Cryptography-Digest Digest #674
Cryptography-Digest Digest #674, Volume #13 Sun, 11 Feb 01 08:13:00 EST Contents: Re: The Kingdom of God (PennGwyn) Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files from harddrive (Anthony Stephen Szopa) Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files from hard drive (Anthony Stephen Szopa) Re: Purenoise defeats Man In The Middle attack? (David Schwartz) Re: NPC (Bryan Olson) Re: CipherText patent still pending (Bryan Olson) Re: RSA is not secure in many instances... ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: ith bit of an LFSR sequence? (Rob Warnock) Re: Password authentication with symmetric key exchange ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: CipherText patent still pending (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: CipherText patent still pending (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: Scramdisk, CDR and Win-NT (Daniel James) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PennGwyn) Crossposted-To: alt.security,comp.security,alt.2600 Subject: Re: The Kingdom of God Date: 11 Feb 2001 09:21:27 GMT Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article <963tf7$aip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... > >1. When he was on earth, Jesus taught his followers to pray for God's >Kingdom. I am unaware of reliable evidence that Jesus was ever on earth, or had followers, or what he taught them. I am reluctant to assume that you were present. >A kingdom is a government that is headed by a king. I think it would be more accurate to say that a kingdom is a region whose Head of State is a king OR QUEEN. Recall that in New Testament times, the "kingdoms" of the Middle East were provinces of the Roman Empire. A MONARCHY is a government that is headed by a king or queen. A KINGDOM is not. >God's Kingdom is a special government. It is set up in heaven and will rule >over this earth. This is unprecedented. Monarchies rule over kingdoms; empires encompass multiple regions which may or may not, individually, be kingdoms. According to your opening sentence, Jesus' follwers were not taught to pray for God's monarchy or empire, only for his kingdom -- which, as far as I can see, can only mean Heaven itself. >It will sanctify, or make holy, God's name. So God's name is not ALREADY holy? I'm sure you'll find plenty who have trouble with THAT blasphemy. >It will cause God's will to be done on earth as it is done in heaven. Kingdoms don't "cause" events, either. >http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/index.htm And the relevance to "sci.crypt,alt.security,comp.security,alt.2600" is what, exactly? -- =BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK= Version: 3.12 GIT/O d+(-) s:+ a? C++(+++) U@ P@ L+ !E W@ N++ o+ K+ w+++<$ !O M+ !V PS++ PE Y+ PGP@ t@ 5+ X- R++< tv+ b++ DI++ D G+ e++ h---(-) r? y+++(+*) ==END GEEK CODE BLOCK== -- From: Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Crossposted-To: alt.hacker Subject: Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files from harddrive Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:11:46 -0800 Andreas Gunnarsson wrote: > > [talk.politics.crypto and alt.conspiracy removed from crossposting] > > Tom St Denis wrote: > > I am a student in security and computer science. Could I see your source > > code? I want to learn how this stuff all works! > > On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote: > > Read the description in the Help Files at http://www.ciphile.com or > > the instructions with the OverWrite software and read the link that > > JA Malley posted. > > I checked the web pages, but I can't find any description for how the > program ensures that the multiple overwrites actually take place. There > are several ways it could fail for a naive implementation: > > - The OS may allocate new disk blocks when writing the patterns, leaving > the old data unaltered > - The OS may cache the writes, only actually writing the last pattern to > disk (or not even that if the file is removed afterwards) > - The SCSI controller may cache the writes > > I'm interested in how you've solved this. > >Andreas > > -- > Andreas Gunnarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > +46 31 7014268 I don't see what you suggest could happen happening. Give us a specific example where you have written source code that says to open a file and write to the file where the computer did not carry out this instruction. -- From: Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,alt.hacker,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: OverWrite freeware completely removes unwanted files from hard drive Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:16:31 -0800 Hit1Hard wrote: > > Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote: > > > > > So where are these technologi
Cryptography-Digest Digest #674
Cryptography-Digest Digest #674, Volume #12 Wed, 13 Sep 00 21:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Anyone archiving sci.crypt? (Paul Rubin)
www.curious.4ears (re-post) ("rosi")
Comments on the re-post ("rosi")
Re: question on the bible code (Steve)
Announcement ("rosi")
Serious joke for rot26 ("rosi")
Re: Announcement ("rosi")
Status on U.S. Patent No. 08/941,350, etc. ("rosi")
Licensing and Selling ("rosi")
Re: question on the bible code (TaoenChristo)
Re: question on the bible code (TaoenChristo)
Looking for Partners (and Investors) ("rosi")
Looking for Implementation Site ("rosi")
Hassle-free travel ("rosi")
From: Paul Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anyone archiving sci.crypt?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 17:16:49 -0700
Dejanews has taken its older archives offline "temporarily".
They might come back someday, but even if they do, I'm wondering
if anyone else has a sci.crypt archive they're willing to share,
preferably going as far back as possible.
