Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #52318 > unrolled thread

PGP in forth ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-10-30 23:14 +0000
    Re: PGP in forth ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-30 16:30 -0700
      Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-10-31 11:10 +0000
        Re: PGP in forth ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-31 15:53 -0700
          Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-10-31 23:24 +0000
            Re: PGP in forth ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-31 16:34 -0700
              Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-10-31 23:39 +0000
                Re: PGP in forth ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-31 16:54 -0700
                  Re: PGP in forth ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-31 17:36 -0700
                    Re: PGP in forth ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-31 20:40 -0700
                    Re: PGP in forth ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-31 23:12 -0700
                  Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-01 11:36 +0000
                    Re: PGP in forth ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-01 08:50 -0700
                      Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-01 16:51 +0000
            Re: PGP in forth ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-31 16:54 -0700
              Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-01 11:18 +0000
                Re: PGP in forth ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-01 09:12 -0700
        Re: PGP in forth ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-31 16:18 -0700
          Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-10-31 23:36 +0000
    Re: PGP in forth ? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-10-31 10:24 -0700
      Re: PGP in forth ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-10-31 17:55 +0000
        Re: PGP in forth ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-31 16:27 -0700
        Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-10-31 23:26 +0000
          Re: PGP in forth ? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-11-04 14:16 +0000
      Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-10-31 23:34 +0000
        Re: PGP in forth ? Andreas Wagner <andreas.wagner@lowfatcomputing.org> - 2016-10-31 21:22 -0700
        Re: PGP in forth ? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-11-01 03:01 -0700
    Re: PGP in forth ? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 06:56 +0200
      Re: PGP in forth ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-31 22:28 -0700
        Re: PGP in forth ? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 08:26 +0200
          Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-01 11:51 +0000
            Re: PGP in forth ? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-11-01 10:49 -0500
        Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-01 11:46 +0000
      Re: PGP in forth ? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-01 11:44 +0000
        Re: PGP in forth ? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:00 +0200
          Re: PGP in forth ? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-01 13:49 +0100
            Re: PGP in forth ? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 15:11 +0200
          Re: PGP in forth ? Bugmagnet <bugmagnet@outlook.com> - 2016-11-02 11:20 +0800
            Re: PGP in forth ? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 06:51 +0200
        Re: PGP in forth ? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-11-01 10:38 -0500
          Re: PGP in forth ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-11-02 03:45 -0500
            Re: PGP in forth ? "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-01-03 17:25 +0000
          Re: PGP in forth ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 11:03 -0400
    Re: PGP in forth ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 18:39 -0800
      Re: PGP in forth ? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-06 13:25 +0100
        Re: PGP in forth ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 05:07 -0800
          Re: PGP in forth ? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-06 17:29 +0100
        Re: PGP in forth ? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-07 11:56 +0100
          Re: PGP in forth ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 13:08 -0800
            Re: PGP in forth ? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-08 01:28 +0100
              Re: PGP in forth ? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 00:30 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#52318 — PGP in forth ?

does anyone know of a pgp implementation in forth?
(forth source)

jim

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#52319

jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> does anyone know of a pgp implementation in forth? (forth source)

PGP is quite complicated and I doubt anyone has bothered doing this.
But, there are various simpler Forth crypto implementations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52333

In article <87oa21l8it.fsf@nightsong.com>, no.email@nospam.invalid says...
> 
> jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> > does anyone know of a pgp implementation in forth? (forth source)
> 
> PGP is quite complicated and I doubt anyone has bothered doing this.
seriously ?

> But, there are various simpler Forth crypto implementations.
hmm...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52351

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:11:53 AM UTC-7, jim wrote:
> In article <87oa21l8it.fsf@nightsong.com>, no.email@nospam.invalid says...
> > 
> > jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> > > does anyone know of a pgp implementation in forth? (forth source)
> > 
> > PGP is quite complicated and I doubt anyone has bothered doing this.
> seriously ?

Well, if it is not complicated and anybody could do it, then why haven't you done it yourself already?

If you pay me, I'll write it for you --- I'm not expecting to get rich, but even a hamster needs lettuce to spin its wheel --- seriously!

