Home » Php » mcrypt_encrypt giving different results for same input? – PHP

mcrypt_encrypt giving different results for same input? – PHP

Posted by: admin February 22, 2020 Leave a comment

Q(Question):

Hi,

I’m using PHP 4.4.4. An odd thing is happening with the
mcrypt_encrypt function. I am trying to encrypt a string of data (for
password storage):

$enc = mcrypt_encrypt(MCRYPT_XTEA, ENCRYPTION_KEY, $p_str,
MCRYPT_MODE_ECB, $iv);

and then I’m trying to log in later by encrypting the entered password
and comparing it to the saved password. However, despite the fact
that for each call, the inputs are the same,

MCRYPT_XTEA = "xtea";
ENCRYPTION_KEY = "sdlk2kcow8doq92k";
$p_str = "demo";
MCRYPT_MODE_ECB = "ecb";
$iv = "jX%ukØ*=";

on one call I get the encrypted string, "ë;jéøÕG·" and on the other
call, I get "ø34Avýä". What gives?

Thanks, – Dave

A(Answer):

la***********@zipmail.com wrote:

Hi,

I’m using PHP 4.4.4. An odd thing is happening with the
mcrypt_encrypt function. I am trying to encrypt a string of data (for
password storage):

$enc = mcrypt_encrypt(MCRYPT_XTEA, ENCRYPTION_KEY, $p_str,
MCRYPT_MODE_ECB, $iv);

and then I’m trying to log in later by encrypting the entered password
and comparing it to the saved password. However, despite the fact
that for each call, the inputs are the same,

MCRYPT_XTEA = "xtea";
ENCRYPTION_KEY = "sdlk2kcow8doq92k";
$p_str = "demo";
MCRYPT_MODE_ECB = "ecb";
$iv = "jX%ukØ*=";

on one call I get the encrypted string, "ë;jéøÕG·" and on the other
call, I get "ø34Avýä". What gives?

Thanks, – Dave

Dave,

I hate to state the obvious, but obviously there is something different
between the two. mcrypt_encrypt gives the same output for the same input.

Look for differences in capitalization, ‘1’ (one) instead of ‘l’ (lower
case ell) or ‘I’ (upper case eye), for instance. It’s very easy to do.


==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

A(Answer):

well, not necesarily. Maybe it’s a chain cypher – and he’s not
re-initializing.

Although his code sample does say ECB, I don’t know what the parameters
mean for this extension function anyway.

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:20:14 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.net>
wrote:

>la***********@zipmail.com wrote:

>>
on one call I get the encrypted string, "ë;jéøÕG·" and on the other
call, I get "ø34Avýä". What gives?

Thanks, – Dave

>I hate to state the obvious, but obviously there is something different
between the two. mcrypt_encrypt gives the same output for the same input.

Look for differences in capitalization, ‘1’ (one) instead of ‘l’ (lower
case ell) or ‘I’ (upper case eye), for instance. It’s very easy to do.

A(Answer):

Mtr wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:20:14 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.net>
wrote:

>la***********@zipmail.com wrote:

>>on one call I get the encrypted string, "ë;jéøÕG·" and on the other
call, I get "ø34Avýä". What gives?

Thanks, – Dave

>I hate to state the obvious, but obviously there is something different
between the two. mcrypt_encrypt gives the same output for the same input.

Look for differences in capitalization, ‘1’ (one) instead of ‘l’ (lower
case ell) or ‘I’ (upper case eye), for instance. It’s very easy to do.

well, not necesarily. Maybe it’s a chain cypher – and he’s not
re-initializing.

Although his code sample does say ECB, I don’t know what the parameters
mean for this extension function anyway.

(top posting fixed)

Your posting makes no sense whatsoever. Did you actually try the code?

If it were a chain cipher, you would have to follow the same chain to
decrypt. And a quick test of the code would have shown you this is not
a chain cipher.

Also, please don’t top post. Thanks.


