeWeb's service is said to be
> >: entirely free.
> >:
> >: M. K. Shen
>
> What happened was that a number of people in this and other newsgroups
> got very tired of the spam and decided to challenge the veracity of the
> program itself. Instead of a reasoned response, Eric Green was libeled
> on their website, and the rest of us are being called "liars" who are
> spreading "disinformation." They will not directly answer questions or
> challenges, and refuse to provide any review of their product by a
> qualified testing lab.
>
> They have relied upon spam and shock marketing tactics to sell their
> product, raising the price 350% in a year without improving it.
>
> Don't be fooled by their marketing. There is very little chance you
> have anything illegal on your computer, and no matter what they claim -
> they can't protect you if you come to the attention of the police.
>
> When it was $40, it was an excellent housekeeping utility. Windows is
> very dirty, leaving garbage everywhere (much like a three year old
> child.) For Win9X, it seeks out and gets rid of most of this junk. For
> NT/2000 - it is still a good tool if you know where to set it to look
> for junk, most people don't. It is also limited in function if you use
> NTFS. However, there are many other programs that will do this and also
> wipe either for free or far less than the $140 they now think their
> product is worth (actually, one said it was worth $7000 and I spit beer
> all over my monitor!)
>
> Where do you look on Win98? Lots of places really. Internet temporary
> directories, Windows temp directories, the root directory, and gawd
> knows how much crap is tucked into your registry. But it's all just
> messy housekeeping, unless you trade in kiddie porn there is nothing on
> your machine inherently illegal; and more likely than not if you trade
> in kiddie porn or keep the records of your drug dealing empire on your
> machine you want to keep them around anyway.
>
> It's just a scam feeding on the paranoia of the ignorant.
>
> Another site to read for the truth:
> http://www.radsoft.net/resources/software/reviews/ee/07.htm
>
> Notice the difference between this review and their website claims.
>
> --
> Loki
> "Joan of Arc heard voices too!"
======================================================================
Look at the nonsense above. This is proof that you need Evidence Eliminator.
Newbie warning: This message is a collection of Propaganda. Propaganda is
false information, deliberately spread. This is propaganda designed to stop
you using Evidence Eliminator and therefore leave your hard disk open to
forensic analysis by the police or FBI or snoops. False messages are
wide-spread in the privacy / security newsgroups. To read a short-list of
false information promoted by "Eric Lee Green" about Evidence Eliminator
software, click the URL below:
http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.shtml
======================================================================
"P.Dulles" <*@*.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> >: I want to see PROOF that their product was tested by an Independent
> >: Lab prior to their claims. I want to see PROOF that their claims are
> >: justified. Eric has already spoken concerning their juvenile attempt
> >: at passing over the hard drive. Lord knows a $60M FBI computer lab can
> >: accomplish a helluva lot more than two kids in their spare bedroom.
> >:
> >:
> >: (EE Suport: The below is a signature, I think you are getting the
> >: idea, right?)
> >:
> >: --
> >: Colonel Flagg
>
> They won't provide it, neither will they answer direct questions.
>
> What I do plan on doing (have have some spare time this weekend) is
> writing people who have reviewed their product and telling them that
> they refuse to provide "evidence" their product works; and perhaps even
> a few major periodical like "Time" and "Newsweek," - who might take an
> interest in this scam.
>
> What do they call the office in England? The Solicitor General? I
> wonder if that office works on projects like this. More research.
>
> --
> Loki
> "Joan of Arc heard voices too!"
> (that was also a signature)
======================================================================
Look at the nonsense above. This is proof that you need Evidence Eliminator.
Newbie warning: This message is a collection of Propaganda. Propaganda is
false information, deliberately spread. This is propaganda designed to stop
you using Evidence Eliminator and therefore leave your hard disk open to
forensic analysis by the police or FBI or snoops. False messages are
wide-spread in the privacy / security newsgroups. To read a short-list of
false information promoted by "Eric Lee Green" about Evidence Eliminator
software, click the URL below:
http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.shtml
======================================================================
===== Original Message =====
From: "P.Dulles" <*@*.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server,
sci.
crypt
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: We are a scam - Like This Post Is....
> In article <l3XN6.8179$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >: Eric Lee Green is exposed for posting blatant lies about Evidence
> >: Eliminator. He has been proved to be lying in this debate.
> >:
> >: 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
> >: --
> >: Technical Support Questions: Before submitting additional questions,
> >: please make sure you have searched the Evidence Eliminator
> >: KnowledgeBase online which can answer most questions instantly at
> >: http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/support/kb/search.shtml
> >:
> >:
> >:
> >:
> >:
> >:
> >: "Eric Lee Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >: > Hash: SHA1
> >: >
> >: > On 13 May 2001 16:32:18 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >: <EEUser@Satisfaction.
