Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: move Sage development to Github

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

+1 for Github

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022, 07:15 Nathan Dunfield,  wrote:

> +1 for GitHub
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/d639d283-afe5-409c-8eb3-72f5abb92551n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAMEe%2BrTjZXu0OsdObj8p2AAnB49Zit8XNXUJ5ncbuFSQt7o0OQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] [Crypto] S-box Linear Approximation Matrix scaling

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi Friedrich,

The way it is defined in the code is consistent with the paper mentioned
in the documentation (H. Heys paper on tutorial of differential and
linear cryptanalysis) which, I believe, is used by many cryptanalysis
researchers or students to learn differential and linear cryptanalysis
for the first time. Together with the paper, SageMath can be a companion
educational tool for introducing the concept of linear and differential
cryptanalysis. In that respect i think its more beneficial to change its
description in the documentation rather than changing the function.

Regards,
Rusydi

On 16-02-18 15:55, Friedrich Wiemer wrote:
> I recently stumbled across the fact that the implementation of
> SBox().linear_approximation_matrix() returns /scaled/ Fourier
> coefficients.
> While the documentation says exactly this, i.e., "[the matrix] encodes
> the bias[es]", my personal intuition is that this matrix should
> contain the actual Fourier coefficients.
> In fact, the matrix is computed using the Fourier-Walsh transform for
> each component function and then scales the resulting matrix
> accordingly. On the other side, this scaling is then for other methods
> reversed (e.g. in the `nonlinearity` and `linearity` method).
>
> Of course, my argument is basically only personal taste, but my
> feeling is that containing the /unscaled/ Fourier coefficients is,
> what one would assume when only looking at the API and not at the
> documentation.
> So, I propose to change this, but would like to hear your opinions on
> this?
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Citing PolyBoRi/BRiAl in a Paper

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi,

Since PolyBoRi has been renamed to BRiAl in SageMath, what would be right
way to cite it in a paper ? Should I mention it as PolyBoRi or should they
both be mentioned together (e.g PolyBoRi/BRiAl) ?

Regards,
-- 
Rusydi H. Makarim

PhD Student
Mathematisch Instituut <http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/>, Universiteit Leiden
<http://www.leiden.edu/> and
Cryptology Group <https://projects.cwi.nl/crypto/index.php>, Centrum
Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) <https://www.cwi.nl/>
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Email : maka...@cwi.nl, r.h.maka...@math.leidenuniv.nl
Web : http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/
<http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/index.html>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Profiling memory usage from sage command-line

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi

Suppose I have a polynomial Ideal 'J' and I want to call J.groebner_basis()
. My goal is to profile the memory usage of groebner basis computation in
SageMath. How can I do this from the sage command line ?

Regards,
Rusydi

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring SBox Code

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi Friedrich,


On 10-05-17 15:04, Friedrich Wiemer wrote:
> Martin Albrecht commented on issue 20336
> (https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20336#comment:10) that the SBox code
> should be moved from crypto.mq.SBox to some other place. I think that
> this is a simple enough issue to get started contributing to the sage
> development, so I'd like to work on this. Do you have any opinion,
> where the code should go to? My suggestion would be crypto.sbox.
>

Agree, crypto.sbox makes the most sense to me. A change would also be
required for other modules that depend mq.SBox, such as mq.SR in
mq/sr.py (This is the only module that I am aware of). Could you please
open a ticket for this issue ?

> Another nice thing would be, to have common sboxes available in this
> module, like the AES sbox etc. I have a list of SBoxes from a
> colleague that I could add. But again, I have no idea, what the best
> structure would be. Maybe a dictionary of the form:
> |
> sboxes['AES']=SBox([...])
> sboxes['PRESENT']=SBox([...])
> sboxes['Skinny']=SBox([...])
> |
> ?
>

There will be a long list of S-Boxes in this case. My suggestion is to
put them in a separate module, say crypto.sboxes, and then create
instance of SBox for each sbox, e.g.

