Cryptography-Digest Digest #702
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702, Volume #13 Sat, 17 Feb 01 19:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: National Security Nightmare? (Jim)
Re: Big Numbers in C/C++ (Paul Rubin)
Re: Big Numbers in C/C++ (JCA)
Re: á÷ôïûéîù îå äïòïçï éú ñðïîéé ("Ryan M. McConahy")
Any unbroken knapsack cryptosystem? ("mklai")
Re:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E1=F7=F4=EF=FB=E9=EE=F9=20=EE=E5=20=E4=EF=F2=EF=E7=EF=20=E9=FA=20=F1=F0=EF=EE=E9=E9?=
("John A. Malley")
Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large (Anthony Stephen Szopa)
Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large (Anthony Stephen Szopa)
Re: National Security Nightmare? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Digital signature w/o original document (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Re: CipherText patent still pending ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Super strong crypto ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large ("Michael Brown")
Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large ("Michael Brown")
Re: National Security Nightmare? (Sundial Services)
Re: Most secure code for US Citizen. (Sundial Services)
From: dynastic @cwcom.net (Jim)
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Reply-To: Jim
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 19:23:34 GMT
On 17 Feb 2001 11:00:32 +0300, Eugene Morozov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
>> >
>> > Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>
>> > > The problem is that, if one doesn't have any information
>> > > to start, then it is really like finding needles in
>> > > haystack.
>> >
>> > At least for domestic communication within the US, without
>> > probable cause, governmental agencies aren't supposed to be
>> > examining the information at all.
>>
>> There are rumours (no proof, understandably) that in
>> a few democratic countries (not US) there are misuses of
>> wiretaping, possibly by corrupted personals. That's
>> I believe the main cause of people's negative opinions
>> towards that. It's clearly a difficult issue like hundreds
>> of others in society, e.g. whether a country should have
>> nuclear power plants.
>
>If Russia is a democratic country (if you don't live here you might think it
>is), then these rumours are correct. All russian providers should send copies
>of all email messages going through their mail servers to organization that was
>called "KGB" in soviet era. So, KGB employees may read almost any email
>without permission of the court and I'm sure they're already doing that.
>Combined with russian law forbidding any use and/or development of encryption
>for any purposes this creates a great possibility for misusing wiretaping in
>Russia.
Exactly the same thing happens here. Where's here? The so-called United
Kingdom.
Crypto isn't banned, but they can demand your keys, and if you fail to
provide them they lock you up.
Russia isn't unique in being an undemocratic country!
--
___
Posted by Jim Dunnett
We've spent three matches chasing
a football. -- Kevin Keegan.
dynastic at cwcom.net
nordland at lineone.net
'We have to control the number of people
travelling' -- GNER spokesman.
__
--
From: Paul Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Big Numbers in C/C++
Date: 17 Feb 2001 11:28:14 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
> Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How does GMP compare to Freelip? Has anyone actually done benchmarks?
>
> http://cr.yp.to/speed/mult.html
These benchmarks precede the most recent gmp version, which has
significant speedups.
--
From: JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Big Numbers in C/C++
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:50:17 -0800
Dann Corbit wrote:
> "JCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Paul Schlyter wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > David Sowinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I prefer GMP and believe that it is faster than MIRACL.
> > >
> > > Did you use just the C low-level routines in MIRACL when evaulating
> > > the speed? MIRACL also has assembly language replacements for these
> > > for the most popular processors,
> >
> > So does GMP.
>
> MIRACL is a lot easier to use.
GMP is quite easy to use. At least, I have never had any problem with it.
