Cryptography-Digest Digest #345, Volume #12 Thu, 3 Aug 00 02:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Elliptic Curves encryption (Terry Ritter)
Re: Encrypting a String to another String containing only certain characters
(SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
OTP using BBS generator? (Grant Anderson)
OTP using BBS generator? (Grant Anderson)
OTP using BBS generator? (Grant Anderson)
OTP using BBS generator? (Grant Anderson)
OTP using BBS generator? (Grant Anderson)
Re: Q: Quantum dots ("David Sowinski")
Re: OTP using BBS generator? (Mack)
Re: New William Friedman Crypto Patent (filed in 1933) (Steve Rush)
Re: Small block ciphers (Mack)
Re: MS Word Master Password (Steve Rush)
Re: New William Friedman Crypto Patent (filed in 1933) (David Blackman)
Re: Q: Quantum dots (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Q: Quantum dots (Bill Unruh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: Elliptic Curves encryption
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:12:08 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 23:47:21 +0200, in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in sci.crypt Mok-Kong Shen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
>Thanks. But I see some difficulty.
There is difficulty, but most of it falls out in experimentation: If
we want to question the effect of character size and / table size, we
can vary that a few steps up and down and see what develops. If we
want to question the effect of having more elements in a block, we can
vary that. And we can vary both at the same time.
That's what having a cipher of experimental size can mean.
>Suppose a block cipher uses
>some number of S-boxes.
As all of mine do, although I generally prefer the term "invertible
substitution table." Some ciphers require tables of particular
structure, and using a single term for these different things can be
confusing.
>When scaling down, I suppose that
>both the number and the size of S-boxes should be reduced.
>But according to which rules?
In my ciphers, I distinguish between "elements," which are 8-bit
characters in the large versions, and perhaps as few as 2 bits in the
small versions.
>In some branches of engineering
>there are certain physical laws enabling one to determine the
>scale factor of each dimension. Can parallels exist for crypto?
Yes, but if they do, we should be able to see various statistics "drop
off a cliff" when we encounter the limit. It is important to realize
that we are not confined to simply interpreting a single result, but
can instead vary the cipher to encounter a more reasonable regime.
>A large S-box might allow some intricate design which a small
>one could not, I conjecture.
I often call the small versions "toys." They are not intended to be
usable ciphers -- at least not for protecting data -- they are instead
experimental entities. They may be breakable. If so, we may be able
to describe the effort required as a function of element size and
block size, which is far more than we usually get. (Another part of
this, of course, is a transparent simplicity, which may be more
controversial.)
>Anyway, it would be hard to
>preserve the same 'quality' when scaling down, I suppose.
The intent is to have the same structure, not to produce the same
result.
>In a
>word, I am not yet sure whether the big cipher and the small
>cipher can be related in any quantitative terms that can be
>written down. That they are related in qualitative manner is
>intuitively clear.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Encrypting a String to another String containing only certain characters
Date: 3 Aug 2000 03:16:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Claviez) wrote in
<8m9o19$63mcg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Can I encrypt any string to another string that is containing only
>certain characters ?
>For example I want to encrypt any string and the resulting string should
>only contain
>numbers or letters and NO special characters like ?,!,^,(,), ... and so
>on. Where can I found an algorithm for this task ?
>A strong crypt routine is not required but is welcome.
>
>Bye
>Martin
>
>
I have many of the programs including source code. That can compress
any set of character to a binary file. You then could encrypt that
file useing scott16u or scott19u and then change it make using
one of my conditional huffman routines to any character set you like.
Check out my site.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website NOT FOR WIMPS **no JavaScript allowed**
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott rejected paper for the ACM
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/dspaper.htm
Scott famous Compression Page WIMPS allowed ** JavaScript OK**
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction
of the truth."
------------------------------
From: Grant Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OTP using BBS generator?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:48:42 +1200
I know there has been much discussion about (supposed) OTP ciphers and
how
most of them generally don't fulfil the OTP requirements. What I don't
understand is why the use of the blum-blum-shub generator as the pad
isn't acceptable? I have read a great deal about the characteristics of
the BBS generator and it *seems* secure as "random-number" generators
go.
