Cryptography-Digest Digest #276, Volume #13 Tue, 5 Dec 00 17:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: About governments and my ex-relatives in Finland and the U.S.A. ... basically my
ex-spouse had around 350000 US dollars and then my ex-relatives (Finland and US )
collaborated in their efforts to force me to leave the U.S.A. without any of this
money . ("Huckleberry Hoshimoto")
newbie: how to persuade my managment not to do our own home-grown encryption?
("L.V.S.")
newbie: how to persuade my managment not to do our own home-grown encryption?
("L.V.S.")
Re: Why Galois Fields in Cryptography? (Dave Seaman)
Re: Why Galois Fields in Cryptography? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: RC4 or Rijndael (Bill Unruh)
Re: newbie: how to persuade my managment not to do our own home-grown encryption?
(Bill Unruh)
Re: MD5 byte order (Paul Schlyter)
Re: MD5 byte order (Paul Schlyter)
Re: MD5 byte order (Paul Schlyter)
Re: MD5 byte order (David Schwartz)
Re: About governments and my ex-relatives in Finland and the U.S.A. ... basically my
ex-spouse had around 350000 US dollars and then my ex-relatives (Finland and US )
collaborated in their efforts to force me to leave the U.S.A. without any of this
money ("JustBrowsing")
Re: MD5 byte order ("Bob Luking")
Re: Global Encryption Policy Statement ("JustBrowsing")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Huckleberry Hoshimoto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.2600,alt.security
Subject: Re: About governments and my ex-relatives in Finland and the U.S.A. ...
basically my ex-spouse had around 350000 US dollars and then my ex-relatives (Finland
and US ) collaborated in their efforts to force me to leave the U.S.A. without any of
this money .
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 14:07:18 -0500
OK - we're clear on 5 points:
(1) Your a maste-oid
(2) You're exactly were you belong (outta HERE)
(3) Your ex-relatives have some common sense (& are probably celebrating
like crazy!)
(4) You're STILL whining to others who couldn't care less
(5) You are unclear on the concept of "Subject" vs. "Body Text"
Our response is (or should be):
"What's your point?"
"Markku J. Saarelainen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90j1u3$6f9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
------------------------------
From: "L.V.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: newbie: how to persuade my managment not to do our own home-grown encryption?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 20:29:51 GMT
Hi y'all,
I am fairly new to all this; I've only started reading stuff within the last
2 months or so. I've started off with two books by Bruce Schneier (Secrets &
Lies, and Applied Crypt. --- I'm about 2/3s and 1/4 of the way through
each).
My company wants to do some licensing and password stuff within one of our
commercial products (for US and international customers). They've asked me
to look into what I think should be done to implement their schemes. I've
developed a protocol that I think will be OK, but I want to rely on some
good strong encryption to carry it out--- ie. something that's well-known
and respected. I would like to make use of a public-key system, and some
good hash functions etc. It seemed to me that obtaining a license to use
PGP would be a good way to go (even though all we want is the encryption
tools, not the GUI stuff etc.).
My problem is in convincing management that it's worth it to not do our own
home-grown stuff (believe me; you don't need to convince ME of this!), and
to be willing to spend some money on a license if that's what's necessary.
Is there a single SUCCINCT paper or write-up somewhere that I could pass
along to them? They are really balking at spending any money, and since I'm
fairly new to this job, they don't know whether they want to just take my
word for it yet. I also know that they don't have the time to read through
an entire book!
Also, (forgive my ignorance!) are there other good public-key encryption
schemes out there besides RSA and Diffie-Hellman? These are the only two
that I ever seem to see get mentioned that have much credibility. Lastly,
now that the RSA patent has expired (Sept. 6, 2000), are there folks out
there writing some other commercial packages that provide it for the general
public's use (both commercially and privately)? Can I use a version of this
from the international community and not need to worry about licensing at
all?
Thanks to anyone who responds!!!
-LVS
------------------------------
From: "L.V.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: newbie: how to persuade my managment not to do our own home-grown encryption?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 20:29:52 GMT
Hi y'all,
I am fairly new to all this; I've only started reading stuff within the last
2 months or so. I've started off with two books by Bruce Schneier (Secrets &
Lies, and Applied Crypt. --- I'm about 2/3s and 1/4 of the way through
each). (If anyone wants to suggest some more reading for me, please feel
free!)