> The
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702, Volume #12 Sun, 17 Sep 00 17:13:00 EDT Contents: Re: Killer aircraft to fly again? (Mok-Kong Shen) Re: Lossless compression defeats watermarks (Scott Craver) S-Boxes (Anonymous) wince encryption algorithm (Nomen Nescio) Re: SDMI Crypto Challenge (Scott Craver) Re: question about delastelle cipher in Bauer's book (Mok-Kong Shen) Bugs 3.4.0 and Bcrypt 2.0 : Open Source and Multiplateform (Sylvain Martinez) From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Crossposted-To: sci.military.naval,alt.conspiracy,sci.geo.earthquakes Subject: Re: Killer aircraft to fly again? Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:30:38 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [snip] Please kindly don't cross-post to sci.crypt stuffs that have nothing to do with cryptology. Thanks. M. K. Shen -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Craver) Subject: Re: Lossless compression defeats watermarks Date: 17 Sep 2000 19:56:09 GMT Matthew Skala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >If a watermarking scheme works perfectly (in the sense of being >inmperceptible by humans) and a lossy compression scheme works perfectly >(in the sense of maximizing compression without harming perceptual >quality) then compressing and decompressing a signal will have the effect >of removing the watermark. On the other hand, we have Ross Anderson and Fabien Petitcolas's observation: if perfect compression existed, then we would still have steganography. Simply take any string of encrypted text and feed it into the Perfect Image Decompressor. Mail the output to your friend. >Thus, the watermark will necessarily be in the part of the signal that is >thrown out by the lossy compression. Well, if the compression is truly perfect, maybe. But this will not happen. Also, there are lots of "channels" in an image which are often imperceptible by users but off-limits to any fair compression algorithm. Perceptible but arbitrary. For instance, using Photoshop to add a very subtle, continuous spatial deformation to a part of the image. Of the original image I and deformed image D, no algorithm can tell which is the "right" one, unless the image is something fragile to deformations (like a grid of black and white pixels.) A compression scheme could not "undo" your deformation, nor compress I and D to the same thing. >Going in the other direction, if you have a watermarking scheme that >survives lossy compression, then that implies some deficiency in either >the watermarking scheme or the lossy compression or both: either the >watermark is altering the perceptible part of the signal, or the lossy >compression is transmitting some imperceptible information. Certain aspects of the image are technically perceptible, especially in comparison to the original, but unimportant enough to be effectively ignored by the viewer. In fact, the pioneering work of Cox et al consisted of tweaking low-frequency NxN DCT coefficients of an NxN image. This has the appearance of overlaying a kind of transparent, smooth gauzy stuff to the image, which is "perceptible enough" to survive all manner of compression. You can't see it w/o comparison to the original. When I was working on a watermarking article, a professor dropped by my cube (I was working at Intel, he on sabbatical) and I showed him an illustration of 3 images, one unmarked and one with a low-freq DCT mark. "It looks like clouds," he said. It turned out he was relaxing his eyes, the way you look at stereograms, to superimpose the two; a trick he learned when studying the effects of image compression. >The success of watermarking schemes, in a world of lossy compression, >depends upon either the user's willingness to accept signal degradation, >or the deficiencies of the lossy compression at removing spurious data. Heh heh. The success of watermarking depends on more than that. Compression is no big deal; the problem is the 500 bazillion different ways one can subtly alter an image in Photoshop. Nothing is robust to them all. >-- >Matthew Skala -S -- Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:04:02 +0200 From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: S-Boxes Sorry for me newbie question. What are S-Boxes? What are they used for and how are they built? -- From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: wince encryption algorithm Date: Sun, 17 S
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702, Volume #11 Thu, 4 May 00 07:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Tempest Attacks with EMF Radiation (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Interleaving for block encryption (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: KRYPTOS Something new ? (Jim Gillogly)
Re: KRYPTOS Something new ? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: mod function? (Mark Wooding)
Re: Tempest Attacks with EMF Radiation (Richard Herring)
Re: Fixed: Sboxgen tool (Tom St Denis)
Sample Output from SBOXGEN (Tom St Denis)
Re: Diff analysis (Tom St Denis)
Re: Fixed: Sboxgen tool (Tim Tyler)
Re: Fixed: Sboxgen tool (Tom St Denis)
Re: Deciphering Playfair (long) ("Colin Barker")
Re: mod function? (Tom St Denis)
Re: Sunday Times 30/4/2000: "MI5 builds new centre to read e-mails onthe net"
("Neon Bunny")
Re: Sunday Times 30/4/2000: "MI5 builds new centre to read e-mails onthe net"
("Neon Bunny")
Re: GPS encryption turned off (Nogami)
Re: GPS encryption turned off (Francois Grieu)
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tempest Attacks with EMF Radiation
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:31:07 +0200
Woody Brison wrote:
> We had a guy at Ford Aerospace that brought in one of these
> things, it looked like a little block with a rod sticking
> up out of it. At the top of the rod was a ball of what
> looked like steel wool, only of copper color. He said it
> produced good ions and made everybody around it happy. He
> sure was a positive upbeat guy. But when I first saw this
> thing on his desk I had no idea what it was, I was fingering
> the copper wool and wondering; then I walked over and took
> ahold of the doorknob and about got knocked on my butt. So
> now they're selling them as EMF blockers. Huh.
