Cryptography-Digest Digest #599, Volume #14 Tue, 12 Jun 01 19:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Humor, "I Must be a Threat to National Security" (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Sophie-Germain Primes for sale ("Tom St Denis")
Re: IV (Tim Tyler)
Re: IV (Tim Tyler)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY (Tim Tyler)
Re: Mantin-Shamir's RC4 distinguisher paper and RC4 *student* paper (Itsik Mantin)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: The 94 cycle 64-bit block cipher :-) (Fat Phil)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY (Mok-Kong Shen)
Special promotion: White-Hat Security Arsenal at 40% off on Amazon.com (Avi Rubin)
Re: The 94 cycle 64-bit block cipher :-) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY (Mok-Kong Shen)
The 94 cycle cipher ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Simple Crypto II, the public key... (Fat Phil)
Re: Simple Crypto II, the public key... (Fat Phil)
Re: Help with Comparison Of Complexity of Discrete Logs, Knapsack, and ("Douglas
A. Gwyn")
Re: Humor, "I Must be a Threat to National Security" ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: EXCELLENT NEW WEB BOARD!! CHECK IT OUT :) ("Paul Pires")
Re: Simple Crypto II, the public key... ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Publication violation notice (The Nameless Horror)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Humor, "I Must be a Threat to National Security"
Date: 12 Jun 2001 20:57:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas A. Gwyn) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>> ... I don't see why you where not hired but it may mean
>> your to honest or you may not have matched the religion
>> of the ones who you interviewed with. Its possible they
>> had a quota for women at the time you applied.
>
>Most likely, the available positions had more qualified
>applicants. From the tone of some of Boney's narrative,
>I suspect they are glad they didn't hire him..
>
Having worked for the government. I noticed in the old
days qualifications meant a lot. But then we had a cold war
we needed to win. In the later years qualifications didn't
mean squat. It was better if you meet the right politically
correct quota.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE "OLD VERSIOM"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
My website http://members.nbci.com/ecil/index.htm
My crypto code http://radiusnet.net/crypto/archive/scott/
MY Compression Page http://members.nbci.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE FOR EMAIL drop the roman "five" ***
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged or
something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you!
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Sophie-Germain Primes for sale
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:19:54 GMT
Made you look.
No seriously *free* SG primes are at my website
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/primes.txt
A SG prime is of the form p = 2q + 1, where q itself is prime and of course
p mod 4 = 3.
They are useful for DH and other DLP quests. Since they are SG all bases
(other than trivial ones) generate a group of order q which for some of the
primes is huge.
How to read the list?
(size in bits) p==digits
so
(1024)
p==1460030136858689905633918046800667131280181317311313833593791824930185113
6348768360708424001573886964262443996309806738655987368721064584308025706111
6036949438982968995332694598033744487708557681139725773222031612812763129935
3164025680222964658192849043699670677857470257248695463297505596077769310893
41764287
Is a 1024 bit SG prime. I am building up the list with larger and large
primes.
And yes FYI I live a very sheltered life.
--
Tom St Denis
---
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IV
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:18:16 GMT
Cristiano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Cristiano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : I want to encrypt a file of L bytes with a block cipher in CBC mode
:> : (like RC6 or Rijndael).
:> : For speed reasons I read N bytes at time (N>1024) and then I encrypt
:> : this block.
:> : Every N bytes I use the IV to XORing the firsts 16 bytes of plain text.
:> : Is there some weakness in this way?
:> Very possibly. If I understand correctly, you are using the same IV and
:> the same key - effectively starting again every N bytes, in order to
:> get speed (through parallelism?). [...]
:> That means identical plaintexts (at those offsets) will result in
:> identical cyphertexts.
: Yes. [...] could you tell me if is there any weakness in my method?
The fact that identical plaintext blocks (every N bytes) will result in
identical cyphertexts /is/ a weakness - if not an earth shattering one.
An attacker who observed repeated blocks at those intervals can tell that
the plaintext repeated itself. He should not be able to do this.
--
__________
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://alife.co.uk/tim/
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IV
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:23:48 GMT
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Mark Currie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Sorry, may have missed a discussion on this, but how does CTR compare with
:> CBC from a security perspective ?
: CTR is as secure as the cipher is. Since the plaintext and ciphertext are
: not fed into the cipher breaking CTR mode requires predicting the output.
