Cryptography-Digest Digest #557, Volume #14 Thu, 7 Jun 01 19:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) (Tim Tyler)
Re: Notion of perfect secrecy (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Notion of perfect secrecy ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) (JPeschel)
Re: Def'n of bijection ("Henrick Hellstr�m")
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: about DH parameters & germain primes (Anton Stiglic)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) (JPeschel)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) (Tim Tyler)
Re: shifts are slow? ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: Simple C crypto ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) ("Tom St Denis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:27:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:>: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:>:> My claim is that the chances of collisions are generally greater if
:>:> compression has been employed than if not.
:>:
:>: You are wrong to say ``generally greater''; you have not proven that
:>: they actually are greater. You can only say they are ``no less''.
:>
:> ...the net effect is that they will be more frequent.
: You don't have any idea what the net effect will be.
So you falsely claim.
:> If you have a fishtank and all the fish swim towards one end, the
:> chances of finding fish at that end will be generally greater.
:>
:> Sometimes if you look by the castle you will find greater, fewer or
:> an equal number of fish in its neighbourhood - but *on average* the
:> density of fish at that end of the tank will be greater.
:>
:> The fish are plausible plaintexts. The tank represents files
:> sorted by size. Files at the end of the tank are shorter than ones
:> further away. The directional swimming of the fish represents
:> compression.
: GLORY, GLORY HALELUJAH! NOW I GET IT! Please, please, write this up and
: submit it to the Acta Mathematica, will you? You must be Isaac Newton
: reborn!
I assume you didn't understand :-(
I figure that makes you a lost cause. If you didn't understand that
simplified explanation, there's really not much hope of you ever
grasping it.
:> Did you miss my 129 bit message?
: If that's not the only message you send, then we're NOT dealing with
: only 129 bits; we're dealing with all the bits you encrypted with that
: key.
No - not if there are multiple messages and key per message.
: On the other hand, if you DID send only 129 bits with a 128-bit
: key, and then throw the key away--but DIDN'T use a one-time pad, then
: you're an idiot.
How so?
Say I have a cyphermachine that already uses BICOM.
You're telling me I should scrap that, build a new machine, send copies of
it to everyone who I want to communicate with - all just for sending short
messages with?
Wouldn't that represent a lot of rather pointless work?
How many cyphersystems are you familiar with that use a conventional
cypher for long messages and an OTP for short ones?
...
A 256 bit message might have very few collisions with a 128 bit key.
It /might/ even encrypt to a unique plaintext.
On the other hand a 129-bit message will yield a cyphertext
will decrypt to (almost) every *possible* message - a set that
may well include a very large number of plausible-looking messages.
This is a concrete case where compression would often increase
the density of plausible-looking decrypts by orders of magnitude.
--
__________
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://alife.co.uk/tim/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Notion of perfect secrecy
Date: 7 Jun 2001 21:32:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote in
<kBOT6.51452$[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:
>>
>> :> : Typically the MEANING of the message is not stored in the length.
>>
>> :> Shannon refers to *any* information about the identity of the
>plaintext.
>> :>
>> :> For perfect secrecy, observation of the cyphertext should make no
>> :> difference to the attacker.
>> :>
>> :> This is not the case if he was unaware of the length of the
>> :> plaintext before observing it - and he knows that the length of the
>> :> cyphertext matches that of the plaintext.
>>
>> : You don't understand his results that's all. [...]
>>
>> My understanding is fine thanks.
>>
>> : In his model WHO, WHEN, LENGTH were not the information he wanted to
>protect.
>>
>> "Who" and "when" are not modelled by Shannon. However length /is/
>> information that relates to the identity of the plaintext
>> (except in the case where all possible plaintexts are the same length)
>> and *is* covered by Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy.
>
>No they are not. When will you realize that the contents of the message
>are what an OTP protects. So if the contents are random than an OTP is
>perfectly secure.
>
>
>> : You're really mocking the dead here. I sincerely hope you are some
>> : 12yr kid trying to get a rise out of people, otherwise I wonder how
>> : you did in College challenging all your profs without listening to
>> : their proofs... No offense Tim but you have a lot of growing up
>> : todo. Even if you are 76 yrs old you're an immature brat as far as
>> : I am concerned.
>>
>> Sorry you feel that way Tom. It seems this is the thanks I get for
>> pointing out your errors. Maybe I won't bother in the future.
>
>So far it seems #[sci.crypt] vs #[scott, tim].
>
Actaully Tom sci.crypt vs ( scott, tim) not really.
I notice from many post your a herd animal and not an independent
thinker. Thats bad if you want to be good in crypto.
You think that since numbers appear on your side that your
right. That is foolish thinking. Also you notice your so
called crypto gods Mr BS and Wagner have kept quite. Do you
wonder why.
