Cryptography-Digest Digest #587, Volume #14 Mon, 11 Jun 01 13:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY (JPeschel)
Re: Def'n of bijection ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY ("John A.
Malley")
Re: Def'n of bijection (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: National Security Nightmare? (Will Janoschka)
Re: National Security Nightmare? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY (Mok-Kong
Shen)
Re: One last bijection question (Mark Wooding)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY (Mok-Kong
Shen)
Re: National Security Nightmare? (JPeschel)
Re: Uniciyt distance and compression for AES (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Definition of 'key' (Mark Wooding)
Re: National Security Nightmare? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: One last bijection question (Mok-Kong Shen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)
Date: 11 Jun 2001 14:11:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) writes:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> With 99% confidence, the compression ratio will fall between about 23%
>>> and 73%. Which is good, BTW, and slightly better than ``gzip -9''.
>>
>> ...how can you say its 23 to 73% I see this as just handwaving.
>
>Hint: notice the phrase ``with 99% confidence''. That's an unmistakable
>clue that I (or someone) has performed some sort of statistical test. If
>you consult any basic text on statistics, you can find out what the
>statement means.
>
Actaully I can write a state saying with 99.99% something
so what. A string of words that having meaning. Don't really
mean one did any work. I doubt you understand BICOM so I doubt
your words have any realationship to the validity of BICOM.
Especially since it appears you know nothing about it.
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 14:29:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) writes, in part:
>You have to admit Shannon had
>very poverful ideas that seem to be lost on the so called
>modern crypto people. Who would rather not have people aware
>of such concepts.
> So maybe it won't get put on the internet. But I bet
>there is a Russian copy or some such thing out there somewhere.
There is a collection of Shannon's papers in English that you can buy.
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Def'n of bijection
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 Jun 2001 10:37:01 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) writes:
>
> I'm sure you know nothing about BICOM and I am sure you could
> not make a "convincing argument" to me about how it works.
I'm sure you wear pink flowered underwear. So what? What does that
have to do with anything?
But if it's any consolation to you, I don't think I can convince you
of anything either. It's too bad; I'd love to win that bet with my NSA
spook buddies.
Len.
--
Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door
went nuts.
------------------------------
From: "John A. Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:48:43 -0700
Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Tim Tyler wrote:
> :> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : Tim Tyler wrote:
> :> :> John A. Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :> :> : Just a comment - the messages in a finite set do NOT need to be of the
> :> :> : same length for the cipher to achieve perfect secrecy. [...]
> :> :>
> :> :> ...but they *do* if one is using an OTP to encrypt them.
> :> :>
> :> :> Apologies if the fact that an OTP was intended was not clear from the
> :> :> context.
> :>
> :> : Opinions seem to differ here. So let me once again ask:
> :> : Has Shannon proved the perfect security of the conventional
> :> : OTP (for messages of finite but varying length) or not?
> :>
> :> I thought John Malley at least was fairly clear and unambiguous in writing:
> :>
> :> ``3) WHY ENCIPHERING A FINITE SET OF MESSAGES BY XORING RANDOM BINARY
> :> STRINGS AS LONG AS THE MESSAGES DOES *NOT* GUARANTEE PERFECT SECRECY''
> :>
> :> ...though maybe a qualification abot there not being 2^n messages all of
> :> the same length needs to be tacked onto that headline.
That qualification is true, and I deliberately avoided tacking that on
to the statement. I wanted that statement to jar the reader and hook his
interest.
"You mean there *are* situations where XORing random binary strings as
long as the messages does NOT guarantee perfect secrecy?! But I thought
it *always* works! What's he getting at?!"
That's the desired response in the reader :-)
> :>
> :> It appears that Shannon only mentioned the OTP while dealing with
> :> the case of infinite streams of data.
> :>
> :> You say "opinions seem to differ here". Who disagrees at this stage?
>
> : No. In the quote above John Malley wrote: '....set do NOT
> : need ....' but you wrote: '....but they *do* ....'. That's
> : why I wrote that opinions seem to differ.
>
> Both statements are correct. John was referring to a general
> cryptosystem - and I was referring to an OTP.
>
> JM: ``the messages in a finite set do NOT need to be of the
> same length for the cipher to achieve perfect secrecy.''
>
> TT: ``...but they *do* if one is using an OTP to encrypt them.''
>
Yes, that is correct. I referred to the general cryptosystem.
We can always build a cipher with perfect secrecy for any finite set of
messages, each message encoded as binary strings of various lengths. My
post shows how to do this with mappings from the messages to a set of
cryptograms, number of distinct cryptograms = number of distinct
messages, each mapping selected by a distinct key value, each key value
equiprobable, number of key distinct key values = number of mappings.
Such mappings can be implemented as mathematical functions.
In the case where a finite set of messages encoded as binary strings of
various lengths AND one XORs a message string with a binary string same
length as the message and chosen uniformly at random from the set of
strings of that length, I show this mathematical function does NOT
implement the mappings from messages to cryptograms required for perfect
secrecy.
