Re: Finding encrytion algorithm
hi, thanx Mr Jim. Data. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
Fakes... (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 20:14:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Dardani Boletus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fakes... There is something extremely wrong with every single person in this world. They seem to be part of a pointless simulation. "The Matrix" has portrayed this idea somewhat, yet we watch it and go back to our daily lives. Yet in this very life, underneath the seeming diversity in people's opinions, values, talents, and interests, there is something that makes everyone the same. It is as though this planet is populated only by mindless fakes, objects that provide the appearance of intellect on the surface but are based on only mechanical reflexes and primitive thought patterns. I don't really care if anything I say has been said before, if it was portrayed in movies, in books, or in the lyrics of some useless song. With 6 billion people covering the globe at any given time, thousands and thousands of years of written literature, probability dictates almost any combination of words has occurred numerous times. Yet there is clear evidence there was no action, so those words, just like the people who spoke them, must have been just more fakes. I am forced to use this language (also created by the fakes) because there is no alternative, so everything I write here could be misunderstood to make me sound like one of them, but it will be the action that I take and the dedication that will separate me from them. In my estimation the fakes that occupy this planet don't make up 99%, but more like 99.999% of the population. I know this because I've searched, and in my search have so far only found one true ally (I have found him via the internet as well). But even with those numbers we would not give up because there is no logic in giving up. The people on this planet are all fakes because the societies have made them this way. Ideas that populate people's minds have no logic or purpose. Concepts such as religion, god, morality, individualism, freedom, identity, happiness, love and billions of others are all just memes. Like parasites they infect the minds and spread from one person to the next. They have no point or purpose; they exist without any logical basis or foundation. The fakes are completely controlled by them, and they will never see beyond them. To not be controlled by them one must do more then just realize that they exist. One must resist any ideas that have no point, endlessly question, and never accept imperfection or compromise in any answer. We (myself and my ally) are different though. While we have had the limitation of existing only in these societies, something has made it possible for us to resist being indoctrinated into becoming one of those fakes. We have no arbitrary wants, needs, desires, or preferences. If this world continues to exist the way it is then nothing in it will ever have a point. It will always be just a product of random evolution, one with no importance or relevance. The only logical goal is to dedicate our lives to increasing our numbers, those that aren't fakes, so that in thousands of years our numbers may be such that the fakes would no longer be a threat to progress. Those that join us must see every other person occupying this planet as the enemy, and us as their only allies. Like us they must have dedication only to taking the most logical action, and to nothing else. To tell you more about us, we've posted some personal information about ourselves on a website. You'll also find past responses to us on that webpage. Obviously anyone reading this email is most likely just another fake. Do not simply reply to this email, if you do your message will almost certainly be ignored. If you do wish to communicate, first demonstrate your interest by taking the effort to find us online, one of the ways to do that is described below. Use a major search engine to search for every combination of any two words from the list below. The order of the words shouldn't matter as long as you do not search for them in quotes, but generally it should be clear what words can go together and in what order. Also when you pick the right combination you shouldn't need to look at more then the first matches. There are actually at least 7 (or more) different combinations and websites you can find by searching this list. The one you should contact will clearly say it is the 'communication' page and will have three forms to fill out. Mention what sites you did find, the more effort it seems you took the more likely we would believe in your dedication. There is no trick to this and this isn't meant to be quick, it should, however, be fairly clear if/when you find the right site. The following search engines were verified by us, please use any of them as other search engines may simply not list us correctly: Yahoo, Google, InfoSeek, Lycos, MSN, LookSmart, HotBot, InfoSpace, Ask.com, AllTheWeb, Teoma, WebCr
economics of DRM, was Re: Ross's TCPA paper
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 06:34:36PM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote: > Eric Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 07:14:55PM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote: > >>From a purely economic perspectice, I can't see how this will fly. I'll pull a > >>random figure of $5 out of thin air (well, I saw it mentioned somewhere but > >>can't remember the source) as the additional manufacturing cost for the TCPA > >>hardware components. Motherboard manufacturers go through redesigns in order > >>to save cents in manufacturing costs, and they're expected to add $5 to their > >>manufacturing cost just to help Microsoft manage its piracy problem? > > > >Motherboard makers don't pay for it. Microsoft pays for it. > > Hmm, I can just see it now, Windows 2005 ships as three CDs, a 400-page EULA, a > fine-tip soldering iron, a magnifying glass, an EMBASSY chip, and a copy of > "SMD Soldering for Dummies". You're probably joking, but just in case you're not, or there's somone who doesn't get it, here's how it works: Wave (or someone like them) makes