Cryptography-Digest Digest #532, Volume #9 Wed, 12 May 99 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Crypto export limits ruled unconstitutional (Bryan Olson)
Re: TwoDeck solution (but it ain't pretty) (Boris Kazak)
Re: Factoring breakthrough? (ca314159)
Re: Factoring breakthrough? (ca314159)
Re: Hello I am paper, please read me. (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Arab Terrorists Must Bomb Moscow & Belgrade KKKommunists ("Patrick Patriarca")
Re: Little Irish girl's algorithm? (Nemo999)
Re: Hello I am paper, please read me. (John Savard)
Re: TwoDeck solution (but it ain't pretty) (John Savard)
Re: 128bit Blowfish Info (John Savard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Crypto export limits ruled unconstitutional
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 18:38:34 -0700
David A Molnar wrote:
>
> cosmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can a person publish a flowchart for an algorithm ? How about a program written
> > in pseudocode ? How about a general mathematical description of an encryption
> > algorithm ? How could anyone say that such is not protected by the first
> > ammendment ?
>
> > Does anyone know ?
>
> You can publish anything on paper. There's an exception for academic work.
> This is how PGP's source code managed to legally make it overseas.
> Electronically, it seems like the litmus test is whether or not what you
> publish can perform encryption. So pseudocode doesn't count, but the notes
> from, like, a UML design tool with automated code generation may be getting
> fuzzy.
It's not clear what question that answers. The current export
regulations distinguish between paper and electronic media, but
if the question is about what material has first amendment protection,
then their is no such distinction. The courts have consistantly
affirmed that the same principles that apply to paper apply to
electronic media. The airwaves are something of a special case, since
there is an issue of public ownership.
--Bryan
------------------------------
From: Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TwoDeck solution (but it ain't pretty)
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 18:55:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nobody wants a look at your pathetic "TwoDeck" piece of crap because
> despite your ability to use html->ps/pdf converters, what you say is
> still shit.
>
====================
LadyCow, stop this cunttalk and take a shower - you stink.
------------------------------
From: ca314159 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Factoring breakthrough?
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 23:52:10 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw) wrote:
> In article <7h3sgu$68n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In article<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw) wrote:
> > I imagine this statement applies to any
> > ciphertext as well.
> > If one knows the constraints of
> > encipherment, one can extract
> > a plaintext from the background noise
> > of the ciphertext.
>
> This is the type of thing you should
> work against in writing algorithms.
> Supposedly, the noise can become more
> prevalent than the message which is
> indistinguishable from variations in the
> noise. Actually, this is quite
> easy to do.
The "noise" can also increase your ability
to percieve a signal when there are
conservative constraints (finite bandwidth etc.)
* Turing's use of "the exception proves
the rule" taken to extremes.
* A slight positional displacement
of dots in a random dot stereogram will
separate a signal from a noisy background
"if you look at it the right way".
* "Stochastic resonance" and "squeezed light".
* It seems at times that quantum physicists will
define a particle just as much by what it
is, as by what it is not (noise and carrier).
* Fuzzy theory (Kosko's subsethood) as well
deals with the overlap of A and not-A;
the violation of the law of non-contradiction.
Most people object to this idea because in
a court of law (and science?) it is not allowed
as a defense. A signal cannot contain noise
in a court of law (the judgement must be
absolute; there is no indecision )
For instance, the early American
politicians recognized that "liberty" and
"justice" are complementary, so they say
"liberty AND justice for all"
not just liberty, or not just justice.
The must be taken together like A and not-A;
like signal and noise.
Here, "liberty" may be construed as the
"signal" of an individual in society
but it is not un-constrained.
Justice must always constrain liberty
and so liberty always has noise (crimes) which
justice filters out of societies signals.
(information theory seems to say no
finite-bandwidth (constrained)
channel is without noise)
In this sense, noise (chaos) and the signal are
distinguished by justice. Noise and signal
become holistic like McLuhan's media and
message or Saussure's signified and signifier.
Distinguishability is a very fundamental
concept and understanding all its variations
seems key to many fields particularly
in its most elementary forms which lead to
prediction (when we cannot distinguish the
exact state of an event) and prophesy (when we
cannot distinguish the exact time of the event).
Considering these theoretical ideas may seem a
waste of time to the pragmatist, though
I think they expose alot of constraints that
the pragmatist will find useful to know.
Theory has a habit of leap-frogging empirically
derived laws such as Moore's law. While theory
doesn't usually say "how", it's often way
ahead on the "where". (theorists prophesize,
empiricists predict)
[ Oh, horrors Dejanews has changed it's
GUI again. Why can't they make "upgrades" an
option ? ]
--
http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
------------------------------
From: ca314159 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Factoring breakthrough?
