Cryptography-Digest Digest #460, Volume #12 Wed, 16 Aug 00 13:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Proposal of drafting rules of conduct of posting (Mark Wooding)
Re: test ("Paul Lutus")
Re: ECC Implementation (David Hopwood)
Re: OTP using BBS generator? (David Hopwood)
Re: 1-time pad is not secure... ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: 1-time pad is not secure... ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Quick Question (wtshaw)
Re: New quantum computer - any details? (Sander Vesik)
Re: Not really random numbers (Mark Wooding)
Re: 215 Hz five-qubit quantum processor (Steve Newman)
Re: test (Future Beacon)
Re: OTP using BBS generator? (Mark Wooding)
Re: Looking for a DES or RSA chip with write-only key. (Sniggerfardimungus)
Re: 215 Hz five-qubit quantum processor (Steve Newman)
Re: 1-time pad is not secure... ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: 1-time pad is not secure... ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: 1-time pad is not secure... ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Quick Question (Part Two) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Crypto Related Professional Attitude (wtshaw)
Re: Looking for a DES or RSA chip with write-only key. (Sniggerfardimungus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: Proposal of drafting rules of conduct of posting
Date: 16 Aug 2000 15:24:49 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The practical problem consists in: (1) FAQ appears only every 21 days;
> there is no HTML version that can be accessed at any time.
Is http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/crypto/tools/docs/sci.crypt-faq.txt
a mirage? (Yes, I know it's not HTML, but HTML is overrated anyway.)
I think the best thing to be done with the FAQ is to *update* the damned
thing. I heard rumours that someone was doing it; otherwise I might
even be tempted to try maintaining it myself.
> (1) A status problem. You don't see gentlemen and ladies in fine
> costumes in company of the saleswomen of the fish or vegetable
> markets, do you?
I don't see why this shouldn't be the case. Well, perhaps without the
`fine costumes' -- that would look too much like showing off. But I'd
certainly consider that not wishing to be associated with someone
*merely* on account of their station is snobbery of a rather unpleasant
kind.
Anyway, I think it's great that we *do* have some really good people in
this group[1], and we quite often get some good material from others too.
> (3) No necessity from moral point of view.
Depends. I *do* feel a slight `moral necessity', because sci.crypt is
where I really started learning about crypto. Besides, I do think that
there's enough intelligent discussion here to make it worthwhile anyway,
despite the Szopas and Scotts and Po-Han Lins of the world.
[1] I'll not cause further embarassment by posting my own list.
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: "Paul Lutus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.physics
Subject: Re: test
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:55:43 -0700
> I may be an idiot, by my problem was with only two news groups -
> this one and sci.math. There was never any problem with the test
> groups, including eznet.test.
It doesn't work this way. If you can post to alt.test, you can post to any
newsgroup your news service supports. WRT posting, they are all the same.
Posting delays may differ, but posting to alt.test confirms that you can
post. Everything else is out of your hands. Some newsgroups take longer to
accept and display your post, because of their activity level, or because
they are moderated.
On that topic, if you cross-post to a number of newsgroups, and one is
moderated, the post will not appear in any newsgroup until it has been
reviewed by the moderator of that one newsgroup.
Another reason not to cross-post.
> I suppose being unkind can be worth the occasional mistake.
What? The golden rule of Usenet (the same old rule) is not to expect other
people to treat you any better than you treat them. You have the option of
learning about Usenet, then trying to use it, instead of the other way
around. If you do not do this, if you jump in feet first, all bets are off
on what other people might do in response.
And on that subject, you've cross-posted to sci.physics and sci.crypt,
newsgroups which have almost nothing in common. Avoid doing this. Someone
might flame you. You're clearly far too sensitive a soul to be misusing
Usenet as you are doing.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Future Beacon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 04:29:16 +0100
From: David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ECC Implementation
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Charles Lucas wrote:
> I'm looking for information from people who have had some experience
> implementing elliptical encryption algorithms.
The term is "elliptic curve encryption", not elliptical.
> I've been working on one myself, and have a few questions:
>
> How should you handle the "Omega" point,
More usually called the point at infinity.
> or is it even necessary?
