Cryptography-Digest Digest #763, Volume #13 Wed, 28 Feb 01 11:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: On RC4 in C (phil hunt)
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? (Joe H. Acker)
Re: Sad news, Dr. Claude Shannon died over the weekend. (Charles Blair)
Re: Encryption on Palm (Ian Goldberg)
Re: Fake SSRIHATER ("Beeftain")
Is Prozakian Yelena Perdunkova, Usenet Cock Huntress - really SSRIHATER??? Re: Fake
SSRIHATER ("alexplore")
Re: philosophical question? (Joe H. Acker)
Re: Fake SSRIHATER ("alexplore")
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? (William Hugh Murray)
Re: Fake SSRIHATER ("Tobias Toft")
Re: philosophical question? (Andre van Straaten)
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? (HiEv)
Re: philosophical question? (HiEv)
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? ("Tom St Denis")
Re: how long can one Arcfour key be used?? ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Fake SSRIHATER ("Beeftain")
Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Fake SSRIHATER ("Tobias Toft")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.ada,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: On RC4 in C
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:29:56 +0000
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:57:28 GMT, William Hugh Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Perhaps. I would argue that IBM's change of fortune was rooted in
>
>* failure to recognize the reasons for the success of hardware competition from
>Digital, Apple, Prime, and Compaq
>* investing where its revenues were at the expense of investing where its growth
>was (mainframes v. small systems)
>* continuing to sell at the top as the scale of computers changed and decision
>making moved down in the enterprise
>* selling exclusively to the enterprise and ignoring the consumer
>* investing in OS/2 at the expense of Windows, SNA/SDLC and ISO/OSI at the
>expense of TCP/IP, token-ring at the expense of
> ethernet, host-guest at the expense of client-server, etc.
>* investing in closed/proprietary systems (e.g., AS/400) at the expense of
>open/industry-standard systems (e.g., Unix)
I'd say the proximate cause of IBM's downfall in the 80s and early
nineties was the decision to go over to PS/2 and OS/2, which were
market failures and resulted in IBM losing control of the
microcomputer market.
In more general terms, they lost because other suppliers were undercutting
them with cheaper computers. For reasons why this situation is, in
general, hard to counter, read _The Innovator's Dilemma_ especially the
chapter "What goes up can't come down".
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe H. Acker)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:49:41 +0100
Open FleshWound <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FBI decrypted the letter and described it in an affidavit
>filed in support of its search
> warrant.
They probably have used the key to decipher the message.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Sad news, Dr. Claude Shannon died over the weekend.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Blair)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:21:04 GMT
Dennis Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
> ...
>> Not to detract from Shannon's work and its undoubted impact, but for
>> fairness it should be noted that the impetus of many of his ideas
>> (logarithmic measures of information, for example) derived from work
>> of Turing et al.
>Et al., certainly, but how Turing? For the information theory
>aspect, the main references in his paper are to Nyquist and to
>Hartley.
> Dennis
I think Alan Hodges' biography described a meeting between Shannon
and Turing, also between Turing and W F Friedman. Again, I could be wrong
about this, but I think Turing did work on information theory during the
second world war which was supposed to be classified. For this reason,
Shannon might not have wanted to acknowledge it, although some of Turing's
ideas appeared in a book by I J Good called "Probability and the Weighing
of Evidence."
Does anyone know whether Shannon was involved in wartime codebreaking
in this country?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Encryption on Palm
Date: 28 Feb 2001 13:31:46 GMT
In article <97ikf3$nsm3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
dexMilano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is there anyone developed an encrytpion library on Palm OS?
>Is there some library available somewhere?
>
>I did some job and I want to have a comparison with some "guru".
It's a little out-of-date, but you can find my port of SSLeay at
http://www.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu/pilot/
- Ian
------------------------------
From: "Beeftain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,soc.culture.ukrainian
Subject: Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:04:16 +0100
Reply-To: "Beeftain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pippelip gokkelok!
------------------------------
From: "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,soc.culture.ukrainian
Subject: Is Prozakian Yelena Perdunkova, Usenet Cock Huntress - really SSRIHATER???
Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:01:45 -0500
Reply-To: "alexplore" <alexplore@aleplore>
Col. Viktor Serhejovich Dementiev <who-you?@vhyYOUwantKNOW!> wrote in
message news:97hedi$g9n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tobias Toft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message
> news:AJUm6.4901$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >"HORRIFICALLY HIDEOUS HOSEHEAD HENRIK HANSEN HIDES HIS HAIRY-PALMED
HANDS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i
> >en meddelelse news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> SSRI Hater wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have seen many posts posted under the name SSRIHATER, not penned by
me, but
> >> > seemingly some irrational delusional crazed nut desirous of being
anyone but
> >> > himself.
> >>
> >> My guess is the sovok dork Igor Chudov is to blame.
> >>
> >
> >Saddam did it!
>
> What psych meds is the sand Negro on? Prozac? Klonopin?
I think that Yelena Perdunkova, just might be SSRIHATER...
She likes to go cock hunting and dick trolling....
What does her husband Andrei Perhunkov say, or her two sons?
Her son, little Borya would know.... So would Prozakian Sovok Igor Chudov.
This is a question for the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Security and
Mental Health to answer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe H. Acker)
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers,de.sci.informatik.misc,sci.math
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:15:31 +0100
> Is randomness a kind of information ?
Information has a double meaning, one in an information-theoretical
sense and one in another sense. Perhaps the latter should be called
"informativity". For example, take a Sender-Receiver model. Based on
some properties of the channel between Sender and Receiver, you can
compute a maximum capacity of information that the channel can transmit.
But that does not determine the amount of informativity the channel can
transmit, because any sign-system between humans is actually (A1)
non-closed while the Sender-Receiver model abstracts from that by
investigating a closed system. One could argue, that (A2) for any
Sender-Receiver model you could easily add some shared knowledge that
breaks the boundaries of the model. On the other hand, the opponent
could argue, that (B1) any such shared knowledge could be taken into a
new model,and that (B2) the amount of shared knowledge between humans
must be finite, such that the Sender-Receiver model could explain
informativity in terms of information-theoretic information. Another
question is wether informativity can completely be quantified at all.
(This is a very philosophical question that has to do with
reductionism/logical atomism and the question wether there is an ideal
language that could describe *any* aspect of the world.)
Now I'm not sure in what exact way that matters to your question, but I
believe it does. In some sense, an infinite random sequence does not
convey any information *itself* because it already contains all
information. Or to put it in another terms (I think by Wittgenstein), if
you put a monkey in front of a typewriter and let him ---for the
arguments sake--- type randomly for an infinite amount of time, he will
type all works of Shapkespeare. You just cannot predict *when* he will
type them. But when he has typed them, you'll know for sure that he did
so. But an infinite random sequence can also be informative. For
example, if you extrapolate from a finite sequence that a roulette wheel
behaves truly random, you also know that the casino owner didn't cheat.
Now I won't talk about finite random sequences that have been observed
and recorded. It is of course clear, that you can use them to encode a
lot of information and make them arbitrarily informative.
There's some connection between informativity, information and
randomness which yet has to be explored. I personally like two problems
related to this topic: One is the goat problem that was first published
in an issue of the Sceptical Inquirer (1991?). Another one is the claim
of many serious parapsychologists that they have discovered a so-called
PK-effect--- that people are able to change finite random sequences even
on pre-recorded material in a statistically significant way. No, I'm not
joking, that's what they claim, but most of them also claim that this
effect could not be used to encode signals.
> Can there be a fundamental difference between pseudo-randomness and
> real randomness (e.g. generated by radioactive decay or thermal
> noise), especially under these aspects mentioned above?
I believe so. But I doubt that true randomness is more than a mere
stipulation. (Now this is a matter of religion...)
Sorry for this off-topic post, it rather belongs to a philosophy
newsgroup but I couldn't resist.
Greetings,
Erich
------------------------------
From: "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,soc.culture.ukrainian
Subject: Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:21:18 -0500
Reply-To: "alexplore" <alexplore@aleplore>
Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97j0ii$1jf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pippelip gokkelok!
You must be mentally ill like Linda Gore!
------------------------------
From: William Hugh Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:21:33 GMT
> I believe that.
I _believe_ that.
I believe _that_.
I believe _that_?
Sure I do.
The FBI cannot have it both ways. They cannot assert to congressional committees that
strong encryption
represents perfect security for their adversaries but they can read the messages in
days to weeks.
