Cryptography-Digest Digest #526, Volume #10 Mon, 8 Nov 99 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Signals From Intelligent Space Aliens? Forget About It. ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation ("james d. hunter")
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation ("Trevor Jackson,
III")
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation (Jim Carr)
Re: How protect HDisk against Customs when entering Great Britain ("Trevor Jackson,
III")
Re: Signals From Intelligent Space Aliens? Forget About It. (Scott Erb)
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation ("Tony T. Warnock")
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation ("james d. hunter")
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation (Steven B. Harris)
Re: Build your own one-on-one compressor (Tim Tyler)
Re: How protect HDisk against Customs when entering Great Britain (Stephen Carpenter)
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation (Steven B. Harris)
Re: Incompatible algorithms (James Felling)
Cryptix or JCE1.2 (Emmanuel Drouet)
Re: PGP Cracked ? (Tony Wingo)
Re: How protect HDisk against Customs when entering Great Britain (Shaitan)
Re: Your Opinions on Quantum Cryptography (Medical Electronics Lab)
Re: Signals From Intelligent Space Aliens? Forget About It. (Steve K)
Re: Kerberos Question ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: How protect HDisk against Customs when entering Great Britain (Geoffrey T. Falk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:49:39 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.military,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Signals From Intelligent Space Aliens? Forget About It.
Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:
> Signals From Intelligent Space Aliens? Forget About It.
>
> I believe the United States and the rest of the world will adopt a
> universal communications transmission protocol as soon as the
> technology becomes available to not only encrypt all communications
> transmissions worldwide but to conceal these transmissions as nearly
> as possible among the back ground radiation remnant of the big bang
> in space or other terrestrial back ground noise.
>
> Quantum digital circuits should make this feasible.
>
> Let us not fool ourselves, the Earth is obviously the most import piece
> of real estate in this solar system and possibly in this part of the
> galaxy. It is just as obvious that to announce this fact to the rest of
> the galaxy is quite stupid.
>
> National Security necessitates that we must assume that there are no
> friendly space aliens.
Even admitting your premises this conslusion cannot be dreived from them.
The best you could do is conclude that we should assume that the aliens we
meet may be hostile. Concluding that there are no friendly aliens anywhere
in the Universe is a very large exaggeration.
------------------------------
From: "james d. hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:38:25 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Carr wrote:
>
> john baez wrote:
> }
> } In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> } james d. hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> } > That's because nobody has proved that anything is random.
> }
> } Wrong.
> }
> } > "Random" is usually defined in terms of things like pi,
> }
> } Wrong.
> }
> } > so there's no reason to assume that pi isn't just simply
> } > a well-known purely random number.
> }
> } Not even wrong.
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > I assume that since you are a "scientist", particularly
> > one of the QM variety, you are clueless concerning
> > what is random, what is not random, what's up and what's down.
> > So you are excused for being a idiot.
>
> ROTFL. Poor John. Well known in Europe and California and so
> respected that our poor library has a book by him -- and even
> mentioned by name in Science News -- yet unknown at Johns Hopkins.
>
> Or maybe the poster needs to inquire elsewhere at that institution.
Like I always say, I've never been all that concerned
about UseNet probability "experts" opinions.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:53:47 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Clive Tooth wrote:
> David Bernier wrote in message <8069k0$nat$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> >"Random" can be defined any way you like (paraphrasing
> >from ??? in Lewis Carrol?). Once you've defined it, you
> >can start discussing it.
>
> “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means
> just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.”
>
> from "Alice Through the Looking-Glass" by Lewis Carroll.
> http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Carroll/Alice/Glass/Chapter6.html
Clearly everything H.D. said is "le mot juste".
>
>
> --
> Clive Tooth
> http://www.pisquaredoversix.force9.co.uk/
> End of document
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Carr)
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: 8 Nov 1999 15:55:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Like I always say, I've never been all that concerned
> about UseNet probability "experts" opinions.
