Cryptography-Digest Digest #457, Volume #13 Thu, 11 Jan 01 20:13:00 EST
Contents:
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (DJohn37050)
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (DJohn37050)
Re: Can anyone help with this puzzle ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (DJohn37050)
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (DJohn37050)
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (DJohn37050)
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (Roger Schlafly)
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (Roger Schlafly)
Re: NSA and Linux Security ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (David A Molnar)
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (David Wagner)
Re: NSA and Linux Security ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (David Wagner)
Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP (David Wagner)
Re: New stream cipher (Simon Johnson)
Re: NSA and Linux Security (Simon Johnson)
Re: Another Enigma Emulator (digiboy | marcus)
Re: NSA and Linux Security (William Hugh Murray)
Re: NSA and Linux Security (William Hugh Murray)
Re: NSA and Linux Security (William Hugh Murray)
Re: Coral Reef chemistry ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Date: 11 Jan 2001 21:22:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
If you want to use a good set of ECC domain parameters, use a NIST curve.
There is also a domain parameter validation routine specified in X9.62. As all
the parms are public, it is straightforward to audit them for conformance to
the requirements of the standard. Then you know you are playing in a valid
sandbox.
Don Johnson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Date: 11 Jan 2001 21:29:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
OK, look at it this way:
RSA Key Gen - fourth order poly
RSA Private Key operation - third order poly
RSA Public key (with low exponent) operation - second order poly
RSA public key validation - can only be done partially without access to
private key used as oracle. So just by itself, it is off the chart, cannot be
done.
ECC Domain Parm Gen - 10(?) order poly
ECC Key Pair Gen - second order poly
ECC Private key Op - second order poly
ECC public key op - second order poly
ECC public key validation - second order poly
In comparing RSA to ECC, it is clear that ECC is WAY more complex in the Domain
parms. But look closer, the domain parms are often chosen from a list, so
someone else can do the hard work for you. As they are public, anyone at
anytime can validate them. Same for the ECC public key.
The fact that RSA public keys are so hard to validate is a potential cause for
concern that many people seem to want to ignore, as it is a hard problem. This
indicates that there is a LOT going on underneath that is hidden from the user.
Don Johnson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can anyone help with this puzzle ?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:34:06 GMT
For anyone who has tried to work this out, it is all to do with the
periodic table and reads (with a small error) I wish everyone health
and hapines in 2001 (at least I had the 2001 bit correct !)
Elaine
In article <937o3o$vk6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <937ivt$rnm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello there,
> > I am totally baffled with this cryptogram/puzzle but I'm sure
someone
> > out there could help !
> > The only clue is that it is a seasonal message (Christmas/New year
> > type) and the setter has a sense of humour !
> > Here it is ......
> > 5374531622368398102139018601181515531016165372001
> > I'm not sure whether or not the last four digits have any special
> > significance !
> > thank you
> > Elaine
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
> >
> Any idea how this is encrypted? There are pointers that suggest
> breakability, but without an algorithm and so little cipher-text
> your really strugling to yield a solution from it. There are many
> couplets of identical digits in the cipher-text. Each with a
> probability of about 1/100 occuring. A first step might be to
> try and character frequency analyse the cipher-text.
>
> Simon.
> --
> Hi, i'm the signuture virus,
> help me spread by copying me into Signiture File
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Date: 11 Jan 2001 21:42:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
Perhaps not clear in previous post.
I would prefer to do a poly 10 op in public where it could be audited so I
could do poly square ops in private (ECC) , than do a poly quartic op in
private (RSA).
That is, there seems to be some minimal level of complexity to do public key.
Assuming that, I would want essentially ALL of that complexity to be able to be
done in an auditable manner. This leads to more confidence in the design and
implementation.
Don Johnson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Date: 11 Jan 2001 21:49:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
As the Wizard said to Dorothy "Pay no attention to the man behind the screen."
