Cryptography-Digest Digest #644
Cryptography-Digest Digest #644, Volume #10 Sun, 28 Nov 99 22:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Use of two separate 40 bit encryption schemes (Mike Field)
Re: Use of two separate 40 bit encryption schemes (Terje Mathisen)
Re: How safe is Mobile Phone ? (Wim Lewis)
Re: bits of diffiehellman private key (Anonymous)
Attack 2x Tramp. (Was: Attack 2x Playfair how?) (William Rowden)
Re: Distribution of intelligence in the crypto field (David Wagner)
Re: How safe is Mobile Phone ? (David Wagner)
Re: A dangerous question (Johnny Bravo)
Re: A dangerous question (Johnny Bravo)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tom St Denis)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tom St Denis)
Re: Simpson's Paradox and Quantum Entanglement ("Bob Greer")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (lordcow77)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Attack 2x Tramp. (Was: Attack 2x Playfair how?) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: AES cyphers leak information like sieves ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
From: Mike Field <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Use of two separate 40 bit encryption schemes
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:26:46 +1300
"tony.pattison" wrote:
> as I do not live in the land of the free, I'm not permitted to have
> more than 40 bit DES (I don't know why not, perhaps if we had it,
> we'd start asking for our colonies back ^_^). As this is pitifully
> inadequate, I'm thinking of encrypting the data in my packets (again
> 40 bit encryption) before I send them out over my 40 bit DES
> encrypted lines.
>
> Would I get the equivilant of 80 bit encryption doing this, or would
> it be less (the paket headers are not being encrypted by the first
> encryption)?
>
> Thanks
> Tony
>
TCP/IP headers are about 28 bytes long. It would not take long (2^39
tries) to brute force the encrypted line - the valid headers would tell
you when you have the right key. You can then brute force the data in a
similar sort of time (2^39), so effectivly you have the strength of 41
bit encryption - on average 2^40 tries are required.
Cheers
Mike
--
From: Terje Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Use of two separate 40 bit encryption schemes
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:36:16 +0100
tony.pattison wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> as I do not live in the land of the free, I'm not permitted to have
> more than 40 bit DES (I don't know why not, perhaps if we had it,
> we'd start asking for our colonies back ^_^). As this is pitifully
> inadequate, I'm thinking of encrypting the data in my packets (again
> 40 bit encryption) before I send them out over my 40 bit DES
> encrypted lines.
>
> Would I get the equivilant of 80 bit encryption doing this, or would
> it be less (the paket headers are not being encrypted by the first
> encryption)?
You would get up to 41 bit encryption doing this: You have to break two
40-bit codes to get at your data, which is equivalent to breaking a
single 41-bit code.
To double the effective number of bits, you must make it impossible to
solve the problem by halves, but since the 40-bit encrypted line can
clearly be decoded by itself, this doesn't work in your case.
Sorry. :-(
Terje
--
- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Using self-discipline, see http://www.eiffel.com/discipline
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wim Lewis)
Subject: Re: How safe is Mobile Phone ?
Date: 28 Nov 1999 23:06:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Dunnett wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:45:14 +0800, "Hank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>I am curious if the mobile phone system uses any data encryption mechanism.
>
>If you have a digital 'phone then I don't think you have anything to
>worry about as I believe the entire process is encrypted over the
>radio path.
This depends on the phone. There are lots of different digital cell phone
protocols out there. The PCS phones you can get in the US aren't encrypted
as far as I know, although the protocol supports it the hardware usually
doesn't. GSM has encryption, though it is crackable with effort. I have
no idea what is used in Taiwan (where the original poster presumably is).
It is true that eavesdropping on a digital phone requires more effort than
eavesdropping on an analog phone --- you'd need hardware built for the
purpose, probably --- but it's not difficult enough that you can assume
that no-one's going to do it.
--
Wim Lewis * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Seattle, WA, USA
--
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:40:50 +0100 (CET)
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bits of diffiehellman private key
> > No one has stated it explicitly here (IEEE P1363 does discuss this)
> > but the danger in choosing a gener
Cryptography-Digest Digest #643
Cryptography-Digest Digest #643, Volume #10 Sun, 28 Nov 99 16:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (lordcow77)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: A dangerous question (David A Molnar)
Re: AES cyphers leak information like sieves (John Savard)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tim Tyler)
Re: A dangerous question (John Kennedy)
Re: brute force versus scalable repeated hashing (Johnny Bravo)
Re: Fact or Fiction ? >> Quantum device breaks RSA-512 encryption in 12micro sec
(Jim Dunnett)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Guy Macon)
Re: Q: If the NSA can routinely crack crypto... (David Crick)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Guy Macon)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Guy Macon)
Use of two separate 40 bit encryption schemes ("tony.pattison")
From: lordcow77 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 07:12:06 -0800
In article <81r7pg$lmg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom St Denis > Ok look at it
another way.
