Cryptography-Digest Digest #583, Volume #14 Sun, 10 Jun 01 23:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Hehehe I found out who David Scott is ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? (Boris Kazak)
Re: National Security Nightmare? ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: National Security Nightmare? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: National Security Nightmare? ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Uniciyt distance and compression for AES ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Help with Comparison Of Complexity of Discrete Logs, Knapsack, and ("Douglas
A. Gwyn")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY LONG (John
Savard)
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? ("Tom St Denis")
Re: National Security Nightmare? (JPeschel)
Re: National Security Nightmare? ("Tom St Denis")
Re: National Security Nightmare? (JPeschel)
Re: Uniciyt distance and compression for AES ("Tom St Denis")
Re: National Security Nightmare? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: National Security Nightmare? (JPeschel)
Re: National Security Nightmare? ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY LONG
(SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: National Security Nightmare? (JPeschel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hehehe I found out who David Scott is
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:51:38 +0200
well after not reading the group for about two years the french
expression:
plus ça change, plus la même chose
springs to mind.
same slaughtering of the english language complete with the
obligatory set of 6 steak knives...
oops, no, i mean scott<broken-version + n>.zip 'encryption'.
what a package. free at sci.crypt or an ftp site near you.
------------------------------
From: Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:57:20 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
************
> I thought if p is your modulus, the order is at most a multiple of p-1?
>
> How do you explain it being a bijection for p=255?
>
> Tom
===================
Cubing (and modular multiplication in general) can be a bijection
when the multiplier and the modulus are mutually prime.
In this case the multiplicative inverse exists, and the operation
can be reversed.
In case of a composite modulus (e.g. 255) the multiplicative inverses
do not exist for numbers that have common factors with the modulus.
So, for example 31^3 mod 255 will be a bijection, but 30^3 mod 255
will not, because 30 does not have a multiplicative inverse mod 255.
Best wishes BNK
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:18:36 +0200
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
is8U6.60161$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> So it is in fact "A plethora of people is here" since it's only one
> plethora?
the word 'people' forces you to use 'are'.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Jun 2001 20:27:24 -0400
"Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom St Denis" a écrit:
>>
>> So it is in fact "A plethora of people is here" since it's only one
>> plethora?
>
> the word 'people' forces you to use 'are'.
Incorrect. ``A plethora is here.'' ``Really? What sort of plethora?''
``A plethora of people.''
Len.
--
> We [hackesses] about our lives like most human beings, maybe even
> a little better.
Or in your case, a little dumber.
-- Phrack Magazine
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:29:30 +0200
"JPeschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nope, if you want to use the passive voice, the verb should be "is."
the passive is used to indicate an event but not who did it:
s/he got flamed
it uses the past participle, and is not influenced by the verb.
> Here is a
> way you can see that for yourself. Open MS-Word, or any word processor that can
> check formal English
> grammar. Make sure the options are set to check formal English. Now type:
> "A bunch of nuts are claiming it means one thing." Word will suggest: "A bunch
> of nuts is" or "Bunches of nuts are" as the proper replacement.
i'd hardly class word a reference for english grammar.
> But Dave wrote, as I said before, "A bunch of nuts claim it means one
> thing...," which
> is correct. He cast the beginning of his sentence in the active voice, so there
> is
> no "are" or "is" needed in this instance.
it's active because it says who's doing/did it.
passive/active does not change the singular/plural choice of the verb.
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uniciyt distance and compression for AES
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:38:48 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Local-time support is a bad idea. Let's scrap all this tz junk. A user
> who wants to know what time it is can go buy a sundial.
> -- Dan Bernstein
or one of those stupid swatches on 'internet time'.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:56:50 -0400
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> If two people share the referent and no one else does,
> there is no way for an outsider to decode all of the
> language.
While it is true that some things can remain ambiguous,
with enough data the parts of speech clearly stand out,
and if you have some information about a few referents,
it is sometimes possible to gradually "fill in the gaps"
by noting connections to already determined parts of the
plain language. This kind of thing is done a lot in
breaking codes (as opposed to ciphers).
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with Comparison Of Complexity of Discrete Logs, Knapsack, and
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:59:35 -0400
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> While my knowlegde is too far from being able to understand
> the matter, I do like very very much to know of the name of
> a good reference where it is claimed/established that the
> theory which Whitehead and Russell developed (or further
> developed) is wrong. Could you please supply such a
> reference?
