Cryptography-Digest Digest #170, Volume #9 Mon, 1 Mar 99 21:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: My Book "The Unknowable" (Patrick Juola)
Re: Randomness based consciousness?. (Was: Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come
From ?!? *** ) (Seisei Yamaguchi)
Re: Quantum Randomness (R. Knauer)
Re: One-Time-Pad program for Win85/98 or DOS (R. Knauer)
Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!! (R. Knauer)
Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!! (R. Knauer)
KL-7 Cipher machine (RREYNARD)
Re: Hardware Random Numbers: Not an *explicit* feature (Terry Ritter)
Re: My Book "The Unknowable" (Terry Ritter)
New Encryption (I would like some analysis) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Testing Algorithms [moving off-topic] (R. Knauer)
Re: My Book "The Unknowable" (R. Knauer)
Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!! (BRAD KRANE)
Re: Musings on the PKZip stream-cipher (Sundial Services)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick Juola)
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My Book "The Unknowable"
Date: 1 Mar 1999 15:22:49 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 19:19:00 GMT, in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in sci.crypt
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer) wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>The post processing consists in the usual anti-skewing and hashing to
>>distill the approximate 1 bit of entropy in text. One poster on
>>sci.crypt suggests a CRC hash, so you would have to feed it 32
>>characters to get 4 back if it were CRC-32.
>
>I think this is too tight: If we are willing to assume an "entropy"
>of 1 bit per character, processing only 32 chars to get a 32-bit
>result does not discard enough. 32 bits of entropy through linear
>processing is at least theoretically reversible.
This fairly screams for an empirical validation, doesn't it, though?
I think the problem here is one of successive approximations --
measure twice, cut once, and all that. In particular, I don't
know of any experiment or study that has ever suggested that
the entropy of "free" English text is as low as 1 bit/character;
more typical bounds are on the order of 1.5-1.8 (or even 2.0) bits/char.
Of course, if you want to round (conservatively) to 1 bit/char,
you're betting on the side of caution; given that improved
models are more likely to *decrease* the measured entropy than
to increase it, that's probably the direction one wants to go.
*BUT*....
>I would like to see 2 or 3 times that amount of input for the same
>output. I want to throw away 1/2 or 2/3 of the entropy that we are
>willing to guarantee, and if the guarantee is only statistical, we
>probably need to throw out even more.
How much are you willing to throw away? We're entering the realm of
engineering here -- what's the bang/buck you want? But you can see
that just in rounding down from 1.5 to 1.0 bits/char, you're already
"throwing away" 1/3 of the entropy in the sample in your back of
the envelope calculations.
I so *hate* one-significant-figure answers. 8-)
-kitten
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seisei Yamaguchi)
Crossposted-To:
sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.psychology.theory,alt.hypnosis,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Randomness based consciousness?. (Was: Re: *** Where Does The Randomness
Come From ?!? *** )
Date: 26 Feb 1999 07:32:11 GMT
Hi, this is Seisei.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, james d. hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote {
Seisei Yamaguchi wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I don't know where this idea of Random based conscioussness comes
> >from, Random Consciousness is an oxymoron...
>
> You are right. And I wrote {
>
> If the link ---adaptive network--- pattern of the brain cells
> (include pattern generating routine (distributed system) )
> is TRUE RANDOM,
>
> it means our consciousness
> ---cells network organized from astronomical number of
> pulses come from the interface and self feedback system---
> is controled by TRUE RANDOMNESS.
> }.
That has to be a priori wrong.
It is impossible for TRUE RANDOMNESS to CONTROL *anything*.
}
Wow, nice indication.
Then, I fix the bug, {
s/is controled by TRUE RANDOMNESS/is TRUE RANDOMNESS/
}.
--
Seisei Yamaguchi (%name = ( "first",jp( "$B@D@1(B" ), "family",jp( "$B;38}(B" ) ))
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA010205/
Today is first day of rest of the life.
jp( "$B:#F|$O;D$j$N?M@8$N:G=i$NF|(B" ) --from BH90210 (jp)
I want your indication. jp( "$B%,%D%s$H8@$C$F$/$l(B" )
I want workplace we may sing and dance if the job isn't bear on music.
jp( "$B$_$s$J$G2N$C$FMY$l$k;E;v>l(B ($BHs2;3Z7O$N$G$b(B)
$B$,$"$C$?$i$$$$$J(B" )
My message is copylefted (see GPL) .