> : May I repeat: Does Shannon's writing (alone) has established
> : (fully) the perfect security of the conventional OTP? My
> : interpretation of what you wrote would be 'no'. Is that
> : the case?
>
> Yes. The OTP has perfect secrecy if transmitted messages don't
> have proper ends, or if they are all the same length - and not
> in the case where plaintext length varies and cyphertext length
> is equal to plaintext length.
Agreed.
[...]
John A. Malley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Def'n of bijection
Date: 11 Jun 2001 15:07:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) writes:
>>
>> I'm sure you know nothing about BICOM and I am sure you could
>> not make a "convincing argument" to me about how it works.
>
>I'm sure you wear pink flowered underwear. So what? What does that
>have to do with anything?
>
There red. I think the NSA needs to install a better color
vidoe camera in the house.
>But if it's any consolation to you, I don't think I can convince you
>of anything either. It's too bad; I'd love to win that bet with my NSA
>spook buddies.
>
Well what are the details of the bet maybe I can help you win.
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] (Will Janoschka)
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Date: 11 Jun 2001 15:04:17 GMT
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:32:25, "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> "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
>
It depends on what the speaker/writer means and the singular or plural
verb
tells what is ment. It is only one way when the meaning is
unambigous i.e.
A duck quacks.
Three ducks quack.
A flock of ducks quack. The flock as an entity cannot quack(s).
Better english would be, Ducks of a flock quack, but this misses the
point
if the intent is that more birds yield more noise.
That bunch of people is in the wrong place. (lightning strikes
the bunch)
"A bunch of people are wrong" generally means that all individuals who
are wrong
can be grouped into a bunch, but says nothing about the correctness of
that grouping.
A bunch of people is wrong, I believe, indicates the grouping is
incorrect, or that
the bunch as an entity did somthing incorrectly (like being where
lightning strikes).
-will-
Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!=:)
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:18:57 +0200
JPeschel wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >JPeschel wrote:
> >>
> >> Mok-Kong Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>
> >> >In France I heard that there is a national instute
> >> >that decides authoritatively on language issues of French.
> >> >Is there a similar one for the English world?
> >>
> >> Yes. They told me you should listen to me and Len, er, Len and
> >> me... I mean, uh, Len and I...
> >
> >Sounds fairly like religious: 'The Holy Spirit revealed
> >to me .....'.
>
> That's because I was kidding. :-)
>
> Was your question about a national language
> institute for English a serious one?
> If it was, the Modern Language Association
> probably come closest to the answer.
Neither. More serious was in the parentheses which
you snipped.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:22:32 +0200
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mok-Kong Shen) wrote:
>
> >May I repeat: Does Shannon's writing (alone) has established
> >(fully) the perfect security of the conventional OTP? My
> >interpretation of what you wrote would be 'no'. Is that
> >the case? If yes, we need a complete rigorous formal proof
> >(perhaps based on Shannon's work) to establish the prefect
> >security of the conventional OTP or else a similarly
> >rigorous formal proof for the opposite case.
> I don't know why I try. Again look at my "yes" "No"
> Example and attempt to use your brain. If you use the
> convention OTP in the way TOMMY DUNGERHEAN veiws it that
> he got from some BS crypto Book. It fails some of Shannons
> tests. That is if you use the OTP to sends 2 character
> for all 2 chacter messages then you have eliminated the
> possible 3 character messages. In short the "yes" can
> not map to two characters by the rules you want to see.
> If you can't see that 2 is not 3 then I don't give a shit
> and you are as hopless as TOMMY.
>
> Next does all cipher text have to have the same length
> no. That is not a requirement. But what is. Is that any
> ciphertext has to map back to all possuble input messeage
> of your set. Does that mean that all cipher text messages
> could not be put in a form for a finite set of messages
> so that the cipher texts are eqaul. Yes I think that
> is obvious, use padding. or if that to complicated
> use Savards thing of having length if front of file and pad
> to make all the same length. Then use the OTP. Is this
> to complicated for you. What of the above is still over your
> head.
>
> Note I am not saying it the only way but a way. The
> critical point. "is that any intcepted cipher text could
> hace come from any of the possible input messages" and
> thats the whole point. You pick the set and since you
> lack the common sense to understand write back and Tim
> or I will tell you if its perfect or not.
Note the words 'rigorous' and 'formal' that I used. I
am not yet very sure what you wrote above fully satisfy
these as a proof.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: One last bijection question
Date: 11 Jun 2001 16:28:52 GMT
Nicol So <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A comment on the terminology: the range of a function f is the image of
> the domain under f. The codomain of a function is a (not necessarily
> proper) superset of its range.
This isn't the terminology I'm familiar with. I've always used the
terms `range' and `image' to mean what you're calling the `codomain' and
`range' respectively. I think these names were standard in the UK when
I learned this stuff.
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:30:10 +0200
Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Tim Tyler wrote:
> :> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : Tim Tyler wrote:
> :> :> John A. Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :> :> : Just a comment - the messages in a finite set do NOT need to be of the
> :> :> : same length for the cipher to achieve perfect secrecy. [...]
> :> :>
> :> :> ...but they *do* if one is using an OTP to encrypt them.
