Cryptography-Digest Digest #223, Volume #10 Sun, 12 Sep 99 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux on the Pilot (Andreas Kupries)
Re: diffie-hellmann in PeekBoo (Boris Kazak)
Re: diffie-hellmann in PeekBoo (David A Molnar)
Re: WT Shaw temporarily sidelined (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: WT Shaw temporarily sidelined (wtshaw)
Novice looking for a reference (David Hoyt)
Re: diffie-hellmann in PeekBoo (Tom St Denis)
Re: Factoring numbers too big to represent on a computer? (Tom St Denis)
Re: GnuPG 1.0 released
Re: Looking for Completely-Free Strong Algorithms (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Looking for Completely-Free Strong Algorithms (Tom St Denis)
Re: GnuPG 1.0 released (Charles Blair)
Re: Looking for Completely-Free Strong Algorithms (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
--- sci.crypt charter: read before you post (weekly notice) (D. J. Bernstein)
Re: "Posting Anonymously is the Sign of a Coward" (Charlie Comsec)
Re: Factoring numbers too big to represent on a computer? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Factoring numbers too big to represent on a computer? ("Lucas Wiman")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andreas Kupries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on the Pilot
Date: 11 Sep 1999 14:53:30 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard) writes:
> I haven't located it yet, but a new magazine about Linux noted that
> there's a version of it that runs on a Pilot.
See http://www.uclinux.org/
> Which is relevant to a thread in the coderpunks mailing list. Although
> I'm going to see if I can't come up with something cryptosecure that
> will run on, say, an SR-56. (an early TI programmable with 100 steps)
--
Sincerely,
Andreas Kupries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.westend.com/~kupries/>
===============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: diffie-hellmann in PeekBoo
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 16:25:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> I am adding DH to Peekboo to allow better key generation. I need two things
>
> a) as much technical and implementation data I can find on DH
>
> and
>
> b) Ideas for SIMPLE (for the user) and compact rngs. I am thinking of
> running SHA-1 in counter mode with some seed...
================
A good source of randomness is there inside your PC.
Just open the directory of your WWW browser and go to the "cache"
subdirectory. You will see there on average 400-600 files with
the stuff downloaded from the Web pages you visited recently.
Take any of these files, run it through SHA-1 or whatever other
hash function. Make this the SEED and run the trustworthy
counter mode...
Will anybody be able to guess this seed?
I would love to know how!
Best wishes BNK
>
> The DH part will be a dialog but built into PeekBoo.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
> --
> damn windows... new PGP key!!!
> http://people.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
> (this time I have a backup of the secret key)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: diffie-hellmann in PeekBoo
Date: 11 Sep 1999 23:35:13 GMT
Boris Kazak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> subdirectory. You will see there on average 400-600 files with
> the stuff downloaded from the Web pages you visited recently.
> Take any of these files, run it through SHA-1 or whatever other
> hash function. Make this the SEED and run the trustworthy
> counter mode...
> Will anybody be able to guess this seed?
> I would love to know how!
Watching your connection and noting what sites you connect to ?
-David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: WT Shaw temporarily sidelined
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:16:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(wtshaw) wrote:
>In article <7qg6gb$1abk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel) wrote:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard) writes:
>....
>> >
>> >Anyway, I have a virtual vodka chilling for him in the ice-box.
>> >
>> >Joe
>> >
>> >
>> Thats nice Joe But I have a real beer I can give him if I
>> get to see him. None of that low octane diet virtual crap.
>> Did you ever notice the recent studys saying how good alcohol
>> is for ones health. He my actaully need a few beers.
>> And I may have found the cure he needs. But it would
>> help to know the problem first.
>>
>I get to make one post. Thanks for all the kind words, but I find it
>difficult to type much to answer much. I'm home on leave for a short time.
>I will be choosing my words carefully.
>
>Bye for now
Well don't choose them to carefully.
Take Care
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Subject: Re: WT Shaw temporarily sidelined
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 18:06:59 -0600
In article <7qg6gb$1abk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JPeschel) wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard) writes:
...
> >
> >Anyway, I have a virtual vodka chilling for him in the ice-box.
> >
> >Joe
> >
> >
> Thats nice Joe But I have a real beer I can give him if I
> get to see him. None of that low octane diet virtual crap.
> Did you ever notice the recent studys saying how good alcohol
> is for ones health. He my actaully need a few beers.
> And I may have found the cure he needs. But it would
> help to know the problem first.
