August 2002 - cypherpunks-legacy

FISA RISA
by Matthew X 24 Aug '02

24 Aug '02

The Limits of Trust Friday, August 23, 2002; Page A26 SINCE THE SEPT. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has argued that law enforcement and intelligence agencies can be trusted to wield broad new powers -- both those additional powers voted into law last year and powers still under consideration. Officials have in many instances brushed aside suggestions that accountability and openness should accompany these new authorities. And their "trust us" mantra has largely carried the day as Congress has approved intrusive new powers for the executive branch. So it is no wonder that the Justice Department did not hasten to produce to Sens. Patrick Leahy, Charles Grassley and Arlen Specter a copy of an extraordinary May 17 opinion by the seven judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The work of this super-secret tribunal, which considers government applications for search warrants and wiretaps in intelligence matters, almost never sees the light of day -- in fact, this is the first opinion the full court has published since its creation in 1978. But in this instance, the judges themselves, responding to a request by the senators, took action to make sure that the senators and the public saw their unprecedented, unclassified opinion. The opinion, which the three senators released yesterday, paints a disquieting portrait of the FBI's trustworthiness, or lack thereof, in some of the most sensitive matters it handles. The opinion was written in response to a Justice Department proposal to change the rules governing the relationship between prosecutors chasing criminals and intelligence operatives chasing information. In criminal cases, prosecutors generally must show probable cause of criminal activity before a judge will allow them to wiretap or search a suspect. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes such intrusive surveillance for intelligence purposes with a less rigorous showing. While this material can end up being used in a criminal case, the lower standard is constitutional only because the statute's purpose -- and the purpose of the surveillance -- is to gather foreign intelligence. So the FISA judges have historically been careful to make sure that criminal prosecutors were not directing surveillance under the law as a way of bypassing the strictures of domestic criminal rules. In the USA Patriot Act, Congress substantially lowered the wall between intelligence-gathering and crime-fighting; the Justice Department argued to the court that the new law meant the judges should ease up and stop insisting that prosecutors not take over intelligence surveillance. The court said no. It cited a variety of legal considerations, but underlying these was another factor: The judges report that the FBI has not played straight with them over the role prosecutors have been playing in the process in the past. In September 2000, the judges recount, the government "came forward to confess error in some 75 FISA applications related to major terrorist attacks directed against the United States." These errors almost uniformly "involved information sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and prosecutors." They included an "erroneous statement" by then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and misrepresentations in the FISA applications of FBI agents concerning "the separation of overlapping intelligence and criminal investigations." They also included "omissions of material facts from FBI FISA affidavits relating to a prior relationship between the FBI and a FISA target." Furthermore, the judges complain that they have yet to receive any explanation of how they came to be misled, despite the fact that internal investigations have been ongoing "for more than one year." Attorney General John Ashcroft is not blamed for these transgressions. Most or all of the misstatements appear to have taken place during the prior administration, and the court notes that the department and bureau wrote new rules last year to ensure the accuracy of FISA applications. The judges, moreover, appear to have no complaints about the quality of applications since Sept. 11. But the fact that dozens of FBI representations to a federal court handling issues of such sensitivity could turn out to be false raises questions both about current proposals to expand the government's FISA powers and about other situations in which the government asks judges and the public to accept its actions and statements on faith. If the FBI can botch 75 affidavits in the famously rigorous FISA process, is it not possible that the military might have made an error, say, in the spare two-page declaration it is using to justify the indefinite detention of likely American citizen Yaser Esam Hamdi? And isn't some measure of oversight -- such as the FISA judges and the senators are providing in this instance -- a healthy antidote? The government has no experience with losing before the FISA court, which has never turned down a surveillance request. This opinion, in fact, has produced the first appeal ever of a FISA court action -- and thus the first case ever heard by a special FISA appeals court that has never previously had to convene. Whatever happens in that uncharted territory, the FISA court has raised critical questions that Congress needs to pursue before granting further new powers to the government. Members need to satisfy themselves that the problems the FISA judges have identified have truly been corrected and that adequate safeguards of openness and accountability are built into any enhanced surveillance powers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51447-2002Aug22.html

1 0

Another FBI lie?
by Matthew X 24 Aug '02

24 Aug '02

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51447-2002Aug22.html Father denies FBI charges against Saud By a Staff Writer JEDDAH, 24 August Abdul Aziz Al-Rasheed has denied his son Saud had ties with the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terror attacks as alleged by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. "Everyone knows that Saud is innocent and that the information published (by the FBI) is baseless," Abdul Aziz told Al-Yaum newspaper yesterday. Look at him,he's just a boy! The FBI has said that it was not sure whether Saud was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. "Security authorities are not sure whether Saud had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks," Saudi daily Al-Watan quoted the FBI deputy director as saying. However, he said FBI agents wanted to question the Saudi youth. The FBI on Tuesday released a passport photo of Saud Al-Rasheed and said it considered him armed and dangerous. The bureau is seeking Saud following the Sept. 11 investigation. The investigation revealed that Saud bore a Saudi passport No. C161433, issued in Riyadh in May 2000. Saud is the 15th person sought in connection with the attacks. According to Al-Hayat newspaper, there are six Saudis with the name of Saud Abdul Aziz Al-Rasheed. One of them arrived at King Khaled International Airport in Riyadh on Thursday from Cairo, but his passport number was different from the one given in the FBI report. The Arabic daily said it believed the passport might have been forged, if there was no error in transferring information. According to a Council of American Islamic Relations study more than half of the seven million Muslims living in the US have been victim of discrimination after the Sept.11 attacks. In a genuine democracy, the rights of even a minority of one are sacred and cannot be violated with impunity. V K Narasimhan.