Assuming that each individual has a private key pair (two large primes)
p
and q and a public key n such that p x q = n, then the BBS generator
creates bits by:
x(i)=x^2 mod n for each i
Now obviously you can't use the same pad twice, so you would need to do
something like having a central repository (the keyserver for example)
which remembers the last "i" value for each user. So when you want to
encrypt for user A, you contact the keyserver and obtain their public
key
(n) and the initialisation value i and start generating from i+1....
What is wrong with this solution?
Cheers,
Grant Anderson.
------------------------------
From: Grant Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OTP using BBS generator?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:49:41 +1200
I know there has been much discussion about (supposed) OTP ciphers and
how
most of them generally don't fulfil the OTP requirements. What I don't
understand is why the use of the blum-blum-shub generator as the pad
isn't acceptable? I have read a great deal about the characteristics of
the BBS generator and it *seems* secure as "random-number" generators
go.
Assuming that each individual has a private key pair (two large primes)
p
and q and a public key n such that p x q = n, then the BBS generator
creates bits by:
x(i)=x^2 mod n for each i
Now obviously you can't use the same pad twice, so you would need to do
something like having a central repository (the keyserver for example)
which remembers the last "i" value for each user. So when you want to
encrypt for user A, you contact the keyserver and obtain their public
key
(n) and the initialisation value i and start generating from i+1....
What is wrong with this solution?
Cheers,
Grant Anderson.
------------------------------
From: Grant Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OTP using BBS generator?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:50:36 +1200
I know there has been much discussion about (supposed) OTP ciphers and
how
most of them generally don't fulfil the OTP requirements. What I don't
understand is why the use of the blum-blum-shub generator as the pad
isn't acceptable? I have read a great deal about the characteristics of
the BBS generator and it *seems* secure as "random-number" generators
go.
Assuming that each individual has a private key pair (two large primes)
p
and q and a public key n such that p x q = n, then the BBS generator
creates bits by:
x(i)=x^2 mod n for each i
Now obviously you can't use the same pad twice, so you would need to do
something like having a central repository (the keyserver for example)
which remembers the last "i" value for each user. So when you want to
encrypt for user A, you contact the keyserver and obtain their public
key
(n) and the initialisation value i and start generating from i+1....
What is wrong with this solution?
Cheers,
Grant Anderson.
------------------------------
From: Grant Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OTP using BBS generator?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:51:27 +1200
I know there has been much discussion about (supposed) OTP ciphers and
how
most of them generally don't fulfil the OTP requirements. What I don't
understand is why the use of the blum-blum-shub generator as the pad
isn't acceptable? I have read a great deal about the characteristics of
the BBS generator and it *seems* secure as "random-number" generators
go.
Assuming that each individual has a private key pair (two large primes)
p
and q and a public key n such that p x q = n, then the BBS generator
creates bits by:
x(i)=x^2 mod n for each i
Now obviously you can't use the same pad twice, so you would need to do
something like having a central repository (the keyserver for example)
which remembers the last "i" value for each user. So when you want to
encrypt for user A, you contact the keyserver and obtain their public
key
(n) and the initialisation value i and start generating from i+1....
What is wrong with this solution?
Cheers,
Grant Anderson.
------------------------------
From: Grant Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OTP using BBS generator?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:51:42 +1200
I know there has been much discussion about (supposed) OTP ciphers and
how
most of them generally don't fulfil the OTP requirements. What I don't
understand is why the use of the blum-blum-shub generator as the pad
isn't acceptable? I have read a great deal about the characteristics of
the BBS generator and it *seems* secure as "random-number" generators
go.
Assuming that each individual has a private key pair (two large primes)
p
and q and a public key n such that p x q = n, then the BBS generator
creates bits by:
x(i)=x^2 mod n for each i
Now obviously you can't use the same pad twice, so you would need to do
something like having a central repository (the keyserver for example)
which remembers the last "i" value for each user. So when you want to
encrypt for user A, you contact the keyserver and obtain their public
key
(n) and the initialisation value i and start generating from i+1....
What is wrong with this solution?
Cheers,
Grant Anderson.
------------------------------
From: "David Sowinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Q: Quantum dots
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:59:16 -0500
"John Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:20:54 +0200, Mok-Kong Shen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I just learned that there is something called semiconductor
> >quantum dots. Could someone knowledgeable in physics tell
> >what these are and whether they have anything to do with
> >quantum computing? Thanks.
