Cryptography-Digest Digest #524, Volume #10 Mon, 8 Nov 99 07:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Lenstra on key sizes ("ME")
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation (john baez)
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation (john baez)
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation (john baez)
Re: Lenstra on key sizes ("Roger Schlafly")
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation (john baez)
Re: Passwords - the weak link (Patrick Juola)
Re: PGP Cracked ? (Patrick Juola)
Re: Montgomery vs Sqr & Mul -- Specifics (Robert Harley)
file wipe, a simple question (Uri Fridman)
Re: The Code Book ("Sandy Macpherson")
Encrypting Mail in S/MIME without a Digital ID? (David Potts)
Re: PGP Cracked ? (zentara)
Re: file wipe, a simple question ("Gary")
Re: addition chains ? ("Pedro F�lix")
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation ("Clive Tooth")
Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation (David Bernier)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ME" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lenstra on key sizes
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:44:49 +1100
Some points to consider:
- Is it going to be used in embedded systems? Register sizes, RAm, rom etc
all vary on these differing hardware oriented implementations
- Are you considering using symmetric or assymetric key management
techniques?
Symmetric key management techniques are relatively efficient (compared to
PK) for bandwidth and computational effort, with a trade-off on initial key
distribution.
-Ccompatibility and complexity rise with the greater number of permutations
of algorithms and key lengths. Costs such as this must be factored into
your thinking.
Mok-Kong Shen wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Roger Schlafly wrote:
>>
>> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> > The mentality of the builders of the Titanic remains with us. ...
>> >
>> > A probably very stupid question concerning symmetric ciphers: Does
>> > it cost terribly more if one uses 512 bits of key instead of 256 bits?
>>
>> Yes, apparently the Titanic mentality is still with us. Huge key
>> size does not make you invincible.
>
>I suppose you misundertood me. What I meant is this: Suppose you
>have an algorithm that (with a key length of 256 bits) you believe
>will offer you a protection that is, say, at a factor of safety of
>1.2 without your being very sure of that figure. (I am aware that the
>concept of 'factor of safety' may be problematical; I am simply
>using what is common in engineering science for the purpose of
>carrying on some discussion here.) Now suppose that the same
>algorithm has a 512 bits variant and is known to be quite a bit
>stronger and suppose also that the additional cost of using the
>logner key over the short one is marginal, then I think it is fairly
>obvious that using the longer key is a good idea, since it is almost
>sure to be able to raise the factor of safety beyond the previous
>'uncertainty'. So the question is merely whether the obtaining and
>managing of double amount of key materials (with key sizes smaller
>than commonly used in asymmetrical ciphers) for symmetrical ciphers
>incurs such a high cost that it renders the longer key varinat very
>disadvantageous from an economical point of view.
>
>M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (john baez)
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: 7 Nov 1999 23:13:01 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tony T. Warnock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Uncle Al wrote:
>
>> The digits of pi are purely random (except for being pi). We've got
>> pi to about 50 billion decimal places. Nobody would suspect using the
>> digits of pi becaise it is not a random number. No problem. Use pi.
>
>I would like some reference to this. As far as I know, no one has proved
>that the digits of pi are purely random, quasi random, non random,
>uniformly distributed, etc.
You're right, nobody has proved anything about this except for the
fact that the digits don't repeat. For all we know, after the googolth
digit, every other digit of pi is 6. Of course this probably ain't
true - it's probably just a testament to our poor understanding of
such mathematical questions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (john baez)
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: 7 Nov 1999 23:16:19 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
james d. hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's because nobody has proved that anything is random.
Wrong.
> "Random" is usually defined in terms of things like pi,
Wrong.
> so there's no reason to assume that pi isn't just simply
> a well-known purely random number.
Not even wrong.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (john baez)
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: 7 Nov 1999 23:22:09 -0800
In article <7vpdjp$eif$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Patrick Juola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I believe pi has been proved "normal", which is to say that every
>finite-length string appears equiprobably in the extended decimal
>expansion. In point of fact, I think it's been proved "normal to
>all bases," which means the same holds in the octal, hexadecimal,
>binary, septal, &c. expansions.
