- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

New Chaos?
by Kent Hastings 11 Aug '93

11 Aug '93

New Chaos? John Gilmore wrote: >EE Times, Aug 9, 1993, p. 31 reports that "MIT's Research Lab of >Electronics is creating new signal processor designs, based on chaos >theory, that could open up a simple route to secure communications. ... >The new designs use a recent discovery called synchronized chaos to >transform a meaningful signal into what only seems to be random >noise... I saw something like this in the latest Scientific American, but is it new?? >From my survey of spread-spectrum techniques, this 1950's approach to signal hiding is called a "Transmitted Reference." Random thermal noise in a resistor was transmitted in one band, and the same noise mixed with a message was sent in another. The receiver would take the the difference between the two noisy signals to get the message. Although casual snoopers would be thwarted, the key is broadcast openly, therefore this should not be considered secure. Mix it with modern Stored Reference techniques like frequency-hopping, direct- sequence, and time-hopping and you might get a great hybrid system. Are there any freeware spread-spectrum designs, analogous to PGP, to solve the physical data communications problem? Encryption is great, but the phone company is enemy territory. bypass. Bypass. BYPASS!!!! Kent <jkhastings(a)aol.com>

1 0

Re: Chaos harnessed for encryption / Fluctuations and Order research
by Peter Wayner 11 Aug '93

11 Aug '93

There was a paper several years back in Cryptologia that came to the conclusion that many of the chaotic functions were unsuitable for encryption. By this, they mean the "classic" chaotic functions like the Lorentz attractor. DES is obviously a very nice chaotic generator. The problem with the systems has its basis in the philosophical foundations of the field. Mathematicians have been basically saying, "Like Wow. These very simple equations just generate stuff that is totally out of whack." The equations are just simple differential equations that go kablooie. In many cases, though, the kablooie only means that a small pertubation in the system causes large changes in the outcome. While this is a necessary effect for solid encryption, it is not sufficient for a good system. What we really want to know is whether you can recover x from f(x) where f is the encryption function. if f(x+small value) is wildly different from f(x), then this is good, but not good enough. Now, think a minute about the "synchronization" of these two chaotic generators. This means that both ends of the conversation have set their scramblers to the same "key". But since this is analog, things might not be _exactly_ the same on both ends. If this was a really chaotic system then the tiny differences in the two systems should make things go kablooie. My guess is that they figured out some way to use a feedback mechanism to fix small pertubations and keep things from going kablooie in a small range. I would guess that this could lead to a hole for attacking the system. Just a guess, though. This insight is similar to the holes that people found in linear feedback shift registers. These systems are pretty good random number generators, but they're not secure if the user can guess a few bits of your message. Why? Because the equations are simple enough to be inverted. The only question is whether the chaotic equations can be inverted. I think that the Cryptologia paper came to the conclusion that it could be done. I'm sorry I don't have a complete reference to the Cryptologia paper. Perhaps my memory is a bit flawed here as well. It would be interesting, though, to study the EE times article in depth. I think John is right that there is a certain amount of philosophical convergence between the work at MIT and the work at Los Alamos. -Peter

1 0

Re: How long would it take?
by collins＠newton.apple.com 11 Aug '93

11 Aug '93

Hello, When you encrypt a message M with PGP, you are really doing several things: 1. Generating a random IDEA key K 2. Encrypting M with K yielding IDEA(K,M) 3. Encrypting K with the public key of the recipient, Rpub yielding RSA(Rpub,K) (note that if YOUR key is 1256 bits, but THEIR key is only 512 bits, you only get 512 bits of 'security' because you are encrypting to them, not to yourself) 4. Sending (essentially) the message {RSA(Rpub,K)+IDEA(K,M)} Someone who wants to read the message (e.g., the recipient or some interceptor) must either know Rpri (Rpub's corresponding private key) to extract K, or must be able to break RSA, or must know K a priori, or must be able to break IDEA. This is a lot of ways to get in. Most of them prohibitive, except for the recipient who can be expected to know Rpri. > Could the NSA reverse PGP encryption on a message that was encrypted with a > 1264 bit key? Yes. Although, I think it would be more likely through cryptanalysis of the IDEA cypher than of the RSA encrypted IDEA key. > Do you think they could do this in a matter of hours? I don't think so. > Why or why not Cracking RSA is presumed to be as hard as factoring one of the components of the key. Although this has not been proven, I think it likely that no better attack is currently known. I have no figures yet on the complexity of the IDEA cypher. I do not know if it is susceptible to differential cryptanalysis. To my knowledge, exhaustive search is the only attack. With a random 128 bit key, search is prohibitive. Sorry I didn't include more numbers, Scott Collins | "Few people realize what tremendous power there | is in one of these things." -- Willy Wonka ......................|................................................ BUSINESS. voice:408.862.0540 fax:974.6094 collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2C Cupertino, CA 95014 ....................................................................... PERSONAL. voice/fax:408.257.1746 1024/669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Numeric IP address for ftp.eff.org?
by smb＠research.att.com 11 Aug '93

