Cryptography-Digest Digest #510, Volume #14 Mon, 4 Jun 01 00:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: benefits of compression for security (John Savard)
Re: benefits of compression for security ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Welcoming another Anti-Evidence Eliminator stooge to USENET (P. ("Trevor L.
Jackson, III")
Re: Welcoming another Anti-Evidence Eliminator stooge to USENET (P. Dulles / AKA
Loki) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: unpredicable random number generator ? ("Dirk Bruere")
Re: bent functions ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Welcoming another Anti-Evidence Eliminator stooge to USENET (P. (JPeschel)
Re: National Security Nightmare? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: PRP vs PRF (was Luby-Rackoff Theorems) (Gregory G Rose)
Re: PRP vs PRF (was Luby-Rackoff Theorems) ("Scott Fluhrer")
Re: Def'n of bijection ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Evidence Eliminator works great. Beware anybody who claims it doesn't work
(propaganda) (tE!)
Re: PRP vs PRF (was Luby-Rackoff Theorems) ("Scott Fluhrer")
Re: BigNum Question (those who know me have no need of my name)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: PRP vs PRF (was Luby-Rackoff Theorems) (David Wagner)
Re: PRP vs PRF (David Wagner)
Re: benefits of compression for security (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Uniciyt distance and compression for AES (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: National Security Nightmare? (David Wagner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: benefits of compression for security
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:31:51 GMT
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:47:00 GMT, "Tom St Denis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>So yes, I think it's possible if the dictionary is pre-built to increase the
># of possible messages per block as compared to plain ASCII plaintext.
You are quite correct; in the case of short messages, a pre-built
dictionary in some sense is important.
One can combine a pre-built dictionary with an adaptive compression
scheme, however.
For example, if one is compressing English text, one can use a
multi-state Huffman compression scheme built around the
characteristics of the English language. One begins in State 1, where
symbols represent word lengths; in state 2, symbols represent letters.
(Punctuation at the ends of words is coded in state 1 symbols; a third
state is used to account for things like numbers.)
One can use a rule that the additional overhead in a State 1 symbol to
indicate a dictionary word is not introduced until after two words of
the same length and starting with the same letter appear in the text.
(Or one can do it properly and wait until the second appearance of an
identical word.) However, one starts building the dictionary from the
beginning.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/frhome.htm
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benefits of compression for security
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:44:54 GMT
"John Savard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:47:00 GMT, "Tom St Denis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>
> >So yes, I think it's possible if the dictionary is pre-built to increase
the
> ># of possible messages per block as compared to plain ASCII plaintext.
>
> You are quite correct; in the case of short messages, a pre-built
> dictionary in some sense is important.
>
> One can combine a pre-built dictionary with an adaptive compression
> scheme, however.
>
> For example, if one is compressing English text, one can use a
> multi-state Huffman compression scheme built around the
> characteristics of the English language. One begins in State 1, where
> symbols represent word lengths; in state 2, symbols represent letters.
> (Punctuation at the ends of words is coded in state 1 symbols; a third
> state is used to account for things like numbers.)
>
> One can use a rule that the additional overhead in a State 1 symbol to
> indicate a dictionary word is not introduced until after two words of
> the same length and starting with the same letter appear in the text.
> (Or one can do it properly and wait until the second appearance of an
> identical word.) However, one starts building the dictionary from the
> beginning.
Problem is nobody wants to use pre-built dictionaries for general purpose
codecs. They are not ideal.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: Welcoming another Anti-Evidence Eliminator stooge to USENET (P.
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:51:57 GMT
EE Support wrote:
[snip]
> proven lies, misinformation and propaganda
[snip]
> ruining newsgroups with proven lies and propaganda. They wish to dissuade
[snip]
I find the concept of a "proven lie" interesting. It implies that it is
possible to prove a falsehood. One typically proves truths. A proof of a false
proposition would be a remarkable thing. Where can we get more information on
this feat of logic?
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.privacy,alt.security,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.scramdisk,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: Welcoming another Anti-Evidence Eliminator stooge to USENET (P. Dulles
/ AKA Loki)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:59:03 GMT
"Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> EE Support wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > proven lies, misinformation and propaganda
>
> [snip]
>
> > ruining newsgroups with proven lies and propaganda. They wish to
dissuade
>
> [snip]
>
> I find the concept of a "proven lie" interesting. It implies that it is
> possible to prove a falsehood. One typically proves truths. A proof of a
false
> proposition would be a remarkable thing. Where can we get more
information on
> this feat of logic?
Proof by contradiction.