Don Johnson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJohn37050)
Date: 11 Jan 2001 21:59:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
The point being to look at the WHOLE picture. Pretending you know anything
about RSA 'cuz you know c = p**e mod n is like a magician misdirecting you so
he can do his magic trick. Note, for the record, I WANT RSA in my bag of
crypto tricks, just like I want ECC. I just find it very misleading to say
that RSA is understandable while ECC is not. Once you look under the screen,
it is all tricky stuff.
Don Johnson
------------------------------
From: Roger Schlafly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:05:30 -0800
David Wagner wrote:
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> >I think the idea is that in any PK system, the hardest thing
> >to verify is that the private keys are generated properly. [...]
> >In DH/DSA and ECC, private key generation is very simple because
> >it is just choosing an integer in a particular range. RSA is
> >a little more complicated because you have to generate primes.
> Hmm. I see your point. Interesting observation.
>
> But, I'm not sure I'm entirely persuaded. In ECC, you still have
> to choose the group parameters and verify that the group order
> is appropriate. Getting this code right (or verifying that it was
> implemented correctly) seems more complicated than writing/verifying
> code to generate primes.
Yes, but as Don says, you can just use NIST curves or rely on
publicly accepted open source software, or whatever. You are not
going to want to let someone watch the innards of the generation
of the private keys that you actually use.
------------------------------
From: Roger Schlafly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:09:51 -0800
DJohn37050 wrote:
> OK, look at it this way:
> RSA Key Gen - fourth order poly
> RSA Private Key operation - third order poly
> RSA Public key (with low exponent) operation - second order poly
> RSA public key validation - can only be done partially without access to
> private key used as oracle. So just by itself, it is off the chart, cannot be
> done.
> ECC Domain Parm Gen - 10(?) order poly
> ECC Key Pair Gen - second order poly
> ECC Private key Op - second order poly
> ECC public key op - second order poly
> ECC public key validation - second order poly
> In comparing RSA to ECC, it is clear that ECC is WAY more complex in the Domain
> parms. But look closer, the domain parms are often chosen from a list, so
> someone else can do the hard work for you. As they are public, anyone at
> anytime can validate them. Same for the ECC public key.
> The fact that RSA public keys are so hard to validate is a potential cause for
> concern that many people seem to want to ignore, as it is a hard problem. This
> indicates that there is a LOT going on underneath that is hidden from the user.
What are you calling public key validation? With either RSA or
ECC, it is possible to construct public keys which are not
secure. Your validation is just a consistency check that may
give you some warm fuzzies or help catch some accidental bugs,
but that's all. Its not really validation in any meaningful
sense.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSA and Linux Security
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:44:23 GMT
William Hugh Murray wrote:
> ... I have spoken the same message in front of NSA people for
> two decades and have yet to have one of them take offense.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" applies to one's own
government as well as to foreign ones, perhaps moreso since the
native threat is subtler and more long-range. (How to boil a
frog.) But accurate information is required if one is to keep a
meaningful watch.
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
Date: 11 Jan 2001 22:42:30 GMT
David Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now wait just a second! You are changing the claim after-the-fact.
>From my reading, Don Johnson has always put forward the same claim - that key
validation is difficult for RSA and that this counts against RSA. That's the
claim he seems to be prosecuting in the message to which you responded.
Now, Don *did* agree with Greg, who posted the claim you quote below.
> The original claim was that
> ``Specifically, that RSA is (practically speaking) impossible to verify
> the accuracy of the software, where ECC code is more intuitive and
> verifiable.''
It's not clear to me now whether "impossible to verify the accuracy of the
software" refers to
a) the difficulty of verifying RSA keys as correct
or b) the difficulty of verifying the _software_ / code used
or c) both
When I first read it I thought b) only. I'll let Don speak for himself as to
how he read it - right now I don't know what his agreement with Greg meant.
I don't think I've seen Don discuss b) in this thread, though; the comments
from him I've read so far began with a) and are now branching into issues which
touch both a) and b) such as proper padding and ease of misunderstanding RSA.
