Cryptography-Digest Digest #376, Volume #10 Fri, 8 Oct 99 06:13:03 EDT
Contents:
codes ("D.H. Guo")
Re: EAR Relaxed? Really? ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Opinions on Entrust? (Yeechang Lee)
Re: radioactive random number generator ("Trevor Jackson, III")
closure to RC5 (Tom St Denis)
Re: EAR Relaxed? Really? (Greg)
Re: Which encryption for jpeg compressed pictures? (Herbert Kleebauer)
Re: Block encryption with variable keys (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Block encryption with variable keys (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Block encryption with variable keys (Mok-Kong Shen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "D.H. Guo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: codes
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 15:12:53 -0500
Hi, all
does anybody know where I can get some free sample codes for secure
client/server application, such as secure talk, teleconference?
Thanks,
D.H.G
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 00:14:48 -0400
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: EAR Relaxed? Really?
To mangle Voltaire, you have the right to state your beliefs, but should
not be doing it here. This is worse than off topic. It is irrelevant.
--> talk.politics.crypto
Greg wrote:
> > I wasn't trying to say that there aren't any bad
> > law enforcement officers, but that it is wrong to
> > say that ALL law enforcement officers are bad.
>
> I don't think I was characterizing them as little Hitlers,
> but mindless robots that don't know the law, have no time
> to learn the law, and do what they are told is correct by
> those who haven't a clue either, but think what they are
> told by government attorneys must be right.
>
> There are some who know the truth and they know they cannot
> reconcile the truth with society. So they remain quiet.
>
> You should read what we write and not what you read into it.
>
> For example, you seem to believe that most law enforcement officers
> would never have taken part at Waco. Yet, I can assure you that
> given the right circumstance, well over 90% would.
>
> For example, Mr K was said to be molesting the children. Now
> tell me most officers would say, "But I am not certain of your
> intel, Mr FBI. I can't just go violate that man's civil rights
> without a more detailed investigation." Give me a break! They
> would rally quickly to "save the children". But remember, the
> children were killed- so much for saving them. And do you think
> the Texas Rangers were without blood on their hands? Where the
> hell were they? Certainly not protecting the dividians' rights.
>
> And the special forces aren't so special. They cowared under
> threat of court martial should they not comply with the wishes
> of the feds. No special leadership or bravery here folks. Just
> mindless numbnuts who do what they are told to do. After all,
> the press will cover their ass- ooops, that ain't happening any
> more. Someone is really upset about that too!
>
> > If we have more bad ones than good ones, it is our own fault...
>
> Give yourself a guilt trip if you want, my conscious is clear.
>
> > I also don't like the idea of having SWAT or CERT teams,
> > but I can't come up with an alternative. To me, their
> > military-type equipment, tactics, and training make
> > them a military force which should be prohibited
> > under the constitution.
>
> News flash- it IS unlawful already. Even the laws that are
> suppose to give them tanks and stuff are unconstitutional laws,
> and thus not laws at all. Operating under those laws IS unlawful.
>
> Or do you not know that we are living under emergency rule, not
> constitutional rule? I can tell you more about this if you want.
>
> > Speaking of which, when I enlisted in the military (1966)...
>
> I took that oath when I became a fire fighter in 1980.
>
> > Any caught in violation of that oath are also in
> > violation of applicable law, and should be prosecuted
> > under the applicable law.
>
> Have you ever heard of the missing 13th amendment? The
> lesson there applies here, and in politics as well. You
> are very wrong in your conclusion here.
>
> > As long as we at the "grass-roots" level turn our heads
> > and look the other way, instead of raising our voices
> > and insisting that action be taken, we are responsible
> > for the results. Each of us individually, and all of us
> > collectively.
>
> What do you want us to do? Say, "Mr. President, please don't
> kill us with those nasty little tanks and gas canisters."?
>
> It will take a war as Lincoln said, not to overthrow the government,
> but to overthrow those in government who pervert the constitution.