It is necessary. Select an (x, y) pair that cannot be on the curve (some
implementations use (0, 0)) to represent the point at infinity, and write
the point addition/doubling routines to treat this as a special case.
[...]
> Referencing the equation y^2 = x^3 + ax + b:
> Where in the algorithm for "multiplying" an elliptic curve point by an
> integer does "b" come in?
It doesn't.
> The formula for doubling an elliptic curve point uses "a", but "b"
> never appears to be a factor. Is it not necessary, given that your
> input points take it into account?
b is needed when generating random points, or to verify that a point is
on the curve [*], or to convert points to/from a compressed representation
(see the P1363 standard for more information on that).
[*] If a representation of a point is received over a network, checking
that it is actually on the curve may be necessary to prevent some
attacks. Note that proofs of security as applied to elliptic curve
systems tend to assume that all points are on the curve, and it's
definitely a good idea to check this when generalising a protocol that
was originally defined over a different group.
- --
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBOZqoNTkCAxeYt5gVAQEEZwgAj4FJpeWr4bFSU76/CcPWeLippeKJvzv9
Qh6ArLoHn6jFsG8bMRScHhbDg/Nvq1Bh1Owi2YJt2B7oqQVTb6wOera8DyAU1T00
hLwmbpXbqEv81JwwulqxNbhM1VbzCcsn7kihrhhyWT1esh0YB0IjR3IqVY+NQjNN
tpT0lmwKHFoZ5HI+0jRfEYeFt8Gt19azXiylgdWlaCVWocZ7xKyYn774aWt8oabj
Nu1BhTkyVsJG3vC/lF6U5keAkPCrjKdyE6rUHKZgUOoNtGTcbvfNE8tW6AJONxIH
pKpzpLNCHFAY0BcJai7IeX/FEz8hlvAGXnC5K8wrV0YbLq6iwQeslg==
=AaU2
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:08:26 +0100
From: David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OTP using BBS generator?
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> Mark Wooding wrote:
> > Terry Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > That's a wrong answer: The construction as described in BB&S first
> > > guarantees that cycles of a given length must exist, and then shows
> > > how to check that x0 is on such a cycle. The check is thus absolute
> > > proof that a short cycle has not been selected.
> >
> > No, it only shows the cycle length for the sequence <x_i>, not the
> > sequence of parity bits.
>
> Sorry, I am really confused. 'Parity bits' or 'LSB'? Thanks.
Either (they are equally secure).
- --
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBOZqgODkCAxeYt5gVAQFy7Qf8DMMjwqJqMpuQmSuGsb7FS1trtTcScY79
CxAntnlOjhlaR/oIIwIGpF4AlbrxMd7A1HBbnfp+R8DBkjdtzO+t2+3inRfiIpfF
1CEsuwMgwc3Y1rC6MuhIbqOjcO+gjUFyuCQVY4ny/19BL23WnfQOxtubCMTIkFOy
nFkd+lT2EqfZcQ6qSdNOYHUK758dVOGdyI7iHt+j82b1t6robUGu6zNbMckWztBG
nW4uSD9ubLI7CbuW/17W9dV/mskcgjO5oInj7MhWkY6VHSF6CNCLQ47JuZjSg7Os
3HdIQ3PbjWy7OIxToVqoQWXk3lsc9Vbhu9TM/zR8KygcZ+oyTCZsAg==
=jefP
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1-time pad is not secure...
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:52:07 GMT
Tim Tyler wrote:
> MWI and CI disagree (I believe) over issues where "observers" are
> interfered with one another. MWI allows observers to be in a
> super-position of states, while the CI (presumably) does not.
The Copenhagen interpretation, which treats observers as
subject to different laws from general quantum systems,
was clearly just a provisional stage in the transition
from classical physics to quantum physics. However, it
outlived its usefulness, largely due to Bohr's influence
(his "duality" mysticism strongly resonated with
philosophical influences that were prevalent at the time).
The quantum nature of the observer has been integrated
into quantum theory in recent years, such as the notion
of "entanglement".
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1-time pad is not secure...
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:55:12 GMT
Guy Macon wrote:
> Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> >Guy Macon wrote:
> >> I was just responding to his comment that
> >> he wishes that it was on the Internet ...