Thanks
Paul
--
From: "rosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: www.curious.4ears (re-post)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:46:20 -0400
I sincerely hope some kind people who can get in touch with Andrew
Odlyzko of AT&T may kindly help me solve (or partially solve) the www
puzzle:
Where did my e-mail messages to Andrew go?
Whether there is something that prevents Andrew from telling me
of the receipt of my messages? and
Why?
If anybody can get some, I mean any, response from Andrew and let me
know, I would appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance.
(The following is the background and some details about the WWW
puzzle, in case there is at least one kind person who can help out
there)
I have been CURIOUS FOR YEARS (about the three W's). It was a number
of years ago when I finally decided to do something about the loose ends
in the sketchy ideas of mine in cryptography and thought that it might
not be a bad idea to discuss the matter with people prominent in the
field. I sent out a bunch of e-mail messages to people whose names one
sees often and whose articles one sees quoted frequently. It wasn't just
the hope of getting blessing, which in the eye of some (including me)
can be so important. I also wanted to make sure that I did not miss
something obvious. Besides, a one-man-shop can often carry ridiculous
stuff, and since in the years from the age of 10 or 11 till about 22,
I like so many of my contemporaries either had no schooling or no proper
schooling, the chance of errors and overlooks is so formidable.
Messages sent and I waited. I hoped for the best and prepared for the
worst. The best came.
Of all the people I sent e-mail messages to, three and APPROXIMATELY
a half actually replied! There were courteous reply, touching reply,
helpful reply (with direction to search for help), and above all one
from Andrew that I dreamt of getting. It was simply beyond what I
could have hoped!
One of the replies was from another highly respected, leading expert
in the field of cryptography. He suggested that I discuss the matter
with Andrew.
Over the years, the ideas of my cryptographic scheme has been
'leaked', some purposely by me to sci.crypt and I feel no need to
further elaborate here (but I know repetition never bores :)).
I summarized the main characteristics of my idea in the e-mail
message to Andrew, including the property of 'no equivalent zero-one
set'. Later, in the message detailing the basic idea, I also mentioned
in a vague and brief manner that the underlying problem (of one of the
most secure modes) is to:
Find all m >= 0 _valid_ subset sum(s) --- given a set
'of high density'.
In addition, I mentioned 'all-or-nothing' as a tweak so that the
expressed concern (perhaps unjustified) that it is very difficult to
build a viable scheme based on NPc problems may not be a
problem at all.
Anyway, Andrew replied, saying that if the construct does possess
(some of) the properties I claimed, the scheme would be of interest. I
was simply overwhelmed! (But he wanted details).
I immediately wrote back in a very brief, nevertheless complete
manner, which I believe could be understood by a layman and quite easy
for the major points I made to be sensed. To be redundant, let me give
it here in summary once more (in a form easiest to understand):
A subset sum problem.
Build two (compact) sets X and Y. For simplicity, let X, following
MH, be superinc in such a way that the subset sum of X allows
'noise' constructed by elements from Y.
Build an arbitrary mapping from the subset sums of X to certain
subset sums of Y, such that the el
Cryptography-Digest Digest #674
Cryptography-Digest Digest #674, Volume #11 Sun, 30 Apr 00 23:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Command Line Cypher? ("Jimmy")
Re: Command Line Cypher? ("Jimmy")
Re: Command Line Cypher? (Tom St Denis)
Re: about search and seisure of computers again (jungle)
Deciphering Playfair (Michael Jarrells)
Re: Sunday Times 30/4/2000: "MI5 builds new centre to read e-mails onthe net"
("Garry Anderson")
Re: Sunday Times 30/4/2000: "MI5 builds new centre to read e-mails onthe net"
("Garry Anderson")
Re: How safe am I using a subset of the bytes returned by SHA-1? (stanislav shalunov)
Re: Command Line Cypher? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Joystick as RNG ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Joystick as RNG (Tom St Denis)
Re: How would a 15 year old start? (Dan Day)
Re: Magnetic Remenance on hard drives. ("Marty")
Re: Science Daily overstates significance? (Diet NSA)
Re: Command Line Cypher? (Michael J. Fromberger)
Re: about search and seisure of computers again (Albert P. Belle Isle)
From: "Jimmy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Command Line Cypher?
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:10:35 -0400
Thanks... the ole XOR encryption... yeah thats pretty secure :)
Richard Heathfield wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Jimmy wrote:
>>
>> Anyone know of a decent command line stream cypher for *nix and NT?
