Cryptography-Digest Digest #602, Volume #14 Wed, 13 Jun 01 06:13:01 EDT
Contents:
IQ Test - The Answer (IQTaste)
Re: Simple Crypto II, the public key... (Vincent Quesnoit)
Re: Some questions on GSM and 3G (Dave)
Re: Free Triple DES Source code is needed. (Paul Schlyter)
Re: Free Triple DES Source code is needed. (Paul Schlyter)
Re: Help with Comparison Of Complexity of Discrete Logs, Knapsack, and (Mok-Kong
Shen)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo (David A Molnar)
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo (Phil Carmody)
Re: Free Triple DES Source code is needed. (Tom St Denis)
Re: Sophie-Germain Primes for sale (Tom St Denis)
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo (Phil Carmody)
Re: Sophie-Germain Primes for sale (Tom St Denis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (IQTaste)
Date: 13 Jun 2001 04:47:33 GMT
Subject: IQ Test - The Answer
http://www.geocities.com/iq516/
------------------------------
From: Vincent Quesnoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Simple Crypto II, the public key...
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 07:40:32 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The modpow function can be greatly improved by use of repeated squaring
instead of simple multiplications, this woulreduce the number of
operation to a maximum of 2*log(exponent).
int mod_pow(int ch, int exp, int modulo)
{
int i, result,power;
result = 1;
power = ch;
while (exp !=0){
if ((exp & 1)==1) {
result = (result * Power) % modulo;
}
Power = (Power *Power)% modulo;
exp >>=1;
}
return result;
}
HTH,
Vincent
Fat Phil a écrit :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Phil Carmody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : OK, is there an asymmetric equivalent to the symmetric
> >
> > : while(c=getchar()!=EOF) putchar(c^k);
> >
> > Okay, I know this is really simplistic, but it does work.
> [SNIP]
> > Both programs are basically just RSA.
> [SNIP]
>
> Thanks, nice, short, simple. Real simple.
> I'd wield C99's long longs at it, to get pq=64bits for improved
> delusion of security! :-)
>
> I'm scratching my head as we speak, and I intend to throw something
> together which is not much more complicated code-wise, but much more
> secure...
> I'm thinking ElGamal... I'm thinking of chosing P so that I can cheat
> when it comes to mod operations...
>
> Phil
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Some questions on GSM and 3G
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:52:27 GMT
"Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<9g6mcc$i2n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> what's the bet that 3G will just die? all it seems to be
> is a revenue generator for governments who control spectrum
> resources and licencing.
>
You should know that yourself.
Do you any use for it?
Not for serious data transmission; not storage and display not big
enough.So the internet isn't a serious use. Do you wish to be spammed
by businesses? Who is going to pay?
Would your friends use it?
Its an overhyped technology that isn't ready, and invention waitng for
a use.
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: Free Triple DES Source code is needed.
Date: 12 Jun 2001 02:22:22 +0200
In article <qj9V6.87861$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Sam Yorko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Tom St Denis wrote:
>>>
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:rhlI6.389$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>
>>>> Hi;
>>>>
>>>> I have looked every where on the web to find a Free C/C++ Source Code
>>>> implementation of Triple-DES.
>>>> I have found some, but it either has a damaged zip or tar file.
>>>>
>>>> Can some one help me please? Where can I find the Triple DES source
>>>> code?
>>>
>>> Not to be picky but look harder. It's not hard to find FTP's that have
>>> tons of source code.
>>>
>>> Second what is this C/C++ thing you talk about? It's C *OR* C++ not
>>> both.
>>> That's like saying I eat apple-pears instead "i eat apples and/or
>>> pears".
>>> The combo is non-existant.
>>>
>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> Obviously you've never eaten fruit cocktail...
>>
>> We have projects where we are compiling C and C++ source modules, and
>> then linking them into a single executable....
>
> Yes, but you compile the C++ parts with a C++ compiler and C parts with
> a C compiler.
>
> That's like saying I use a C/C++/ASM compiler since some of the object code
> comes from assembly written routines (i.e crt0 in GCC).
C++ compilers and C compilers aren't as separate as you seem to
believe. Today most C++ compilers are also able to compile C
programs as C programs (no C++ name mangling of externals; C instead
of C++ scope rules, etc).
Yet some care must be taken when linking C modules and C++ modules
into the same executable: main() usually resides in a C++ module,
and C++ code usually calls C code but rarely the other way around.
Yet it is much much easier to mix C and C++ in the same program
than to mix most other two languages in the same program.
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: Free Triple DES Source code is needed.