==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

A(Answer):

not to be overly contentious, but it is pretentious to insist on bottom
posting. All you are saying is that you want people to post in a way that
is better for you, in the way that you read newsgroups. But if I read a
thread all at once (since I am apt to read a group maybe once a week or so)
then bottom posting is a burden because of all the needless scrolling. If I
read only one newsgroup per day, then all that downward scrolling is an
unnecesary burden, too. I don’t need to be refreshed on the topic because
I’m not reading many groups every day. Also, anyone reading a thread on
google groups would find the same thing – endless scrolling past old words
to get to the new words.

If you are trying to make the newsgroup more readable, then you would be
better off trying to get people to trim their replies. Your post in the
Lite Encryption thread is a good example of what not to do: over two
hundred lines of quoting to add a very few lines of new reply.

However, I appreciate your politeness.
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:58:58 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.net>
wrote:

>
Also, please don’t top post. Thanks.

A(Answer):

..oO(Mtr)

>not to be overly contentious, but it is pretentious to insist on bottom
posting. All you are saying is that you want people to post in a way that
is better for you, in the way that you read newsgroups.

It’s not only for him. It’s the way that’s better for _most_ regulars in
the newsgroups.

>But if I read a
thread all at once (since I am apt to read a group maybe once a week or so)
then bottom posting is a burden because of all the needless scrolling.

Of course quoting two hundred lines and then just adding a "me too" is
pointless. But quoting a question or statement and then putting an
answer below it is the most efficient way, especially if you’re replying
to many different parts or questions of a post.

>If I
read only one newsgroup per day, then all that downward scrolling is an
unnecesary burden, too. I don’t need to be refreshed on the topic because
I’m not reading many groups every day. Also, anyone reading a thread on
google groups would find the same thing – endless scrolling past old words
to get to the new words.

Google Groups just sucks. That’s not Usenet.

>If you are trying to make the newsgroup more readable, then you would be
better off trying to get people to trim their replies.

ACK

That’s as important as putting an answer _below_ the question.

Micha

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:58:58 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.net>
wrote:

>Mtr wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:20:14 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.net>
wrote:

>>la***********@zipmail.com wrote:

>>>on one call I get the encrypted string, "ë;jéøÕG·" and on the other
call, I get "ø34Avýä". What gives?

Thanks, – Dave

>>I hate to state the obvious, but obviously there is something different
between the two. mcrypt_encrypt gives the same output for the same input.

Look for differences in capitalization, ‘1’ (one) instead of ‘l’ (lower
case ell) or ‘I’ (upper case eye), for instance. It’s very easy to do.

well, not necesarily. Maybe it’s a chain cypher – and he’s not
re-initializing.

Although his code sample does say ECB, I don’t know what the parameters
mean for this extension function anyway.

(top posting fixed)

Your posting makes no sense whatsoever. Did you actually try the code?

no, that’s why I deliberately used the word "maybe" in my suggestion. No
one else had replied, so I offered a possible suggestion.

>
If it were a chain cipher, you would have to follow the same chain to
decrypt.

He never mentioned decryption in his post, only the diffrent results of
encryption.

>And a quick test of the code would have shown you this is not
a chain cipher.

no, now you’re the one who is making no sense. Whether or not it is chained
is internal to the cipher, not to the code that calls it. The difference
would also be apparent (via knowledge of the parameters) if I were a user
of that crypto extension, which I’m not. That’s why I also deliberately
said that I don’t know what the parameters mean. But the use of ECB does
tend to say it’s not chained – which I also deliberately mentioned.

>
Also, please don’t top post. Thanks.

do you know that some people get irritated over interleaved replies, too?

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:56:36 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

>
It is quite arrogant to insist to know better then a usenet practise that
has evolved en been followed for years and years.

and once upon a time, people rode horses. Saying "it was always done that
way" is not a valid argument. Once upon a time, people were told to lurk
for days or weeks to get aquainted before making a first post. Or people
were routinely told to RTFM.

>Contrary to online
forums, usenet is not on a single server, but thousands of them. Wether or
not other people seeing your reply to a group can see the original message
you are replying to is not something you can rely on.

which is irrelevant as to whether top or bottom posting should be used.
Once again, you are merely claiming that things should be *your* way.

