Cryptography-Digest Digest #407, Volume #14 Tue, 22 May 01 12:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: How do you measure the power of a chipher? (John Savard)
RSA private key size (Morten Primdahl)
Re: CIA Kryptos last 97 characters (Gary Warzin)
Re: RSA private key size (Mark Wooding)
Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm) (Tim Tyler)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (Tim Tyler)
"computationally impossible" and cryptographic hashs (Daniel Graf)
Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm) (Richard
Herring)
Re: CIA Kryptos last 97 characters ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they (Martin Schultz)
Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter) (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: survey (Tom St Denis)
Re: How do you measure the power of a chipher? (Tom St Denis)
Re: truth+integrity=sore losers (Tom St Denis)
Re: survey ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: truth+integrity=sore losers ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: RSA private key size ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: How do you measure the power of a chipher?
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:03:21 GMT
On Mon, 21 May 2001 18:32:49 +0200, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote, in part:
>When you hear about RSA crypto it is said to be in 56 bits or 128 bits.
>What do that mean? Is it the length of the public or private key or the
>two big primenumbers you multiply, or?
Presumably, that's the length of the session key used with the
associated conventional cipher.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/frhome.htm
------------------------------
From: Morten Primdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RSA private key size
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:33:47 +0200
Hi. Is it possible to deduce the maximum size
of an RSA private key (d), given the public key {e, N}?
If so, how can it be done?
I know that |N| <= |q|+|p| as N = q*p
Thus |e| < |N| as e < (p-1)*(q-1)
Can I express |d| in terms of |e| and |N|?
Thanks,
Morten
------------------------------
Subject: Re: CIA Kryptos last 97 characters
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Warzin)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:58:33 GMT
Douglas,
Another interesting aspect of your comments about the line lengths is that it
simplifies things in one other respect (and simpler is almost always better).
In my earlier versions, Sanborn would have to both create holes in the top text
to allow some parts of the table to show through AND at the same time
intentionally erase portions of the underlying table so they wouldn't show
through. All this was based on what I now feel was an erroneous assumption
that the message would have been laid out in advance on paper using fixed width
characters.
If we think of this in terms of variable width characters filling the whole
line, as it is in the real sculpture, then there would be no show through along
the edges (something that I think bothered Ferdinando as well) and every
instance of show through can be accounted for by holes in the primary text.
In article <RllO6.2495$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
>>While your observation (KR,..,YP) is interesting, it is not necessarily
>>significant; or if it turns out to be significant, it could well be for
>>some cause other than the one you've been pursuing. Some of the ideas
>>on your Web page are plain wrong, for example the issue of line lengths:
>>The actual sculpture has the letters stenciled out, and they have
>>variable widths, so (depending on what ciphertext letters happen to
>>occur) the lines will naturally be of different lengths, simply to
>>neatly line up at the right margin (as opposed to what typesetters call
>>"ragged right"). The main problem I have with your approach is the
>>notion that a tableau is "shining through" the patent ciphertext; the
>>recovered plaintext is not consistent with that model, so why should the
>>last little bit follow that model? It is certainly not consistent with
>>the normal uses of tableaus for encryption.
>
>You make an interesting point about the line lengths on the actual sculpture
>vs. those typed out with a fixed width font. It does make me rethink
>something.
>
>Humor me for a moment. Let's assume that there IS an underlying table. If
the
>real life physical line lengths stay the same, but the number of characters
per
>line differ, then my underlying table may not line up as I have proposed. The
>KP and YP may very well line up nicely since they are near the edge of the
>panel. However, the K and R errors may indeed fall at a slightly different
>positon (based on character count from the left edge on the underlying table).
> This could mean the the first charaters on the rows under the K and R errors
>on it are not realy Y and T, but could be shifted by a few characters in
either
>direction. That could make them consistent with a completely standard
Vigenere
>table. That is the left column of letters is KRYPTOSABC... similar to the
>table that we can see. There is even enough of a variation in character widths
>to make this the second line in from the left, leaving room for the ABCD...
>line we see in the real table.