a deal with the motherboard makers to install EMBASSY chips. Wave pays the motherboard makers to do it, so there is no added cost to them. Wave then sells the rights to use the EMBASSY to Microsoft, Sony, et. al. The arrangement may involve percentages of the fees that users pay (i.e. Wave gets 50% of $1 that a user pays for a Sony-owned song, and gives half of that to the motherboard maker), or it might involve up-front payments. It can work either way. The difficulty is to get enough EMBASSY or whatever chips out there to make a critical mass that's attractive to use, and to distribute the cost of the DRM hardware and software over enough DRM customers that it's profitable for each one. i.e. MS might not want to underwrite $20 worth of DRM by itself, because it doesn't make enough more through DRM-enforced licensing to make a profit from it. But if the $20 for the DRM is split among 20 companies, each paying $1, they can all make a profit from using it. TCPA, by standardizing the DRM, makes it easier to get a critical mass and easier to round up participants. I think that it is important to understand the economics behind DRM because that is ultimately what will determine if and how it is deployed. Microsoft does not do things simply because they enjoy being evil. They are not so worried about Linux (with its small share of the market) that they will spend mega-bucks now on a very long term project that might possibly let them keep it off some PCs in the far future. They _are_ concerned with getting paid for the 50% of their software that isn't paid for. There's a shitload of money there, and if getting at some of it costs a little, well, its still more profit than they would have gotten otherwise. Of course its even better for them if they can convince users that DRM is an added security feature, or they can get governments to require it (i.e. V-chip). Then the users pay for it. But I don't see either of those being very likely. It's more probable that there needs to be significant profit in it for a number of players to make it go. Eric
Re: Finding encrytion algorithm
A RNG is a character or string generator whose generation algorithm prevents prediction of the next output if one knows all the previous outputs and the algorithm. In other words if you know everything there is to know about the generator your odds of predicting the next output state are even - pure luck - 'Fair'. A PRNG is one that fails the RNG test. Read Knuth, you should also check out, Exploring Randomness G.J. Chaitin ISBN 1-85233-417-7 Has some interesting insite on randomness, some of his propositions are not exactly same old same old. Interesting read. On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, gfgs pedo wrote: > hi, > > eer..I think we need a defenition of an Rng & Prng > that every 1 should agree on. > > would this help? > > RNG & PRNG > > > 1:>A RNG has an infinite period where as a PRNG has a > defenite period after which the sequence will repeat. > Atmospheric noise,Radiation decay are examples of > RNG's.(Difference) > > 2:>An RNG & PRNG should pass a series of radomness > tests. (Similarity) > > 3:>For the same set of input parameters,a RNG always > give a different output. > A PRNG always gives the same set of outputs for the > same input parameters (Difference) > > > would any 1 also like 2 review > > http://www.ircsuper.net/~neo/prng.html > thanx. > > Regards Data. -- When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
Re: Finding encrytion algorithm
hi, thanx for the replies. one doubt escpecially on this. > >But every algorithm has some >statistical >signature and if you've got enough cipher text you >can compare that >signature with known algorithms to home in on fewer >choices. can u pls explain how they have statistical signatures,pls- may be using SPN's, i have tried ANSI X9.17 key generation with GOST-it did have a negligably small skew-it makes me wonder what statistical signature they have.The negligable skew is a weakness but not high enough to compramise the security of the key used from the ANSI x9.17 key gen method. pls explain. thank u veru much. Regards Data. --- Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, gfgs pedo wrote: > > > suppose a cryptanalysis only has encrypted > data-how is > > going 2 know which is the encrytion algorithm used > 2 > > encrypt the data ,so that he can effeciently > > cryptanalyse if > > > > 1:>he has large amount of cipher text only > > 2:>has large amount of plain text and > corresponding > > cipher text. > > > > There r so many encryption algorithms,how does he > know > > which algorithm was used? > > Depends on how they got the source. They may know > it's one of 5 > possible choices because of the person who sent (or > received) it. > If it's just found on a disk in a garbage dump with > no connections > to anyone, it's a bit tougher. But every algorithm > has some statistical > signature and if you've got enough cipher text you > can compare that > signature with known algorithms to home in on fewer > choices. > > I'm not sure having the plaintext helps much more, > but you could > use random keys to create several ciphertexts with > known algorithms and > compare the statistics just to see if they compare > better. > > It's definitly challenging :-) > > Patience, persistence, truth, > Dr. mike > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
Re: Ross's TCPA paper
Eric Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 07:14:55PM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote: >>From a purely economic perspectice, I can't see how this will fly. I'll pull a >>random figure of $5 out of thin air (well, I saw it mentioned somewhere but >>can't remember the source) as the additional manufacturing cost for the TCPA >>hardware components. Motherboard manufacturers go through redesigns in order >>to save cents in manufacturing costs, and they're expected to add $5 to their >>manufacturing cost just to help Microsoft manage its piracy problem? > >Motherboard makers don't pay for it. Microsoft pays for it. Hmm, I can just see it now, Windows 2005 ships as three CDs, a 400-page EULA, a fine-tip soldering iron, a magnifying glass, an EMBASSY chip, and a copy of "SMD Soldering for Dummies". Peter.
