February 1998 - cypherpunks-legacy

Pseudorandomness and Cryptographic Applications [Book]
by Jim Choate 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

Hi, Pseudorandomness and Cryptographic Applications Michael Luby ISBN 0-691-02546-0 ~$25 US Discusses techniques to take one-way functions and produce pseudo-random number generators. The second half of the book discusses various applications of these algorithms. private key cryptosystems pseudorandom function generators pseudorandom permutation generators digital signature schemes bit commitment protocols zero-knowledge interactive proof systems ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: US law on re-exporting crypto software?
by James A. Donald 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

-- At 06:49 PM 2/19/98 -0500, Anonymous wrote: > An article in the current issue of the German journal > `Datenschutz und Datensicherheit' claims that exporting > crypto software from anywhere outside the US to a third > country violates US law if the software contains (only > marginal amounts of) US-developed code, such as a C > standard library, and that anyone distributing crypto > software that has been compiled with an American compiler > had better not visit the United States. Is that true? No one knows what the laws on cryptography in the US are, least of all the courts or the lawyers. There is a law against exporting armaments, or indeed doing diddly squat with armaments, and the bureaucrats have decreed crypto an armament, however they have displayed profound reluctance to take this issue to court, so the implications of such a law, and such a definition remain entirely unknown. However since no one has yet been actually indicted, it is unlikely that you will be the first. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MukYGG/TcTpm9PDncEpXfT4BfC8t7mVXt7WWsJtm 42je0WMVidgZLmeFqZcxiIvUBWPKVWWUER4SS70Ko --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/

1 0

S886
by Anonymous 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

Remailer validation. Ignore.

1 0

S888
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

Remailer validation. Ignore.

1 0

Vile Vial Files
by Secret Squirrel 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

Timothy May wrote: >(One can asssume that with more and more such things being added to the >"watch lists" each year, that there will be less acceptance of cash, or >anonymous digital cash, for such purchases.) I tried to buy some chemicals down here with cash about six months ago. They tried everything they could to get me to write a check and in the end I stormed out of the building, leaving the merchandise on the counter. I haven't been back yet, and there's probably a good chance that the security camera footage was sent to the FBI. Come to think of it, that would explain some rather wierd incidents I've observed since then. People say that the only reason to pay in cash is if you have something to hide. You're damned right. The last thing I want is a bunch of government shills keeping track of what I buy so that they can stage some raid because they have a record of me paying for a beaker "which could be used" to mix chemicals which "could be used" as explosives, or metal "which could be used" to make thermite which "could be used" for some nefarious purpose. In America today if you have interests in biology, chemistry, or physics it is considered grounds by both the government and the pathetic sheep to shoot you. Pardon me if I'm a little bit paranoid these days. It used to be intellectuals were just beat up and made fun of by the others in schools. Now it's fashionable to throw them in jail or kill them. "Unauthorized and illegitimate research:" what a stupid concept. The American people consider anybody who does things in secret to be automatically guilty. Forget the principles that America was founded on! When the government sends the ninjas into your home because you were going 56 mph when you passed a cop on the highway and looked over at him the wrong way they sieze your computer. They find that you're running Linux. Oooh, you must be evil because your computer is password protected but the Microshaft apologist across the hall has his computer wide open. They find that you have blocks of random data on your drive, and even if they don't get them decrypted because they *ARE* blocks of completely random data they wave it in front of a jury and get a guilty verdict. It's a sad, sad state of affairs. >ObMinorNote: I recently tried to buy a bag of ammonium nitrate for my >yard...the local yard store says it hasn't been available to ordinary >customers since OKC. I had to settle for ammonium sulfate instead. It is when I read things like this that I realize how completely stupid the entire government position is. Why do you need to buy ammonium nitrate to make a bomb? Assuming you just don't use something else which is more effective, why not do this? NH OH + HNO --> NH NO + H O 3 3 3 3 2 So this naturally leads to the following question: Is having nitric acid and ammonium hydroxide now a crime worthy of ninjas flying through your windows with big guns in the middle of the night and shooting you because "you looked like you were going for a weapon" when you flushed the toilet and pulled your pants up? Then if they don't have anything to charge you with they plant some drugs in your toilet tank and claim that you were in "possession of drugs with intention to distribute." Of course you were going to distribute them! You had a truck and you frequently drove around! >We live in a dangerous world, full of potentially dangerous substances and >things. Instead of dealing with the danger on a personal basis, we are >using the government as our nanny, and also letting it record our >purchases, open files on us for "unusual" purchases, and generally track >our actions. Which actually won't have much effect on dedicated terrorists >and criminals. Exactly. Welcome to the shakedown extortion police state known as Amerika, Land of the Freeh.

