HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Subject: Re: Quantum cryptography: a flawed premise?
Organization: FSU nuclear physics
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 14:29:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.061724.25758@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>Newsgroups: sci.crypt
>Path: mailer.cc.fsu.edu!gatech!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!rcain
>From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
>Subject: Re: Quantum cryptography: a flawed premise?
>Message-ID: <1992Oct13.061724.25758@netcom.com>
>Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
>References: <1992Oct12.184051.1@zodiac.rutgers.edu>
>Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:17:24 GMT
>Lines: 18
>leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu writes:
>: 
>: The attack against the *cryptosystem*, as opposed to the attack against QM,
>: goes like this:  The eavesdropper clones the photons and SAVES them - he

  I've already seen that if the attacker clones the photons and reads
them he destroys the info sent on.  What if he clones them two ways and
reads both of them simultaneously (sp)?  Does the info turn into both types
of polarization?
 
>
>How does he do this?  I know of no way to "save" a photon.  Somehow mirrors
>would be involved and I think interaction with a mirror would alter the
>polarization state.
>
>Bob
>-- 
>Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007
>
>
>               PGP 1.0 or 2.0 public key available on request.

Roger
books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
From: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: new cryptography book
Date: 10 Oct 92 12:01:30 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: ALMAC BBS Ltd



Quoting
   From: BRUCE SCHNEIER       
     To: ALL                  
Subject: NEW CRYPTOGRAPHY BOOK


BS>   2)  There will be a source code disk that goes along with the book.  No, it
BS>   will not be sold with the book.  (Keep in mind that the author has little
BS>   say in any of these decisions--it's the publisher's call.)  I will, myself,
BS>   sell it seperately.  I don't know for how much; enough to cover expenses.
BS>   Unfortunately, I cannot send it to addresses outside the country.  I won't be
BS>   able to put the code on an ftp site for the same reason.  (I don't like this
BS>   solution either, but it wasn't my choice.)

        I guarantee you that within days of the release of your disk,
        someone will have 'inadvertantly' left a copy of the code on
        an ftp site (unless the code is Copyright, of course).


---
 ~ PQ 2.15 194 ~ "Just _one_ more feature..."
--
ALMAC BBS Ltd. 0324-665371
Dos based USENET access,  call for details!
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Vesselin Bontchev)
Subject: Public key patents in Europe?
Reply-To: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de
Organization: Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:57:40 GMT

I know that this is probably the wrong group to ask, but
nevertheless, here it goes.

From the RSA FAQ, page 4, answer to question 1.5:

"The authors of patent 4,218,582 claim that it applies to all uses of
public-key cryptography. It has been patented throughout the world."

The claims in patent 4,218,582 cover any use of public key
cryptosystems - regardless of the method used. Seems that the whole
idea is patented. (Please do not start a flame war about how stupid a
patent law that permits an algorithm to be patented is.)

What bothers me are the words "throughout the world". Till now, I
thought that it only applies in the USA. So I asked the following
question to the editor of the RSA FAQ:

> Could you please quote some other countries (besides the USA),
> where public-key cryptography has been patented? Please, state
> the particular patent numbers.

In his reply, Paul Fahn wrote:

> I do not currently have the exact information. I know that it is
> patented "in Europe" but don't have the number. If there are others
> asking for this information, I will try to find out and add it to
> later revisions of the faq.

Well, so I am asking those of you who are "in Europe": do you have any
information about the above? Could you tell me in which countries
exactly public-key cryptography is patented and which are the patent
numbers? Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Vesselin
-- 
Vesselin Vladimirov Bontchev          Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Tel.:+49-40-54715-224, Fax: +49-40-54715-226      Fachbereich Informatik - AGN
< PGP 2.0 public key available on request. > Vogt-Koelln-Strasse 30, rm. 107 C
e-mail: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de    D-2000 Hamburg 54, Germany
From: jac54@cas.org
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Every Spy Should Carry a Bible
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:20:02 GMT
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio


	I have been one of those who has been unenthusiastic about book
	codes in the past, but I have just read "Handbook for Spies" by
	Alexander Foote and in one of the appendices he described the
	cipher system he used whilst working for the Soviets in Switzerland
	in WWII in the legendary Lucy ring.  Briefly:

1.      Rearrange alphabet by the Playfair keyword method.
	The alphabet includes the figures @ and .

2.      Assign numerical values to letters as follows:

	E       1
	T       2
	A       3
	S       5
	O       6
	R       7
	I       8
	N       9  (not 01, 02 etc.)

3.      In the order of the rearranged alphabet, assign the values 01-09,
	and 40-49 and encrypt the message, rearrange into five figure groups.

4.      Take a passage from a book of the same length as the message and
	encrypt using the same substitution.  Rearrange into five-figure
	groups and add to the corresponding groups of the original message.

