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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#52342

Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> writes:
>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:

Since you seem to be interested in cryptography in general rather than
specifically PGP, the probably most relevant, serious (and also
bleeding-edge current) effort is net2o:

https://fossil.net2o.de/net2o/doc/trunk/wiki/get-it.md

Presentations and some documentation on

https://net2o.de/

plus some more in recent EuroForths.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/

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

#52354

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 11:04:57 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> writes:
> >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:
> 
> Since you seem to be interested in cryptography in general rather than
> specifically PGP ...

A long time ago I wrote an RC4 implementation. I now refer to my LowDraw.4th program as my first-ever ANS-Forth program, but my RC4 predates it (RC4 is so simple that it hardly counts as a program though). I wrote this under SwiftForth --- I can't remember now if I used assembly-language or stuck with ANS-Forth.

Most encryption algorithms are trivial to implement. Analyzing them to determine if they are secure or not, is not trivial, and is way beyond my mathematical ability. RC4 used to be considered to be quite secure, but according to the Wikipedia article I just read, it is now considered to be quite insecure. The customer would have to just tell me what algorithm to use --- I'm not going to make any recommendation --- that is above my pay-grade.

Anyway, what is complicated in regard to encryption (what makes PGP complicated) is the public-key stuff, not the underlying encryption algorithm.

Also, btw --- Jim hasn't told us if he wants this to run on a desktop-computer or a micro-controller --- this makes a lot of difference in regard to the choice of algorithm.

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

#52355

In article <2016Oct31.185518@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, 
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at says...
> 
> Since you seem to be interested in cryptography in general rather than
> specifically PGP, the probably most relevant, serious (and also
> bleeding-edge current) effort is net2o:
> 
> https://fossil.net2o.de/net2o/doc/trunk/wiki/get-it.md
> 
> Presentations and some documentation on
> 
> https://net2o.de/
> 
> plus some more in recent EuroForths.
> 
> - anton

Thanks  Anton but I'm only interested in a forth implementation of PGP.

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

#52438

Am Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:26:54 +0000 schrieb jim:
> Thanks  Anton but I'm only interested in a forth implementation of PGP.

PGP is decades old and has its fair share of problems, as well as a lot 
of accidental implementation complexity.  That's why I wouldn't 
reimplement PGP - it is a waste of time.

The functionality of PGP for e-mail is covered by net2o vaults, but of 
course, plugging in another crypto module into a typical e-mail client is 
also needlessly complex (I really wonder if they all do this on purpose: 
making everything needless complex?), so nobody has done that for net2o, 
either ;-).

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

#52357

In article <2c3aa3be-24c7-4005-b70a-0c8ad8b5ac79@googlegroups.com>, 
aa5@gmx.net says...
> 
> 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

Thanks manuel - thats 2 more hits than I found on yahoo anyway.
Sadly neither has anything usable for me.

The crypto chip is interesting but again not what I'm looking for.

jim

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

#52367

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:36:24 PM UTC-7, jim wrote:
> > 
> > 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
> 
> Thanks manuel - thats 2 more hits than I found on yahoo anyway.
> Sadly neither has anything usable for me.
> 
> The crypto chip is interesting but again not what I'm looking for.
> 
> jim

I've implemented a few cryptographic algorithms here: http://hub.darcs.net/pointfree/forth-crypt I also have a mostly complete spritz ( https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/RS14.pdf ) implementation that I have not yet uploaded. I'm always happy to get new contributions. It's mostly geared towards small systems like IoT microcontrollers. You will need Leh's bignum library: https://github.com/Lehs/BIG-INTEGER-ANS-FORTH

I've found that cryptography in Forth can actually look rather clean, and that's something many people might find surprising. Maybe it's because I specifically chose simpler crypto algorithms, but I think fine grained factoring will help keep things manageable in something like a cryptosystem.

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

#52375

Am Dienstag, 1. November 2016 00:36:24 UTC+1 schrieb jim:
> Thanks manuel - thats 2 more hits than I found on yahoo anyway

*ROTFL*

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

#52368

On 31/10/2016 1:14, jim wrote:

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

As you see from the replies in the thread, there don't seem to be any
PGP implementations in ANS-Forth.

8th has a lot of crypto primitives built-in, so though it also doesn't
have any PGP implementation, it would at least be feasible to write one
in a reasonable amount of time.

However, it would probably be a better use of time and resources to
simply hook the GPG easy library (whatever it's called, I forget).  As
others have already said, the PGP format is very complex, and a mistake
in implementing it will almost certainly weaken the crypto-system.

