Cryptography-Digest Digest #507, Volume #13 Sat, 20 Jan 01 13:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Differential Analysis (Tom St Denis)
Re: A Small Challenge ("rosi")
Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long) (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Differential Analysis (Splaat23)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Differential Analysis
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:22:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I consider the fact that I can write a short function to generate it to
> > > be of greater importance. Remember how, when DES came out, people
> > > asked, where the heck do these sboxes come from? I don't want this.
> > > Even if I say, they came from this here sboxgen program, people might be
> > > inclined to disbelieve me, because they won't be able to produce those
> > > exact sboxes from sboxgen, since they were, after all, randomly
> > > produced.
> >
> > Actually this is a lie.
>
> It can only be a lie if Benjamin deliberately gave false information. He
> might genuinely dispute the facts, or he might have made a mistake, and
> in neither case can he legitimately be called a liar.
Yeah and their's no god either. I haven't proved it but I will state that as
fact.
> > If you save your prng.dat before starting (sboxgen
> > saves it when it exits) others can exactly reproduce what you did.
> >
> > Stop lying! Liar!!!
>
> I never thought I'd have to do this, Tom, but...
>
> *PLONK*
>
> Perhaps I'll let you out of my killfile in a month or two, when you've
> calmed down a bit.
I really don't care what you think.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Small Challenge
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:28:15 -0500
David Hopwood wrote in part in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>The original post in this thread didn't reach my server. Since I assume it
>also hasn't reached a fair proportion of Usenet, could you please repost
>it (just to sci.crypt)?
My news server normally keep at least about a month's worth. I posted on
the 13th of Janurary, 2001 and I can not see it now from my news server
either.
(Could see it for a few days) This should be the case for two or three
servers,
most should be able to access it. If however, there is the need for me to
post
again, please let me know at [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the request exceeds four, I
will
do a re-post.
There is no problem on my part, but I think it may be best to look into
an archive. That way, you could see all posts under that thread instead
of just the original from me.
Go to www.dejanews.com and search on subject "A Small Challenge"
and/or author: rosi.
Thanks for any interest in QP.
--- (My Signature)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:42:01 GMT
In article <949vuu$qh4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So we can see who the real kook is.
> >
> > I think it's clear to everyone...
>
> The truth is first ridiculed, then violently attacked, then accepted as
> obvious.
They laughed at Galielo. They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the
Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown, Greggy.
> Let others decide between us. I have stated the obvious
If "obvious" is positions believed in by a small group of kooks best
known for two members, Linda Lyon and George Sibley, who claimed that the
"missing 13th amendment" justified their cold-blooded murder of a police
officer. (They're now on Death Row.)
> and cited material which cites US law.
Which were written by a man who has served time in prison for chopping
down telephone poles. No joke. http://www.putnampit.com/free.html.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:50:49 GMT
In article <949vbl$pu6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you can't stand the fire, get out of the kitchen.
>
> So that is the way you carry on a discussion. Attack the messenger
> rather than reason and then tell him to leave if he can't stand your
> attacks?
You're the one who has offered no evidence in support of your delusion
that there is a "missing 13th amendment," Greggy, instead choosing to
focus on your displeasure at having been labeled a kook. And that choice
in itself helps show that the label is correct.
> > > It is also interesting that NO ONE during the period in question in
> > > the position of legislature or judicial screamed or even complained
> > > about the Virginian process to publish the 13th amendment in its
> > > 1819 publication,
> >
> > Gibberish.
> >
> > Contemporary scholars understood that the amendment had
> > not been ratified. William Rawle wrote that it "has been
> > adopted by some of the states...
>
> Yes, but that was not the group I was referring to - perhaps my fault
> for not being clear.
Or a classic kook strategy for weaseling out of inconvenient facts.
> Entire legislatures published the 13th amendment without people within
> those bodies crying foul.
Still gibberish. New York was one of the states that authorized the
publication of a volume of laws that mistakenly included the "missing
13th amendment." The next volume acknowledged the error:
In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to [the
Bioren edition], there is an amendment printed as article 13,
prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor,
or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a
message of the president of the United States of the 4th of
February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of
representatives, it appears that this amendment had been
ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted.
