April 1993 - cypherpunks-legacy

AT & T Contact Point
by dstalder＠gmuvax2.gmu.edu 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I talked to Herb Linnen at AT & T. He talked to me some but kept harping on the point of how ATT is devoted to customer privacy and that the ATT Vice-President of Information Systems (I forget his name) is an expert on cryptography and he obviously can't be wrong when he says that the wiretap chip is robust. He asked that I call David Arneke or Bill Jones at 919-279-7680 to discuss this since his department wasn't involved in the wiretap chip. The ATT operators dealing with calling cards and residential phone service have had other people cancelling their accounts because of this... Think free, -- Defeat the Torin/Darren Stalder/Wolf __ Big Brother Internet: dstalder(a)gmuvax2.gmu.edu \/ PGP2.x key available. Proposal! Bitnet: dstalder@gmuvax Finger me. Write me for Sprintnet: 1-703-845-1000 details. Snail: 10310 Main St., Suite 110/Fairfax, VA/22030/USA DISCLAIMER: A society where such disclaimers are needed is saddening.

1 0

Subscription request
by ERIC "Thin 'n Crispy" SPAULDING 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I wish to subscribe to the mailing list. Thank you.

1 0

Do it yourself voice encryption CELP
by grady＠netcom.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

For those interested in off-the-shelf vocoders that implement the high-compression CELP algorithms, you might be interested in the ZyXEL model U1496E+ modem (about $400) that offers 19.8(and maybe v.fast when specified)/14.4 kbps fax/ CELP (subscribe to comp.dcom.modems for more info). For those interested in the CELP algorithm directly here is some specific directions on getting your own copy:

1 0

more specific address for 'agrep'
by grady＠netcom.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I've been asked to supply more specific directions for automated fetching of the source and documentation for "agrep," the powerful similarity pattern matching tool. It is at cs.arizona.edu 192.12.69.5 in directory /agrep/README /agrep/agrep-2.04.tar.Z /agrep/agrep.ps.1.Z /agrep/agrep.ps.2.Z (The .ps suffixed files are the optional postscript docs; a reasonably good research report with benchmarks is included.) Note for Macintosh MPW users: after a few hours of drudgery, I ported the tool to MPW 3.2.3 running under System 7.1. If you would like me to e-mail a binhexed copy of the tool suitable for dropping in to your MPW/tools folder, please write... I've been having lots of fun picking up the "lost" references to things I'm interested in. For example, starting a search like: agrep -1 -i 'Burning Chrome' cyberpunkspool immediately finds references like 'burning crome' that I have always missed before. See how many times John Gilmore's name is mentioned in the CUD archives (and how often misspelled). How about _your_ name? As usual, I will e-mail the uuencoded tar.Z upon request if you cannot do anonymous FTP.

1 0

Hellman's Hints
by norm＠netcom.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I presume that Hellman meant to say "K1 and K2, and thence UK" in place of "K1 and K2, and thence K" at least it makes sense that way. A later posting from Hellman (I think) emmended the description of the transmitted message from E{ E[M; K], E[K; UK], serial number; SK} to E[M; K], E{ E[K; UK], serial number; SK} If you know SK then you can compute (E[K; UK], serial number) Then knowing UK (= K1+K2) you can compute K from which you get M via E[M; K].

3 2

Amiga Crypto
by Haywood J. Blowme 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

Return-Path: <newsham(a)wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu> >> The basic idea I think would need the following: >> >> - A sound digitizer >> - High speed modem >> - 68020 or above processor (for speed purposes) >> - Good encryption algorithm (IDEA for example) >> >> Implementing the system would involve using the digitizer to digitize the >> voice. Then processing the sample (in real time) through the encryption >> algorithm and sending the output to the modem for transmission. The process >> would be repeated on the other end. >> >> The problems I see occurring are the following >> >> - Speed of the computer affecting real time encryption >> - Synchronizing the data packets for accurate decryption on the other side. >> - simultaneous I/O on the serial and parallel ports(for modem and digitizer) >> - outputing to speakers on receiving end. >> - having the whole process operate in a full duplex mode (ie. both people >> can talk at the same time). >> >> >> I think the majority of functions can be handled by the system libraries and >> outside sources (such as xpkidea.library for encryption). >> >> Does this sound feasible?? newsham(a)wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu Writes: >From what I gather CELP takes about 10 to 15 MIPS and LPC takes >somewhere under 5 MIPS on DSP chips. Instructions including >fixed point multiplies and accumulations (not counting divisions). >Thats quite a load for a 68020 to bear and still do encryption >and communications isnt it? [Stuff deleted] This is true. But if a sampling rate of about 9000-10,000 samples per second are used this will allow for good voice quality and the encryption algorithm should be able to handle it. The IDEA implementations I have seen for the Amiga run about 30-50K per second on my Amiga 1200 with 68020. This should be fast enough. If you then can send that data directly to the serial port with a fast modem 14.4K it should work. But it might sound choppy (haven't done the figures yet on how much data would be going to the modem while the person speaks, but it may be substantial enough to make the use of a high speed modem not feasible. Also I have to consider that data compression in the form of LAP/M or MNP will be ineffective against the encrypted data as it will appear as white noise and will be largely uncompressable.. ============================================================================= /// | psionic(a)wam.umd.edu | Q: How did the govt. decide to use an 80 __ /// C= | Craig H. Rowland | bit key for the new clipper chip? \\\/// Amiga| PGP Key Available | A: They combined Bill and Hillary \/// 1200 | by finger. | Clintons' IQ's. =============================================================================

2 1

subscribe
by Kaya Bekiroglu 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

subscribe me.