AES = SBox([...])
PRESENT = SBox([...])


> Thanks for your answers in advance, cheers
> Friedrich
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Implements change_ring() for BooleanPolynomialRing (#21817) -- Needs Review

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi

On 23/11/2016 3:53 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2016-11-22, Rusydi H. Makarim <rusydi.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Shouldn't it raise an error as soon as the "new" base ring is different
>>> from GF(2)?
>>>

Apparently restricting base_ring only for GF(2) causes some test failures

Running doctests with ID 2016-11-24-12-16-21-a13adb2d.
Git branch: t/21817/change_ring_pbori
Using --optional=mpir,python2,sage
Doctesting 1 file.
sage -t src/sage/rings/polynomial/pbori.pyx
**
File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/pbori.pyx", line 669, in
sage.rings.polynomial.pbori.BooleanPolynomialRing._coerce_map_from_
Failed example:
I = Cyclic(R)
Exception raised:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File
"/Users/rusydi/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py",
line 498, in _run
self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
  File
"/Users/rusydi/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py",
line 861, in compile_and_execute
exec(compiled, globs)
  File "",
line 1, in 
I = Cyclic(R)
  File
"/Users/rusydi/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/ideal.py",
line 1624, in Cyclic
R2 = R.change_ring(RationalField())
  File "sage/rings/polynomial/pbori.pyx", line 587, in
sage.rings.polynomial.pbori.BooleanPolynomialRing.change_ring
(/Users/rusydi/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/rings/polynomial/pbori.cpp:8249)
raise ValueError("Only GF(2) allowed as base ring")
ValueError: Only GF(2) allowed as base ring
**
File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/pbori.pyx", line 670, in
sage.rings.polynomial.pbori.BooleanPolynomialRing._coerce_map_from_
Failed example:
len(I.groebner_basis())
Exception raised:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File
"/Users/rusydi/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py",
line 498, in _run
self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
  File
"/Users/rusydi/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py",
line 861, in compile_and_execute
exec(compiled, globs)
  File "",
line 1, in 
len(I.groebner_basis())
  File "sage/structure/element.pyx", line 459, in
sage.structure.element.Element.__getattr__
(/Users/rusydi/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/element.c:4243)
return self.getattr_from_category(name)
  File "sage/structure/element.pyx", line 472, in
sage.structure.element.Element.getattr_from_category
(/Users/rusydi/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/element.c:4352)
return getattr_from_other_class(self, cls, name)
  File "sage/structure/misc.pyx", line 300, in
sage.structure.misc.getattr_from_other_class
(/Users/rusydi/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/misc.c:1919)
raise dummy_attribute_error
AttributeError: 'sage.symbolic.expression.Expression' object has no
attribute 'groebner_basis'
**
1 item had failures:
   2 of  20 in
sage.rings.polynomial.pbori.BooleanPolynomialRing._coerce_map_from_
[1546 tests, 2 failures, 9.28 s]
--
sage -t src/sage/rings/polynomial/pbori.pyx  # 2 doctests failed
--
Total time for all tests: 10.2 seconds
cpu time: 4.7 seconds
cumulative wall time: 9.3 seconds

> 
> Cheers,
> Simon
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Implements change_ring() for BooleanPolynomialRing (#21817) -- Needs Review

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi,

On 22/11/2016 10:27 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2016-11-21, Rusydi H. Makarim <rusydi.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But I argue that a proper behaviour of
>> change_ring() in BooleanPolynomialRing is to return a BooleanPolynomialRing
>> whenever a base_ring is not given in the argument and return multivariate
>> polynomial ring otherwise.
> 
> Shouldn't it raise an error as soon as the "new" base ring is different
> from GF(2)?
> 

I don't see any reason why this should not be allowed in the case of
BooleanPolynomialRing. For consistency purpose, I think it should be as
generic as the one implemented in MPolynomialRing_generic.