>
>On one hand this makes it very unlikely that the underlying table is actually
>required to do the decyption (since we already have it on the other panel).
On
>the other hand the more perfect the underlying table appears, the more likely
>it is intentional.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Subject: Re: RSA private key size
Date: 22 May 2001 14:30:03 GMT
Morten Primdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi. Is it possible to deduce the maximum size
> of an RSA private key (d), given the public key {e, N}?
>
> If so, how can it be done?
d will be approximately the same length as n, usually. It won't be
larger, and is unlikely to be much sorter.
The hard upper-bound is either \phi(n) - 1 or \lambda{n} - 1 (depending
on implementation). Knowledge of either of these is sufficient to
factor n.
> Can I express |d| in terms of |e| and |N|?
d = e^{-1} \bmod \lambda(N)
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:32:27 GMT
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Tyler) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
:>SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: No wonder violent crime is up in the UK you can't shoot
:>: the bastards that break into you own house. [...]
:>
:>I believe shooting someone for breaking and entering would
:>itself be regarded as a violent crime in the UK.
: I can see why. Since your society could be falling apart
: and since your governement can break into your house at will
: for as little as thinking you may have a secret TV.
I understand the situation there is that TV licensing officials
can enter your property in your presence - but without your
permission - only if accompanied by a police officer.
If police are present I don't think secret TVs need to be involved -
just have the officer say he thought he smelled cannabis.
I would expect the government can usually find an excuse for breaking
into your house if it feels the need.
--
__________
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://alife.co.uk/tim/
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:39:04 GMT
Joseph Ashwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: At one point you specifically stated that BICOM could output a single
: byte output that was Rijndael encrypted, that always has been, and
: always will be the problem.
I believe David Scott has his facts straight there.
--
__________
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://alife.co.uk/tim/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Graf)
Subject: "computationally impossible" and cryptographic hashs
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:54:13 GMT
I have a basic question about cryptographic hashes. A friend
and I were talking about how the hash algorithm used some UNIX
machines uses only 64 (or so) bits of the password.
Now, I don't know much of anything about cryptography, but I
have used hash algorithms for use with hash-tables. Are
cryptographic hashes mostly dissimilar, or am I wrong in guessing that
more than one input at a Unix login prompt may match the string found
in the passwd file? (particularly for passwords greater than 8
characters).
Looking at the sci.crypt faq I found in section 7.1 something
which says:
For some one-way hash functions it's also computationally
impossible to determine two messages which produce the
same hash.
Does "computationally impossible" mean literally that such a
thing cannot happen?
Sorry if this is such a stupid question.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Herring)
Subject: Re: ON-topic - UK crime statistics (was Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm)
Date: 22 May 2001 14:55:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Douglas A. Gwyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Richard Herring wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Douglas A. Gwyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Note: You don't have to actually shoot them; it's the fear
> > > of being shot that has deterred many potential home invasions.
> > If they didn't take place, how do you know?
> It's the most direct explanation for the observed correlations,
Granted; but correlation isn't causation.
> and is supported by interviews with professional criminals.
Who naturally always tell the truth.
> > In any case, even quite stupid thieves usually have the wit to
> > target empty houses.
> Invasions of occupied homes sharply increased in the countries
> we mentioned after more home firearms were confiscated.
I thought the "country we mentioned" was the UK, where the
recent changes have reduced the percentage of gun-owners from
tiny to minuscule, and the number of "home invasions" (as opposed to
mere burglaries) is also so tiny that such events are headline news.
I'd be very surprised if you could draw any statistically-significant
conclusions from them.
--
Richard Herring | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CIA Kryptos last 97 characters
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:55:04 GMT
Gary Warzin wrote:
> ... Of course the only way we will know for sure is if
> someone using the 93 character set actually solves this last part of the
> message. Or should I say "next" part. I'm sure that any solution to the text
> only takes us one step deeper into the total puzzle.
Better to consider it 97 characters until there is proof one
way or another. I suspect it uses yet another classical
method of encryption. The limited amount of material to
work with means that solution is pretty much dependent on
an inspired guess.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:59:36 GMT
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> I understand that when power companies were required to open
> back up (from scheduled maintenance downtime), the rolling
> black outs ceased. Is this correct?