1 0

Request
by Lestat 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

Please add me to your mailing list; as a passionate support of freedom of speech and expression of all kinds in all mediums, I'm concerned about the ClipperChip and interested in what you have to offer. Thanks, Lestat, aka Howard S. Jones 72(a)arms.uucp

1 0

Re: Fighting the Wiretap Chip Plan
by hkhenson＠cup.portal.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

When this "Clipper chip" story broke, I was off on an extropian (if not cypherpunk) activity--helping freeze Alcor's 27 patient (another HIV+ case.) I doubt I am the strongest hardware person on these groups, but nobody else has commented on this aspect. You just *can't* make chips entirely resistant to reverse engineering. I know, I have spent close to 10% of my engineering career reverse engineering things. Given time and a few samples, *any* chip can be reverse engineered. This is especially true with tools such as SEM stimulator/state readers and Focused Ion Beam chip slicers and dicers widely available. *Somebody* will dig out every gate in their spare time. Thus the following statement looks very odd: >Q: How strong is the security in the device? How can I be sure > how strong the security is? > >A: This system is more secure than many other voice encryption > systems readily available today. While the algorithm will > remain classified to protect the security of the key escrow > system, Say what? Does this mean that if somebody slices up a chip and publishes the algorithm the "security of the key escrow system" is broken? Can a representative of the government say why, or if, this is the case? If it is not the case, why not publish the algorithm and be done with it? Because, soon as the chip can be bought over the counter or stolen, the algorithm will be deduced. > we are willing to invite an independent panel of > cryptography experts to evaluate the algorithm to assure all > potential users that there are no unrecognized > vulnerabilities. Well, unless the "independent panel" includes people who can follow the algorithm all the way through to silicon, I would not trust their report even if I trusted the experts, and that goes double for the next set of masks. Keith Henson

1 0

My comments on the Clipper or Tapper chip,
by crunch＠netcom.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I don't know wheter or not I should post this in alt.security.pgp, or other newsgroups, but here's my official comments on what I think of the Clinton Adm "Clipper" or "Tapper" chip. Any press people are welcome to use it, and feel free to send it out wherever it will help. My official statement and comments on the "Tapper chip" ======================================================= I believe that the Clintom Admin is trying to push this idea through without giving much thought on the ramifications of this rather intreguing idea of "registering" your keys with some government agency. This overwhelming urge to "tap into" our private conversations is just going to promote private encryption and voice scrambling. It is not going to make law enforcement's job any easier to catch criminals, because they will also encrypt their voice and data. It reminds me of that popular bumper sticker "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns". It is clear that the government considers encryption as a "weapon", used by the enemy to keep nosey people away. Look at the current export laws to convince yourself of that. I guess I can think of it as a weapon to preserve my privacy. This is not only going to get a bad reception in the industry, but it will cost the government more money by adding huge administration costs. Talk about government "FAT"? I thought our goals are to cut government spending, not add to it. Lets see!! You need two agencys (Hopefully ones that people can trust). Gee!! I cannot even think of just ONE agency that I can trust!! can you? Then, these agencys have to keep track of one half of an 80 bit key. I guess there is one key for each "clipper" chip, so there has to be the capability of millions of keys, each one has to perfectly match the other half. Then there will be people needed to "register" these "tapper" phones. Lets not even think about what happens when one decides to sell it!! MORE government FAT!!. I guess thats why they're called FAT CATS. Now, if I were a criminal, do you think I would be dumb enough to "register" my phone with the government. Of course not. I would probably get mine on the black market, or though some other illicit means!! If I were a law abiding citizen, would I trust some government agency with my encryption key? Would you?? Then, there is this classified algorithm used in the clipper chip itself. I'm sure its pretty good, and it is probably hard to attack and crack. But can you really be absolutely sure that there isn't some sort of "back door" in it?? It is clear that the industry hasn't been consulted, or ideas were not put forth in some public forum. So, where is this democratic process?? We ARE still a democracy, aren't we? How was this company that sells the "Clipper chip" selected?? Was RSA data security people contacted?? It is clear that a lot of questions have to be answered before something like this can be accepted. I just hope the right people make the right decision, and that PRIVATE encryption be the responsibility of the user, and NOT the carriers. It is important that more and more private encryption programs, equipment, etc, can be made available on the market. If RSA is two tight with their licensing fees and policys, then there should be more math whiz types making better algorithms than RSA's. The field is wide open, so lets exploit them!! John D.

1 0