Regards,
Rusydi

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Implements change_ring() for BooleanPolynomialRing (#21817) -- Needs Review

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi,

This patch (#21817 <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21817>) implements a
dedicated change_ring() for BooleanPolynomialRing. Previous change_ring()
uses the one implemented in MPolynomialRing_generic as the parent of
BooleanPolynomialRing. This makes change_ring() always return a
multivariate polynomial ring. But I argue that a proper behaviour of
change_ring() in BooleanPolynomialRing is to return a BooleanPolynomialRing
whenever a base_ring is not given in the argument and return multivariate
polynomial ring otherwise.

Regards,
-- 
Rusydi H. Makarim

PhD Student
Mathematisch Instituut <http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/>, Universiteit Leiden
<http://www.leiden.edu/> and
Cryptology Group <https://projects.cwi.nl/crypto/index.php>, Centrum
Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) <https://www.cwi.nl/>
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Email : maka...@cwi.nl, r.h.maka...@math.leidenuniv.nl
Web : http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/
<http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/index.html>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Confusion over change_ring() - #21780

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi,

There have been quite some discussions in #21780
<https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21780> with regards to how change_ring()
should be implemented in PolynomialSequence. It started with different
arguments whether change_ring() in PolynomialSequence should either be
implemented consistently with Ideal or MPolynomials.

De Feo summarized
<https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21780?replyto=19#comment:19> the
idea of *changing
ring *w.r.t polynomials in SAGE and also raises up issues that the function
change_ring() is not explicit enough for two cases mentioned in the
comments (it causes some confusion for me too).

I would like to bring more people in this discussion to resolve #21780
<https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21780> and I am also looking for better
suggestions/arguments from other developers.

Regards,
-- 
Rusydi H. Makarim

PhD Student
Mathematisch Instituut <http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/>, Universiteit Leiden
<http://www.leiden.edu/> and
Cryptology Group <https://projects.cwi.nl/crypto/index.php>, Centrum
Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) <https://www.cwi.nl/>
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Email : maka...@cwi.nl, r.h.maka...@math.leidenuniv.nl
Web : http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/
<http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/index.html>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] change_ring() in PolynomialSequence and Ideal of Multivariate Polynomial

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi,

Previously, I have created a ticket #21780
<https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21780> to implement the function
change_ring() in PolynomialSequence class with the intention to provide a
simple interface in changing the ring property. The function takes 3
optional arguments : base_ring, names, and order (similar with how
change_ring() was implemented in MPolynomialRing_generic).

Then I was informed that the way change_ring() was implemented in Ideal is
by taking a multivariate polynomial ring as an input, which I think is not
flexible enough if a user only wants to change some properties in the ring
such as term/monomial ordering.

Can somebody point out the main reason why change_ring() in Ideal was
implemented in such a way ? And whether change_ring() in PolynomialSequence
should also be implemented in similar fashion to make it consistent with
the way it was implemented for Ideal ? Or maybe its better to implement
more unambiguous methods (e.g, change_term_order(), change_var_names(),
etc) ?

Best Regards,
-- 
Rusydi H. Makarim

PhD Student
Mathematisch Instituut <http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/>, Universiteit Leiden
<http://www.leiden.edu/> and
Cryptology Group <https://projects.cwi.nl/crypto/index.php>, Centrum
Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) <https://www.cwi.nl/>
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Email : maka...@cwi.nl, r.h.maka...@math.leidenuniv.nl
Web : http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/
<http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/index.html>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] #21780 - Implements change_ring() for PolynomialSequence

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

HI all,

Trac ticket #21780 <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21780> is a small
enhancement that implements change_ring() directly in PolynomialSequence. I
would really appreciate if someone is willing to review it -- only 2 lines
of python code ;-)

Regards,
-- 
Rusydi H. Makarim

PhD Student
Mathematisch Instituut <http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/>, Universiteit Leiden
<http://www.leiden.edu/> and
Cryptology Group <https://projects.cwi.nl/crypto/index.php>, Centrum
Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) <https://www.cwi.nl/>
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Email : maka...@cwi.nl, r.h.maka...@math.leidenuniv.nl
Web : http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/
<http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/index.html>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Trac #21252 - Nonlinear Invariants of an S-Box

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi everyone,

I would appreciate if someone could step-in and review ticket #21252
<https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21252>. Its an implementation of
computing nonlinear invariants of an S-Box, which is a part of a newly
proposed cryptanalytic techniques in http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/732.pdf.