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: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Notion of perfect secrecy
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:41:46 GMT
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote in
> <kBOT6.51452$[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:
> >>
> >> :> : Typically the MEANING of the message is not stored in the length.
> >>
> >> :> Shannon refers to *any* information about the identity of the
> >plaintext.
> >> :>
> >> :> For perfect secrecy, observation of the cyphertext should make no
> >> :> difference to the attacker.
> >> :>
> >> :> This is not the case if he was unaware of the length of the
> >> :> plaintext before observing it - and he knows that the length of the
> >> :> cyphertext matches that of the plaintext.
> >>
> >> : You don't understand his results that's all. [...]
> >>
> >> My understanding is fine thanks.
> >>
> >> : In his model WHO, WHEN, LENGTH were not the information he wanted to
> >protect.
> >>
> >> "Who" and "when" are not modelled by Shannon. However length /is/
> >> information that relates to the identity of the plaintext
> >> (except in the case where all possible plaintexts are the same length)
> >> and *is* covered by Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy.
> >
> >No they are not. When will you realize that the contents of the message
> >are what an OTP protects. So if the contents are random than an OTP is
> >perfectly secure.
> >
> >
> >> : You're really mocking the dead here. I sincerely hope you are some
> >> : 12yr kid trying to get a rise out of people, otherwise I wonder how
> >> : you did in College challenging all your profs without listening to
> >> : their proofs... No offense Tim but you have a lot of growing up
> >> : todo. Even if you are 76 yrs old you're an immature brat as far as
> >> : I am concerned.
> >>
> >> Sorry you feel that way Tom. It seems this is the thanks I get for
> >> pointing out your errors. Maybe I won't bother in the future.
> >
> >So far it seems #[sci.crypt] vs #[scott, tim].
> >
>
> Actaully Tom sci.crypt vs ( scott, tim) not really.
> I notice from many post your a herd animal and not an independent
> thinker. Thats bad if you want to be good in crypto.
> You think that since numbers appear on your side that your
> right. That is foolish thinking. Also you notice your so
> called crypto gods Mr BS and Wagner have kept quite. Do you
> wonder why.
Actually I don't wonder.
I know.
These "crypto gods" unlike me, have better things todo then chat with you.
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Date: 07 Jun 2001 21:50:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
"Tom St Denis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I wouldn't consider cipher as formal english. It sounds to "The Net"ish.
It does? The word was used centuries before the Internet was thought of.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Henrick Hellstr�m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Henrick Hellstr�m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Def'n of bijection
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:50:49 GMT
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:AIuS6.17512$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=bijection
>
> Aha. One-to-one and onto.
>
> That means ... [snip]
Surprisingly, noone seems to have defined the terms. (Maybe I missed some
post.)
Let f: A -> B.
One-to-one (injective): for all x, y in A, if f(x) = f(y), then x = y.
Onto (surjective): for all y in B there is an x in A such that f(x) = y.
--
Henrick Hellstr�m [EMAIL PROTECTED]
StreamSec HB http://www.streamsec.com
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:51:46 GMT
"JPeschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom St Denis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >I wouldn't consider cipher as formal english. It sounds to "The Net"ish.
>
> It does? The word was used centuries before the Internet was thought of.
So was the word "parallel" that doesn't mean it can't be used as a tool of
masterbation by some stupid PR person...
Hence "unparallel e-commerce super-scalable e-solution". Cipher just
conjures up confusion and misleading ideas.
Tom
------------------------------
From: Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: about DH parameters & germain primes
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 17:52:02 -0400
Gregory G Rose wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The trick is to simply work in a subgroup of prime order q
> >of Z*p, for some large q.
>
> Correct.
>
> >So if p is such that (p-1)/2 is also prime, than the order
> >of the group Z*p will be 2*(p-1). Since the order of any element
>
> Wrong, unless you're confusing your p's and q's.
Sorry, of course I meant to write that the order is
2*(p-1)/2 = 2*q, with q = (p-1)/2 being prime.
so replace my (p-1) there by q, and everything is correct...
--Anton
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
Date: 7 Jun 2001 21:47:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mok-Kong Shen) wrote in <3B1FBAF6.1DD02E47@t-
online.de>:
>
>
>"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Tyler) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> snap...
>>
>> >To see how a particular 8 bit cyphertext could map to more than 256
>> >different plaintexts, just get an 8 bit cyphertext, decrypt it with
>> >BICOM under a number of keys.
>> >
>> >You will see *many* different plaintexts come out - not just 256.