1 0

FBI LIEs
by Matthew X 24 Aug '02

24 Aug '02

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec02/court_8-23.html 2 australians continue to suffer cruel and unusual punishment at X-ray.No charges,No lawyers,No visitors apart from au goons.No letters.Kidnapped months ago. TERENCE SMITH: That's "Boston Globe" columnist Tom Oliphant and syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin. Both Mark Shields and David Brooks are on vacation. Welcome to you both. FISA court ruling Tom Oliphant, the, we just heard a discussion about what amounts to a standoff now between this secret intelligence court and the Justice Department. What's the significance of that? TOM OLIPHANT: Well, the significance is not going to be any at all in a larger political sense. There's no question that public opinion today continues to be overwhelmingly on the side of security as opposed to civil liberties, as is often the case at this stages of war, including this unique one. Civil liberties tends to be a minority concern that has to claw its way to attention. On the other hand, I do think this has some impact on the effectiveness of the administration's administration of the criminal and intelligence bureaucracies, and it's this. Credibility in secret proceedings is everything. And I think the court went out of its way to indicate its displeasure on those grounds, including making this decision public, which itself was a form of rebuke. I think --. TERENCE SMITH: By saying that on 75 occasions - TOM OLIPHANT: Absolutely. TERENCE SMITH: -- the FBI had misled them. TOM OLIPHANT: There are other cases not just before this special court, and I think other judges are going to be more inclined now to look behind the government's claims to check further. And most importantly of all is on the street. The biggest aid in prosecution of this war is the citizen who helps the government. And you want to have the confidence that you're going to be treated squarely, and this undermines it. TERENCE SMITH: Michelle Malkin, what's your take? MICHELLE MALKIN: I do think it would be a mistake to characterize the ruling, though, as a stark repudiation or rebuke of the way that Ashcroft and the Bush administration specifically are conducting the war on terror because these 75 errors and misrepresentations that the court was clearly piqued about happened under the prior administration. And, in fact, the Justice Department had started self reporting a lot of those errors in the first place. So I think the end result of the decision right now is that it's a big yield sign. It's a warning to the FBI and the agent there's to make sure that the affidavits that they file for search warrants as they conduct this war on terror have all their "t's" crossed and their "i's" dotted. There will be an appeal of the case and that's unprecedented as well. But I think, you know, the clear message is, we cannot have a completely opaque wall between intelligence gathering and criminal prosecutions. But if you're going to poke holes in those walls, you have to make sure that the whole facade doesn't come crumbling down. TOM OLIPHANT: Michelle makes a very important point, particularly because the head of the FBI until last year was Louis Freeh, whose administration is already very controversial, and this is another criticism of that. TERENCE SMITH: And these cases of course crossed over. TOM OLIPHANT: Very much so. In fairness, it should also be said that this administration, in a sense has sought to enjoy the fruits of the policy that was being pursued, as witness with the appeal. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec02/wrap_8-23.html

1 0

Authenticating computer code cryptographically
by Matthew X 24 Aug '02

24 Aug '02

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992713 "...In June this year Microsoft announced plans to develop more secure personal computers with the help of hardware manufacturers. The company has spent US$100m on developing the project, which involves authenticating computer code cryptographically. The plans have stirred controversy among some computer experts who fear users Microsoft would be given greater control over home PCs."END. It's already lost one anti-trust lawsuit,to lose 2 might appear to look like carelessness.MS must be absolutely desperate.I wish someone would hack me soon,I cant wait to smash all my windows.Hey! According to this 'poll' 85% think copyright ,(and associated poitics) either suck or is D E A D,dead. http://grep.law.harvard.edu/

1 0

Spam Nigeria.
by Matthew X 24 Aug '02

24 Aug '02

Nigeria: New Sharia case Unmarried mother sentenced to death A Nigerian court's decision to uphold the verdict of death by stoning of Amina Lawal for adultery is a cruel and inhuman application of Sharia law, says Human Rights Watch, and an abuse of the law to punish women for consensual sex. "The death penalty is never an appropriate punishment for a crime, and, in this instance, the very nature of the crime is in doubt." Make your own protest. http://www.indexonline.org/ Index on Censorship online at www.indexoncensorship.org Express your concern for the plight of Amina Lawal, sentenced to death from stoning by a Sharia court in the state of Katsina in northern Nigeria for having engaged in sex outside marriage. The government used her pregnancy as evidence of her having committed adultery. Ms. Lawal now has an eight-month old child. Human Rights Watch argues that: In this case the legal system is being abused to punish adult women for consensual sex. The death penalty is never an appropriate punishment for a crime, especially where, as in this instance, the very nature of the crime is in doubt. The Nigerian government should commute the death sentence of Amina Lawal and drop the criminal charges against her. Appeals protesting the sentencing should be sent to the following: His Excellency Olusegun Obasanjo, President of the Republic The Presidency Federal Secretariat Phase II Shehu Shagari Way Abuja, Federal Capital Territory Nigeria Fax: + 234 9 523 21 36 (press office) Email: president.obasanjo(a)nigeriagov.org. His Excellency Kanu Godwin Agabi, Minister of Justice Ministry of Justice New Federal Secretariat complex Shehu Shagari Way Abuja, Federal Capital Territory Nigeria Fax: + 234 9 523 52 08 Minister Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim, Minister of Justice and Attorney General New Federal Secretariat Building, 10th Floor Federal Secretariat Block 1, Wing 1-B Shehu Shagari Way Abuja, Federal Capital Territory Nigeria Fax: c/o Ministry of Foreign Affairs + 234 9 523 0394 / 0210 If possible please send copies of your appeals to: The diplomatic representative for Nigeria in your country. Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible. Copyright © 2002 Send the fuckers a translation of Apster if you can.TIA.pr.