A(Answer):

..oO(Mtr)

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:58:58 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.net>

>>
Also, please don’t top post. Thanks.

do you know that some people get irritated over interleaved replies, too?

Only Usenet newbies, if any. But most people are able to learn.

Micha

A(Answer):


Rik Wasmus

It is not *my* way. It’s the general concensus sparing a few individuals
who are arrogant anough to claim to know better.

Once again, you are merely claiming that things should be *your* way.

Have you ever tried to read of bottom-up conversation when you have no
previous posts? It’s not that easy to follow, at least not that quickly.
Scrolling to the new parts of a post (which many newsreaders do
automagically) however is simple. BTW: claiming something is kludgy in
Google Groups isn’t an argument either. Complain to the people making that
horrendous interface.

which is irrelevant as to whether top or bottom posting should be used.

>Contrary to online
forums, usenet is not on a single server, but thousands of them. Wether
or
not other people seeing your reply to a group can see the original
message
you are replying to is not something you can rely on.

I still often reply with just an url of the manual.

Or people
were routinely told to RTFM.

What exactly has been changed about usenet in the mean time? By all means,
you’re welcome to piss off, and just use online forums as your usenet <->
internet forums, horse <-car equivalent. The practise of riding horses
(posting on usenet) hasn’t changed, except for an eternal september.

and once upon a time, people rode horses. Saying "it was always done that
way" is not a valid argument.

>It is quite arrogant to insist to know better then a usenet practise
that
has evolved en been followed for years and years.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:56:36 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:06:37 +0200, Mtr <Mt*@no.spamwrote:

Ok, let’s start with an example:

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:43:24 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

By all means, you’re welcome to piss off,

and you are welcome to not read my posts, you rude little asshole

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:48:41 +0200, Mtr <Mt*@no.spamwrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:43:24 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

>By all means, you’re welcome to piss off,

and you are welcome to not read my posts, you rude little asshole

Aside from that remark I’d welcome a reply to the actual points raised. Or
was it to hard to read?

Rik Wasmus

A(Answer):

apparently, you can’t help being a rude little asshole. Try not to be so
emotional. You just come off looking like a rude little asshole.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:50:34 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

Or
was it to hard to read?

A(Answer):

..oO(Rik Wasmus)

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:48:41 +0200, Mtr <Mt*@no.spamwrote:

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:43:24 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

>>By all means, you’re welcome to piss off,

and you are welcome to not read my posts, you rude little asshole

Aside from that remark I’d welcome a reply to the actual points raised. Or
was it to hard to read?

Here in Germany we call such people "merkbefreit" or "lernresistent".
Try to translate them yourself. 😉

Micha

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:58:35 +0200, Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote:

>Here in Germany we call such people "merkbefreit" or "lernresistent".
Try to translate them yourself. 😉

Hey, you’re a funny little guy. Here we have a saying that "assholes of a
feather flock together". Can you guess what that means? Hurry now, I don’t
have all day.

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:58:35 +0200, Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote:

.oO(Rik Wasmus)

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:48:41 +0200, Mtr <Mt*@no.spamwrote:

>>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:43:24 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

By all means, you’re welcome to piss off,

and you are welcome to not read my posts, you rude little asshole

Aside from that remark I’d welcome a reply to the actual points raised.
Or
was it to hard to read?

Here in Germany we call such people "merkbefreit" or "lernresistent".
Try to translate them yourself. 😉

I’m dutch, I know german :P. Here we’d say ‘hij heeft een plaat voor zijn
kop’.

Then again, questioning set ways is how a society as a whole moves
forward. Not everything that is questioned should change though. But these
little exercises help to keep in mind why certain things are the way the
are.

Rik Wasmus

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:58:13 +0200, Mtr <Mt*@no.spamwrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:50:34 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

>Or
was it to hard to read?

apparently, you can’t help being a rude little asshole. Try not to be so
emotional. You just come off looking like a rude little asshole.