I limit number of my lovers to 68, at a time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: Quantum Randomness
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:04:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1 Mar 1999 20:01:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>You do NOT need a quantum computer to use quantum randomness.
>Observation of any quantum phenomenon will do.
Yes, like in a radioactive TRNG. But as you point out, the TRNG is
biased slightly no matter how careful you are.
In contrast the numbers generated by a quantum computer are pure
random numbers that don't suffer from experimental bias (or
correlation).
>All generators (pseudo random generators) are clearly not random.
You know that, and I know that - but you would be surprised at how
many people do not know that. Some people think if a generator passes
a few statistical tests on its output it is a true random number
generator.
>(from a practising physicist).
Why is it that physicists seem to understand these things so well?
Bob Knauer
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions
of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."
--Oscar Wilde
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Crossposted-To: alt.security,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: One-Time-Pad program for Win85/98 or DOS
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 00:30:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:34:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Jim Dunnett) wrote:
>>>Keys which are sufficiently random will do. There are lots
>>>of ways of generating them other than with a hardware device.
>>Define "sufficiently random".
>Random enough to defeat cryptanalysis for a sufficient period
>of time to render the enciphered contents useless, perhaps (?)
OK, now for the question of the hour - how do you characterize your
pseudo-random numbers to be cryptographically strong enough to meet
that criterion?
>All of this is fair enough, but in the real world you don't need
>to protect your plaintext for ever.
I might, though - so that has to be considered part of the
specification.
>XOR the bytes of two ZIPped
>files chosen at random from a large collection of CDs, cut the top
>and bottom off the resultant file and use that as random. That'll
>keep someone in NSA or GCHQ employed for many centuries.
Can you give a quantitative argument for that assertion?
>If you were terminally paranoid you could repeat this process twice
>with different file pairs and XOR the results again. Either way it
>would be 'sufficiently random' to defeat cryptanalysis for a very
>long time to come. If you require scientific perfection, then perhaps
>this isn't for you. :o)
One method we have been discussing, which would not suffer from the
problems of key distribution is to anti-skew and hash text streams
from the Internet that change every day. The key would be a pointer
based on some combination of daily market averages. The entire system
could be memorized. In order to break it, so many different
combinations of data would have to be tried that it would literally be
impossible to keep pace with it. But most importantly, since the key
is as long as the message, there would be no way to decide if any
message was the intended one, unless the key was so poor that it
leaked the message significantly.
But the problem still remains to demonstrate in some manner that such
a scheme would actually be secure - at least in a practical manner.
Bob Knauer
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions
of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."
--Oscar Wilde
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!!
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 00:54:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 23:47:57 GMT, BRAD KRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> deny the existence of the non-material (spiritual) real - but that
>> does no good, because you still have to explain how finite mutable
>> objects came into existence.
>They where always there to begin with.
If they were always there to begin with, they would not be mutable.
They would be immutable, since that is the property of something that
is always there to begin with.
Something that is always there is unchangeable, otherwise it is not
always there, but somewhere else. Anyway, the Universe is believed to
have had its origin in time, so it wasn't always there to begin with.
>Just lick your Religions God.
Whatever that means. I have no religion's God.
The Supreme Being is a metaphysical concept, not a religious concept.
Meta-physics means above-physics. It is the next rational step in
explaining reality after physics. It take what physics gives and goes
above it asking questions WHY is the physical world like what physics
describes? Physics can only do so much before it becomes a tautology.
>Just as the cause of the Universe is the Universe.
The Universe cannot be the cause of itself, because the Universe is
mutable. Therefore its essence cannot be existence. That means that it
is not the nature of the Universe just to exist.
And since the essence of the Universe is not existence, it must get
its existence from a source different from itself. That source is the
entity whose essence IS existence, called the Supreme Being.
>No we just know next to nothing about the universe. So every thing we don't know or
>don't understand we attribute to a Supreme Being.
You might, but I certainly don't. There is a clear separation between
the material world and the non-material world.
