Cryptography-Digest Digest #277, Volume #14 Tue, 1 May 01 08:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Mike Myers (NotMe)
Re: A Question Regarding Backdoors (Eric Lee Green)
Re: A Question Regarding Backdoors (Eric Lee Green)
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop (David Wagner)
More on the _Roswell_ puzzle (Yeechang Lee)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (wtshaw)
Re: LFSR Security (Benjamin Goldberg)
Re: More on the _Roswell_ puzzle ("John A. Malley")
Re: A Question Regarding Backdoors ("Scott Fluhrer")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop ("Roger Schlafly")
Re: Searching for a free OCSP implementation ("M.E. Post")
Re: bogus speed claims (just wondering) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop (Leonard R. Budney)
Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop (Leonard R. Budney)
Re: A Question Regarding Backdoors (Mok-Kong Shen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: NotMe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mike Myers
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 00:27:33 -0400
Anyone knows where he now works?
Reply in sci.crypt
MJ
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: A Question Regarding Backdoors
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 30 Apr 2001 23:43:10 -0500
On 30 Apr 2001 22:08:01 GMT, David Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You suggest that the NSA may have influence NIST to choose Rijndael
...
>How do propose to reconcile your theory with the fact that polls among
>the open research community showed Rijndael preferred most among all
>contenders, substantially ahead of all its competition?
Part of being paranoid is that he doesn't have to reconcile his theory.
All he has to do is say that you and the rest of the open research
community are all in the pay of the NSA.
Paranoia means never having to make sense. Just blame it all on some
vast conspiracy. :-}.
--
Eric Lee Green http://www.badtux.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phoenix Branch -- Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs
Cruisin' the USENET since 1985
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: A Question Regarding Backdoors
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 30 Apr 2001 23:44:51 -0500
On 1 May 2001 02:08:38 GMT, SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner) wrote in
><9ckno1$3g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>How do propose to reconcile your theory with the fact that polls among
>>the open research community showed Rijndael preferred most among all
>>contenders, substantially ahead of all its competition?
>
> The so called open research community could very well be controled
Whoa! And I thought I was joking when I said that paranoia means
never having to make excuses, because you can just say that everybody
else is part of some vast conspiracy :-).
--
Eric Lee Green http://www.badtux.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phoenix Branch -- Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs
Cruisin' the USENET since 1985
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: 1 May 2001 05:02:26 GMT
Leonard R. Budney wrote:
>The claim that "people are entitled to profit from their creativity"
>*should* be axiomatic with you.
Nonsense. This is "proof by assertion", and it's hardly a very
persuasive line of argument.
>Note that the Constitution should be interpreted against the backdrop of
>English law, as well as the writings of the founders.
Well, if the words of the Constitution are clear, they would seem
to trump anything a few founders may have written (after all, who
knows what the majority of founders intended?). And the words of
the Constitution here seem fairly clear on this point.w
(As for English law, US constitutional law differs dramatically from
English law, so unless you have a clear argument why English law
is relevant, I'm assuming I can safely ignore that part.)
But: I'll bite. What are the writings of the founders you are
referring to?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yeechang Lee)
Crossposted-To: rec.puzzles
Subject: More on the _Roswell_ puzzle
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 05:25:15 GMT
[Spoiler space for those who haven't seen the US 30 Apr 2001 episode
of _Roswell_]
In tonight's episode we are given what a mystery phrase
LEANNA IS NOT LEANNA
A character observes that including the spaces, it is the same length
as last week's mystery binary code
10011011100100100111
I've tried the most obvious things (picking out the letters that the
1s mark, the 0s mark, forward and backwards) but haven't gotten
anywhere. I even tried running some of the resulting words through a
Swedish-English dictionary (a key plot point is whether the author of
these clues, who is now quite dead, actually went to Sweden); no luck
there either.
Ideas?
--
<URL:http://www.pobox.com/~ylee/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:20:30 -0600
In article <FikH6.101725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom St
Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Flaw 1: The description is clear and concise.