Obviously, since you did not choose to cross-post to a statistics
newsgroup. Equally obviously, you did not cite a major reference
in the field of probability and statistics for your assertion that
""Random" is usually defined in terms of things like pi,".
--
James A. Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 11:04:11 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How protect HDisk against Customs when entering Great Britain
CoyoteRed wrote:
> We deserve privacy only when it's nobodies' business but our own.
I think you have the presumption inverted. We deserve privacy in all areas
except where there is an overriding public interest, narrowly construed.
Also, we only "deserve" privacy if we are willing to defend it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Erb)
Crossposted-To: alt.military,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Signals From Intelligent Space Aliens? Forget About It.
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 99 11:02:55 EST
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
>But your definition we already have been. The announcement is 60-70
lightyears
>out and receeding at a speed we do not ever expect to match.
I think the poster you're responding to has been watching too much sci-fi.
Last night on Futurama a race of space aliens attacked earth because the
transmission of "Single Female Lawyer" (a spoof on Ally McBeal -- her name
on the show was Jenny McNeil) was interrupted and they demanded to know
what happened. Since their planet is 1000 light years away they didn't
get to the earth until 3000....
But the poster you're responding to is sort of a neo-nazi type always
accusing the government of treason and the like. That's he's taken to
being paranoid about space aliens is par for the course :)
------------------------------
From: "Tony T. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 09:16:23 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The continued fraction quotients increase exponentially but normality
only needs linearity of growth.
------------------------------
From: "james d. hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 11:29:58 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Carr wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > Like I always say, I've never been all that concerned
> > about UseNet probability "experts" opinions.
>
> Obviously, since you did not choose to cross-post to a statistics
> newsgroup. Equally obviously, you did not cite a major reference
> in the field of probability and statistics for your assertion that
> ""Random" is usually defined in terms of things like pi,".
Why would you site a major reference to defining "random"?
That's would seem to be random behaviour.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED](Steven B. Harris)
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: 8 Nov 1999 16:40:06 GMT
In <805trh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (john baez)
writes:
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Scott Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>All the numbers might appear in the decimal expansion of PI,
>>but they aren't equiprobable. Long runs of zeros can't occur
>>early, so their probability is lower. Other repeating patterns
>>are also impossible in early positions. Thus, PI has been
>>proved to be "non-normal" although the bias is so slight
>>that only a mathematician would make the distinction.
>
>While only a nonmathematician could think that the study
>of any finite portion of the decimal expansion of pi could
>have any bearing on whether pi is normal. It doesn't.
>
However, several million digits have been calculated, and these are
equiprobable, to the limit of what most people consider probable. Of
course, that's an infinite regression: what p value do you accept
before you declare an excess of 1's or 5's?
Whether the first 10 million digits prove anything, or even suggest
anything, about the rest of an irrational like pi, is an interesting
question of induction. Do you hold that this fact does not influence
the probability that rest of the thing is random, at ALL? How about
the probability that the NEXT 10 million digits will be? Does it make
that a LITTLE more probable? A LOT more probable? Nothing either way?
You wouldn't bet 50 cents on it? Your car on it? Your house on it?
Your life on it? (Which is to say, you think the odds worse than
taking a jet airliner to someplace fun, and making it alive-- say one
in 10 million). If you admit of some inductive belief for the *next*
10 million digits, how about the next 10 million after that? How fast
does the extra suspicion of digit-frequency norming over large
intervals after interval q, die away, given that we know it for
interval q?
I'm serious about these questions. I think you've been a little too
harsh, considering how close we are to some of the hardest questions
there are.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.compression
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Build your own one-on-one compressor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:36:33 GMT
In sci.crypt Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[conditions summary]
:> : No string in the tables should contain another such string
:> : as a substring.
:> :
:> : No leading symbols in any string should exactly match the
:> : trailing symbols in a different string.