This is a famous open problem. If someone proved it recently,
I would like to see a reference!!!
>And, no, I don't have a reference offhand, but it should be addressed
>in a decent analysis text.
Yeah, right. That remark reassures me that you don't know what
you're talking about. Why make up shit like this? Do you think
we're all gullible idiots?
------------------------------
From: "Roger Schlafly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lenstra on key sizes
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 22:49:10 -0800
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> >
> > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > > The mentality of the builders of the Titanic remains with us. ...
> > >
> > > A probably very stupid question concerning symmetric ciphers: Does
> > > it cost terribly more if one uses 512 bits of key instead of 256 bits?
> >
> > Yes, apparently the Titanic mentality is still with us. Huge key
> > size does not make you invincible.
>
> I suppose you misundertood me. What I meant is this: Suppose you
> have an algorithm that (with a key length of 256 bits) you believe
> will offer you a protection that is, say, at a factor of safety of
> 1.2 without your being very sure of that figure. ...
No, I think you are describing the Titanic mentality pretty well.
If a big ship is safe, then a bigger ship should be safer, and allow
threats to be ignored. This thinking leads to huge key sizes, iterated
ciphers, etc, without regard to the threat. It is silly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (john baez)
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: 7 Nov 1999 23:24:33 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>All the numbers might appear in the decimal expansion of PI,
>but they aren't equiprobable. Long runs of zeros can't occur
>early, so their probability is lower. Other repeating patterns
>are also impossible in early positions. Thus, PI has been
>proved to be "non-normal" although the bias is so slight
>that only a mathematician would make the distinction.
While only a nonmathematician could think that the study
of any finite portion of the decimal expansion of pi could
have any bearing on whether pi is normal. It doesn't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick Juola)
Subject: Re: Passwords - the weak link
Date: 7 Nov 1999 15:07:04 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Raddatz Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm a relative Newbie to Cryptography, but after doing some research I
>seem to come full circle to the same result. - "The weak link to ANY
>encryption algo is the PASSWORD."
>Here, in this Newsgroup, I've always seen the quote "what if your enemy
>has access to the same program that you are using...". Well, that being
>the case then any algo is just as weak as any other because it is
>susceptible to a password attack.
Unless the password-space is too large to make a password attack
feasible. In which case there may or may not be a faster attack
available.
>Given the same program and the cipher an attack on the password should
>be able to decrypt the file in question. There is a finite number of
>combinations of chars, nums & other symbols that 256 symbols can yield.
>With today's highspeed computers these combinations should be able to be
>explored in no time flat.
>What am I missing here?
How large "no time flat" can be. If you have a 128-bit password,
then there are 2^128 possible passwords, all of which must be
individually checked. The universe itself is only about 2^61 seconds
old -- so if you had a billion (2^30) computers, each checking a
billion (2^30) passwords per second, it would only take about
a hundred times the lifetime of the universe to check all these
combinations.
Forgive me if I don't wait dinner for you....
-kitten
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick Juola)
Subject: Re: PGP Cracked ?
Date: 7 Nov 1999 15:03:08 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dennis Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Douglas A. Gwyn wrote, quoting Jerry Coffin:
>
>> > Like Ken, AFAIK, he's never said _anything_ to confirm (or,
>> > admittedly, deny) that it was actually done.
>>
>> I could swear that they have said the experiment was actually done,
>> just that it was not in any of the UNIX distributions.
>
>I could so swear too.
So, sir, did you do it, did Ken, was it a joint project, or
someone altogether different?
-kitten
------------------------------
From: Robert Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Montgomery vs Sqr & Mul -- Specifics
Date: 08 Nov 1999 09:39:26 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry Coffin) writes:
> 64-bit RSA is so trivial to break [...]
> With a number this small, it'll probably take almost as long for an
> attacker to type the number in as for a reasonable desktop system to
> factor it.
... if he can type very quickly! Factoring a 64-bit product of two
32-bit primes takes about 0.01 seconds with either Pollard Rho or ECM
on this here Alpha.
