Cryptography-Digest Digest #617, Volume #11 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: how many bases? (Scott Contini)
How relieble is HCE-SHA ? (Fedor Utenkov)
Re: The Illusion of Security (ritter)
Re: OAP-L3: Semester 1 / Class #1 All are invited. (Anthony Stephen Szopa)
Re: S-BOXES (Thomas Luzat)
Call for testing and evaluating a stream cipher program ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Call for testing and evaluating a stream cipher program (Tom St Denis)
distributed factorisation using pollard rho method ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: distributed factorisation using pollard rho method (Tom St Denis)
RE: AES Style CAST Cipher ("Manuel Pancorbo")
Re: new Echelon article ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Call for testing and evaluating a stream cipher program (Troed)
Re: The Illusion of Security ("ijl")
Re: AES Style CAST Cipher (Tom St Denis)
Re: new Echelon article ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Call for testing and evaluating a stream cipher program ("Abyssmal_Unit_#2")
Re: Checksum algorithm which is ASCII (Terry Neckar)
Re: Checksum algorithm which is ASCII (Tom St Denis)
Re: distributed factorisation using pollard rho method (Bob Silverman)
Re: Multiple keys in any order? (David A. Wagner)
Re: Requested: update on aes contest (Paul Koning)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Contini)
Subject: Re: how many bases?
Date: 24 Apr 2000 07:49:49 GMT
In article <8e0qrh$mji$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >According to Robert D. Silverman (*), citing an article by
>> >I. Damgard, P. Landrock et C. Pomerance, for numbers 512 bits
>> >or more, 8 Miller-Rabin tests are enough for an error
>> >probability below 2^-100.
>>
>> This assumes that the number to be tested for primality was selected
>> randomly. If you don't know anything about where the number came from
>> (for example, if somebody e-mailed you some number and asked you to
>> test if it were prime) then you would require 50 iterations to
>> have probability below 2^-100.
>
>
>how do you calculate that? I mean, how do you find 50?
probability for each one is 2^-2. For 50 randomly chosen tests,
the probability is (2^-2)^50 = 2^-100.
>
>and i want to say that the paper writen by Pinch states that there
>should be n bases for n digit number. Any comments?
Off of the top of my head, I'm not sure why he recommends that.
>
>And thanks for the replies ...
>I implement basic tests - being even test - division by small primes
>(upto 8191)
>- prime power test - lucas - lehmann(euler)
>
>but Miller Robin - how many bases?
>
If the number is chosen randomly (assuming 512-bits), just use 8 bases
(see the paper by Silverman). If the number is larger or smaller than
512-bits, you may require more or less bases to get probability of
error around 2^-100. I'm sure the paper by Silverman gives references
to other papers that can tell you the exact number of tests required
for various sized numbers. I know there was a paper by Pomerance and
some crypto dudes that explained this in detail, but I don't have the
reference right now.
If you know nothing about where the number comes from, it suffices
to use 50 tests.
>and is there a formula?
>
(forumla given above)
>thanks ...
>
>ps : ok, Frobenius is good - but i don't have enough math knowledge
>to write its code ... If someone supplies me the algorithm, why not?
>
The Frobenius test is due to Jon Grantham, and he has papers on it
at his web site:
http://www.clark.net/~grantham/jgpapers.html
Scott
------------------------------
From: Fedor Utenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How relieble is HCE-SHA ?
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:31:57 +0400
I'd like to use this cipher to send data over internet. It used in the
CGI::EcryptForm package for perl.
I know a little about this cipher. Implementation is very simple.
It seems to me it so relieble as far relieble random generator used
in.So the next question is how relieble this cipher with standard perl
rand() ?
Please, if somebody know some evidence or have url where to read drop a
line.
Best regards
Fedor.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Illusion of Security
From: ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 01:28:43 -0700
(Not all the messages are coming in, and some of my messages
are apparently getting lost going out.)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Trevor L. Jackson, III"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
>In light of my comments above and your concluding remark, what
_is_ an
>appropriate attitude?