Date: 12 Jun 2001 09:02:42 +0200
In article <eERQxds8AHA.259@cpmsnbbsa07>,
Joseph Ashwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually if you format your C code properly, then C is a strict subset of
> C++,
It is NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Consider for instance K&R's original "Hello, world" program
(note the absence of an #include <stdio.h> line):
int main()
int argc; <== Old style function header
char *argv[];
{
printf( "Hello, world\n" ); <== Missing prototype
} <== Missing return statement
This is acceptable C, but will generate 3 fatal errors in a C++
compiler.
A few other examples:
===========================================================
char *a;
void *p;
.....
p = a; <== C++ requires a cast here
===========================================================
typedef struct mystruct
{
int n;
char *s;
} mystruct; <== Name collision in C++ but not in C
===========================================================
char s[4] = "ABCD"; <== In C++, a[5] or larger is required
===========================================================
There are at least a dozen or so similar rules which makes
C a non-subset of C++.
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with Comparison Of Complexity of Discrete Logs, Knapsack, and
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:50:52 +0200
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> > "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
> > > Sure we can. In this particular case, we now know that
> > > the program could not be completed, not even in principle.
> > So please suggest such a goal for the future scientists.
>
> ? Why would I want to suggest an impossible goal?
To support your emphatic claim 'Sure we can'. You needn't
do too much work, giving the details. Simply a tiny
sketch of your ideas showing the right direction (in
lieu of the wrong one of Whitehead and Russell) that
apparently (presumably) seems promising would do.
> > > Recall that what I said was:
> > > > PM is famous because it was an ambitious attempt to
> > > > implement a model of mathematics which we now know
> > > > to be wrong.
> > > What specifically is objectionable in that?
> > A logical model is wrong, if it is not consitent. A
> > model may be inappropriate for one's purpose and hence
> > one needs to search for another more suitable one.
>
> PM was consistent, but incomplete. Furthermore, the
> incompleteness is fundamental, in that the system cannot
> be made complete by adopting a finite set of additional
> axioms. This is a famous result of Goedel (and others).
If it was consistent, it was not wrong. I claimed no
more, nor less.
> > ... I was basically asking whether the discovery of that
> > particular theorem could assist (e.g. give helpful hints
> > to) other logics to get free from the antinomies.
>
> If the logic is essentially different from a fuzzy logic,
> then no, I don't think the theorem would still hold.
It could have been a real sensation in logics in the other
case, though.
> > > > And could you also give a pointer (book, page number)
> > > > to the theorem?
> > > Not right away, but it's probably mentioned in Kosko's book.
> > > It's pretty obvious if you have much experience with convexity.
> > I suppose from the above that you got some informations
> > elsewhere that led you to write that claim about that
> > particular theorem. Could you at least give some pointers
> > to these informations? And could you also give the title
> > of Kosko's book? If the matter is really very obvious to
> > you, then it would be very fine and kind of you that you
> > take correspondingly small time and effrot to post that
> > little additional stuff with which other people who don't
> > have much experience (or experience at all) with convexity
> > can with that book obtain a proof that is completely
> > understandable to them.
>
> First, I object to your tone. I am under no obligation
> to make things easy for you. I'm providing information
> for free at the expense of other things I could be doing.
>
> I don't happen to have the book at hand right now, but
> it was easy to locate it on Amazon.com. It turns out
> that Kosko now has at least *three* books that might have
> been interpreted as the one I meant. The one I had in
> mind is "Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic",
> ISBN 078688021X. This is not a detailed textbook, but an
> introduction for what we used to call "the educated layman".
> Therefore it is likely that the theorem is mentioned but
> not proven in this book; maybe it gives references to
> technical works. (I don't think it should be hard to
> prove, once you know about it.)
>
> Convexity is usually treated in textbooks on game theory.
I don't think that I have used any bad tone, in any case
not worse than the average tone level that one normally
sees in heated debates in this group. You could cite
an instance to show the opposite.
If the theorem had been of less significance, I wouldn't
have been that eager to learn the proof. Frankly speaking,
I don't belong to that type of people who are very
dilligent to attempt to acquire all sorts of interesting
knowledge. But the theorem is really significant in my
humble view, for antinomies have been sort of thorns in
the eyes of logicians. If I were you in the present context,
I would have taken the trouble to go to the library and
locate the stuff that I had read about the theorem and
posted something useful for the readers of this thread
(not simply for a single discussion partner -- me). Of
course, everybody has his own proper 'philosophy' of
living.
> > ... Is that 'standard content' for topology the average
> > amount taught to undergraduate students, or to graduate
> > students or ...
>
> It's whatever amount is appropriate for the situation; the
> important point is that it is generally agreed (by working
> mathematicians) to cover what a "well-rounded" mathematician
> should know. There is no useful purpose in trying to
> delineate it too tightly. Bourbaki made particular
> reasonable choices.
