Cryptography-Digest Digest #341
Cryptography-Digest Digest #341, Volume #9Mon, 5 Apr 99 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
smartcards (was Live from the Second AES Conference) (Sandy Harris)
Re: True Randomness The Law Of Large Numbers (Dave Knapp)
Re: My Book "The Unknowable" (Paul Healey)
Re: "Kryptos" sculpture (Jim Gillogly)
Software for breaking polyalphabetic substitution ciphers (Gao Qing)
Re: Alert: "HAPPY99.EXE" e-mail/newsgroup virus ("Cameron McCormack")
Re: Random Walk ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: chosen-plaintext attack (wtshaw)
Re: chosen-plaintext attack (Sundial Services)
Re: Software for breaking polyalphabetic substitution ciphers (wtshaw)
Re: Extending a hash? (wtshaw)
Re: My Book "The Unknowable" ("David Starr")
Re: Extending a hash? (Peter Gunn)
Re: True Randomness The Law Of Large Numbers ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sandy Harris)
Subject: smartcards (was Live from the Second AES Conference)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 22:05:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Schneier) writes:
: IBM's Pankaj Rohatgi explained how he got all 128 bits of
: a Twofish key after only 50 (that is 50 not 2^50) uses of a smart
: card!
I wonder how secure some of the other ciphers would be, if the kind of
optimizations Bruce suggested for fitting Twofish on a smart card were
applied to them. That is, if it were possible.
He said in his talk that every cipher is vulnerable. We've done this
sort of work, too, and we have found that you can't defend against
these types of attack with the algorithm. You can do some things with
the implementation and some things with the hardware, but basically
you need to defend in the protocol layer.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1578/artic02.htm
Outlines some of the more easy obvious defenses you can put in
the implementation. No doubt not enough.
--
From: Dave Knapp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: True Randomness The Law Of Large Numbers
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 20:59:50 GMT
"R. Knauer" wrote:
I claim that there are only two valid sets for randomness:
Set #1: Reasonable certainty that the process is not random;
Set #2: Processed which do not exist in set #1.
Put into the language of statistics:
Null Hypothesis: A particular RNG is not random.
Alternate Hypothesis: That particular RNG is random.
There is no middle set of RNGs that are maybe random, maybe not random
on the basis of reasonable certainty. There is a definite area outside
the Z-score and a definite related area inside the Z-score. There is
no gray zone where things may be or may not be simultanously.
Incredible! You not only don't understand statistics, but you don't
understand decision theory even better!
Maybe it's not that impressive; decision theory depends to some degree
on statistical inference, etc.
Hey -- you ever hear of a thing called "fuzzy logic?" Look it up.
-- Dave
--
From: Paul Healey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My Book "The Unknowable"
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 00:52:37 +0100
In article 41%M2.9$[EMAIL PROTECTED], David Starr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
karl malbrain wrote in message 7e1cvg$eti$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[-snip-]
While I AM fascinated BY your USE of CAPITAL letters, this WHOLE thread IS
off-TOPIC
for sci.crypt. For that MATTER, the FOLKS over in sci.physics and sci.math
probably AREN'T
ALL that interested, EITHER.
Have a NICE day,
-dave
Is this an interesting, relevant and or a worthwhile contribution ?
What do you think sci.logic is supposed to be about;
individuals trying to plug their own private
languages(this is not in the agreement with Decca News), so sci.crypt
can decode them or a dialogue on what constitutes a valid schema ?
Are you proposing, some kind of self censorship ?,
a path to real censorship on the unknowable --- on speculative logic.
Tell us, what you think you know in relation to this thread, so at
least, it might become clearer to yourself what you actually do know: I
think Chitin's notion, in the preface of his book, that there is no such
thing as a theory of everything, does itself presuppose such a
knowledge. That is, I have nothing against others discussing different
kinds of models and principles within; modal logic, intuitionistic logic
and paraconsistent logic etc., but lets not forget the context of this
forum: I am under no obligation to eschew a set of principles, that
happen to have value, simply because they are popular modes of reasoning
i.e. reductionist, positivist and formal
The question cannot be asked, how form is added to
essence, for it is only the reflection of essence into
essence itself, essence's own immanent reflection.
