Ooops : there is no possible attack at all with a properly implmented OTP cryptosystem. There is no keyspace to "brute-force" search. Any message is as likely as any other. Check Schneier.
Yeah, someone else pointed this out to me, it was just a slip of the keyboard, I think I started of talking about an OTP and slipped into stream cipher mode... Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
As the former manager of the OTP Development and Analysis group at NSA, and as the President and CEO of Mauchly - Wood Systems Corporation, the prime contractor at JPL and developer of cutting edge signal processing software to seismic, well logging, NASA and other worldwide markets, you can bet your booty that Perry, Paul and a lot of others would like to add my scalp to their trophy case. I am sure that all of you will recall how quickly they tried to do so, and thought they had succeeded, a few months ago when I posted my snare algorithm to the cypherpunks list. They leaped at the opportunity to discredit me. I withdrew the OTP claim and posted the ENTIRE algorithm, in a posting dated 10-24-96 addressed to Adam Shostack, and titled Montgolfiering P Information= P log_base_infinity P, Since, then they they have suddenly grown silent. Nary a peep out of the previously oh so vocal. It is obvious that they are totally clueless about how to go about breaking the algorithm, or they would have jumped at the opportunity to add a notch to their analytical gun. As becomes quickly apparent, the algorithm cannot be broken except by brute force, which is patently impossible. Are they trying silent treatment where the rest of you will forget about what is going on, and hope that I will simply disappear. All of those who leaped at the opportunity to take me apart before are now displaying contemptuous intellectual pap, that is pap not the other similar word though that also applies. Their misleading inculcations did not work so what are they trying now. I believe that it is an open ommission on "non possumus." If not and they are trying to analyze and break the algorithm, I apologize. On the other hand, if they are being intellectually amoral, then their impuissance will become generally known shortly. Is that cabal amoral or moral? Are they intellectually honest or dishonest. We will all know shortly. If they hide behind pitjantjatjara words, they are revealed as being dishonest and amoral - if they look at the algorithm and report it out factually, then they are being honest and displaying intellectual morality. It is that simple. Let us see what they do, who they are, and what they are. It is in their hands to do it right or do it wrong. I have received 43 private messages about the montgolfiering posting from this and the coderpunks list. I hope that some of you to go public with your comments. Those that feel uncomfortable in doing so, please contact me privately, with warmest regards, Don Wood
cypher@cyberstation.net wrote: | I withdrew the OTP claim and posted the ENTIRE algorithm, in a posting | | dated 10-24-96 | addressed to Adam Shostack, | and titled | Montgolfiering P Information= P log_base_infinity P, I never saw this post. I speak up only becauase quite a few people have sent me mail asking for it, and I've never seen it. | Since, then they they have suddenly grown silent. Nary a peep out of the | previously oh so vocal. It is obvious that they are totally clueless about | how to go about breaking the algorithm, or they would have jumped at the | opportunity to add a notch to their analytical gun. As becomes quickly | apparent, the algorithm cannot be broken except by brute force, which is | patently impossible. Perhaps you'd care to share the mail that you sent me with the list? I refer to a message with Message-ID Pine.BSI.3.95.961023194449.4317A-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net Adam -- "Every year the Republicans campaign like Libertarians, and then go to Wasthington and spend like Democrats." Vote Harry Browne for President. http://www.harrybrowne96.org
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Adam Shostack wrote:
cypher@cyberstation.net wrote:
| I withdrew the OTP claim and posted the ENTIRE algorithm, in a posting | | dated 10-24-96 | addressed to Adam Shostack, | and titled | Montgolfiering P Information= P log_base_infinity P,
I never saw this post. I speak up only becauase quite a few people have sent me mail asking for it, and I've never seen it.
I do not know what is going on. Some people seem to have seen it while others have not. I got a copy of it from cypherpunks. I do not know what happen to your copy. It is primarily an abbreviated disclosure of the real algorithm - a full copy is at: netprivacy.com/algo.html The primary purpose of the posting was to try to stop Perry Metzger's factoid that the algorithm had been broken by Adam. What he was speaking to was the fact that a previous algorithm, which some people, perhaps most people, knew was not the real algorithm, was alleged to have been broken. A careful review of the new algorithm reveals why the break was alleged, instead of a real, as witnessed by the fact that known plain text might be used to recover the key for a specific message but would not be an overall system break. In a way, that is entirely beside the point since the "old" algorithm was only a ploy on my part in order to get some additional people to review the real algorithm. I was successful in that regard.
| Since, then they they have suddenly grown silent. Nary a peep out of the | previously oh so vocal. It is obvious that they are totally clueless about | how to go about breaking the algorithm, or they would have jumped at the | opportunity to add a notch to their analytical gun. As becomes quickly | apparent, the algorithm cannot be broken except by brute force, which is | patently impossible.
Perhaps you'd care to share the mail that you sent me with the list? I refer to a message with Message-ID Pine.BSI.3.95.961023194449.4317A-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net
Adam
I would be glad to do so , however; as you know, there was another principal involved in that message. Upon receipt of his approval, I will be glad to share it with the list. I would also appreciate your and his response before such posting. That is, where you disagree with my contentions, and why since you have been silent on that matter. With every best wish, Donald R. Wood
participants (3)
-
Adam Shostack -
cypher＠cyberstation.net -
Paul Bradley