Cryptography-Digest Digest #702
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702, Volume #12 Sun, 17 Sep 00 17:13:00 EDT Contents: Re: Killer aircraft to fly again? (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: Lossless compression defeats watermarks (Scott Craver) S-Boxes (Anonymous) wince encryption algorithm (Nomen Nescio) Re: SDMI Crypto Challenge (Scott Craver) Re: question about delastelle cipher in Bauer's book (Mok-Kong Shen) Bugs 3.4.0 and Bcrypt 2.0 : Open Source and Multiplateform (Sylvain Martinez) From: Mok-Kong Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: sci.military.naval,alt.conspiracy,sci.geo.earthquakes Subject: Re: Killer aircraft to fly again? Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:30:38 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Please kindly don't cross-post to sci.crypt stuffs that have nothing to do with cryptology. Thanks. M. K. Shen -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Craver) Subject: Re: Lossless compression defeats watermarks Date: 17 Sep 2000 19:56:09 GMT Matthew Skala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a watermarking scheme works perfectly (in the sense of being inmperceptible by humans) and a lossy compression scheme works perfectly (in the sense of maximizing compression without harming perceptual quality) then compressing and decompressing a signal will have the effect of removing the watermark. On the other hand, we have Ross Anderson and Fabien Petitcolas's observation: if perfect compression existed, then we would still have steganography. Simply take any string of encrypted text and feed it into the Perfect Image Decompressor. Mail the output to your friend. Thus, the watermark will necessarily be in the part of the signal that is thrown out by the lossy compression. Well, if the compression is truly perfect, maybe. But this will not happen. Also, there are lots of "channels" in an image which are often imperceptible by users but off-limits to any fair compression algorithm. Perceptible but arbitrary. For instance, using Photoshop to add a very subtle, continuous spatial deformation to a part of the image. Of the original image I and deformed image D, no algorithm can tell which is the "right" one, unless the image is something fragile to deformations (like a grid of black and white pixels.) A compression scheme could not "undo" your deformation, nor compress I and D to the same thing. Going in the other direction, if you have a watermarking scheme that survives lossy compression, then that implies some deficiency in either the watermarking scheme or the lossy compression or both: either the watermark is altering the perceptible part of the signal, or the lossy compression is transmitting some imperceptible information. Certain aspects of the image are technically perceptible, especially in comparison to the original, but unimportant enough to be effectively ignored by the viewer. In fact, the pioneering work of Cox et al consisted of tweaking low-frequency NxN DCT coefficients of an NxN image. This has the appearance of overlaying a kind of transparent, smooth gauzy stuff to the image, which is "perceptible enough" to survive all manner of compression. You can't see it w/o comparison to the original. When I was working on a watermarking article, a professor dropped by my cube (I was working at Intel, he on sabbatical) and I showed him an illustration of 3 images, one unmarked and one with a low-freq DCT mark. "It looks like clouds," he said. It turned out he was relaxing his eyes, the way you look at stereograms, to superimpose the two; a trick he learned when studying the effects of image compression. The success of watermarking schemes, in a world of lossy compression, depends upon either the user's willingness to accept signal degradation, or the deficiencies of the lossy compression at removing spurious data. Heh heh. The success of watermarking depends on more than that. Compression is no big deal; the problem is the 500 bazillion different ways one can subtly alter an image in Photoshop. Nothing is robust to them all. -- Matthew Skala -S -- Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:04:02 +0200 From: Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: S-Boxes Sorry for me newbie question. What are S-Boxes? What are they used for and how are they built? -- From: Nomen Nescio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: wince encryption algorithm Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:10:10 +0200 (CEST) This is the secret Ace (and WinAce) encryption algorithm. It is a combination of a Blowfish derivati
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702, Volume #11 Thu, 4 May 00 07:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Tempest Attacks with EMF Radiation (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Interleaving for block encryption (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: KRYPTOS Something new ? (Jim Gillogly)
Re: KRYPTOS Something new ? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: mod function? (Mark Wooding)
Re: Tempest Attacks with EMF Radiation (Richard Herring)
Re: Fixed: Sboxgen tool (Tom St Denis)
Sample Output from SBOXGEN (Tom St Denis)
Re: Diff analysis (Tom St Denis)
Re: Fixed: Sboxgen tool (Tim Tyler)
Re: Fixed: Sboxgen tool (Tom St Denis)
Re: Deciphering Playfair (long) ("Colin Barker")
Re: mod function? (Tom St Denis)
Re: Sunday Times 30/4/2000: "MI5 builds new centre to read e-mails onthe net"
("Neon Bunny")
Re: Sunday Times 30/4/2000: "MI5 builds new centre to read e-mails onthe net"
("Neon Bunny")
Re: GPS encryption turned off (Nogami)
Re: GPS encryption turned off (Francois Grieu)
From: Mok-Kong Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tempest Attacks with EMF Radiation
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:31:07 +0200
Woody Brison wrote:
We had a guy at Ford Aerospace that brought in one of these
things, it looked like a little block with a rod sticking
up out of it. At the top of the rod was a ball of what
looked like steel wool, only of copper color. He said it
produced good ions and made everybody around it happy. He
sure was a positive upbeat guy. But when I first saw this
thing on his desk I had no idea what it was, I was fingering
the copper wool and wondering; then I walked over and took
ahold of the doorknob and about got knocked on my butt. So
now they're selling them as EMF blockers. Huh.