1 0

Richard Perle in Paris.
by Matthew X 24 Aug '02

24 Aug '02

Swine... http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,779780,00.html A walk on the wild side A recalcitrant wild boar has moved into a Paris park, to the disquiet of local residents and the small taskforce dispatched to hunt it down, writes Jon Henley Friday August 23, 2002 Visitors to the stately Parc du Chateau de Sceaux in the southern Paris suburbs have been disappointed this week: on the gates hangs a hastily-printed notice saying that the park is closed until further notice. Inside, two wardens on horseback and four trained marksmen with Winchester rifles pace the wide, tree-lined avenues and manicured lawns, while a small army of 50 perspiring beaters and a dozen dogs slowly quarter the dense thickets. Such activity has, of course, prompted speculation. "Would this be the arrival of the werewolf of London, come to spend its summer hols in Paris?", wondered Le Monde. Or the return of the Beast of Gevaudan, that terrifying semi-mythical monster that devoured 150 unfortunate souls in south-west France in the mid-1760s? The reality is almost as unlikely: somehow, an errant wild boar has managed to make its way across several main roads, brave the housing estates, hypermarkets and high streets of Antony and Fontenay-les-Roses, and gain illicit access to the park's 450 welcoming acres. Wild boar are not a rarity in France. Tens of thousands of them are slaughtered by huntsmen every year, including nearly a thousand in the Ile de France region that includes greater Paris. But only very, very rarely do they venture into the urban environment. "This is truly exceptional," said Bernard Lefevre of the National Hunting and Wildlife Office. "The last time anything like this happened around here was in 1995, when an adult male wounded four policemen who were trying to eject it from a municipal tennis court in Epinay." Wild boar, Mr Lefevre said, have to be taken seriously. "They are large and powerful wild animals, and in the rutting season they are perfectly capable of attacking humans or rounding on dogs," he explained. "There's no way we can open the park while it's still in there." The unfortunate boar's days are therefore numbered, because Mr Lefevre and his colleagues have no intention of trying to capture it alive. "As a species, they are a long way from facing extinction," he pointed out. "They cause dozens of road accidents and over 1m euros of agricultural damage every year. There's no reason to show any sympathy." Which is not the case for the boar's cousins on the sunny Riviera, where well-to-do residents have taken umbrage at the local authorities' decision to implement a shoot-to-kill policy aimed at drastically reducing the area's population of sanglochons - an odd breed derived from crossing a wild boar (sanglier) with a pig (cochon). Officials say the sanglochon's numbers have increased by some 600% over the past decade and the species has become a veritable plague, rooting around in dustbins, ruining lawns and wreaking havoc in vegetable patches. Some 2,000 have been shot so far this year. "They breed like rabbits, and unlike genuine wild boar, they actually seem to prefer an urban environment," said Emmanuel Marteray, a wildlife expert. "They're generally much less aggressive than their wild cousins, but they're not much appreciated round hear because they love root vegetables, bulbs, fruit and worms." Sentimental Riviera residents, however, have drawn the line at seeing the poor beasts brutally mown down before their eyes by council sharpshooters. After a number of protests from shocked eye-witnesses, the local authority wildlife department has promised to restrict sanglochon-slaughtering expeditions to the after-dark hours. Back in the Parc du Sceaux, however, there's still no sign of the intruder. "He's very happy in here," said Mr Lefevre. "It's going to take quite some time to track him down."

1 0

Bad Credit OK! (5.875% Fixed)-------------------------------------------------------- 0702sMWV2-342JlYq2l17
by AmericasLender6352j38＠msn.com 24 Aug '02