> >I didn't say that.
> From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT
> I haven't had time to set up a Web site. Whenever I get
> a round tuit, that will be one of the things I'll include.
So? I didn't say that I wish it were on the Internet,
I said that maybe some day it will be.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Quick Question
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:48:42 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw) wrote:
> In article <8ncgee$cta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Steven Knight"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I know encryption uses algorithms but what are they?
>
Weirdly, I picked up an old Scientific American this morning, April, 1977,
and see the article Algorithms, by David Knuth, In an age of computers
routines for getting a specific output from a specific input are critical.
Where this slightly misses a comprehensive definition is in inductive
encryption, where a certain input might yield many different ciphertext
outputs, each of which can deductively yield the original plaintext input.
--
Too bad from the party members point of view that Ventura has
gone, for what the Reform Party needs is a good referee and
someone who understands how to *fix* things, before hurt sets in.
------------------------------
From: Sander Vesik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New quantum computer - any details?
Date: 16 Aug 2000 16:23:54 GMT
Gordon Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:05:20 -0700, "Ed Suominen"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Time for bigger keys
> Surely if quantum computers become practical there is no realistic key
> length that will provide security? An entirely new variety of
> encryption would be required would it not?
How long is 'realistical length' and what constitutes a practical
quantum computer? A qc that can crack say 512 bit RSA in say 4 weeks
is practical, but not overly threatening for 16/32 kbit keys that are
still realistically long.
Even if you speed it up 4 times, longer keys are still realistic. Beyond
that, we need something else than RSA.
> --
> Gordon Walker
--
Sander
FLW: "I can banish that demon"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: Not really random numbers
Date: 16 Aug 2000 16:14:27 GMT
Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about this:
>
> Pick a large prime,p. Pick another large prime, Q. Find two
> primitives, one in GF(p) and one in GF(q), call these numbers a
> & b repectivly . Then iterate the following:
>
> c=(c*a) mod p
> d =(d*b) mod q
>
> output stream-byte = (c+d) mod 256
This gives me the heebiejeebies. It's basically two linear congruential
generators (only they're simpler because there are no additive
constants), and then you combine them in a simple way.
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 215 Hz five-qubit quantum processor
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:27:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Trevor L. Jackson, III"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Godel v. Russell established the fact that this is not possible.
> Russell wanted to show that all of math was consistently derived from a small
> set of foundation premises. Godel showed that math is incomplete in the sense
> that not all truths can be deduced from the premises. Godel used a
special kind
> of theorem that implied something like "This theorem is false". When you run
> that through a prover you get an undecidable result -- like talking to a
person
> who says "I always lie".
>
> This can be made quite personal. For instance, "Steve Newman cannot
> consistently defend the truth of this theorem." If you act as a manual
theorem
> prover, how will you resolved the truth/falsity of it?
Yes, of course Godel proved that not all true theorems can be proved, and
of course the magic device I proposed would not be able to prove all true
theorems (as an earlier posting on this thread also pointed out). It would
"merely" be able to prove all theorems that have a proof of less than a
certain length in a certain notation. However one suspects (anyway I
suspect) that this would include a lot of "hard" problems.
It's moot for a few decades anyway, and probably forever based on Paul
Rubin's comment that QBP is generally suspected to be smaller than NP.
I was just trying to point out that a large-bit-count quantum computer
might have implications even more bizzare than rapid factorization.
-- Steve Newman
------------------------------
From: Future Beacon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.physics
Subject: Re: test
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:15:24 -0400
Paul,
This was a problem with my ISP. The delay in posting was not the
issue. I was not even getting a copy in my sent mail. I didn't
know what else to do, but I will do nothing instead next time.
Thanks for the feedback.
Jim Trek
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Paul Lutus wrote:
> > I may be an idiot, by my problem was with only two news groups -
> > this one and sci.math. There was never any problem with the test
> > groups, including eznet.test.
>
> It doesn't work this way. If you can post to alt.test, you can post to any
> newsgroup your news service supports. WRT posting, they are all the same.