> Honestly, I am just waiting for the shots to begin firing.
>
> Here in CA, I may not have to wait much longer. Next year, all hand
> guns are suppose to become instant junk guns and illegal until
> they are submitted for testing by their manufacturer. Since most
> are not in production any longer, they will never regain legal
> status and are due to be confiscated (as I understand AB15).
>
> The question will be, though the CA AG office says it is ready to
> fully comply with those laws, to confiscate many many weapons
> from law abiding citizens, will the law enforcement officers
> through out the state go along with the plan? If they do, there
> will be blood shed on both sides of the door way. It is a statistical
> conclusion that no one can deny. Just how much bloodshed is the
> subjective question. But given less than 10% compliance with
> earlier gun registration laws in CA, it will come down to whether
> law enforcement says yes or no to the cowards in Sacramento.
>
> That is why efforts like veto the governer are so important to me.
> They have the ability to stop the madness that could come next.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yeechang Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc,comp.security.firewalls
Subject: Re: Opinions on Entrust?
Date: 8 Oct 1999 03:46:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm evaluating Entrust Software's offerings, particularly their PKI
and digital certificate product lines. For those of you who use
Entrust products, what do you like about them? What do you dislike?
What do you think of their support? And would you buy them again?
I'd like to know. Any replies can be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
I can be reached at +1 212-902-2971. Looking forward to hearing from
you!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 23:58:51 -0400
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.equipment
Subject: Re: radioactive random number generator
Dan Day wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 23:06:19 -0400, "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Perhaps the ugliest instance of radioactive substance abuse was the women who
>painted
> >radium watch dials. The brushes they used were fairly coarse, and the watch-face
> >digits very small. So they used to sharpen the points of the paint-laden brushes by
> >twirling them against their lips.
>
> That's pretty bad (and I'd heard it before, in an Asimov essay,
> I believe), but about 3-5 years ago I read about worse cases in
> Scientific American, IIRC, although it could have been "Discover"
> magazine.
>
> For a while, folks were producing patent medicines which contained
> radium. The article I read had dredged up case histories of some of
> the customers, who died of horrible, chronic, and mysterious (at
> the time) ailments. Now, of course, the symptoms are easily
> recognizable as extreme radiation poisoning. The authors of
> the article managed to get permission to exhume some of the
> known victims, and their bones not only showed clear signs of
> heavy radiation exposure, but also were still "hot" enough to
> make a geiger counter sing.
Well, the medical community has been doing weird things for millennia. Certainly
taking
radium salts is ugly. Right up there with bleeding to let out the "bad humours". But
people have been eating weird things to cure themselves for a long time. AFAIK the
first
use of crude oil was by the Romans as a tonic for various aliments.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: closure to RC5
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 04:08:08 GMT
Just to put an end to this RC5 cheap crack stuff, the solution was not found
by Mr Croll, and the correct key was
unsigned char key[16] = { 0xea, 0x3f, 0x18, 0x2b,
0x5c, 0x19, 0xee, 0xaf,
0xfa, 0xce, 0xba, 0xbe,
0x1e, 0x22, 0x1c, 0x23 };
Maybe in the future we can have more serious posts to this group. I would
love to see the day where scientific work is actually discussed here.
For the crypto-inclined I used RC5 with 12 rounds and a 16-byte key. It's
basically the RSA_REF code.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: EAR Relaxed? Really?
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 06:17:23 GMT
I was asked to cite a case for my remarks
in the previous post, so I thought I should
do so in the NG for anyone else who may want
this information. I have several cites:
Case #1: "The use of the highway for the
purpose of travel and transportaion is not
a mere privilege, but a common fundamental
right of which the public and individuals
cannot rightfully be deprived."
- Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago,
169 NE 221
Case #2: "The right of the citizen to
travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, either
by carriage or by automobile, is not
a mere privilege which a city may
prohibit or permit at will, but a
common law right which he has under
the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness."
- Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579
Case #3: "The right to travel is a
part of the liberty of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without
due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment."
- Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125
Case #4: "The right to travel is a
well-established common right that
does not owe its existance to the
federal government. It is recognized
by the courts as a natural right."
- Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC
287, 225, F2d, 938, at 941
I am quoting this information from a
July 1995 Media Bypass Magazine article.
It goes on to state, "As hard as it is
for those of us in law enforcement to
believe, there is no room for speculation
in these court decisions."
"...Researchers armed with actual facts
state that case law is overwhelming in
determining that to restrict the movement
of the individual ... is unlawful.
"The revelation that the American citizen
has always had the inalienable right to
travel raises profound questions for those
who are involved in making and enforcing
state laws."
The article goes on to ask if there is a
legal means for a state to impose licensing,
insurance requirements, registration,
and inspection of vehicles. The answer
comes from more case law:
Case #5 "The state cannot diminish
rights of the people."
- Hertado v. California 110 US 516
Case #6 "Statutes that violate the plain
and obvious principles of common right
and common reason are null and void."
- Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60
Case #7 "The claim and exercise of a
constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime."
- Miller c. US. 230 F 486 at 489
Case #8 "There can be no sanction or
penalty imposed upon one because of
this exercise of constitutional rights."
- Shererr v. Cullen, 481 F 946
The article has a lot more to say, but to
get to the next point, the point I think
is the most important, the article states:
"If we are to follow the letter of the law,
(as we are sworn to do), this places officials
who involve themselves in such unlawful acts
in an unfavorable legal situation. For it
is a felony and federal crime to violate
or deprive citizens of their constitutionally
protected rights."
As I said before, so much for characterization...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 09:30:38 -0700
From: Herbert Kleebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc,comp.graphics.algorithms,comp.compression
Subject: Re: Which encryption for jpeg compressed pictures?
Brian C Robinson wrote:
>
> John Savard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spewed forth:
>
> : >1. absolutely secure. If you have the original and the
> : > encrypted file, it must be impossible to proof, if
> : > one is the encrypted version of the other.
>
> : I wonder why that particular criterion came to mind?
> :
> Sounds useful if you're engaged in criminal activites.
Digital still cameras are getting cheaper and better. But I donīt
like hundreds or thousands of files, each containing only one picture,
on my hard disc or on a CD. Therefore I decided to write a viewer
for multi-jpeg files (just use the COPY command to put hundreds
of jpegs in one big file) which allows you to fast browse all the
pictures in the file. Because I donīt like, that everybody can see
my private pictures (suppose you have to put your PC to repair)
I included an encryption option in the viewer. So long, the above
criterion is not interesting. But if I write a program and give it
away with the note that it can encrypt your private pictures, I
want the program to be save as even possible. I canīt accept, that
people are sent to prison only because the have stored a certain
number on there harddisc. There can be a crime by generating a
number (picture), but the number themselve is just a number as any
other number. Nobody should have the right to forbid any number!
Herbert kleebauer
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Block encryption with variable keys
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 08:48:21 +0200
Richard Parker wrote:
>
> Very recently I read a paper by Bellare, Krovetz, and Rogaway that
> discussed using data-dependent re-keying as a secure method of
> transforming a pseudorandom permutation (such as a block cipher) into
> a pseudorandom function. They analyzed the following construction:
>
> F(K,X) = E(E(K,X),X)
>
> One of the standard methods of constructing a stream cipher from a
> block cipher is by using counter mode. Such a stream cipher encrypts
> an m-block plaintext M = (X1 || X2 || ...|| Xm) as follows:
>
> S(K,M) = (iv || E(K,iv+1) xor X1 || ... || E(K,iv+m) xor Xm)
>
> The weakness of this stream cipher, and other related constructions,
> is that because E is an n-bit permutation the stream cipher is
> vulnerable to a birthday attack after 2^(n/2) blocks have been
> encrypted. However if you replace E with F, this is no longer the
> case. The new stream cipher is much stronger than the stream cipher
> constructed with E.