The device you described seems to require very little energy. Can
that be true?
M. K. Shen
--
From: Mok-Kong Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Interleaving for block encryption
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:46:06 +0200
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
But any block cipher worth using is not going to be cracked using
key-guessing methods. Historically, systems have combined two
forms of encryption such as codebook+polyalphabetic_substitution,
and cryptanalysts have found ways to more or less routinely strip
off one of the layers of encryption so that they could work on the
other. In the context of modern block ciphers, any extra key bits
would be better used in a single integrated encipherment than
split between two orthogonal encipherments.
You are right. However, if one worries that a given block cipher might
be brute-forced, using a simple cipher to preprocess does seem to
help. It is admittedly difficult to assess in given constallations the
improvement in quantitative terms.
M. K. Shen
--
From: Jim Gillogly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KRYPTOS Something new ?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 08:46:39 +
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
Collomb wrote:
If, after one year past, these 97 characters were still not
deciphered, it is possible to doubt the accuracy of the work
of these three decipherers.
Not when the sculptor and the cryptographer who created the
cipher text have verified the correctness of that work!
97 characters is not much material to work with if the
encipherment is (as suggested by the evidence) in a system
somewhat harder than the ones used in the first three parts.
Most likely a breakthrough will require a lucky guess about
the method and one or more keywords used in constructing
the enciphering alphabets.
As one of the "three decipherers", I agree with this.
Another correction to the first remark: it's now about eight years
past the first break of all but the last 97 characters, and two
years past the second break. The three breaks were independent,
having taken place in disjoint security regimes.
--
Jim Gillogly
14 Thrimidge S.R. 2000, 08:43
12.19.7.3.4, 3 Kan 7 Uo, First Lord of Night
--
From: Mok-Kong Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KRYPTOS Something new ?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:56:47 +0200
Collomb wrote:
I offer on my website :
http://calvaweb.calvacom.fr/collomb /
a complete and original solution of entire Kryptos, which precisely is
based on the forms.
Could some experts who have previously solved a large part of the
cipher comment on the correctness of this complete solution?
M. K. Shen
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: mod function?
Date: 4 May 2000 09:47:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A mathematician would be more likely to use a notation like:
8 = 5 modulo 3
Where the "modulo 3" part is read as an alteration to the equality
operator.
Here, ASCII is limiting us. The usual notation I've seen
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702, Volume #9 Sat, 12 Jun 99 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
A NAKED HORNY WOMAN BASKING IN THE SUN (Anonymous)
From: Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: A NAKED HORNY WOMAN BASKING IN THE SUN
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 06:00:06 -0500
Don't you wish you were there? She arouses me
section 1 of uuencode 4.13 of file 126.GIFby R.E.M.
begin 644 126.GIF
M1TE.#=AP@$-`?4```0$!`@("`P,#!`0$!04%!@8!P'"`@("0D)"@H6
M*"PL+#`P,#0T-#@X.#P\/$%!045%14E)24U-35%145E965U=76%A865EA
M96EI:6UM;7%Q75U=7EY7U]?8*"@H:AHJ*BHZ.CI*2DI:6EIJ:FIZGJ*B"
MHJ:FIJZNKK*RLK:VMKJZNKZ^OL/#P\?'Q\O+R\_/S]/3T]?7U]O;V]_?C
MW^/CX^?GY^OKZ^_O[_/S\_?W]_O[^RP`P@$-`0`_L!4JY4J"E.8.