No, I was actually wondering wether your supposedly ‘better’ topposting
strategy had indeed the desired effect.

Rik Wasmus

A(Answer):

explain how any of that applies to this method of reply, dumbass?

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:43:24 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

>Have you ever tried to read of bottom-up conversation when you have no
previous posts? It’s not that easy to follow, at least not that quickly.
Scrolling to the new parts of a post (which many newsreaders do
automagically) however is simple.

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:12:39 +0200, Mtr <Mt*@no.spamwrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:43:24 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

>Have you ever tried to read of bottom-up conversation when you have no
previous posts? It’s not that easy to follow, at least not that quickly.
Scrolling to the new parts of a post (which many newsreaders do
automagically) however is simple.

explain how any of that applies to this method of reply, dumbass?

Because when I did not have the original post, I’d have to read you post
as an outline of the ongoing discussion. Which means I’d have to scroll
down the post (possibly scroll down for that again if it’s a longer text),
scroll a little bit up, read down again, and repeat that untill I finally
know what ‘any of that’ in you reply really stands for.

The only real point you made I agree with is overquoting, which is
terribly annoying. It is however not a reason to toppost. People should
trim (possibly summarize) their quotes, but still keep a single post
readable as a logical (part of a) conversation.

Rik Wasmus

A(Answer):

let’s try again: there is absolutely no confusion introduced here, where no
scrolling is required, by top posting. Don’t use inappropriate theoreticals
where they do not matter.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:20:32 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:12:39 +0200, Mtr <Mt*@no.spamwrote:

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:43:24 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

>explain how any of that applies to this method of reply, dumbass?

Because when I did not have the original post, I’d have to read you post
as an outline of the ongoing discussion. Which means I’d have to scroll
down the post (possibly scroll down for that again if it’s a longer text),
scroll a little bit up, read down again, and repeat that untill I finally
know what ‘any of that’ in you reply really stands for.

A(Answer):

..oO(Mtr)

>explain how any of that applies to this method of reply, dumbass?

It’s quite amazing how quickly some people start to offend others as
soon as they run out of arguments.

Micha

A(Answer):

..oO(Rik Wasmus)

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:58:35 +0200, Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote:

>>
Here in Germany we call such people "merkbefreit" or "lernresistent".
Try to translate them yourself. 😉

I’m dutch, I know german :P. Here we’d say ‘hij heeft een plaat voor zijn
kop’.

This "Brett vor’m Kopp" seems to be quite popular these days. 😉

Micha

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:35:14 +0200, Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote:

.oO(Mtr)

>explain how any of that applies to this method of reply, dumbass?

It’s quite amazing how quickly some people start to offend others as
soon as they run out of arguments.

Nah, I’m to blame here. I said ‘you’re welcome to piss off’ when what I
meant and should’ve said is ‘your’re welcome to use other channels then
usenet for your information if you think it’s outdated’.

Rik Wasmus

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:35:14 +0200, Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote:

>.oO(Mtr)

>>explain how any of that applies to this method of reply, dumbass?

It’s quite amazing how quickly some people start to offend others as
soon as they run out of arguments.

dear stupid asshole: you apparently have no ability for reading
comprehension, or you would have seen that he initiated that tack.

and then you joined in with your own name-calling, at which point you
received the same in turn

but since you are a little hypocrite (besides being a flagrant asshole and
idiot), you would not acknowledge that

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:38:18 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:35:14 +0200, Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote:

>.oO(Mtr)

>>explain how any of that applies to this method of reply, dumbass?

It’s quite amazing how quickly some people start to offend others as
soon as they run out of arguments.

Nah, I’m to blame here. I said ‘you’re welcome to piss off’ when what I
meant and should’ve said is ‘your’re welcome to use other channels then
usenet for your information if you think it’s outdated’.

on that unexpectedly honest note (even though you continually misrepresent
what I said across the board – e.g., I said insistence on bottom posting is
outdated but you turned that around just above), it’s time to call it a
day.

