cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-03-23 - Re: IPG - newest release of the ABC Encryption Algorithms (fwd)

Header Data

From: anon-remailer@utopia.hacktic.nl (Anonymous)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 95c966ec0820c9d526904b4237eedbf4b0df46a630c03513f2fd75a1901357d6
Message ID: <199603230638.HAA16135@utopia.hacktic.nl>
Reply To: <314F0DB1.61FE@tivoli.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-23 08:47:32 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 16:47:32 +0800

Raw message

From: anon-remailer@utopia.hacktic.nl (Anonymous)
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 16:47:32 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: IPG - newest release of the ABC Encryption Algorithms (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <314F0DB1.61FE@tivoli.com>
Message-ID: <199603230638.HAA16135@utopia.hacktic.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Chris McAuliffe (cmca@alpha.c2.org) wrote:

: >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.

a) is obvious, since they explicitly say that they coded it in 80x86 
assembler, but I wouldn't discount the possibility of b) being true also.

Thread