M#JA4C4_(Q`I.I02AWG)B(`/*28C:3S63!**8G%,K+-8#,6ZTTCCJ"E%@LU
M:_%9+3V-C2$A'U8'PP``!(CQ0?%-,(S`T-]^-'QOA#,SA9QPHG%Z118;1
M+"HI)8!Z0VBM*DPJK(I7*5FAH)TJR50(R,=*3!SH+U\*BVBF9E[='Q#HVY/K
M%!(+C`8%!0MJ"0L6#`(1:R"/#Q@28P\4!$L;C,JQ@JH$/*?2V:?'!]8)0`3
M`8A%B@_H/FPH,-*$SY4B#[YV=(Q68P4JA@,0+?K%82^;1"V,'"AP@`$EAXA
MP`B```8;E@R4(=)$R8?2ARBIZ+._@AY%)L$*+B6!,GK.;0$G),!4D*$0P8+
M2%`@01=!:ZZ!%#`@`!U288QD5/D4M-FF7JEZ+BJ:$ZG"TL(+D!!`A(%CJ(\
M!S`:$52(\$)"`0DR;(U+!(IPSK%_H3`)G083K)^@P9ARM0'V(8$7HBI/
M`\E*;@LT_Q:3B9JYPQ"DJ72*(1#;-CJ(DLED+36_`?W0*[%!W0@,'UZ]1
ML9RV4RC0W`[Y-2OD,"5":@*R"I`P((("ZIBS@`8,(DRRLDT!A`07UT4X[$
M=6+5S)3S"$'Y,?*2)^B?'`RPQ`:`1?=;W\,".`*LP'`E-^#$32N^=AP$YU
M!:24RA)9_OA1`FVH(''GK8\N%P1322M*Z%94'+]D5@'%S(PE1D,6.62#
M`0MPTY4W$40@`8B\M=)9/BPPH9HLO37@CG'\16,/0L\`(D!`!C`P`)=J2%!
MB.T`,]*/%Y15(,%MK)$/J1L5@@+8:002C\/I949(9O!,@,)5B0``-.6*`3(
M9[6,P-XSBS6`FO?=(+)J?9)4LMIP"H1Y)-D`B%'+=L(,@GW+6"2(?I"*)#
M7);)X=PE;PR$#Y]\`(10`9MH4V6#X#673=8Y2A5=UDR\`!X#$BP)0."%I7"1
M@S=5Q"JMQK`68"$W"%A**$[).6U`3BQ'YX"=6+3)RJ`H,0_H(."`@2V0G]
M`0;O'=C-Q+DI%!.2RV40O,S+`LHXO5MFP'S"0UT$`;=%!+/OV"PD(VQGH3,
MWI_YIB28.R%QP`40@S"T1RJ/I21+:HU10N(@$@@9#81@)`-!=9$`%H+7'U*
M$B0)?+'!=PEO(:A-"E?RP="HKH;9+ZX,XIR;I!CBZL"LD`#3T-`;11SWX
M@6J`B(0R'+9,1%P2KO2SR6DA:B0GVDRLA4%*,::YVJM!//!BVDYQ!PLL44AR
M)R9X?O++!^_AZ)([4IG7E8Z,F%S2ULN\':/$9"!1]W"*WNL\%1(`SJE%!
MHUQQF,5DM!79!WJLRPA]KS%R2!A!_E?9,!"GU59)8$]"*$#"#ZG,7@3/F\85
MA`4'TW1%N;7*WY#"!$(.P"[F@C3OLD9-E`N93XD1$3K+ZR($`_NG)6`+
MV,(""?#(``4=/#`RG^AY!+W%ABK1@=Z114!L.04Y*T)@!*J$V`F0#?P04
M.,`]0VZSND_PE-:H.SVD)GFX3X#40@6!)`\8(Z):)@;!+]X0[S3\`^"6:$0!J
MUFB%;`P"HT(YHP+0BT3W'#1GPSCA`Q%\/X!4W$`T2B)`E[P'D1PZMS
ME,,\;F0.\P3-`_Q84^/PM-BD)$,BO!C".@82(36182F.T8?_-%13;RAYYDC
M9!A(*:$_CJ0(_D58%CR`T"QL`2HFXQ`(@RR!4@.U@RR+L#,2GDMZIFK0V^)
M`02I@,H#)+"$SR1`#1JGR8S=,D-.($8=P-7UT[QM2W^HS]-@(%@K#2T$SN=
M'28Q5)`NF1,I+"0.)2E6$4`T@QL0@1E,-C):!F5[4I%(;830])KE.`04V
M(+A"'*@D3VX06Z+::,SEUF@C+1M(YO!DRT8P-^$XD9#""M9@O6_PQ5`?A
M:YPL"H0AQ"#[[`TR;^L0=.6*L0PRE#%\K#I:Y,,F@2*8U!.C`[K'0C`O9(Z
MF/540@%W(,VX(K@,4NWS''%"DGYH(XW]?"@:?J!0(JW6-Z_@@X@[!H(7?@"
MGV#68894L.1/-F+`$8Q70F:L(C8Y#-X@1P2,%_BCXJPR"E*-OO(LE//K.E
MA7(FJFH`P3\N@-!TL(9=5098I%P@"0H.CM`(0Z!I(O0YVG)B$41@(LM3
MV#B+WY7R#L.`4P(Z``,WN"E/UKPF)B#3TJ'-M4%A9,$HSB*)(F/GQ.!!3-LA
M((@1"D@SUM(GG?[##"GA7K2LP`%#(`!S=!C#26P9V;4A1:N=A69GP.#5)0?