>>
>
>Here's one. It's so secure it doesn't need a key. It's called SNA-Coil,
>and it works on the same principle as DES. What's more, you don't need a
>separate decryption program. Here's the full source:
>
>#include
>
>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>{
> FILE *fpin, *fpout;
> unsigned char ch;
>
> if(argc > 2)
> {
>fpin = fopen(argv[1], "rb");
>if(fpin != NULL)
>{
> fpout = fopen(argv[2], "wb");
> if(fpout != NULL)
> {
>while(fread(&ch, 1, 1, fpin))
>{
> ch = ~ch;
> fwrite(&ch, 1, 1, fpout);
>}
>if(ferror(fpin) || ferror(fpout))
>{
> printf("rats.\n");
>}
>fclose(fpout);
> }
> fclose(fpin);
>}
> }
>
> return 0;
>}
>
>I defy anyone on this newsgroup to crack SNA-Coil.
>
>
>V ubcr V'z abg gbb yngr sbe Ncevy Sbbyf Qnl
>
>--
>
>Richard Heathfield
>
>"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
>
>C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
>34 K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html (63
>to go)
--
From: "Jimmy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Command Line Cypher?
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:16:01 -0400
You wouldnt know where one could find such an old verison of pgp would you?
Tom St Denis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
>Jimmy wrote:
>>
>> Anyone know of a decent command line stream cypher for *nix and NT?
>>
>> JImmy
>
>I think you can get pgp 2.6.2 for both... I dunno off hand.
>
>Tom
>--
>Want your academic website listed on a free websearch engine? Then
>please check out http://tomstdenis.n3.net/search.html, it's entirely
>free
>and there are no advertisements.
--
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Command Line Cypher?
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 23:22:21 GMT
Jimmy wrote:
>
> Thanks... the ole XOR encryption... yeah thats pretty secure :)
Technically he would have to write it as 'ch ^= 0xff' to get an xor
cipher
And why not? Looks pretty good to me.
Tom
>
> Richard Heathfield wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Jimmy wrote:
> >>
> >> Anyone know of a decent command line stream cypher for *nix and NT?
> >>
> >
> >Here's one. It's so secure it doesn't need a key. It's called SNA-Coil,
> >and it works on the same principle as DES. What's more, you don't need a
> >separate decryption program. Here's the full source:
> >
> >#include
> >
> >int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >{
> > FILE *fpin, *fpout;
> > unsigned char ch;
> >
> > if(argc > 2)
> > {
> >fpin = fopen(argv[1], "rb");
> >if(fpin != NULL)
> >{
> > fpout = fopen(argv[2], "wb");
> > if(fpout != NULL)
> > {
> >while(fread(&ch, 1, 1, fpin))
> >{
> > ch = ~ch;
> > fwrite(&ch, 1, 1, fpout
Cryptography-Digest Digest #674
Cryptography-Digest Digest #674, Volume #10 Fri, 3 Dec 99 14:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate? (Johnny Bravo)
Re: What part of 'You need the key to know' don't you people get? (wtshaw)
Re: The $10,000.00 contesta (wtshaw)
Re: Encrypting short blocks (wtshaw)
Re: Quantum Computers and PGP et al. (Medical Electronics Lab)
cookies (E-mail)
Re: Is there an analog of Shor's algorithm for elliptic functions? (Medical
Electronics Lab)
Re: What part of 'You need the key to know' don't you people get? (Johnny Bravo)
Re: cookies ("karl malbrain")
Re: What part of 'You need the key to know' don't you people get? ("karl malbrain")
Re: cookies (Steve K)
Re: Peekboo Ideas? >> Oops, problem ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: cookies (E-mail)
Re: Peekboo Ideas? >> Oops, problem ... 2nd ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny Bravo)
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Why Aren't Virtual Dice Adequate?
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:52:04 GMT
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:17:47 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What if the coins are all heads-biased (quite likely with real coins),
>and the dice are all 1-biased (quite possible if the spots are
>drilled indentations)?
One should assume this type of bias from such a mechanical process,
but it is simple to remove the bias from them. For example, you are
using a coin that comes up heads 90% of the time and tails the other
10%. Pair your tosses, throw out any pair that matches. This will
remove the bias from your results.
With the above biased coin:
TT will show up 1 in 100: Discarded
HH will show up 81 times in 100: Discarded
HT will show up 9 times in 100: Kept
TH will show up 9 times in 100: Kept
Giving you a 50/50 distribution of heads and tails. The less
extreme the bias, the closer you get to keeping 50% of your generated
bits. But even an extremely biased source can be used with this
method, if you are willing to accept the slowdowns involved in
distilling unbiased results from the data. This is where computers
come in, if you can use a computer to generate 1000 biased bits a
second and you only kept 1/10 of them it would not be that bad, you
could generate more than 8 million bits in a day.
>Your "complications" may dilute the biases - but don't remove them.
>
>I would treat any proposed one-time-pad which used dice or coins
>as the basis of its random number generator with some caution - if
>I wanted to leak as little information as possible.