The device you described seems to require very little energy. Can
that be true?
M. K. Shen
--
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Interleaving for block encryption
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:46:06 +0200
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
> But any block cipher worth using is not going to be cracked using
> key-guessing methods. Historically, systems have combined two
> forms of encryption such as codebook+polyalphabetic_substitution,
> and cryptanalysts have found ways to more or less routinely strip
> off one of the layers of encryption so that they could work on the
> other. In the context of modern block ciphers, any extra key bits
> would be better used in a single integrated encipherment than
> split between two orthogonal encipherments.
You are right. However, if one worries that a given block cipher might
be brute-forced, using a simple cipher to preprocess does seem to
help. It is admittedly difficult to assess in given constallations the
improvement in quantitative terms.
M. K. Shen
--
From: Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KRYPTOS Something new ?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 08:46:39 +
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
>
> Collomb wrote:
> > If, after one year past, these 97 characters were still not
> > deciphered, it is possible to doubt the accuracy of the work
> > of these three decipherers.
>
> Not when the sculptor and the cryptographer who created the
> cipher text have verified the correctness of that work!
>
> 97 characters is not much material to work with if the
> encipherment is (as suggested by the evidence) in a system
> somewhat harder than the ones used in the first three parts.
> Most likely a breakthrough will require a lucky guess about
> the method and one or more keywords used in constructing
> the enciphering alphabets.
As one of the "three decipherers", I agree with this.
Another correction to the first remark: it's now about eight years
past the first break of all but the last 97 characters, and two
years past the second break. The three breaks were independent,
having taken place in disjoint security regimes.
--
Jim Gillogly
14 Thrimidge S.R. 2000, 08:43
12.19.7.3.4, 3 Kan 7 Uo, First Lord of Night
--
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KRYPTOS Something new ?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:56:47 +0200
Collomb wrote:
>
> I offer on my website :
> http://calvaweb.calvacom.fr/collomb /
> a complete and original solution of entire Kryptos, which precisely is
> based on the forms.
Could some experts who have previously solved a large part of the
cipher comment on the correctness of this complete solution?
M. K. Shen
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: mod function?
Date: 4 May 2000 09:47:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A mathematician would be m
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702, Volume #10 Wed, 8 Dec 99 00:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: NSA future role? (CLSV)
Re: Encrypting numbers? (Thanks all!) (Michael Groh)
Re: NSA future role? (CLSV)
Re: Frequency results of twofish and serpent. (Johnny Bravo)
Re: NSA should do a cryptoanalysis of AES (Kenneth Almquist)
"Ciphertext-only Cryptanalysis of Enigma" (JPeschel)
New Courses in Information Security at RMIT (Serdar Boztas)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Dave Knapp)
Re: Random Noise Encryption Buffs (Look Here) (Dave Knapp)
Re: NSA should do a cryptoanalysis of AES ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: NSA should do a cryptoanalysis of AES ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: NSA should do a cryptoanalysis of AES ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: NSA should do a cryptoanalysis of AES ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Paradise shills?? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Encrypting numbers? (Thanks all!) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Frequency results of twofish and serpent. ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
From: CLSV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.politics.org.nsa
Subject: Re: NSA future role?
