Typo:
James A. Donald wrote:

Let P(k) be the kth block of plain text. We prepend a
random block, P(0) to the text, and append a fixed block
to the end. If anything is altered, the fixed block at
the end will not contain the expected data, but will be
gibberish.

The adversary knows every block in the plain text
message except our P(0). He can intercept and change
the encrypted message. He wishes to modify the message
so that the intended recipient receives something
different from the message that the adversary knows he
should receive without the intended recipient realizing
something is wrong.
Let W(k) = P(k) + W(k-1) + W(k-1)&{W(k-1)}
Where & means bitwise and, and + means addition modulo 2
to the block size.
W(0) = P(0) (our random block, unknown to the adversary
or the recipient, and changing with every message.)
{} means encryption, {W(k-1)} is the block we get by
encrypting W(k-1)
We transmit T(k)= {W(k)} + W(k-1)|{W(k-1)} where |
means bitwise or, curly brace means encryption.

Should read:
We transmit T(k) = {W(k)} + ((~W(k-11){W(k-1)})
where ~ means bitwise negation, | means bitwise or,
curly brace means encryption.

W(-1) is zero.
The adversary knows P(k), except for P(0), and can
intercept all transmitted values T(k).
Because the combination of addition and bitwise logical
operations is non linear, this method gets through a
loophole in Jutla's proof in
http://eprint.iacr.org/2000/039

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]