> If I took two exact copies [leave the copying theory behind here]
> of an
> atom, and placed them in two exact same environments. Would they
> not
> decay the same way? If so, that's hardly random at all.
> Tom
Hidden variables theories must introduce explicit nonlocality of a
non-wavefunction object in order to deal with quantum entanglement. Put
another way, there is no metaphorical tiny clock in the nucleus of an
item that tells the atom to decay when the alarm sounds. If it were
possible to perform the above experiment (you can't, since you can't
even copy the atom exactly), you would still find that the decay
behavior of both atoms would be uncorrelated.
Please do us all a favor and study some physics before making
incomprehensible pronouncements.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:33:18 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> "Trevor Jackson, III" wrote:
> > Guy Macon wrote:
> > > In article <81ogtv$upa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis)
>wrote:
> > > >Ok, explain to me something that is truly random.
> > > The time it takes for an individual atom of potassium-40
> > > to decay to Argon-40.
> > If you claimed a way to influence the decay process it would be possible to verify
>your
> > claim. But if you claim that it is impossible to influence the decay process, it
>is
> > impossible to prove that claim. Since your statement above presumes that the decay
> > process cannot influenced, your statement cannot be verified or proven. So it
>rests on
> > a belief rather than a scientific rationale.
>
> That makes no sense whatever. The decay rate of an isotope is
> determined by the nature of the isotope, and is a random variable.
Hardly. We _observe_ that the behavior of unstable nuclei fit the model of random
events,
but we cannot prove that it must be so. We cannot even explain the behavior. By
"explain"
I'm referring to the process by which phenomena are reduced to equations which
predict, with
limited precision, future behavior. Given Gmm/r^2 I can predict the immediate future
of a
satellite in orbit. The length of the prediction interval is inversely related to the
precision of the predicted position.
Now AFAIK, no amount of measurement of a single nuclei will permit any kind of
prediction of
its future emissions. We can predict the statistical behavior of collections of
nuclei, but
that's not an "explanation" of the behavior any more than predicting the decay of the
orbits
of a collection of satellites is an "explanation" of the process.
> The probability distribution is a simple exponentional function
> of time, and derives from fundamental physical laws that involve
> inherent randomness (not mere lack of information that could in
> principle be acquired).
No.
You are _asserting_ ther randomness of the process, not proving it. The
sum-of-all-histories
calculation applied to particles method involves no a priori randomness AFAIK.
> These laws are part of the best-verified
> theory of natural phenomena that we have.
Yup. And the least understood. Your message is a perfect example of that lack of
understanding. You are claiming that statistical observations apply all the way down
to the
individual components. There is no reason to make that assumption.
We have copious, extremely precise verifications of our observations. We still lack an
explanation as
Cryptography-Digest Digest #642
Cryptography-Digest Digest #642, Volume #10 Sun, 28 Nov 99 10:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Attack 2x Playfair how? (Was: Nova program...also cipher contest) (Niteowl)
Re: How safe is Mobile Phone ? ("Hank")
Re: replay.com? where's this great crypto archive gone? (Paul Rubin)
Re: Secretly Obscured Subset (David Hopwood)
Re: smartcard idea? (Daniel James)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Guy Macon)
A dangerous question ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tom St Denis)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tom St Denis)
Re: cryptography control? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Fact or Fiction ? >> Quantum device breaks RSA-512 encryption in 12
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: bits of diffiehellman private key ("Michael Scott")
Re: New U.S. Crypto Regulations (advance copy: do not distribute) (cat)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tom St Denis)
Re: Fact or Fiction ? >> Quantum device breaks RSA-512 encryption in 12 micro sec
(John Savard)
Re: AES cyphers leak information like sieves ("Trevor Jackson, III")
From: Niteowl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Attack 2x Playfair how? (Was: Nova program...also cipher contest)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 08:26:11 GMT
Jim Gillogly wrote:
> I'm afraid my observations are discouraging also. The best idea I
> have
> is "shotgun hillclimbing", where you start guessing squares based on
> the crib information you have, and keep readjusting and calculating
> the
> plaintext. The Double Playfair turned out to be too hard for this
> kind
> of a contest. My excuse is that I had thought when first creating the
>
> contest that Double Playfair was the same as two-square with a little
> extra wrinkle, and that much information have been enough to
> solve it. However, just before the contest went up I visited the
> National
> Archives in D.C. and discovered some recently declassified docs from
> Bletchley Park (in the NSA Open Door collection) that had some
> material
> on Double Playfair, including a paper with a bunch of German
> intercepts.
> I did a quick revision, added a big clue (i.e. one of the keywords),
> and
> hoped that would be enough to make it accessible. However, the
> British
> typically needed quite a lot more material to begin reconstructing the
>
> squares... mea culpa.
I got nowhere with this approach. I tried using the suggested keywords
asone of the squares and then random improvement on the other square but
it still didn't approach anything close to readable text. Trying random
improvement on both squares at the same time was much worse. I also
tried
using a dictionary attack on the unknown keyword but that didn't work
either.