Rob
------------------------------
From: Uri Fridman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: file wipe, a simple question
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 11:17:12 +0200
maybe i'm wrong and i'm not doing it right but well, here;s my question:
i'm trying to delete a file in win98 by overwriting it with 0's, then
with 1's and finally with garbage data created using blowfish, now
everything is fine but when i undelete the file i get the same original
file plus the garbage data added to it.
i tryed in C++ and in delphi (pascal for win) and both get the same
result, maybe i'm missing something here? the win swapfile?
i know this is not the right place to ask but none of the programming
newsgroup answered me about the problem, the code is available anyone
wanting to review it please feel free to ask.
please e-mail the answer
thanks for the help
--
Uri Fridman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"...the further we go, the older we grow,
the more we know, the less we show..."
=====BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK=====
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i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=T+ef
=====END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK=====
------------------------------
From: "Sandy Macpherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Code Book
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:27:39 -0000
Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sandy Macpherson wrote:
> > in creating a homophonic substitution cipher, the cryptographer bases
the
> > distribution of homophones according to the frequency that each
(plaintext)
> > letter occurs. Since the total of all these frequencies must equal 100%,
it
> > follows that the number of homophones in the ciphertext will be 100, or
a
> > multiple thereof.
>
> That doesn't follow at all. The total number of symbols can be any
> number greater than the alphabet size.
True. It only follows if the homophones are allocated according to the
percentage frequencies of the letters, which they may well not be. I'd
hazard a lazy guess, however, that the particular cipher text in question
is, however, based on these percentages, rather than the no. of times each
letter occurs in every 179 letters - given that if this contest was too hard
too early on, it would fail in its (assumed) ambition to sell more books.
And even if it were, the relative proportions of the homophone distribution
could be expected to be roughly the same, assuming English frequency table
used, etc. (Once the homophones had been identified, that is)
------------------------------
From: David Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Encrypting Mail in S/MIME without a Digital ID?
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 09:23:09 +0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============83EE4F388A10D71128531BF3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello,
I have a question about S/MIME and how netscape messenger uses
certificates:
I have no digital ID for email in Messenger (4.7). I have received an
email that has been signed so I now have the sender's public key. I'd
like to reply to this person using their public key to encrypt the
message. When I try to do this netscape messenger complains that I
don't have a digital ID, but surely I don't need an ID to use someone
else's public key to encrypt? Or do I?
I'd had a look at the S/MIME spec. (I'm no expert!) and it seemed to me
that I didn't need to have my own ID to reply using someone else's
private key. Anyone know if it is a Netscape wrinkle, or does S/MIME
demand me to have an ID to encrypt?
Any help gratefully appreciated :-)
Dave.
==============83EE4F388A10D71128531BF3
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="david.potts.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for David Potts
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="david.potts.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Potts;David
tel;fax:+44 (0)161 610 0700
tel;work:+44 (0)161 610 0879
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:FICS Group
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:David Potts
end:vcard
==============83EE4F388A10D71128531BF3==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (zentara)
Subject: Re: PGP Cracked ?
Reply-To: ""
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:33:27 GMT
On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 07:51:46 -0500, "Trevor Jackson, III"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Discrediting me by saying it is total foolishness, makes me suspect
>> that you are part of the coverup operation. :-)
>
>You are free to believe anything you want. But if you wish to propogate your
>beliefs you have to provide persuasive support rather than idle speculation.
>For instance, we need to understand the link between your speculations, crop
>circles, and Lady Diana's death. Inquiring minds want to know
Well, it really dosn't matter to me, because I know how easy it is to
"bug" somone's keyboard; this makes it very easy to get your
key's and passwords. So the "cracking of the code" isn't really
needed. So as to whether the generals at the Joint Chiefs have a
masterkey, it don't matter in terms of practicality.
You would have to come and talk to me in person to get the link
between this and crop circles, it's kind of complicated, ;-).
------------------------------
From: "Gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: file wipe, a simple question
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:40:34 -0000
Uri Fridman wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>i'm trying to delete a file in win98 by overwriting it with 0's, then
>with 1's and finally with garbage data created using blowfish, now
>everything is fine but when i undelete the file i get the same original
>file plus the garbage data added to it.