1. We cannot trust any cipher. The academic peer-review
process does not claim to produce unbreakable ciphers.
The ciphers we get thus have a very real possibility of
weakness.
2. We cannot know the possibility of cipher weakness,
because this occurs at the opponent in secrecy. We
simply do not have evidence to state that a break is
improbable or infrequent. We are thus forced to assume
that exposure is likely and common.
3. The more often a cipher is used, the more ciphertext
is available for analysis, and the greater the value
of the information protected by that cipher. A
massively-used cipher is thus the most inviting target.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: OAP-L3: Semester 1 / Class #1 All are invited.
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 01:29:39 -0700
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
>
> Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:
> > In order to solve a problem that contains variables, you must not
> > only have a method but you must also have inputs for these method
> > variables.
> > What exactly will be the inputs to your hypothetical method? Where
> > will they come from? How much input data will you need?
> > Short of breaking into your opponents computer, bugging this computer,
> > etc., the accepted answer to this question is: the cracker only has
> > substantial plain text and the corresponding encrypted text as well as
> > complete knowledge of the encryption software / process(es).
> > What exactly are you assuming here regarding OAP-L3?
>
> Just as you state, except weaker: a known-plaintext attack against
> the known system.
I have sought someone who was sincere enough to have adequately read
the Help Files and I am still looking for this someone.
Are you claiming that with a substantial amount of OTP information
that you can reconstruct the MixFiles?
So you know where the OTP files come from? Obviously not.
1) the MixFiles are reordered extensively
2) random digits are output using these MixFiles
3) triplets are created from these random digits
4) only triplets from 000 - 767 are used. the rest are discarded
5) the resulting RandOut files contain the random numbers (0 - 255)
calculated from the random triplets from 000 - 767
6) these RandOut files are again extensively reordered using as
many as ten process.
7) the final OTP files are generated, again using true random user
input.
You are suggesting that you can take the OTP data and work backwards
to ultimately reconstruct the MixFiles.
If the OAP-L3 encryption software is used according to
recommendations there will be far too many true random number
inputs for you to even contemplate this approach.
Of course since you are apparently not familiar with the entire
process of generating the OTP files you can contemplate anything.
Your problems arise when your "imagined reality" (fantasy or
delusion or hallucination) comes into direct conflict with reality.
As far as I am concerned, you can imagine any reality you like.
But if you want credibility in this thread, you will have to
provide proof, or a reasonable argument for further consideration.
------------------------------
From: Thomas Luzat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: S-BOXES
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:47:04 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:32:40 -0700, "Joseph Ashwood"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>cipher, to determine how the security has changed. Sometimes
>the strength can be increased, the example of the original
>IBM cipher that became DES, originally the s-boxes offered a
>not as high level of security, at the request of the NSA
>they changed the S-boxes and that increased the security.
> Joe
So they say... :-)
Thomas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Call for testing and evaluating a stream cipher program
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:53:38 GMT
Hi,
My name is Danilo Gligoroski. Together with a coleague of mine
we have developed a stream cipher using quasigroups and we call it
'shredder'. :-)
The program can be ftp-ed from:
ftp://ftp.pmf.ukim.edu.mk/pub/crypt/shredder.exe
It is for DOS (under Windows), Windows 9x and Windows NT (not tested
under Win2000 > yet).
You can use it for testing, crypting, generating random sequences e.t.c.
If you find it interesting, if you find something wrong in it, or you
want to say something about it, post it here in the newsgroup or
you can write it to me at address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Danilo!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Call for testing and evaluating a stream cipher program
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:09:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My name is Danilo Gligoroski. Together with a coleague of mine
> we have developed a stream cipher using quasigroups and we call it
> 'shredder'. :-)
> The program can be ftp-ed from:
>
> ftp://ftp.pmf.ukim.edu.mk/pub/crypt/shredder.exe
>
> It is for DOS (under Windows), Windows 9x and Windows NT (not tested
> under Win2000 > yet).
