August 1993 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: lookin' for a slogan for Tshirts
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 02 Aug '93

02 Aug '93

>Message-Id: <199308021828.AA12198(a)flubber.cc.utexas.edu> >Subject: Re: lookin' for a slogan for Tshirts >Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 13:28:36 -0500 (CDT) >From: Jim McCoy <mccoy(a)ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> I wrote: >> "celebrating 4000 years of strong cryptography in the >> hands of private citizens" Jim replied: >A nice thought, but it is not quite true now, is it? Cryptography has been >a tool for specialists, scholars, and governments for those 4000 years, but >to claim that "the masses" have had access to it is clearly untrue. In >fact, it seems that the current friction between groups such as this one >and the U.S. governement is caused mostly because private citizens are >beginning to get access to this strong cryptography and this is something >"those who watch" do not like... Jim, I meant precisely this. It is quite true. I didn't say "the masses". In the old days, first you had to be literate to use crypto. That excluded the masses immediately. However, it was private citizens -- not military folks or diplomats -- who had access to and who often invented the crypto. I am concerned that you would continue to state the popular misconception. This is, in fact, my one complaint with Julian's article in the Village Voice. Check out the first several chapters of David Kahn's "The Codebreakers". Cryptography originated with private individuals. Private individuals have *always* had access to and used cryptography at least as strong as that used by the military of the time. The few exceptions have been very short-lived and rare. My 4 examples for the T-shirt show a steady progression of strong cryptography in the hands of private citizens. I stopped at 4 to keep from making the T-shirt too busy. I *really* recommend reading Kahn about this. The notion that strong crypto in private hands is somehow new is totally bogus -- flattering to those of us who like to think we're better off than our parents or that we're exploring new ground -- but it's wrong and, even worse, it plays into the hands of the NSA and FBI. Once you start saying that citizens have "first time ever" access to strong crypto, the FBI is free to turn around and say "OK - now the gov't will have first time ever power to take strong crypto away from the people". Read Kahn. - Carl

1 0

Re: LEEF->LEAF etc.
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 02 Aug '93

02 Aug '93

>Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 13:46:24 -0400 >From: technopagan priest <tedwards(a)wam.umd.edu> >Message-Id: <199308021746.AA17259(a)rac2.wam.umd.edu> >Subject: LEEF->LEAF etc. >I am very concerned about the key-exchange system. As far as I can >see, we still don't know exactly what it is, and whether that is safe. Safe? You are joking, yes? As long as *anyone* has skeleton keys, the system is worthless. Even if *I* am the one holding the skeleton keys, you shouldn't trust it, and I'm a great deal more trustworthy than the FBI and NSA and CIA, according to our respective histories of abuses of privacy. - Carl - <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>> - Carl Ellison cme(a)sw.stratus.com - Stratus Computer Inc. M3-2-BKW TEL: (508)460-2783 - 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298 FAX: (508)624-7488

1 0

Re: SKIPJACK PANEL
by Peter Wayner 02 Aug '93

02 Aug '93

Tom Knight is correct that the key generation process is a good place to hide a weakness. If I remember correctly, the chip's key is generated directly from it's ID number by padding it with 160 random bits and encrypting the whole mess. 80 bits of the result becomes the key. Obviously, if you can keep a copy of the 160 bits of padding, then you can regenerate the chip's local key without calling up the key-escrow fascility. Apparently, an early document said that each collection of padding would be used for a batch of 300 chips. So if you can keep a list of these padding bits, then you're set... (Disclosure: This data came from the hip, not from documents.) -Peter

1 0

Re: lookin' for a slogan for Tshirts
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 02 Aug '93

02 Aug '93

>From: csvcjld(a)nomvst.lsumc.edu >Message-Id: <19930802100425065(a)nomvst.lsumc.edu> >Subject: Re: lookin' for a slogan for Tshirts >Date: 02 Aug 93 10:04:25 -0700 >"When privacy is outlawed, only governments will have privacy." How about, "celebrating 4000 years of strong cryptography in the hands of private citizens" ?? - Carl

2 1

SKIPJACK PANEL
by Sandy 02 Aug '93

02 Aug '93

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Is it just me, or is anyone else dubious about Dorothy Dennings and company running their various Skipjack tests ON AN *NSA* CRAY COMPUTER? Since many of the objections to the whole plan arouse because of doubts about the intentions of the NSA, why would D.D. et al. trust them to run these critical tests? How difficult would it be for the NSA to spoof its own computer? Next big news items: United Nations hires Serbian troops to report on human rights violations in Bosnia. Farmer Brown puts fox in charge of henhouse. Film at eleven. S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