--thirdamendment.com
...
> > If one believes that TONA became part of the Constitution
> > merely because it was frequently published, one should
> > immediately mount an expedition to find Buss Island, a
> > "phantom" island in the North Atlantic which appeared on
> > maps from 1592 until 1856. See Donald S. Johnson, Phantom
> > Islands of the Atlantic 80 (1994). Buss Island had its own
> > conspiracy theorists; in 1770, an anonymous author accused
> > the Hudson's Bay Company of keeping its location a secret
> > in order to maintain financial control over it.
>
> I think everyone can see that you are desparate with such folly
> parallels.
I think everyone can see that you can't come up with any reason to
distinguish the two. If you believe that the "missing 13th amendment"
must be real because it was frequently published on the order of state
legislatures who were intelligent people, etc., why do you refuse to
accept the reality of Buss Island, which was frequently published by
mapmakers who were intelligent people, etc.?
(It's quite simple. Very few kooks, except maybe the Flat Earth Society,
think they can get away with outrageous conspiracy theories about
geography anymore. But many still think they can do so about history,
preying on the ignorance of the public. The only question is whether
Greggy is a suckerer or just a very gullible sucker.)
> > And on that subject, still unwilling to reveal...
>
> What are you talking about? I just explained your reasoning is too
> incredible to accept. My points were made by Richard Green's The
> Demons of Discord. There is no secret here.
You said to Douglas Gwyn:
"I know what you are saying. Jol Silversmith made similar
claims and actually convinced me I was wrong. Recently I
came across an argument not even you can refute that says I am
right."
So, what argument would this be? A newfound belief that state
legislators, living in a time of poor communications, were incapable of
making a mistake (false), or that they never said anything negative about
the "missing 13th amendment" (also false)?
...
> You would have us believe that those involved in publishing Virginia's
> state law books were not certain, raised no question or objections, and
> yet published anyway. A quick history lesson on who those publishers
> were would clear that up quickly, but you don't do your research - you
> just attack.
Another desperate attempt by Greggy to draw attention away from the fact
that he's the one who hasn't produced any evidence in support of his
claims.
Here's a "quick history lesson" for Greggy on how certain 19th century
publishers were:
On August 1, 1849, C. Robinson and J.M. Patton, who were
preparing a revised edition of the laws of Virginia, wrote to
William B. Preston, Secretary of the Navy, and noted that
although TONA was included in the Revised Code of 1819, "[w]e
are satisfied that this amendment was never adopted, though it
is difficult to account for the fact that it should have been
put into the Code of 1819 as an amendment which had been
adopted." The revised code noted that the previous
publication was in error.
--thirdamendment.com
The most prominent inclusion of TONA as part of the
Constitution was its appearance in the 1815 edition of United
States Statutes at Large (the "Bioren edition"). Congress
authorized its publication in 1814, to replace the first
official compilation of the laws of the United States,
which had been authorized in 1795. James Monroe, then
Secretary of State, appointed John B. Colvin to edit the
new edition. Not able to conclude whether TONA had been
ratified, Colvin made the following prefatory remarks in
the first volume:
There has been some difficulty in ascertaining whether
the amendment proposed, which is stated as the thirteenth
. . . has, or has not, been adopted by a sufficient number
of the state legislatures to authorize its insertion as
part of the constitution? The secretary of state very
readily lent every suitable aid to produce full
information on the question; but the evidence to be found
in the office of that department is still defective. It
has been considered best, however, to publish the
proposed amendment in its proper place, as if it had
been adopted, with this explanation, to prevent
misconception.
--thirdamendment.com
...
> You are embarassing yourself. I suggest you retire.
Speaking of embarrassment, do you still believe that the that the
"missing 13th amendment"
"if it was truly ratified, then the Honorable William Jeferson
Clinton cannot be president, that every congressman and
senator (who also hold the title, the Honorable- see their
letter heads) are not allowed to hold office, and every judge
and lawyer cannot operate in the US."