>
> You can use it for testing, crypting, generating random sequences e.t.c.
> If you find it interesting, if you find something wrong in it, or you
> want to say something about it, post it here in the newsgroup or
> you can write it to me at address:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Danilo!
Where is the source?
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: distributed factorisation using pollard rho method
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:08:39 GMT
I have made a little java program that uses Pollard's Rho method for
factoring integers. This is not hard, but I would now like to make it
into a distributed application, to speed up the factorisation (ok, and
mostly just for fun! :)).
Any thoghts on how this can be done easily ?
Thanks
Martin Hamann
student, tech. univ. of denmark.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: distributed factorisation using pollard rho method
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:22:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have made a little java program that uses Pollard's Rho method for
> factoring integers. This is not hard, but I would now like to make it
> into a distributed application, to speed up the factorisation (ok, and
> mostly just for fun! :)).
>
> Any thoghts on how this can be done easily ?
>
> Thanks
> Martin Hamann
> student, tech. univ. of denmark.
give different users different polynomials?
Normally you use x^2 + 1, however if you can find another smooth
polynomial that's different they can use that. Also you can simply
change the + 1, part to another constant I think...
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Manuel Pancorbo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: AES Style CAST Cipher
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:26:19 +0200
[Tom StDenis]:
>
> I also did some timing tests and the same C ref optimized via DJGPP
> (-O3 -mpentium) gives 10 Mbyte/sec performance, which is not too bad.
> That translates roughly to 650,000 blocks a second, or 38.46 cycles/byte
> on my K6-II 400mhz. I know this is not in the 20 cycle/byte range, but
> I bet with tons of ASM optimizations (I can name a few obvious ones) 30
> cycles/byte will be easy to obtain.
>
Oh! 20 cycle/byte it's a lot! where did you obtain this number? I think 10
times (200 cycle/byte) is good enough for most applications.
I did some timing tests on my own cipher. I have a K6-II 350 and an old
borland C compiler (for DOS, with the abbility to make windows 3.1 dll's).
With it, in ANSI-C mode, I obtained 1800 cycles/byte. Very bad.
Furtherly, on the same computer, I compiled the program in Linux with 'gcc'
ANSI and with optimizations "-O2" and "-m486" (no trace of "-mpentium" I saw
on my 'gcc' manual) and I obtained 600 cycles/byte (supposing that all CPU
power was devoted to the test; I'm not sure about this).
So I wonder:
1) if 'gcc' compiled the code in -true- 32 bit fashion. This is essential
for my algorithm. Perhaps I have not the appropiate 'gcc' version; (I'm
neither an experienced programmer, neither a full-time Linux user)
2) if C++ compilation is desireable in order to obtain maximum performance.
My Linux instalation doesn't have the C++ part of 'gcc' but I could obtain
it.
3) by the way, how many 32-bit register are disposable to the programmer
with this CPU (I mean, how many 'register' variables can be used with
confidence).
Help will be appreciated. Also, any further suggestion about compilers,
optimization, time testing, etc
--
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
Manuel Pancorbo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"...
M�s vale aprender una sola l�nea de Ciencia
que postrarse cien veces en oraci�n. (Cor�n)
Pli valoras lerni ech nur unu linion de Scienco
ol preghe genui cent fojojn. (Korano)
..."
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:23:30 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Echelon article
Diet NSA wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> , "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
>
> >> Courts (contract enforcement and dispute resolution).
> >> Military (defense against foreign aggression).
> >> Police (apprehending domestic criminals).
> >>
> >> Note of these is working as well as it could, but there is no
> >> superior alternative available.
> >
> >This is a matter of (off topic) opinion, so I'll refrain from
> further comment.
> >
>
> Your village called. Their idiot is missing.
> The above is not a matter of opinion, but
> of fact.
;-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> Perhaps you don't care that the
> Allies won WWII, etc. but you *are* using
> data networks to post to newsgroups, so
> you might thank the U.S. Army for
> initiating Arpanet in the first place.
