i've been working with this library called beecrypt which is basically a
toolkit implementation of some of the more popular crypto algorithms.
I've been especially interested in the idea of digitally signed
contracts and commitments.
more info at http://beecrypt.org
output of ls|grep c$
base64.c
beecrypt.c
beecrypt.rc
blockmode.c
blockpad.c
blowfish.c
dhaes.c
dldp.c
dlkp.c
dlpk.c
dlsvdp-dh.c
elgamal.c
endianness.c
entropy.c
fips180.c
fips186.c
hmac.c
hmacmd5.c
hmacsha1.c
hmacsha256.c
javaglue.c
md5.c
memchunk.c
mp32.c
mp32barrett.c
mp32number.c
mp32prime.c
mtprng.c
rsa.c
rsakp.c
rsapk.c
sha256.c
timestamp.c
<html><head><title>html sig</title></head><body><div style="font:sans-serif;
font-size:72pt;line-height:84pt;color:blue1;"><ul><li>sexy is good</li><li>
linux is good<li></li>qed: linux is sexy</li></ul><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr>
<a href="http://www.efn.org/~laprice";>laprice at efn dot org</a></body></html>
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Tim Howe wrote:
> Yes. I ussually get attacked when I talk like this. Let me buy you a
> beer.
>
> TimH
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Jacob Meuser
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:24 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [EUG-LUG:2746] Re: US Congress already discussing bans on
> > strong crypto]
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:20:41AM -0700, Tim Howe wrote:
> > > Wouldn't putting back doors into encryption schemes in the
> > US mean that
> > > we could only decrypt messages encrypted with our own crypts? It
> > > wouldn't help us decrypt anything done with encryption developed
> > > elseware. So basically they want to spy on Americans. I feel safer
> > > already....
> >
> > Duh! It's very typical of lawmakers. A tragedy happens, someone
> > who wants to be popular (as in get reelected) says some garbage
> > which he doesn't fully understand to feed off the ignorance and
> > confusion of those he's trying to be popular with. In the end,
> > the people that are (supposedly) being protected lose liberties
> > and are less safe.
> >
> > I'm an online merchant. I deal with "stolen identity" crimes
> > on a regular basis. It costs me money. Without strong crypto,
> > it will only get worse. I know I'm not alone. I'm sure many
> > of you work for companies that rely on crypto. The internet
> > is much more than a communications device; it is a signifigant
> > part of the economy.
> >
> > Breaking crypto is not going to make it that much easier to
> > find terrorists. The thing is, most crypto acutally can be
> > deciphered. Sure it takes a lot of computation cycles, and
> > one can't simply "tap the internet to see who's talking about
> > about blowing something up."
> >
> > It's just a weak excuse for the lack of effort in intellegence
> > gathering. I mean, IPs tell a lot more about someone than what
> > they might write in an email. After all, IPs can be traced to
> > actual physical locations, as in people, as in the people who
> > should be under surveilence for what they have done, not for
> > what they have written.
> >
> > If the government really wants to read someone's emails, then
> > they should spend more on developing computers that are efficient
> > enough to do the task, as well as actually identifying the emails
> > they think may contain valuable information; not take away the
> > freedom and privacy of all it's citizens.
> >
> > Of course, the real irony is that the US has sold crypto
> > technology to MidEast countries that you and I cannot have here,
> > which leads to a whole other discussion, mostly historical, and
> > revolves around the Opium Wars many years ago, but like I said,
> > that's a whole other discussion. (But I'll give a hint ...
> > "wars" against contraband are both *popular* and *profitable*.
> > Now, who do those words appeal to, lawmakers perhaps?)
> >
> > --
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
>