1 0

Vile Vial Files
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

Timothy May wrote: >(One can asssume that with more and more such things being added to the >"watch lists" each year, that there will be less acceptance of cash, or >anonymous digital cash, for such purchases.) I tried to buy some chemicals down here with cash about six months ago. They tried everything they could to get me to write a check and in the end I stormed out of the building, leaving the merchandise on the counter. I haven't been back yet, and there's probably a good chance that the security camera footage was sent to the FBI. Come to think of it, that would explain some rather wierd incidents I've observed since then. People say that the only reason to pay in cash is if you have something to hide. You're damned right. The last thing I want is a bunch of government shills keeping track of what I buy so that they can stage some raid because they have a record of me paying for a beaker "which could be used" to mix chemicals which "could be used" as explosives, or metal "which could be used" to make thermite which "could be used" for some nefarious purpose. In America today if you have interests in biology, chemistry, or physics it is considered grounds by both the government and the pathetic sheep to shoot you. Pardon me if I'm a little bit paranoid these days. It used to be intellectuals were just beat up and made fun of by the others in schools. Now it's fashionable to throw them in jail or kill them. "Unauthorized and illegitimate research:" what a stupid concept. The American people consider anybody who does things in secret to be automatically guilty. Forget the principles that America was founded on! When the government sends the ninjas into your home because you were going 56 mph when you passed a cop on the highway and looked over at him the wrong way they sieze your computer. They find that you're running Linux. Oooh, you must be evil because your computer is password protected but the Microshaft apologist across the hall has his computer wide open. They find that you have blocks of random data on your drive, and even if they don't get them decrypted because they *ARE* blocks of completely random data they wave it in front of a jury and get a guilty verdict. It's a sad, sad state of affairs. >ObMinorNote: I recently tried to buy a bag of ammonium nitrate for my >yard...the local yard store says it hasn't been available to ordinary >customers since OKC. I had to settle for ammonium sulfate instead. It is when I read things like this that I realize how completely stupid the entire government position is. Why do you need to buy ammonium nitrate to make a bomb? Assuming you just don't use something else which is more effective, why not do this? NH OH + HNO --> NH NO + H O 3 3 3 3 2 So this naturally leads to the following question: Is having nitric acid and ammonium hydroxide now a crime worthy of ninjas flying through your windows with big guns in the middle of the night and shooting you because "you looked like you were going for a weapon" when you flushed the toilet and pulled your pants up? Then if they don't have anything to charge you with they plant some drugs in your toilet tank and claim that you were in "possession of drugs with intention to distribute." Of course you were going to distribute them! You had a truck and you frequently drove around! >We live in a dangerous world, full of potentially dangerous substances and >things. Instead of dealing with the danger on a personal basis, we are >using the government as our nanny, and also letting it record our >purchases, open files on us for "unusual" purchases, and generally track >our actions. Which actually won't have much effect on dedicated terrorists >and criminals. Exactly. Welcome to the shakedown extortion police state known as Amerika, Land of the Freeh.

1 0

Advertisement: Website Hosting
by info＠inexchange.net 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

http://www.inexchange.net info(a)inexchange.net InExchange would like to introduce our complete Hosting and Promotional service. FOR ONLY $19.95 PER MONTH ! * 20 MB (megabytes) of disk space * 750 MB of data transfer per month * 5 E-mail accounts * INTERNATIONAL Hosting * Access to your account anytime via the Web Control Panel * Full MS Front Page support * Unlimited FTP updates * Personal CGI directory for your own scripts (or use ours) * The best statistics analyzer in the industry * E-mail forwarding, auto responders and vacation reply * Domain name registration (www.yourname.com) * FREE registration of your domain with over 250 search engines * Real Audio/Video support * Inquire about our $16.95 plan * Other plans also include: Shopping cart application and database access/utilities Cold Fusion Hosting CyberCash, iBill and VersaNet ready Instant on-line credit card processing For additional details, please refer to our website: http://inexchange.net info(a)inexchange.net Inexchange offers you a full 30 day money back guarantee if not satisfied with our services.