There are a finite number of primes.
Take all primes and form a composite N. Add one to N. Now N is not
divisible by any of the "known" primes. Thus N+1 is a new prime not in the
list. Proof by contradiction. We proved that "there are finite number of
primes" is false.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Dirk Bruere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: unpredicable random number generator ?
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:58:48 +0100
> > Amaury Jacquot wrote:
> > >
> > > the only known ones are based on counting radio-actives beep on a
geiger
> > > counter.
[Newbie]
What about CMB?
Or using peaks in thermal noise in a resistor to clock a flipflop being
toggled in the MHz in order to provide a binary stream?
Dirk
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bent functions
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 02:35:36 GMT
David Wagner wrote:
> If I recall correctly:
> If f is a boolean function and f^ is its discrete Fourier transform,
> then f^(w) measures exactly the correlation of between f and the linear
> map x |--> w.x, where w.x represents the dot-product of w and x.
Sounds about right. It is certain that any linear function of x
can be expressed as l.x (l representing a linear functional, x
the argument). A choice of linear functional representation w
such that w.x best approximates W(x) can reasonably be considered
the best linear approximation to W, or looking at it another way,
the deviation of W from the best linear approximation w is a
reasonable measure of the nonlinearity of W. There is more than
one measure of "correlation", but this one is most useful in this
context, especially given the speed with which DFTs (and similar
transforms) can be computed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Date: 04 Jun 2001 02:42:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Welcoming another Anti-Evidence Eliminator stooge to USENET (P.
"Trevor L. Jackson, III" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes, in part:
>I find the concept of a "proven lie" interesting. It implies that it is
>possible to prove a falsehood. One typically proves truths. A proof of a
>false
>proposition would be a remarkable thing.
Oh, goodness -- you are kidding, right? Looks like Tom's response
is correct.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 02:51:48 GMT
David Wagner wrote:
> However, I must report that I have carefully read the documents you
> referred to, and as far as I can see, they do not say what you thought
As I said, it pretty much takes legal staff to issue accurate
interpretations. With the exception of FISA (passed by Congress
in direct response to the Church Committee report), these
regulations are primarily concerned with other aspects of the
intell. business than US-person privacy, so the issue at hand
is not as clear as if it hd been the main focus. EO 11905 is
relevant, despite having been supeseded, because generally
people who believe the intelligence agencies are spying willy-
nilly against our own citizens also believe that they have been
doing so throughout the period when EO 11905 was in force; it
serves as some degree of evidence against the general belief.
If you really want to pursue this, linguistic analysis of EOs
isn't as good as contacting the relevant agencies (under FOIA)
to obtain copies of the personnel indoctrination material in
this area. After all, the official rules don't matter if they
differ from the policy that the actual workers are required to
follow.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory G Rose)
Subject: Re: PRP vs PRF (was Luby-Rackoff Theorems)
Date: 3 Jun 2001 19:57:11 -0700
In article <_WAS6.21053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh yeah that makes sense. So not all PRFs are invertable (i.e one-to-one)
>right?
>
>Sorry if these questions seem lame. They don't teach this much group theory
>(or whatever this is) in school...
I find it easiest to thing of a PRF as an
"idealised" hash function, and a PRP as an
"idealised" block cipher. (For some unspecified
meaning of "idealised".)
Greg.
--
Greg Rose INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qualcomm Australia VOICE: +61-2-9817 4188 FAX: +61-2-9817 5199
Level 3, 230 Victoria Road, http://people.qualcomm.com/ggr/
Gladesville NSW 2111 232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C
------------------------------
From: "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PRP vs PRF (was Luby-Rackoff Theorems)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:44:30 -0700
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_WAS6.21053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fel2u$gt2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:CEAS6.21014$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9fejsp$r2j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:3_yS6.20233$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:9fedm7$ke9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:SKxS6.19715$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > A PRF is a pseudo-random function and a PRP is a pseudo-random
> > > > > > permutation?
> > > > > > > (I'm reading the paper Wagner posted today).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So basically a PRF is any type of mapping and a PRP is any
> > > injection?
> > > > > > I think you have the right idea (you mean bijection, not
> injection,
> > > and
> > > > > > domain and range are the same), but lets get it pedantically
> > accurate:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A PRF is a distribution of functions generated from a particular
> > > source,
> > > > > > which has the following property: given a function F, which is
> > either
> > > > > chosen
> > > > > > according to the distribution of the PRF, or a function chosen
> > > uniformly
> > > > > > randomly from the set of all functions with the same
domain/range,
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > > impossible (with some computational and query ceiling) to
> > distinguish
> > > > > which
> > > > > > that particular F came from with probability 0.5 + \epsilon.