>
I get to make one post. Thanks for all the kind words, but I find it
difficult to type much to answer much. I'm home on leave for a short time.
I will be choosing my words carefully.
Bye for now
--
I'd rather have prime rib than prime numbers.
Moore's Law always yields to Les's Rule.
------------------------------
From: David Hoyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Novice looking for a reference
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 20:02:46 -0500
I've come up with a protocol, that might improve existing
protocols. As I rather doubt that I've invented anything
new, I was hoping to find a reference to an analysis of
it. It goes something like this:
R <= PR() - a source of nicely "random" bits, from a
non algorithmic source
R0 - n of those nicely "random" bits
Cl' <= E(Kl,Ml') - a cipher function that has a key length
of l bits and encrypts l' bits;
l <= l', l <= n/2
Ml' <= D(Kl,Cl') - the decrypt function
Kl <= G(Sl') - A function that generates a good key for E
with a seed l bits long
a) Bob: generate R0 and sends them via a secure channel
to Alice
b) Bob: wants sends a message M to Alice
c) Bob: breaks M into M0..Mx blocks of length l'
d) repeat i = 0..x
e) Bob: Ki <= G(R0<(l+i)..i> ; Generate a key using l'
bits, retire 1 bit per rep
f) Bob: Ci <= E(Ki,Mi)
g) transmit Ci to Alice
h) Alice: Ki <= G(R0<(l+i)..i>) ; R<x..y> is bits
y through x of R
i) Alice: Mi <= D(Ki,Ci)
j) Alice: constructs M from M0..Mx
Notes:
- The obvious downside: If Ki is discovered, determination
of Ki-1 and Ki+1 is trivial, but if new R0's can be sent
via a secure channel, this risk can be minimized
- If retire rate in (e,h) can be 0 <= r < l' Bob can send
Rq at will to prevent Alice from running out of the "random"
bits. Also 'r' could be a rational.
- If the r=0, you just have a normal symmetric cipher or if
you consider what PPG does to generate new key pairs to be RP,
this is just business as usual
- If r=l=l'=1 and E/D are xor this is a one time pad
- If E/D is a nice block cipher, you have a nice block cipher
with extremely rapid key changes, which may reduce the
information available to a known cipher text attack
- If G is a cryptographic quality pseudo-random number generator
(with possible prior seed permutation, such as a good signature
hash) and E/D is xor, to my tyro analysis you have a
"pseudo-one time pad" with a very difficult to determine
cycle (if any)
My question:
This seems to be a good way of improving security of Bob &
Alice's channel, at the cost of creating a relatively small
number of "random" bits (and the occasional otherwise secured
channel). But, I've not read about it. So one of the following
is likely true:
1) It doesn't help anything
2) It might help, but it might not, and it doesn't seem worth
the cost
3) It actually makes things worse
4) I've come up with something new
Assuming it's not (4), could anyone give me a pointer of where to
find an analysis of this method?
Also is my "pseudo-one time pad," at all useful?
david | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: diffie-hellmann in PeekBoo
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:57:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A good source of randomness is there inside your PC.
> Just open the directory of your WWW browser and go to the "cache"
> subdirectory. You will see there on average 400-600 files with
> the stuff downloaded from the Web pages you visited recently.
> Take any of these files, run it through SHA-1 or whatever other
> hash function. Make this the SEED and run the trustworthy
> counter mode...
>
> Will anybody be able to guess this seed?
> I would love to know how!
While your idea is very insightfull (in fact a damn good one) the sole
problem that the cache is available after the program runs makes it a bad
idea. What I had in mind was gathering a) mouse movement and b)key input to
get the seed. This way if you did it properly the seed should be not be
easily reproduceable.
I want it to be very easy for the user to use. Peekboo while a good
cryptosystem currently does not stand up against debuggers well (it's getting
there). So keeping the seed hidden is not a priority (at the moment, I
acknowledge I should delete it properly).
dunno, any other ideas?
Any good free large integer libaries (I have tried gmp and lip, neither
compile with lcc-win32).
Tom
--
damn windows... new PGP key!!!
http://people.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
(this time I have a backup of the secret key)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Factoring numbers too big to represent on a computer?
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:14:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Since d is even, 5^d-1 = (5^(d/2)+1)*(5^(d/2)-1). You should be able to
> take that second factor on down a ways, too.