: If you require what you use with <--> in the dictionary (or in
: my notation what is expressed by the last sentence above) I don't
: see why you need the first rule
: No string in the tables should contain another such string
: as a substring.
: The second rule apprears to be sufficient.
To quote from: http://www.alife.co.uk/securecompress/
``This condition is necessary to prevent pathological cases: If "and" and
"wander" are both words - and if "and" <=> "#" and "wander" <=> "&", then
there is no chance that the string "w#er" will compress to "wander" - and
then decompress to "&".''
--
__________
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...posting from the Grampian Highlands, Scotland.
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How protect HDisk against Customs when entering Great Britain
Date: 08 Nov 1999 11:44:43 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Coyote-Red) writes:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:37:43 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >CoyoteRed wrote:
> >> Child pornographers deserve nothing less that the abuse that they,
> >> themselves, dish out.
> >
> >The abuse is done by the parents/guardians of the children,
> >not by the viewer of photos.
>
> True. However, the viewers are the ones with the demand, the abusers
> are the ones with the supply. They go hand-in-hand.
>
> If there wasn't any demand...
Thats a big if...there will ALWAYS be demand.
Some people have fantasies about having sex with children. In fact
I doubt you will find those fantasies to be uncommon. Its considered
"perverse" in our society (in other societies throughout time it was
perfectly acceptable and common), that "perversion" alone is enough to
entice people.
The simple fact is, that id someone sits in his own home, or on his laptop
and looks at a picture of anything, he is harming noone.
That is not to say that abuse and dangerous acting out of these fantasies
doesn't happen. It does. However it is extremely rare. The people who do it
should be caught, they should be stopped. However, taking away everyones
privacy solves nothing.
Its the drug war all over again. A few people decide something is morally
wrong, and decide that everyone is going to have to conduct their personal
private life by these moral rules.
> Same with most of the other vises, except this is against defenseless
> individuals and that's where I draw the line.
And your right to draw the line but...
veiwing a picture does nothing. When the picture is taken, th damage is
already done. Go after the people taking the pictures...not the people
who are just indulging their fantasies with a little harmless porn.
Besides...the only way to catch them, is to invade on EVERYONES privacy
across the board. If you ask me, thats tantamount to saying "Everyone is
guilty until proven innocent" or "Its better to jail a hundred innocent men
then to let a single guilty men go free"
But its also wholly off topic :)
-Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED](Steven B. Harris)
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: 8 Nov 1999 17:45:07 GMT
In <MeDV3.9037$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> gtf[@]cirp.org
(Geoffrey T. Falk) writes:
>
>In article <806tk6$glf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Steven B. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even if we knew for sure that pi was random, it wouldn't help us,
>>since our methods of calculating the digits will only access the
first
>>few thousand or million, and you might as well use a lookup table of
>>stored random numbers for that.
>
>FTR: Borwein and Borwein discovered a remarkable algorithm for
>generating the nth digit of pi without generating all of the
>preceding digits.
No kidding? How does the time to determine the particular digit,
scale in comparison to digit place? Are you sure you're not putting me
one?
------------------------------
From: James Felling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Incompatible algorithms
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 11:48:31 -0600
Tom St Denis wrote:
> In article <80031p$8h2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Scott Fluhrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <7vvdkm$6dg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >You got my point I suppose. MARS implemented three 'levels' of
> > >crypto. An initial key mixing, some linear mixing, some crypto
> rounds,
> > >more linear mixing and key mixing. These three layers are no where
> > >near 'compatible' in any sense such as K1 = K2.
> >
> > And where exactly is the proof that there exists no E2 that is a
> > composite of E1 and E:
> >
> > E2(M) = E1(E(M))
>
> Ciphers like MARS and SAFER would most likely never have keys like that
> because a) the decryption algorithm is different, b) the key is shorter
> then the round keys. This means not all permutation are possible and
> thus the completete decryption permutation is probably prohibited.
>
Probability is NOT proof. There are some algorithims for which it has been
demonstrated that they are not a group.