>
> Since most block ciphers have a slow key schedule a stream cipher
> constructed from F is also slow. Bellare, Krovetz, and Rogaway
> suggest a generalization of the construction in their paper that
> permits a trade-off between speed and resistance to the birthday
> attack.
>
> Here is the reference for their paper:
>
> M. Bellare, T. Krovetz, and P. Rogaway, "Luby-Rackoff Backwards:
> Increasing Security by Making Block Ciphers Non-Invertible,"
> Advances in Cryptology - Eurocrypt '98, Springer-Verlag, 1998.
> <http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/users/mihir/papers/p2f.pdf>
Thank you very much for calling attention to this new method and
giving the reference. I like to add that this once again shows
the usefulness of the application of the general principle of
variability in cryptology.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Block encryption with variable keys
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 08:48:41 +0200
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote:
>
> Speed it takes a long time to use a new key for each block.
> And if you could change the key enough there would be no
> gain over using a OTP
I know little of hardware, but I doubt that modification of the
key is much slower than doing CBC since computation of the subkeys
can be done in parallel. If it is really much slower, it also doesn't
matter much. Note that the decrease of speed affects the analyst to
the same degree and consequently my previously proposed paradigm
'security through inefficiency' applies.
As to OTP my answer: (a) I was comparing the use of variable key
against use constant key for DES, not considering comparison with
other methods, (b) use of OTP poses other requirements on the user
and their fulfillment is a well-known issue, (3) an ideal OTP doesn't
exist. (It is difficult to know how good a (presumed) OTP in the
real world approximates the theoretical provably secure ideal OTP.)
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Block encryption with variable keys
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 08:48:50 +0200
John Savard wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
> >Doug Gwyn (ISTD/CNS) wrote:
> >> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> >> > Why does DES (and similar block ciphers) keep the key constant
> >> > and not varying from block to block?
>
> >> Why are there 12 items in a dozen? It just is what it is.
>
> >I am not sure that I understood you.
>
> He is just making one of the points I did:
>
> Because doing so is inherent in the *definition* of a block cipher.
>
> even if rather tersely.
>
> However, I have to agree there is little point in *merely* criticizing
> you for having worded your question wrong, when it is obvious that the
> equivalent "correct" question is:
>
> Why are DES (and similar block ciphers) which keep the key constant
> and not varying from block to block so popular, with no consideration
> given to producing stream ciphers based on them which do vary the
> subkeys with each block, at what appears to be little increase in
> computational overhead for what appears to be a large increase in
> security?
You are right that my original formulation could indeed be misleading.
In a post sent a bit later to another group, I added two pairs of
parentheses and the paragraph read as follows, also making clear
that these are not 'pure' questions:
Why does (the common use of) DES and similar block ciphers keep
the key constant and not varying from block to block? Would
sophisticated attacks like differential analysis still function
when the key is non-constant? (I surmise not.)
>
> Having translated your question into what you *meant* to say, in some
> sense, I then went about trying to answer it.
>
> 1) People whine about the extra setup requirements of a stream cipher:
> block ciphers are very simple to handle, and are very flexible. One
> can get some of the benefits of a stream cipher from CBC mode,
> although that doesn't (significantly) increase security.
>
> 2) Today's block ciphers are believed to be quite secure enough, thank
> you.
(1) One can use variation of CBC, e.g. chaining with plaintext, or
a combination of plain- and ciphertext, or a summation thereof, etc.
(2) This is a point that I find quite interesting. It means that
from psychology at least, there is no need today of anything better
than DES. Since the present argument shows that DES could be
rendered secure against differerential analysis attacks, there seems
probably to be 'yet' no need of AES at all. Note also that, since AES
can also be used with variable keys, weakness against differential
analysis appears not to be a highly critical criterion to evaluate
the different candidates of AES.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