Here's my grade 11 math, that's called a diff of squares right? and you can
keep doing that until you find a non power of two i.e
a = 5^d - 1
b = (5^(d/2) + 1)(5^(d/2) -1)
c = ...?
Tom
--
damn windows... new PGP key!!!
http://people.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
(this time I have a backup of the secret key)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: GnuPG 1.0 released
Date: 12 Sep 99 01:05:24 GMT
Vernon Schryver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > ...
: >> What the Free Software Foundation says about patents is not legal advice
: >> that I would bet my life savings on. For years the FSF excused the GNU
: >> support for decompressing LZW by claiming that the LZW patent was only
: >> about compression, and never mind that about half of the ~150 claims in
: >> 4,558,302 contain the word "decompression."
: >Though it causes me great pain to do so, I have to agree with the FSF
: >on this one. ...
: Interesting reasoning.
I think the basis of the FSF reasoning is that the novel element of
patented LZW, as opposed to unpatented LZ, is a decision made by the
program performing compression. Decompression amounts to taking strings
from where the compressed file "points to" those strings, and the process
of retrieving data from an indexed array is not, in itself, patented.
This could well be a reasonable argument, but one would have to examine a
lot of technical and legal issues to determine that.
John Savard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Looking for Completely-Free Strong Algorithms
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 03:00:13 GMT
In article <7rduco$asg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <7rdq38$2b92$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
>
>> >> Encryption I'd like to come in at under 6MB and decryption under 2MB, not
> a
>> >> big issue, security is the primary issue
>> >
>> >Nothing uses anything like this much. I can't think of a cipher that
>> >uses more that 4-5k.
>> Then you need to be educated. If you can make scott16u or scott19u
>> work in less than 10k I would love to hear from you.
>
>How about scottu8?
>
>Tom
THere was one put I lost the source before I posted it. IF you find
it let me know.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Looking for Completely-Free Strong Algorithms
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 03:10:33 GMT
In article <7rf1fq$2q46$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> In article <7rduco$asg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >In article <7rdq38$2b92$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> >
> >> >> Encryption I'd like to come in at under 6MB and decryption under 2MB, not
> > a
> >> >> big issue, security is the primary issue
> >> >
> >> >Nothing uses anything like this much. I can't think of a cipher that
> >> >uses more that 4-5k.
> >> Then you need to be educated. If you can make scott16u or scott19u
> >> work in less than 10k I would love to hear from you.
> >
> >How about scottu8?
> >
> >Tom
>
> THere was one put I lost the source before I posted it. IF you find
> it let me know.
>
Why not just make another copy I seriously think scottu8 would be more
popular then your 19/16 versions...
Tom
--
damn windows... new PGP key!!!
http://people.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
(this time I have a backup of the secret key)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Blair)
Subject: Re: GnuPG 1.0 released
Date: 12 Sep 1999 03:53:40 GMT
Sorry for asking what I'm sure is an FAQ, but didn't one of the
claims for the public key partners patent extend to ANY public key
system?
Also, does GnuPG claim to be able to process messages sent by
users of regular PGP? If so, I would assume it has to have some
RSA capability.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Looking for Completely-Free Strong Algorithms
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 05:40:49 GMT
In article <7rf5j3$4us$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <7rf1fq$2q46$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
>> In article <7rduco$asg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom St Denis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <7rdq38$2b92$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Encryption I'd like to come in at under 6MB and decryption under 2MB,
> not
>> > a
>> >> >> big issue, security is the primary issue
>> >> >
>> >> >Nothing uses anything like this much. I can't think of a cipher that
>> >> >uses more that 4-5k.
>> >> Then you need to be educated. If you can make scott16u or scott19u
>> >> work in less than 10k I would love to hear from you.
>> >
>> >How about scottu8?
>> >
>> >Tom
>>
>> THere was one put I lost the source before I posted it. IF you find
>> it let me know.
>>
>
>Why not just make another copy I seriously think scottu8 would be more
>popular then your 19/16 versions...
>
>Tom
Tom the 8 bit version is really no faster than the 16 bit version during
encryption. This is becasue in the 16 bit version I choose 8 bit rotatons
and this only involves read and write bytes for the rotations.
But since the 8 bits is already a byte the 4 bit rotations can becomes messy.
However with custom hardware it might be nice.