24 Aug '02

1 0

Signing as one member of a set of keys
by Anonymous User 24 Aug '02

24 Aug '02

This program can be used by anonymous contributors to release partial information about their identity - they can show that they are someone from a list of PGP key holders, without revealing which member of the list they are. Maybe it can help in the recent controvery over the identity of anonymous posters. It's a fairly low-level program that should be wrapped in a nicer UI. I'll send a couple of perl scripts later that make it easier to use. === /* Implementation of ring signatures from * http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/RivestShamirTauman-HowToLeakASecret.pdf * by Rivest, Shamir and Tauman * * This creates and verifies a signature such that it was produced from * one of a fixed set of RSA keys. * * It requires the openssl library to build, which is available from * www.openssl.org. * * This program takes a PGP public key ring file which holds a set of * old-style RSA public keys. It creates and verifies signatures which * are such that they were issued by one of the keys in that file, but * there is no way to tell which one did it. In this way the signer can * leak partial information about his identity - that he is one member * of a selected set of signers. * * To sign, the signer must also give a PGP secret key file which holds * one key (actually the program ignores any keys past the first). * That key should be the secret part of one of the keys in the public * key file. Also, it should be set to have no passphrase - it is too * complicated for a simple program like this to try to untangle PGP * passphrases. So set your key to have no passphrase, then run this * program, then set it back. * * The program outputs the signature in the form of a list of big numbers, * base64 encoded. There will be as many numbers as there were keys in * the public key file. So signatures are quite large in this scheme, * proportional to the number of keys in the group that the signature * comes from. They are also proportional to the largest key in the * group, so all else being equal try not to include really big keys if * you care about size. * * The signature is not appended to the text being signed, it is just * output separately. The signer can combine them manually with some kind * of cut marks so that the recipient can separate out the signature from * the file being signed. Some perl scripts that do this are supposed * to be distributed with the program. (That is what is used to verify * the signature in this file itself.) * * The recipient must use the same PGP public key file that the signer * used. So that may have to be sent along as well. He runs the program * with the PGP file and the file to be verified, and sends the signature * data into stdin (using the "<" character). The program will print * whether the signature is good or not. * * This program was written in just a couple of evenings so it is * a little rough. This is version 0.9 or so - at least it works. * It has only been tested on my Linux system. * * The program is released into the public domain. See the end for * authorship information. */ #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include "openssl/bn.h" #include "openssl/rsa.h" #include "openssl/sha.h" #include "openssl/evp.h" /* Cipher block size; we use Blowfish */ #define CIPHERBLOCK 8 typedef unsigned char uchar; enum { ERR_OK = 0, ERR_BADPKT=-100, ERR_EOF, ERR_SECNOTFOUND, ERR_BADSIG, }; /************************** PGP FILE PARSING ***************************/ /* Read the N and E values from a PGP public key packet */ int rdpgppub( BIGNUM *n, BIGNUM *e, unsigned *bytesused, uchar *buf, unsigned len ) { int nbits, nlen, ebits, elen; unsigned o=2; if (len < 10) return ERR_BADPKT; if (buf[0] == 4) /* Check version 4, 3, or 2 */ o = 0; else if (buf[0] != 2 && buf[0] != 3) /* V2&3 have 2 extra bytes */ return ERR_BADPKT; if (buf[5+o] != 1) /* Check alg - 1 is RSA */ return ERR_BADPKT; nbits = (buf[6+o] << 8) | buf[7+o]; /* Read modulus */ nlen = (nbits + 7)/8; if (len < 10+o+nlen) return ERR_BADPKT; BN_bin2bn(buf+o+8, nlen, n); ebits = (buf[8+o+nlen] << 8) | buf[9+o+nlen]; /* Read exponent */ elen = (ebits + 7)/8; if (len < 10+o+nlen+elen) return ERR_BADPKT; BN_bin2bn(buf+10+o+nlen, elen, e); if (bytesused) *bytesused = 10+o+nlen+elen; return ERR_OK; } /* Read the N, E, D values from a PGP secret key packet with no passphrase */ int rdpgpsec( BIGNUM *n, BIGNUM *e, BIGNUM *d, uchar *buf, unsigned len ) { int err; int nbits, nlen, ebits, elen, dbits, dlen; unsigned o; if ((err = rdpgppub(n, e, &o, buf, len)) < 0) return err; if (len < o+3) return ERR_BADPKT; if (buf[o] != 0) /* Check that packet is unencrypted */ return ERR_BADPKT; dbits = (buf[o+1] << 8) | buf[o+2]; /* Read private exponent */ dlen = (dbits + 7)/8; if (len < o+3+dlen) return ERR_BADPKT; BN_bin2bn(buf+o+3, dlen, d); return ERR_OK; } /* Read the next PGP packet into malloc'd memory */ int getpgppkt( uchar **pbuf, unsigned *plen, int *type, FILE *f ) { int c, c1; uchar *buf; unsigned len; int llen; uchar lbuf[4]; c = fgetc(f); if (c == EOF) return ERR_EOF; if ((c & 0xc0) == 0x80) { /* Old PGP packet */ *type = (c >> 2) & 0xf; llen = c & 0x3; if (llen++==3) return ERR_BADPKT; rdllen: if (llen==3) llen=4; memset (lbuf, 0, 4); if (fread(lbuf+4-llen, 1, llen, f) != llen) return ERR_BADPKT; len = (lbuf[0]<<24) | (lbuf[1]<<16) | (lbuf[2]<<8) | lbuf[3]; } else if ((c & 0xc0) == 0xc0) { /* New PGP packet */ *type = c & 0x3f; c = fgetc(f); if (c == EOF) return ERR_BADPKT; if (c == 0xff) { llen = 4; goto rdllen; } if (c >= 0xe0) return ERR_BADPKT; if (c >= 0xc0) { /* Two byte length */ c1 = fgetc(f); if (c1 == EOF) return ERR_BADPKT; len = (c<<8) + c1 - 0xc000 + 0xc0; } else { /* One byte length */ len = c; } } else { /* Non PGP packet */ return ERR_BADPKT; } buf = malloc(len); if (buf==NULL) return ERR_BADPKT; if (fread(buf, 1, len, f) != len) return ERR_BADPKT; *pbuf = buf; *plen = len; return ERR_OK; } /* Read a PGP key ring and create arrays of all the n, e values */ int rdpgppubring(BIGNUM ***n_arr_ptr, BIGNUM ***e_arr_ptr, int *nkeys_ptr, FILE *f) { int err = ERR_OK; uchar *buf; unsigned len; int type; int nkeys = 0; BIGNUM **n_arr = NULL; BIGNUM **e_arr = NULL; BIGNUM *n, *e; n_arr = malloc(sizeof(BIGNUM *)); e_arr = malloc(sizeof(BIGNUM *)); while (err == ERR_OK) { err = getpgppkt (&buf, &len, &type, f); if (err != ERR_OK) break; if (type == 6) /* public key packet */ { n = BN_new(); e = BN_new(); err = rdpgppub(n, e, NULL, buf, len); if (err != ERR_OK) break; ++nkeys; n_arr = realloc(n_arr, sizeof(BIGNUM *) * nkeys); e_arr = realloc(e_arr, sizeof(BIGNUM *) * nkeys); n_arr[nkeys-1] = n; e_arr[nkeys-1] = e; } free (buf); } if (err != ERR_EOF) return err; err = ERR_OK; *n_arr_ptr = n_arr; *e_arr_ptr = e_arr; *nkeys_ptr = nkeys; return err; } /* Read a PGP secret key file and find the corresponding value in the * array of public key values. Return the d value and the index in the * public key array. */ int rdpgpsecring(BIGNUM *d, int *secindex, BIGNUM **n_arr, BIGNUM **e_arr, int nkeys, FILE *f) { int err = ERR_OK; BIGNUM *n, *e; uchar *buf; unsigned len; int i; int type; err = getpgppkt (&buf, &len, &type, f); if (err != ERR_OK) return err; if (type != 5) /* Secret key packet */ return ERR_BADPKT; n = BN_new(); e = BN_new(); err = rdpgpsec(n, e, d, buf, len); if (err != ERR_OK) return err; for (i=0; i<nkeys; i++) /* Find corresponding public key */ { if (BN_cmp (n, n_arr[i]) == 0 && BN_cmp (e, e_arr[i]) == 0) break; } if (i == nkeys) return ERR_SECNOTFOUND; *secindex = i; return ERR_OK; } /************************** UTILITY FUNCTIONS ***************************/ /* Sort the n and e arrays by increasing n */ int sortkeys (BIGNUM **n, BIGNUM **e, int nkeys) { int i, j; BIGNUM *t; /* Do a bubble sort as the number of keys is not usually very large */ for (i=0; i<nkeys-1; i++) { for (j=i+1; j<nkeys; j++) { if (BN_cmp( n[i], n[j] ) > 0) { t = n[i]; n[i] = n[j]; n[j] = t; t = e[i]; e[i] = e[j]; e[j] = t; } } } return ERR_OK; } /* Hash the file. Should have opened it in ASCII mode so that we have * standard Unix line endings (newlines only). */ int hashfile( uchar md[5], FILE *f ) { char buf[1024]; SHA_CTX sha; SHA_Init(&sha); for ( ; ; ) { if (fgets (buf, sizeof(buf), f) == NULL) break; SHA_Update(&sha, buf, strlen(buf)); } SHA_Final (md, &sha); return ERR_OK; } /* Do an RSA enc/dec, where the input/output value may be larger * than n. In fact, val should be much larger than n or this may fail * to keep val within the desired range. * To decrypt pass d in place of e. */ int rsaencdec( BIGNUM *rslt, BIGNUM *val, BIGNUM *n, BIGNUM *e, BN_CTX *ctx ) { BIGNUM *rem = BN_new(); BIGNUM *newrem = BN_new(); BN_div (NULL, rem, val, n, ctx); BN_mod_exp (newrem, rem, e, n, ctx); BN_sub (rslt, val, rem); BN_add (rslt, rslt, newrem); BN_free (rem); BN_free (newrem); } /************************** SIG CREATE/VERIFY ***************************/ /* Verify a signature. sigs holds the per-key signature values, * hashval is the hash of the data which was signed, valbytes is the * length of the values we work with, several bytes longer than the longest * modulus, and n_arr and e_arr are the RSA public key values, of whic * there are nkeys of them. (There are also nkeys of sigs.) */ int checksig( BIGNUM **sigs, uchar *hashval, int