Still I consider that 'standard content' to be rather
very loose.
> > > By the way, my views on Bourbaki are influenced by having
> > > read what some of its members have said.
> > Could you please give some reference to these?
>
> Weil, for one. As an AMS member I read a lot of surveys,
> reviews, interviews, etc. and am not willing to rummage
> through the archives to try to reconstruct my education
> for you. There are numerous on-line articles about
> Bourbaki that you can find with a Web search engine.
You could at least give the kind of publication (AMS has
a plethora of these) and the apporximate year to help
people locate the stuff.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:16:19 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >[snip]
> >>> If it takes a time for the opponent that is for all practical purpose
> >>> equivalent to infinity (say thirty years) to obtain the private key,
> >>> then one is entirely safe, isn't it?
> >>
> >> Yes. The message is ``secure''. But it is not secure in an information-
> >> theoretic sense: it is still possible to be absolutely certain whether
> >> a claimed key is or is not the real key.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't think that I fully understand the last sentence. You
> > certainly mean by 'a claimed key' a claimed private key. I have
> > certainly to protect my private key.
>
> There are lots of ways to get hold of a private key. One is to devote
> billions of processors to the task of factoring your public key. I don't
> care in the slightest where a candidate private key comes *from*; I'm
> telling you that once it's in my hands:
>
> (1) In the case of OTP, I'm not better off than before. I can't ever be
> positive it's the right key.
>
> (2) In the case of PK systems, I generally *can* be 100% positive I have
> now got the private key in my hands.
That's the axiom of existence of opponents of unbounded
resources. If one is any realistic, one wouldn't adopt
that axiom. We are living in a real world where unbounded
resources and capabilities belong only to realms of
religions or certain types of popular books.
> > If someone else creates a key and claims it to be my private key,
> > he can't get the key right anyway. Why should I care such a scenario?
>
> You're not thinking hard enough. One corrollary to my remark is that brute
> force is guaranteed to work *eventually*. In the case of OTP, brute force
> is useless. Another corrollary is that if I bribe your secretary, I can be
> sure she brought me the right key, and not a clever plant from you.
If that 'eventually' means 100 years, I for one certainly
wouldn't care. If the opponent could bribe my secretary,
he could get the plaintext as such.
>
> A third is that research into faster factoring is worth my while: I
> may prove that NP is P, or that factoring is not NP-complete and is in
> fact P, or that RSA can be broken without factoring at all. Having done
> so, your cryptosystem is 100% busted, because I can recover your keys
> with 100% certainty.
That's the one real threat to PK in my humble view. But
one could employ a sufficiently large factor of safety
to cater for that eventuality. Of course, estimates may
(and sometimes do) turn out to be wrong. But that's an
inevitable risk of life. (For example, in daily life,
accidents could happen at any moment and mostly escape
estimates.) Note that we have to do comparisons of
different approaches in practice, taking into account
diverse factors, including economical ones. (It is
to be noted that (absolutely) ideal OTP is not availabe
in practice but at best only something that one can
believe to be almost as good.)
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: 13 Jun 2001 09:29:53 GMT
Robert J. Kolker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The best form of cryptography is clear communiction in
> a mostly unknown language.
Mostly unknown? Why "mostly"? why not completely unknown?
So we have Alice, Bob, and Eve sitting on a phone line. Alice and Bob
speak MooJoo; Eve is listening. Your claim seems to be something like
"If Eve cannot observe the referents for Alice and Bob's MooJoo speech,
then Eve will never be able to decipher MooJoo. MooJoo is a made up,
unknown language, for which Eve only has access to Alice and Bob's talk
on the telephone line. This talk does not count as 'observing referents.'
Therefore communicating in MooJoo is perfectly secure."
Is this right?
Before getting into nasty philosophy of language issues, one thing pops to
mind. If Eve cannot observe the referents for MooJoo - if these referents
are inaccessible to her - then *why* would she *want* to listen to Alice
and Bob? and if she *can*, doesn't that destroy the claimed
"security-through-inaccessible-referent" ?
-david
------------------------------
From: Phil Carmody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:33:20 GMT
Zonn wrote:
> >> being deaf, dumb, and blind. But it wasn't easy.
> 3. Helen Keller could in no sense of the word be considered "dumb". (Refer to #2
> above.)
Your "in no sense of the word" perturbs me.
Teach a man to fish etc...
www.dict.org yields, amongst other things
<<<
>From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :
Dumb \Dumb\, a. [AS. dumb; akin to D. dom stupid, dumb, Sw.
dumb, Goth. dumbs; cf. Gr. ? blind. See Deaf, and cf.