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

#52369

Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> writes:
> though [8th] also doesn't have any PGP implementation, it would at
> least be feasible to write one in a reasonable amount of time.

The first thing to do would be use GnuPG for a while and study its
documentation to figure out what functions and interface a *th version
would need.  That would messy and time consuming all by itself, because
GnuPG has so many features. :(

> probably be a better use of time and resources to simply hook the GPG
> easy library

Jim was interested in implementing a Forth-specific CPU architecture on
an FPGA a while back, so I'm guessing that's the target platform, which
in turn would be why a Forth implementation is desired.  But if the
resulting machine has enough resources to run something like PGP, it
would probably be useful to give it the ability to run C programs, even
with a bad efficiency hit compared with Forth on the same CPU.

At that point it should be ok to use a C implementation of PGP, maybe
with the low level crypto stuff coded in machine primitives for speed.

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

#52371

On 11/01/2016 07:28, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> writes:
>> though [8th] also doesn't have any PGP implementation, it would at
>> least be feasible to write one in a reasonable amount of time.
> 
> The first thing to do would be use GnuPG for a while and study its
> documentation to figure out what functions and interface a *th version
> would need.  That would messy and time consuming all by itself, because
> GnuPG has so many features. :(

Definitely. I've been using GPG for years, but only really use the
simplest of it's plethora of features. I suspect I'm a typical user.

> Jim was interested in implementing a Forth-specific CPU architecture on
> an FPGA a while back, so I'm guessing that's the target platform, which
> in turn would be why a Forth implementation is desired.  

Ah.  Well, the embedded C compilers do a good job of code generation...

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

#52380

In article <nv9ch7$je0$1@dont-email.me>, rambamist@gmail.com says...
> 
> Ah.  Well, the embedded C compilers do a good job of code generation...
> 
> 

They do indeed. Strangely my current favourite is Mikroe C
I say strangely because I only came back to embedded work to solve a specific
issue and found myself enjoying it again.
(The last time I did that it was on an 8051 built into an 8" floppy disk drive 
 about 25 years ago I think ... memory is a bit hazy on that it may have been 
earlier)

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

#52388

On 11/1/2016 6:51 AM, jim wrote:
> In article <nv9ch7$je0$1@dont-email.me>, rambamist@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Ah.  Well, the embedded C compilers do a good job of code generation...
>>
>>
>
> They do indeed. Strangely my current favourite is Mikroe C
> I say strangely because I only came back to embedded work to solve a specific
> issue and found myself enjoying it again.
> (The last time I did that it was on an 8051 built into an 8" floppy disk drive
>  about 25 years ago I think ... memory is a bit hazy on that it may have been
> earlier)
>
Interesting, I own Mikroe Pascal Compilers for several embedded CPUs 
such as AVR, ARM, PIC, dsPIC, and PIC32,  and I like them quite a bit. I 
wish I had bought their C Compiler while I had the funds available. They 
have all sorts of interesting libraries for accessing the hardware, and 
the compiler seems to do well, the debugging features are very nice.

I bought them over time while I was employed so I'm glad I have them, as 
I could not afford them now that I was forced to retire due to health 
issues a few years ago, but those issues are being resolved so I might 
be tempted to go back to work.

-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

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

#52379

In article <87twbrkbul.fsf@nightsong.com>, no.email@nospam.invalid says...
> 
> Jim was interested in implementing a Forth-specific CPU architecture on
> an FPGA a while back, so I'm guessing that's the target platform
> 

No - totally different issue.
I have been known to multi-task now and again ... ;)

(Oh god I did a smiley)

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

#52378

In article <nv978n$7eb$1@dont-email.me>, rambamist@gmail.com says...
> 
> On 31/10/2016 1:14, jim wrote:
> 
> > does anyone know of a pgp implementation in forth?
> > (forth source)
> 
> As you see from the replies in the thread, there don't seem to be any
> PGP implementations in ANS-Forth.

Yep - seems so - I did think maybe one of the scientific bods might have done
this at some time but none of the softtware lists I can find mentions it.

> 
> 8th has a lot of crypto primitives built-in, so though it also doesn't
> have any PGP implementation, it would at least be feasible to write one
> in a reasonable amount of time.