> Flaw 2: It can be implemented with a small code footprint
> Flaw 3: It can only use short 256-bit keys.
>
> Not too hard to tabulate the flaws.
>
> Tom
These are not flaws as long as longer keys are allowed. An ideal generic
cipher has no upper limit on key size.
--
How many good wells were shut in by the VP's company so that oil
prices would raise? It's obvious who did what and why.
------------------------------
From: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.crypt.random-numbers
Subject: Re: LFSR Security
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 02:01:33 -0400
David Wagner wrote:
>
> Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> >If all our samples are from the same period, then we have fewer
> >samples than there are bits in the state, and thus we cannot fully
> >determine the state.
>
> What? If you have a n-bit LFSR with primitive feedback taps,
> the period is 2^n - 1. Are we using the same terminology?
Oops, brain fart, nevermind.
--
Shift to the left, shift to the right, mask in, mask out, BYTE, BYTE,
BYTE !!!
------------------------------
From: "John A. Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More on the _Roswell_ puzzle
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:03:02 -0700
Yeechang Lee wrote:
>
> [Spoiler space for those who haven't seen the US 30 Apr 2001 episode
> of _Roswell_]
>
> In tonight's episode we are given what a mystery phrase
>
> LEANNA IS NOT LEANNA
>
> A character observes that including the spaces, it is the same length
> as last week's mystery binary code
>
> 10011011100100100111
>
> I've tried the most obvious things (picking out the letters that the
> 1s mark, the 0s mark, forward and backwards) but haven't gotten
> anywhere. I even tried running some of the resulting words through a
> Swedish-English dictionary (a key plot point is whether the author of
> these clues, who is now quite dead, actually went to Sweden); no luck
> there either.
>
> Ideas?
Yes.
Maybe the screen writers thought of it as a code from a code book, like
100110 1 11 0 010 0 100111
LEANNA IS NOT LEANNA
where each word is encoded as a binary string and the space after a word
ending with a vowel is encoded as a 1 and the space after a word ending
with a consonant is encoded as a 0. You'd need the code book to make
sense of the binary string message.
But I doubt this is going on in episodes of Roswell.
Roswell is just *not* as insidious or dark as the X-Files. ;-)
Probably it's just a "Hollywood" cipher - it's supposed to look like a
cipher to the layman but it's not a cipher. It's mathematical
"scenery."
John A. Malley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. "Futurama" on FOX features an Alien Language with cribs and
ciphertext appearing in virtually every episode. The Alien Language is a
substitution cipher on English. Check out the "Alien Language Institute"
at
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bpr6/futurama.html
------------------------------
From: "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Question Regarding Backdoors
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:58:51 -0700
Eric Lee Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 30 Apr 2001 22:08:01 GMT, David Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >You suggest that the NSA may have influence NIST to choose Rijndael
> ...
> >How do propose to reconcile your theory with the fact that polls among
> >the open research community showed Rijndael preferred most among all
> >contenders, substantially ahead of all its competition?
>
> Part of being paranoid is that he doesn't have to reconcile his theory.
> All he has to do is say that you and the rest of the open research
> community are all in the pay of the NSA.
We are???
Hey, NSA, where's my check? :-)
--
poncho
------------------------------
From: "Roger Schlafly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 05:21:35 GMT
"Leonard R. Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The claim that "people are entitled to profit from their creativity"
> *should* be axiomatic with you.
The claim was that:
> > >> The premise behind copyright law is that people are entitled to
> > >> profit from their *creativity*, where creativity is defined to be
> > >> "a specific work having some original content".
I agree with Paul; that was certainly not the premise behind US
copyright law.
There is a legitimate argument that when there is profit from creativity,
then the creator is entitled to some reasonable piece of the action.