>Take thunder and lightning for
>example people thought it was an act of god until science proved them wrong. Also what
>all the greek gods. When the greek scientists couldn't explain some thing with their
>known knowledge they'd attribute it to there made up gods witch were proved very wrong
>by scientists years later.
That is not an adequate argument, because it is based on the
superstitutions of ignorant people.
>PS. Don't think that I'm trying to insult your beliefs.
I do not hold the existence of the Supreme Being as a belief. I hold
it as a rational principle.
The existence of the Supreme Being is derived from the worldview of
Realism. If you accept the objective reality of external objects, as
Western scientists do, then the existence of the Supreme Being follows
rationally.
>Its just that I only believe in science.
If you really understood science you would be able to convince
yourself of the *necessity* of the Supreme Being. Physical reality
cannot be the source of its own existence because it is constantly
changing. Mutable objects cannot have existence as their essence, or
they would not be able to change.
Physics has all sorts of non-material (spiritual) entities like
quantum states, which is about as spiritual as it can get. Yet
physicists have no fundamental problem dealing with these spiritual
entites in the practice of their profession. So why all the big fuss
over a spiritual entity as the cause of everything physical?
Why rule the Supreme Being out, yet keep all these other spiritual
entities like wavevectors and vacuum fluctuations, things that have no
direct materiality? I mean, if you can handle quantum entanglement,
you can certainly handle the infinite properties of the Supreme Being.
It sounds like you are prejudiced against the existence of the Supreme
Being - a kind of spiritual bigot.
Bob Knauer
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions
of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."
--Oscar Wilde
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!!
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 00:55:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 23:12:00 GMT, BRAD KRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> True although I have no religion and don't believe in any supreme being.
Neither do I. And I rely on rationality to know the Supreme Being
exists.
No belief needed.
Bob Knauer
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions
of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."
--Oscar Wilde
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (RREYNARD)
Subject: KL-7 Cipher machine
Date: 02 Mar 1999 00:46:12 GMT
I have a photo of the KL-7 Cipher machine that shows a switch on the lower left
hand portion of the machine next to the 'typewriter' keyboard. Does anyone know
what that switch does or how is it used in the operation of the KL-7?
Thanks,
Robert Reynard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Hardware Random Numbers: Not an *explicit* feature
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 01:08:52 GMT
On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:43:05 GMT, in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in sci.crypt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard) wrote:
>[...]
>it is noted that the Pentium III chip contains a special diode, on the
>chip itself, which can be used to check that the chip is not getting
>too hot.
>
>That feature is probably the source of the claims - not echoed in the
>list of chip features - that the chip has a built-in random number
>generation capability.
That sounds wrong to me.
Normally, temperature is sensed with forward bias on a junction.
"Diode noise" is normally generated by reverse bias breakdown. I
think these would be two different systems.
If we believe the recent Intel patent, diode noise is not even
involved. They argue that thermal-based resistive "Johnson noise" is
used. Unfortunately, the design in the patent probably cannot
demonstrate a difference even if they take the chip cryogenic.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My Book "The Unknowable"
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 01:09:01 GMT
On 1 Mar 1999 15:22:49 -0500, in <7besup$qsg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
in sci.crypt [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 19:19:00 GMT, in
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in sci.crypt
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer) wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>The post processing consists in the usual anti-skewing and hashing to
>>>distill the approximate 1 bit of entropy in text. One poster on
>>>sci.crypt suggests a CRC hash, so you would have to feed it 32
>>>characters to get 4 back if it were CRC-32.
>>
>>I think this is too tight: If we are willing to assume an "entropy"
>>of 1 bit per character, processing only 32 chars to get a 32-bit
>>result does not discard enough. 32 bits of entropy through linear
>>processing is at least theoretically reversible.
>
>This fairly screams for an empirical validation, doesn't it, though?
I'm not sure how we would get validation in practice. Personally, I
would want to compress it to get some idea of the maximum possible
entropy, and ideally we might do that continuously to monitor the
quality our input data. At best it is still very rough, however.