Of course, without preventive maintenance, there will
eventually be a much bigger catastrophe.
The causes of California's power crisis are explained
very nicely in the past two issues of the Intellectual
Activist. The story isn't simple, but in essense the
problem was brought on by bad regulation and legislation.
It could serve as a case study in the effects of rabid
environmentalism.
------------------------------
From: Martin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject: Re: taking your PC in for repair? WARNING: What will they
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:16:39 +0200
On Mon, 21 May 2001 14:11:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
wrote:
[SNIP]
>I've been thinking about it myself, but I'm a Unix programmer, not a
>Windows programmer. Hmm, hold on, I have some spare time right now,
>maybe I'll go learn the Windows API's... hmm, I don't have a C++ compiler
>for Windows, I guess I'll look at Cygwin (the Windows port of the
>GNU C++ compiler)... certainly beats working on the EE_Support_Eliminator
>(which randomly spams the security newsgroups :-).
[SNIP
Hmm for windows I would recomment the free borland c++ compiler that
you can download from www.borland.com (only its not opensource)
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Apology to Cloakware (open letter)
Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:36:38 GMT
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Of course, without preventive maintenance, there will
> eventually be a much bigger catastrophe.
>
> The causes of California's power crisis are explained
> very nicely in the past two issues of the Intellectual
> Activist. The story isn't simple, but in essense the
> problem was brought on by bad regulation and legislation.
> It could serve as a case study in the effects of rabid
> environmentalism.
i remember as a kid (out west) seeing the track maintenance crews
going thru every summer ... replacing ties.
after graduation, i took a job on the east coast. there were ties you
could stick your finger into. people complained that sections they
remember as having train speed limits of 60-80 mph were down to
15. there was one section that was called the box-car grave yard where
the freight train speed limit was 5 mph (and there were still regular
derailments). It had been 20 years or more since the tracks had any
PM.
i seem to remember reading an article a year or so ago in ?? (possibly
SJMN) about how the california PUCC was doing a tremendous job for the
consumer by preventing the electronic companies from signing any
long-term power supply contracts; that the PUCC had forced the
california companies into only signing short-term contracts (in effect
forcing them into the spot market). This worked well when there was a
large surplus on the spot-market.
One problem was that it (at least) eliminated incentive for power
produces to build new power production facilities (in part, much
easier to get construction loans &/or float bonds for major power
plant contruction projects if you have long term contracts in your
hand that demonstrate demand for the new facilities).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm
Date: 22 May 2001 15:54:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Tyler) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Joseph Ashwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: At one point you specifically stated that BICOM could output a single
>: byte output that was Rijndael encrypted, that always has been, and
>: always will be the problem.
>
>I believe David Scott has his facts straight there.
Yes Joe and the other phony crypto gods refuse to openly state
that full RIJNDAEL can be used in a full block mode that is not
a weakened 3 letter chaining mode. Where the result can still be
bijective to byte files on input and output. They seem to wrongly
think only something weak like a counter mode can do this. Why
they only seem to support modes that the NSA most likely can break
is beyond me. I hope there is some valid reason other than
plain stupidity on there part.
As many know I am not a fan of RINJNDAEL but if forced to use
it. I would only use it in something like BICOM which is the kind
of product Shannon would have been proud. Ask Mr BS or Wagner why
they think BICOM is not such a hot implimentation for an
encryption program. Will they gave an honest anwser other than
saying its to slow or that they can't understand Matts code. Or
will they say that having an encryption program where any "KEY"
would decrypt it to a unque file that when encrypted back also
goes to a unique file has no use in modern encryption.
Ask them see if they have the balls for and honest anwser.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE "OLD VERSIOM"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
My website http://members.nbci.com/ecil/index.htm
My crypto code http://radiusnet.net/crypto/archive/scott/
MY Compression Page http://members.nbci.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE FOR EMAIL drop the roman "five" ***
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged or
something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis)
Subject: Re: survey
Date: 22 May 2001 08:59:41 -0700
Paul Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> I look at your stuff but not very closely. Nothing personal but I
> don't think examining new block ciphers designed by college students
> is a good way to spend my time (I admire David and Pancho for being
> willing to do that). If I look at your TC15 paper for 2 minutes and
> don't see an obvious attack, what kind of comment is that supposed to
> be? I just shrug my shoulders and go on to the next thing.
