Re: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin

2005-11-10 Thread Jeremiah Rogers
I guess the small increase in efficiency would not be worth additional program code. That depends on the size of the numbers you're working with... Considering the research that goes into fast implementations of PowerMod I don't think the required computation is trivial. Although the

[Clips] MIT Real ID Meeting Postponed to December 5th, AND Homeland Security to Propose Regulations - Join the Discussion

2005-11-10 Thread R. A. Hettinga
--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 18:43:07 -0500 To: Philodox Clips List [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Clips] MIT Real ID Meeting Postponed to December 5th, AND Homeland Security to Propose Regulations -

Pseudorandom Number Generator in Ansi X9.17

2005-11-10 Thread Terence Joseph
Hi, The Pseudorandom Number Generator specified in Ansi X9.17 used to be one of the best PRNGs available if I am correct. I was just wondering if this is still considered to be the case? Is it widely used in practical situations or is there some better implementation available? What would

Re: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin

2005-11-10 Thread Alexander Klimov
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Jeremiah Rogers wrote: I guess the small increase in efficiency would not be worth additional program code. That depends on the size of the numbers you're working with... Considering the research that goes into fast implementations of PowerMod I don't think the

event in NYC: The Secret World of Global Eavesdropping

2005-11-10 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Apparently there's an event at The New School on November 17th entitled The Secret World of Global Eavesdropping -- one of the panel is John Young of Cryptome fame. http://worldpolicy.org/calendar/2005/fall/05nov17.html -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Pseudorandom Number Generator in Ansi X9.17

2005-11-10 Thread Alexander Klimov
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Terence Joseph wrote: The Pseudorandom Number Generator specified in Ansi X9.17 used to be one of the best PRNGs available if I am correct. I was just wondering if this is still considered to be the case? Is it widely used in practical situations or is there some better

Re: Pseudorandom Number Generator in Ansi X9.17

2005-11-10 Thread Jack Lloyd
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:33:18AM +, Terence Joseph wrote: Hi, The Pseudorandom Number Generator specified in Ansi X9.17 used to be one of the best PRNGs available if I am correct. I was just wondering if this is still considered to be the case? Is it widely used in practical

Another Skype Study

2005-11-10 Thread Aram Perez
Don't recall seeing this on the list: http://www.ossir.org/windows/ supports/2005/2005-11-07/EADS-CCR_Fabrice_Skype.pdf Enjoy, Aram Perez - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to

[Clips] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [IP] Apple tries to patent 'tamper-resistant software']

2005-11-10 Thread R. A. Hettinga
--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:00:24 -0500 To: Philodox Clips List [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Clips] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [IP] Apple tries to patent 'tamper-resistant software'] Reply-To: [EMAIL

Re: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin

2005-11-10 Thread Anton Stiglic
I guess the small increase in efficiency would not be worth additional program code. That depends on the size of the numbers you're working with... Considering the research that goes into fast implementations of PowerMod I don't think the required computation is trivial. Although the

RE: How broad is the SPEKE patent.

2005-11-10 Thread James A. Donald
-- From: Charlie Kaufman From a legal perspective, they would probably have a better chance with SRP, since Stanford holds a patent and might be motivated to support the challenge. The vast majority of phishing attacks and other forms of man in the middle attack seek to

Re: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin

2005-11-10 Thread Anton Stiglic
Although the Carmichael numbers fool the Fermat test (that is, $a^{n-1} = 1 (n)$) for *all* a, there are no such things for the Miller-Rabin test: for any odd composite n at least 3/4 of a's fail the test, that is if you made m MR tests with random a's then you are mistaken with probability

FW: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin

2005-11-10 Thread Charlie Kaufman
(resending after bounce) -Original Message- From: Charlie Kaufman Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:11 PM To: 'Travis H.'; 'cryptography@metzdowd.com' Subject: RE: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin Is that the distinction that makes Miller-Rabin a stronger primality test? Yes.

FW: How broad is the SPEKE patent.

2005-11-10 Thread Charlie Kaufman
(resending after bounce) -Original Message- From: Charlie Kaufman Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:59 PM To: 'James A. Donald'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cryptography@metzdowd.com Subject: RE: How broad is the SPEKE patent. James A. Donald said: Does SPEKE claim to patent any uses of

FW: How broad is the SPEKE patent.

2005-11-10 Thread Charlie Kaufman
(resending after bounce) -Original Message- From: Charlie Kaufman Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:54 PM To: 'Steven M. Bellovin'; James A. Donald Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cryptography@metzdowd.com Subject: RE: How broad is the SPEKE patent. - Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Radia