December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: One time pads and randomness?
by i.am.not.a.number＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

as i have writ before, the sources i have read say that digits of the transcendentals are THOUGHT to be uniformly and 'randomly' distributed --- in quotes because there are many criteria for randomness and i don't mean to imply a specific one. however, this supposision is no stronger than a conjecture. has not been proven, AFAIK. At 02:06 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >By the way, did anyone try to run "all randomness tests" on a sequence >of digits of, say, decimal representation of "e"? > >igor > >Blake Coverett wrote: >> >> > I want to use a one time pad pased crypto system. I understand that the >> > randomness of the pad genorator is key to security(other than lossing the >> > keys). What I want to know is if I use a psuedo-RNG that maybe repeats its >> > self every 1000 characters and use it to only encrypt messagase that are >> > 100's of charaters long, will this be a major security risk? >> >> I'm afraid you've fallen into one of the standard traps. A PRNG can *not* >> make a OTP no matter how you use it. >> >> The total amount of entropy in a PRNG is the amount of entropy in the seed >> you use to key it. All the other bits are directly derived from that seed. >> >> A true OTP is completely secure from an information-theory point of view >> because every byte has a full eight bits of entropy. A PRNG can never >> have this. >> >> Having said all this, it is possible to make a good cipher from a PRNG. >> RC4, for example, is exactly that and the variable sized key is the >> seed for the PRNG. It is however very difficult to come up with a >> good algorithm for that cryptographically sound PRNG and you would >> be much further ahead to use an existing one rather that trying to >> roll your own. >> >> > Say I create a 1 million character one time pad that passes all of the >> > randomness tests. It is "truely random". I place it on two computers. Now >> > when these two computers want to send email computer "A" grabs a chunk of the >> > one time pad starting at a random point and encrypts it. It labels the email >> > with the random starting point and sends it to "B". There "B" moves to the >> > random point and begins decryption. During to process both computers mark >> > that section of the OTP used so that they don't retransmit with it. I realize >> > this has a limited amount of messages before it is used up. But would this be >> > secure? Any suggestions, complaints, big gapping holes I missed? >> >> I don't see anything wrong as such, but there is nothing to be gained either. >> If your random data is real OTP material there is no need to skip to a random >> byte within it, just start at the beginning and use it in sequence. If your random >> data is the output of a PRNG like the above then random starting point doesn't >> buy you much additional security because the entire set of keying material can >> be recreated from the seed. It may increase the work-factor of searching for >> the key, but it also imposes the practical problem of keeping all that keying >> material secure. >> >> More importantly don't confuse statistically random with cryptographically >> random. Just because a bunch of bits passes all the randomness test >> you can think of doesn't mean it contains 100% entropy. Consider the >> digits of an irrational number like sqrt(2) or pi, the digits appear statistically >> random but they can be recreated from just a tiny bit of knowledge. >> >> A good litmus test is to ask yourself if there is any way you can >> reproduce those bits. If there is, they aren't a one time pad. >> (Of course even if you can't it doesn't mean they are good. :-) >> >> regards, >> -Blake >> > > > > - Igor. > >

1 0

Re: I beg you, PLEASE prove that 0.123456789101112131415 is IRRATIONAL
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:20 PM 1/19/1997, Sir Robin of Locksley wrote: >>Is it possible to prove that number >>0.1234567891011121314151617181920... iz irrational? > >Most definately. All you need to do is prove that the set of this >number is uncountable, ergo is irrational. If you have friend who >have done math in real analysis they can explain more. The set of this number contains one member - the number. Therefore, this is a countable set. A rational number is a number which can be described as a fraction in which the numerator and the denominator are integers. Jim Choate implied that "infinity" is an integer. This is not correct. The set of integers is said to be infinite. Infiniteness is a property of the set, not a member of the set. All rational numbers are expressible in a decimal form of finite length or in a decimal form which ends in a repeatable string of digits. (Consider the process by which each successive digit is found. It is a fraction of the denominator and some remainder with a zero added. The remainder is less than the denominator multiplied by the base, 10 in this case. When a remainder repeats, the state of the algorithm repeats, and its output will therefore be repeated. Since the remainder is bounded, the algorithm must repeat a state. Note that this holds regardless of the base used.) If our number, 0.1234..., does not repeat then it is not rational. Let's show that it does not repeat. If it repeats, there is a sequence of digits which repeats indefinitely. Such a sequence must be longer than the longest integer. (Because if it was part of an integer, the other parts of the integer would not always be the same and it couldn't repeat.) But, there is no longest integer. Therefore there is no repeating sequence. Therefore our number, 0.1234..., is not a rational number. Math Man