Not really. We've already discussed weaknesses in CTR mode when
cyphertexts are small. The idea that CTR mode is as secure as the
underlying block cypher is essentially a myth - despite the supposed
proof to this effect - because of this.
--
__________
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://alife.co.uk/tim/
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:31:50 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Tim Tyler wrote:
:> One of the problems with "work factor" security is that it's commonly
:> very hard to measure. No-one knows that the "work factor" security
:> of RSA, or AES is, for example.
:>
:> That's one reason why "information-theoretic" security can be desirable -
:> you can actually measure it.
: Fine. Since we don't have such a one among us, nor do
: we have God (physically) among us, we consequently don't
: need that security at all.
The main alternative to it seems to involve hoping that the work factor is
as large as we would like it to be - on the basis of difficulties
encountered when looking for short cuts.
If you're prepared to do that, there's no need for information-theoretic
security - but of course it won't hurt.
--
__________
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://alife.co.uk/tim/
------------------------------
From: Itsik Mantin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mantin-Shamir's RC4 distinguisher paper and RC4 *student* paper
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:37:22 +0200
If you are interested in RC4, I recommend you check my RC4 page at
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~itsik/RC4/rc4.html
It is still under construction, but it contains useful references to previous
work that was done on the security of RC4.
Michael Lee wrote:
> I'm finishing up the quarter here at school, where I took a crypto course.
> Part of the course was a research paper (rather unusual for a comp sci
> course, but something I enjoyed). I choose to write my paper on issues
> associated with the RC4 stream cipher because I've been fascinated with this
> algorithm for a while now..
>
> A few weeks ago I asked on the Mantin-Shamir Distinguisher thread if anyone
> knew where to get a copy of the paper. During the course of my research, I
> found that paper and am now mirroring it.
>
> http://curby.dhs.org/cryptodocs/unsorted/mantin,%20Itsik%20and%20Adi%20Shami
> r%20--%20A%20Practical%20Attack%20on%20Broadcast%20RC4.ps
>
> If anyone wants to read my paper, it is available at the link below. I did
> not spend nearly as much time as I wanted to on it because of other
> projects: in its final form, it still had typos and bad writing, but I hope
> it is somewhat understandable.
>
> http://curby.dhs.org/broadcast2/paper.doc
>
> If anyone can give any constructive criticism (about content, not
> mechanics), I'd really appreciate it. I hope to refine it and add to it
> this summer. Right now, it is primarily a summary of current research that
> has been done (I know it's lacking even in this area). If anyone has some
> topics they would like to see researched/discussed, please present them. I
> am just a beginner, and am treating this as a learning experience.
>
> (Sorry if I've breached protocol in any way. This was not meant to be a
> spam).
>
> --Curby
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:43:45 +0200
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mok-Kong Shen) wrote:
> >
> >Fine. Since we don't have such a one among us, nor do
> >we have God (physically) among us, we consequently don't
> >need that security at all.
> >
>
> Mok just because your not GOD is no reason to give
> up on security. And in many finite cases you can get
> perfect security. IN other cases there is no reason not
> to try to come close. To do anything else is foolish.
If others wrote the same, I wouldn't be very surprised.
But I know you are engineer. What factors of safety
do/did you use in your designs? Infinity?
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Fat Phil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 94 cycle 64-bit block cipher :-)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:36:48 +0300
Tom St Denis wrote:
[SNIP]
> > Sounds interesting, even if it doesn't have the strength that others
> > have.
> > You often post your stories here, but I rarely see you post code. As
[SNIP]
> I do often post code. See my TC15 stuff for example.
Yeah, sorry. I should have said something along the lines of
"while you do post code, you seem to present far more ideas as just a
description", or something. This is a compliment to your prolificacy.
> For my new toy ciphers I don't. I can send the ASM source to this new
> cipher if you want. But it's just too weak for any serious use.
>
> All of my code is on
>
> http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/
>
> Under the "crypto stuff" are my relatively new stuff including my TC15,MDFC
> and Noekoen Cryptanalysis papers. On the same page I have the source to the
> original and modified TC15 cipher.