My company wants to do some internal licensing and password stuff within one
of our
commercial products (for US and international customers). They've asked me
to look into what I think should be done to implement their schemes. I've
developed a protocol that I think will be OK, but I want to rely on some
good strong encryption to carry it out--- ie. something that's well-known
and respected. I would like to make use of a public-key system, and some
good hash functions etc. It seemed to me that obtaining a license to use
PGP would be a good way to go (even though all we want is the encryption
tools, not the GUI stuff etc.).
My problem is in convincing management that it's worth it to not do our own
home-grown stuff (believe me; you don't need to convince ME of this!), and
to be willing to spend some money on a license if that's what's necessary.
Is there a single SUCCINCT paper or write-up somewhere that I could pass
along to them? They are really balking at spending any money, and since I'm
fairly new to this job, they don't know whether they want to just take my
word for it yet. I also know that they don't have the time to read through
an entire book!
Also, (forgive my ignorance!) are there other good public-key encryption
schemes out there besides RSA and Diffie-Hellman? These are the only two
that I ever seem to see get mentioned that have much credibility. Lastly,
now that the RSA patent has expired (Sept. 6, 2000), are there folks out
there writing some other commercial packages that provide it for the general
public's use (both commercially and privately)? Can I use a version of this
from the international community and not need to worry about licensing at
all?
Thanks to anyone who responds!!!
-LVS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Seaman)
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Why Galois Fields in Cryptography?
Date: 5 Dec 2000 15:38:02 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Savard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm well aware that a stream cipher using a PRNG is *not* a
>one-time-pad. But while the true one-time-pad doesn't share the other
>weakensses a PRNG cipher has, both are susceptible to the bit-flipping
>attack.
I may be missing something, but if so, I think I am not alone.
How can a one-time pad be susceptible to the bit-flipping attack?
Or, to put it another way, how can any cipher that is susceptible to the
bit-flipping attack possibly be a one-time pad?
--
Dave Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amnesty International calls for new trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal
<http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/reports/mumia/>
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.math
Subject: Re: Why Galois Fields in Cryptography?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 22:03:34 +0100
John Savard wrote:
>
> Yes; but here I'm trying to find out what the _smallest_ table is that
> would serve my purpose, and if the number of columns is 256*255, my
> purpose can be served perfectly. But how to generate the ideal table?
As said, I haven't yet fully understood your stuff. How
did you come to the 255 of 256*255, if the 'nature' of the
ideal table is not known/specified? (That is, what does
'ideal' mean in the present context?) Since the keys
obtained from the OTP are random, I don't think that there
can be a definite (sharp) optimum lower bound like the 255
above, since the whole matter being considered is so to say
a statistical (in contrast to a deterministic) one, anyway
in case the contents of the columns of table are randomly
generated and not derived in some definite prescribed
manner (any such 'prescription' presumably would run
counter to the goal you want to achieve).
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: RC4 or Rijndael
Date: 5 Dec 2000 21:11:07 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ichinin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
]Mats Lofkvist wrote:
]>
]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) writes:
]>
]> > Yes, RC4 is a stream cypher. The key can never be reused or the strength
]> > is essentially zero. It is very easy to code, and is much faster.
]> > However it is totally useless unless you can choose a random key each
]> > use. (eg, by sending the key via RSA).
]>
]> Isn't adding a cryptographically strong random part to the RC4 key
]> and sending the random part in clear to the receiver considered a
]> secure way to reuse RC4 keys?
]>
]Nope, Random Bytes + Key = still as hard to break as sizeof(key)
That was not the attack. If the key is reused then you have the same attack as a
reuse of the one time pad (XOR the outputs and you have an XOR of the cleartext
messages). A random salt will prevent that attack.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: newbie: how to persuade my managment not to do our own home-grown
encryption?
Date: 5 Dec 2000 21:17:46 GMT
In <3fcX5.25$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "L.V.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
]I am fairly new to all this; I've only started reading stuff within the last
]2 months or so. I've started off with two books by Bruce Schneier (Secrets &
]Lies, and Applied Crypt. --- I'm about 2/3s and 1/4 of the way through
]each).
