- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Diebold takes down blackboxvoting.org (fwd)
by Jim Choate 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

Who said there were significant differences in corporations and governments...Oh yeah, CACL did....I guess they were wrong...again. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11743 -- -- God exists because mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exist because we can't prove it. Andre Weil, in H. Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.com www.ssz.com www.open-forge.com

1 0

CNN.com - Report: U.S. youth fail civics basics - Sep. 23, 2003 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/23/civics.education.ap/index.html -- -- God exists because mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exist because we can't prove it. Andre Weil, in H. Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.com www.ssz.com www.open-forge.com

1 0

CNN.com - MSN to close chat rooms - Sep. 24, 2003 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/24/microsoft.chat/index.html -- -- God exists because mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exist because we can't prove it. Andre Weil, in H. Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.com www.ssz.com www.open-forge.com

1 0

Slashdot | EU Parliament Approves Software Patents (fwd)
by Jim Choate 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/24/1253227.shtml?tid=155&tid=185&tid=99 -- -- God exists because mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exist because we can't prove it. Andre Weil, in H. Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.com www.ssz.com www.open-forge.com

1 0

Encrypted search?
by Tyler Durden 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

Got a crypto question here. Let's say I push out a list I'd like to keep secret to some client machine. The user of that machine must enter some ID or other piece of information. I want the client machine to perform a search of that ID vs the contents of a list (again, resident locally on that machine), but I don't want the user to be able to see the other entries of that list. Possible? Remember, after the initial push of data out to the client machine, no more messages are exchanged. This means the list must be sent in encrypted form. When the search is performed, the "stupid" thing to do (I think...someone correct me) is to take the user's ID, encrypt it, and then determine if matches an encypted member of the list (and I don't see encrypted each entry individually as a desirable thing). I am assuming that this allows a savvy user to reverse-engineer the encryption. Another option is one I don't have the background at this stage to understand. Let's assume the entire list has been encrypted in one shot. Is there some function such that when this encrypted list is convolved with the user ID a "Yes" or "no" can be obtained (indicating presence or absence from the list)? If the answer is yes, I'd also like to know if knowing this is farily basic to most encryption professionals sphere of knowledge... -TD _________________________________________________________________ Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

7 6

None
by Peter Wayner 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

Lately, there has been some discussion on mailing lists and blogs about the fact that srcabmling the oredr of ltetres in Egnilsh deson't afefct raebditly. I decided to write some code to experiment with it. You can try out the Java applet here: http://www.wayner.org/books/discrypt2/wordsteg.php Source code is available protected by the LGPL. It builds upon an earlier experiment here: http://www.wayner.org/books/discrypt2/sorted.php Please write if you have questions, thoughts, comments, etc. Peter Wayner p3(a)wayner.org

4 3

Fairmont State (West Virginia) offering computer security major
by R. A. Hettinga 23 Sep '03

23 Sep '03

<http://www.cpubco.com/cgi-bin/LiveIQue.acgi$rec=15246cbgCurrentLocalNews?cb…> Clarksburg Exponent Telegram Fairmont State offering computer security major by Jennifer Biller STAFF WRITER FAIRMONT -- For anyone who suffered through the recent Blaster Worm computer virus, it's obvious that computer security is a necessity. Fairmont State College is addressing this niche by offering a new major in computer security. The program is in response to increased computer virus attacks and security attacks on systems nationwide. Students can earn a bachelor of science in computer security by completing courses such as network security, cryptography (enciphering and deciphering messages in secret code), computer vulnerability assessment and legal and ethical issues. "Computer science is becoming more and more important, not just because of viruses but because of having to protect large computer networks from threats," said Alicia Kime, FSC associate professor of computer science. "Most schools are offering courses in this now," she said. "We're offering a major." The program is a joint effort of the college, the West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation and DSD Laboratories/Backbone Security.com. Donald Tobin, associate professor of computer science, is teaching the security courses. Tobin earned a bachelor of science degree from the University of Texas, a master of science degree from Boston University, and is completing a doctorate in computer science from the University of Idaho. "It's a program we hope to grow each year," Tobin said. "It's unique, and I came here to help create the program." Students will learn the intricacies of protecting commercial, state and federal information systems. More and more, even personal computers are in danger of viruses and security breaches, Tobin said. "People don't understand the risk they take just by being on the Internet," he said. "It's a large problem, and it's not going to get any better." Students will get the chance to complete internships out in the field before graduation, Tobin said. For more information on earning a degree in computer security, contact the college at (800) 641-5678. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Slashdot | California Tries Spam Ban (fwd)
by Jim Choate 23 Sep '03

23 Sep '03

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/23/2035204.shtml?tid=103&tid=111&tid=126&… -- -- God exists because mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exist because we can't prove it. Andre Weil, in H. Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.com www.ssz.com www.open-forge.com