hashvalbytes, int valbytes, BIGNUM **n_arr, BIGNUM **e_arr, int nkeys, BN_CTX *ctx ) { BIGNUM *val = BN_new(); uchar ivec[CIPHERBLOCK]; BF_KEY bf; uchar *sigbuf; uchar *xorbuf; int vallen; int i, j; /* Key cipher with the hash value */ BF_set_key (&bf, hashvalbytes, hashval); /* Init xorbuf to 0's */ xorbuf = malloc(valbytes); memset (xorbuf, 0, valbytes); sigbuf = malloc(valbytes); for (i=0; i<nkeys; i++) { rsaencdec (val, sigs[i], n_arr[i], e_arr[i], ctx); vallen = BN_num_bytes(val); if (vallen > valbytes) { fprintf (stderr, "Bad signature created by signer\n"); exit (3); } /* XOR into buffer */ memset (sigbuf, 0, valbytes); BN_bn2bin (val, sigbuf+valbytes-vallen); for (j=0; j<valbytes; j++) xorbuf[j] ^= sigbuf[j]; memset (ivec, 0, sizeof(ivec)); BF_cbc_encrypt (xorbuf, xorbuf, valbytes, &bf, ivec, BF_ENCRYPT); } BN_free (val); /* xorbuf should be all 0's for the sig to verify */ for (j=0; j<valbytes; j++) if (xorbuf[j] != 0) break; free (xorbuf); free (sigbuf); if (j < valbytes) return ERR_BADSIG; return ERR_OK; } /* Create a signature. psigarray is the returned array of bignums, * of which there are nkeys. hashval is the hash of the data being * signed. d is the RSA private key value for the key at position * secindex. valbytes is the size of the values we are working with, * several bytes greater than the length of the longest modulus. * And n_arr and e_arr are the RSA public key values, of which there * are nkeys. */ int createsig( BIGNUM ***psigarray, uchar *hashval, int hashvalbytes, BIGNUM *d, int secindex, int valbytes, BIGNUM **n_arr, BIGNUM **e_arr, int nkeys, BN_CTX *ctx ) { BIGNUM *val = BN_new(); BIGNUM *bigval = BN_new(); BIGNUM **sigs; BF_KEY bf; uchar ivec[CIPHERBLOCK]; uchar *sigbuf; uchar *lxorbuf; uchar *rxorbuf; int vallen; int i, j; /* Key cipher with the hash value */ BF_set_key (&bf, hashvalbytes, hashval); BN_lshift (bigval, BN_value_one(), valbytes*8); /* Init two xorbufs we will make meet in the middle */ rxorbuf = malloc(valbytes); memset (rxorbuf, 0, valbytes); lxorbuf = malloc(valbytes); memset (lxorbuf, 0, valbytes); memset (ivec, 0, sizeof(ivec)); /* Start the MITM process on the left xorbuf */ BF_cbc_encrypt (lxorbuf, lxorbuf, valbytes, &bf, ivec, BF_DECRYPT); sigbuf = malloc(valbytes); sigs = (BIGNUM **)malloc(nkeys * sizeof(BIGNUM *)); for (i=0; i<secindex; i++) { /* For other keys do a fake value */ sigs[i] = BN_new(); BN_rand_range (sigs[i], bigval); rsaencdec (val, sigs[i], n_arr[i], e_arr[i], ctx); /* Infinitisimal chance that vallen > valbytes with random val */ vallen = BN_num_bytes(val); /* XOR into right xor buf and encrypt */ memset (sigbuf, 0, valbytes); BN_bn2bin (val, sigbuf+valbytes-vallen); for (j=0; j<valbytes; j++) rxorbuf[j] ^= sigbuf[j]; memset (ivec, 0, sizeof(ivec)); BF_cbc_encrypt (rxorbuf, rxorbuf, valbytes, &bf, ivec, BF_ENCRYPT); } for (i=nkeys-1; i>secindex; i--) { /* For other keys do a fake value */ sigs[i] = BN_new(); BN_rand_range (sigs[i], bigval); rsaencdec (val, sigs[i], n_arr[i], e_arr[i], ctx); /* Infinitisimal chance that vallen > valbytes with random val */ vallen = BN_num_bytes(val); /* XOR into left xor buf and decrypt */ memset (sigbuf, 0, valbytes); BN_bn2bin (val, sigbuf+valbytes-vallen); for (j=0; j<valbytes; j++) lxorbuf[j] ^= sigbuf[j]; memset (ivec, 0, sizeof(ivec)); BF_cbc_encrypt (lxorbuf, lxorbuf, valbytes, &bf, ivec, BF_DECRYPT); } /* XOR the two buffers to get the value we must RSA sign */ for (j=0; j<valbytes; j++) lxorbuf[j] ^= rxorbuf[j]; /* Get val as the value we need to do the RSA signature to */ sigs[secindex] = BN_new(); BN_bin2bn (lxorbuf, valbytes, val); rsaencdec (sigs[secindex], val, n_arr[secindex], d, ctx); BN_free (val); BN_free (bigval); free (sigbuf); free (lxorbuf); free (rxorbuf); *psigarray = sigs; return ERR_OK; } /*************************** USER INTERFACE ****************************/ static char *prog; void userr() { fprintf (stderr, "Usage:\n" "To sign (signature data to stdout):\n" " %s -s textfile pubkeyfile seckeyfile\n" "To verify a signature (signature data from stdin):\n" " %s -v textfile pubkeyfile\n", prog, prog); exit (1); } int main (int ac, char **av) { FILE *fpub, *fsec, *fdata; BN_CTX *ctx; BIGNUM *d; BIGNUM **n_arr; BIGNUM **e_arr; BIGNUM **sigarray; uchar md[SHA_DIGEST_LENGTH]; int secindex; int valbytes; int nkeys; int i; int dosign; int err; ctx = BN_CTX_new(); d = BN_new(); prog = av[0]; if (ac < 2) userr(); if (strcmp( av[1], "-s" ) == 0) dosign = 1; else if (strcmp( av[1], "-v" ) == 0) dosign = 0; else userr(); if (ac < (dosign ? 