>I think the problem here is one of successive approximations --
>measure twice, cut once, and all that. In particular, I don't
>know of any experiment or study that has ever suggested that
>the entropy of "free" English text is as low as 1 bit/character;
>more typical bounds are on the order of 1.5-1.8 (or even 2.0) bits/char.
>Of course, if you want to round (conservatively) to 1 bit/char,
>you're betting on the side of caution; given that improved
>models are more likely to *decrease* the measured entropy than
>to increase it, that's probably the direction one wants to go.
>
>*BUT*....
>
>>I would like to see 2 or 3 times that amount of input for the same
>>output. I want to throw away 1/2 or 2/3 of the entropy that we are
>>willing to guarantee, and if the guarantee is only statistical, we
>>probably need to throw out even more.
>
>How much are you willing to throw away?
As much as it takes.
It seems to me that trying to over-engineer what we cannot really pin
down is just asking for trouble. If we can get a better measure, then
we can cut it a bit more finely. If and when we can precisely measure
"entropy," we can produce a very efficient design.
>We're entering the realm of
>engineering here -- what's the bang/buck you want? But you can see
>that just in rounding down from 1.5 to 1.0 bits/char, you're already
>"throwing away" 1/3 of the entropy in the sample in your back of
>the envelope calculations.
We're talking about collecting unknowable entropy from text:
*Assuming* that the text involved is unknown (so we at least have a
chance of collecting something unknown), we still have *text*: Any
entropy value we can compute will be an average which does not
necessarily reflect the value for short segments. Different texts
will have different entropy. So we have something which is
dynamically varying and which we cannot measure accurately in the
first place. I think the situation cries out for caution.
>I so *hate* one-significant-figure answers. 8-)
We may be overstating our knowledge to imply the data are known to a
full significant figure. I wish I could do better. I am open to
suggestions.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New Encryption (I would like some analysis)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 01:05:30 GMT
Ok I just started writing my own algorithms, and I came up with what I call E
(short for encrypt). Source code is included. I would like some analysis
from professionals/amateurs. If it sucks, please tell me. It's the only way
I will learn.
It uses a 8192 byte value/position dependant key, using XOR's for the actual
encryption. The entropy of the output is high (all 256 possible symbols are
about evenly probable and distributed). Repeated chars like 'aaaa' are
encoded with different entries in the key.
Please have a look, if it's any good, it's free to use for anyone. If not,
flame me!!!
btw, I also believe that knowing the plaintext and ciphertext it's equally
improbable to make the key...
Tom St Denis
E.C: http://members.tripod.com/~tomstdenis/e.c
(Compiles with Micro-C at http://www.dunfield.com and Gnu C Compiler)
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: Testing Algorithms [moving off-topic]
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 01:23:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:57:40 GMT, Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Has anyone figured out what causes a state vector to collapse, or how
>often it happens? If not, then I'd have to say "I don't know."
The collapse of the statevector is caused by interaction with the
environment, which includes the quantum vacuum. The Hamiltonian of the
combined system has off diagonal elements caused by the environment
which induce transistions. If the system were truly isolated, and that
includes of isolation from the vacuum (which is impossible), it would
never collaspe its statevector.
The concept of a time constant associated with transitions is tied up
intimately with the uncertainty in the energy states of a system. Time
and Energy are conjugate variables, and so they obey their version of
the Uncertainty Principle. The sharper the energy level of an energy
eigenstate, the longer the time constant for a transition from it.
For example, the ground state of an atom is infinitely sharp in energy
when not perturbed by an outside influence, so the time constant for a
transition to another state is infinitely long - that is, it is
perfectly stable.
But put it in an external electromagnetic field of the correct kind,
for example, and its spectral width is broadened such that there is
now a finite time constant associated with a transition to the first
excited state or to another state - as long as conservation of energy
and angular momentum requirements are met. When the frequency (energy)
of the disturbance is just right, the response is to absorb the
energy, which means a transition to another state.
If the state which is being perturbed is sufficiently broadened under
the influence of the perturbation, then the time constant associated
with the transition is shortened consistent with the Uncertainty
Principle - the broader the state in energy, the shorter the time to
make the transition.