>>
>> Mok likes to talk but getting him to actually do anthing
>> is quite impossible. He would rather say its impossible than
>> actually check it out. A lot like TOMMY. Sometimes I think
>> He and Tommy are not real people. Since if they were you would
>> think Wagner who at least pretends to know something about
>> crypto would set them straight. Why he does not bother to
>> make an honest useful comment on a thread like this makes
>> me wonder just how much he wants the average person to know
>> about crypto. He could help people like TOMMY on these concepts
>> but refuses any useful real help. WHY??
>
>Argue with scientific stuffs. Don't waste bandwidth
>like this! There are many who read this thread for
>scientific reasons not for such stuffs, even if they
>were valuable in a literature sense (This group has
>the prefix sci.). Economize THEIR time! If you want
>to scold me or do whatever in a negative sense on me
>psychologically or otherwise, send e-mails to me
>directly. I promise you in honest words that I'll read
>every line you sent. (Response is however not
>guaranteed.)
>
>M. K. Shen
Acataully I have trusted you before and it was a
mistake. Way back when we exchanged email several times.
You and tom are just being asses. You may not be
smart enough to understand "perfect security" But I
give a model. Where like any model it can be used
as a learning tool. The model was you answer either
yes or no and you use an OTP. IF you use it the mode
of TOMMY DUNGER HEAD you would send two characters for
"NO" possiblely "WE" and three characters for "YES"
possibly "DRF" in which case regardless of what you
sent I know that exactly which message you sent. This
is one way things are tested. You can see its not secure
at all. Let alone "prerfectly secure". Instead of engaging
your brain to realize that models shows your concept of
an OTP being used for "prefect secrecy" is flawed you
want to change the model. You seen to lack the intelligence
that I don't need to change the model. Since that model
shows your concept is false. Have you ever read his paper.
If not I don't see what good talking to you is. I might
as well aruge physics with a 3 year old.
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: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
Date: 7 Jun 2001 21:55:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote in
<amQT6.51569$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Because that's what an OTP is. You claim an OTP is not secure yet you
>can solve one. Hmm seems like you're a bit confused!
No idoit. He never claimed that in general an OTP is not secure.
We give example where its not secure at all like the two message set
"yes" and "no". You can create systmes of many message where the
unknown may be reduced to what the message is. Such a system
may have "zero security" But if your set is a bunch of different
length messages just XOR and sending then where you always
have more than one possible message for a given length you
may "have some security" but some is not the same as "perfect"
since you have many messages from your input set that have
been iliminated.
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: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
Date: 7 Jun 2001 22:04:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Tim Tyler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes, in part:
>
>>If you nitpick the examples without actually attacking the basic point,
>>we will only find other ones.
>>
>
>Tim, "we" appears to only you and maybe Dave. :-)
>
>You posted an example where you thought it was obvious that a
>two-character encrypted response meant "no," and three letters meant
>"yes." I pointed out that it isn't neccesarily so. You might as well
>flip a coin.
>
Off hand I would say you have not seen many proofs or tests of
theorms. You don't understand that it perfectly valid to define
a system that contains 2 messages 'YES" and "NO". To reject it
saying you want to do somthing else is irrelivent. I gave a model
and showed "zero security". I don't care if you have other models
since it only takes one failure to prove something is wrong.
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] (JPeschel)
Date: 07 Jun 2001 22:10:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
"Tom St Denis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>"JPeschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Tom St Denis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> >I wouldn't consider cipher as formal english. It sounds to "The Net"ish.
>>
>> It does? The word was used centuries before the Internet was thought of.
>
>So was the word "parallel" that doesn't mean it can't be used as a tool of
>masterbation by some stupid PR person...
>
>Hence "unparallel e-commerce super-scalable e-solution". Cipher just
>conjures up confusion and misleading ideas.
Yikes! Now that comparison doesn't make any sense at all. Cipher meant
the same thing then as it does now, for instance, Vigenere cipher, Playfair
Cipher, Vernam cipher, etc.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:04:46 GMT
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : Perhaps if you defined your threat model this would make sense. Why in
:> : your world is knowing the length of the message a threat?
:>
:> See David's "Yes"/"No" example.
: What 1/0? [...]
No. Where the attacker has a priori knowledge that the message is going
to be either "yes" or "no" - but doesn't know which.
--
__________
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://alife.co.uk/tim/
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: shifts are slow?
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:22:40 -0700
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:cxzT6.46783$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Boolean operations like AND,OR,XOR,NOT can take one cycle since you just
> apply all the logic in parallel. So if 1 AND takes 1 cycle 32 ANDs should
> take 1 cycle too. You get a bit of delay to synchronize the bits but
> generally that's low.