If you are the type who thinks that you "win" by getting in the last word,
then go ahead. Note that when you resumed speaking politely, I also did.

A(Answer):

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:35:14 +0200, Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote:

>.oO(Mtr)

>>explain how any of that applies to this method of reply, dumbass?

It’s quite amazing how quickly some people start to offend others as
soon as they run out of arguments.

goodbye for now, asshole. I see that you did not have class enough to
acknowlege that you were wrong – even after Rik himself pointed that out to
you. But then hey, I bet you’re used to being called an asshole in your
life.

Now you get in the last word, I’m pretty sure that *you* are the type to
always do that.

>
Micha

A(Answer):

..oO(Rik Wasmus)

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:35:14 +0200, Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote:

>>
It’s quite amazing how quickly some people start to offend others as
soon as they run out of arguments.

Nah, I’m to blame here. I said ‘you’re welcome to piss off’ […]

That’s not what I would call offensive. It’s a rather rude call to
leave, but not a personal attack. OTOH calling someone an asshole or
idiot repeatedly _is_ a personal attack.

EOT for me
Micha

A(Answer):

..oO(Mtr)

>but since you are a little hypocrite (besides being a flagrant asshole and
idiot), you would not acknowledge that

I always learn some new words in such threads.

Thanks for that.

EOT
Micha

A(Answer):

..oO(Mtr)

>goodbye for now, asshole. I see that you did not have class enough to
acknowlege that you were wrong

I have some more things to do than watching for new posts every 10
minutes. Some people have to work actually, ever thought of that?

>- even after Rik himself pointed that out to
you. But then hey, I bet you’re used to being called an asshole in your
life.

People can call me whatever they like. It reveals a lot of their own
personality, because the tone makes the music. If someone offends me,
I know how to deal with it. Such people can’t be taken seriously.

EOT
Micha

A(Answer):

Mtr wrote:

>
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:58:58 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.net>
wrote:

>Also, please don’t top post. Thanks.

not to be overly contentious, but it is pretentious to insist on bottom
posting. All you are saying is that you want people to post in a way that
is better for you, in the way that you read newsgroups. But if I read a
thread all at once (since I am apt to read a group maybe once a week

or so)

then bottom posting is a burden because of all the needless

scrolling. If I

read only one newsgroup per day, then all that downward scrolling is an
unnecesary burden, too. I don’t need to be refreshed on the topic

because

I’m not reading many groups every day. Also, anyone reading a thread on
google groups would find the same thing – endless scrolling past old

words

to get to the new words.

If you are trying to make the newsgroup more readable, then you would be
better off trying to get people to trim their replies. Your post in the
Lite Encryption thread is a good example of what not to do: over two
hundred lines of quoting to add a very few lines of new reply.

However, I appreciate your politeness.

Top posting fixed again.

This usenet group (and many others) uses bottom or interleaved posting
as it’s standard.

Of course you can ignore established standards. But you won’t get a lot
of support from other members of the group.

A. Because they’re either lazy or jerks.
Q. Why do they keep doing it when they’re asked not to?
A. Because they don’t know any better
Q. So why do people do it?
A. Because it upsets the normal flow of messages
Q. Why is it so bad?
A. Top posting
Q. What’s the most annoying thing on usenet?

==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

A(Answer):

Mtr wrote:

apparently, you can’t help being a rude little asshole. Try not to be so
emotional. You just come off looking like a rude little asshole.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:50:34 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

>Or
was it to hard to read?

Rik is not the rude asshole here.


==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

A(Answer):

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Rik Wasmus)

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:48:41 +0200, Mtr <Mt*@no.spamwrote:

>>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:43:24 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
<lu************@hotmail.comwrote:

By all means, you’re welcome to piss off,
and you are welcome to not read my posts, you rude little asshole

Aside from that remark I’d welcome a reply to the actual points raised. Or
was it to hard to read?