It might avoid some confusion if this is sorted out before continuing with the
thread...
Thanks,
-David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
Date: 11 Jan 2001 23:10:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
DJohn37050 wrote:
>OK, look at it this way:
>RSA Key Gen - fourth order poly
>RSA Private Key operation - third order poly
>RSA Public key (with low exponent) operation - second order poly
[....]
But that wasn't what the original claim was about. To repeat, the
original claim was about how easy it is to implement RSA (or ECC),
not how fast or slow they may be.
Performance is irrelevant. Some slow algorithms are simple, and some
fast algorithms are complex.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NSA and Linux Security
Date: 11 Jan 2001 23:11:46 GMT
Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greggy wrote:
>> Take your pick, but reality is, they are dark and they have
>> chosen we the people to be their next target.
> That's not reality, it's a figment of a parnoid imagination.
> I know many fine people who work for NSA, and they would not
> participate in a domestic espionage program. Indeed, they
> are trained in the requirement to obey the laws against such
> activity.
I'm sure people would have said that at other times as well, but
history has shown that the NSA *has* spied on U.S. citizens within its
borders in the past. Just out of curiosity, what gives you such
apparent confidence that things have changed?
--
Steve Tate --- srt[At]cs.unt.edu | Gratuitously stolen quote:
Dept. of Computer Sciences | "The box said 'Requires Windows 95, NT,
University of North Texas | or better,' so I installed Linux."
Denton, TX 76201 |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
Date: 11 Jan 2001 23:13:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
DJohn37050 wrote:
>If you want to use a good set of ECC domain parameters, use a NIST curve.
If you're willing to use someone else's parameters, then discrete log
cryptosystems are far easier to implement than ECC, by anyone's standards.
By this metric, it seems that El Gamal beats ECC hands down, no?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Comparison of ECDLP vs. DLP
Date: 11 Jan 2001 23:17:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
DJohn37050 wrote:
>Pretending you know anything
>about RSA 'cuz you know c = p**e mod n is like a magician misdirecting you so
>he can do his magic trick.
Could you be more specific about what you think implementors need
to know about RSA? Why can't they just read the relevant PKCS standard,
or the right RFC, or whatever, and implement the obvious way?
For instance, I see no reason why an RSA implementor should need to grok
the innards of the number field sieve algorithm. Likewise, I see no
reason why an ECC implementor should need to understand the details of
the Xedni calculus and why it does not seem to form a feasible attack.
The point is, it's not enough just to ask which one is easier to understand.
You need to ask which one is easier to understand for a specific purpose.
If your purpose is to implement a public-key cryptosystem, it's not at
all clear that the implementor needs to understand all the details of
the best attacks on the system, or to understand how to prove that RSA
or ECC or whatever is secure, or so forth.
------------------------------
From: Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New stream cipher
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:09:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >[snip]
> > Algorithm description in pdf and source code can be download at
> >
> > www.alex-encryption.de
> >
> > Please follow links for AOTP-8 at the end of download list.
>
> I have the impression that your description of the algorithm
> is not clear enough (anyway in a style difficult for me
> with my humble IQ to follow). In case you don't get concrete
> comments from others, I suggest that you consider whether
> a re-write would be needed, for the chance would then be that
> I am not the single person having difficulty to comprehend
> your stuff.
>
> M. K. Shen
>
My even humbler IQ agree's with your's.... a Rewrite is needed. :)
Simon.
--
Hi, i'm the signuture virus,
help me spread by copying me into Signiture File
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSA and Linux Security
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:46:59 GMT
In article <93ioij$m3q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <935b2q$5jv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Simon Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Prehaps the NSA have been forced to shift there policy somewhat due
to
> > the possibilitity of having their funding cut. In the times of the
> cold
> > war, the NSA needed to be a secret agency which did secret things.
> > Since this role doesn't exist in the same capacity as before, they
> must
> > be forced to do other work.
>
> What on earth could you possibly point to as the basis for your
> statement?