You've forgotten a lot of variables (my last post on this subject barely
scratched the surface of them). The most important variable you forgot was
the pipeline, even if the operation only takes 1 clock to complete it still
has to go through the pipeline, and building short outs into a pipeline will
in general slow the computation (it takes more silicon, and will sometimes
block the pipe) so it's not done except in cases where it is known to
improve performance. The AND itself will occur in a fraction of a clock, but
it will have to stand in line to get through the pipeline which itself takes
anywhere from 5 to 32 clocks depending on the machine, so your penalty
varies from 1 clock (if the AND is independent) to the entire pipeline depth
(if the rest of the code completely depends on the AND). That's why
completely optimized code is so difficult now, each instruction is
potentially affected by every instruction before it, and it potentially
affects every instruction after it, it's possible to even have this happen
across context switches (although the independance is typically complete
across the switch). So claiming that an AND takes only 1 clock is not
necessarily correct, but not necessarily incorrect either.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:34:30 -0700
Actually it is not entirely difficult to solve for a language given a
significant sample. This is aptly demonstrated by the work that was done to
decipher Egyptian Antiquities before the discovery of the translation tablet
(it gave conjugations and translations to/from latin/ancient greek/ancient
egyptian). Prior to that discovery there was a body of knowledge that had
been gained about what each symbol meant, and the linguists were actually
getting close to decipherment of several of the texts, which would have
quickly led to decipherment of many others. The discovery of the carved
tablet expedited this process, but was not solely responsible for this.
Using a unique language does not mean that it will not be recovered.
As to whether or not the Code Speakers language would be unbreakable, the
main issue was that the Axis were limited in their computational abilities
(they didn't have sizable computers to work on it for them), and in the time
they were allowed. It would take longer to begin from zero to analyze a
language but it can be done, the only advantage to Navajo over Ancient
Egyptian was that Navajo developed in a linguistic vacuum which would have
required a few years. To prove this consider the fact that a human baby
learns to speak without having prior knowledge of any language.
Joe
"Robert J. Kolker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Suppose Alice and Bob share a language
> (herein called MooJoo) which is spoken
> or read by no others.
>
> Then all their plaintexts would be perfectly
> secure. No crypto necessary at all.
>
> Which leads to the question, why hasn't MooJoo
> been invented? It sure would solve a lot of
> problems in private communications;
>
> Bob Kolker
>
> Something like MooJoo was emplyed by
> the Native American code speakers during
> WW2. The enemy did not have a prayer
> of figuring out what was going on.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Simple C crypto
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:37:50 -0700
It won't take anything even approximating custom software to break your 16
bit number scheme. The best advise I can give you without knowing a lot more
about what you need is to use a real encryption algorithm. If you want more
information than that I'd suggest you offer a respected person
cryptographically a sum of money for consulting.
Joe
"Dirk Bruere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0cRT6.15846$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi
>
> I'm looking for a simple algorithm to code text that is pretty difficult
to
> break for an amateur without custom s/w.
> I had thought of something like (say) a 16 bit number, to be XORed with
> chars, and then this shifted each time it is re-used.
>
> Any suggestions for something better? Or freeware code available for me to
> copy into my application?
> The latter will be a commercial product that needs a certain amount of
> security to prevent unauthorised laypeople tampering with results, but not
> DES, RSA etc
>
> Dirk
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:23:51 GMT
"JPeschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom St Denis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >"JPeschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Tom St Denis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>
> >> >I wouldn't consider cipher as formal english. It sounds to "The
Net"ish.
> >>
> >> It does? The word was used centuries before the Internet was thought
of.
> >
> >So was the word "parallel" that doesn't mean it can't be used as a tool
of
> >masterbation by some stupid PR person...
> >
> >Hence "unparallel e-commerce super-scalable e-solution". Cipher just
> >conjures up confusion and misleading ideas.
>
> Yikes! Now that comparison doesn't make any sense at all. Cipher meant
> the same thing then as it does now, for instance, Vigenere cipher,
Playfair
> Cipher, Vernam cipher, etc.
Hmm... perhaps I haven't look at this formally. I always thought cipher was
not a real word.
I stand corrected.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:25:09 GMT
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote in
> <amQT6.51569$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> >Because that's what an OTP is. You claim an OTP is not secure yet you
> >can solve one. Hmm seems like you're a bit confused!
>
> No idoit. He never claimed that in general an OTP is not secure.
> We give example where its not secure at all like the two message set
> "yes" and "no". You can create systmes of many message where the
> unknown may be reduced to what the message is. Such a system
> may have "zero security" But if your set is a bunch of different
> length messages just XOR and sending then where you always
> have more than one possible message for a given length you
> may "have some security" but some is not the same as "perfect"
> since you have many messages from your input set that have
> been iliminated.
That doesn't matter at all. Even if you know the original message occupied
128 bits but there are only 13 possible remaining messages it's still
perfectly secure. Since the remaining messages have a 1/13 chance of being
the correct one you can't tell the correct one from a false one.
Tom
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