Sounds like you're appending writes to the file.
You must seek to the beginning of the file when opening for access!
This is a programming question, not a cryptography question.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro F�lix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: addition chains ?
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:48:47 -0000
> Not only this, but I realized last night that they aren't appropriate for
> my application -- the Miller-Rabin test seems to require looking at all
> the intermediate products of a square-and-multiply to see if they are
> nontrivial square roots of 1. Using an addition chain would generally skip
> consecutive squares, which is bad...
>
> Thanks,
> -David
The initial exponentiation: a^q mod N can use addition chains (N is the
prime candidate, a is a random base, q is such that N-1=2^k.q and k is an
integer).
If the result is not congruent with 1 then you start the squaring process to
check if there are nontrivial roots of one.
However the gain obtained with the usage of (sub-optimal) addition chains is
low.
My sugestion is that you use the optimized M-ary method of expoenentiation
[1] or the
Constant Length Non-zero Window (CLNW) method [2].
Refs:
[1] H. Cohen, A Course in Computational Algebraic Number Theory,
Springer-Verlag.
[2] C. Koc, "Analisys of Sliding Window Techniques for Exponentiation", ...
I've done some implementations and obtained the following results
Method Normalised run time
binary 1
M-ary 0.8
CLNW 0.78
for the exponentiation operation with 1024 bit operands (random exponent)
P. Felix
David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8042nu$g3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Paul Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's not worth messing with this. There is a long section about
> > addition chains in Knuth vol 2. Two-line summary:
> > 1) finding the best possible addition chain is NP-hard, so don't
bother.
>
> > 2) The best possible chain is hardly ever more than slightly better
> > than the obvious chain.
>
> Thanks much.
>
------------------------------
From: "Clive Tooth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:19:02 -0000
David Bernier wrote in message <8069k0$nat$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>"Random" can be defined any way you like (paraphrasing
>from ??? in Lewis Carrol?). Once you've defined it, you
>can start discussing it.
�When I use a word,� Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, �it means
just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.�
from "Alice Through the Looking-Glass" by Lewis Carroll.
http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Carroll/Alice/Glass/Chapter6.html
--
Clive Tooth
http://www.pisquaredoversix.force9.co.uk/
End of document
------------------------------
From: David Bernier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Proposal: Inexpensive Method of "True Random Data" Generation
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:45:20 GMT
In article <805tc3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (john baez) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> james d. hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > "Random" is usually defined in terms of things like pi,
>
> Wrong.
"Random" can be defined any way you like (paraphrasing
from ??? in Lewis Carrol?). Once you've defined it, you
can start discussing it. One very stringent definition
comes from G. Chaitin's Algorithmic Information Theory:
A finite sequence of bits is random to the extent that there
is no simple rule to generate it. I believe Chaitin has
a well-refined definition of the algorithmic entropy
of a bit-sequence; I think I'm not far off the mark by
defining a complexity measure h( (b_1, b_2 , ... b_n) )
where (b_1, ... b_n) is a sequence of n>0 0's and 1's,
as the least number of states in a terminating Turing
machine (quintuple-type) that starts with a blank tape
and terminates with a tape encoding (b_1, ... b_n), for
example: a '0' could be encoded as '01', a '1' as
'10', 'start of sequence' as '11' and 'end of sequence'
also as '11'. So an n-bit sequence would be encoded
unambiguously as a 2n+4 length sequence on a Turing tape,
e.g. <1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0>
[from:] <1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 3 5 8 9 7 9 3 2 3 8 4 6>
would be encoded as:
11100110101001011010100110101010011001010111
for Turing machine production.
So in the AIT sense of random, the decimals of pi (or their
parities) are not random because a Turing machine (or a
computer program) of short length can be written explicitly that
will produce the first 567,809,534,781 bits/digits (for example).
The article in [1] has a humorous approach with some references.
David Bernier
[1] http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/Issues/Sciobs97/sciobs97-05Random.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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 (and sci.crypt) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