1 0

microcurrency: Netscape vs. Microsoft
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

it seems that microcurrency has still not hit the "big time" yet. or perhaps some people see otherwise. what is the evidence for how far it has penetrated ala DigiCash etc? I haven't seen much myself. I predict that microcurrency will not catch on in a big way until it is integrated with browsers, and when it is, it will be adopted in an insanely large rush like the way the web itself caught on with the GUI (and was mostly comatose before it). I'd like to have seen microcurrency catch on like a brushfire at this point, and was trying to figure out why it hadn't, and focused on the above key aspect. hence, I wonder: WHO WILL BE THE FIRST TO INCORPORATE A MICROCURRENCY FEATURE IN THEIR BROWSER, MICROSOFT OR NETSCAPE? why am I shouting? because I hope that we can create a buzz around this question, to the point that both manufacturers begin to realize how much is at stake in this single little feature. I'd like to see speculation and articles about it in the trade press. let it turn into a hot topic of conversation.. do either MS or Netsacpe have plans to do so right now? I suspect the future of the browser wars will belong to he who does the microcurrency feature. here's how it might work: the browser has an internal piggyback that can be filled up with cash. it has various features that prohibit a charge of greater than some fixed limit of being made, per time, per site etc... also in no case can more money than is currently in the piggy bank be charged. once the charge hits, there is no contesting allowed, because the charge is so low. a little bar on the user interface could indicate how much cash is left. the idea would also be to invent some new html tags that indicate the charge on a link. the charge is incurred when 1/2 of the page is sent (there would be all kinds of hacks in which people could retrieve only part of a page to avoid the charge, hence this limit or some variation thereof). so when I move my mouse over a link in the browser, I see not only its address as with Netscape's, but also some charge that will incur when I hit it. there could be color coding and little graphics for costs also. notice how much crypto really caught on when Netscape incorporated it, and how this action alone did more for the proliferation of crypto in cyberspace, almost, than all prior efforts combined. I think that microcurrency will be unleashed in a very similar way. the system I describe above can be built up pretty easily from existing technology such as DigiCash. pretty much all the major ingredients are available.. it's just a matter of time before some enterprising programmers plug it all together in an easy to use way. (as far as I know the Digicash software is not easily integrated with any browser, am I correct?) by framing the question as I have above, the question is no longer "how should microcurrency be implemented", or "should it be", but "who will be the first to do it?", a nice competitive incentive to the key companies involved. so, Netscape, Microsoft, are either of you listening? do you have any idea how much is riding on this option? are you working on it right now? if not, are you prepared to face the consequences? has anyone heard any rumors about their intention to implement microcurrency? I've long predicted some pretty revolutionary strides in cyberspace that will make all development up to now look pretty sickly and pale, when microcurrency is invented and brought into a trivial-to-use GUI. in a sense it is the the economic system that the whole industry (or even the whole world) has been waiting for ever since its beginning. it will unleash a torrent of frenzied innovation and reorganization beyond what anyone has ever seen or thought possible. p.s. has anyone done a plugin that handles cash in the way I am referring to? this may be a really neat way for third-party developers to cash in on this, but I suspect that it's so crucial that the browser manufacturers will eventually incorporate it themselves.

3 3

Numbers we cannot talk about
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:48 PM 1/18/1997, Secret Squirrel wrote: >Is it REALLY true that there are real numbers that cannot be >generated by any algorithm? Some guy said that since the set of >algorithms is countable, but the set of real numbers is more than >countable, there must be some numbers for which there is no >algorithms that generate them. There are sets of real numbers whose existence we can prove, but which we cannot otherwise describe. This is more extreme than being "generated by an algorithm". We can't even tell somebody which numbers to generate! (I take "to generate" here to mean "to compute a decimal approximation.") The set of real numbers is uncountable as is the set of subsets of the real numbers. Yet, we have only countably infinite ways to describe sets of numbers. All sets of numbers which we can describe can be described with a finite set of symbols. (Human beings are unable to distinguish between an infinite number of states.) The set of combinations of this finite set is infinite, but countable. "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." - Ludwig Wittgenstein, closing line of "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" See the early pages of "Godel's Incompleteness Theorems" by Raymond M. Smullyan for a better exposition. Math Man

1 0

KeyKOS related system lecture at Stanford
by Bill Frantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I received the following from Jonathan. Those of you who are interested in KeyKOS should know that his system, EROS, is an architectural descendent of KeyKOS. --------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:13:11 -0500 From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap(a)eros.cis.upenn.edu> To: ... Subject: Talk info NOTE TIME CORRECTION I'll be giving a talk on Wednesday at Stanford in the EE380 seminar. Details on the seminar can be found at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/class/ee380/ under 'winter 1996'. The location and time are: Wednesday at 4:15pm Hewlett Packard Auditorium (Room B1) Gates Computer Science Building Stanford Univeristy The basic structure of the talk will be: explain what active networking means, and why confinement and fault isolation are required. (the problem) identify the properties needed for confinement and fault isolation proofs, what capabilities are, and why non-capability systems do not have these properties (why we need them) describe the objects named in EROS/KeyKOS, and why these are the right choices for high performance (how to get performance) show how this system might be used to construct an active networking router or endpoint. (how to use them for this problem) I'm still working on the talk, so the order may get rearranged. Hope to some or all of you there. Jonathan