Re: money tracing
by baumbach＠atmel.com 02 Aug '93

02 Aug '93

Thug writes: > The black ink that is used to print the front side of U.S. cash contains a > very finely ground black iron oxide powder. The ink is magnetic. This > magnetism is used mostly by vending & change machines to distinguish real > bills from forgeries/photocopies. >[...] > 3. Magnetic ink detection. Real bills are printed with magnetic > ink, forgeries/photocopies are not. Magnetic toner for laser printers does exist. Its purpose is to allow people to print their own checks. Peter Baumbach baumbach(a)atmel.com

1 0

LEEF->LEAF etc.
by technopagan priest 02 Aug '93

02 Aug '93

I think it is interesting how the Law Enforcement Exploitation Field has been renamed LEAF. Good P.R. move NIST! I'm personally not motivated to believe that Skipjack is a flawed algorithm, but at the same time I do not consider it tested until it has stood up to peer-reviewed public analysis. I am very concerned about the key-exchange system. As far as I can see, we still don't know exactly what it is, and whether that is safe. Public key systems are much more difficult to design securely than private key systems. The key exchange has to be secure from eavesdroppers and also proof against "man-in-the-middle" attacks. Furthermore, there is the traffic-analysis problem. Everything I have read so far has indicated there will be a single system key which will encrypt Clipper serial numbers. A trivial phone tap with someone armed with the system key could result in massive traffic-analysis, and the government could do this simply because they have the system key, the Mafia will follow soon. I think a good avenue of attack right now is to politically attack the key-escrow parts of Clipper, and get Skipjack as a published private-key standard. Write your congresscritters. -Thomas

1 0

more T-shirt alternative
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 02 Aug '93

02 Aug '93

"celebrating 4000 years of personal privacy through strong cryptography"

1 0

T-shirt detail
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 02 Aug '93

02 Aug '93

Sorry for distracting people with my T-shirt suggestion, but the more I think about it, the more I like "celebrating 4000 years..." -- possibly on the back. On the front, I'd have 4 boxes (or regions set apart): LEB KAMAI y_i = x_i + k_{(i mod m)} y_i = x_i (+) k_i y = x^e mod N -------------------------------------------------- 1. LEB KAMAI, in Hebrew characters from the Bible -- cf., Kahn's "The Codebreakers", pp. 77-78 -- atbash cipher, stronger than Caesar's and predating him by more than a month :-) 2. polyalphabetic substitution -- stronger than nomenclators (based on when attacks were known to exist) but ignored by gov't users for 100s of years 3. Vernam's tape -- theoretically unbreakable -- in the hands of citizens from about 1920 {the (+) is a circled "+" -- meaning XOR} 4. RSA -- 1978 -------------------------------------------------- It might be interesting to date the four boxes. Anyone have a date for the LEB KAMAI? - Carl

1 0

No Subject
by Duncan Frissell 02 Aug '93

02 Aug '93

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com nobody(a)mead.u.washington.edu said: N.>This is the cypherpunks list, not the extropians list. The article was N.>about cypherpunks, not extropians, so it's irrelevent whether the N.>extrops are luddites. N.> N.>As for the c-punks, there's nothing inherently non-luddite about us. N.>Not all of us accept all uses of computers and technology without N.>question. There are certain machines that need to be trashed. I N.>liked the reference in the article. I don't think it was 100% accurate, N.>but you should be aware that there ARE cypherpunks Luddites lurking out N.>here... N.> .snail N.> However the list was founded and is dominated by extropians and (small e) expropianism is the dominent philosophy of the nets. Ned Lud and the boys wished to keep themselves and everyone else poor, smash technology, and stop the world just so they would not have to transform their lives. Just like the french farmers of today. Since one must already have transformed one's life to get connected to the nets (at least at this stage of technology) there can't be too many genuine luddites here. If anyone qualifies as luddites in this contrroversy it is the *government*. They are trying to slow the pace of technological transformation because it realizes that bureaucratic structures are hopless market competitors and will be destroyed by technological change. I, for one, am not going to permint the neeo-luddites of the coercive state apparatus to stop change just so they can avoid honest work. Duncan Frissell ************************************************************************* EDI, Temporary Employment, Quants, Securitization, Equipment Leasing, Fullfillment Companies, Overnight Delivery Services, Facsimile Machines - Not as sexy as Tim May's signature line but just as important. --- ~ WinQwk 2.0b#0 ~ Unregistered Evaluation Copy

1 0