> However, the double transposition (the third problem) more
> accessible.
> Besides the suggested method of dinking with the assumed keys to find
> out
> what went wrong, that cipher can even be solved without a crib because
>
> the keys are relatively short compared to those used in WW2.
I struck out on the 3rd problem too. I tried variations on the keywords
but maybenot enough of them. I tried to brute force all keys less than
5 or 6 letters but it
appears the keywords would have been roughly the same length as the
'right'
ones and I didn't have the horsepower for it, especially since I'm
running a
background job to crack Singh's 9th problem
All in all, I enjoyed the contest. I added 2 more ciphers to my list
and improved
some of the code to handle ciphers with 2 keywords.
Ed
--
From: "Hank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How safe is Mobile Phone ?
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:58:14 +0800
Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> > Most analog cellular phones have no encryption. Trivial to eavesdrop
> > with a scanner. Easy to clone too.
>
> In fact, several of us commented on this during the (US) FCC
> proceedings leading to the establishment of the US cell-phone
> system. But it wasn't "three-letter agencies" that ignored
> the problem, it was manufacturers greedy for quick bucks who
> didn't want to delay while a proper engineering job was done.
You mean that it's the result as manufacturers want to reduce their R&D cost ?
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: replay.com? where's this great crypto archive gone?
Date: 28 Nov 1999 10:51:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Markus S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hello,
>
> i just noticed that www.replay.com now redirects to www.replaytv.com.
> does anyone know what happend to the crypto archive on ftp.replay.com?
> where's all of that gone?
>
> thanks, Markus
It's moved to www.zedz.net.
--
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:51:52 +
From: David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Repl
Cryptography-Digest Digest #641
Cryptography-Digest Digest #641, Volume #10 Sun, 28 Nov 99 03:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Pleasantville: civilty under duress ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (John Savard)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (John Savard)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tom St Denis)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Tom St Denis)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (John Savard)
ENIGMA verification ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: brute force versus scalable repeated hashing (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: cryptography control? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: cryptography control? (wtshaw)
Re: Distribution of intelligence in the crypto field (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
--- sci.crypt charter: read before you post (weekly notice) (D. J. Bernstein)
Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate? (Bennett Standeven)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: cryptography control? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.ai.fuzzy,sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Pleasantville: civilty under duress
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 03:28:06 GMT
In article ,
"karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:81j9an$gq4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article ,
> > "karl malbrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The DISTINGUISHMENT is CIVIL.
> > > The boundary between SAN MATEO and BRISBANE
> > > runs along similar lines as the boundary between OAKLAND and
BERKELEY.
> > > The difference in years is of no significance.
> >
> >
> > http://pleasantville.cannery.com/
>
> That's a nice TRAP you've fallen for: just click the mouse
> and whatever is DISTURBING you disappears. Now, if you have
> anything about the real place, PLEASANTON, CA, let me know
> (nb, it's where those arrested during
> STOP-THE-DRAFT-WEEK were taken.) Karl M
>
It sounds like you have _everything_ worked out in your head.
What's the problem ?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:05:41 GMT
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 05:24:29 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Tom St Denis wrote:
>> Universially random should mean something which is random, and by NO
>> MEANS at all predictable. However this cannot exist in nature.
>Who made you God?
Now, now. If even Albert Einstein can hold this viewpoint, it can't be
_that_ purely dogmatic. (Which makes me think of the famous "Will you
stop telling God what to do" quote...)
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:13:54 GMT
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 23:05:16 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Trevor Jackson, III" wrote:
>> If you claimed a way to influence the decay process it would be possible to verify
>your
>> claim. But if you claim that it is impossible to influence the decay process, it is
>> impossible to prove that claim. Since your statement above presumes that the decay
>> process cannot influenced, your statement cannot be verified or proven. So it
>rests on
>> a belief rather than a scientific rationale.
>That makes no sense whatever.
Although you are right that the statement above reflects a type of
faulty reasoning, it is not devoid of sense.
If you claimed that one of your next door neighbors was an alien from
the planet Mars, it would be possible to verify your claim, by means
of a detailed medical examination.
But if you claim there are no aliens from other planets (it is
possible to go to Mars and see there are no cities there) hiding
secretly in human form on the Earth, it is impossible to verify your
claim.
That is true, as far as it goes.
But to conclude from it that the latter belief rests only on faith,
and cannot possibly be called scientific, is to assume that scientists
are not allowed to use the reasonable as a starting point. (Among
other things, this implies that a scientist who is not a sucker for
every crackpot theory that passes by is untrue to his calling.)
>These laws are part of the best-verified
>theory of natural phenomena that we have. The randomness of the
>decay is thus more certain than any other knowledge you may claim
>to have.
Not all hidden-variables theories directly conflict with quantum
mechanics; any such theory that is not testable "might" be true. We
cannot "prove" that radioactive decay can't be predicted by astrology
if we allow that we might need to chart the positions of a few
thousand asteroids that haven't been