Whatever the premise of copyright law, different purposes lead to
different conclusions. The laws are getting extremely pro-copyright,
and it is hard to understand how the public good benefits from the
heirs to "Gone With The Wind" suppressing a parody. See this essay.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/30/opinion/30LESS.html
April 30, 2001
Let the Stories Go
By LAWRENCE LESSIG
STANFORD, Calif. - When Margaret Mitchell published "Gone With the Wind" in
1936, the law gave her a copyright for up to 56 years. Under that agreement,
the book should have fallen into the public domain in 1993. Why, then, was
Mitchell's copyright, now owned by her estate, still powerful enough to
prevent the planned publication this month of Alice Randall's "The Wind Done
Gone," a retelling of the story of 19th- century Southern plantation life
from an African-American viewpoint?
...
begin 666 spacer.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``._O[P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end
------------------------------
From: "M.E. Post" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Searching for a free OCSP implementation
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 09:34:56 GMT
"Tomas Perlines Hormann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
>
> I am currently working on my master's thesis about SignedContent and
> need an implementation of the "Online Certificate Status Protocol
> (OCSP)" as specified in IETF RFC 2560.
> My purpose is to evaluate different certificate validation techniques
> within a PKI.
>
> Does anybody know of a free implementation? I would be very grateful if
> anybody could direct me to some freely available implementations.
Have a look at the OpenCA project, they have an OCSP implementation and
they're Open Source (http://openca.sourceforge.net/). Also have a look at
the wonderfull stuff of µPKI (http://security.dstc.com/products/upki/), tehy
don't do OCSP, only CRL checking, but it may provide you with some usefull
information.
hth
Meint
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bogus speed claims (just wondering)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 10:07:47 GMT
"Roger Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3aee31a4$0$25478$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> >Again bashing CS-Cipher it's possible to implement the 8x8 sbox as a
3-round
> >feistel using two 4x4 sboxes. in that case I could see about 500 bytes
but
> >that wouldn't be anywhere approaching 20kbit/sec then.
> >
> >Or look at Twofish, you could do the sboxes (two 8x8's) as the repeated
sub,
> >but that would be way to slow. So you would need to store em as two
8x8's
> >requiring 512 bytes, plus the round function requires at least 16 bytes
for[...]
>
> In estimates of minimal code size, it's quite normal to omit the size of
fixed
> tables, on the assumption they'll be stored in ROM if you need a very
small
> memory footprint. Omitting the size of non-fixed tables is less easy to
> justify (they might be generated and stored in EEPROM, but that's usually
a
> lot slower than RAM), but also a pretty common practice.
>
> If you see someone claiming a code size of 500 B when he needs a 256 B
table,
> that probably means the table is in ROM or EEPROM, and what he means is "I
can
> make this algorithm run on a microcontroller with 512 B of RAM".
Then why don't they say that? Are they afraid it wouldn't seem so cool?
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 10:09:00 GMT
"wtshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <FikH6.101725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom St
> Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Flaw 1: The description is clear and concise.
> > Flaw 2: It can be implemented with a small code footprint
> > Flaw 3: It can only use short 256-bit keys.
> >
> > Not too hard to tabulate the flaws.
> >
> > Tom
>
> These are not flaws as long as longer keys are allowed. An ideal generic
> cipher has no upper limit on key size.
Um, dude I was kidding, I was trying to bring light to someone elses
attitude here...
Tom
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leonard R. Budney)
Date: 01 May 2001 06:29:45 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner) writes:
> Leonard R. Budney wrote:
>> The claim that "people are entitled to profit from their creativity"
>> *should* be axiomatic with you.
>
> Nonsense. This is "proof by assertion", and it's hardly a very
> persuasive line of argument.
No. It's assertion by assertion, idiot. Furthermore, it's an assertion
of an *axiom*. One does not prove axioms, idiot. Better stay at Berkeley
a while longer.
> (As for English law, US constitutional law differs dramatically from
> English law, so unless you have a clear argument why English law
> is relevant, I'm assuming I can safely ignore that part.)
