Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, so if I've got a passphrase of arbitrary length, and I wish to
> condense it to make a key of length n bits (n > 160), what's the
> approved method(s) of doing that?
If the input you start with is a typical passphrase (i.e. pretty
small entropy, say l
Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, so if I've got a passphrase of arbitrary length, and I wish to
> condense it to make a key of length n bits (n > 160), what's the
> approved method(s) of doing that?
If you don't mind the limitation of 1k of internal state, then Panama
could be used di
[Elections in Mexico are scheduled for July 2. Apparently, according to the
article below, there are some encrypted files that could prove explosive --
info on corruption, drug money, etc. -- if they're decrypted in time. --Declan]
>From: "Alberto M. Giordano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sub
Has anyone experimented with writing crypto code in Java using the
BigInteger class? It's a nice package with plenty of neat functions,
but I haven't played with it yet. Is it fast enough? I'm really
curious about the speed.
-Peter
--
--
Tune to http://www.wayner.org/
Title: RE: outlook certs - solved
I now believe you've decoded the below incorrectly because the leading bit is set, making this a signed number which may have made some of your tools croak. Decoding by hand, I get the following mod/exp:
3047 0240 (asn, len, int tag, length of 40)
mo
Has anyone experimented with writing crypto code in Java using the
BigInteger class? It's a nice package with plenty of neat functions,
but I haven't played with it yet. Is it fast enough? I'm really
curious about the speed.
-Peter
This is my first posting.
I'm interested in doing a survey of key recovery companies. Does anyone
out there know of companies that provide key recovery services? So far, I
know of SourceFile, and FortKnox Escrow.
Any help would be appreciated.
-- Anya
Latest is that the UK's horrendous mish-mash of Internet surveillance and
decryption/key (actually government-issued) "warrants" legislation is facing
extreme opposition in our House of Lords. Unfortunately, the Government seems
intent on driving the bill through Parliament (as they have the powe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi Folks --
There is a bug in /usr/src/linux/drivers/char/random.c.
Basically, it acts as if it can hold 32x less entropy
than you would think based on the configuration parameters
or the ioctls. For instance, if it is configured for 4096
bits max, and you fil
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, John Denker wrote:
> There is a bug in /usr/src/linux/drivers/char/random.c. ...
> I wrote to Ted about this a couple of days ago but got no response.
I believe Ted's at Usenix (like me); I think I saw his name down as
giving a tutorial. So he may not be reading non-emergen
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 07:50:11PM +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
[...]
> On the other hand, if you don't care about making the hashing
> artificially slow, but have a reasonable amount of entropy to start
> with and just want to stretch it, you may want to look at the way ssh2
> does that. (Say you
Bodo Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 07:50:11PM +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
>
> [...]
> > That is specified in draft-ietf-secsh-transport-07.txt, the
> > relevant section is
> >
> > : If the key length in longer than the output
> > : of the HASH, the key is extended
Matt:
> I now believe you've decoded the below incorrectly because the leading
> bit is set, making this a signed number which may have made some of your
> tools croak. Decoding by hand, I get the following mod/exp:
Are you saying that under some conditions Microsoft Outlook generates a
x.509 c
Lyle Seaman writes:
> What I really want is a keyboard with a slight variation -- not a
> KeyGhost but a KeySpook.
If you have no physical security, you have no computer security. I
can't think of any qualifiers to add to that statement.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson
Hi,
I've been researching x.509 stuff lately and I was able to create
the following monster...
It uses a bunch of bugs found in Microsoft certificate handling,
but it doesn't do any harm if you try it. The signatures are said to
be "ok" by NT explorer even though there are NO real s
> Matt Thomlinson wrote:
> I now believe you've decoded the below incorrectly because the leading bit
> is set, making this a signed number which may have made some of your tools
> croak. Decoding by hand, I get the following mod/exp:
>
> 3047 0240 (asn, len, int tag, length of 40)
>
> modulus:
> I now believe you've decoded the below incorrectly because the leading bit
> is set, making this a signed number
Then it should have a leading zero byte.
This appears to be a widespread bug within Microsoft products.
/r$
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 12:19:50PM +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> Bodo Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 07:50:11PM +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
>>> That is specified in draft-ietf-secsh-transport-07.txt, the
>>> relevant section is
>>>
>>> : If the key length in longer
18 matches
Mail list logo
