|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
Author: John E. HadstateJohn E. Hadstate
Date: Dec 30, 2006 18:32
"Carlos Moreno" mailinator.com>
wrote in message
news:tfClh.35889$e11.565488@weber.videotron.net...> John E. Hadstate wrote:
>
>> This has not been the case until very recently. Does
>> anyone have any clues about what's going on here?
>
> Yep: someone is using MS Outlook, when so clearly they
> should
> use some of the *good* e-mail clients available
> (Thunderbird,
> Evolution, ...)
>
Thank you for your insightful, helpful and
information-packed reply. Please give yourself two pats on
the back and a kick in the ass.
|
| |
|
| |
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: r.e.s.r.e.s.
Date: Dec 30, 2006 17:38
The KRYPTOS-3 ciphertext is easily produced from the now-known
plaintext by two complete columnar transpositions, the first
using an 84-column table and the second using a 7-column table,
each transposition being done by filling the table by rows,
then simply reading the columns from right to left.
Thus, the plaintext in the 84-column table is ...
S L O W L Y ... D O O R W A
Y W A S R E ... D E N I N G
T H E H O L ... E D T H E F
L A M E T O ... T H I N G Q
(Q is presumably a null inserted to complete the table)
which then gives the 7-column table ...
|
| Show full article (1.39Kb) |
|
3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Ken_11010111Ken_11010111
Date: Dec 30, 2006 17:16
Hi Guys
I'm new to your group so I thought I would drop you a note and let you
know about a
new encryption program I have written. I call it Vegas Vault and it
composed of over
1100+ C functions which I have placed into the public domain. It is
based on a real
random number generator that I wrote called Indium. It uses just about
every major
encryption algorithm, one way has function not to mention hundreds more
I wrote
myself. It will use a internet connection to get numbers over the net
as well as a radio
if you have one plugged inti your sound card, although neither is
required for it to run.
It is very large and complex which means it is very slooow but if you
need the best
this is probably it!
If your interested in taking a look at it the address is:
|
| Show full article (0.94Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Valery PryamikovValery Pryamikov
Date: Dec 30, 2006 16:21
Antony Clements wrote:
> i read somewhere that a block cipher is really just a stream cipher that has
> been broken up into manageable chunks. given that, it's very easy to turn a
> stream cipher into a block cipher (because really the only difference is a
> stream cipher works on one byte at a time and a block cipher works on
> several bytes at a time), and vice versa. all one needs to do is change the
> scope of the workings so a cipher that works on blocks can be modified to
> the point where each block is only 1 byte long. a stream cipher can be
> modified so that it works on several bytes at a time. note that i have taken
> the former approach rather than the latter.
Yes, you can build stream cipher out of block cipher (modes of
operations such as f.e. CTR). As well as you can build a block cipher
out of stream cipher by using generalized Feistel... but that doesn't
really affect the fact that they have more differences than they share
similarities...
-Valery.
http://www.harper.no/valery
|
| Show full article (1.29Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Luc The PerverseLuc The Perverse
Date: Dec 30, 2006 15:53
> Woody Brison wrote:
>> I'm struck by how the antigovernment forces don't know
>> physics. Can it be that our country's present polarization
>> (for Bush / against Bush) is largely simply "know about
>> math and physics" v. "don't know" ?
>
> No -- what a ludicrous notion. Many of us who spend hours
> refuting the nonsense of the 9/11 kooks absolutely despise
> Bush and his administration.
>
> What causes the country's present polarization? Well, the
> idea that if you're not for Bush then you don't know math
> and physics seems a reasonable example.
Well said.
In summation, both people who are for an against 9/11 conspiracy theories
hate Bush. Both people who are crazy and sane hate Bush. Jews, Muslims
and Arabs hate Bush.
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: UnruhUnruh
Date: Dec 30, 2006 15:52
"=?iso-8859-1?q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Michaud?=" comcast.net> writes:
>Ignacio aecbi wrote:
>> The analog these days is point of sales authentication. You can limit
>> the amount of time an intruder has to steal or break the
>> authenticating key that secures the transaction.
>Maybe, but I'm talking about the algorithm in itself. If fine tuned,
>I'm certain it could be fairly efficient and secure.
Enigma is not efficient. To have to do 50 table lookups as suggested in the
original post is not efficient. And the fact that each table is fixed and
assumed known to the enemy makes the procedure much dicier. You have 50
transopision cyphers going with the transopositions stepping by a single
wheel at each step (also known to the attacker). The only thing unkown is
the order of the wheels (lookup trasposition tables) and the initial
settings of them. It sound both very slow and insecure to me.
>> For higher security needs solutions like IPV6 and modern methods like
>> closed loop quantum cryptography give better security.
closed loop quantum cryptography is what exactly?
|
| Show full article (1.40Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: John E. HadstateJohn E. Hadstate
Date: Dec 30, 2006 14:43
I sent an encrypted e-mail to myself (at a different e-mail
address) using Outlook 2000 at work the other day. Upon
checking the received message, I noticed that Outlook was no
longer using 3DES for encryption, in spite of the fact that
I specified that in my security settings. Today I repeated
the experiment at home with Outlook Express and found the
same thing. Both clients are using 40-bit RC2 for
encryption, even though everything indicates that 3DES
should be used. Worse, with Outlook 2000, the only way you
can find this out is to explicitly check the blue padlock
icon on the received message; it does not tell you this when
you encrypt the message. Outlook Express has settings that
allow you to get a warning if the encryption key is shorter
than it should be.
This has not been the case until very recently. Does anyone
have any clues about what's going on here?
|
| |
|
13 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jean-François MichaudJean-François Michaud
Date: Dec 30, 2006 14:36
Unruh wrote:
> "=?iso-8859-1?q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Michaud?=" comcast.net> writes:
>
>>>Simon Johnson wrote:
>>>> They are complex in structure, but not complex to implement. They are
>>>> in fact very easy to implement in code. If they potentially allow for
>>>> very strong encryption even if they are slow, does it matter? It all
>>>> depends on the context in which it's used.
>>>
>>> I can't speak for Unruh but I think the point he is making is this.
>>>
>>> You're right that computers would allow us to implement an Enigma like
>>> cipher with rotors that spin backwards, forwards, stop and start based
>>> on other rotors, change their values according to the phase of the moon
>>> etc..
>>>
>>> But is this useful? Is this a good way to get security on modern
>>> hardware?
> ...
|
| Show full article (4.82Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: David WagnerDavid Wagner
Date: Dec 30, 2006 14:36
Mpilot wrote:
>Since the FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept function which is
>discussed here is based on these publised papers and open-source
>software library to which I am referring and you are not willing / able
>to show errors in these published papers and open-source software
>library, we are finished with this discussion.
I think it would be more accurate to say that your scheme is finished.
Based on what I've seen so far, it's going nowhere.
The burden is not on Kristian to slog through your code and point out
the bug; the burden is on you to provide convincing evidence that your
scheme is secure. So far, you have not come close to meeting that burden.
I have to say that I am not getting warm fuzzy feelings about your
scheme, given the way you are talking about it. Are you new to the
field of applied cryptography and communication security?
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