1 0

Gilmore and Sandfart suck big dicks
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone wrote to me: >Did you not mean any homo who has ever shaffted Gilmore and Sandy can >write what the fuck they like but straight or intelligent or NORMAL >people will have to be filtered. Yes, that's precisely how Sandfart's moderation will work. Homosexuals like Jason Durbin will continue to post personal attacks on Gilmore's many "enemies", but the victims of the libel will not be able to respond and refute their lies. The concept of "the best response to speech you don't like is more speech" is totally alien to the homosexual subculture on the Internet. These control freaks are into censorship and B&D. >I realize that normal people are few and far between in cypher punks. There may be quite a few normal and knowledgeable people left among the subscribers, but most posters are indeed militant homosexual censors who don't care about crypto except to drop a few "kewl" phrases - like Paul Bradley's infamous "brute-force attack on one-time pads". >I am NOT a cypher-punk and I hope that you do not class me as one, I am >merely interested in cryptography and believe it or not I actually pick >up tips every now and again from the list. I'm sure you're not a "cypher punk" - you're both too smart and too straight. :-) A while back I saw an announcement of a "cypher punks" meating where Jim Bell was explicitly disinvited, and I announced that I don't consider myself a "cypher punk". Jim Bell is a pro-censorship asshole, but I will defend his freedom of speech nevertheless. Occasional tidbits of useful information do still appear on this list. >I am against moderation on the list and I aggree that Gilmug is a lying >cocksucker. Please bear in mind that not everyone on the list is a >"jew-hating" faggot with nothing but shit between their ears. I wholeheartedly agree - however anyone who describes himself as a "cypher punk", after John Gilmore's dishonorable actions, probably is. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

7 15

Re: Monitoring the monitors [Was: Gilmore and Sandfart suck big dicks]
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> In other words, can I separate the censored email without having to > have two accounts? You can write a program to read both the censored and uncensored email, and do a diff. You wouldn't have to see it, and it could be done so that a "fake" address subscribes to the censored list. Maybe I should offer this as a service to the uncensored list? ;-) ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet None should say "I can trust" or "I cannot trust" until they are the master of the option of trusting or not trusting.

1 0

I beg you, PLEASE prove that 0.123456789101112131415 is IRRATIONAL
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Cypher Punks, I BEG YOU TO HELP ME!!! Is it possible to prove that number 0.1234567891011121314151617181920... iz irrational? Or may be it is rational? Also, another question for math geniuses here: Is it REALLY true that there are real numbers that cannot be generated by any algorithm? Some guy said that since the set of algorithms is countable, but the set of real numbers is more than countable, there must be some numbers for which there is no algorithms that generate them. But I still do not believe him. Also, is it true that the sequence of digits in e is random because the ONLY way to get to the p'th digit is to calculate the p-1'st digits? Also, is it the correct definition of a real number: ``A real number is the class of numbers which can represent the length of an arbitrary line.'' I AM REAL DESPERATE FOR YOUR ASS ISTANCE.

2 1

infinity & set membership
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, "The least upper bound of a set of real numbers is often called the supremum, the greatest lower bound its infimum. In general the supremum and infimum of a set ARE MEMBERS OF THE SET or at least LIMITS OF SEQUENCES OF MEMBERS OF THE SET." [capitalization is mine] In this case the suprenum is infinity. Introduction to Calculus and Analysis Courant and John Vol. 1, pp. 97, Section e. 1965 Edition Library of Congress: 65-16403 Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Igor@home = Secret Squirrel
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I am motivated to post this, something I would normaly not do, because of the issue of trust of moderators that has arisen lately. Igor and myself were in a discussion about number theory last nite. We reached a point of impass. Igor made the suggestion that we bring the discussion to cpunks. I requested that we drop the issue and specificaly not bring it to cpunks. My reasoning had several facets. First, the position that I was in is probably wrong. My motivation was to examine the methodology of dis-proof (which I was disappointed with). Also, it is not a serious issue with me and whether my particular view is right or wrong is irrelevant. Cypherpunks is not the place for truly technical discussions (as is apparent with even a cursory glance). Traffic on this list practicaly drowns my ability to filter it and more drivel I (and probably you) don't need. And finaly, the discussion was fine for a Saturday afternoon discussion, I don't have the interest or time to carry it out over days or weeks, I have to work for a living. Igor agreed to drop the issue and not to bring it to the list. However, this morning I find Secret Squirrel posting some questions which are taken practicaly verbatin from my exchange w/ Igor. Seemed like a truly improbable event. Take it for what it's worth. "An appeal to authority is an appeal to a human being just like yourself who does not have your best interests at heart. What makes you believe they are able to resolve your problems better than yourself?" Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1