> However, it would probably be a better use of time and resources to
> simply hook the GPG easy library (whatever it's called, I forget).  As
> others have already said, the PGP format is very complex, and a mistake
> in implementing it will almost certainly weaken the crypto-system.

having it in forth would have been good and saved me some time in the long 
term as I could have used parts of it it for something else but it's clear that's not 
going to happen. I was just an option to work on an existing problem is all.
 
i am sensing a thread of horror in this group about the notion of writing
something "complex" in forth. I wonder why?

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

#52382

On 11/01/2016 13:44, jim wrote:

> i am sensing a thread of horror in this group about the notion of writing
> something "complex" in forth. I wonder why?

I don't think it's "horror".  For me, anyway, it would make little sense
to embark on writing PGP functionality in a Forth when I could just us
an existing (and well tested) library.

I write code for hire, as do many of the people on this forum; but I
would try to dissuade anyone from writing crypto code which already
exists and works.

There would have to be a very good reason to embark on that kind of
project to justify the risks (e.g. of improper implementation - which
can weaken a cryptosystem very considerably).

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

#52383

In article <nva03g$dcg$1@dont-email.me>,
Ron Aaron  <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 11/01/2016 13:44, jim wrote:
>
>> i am sensing a thread of horror in this group about the notion of writing
>> something "complex" in forth. I wonder why?
>
>I don't think it's "horror".  For me, anyway, it would make little sense
>to embark on writing PGP functionality in a Forth when I could just us
>an existing (and well tested) library.
>
>I write code for hire, as do many of the people on this forum; but I
>would try to dissuade anyone from writing crypto code which already
>exists and works.
>
>There would have to be a very good reason to embark on that kind of
>project to justify the risks (e.g. of improper implementation - which
>can weaken a cryptosystem very considerably).

Reasons to reimplement something are :
  copyright, you've an implementation but you are not allowed to use it
  availabity, you've a source but no compiler for your target
  reliability, you've an implementation but it is shaky. You think
    you can do better.
  simplicity, you reimplement it in a language much more suited for
    the purpose
  fun or education. Reimplementing makes you happier or wiser.

None of the above apply to PGP and Forth. In particular not the last
one.

Groetjes Albert

>
>
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

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

#52384

On 11/01/2016 14:49, Albert van der Horst wrote:

> Reasons to reimplement something are :
>   copyright, you've an implementation but you are not allowed to use it
>   availabity, you've a source but no compiler for your target
>   reliability, you've an implementation but it is shaky. You think
>     you can do better.
>   simplicity, you reimplement it in a language much more suited for
>     the purpose
>   fun or education. Reimplementing makes you happier or wiser.
> 
> None of the above apply to PGP and Forth. In particular not the last
> one.

That has got to be one of the biggest understatements I've seen on clf...

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

#52395

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:00:03 +0200
Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
 > There would have to be a very good reason to embark on that kind of
> project to justify the risks (e.g. of improper implementation - which
> can weaken a cryptosystem very considerably).

And it has to be a better reason than the usual "if it can be written
in Forth then it must be written in Forth." 

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

#52396

On 02/11/2016 5:20, Bugmagnet wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:00:03 +0200
> Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > There would have to be a very good reason to embark on that kind of
>> project to justify the risks (e.g. of improper implementation - which
>> can weaken a cryptosystem very considerably).
> 
> And it has to be a better reason than the usual "if it can be written
> in Forth then it must be written in Forth." 

Absolutely.

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

#52387

On 11/1/2016 6:44 AM, jim wrote:
> In article <nv978n$7eb$1@dont-email.me>, rambamist@gmail.com says...
>> in implementing it will almost certainly weaken the crypto-system.
>
> having it in forth would have been good and saved me some time in the long
> term as I could have used parts of it it for something else but it's clear that's not
> going to happen. I was just an option to work on an existing problem is all.
>
> i am sensing a thread of horror in this group about the notion of writing
> something "complex" in forth. I wonder why?
>
Because many persons here are not professional programmers but 
occasional dabblers in code , but they call themselves experts. As for 
myself I'm an advance dabbler although I've written quite a few complex 
Forth applications in the past and have some complex ones planned for 
the future.

On ANS Forth I'm zero of an expert and don't intend to be, what is the 
point of supporting a standard that so ambiguous about so many issues. 
So in the "spirit of Forth" I do my own thing and not worry about 
standards. My two standards for Forth are MPE Forth for serious work and 
even dabbling, for FPGAs Forth CPUs I need a Forth that is lightweight 
and easily migrated to a new CPU so I use a special eForth version for that.

-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web