> > > > >
> > > > > So we say {x, y, ..., z} is a PRF if you can't tell how it was
made
> > from
> > > > F?
> > > > >
> > > > > > A PRP is exactly the same, except that we're dealing with
> > permutations
> > > > and
> > > > > > not functions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't get this. Isn't a PRP a function?
> > > >
> > > > It is, but it has considerably stricter requirements: the domain and
> the
> > > > range are the same, and (more importantly) that it be a bijection.
> > >
> > > Observation. Are PRFs a subset of PRPs?
> >
> > Other way around. All permutations are functions, but not all functions
> are
> > permutations. In addition, unless the query ceiling is considerable
less
> > than sqrt(|range|), or if |range| is quite small, a PRF has an extremely
> > small (but nonzero) probability of being a permutation.
>
> Oh yeah that makes sense. So not all PRFs are invertable (i.e one-to-one)
> right?
That is correct.
>
> Sorry if these questions seem lame. They don't teach this much group
theory
> (or whatever this is) in school...
Actually, this isn't group theory -- PRFs, not being necessarily invertable,
don't form groups in general. Off the top, I'm not quite sure what nitch
within mathematics this falls in...
--
poncho
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Def'n of bijection
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 02:58:38 GMT
The point about D.Scott's style of bijection is that it maps
an infinite discrete set into itself, but with infinite sets
you need to avoid applying intuition learned from experience
with finite sets. It has *very* different properties from,
say, a bijection of 128 bits onto 128 bits.
------------------------------
From: tE! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Evidence Eliminator works great. Beware anybody who claims it doesn't
work (propaganda)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 04:58:42 +0200
On Wed, 16 May 2001 00:27:30 GMT, Beretta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2001 22:33:36 +0100, in alt.security.pgp you wrote:
>
>>
>>By now you will have witnessed the mass hysteria about Evidence Eliminator.
><snip>
>
>V3.1 - Name: Snacker Serial: 1234567890-000084E21262
>V3.1 - Name: Snacker\MiSSiON Serial: 1234567890-0001EDC79005
>V4.0 - Name: Snacker\MiSSiON Serial: 1234567890-0001EDC79005
>V4.5 - Name: Hazard , Serial: Hazard-000063515895
>V5.0 - Code: EE10-44100004D012 (also allows upgrades)
>
>
>You fags keep spamming, and I keep posting serial numbers to your software
>
Hehe! Why not using my Keygenerator for the latest version of Evidence
Eliminator :-) http://www.8bn.com/hambo/othergroup22/tmgee554.zip
Though, hard to believe anyone uses EE anyway...
tE!//TMG
------------------------------
From: "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PRP vs PRF (was Luby-Rackoff Theorems)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:56:02 -0700
David Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fefvl$n0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Scott Fluhrer wrote:
> >Quite often, we talk about a single function being a PRF, which is
> >convienent, and has an intuitive meaning (the function "acts randomly" on
> >any input that hasn't been queried), but really doesn't have any precise
> >mathematical meaning [...]
>
> It does for me, if you use the following definition.
>
> The function F : K x X -> Y is a (t,q,e)-secure pseudorandom function
(PRF)
> if, for all adversaries A using at most q queries and at most t steps of
> computation, we have Adv A <= e.
>
> Note that we often write F_k(x) as shorthand for F(k,x), and we often
> write "F is a PRF" as shorthand for the claim that F is a (t,q,e)-secure
> pseudorandom function for some t,q,e.
I think we are in violent agreement in everything except our terminology. I
was talking about a single fixed function F, where the adversaries is able
to select all the inputs, and with that, you obviously can't have a
(t,q,e)-secure PRF for any nontrivial (t,q,e). By adding an attacker
nonvisible k, you introduce a distribution of functions {F_k with
probability 1/|K|}, and with that, I believe your definition is (mostly) a
restatement of my definition (which you snipped).
The distinction becomes clearer if you consider PRPs: the equivilant
function F: K x X -> X is not a permutation: what is a permutation is F_k(x)
for any fixed k. Hence, if we say "F is a PRP", we are not making a
statement about a permutation, but about a family (or distribution) of
permutations.
--
poncho
------------------------------
From: those who know me have no need of my name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BigNum Question
Date: 04 Jun 2001 02:32:50 GMT
<3b1ad716$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> divulged:
>Its been my experience that if you are not developing on a *nix flavor,
>you're basically out of luck for a big integer/big number package.
any i/o routines would be a porting problem, but the core routines of
any of the well known libraries should compile on any system with an
ansi-ish compiler.