The 19 bit version was made more of as a challenge since people thought
the 16 bit version so large. The 19 bit version was picked since for a 20 bit
version the keyenc.key file would not fit on a standard floppy. And the
rotation is 9 bits. So it nothing meshes nice with the 8 bit bytes files so
it is not extremely fast. It is really to slow for my taste on my 33mhz
486 but seems fine on a pentium. IF file structures stay in 8 bit chunks
and when floppys get bigger and machines get faster I will write a
scott24u some day so hold your breathe.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. J. Bernstein)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: --- sci.crypt charter: read before you post (weekly notice)
Date: 12 Sep 1999 05:00:35 GMT
sci.crypt Different methods of data en/decryption.
sci.crypt.research Cryptography, cryptanalysis, and related issues.
talk.politics.crypto The relation between cryptography and government.
The Cryptography FAQ is posted to sci.crypt and talk.politics.crypto
every three weeks. You should read it before posting to either group.
A common myth is that sci.crypt is USENET's catch-all crypto newsgroup.
It is not. It is reserved for discussion of the _science_ of cryptology,
including cryptography, cryptanalysis, and related topics such as
one-way hash functions.
Use talk.politics.crypto for the _politics_ of cryptography, including
Clipper, Digital Telephony, NSA, RSADSI, the distribution of RC4, and
export controls.
What if you want to post an article which is neither pure science nor
pure politics? Go for talk.politics.crypto. Political discussions are
naturally free-ranging, and can easily include scientific articles. But
sci.crypt is much more limited: it has no room for politics.
It's appropriate to post (or at least cross-post) Clipper discussions to
alt.privacy.clipper, which should become talk.politics.crypto.clipper at
some point.
There are now several PGP newsgroups. Try comp.security.pgp.resources if
you want to find PGP, c.s.pgp.tech if you want to set it up and use it,
and c.s.pgp.discuss for other PGP-related questions.
Questions about microfilm and smuggling and other non-cryptographic
``spy stuff'' don't belong in sci.crypt. Try alt.security.
Other relevant newsgroups: misc.legal.computing, comp.org.eff.talk,
comp.org.cpsr.talk, alt.politics.org.nsa, comp.patents, sci.math,
comp.compression, comp.security.misc.
Here's the sci.crypt.research charter: ``The discussion of cryptography,
cryptanalysis, and related issues, in a more civilised environment than
is currently provided by sci.crypt.'' If you want to submit something to
the moderators, try [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---Dan
------------------------------
Date: 12 Sep 1999 06:15:40 -0000
From: Charlie Comsec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.gburnore,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.privacy,alt.cypherpunks
Subject: Re: "Posting Anonymously is the Sign of a Coward"
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Barrett Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On the technical side of things, I would like to have my server
> > > generate RSA or elliptic curve key pairs and use the public key
> > > as a "usenet ID" of sorts for a user. When a user authenticates
> > > to the server the associated public/private key pairs get assigned
> > > to the user's session. Generate an MD5 hash of the message contents
> > > and encrypt it with the private key. Attach the "usenet ID" (just
> > > the public key) and the MD5 hash to the bottom of the message.
> > > An elliptic curve key would be less obtrusive for this purpose
> > > as it is smaller. The MD5 hash and "usenet ID" can be used
> > > to validate the message. Messages are archived and made available
> > > on the server. Posting history by abusive users can then be identified
> > > and verified to be theirs. "Designer abuse" will be (somewhat) more
> > > identifiable by the usenet community as the posting history for
> > > a "usenet ID" is available. Usenet IDs are not reused when accounts
> > > are cancelled. Have a unique From: address so usenet participants
> > > that killfile annoying or abusive users don't killfile your
> > > entire userbase. The usual steps to secure information in the
> > > message header is employed.
> >
> > This sounds like a major overhaul of the usenet/NNTP RFCs.
> >
>
> Just include the ID and signature in the message body, like a PGP
> signed message that also has the public key. Requests for the existance
> of "usenet ID" can be sent to a listserver.
Of course anyone is welcome to include information of that type in
the body of a message. And if someone's ISP's server starts adding
information to the *BODY* of a usenet post, the user would have to
evaluate whether to continue using the services of that server.
Allowing a server to alter the content of the body would dilute any
accountability by the author for such content, however, since it
opens up the possibility of servers adding message content without
permission of the message's author. Why not include it as an
X-Usenet-ID: line in the headers and leave the body alone?
> > However, how does it address the concern about anonymity, especially
> > where anonymous usenet posts start out as anonymous *E-MAIL*
> > messages routed to a mail-to-news gateway where they are converted
> > into usenet posts? If you implemented this at the gateway news
> > server, for example, the only ID on an anonymous post would be that
> > of the remailer used to send the message to the gateway.