]My company wants to do some licensing and password stuff within one of our
]commercial products (for US and international customers). They've asked me
]to look into what I think should be done to implement their schemes. I've
]developed a protocol that I think will be OK, but I want to rely on some
]good strong encryption to carry it out--- ie. something that's well-known
]and respected. I would like to make use of a public-key system, and some
]good hash functions etc. It seemed to me that obtaining a license to use
]PGP would be a good way to go (even though all we want is the encryption
]tools, not the GUI stuff etc.).
]My problem is in convincing management that it's worth it to not do our own
]home-grown stuff (believe me; you don't need to convince ME of this!), and
]to be willing to spend some money on a license if that's what's necessary.
]Is there a single SUCCINCT paper or write-up somewhere that I could pass
]along to them? They are really balking at spending any money, and since I'm
]fairly new to this job, they don't know whether they want to just take my
]word for it yet. I also know that they don't have the time to read through
]an entire book!
Not only is it not worth it, it is positively dangerous unless your company has a
good supply of cryptographers in house (I thought not). Of course if management
does not care if the scheme actually works or not, don't impliment it. It will
piss off your customers more than it will probably help anyway.
]Also, (forgive my ignorance!) are there other good public-key encryption
]schemes out there besides RSA and Diffie-Hellman? These are the only two
]that I ever seem to see get mentioned that have much credibility. Lastly,
]now that the RSA patent has expired (Sept. 6, 2000), are there folks out
]there writing some other commercial packages that provide it for the general
]public's use (both commercially and privately)? Can I use a version of this
]from the international community and not need to worry about licensing at
]all?
Lots. libcrypt by Peter Gutmann is an example of a whole library full of crypto
stuff released "for free" ( read his license for the exact terms.)
Including if I recall correctly both RSA and DH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: MD5 byte order
Date: 5 Dec 2000 21:15:02 +0100
In article <90iudq$3ui$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Thomas Pornin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Paul Schlyter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Excuse me, but how on Earth do you determine the "bit order within a byte"?
>
> The MD5 specification states that it applies on a stream of bits, not
> bytes. Therefore the ordering relates to bits, not bytes. You can see,
> for instance, that the padding is done by appending some bits, including
> the size, in bits (not bytes) of the stream. There are more and more
> devices that output data bit by bit, in many areas, so the "byte" is not
> a relevant notion.
>
> Besides, not all computers use 8-bit bytes; for instance, the PDP-11
> used 9-bit bytes. Interoperability issues imply that you specify clearly
> what happens there.
OK, I stand corrected.
> And, last but not least, all PC since the 80386, and including all
> species of pentium, are bit-adressable, using the instructions bt, btc,
> btr, bts, bsf and bsr.
Well, sort of, but the so-called "bit address" is split up into a
byte address plus an index within the byte, instead of a uniform bit
address. Consider that PDP-11 byte you mentioned above, which has
9-bit bytes (and I could add that the DEC-10 had 7-bit bytes and
35-bit words, the CDC-6600 series had 6-bit bytes in 60-bit words,
and old teleprinters can be said to have 5-bit bytes since they
encode their characters into only 5 bits each): if you consider the
total address as "byte address" plus "tail containig bit index within
byte", then there will be some addresses which are illegal.
> By the way, if you write down, in binary, an 8-bit value, you just add
> an ordering of bits: if I write 182, I will write it 10110110, not
> 01101101; this is big-endian since I read it from left to right.
:-)
Then that would become little-endian in Arabic, since the arabs read
text from right to left, but they write the digits of the numbers
ordered the same way we do, with least significant digit to the right.
However, reading is somewhat more complex than that. Only children
who are learning to read do read text one single character at a time
strictly from left to right -- that's why they read so slowly. When
your reading skills improve, you learn to read whole words, or at
least whole syllables, at a time. Therefore, when I read e.g. the
number "76", it's not at all certain that I read the "7" before the
"6" -- I can easily do it the other way around - or, most probalby,
both at the same time.
"But you say seventy-six, not six-seventy!!" I hear you cry. Yes, in
English you do that -- but in e.g. German you do indeed say
"six-and-seventy". Some other languages are even weirder -- in e.g.
Danish you say "six and half-fours" where "fours" means "4*20=80"
and "half" here implies "halfway between 3*20 and 4*20" i.e. 70.
French is somewhat clearer -- they'd say "three-twenty ten and six".
Thus reading isn't as strictly sequential from left to right as you
seem to believe.