You could just say "nice paper, good grammar, etc.." Not all comments
have to deal with just the math. I would like to know if its remotely
interesting, or well presented, or even written properly.
> Cryptanalysis is much more worthwhile and your Noekeon paper is
> interesting and I'd like to get around to looking at it more closely
> one of these days, but you know how that goes too.
So I am damned if I do and if I don't? My Noekeon paper is really
short so I wouldn't imagine it would take long to peer through it.
Also my TC15 paper (currently on my website) deals with the analysis I
have done so far. I have broken five rounds of the 8 (requires 2^128
work though) so it's not entirely like I haven't done any analysis.
It is just that I am an amateur and can use guidance (Scott has been a
big help).
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis)
Subject: Re: How do you measure the power of a chipher?
Date: 22 May 2001 09:00:58 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> > I didn't say 128-bit RSA was secure though...
> > Tom
>
> I know...
> but you said 56 is insecure and nothing about 128
> so one who does not know anything about RSA may assume that 128 bit is secure :-/
Anyone who "assumes" 128-bit RSA is an idiot. Anyone who assumes 1024-bit RSA is an
idiot too.
(not: I am not supporting 10 M-bit keys here... I have another arguement entirely in
mind).
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis)
Subject: Re: truth+integrity=sore losers
Date: 22 May 2001 09:06:34 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom St Denis) wrote in
> <s5bN6.126038$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Well folks you were right, what a way to learn a lesson. I got canned
> >from Cloakware today.
>
> Don't sweat if you don't get canned or piss people off
> now and then youd be nothing but a wimp.
Now I am a non-wimp who is unemployed. Somehow my values seem less
important...
> >
> >They had no official reason for firing me except to say "if you don't
> >know what you did wrong you shouldn't be here".
> >
> >So from what I gather "truth+integrity=sore losers_is congruent to_can
> >the employee".
> >
>
> Yes even the government thinks one a fool for telling the truth.
> To keep most jobs you have to learn the unwritten rules. Bosses
> seldom like to really hear the truth.
This I know first hand.
>
> >What exactly did I do wrong? I didn't lie, I didn't violate my NDA....
> >--
>
> I don't know what you did wrong but if your lack of learning
> how bijective compression and encryption is any indication, You
> may have had a minor disagreement and when you failed to understand
> the comcept boss saying he gave up on you I would have given you
> more chances though.
It's not that I don't want to accept your ideas its just that you
haven't presented them properly yet. Handwaving is not enough.
For example, the feedback I get about my papers/ciphers is "stupid
kid, know nothing waste of bandwidth". Then I add analysis and some
evididence of security (or in the case of MDFC find an attack against
the entire cipher) and people say "neat stuff kid, keep it up".
Seems people crave cryptanalysis more than designs. Rightly so,
cryptanalysis helps us figure out whats what in the security world.
Similarly you would help your cause much by presenting attacks and
analysis of your scottu19 ciphers and BICOM stuff rather than
handwaving and insults. If you could even break a variant of scottu19
that would at least show "hey this designer has some brains about
him".
Good luck,
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: survey
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:02:41 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
> Is the reason I get zero feedback on my papers ...
None of the above. I don't comment because I don't want
to spend time looking at new ideas for building cryptosystems.
It is easy to generate those. What is hard is finding ways
to attack cryptosystems. Building them is a waste of time
if they don't provide something new, e.g. resistance to a
previously overlooked attack.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: truth+integrity=sore losers
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:03:52 GMT
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
> ... If you piss one then the enemy of that group likes you.
Except they probably don't trust you at that point.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RSA private key size
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:07:27 GMT
Morten Primdahl wrote:
> Can I express |d| in terms of |e| and |N|?
|d| < |N|
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