>
> Under my "Misc Sources" I have my older TC ciphers. Some of them were
> format-destroyed by the hideous GNU Indent program (which is the worst
> program in the world). But ones that count are ok. My coolest ciphers are
> TC5, TC6 and TC15. TC5 was a recursive Feistel design that I proved was
> resilient to first order diff/linear attacks (when I was in Grade 12). TC6
> was a decorrelated block cipher that ran at 10 cycles per byte. It wasn't
> secure but sure was fast. TC15 was my latest accomplishment. A wide-trail
> design that is very fast.
OK, I have seen your pages in the past but to be honest I didn't know
what was there. Like a dictionary, if you don't know what you're looking
for, you can't find it. However, I've already created a TomStDenis
subdirectory under my crypto directory, and downloaded a few things that
looked interesting.
Thanks,
Phil
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:54:30 +0200
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>
> Thats exactly why you where misled in how to use an OTP
> for perfect security. You intuwishtion is not very good.
Actually we can't ever have (or know to have) an ideal
OTP in the real practice. That's an ideal useful as
sort of reference. But we needn't achieve that (in fact
we can't). In all cases keeping a secret 30 years
(or if one insists, 100 years) is certainly enough.
That is, any cipher, non-perfect, but providing a
protection over that time threshold is o.k. (If I don't
err, the protection time for keeping the secret of a
well-known political assasination case in the past was
set to be only 25 years.)
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:59:54 +0200
Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> :> One of the problems with "work factor" security is that it's commonly
> :> very hard to measure. No-one knows that the "work factor" security
> :> of RSA, or AES is, for example.
> :>
> :> That's one reason why "information-theoretic" security can be desirable -
> :> you can actually measure it.
>
> : Fine. Since we don't have such a one among us, nor do
> : we have God (physically) among us, we consequently don't
> : need that security at all.
>
> The main alternative to it seems to involve hoping that the work factor is
> as large as we would like it to be - on the basis of difficulties
> encountered when looking for short cuts.
>
> If you're prepared to do that, there's no need for information-theoretic
> security - but of course it won't hurt.
It could hurt, if it inappropriately excludes the use
of certain algorithms that actually provide sufficiently
good protection and are economically better than others
but are rated by that measure to be very poor. That's
why I believe a measure should somehow correspond to the
reality.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.security,comp.security.misc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Avi Rubin)
Subject: Special promotion: White-Hat Security Arsenal at 40% off on Amazon.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:55:02 GMT
This book is currently being featured at a special 40% discount
on Amazon.com, for a limited time.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/175767/102-9130054-3732109
> White-Hat Security Arsenal: Tackling the Threats
> - with a foreword by Bill Cheswick
>
> Paperback - 384 pages (June, 2001)
> Addison-Wesley ISBN: 0-201-71114-1
>
> See http://white-hat.org/ for detailed information.
>
> Amazon page:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201711141
>
> Addison Wesley page:
> http://cseng.aw.com/book/0,3828,0201711141,00.html
>
> Feel free to forward this message to any people/mailing lists who may be
> interested.
>
> Avi Rubin
>
>
> --
> http://avirubin.com/
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 94 cycle 64-bit block cipher :-)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:15:45 GMT
"Fat Phil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > > Sounds interesting, even if it doesn't have the strength that others
> > > have.
> > > You often post your stories here, but I rarely see you post code. As
> [SNIP]
> > I do often post code. See my TC15 stuff for example.
>
> Yeah, sorry. I should have said something along the lines of
> "while you do post code, you seem to present far more ideas as just a
> description", or something. This is a compliment to your prolificacy.
Ahh, well all too often I just quip an idea off the top of my head.
Unfortunately all too often they turn out to be bad ideas. But I suppose
bad ideas are better than no ideas :-)
My reason venture into using Cubing as a 8x32 sbox is kinda neat. I want to
see about making a complete set of four 8x32s to make a 32x32 set.
> > For my new toy ciphers I don't. I can send the ASM source to this new
> > cipher if you want. But it's just too weak for any serious use.
> >
> > All of my code is on
> >
> > http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/
> >
> > Under the "crypto stuff" are my relatively new stuff including my
TC15,MDFC
> > and Noekoen Cryptanalysis papers. On the same page I have the source to
the
> > original and modified TC15 cipher.
> >
> > Under my "Misc Sources" I have my older TC ciphers. Some of them were
> > format-destroyed by the hideous GNU Indent program (which is the worst
> > program in the world). But ones that count are ok. My coolest ciphers
are
> > TC5, TC6 and TC15. TC5 was a recursive Feistel design that I proved was
> > resilient to first order diff/linear attacks (when I was in Grade 12).