I've written a lot of code in my novice-package. For all of it I put some thought into the design to make it better than anything already available, and for the most part I think I'm ahead of everybody else. So far, the only payment I've gotten is to be flamed by ANS-Forth cult members (told that it "sucks," is "crap," was "written by a novice," etc.). Sure, I could write a PGP implementation and put it in the novice-package --- it is rather pointless though to put effort into writing new code only to get flamed for it --- I can get flamed for the code I've already written without any further effort required.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52353

In article <d51d6d41-b3bd-43d8-b921-342571709f81@googlegroups.com>, 
hughaguilar96@gmail.com says...
> 
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:11:53 AM UTC-7, jim wrote:
> > In article <87oa21l8it.fsf@nightsong.com>, no.email@nospam.invalid says...
> > > 
> > > jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> > > > does anyone know of a pgp implementation in forth? (forth source)
> > > 
> > > PGP is quite complicated and I doubt anyone has bothered doing this.
> > seriously ?
> 
> Well, if it is not complicated and anybody could do it, then why haven't you done it yourself already?

I don't recall saying any such thing - but by all means point me at the reference.

> 
> If you pay me, I'll write it for you --- I'm not expecting to get rich, but even a hamster needs lettuce to spin its wheel --- seriously!
> 
> I've written a lot of code in my novice-package. For all of it I put some thought into the design to make it better than anything already available, and for the most part I think I'm ahead of everybody else. So far, the only payment I've gotten is to be flamed by ANS-Forth cult members (told that it "sucks," is "crap," was "written by a novice," etc.). Sure, I could write a PGP implementation and put it in the novice-package --- it is rather pointless though to put effort into writing new code only to get flamed for it --- I can get flamed for the code I've already written without any further effort required.

Let me see the documentation you've written or commissioned for a task of 
equal magnitude and I'll think about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52356

jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> I don't recall saying any such thing - but by all means point me at
> the reference.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2440

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52359

In article <8737jcks7z.fsf@nightsong.com>, no.email@nospam.invalid says...
> 
> jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> > I don't recall saying any such thing - but by all means point me at
> > the reference.
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2440

again ... interesting  and again not what I asked for.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52361

jim <anon@example.com> writes:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2440
> again ... interesting  and again not what I asked for.

What are you asking for?  The point of that url is that "PGP in Forth"
would have to implement the stuff in that spec, plus a lot of stuff
referenced by the spec.  If you look throug the spec that should give
you an idea of how big a task it is.  That's what makes me doubt anyone
has bothered.  I've worked inside a few of the C implementations and
there's a lot of code in them.  

I don't think anything in PGP is terribly difficult technically, but
there's a lot of different sub-tasks that have to be done, each of which
has many small details that have to be implemented carefully.

Can I ask why you want it in Forth?  If you want to run PGP on a Forth
cpu or something like that, the simplest approach might be to implement
a virtual machine in Forth and compile an existing C version to run on
the VM.

If you're serious about commissioning an implementation then there are
certainly people here who can do it, but I'd expect the price tag to be
pretty significant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52362

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:54:49 PM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote:
> I don't think anything in PGP is terribly difficult technically, but
> there's a lot of different sub-tasks that have to be done, each of which
> has many small details that have to be implemented carefully.

That is true of any program. After it is written, people glance over the source-code and declare it to be trivial. A lot of apparently trivial programming is tedious and error-prone though, so it takes time to write and test --- that is why people get paid to do it.
 
> Can I ask why you want it in Forth?  If you want to run PGP on a Forth
> cpu or something like that, the simplest approach might be to implement
> a virtual machine in Forth and compile an existing C version to run on
> the VM.

Jim wouldn't need to implement a VM --- any Forth compiler should provide a facility for calling C functions (see chapter 22 of the VFX manual) --- it is just a matter of writing wrappers for the C functions so they can be used in Forth.

PGP has public-domain code available --- Phil Zimmerman famously published a book with the full source-code (I don't know what programming language he used) --- there are presumably versions available in C or various assembly-languages that could be used.

Is there a certification procedure for PGP? I doubt that people can just publish code and say that it is PGP, without getting their code certified by somebody authorized by Phil Zimmerman.

> If you're serious about commissioning an implementation then there are
> certainly people here who can do it, but I'd expect the price tag to be
> pretty significant.