In this case they read the message with benefit of the key or the mechanism was not
what you and I would
call encryption, not what we have been led to believe Hanssen would use. Would you
believe a black bag
job on Hanssen's computer?
------------------------------
From: "Tobias Toft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,soc.culture.ukrainian
Subject: Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:39:34 GMT
"alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> skrev i en meddelelse
news:97j1m4$687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:97j0ii$1jf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Pippelip gokkelok!
>
> You must be mentally ill like Linda Gore!
Gooooooooooooore, uaaa haa haa haaaaa.
/2ft
------------------------------
From: Andre van Straaten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers,de.sci.informatik.misc,sci.math
Date: 28 Feb 2001 08:45:06 -0600
In sci.crypt.random-numbers Dirk Van de moortel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter Osborne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Hi there!
>>
>> RANDOMNESS / RANDOM NUMBERS
>>
>> Maybe that point is not that simple at all, maybe it concerns too
>> many topics like statistics, math, cryptanalysis and even religion...
>>
>> As I dealed with cryptography and HRNG circuits, I often ask myself:
>>
>> Is randomness a kind of information ?
>> Is it the highest density of information (that we are not able to
>> understand)?
>> Is it merely the opposite of information?
>>
>> Can there be a fundamental difference between pseudo-randomness and
>> real randomness (e.g. generated by radioactive decay or thermal
>> noise), especially under these aspects mentioned above?
> Not so philosophical: I think, if I remember well, that information can be
> defined as something that provides an answer to a Yes-No question.
> I don't think randomness can do this.
Yes.
I think you can use a method to state that a bit stream IS NOT random, but
I wonder which method could show that a bit stream IS random.
Example:
If I take a bit stream from a Geiger counter and set definitely one bit
every 1 MB, e.g., to transmit hidden information, I don't see any method
which tells me that the original bit stream is random, but the tampered
one is not.
(If this is too much the viewpoint of a mathematical layperson, give me
some enlightenment, please.)
An interesting article from Gregory Chaitin on that topic is:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/sciamer.html
(I bought one of his books, but I don't worship him.)
-- avs
> A bit more philosophical quote from Frank Zappa:
> Information is not Knowledge
> Knowledge is not Wisdom
> Wisdom is not Truth
> Truth is not Beauty
> Beauty is not Love
> Love is not Music
> Music is the Best.
> There's no link to randomness here, so it's off-topic, but I like it ;-)
> Dirk Vdm
Well, I thought it's worth not to snip it and to leave it here. ;-)
-- avs
Andre van Straaten
http://www.vanstraatensoft.com
The signs and the omens are everywhere
But too few see them - too few even care
(Lee Clayton - singer/songwriter, 1979)
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: HiEv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:12:12 GMT
William Hugh Murray wrote:
>
[snip]
> Sure I do.
>
> The FBI cannot have it both ways. They cannot assert to congressional committees
>that strong encryption
> represents perfect security for their adversaries but they can read the messages in
>days to weeks.
>
> In this case they read the message with benefit of the key or the mechanism was not
>what you and I would
> call encryption, not what we have been led to believe Hanssen would use. Would you
>believe a black bag
> job on Hanssen's computer?
They probably got him on conspiracy (or espionage, or something) then
confiscated his computers, magnetic media, etc. and then used that to
decrypt the disk.
Either that or they could have gotten it during phone taps when they
were investigating him.
It'll be hard to say until more evidence comes out about the case, which
should be in about... oh... 5-8 years or more. Assuming he doesn't
plea-bargin or anything, which it wouldn't surprise me if he did. If
that happens you'll have to wait until it becomes available via the FoIA
or somebody decides to boast the press (not likely.)
(Ahh.... I'm considering wether I should stop taking my anti-paranoia
pills because I think someone has been messing with them. ;-)
------------------------------
From: HiEv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: philosophical question?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:29:27 GMT
Peter Osborne wrote:
>
[snip]
> Can there be a fundamental difference between pseudo-randomness and
> real randomness (e.g. generated by radioactive decay or thermal
> noise), especially under these aspects mentioned above?
There is no such thing as "true randomness", there is only randomness
that is so complex that it cannot be understood.