TC6
> > was a decorrelated block cipher that ran at 10 cycles per byte. It
wasn't
> > secure but sure was fast. TC15 was my latest accomplishment. A
wide-trail
> > design that is very fast.
>
> OK, I have seen your pages in the past but to be honest I didn't know
> what was there. Like a dictionary, if you don't know what you're looking
> for, you can't find it. However, I've already created a TomStDenis
> subdirectory under my crypto directory, and downloaded a few things that
> looked interesting.
Well I feel honoured that you are archiving my stuff :-) Feel free to
download/repost/edit/whatever anything on my site. You can take my source
and redistribute it if you want. (That's the point of sharing ya know :-0).
I would appreciate comments on my upcomming ideas though. Even if you don't
have something rigorous more than "oh neat". It's nice to just hear from
others.
(hint hint my 8x32 discussion died quickly!)
Tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:12:54 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> > If it takes a time for the opponent that is for all practical purpose
> > equivalent to infinity (say thirty years) to obtain the private key,
> > then one is entirely safe, isn't it?
>
> Yes. The message is ``secure''. But it is not secure in an information-
> theoretic sense: it is still possible to be absolutely certain whether
> a claimed key is or is not the real key.
Sorry, I don't think that I fully understand the last
sentence. You certainly mean by 'a claimed key' a
claimed private key. I have certainly to protect my
private key. If someone else creates a key and claims
it to be my private key, he can't get the key right
anyway. Why should I care such a scenario?
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The 94 cycle cipher
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:18:52 GMT
If anyone is interested you can get a copy of the 94 cycle cipher (94 cycles
on an Athlon). at
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/tc16.zip
It uses the quadratic and rotation as the Feistel round function.
--
Tom St Denis
---
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org
------------------------------
From: Fat Phil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Simple Crypto II, the public key...
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:17:38 +0300
Anton Stiglic wrote:
>
> Phil Carmody wrote:
> >
> > OK, is there an asymmetric equivalent to the symmetric
> >
> > while(c=getchar()!=EOF) putchar(c^k);
>
> Do you want something that is secure, or just something you
I was thinking "what's the closest you can get to secure without using a
bignum or crypto library". C99 long longs are cool though.
> can do in a while loop, encrypting little chunks at a time?
>
> If you want something secure, you can look at Goldwasser-Micali
> probabilistic encryption scheme, it works like this:
[SNIPPED]
Cool, that's been copy-pasted. It's so obvious how it works too - turn a
stream of 0s and ones into a stream of residues and non-residues. I'm
not convinced I like the expansion factor though. It appears that
there's a 'birthday' attack on this, as some of the xs will repeat. It's
not quite simple enough to satisfy my criterea, but I'm not sure any PK
schemes are!
Thanks.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Fat Phil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Simple Crypto II, the public key...
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:26:17 +0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Phil Carmody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : OK, is there an asymmetric equivalent to the symmetric
>
> : while(c=getchar()!=EOF) putchar(c^k);
>
> Okay, I know this is really simplistic, but it does work.
[SNIP]
> Both programs are basically just RSA.
[SNIP]
Thanks, nice, short, simple. Real simple.
I'd wield C99's long longs at it, to get pq=64bits for improved
delusion of security! :-)
I'm scratching my head as we speak, and I intend to throw something
together which is not much more complicated code-wise, but much more
secure...
I'm thinking ElGamal... I'm thinking of chosing P so that I can cheat
when it comes to mod operations...
Phil
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with Comparison Of Complexity of Discrete Logs, Knapsack, and
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:20:06 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
> > Sure we can. In this particular case, we now know that
> > the program could not be completed, not even in principle.
> So please suggest such a goal for the future scientists.
? Why would I want to suggest an impossible goal?
> > Recall that what I said was:
> > > PM is famous because it was an ambitious attempt to
> > > implement a model of mathematics which we now know
> > > to be wrong.
> > What specifically is objectionable in that?
> A logical model is wrong, if it is not consitent. A
> model may be inappropriate for one's purpose and hence
> one needs to search for another more suitable one.
PM was consistent, but incomplete. Furthermore, the
incompleteness is fundamental, in that the system cannot
be made complete by adopting a finite set of additional
axioms. This is a famous result of Goedel (and others).