Since when does Forth programming command a "pretty significant price tag?" Most people believe that Forth programmers are idiots. Within this context, it seems unlikely that Forth programming would command more money than C programming. Don't idiots normally get paid less than smart people?

BTW: On a related note, I recently read the book: "the Snowden Files" (Luke Harding). For the most part, the NSA doesn't use their super-hacker super-crypto-cracker skills --- they just pay the service provider to give them all the clear-text. Having an unlimited black budget opens a lot of doors for the NSA. Most of the big companies are sell-outs to the NSA --- even Apple got on the gravy-train, although Apple waited until one year after Steve Jobs' death to do so, which most likely caused Steve Jobs to turn over in his grave. One of Snowden's files from the NSA was a joke video showing that famous 1984 Super-Bowl commercial from Apple --- then it showed a picture of Steve Jobs holding up an iPhone and gave the caption: "Who knew in 1984 that Big Brother would turn out to be Apple?" --- this video got big laughs when it was only available internally at the NSA, but not much laughter from the general-public when they saw it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52366

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> BTW: On a related note, I recently read the book: "the Snowden Files" (Luke Harding). For the most part, the NSA doesn't use their super-hacker super-crypto-cracker skills --- they just pay the service provider to give them all the clear-text. Having an unlimited black budget opens a lot of doors for the NSA. Most of the big companies are sell-outs to the NSA --- even Apple got on the gravy-train, although Apple waited until one year after Steve Jobs' death to do so, which most likely caused Steve Jobs to turn over in his grave. One of Snowden's files from the NSA was a joke video showing that famous 1984 Super-Bowl commercial from Apple --- then it showed a picture of Steve Jobs holding up an iPhone and gave the caption: "Who knew in 1984 that Big Brother would turn out to be Apple?" --- this video got big laughs when it was only available internally at the NSA, but not much laughter from the general-public when they saw it.

It was a slide-show, not a movie:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/nsa-steve-jobs_n_3895375.html

The quote was:
Who knew in 1984... [picture of Apple's "1984" commercial] 
that this would be big brother... [picture of Steve Jobs holding an iPhone]
and the zombies would be paying customers? [picture of enthusiastic iPhone users]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52370

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> BTW: On a related note, I recently read the book: "the Snowden Files" (Luke Harding). For the most part, the NSA doesn't use their super-hacker super-crypto-cracker skills --- they just pay the service provider to give them all the clear-text. Having an unlimited black budget opens a lot of doors for the NSA. 

I hope that Jim hires me to implement his PGP system. I will promise that it will not only be super secure, but will in fact be super-duper secure! The next day however, the NSA shows up at my doorstep and asks me to install a backdoor so they can read the customers' messages.

First I will think about the few hundred dollars that Jim is paying me.

And then I will notice that the NSA brought with them a pink cadillac with the trunk stuffed full of $100 bills and a blonde professional in the back-seat.

And then... LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52377

In article <87y414jcqg.fsf@nightsong.com>, no.email@nospam.invalid says...
> 
> What are you asking for? 
> 

you are suffering from internet  ametropia

I asked a very simple question. If you don't know the
answer all you have to do is either ignore the request
or simply say you don't know.

Getting worked up about things  I didn't ask just wastes
your time and mine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52389

jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> I asked a very simple question. If you don't know the answer 

No I wanted more specificity.  Like did you want a full featured PGP
that knows how to use key servers etc.?  It turns out that maybe all you
want is a packet decoder, depending.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52391

In article <87mvhjjj2u.fsf@nightsong.com>, no.email@nospam.invalid says...
> 
> jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> > I asked a very simple question. If you don't know the answer 
> 
> No I wanted more specificity.  Like did you want a full featured PGP
> that knows how to use key servers etc.?  It turns out that maybe all you
> want is a packet decoder, depending.