If you could tell the position, speed, number, age, etc. of the atoms in
your uranium sample and could shield if from outside influence, with a
perfect understanding of physics and a *really* powerful computer you
could simulate the sample and get the same results. (Yes, I know I'm
violating the Heisenberg uncertainty principal here, but this is a
theoretical/philosophical thought. :-)
If you got your random numbers from the low order bits of text from
pseudo-randomly selected, often changing, web sites, is that "true"
randomness once those sites change?
It seems that "true randomness" really means irreproducibly random,
because there is no real "true randomness".
Keep in mind that fate exists and cannot be fought because everything
has, is, and always will follow the laws of physics.
And now, before I lapse into a discussion of the Omega Point <grin>, I
bid you adieu.
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:31:57 GMT
"Nemo psj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Makes you want to use undisclosed algorithms made with home grown stream
> ciphers doesnt it.. Because you know if it has a password box or a source
code
> for it somewhere its security is basicly ZERO.
Why is homebrew stuff better?
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how long can one Arcfour key be used??
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:36:47 GMT
"Julian Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Also, does anyone know how this varies with key length and
> >> number-of-mixes (N in CipherSaber-2)?
> > Is 'number-of-mixes' the number of passes you do during key setup (with
> > 1 being standard RC4)?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, then no, that has no effect.
>
> Ok. How about key length? One of my intended algorithms will use throwaway
> from-scratch DH to setup a key, but creating DH primes for a full length
> 256 byte RC4 key would take several minutes a pop, way too slow. (I'm
> doing it this way so as to have "forward security" - once the transaction
> is over, there should be no way to decrypt it from wiretap records and a
> siezed machine.)
RC4 can't possibly use keys bigger then 1684 bits in length. So using a
256-byte key while "amazing" is actually quite useless. The intelligent
thing todo is to SHA256/TIGER192/MD5128/etc your DH secret and use that as a
key into RC4.
> For example, CipherSaber suggests a 62 byte key + IV; for how long could
> that be used?
The length of the key is irrelevent. A small key makes brute force easier
but once you pass 64 bits it becomes virtually impossible to perform the
task.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Beeftain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,soc.culture.ukrainian
Subject: Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:38:20 +0100
Reply-To: "Beeftain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message news:97j1m4$687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:97j0ii$1jf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Pippelip gokkelok!
>
> You must be mentally ill like Linda Gore!
Well, Al Gore _is_ mentally ill... not very less than George Bush.
Beeftain
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Crossposted-To: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: => FBI easily cracks encryption ...?
Date: 28 Feb 2001 15:30:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Hugh Murray) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I believe that.
>
>I _believe_ that.
>
>I believe _that_.
>
>I believe _that_?
>
>Sure I do.
>
>The FBI cannot have it both ways. They cannot assert to congressional
>committees that strong encryption represents perfect security for their
>adversaries but they can read the messages in days to weeks.
>
Of course they can have it both ways. It is called lying and is
stanard operating procedure with in the government. They lie to each
other and different departments all the time. As a high government
manager once said when I worked for Uncle. If your not smart enough
to lie you can never make it to top management. I would like to take
a lie dector on this but they don't really care.
>In this case they read the message with benefit of the key or the
>mechanism was not what you and I would call encryption, not what we have
>been led to believe Hanssen would use. Would you believe a black bag
>job on Hanssen's computer?
>
No I would not belive it on Hanssen's computer. They treat managers
far differently in government. If he was a low offical the kind that
does frequent pee tests and such. Then maybe. But the higher you go
in management the more of a specail elite team member you become and
your treated differently than common low life workers. When is the
last time you have heard of Senators and such getting surprise pee
tests or poly tests. It aint going to happen since they are elite.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website **now all allowed**
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott LATEST UPDATED source for scott*u.zip
http://radiusnet.net/crypto/ then look for
sub directory scott after pressing CRYPTO
Scott famous Compression Page
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
------------------------------
From: "Tobias Toft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.support.depression.medication,soc.culture.russian,soc.org.kkk,dk.snak.mudderkastning,soc.culture.ukrainian
Subject: Re: Fake SSRIHATER
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:40:35 GMT
"Beeftain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse
news:97j635$1sli$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "alexplore" <alexplore@alexplore> wrote in message news:97j1m4$687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Beeftain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:97j0ii$1jf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Pippelip gokkelok!
> >
> > You must be mentally ill like Linda Gore!
>
> Well, Al Gore _is_ mentally ill... not very less than George Bush.
... and Polle from Snave.
/2ft
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