--
okay, have a sig then
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
Date: 4 Jun 2001 03:21:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Fluhrer) wrote in
<9fedkc$ll$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Or, in other words, BICOM is a keyed set of 2**256 bijections. Not
>really a crucial distinction, however, you're been stating so long that
>BICOM is a bijection that I assumed it was unkeyed.
>
No its keyed it uses full RIJNDEAL as its main encryptor
>> >
>> >For any i!=j, F(i)!=F(j)
>>
>> in BICOM i and j come from the set of 8-bit binary files.
>>
>> >
>> >For any x, there exists an i s.t. F(i) = x
>>
>> likewise x and Fwhateverkey(i) are also members of the
>> 8-bit binary file set.
>>
>> >
>> >(where i, j are members of the domain of F, and x is a member of the
>> >range of F)
>>
>> In BICOM case the domain and range are the possible 8-bit byte
>> files that are in common use in most computer systems.
>
>I suspected as much, but I'm glad to hear that confirmed.
Yes I will conform it again. And will add one more point
you may have missed. Since the internal blocks are based on
128 bit block Rijndeal with the 256 bit key. for very short
files only one full 128 bit block will be used. This means
for examaple if one had a one byte output file that single
byte could map to 2***128 possible input plain texts. So its
not perfect but thats closer to perfect than 256 cases as if
one stuck with CTR mode AES. It would not be hard to mode it
so a single byte cipher text file could map to 2**256 different
input messages. But its still a bijection and once files long
enough each key since it really works for whole set is a
different mapping.
>
>> .
>> >
>> >
>> >In addition, for BICOM, (I believe) that the domain and the range
>> >are, in fact, identical: all possible bitstrings (limited to lengths
>> >a multiple of 8? I never examined it, so I am unclear on that
>> >subtlety). This is an infinite set, but that is not a problem from
>> >the above definition, which never assumes finiteness.
>>
>> However by various matching transforms it trival to make matching
>> front and backend programs to BICOM to make it bijective to the
>> set of all bit srings. It is just that most people work with 8-bit
>> byte files.
>
>However, if BICOM is a keyed transformation, do you have any
>cryptanalytic results (either positive or negative) on it? What
>security claims do you make for it? I'm sorry if you posted them
>before, but I really have been ignoring BICOM up to now.
>
The cryptanalytic results are all based on the fact its
RIJNDAEL. The strength is gained by the fact it combines a PPM
compressor then encrypts. But extreeme care is taken so that any
file can be thought of as either a compressed encrypted file
or plaintext. Example take any ascii file decyrpt it with any key
it will expand big. If you encrypt the resulting file it comes
back to the ascii text. You can ecrypt a message by decrypting with one
key and then encrypting it with another there are all kinds of
combinations and games you could do. Since its fully bijective
to binary 8-bit files there are many things you can do with it.
One thing you can do is if you are required to turn over keys
you can give any key since all keys work smooth. I even posted dos
batch code such that you can add authenication in a bijective manner.
Sounds hard but yes it can do that too with few extra programs
run with it.
My site has been down for days so best to look at Matts
if your interested in BICOM.
But don't tell Wagner I am sure he would think less of
you if you looked at it.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mtimmerm/bicom/bicom.html
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE "OLD VERSIOM"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
My website http://members.nbci.com/ecil/index.htm
My crypto code http://radiusnet.net/crypto/archive/scott/
MY Compression Page http://members.nbci.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE FOR EMAIL drop the roman "five" ***
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged or
something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: PRP vs PRF (was Luby-Rackoff Theorems)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 03:26:35 +0000 (UTC)
Scott Fluhrer wrote:
>I think we are in violent agreement in everything except our terminology.
Agreed.
>Hence, if we say "F is a PRP", we are not making a
>statement about a permutation, but about a family (or distribution) of
>permutations.
Yes. The abbreviation sure is convenient, though.
(I find that it gets awfully tiresome writing "super pseudorandom
permutation family" over and over when PRP will do.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: PRP vs PRF
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 03:28:43 +0000 (UTC)
lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
>We would like to be able to say that F_k is a psuedorandom function.
>We would like to be able to say that SHA is a pseudorandom function.
>We would like to be able to say that DES with some fixed value in
>its input slot and taking the input parameter into the key slot is a
>pseudorandom function.
>
>The existing definitions of PRF won't allow this kind of statement.
No, they don't.
