From: cmca@alpha.c2.org (Chris McAuliffe)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 16:20:45 +0800
To: Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>
Subject: Re: IPG - newest release of the ABC Encryption Algorithms (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <314F0DB1.61FE@tivoli.com>
Message-ID: <199603200542.VAA01082@eternity.c2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[To: Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>]
[cc: cypherpunks@toad.com]
[Subject: Re: IPG - newest release of the ABC Encryption Algorithms (fwd) ]
[In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 19 Mar 96 13:40:33 CST.]
             <314F0DB1.61FE@tivoli.com> 

Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com> Scribed:
>John Pettitt wrote:
>> /* the arrays b,c are filled in from tables of smallish primes supplied
>> by IPG using 'random' numbers supplied by IPG to select the primes (and the
>> order of same).  since all the values are > 8 bits I've assumed a,b,c = int
 .
>> a[] is filled with 13568 + an 8 bit 'random' number.  (13568 = 0x3500 which
>> gets ANDed with the seed value)
>> */

>One tangerine-flavord Starburst to the first cypherpunk who can give
>a rough estimate for the results of the sub-expression:
>	(random() & 0xff) & 0x3500

Well, actually, it depends on whether the bytes are treated as signed or
unsigned, and we don't know for sure that IPG wanted them treated as
unsigned. This means IPG either:

a) can't write portable code, or
b) really are as stupid as we are giving them credit for.

(I'm miffed at being left out of the game... sniff...)

Chris

Chris McAuliffe <cmca@alpha.c2.org> (No, not that one.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUBMU86OoHskC9sh/+lAQExRQQAs97CBv/HdJwqarKVIZeVOr49xqLjeqbT
RHaaFb1otqh0iH0twRcyqXoaDfTeSyZZZK/pPCWHqiWmPME8NoVzQY9hW86GxKKO
8bxfDjKL6VH2By08fpGxNqBVLUuqNX19rNpreZtcDTxU5ttD8Rz9vA/654opjPDt
2UToOsmNMcw=
=t1pT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----