> Quantum Computation with Quantum Dots and Terahertz Cavity
> Quantum Electrodynamics at
> http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph9903065
>
> Authors: Mark S. Sherwin, Atac Imamoglu, Thomas Montroy (University of
> California, Santa Barbara)
> Abstract:
> A quantum computer is proposed in which information is stored in
> the two lowest electronic states of doped quantum dots (QDs). Many QDs
> are located in a microcavity. A pair of gates controls the energy
> levels in each QD. A Controlled Not (CNOT) operation involving any
> pair of QDs can be effected by a sequence of gate-voltage pulses which
> tune the QD energy levels into resonance with frequencies of the
> cavity or a laser. The duration of a CNOT operation is estimated to be
> much shorter than the time for an electron to decohere by emitting an
> acoustic phonon.
>
> this report is referenced and quantum dots are assessed (along side
> other proposed quantum computing techniques) in the report:
> The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation
> Author: David P. DiVincenzo, IBM
> http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph0002077
You have not described what a quantum dot is. A quantum dot is a
nanometer-scale "box" for selectively holding or releasing electrons. The
number of electrons in a quantum dot can be adjusted by changing the quantum
dots electrostatic environment. Quantum dots have been made ranging from
30-nm to 1-micron in size, and holding from zero to hundreds of electrons.
Over the past 10 years quantum dots have been transformed from laboratory
curiosities to the building blocks quantum computing.
Regards,
-dave
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mack)
Subject: Re: OTP using BBS generator?
Date: 03 Aug 2000 05:18:06 GMT
The basic problem with the BBS
is that it is very slow.
Mack
Remove njunk123 from name to reply by e-mail
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Rush)
Date: 03 Aug 2000 05:28:58 GMT
Subject: Re: New William Friedman Crypto Patent (filed in 1933)
>In re patent silliness, I recently learned that the patent office refused an
>application by the Wright brothers on HTA flight. That's gotta be
>embarrassing.
>
IIRC, the Wright patent was refused because the idea wasn't new enough, even
though no previous heavier-than-air machine had carried a man for more than a
few yards.
==========================================================================
==============
If it's spam, it's a scam. Don't do business with Net abusers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mack)
Subject: Re: Small block ciphers
Date: 03 Aug 2000 05:32:26 GMT
>
>Mack wrote:
>
>> Mok-Kong.Shen wrote:
>> >We are doing at the bit level, aren't we? If one substitutes the known
>> >bits into the T terms, how can one say that an expression involving
>> >the T terms has T unknowns instead of B unknowns? (Compare
>> >my example quoted below.)
>> >
>>
>> Yes it is a bit level representation. The expression is developed before
>> we have known bits. Once those bits are known the expression can
>> be reduced. ie. without a known pair we develop the expression of
>> the cipher in ANF in terms of equations of output with input and
>> key being unknown. So we have T unknowns at this point. Once
>> we have a known pair we can reduce this to a set of equations in
>> K unknowns by substituting the known bits for the B variables.
>>
>> Now it is conceivable to develop a set of equations for K unknowns
>> by assuming a certain plaintext. This results in a chosen plaintext
>> attack rather than a known plaintext attack.
>
>Whether known-plaintext or chosen plaintext, the input bits are
>known. Hence I would say that in both cases we have B equations
>and K unknowns. Theoretically, with more plaintext and ciphertext
>pairs, the K unknowns can be solved. Practically, this could be
>a different issue. Anyway, I don't know whether useful and general
>assertiions could be made that are valid in all situations.
In the final product we are solving the B equations in K unknowns.
In developing those equations we have to make a choice of whether
we are doing a known-plaintext attack in which case we need to
deal with B+K variables until we have the known plaintext to fill
in the inputs. Or we can pick a set of inputs and develop the equations
using those inputs in which case we never have to deal with the
B inputs as variables. If time is not an issue then we can
develop any known-plaintext into a set of equations.
Of practical interest, probablistic higher order differential attacks use
a similar method by approximating the equations with a number of
low order terms. This was described in a paper at Asiacrypt'99.