>But implementing crypto software requires some assumption like this to
>discuss the actual security which users can hope to achieve.
Sorry, I don't agree! For instance, it often suffices to assume that HMAC
is a pseudorandom function, AES is a pseudorandom permutation, and so on.
The only place where you get in trouble is if you want an unkeyed hash
function---there, noone has a very good formalization (random oracles
are the closest we've got, but they have technical shortcomings).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: benefits of compression for security
Date: 4 Jun 2001 03:33:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:47:00 GMT, "Tom St Denis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>
>>So yes, I think it's possible if the dictionary is pre-built to
>>increase the # of possible messages per block as compared to plain
>>ASCII plaintext.
>
>You are quite correct; in the case of short messages, a pre-built
>dictionary in some sense is important.
>
>One can combine a pre-built dictionary with an adaptive compression
>scheme, however.
>
>For example, if one is compressing English text, one can use a
>multi-state Huffman compression scheme built around the
>characteristics of the English language. One begins in State 1, where
>symbols represent word lengths; in state 2, symbols represent letters.
>(Punctuation at the ends of words is coded in state 1 symbols; a third
>state is used to account for things like numbers.)
>
Actually my understanding is Matts next version of BICOM will allow
for this prebuilt or training file so that it starts off with a
high entropy at start of message. This would be far better than
using huffman type of approach.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE "OLD VERSIOM"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
My website http://members.nbci.com/ecil/index.htm
My crypto code http://radiusnet.net/crypto/archive/scott/
MY Compression Page http://members.nbci.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE FOR EMAIL drop the roman "five" ***
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged or
something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Uniciyt distance and compression for AES
Date: 4 Jun 2001 03:28:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote in
<00zS6.20264$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Tim Tyler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : "Tim Tyler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> :> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> :> : You're argument is only valid if we are trying to find randomly
>> :> : compressed data streams.
>> :>
>> :> The conclusion holds no matter what type of data you are dealing
>> :> with.
>> :>
>> :> If you have a compressor that succeeds in compressing your target
>> :> data, then compression before encryption will increase the unicity
>> :> distance
>of
>> :> the resulting system.
>>
>> : That's not true [...]
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>> Recall the unicity distance is how much cyphertext you need before you
>> have a unique correct decrypt.
>>
>> Compression reduces the redundancy in the inputs to the cipher.
>> Consequently you need more ciphertext to be able to identify
>> whether you have a correct decrypt, because a larger proportion
>> of decrypts look like plausible messages.
>
>No it doesnt. Are you purely retarded or just ignoring my posts?
>
His not retarded it just you act like a stpuid kid. You don't
even read what he posted. If your too stupid to get a firm grip
on just what is meant by unicity distance then you should just
give up crypto TOMMY BOY.
But I would not be surprised if he gives up trying to show
you what is obvious since your either to immature or to stupid to
undestand the basics of crypto and enctropy.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE "OLD VERSIOM"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
My website http://members.nbci.com/ecil/index.htm
My crypto code http://radiusnet.net/crypto/archive/scott/
MY Compression Page http://members.nbci.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE FOR EMAIL drop the roman "five" ***
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged or
something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 03:42:21 +0000 (UTC)
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
>As I said, it pretty much takes legal staff to issue accurate
>interpretations.
Maybe it does with today's laws, but it shouldn't. The intelligences
community asks citizens to "trust them"; but when the guiding regulations
are so unnecessarily vague that citizens can't verify for themselves
how these agencies really operate, should anyone in the intelligence
community be surprised when citizens don't trust them? We need clear
and visible protection against violations of civil liberties, not vague,
inaccessible, classified legalese.
There is no reason that the latest executive orders couldn't include
the clear language found in EO 11905. Moreover, it seems that the NSA
could easily publish excerpts from its training manuals to substantiate
claims that employees are instructed to treat civil liberties seriously.
If electronic surveillance is so critical to national security, why can't
the intelligence agencies spare 0.1% of their budget to openness and and
transparency? One is led to the impression that this is not a priority
for the intelligence community. It seems that the intelligence community
has not taken any of these easy, no-cost, confidence-inspiring steps.
Should anyone be surprised if people view this as an indication that
maybe the intelligence community doesn't care about civil liberties as
much as it should?
The nation deserves intelligence agencies that not only respect civil
liberties but also can be seen to do so. Without this trust, we risk a
backlash that could endanger the legitimate benefits we accrue from the
nation's intelligence community, and I'm disappointed that the stewards
of our intelligence agencies do not seem to be taking this as seriously
as they (IMHO) should be.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