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 02:09:57 +
Medical Electronics Lab wrote:
> CLSV wrote:
> > albert wrote:
> > > If you walk into the library of the University of Michigan, you can actually find
> > > all you need to know as far as how to make a nuclear bomb.
> > One of those myths started by popular science magazines.
> [...] The hard part isn't the knowledge. The hard part is the
> material. You need specific isotopes in large enough quantities
> to create a nuclear weapon. The knowledge of how to separate
> those isotopes is also in the library.
There are enought countries that have the raw material that
would have build nuclear weapons if it were so easy. There is a
huge gap between reading theoretical principles in a (library) book
and building a nuclear weapon. The devil is in the details.
> Iraq's Hussien has built quite a few plants that separate out
> U235, and he's built at least one small reactor to create Pu.
And strangely enough Iraq had to depend on the *really* old documents of
the Manhattan project instead of using the much easier obtainable
library books.
Regards,
Coen Visser
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Groh)
Subject: Re: Encrypting numbers? (Thanks all!)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:20:19 -0500
Gotcha! Particularly if the numeric portion (such as a date, or time)
occurred in the same part of a standard message, it'd lend itself to a
crib, especially since the cryptanalyst would know the date and time the
message was sent, or at least, the date and time the message was
intercepted.
Thanks for the correction!
- Mike
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:01:43 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael
> Groh) wrote:
>
> >Even if we spell it out:
> >"DollarSignOneFourPointThreeSeven" it's a much longer message. I hadn't
> >considered that this makes the crypanalysis job much harder as well!
>
> Of course, you mean much _easier_.
>
--
From: CLSV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.politics.org.nsa
Subject: Re: NSA future role?
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 02:23:32 +
albert wrote:
> > One of those myths started by popular science magazines.
> Nope, not a myth, it's true. I will concede to the post above, stating that
> measurements, and details are hidden, which is the impeding stumbling block to making
> one, but if you want concepts etc,, it's all there.
Ok, I can agree with that.
> > And why wouldn't private sector companies make any mistakes?
> Accountability. Profit. NASA has lost about $2Billion thus far on Mars stuff. Any
>of
> them fired? No. If it was the private sector, performance and reward are linked,
>not
> so in the public sector.
Hmm, my opinion is that especially in big corporations large
amounts of money are wasted on useless pet projects, ego-mania,
stupidity, fraud et cetera. The problem is that a corporation
isn't publicly accountable for such losses. They rather hide
them in their incredibly complex annual reports to keep the
faith of their customers, creditor, share holders. At rare times we
get to see some of the mistakes if they are big enough
(e.g. Barings bank). I think that the problems that NASA has are more
related to the size and structure of the organization than on the
difference between private and public sector.
Regards,
Coen Visser
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny Bravo)
Subject: Re: Frequency results of twofish and serpent.
Date: Tue, 07 Dec
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702
Cryptography-Digest Digest #702, Volume #9 Sat, 12 Jun 99 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
A NAKED HORNY WOMAN BASKING IN THE SUN (Anonymous)
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A NAKED HORNY WOMAN BASKING IN THE SUN
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 06:00:06 -0500
Don't you wish you were there? She arouses me
section 1 of uuencode 4.13 of file 126.GIFby R.E.M.
begin 644 126.GIF
M1TE&.#=AP@$-`?4```0$!`@("`P,#!`0$!04%!@8&!P<'"`@("0D)"@H6
M*"PL+#`P,#0T-#@X.#P\/$%!045%14E)24U-35%145E965U=76%A865EA
M96EI:6UM;7%Q<75U=7EY>7U]?8*"@H:&AHJ*BHZ.CI*2DI:6EIJ:FIZ>GJ*B"
MHJ:FIJZNKK*RLK:VMKJZNKZ^OL/#P\?'Q\O+R\_/S]/3T]?7U]O;V]_?C
MW^/CX^?GY^OKZ^_O[_/S\_?W]_O[^RP`P@$-`0`&_L!4JY4J"E.8.