You have seen things like this before in classical physics. If you get
a coin to go into a very symmretic state of oscillation, it will seem
to stay there for a long time. If you start shaking the table it is on
in a certain way, you can get it to change its mode of oscillation to
a different metastable state. The time it takes to make the transition
to the new state of oscillation depends on how precicely it is locked
into its mode of oscillation. If there is some "sloppiness" in the
mode of oscillation, it is easier to coax it into the new state of
oscillation. That "sloppiness" is the same as frequency (energy)
broadening of the state it is in.
The Uncertainty Principle has analogues in classical physics, and so
do state transitions, due to the spectral width of resonant systems.
Quantum Mechanics was not invented in a vaccum - there was a rich
heritage in classical physics from which to tap off the fundamental
concepts - with appropriate alterations to some key concepts.
Bob Knauer
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions
of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."
--Oscar Wilde
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My Book "The Unknowable"
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 01:29:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:54:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter) wrote:
>The bias-removing CRC transformation is linear and thus reversible.
I thought that the CRC would also remove correlations, by "hashing" or
scambling the data.
Is the CRC, properly implemented, capable of removing significant
amounts of both bias and correlation, so that the keystream that
results is crypto-grade for realistic applications?
Bob Knauer
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions
of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."
--Oscar Wilde
------------------------------
From: BRAD KRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!!
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 23:12:00 GMT
True although I have no religion and don't believe in any supreme being.
~NuclearMayhem~
"R. Knauer" wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:22:35 GMT, BRAD KRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > You cant think about the creation of the universe rationaly. It doesn't make any
> >sence at all. The only rational way you could look at the cration of the universe is
> >that it was all there to begin with
>
> The Supreme Being is that eternal entity.
>
> If you accept that, then the creation of the Universe follows
> rationally.
>
> Bob Knauer
>
> "If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
> you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
> cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
> can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
> most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
> -- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 18:42:55 -0700
From: Sundial Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Musings on the PKZip stream-cipher
Terry Ritter wrote:
> >While my technical interest in this cipher is retired, I'd also like to
> >stimulate any discussion I can on ways of analyzing and breaking such
> >ciphers. I'd also like to know more about exactly why this cipher was
> >constructed the way that it was.
> >
> >The core algorithm of the cipher is Update_Keys(char):
> > Key(0) <- crc32(key(0),char)
> > Key(1) <- Key(1) + (Key(0) & 000000ffH)
> > Key(1) <- Key(1) * 134775813 + 1
> > Key(2) <- crc32(key(2),key(1) >> 24)
>
> I have several times reported here that some years ago I was able to
> resolve this part of the PKzip cipher. There is also an output step
> not shown here which I did not resolve.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here by the term "resolve."
> The core is linear. Yes, it is a couple of different styles of
> linear, which is basically the strength argument used in IDEA.
> Nevertheless, I was able to reconstruct the 12 bytes of internal state
> given exactly 12 bytes of known output (also the known input from
> feedback, of course). In retrospect, this is what we expect from any
> linear system. And once the state is resolved, we can run it forward
> or backward as desired.
Output? If this is true as stated, then the cipher is non-existent,
since if you can reconstruct the state using only 12 known bytes of
output you can by definition select any 12 bytes of ciphertext, compute
the state it must be in, and run it backward to the start of the file,
then forward to decipher the whole thing.
> This was a long time ago, before the web, and before I was doing
> somewhat formal articles. And without the last step, it is not really
> a complete solution anyway. I'd have to get back into the work to
> discuss details, and that seems unlikely now.
Leaving us all with a tantalizing result somewhat akin to Fermat's Last
Theorem.
I conclude from this response that there is nothing published about your
work on the web at this point, but was anything published on paper? It
sounds to me like there is some fundamental information about
"linear-ness" and stream ciphers, which I could dimly discern by
intuition, that must be formally expressed somewhere.
Terry, I'm hoping to start a fresh and interesting discussion thread
here (how -long- can one talk about Enigma and random numbers? ;-) ;-)),
and of course what is said here will become valuable public material by
means of DejaNews. If you have the time to do so, I would be
-extremely- appreciative if you could elaborate more clearly on what
you've said here even if it requires a bit of digging into your past.
And I'm quite sure there is (and/or will be) a silent appreciative
audience out there with me.
-Mike Robinson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