1 0

Re: Q on associative binary operation
by John Washburn 23 Sep '03

23 Sep '03

The term is non-Abelian. You are deeply confusing the concept of operation and relationship. Normally this is not a problem. But, if you are going to use the terms associative and transitive, then you must keep the 2 concepts distinct. Group theory 101. First, relationships. A relationship ~ on the members {a,b,c} of a (possibly infinite) set S is: Reflexive: if a~a for all a in S Symmetric: if a~b, is true then b~a is true for all a and b in S Transitive: if a~b and b~c are true then a~c is true for all a,b,c in S An equivalence relationship is a relationship which is Reflexive, Symmetric and Transitive. You are denoting an equivalence relationship with the = symbol. Second, operations/operators. An operation (maps/combines/mixes) 1 or more elements of a (possibly infinite) set S to a single element of S. The most common types of operations are: Unitary: one element mapped to 1 element. E.g. the negation, conjugation or exponentiation operations. Binary: two elements mapped to 1 element. E.g. addition, multiplication, subtraction, division, convolution operators. More than 2: At this point the operator is generally called a mapping. A binary, operation, *, can have none, some or all of the following properties: Closure: For all a and b in S the a*b is also in S Associative: For all a, b, and c in S the (a*b)*c is equivalent to a*(b*c). Note the dependence on a relationship to define this property of an operator. Commutative: For all a and b in S, (a*b) is equivalent to (b*a). Note again, the dependence on a relationship to define this property of an operator. Groups require only 5 things: A set of at least one element. (The 1-element group is the trivial group) A single, binary operation which operates on the elements of the set. The binary operation is closed. The binary operation is associative. There exists at least one element, e, of the set (an identity element) for the operation such that for all a in S e*a=a*e=a. Where = is some equivalence relation); If the group, by some chance, has an operator which is also commutative, the group is Abelian. If the operation is not commutative, then the group is non-Abelian. Add an additional commutative, operation (and identity element) and the group becomes a ring. If the second operation happens to be invertible the ring, becomes a field. See: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Group.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ring.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FieldAxioms.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AbelianGroup.html for more details. -----Original Message----- From: Tyler Durden [mailto:camera_lumina@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:36 PM To: timcmay(a)got.net; cypherpunks(a)minder.net Subject: Re: Q on associative binary operation Yeah, kinda bizarre. There's also an ambiguity that prevents one from saying Q is associative. Is the table defined for both directions of *? In other words, is the table meant to imply values for both x*y (ie, left*top) as well as y*x (top*left)? For most objects x*y will not equal y*x (indeed, one may be undefined as in the case of matrix multiplication). Anyone remember the group theoretic term for these kinds of groups? -TD >From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Q on associative binary operation Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 >10:41:51 -0700 > >On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 12:14 AM, Sarad AV wrote: > >>hi, >> >>Table shown is completed to define 'associative' >>binary operation * on S={a,b,c,d}. >> >>*|a|b|c|d >>--------- >>a|a|b|c|d >>--------- >>b|b|a|c|d >>--------- >>c|c|d|c|d >>--------- >>d|d|c|c|d >> >> >>The operation * is associative iff (a*b)*c=a*(b*c) for >>all a,b,c element of set S. >> >>So can (a*d)*d=a*(d*d)=d considered as associative >>over * for this case as per definition? >> > >This looks like a homework assignment for a class. > >If a, b, c, and d are all arbitrary symbols, most substitutions (such as a >= 2, b = 5, etc.) certainly will _not_ give (a*d)*d=a*(d*d)=d as a true >statement. Only special values of a and d will make that true. (For >example, a = 1 and d = 1 makes (1*1)*1=1*(1*1)=1. Other values may as well. >Finding them is up to you. > >Lastly, your English is again unclear. "So can (a*d)*d=a*(d*d)=d considered >as associative over * for this case as per definition?" isn't a proper >English sentence. > >Why do you keep posing these problems to the list? Are they homework >problems? Do you think the list is just too quiet and needs ill=phrased >puzzlers to keep it occupied? > >Did you ever do the coin flip experiment we suggested you do? > >Are you an AI which has failed the Turing Test and escaped? > > >--Tim May _________________________________________________________________ Enter for your chance to IM with Bon Jovi, Seal, Bow Wow, or Mary J Blige using MSN Messenger http://entertainment.msn.com/imastar

1 0

CNN.com - Anti-Bush protesters sue Secret Service - Sep. 23, 2003 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 23 Sep '03

23 Sep '03

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/23/protest.lawsuit.ap/index.html -- -- God exists because mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exist because we can't prove it. Andre Weil, in H. Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.com www.ssz.com www.open-forge.com

1 0