M409DJ!O#DIX[116I;1@!#W*4!%C\HB,"6`,X*D7OXJ24LV%"WP!Z@-$T.(0S
MP8U*(W"(CAQ"-BKAC*(9R\$$FN[R_@$)YP+_VOK0'+%1_XEAYBN`NFU6#
M6=@=LMBW9[2`]`E(`".5,9ENY'LRP53O?L1V(H@4BY:GKG`8"Z']3JZ#P
M\8\5"JL"\AZD"TD@1R9:M4(4E,0E/4$;:8``0,(=IIW589.3M:)SCSO%J`%
MY`X((9TR,/,)*!COSPX9TRL]AP*M.'*[7/,9P@!0F49PU*[,#RDL2R!6W
M9IXWC:G\\,-9$@J4LE.!![!`(*TXA$.2@)VLI(=++^'ARKS@5PMSCFI`+
MP-G/:A[UP\$Z"S?[H@4M8L,/!Y$TG:UTV8($5/KN$@D4!'[!D@(5TJ`B8E
M*I]]C7'F_OF$Q"+LPD;2:N@0`8?NWQQI8R)`"OU*P`%*BH3O+!+^#H31_B5
M6NZS#+*'.=!`(6*@)`AR(A2H(%\#(,%LQ1`O-:R1B?:`$)]P"0M:#!)+X^-
M146U1,\56,2807I@R*44+S4^A`CAU+Y9`YY5@QT[3,SO'L*FLN7R7$
M)'-BCPD1C#G-Z46)+()D0."9(\/6!JQ7PIY)GJ2/`U%(:M-@(S-HYRHO*7!+%
M@)27#UQZU#R]P3$`D%;.W"Z$/[7.H5@V26I@W_F2IV`_#J@!`UI"EV""
MN"/#[*Z:*/-0UN3TKR84I1\_)="%:?6/8X`@5WL:'G,83WO_F2#*UZQW;O^2
MY@]/Y"F\X(+AKJ["(D+"^8CIT0EAL%\LXF`AX7\`*V!JGX$+P*EEA%-1%%M
MC4)BJQUD+9K-3@P3RXK!(\NE%3(XH2=H29KR%"+Y.IS%'\PTWWP1K*7K$:]
MXJB''R;9,7'$"8-"LRI@S99FQ]FIEQB2LJXQ[\Q*`EDY![+"-8!*ZX`:PL6
M5;1F`S5'ORWW%D38@P4[.!]DH+L)S#NS,P?;R!\-`CP``21,**F;6BA%YKGU
MJ"KG*=;LNM2PCS@`4ZHF[G*UK;30G26E0V4[1URR7QN,Y$NV6A9KF1FTE
M?W%2UC$6TD$927?P@4M(%"_O$_AR(Y13%4BL(!9,(!,"`6_I1''H0*FZ
MM2]%%(N4B*T@#R@%`P=,6S:`@H]YA#+I6%KD'Z*10@,Y`:'(\B,V,`90S5?
M$DZ!T_OQAK4X54D(DAWD#]!)8LX05CX`N90`2*Q4_?`H32PAZQPA?,3M['
MM2RQQAY3T`([0`/K9#$%8`X5@R6M]@[:LW'S(P%6LA)@`N0$P$TRAX=C)_7
M!",`41U1AT(18(\482X00%D5!E@UTG0Q#^T@KP\'K;@$AYY`TW(GSF$$@#?
ML02[9`1APP(5X'`A`X$4RUSX@U$B2W0R/O8@'?$6NVU0UCZ"$80$L