It looks ludicriously unlikely that there are any WEIRD anticodes such as
that, but, it has not been shown impossible, merely ridiculously unlikely.
>
> Tom
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Emmanuel Drouet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Cryptix or JCE1.2
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 18:50:48 +0000
Hello !
Could you tell me what is the difference between Cryptix3.1.1 and JCE1.2
?
Is JCE1.2 more secure than Cryptix ?
I don't know which one to use...
Thanks,
Emmanuel :o)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 09:50:24 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Wingo)
Subject: Re: PGP Cracked ?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry Coffin) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> It's not a UL, it was actually done by Dennis Ritchie on a PDP-11.
>> The compiler had extra code to check when it was recompiling
>> itself and inserted some extra instrucions.
>>
>> It also knew when it was recompiling the Unix "login" source
>> and inserted a back door accordingly.
>
>Somewhere between Urban Legend, and your version above lies the truth.
>The reality is that most of us don't know for sure whether it was ever
>done, and if it was it probably was NOT by Dennis Ritchie.
>
>Ken Thompson gave a talk outlining how you'd do this. TTBOMK, he's
>NEVER said it was actually DONE. Likewise, Dennis Ritchie may easily
>have mentioned this general scheme after Ken's talk, but I've never
>heard him saying anything about involvement in cooking up the scheme.
>Like Ken, AFAIK, he's never said _anything_ to confirm (or,
>admittedly, deny) that it was actually done.
Once, when discussing Thompson's paper on alt.folklore.computers I
received an email from Ritchie stating that Thompson had actually
implemented the Trojan Horse he described.
-t
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 1999 17:58:55 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shaitan)
Subject: Re: How protect HDisk against Customs when entering Great Britain
Crossposted-To:
alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,comp.security.pgp.tech,alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server
On 8 Nov 1999 16:23:31 GMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruno Wolff III)
wrote:
>From article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Dave Hazelwood):
>>
>> If you really want to get nasty you can replace your HD boot record
>> with a program that "eats diskettes" upon boot. Set your bios boot
>> sequence so that the HD boots first and then your proggie can start
>> formatting random sectors on the A-drive! You can manage to do
>> this even if they have their diskette write protected too. Tell them
>> yeah you have been meaning to get that drive fixed. What a laugh huh?
>> Remember you get one phone call too ha ha.
>
>You lack imagination. Better would be to reprogram the floppy to start
>damaging other peoples systems after about 10 scans. After that story gets
>out no one is going to trust them to boot their system off their floppies.
That's why they use clean, shrink-wrapped floppies to scan you drive,
and they only use thme once.
------------------------------
From: Medical Electronics Lab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Your Opinions on Quantum Cryptography
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 11:49:43 -0600
Jeremy Nysen wrote:
> Is there any reason why in 2100 we couldn't be using 256kbit RSA keys or
> 64kbit ECC keys? (Assuming that either cryptosystem remains
> mathematically secure.)
You could I suppose, but as long as you've got a quantum computer,
might as well use it for a secure algorithm
>
> Also, quantum cryptography by itself doesn't prevent a middleman attack
> (though it does make it very difficult). Which means it should be
> possible to set up a 'relay' box in between two communicating parties
> that pretends to be the other. You would still need a 'relay' box for
> each channel/medium, but lets assume big budgets (eg. NSA, etc.). For
> satellite control channels, simple point to point quantum crypto is
> useful, and it would be reasonably difficult to bolt on (or hover in
> between) a perfectly aligned 'relay' unit over either party's quantum
> emitter/detector and microwave dish, without someone noticing.
"practically impossible" I'd say. "denial of service" attack would
be simpler, and probably more useful. The people being watched
would have to physically meet to bypass all the problems, and some
low tech spying will keep track of what transpires. The toys change,
but the game stays the same :-)
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve K)
Crossposted-To: alt.military,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Signals From Intelligent Space Aliens? Forget About It.
