Cryptography-Digest Digest #880
Cryptography-Digest Digest #880, Volume #11 Sun, 28 May 00 17:13:00 EDT Contents: Re: list of prime numbers (Jerry Coffin) TC1a (oops) (tomstd) Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May (Adrian Kennard) On dynamic random selection of encryption algorithms (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: Hill's algorithm (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: Another sci.crypt Cipher (David A. Wagner) Re: Plain simple (?) question (Alain CULOS) Re: Crypto patentability (zapzing) Re: Traffic Analysis Capabilities (zapzing) Re: PGP wipe how good is it versus hardware recovery of HD? (zapzing) Re: Retail distributors of DES chips? (zapzing) Re: No-Key Encryption (zapzing) My simple cipher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: No-Key Encryption (Guy Macon) Re: PGP wipe how good is it versus hardware recovery of HD? (Guy Macon) Re: Traffic Analysis Capabilities (Guy Macon) Re: Traffic Analysis Capabilities (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: No-Key Encryption (Mok-Kong Shen) From: Jerry Coffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: list of prime numbers Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 11:16:54 -0600 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... [ ... ] If one has a large number (say 150 digits), what are the ways to try and break this up into its factors? Where does one start? I think that there can only be a limited list of possible prime numbers which will actually (when multiplied) come up with the correct public modulus. Yes, it's _very_ limited -- in fact it's limited to exactly the same pair of numbers that were originally multiplied to produce the number to start with. Unfortunately, while those two or three (or whatever) numbers are drawn from a set that's limited in the theoretical sense (i.e. it's not an infinite set) it's set so many that a list of all the possibilties would be FAR too large to store -- even if every atom of the earth could store a number and you could convert all the matter in the earthh into such storage, you'd still be WAY short of storing the whole list. Change "earth" to "solar system" and you're not much closer. Change it to "milky way galaxy" and you're still only able to store a TINY fraction of the list... -- Later, Jerry. The universe is a figment of its own imagination. -- Subject: TC1a (oops) From: tomstd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 10:17:22 -0700 I found a problem with the original TC1a permutation that bit 29 goes to bit 29. I found another permutation with the following diff chars. Tommorow I will write a second paper on TC1a including marks findings on the original TC1. If anyone has hints onto linear cryptanalysis I would appreciate it... It can be found at http://www.tomstdenis.com/tc1ref.c 16r: none 15r: 2^-63.66, 19[0] - 01[3] p=1/64, 01[3] - 04[0] p=1/64, 1d [0] - 01[3], p=6/256 14r: 2^-62.00, 02[0] - 05[2] p=1/128, 05[2] - 02[0] p=1/128 14r: 2^-58.00, 12[0] - 01[2] p=1/64, 01[2] - 12[0] p=1/128 14r: 2^-57.66, 19[0] - 01[3] p=1/64, 01[3] - 04[0] p=1/64, 1d [0] - 01[3] p=6/256 13r: 2^-52.00, 12[0] - 01[2] p=1/64, 01[2] - 12[0] p=1/128 * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! -- From: Adrian Kennard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: uk.media.newspapers,uk.legal,alt.security.pgp,alt.privacy,uk.politics.parliament,uk.politics.crime,talk.politics.crypto,alt.ph.uk,alt.conspiracy.spy,alt.politics.uk,uk.telecom Subject: Re: RIP Bill 3rd Reading in Parliament TODAY 8th May Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:21:52 +0100 A_Customer_at_an_easyEverything_Cybercafe wrote: On Mon, 8 May 2000 14:31:20 +0100, "NoSpam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: plans were already far advanced for a law that would stop ILOVEYOU ever happening again. Yes, it's that darn RIP bill, still struggling to find supporters in the real world" If they want to stop I Love you virii, why dont they just get everybody to use a secure mail reader? surely it wouldnt cost them a lot to switch to somerthing secure, like pine, or any other *nix mail reader, or even some windows readers are not too bad. Why spent money on a bill that restricts human rights when you could have abetter solution for all for free? I though there were already laws against the ILOVEYOU virus - the Computer Misue Act for one. I cant see how any law can "stop it happening", they can simply help ensure the guilty party is punished. -- _Andrews Arnold Ltd, 01344 400 000 http://aa.nu/ (_) _| _ . _ _ Professional Voice and Data Systems for Business. ( )(_|( |(_|| ) Gold Certified Alchemists, BT ISDN/ADSL Resellers -- From: Mok-Kong Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: On dynamic random selection of encryption algorithms Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:03:46 +0
Cryptography-Digest Digest #880
Cryptography-Digest Digest #880, Volume #10 Mon, 10 Jan 00 19:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: "1:1 adaptive huffman compression" doesn't work (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Questions about message digest functions ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: compression encryption (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: "1:1 adaptive huffman compression" doesn't work ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Is there a sci.crypt FAQ? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: AES satellite example ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Simple Encryption ... (Paul Koning)
Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator (Paul Koning)
Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Intel 810 chipset Random Number Generator ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: "1:1 adaptive huffman compression" doesn't work ("Gary")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: "1:1 adaptive huffman compression" doesn't work
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:34:48 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mok-Kong Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
One idea behind such a scheme is essentially that if the EOF occurs while
the decompressor is in the middle of a symbol, it *knows* that this can
only happen if the decompressor chopped of a tail of zeros. This tail of
zeros can be unambiguously reconstructed *provided* the file does not end
with any all-zero Huffman symbols - and this case can be avoided fairly
simply.
Excuse me, if I am arguing based on wrong knowledge (I haven't followed
the stuff for quite a while and perhaps have forgotten a lot). What
if the analyst decrypts with a wrong key which produces a file that
has at the end a sufficiently long sequence of zeros?
M. K. Shen
go ahead test h2com and h2unc with a file of zeroes
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website NOT FOR WIMPS
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott rejected paper for the ACM
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/dspaper.htm
Scott famous Compression Page WIMPS allowed
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the
truth."
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Questions about message digest functions
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:23:46 GMT
Tim Tyler I wrote:
[is building a secure, one-way pseudo-random permutation possible?]
To quote from Section 18.12 of Schneier's "Applied
Cryptography":
``It is possible to use a public-key encryption algorithm in a block
chaining mode as a one-way hash function. If you then throw away
the
private key, breaking the hash would be as difficult as reading the
message without the private key.''
This construction appears to work, and when block
size, hash size and message size are all equal, it
provides a secure bijective one-way hash.
Now look at how the time to break it compares with
hashes based on PRF's.
--Bryan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: compression encryption
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:53:30 GMT
In article 85baeq$h7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Kenneth Almquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Kenneth Almquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Tyler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Compressing using a nonbijective algorithm and then encrypting twice
: may be faster than compressing using a bijective algorithm and then
: compressing once.
Multiple encryption with independent algorithms and bijective
compression produce different types of security benefit.
The security benefit in both cases is that the attacker has less
information about the input to the encryption algorithm. (In the
case of double encryption, I am referring to the input to the
second encryption.)
: That is because some of the compression algorithms
: which provide the best combination of speed and compression ratio
: (such as the one used by gzip) are not bijective.
Bijective compression has only just been invented. The current
situation /should/ eventually reverse - since making a compression
system bijective demonstrably makes optimal use of the range of the
compressor.
The algorithms with the best compression ratios are non-bijective only
because of redundancies between the contents of the compressor output
and the length of the compressor output. Since the length of the
compressor output can be represented in log_2(N) bits, this redundancy
wastes at *most* log_2(N) bits.
No the above is not the reason since it is possible to map bijective from
bits streams that could come from a compressor to any mulitle of bytes.
take any
Cryptography-Digest Digest #880
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