Accidents happen. We have to live with the consequences.
>
>
> >Yes. But this dynamic is the essence of government. Big or
> little, it has a
> >characteristic aroma.
> >
> >
> Don't tell me- let me guess. This aroma is
> a stinky one and you have some ingenious
> proposal for how modern society can
> function without taxation.
No, I am hardly that wise. Nor am I so foolish as to think the current state of
government is the best possible.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Troed)
Subject: Re: Call for testing and evaluating a stream cipher program
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:15:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>My name is Danilo Gligoroski. Together with a coleague of mine
>
>ftp://ftp.pmf.ukim.edu.mk/pub/crypt/shredder.exe
Only a total nutcase executes a program called "shredder" without
having compiled it himself ...
___/
_/
------------------------------
From: "ijl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Illusion of Security
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:18:29 GMT
Actually, Kolmogorov has proven that nothing can be "proven" to be truly
random. On the other hand, Kolmogorov also shows that almost all strings
which could exist ARE random; yet, it is not possible to prove a string as
random using the metric of compressibility.
==========
In article <ObQP2Obr$GA.265@cpmsnbbsa04>, "Joseph Ashwood"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am simply claiming that there has been no logic based
> proof that anything is truly random.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AES Style CAST Cipher
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:19:42 GMT
Manuel Pancorbo wrote:
>
> [Tom StDenis]:
> >
> > I also did some timing tests and the same C ref optimized via DJGPP
> > (-O3 -mpentium) gives 10 Mbyte/sec performance, which is not too bad.
> > That translates roughly to 650,000 blocks a second, or 38.46 cycles/byte
> > on my K6-II 400mhz. I know this is not in the 20 cycle/byte range, but
> > I bet with tons of ASM optimizations (I can name a few obvious ones) 30
> > cycles/byte will be easy to obtain.
> >
>
> Oh! 20 cycle/byte it's a lot! where did you obtain this number? I think 10
> times (200 cycle/byte) is good enough for most applications.
Well for a general purpose application you want at least 2mb/sec on a
Pentium 150 or so. But some other applications (multimedia, servers)
require in the 50mb/sec range to be effective. My 38 cycles/byte is not
far off from a good C implementation I think.
> I did some timing tests on my own cipher. I have a K6-II 350 and an old
> borland C compiler (for DOS, with the abbility to make windows 3.1 dll's).
> With it, in ANSI-C mode, I obtained 1800 cycles/byte. Very bad.
> Furtherly, on the same computer, I compiled the program in Linux with 'gcc'
> ANSI and with optimizations "-O2" and "-m486" (no trace of "-mpentium" I saw
> on my 'gcc' manual) and I obtained 600 cycles/byte (supposing that all CPU
> power was devoted to the test; I'm not sure about this).
GCC 2.95.2 supports the -mpenitum switch for the x86 targets.
> So I wonder:
> 1) if 'gcc' compiled the code in -true- 32 bit fashion. This is essential
> for my algorithm. Perhaps I have not the appropiate 'gcc' version; (I'm
> neither an experienced programmer, neither a full-time Linux user)
> 2) if C++ compilation is desireable in order to obtain maximum performance.
> My Linux instalation doesn't have the C++ part of 'gcc' but I could obtain
> it.
> 3) by the way, how many 32-bit register are disposable to the programmer
> with this CPU (I mean, how many 'register' variables can be used with
> confidence).
On a x86 you have seven 32-bit registers (four general purpose (which
includes 8 and 16 bit words)), those are EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX (general
purpose) and you can even use ESI, EDI and EBP as 32-bit registers.
*However* GCC does a full job of making use of the registers so
specifying "register int a" normally has *zero* effect on the code.
Tom
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:43:54 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.org.nsa,alt.journalism.print,alt.journalism.newspapers
Subject: Re: new Echelon article
Diet NSA wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> , "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I defy you to name one way in which I am "helped" by the
> government for which
> >there is not a superior alternative available.