M#JA4&C4_(Q`&I.I02AWG)B(`/*28C:3S63!**8G%,K+-8#,6ZTTCCJ"E%@L&U
M:_%9+3,-*$SY4B#[YV=(Q68P4JA@,0+?K%82^;1"V,'"AP@`$EAXA
MP`B```8;E@R4&(=)$R8?2ARBIZ+._@AY<%)L$*+B6!,GK.;0$G),!4D*$0P8+
M2%`@01=&!:ZZ!%#`@`!U288QD5/D4M-FF7JEZ+BJ:$ZG"TL(+&D!!`A(%CJ(\
M>083K)^@P9ARM0'V(8$7HBI/
M`\E*;@LT_*LP'`E-^#$3&2N^=AP$YU
M!:24RA)9_OA&1`FVH('&'GK8\N%&>P1322M*Z%94'+>]D5@'%S(PE1D,6.62#
M`0MPTY4W$40@`8B\M=)9/BPPH9H>LO37@CG'\16,/0L\`(D!`!C`P`)=J&2%!
M&B.T`,]*/%Y15(,%MK)$/J1L5@@+8:002C\/I949(9O!,<@,)5B0``-.6*`3(
M9[6,P-XBS6`FO?=(+)J?9)4LMIP"H1Y)-D`&B%'+=L(,@GW+6"2(?I"*)#
M7);)X=PE<;PR$#Y]\`(10`9MH4V6#X#673=8Y2A5=UDR\`!X#$BP)0."%I7"1
M@S=5Q"JMQK`68"$W"%A**$[).6U`3BQ'YX"=6+3)&RJ`H,0&_H(."`@2V&0G]
M`0;O'=2RV40O,S+`LHXO5MFP'S"0UT$`;=%!+/OV"PD(VQGH3,
MWI_&YIB28.R%QP`40@S"T1RJ/I21+:HU10N(@$@@9#81@)`-!>=9$`%H+7'U*
M$B0)?+'!=PEO(:A-"E?RP="HKH;9+ZX,XIR;I!CBZ&L"LD`&<#3*,::YVJM!//!BVDYQ!PLL44AR
M)R9X?O++!^_AZ)([4IG7E8Z,F%>S2ULN\':/$9"!1]W&"*>WNL\%1(>`SJE%!
MHUQQF,5DM!79!WJLRPA]KS%R2!A!_E?9,!"&GU59)8$]"*$#"#ZG,7@3/F\85
MA`4&'>TW1%N;7*WY#"!$(.P"[F&@C3OLD9-E`N9<3XD<1$3K+ZR($`_NG)6`+
MV,(""?#(``4=/&#`RG^AY!+W%ABK1@=Z114!&L.04Y*D1PZMS
ME,,\>;F0.\P3-`_Q84^/PM-BD)$,BO!C".@82(36182_CJ0(_D58%CR`T"QL`2HFXQ`(@RR!4@.U@RR+&L#,2GDMZIFK0V^)
M`02I@,H#)+"$SR1`#<1JGR8S=,D-.($8=P-7UT[QM2W^HS]-@(%@K#2T$*@D3VX06Z+::,SEUF@C+1M(YO!DR$XD9#"&"M9@O6_PQ5`?A
M>&:YPL"H0AQ"#[[`TR;^L0=.6*L0PRE#%\K#I:Y,,F@2*8U!.C`[K'0C`O9(Z
MF/540@%W(,(LM3
MV#B+WY7R#L.`4P(Z``,WN"E/UKPF)B#3TJ'-M4%A9,$HSB>*)(F/GQ.!!3-LA
M((@1"D@SUM(GG?[##"G6#
M6=@&&=LMBW9[2`]`E(`".5,9ENY'LRP5<3O?L1V(H@4BY:GKG`8"Z']3JZ>#P
M\8\5"JL"\AZD"TD@1R9:M4(>4E,0E/4$;:8``0,(=IIW589.>3M:)SCSO%J`%