That is quite possible -  the last time I looked at pgp code was V2.3 I think - 
yes (just brought it up - pgp23src.zip according to my records was the source file)
quite a while ago and that was in C if I remember correctly. 
It was taken offline totally at one time but I've just looked and
it's online again now

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52360

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:25:59 PM UTC-7, jim wrote:
> In article <d51d6d41-b3bd-43d8-b921-342571709f81@googlegroups.com>, 
> hughaguilar96@gmail.com says...
> > 
> > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:11:53 AM UTC-7, jim wrote:
> > > In article <87oa21l8it.fsf@nightsong.com>, no.email@nospam.invalid says...
> > > > 
> > > > jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> > > > > does anyone know of a pgp implementation in forth? (forth source)
> > > > 
> > > > PGP is quite complicated and I doubt anyone has bothered doing this.
> > > seriously ?
> > 
> > Well, if it is not complicated and anybody could do it, then why haven't you done it yourself already?
> 
> I don't recall saying any such thing - but by all means point me at the reference.

You said "seriously?" when Paul Rubin said that PGP was complicated --- I understood you to mean that PGP is not complicated.

> > If you pay me, I'll write it for you --- I'm not expecting to get rich, but even a hamster needs lettuce to spin its wheel --- seriously!
> > 
> > I've written a lot of code in my novice-package. For all of it I put some thought into the design to make it better than anything already available, and for the most part I think I'm ahead of everybody else. So far, the only payment I've gotten is to be flamed by ANS-Forth cult members (told that it "sucks," is "crap," was "written by a novice," etc.). Sure, I could write a PGP implementation and put it in the novice-package --- it is rather pointless though to put effort into writing new code only to get flamed for it --- I can get flamed for the code I've already written without any further effort required.
> 
> Let me see the documentation you've written or commissioned for a task of 
> equal magnitude and I'll think about it.

The best example of my Forth programming is my novice-package, in which you get to look at source-code. I have a new version of the novice-package which I can email to you; I haven't uploaded it to www.forth.org yet; the version they have is several years old. I have several example programs, some of which are  pretty big (slide-rule.4th works with dozens of files). 

I'm not actually familiar with PGP though --- I don't know how big of a program this is (Paul Rubin said it is complicated, which implies that he knows more about it than I do) --- I would have to study up on the subject to find out if it is complicated or not, before I could give you a price or an estimate of how long it will take to write.

I worked at Testra and wrote the MFX compiler/assembler/simulator for their MiniForth processor (now called RACE processor): http://www.testra.com/Forth/RACE.htm
AFAIK, MFX is available for free from Testra --- they are in the business of selling motion-control boards, not compilers --- MFX is only useful for their RACE, so you can't use it without also buying their hardware.

If you want to see an example of my documentation, I wrote a manual for MFX. That was a long time ago. More recently, I have several .TXT files in the novice-package documenting what it does. I prefer to use LaTeX for writing documentation --- I have some of that in there too.

I've done other professional Forth code since then, but it is proprietary, so I can't show it to you. I've also done professional assembly-language code, but it is also proprietary.

Which Forth system are you using? Do you want this to be ANS-Forth, or are you okay with assembly-language?

If you don't mind my asking, what is the purpose of this? Do you want to embed PGP support inside of a Forth program that you have already written? If so, what kind of program is this? It is very rare to find anybody writing commercial software in Forth --- I'm pleased to hear that you are doing so --- I'm also quite curious about what this might be.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52376

In article <5716b6a7-12fa-4da8-933b-f89e94fbe296@googlegroups.com>, 
hughaguilar96@gmail.com says...
> If you don't mind my asking, what is the purpose of this? Do you want to embed PGP support inside of a Forth program that you have already written? If so, what kind of program is this? It is very rare to find anybody writing commercial software in Forth --- I'm pleased to hear that you are doing so --- I'm also quite curious about what this might be.
> 

I dont mind you asking. 
One of johns clients (owner of the web site my forum is on)  has some corrupt 
pgp files created with commercial software that looks to be buggy. I've used
it here myself and it randomly creates corrupt pgp output it cant decode itself. 
Whilst I wont be able to decrypt  the files I may be able to correct them
if its a header fault or similar- if I had source code for a generic pgp I can work 
with that becomes possible. Using forth should make the task easier. Its a bit
of a long shot but the files are important and other people are reporting similar 
issues. As far as I know it is only this companies software that causes this.
But since nobody has created PGP in forth (frankly I'm shocked)  it looks
like brute force and ignorance is all I have to work with - and a dissambler 
and stuff. Perhaps I'll add a software bounty section on the forum.