Here in Germany we call such people "merkbefreit" or "lernresistent".
Try to translate them yourself. 😉

Micha

Notice-released? Learn-Resistant? That’s what babelfish said they
translated to 🙂


==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

A(Answer):

Mtr wrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:58:58 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.net>
wrote:

>Mtr wrote:

>>On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:20:14 -0400, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.net>
wrote:

la***********@zipmail.com wrote:
on one call I get the encrypted string, "ë;jéøÕG·" and on the other
call, I get "ø34Avýä". What gives?
>
Thanks, – Dave
>
I hate to state the obvious, but obviously there is something different
between the two. mcrypt_encrypt gives the same output for the same input.

Look for differences in capitalization, ‘1’ (one) instead of ‘l’ (lower
case ell) or ‘I’ (upper case eye), for instance. It’s very easy to do.
well, not necesarily. Maybe it’s a chain cypher – and he’s not
re-initializing.

Although his code sample does say ECB, I don’t know what the parameters
mean for this extension function anyway.

(top posting fixed)

Your posting makes no sense whatsoever. Did you actually try the code?

no, that’s why I deliberately used the word "maybe" in my suggestion. No
one else had replied, so I offered a possible suggestion.

So, rather than just leave it be, you made a completely irrelevant
comment. Do you just like seeing your name on usenet?

>If it were a chain cipher, you would have to follow the same chain to
decrypt.

He never mentioned decryption in his post, only the diffrent results of
encryption.

Gee, encryption isn’t much good if you can’t decrypt it, is it now?

And before you go off on one-way encryption schemes – those are not
encryption methods. They are hashing methods. Encryption by definition
is two way.

>And a quick test of the code would have shown you this is not
a chain cipher.

no, now you’re the one who is making no sense. Whether or not it is chained
is internal to the cipher, not to the code that calls it. The difference
would also be apparent (via knowledge of the parameters) if I were a user
of that crypto extension, which I’m not. That’s why I also deliberately
said that I don’t know what the parameters mean. But the use of ECB does
tend to say it’s not chained – which I also deliberately mentioned.

And as I said. Had you tested it, you would have found out it is not a
chained cipher.

Remember the old saying. "It is better to be thought an idiot than to
open your mouth and remove all doubt."

>Also, please don’t top post. Thanks.

do you know that some people get irritated over interleaved replies, too?

No, as I said earlier. This group uses bottom posting or interleaved
posting. Both are acceptable.


==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

A(Answer):

"Mtr" <Mt*@no.spamwrote in message
news:fr********************************@4ax.com…

not to be overly contentious, but it is pretentious to insist on bottom
posting. All you are saying is that you want people to post in a way that
is better for you, in the way that you read newsgroups. But if I read a

Actually – that’s a usenet-wide convention, and has been since the
beginning.

A(Answer):

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Cq******************************@comcast.com. ..

Notice-released? Learn-Resistant? That’s what babelfish said they
translated to 🙂

My grandma had a Yiddish saying that meant that one was being intransigent.
But when I ran it through Babelfish it translated to "May you grow like an
onion, with your head in the ground".

Culture is half of language.
You can’t code for culture.

A(Answer):

"Rik Wasmus" <lu************@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:op***************@metallium.lan…

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:58:35 +0200, Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote:

>Here in Germany we call such people "merkbefreit" or "lernresistent".
Try to translate them yourself. 😉

I’m dutch, I know german :P. Here we’d say ‘hij heeft een plaat voor zijn
kop’.

…. and so the legend of the "Ugly American" is, yet again, proved true.

A(Answer):

"Mtr" <Mt*@no.spamwrote in message
news:l9********************************@4ax.com…

and once upon a time, people rode horses. Saying "it was always done that
way" is not a valid argument.

Yes, it is.

A(Answer):

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Cq******************************@comcast.com. ..

>Notice-released? Learn-Resistant? That’s what babelfish said they
translated to 🙂

My grandma had a Yiddish saying that meant that one was being intransigent.
But when I ran it through Babelfish it translated to "May you grow like an
onion, with your head in the ground".

Culture is half of language.
You can’t code for culture.