Book II of Hegel's Science of Logic(p10)
http://werple.net.au/~andy/logic_2.htm
Ergo, being conscious we can think.
Cryptography-Digest Digest #343
Cryptography-Digest Digest #343, Volume #9Mon, 5 Apr 99 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: True Randomness The Law Of Large Numbers (R. Knauer)
Re: quick RSA key generation question ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: True Randomness The Law Of Large Numbers (R. Knauer)
Re: SHA ("Chen Yijiang")
att. Aman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PGPdisk or ScramDisk? (Nathan Kennedy)
Re: quick RSA key generation question (Ian Goldberg)
Re: quick RSA key generation question ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: True Randomness The Law Of Large Numbers (Herman Rubin)
Re: True Randomness The Law Of Large Numbers (R. Knauer)
Re: True Randomness The Law Of Large Numbers (R. Knauer)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: True Randomness The Law Of Large Numbers
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 12:53:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 07:50:24 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
R. Knauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 10:10:06 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
.
If you are talking about a physical device then you must treat it like
a piece of scientific equipment and certify its performance using
accepted scientific techniques, including a peer-reviewd design audit
and diagnostic tests for each subsystem.
Please check your attributions more carefully.
I didn't say that, R. Knauer did.
There is nothing wrong with those attributions above. Anyone who has
been on Usenet for any length of time knows that the attributions
above clearly point to me as the author of that statement.
Bob Knauer
"People have criticized me because my security detail is larger
than the president's. But you must ask yourself: Are there more
people who want to kill me than who want to kill the president?
I can assure you there are."
- Marion Barry, Mayor of Washington DC
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: quick RSA key generation question
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 14:04:19 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050) wrote:
Bob, Also mention the SQROOT(2) method for sizes of p and q in X9.31.
Don Johnson
Sure. Suppose one wants a 1024 bit modulus. It is not sufficient that
p,q, each be 512 bits, since their product might be either 1023 or 1024 bits.
To ensure a 1024 bit modulus, one requires that p,q be in [sqrt(2)2^1022,
2^1023-1]. This is a simple normalization condition.
= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: True Randomness The Law Of Large Numbers
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 12:45:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 07:35:31 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, it holds for *most* distributions. But it does not hold for
distributions that are not square integrable.
So what? No meaningful situation is going to have infinite energy.
QED has infinite energies. Yeah, renormalization dealt with them, but
nobody considers that scheme to be fundamentally correct.
You must have the "Junior Miss" version of his book (he wrote
several). He dwelt on it (in the main text) in the college-
level book we were using last summer.
There are many editions of his book. The only one I could find at the
Houston Public Library was the 4th edition.
If he changes his position from one edition to the next, then he is
not a reliable author.
All the statistical tests in Trioli, both parametric and
non-parametric, require the CLT to be of any use.
That's certainly not true. When are you going to bother
to learn the subject before making claims about it?
You said that if I read Triola's book I would know all I need to know.
That statement above comes right out of his book.
If it is supposed to output uniformly
random bits, and the r.v. X is the value of a generated bit, then
X has mean 0.5 and s.d. 0.5.
Prove that. But be careful about your assumptions, because if you go
off into classical statistical theory you will miss the mark.
That's an elementary exercise for the beginning statistics
student.
Yeah, one of those "back of the envelope" calculations.
I suggest *you* work out the proof; it might be an
opportunity to practice converting "word problems" into formal
specification, after which computation of the answer is easy.
Here is an envelope - you work it out. You are the one making the
assertion.
That's for sure, but only because it makes no sense.
Here are some finite numbers:
42
0
1234566778901033909867041675
-72
Those are integers and are part of the ensemble of random numbers.
Here are some others:
0.3
Pi
23/41
-238408965034.7235876134
1-e
If these are what