5 : 4) ) userr(); fdata = fopen (av[2], "r"); /* text mode */ if (fdata==NULL) userr(); fpub = fopen (av[3], "rb"); if (fpub==NULL) userr(); if (dosign) { fsec = fopen (av[4], "rb"); if (fsec==NULL) userr(); } err = rdpgppubring(&n_arr, &e_arr, &nkeys, fpub); if (err != ERR_OK) goto error; fclose (fpub); sortkeys (n_arr, e_arr, nkeys); if (dosign) { err = rdpgpsecring(d, &secindex, n_arr, e_arr, nkeys, fsec); if (err != ERR_OK) goto error; fclose (fsec); } /* For our values we use 2^128 times the largest n; mult of CIPHERBLOCK */ valbytes = BN_num_bytes (n_arr[nkeys-1]) + 16; valbytes = ((valbytes+CIPHERBLOCK-1)/CIPHERBLOCK)*CIPHERBLOCK; /* Hash the file to sign/verify */ err = hashfile (md, fdata); if (dosign) { BIO *bio, *b64; uchar *sigbuf; err = createsig (&sigarray, md, sizeof(md), d, secindex, valbytes, n_arr, e_arr, nkeys, ctx); if (err != ERR_OK) goto error; b64 = BIO_new(BIO_f_base64()); bio = BIO_new_fp(stdout, BIO_NOCLOSE); bio = BIO_push(b64, bio); sigbuf = (uchar *)malloc(valbytes); for (i=0; i<nkeys; i++) { memset (sigbuf, 0, valbytes); BN_bn2bin(sigarray[i], sigbuf+valbytes-BN_num_bytes(sigarray[i])); BIO_write(bio, sigbuf, valbytes); } BIO_flush(bio); BIO_free_all(bio); free (sigbuf); } else { /* Read sig data from stdin */ BIO *bio, *b64; uchar *sigbuf; int inlen; b64 = BIO_new(BIO_f_base64()); bio = BIO_new_fp(stdin, BIO_NOCLOSE); bio = BIO_push(b64, bio); sigarray = (BIGNUM **)malloc(nkeys * sizeof(BIGNUM *)); sigbuf = (uchar *)malloc(valbytes); for (i=0; i<nkeys; i++) { if ((inlen = BIO_read(bio, sigbuf, valbytes)) < valbytes) userr(); sigarray[i] = BN_bin2bn (sigbuf, valbytes, NULL); } free (sigbuf); BIO_free_all(bio); err = checksig (sigarray, md, sizeof(md), valbytes, n_arr, e_arr, nkeys, ctx); if (err == ERR_OK) { printf ("Good signature\n"); } else if (err = ERR_BADSIG) { printf ("ERROR: Bad signature\n"); exit (2); } else { goto error; } } error: if (err != ERR_OK) { fprintf (stderr, "Error %d\n", err); exit (1); } exit (0); } /* Signature block! Who wrote this program? Someone from the keys below. -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAisbwocAAAED/jitkUnDwPdZk1Rdr0YNT7h7OHd9zbJbTZEQgdEs5LxQ1h4t S+fCbgM6zxfMvCWqWPendS3ikEStq1PMGQKtt0b0/4BafB6dO1ljSBp+UWkw86FL BmCcQkED0CmQOFAEy2p2SURvdO4tExerfUgf+oYQg99v03mvYlVkk3dax7hlAAUR tBBsb2tpQG9ic2N1cmEuY29ttChMYW5jZSBNLiBDb3R0cmVsbCA8bG9raUBuYXRl bHkudWNzZC5lZHU+tDhMYW5jZSBNLiBDb3R0cmVsbCAoYXQgaG9tZSkgPGxjb3R0 cmVsbEBwb3BtYWlsLnVjc2QuZWR1PpkAjQMxav4LAAABBADJkZ8ZP83waDvuf/Lx 4UB7KFSkm9IKKht2FpW5ztHG22EmCuarCYhSB+R7dzIAN4Wx9UcdS3x724ozuoNm bQboiSsSKO41efGcn5zbzFKlLU+Im5utXJ1QtYlbjx6PjnfZiajVAIpgwiekwP7I PxL6V0i4jYlln3dGUYkxK0j29QAFEbQjSWFuIEdvbGRiZXJnIDxpYW5nQGNzLmJl cmtlbGV5LmVkdT60IUlhbiBHb2xkYmVyZyA8aWFuQGN5cGhlcnB1bmtzLmNhPrQk SWFuIEdvbGRiZXJnIDxpYW5AemVyb2tub3dsZWRnZS5jb20+mQCNAi0xHTIAAAEE AKeIU9S010e1AxYy2R379ptHunqM0kRMgWnOwfCnVets8jThr7B87pzFNVj6kBs8 F9TKQdk62JR5Kiq2rVODFSLmN2JThnhfDu/tAYAz8fJsWkxGn5IhcjxkQpfb2LDs 4EBJgWhI9HxIfCvhSkFdrFe9JBfm0KKB5sGoFIWXVYodAAUTtCFQcjBkdWN0IEN5 cGhlciA8YWx0LnNlY3VyaXR5LnBncD6ZAI0CL7SNAQAAAQQAruhfQV42dxod9rW/ 5XtIxS+ICbyoHyitYbTO+Nrhm1KsdWD88zCmlSHji3kRED2WW1EF0e7fT5hKHxrV 1i3Vc4PzeeSfOP2uG2kUA+rLLCUtWE1Vjc9UvIxtQvDbtoQAZz5K0WqsOhRDT6P1 BT9gf8jJU32sFonKGwgMRScZrzUABRG0KEJlbiBMYXVyaWUgPGJlbkBnb256by5i ZW4uYWxncm91cC5jby51az60HEJlbiBMYXVyaWUgPGJlbkBjcnlwdGl4Lm9yZz60 HkJlbiBMYXVyaWUgPGJlbkBhbGdyb3VwLmNvLnVrPpkAjQIqrDZMAAABBADCljOd puRFotKHCuLtXAtjz8h0+rWr5PTwt0weVwWA3oH93bJXUaZ4yY9a/mjtPBRTvkCx CPcLQar39Tzz+Yi1+7A9riFZSR9eDD7clbY5vWSm/CTLQlu+NOOQYLRwQvckN1e7 1zVeYzOnRNqHJx+ACP6QRaxiyTyoEwOvWCFMNwAFEbQmSGFsIEZpbm5leSA8NzQw NzYuMTA0MUBjb21wdXNlcnZlLmNvbT6ZAI0DMxu7SwAAAQQApJs0Xcl4sIUngK32 4f1sQ9H7GGctVkjxynj5b3or0rhiI2u/OowQCj7VwnCdoM/Itqz6HUiVRO8D+eHz XQRpAXKoeEgxzMN45iNvgneU0/VsN49bCDCM7JPHau2cMm4xWhQUA6s59CxhR+Y2 cMWxLpwcXDJ//+YoNZtIfcgAK9EABRG0HkVyaWMgWW91bmcgPGVheUBjcnlwdHNv ZnQuY29tPpkAjQIty/OuAAABBACkXvI/UFKi+Dw0ErJYkykNMk5HSy/ARQZu3NN0 QvTpeTz/So/0bZ7HcRTE7Vu8JDME6WNYxdtx0fseeC6zqYvIoOhxJol1VVrjQckY 0jIM/I765zDNP7SDgjwIDTMYgDVFqq3rTxFgmRPbC28pZCa6zneeGSslwU8Pw+wC +7uKsQAFEbQhQ29saW4gUGx1bWIgPGNvbGluQG55eC5jcy5kdS5lZHU+ =/CJG -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ++multisig v1.0 pEsBwalpBRxWyJR8tkYm6qR27UW9IT6Vg8SlOHIsEkk04RJvoSy0cy4ISFCq6vDX 5ub6c+MYi/UoyR6tI7oqpMu1abcXWm2DkfDiCsD6jQddVkiiYdG7Bih8JWdWmp5l AgzqUoz14671/ezmWSrPNsTNKV96+ZLEanZsqfkpQcnZpLkWVpJzQFe0VgDQ64b2 +e2efrbknLFq0FTdX7Sh3qzAfzNYYgADmeOxDoTm9sb6T0fULf1P7mjiN2LZXuEW m/8QvksaQi9KGa/0xN2m0heNtS1cfsTa+NJz8XYyG/tnMy7+mvI3c3lrnz+6Dpyp pbNwaX+12VcqtfNec9faoq8RJgFxmSO/ZfMOGM8cFBQ75ZOaoBJP5ObHZ/63FFh5 Wh5GzwJjQs0vLwpM3iF6G+IixEqAQYisUdCopP1wXCLgltDM6l7jRlXxNDj0AXQ1 eQJolo32vemcy8Z8GAn5tpQHmJwpdzZpboWRQY53pD4mVnEMN4GBC1mhbbI2z+Oh lPglqmmy3p4D+psNU1rlNv6yH/L0PgcuW7taVpbopjl4HLuJdWcKHJlXish3D/jb eoQ856fYFZ/omGiO9x1D0BsnGFLZVWob4OIZRzO/Pc49VIhFy5NsV2zuozStId89 [...] */