> >: > com> wrote:
> >: > >I fully realize that anything I or any EE user says will be marked
up
> >: > >to us being company shills. It's easy to win arguments when the
other
> >: > >side is automatically disqulified. It seems the EE detractors think
> >: > >that any method of slander or libel is allowed in retaliation for
EE's
> >: > >supposed spamming. But then fascist tactics against any enemy seem
to
> >: > >be tolerated these days.
> >: >
> >: > I will point out that the EE guys could eliminate half the problem by
> >: > eliminating their libel page. It is *NEVER* good karma to make
> >: > unfounded accusations about your competitors and/or critics, such as
> >: > implying that I am in the pay of some Three Letter Agency or that I'm
> >: > imaginary (hardly! A swift search of Google.com will show that I am
> >: > very real, and have been very real since at least the late 80's,
where
> >: > some of my stuff is still sitting in various mailing list archives
> >: > that have now been published on the web!).
> >: >
> >: > Frankly, they don't need critics to slander or libel them. They do a
good
> >: > enough job of it themselves, by acting arrogant (see
> >: > http://badtux.org/eric/editorial/ee-arrogant.html ),
> >: > unprofessional,
> >: > (see http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.shtml ), and
> >: > by spamming (see http://badtux.org/eric/editorial/eespam5.html --
this
> >: > one was posted by EESupport and he actually criticized somebody who
> >: > criticized his spam, so we must assume it's real).
> >: >
> >: > I did not put up my pages until after they decided they were going to
> >: > libel me. I did not escalate my campaign until I discovered that they
> >: > had violated my copyrights on my web page and on my photograph, which
they
> >: > ripped off of my web page. Yes, my web page and its contents ARE
> >: > copyrighted, by me, and yes, I *DID* notify them that they were
violating
> >: > my copyrights, and yes, they *DID* refuse to comply with my cease and
> >: > desist request, so I must conclude that they are willful law breakers
and
> >: > treat them accordingly. I don't have to accuse them of being
criminals.
> >: > By their own behavior, they have proven it.
> >: >
> >: > I have no comment about how their software works. I've never used it.
> >: > I never intend to use it, because I have no need (I don't use Windows
> >: > for web browsing and don't keep any sensitive material on my Windows
> >: > box). All I will say is that the company that sells the software is
> >: > unprofessional, supports a large number of spammers, and is not the
> >: > kind of people I would want to do business with when there are
> >: > excellent alternatives available from REPUTABLE vendors at a lower
> >: > price.
> >: >
> >: >
> >: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >: > Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
> >: > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
> >: >
> >: > iD8DBQE7Bvv+3DrrK1kMA04RAjXHAJ4iwL03hGXFFUWiT2NvZKCt7XvmbgCeMqRz
> >: > hZ+pv+E1p/N8NJ+oNVgIzbQ=
> >: > =Z7Sk
> >: > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >:
> >:
> >: Eric Lee Green is exposed for posting blatant lies about Evidence
> >: Eliminator. He has been proved to be lying in this debate.
>
> Oh? Who has proven it? Where is the proof?
>
> >:
> >: 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?
>
> --
> Loki
> "Joan of Arc heard voices too!"
======================================================================
Look at the nonsense above. This is proof that you need Evidence Eliminator.
Newbie warning: This message is a collection of Propaganda. Propaganda is
false information, deliberately spread. This is propaganda designed to stop
you using Evidence Eliminator and therefore leave your hard disk open to
forensic analysis by the police or FBI or snoops. False messages are
wide-spread in the privacy / security newsgroups. To read a short-list of
false information promoted by "Eric Lee Green" about Evidence Eliminator
software, click the URL below:
http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.shtml
======================================================================
===== Original Message =====
From: "P.Dulles" <*@*.com>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server,sci.crypt
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Who do I trust?
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >: As a complete outsider here, I have to say EE really really baffle me.
> >: They have a product. Why couldn't they sell it a reasonable price at
sit
> >: back and watch the sales grow? I'm competely bamboozled by their weird
> >: tactics. It's absolute madness. Commercial suicide.
>
> You'd think, but there is an old marketing rule "There is no such thing
> as bad publicity, as long as they spell the name right." EE makes a big
> deal about how many hits they get on their web site, and the curiousity
> inspired by the debates and controversy draws more hits.
>
> That's why I initially purchased it, I had an extra $40 and wanted to
> check it out myself - this was, of course, before their associates
> started spamming usenet. And before EE started getting very snotty with
> their critics (called "stooges" by EE, or a "liar" in the case of Eric
> Lee Green) and refuses to answer direct questions or provide any
> documentation/proof that their product works.