5.      Two groups including a check group and page-line-first word
	identifier are buried at specific groups in the body of the message.


	Decryption is then a matter of arithmetic.  If it was good enough
	for the Soviets, it must be stronger than I thought.  Apologies
	to anybody I may have flamed.

	Alec Chambers.
From: nikb@cix.compulink.co.uk (Nick Barron)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: == No Subject ==
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: nikb@cix.compulink.co.uk

Ref: Using CDs as a OTP

I like the idea, especially as my CD player has a digital output [ :-) ]

However, does the digitised music make a *good* random sequence?  Almost all
music has repetitive sequences in it, would this constitute enough of a
probelm to worry about??

Of course, there are certain problems.  For example, a Kylie Minogue CD
will yield n identical sequences where n is the number of tracks....

And, of course, it is well known that the KGB (or whatever they're called
this week) have been distributing truly random OTPs in the UK music market
for some time, they call it rave music...... :-)

nikb.

   "An expert is a man who has made every conceivable mistake in a very
    narrow field"  -  Niels Bohr
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon)
Subject: Re: Today's conspiracy theory (was: ATM fraud)
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:51:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep16.130653.17059@spider.co.uk> paulq@spider.co.uk (Paul Qualtrough) writes:
>Why don't all banks and other organisations requiring what are in effect
>ID cards get together, create a single (smart) card with a single PIN of
>however many digits is socially and security-wise acceptable, and then put
>all their institution-specific information on that single card?  The banks
>would, I suggest, _love_ the problem of customer authentication taken
>out of their hands and the burden placed somewhere else.
>
>Ideally, governments should introduce such a thing as an identity card
>and licence card companies, banks, etc. to piggy-back their stuff on it.
>The government guarantees that the card holder is who their PIN says they
>are, and the burden of fraud is spread - we pay ever so slightly higher
>taxes, but lower bank charges.

Try this on the current government...  Sort of ``Hi John; I've got this
idea for a `Security Charter'.''

>OK, so the civil libertarians don't like the idea of big brother watching
>us through universal identity cards, but in this market economy world
>you can always set one (low) scale of charges for those who reckon they
>have nothing to hide and another (higher) rate for the libertarians who
>want to have lots of individual cards.  Money talks eventually.

Damn good idea.  Maybe the proportion trusting the identity card would
be higher (a) in the more liberal democracies, and (b) where an
identity card is already manditory, eg Spain, Italy...

Damon
-- 
Damon Hart-Davis | Tel/Fax: +44 81 755 0077 |1.28|| Cheap Sun eqpt available.
Internet: dhd@exnet.co.uk | Also: Damon@ed.ac.uk || Mail/news feeds available.
--------------------------+----------------------++---------------------------
Public access UNIX (Suns), news and mail for #5 per month.  FIRST MONTH FREE.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: PGP *2.0* available
Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:46:01 GMT

In article <17939.Sep2300.39.3792@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep20.195136.8642@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
|> >  As far as I can tell, the whole point of cryptography is to be
|> >  able to restrict information to only those who are intended to
|> >  have it.
|> 
|> That description is far too broad. You cannot singlehandedly restrict
|> information to a chosen recipient, because he can in turn give the
|> information to someone else. You pose an impossible problem; is it a
|> surprise that there are no solutions?

Indeed. I've been making this point regarding anti-piracy devices for
some time. Even if Videocipher, for example, had not been broken there
would have been no way to prevent someone from taping the output of a
legitimate decoder and selling it or giving it away. The same is
undoubtedly true for software packages, at least those running on
standard general purpose machines. If you can't trust the authorized
user, then all bets are off.

Phil
From: drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Using genetic engineering for exhaustive DES key search
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:18:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
+ 
+    lou@Cadence.COM (Louis K. Scheffer) writes:
+    +The basic approach would be to build a bacteria that acts as a DES key search
+    +machine.  Each bacteria generates keys at random, decrypts the encrypted block 
+    +with the key, and compares the result with the plaintext.  If there is a match,
+ 
+ A real computer virus, eh?  The difficult part is to gen up an enzyme
+ that generates _random_ numbers, represented as e.g. random proteins.
+ (OK, I'm not sure getting a bacterium to do DES is really that
+ straightforward either, but ....)  Enzymes like to always do the same thing.
+ The obvious approach is to use mutations to create the randomness,
+ but the mutagen would also presumably affect the compare-the-results genes.
+ So you've now got a very large number of very small monkeys typing away,
+ and another crowd of monkeys randomly yelling "This stuff is Shakespeare!" :-)
+ --
+                               Pray for peace;      Bill
+ #Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
+ # Trickle-Down Economics: Giving money to government bureaucrats 
+ #     and hoping some will trickle down to the people who need help.