> :> :>
> :> :> Apologies if the fact that an OTP was intended was not clear from the
> :> :> context.
> :>
> :> : Opinions seem to differ here. So let me once again ask:
> :> : Has Shannon proved the perfect security of the conventional
> :> : OTP (for messages of finite but varying length) or not?
> :>
> :> I thought John Malley at least was fairly clear and unambiguous in writing:
> :>
> :> ``3) WHY ENCIPHERING A FINITE SET OF MESSAGES BY XORING RANDOM BINARY
> :> STRINGS AS LONG AS THE MESSAGES DOES *NOT* GUARANTEE PERFECT SECRECY''
> :>
> :> ...though maybe a qualification abot there not being 2^n messages all of
> :> the same length needs to be tacked onto that headline.
> :>
> :> It appears that Shannon only mentioned the OTP while dealing with
> :> the case of infinite streams of data.
> :>
> :> You say "opinions seem to differ here". Who disagrees at this stage?
>
> : No. In the quote above John Malley wrote: '....set do NOT
> : need ....' but you wrote: '....but they *do* ....'. That's
> : why I wrote that opinions seem to differ.
>
> Both statements are correct. John was referring to a general
> cryptosystem - and I was referring to an OTP.
>
> JM: ``the messages in a finite set do NOT need to be of the
> same length for the cipher to achieve perfect secrecy.''
>
> TT: ``...but they *do* if one is using an OTP to encrypt them.''
>
> : May I repeat: Does Shannon's writing (alone) has established
> : (fully) the perfect security of the conventional OTP? My
> : interpretation of what you wrote would be 'no'. Is that
> : the case?
>
> Yes. The OTP has perfect secrecy if transmitted messages don't
> have proper ends, or if they are all the same length - and not
> in the case where plaintext length varies and cyphertext length
> is equal to plaintext length.
Was 'if they are all the same length' explicitly stated
in Shannon's work?
>
> : If yes, we need a complete rigorous formal proof
> : (perhaps based on Shannon's work) to establish the prefect
> : security of the conventional OTP or else a similarly
> : rigorous formal proof for the opposite case.
>
> If you like. I'm happy with a cyphertext of length L making
> plaintexts with length != L impossible, contradicting the
> condition that knowledge of the cyphertext supplies no
> information about the identity of the plaintext.
We already argued about that 'knowledge of the ciphertext'
could also include e.g. the time of sending of the message.
A formal proof has to put its 'boundaries' (so to say)
clear. I mean the notion of 'knowledge of the ciphertext'
has to be clarified and then a result proved.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel)
Date: 11 Jun 2001 16:33:56 GMT
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Mok-Kong Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Neither. More serious was in the parentheses which
>you snipped.
But I didn't snip anything!
Joe
__________________________________________
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uniciyt distance and compression for AES
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:35:23 +0200
Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Tim Tyler wrote:
> :> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : Tim Tyler wrote:
> :> :> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :> :> : This is not true. In fact it's just the opposite. Any good
> :> :> : codec makes a few files smaller.
> :> :>
> :> :> You err. Most codecs make an infinite set of files smaller.
> :>
> :> : A compressor appropriate for a given application should
> :> : compress the files of that application on the average
> :> : to a smaller sizes. One certainly needn't care files
> :> : that don't belong to the application.
> :>
> :> Most codecs can deal with unboundedly long inputs.
>
> : In all practical cases there can be given a safe upper
> : bound of the input length. Whether infinite input could be
> : treated isn't of any practical significance, I suppose.
>
> If we were to restrict the discussion to consider practical cases - rather
> than the capabilities of the codec - in practice we're dealing with sets
> like the set of all existing JPEGs, the set of all text files written to
> date, the set of all current MP3s - i.e. sets with only a "few" files in.
> A bit like the way the universe only has a few hydrogen atoms in really.
I do think it is important to be realistic. If our universe
only has a few hydrogen atoms in it, as you claimed, there
is no reason to consider cases where there are much more.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: Definition of 'key'
Date: 11 Jun 2001 16:44:25 GMT
Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are all kinds of keys: [...] whiskey,
Yeuch! There's no `e' in proper whisky. ;-)
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:44:42 +0200
JPeschel wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >Neither. More serious was in the parentheses which
> >you snipped.
>
> But I didn't snip anything!
Here humbly reproduced for your information:
(Or else are there some internet groups devoted to
linguistics?)
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One last bijection question
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:51:25 +0200
Mark Wooding wrote:
>
> Nicol So <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A comment on the terminology: the range of a function f is the image of
> > the domain under f. The codomain of a function is a (not necessarily
> > proper) superset of its range.
>
> This isn't the terminology I'm familiar with. I've always used the
> terms `range' and `image' to mean what you're calling the `codomain' and
> `range' respectively. I think these names were standard in the UK when
> I learned this stuff.
I don't know teaching in UK, but I suppose one doesn't
use 'range' in lieu of 'domain' in the way you indicated.
It would be quite interesting though, if you could find
a (old/new) textbook conforming to the usage you gave.
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
******************************