Okay, there is no real foundation for this argument however is there
any _real_ evidence for yours? We're both stabbing in the dark.
>
> > Personally, i believe the Americans have nothing to fear of their
> > agency.
>
> Your statement here demonstrates you lack an understanding of what
> unaccountable power can do to people.
If the American Goverment allowed the existance of an unaccountable
power then they are dumb and stupid. The government of the USA pays for
the NSA, it must control it and therefore it must be accountable to the
US goverment. It is far from unaccountable, since this government is
elected by the people of the USA.
> > Infact, there probably quite a productive group.... They'll
> > probably want to insure that American secrets remain secret so they
> > won't build trapdoors into their algorithms etc..... The real worry
>> is
> > what they do abroad. I remember once reading that the NSA broke the
> > encryption of between an candian exporter of grain and some EU
> > distrubuter. The NSA then promptly sold this information to an
> American
> > supplier and the American comapny successfully undercut the deal.
>
> Fine, but what of Echelon?
What about it? If i use a strong cryptographic protocols and algorithms
then Echelon is simply an 'eve' and observes a packets of complete
jibbirish and nothing more. It doesn't really affect my privacy, and
breaking the encrypted packets is out of the question. If its a good
algorithm then you just can't identify what algorithm encrypted the
cipher-text.
Echelon is designed to catch the stupid criminal who thinks e-mail is
secure & safe.
>
> It should be the policy of the United States of America never to enter
c> into secret association with any entity. If a foreign government
> cannot do business with the United States in the open, then that
>should
> be their problem not ours.
But if the NSA is unaccountable, as you say, then it wouldn't have to
answer to law or policy, it would still communicate anyway.
> With the cloak of National Security, those in power have no
> accountability to the people of America and as a result, time and
> again, we have seen criminal actions covered up.
But of course, because the 'criminal' actions are covered up you have
no evidence to back up these claims.
Simon.
--
Hi, i'm the signuture virus,
help me spread by copying me into Signiture File
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: digiboy | marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Enigma Emulator
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:17:05 GMT
In article <93hi98$he5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've written (yet another) Enigma emulator, this one is for the Game
> Boy Color. (You need a flash cartridge to run it on the real hardware,
> otherwise use one of the emulators). May be of interest to some, and
> it stores the machine settings + message text in battery-backed RAM.
> Source code included in the ZIP file.
>
> The URL is: http://alexandrafletcher.com/Enigma.zip
>
> All feedback gratefully received. :o)
It's really cool... and it works too! (Tested it on a previously
encoded message of my own.)
What I'd like to know, though, is... how do you get a hold of these
flash carts then?
--
[ marcus ] [ http://www.cybergoth.cjb.net ]
[ ---- http://www.ninjakitten.net/digiboy ]
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: William Hugh Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NSA and Linux Security
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:35:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Perhaps I
> > am paranoid but I wish that I was confident that neither NSA nor UKUSA
> > product leaked to the FBI.
> >
> >
> by your reasoning, would you be reluctant to use a PGP dh/dss key just
> because the SHA-1 was developed by the NSA?
Not really. I am glad to see NSA publishing. I am not concerned that
they will attempt to put backdoors in public stuff. In any case, I do
not expect PGP to protect me from a nation state. I would like for it
to protect me from everyone else and take me off the target of
opportunity list for the nation state. If a nation state wants my data,
they will get it. If they do not get it from me, they will get it from
my correspondent. I expect them to get it by stealth, threat, force, or
code breaking in that order. Code breaking is very expensive and is
preferred to finger breaking only against other nation states where it
is desirable to conceal the fact that they have read the message.
>
> {there is, in fact, a sizable minority of people who will use only RSA
> keys [apart from the ADK issue ] primarily for this reason,
Yes, I have heard from them. They ridicule me for using a 383 bit PGP
key. I try not to advise them on cryptography or take security advice
from them.