1 0

Re: Anthrax--The Four Horsemen are Riding
by Tim May 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

Another article I wrote for scruz.general. >X-From_: tcmay(a)got.net Sat Feb 21 12:54:42 1998 >X-Delivered: at request of tcmay on always >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:57:39 -0800 >From: tcmay(a)got.net (Tim May) >To: tcmay(a)got.net >Subject: Re: Anthrax--The Four Horsemen are Riding >Newsgroups: scruz.general >Organization: None > >In article <34ee3039.1340384(a)cnews.newsguy.com>, mmelpremo(a)cruzio.com >(mmelpremo(a)cruzio.com) wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:34:16 -0800, tcmay(a)got.net (Tim May) wrote: >> >> >Cruzans, >> > >> >Here's one of my articles to the Cypherpunks list, a list FBI Director >> >Louis Freeh recently denounced as being a haven for information >> >terrorists. If I get busted for having a lab which the Feds decide is >> >thoughtcrime, I want someone in Santa Cruz to know what I think about >> >these issues. >> <snip> >> >> So, Tim, what do you think ought to be done, (if anything), about >> Iraq? Should we stop sanctions and let the Middle East worry about >> him? Should we continue sanctions? Should we forget about UN >> inspections? > >1. Nothing. Ain't my problem, ain't yours, ain't anyone else I know of's. > >2. Sanctions almost never work. Sanctions for 38 years on Cuba have had >almost no effect on Castro except to consolidate his position. (Much as I >may dislike Castro's policies, no American should be threatened with jail >time for committing the "crime" of travelling to Cuba, or selling stuff >they own to Cubans, or buying Cuban cigars, etc. In a free country, which >neither the U.S. nor Cuba are, one does not criminalize actions which do >not directly harm other persons.) > >3. Bombing Iraq will be unlikely to work this time any more than last >time(s). I have no energy to recount the info being provided on CNN and >elsewhere, but consider that the weapons inspectors themselves claimed >that their work over the past half dozen years had more effect on getting >rid of weapons than the bombing campaign in 1991 did. Assuming they're not >lying, how, pray tell, does a lesser bombing than 1991 then solve the >putative problem? > >4. As for the "putative problem," it is indeed putative. So Iraq has >"weapons of mass destruction." So does Iran. So does Syria. So does >Israel. And so on, for most of the countries in the world. (Let us not >rant about how Iraq used WOMD on its own people, or on the Kurds. The Sovs >used WOMD on the Afghanis...did we threaten to bomb them? How about the >Chinese? And so on. > >5. I repeat, it ain't our problem. Washington (the President, not the >pesthole) warned us to avoid foreign entanglements and foreign wars, and >yet the U.S. squanders its money and its soldiers' lives in dozens of >foreign wars. > >(There hasn't been a legitimate war since the Revolution, possibly since >the War of 1812, in my view.) > >> >> I find myself in the middle on this one. On the one hand, I think >> Saddam's a threat to neighboring countries (particularly Kuwait), >> although I don't know how big a threat. On the other hand, I agree >> with you that America should not be Cop of the World. > >Countries invade other countries frequently. I didn't see us going to war >with the Soviet Union over Afghanistan. I didn't see us going to war with >Israel when it (several times) invaded and occupied the southern part of >Lebanon. > >Ah, but the U.S. likes wars with _little_ countries. Panama, which we >invaded because our CIA-installed leader was taking too large a share of >the drug trade. Grenada, because it distracted attention from the 240 >Americans killed a few days before in Lebanon. Nicaragua, because we >didn't like the leader the people had elected. Somalia, for reasons no one >seems to be able to articulate. Bosnia, because the Europeans, in whose >backyard the Balkan states are, decided not to bother. > >And so it goes. > >--Tim May > >-- >Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside" >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^3,021,377 | black markets, collapse of governments. >

1 0

Keeping the Oil Price Up
by Tim May 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