Just look up "Hilbert's program" (or programme) and you should
soon find it.
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 03:10:04 +0200
"Niklas Frykholm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> But the word for "attack" would always be the same. After a while the
> opponent might learn to correlate the word for "attack" with actual
> attacks occuring.
no you could agree to use a different word for each attack.
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 03:08:29 +0200
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
ZvVT6.54362$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> How would a blind person learn to speak?
verbal feedback. it's a bootstrap problem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY LONG
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:29:16 GMT
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:01:26 -0700, "John A. Malley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>A cipher with perfect secrecy for the finite set M requires as many
>cryptograms as messages. Let the finite set {c1, c2, c3, c4} = E, the
>set of cryptograms.
You are correct that perfect secrecy is attainable for messages of
different lengths without a need for padding. However, one can explain
that in a brief fashion.
We know that it is possible to have perfect secrecy using the
conventional one-time-pad if all messages have the same length.
Let us then consider all messages of length from 1 bit to N bits.
The number of such messages is 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^N, which
number is 2^(N+1) - 2.
Thus, let us convert every message of length N bits or less to a
message N+1 bits in length by this rule: pad the message on the _left_
with zero or more zeroes, followed by a one, as required to achieve
the length of N bits.
These messages shall then correspond to integers, the smallest integer
being 2 (the message "0" as padded in this system) and the largest
being 2^(N+1)-1.
Subtract 2 from the message, and then apply a one-time-pad containing
a key value from 0 to 2^(N+1)-3 to the message using addition modulo
2^(N+1)-2.
One has achieved perfect secrecy. For transmission, one may now add 2
to the result, and remove the "padding" according to the rule by which
padding has been applied initially. Now, one has binary messages
varying from 1 bit to N bits in length, and yet regardless of the
length of the ciphertext message, the plaintext message could have had
any length.
Note that this requires (very nearly) N+1 bits of key for every
message, unlike the scheme with random padding, which required only as
many bits of key as there were bits in the message (after the message
had been lengthened by the addition of a length indicator).
(Note also that if one wishes to avoid performing addition modulo
2^(N+1)-2, one can omit the subtraction of 2, do an XOR, and one still
retains perfect secrecy if one simply transmits two extra messages, of
length N+1 bits, to cover the two extra possibilities.)
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/frhome.htm
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:31:29 GMT
"Boris Kazak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> ************
> > I thought if p is your modulus, the order is at most a multiple of p-1?
> >
> > How do you explain it being a bijection for p=255?
> >
> > Tom
> ===================
> Cubing (and modular multiplication in general) can be a bijection
> when the multiplier and the modulus are mutually prime.
> In this case the multiplicative inverse exists, and the operation
> can be reversed.
>
> In case of a composite modulus (e.g. 255) the multiplicative inverses
> do not exist for numbers that have common factors with the modulus.
> So, for example 31^3 mod 255 will be a bijection, but 30^3 mod 255
> will not, because 30 does not have a multiplicative inverse mod 255.
This is not true. Look at RSA for example.
The reason why cubing is not a bijection has nothing todo with the prime and
the non-units. It has todo with the order of the set of units. In the case
of using 2^64 - 1 as the modulus 3 is not an invertable exponent.
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Date: 11 Jun 2001 01:31:15 GMT
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
"Boyd Roberts" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>is8U6.60161$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> So it is in fact "A plethora of people is here" since it's only one
>> plethora?
>
>the word 'people' forces you to use 'are'.
Wrong.
Tom, pay no attention to Boyd; he's wrong.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:32:25 GMT
"Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9g12qn$t2t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
is8U6.60161$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > So it is in fact "A plethora of people is here" since it's only one
> > plethora?
>
> the word 'people' forces you to use 'are'.
No since it's "one plethora" it's "it". That is the gusto I am getting.
i.e
"A bunch of people is wrong". is the correct although non-aesthetic way.
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Date: 11 Jun 2001 01:46:20 GMT
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
"Boyd Roberts" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>"JPeschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Nope, if you want to use the passive voice, the verb should be "is."
>
>the passive is used to indicate an event but not who did it:
>
> s/he got flamed
>
>it uses the past participle, and is not influenced by the verb.