Dummy.]
1. Destitute of the power of speech; unable; to utter
articulate sounds; as, the dumb brutes.
To unloose the very tongues even of dumb creatures.
--Hooker.
2. Not willing to speak; mute; silent; not speaking; not
accompanied by words; as, dumb show.
This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him. --Shak.
To pierce into the dumb past. -- J. C.
Shairp.
3. Lacking brightness or clearness, as a color. [R.]
Her stern was painted of a dumb white or dun color.
--De Foe.
>>>
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Free Triple DES Source code is needed.
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:58:23 GMT
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> In article <qj9V6.87861$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Sam Yorko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Tom St Denis wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>> news:rhlI6.389$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi;
> >>>>
> >>>> I have looked every where on the web to find a Free C/C++ Source Code
> >>>> implementation of Triple-DES.
> >>>> I have found some, but it either has a damaged zip or tar file.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can some one help me please? Where can I find the Triple DES source
> >>>> code?
> >>>
> >>> Not to be picky but look harder. It's not hard to find FTP's that have
> >>> tons of source code.
> >>>
> >>> Second what is this C/C++ thing you talk about? It's C *OR* C++ not
> >>> both.
> >>> That's like saying I eat apple-pears instead "i eat apples and/or
> >>> pears".
> >>> The combo is non-existant.
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Tom
> >>
> >> Obviously you've never eaten fruit cocktail...
> >>
> >> We have projects where we are compiling C and C++ source modules, and
> >> then linking them into a single executable....
> >
> > Yes, but you compile the C++ parts with a C++ compiler and C parts with
> > a C compiler.
> >
> > That's like saying I use a C/C++/ASM compiler since some of the object code
> > comes from assembly written routines (i.e crt0 in GCC).
>
> C++ compilers and C compilers aren't as separate as you seem to
> believe. Today most C++ compilers are also able to compile C
> programs as C programs (no C++ name mangling of externals; C instead
> of C++ scope rules, etc).
>
> Yet some care must be taken when linking C modules and C++ modules
> into the same executable: main() usually resides in a C++ module,
> and C++ code usually calls C code but rarely the other way around.
>
> Yet it is much much easier to mix C and C++ in the same program
> than to mix most other two languages in the same program.
I agree.
tom
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sophie-Germain Primes for sale
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:00:18 GMT
David Hopwood wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> > No seriously *free* SG primes are at my website
> >
> > http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/primes.txt
> >
> > A SG prime is of the form p = 2q + 1, where q itself is prime and of
> > course p mod 4 = 3.
>
> No. It's not two weeks since I last corrected you on this (message ID
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>).
>
> If p = 2q + 1 for p and q both prime, then q is a Germain prime, and
> p is a safe prime. Also it is not part of the definition that p = 3 (mod 4)
> (counterexample: p = 5, q = 2, although admittedly that is the only
> counterexample).
>
> May I suggest that before posting anything else involving number theory
> or abstract algebra, you check the definitions first (for example in HAC
> or AC2), and also that you pay more attention when people correct you?
Ok. Well if you checked the numbers you would realize they are all 3
mod 4.
(Hint: I generated the numbers so the lower 2 bits are always 1).
When I said "and of course p mod 4 = 3" I meant "of course I made them
such that ...", although I can see how that could have been misleading.
Tom
------------------------------
From: Phil Carmody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:02:03 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "Robert J. Kolker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Zonn wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 3. Helen Keller could in no sense of the word be considered "dumb".
> (Refer to #2
> > > above.)
> >
> > Dumb means mute, not stupid.
>
> Question. If "dumb means mute" and dumb also has the meaning [perhaps
> unofficial] as stupid, why not just say "mute".?
I'm mutefounded [*]!
In this dumb was traditionally unable to utter articulate sounds, and
mute was more like silent, so they are not exact synonyms. However, with
brass musicians (YKWIM) using mutes to simply filter their sound even
that distinction is weakened.
Phil
[* a play on dumbfounded, or dumfounded, not a real word :-) ]
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sophie-Germain Primes for sale
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:01:16 GMT
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Hopwood) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
> >May I suggest that before posting anything else involving number theory
> >or abstract algebra, you check the definitions first (for example in HAC
> >or AC2), and also that you pay more attention when people correct you?
> >
>
> Good Luck hes an arragant kid who seldom listens. Next for spouting
> facts his mind can't grasp he will call you a loon or something along
> those lines. Best just to ignore him for awhile and hope he either
> goes aways or grows up.
Did you check the primes? [hint: They *are* all 3 mod 4]
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
******************************