MY`X((9TR,/,)&*!C&OSPX9TRL]AP*M.'*[7/,9P@!0F49PU*[,#RDL2>R&!6W
M&9IXWC:G\\,-9$@J4LE.!![!`(*TXA$.2@)VLI(=+<&+&^'ARKS@5PMSCFI`+
MP-G/:A[UP\$Z"S?[H@4M8L>,/!>Y$TG:UTV8($5/KN$@D4!'>[!D@(5TJ`B8E
M*I]]C7'F_OF$Q"+&LPD;2:&N@0`8?NWQQI8R)`"OU*P`%*BH3O+!+^#H31_B5
M6NZS#+*'.=!`(6*@)`AR(A26U1,\<56<,2807I<@R*44+S4^A`CAU+D%;.W"Z$/[7<.H&5@V26I@W_F2IV`&_#J@!`UI"EV&""
MN"/#[*Z:*/-0UN3TKR84I1\_)="%:?6/8X`@5W>L:'G,83WO_F2#*UZQW;O^2
MY@]/Y"F\X(+A(D+"^8CIT0EAL%\LXF`AX7\`*V!JGX$+P*EEA%-1%%M
MC&4)BJQUD+9K-3@P3RXK!>(\NE%3(XH2=H29KR%"+Y.IS%'\PTWWP1K*7K$:]
MXJB''>R;9,7'$"8-"L2PCS@`4ZHF[G*UK;3&>0G26E0V4[1URR7QN,Y$NV627?P@4M(%"_O$_AR(Y13%4&BL(!9,(!,&"`6_I1''H0*FZ
MM2]%<%(N4B*T@#R@%`P=,6S:`@H]YA#+I6%KD'Z*10@,Y`:'(&\B,V,`90S5?
M$DZ!5X'`A`X$4RUSX@>U$B2W0R/O8@'?$6NVU0UCZ">$80$L(`CXE
M=!JDLPJQ_K(61?$*B7('K@`^;3$@2G(72&%MA),7?[$L,L$$RU.#U[0?P0`[7
MKO"!('$2Q4`21!(%BG5RHO(?!\%"_-,1RG@,%31O1C9C]P$1@%,G1I9NF"=;[
MR:1%Q3.!;^-_.*(]6D(!BC4GRD%KE^=\BZ(0?M(27[$[ZQ`72I`$@#!8*@`S!
M6*(2?\$$&U`LPA(3UO,X65$>.O(54]!V2P`0ZK(6)9$OTT`BG7-#_F(3IT)2!
M0N`$)P5`(U`\W0B..($.9+(5W9$SB6.&W.-);R,!B-<6(*$V)Z,OMZ`1+\(D'
M'>E1?>!*N#4Y$6`8D`1:WV<&YM%JZ0(*!U$4J(%G$3%_V14A_@^R&!UQ,F=4$
M!T2R0UB`2#1"$.MW)K(P0.G735+3A>64)'(@$\/&#$A0%Q48+6TR9,NQ+%&0-
M89,"7E86A"IH6A$$->[V5WG33\OD,([1>%5C-7[U":BX2K?5>^*P$$92$ZG37
M==?2A-'39E9(&`0)96.@!,]8!\,632K#%7'12TX1!KPC"5S2>RE1,:2X!&V'Z
M@0;7=!X';4WH=?Z`:&WS+[3`+*@4=,F!3[,A91F1)$O%AMP@+$K$([2S$MOQ1
M9).`/.7B5@/Q1VHC1X.3!\!3(JVP$-8!1I#``.8QH1'1HM(P3IHXRBM\4\.A%D\V#1M\D-T\!![TG27X`;-4%D:I`)3F
ME2&/TQVV,RRUP`G10`K3TD5FR5#"8H8`D(K#X&PW]W>T\Z!O,1%DM4`S7E`_.1!UF$Y2V$0R^2