>
>> Here is a
>> way you can see that for yourself. Open MS-Word, or any word processor that
>can
>> check formal English
>> grammar. Make sure the options are set to check formal English. Now type:
>> "A bunch of nuts are claiming it means one thing." Word will suggest: "A
>bunch
>> of nuts is" or "Bunches of nuts are" as the proper replacement.
>
>i'd hardly class word a reference for english grammar.
I didn't, nor do I use "class" as a verb! I like to use capitalization when
neccesary, though!
>
>> But Dave wrote, as I said before, "A bunch of nuts claim it means one
>> thing...," which
>> is correct. He cast the beginning of his sentence in the active voice, so
>there
>> is
>> no "are" or "is" needed in this instance.
>
>it's active because it says who's doing/did it.
>
>passive/active does not change the singular/plural choice of the verb.
>
Dave's original message "A bunch of nuts claim it means one thing..." is active
because the verb is "claims." When the contruction becomes "A bunch of
nuts "is" claiming..." the voice become passive and the sentence should be
recast
as: "A bunch of nuts claim it means one thing..."
In other words, Dave had it right the first time.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uniciyt distance and compression for AES
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:55:47 GMT
"Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9g140j$18q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Local-time support is a bad idea. Let's scrap all this tz junk. A user
> > who wants to know what time it is can go buy a sundial.
> > -- Dan Bernstein
>
> or one of those stupid swatches on 'internet time'.
I love that one too. In my comp.sci class he said "work is done on
"internet time"". Then I turn on the local or CNN news and listen to the
plethora of companies going under.
See nobody wants to buy pizza, lotto tickets or pet food online!
Question: What is with the human need to masterbate all over technology?
Look at cellphones. When is last time you saw a cellphone that just made
calls or actually didn't play Beetovens 5th as a ringer? Or have
web-browsing (which is incredibly slow... try to spell "decorrelated" on a
touch tone pad)...?
Tom
------------------------------
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Jun 2001 22:21:45 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel) writes:
>
> Dave's original message "A bunch of nuts claim it means one thing..." is
> active because the verb is "claims"...In other words, Dave had it
> right the first time.
Except that he should have said, ``A bunch of nuts claims...'' Or he
could have said, ``Many nuts claim...''
Len
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Date: 11 Jun 2001 02:30:36 GMT
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Except that he should have said, ``A bunch of nuts claims...'' Or he
>could have said, ``Many nuts claim...''
>
You know what? You're right. It appears I need an editor, here, too! :-)
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 04:40:11 +0200
"JPeschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Wrong.
> Tom, pay no attention to Boyd; he's wrong.
yeah, wrong. i'm pleading an 'upper respiratory infection' defence.
"A plethora of people is here" just sounds so wrong to the ear, but
given 'a plethora' is singular it should be 'is', unless it's an
exception and english has a bunch of them :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY LONG
Date: 11 Jun 2001 02:50:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John A. Malley) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>
>>
>> I unfortunately don't have the paper easily available.
>> Could you kindly quote just one sentence in it showing
>> that the message length does enter into Shannon's argument
>> in a significant way?
>
>I thought I did with the quote on infinite symbol streams out of a
>Markov source. Shannon divides his exposition on perfect secrecy into
>two parts - one part dealing with a finite set of messages and the other
>part dealing with a message source with an infinite number of messages.
>See Part II Theoretical Secrecy, Sections 9, 10 of Shannon's paper for
>more.
>
>The paper is on-line, in pages scanned and posted as PDF files, at
>
>http://www3.edgenet.net/dcowley/docs.html
>
Thank John but I doubt the asshole TOMMY who keeps thinking anyone
who disagrees with him is a loon will even care or take the time
to read.
But in summary the classical way of using a OTP pad where you
pad to message length and send is not "perfect secrecy" If one
does have a set of variable length messages that needs to be sent and
does have the use of a OTP. An easy thing to do is compress files change
to FOF files. Any file shorter than the longerest file. Pad with
zeros. Use the OTP and send so all message some length.
Of course there are many other ways but this works And use there
are ways to do varible length but you then need a means of allowing
any possible cipher text to map to any possible input.
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: 11 Jun 2001 02:57:29 GMT
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
"Boyd Roberts" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>yeah, wrong. i'm pleading an 'upper respiratory infection' defence.
>
Watch out! The grammar police is a comin'. Or is it, "are a comin'?"
Nevermind. They got us. Apparently, we have the right to remain silent...
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
