|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: marsupialmarsupial
Date: Feb 3, 2008 22:17
Given the 64 byte digest of a whirlpool hash, is there sufficient
information to reconstruct the internal state of the whirlpool to be able
to predict the hash of a subsequent finalize() ?
I.E.
whirlpool.init();
whirlpool.add(someRandomBytes);
whirlpool.finalize(digest_A);
whirlpool.finalize(digest_B);
Given digest_A, can one reconstruct the internal state of the whirlpool
and predict the value of digest_B?
|
| |
|
| |
3 Comments |
|
|
Author: JSHJSH
Date: Feb 3, 2008 20:49
Just more than a little bit worried now that maybe soon I'll have to
deal with the world figuring out just how far ahead I am.
That silly little congruence result kind of just angers me.
Such a trivial little thing:
With non-zero coprime integers n_1 and n_2, if f_1 = r_1 mod n_1 and
f_1 = r_2 mod n_2, you can find f_1 mod p_1*p_2 with
f_1 = r_1 + jn_1 mod n_1*n_2
where j = (r_2 - r_1)n_1^{-1} mod n_2.
I like this result better than the Chinese Remainder theorem, as you
can just go by two's and it's my discovery.
What are you people doing? What makes you think it's mathematics?
That result should NOT BE NEW!!!
What's wrong with you people?
What in the hell have you been doing for all these years?
I feel like my talents are wasted discovering stupid, easy crap that
should NOT BE FREAKING NEW!!!
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
|
| |
4 Comments |
|
|
Author: local hostlocal host
Date: Feb 3, 2008 17:55
> Unfortunately the truth hurts for some people. I have no doubt that
> there will be posters who will reply just to clog up threads in the
> hope that by babbling a lot they can hide the simple solution to the
> factoring problem
"math hurts the one you love......."
> And its simplicity should tell you something.
Simpletons do simplicity.
> As I've said the modern math field is corrupted.
that is what you say, alright, but you are the one that keeps making
mistakes.
> Modern mathematician in "pure math" areas are usually not doing ANY
> mathematics of value so it's not surprising that they missed something
> this easy.
who is "they" ? got any specifics or are you just babbling?
> The insults and accusations of mental illness are just the tools of
> con artists as no legitimate researcher would need to stoop to such
> lows.
|
| Show full article (2.93Kb) |
|
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: rossumrossum
Date: Feb 3, 2008 14:00
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:00:25 -0800 (PST), JSH gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 1, 7:09 am, JSH gmail.com> wrote:>> With T the target composite to be factored that is the product of only
>> two primes, you take two primes p_1 and p_2, and for each in turn you
>> make...
|
| Show full article (1.42Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: gammamutegammamute
Date: Feb 3, 2008 13:14
A friend of mine approached me with a strange question the other day.
he's attempting a proof-of-concept demo by using rainbow tables on the
following algo
$string = md5( concat( md5($string), salt));
What I proposed:
1. Run Rainbows on $string
2. remove the salt from the end of the new resulting $string
3. run rainbows on $string
What I'm concerned about is whether or not this would be the most
effective way to get values for the hash. This is also assuming the
user has access to the salt value.
1. Am i understanding this correctly?
2. Would there be any way to find the value of the salt after step 1?
e.g be able to pragmatically identify where the hash ended and where
the salt begins in the new string?
|
| |
|
6 Comments |
|
|
Author: tmbinctmbinc
Date: Feb 3, 2008 13:03
There are several publicized attacks on RSA implementations which do
an incomplete verification of the message padding when doing a
signature verification. All those attacks target public keys with e=3.
I'm currently looking at an implementation which only verifies the
hash bytes of the signature, in this implementation the last 20 bytes
(LSB) of the decrypted message. The padding, while present in the
signature, is not verified. I understand that attacking this
implementation is possible if the public key has an exponent of 3 (and
the message size is large enough, which is would be here - 2048 or
4096 bit). However, the public key used here has an exponent of 65537.
Also, there is no possibility to sign any chosen plaintext.
Is there a known attack for this scenario, which would allow to forge
signatures with specific hash values without any access to the secret
key?
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: chadchad
Date: Feb 3, 2008 09:27
I have obtained a little red book and is encrypted except for the
first page. The book refers to Noble Grand. When looking this phrase
up it appears ti be related to Independent Order of Odd Fellows
(I.O.O.F). I have an emblem with the rings that would relate to the
I.O.O.F as well.
I am looking for someone to help me figure out what the book says and
the meaning of the emblem. I have place pictures online at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadayers/sets/72157603842167996/
Below is on the first page of text:
The Captions
TUW,
I,
FD, OTDOF,
SD, OTDOBL,
TD, OTDOT,
|
| Show full article (0.88Kb) |
|
5 Comments |
|
|
Author: semsem
Date: Feb 3, 2008 05:27
Hi,
I want to know if the following is possible;
Two locations, Y and Z - where only Y knows the encryption key.
Y makes a copy of the file, encrypts it and sends it to Z.
Next day Y makes a new version of the unencrypted file.
Y then takes a binary difference of the todays file and the previous
days file.
Y then encrypts that binary difference (same key) and sends the binary
difference to Z.
Z has the original encrypted file and an encryptd difference file.
Z does not have the key to decrypt.
Is it possible for Z to apply the encrypted difference to an encrypted
file - such that the resulting file - if decrypted would be Y's file
from today?
Is this kind of thing possible - or is it just crazy talk??
thx
|
| |
|
2 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: i'm_just_doin_my_jobi'm_just_doin_my_job
Date: Feb 3, 2008 02:34
Pedophiles are the new scapegoats, just as Jews were in the past.
Pedo philes are innocent if they have not used force, deception,
intimidation,
or drugs, and if their acts have been consentual. Even then, the
death
penalty would be wrong.
The pedophilia scare is a fake. It is not harmful. That is why they
refuse to allow anyone to discuss the issue openly. It would reveal
that there is much evidence that it is harmless and can be
beneficial.
Those who say pedophilia "ruins" the lives of children never provide a
single adult whose life has been ruined by consensual pedophilia. In
fact they work hard to keep any testimony like this a secret from the
media. Those who say pedophiles are predators may as well say that
their own friendships are predatory because pedophilia is only
friendship between two human beings, and for the same reasons,
curiosity, love.... Those who point to the occasional psychopaths
among us may as well ban all contact between adults for the same
reason.
|
| Show full article (1.79Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
