[Hardware] Notes... The case for an open client
Dan Oetting
dan_oetting at uswest.net
Mon Aug 16 23:39:51 EDT 2004
On Aug 16, 2004, at 8:09 PM, jbass at dmsd.com wrote:
> Elektron <elektron_rc5 at yahoo.ca> writes:
>> Neither have you given any evidence that hash is weak, or produces an
>> n-bit result with biased run lengths. After your table of run lengths,
>> you give this argument:
>
> No - because you started out with a tirade about why it was impossible,
> instead of simply asking why I might be considering this conjecture:
>
> RSA Key run lengths:
>
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> 10 9 3 4 2 0 0 0 0x67b9e0ec4f20d95e; //DES Test
> 9 6 2 2 1 0 0 0 0x43d26dd827; //RC5-40 Test
> 10 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 0x510678042628; //RC5-48 Test
> 20 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0xda989a5ab31114; //RC5-56 Test
> 7 9 5 1 4 0 0 0 0xf918c79c9f1be582; //RC5-64 Test
> 13 10 2 3 1 1 0 0 0x3d986e6bf1be4bda; //DES Challenge
> 15 10 3 3 0 0 0 0 0x9909C24C742B53; //RC5-56
> Challenge
> 13 7 5 3 2 0 0 0 0x39D0F454C17DDE63; //RC5-64
> Challenge
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> 97 67 27 18 11 1 0 1
>
>
> Which for 453 or so bits, is biased, but not horribly so.
The next question a statistician will ask himself is wether this
observed bias is statistically significant. Generally the result is
significant if there is less than a 5% chance that the result was due
to random fluctuations.
You don't need to be a math head to compute the significance. Just
generate a large number of random samples just like the set above and
count the number that have the same or greater bias.
More information about the Hardware
mailing list