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 18:10:36 GMT
On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 21:46:39 -0800, Anthony Stephen Szopa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:
>
>> Signals From Intelligent Space Aliens? Forget About It.
>>
>> I believe the United States and the rest of the world will adopt a
>> universal communications transmission protocol as soon as the
>> technology becomes available to not only encrypt all communications
>> transmissions worldwide but to conceal these transmissions as nearly
>> as possible among the back ground radiation remnant of the big bang
>> in space or other terrestrial back ground noise.
>>
>> Quantum digital circuits should make this feasible.
>>
>> Let us not fool ourselves, the Earth is obviously the most import piece
>> of real estate in this solar system and possibly in this part of the
>> galaxy. It is just as obvious that to announce this fact to the rest of
>> the galaxy is quite stupid.
>>
>> National Security necessitates that we must assume that there are no
>> friendly space aliens.
>
>Sorry. I forgot to add my conclusion: Any space alien signals will not be
>recognized by us because of space alien security measures. We must assume
>they will not be fools.
>
>The question for us: Are we going to fools?
>
Any bunch of space aliens that survives long enough to develop real
star travel, will presumably develop the *much simpler* technology
required for universal independent wealth long before they reach us.
Their only interest in Earth, would be tourism of one or another
sort-- artistic, scientific, et cetera. We got nothing they would
want to "take away from us" or otherwise mess up, except maybe a
grossly exaggerated chauvanism and xenophobia.
And BTW, there is a shell of RF signals expanding through this part of
the galaxy at the speed of light, with us at its dead center, already.
Anyone who hopes to hide the Earth from anyone who is listening in, is
in no position to ask if we are "going to (be) fools."
The porch light is on, the welcome mat is out, and the
trick-or-treaters are already halfway up the walk.
Boo.
Steve K
---Continuing freedom of speech brought to you by---
http://www.eff.org/ http://www.epic.org/
http://www.cdt.org/
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kerberos Question
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:10:57 -0800
I would _never_ suggest that Microsoft have another go at creating anything
with security, they've proven too many times that they create poor results.
As a matter of fact I consider Kerberos to be orders of magnitude better
than their proprietary work. I simply see points where Kerberos can be
attacked with minimal knowledge of the network, simply because it fails to
provide significant security for the user's password. I know people will
probably feel free to attack that based "but it goes through a hash" but
knowledge of that post-hash value is enough information to allow you to
change the user's password, which in turn presents all the user's associated
resources.
With most user's passwords I don't think RC4 will be strong enough, it's
been pointed out before that most passwords have <2 bits of entropy per
byte, since I know from experience that most users choose passwords of at
most 7 bytes, that's 14 bits, even assuming double the entropy because a
very good password was chosen that's still only 2^28 possibilities, a
keyspace more than small enough to brute force.
It is my personal opinion that we need to begin moving away from simple
passwords and begin to encorporate something akin to smartcards or the
iButton to perform our identity checks. Besides (IMHO) most users would feel
more at ease having to remember to wear their watch or ring or bring their
wallet than they would having to remember their password.
Joe
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,comp.security.pgp.tech,alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server
From: gtf[@]cirp.org (Geoffrey T. Falk)
Subject: Re: How protect HDisk against Customs when entering Great Britain
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 18:20:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Shaitan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 8 Nov 1999 16:23:31 GMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruno Wolff III)
> wrote:
>>You lack imagination. Better would be to reprogram the floppy to start
>>damaging other peoples systems after about 10 scans. After that story gets
>>out no one is going to trust them to boot their system off their floppies.
>
>That's why they use clean, shrink-wrapped floppies to scan you drive,
>and they only use thme once.
But, what guarantee do *you* have that such a "shrink-wrapped" floppy is
not going to plant a bug, infect or otherwise damage your computer?
g.
--
I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy
ADDRESS ALTERED TO DEFLECT SPAM. UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS BILLED $500
Geoffrey T. Falk <gtf(@)cirp.org> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