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 01:04:36 GMT
David A Molnar wrote:
>
> > At the most fundamental level, I see little difference between
> > crytography and quantum physics. Since all constaints on
>
> > encryptions are based on the difficulty of analysis the
> > problem reduces to a physical and not a mathematical one.
>
> This does not yet, in my mind, encompass or even speak to
> "analysis" in the sense of finding the ways to apply that
> computation. Are you using "analysis" to refer solely to
> the running of the actual algorithm, instead of the
> sense of "analysis" which means finding flaws in the
> cryptosystem under attack ?\
No. I mean analysis in terms of the "voodoo magic" one does
to avoid doing physical labour. But aren't cryptosystems
gauged in terms of computational complexity, not how hard it
is to physically compute, but in terms of the number of computations
flops or whatever ? We assume these map isomorphically to CPU
operations and that becomes our physical guage of complexity in terms
of silicon heat and Moore's law, in terms of how long we
can rely on that guage of complexity. This is very typical of myopic
cartesian view where all the parts add up to the whole, and
systems are closed deterministic ones. Then one day pops up
a "smart-ass" and poof, the whole thing thing is obsolete overnight.
(this is probably harder to discern in the secretive game of cryptography).
Theory and analysis tries to prevent this by looking way ahead and
forseeing problems and constraints before any physical actions are
undertaken. Symbolic algebra and theorem proving may only help
intensify our use of theory expediantly so that it becomes more
part of our time oriented guage of complexity. But "complexity"
even in formal language theory is divided into spatial and temporal
parts which are considered separately. Memory becomes synonymous
with space in physics and complexity theory must involve physics.
The temporal complexity becomes theoretically transformable into
a spatial complexity. So when you toss one die and infinite number
of times you are using a temporal generator, while if you toss an
infinite number of dice once, you are using a spatial generator.
Both though with the same distribution. They are dual and complementary
approaches. Things are more usually a mixture of these though.
The spatial measure of the distribution here is "instantaneous" while
in the former case the temporal measure takes time. But these two are
related and suggests that under certain conditions vast speed ups are
possible in otherwise time consuming problems.
I think quantum theory makes the consideration of physical complexity
primarily important, unless someone can express some crypto-system
which is not based on temporal computational complexity.
> what am I missing? :-\
>
> > The mathematics seems to only define a relative and subjective
> > magnitude of how hard, while the physics/technology determines
> > the absolute magnitude of that hardness.
>
> This statement is much more to my liking. Your sentiment here
> is a lot like that expressed in a talk by John Preskill (Caltech
> prof with excellent course notes and references on quantum
> computation) -- when he discusses the impact of quantum comp,
> even without practical implementation
>
> "On the theoretical front, it is important to emphasize that the
> work of the past few years has already established an enduring
> intellectual legacy. A new classification of complexity has been
> erected, a classification better founded on the fundamental laws
> of physics than traditional complexity theory."
> (p.11-12 of http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9705032)
He seems to be talking about decoherence in relation to complexity,
I'll have to read more carefully it off-line...
> Unfortunately I am not personally clear on what exactly he means
> by a new classification of complexity, unless he's just talking about
> BQP...in which case I thought that most problems involving BQP were
> still open (except BQP includes P).
I still return often to read Shor's paper. Something about it bothers
me. Perhaps it is because he is using a non-deterministic algorithm
to begin with. I'll have to think about this some more...
> > Perhaps there is some technique that I am unaware of which
> > addresses physical complexity as well as mathematical complexity ?
>
> What do
> physical "information" and "entropy" refer to ? Do they cover physical
> complexity at all? I'm asking an honest question, even though it reads
> like I'm baiting. :-)
>
> What would be a good place to look for an explanation of physics
> "information" ?
The difference between objective physical information and subjective
information seems to be that in the latter case we are free to exaggerate,
obfuscate, speculate and even lie. These are things which supposedly
differ from the information theory in physics.
Then I would imagine complexity, entropy and the like are more defined
with a Bayesian perspective like E.T.Jaynes' as opposed to a frequentist
perspective. Physics uses both of these but only recently has taken up
interest in Bayesian techniques (see Saul Youssef's work on lanl)
An interesting reference for fairly recent works in information theory
in physics is "Complexity, Entropy and Physics
of Information" edited by Zurek. Most of the recent works in "quantum optics"
by Zeilinger, Kwiat et al and Mancini and Tombesi, and Braginsky are
very popular (quantum teleportation, classical states, Quantum Measurement,...)
and of course Shor's paper on quantum cryptography.
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=quantum+cryptography
--
http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
------------------------------
From: SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hello I am paper, please read me.
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 02:25:49 GMT
In article <7haf8g$rs7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry if the title is mean, but what's up?
>
> I wrote the paper on TwoDeck, and nobody even comments on it... That's
> because I am a newbie right? Well what if I showed some initiative
and
> *wanted* to improve? Will anybody help? Not likely. Why because I
am
> a newbie. That's not really fair.