>
>M. K. Shen
>
Mack
Remove njunk123 from name to reply by e-mail
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Rush)
Date: 03 Aug 2000 05:34:30 GMT
Subject: Re: MS Word Master Password
>This file has the overwhelming advantage over a super - encrypted whole file
>in that a MasterPass protected file is still a very valid Word document.
>All the structured storages remain intact. If someone were to attempt to
>open a Word file that had been completely super - encrypted, a computer
>crash would inevitably happen sooner or later. Word has some really nasty
>habits when presented with arbitrary binary files. Access databases, for
>example are completely corrupted by simply being OPENED by Word. No saving
>of the file is necessary, just open a database with Word and the sucker is
>gone forever. Word is the proverbial bull in the china shop when it comes
>to dealing with random binary files.
Word sucks, but I never thought it was *that* badly designed.
Remember that qoute from a WWII infantry commander about misdirected artillery?
Something like "Once is an accident, twice is a screwup, but the third time is
enemy action." How many does this make for Microsoft?
==========================================================================
==============
If it's spam, it's a scam. Don't do business with Net abusers.
------------------------------
From: David Blackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New William Friedman Crypto Patent (filed in 1933)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:44:51 +1000
Steve Rush wrote:
>
> >In re patent silliness, I recently learned that the patent office refused an
> >application by the Wright brothers on HTA flight. That's gotta be
> >embarrassing.
> >
>
> IIRC, the Wright patent was refused because the idea wasn't new enough, even
> though no previous heavier-than-air machine had carried a man for more than a
> few yards.
Previous machines had actually had more success than the Wrights did in
1903, though not as much success as the Wrights had in the next few
years. I think the Wrights have gone down in history because they were
involved continuously in aircraft development from about 1897 through to
1910 when aircraft actually became practical. Most of the other early
pioneers either started later or gave up earlier or got killed.
The Wright brother's aircraft were examples of good engineering
(especially in the safety department) but had nothing particularly new
in them. I don't think they particularly deserved a patent for anything.
They did deserve fame and commercial success.
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Q: Quantum dots
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:15:22 +0200
David Sowinski wrote:
>
> "John Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Quantum Computation with Quantum Dots and Terahertz Cavity
> > Quantum Electrodynamics at
> > http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph9903065
> >
> > Authors: Mark S. Sherwin, Atac Imamoglu, Thomas Montroy (University of
> > California, Santa Barbara)
> > Abstract:
> > A quantum computer is proposed in which information is stored in
> > the two lowest electronic states of doped quantum dots (QDs). Many QDs
> > are located in a microcavity. A pair of gates controls the energy
> > levels in each QD. A Controlled Not (CNOT) operation involving any
> > pair of QDs can be effected by a sequence of gate-voltage pulses which
> > tune the QD energy levels into resonance with frequencies of the
> > cavity or a laser. The duration of a CNOT operation is estimated to be
> > much shorter than the time for an electron to decohere by emitting an
> > acoustic phonon.
> >
> > this report is referenced and quantum dots are assessed (along side
> > other proposed quantum computing techniques) in the report:
> > The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation
> > Author: David P. DiVincenzo, IBM
> > http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph0002077
>
> You have not described what a quantum dot is. A quantum dot is a
> nanometer-scale "box" for selectively holding or releasing electrons. The
> number of electrons in a quantum dot can be adjusted by changing the quantum
> dots electrostatic environment. Quantum dots have been made ranging from
> 30-nm to 1-micron in size, and holding from zero to hundreds of electrons.
> Over the past 10 years quantum dots have been transformed from laboratory
> curiosities to the building blocks quantum computing.
Allow me to pose another layman's question: It seems that
people are already storing information with quantum dots.
The other day I learned that the record of quantum computer
is 5 qubits, employing something with organic molecules,
not silicon. How many qubits have been realized with quantum
dots? Thanks.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Q: Quantum dots
Date: 3 Aug 2000 06:07:36 GMT
In <3988ed17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David Sowinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Over the past 10 years quantum dots have been transformed from laboratory
>curiosities to the building blocks quantum computing.
Lets not go overboard. They are still far from being a building block in
anything but theory. Ther resistance to decoherence is still to be
determined. They are still "labratory curiosities" in that context.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
