Cryptography-Digest Digest #880, Volume #9 Wed, 14 Jul 99 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Funny News (wtshaw)
Re: wincrypt (Sampo Pasanen)
Re: Fractal encryption (Jerry Coffin)
Re: What is a fractal? (Sampo Pasanen)
Re: I wonder why he wrote it that way. ("JOE")
Re: Benfords law for factoring primes? (Dean Povey)
Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!) (Rob Warnock)
Re: What is a fractal? (John Bailey)
Re: Funny News (James Andrews)
Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Kryptos article (Roger Fleming)
Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!) (Jerry Leichter)
Re: Fractal encryption (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Is Stenography legal? (Patrick Juola)
Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Funny News
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:25:53 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Myre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > My question is (this is an open question), What good do these
> > regulations ACTUALLY provide? If a criminal breaks the law won't logic
> > dictate they won't follow this law as well?
> >
>
> The specific argument that control is useless because criminals
> will ignore regulations is false logic. The gulf between "not
> 100% effective" and "useless" is quite wide. Making something
> illegal will decrease its use: at least *some* criminals will
> find it too hard, or too expensive, or too confusing, or just
> won't use it correctly.
>
The problem with too many or too complicated regulations is that they are
apt to be ignored by non-criminals as well because it is not reasonable to
even try to understand the latest bureaucratic whims.
Most people except those in Washington seem to know what the country is
about, and can usually make rational judgements based on their generalized
understandings. Whatever comes out to the contrary is, as I said, merely
apt to be ignored.
To keep from looking like complete idiots all of the time, best that those
inside the beltway pay attention to the ineffectiveness of government by
midnight edict and hollow sounding laws backed by votes all too often
bought and bartered in acts of unashamed passion and greed.
--
Rest sometimes allows you to find new things to worry about but should give you the
patience to do something about them.
------------------------------
From: Sampo Pasanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wincrypt
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:06:00 +0300
Works for me...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <7mgef1$bc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Terry Mechan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > check software on
> >
> > http://www.tmechan.freeserve.co.uk
>
> Link doesn't work for me.. Is it right or is the server just slow?
>
> Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry Coffin)
Subject: Re: Fractal encryption
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:42:14 -0600
In article <7mg2gi$rj5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
[ ... ]
> One example is R. Crandall's use of the 3-body problem. One chooses
> a 3-body problem by specifying (say) the angular momentum vectors and
> masses of 2 of the bodies. The angular momentum for the 3rd body is
> used as a private key. One can encode the message in the mass of the
> third body. You then crank the system forward for some time period
> and use the result as the encrypted text.
This seems to me to have one basic problem when it comes to
portability. One of the basic properties of this (like most fractal-
related ones) is that extremely minor errors anywhere in the
calculations will lead to drastic errors later one. I suspect that
given the vagaries of floating-point hardware that otherwise trivial
differences between hardware could easily lead to problems. For
example encoding a message on, say, an Intel machine and then
attempting to decode it on, say, an UltraSPARC could lead to
completely incorrect results.
Obviously, it's possible to work around this, but I strongly suspect
that by the time that's done, it would take a system that's already
slow and render it something like a couple of orders of magnitude
slower still in at least some cases.
------------------------------
From: Sampo Pasanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is a fractal?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:51:12 +0300
I don't know much about fractal's, but they are connected with Chaos
theory. The pictures (that you usually think of when talking about
fractals) represent a mathematical state of a function(s?) and the
colors indicate values (if I'm not totally wrong).
But here are some good links. The first link points to FAQ-pages where
you can find more information about the definitions and the second link
points to Yahoo fractal links.
http://library.advanced.org/3703/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Following Bob Silvermans suggestion that 'most people haven't the
> foggiest about fractals' and since I am one of them...
>
> What exactly is a fractal?
>
> Tom
------------------------------
From: "JOE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I wonder why he wrote it that way.
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:27:28 -0700
Rongorongo has been deciphered by S. R. Fischer - the very same fellow who
did the Phaistos disk. His book "Glyphbreaker: a decipherers story" tells
how he accomplished both decipherments.
By the way, I don't recall reading that Rongorongo is related to Harappa
glyphs.
Joe
John Savard wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw) wrote, in part:
>
>>The strangest statement in the book, which really leaves me grinning and
>>crying with laughter occurs on page 553, "Rongorongo consists of tiny,
>>amazingly regularly formed glyphs about 1 centimeter high and 10
>>millimeters wide."
>
>Since Rongorongo isn't a cipher, but a language - specifically, the
>lost script of Easter Island - extant examples indeed could have a
>specific size. However, I will have to agree that it's odd to change
>units of measurement to describe something square...(and it isn't even
>right, the glyphs are taller than wide)
>
>Of course, the main claim to fame of Rongorongo is its uncanny
>similarity to the Indus Valley script.
>
>I saw a copy for $38 Cdn once when visiting the University Bookstore
>location in HUB Mall, but passed it up that day...my web site may not
>be competition for AC or HAC, but it probably is giving Fred B. Wrixon
>a run for his money.