Sanders,

I think "in the ground" might have been a euphemism. I can think of
other places one’s head might be, but those are not suitable for a mixed
audience. 🙂


==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

A(Answer):

"Sanders Kaufman" <bu***@kaufman.netwrote in message
news:ua*****************@newssvr21.news.prodigy.ne t…

"Mtr" <Mt*@no.spamwrote in message
news:l9********************************@4ax.com…

>Saying "it was always done that way" is not a valid argument.

Yes, it is.

While I agree with your position on posting, what you say here is
ridiculous.

Shelly

A(Answer):

On 2 Oct, 21:13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck…@attglobal.netwrote:

>
This usenet group (and many others) uses bottom or interleaved posting
as *it’s* standard.

Do that again Jerry and I’ll tell your wife on you!

A(Answer):

Captain Paralytic wrote:

On 2 Oct, 21:13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck…@attglobal.netwrote:

>This usenet group (and many others) uses bottom or interleaved posting
as *it’s* standard.

Do that again Jerry and I’ll tell your wife on you!

Actually, my statement could be read either way:

This usenet group (and many others) uses bottom or interleaved posting
as it is standard.

And, of course, I *meant* it this way.

Naw, you don’t really believe that, do you, Paul? 🙂


==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

A(Answer):

On 3 Oct, 12:49, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck…@attglobal.netwrote:

Captain Paralytic wrote:

On 2 Oct, 21:13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck…@attglobal.netwrote:

This usenet group (and many others) uses bottom or interleaved posting
as *it’s* standard.

Do that again Jerry and I’ll tell your wife on you!

Actually, my statement could be read either way:

This usenet group (and many others) uses bottom or interleaved posting
as it is standard.

And, of course, I *meant* it this way.

Naw, you don’t really believe that, do you, Paul? 🙂


==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck…@attglobal.net
==================

Hmmm, well I have been known to be gullible….

A(Answer):

Shelly wrote:

"Sanders Kaufman" <bu***@kaufman.netwrote in message
news:ua*****************@newssvr21.news.prodigy.ne t…

>"Mtr" <Mt*@no.spamwrote in message
news:l9********************************@4ax.com.. .

>>Saying "it was always done that way" is not a valid argument.

Yes, it is.

While I agree with your position on posting, what you say here is
ridiculous.

Shelly

When you had an 80×25 VT100 and a 300 baud modem, Usenet discipline was
just plain common sense.

Today its highly arguable that netiquette as it was, has any more
relevance today than walking with your girlfriend on the left,so your
sword arm would be free to protect her honour.

Frankly people who scream about it are crashing bores, and should be
killfiled automatically. Its a cheap nasty easy way to put down newbies,
used mainly by people to whom Usenet itself is a way of trying to gain
some semblance of self esteem by putting down others.

People who post badly edited posts will in the end discover they get
ignored, and bugger off or learn to make their messages plain and to the
point.

There is no need to be obnoxious about it.

A(Answer):

"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com…

"Sanders Kaufman" <bu***@kaufman.netwrote in message

>>Saying "it was always done that way" is not a valid argument.

Yes, it is.

While I agree with your position on posting, what you say here is
ridiculous.

Well I gotta say – I don’t post in-line because of any rule.
I do it because that’s the way it’s always been done.

It’s the same thing on the freeway.
I break LOTS of freeway driving laws.

But one that I never break is the one about driving on the correct side of
the road.
I don’t obey that one because of any law.
I obey it because I want to get where I’m going.

A(Answer):

"The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected] in message
news:11***************@proxy00.news.clara.net…

Today its highly arguable that netiquette as it was, has any more
relevance today than walking with your girlfriend on the left,so your
sword arm would be free to protect her honour.

Gee, I was told to do that to keep the mud from splashing on her when a
vehicle drives by.
But then again, I grew up AFTER swords went out of fashion. 🙂

A(Answer):

..oO(Sanders Kaufman)

>But one that I never break is the one about driving on the correct side of
the road.

"Attention! There’s a wrong-way driver on highway XYZ!"
"One? Hundreds!"

SCNR
Micha