From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 15:24:41 +0800
To: Alan Olsen <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Cryptanalysis
Message-ID: <ad5d339a0102100418bc@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 6:52 AM 3/2/96, Alan Olsen wrote:

>The author has failed to call me back.  I do have some serious concerns
>about the code.  (There is not a single XOR used, except to clear
>registers!)  I am starting to suspect that it is based on a mathematical
>progression based on the numbers 40, 28, 36.  I need to spend a bit of time
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
Ah, note that the magic key, 42, is not included. Coincidence, or stupidity?

Alan, there is not enough time in the universe to waste it on those who
will not learn even the basics. The "author," who I had understood to be a
friend of yours (though apparently a more distant relationship is
involved), is apparently developing something John Dee would have been
proud of.

Fortunately for the rest of us, cryptology has moved on in the last several
hundred years.

I again urge you not to waste your time on this. Or our time.

(Trust me, in five or six years, if your friend sticks to his current
course, he will announce to the world his "discovery" of the "virtual one
time pad" and will be preparing a public stock offering in Silicon
Snakeoiltronics.)


A few other minor points:

>>* The journal "Cryptologia" is largely devoted to amateur cryptanalysis.
>
>The web info for back issues listed a web page from a publisher that had no
>listing for them on the server.  I will be sending mail to get more info...

Last I checked, Tony Patti was still the editor. Not all things are on the
Web in serious ways, obviously. I had no problems finding copies in my
local university library (UC Santa Cruz), but it was several years ago that
I last checked (conventional cryptanalysis not being very germane and all).
Reed College might have copies.

>>There are very good reasons to say little about "conventional
>>cryptanalysis": it just doesn't matter much with modern ciphers, such as
>>public key systems. Modern ciphers don't fall to conventional attacks based
>>on word frequency, pattern analysis, etc.
>
>Still an interesting topic...

Perhaps as a hobby, for those who find the NYT crosswords exciting. But of
little significance for modern cryptology, except as a cautionary tale.

--Tim May

THE X-ON CONGRESS:  INDECENT COMMENT ON AN INDECENT SUBJECT, by Steve
Russell, American Reporter Correspondent....You motherfuckers in Congress
have dropped over the edge of the earth this time... "the sorriest bunch
of cocksuckers ever to sell out the First Amendment" or suggesting that
"the only reason to run for Congress these days is to suck the lobbyists'
dicks and fuck the people who sent you there," ....any more than I care
for the language you shitheads have forced me to use in this
essay...Let's talk about this fucking indecent language bullshit.