From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 21:48:03 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: distribution scheme
Message-ID: <199812301314.OAA10146@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




I'm sorry, but it seems I have missed the original mail, i.e. the first quote here.
if there is anything important in it that was not quoted, please include it
somewhere in your replies. I hope I haven't missed any other mail.

>>Falcon, aka FitugMix, wrote about a suggestion to chop crypto or other 
>>contraband material into separate streams, e.g. bit 1 of each byte in 
>>stream 1, etc., hoping that this would be "legal" because it's not
>>really 
>>encryption, though if managed carefully it would still be hard to read.

>this concept is virtually identical to fractal encryption, where a
>message is chopped into its component parts (25 a's, 3 b's, 8 c's, and so
>on) and also chopped into a configuration scheme.  this form of
>encryption does fall under the definition of munitions by the u.s.
>government...

yes, I found that out in the meantime. the legal aspect falls short
of my expectations. I still consider the scheme to be both simple and
useful because it actually changes the byte structure, so looking
for 'a' or 'e' or similiar pattern-analysis does not work anymore. in
combination with steganography, I believe this can make things really
hard to find, but I'm willing to learn the opposite if someone with
more cryptoanalysis know-how tells me. if I'm right, it might still
be useful for people, e.g. in china working outside their local laws
anyways.
it probably needs extension before it's really useful, so I have put
up the code on funet.fi (pub/crypto/cypherpunks/incoming). take a
look and tell me what you think, please.


Falcon