>
> Their marketing baffles me as well. It goes against all marketing
> education I have - I think they just want their product to be
> controversial, and their recent responses are inflammatory which can
> only be designed to draw more criticism - which means they have more
> opportunities to respond with the "party line" - or, as suggested,
> perhaps an auto-responder with canned answers.
>
> My guess is that they want to make as much money as possible and then
> abandon the program - or perhaps sell it off. They have indicated no
> intention of making their program NTFS compatible, even though within a
> couple of years, most computers will be using the NTFS drives. Another
> clue - when have you heard of a software program/company that offers
> "free upgrades for life?" This indicates to me they don't plan on being
> around very long because once a substantial customer base is
> established, they will be sending out far more free updates than new
> programs at an outrageous price; meaning their expenses would far
> outweigh their income. This is not good business.
>
> The owners of Robin Hood Software are two kids (by kids, I mean in early
> 20's which are "kids" from the perspective of one in his late 40's) who
> seem to work from a home and have no legitimate business listings in the
> local phone directories. This is itself is odd, I think.
>
> Their constant attacks on Eric Lee Green are reminiscent of the attacks
> of the Church of $cientology on anyone who critises them by calling them
> "liars." Those they can't identify, like me, are referred to as
> "stooges" but apparently unworthy of receiving answers to direct and
> simple questions I've put forth to them.
>
> One thing I am going to do is write a letter to a friend of mine who is
> a columnist at a major PC magazine and see if he will do an in-depth
> review of this product and the company. It would be very interesting to
> see how that turns out.
>
> --
> Loki
> "Joan of Arc heard voices too!"
======================================================================
Look at the nonsense above. This is proof that you need Evidence Eliminator.
Newbie warning: This message is a collection of Propaganda. Propaganda is
false information, deliberately spread. This is propaganda designed to stop
you using Evidence Eliminator and therefore leave your hard disk open to
forensic analysis by the police or FBI or snoops. False messages are
wide-spread in the privacy / security newsgroups. To read a short-list of
false information promoted by "Eric Lee Green" about Evidence Eliminator
software, click the URL below:
http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.shtml
======================================================================
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited Again (long)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:59:12 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED](Mok-Kong Shen) wrote:
>
> > I don't understand yet what do you mean by 'inverting half
> > the bytes'? Randomly choosing one half of the bytes in the
> > message and inverting all bits in these bytes while leaving
> > the other half of the bytes in the message unchanged, or
> > what?
>
> Yes - so that the biased bit patterns within those inverted
> bytes approximately negate the patterns in the unmodified
> ones. The intention is to force the attacker to try all
> 2**n permutations (n=block size in bits). Having said that,
> I think that a substitution cipher should be applied as well.
Consider your inverted bytes (their number is half of
the total in the message). These bytes are transformed
by one and the same substitution isn't it? So you are
applying a monoalphabetical substitution to one half
of the number of bytes of the message, right? If
that is the case, wouldn't it be better to have a
polyalphabetical substitution table and have a PRNG
to generate a key sequence to determine which byte
of the message is to be substituted according to which
column of the substitution table? I suppose one could
dispense with that special monoalphabetical substitution,
if a general polyalphabetical substitution is thus done.
If computing cost isn't an issue, the substitution
columns could be generated on the fly, i.e. each byte is
transformed differently. (See my post 'Another poorman's
cipher' of 19th Jan.)
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
Date: 4 Jun 2001 00:01:23 -0000
From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PRP vs PRF
David Wagner writes:
> The function F : K x X -> Y is a (t,q,e)-secure pseudorandom function (PRF)
> if, for all adversaries A using at most q queries and at most t steps of
> computation, we have Adv A <= e.
>
> Note that we often write F_k(x) as shorthand for F(k,x), and we often
> write "F is a PRF" as shorthand for the claim that F is a (t,q,e)-secure
> pseudorandom function for some t,q,e.
But F is not a function in the way we usually think of it, it is a
parameterized family of functions. F_k is a function.
We would like to be able to say that F_k is a psuedorandom function.
We would like to be able to say that SHA is a pseudorandom function.
We would like to be able to say that DES with some fixed value in
its input slot and taking the input parameter into the key slot is a
pseudorandom function.
The existing definitions of PRF won't allow this kind of statement.
But implementing crypto software requires some assumption like this to
discuss the actual security which users can hope to achieve.
Are there even more concrete ways of defining PRFs so that we can make a
meaningful statement that SHA is more like a pseudorandom function than,
say, x = x+1 mod 2^160?
------------------------------
Date: 4 Jun 2001 00:00:57 -0000
From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BBS implementation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes, regarding using a random
Blum-Blum-Shub starting point:
> How do I know it is not on a short or degenerate cycle?
If it is, then your number can be easily factored. Since you are probably
comfortable assuming that random RSA moduli can't be easily factored,
you must be equally comfortable assuming that a random BBS starting
point is not on a short cycle.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