11 Aug '93

Round Waffle wrote: But when you actually ftp to ftp.eff.org, the hostname reported is kragar.eff.org, and a traceroute there shows the endpoint's IP address as 192.88.144.4. Creative DNS administration... The dig output explains what's going on. $ dig ftp.eff.org ; <<>> DiG 2.0 <<>> ftp.eff.org ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY , status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra ; Ques: 1, Ans: 2, Auth: 0, Addit: 0 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; ftp.eff.org, type = A, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: ftp.eff.org. 86400 CNAME kragar.eff.org. kragar.eff.org. 86400 A 192.88.144.4 ;; Sent 1 pkts, answer found in time: 158 msec ;; FROM: inet to SERVER: default -- 0.0.0.0 ;; WHEN: Wed Aug 11 11:44:15 1993 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 29 rcvd: 73 In other words, ftp.eff.org is an alias for the official name of the host. Quite properly, the inverse map lists the official name for the host: $ dig -x 192.88.144.4 ; <<>> DiG 2.0 <<>> -x ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY , status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra ; Ques: 1, Ans: 1, Auth: 0, Addit: 0 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; 4.144.88.192.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: 4.144.88.192.in-addr.arpa. 86400 PTR kragar.eff.org. ;; Sent 1 pkts, answer found in time: 329 msec ;; FROM: inet to SERVER: default -- 0.0.0.0 ;; WHEN: Wed Aug 11 12:45:52 1993 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 43 rcvd: 71 But by advertising the name ``ftp.eff.org'', instead of ``kragar.eff.org'', the administrator gains the flexibility to move the archive to some other machine if necessary/desirable. That's exactly the right way to run such a service.

1 0

Re: Numeric IP address for ftp.eff.org?
by jthomas＠kolanut.mitre.org 11 Aug '93

11 Aug '93

Round Waffle wrote: > Possessed by The Unholy, David Heck scrawled the > following in blood: > > would anyone happen to have the numeric ip address for eff.org or > > ftp.eff.org handy? > > I'd sure appreciate it.... > > Both eff.org and ftp.eff.org resolve to 192.88.144.3, > according to nslookup. > But when you actually ftp to ftp.eff.org, the hostname reported is kragar.eff.org, and a traceroute there shows the endpoint's IP address as 192.88.144.4. Creative DNS administration... mwunix> ftp ftp.eff.org Connected to kragar.eff.org. 220 kragar.eff.org FTP server (Version 2.1WU(1) Thu May 20 15:21:04 EDT 1993) ready. mwunix> traceroute ftp.eff.org traceroute to kragar.eff.org (192.88.144.4), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 128.29.154.254 (128.29.154.254) 2 ms 2 ms 5 ms 2 mwgw.mitre.org (128.29.18.251) 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 3 reston1gw.mitre.org (128.29.1.2) 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 4 reston2gw.mitre.org (128.29.100.253) 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 5 128.29.217.253 (128.29.217.253) 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms 6 192.80.55.254 (192.80.55.254) 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms 7 Falls-Church3.VA.ALTER.NET (137.39.61.1) 7 ms 13 ms 6 ms 8 Washington.DC.ALTER.NET (137.39.128.1) 35 ms 16 ms 41 ms 9 Boston1.MA.ALTER.NET (137.39.12.2) 22 ms 22 ms 24 ms 10 EFF-gw.ALTER.NET (137.39.25.2) 39 ms 22 ms 29 ms 11 kragar.eff.org (192.88.144.4) 26 ms 27 ms 29 ms mwunix> Joe a font of trivia today

1 0

directions to Cygnus
by Ciamac Moallemi 11 Aug '93

11 Aug '93

Could someone post directions to Cygnus for the meeting on Saturday? Thanks.

2 1

Numeric IP address for ftp.eff.org?
by David Heck 11 Aug '93

11 Aug '93

would anyone happen to have the numeric ip address for eff.org or ftp.eff.org handy? I'd sure appreciate it.... Thanks, David

2 1

Re: birth of Software Patent Institute
by peter honeyman 11 Aug '93

11 Aug '93

joe, thanks for setting me straight. peter

1 0

Re: birth of Software Patent Institute
by jthomas＠kolanut.mitre.org 11 Aug '93

11 Aug '93

> > the first question to ask would be whether they're in > touch with LPF at all. > > the next question would be whether lpf is willing to work > with them. rms has never been known to put progress ahead > of politics. First, rms isn't the LPF. He's practically the FSF, and supports the LPF, but the two organizations aren't synonymous. Second, I believe the LPF has made an official statement that they will _not_ work with SPI. SPI is primarily funded by large holders of software patents, and LPF believes that this database will give patent holders an advantage in defending their patents in court (i.e. against suits by LPF to invalidate the patents). I'm not even a member of the LPF; you should write to them for their actual arguments. Third, I'm not sure this is appropriate to the list, unless someone expects to find "folklore" about public key cryptography that predates RSA, etc. Joe

1 0

Re: birth of Software Patent Institute
by peter honeyman 11 Aug '93

11 Aug '93

> the first question to ask would be whether they're in touch with LPF at all. the next question would be whether lpf is willing to work with them. rms has never been known to put progress ahead of politics. peter

1 0