>
> Posting delays may differ, but posting to alt.test confirms that you can
> post. Everything else is out of your hands. Some newsgroups take longer to
> accept and display your post, because of their activity level, or because
> they are moderated.
>
> On that topic, if you cross-post to a number of newsgroups, and one is
> moderated, the post will not appear in any newsgroup until it has been
> reviewed by the moderator of that one newsgroup.
>
> Another reason not to cross-post.
>
> > I suppose being unkind can be worth the occasional mistake.
>
> What? The golden rule of Usenet (the same old rule) is not to expect other
> people to treat you any better than you treat them. You have the option of
> learning about Usenet, then trying to use it, instead of the other way
> around. If you do not do this, if you jump in feet first, all bets are off
> on what other people might do in response.
>
> And on that subject, you've cross-posted to sci.physics and sci.crypt,
> newsgroups which have almost nothing in common. Avoid doing this. Someone
> might flame you. You're clearly far too sensitive a soul to be misusing
> Usenet as you are doing.
>
> --
>
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
>
> Future Beacon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: OTP using BBS generator?
Date: 16 Aug 2000 16:17:09 GMT
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry, I am really confused. 'Parity bits' or 'LSB'? Thanks.
The least significant bit is often called the `parity bit' by
mathematicians, since it represents the number's parity -- its oddness
or evenness. It is this sense of the word `parity' used by Blum, Blum
and Shub in their 1982 paper.
> Either (they are equally secure).
That's interesting to know.
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: ronb.cc@usu@edu (Sniggerfardimungus)
Subject: Re: Looking for a DES or RSA chip with write-only key.
Date: 16 Aug 00 10:24:29 MDT
In article <8nccgg$2uqq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David C. Barber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That seems a bit insecure -- sending all your messages with a single key.
>
> Just my $/50.
>
> *David Barber*
I'm not sending messages. I still need the hardware.
rOn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 215 Hz five-qubit quantum processor
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:35:09 GMT
In article <8ndcr7$4f1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul
Rubin) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Steve Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It occurred to me some years back that with the appropriate "magic
> >box", you could trivially implement a theorem prover for arbitrary
> >theorems. Simply generate all possible strings up to a certain
> >length, and run each string through a theorem checker to see if it
> >constitutes a proof for the theorem. This requires a theorem
> >checker, but that's not hard to write.
>
> This doesn't tell you whether a theorem is true, of course. Input the
> extended Riemann hyponthesis and start the prover, stopping it when
> the strings reach a billion characters. Say it stops without finding
> a proof. You still don't know whether there is a proof of ERH that
> happens to be a billion and one characters long. Some awfully long
> proofs have in fact been published. The theorem classifying the
> finite simple groups fills something like 10,000 journal pages.
Yes, of course, it wouldn't be a universal theorem decider. But it
might manage to prove some things that have been stumping us for a
fair while.
> >Could this algorithm be implemented in a (sufficiently advanced)
> >quantum computer?
>
> Probably no better than on a classical computer. The problem you're
> describing ("is there a proof of X, that's < N characters long?") is
> clearly NP-hard.
Oh, well. Then my brilliant idea for the ultimate compression
algorithm is probably no good either. (Generate all possible
bitstrings, select the ones that when executed on a virtuam machine
interpreter generate the uncompressed file as output, and keep the
shortest such bitstring.) This one is actually even worse than the
theorem-proving algorithm because it requires interpreting (executing)
each bitstring, not just running it through a proof checker.
It would be interesting to see what problems that are traditionally
"too hard to bother even thinking about" do become tractable on a
reasonably large quantum computer. But I'm wandering pretty far
from comp.arch...
-- Steve Newman
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1-time pad is not secure...
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:11:46 GMT
"Tony T. Warnock" wrote:
> QM may not be the final theory of the universe, but other
> theories will have to explain the results of QM. Just like
> QM does explain Newtonian mechanics as a limiting case.
Indeed, relationships like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
are not isolated items but rather express *observed* facets
of the universe. In fact, Heisenberg's principle is an
immediate consequence of the general use of noncommuting
operators (it falls right out of Fourier transform theory
as well as noncommutative algebra). These are *qualitative*,
experimentally verified properties of reality, which any
replacement theory would have to replicate.