> ... I was basically asking whether the discovery of that
> particular theorem could assist (e.g. give helpful hints
> to) other logics to get free from the antinomies.
If the logic is essentially different from a fuzzy logic,
then no, I don't think the theorem would still hold.
> > > And could you also give a pointer (book, page number)
> > > to the theorem?
> > Not right away, but it's probably mentioned in Kosko's book.
> > It's pretty obvious if you have much experience with convexity.
> I suppose from the above that you got some informations
> elsewhere that led you to write that claim about that
> particular theorem. Could you at least give some pointers
> to these informations? And could you also give the title
> of Kosko's book? If the matter is really very obvious to
> you, then it would be very fine and kind of you that you
> take correspondingly small time and effrot to post that
> little additional stuff with which other people who don't
> have much experience (or experience at all) with convexity
> can with that book obtain a proof that is completely
> understandable to them.
First, I object to your tone. I am under no obligation
to make things easy for you. I'm providing information
for free at the expense of other things I could be doing.
I don't happen to have the book at hand right now, but
it was easy to locate it on Amazon.com. It turns out
that Kosko now has at least *three* books that might have
been interpreted as the one I meant. The one I had in
mind is "Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic",
ISBN 078688021X. This is not a detailed textbook, but an
introduction for what we used to call "the educated layman".
Therefore it is likely that the theorem is mentioned but
not proven in this book; maybe it gives references to
technical works. (I don't think it should be hard to
prove, once you know about it.)
Convexity is usually treated in textbooks on game theory.
> ... Is that 'standard content' for topology the average
> amount taught to undergraduate students, or to graduate
> students or ...
It's whatever amount is appropriate for the situation; the
important point is that it is generally agreed (by working
mathematicians) to cover what a "well-rounded" mathematician
should know. There is no useful purpose in trying to
delineate it too tightly. Bourbaki made particular
reasonable choices.
> > By the way, my views on Bourbaki are influenced by having
> > read what some of its members have said.
> Could you please give some reference to these?
Weil, for one. As an AMS member I read a lot of surveys,
reviews, interviews, etc. and am not willing to rummage
through the archives to try to reconstruct my education
for you. There are numerous on-line articles about
Bourbaki that you can find with a Web search engine.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Humor, "I Must be a Threat to National Security"
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:24:41 GMT
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> Having worked for the government. I noticed in the old
> days qualifications meant a lot. But then we had a cold war
> we needed to win. In the later years qualifications didn't
> mean squat. It was better if you meet the right politically
> correct quota.
No doubt, we need a good war to straighten out the DoD.
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCELLENT NEW WEB BOARD!! CHECK IT OUT :)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:59:04 -0700
You too????
It did appear self-depreciating didn't it?
Paul
Joseph Ashwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:u9gGN$38AHA.266@cpmsnbbsa07...
> I must say. After recieving this message I changed the width of the name
> field to not show the last 5 letters of this person's name.
> Joe
>
> "CEREBRAL ASSASSIN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ChV6.12007$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Simple Crypto II, the public key...
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:04:40 GMT
"Fat Phil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Phil Carmody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : OK, is there an asymmetric equivalent to the symmetric
> >
> > : while(c=getchar()!=EOF) putchar(c^k);
> >
> > Okay, I know this is really simplistic, but it does work.
> [SNIP]
> > Both programs are basically just RSA.
> [SNIP]
>
> Thanks, nice, short, simple. Real simple.
> I'd wield C99's long longs at it, to get pq=64bits for improved
> delusion of security! :-)
>
> I'm scratching my head as we speak, and I intend to throw something
> together which is not much more complicated code-wise, but much more
> secure...
> I'm thinking ElGamal... I'm thinking of chosing P so that I can cheat
> when it comes to mod operations...
How do you cheat with "mod operations"? I have a list of good DH primes if
you want
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/primes.txt
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Nameless Horror)
Subject: Re: Publication violation notice
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:05:48 GMT
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:52:17 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In the case of a printed book from a well-known publisher,
>there is less chance of this than in a privately printed copy,
>but policies like this one tend to err on the side of caution.
True, and employees will also err on the side of going by the book.
Particularly if they are not themselves chess players. Anyways, the
notice does advise the sender that he may request an independent
review of the rejection within 30 days, and I think there is every
reason to expect that the result of the independent review would be
favorable.
Thus, the state of Oregon should not be too harshly criticized just
yet.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