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: MD5 byte order
Date: 5 Dec 2000 21:16:07 +0100
In article <90iv5g$456$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erwann ABALEA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <90ioto$2sa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
>> Thus, you must be using a bit-addressable computer. Which computer
>> (brand, model, version, etc) are you using? All computers I have
>> been using have NOT been bit-addressable (except a few embedded
>> systems on credit-card sized "smartcards", where individual data bits
>> indeed were individually addressable).
>
> That's only on memory cards, not microprocessor cards.
>
> Microprocessor cards can have their own bit-order, but they're not
> bit-addressable: you must send bytes, not only bits.
True. Perhaps you'd prefer to call memory cards "dumb cards" ?
>> Regarding Smart-cards (i.e. those credit-card sized chip-cards), both
>> varieties exist: some smartcards are little-endian, others are
>> big-endian. Still others (the simplest ones) don't even define bytes
>> at all but merely considers memory as an array of bits, to be read
>> individually, as many as you need, with no regard to any "bytes".
>
> Again, those that you describe as not having any bytes are memory cards.
>
> Incidentally, memory cards are bit-addressable, but don't define any
> bit-order. On the counterpart, microprocessor cards are not
> bit-addressable, but define a bit-order.
They indeed do -- on their serial interface.
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlyter)
Subject: Re: MD5 byte order
Date: 5 Dec 2000 21:15:39 +0100
In article <Ce7X5.2422$I5.14971@stones>,
Brian Gladman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Paul Schlyter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90ioto$2sa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <90ic57$255k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Thomas Pornin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> > Those endianness things are infortunate, because in MD5 they are mixed:
>> > bytes are represented with the low-order byte first, but, inside a byte,
>> > the bits are in big-endian form: the most significant bit is first.
>>
>> Excuse me, but how on Earth do you determine the "bit order within a
>> byte"?
>
> This is determined by the relationship between byte or bit numbering and
> the numeric significance one byte or bit to to the next. Hence if numeric
> significance grows with a growing byte or bit number then it is
> little-endian whereas if numeric significance decreases with growing byte
> or bit number it is big-endian.
AFAIR I've always seen the least significant bit referred to as "bit 0".
Is the opposite convention ever used? If so, when?
>> The "byte order within a word" is determined by the addresses: if the
>> ordering is little-endian, then the least significant byte occupies
>> the lowest byte address within the word (and the other way for big-endian).
>
> Least "significant" is an ordering on the relative numeric values attached
> to entities and will apply to bits as much as it does to bytes.
>
>> Now, you claim "inside a byte, the bits are in big-endian form",
>> which would imply that the most significant bit within the byte have
>> the lowest bit address.
>
> Correct - a big endian numbering of bits would make bit 0 = 128, bit 1 = 64,
> ... , bit 7 = 1, remembering that this is about the numeric significance
> attached to entities.
Is this convention ever used? If so, when?
> Interestingly the big-endian MC68k got this almost right but chickened
> out on bit numbering by numbering its bits from the least significant
> end of its words.
There's one very good reason to use such a bit numbering: you can then
easily compute the numeric significance of a bit from its bit number,
without having to know the total number of bits in the byte, or word.
> When bit field instructions were added they then went to the 'right'
> big-endian bit numbering for these fields but a numbering that did
> not match the numbering used for other instructions (I am doing this
> from memory but I think this is correct).
Would that make the 68k bi-endian regarding bits-within-a-byte/word? :-)
--
================================================================
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
------------------------------
From: David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MD5 byte order
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 13:25:41 -0800
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> AFAIR I've always seen the least significant bit referred to as "bit 0".
> Is the opposite convention ever used? If so, when?
See for example RFC1035, which says, "Whenever an octet represents a
numeric quantity, the left most bit in the diagram is the high order or
most significant bit. That is, the bit labeled 0 is the most significant
bit." It annoys the *hell* out of me.
DS
------------------------------
From: "JustBrowsing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.2600,alt.security,comp.security
Subject: Re: About governments and my ex-relatives in Finland and the U.S.A. ...
basically my ex-spouse had around 350000 US dollars and then my ex-relatives (Finland
and US ) collaborated in their efforts to force me to leave the U.S.A. without any of
this money
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:30:40 +0200
Reply-To: "JustBrowsing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is this CypherText?