--Greggy, 12/19/99
(It's hard to know where to begin to debunk this particular bit of
kookiness - Greggy would have us believe that Congress is
unconstitutional because its members are referred to as "honorable."
Never mind that the term is used as a matter of custom, and not bestowed
by the government, and that court cases have rejected claims that the
use of such honorifics is illegal.)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:57:41 GMT
In article <94ba4s$ufj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Their actions show absolutely conclusively that they knew it was
> > > properly ratified.
> >
> > The primary available evidence of a "ratification"
> > action by the Virginia legislature is the publication
> > of their civil code booklet in 1819. As has been
> > explained by others, in those days of poor
> > communication (before the invention of the telegraph)
> > there was often confusion about the status of
> > amendments. There is nothing in the historical
> > record showing a previous ratification action in
> > Virginia. And I already explained why even if one
> > wanted to interpret the publication of the booklet
> > as the act of ratification, (12+1)/21 < 3/4 so it
> > still wouldn't result in adoption of the amendment.
>
> The constitution is silent as to whether the additional four states
> should have been included.
But it was already established by 1810 that they needed to be.
Article V of the Constitution does not specify whether the
states that are to ratify an amendment are those in existence
when an amendment is submitted to the states, or also includes
those that join the Union after the amendment has been submitted
to the states but prior to ratification. History, however,
provides an answer. When the Bill of Rights was submitted to
the states on September 25, 1789, only 11 states were operating
under the Constitution; each amendment then required 9
ratifications to become part of the Constitution. But North
Carolina ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789 and
Rhode Island on May 29, 1790, raising the number of ratifications
required to 10.(123) Vermont then joined the Union on March 4,
1791,(124) raising the number of ratifications required to 11.
The official notice of the ratification of the Bill of Rights
was not issued by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson until
March 1, 1792, after notices of ratification had been received
from 11 states.
On March 2, 1797, before the Eleventh Amendment was known to
have become part of the Constitution, Congress passed a
resolution requesting the President to obtain information from
states about what action they had taken on the amendment,
including Tennessee, which had not been part of the Union when
the amendment was proposed. On October 16, 1797, Secretary of
State Timothy Pickering wrote to Tennessee Governor John Sevier,
enclosing a copy of the Eleventh Amendment. Pickering stated that
he thought it "expedient to transmit . . . a copy of the
resolution, to be laid before the legislature of Tennessee, for
their adoption or rejection."(130) The principle that new states
are to be included in the ratification process of a
constitutional amendment has continued into the twentieth
century. When New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union in 1912,
the number of states required to ratify the Sixteenth
Amendment increased to 36, which they were among.
--thirdamendment.com
Any facts to the contrary to offer, Greggy? Of course not.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kooks (was: NSA and Linux Security)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:20:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 13th amendment to the US Constitution:
> > If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive,
> > or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the
> > consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension,
> > office,or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king,
> > prince,or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of
> > the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of
> > trust or profit under them, or either of them.
>
> Also you tell this to all American military people who
> fought with nazis and then accepted honors and decorations from
> Britain, France, Holland and Russia. They will probably agree
> with you and will voluntarily renege their citizenship.
>
> What I wanted to say is that this s--t of legislation would
> perfectly befit some primitive cannibalistic tribe.
Except that it wouldn't have any effect on them, Greggy's delusions to
the contrary.
TONA would not apply to such commendations. ... When General
Norman Schwarzkopf accepted a honorary knighthood, he was still
a serving officer, but no constitutional violation occurred.
Apparently, a honorary knighthood does not violate the federal
nobility clause, which sweeps more broadly than TONA, or it is
of "minimal value" and its acceptance consented to by Congress
by statute if it is received as a mark of courtesy.
--thirdamendment.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:31:35 +0100
Terry Ritter wrote:
>
[snip]
> Dynamic Transposition is not about having an unbreakable keyed RNG.
> If we had that, nobody would need anything more than a standard OTP
> additive combiner. But we *don't* have an unbreakable keyed RNG, and
> that is the problem.
