From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
To: perry@imsi.com
Message Hash: 4e6fd31b0abbf4e5d3d453251cdf20e9305aee43652d41beb4822ff0bf682e1b
Message ID: <9406031721.AA23784@anchor.ho.att.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-03 17:22:38 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 3 Jun 94 10:22:38 PDT
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 94 10:22:38 PDT
To: perry@imsi.com
Subject: Re: Faster way to deescrow Clipper
Message-ID: <9406031721.AA23784@anchor.ho.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> The defect in this notion that the LEAF is encrypted with the family
> key, which is not public knowledge. The mode that this encryption is
> performed in is not public knowledge, either.
Yeah, that was brain damage on my part. My basic idea was that it
is possible, for some chaining methods, to find out where in the
LEAF the chipid is by watching what changes when you vary the keys and
the chipids used, even if you *don't* have the Family Key or know
the encryption mode, but the set of modes and component orders for
which that works is more limited than I first thought.
There are still some that work, though.
Bill
Return to June 1994
Return to “wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)”
1994-06-03 (Fri, 3 Jun 94 10:22:38 PDT) - Re: Faster way to deescrow Clipper - wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)