>
> Well for you professed geniouses share in your basking knowledge. I
> just want a little help (perhaps guidance) in writing this paper. I
> think it can be solved (maybe faster then brute force), I even have
> ideas for the attack. But I need help, suggestions, etc...
>
> My paper is not that long, it's only 11 pages. I want to add more
> analysis, and as stated earlier make it more professional. I can't do
> this alone. So I am asking, once again for any help.
>
> I mean common, who is 'Dave Scott' or 'Jim Felling' anyways? Just
> people in the group. They post, and others post back. I am the same.
> Ok, I started off roughly, but I have learnt quite a bit, and I am
> trying to put something together.
>
> Anyways, can somebody please read the paper, or why else do people
post
> here? I mean every member could write a paper, but if nobody read
> them, what's the point?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
I am Dave Scott. But if you want people to read it you have to POST
the paper. Also working code would be nice so people can test it.
If you run contests like I do some people get incouragement. However
the crypto gods. Consider all us ametuers as dumb shits and most sheep
seem to kiss the crypto gods asses so that few will look at it. You have
to have connections to get any one to look at it. You will get a lot
of critics from people to dumb to understand. Be prepared for the
ones that the NSA have brain washed. Part of the NSA mission is to keep
every one in the dark about the true nature of encryption. There are
few good people. I would guess a mister Onions and a Redburn and
Horst and Ritter and joe pechesel are OK most of the rest you can't
trust.
Except of course me.
David Scott
P.S. get a webpage with pointers to it after every post
make it easy to find. deja news is getting so full of crap
that the pages take for ever to load any more ads on top
and sides so I don't read all the messages any more since it
is damN slow.
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
------------------------------
From: "Patrick Patriarca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.med.transcription,sci.space.policy,sci.electronics.repair
Subject: Re: Arab Terrorists Must Bomb Moscow & Belgrade KKKommunists
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:51:39 -0400
Vladimir Beker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Come on!!!
> People who use cryptographic newsgroup to propose bombing don't have to
> know the difference
Vlad.... this might be a good time to go Killbait hunting !
> Vladimir
>
> Lewis Sellers wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
> > <7f0i68$s4m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >Why aren't the wimpy Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan, Afghani, etc., pussy
terrorist
> > >dogs bombing Moscow and Belgrade???!!! Where are the oil-rich,
> > >Rolls-Royce-riding Arab Muslims from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia after
American
> > and
> > >other NATO soldiers died saving their greedy asses???!!!
> > >
> > >It's obvious that the KKKommunist-Nazis in Russia and Serbia are the
real
> > >Great Satans killing, raping, and pillaging Albanian Muslims, but where
is
> > >the shock and outrage from the Arab Muslims???!!!
> >
> > Actually the serb leaders are Marxists, not Communists.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nemo999)
Subject: Re: Little Irish girl's algorithm?
Date: 12 May 1999 03:23:14 GMT
I think her name was supposed to be Flannery and I couldn't find anything on
it. I'm happy I can stop looking for it since its a fake story.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Hello I am paper, please read me.
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 04:10:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
>I wrote the paper on TwoDeck, and nobody even comments on it... That's
>because I am a newbie right?
>I mean common, who is 'Dave Scott' or 'Jim Felling' anyways? Just
>people in the group.
I assure you, people in this group, in general, are far less likely to
comment on things that David A. Scott designs than on something you've
designed. However, I haven't recieved many comments on my Quadibloc
series of ciphers either, but I don't expect people to take that much
time and trouble for my benefit - occasionally, I have recieved some
useful advice from people here, where they were able to answer a
simple question on an item they were interested in or working on.
John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://members.xoom.com/quadibloc/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: TwoDeck solution (but it ain't pretty)
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 04:16:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
>No offence, but did anyone actually read the paper? People talk about
>reading it, but I haven't had one comment yet!!!
>I really think this could go somewhere, if it's not the best
>cryptosystem (which it most likely is not) it could lead somewhere...
As someone has observed, your website is about the BATTLE data
compression contest - there are no pointers on it to a page with
pointers to the paper and stuff. (We can't see your directory, so we
need links from HTML...)
You could put a link labelled "About Me" on the bottom of the page
which would link to a page saying "Hi, I'm Tom St. Denis", and then
mentioning your other interests, including "Cryptography" - and on
that include a link to your paper. That way you avoid mentioning
cryptography on the BATTLE page itself if you don't want to.
John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://members.xoom.com/quadibloc/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: 128bit Blowfish Info
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 04:18:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (KidMo84) wrote, in part:
>Has the 128bit algorithm of blowfish been cracked, and if so was brute force
>used or what method was used, and if not what would be used if cracking would
>be posible, brute force?
Blowfish, on a 64-bit block, and with a 128-bit key, is immune to
being cracked yet, AFAIK.
John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://members.xoom.com/quadibloc/index.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