>
> Dynamic Transposition is about building an unbreakable cipher
> *without* needing an unbreakable RNG. This is done by hiding the
> breakable sequence behind multiple levels of haystack, each so massive
> that they cannot be searched. So the sequence in question cannot be
> revealed, which makes it somewhat difficult to attack.
[snip]
> Known-plaintext is a danger to many cipher systems, because to some
> extent it reveals the ciphering transformation. In an additive stream
> cipher or conventional OTP, known-plaintext reveals the enciphering
> sequence immediately and completely. In a block cipher, it shows what
> happens when plaintext is enciphered; it exposes the transformation,
> which can be very useful.
>
> Dynamic Transposition is unusual in that knowing the plaintext and the
> associated ciphertext does not reveal the enciphering permutation.
> The reason for this is that many different bit-permutations will
> produce the bit-for-bit exact same transformation between plaintext
> and ciphertext. Therefore, having known plaintext does not reveal the
> enciphering permutation, and thus cannot be exploited to begin to
> expose the RNG sequence.
>
> Note that even if the correct permutation were found, the RNG sequence
> which created it would not be exposed to any extent, if
> double-shuffling was used to create the permutation. The reason for
> this is that double-shuffling would use twice the amount of RNG
> sequence as needed for a selection among all possible permutations.
> Double-shuffling is literally an arbitrary permutation from a known
> state, and then another arbitrary permutation from that to any
> possible permutation. Any particular result permutation could be the
> result of any possible first permutation, with the appropriate second
> permutation, or vise versa. Accordingly, one knows no more about what
> sequence was involved than before one knew the correct permutation.
[snip]
I agree with what you said. Basically, it is the 'indirectness'
that makes the exploitation of the output sequence of the
(non-perfect) PRNG practically infeasible (the PRNG output
is used to reorder the bits, it is not directly exposed to
the opponent in case he possesses the plaintext). Using
double permutation reduces the probability of prediction
of the PRNG even further. Thus, as you said (later), the
scheme can achieve very high 'believable practical security'.
On the other hand, I wouldn't use the term 'provably secure' on
it, because (1) one 'needs' in practice only sufficiently high
practical security and (2) a 'proof' would be problematical
in the following sense: One could ask: If double permutation
improves the matter, then triple permutation certainly should
improve it still further (there can be no reason why the
number 2, corresponding to 'double', has a 'magic' power in
the present issue). It is also apparent that (very naturally)
the higher security is (like a number of other schemes
proposed) obtained at the cost of efficiency (here due to the
many minute operations at the bit level), though efficiciency
issue does not preclude in my conviction the usefulness of
a scheme in circumstances where lower efficiency is well
tolerable.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Splaat23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Differential Analysis
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:38:30 GMT
Man, you are way out of control! Calm down a bit, please. Your input to
every thread I've read has been great and useful except when you go
overboard attacking something or someone. Of course, now you will
attack me...
- Andrew
In article <94ce0k$n09$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I consider the fact that I can write a short function to
generate it to
> > > > be of greater importance. Remember how, when DES came out,
people
> > > > asked, where the heck do these sboxes come from? I don't want
this.
> > > > Even if I say, they came from this here sboxgen program, people
might be
> > > > inclined to disbelieve me, because they won't be able to
produce those
> > > > exact sboxes from sboxgen, since they were, after all, randomly
> > > > produced.
> > >
> > > Actually this is a lie.
> >
> > It can only be a lie if Benjamin deliberately gave false
information. He
> > might genuinely dispute the facts, or he might have made a mistake,
and
> > in neither case can he legitimately be called a liar.
>
> Yeah and their's no god either. I haven't proved it but I will state
that as
> fact.
>
> > > If you save your prng.dat before starting (sboxgen
> > > saves it when it exits) others can exactly reproduce what you did.
> > >
> > > Stop lying! Liar!!!
> >
> > I never thought I'd have to do this, Tom, but...
> >
> > *PLONK*
> >
> > Perhaps I'll let you out of my killfile in a month or two, when
you've
> > calmed down a bit.
>
> I really don't care what you think.
>
> Tom
>
> 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
******************************