> The randomness in QM is different from the randomness we
> assign to dice throwing.
At least the mathematicians investigating "quantum logics"
etc. seem pretty sure about that. There is a glimmer of
hope for understanding "probability amplitudes" etc. in
more conventional terms, e.g. Little's elementary-wave
theory, but to the extent that those approaches have to
match up with what we already know about quantum behavior,
the classical assumption that more detailed knowledge is
available in principle simply does not hold for quantum
randomness. Thus there is no danger of the enemy
controlling behavior at that submicro level to influence
the results of that randomness.
Classical intution simply leads one astray at the quantum
level.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1-time pad is not secure...
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:16:02 GMT
Tim Tyler wrote:
> With tests, you can conclude that non-randomness exists, but never
> that true randomness does, since that would suggest that every
> conceivable test for randomness has been passed.
Also that you have tested an infinite amount of output.
> This means that you can't legitimately claim a source is truely
> random on the basis of testing it, since you've got no way to
> know for certain.
> That you can't test for perfect randomness doesn't mean that you should
> by default award today's hardware generators the acolade of "truely
> random".
There is a big difference between empirically testing something
of a priori unknown properties and designing something to have
certain properties. In the latter case, we can "trust, but
verify" (since hardware can always break). The conclusion that
a true-random bit generator does what its name suggests comes
primarily from its design, not from its testing.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1-time pad is not secure...
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:19:48 GMT
Tim Tyler wrote:
> That was wrong. Hidden variables /may/ exist, they just can't have
> wholly local effects.
I left out the word "local" since I take for granted that the
best description of fundamental physics involves local phenomena.
Exploring why that is would take us *way* off track.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quick Question (Part Two)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:25:55 GMT
Steven Knight wrote:
> Could anyone give me C++ code on some simple algorithms
What would be the point? You should study C++ programming
if that is what you want. C++ implementations of arbitrarily
chosen algorithms would at best provide an incoherent basis
for understanding (either C++ or algorithms in general).
The classic reference on algorithms in computing is Donald
Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming: Vol. 1 --
Fundamental Algorithms". As I recall, it uses the Euclidean
algorithm as an early example. (That algorithm predates
computing by a couple of thousand years.) A standard
textbook is Sedgewick's "Algorithms". Study these for a
while and you should either get the picture or else find
that it is over your head at present.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Crypto Related Professional Attitude
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:02:31 -0600
In article <8nct28$ag7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The real reason is that if the big names have something interesting in
> mind, they won't discuss it here for everyone to see. If the topic is
> not interesting to them, they won't participate. Another reason is that
> if they say something wrong here, they will be held responsible. They
> don't write something for EVERYONE to see without re-checking 100 times.
>
Ah, the luxury of having others hide your flaws! But, each of them does
have flaws. Pretending that any do not is PR, package, and unrealistic.
On the other hand, if some flaw emerges, judge not anyone on less than the
total of what they have done.
That lesson applies for any who are seen for their rough edges than their
sincere heart and questioning brain. I try to resist picking on some flaw
that someone has, but I would rather reduce differences to something that
can be tested. As for me, I fear not to be tried and tried again, for
that is a good way to deal with searching for truth regarding technical
issues.
Show me someone who has never been in error and never lost their temper,
and I'll show you someone who is neither for nor against apathy.
--
If you have a conscience, vote for a candidate that has one too.
For president, I see only one that has consistently practiced what
he has preached, and always been on the side of basic good, RN.
------------------------------
From: ronb.cc@usu@edu (Sniggerfardimungus)
Subject: Re: Looking for a DES or RSA chip with write-only key.
Date: 16 Aug 00 10:51:10 MDT
In article <399a84e9$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Currie) writes:
> I would not recomend *burning-in* of keys. The Pijnenburg chips - PCC101 (DES)
> & PCC201 (Exponentiator) have write-only key registers that (I think) can be
> retained with a battery after power-down.
I actually do have a reason to burn in a key. I don't want it to change and I
would rather that a battery failure not lose it... This is not a typical
communication application, so most of the assumptions about key distribution
and security do not apply. My application is about as far from communication
as you can get....
rOn
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