>
>John Savard ( teneerf<- )
>http://members.xoom.com/quadibloc/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Povey)
Subject: Re: Benfords law for factoring primes?
Date: 14 Jul 1999 09:48:09 GMT
"Thijs vd Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:7meo44$glu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Now I know one bit!
>All primes start with a "1", most also end with a "1", SO now you know 2
>bits!
If you are factoring RSA moduli, then it is quite common for implementers
to set the high _two_ bits of each prime to 1 to guarantee a modulus of the
correct size.
--
Dean Povey, | e-m: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Cryptozilla:
Research Scientist | ph: +61 7 3864 5120 | www.cryptozilla.org/
Security Unit, DSTC | fax: +61 7 3864 1282 | Oscar - PKI Toolkit:
Brisbane, Australia | www: security.dstc.edu.au/ | oscar.dstc.qut.edu.au/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock)
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
Date: 14 Jul 1999 09:55:27 GMT
Richard M. Alderson III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+---------------
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) writes:
| >The PDP-10 -- and the term "byte" -- *long* predated the S/360.
|
| As much as I love the PDP-10, I have to point out that it does not predate
| the System/360, which came out in 1964. The first PDP-10 came out in 1967.
+---------------
Oops! I didn't realize S/360 was that early! I stand corrected.
+---------------
| However, the PDP-6 (with which the PDP-10 was opcode-compatible) came out in
| 1964, just like the 360. So they are of the same age.
+---------------
(Whew! Saved!)
+---------------
| The PDP-6 had byte pointers of the same form as the PDP-10, of course, and
| stored 7-bit ASCII characters 5-per-word...
+---------------
Indeed. But was the byte hardware "optional" on the PDP-6, like the
fast registers [overlayed memory locations 0-15] and the floating point?
-Rob
=====
Rob Warnock, 8L-855 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied Networking http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. FAX: 650-933-0511
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Bailey)
Subject: Re: What is a fractal?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:33:18 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:36:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Following Bob Silvermans suggestion that 'most people haven't the
>foggiest about fractals' and since I am one of them...
>
>What exactly is a fractal?
I adapted an answer for Tom using the fractal FAQ at:
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/sci/fractals-faq/faq-doc-0.html
Benoit B. Mandelbrot, who coined the word fractal, gives a
mathematical definition of a fractal as a set of which the Hausdorff
Besicovich dimension strictly exceeds the topological dimension.
This immediately raises a new question, the answer for which can also
be found in the Fractal FAQ (see
http://www.softlab.ntua.gr/faq/fractal/faq-doc-4.html )
A common type of fractal dimension is the Hausdorff-Besicovich
Dimension, but there are several different ways of computing fractal
dimension. Roughly, fractal dimension can be calculated by taking the
limit of the quotient of the log change in object size and the log
change in measurement scale, as the measurement scale approaches zero.
The differences come in what is exactly meant by "object size" and
what is meant by "measurement scale" and how to get an average number
out of many different parts of a geometrical object. Fractal
dimensions quantify the static *geometry* of an object.
An explicit mathematical definition of the Dausdorff-Besicovich
dimension can be found at:
http://www.tsi.enst.fr/~marquez/FRACTALS/fdim/node7.html
which includes the interesting observation:
Mandelbrot gave three definitions of fractal. The first comes from the
intuitive etimology of his coined term (fractus:
fractured (irregular), fragere: fragment, fraction). The second
introduces the concept of self-similarity: A fractal is a
shape made of parts similar to the whole in some way. The third
definition is the technical accepted one, using DH and
DT: A fractal is by definition a set for which DT < DH < d; that is,
the Hausdorff Besicovitch dimension of the set strictly
exceeds the topological dimension
Looking forward to a new public key encryption system based on the
Mandelbrot.
John
------------------------------
From: James Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Funny News
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:48:58 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Watching CNN today I saw a clip of Janet Reno (hey wheres the blue
> dress?) and I semi-quote
>
> " Terroists can use encryption technologies making wiretaps effectively
> useless and crime prevention much harder ... "
> Tom
> --
Hmm, it was always my belief that laws werent made to catch criminals, but
to guide the public away from troublesome situations. In fact, criminals
are a direct result of laws in that the term "criminal" means someone who
doesnt follow the law. Restricting encryption using laws won't
necessarily make it harder for criminals to obtain algorithms, after all
they don't respect the law in the first place, it will only restrict the
law abiding citizens. What kind of half arsed logic creates these laws?
I'll never understand, but I'll always be thankful of the 3000 miles of
water between your legal system and my house.
James
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 99 10:13:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Gates) wrote:
>In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Varela) writes:
>> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:15:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Gates)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> > Just as B(reast) has two N(ipples), B(yte) has two N(ibbles)
>>>
>>> Breast singular, two nipples?
>>
>> That's udderly ridiculous.
>
>So I was milking the joke...