> but most
> people are content with the scrutiny that SHA-1 has undergone by
> experts in the cryptographic community, without finding a 'backdoor' in
> the program.}
I am not concerned that they will attempt to put backdoors in public
stuff. Too clever by half.
> similarly, since the NSA version of Linux is open source, it is
> reasonable to assume that if there were a backdoor in the program,
> *somebody* of the very many capable people in the Linux community would
> find it, gain instant fame, and the NSA would have a great deal of
> uncomfortable explaining to do.
Oh, I think the damage would be much worse than that. I would expect a
new director, congressional hearings, and punitive legislation at a
minimum. The NSA has done a very good job of trading intelligence for
congressional influence and budget. I expect them to maintain
"plausible deniability" at a minimum. NSA has had far and away the
smallest number of embarassments of any of the intelligence or law
enforcement agencies. Would God that FBI, DEA, and ATF could learn from
them.
> granted, that if they *could* put in a backdoor without worrying about
> being found, they would be the people suspect to do so,
> but as things go with open source, it doesn't seem worse than trusting
> SHA-1, once some independent Linux experts approve the source code.
Agreed.
> vedaal
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: William Hugh Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NSA and Linux Security
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:41:08 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>
> William Hugh Murray wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > George Orwell warned us that bureaucrats, without motive or intent, do
> > what bureaucrats do. Lawrence Lessig warns us that as the price of
> > surveillance technology falls so does our freedom. I do not think that
> > it is paranoid to heed those warnings and behave accordingly. I have
> > spoken the same message in front of NSA people for two decades and have
> > yet to have one of them take offense.
>
> The US doesn't have monopoly in modern surveillance technology
> (certainly not today, if it ever did sometime in the past).
Perhaps not. On the other hand, I am not aware of any other
eavesdropping service with a budget measured in the tens of billions of
dollars.
> So, if one is worried about Orwell's scenario, one shouldn't
> restrict one's view in any specific single direction but also
> look around, I suppose.
Agreed. The other UKUSA governments come to my mind. It is hard to
believe what is happening in the UK. However, I speak English. If I
spoke Arabic or Mandarin, I might have other examples.
> M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: William Hugh Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NSA and Linux Security
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:44:07 GMT
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
>
> William Hugh Murray wrote:
> > ... I have spoken the same message in front of NSA people for
> > two decades and have yet to have one of them take offense.
>
> "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" applies to one's own
> government as well as to foreign ones, perhaps moreso since the
> native threat is subtler and more long-range. (How to boil a
> frog.) But accurate information is required if one is to keep a
> meaningful watch.
This is a very difficult area in which to write in any case. I try to
choose my words carefully so as not to mislead. However, my experience
is that no matter how careful I am, I often fail.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: sci.geo.earthquakes,alt.fluid-dynamics,alt.sci.astro.eclipses
Subject: Re: Coral Reef chemistry
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:52:35 GMT
I have detected in the last few years of research a very high
concentration of fluorescent synthetic chemicals in the soft coral
atolls.
The stoney coral regions and the horned coral regions do not exhibit
this toxicity.
The soft corals reproduce by budding, like S. Ceres yeast.
The stoney corals reproduce sexually, like mating yeast.
So I guess this debate over whether the coral atolls of Guadacanal, the
Solomon volcano chain and underwater mountain range [which are very
heavily concentrated with PORPHYRY copper deposits] are unnatural and
artificially created, is tantamount to the raging debate over the
artificial Saccharomyes Ceres budding yeast.
I will dissect a few more mantis shrimps [haptosquilla pulchella] to
find the answer.
Alba
In article <93imqb$kef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> RE: http://www.geocities.com/antarii_rescue/antares.html
> http://www.geocities.com/antarii_rescue/aldebaran.html
> http://www.geocities.com/antarii_rescue/TOMBShistory.html
>
> It was very clear in the website above from whence comes "manna"
> or "honeydew", ... and that this is the same "manna" in the Bible.