It's surprising that no one has mentioned the immune system here.
Generating a zillion variant cells which make a zillion variant
antibodies, apparently at random, is just what makes it possible to
respond to antigens that haven't been invented yet.  And we've mostly
solved the compare-the-results problems, though people suffering from an
auto-immune disease may take exception.  None this proves that you could
attack decryption this way, but it's a sort of existence proof.

--
Dan Drake
drake@Autodesk.com
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Public key patents in Europe?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:55:20 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
> In <bontchev.718919860@fbihh> bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Vesse
> >Well, so I am asking those of you who are "in Europe": do you have any
> >information about the above? Could you tell me in which countries
> >exactly public-key cryptography is patented and which are the patent
> >numbers? Thanks in advance.
> 
> My understanding, from reading comp.patents, is that RSA is unpatentable in
> countries other than the USA, because it was published (in Scientific
> American, no less) before the patent was applied for.

This is what Philip Zimmermann has told me.  Certainly if this was not the
case, and if the RSA patents were valid in the EC, it would have made no
sense to shift the development of PGP 2 to Europe.


mathew
-- 
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums weren't they?"
 -- George Bush, during a tour of Auschwitz, 1987-09-28
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 16 Oct 1992 09:36:25 CDT
From: <U59919@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: where is everything?!?

I'm looking for any kind of en/de-cryption programs.
I knoe that everyone keeps asking for FTP sites, but no one posts it up where
everyone can see it.
Please e-mail me any FTP sites with cryption stuff on them--
then post it on the net for any other newcomers.
your help is, of course, appreciated.
Thanx in advance.

Theodore Penn
u59919@uicvm.cc.uic.edu

Ever wonder what happens to the REAL nuts?  Sooner or later we get nobel prizes
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:3804 alt.security:4573
From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security
Subject: Re: Letter Frequency
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:08:46 GMT
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Organization: You care?
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

Hi,
	Letter frequencies for 50,000 letters:

	A - 3,683
	B -   487
	C - 1,534
	D - 2,122
	E - 6,498
	F - 1,416
	G -   819
	H - 1,694
	J -    82
	K -   148
	L - 1,821
	M - 1,237
	N - 3,975
	O - 3,764
	P - 1,335
	Q -   175
	R - 3,788
	S - 3,058
	T - 4,595
	U - 1,300
	V -   766
	W -   780
	X -   231
	Y -   967
	Z -    49

This is old (WWII) and computed for telegrams. "Literary" plaintext 
might differ...
-- 
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: dorsey@lila.com (Bill Dorsey)
Subject: Re: (was: Re: Public key patents in Europe?)
Reply-To: dorsey@lila.com
Organization: 
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:22:26 GMT

In article 29230@netcom.com, rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>...
>This is the Diffie-Merkle patent.  It is owned by PKP as well as the
>first Hellman-Diffie-Merkle patent 4,200,770.  These did in fact precede
>RSA but since PKP owns them anyway, it doesn't matter.  I believe though
>that it does matter that the second patent claims something invented
>in the first but not specifically claimed, the entire concept of public
>key.  There is opinion that the claims in the second patent would not
>stand anyway because the knapsack method described as an embodyment is
>not in fact secure and as such isn't a valid method of cryptography.
>
>That's what sucks about this patent system, it doesn't matter really
>whether the patent is valid, what matters is whether one has the money
>to prove it isn't.  I'm not sure what the answer to that problem is 
>either.  Consortium anyone?
>
I'm not sure what you mean by consortium, but I for one would be willing to pay
$100 towards hiring a patent attorney to challenge PKP`s patents in court.  If
you think the matter is worth pursuing, you might find an ally in the Free
Software Foundation as well.

--
Bill Dorsey	dorsey@lila.com

"The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws." -- Tacitus
From: shri@freal.cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: DES .. and these days ??
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:43:23 GMT
Reply-To: shri@legato.cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar)
Organization: UMass, Amherst, MA 01002 + Temporal Sys & Comp Net, Bombay, India

Hi,

  Curious ...

  Now with DES having been "decertified", and newer NIST certified
single key encryption scheme not yet around any corner ...

  What encryption scheme is the most popular in ...

  1. Financial sector, such as Inter Bank Transactions ?
  2. On networks like SWIFT ?
  3. Trade and commerce, such as between stock brokers and
       their major clients ?
  4. Within Private Corps, and also within (branches of) same banks ?

Is DES still the most prevalant method, simple because of a large
installed base already existing ?

(I am new to this group, and the subject, tho' aware of the issues
in cryptography, but new to the state-of-art ... I will be grateful
for all answers, E-mail or post here.)

  Also, the new NIST DSS standard .. is it seeing any field use
are any commercial/legally-binding application using (too early ?)
or intending to use it ?