>
> If you are an extreme isolationist, then
> the gov't may not be helping you that
> much, but otherwise see Doug Gwyn's
> reply. In addition, there is highway
> maintenance, funding for basic scientific
> research, etc. I could give many examples
> of useful contributions the gov't has made
> such as the development of satellites
> which are essential for today's wireless
> communications, but first you might want
> to learn something about history.
I think you missed the closing clause of my statement above. You are using the
"any benefit from gov't would not exist without gov't" fallacy. As was D. Gwyn
>
>
> Whenever you use the internet you are
> using a technology developed from
> Arpanet which was initiated by the U.S.
> military. Businesses often cannot take
> the risks of funding certain types of
> science & technology because the
> potential pay-off may be too far away.
More of the same fallacy.
>
>
> >Feasibility has little or no relation to equity or justice.
> Often they are
> >complements.
> >
> If you live in a (false) utopia, you might
> be able to separate the ideals or
> intentions underlying laws from the
> practical realization of those same laws,
> but not here in this world. The feasiblity
> of defining realistic laws and enforcing
> those laws is very important.
Absolutely.
However, if you refer to the original issue, I think you'll find that
feasibility of an unjust solution is not an adequate excuse for its imposition.
Note also the dramatic difference between vernacular feasibility and political
feasibility. The latter is hardly a useful standard.
>
> >
> >The surveillance isn't the issue. The issue is who pays for it.
>
> As we have already discussed, who else is
> going to pay for it? The subset of citizens
> that are ballerinas? Or, perhaps the
> grocers?
Those who "benefit". Society as a whole (or so the excuse goes), thus the
taxpayers.
>
> >>
> >> Personally, I only have to worry about my
> >> privacy in regards to criminal activity,
> >> not governmental activity.
> >
> >This is a naive perspective.
> >
> You seem more paranoid than I seem
> naive. Realistically, what would the gov't
> do to me?
Anything it wants. Can you conceive of nothing it might want that you would not
surrender?
> Are they planning to use
> binoculars to spy on me when I'm in the
> bathroom, waiting for me to make a
> down*load* into the toilet ala "Austin
> Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me" ?
Are you invulnerable to the actions of the government, feel your insignificance
on their radar screen reduces the risk to tolerable levels, trust in the
intentions of bureaucrats, or feel your innocence is an adequate protection
against government misdeeds? N.B., I would characterize all of those positions
as naive.
For topical reference, see Phil Zimmerman's writings on why he felt creating PGP
was so important.
>
>
> >The historical paranoia of the Russian culture will serve them
> well. ;-)
>
> Perhaps, but previously the Russian
> people, on average, were so used to
> surveillance, etc. that they became
> fatalistic about it, kind of gave up, and
> continued to let Communism oppress
> them. The average life expectancy for a
> male in Russia is no better than it was
> 100 years ago, a trend opposite of that in
> more developed countries.
No, I think they started the 20th century that way. The history (many
centuries) of that region is steeped in exploitation by invaders. For most
people the Marxists were just another set of oppressors. They were _used_ to
it. N.B., Russian literature is incredibly depressing due to just this
fatalism.
>
>
> The Russian people didn't stand up to
> their regime & now they're still suffering
> the consequences. My town just had a big
> 225th anniversay celebration of the
> Revolutionary War- when we overcame
> British oppression and went on to
> establish a real Constitution (which
> Russia has only done recently). BTW, the
> Russian military should stay the fuck out
> of Chechnya and the Balkans. (During the
> Cold War, when I visited Russia, we used
> to throw shit at the tank and truck
> convoys- aahhh, sweet memories).
Funny you should mention the revolutionary war, which was fought in opposition
to taxation, in support of a tax upon internet users. Funny you should mention
the U.S. Constitution, which is not just _a_ constitution, but _the_
constitution because it was the first such document that explicitly set out the
powers of a limited government -- given that you appear to consider the powers
of the gov't to be unlimited.
Which of us lacks a historical perspective?
