[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: distribution scheme
- From: Anonymous <[email protected]>
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:14:19 +0100
- Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.Please report problems or inappropriate use to theremailer administrator at <[email protected]>.
- Sender: [email protected]
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
>>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.
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
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.