"Copyright" is not a concept on which Americans have a monopoly, idiot.
There are international notions of copyright, and foreign notions of
copyright, and moral arguments concerning copyright.
Len.
--
Everything you say here is wrong.
-- Dan Bernstein
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Censorship Threat at Information Hiding Workshop
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leonard R. Budney)
Date: 01 May 2001 06:33:39 -0400
"Roger Schlafly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The claim was that:
>>>>> The premise behind copyright law is that people are entitled to
>>>>> profit from their *creativity*, where creativity is defined to be
>>>>> "a specific work having some original content".
>
> I agree with Paul; that was certainly not the premise behind US
> copyright law.
1,000 pardons. I was using the expression "the idea behind the law" in
a loose and sloppy way. It was never intended as an assertion about
the state of mind of the US founders; nor did I intend to focus solely
on *US* law.
> There is a legitimate argument that when there is profit from creativity,
> then the creator is entitled to some reasonable piece of the action.
Right.
> Whatever the premise of copyright law, different purposes lead to
> different conclusions. The laws are getting extremely pro-copyright,
> and it is hard to understand how the public good benefits from the
> heirs to "Gone With The Wind" suppressing a parody. See this essay.
Agreed. (Indeed, I'd rather see the 1710 statute restored: 14-year
copyrights, with at most one renewal. The publishers' lawsuit arose
because assignees did *not* have the right of renewal; only the
authors.)
Len.
--
Frugal Tip #15:
Keep whistling the Old Spice Aftershave jingle until people give you
money to stop.
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Question Regarding Backdoors
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 13:17:37 +0200
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>
> The so called open research community could very well be controled
> directly or indirectly what directions the reseach goes. How
> can you explain that over the years they have refused bijective
> padding to get message the correct length for certain modes.
> Even the authors of Rijndael lack much knowlede. When I wrote
..... [snip]
Excepting trivially true tautologies, there is, as far as
I am aware, nothing in the world that you can 'prove' in
the 'absolute' sense, for there are always axioms involved
that by definition are not 'proved'. It follows on the
other hand that you also always have pretty freedom in
hypothesizing much what is 'convenient' for your mind
without others being able to concretely make refutations.
You (and anyone else as well) may happen to come up with
ideas and theories that are better than those of the
other people. But it is up to you to present your stuffs
in such a way that more (hopefully all) people will get
convinced. That is, you have to manage to publish (in an
appropriate permanently accessible form) your materials
(your algorithms, your arguments of the presence of
backdoors etc. etc. etc.) in such a manner that with time
more and more people would be on your side. Simply
repeating and repeating the same sentences in the group
that certain angencies plant backdoor, that all researchers
in the open community are controlled, that your own
algorithm is probably the single best one in the world,
etc. etc. etc. isn't a very good stategy in my humble view.
For, after a few repetitions, these become nothing but
(boring) dogmas in the eyes of the readers, i.e. stuffs
of the sort that priesters think they could hammer into
the heads of the audience through proclaiming the same
again, again and again without giving supports and
verifications in the sense of natural sciences. Dogmas
may be indeed very good for propagating religions, but
certainly not for the advancement of sciences, including
in particular crypto, the subject of our group.
I suppose that currently with the relaxation of the US
export regulations you are entirely free to post any
scientific materials on your site (maybe with a formal
notification to an authority). So why don't you spend
your time and energy to make your stuffs more attractive
(understandable, convicing) to the public, instead of
arguing rather fruitlessly (as the experience shows)
again and again in the group in the same way? Note
though that in publishing you are in competition
with other writers, including in particular the
researchers who you believe are under the control of
certain agencies. If your materials are closer to the
truth (or indeed ARE the truth, who knows?) and your
presentations are superior, you'll succeed in propagating
your ideas and theories to the public, just like a
businessman with good products and intelligent marketing
will become rich. Isn't that a good suggestion for you?
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