The forth I'm working with at the moment is win32forth but that is being used 
purely as a prototype tool to develop concepts for another stack machine 
environment. When I get time I'll add some comments to my forum on that. (and 
will be inviting contributors but its early days yet )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52390

jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> One of johns clients (owner of the web site my forum is on) has some
> corrupt pgp files created with commercial software 

Which commercial software is this?  Do you have source code for it?
Have you discussed the issue with the vendor?  Is it really a PGP
implementation or is it something that runs PGP/GPG and wraps the output
somehow?  The latter is much more common.

> I've used it here myself and it randomly creates corrupt pgp output it
> cant decode itself.

Have you tried decoding with GPG?

> Whilst I wont be able to decrypt the files I may be able to correct
> them if its a header fault or similar- if I had source code for a
> generic pgp I can work with that becomes possible.

It's probably better to start with the tool that's messing up and
figure out where it's going wrong, than try to reverse engineer what's
wrong with some garbled-up ciphertext.  

> But since nobody has created PGP in forth (frankly I'm shocked)

I don't see why that's surprising, much less shocking.  It's somewhat
outside the areas where forth is usually used.  I don't see much reason
(other than getting paid) to reimplement PGP in Forth given that
existing PGP/GPG's work perfectly well.

> it looks like brute force and ignorance is all I have to work with -
> and a dissambler and stuff.

If you can't start with the buggy tool, then I'd start with GPG.
E.g. if you get some kind of parse error without an informative message,
run GPG under GDB til you figure out where the error is, and then see if
it's something you can manaully fix.

> Its a bit of a long shot but the files are important 

If the client wants to pay someone to take a shot at recovering them,
that's more direct than commissioning a new PGP implementation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52352

jim <anon@example.com> writes:
>> PGP is quite complicated and I doubt anyone has bothered doing this.
> seriously ?

Yes, if you look at the manual or the format spec (RFC 2440) you'll see
that a lot of stuff goes on in PGP.  Even if you follow the Forth spirit
and skip most of the features, it's still complicated.  It was designed
in the 1980s to fulfill a lot of requirements that the author thought at
the time were important.  In retrospect many of those requirements
turned out not to be important, but you can't leave them out if you want
your program to interoperate with other implementations.

If you just want a program with similar basic high-level functionality
and you don't care about interoperating with "official" PGP, the problem
becomes a lot simpler.  As Anton said, net2o.de should be a good place
to look for code to get started with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52358

In article <877f8okszr.fsf@nightsong.com>, no.email@nospam.invalid says...
> 
> jim <anon@example.com> writes:
> >> PGP is quite complicated and I doubt anyone has bothered doing this.
> > seriously ?
> 
> Yes, if you look at the manual or the format spec (RFC 2440) you'll see
> that a lot of stuff goes on in PGP.  Even if you follow the Forth spirit
> and skip most of the features, it's still complicated.  It was designed
> in the 1980s to fulfill a lot of requirements that the author thought at
> the time were important.  In retrospect many of those requirements
> turned out not to be important, but you can't leave them out if you want
> your program to interoperate with other implementations.
> 
> If you just want a program with similar basic high-level functionality
> and you don't care about interoperating with "official" PGP, the problem
> becomes a lot simpler.  As Anton said, net2o.de should be a good place
> to look for code to get started with.

No paul - I'm looking for exactly what I asked for.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52341

Am Montag, 31. Oktober 2016 00:16:39 UTC+1 schrieb jim:
> does anyone know of a pgp implementation in forth?
> (forth source)

I've found on Google two hits:

1. Forth Dimension
-------------------
https://archive.org/details/Forth_Dimension_Volume_12_Number_6
page 30
"Alfred described a unique method to 
reduce the computational load of raising a 
big number to a very high power, and taking 
the modulus of the product. This method 
can be very effective in building hardware 
for the public key encryption-description 
system based on the RSA algorithm. The 
math is fully disclosed."


2. German Forth e.V
-------------------
Wurstkessel Kryptographie in Fort,
https://www.forth-ev.de/filemgmt_data/files/wurstkessel-slides.pdf
page 34 Sourcecode

and there is also a famous paper on the GA144 CPU: https://www.sha.rub.de/media/sh/veroeffentlichungen/2013/05/07/GA144_crypto.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web