  Also related issue, ...

  with so much hue and cry being raised today over privacy issues
in public telecom, and tapping of cellular phones .. I wonder
if some group is looking into adaptation of any digital encryption
schemes, esp. two key schemes for cellular phone use, esp the
newer digital cellular phone standards. 

  One would not need a "very strong" encryption scheme here, but it
surely must be very cheap to implement in $100 phones in a competitive
market. And if it is a two key scheme, so much the better.

-- shrikumar ( shri@legato.cs.umass.edu, shri@iucaa.ernet.in )
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: DES generates A_(2^64)?
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:34:02 GMT
 	<unruh.719169829@unixg.ubc.ca> <1992Oct15.211300.27098@bnr.ca> 
 <PHR.92Oct15174530@napa.telebit.com> <unruh.719212856@physics.ubc.ca>
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <unruh.719212856@physics.ubc.ca> unruh@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) writes:

>phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:

>>I heard that someone in Eastern Germany recently proved a stronger
>>result, that DES generates the alternating group on 2^64 letters.

>What is the "alternating group"? Does this mean that for any two 64 bit
>words, x and y, there exists some sequence of DES transformations that
>take x into y?, or that for any 1-1 onto mapping from the set of all {x}
>to itself, there exists a sequence of DES which generates that mapping
>(ie, that the DES group contains 2^(2^64) elements)?

It's larger than 2^(2^64); it's (2^64)!/2.  The result is saying that half
of all possible permutations of the word-space (2^64) are attainable by
some combination of DES transformations.


--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: FAQ, anyone?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:01:12 GMT

Instead of posting questions asking "where is PGP 2.0?" why don't you use
archie and look it up?
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG                  erc@apple.com                     801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: newsham@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham)
Subject: pgp - pretty good program
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:24:26 GMT


pgp as is (as of the last version i tried) doesnt compile straight
on the hpux 7.0 systems.  Will this be fixed in a new version?
do I have to port it myself if I want to use it?

system:
HP-UX wiliki A.B7.06 D 9000/870 114124141

thank you...


Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: jhull@thor.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (   Joseph F. Hull)
Subject: Re: PEM question
Keywords: RSA PEM
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:02:32 GMT

Bob, 
Your choice of words in this article runs a serious chance of confusing 
the issue.

In article <BvL79M.8on@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, 
mirage1@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Robert Ames) writes:
|> A number of people have replied to my question about the PEM protocol,
|> pointing out that even if the private key involved in one message
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^   
|> exchange were to be discovered, this would only have the effect of a
|> "known plaintext attack" on the RSA encryption used to exchange the
|> keys.  In other words, the sender's private RSA would remain secure.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^
What you call a "private key" above should be called a "single message key"
to avoid any chance of someone else confusing it with the "private key"
part of a public key encryption system, what you call "private RSA" above.

A large part of PGP's strength is due to the fact that very limited amounts of
information are ever directly protected by a single key, i.e., only one
message is ever protected by the "single message key" and only the (very small
amount of information of the) "single message keys" transferred between
changes of "public key / private key" pairs is protected by those keys.

-- 
	   _   _
    /_    / ) / ) Jeff Hull          jhull@den.mmc.com
   //_) -/- -/-   1544 S. Vaughn Cir
/_/ \_/ /   /	  Aurora, CO 80012   303-977-1061
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: markv@pixar.com (Mark T. VandeWettering)
Subject: Re: How secure is this encryption scheme?
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:55:58 GMT

egurney@vcd.hp.com (Ed J. Gurney) writes:

>I've been working with the following encryption scheme and am wondering
>how hard it would be (or if it's even possible at all) to devise a method
>of "reversing" it.  Someone has told me this is an "NP-Hard" problem,
>but I thought I'd ask all you net.gods.  Here's a description:

	[ description deleted]

	I wouldn't believe the someone.  From your rather imprecise and 
	confusing definition, I would say it is probably "nearly trivial"
	to break.  If you like, email me (or post) your code for encryption
	and decryption, and I will comment further.

	Brief statement of why it is easy to break: you are repetatively 
	encoding segments with essentially the same key.  This makes it a 
	variant of a polyalphabetic cipher, which can be broken with a 
	decent sample and some sweat.

			Mark T. VandeWettering
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:3792 alt.security:4568
From: grady@public.BTR.COM ( )
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security
Subject: Re: Letter Frequency
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:02:28 GMT
Followup-To: sci.crypt
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

My Moby Words product contains three
frequency lists in addition to the
main word and phrase corpora; one
that may be of particular interest to you
is a list of _all_ substrings of length
fourteen or fewer, sorted by decreasing
order of frequency, in a work of popular
modern fiction.

E-mail you postal address to grady@btr.com
for more information (commercial product,
discounted for education).


-- 
Grady Ward  grady@btr.com  Moby Lexicons (408) 373-1491