We'd like to thank you for a perfect demonstration of subliminal
obfuscation.
Actually I'm kidding, but I cant believe this is a real message. Probably a
test to
see who's really awake in this news group :)
Markku J. Saarelainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90j1u3$6f9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> And this is the real story ...
>
> Basically, my ex-mother, Eeva Nuora, ex-sister, Senja Saarelainen-
> Swedyc (her husband is Polish) and my ex-borther, Jukka Saarelainen
> wanted me to leave to Finland and sent me messages and letters with the
> content such as " come immediately to Finland .. ask Kathy to give some
> money for the trip..." and so on .. .. Kathy in this case was "Kathryn
> Goll Saarelainen" who collaborated with the U.S. government against
> me ....
>
> The embassy of Finland sent me a letter and told me ... they can take
> me to Finland with funds of the government of Finland ... basically
> leave my properties without getting any moneys to which I had all
> rights .... my ex-spouse, the embassy of Finland and my ex-relatives
> had been collaborating and I have letters indicating to this nature ...
> and of course, by now you know that my ex-spouse collaborated and
> worked with the U.S.government and affiliates and spied on me ...
>
> And then of course, the U.S. government attacked me and caused the
> divorce actually in 1999 ....and I am just an ordinary private man ...
>
> SO now you got the picture ... there was something terribly wrong in
> this and their control efforts .. but this was my living in the end of
> 1999 and in the beginning of 2000 .. basically I knew that I was
> alone .. totally alone .. everybody attacking me and trying to cause
> harm to me and my living ... and my ways ...
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Bob Luking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MD5 byte order
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 21:42:03 GMT
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> > AFAIR I've always seen the least significant bit referred to as "bit 0".
> > Is the opposite convention ever used? If so, when?
>
> See for example RFC1035, which says, "Whenever an octet represents a
> numeric quantity, the left most bit in the diagram is the high order or
> most significant bit. That is, the bit labeled 0 is the most significant
> bit." It annoys the *hell* out of me.
>
> DS
Me too, but I think I understand the reason. In a floating point
representation,
the leftmost bit of a "word" is 2**0 (bit 0). The next bit is 2**-1 (bit
1).
Bob
------------------------------
From: "JustBrowsing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.security,comp.security,alt.2600
Subject: Re: Global Encryption Policy Statement
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:36:51 +0200
Reply-To: "JustBrowsing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Same maniac with family problems... see WITH GOV mail
Markku J. Saarelainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90gcg5$1a3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Global Encryption Policy Statement
>
> "All electronic commerce applications require various security
> solutions implemented. Encryption has become one of the most important
> elements in any e-commerce product and service. It is highly
> recommended that we decline to accept any terms and requirements in the
> Wassenaar or other international encryption agreements that are
> limiting the global access to these technologies. It is essential that
> we support the strongest cryptography in all commercial transactions,
> Internet communications, voice and fax communications and other
> processes globally. The role of the Internet is already critical for
> basic operations of any international enterprise and institution, which
> further increases the level of the need for the strongest encryption
> technologies. We must also decline to accept the protection using
> specific standards such as the AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) that
> have been developed and then tested through U.S. governmentally
> coordinated processes. However, still today too many people are using
> no encryption and email their business communications over the Internet
> without any communication security. This is like sending your
> confidential business plans on open postcards without any envelops.
> This lack of basic security implementations has made too many
> corporations extremely vulnerable. It is the common public knowledge
> that some specific intelligence agencies such as the CIA, FBI and NSA
> are using the Internet and other electronic intelligence collection
> methods to acquire and collect specific technology, business and
> commercial intelligence for specific U.S. corporations, businesses and
> institutions. Some of the most popular encryption products and
> development processes have been supported and influenced by the U.S.
> military, the NSA, the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies. One of
> these applications is the well-known encryption product that became
> very popular in early 1990's. The U.S. involvement in development
> phases of many encryption products and APIs (Applications Programming
> Interface) is an element of a broader covert intelligence operation
> planned and implemented by the NSA. In the future's electronic
> commerce environment these encryption methods and technologies shall
> become ever more important for many corporations around the globe and
> it is highly recommended to avoid using any free and publicly non-
> commercially available encryption products and applications. We must
> also realized that many U.S. cryptography companies are or have been
> influenced by the U.S. government and the NSA."
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and sci.crypt) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