>
> The manna [or honeydew] is a saccharine like cake excreted as a pellet
> by the defecatory orifice of an aphid or a number of other insects
that
> cluster in "galls" [as in "quit galling me"].
>
> There also, in addition, seems to be some truly off-base analysis of
> coral atolls and coral reefs in this same discussion, somewhere in
this
> thread [i can't seem to find it at this moment, or I'd quote it].
>
> Coral grows in every part of the ocean and sea, except the Dead Sea.
> Two types of coral exist on this planet. One that is ancient, the
> tribolites and ammonites, and others, heavy in polyp formation,
> individual coral anemone, and small to large colonies, dense in
> dolomite and real calcium and magesium.
>
> The other, strange and alien coral, grows in enoromous and extensive,
> almost cancerous supercolonies, especially where nuclear testing has
> been performed or a meteor had once collided with earth, or where
> underwater volcanic action is hot hot hot.
>
> These coral atolls, not ancient in type, thrive on nitrates and
> phosphates, and attract moray eels, sharks, trigger fishes, and
> surgeonfishes, all carnivorous.
>
> There seems to be almost an electrical affinity between these atolls
> and the reef sharks and especially the moray eel [among other electric
> eels too].
>
> This type of atoll even grows in the Bering Sea where the volcanic
> ridge has erupted many times, especially the Kamchatka range, in the
SE
> Bering Sea.
>
> This type of formation is called "eutrophication"
> and/or "UNCONSOLIDATED" ... due to its sandy and shifty nature.
>
> The extensive Solomon Island chain, over 900 miles long, is sated with
> this newer, not ancient, coral growth.
>
> Some corrections on comets and meteors:
>
> http://www.greatdreams.com/near.htm
>
> * Meteors have irregular orbits
> * Meteors hve calculable orbits
> * the risk from a comet hitting the Earth is only 10% to a maximum
> of 30 % the risk of being smashed by an asteroid.
> * Impacts of Near Earth Object [NEOs[ are of much higher energy than
> explosions of nuclear weapons
> * comets travel at over DOUBLE the speed of asteroids
> * a tsunami, or tidal wave, resulting from a meteorite splashing into
> a large body of water on Earth would create a wave that travels at
> the same speed as a modern aircraft, wrecking incalculable damage.
> * In Hawaii, this "UNCONSOLIDATED" coral is found at 1000 feet
> ABOVE SEALEVEL!!
>
> B. Traven
>
> ps: I would conjecture that a life form began to colonize earth after
> a meteor struck it. It was not a piece of Mars. The result were
> volcanic flows and eruptions, and lava chunks thrown into space with
> such force that they became stellar bodies with erradic and elliptical
> orbits. Those asteroids that may return, when they return and impact
> Earth, brought along a "cousin" lifeform, one that is rivalrous and
> competitive with the meteor species. Something like the infighting of
> aristocratic families in banking and the global wine industry.
>
> Think glass ... think synthetic polymers ... think non-
> organic "simulants" of earth life forms with their organic carbon
based
> dna-strands and chains.
>
> Question: how to reclaim the earth, and how quickly can we do it? By
> week's end??
>
> B. Traven
>
> ==========
>
> In article <93833a$e6p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Mikal 606" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Ed Augusts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > So the Norway Maple secretes a milky goo
> > > That attracts seismologists and aphids, too.
> > > Cosmic numbers of these are often arriving
> > > And Gall Mites, too, who aren't downsizing
> > > but create huge spindles on the leafs, etcet,
> > > though how they got into this I don't quite get!
> > >
> > > Say, how does 'honeydew that rains down' on their noses
> > > Get linked to the desert and the
> > > Sweet cakes of Moses
> > > upon which all Israel's children were nourished?
> > > Norwegian Maples in the Sinai!
> > > Is that where they flourished?
> > >
> > > --E.A.
> > >
> >
> > ``This is the thrilling conversation you've been waiting for"!
> > Harvey Danger
> > King James Version
> > Track 9
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