------------------------------
From: "Abyssmal_Unit_#2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Call for testing and evaluating a stream cipher program
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:48:48 -0400
need source code to evaluate algorithms.
we never execute attachements from non-secure/un-signed/un-verified sites.
--
best regards,
hapticz
>X(sign here)____________________________________________<
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <8e193g$58v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
|Hi,
|
|My name is Danilo Gligoroski. Together with a coleague of mine
|we have developed a stream cipher using quasigroups and we call it
|'shredder'. :-)
|The program can be ftp-ed from:
|
|ftp://ftp.pmf.ukim.edu.mk/pub/crypt/shredder.exe
|
|It is for DOS (under Windows), Windows 9x and Windows NT (not tested
|under Win2000 > yet).
|
|You can use it for testing, crypting, generating random sequences e.t.c.
|If you find it interesting, if you find something wrong in it, or you
|want to say something about it, post it here in the newsgroup or
|you can write it to me at address:
|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| Danilo!
|
|
|Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
|Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Terry Neckar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Checksum algorithm which is ASCII
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:00:54 GMT
I'm still willing to pay for help if anyone can figure this thing out.
Thanks,
Terry
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Checksum algorithm which is ASCII
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:04:14 GMT
Terry Neckar wrote:
>
> I'm still willing to pay for help if anyone can figure this thing out.
>
> Thanks,
> Terry
How did you get that checksum?
Tom
------------------------------
From: Bob Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: distributed factorisation using pollard rho method
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:08:22 GMT
In article <8e19vi$6b3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have made a little java program that uses Pollard's Rho method for
> factoring integers. This is not hard, but I would now like to make it
> into a distributed application, to speed up the factorisation (ok, and
> mostly just for fun! :)).
>
> Any thoghts on how this can be done easily ?
It can't. At least if one is using either Floyd's or Brent's cycle
finding algorithm.
Use Pollard Lambda instead.
Note: If the factor is sufficiently large that a distributed version
would speed things up, then you are using the wrong algorithm. Switch
to ECM.
--
Bob Silverman
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David A. Wagner)
Subject: Re: Multiple keys in any order?
Date: 24 Apr 2000 08:02:42 -0700
In article <8dvmr0$h8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Evin Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I need an encryption algorithm which allows a message to be encrypted
> with multiple keys and then decrypted by those keys in any order.
You want a commutative cipher.
(Note that you can use any commutative cipher to build a
Diffie-Hellman-like public-key key-exchange protocol.)
Try this: Fix a large prime p so that (p-1)/2 is prime;
when gcd(k,p-1)=1, set
E_k(x) := x^k mod p, and
D_k(y) := y^{k^{-1} mod p-1} mod p.
This leaks one bit of information, but should otherwise be
secure (I suspect) if discrete log and DDH are hard mod p.
------------------------------
From: Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Requested: update on aes contest
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:28:48 -0400
stanislav shalunov wrote:
> ...
> You can like whatever you want. You can also use whatever you want.
> But duliting standards for flexibility makes no sense. You get
> FTP protocol on this road: a tremendously bloated and complicated
> protocol for trivial purpose. Or IPSec.
Say what you want about IPSec -- and arguably it is more
complex than it needs to be. But it has one inarguable
advantage: it's there, and it's being used.
Available good security beats unavailable perfect security
any day.
Since AES isn't just going to replace all existing ciphers,
the argument that multiple AES algorithms requires negotiation
mechanisms is a red herring. Of course it does, but you have
to have those anyway. And negotiation mechanisms are not
inherently complex. In fact, arguably every useable
network protocol has negotiation of some sort in it,
otherwise it is non-extensible (i.e., obsolete soon
after publication). This is not rocket science, hasn't
been for decades.
paul
--
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
! Paul Koning, NI1D, D-20853
! Lucent Corporation, 50 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720, USA
! phone: +1 978 263 0060 ext 115, fax: +1 978 263 8386
! email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
! Pgp: 27 81 A9 73 A6 0B B3 BE 18 A3 BF DD 1A 59 51 75
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
! "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny
! gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
! -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