Best Regards,
-- 
Rusydi H. Makarim

PhD Student
Mathematisch Instituut <http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/>, Universiteit Leiden
<http://www.leiden.edu/> and
Cryptology Group <https://projects.cwi.nl/crypto/index.php>, Centrum
Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) <https://www.cwi.nl/>
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Email : maka...@cwi.nl, r.h.maka...@math.leidenuniv.nl
Web : http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/
<http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/%7Emakarimrh/index.html>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] #20611 needs review : more functionalities for mq.SBox

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi,

I committed a patch to provide more features for SAGE mq.SBox with two
helpers to construct bigger S-Box from smaller S-Boxes (Feistel and MISTY
construction). I would appreciate if someone willing to review the ticket.

https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20611

Best Regards,
-- 
Rusydi H. Makarim

PhD Student
Mathematisch Instituut <http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/>, Universiteit Leiden
<http://www.leiden.edu/> and
Cryptology Group <https://projects.cwi.nl/crypto/index.php>, Centrum
Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) <https://www.cwi.nl/>
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Email : maka...@cwi.nl, r.h.maka...@math.leidenuniv.nl
Web : http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/
<http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/index.html>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: FGb - Gröbner basis computation code

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

I have been using FGb for the past 3 months. It supports Grobner basis
computation over a prime finite field and rational field. I personally only
use it for system of equations over a finite field. Some details I would
like to share here :

   1. The choice to perform computation over finite field or Q must be
   given as a C preprocessor - #define LIBMODE "i" (i=1 for Fp and i=2 for Q)
   2. It supports monomial block ordering degrevlex, hence also supports
   degrevlex.
   3. The maximal number of polynomials in intermediate basis must also be
   define as C preprocessor.
   4. There is a C struct type "SFGB_Options" that stores all parameters
   for the computation. One of its member "_env._index" is used to specify the
   maximum size of intermediate matrices for Gaussian elimination step.

I myself never try to write a SAGE interface for an external library. So
I'm curious if details above could make it a bit trickier to write
interface for FGb. I would love to hear some more comments on this.

Remark : I have also performed some benchmark using system of equations
from multivariate public-key cryptosystem (dense, random, overdefined).
Compared to Magma 2.20-6, FGb use much less memory, but have worse total
CPU time.



On 3 May 2016 at 22:51, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Have you noticed that it's binary only? So you cannot include it.
> Provide an interface, well, yes.
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:39:37 PM UTC+1, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>I justed wanted to point out that I found this Gröbner basis package:
>> http://www-polsys.lip6.fr/~jcf/FGb/index.html Although I didn't see any
>> license information from a quick look on the website, but it might be
>> something we can include into Sage. Sorry if this post is more noise
>> because this was already known.
>>
>> Best,
>> Travis
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Rusydi H. Makarim

PhD Student
Mathematisch Instituut <http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/>, Universiteit Leiden
<http://www.leiden.edu/> and
Cryptology Group <https://projects.cwi.nl/crypto/index.php>, Centrum
Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) <https://www.cwi.nl/>
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Email : maka...@cwi.nl, r.h.maka...@math.leidenuniv.nl
Web : http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/
<http://pub.math.leidenuniv.nl/~makarimrh/index.html>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] More cryptography-related functionality for mq.SBox : #20336 (needs review)

[Rusydi H. Makarim]

Hi,

Is there anyone who is willing to review ticket #20336
<http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20336> ?

It is an implementation for some functionality to determine various
cryptographic properties of an S-Box such as nonlinearity, differential
uniformity, linear structures, etc.

Best Regards,
-- 
Rusydi H. Makarim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.