The last, for now, of the articles. --Tim >X-From_: tcmay(a)got.net Sat Feb 21 13:11:09 1998 >X-Delivered: at request of tcmay on always >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:14:07 -0800 >From: tcmay(a)got.net (Tim May) >To: tcmay(a)got.net >Subject: Re: Anthrax--The Four Horsemen are Riding >Newsgroups: scruz.general >Organization: None > >In article <cbishop-2102981021400001(a)cbishop.sc.scruznet.com>, >cbishop(a)scruznet.com wrote: > >> In article <6cm4nv$edi$1(a)shell3.ba.best.com>, obob(a)shell3.ba.best.com (Bob >> O`Brien) wrote: >> >> > In article <34ee3039.1340384(a)cnews.newsguy.com>, >> > mmelpremo(a)cruzio.com <mmelpremo(a)cruzio.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >It seems Clinton has backed himself into a corner on the situation, >> > >and now has the choice of bombing Iraq or backing down from threats of >> > >bombing Iraq. Both are losing propositions. >> > > >> > >I'm also interested in hearing everyone else's opinions, as well, >> > >since I'm still trying to form one. >> > > >> > >> > At the end of the last "war", Saddam _personally_agreed_ to >> > the UN's plan that would have accomplished all the inspections >> > IN FIFTEEN DAYS. >> > >> > [Bob's for military action agains Iraq] >> >> If the UN had accomplished the inspections in fifteen days, would they >> have been done and not done any more inspections? > > >The realpolik of it all is that the last thing the "Oil Patch" wants is >Iraq pumping a couple million barrels of oil and selling it on the world >market. > >When oil prices plummeted in the mid-80s, Texas was hit hardly. Texas oil >men were wiped out, refineries were closed, and the seeds of the S&L >collapse were nurtured. (The seeds of the S&L collapse were of course >planted when the government agreed to bail out banks and S&Ls, regardless >of the risks they took.) > >Many of George Bush's friends, and even his own investments (Zapata, for >example), were affected. > >Iraq was expected to pump more of the oil from the disputed oilfields than >the Kuwaitis were willing to pump. > >As the war evolved, oil prices went up, and the Texans were partly saved. > >Having any final settlement of the Iraqi situation, and thus having them >further depress the world oil price, would be unacceptable to the Oil >Boys. > >Oil prices have been falling again, even with Iraq out of the oil market. >Prices for light sweet crude are down to around $16 a barrel, maybe less. >Texas is feeling the pinch again. > >A coincidence that the saber rattling suddenly is picking up? > >Wouldn't it be great for the Oil Boys if a war with Iraq spread, and maybe >took out the Kuwaiti and even Saudi oil fields? Oil at $30 a barrel would >shure be a purty sight to them good ole boys. > >Call me a cynic, but nothing is as simple as the sheeple are being led to >believe. > >--Tim May > >-- >Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside" >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^3,021,377 | black markets, collapse of governments. >

1 0

Re: speaking of tax dollars at work...
by Tim May 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

We've been having some interesting discussions in scruz.general, my local newsgroup. (We get together every few months for a "scruzfest," so a sense of community amonst the discussants has been emerging. I probably now know more folks by sight in scruz.general than I know Cypherpunks.) I will forward a couple of my articles. >X-From_: tcmay(a)got.net Fri Feb 20 19:22:21 1998 >X-Delivered: at request of tcmay on always >Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:25:17 -0800 >From: tcmay(a)got.net (Tim May) >To: tcmay(a)got.net >Subject: Re: speaking of tax dollars at work... >Newsgroups: scruz.general >Organization: None > >In article <6clf84$buc(a)news.scruz.net>, glena(a)armory.com (Dirt Devil) wrote: > > >> >> I am actually on somewhat shakey ground in agreeing with Tim's desire >> to hold to the BOR, simply because they have been so perferated. >> > >Sure the Amendments have been perforated, but they're all we have left. >Even now, as various laws try to close in on controlling speech, the First >Amendment's crystal clear "Congress shall make no law..." language is all >we have to hold back the tide. > >(And it is _still_ a battle, with Brandeis' "shouting "Fire!" in a crowded >theater" being used to justify all manner of speech restrictions.) > >As for the Second, equally crystal clear, the record is even shabbier. >>From outright bans on ownership of weapons in New York, to restrictions in >California, to moves for confiscation of all guns, the tide is _barely_ >being held back. (As Heather noted in her earlier message, all the >folderol about the Second referring to a state-run militia, like the >National Guard, is pure nonsense: the Founders were worried about the >citizenry being able to fight back, and understood that only free men are >allowed to possess weaponry.) > >In all cases where there is no crystal clear, solid, indisputable, >"Congress shall make no law..." language, the statist and professional >bureaucrats, aided by foolish and short-sighted voters, whittle away the >freedoms and rights of us all. > >The Bill of Rights ain't enough, but it's all we've got. > >And it's going fast. > >--Tim May > >-- >Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside" >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^3,021,377 | black markets, collapse of governments. >

1 0