>
> Well, it doens't address a mail gateway at all. As an initial idea,
> it would be a integral part of news services for my customers if
> implemented. I would be excercising some editorial control and
> would want to be able to release information to the authorities
> should a court action require it.
If your users prefer to use a scheme like that, I would not
object to it. It would be their choice.
> How is information secured in transit with the mail-to-news
> gateway?
I'm not sure I understand your question. In transit *TO* the
gateway, via email, or on usenet AFTER the server?
> > The other problem is that it still does not facilitate a complete
> > posting history on any REAL PERSON because there is no way to ensure
> > that the person is only using one ID to post with.
>
> For my own customers, each user gets a usenet ID. I wouldn't
> want random activity from the internet funneled through my
> server with the initial draft. My own local users just get an
> alternate newsreader to access if they want anonymity, and
> they must authenticate to it.
It would certainly represent an improvement from the notion that an
ID from one medium, email, should accompany every usenet post. Of
course, it wouldn't appease those who seem to be demanding a
"repliable" address for purposes of proving "responsibility".
> > Also, you said that "Messages are archived and made available
> > on the server". Given the current popularity of concealing posts
> > using the X-No-Archive header, do you now propose to make archiving
> > mandatory?
>
> Well, possibly. It *is* public information. It depends on
> how feasible it is to identity a pattern of abuse without it.
> Shouldn't inhibit responsible users. Another question is how
> available the archive should be publicly.
An even bigger problem would be DEFINING abuse in an objective
manner. 'Bots already exist which detect and remedy abuse based on
objective standards like BI. But if you throw in subjective
standards for "abuse", who is to evaluate that?
Earlier you stated that you wanted the privilege of taking the
totality of a person's posts to credit or discredit him. Given the
short lifespan of posts on individual news servers, such a
publicly-available archive would need to be maintained to facilitate
that. That is unless you were only wishing that privilege for
yourself, and not for netizens in general. But doing so would say
that those who choose to avail themselves of the X-No-Archive header
would lose the benefits of that privilege by using your server. Is
that really a selling point for people to choose your ISP instead of
another which does not implement such a scheme?
- --
Charlie Comsec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP Key ID #19BE8B0D
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850
iQEVAwUBN9sr3Qbp0h8ZvosNAQFKUQf/SYNfHOM61BD+jVLiwX3vH41QWGadZkDD
aLZW1WomSrZzwtME0Xb9o3TIfBxPgrU0qKuEUDgnOXHdmAHc/h2l3aQY+UXGS8fc
ZDGipi7ay7hdTlB51AcDhVs51jKmJr4hsgH1pNlazaV7WACysTE8UGK9uE+2MjWP
GptWYakbrFahARetijIRBkUa6tWcq2RS8g5JtHmy9nIfnyX1x+psTxQZaonUigRI
O69YGLu1Eqkwp8HcrpQlvE3vefAsn44Ry0iwlma43Ckm5DcITWztMiGH0zH3bhrQ
L8lDUO8EGVqwaVpaktkIfVCP83txuDqYuWPd9J7LMuA9MVs2/Y0UQw==
=3niD
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Factoring numbers too big to represent on a computer?
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:31:18 GMT
Stush wrote:
> How would one go about finding factors of a number too big to
> represent on a computer?
> For example 5^d -1 where d is > 10^50.
That can be represented on a computer, in fact you nearly did so
in your posting. (Give a recipe for selecting d and you're done.)
This is not a frivolous answer; Knuth and Conway (among others)
have devised schemes for representing numbers so huge that the
mind boggles.
------------------------------
From: "Lucas Wiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Factoring numbers too big to represent on a computer?
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Date: 12 Sep 99 04:40:09 GMT
Stush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
<gDxC3.1204$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> How would one go about finding factors of a number too big to represent
on a
> computer?
>
> For example 5^d -1 where d is > 10^50.
Well in this case, it is rather simple:
let n|(5^d-1), then
5^d-1==0 mod n,
and
5^d==1 mod n.
Now, to test a potential n to see if it is a factor, find 5^d mod n.
To do this,
res=1
and multiply res by 5^(2^a) mod n whenever the ath binary digit of d is a
1.
5^(2^n) mod n can be found through the relation:
5^(2^n) mod n=(5^(2^(n-1)) mod n) mod n
Hope that helps,
Lucas Wiman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