>
Leaving a sour taste in your mouth.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Fleming)
Subject: Re: Kryptos article
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:29:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JTong1995) wrote:
>I thought that all transpositions acted as a group, in that a double (or
>triple) transposition could be represented as a single transposition of a
>different pattern.
Yes, that's true of general transpositions. But traditionally, a 'simple
transposition' in cryptography was created by writing a message in rows
beneath a keyword of length d, then reordering the columns to place the
keyword in alphabetical order; and finally reading off the re-ordered message
in rows. This has the same effect as a general transposition which acts on d
letter blocks; there are d! possible such permutations. Such a simple
transposition, with a typical keylength and reasonable message length, is
regarded as quite easy to solve.
A double transposition consists of applying a second simple transposition of
different (preferably mutually prime) keylength. The transposition period is
now lcm(d1,d2), although the number of transpositions allowed is d1! x d2!,
which is still considerably less than the number of transpositions of length
lcm(d1,d2); nevertheless it is considerably more difficult to solve than a
simple transposition.
Of course this could go on to any number of iterations, but multiple
transposition was also regarded as close to the limit of complexity that a
human operator could do in the field without excessive error, especially as
small errors in this cipher would produce complete garbles.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Leichter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:51:32 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| OK, nostalgia fans, place this:
|
| [picture of three "suits" with submachineguns hosing down a <TLA>
| convention booth]
|
| Caption: "Eat flaming death minicomputer mongrels!"
http://e-pix.com/CPUWARS/cpuwars.html
-- Jerry
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fractal encryption
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:34:18 +0200
Jerry Coffin wrote:
>
> This seems to me to have one basic problem when it comes to
> portability. One of the basic properties of this (like most fractal-
> related ones) is that extremely minor errors anywhere in the
> calculations will lead to drastic errors later one. I suspect that
> given the vagaries of floating-point hardware that otherwise trivial
> differences between hardware could easily lead to problems. For
> example encoding a message on, say, an Intel machine and then
> attempting to decode it on, say, an UltraSPARC could lead to
> completely incorrect results.
Since chaos is intimately related to stability of a system, the
numerical accuracy can under circumstances indeed be crucial. Maybe
many beautiful pictures of fractals are falsified to some degree.
One author wrote in his book on chaos that results of applying the
shadowing theorem are true only on the assumption that the
computations are without rounding errors.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick Juola)
Subject: Re: Is Stenography legal?
Date: 14 Jul 1999 09:37:48 -0400
In article <7mguo2$f0p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, rosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Stumbled upon this.
>
>This perhaps reflects a more general setting. Sometimes people
>seem to convey the sense even though not awaringly. Yet to me, it
>seems necessary to always bring this to the conscious level. (I often
>fail to do this as well)
>
>This concerns what is practical and what is 'theoretical'.
>
>Let me be concrete here. Given a cipher C, which before 'life' ends
>for the universe is never cracked, is it uncrackable? Theoretically,
>it has to be uncrackable to be uncrackable. C can be really crackable
>but not within 'our' life time, then it is still crackable in theory (i.e.
>being crackable is truth which we will not get at for a pity). Yet in all
>practical sense, C is uncrackable. This difference is important, IMO.
The problem is that we don't really know what might be possible in
fifty or a hundred years. There's a big difference between proof
of uncrackability or extrapolation from current tech.
>In the same vein, practically, an illegal act "is" legal (only in the sense
>I tried to convey) if not caught. (I am talking at an abstract
>level and am not advocating illegal act in any fashion --- as long
>as you did not get caught or as long as law-writing functionaries
>can legalize it in a special piece of law even in conflict with the
>general constitution, etc.). What is wrong is wrong. However, a
>wrong when not treated as wrong is the same as a right in all
>practical sense.
*Until* you get caught. At which point you will find out how
wrong it is. And just 'cause you didn't get caught last time doesn't
mean you won't get caught this time. Same principle here. As
my stockbroker puts it, "Past performance is no guarantee of future
results."
-kitten
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: How Big is a Byte? (was: New Encryption Product!)
Date: 14 Jul 1999 13:52:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In <7mf54o$ocu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan J Rosenthal) wrote:
>>Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>Of course, nobody disagrees that bytes are usually 8 bits on modern
>>>machines, most of which (for our sins) are Intel boxes running a
>>>Microsoft OS.
>>
>>If I recall correctly, in the mid and/or late 1970s (and possibly through
>>early 1980s), when there were IBM fans and DEC fans, the IBM types used
>>the word "byte" to mean "8 bits" and us DEC-oriented folks found this as
>>annoying as many of you find, for example, spelling "lose" as "loose" in
>>usenet messages. Of course, we had a three-bit bias due to octal numbers,
>>whereas THOSE people used hexadecimal and had a four-bit bias.
>
>Yup. They couldn't count on two hands.
>
>/BAH
>
>Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Hey, we used our toes, too!
Whoops, too much information. :*)
Dave
P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them.
------------------------------
** 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 (and sci.crypt) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