RE: DNA databases to be classified
"Lucky Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted: >The feat proves that even if all the polio virus in the world were >destroyed, it would be easily possible to resurrect the crippling >disease. It also raises the worrying possibility that bioterrorists >could use a similar approach to create devastating diseases such as >ebola and smallpox without having to gain access to protected viral >stocks. I saw this on BBC news. It took a very sophisticated lab two years work to produce polio. They thought they might be able to do smallpox given about 20 years work. They even managed to slip in an Internet reference in the story. I guess "We synthesised polio from RNA" just isn't newsworthy enough on its own. Peter.
Re: economics of DRM, was Re: Ross's TCPA paper
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 10:59:23AM -0700, Eric Murray wrote: > Microsoft does not do things simply because they enjoy being evil. > They are not so worried about Linux (with its small share of the market) > that they will spend mega-bucks now on a very long term project that might > possibly let them keep it off some PCs in the far future. They _are_ > concerned with getting paid for the 50% of their software that isn't > paid for. There's a shitload of money there, and if getting at some of > it costs a little, well, its still more profit than they would > have gotten otherwise. Isn't it much simpler for them to just write into their OS the ability to snitch on what M$ software was on the users machine everytime they go online? In fact, I've been assuming that everything from w98 on did exactly that. And wouldn't it be trivial for them to check for cracked serial numbers, or duplicate serial numbers? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Finding encrytion algorithm
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, gfgs pedo wrote: > can u pls explain how they have statistical > signatures,pls- > > > may be using SPN's, i have tried ANSI X9.17 key > generation with GOST-it did have a negligably small > skew-it makes me wonder what statistical signature > they have.The negligable skew is a weakness but not > high enough to compramise the security of the key used > from the ANSI x9.17 key gen method. > pls explain. > thank u veru much. > You're on the right track. Take several encryption algorithms of your choice, then use a fixed IV, and the same sets of keys, and encrypt blocks of 0's. For each algorithm, compute several sets of staticstics (a la NIST or DIEHARD). With 100 blocks of 10 Megabytes (100 different keys) you should see some interesting differences. Remember, your question originally was "how can you tell which algorithm", not "how do you find the key". Let us know what you find out :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Finding encrytion algorithm
Perhaps a simpler example. Let's look at a 'fair' coin and what that means in the real world. A normal coin (or any nDx for that matter [1]) for short sequences is random. In other words if you record a game sequence and then replay the game the die sequence won't have any statistical correlation. Knowing what happened last time won't help you this time, the 'window of opportunity' with respect to statistical bias isn't large enough, so the game is 'fair'. But!, if you throw that coin once a second for a billion years you will find that -no- coin is really -fair-. This goes back to k-sequences and Knuth. Go back and then start throwing it again, and if your sequence is long enough you can use this known bias from the first experiment to increase your percentage of 'hits' in the second sequence. In other words you can now prove experimentaly the coin isn't fair and what that bias is. This is related to 'Hypothesis Testing'. It's rather strange, but I happen to be rereading a book, "The Mathematical Sciences: A Collection of Essays" (LoC# 69-12750) put out by some group called COSRIMS in about 1969. I remember the book because somebody gave it to me (I was about 9 or 10 at the time) to read, and it has an insane bright yellow cover. I recently came across it again in a used bookstore for $10 so I bought it. It's basically a bunch of chapters on various issues of math research with the intent of focusing high school and undergrads to pursue mathematical careers by giving examples of what you might be working on. The chapter "Statistical Inference" (by J. Kiefer) uses an example of a coin and a 3-run sequence to determine the actual bias of the coin (the example is very simple, the coin is very biased). You should be able to still find the book in public libraries and college libraries. I'm sure more modern texts on hypothesis testing will be just as relevant. The vast majority of RNG's that we use are really PRNG's, we just don't collect enough data on them to be able to demonstrate that. Or the sequence of interest is so short we dont' care. [1] A coin is a 1D2, two coins would be 2D2, for example. Who said wargaming was worthless ;) On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Mike Rosing wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, gfgs pedo wrote: > > > can u pls explain how they have statistical > > signatures,pls- > > > > > > may be using SPN's, i have tried ANSI X9.17 key > > generation with GOST-it did have a negligably small > > skew-it makes me wonder what statistical signature > > they have.The negligable skew is a weakness but not > > high enough to compramise the security of the key used > > from the ANSI x9.17 key gen method. > > pls explain. > > thank u veru much. > > > > You're on the right track. Take several encryption algorithms > of your choice, then use a fixed IV, and the same sets of keys, > and encrypt blocks of 0's. For each algorithm, compute several sets of > staticstics (a la NIST or DIEHARD). With 100 blocks of 10 Megabytes > (100 different keys) you should see some interesting differences. > > Remember, your question originally was "how can you tell which algorithm", > not "how do you find the key". Let us know what you find out :-) > > Patience, persistence, truth, > Dr. mike > > -- When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