It isn't that hard to generate unbiased coin tosses for example, the
trouble comes from generating them at a rate fast enough to be
practical. With coins you would have to make at least 16 tosses per
byte of data. Flipping enough coins to transfer a megabyte is going
to take a while.
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: What part of 'You need the key to know' don't you people get?
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:03:25 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny
Bravo) wrote:
..
>
> If they have a claim and offer evidence to support this claim, then
> we can define the claim as worth more study.
Surely so.
> Making a claim and offering no proof other than the assertion "I'm
> right, and you are wrong." is not worth further study. This is
> because even if you prove that one claim wrong, they will just throw
> out more claims.
Proof in a scientific sense, I suppose. I consider certain things David
Scott says are true by definition. Others, I'm not sure, but keep an open
mind for now.
> It is easier to make claims that to support or
> disprove them, why should the community be tasked with debunking every
> crackpot theory that anyone could ever come up with.
What if is an important strategy to test your position. Science requires
routine reevaluation of positions, not being prejudiced that any taken are
always to be correct; this works on old ideas as well as new.
> If you want
> people to consider your claims, you need evidence that your claim is
> valid.
Yes, but many in science hold a few hypotheses most dearly, but have no
positive or final proof that they are true; cryptography is full of such
things.
>
> >The last thing I am going to do is reject
> >claims if there is reason to believe that they might be true.
>
> Really? I claim you are a murderer. Given that the other people on
> this group don't personally know either of us (and have no idea if I
> know you personally or not), there is a reason to believe that it
> might be true. So now you should prove to the group that you are NOT
> a murd
Cryptography-Digest Digest #674
Cryptography-Digest Digest #674, Volume #9Mon, 7 Jun 99 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Challenge to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Challenge to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Challenge to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
BUG in scottNu.zip (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Challenge to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Cryptography CENSORED on web site? (John Savard)
Re: LSX Encoder ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Simple Cipher (which is quite gross) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Challenge to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: New Computer & Printer for Dave Scott ("Tim Cannell")
Re: Challenge to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
any cryptosystems using variable length keys? (David Ross)
Re: CRC32 (Paul Koning)
Re: evolving round keys (Paul Koning)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 23:43:35 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Challenge to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote:
>
> You write good and seem practical. I think you may have worked years
> with other peoples code like I have.
>
David,
If I can be of any help to you it would be a very simple suggestion that
would solve the criticisms you have been getting about the readability
(readability != goodness) of your source code.
The best possible thing you can to do buy a copy of "The Practice of
Programming" by Brian W. Kernigan and Rob Pike, (c) 1999
Addison-Wesley. The MSRP is 24.95. It is aimed at practical
programming not theoretical programming.
When you have the book read only Chapter One. Ignore the rest of the
book. Chapter One is more important than the rest of the chapters put
together.
How do I know this is important? I am unable to describe it in a way
that is easy for others to understand (like your program), but I *KNOW*
from personal and impersonal experience, that it is the most important
thing you can learn about software engineering. It helps you think
better. You'll understand when you see the subtitle of the book.
Good luck.
--
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 23:58:04 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Challenge to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:24:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I have worked on many aircraft simulations and OFP;s one of the main
> >>problems that seems to occur over and over is that other people keep
> >>missing the obvious errors in the code becasue most people inheirently
> >>put faith on the comments and this leads to major maistakes that take
> >>years to find and fix. But I was considered an expert in fixing such code.
> >>LIke I said it is usually easier once one has input and outputs to just
> >>shorten internal names and fix the code. I have even been tasked with adding
> >>routines for certain projects that I have written and some managers where
> >
> >>Yes I am bragging so what.
> >
> >Scott,
> >
> >You find short names easy.
> >Others find long names easy.
> >
> >You find reading your own code easy, but have you tried reading OTHER
> >people's code? Was it as easy?
> >
>
> Yes once you toss out the usless comments. However have worked on
> projects that where into very flowery comments and the group was proud
> there comments failed to discribe the inputs or units. Yet these people
> thought thye were commenting something.
No, they thought they were following the rules. Blindly. You cannot
communicate by following syntax rules. Communication requires
semantics.
So don't add syntactic comments. Add semantic comments. Tell people
WHY you do thinkgs certain ways, not HOW or WHAT you do. The code
answers WHAT and HOW, but it is silent about WHY.
This is not a forum for discussing coding style. It is a forum for
discussing ciphers. Your coding style interferes with the discussion of
your cipher. Everyone wants to know WHY you wrote what you did.
Answer them.
--
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:00:58 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Challenge to SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Try making one person barely satisfied. Until you have done that you
> >risk being accused of bad faith. I.e., you aren't really trying.
> >
> I did that with Horst Ossifrage and actually did it with Mok but I think he
> was faking interest. Actually I am anwsering Redburn questions and if Paul
> Onions has any or Joe P.
OK, keep trying.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subjec