5 6

Police Insanity sparks riot in Nth Minn.
by Matthew X 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

MPD Bullet Hits Black Flesh Again in North Minneapolis by Christopher Loch contempla(a)riseup.net Minneapolis Police staged an apparent drug raid executing a "high risk warrant" in North Minneapolis Thursday night. Allegedly a pitbull attacked a police officer after they initiated the raid. The officer then fired at the dog killing it. A richochet off the ground from the police fire wounded an 11 year old boy. Then a large number of neighborhood residents angered that yet another African American had been shot by the MPD in a short period of time hit the streets. They confronted the police and the mainstream media present. The police pulled out of the neighborhood after a large number of people hit the streets, allegedly throwing bottles and chunks of concrete. Channel 29 Fox News reported that a few reporters were sent to the hospital after being beaten by a crowd, and that damage had been done to media vehicles, including one vehicle that was burned. As to why the mainstream media would have been targeted, one might speculate that their often blatantly biased reporting in favor of the police--frequently omitting information that would lead the public to question the police's actions--has led to frustration. Apparently such frustration blew up tonight. The mainstream media coverage also included an interview with one of the white reporters who was apparently trapped in his vehicle by a crowd, but was not injured. The reporter described fearing for his life. The anchor went on to repeat that the reporter feared for his life several times during the coverage. The coverage did not venture to say if the people inside the house that the police raided (no doubt with guns drawn and with masks on) feared for their lives, or if the boy who was shot feared for his life. Indeed, coverage of the situation on Fox News went out of its way to be the PR arm of the MPD, assuming that the police were justified in all of their actions. Police spokespeople were interviewed. The coverage also showed men and women from the community in the streets shouting, but it did not offer them the opportunity to be heard. Nor did it interview any community spokespeople who might have expressed the feelings of the community. Instead it preferred to juxtapose "reasonable white folks" (this phrase was not stated, but it was definitely implied) with "rioting" African Americans. On Fox News and on CBS affiliate WCCO's website channel4000 the wound inflicted on the 11 year old boy was referred to as "not life threatening". They also mentioned that the boy was expected to make a "good recovery". At the same time, they acted very differently expressing great concern when describing the reporters' injuries--which were also not life threatening. ================================== Michelle Gross account I was on the scene last night/this morning until about 1:00 a.m. and wrote the report below as soon as I got home. This is the third shooting of a Black person in Minneapolis in as many weeks (Martha Donald, Terrell Oliver, and now this youth). We talked to many folks last night, including a number of witnesses to the incident. People were/are righteously angry. Some folks were throwing chunks of concrete at passing cars (I've got three new dings on my car as souveniers) to prove it. People are just worn out of the endless daily harassment by police, who drive by and shout racist comments at them, flip them off, etc. as well as the cop's blatant disregard of the lives of Black folks. One woman told us that her 14-year-old son had just got beaten up yesterday by police for no real reason and when she called to complain to the precinct captain, he hung up on her. Last night, she was in her yard, not far from the shooting, when cops taunted her from the street. She started telling them off when one of them told her she can't talk to them that way. She cited her First Amendment rights and they told her that people like her don't have First Amendment rights. There were many other examples of cops messing with people, as they always do in one of these incidents. Clearly, they were trying to provoke a certain response from the community. One last thought before posting my report. Some folks were attacking passersby indiscriminantly. This is always a possibility in a situation like this. However, they also landed some of their best licks on folks who well deserve it, like the mainstream media. No doubt, the media is already poor-mouthing about how could people be angry at us, we just want to report the truth, etc. According to what I've read, the media is already portraying the community members as out of control, animals, etc. My feeling is that while the people didn't always pick the right targets, they certainly had the right sentiment. We need to be ready to stand with the people because there will be a backlash. I would encourage folks who want to be involved to get to our meeting on Saturday at 1:30 p.m. at 2104 Stevens Ave in Minneapolis. Now, my report from last night: Communities United Against Police Brutality URGENT UPDATE August 22/23, 2002 ********************************************** Some of us returned just a little while ago from the scene of yet another police shooting in North Minneapolis. This time, police shot a 10-year-old boy. They claimed that the dog whose leash the young man was holding came at them and when they shot the dog, a bullet ricocheted off the sidewalk and hit the boy. Luckily, the young man is still alive. We talked to a number of witnesses and their version is somewhat different from the cop's version. First of all, it was acknowledged by a number of people including the man who owned the dog, that the dog was obedience trained and a friendly dog who had never bitten anyone. Second, several people stated that the dog had been shot at least three times--once in the shoulder, once in the abdomen and once in a forepaw. Third, police claimed on the news that they came to the house to serve a warrant but folks who saw the incident said they came out of a police van with guns drawn and that as soon as the door was opened, the cops opened fire on the dog. Some folks indicated that police actually dragged the 10-year-old out of his house after the shooting (possibly to make it seem as if he was outside at the time of the shooting). After the shooting, the situation in the neighborhood became quite intense. We saw a media van that was wrecked and burned out. Cars were being pelted with rocks as they drove through the streets. Police cars were swarming the neighborhood and helicopters circled overhead. Some people felt that police had put some ringers into the crowd to provoke a fight between members of the community and the cops. We talked to many people who were sick and tired of the seemingly endless police brutality they endure on a regular basis. A number of folks were very pleased to hear about the lawsuit against police and other actions we are taking. Spike Moss arrived on the scene and told us he is meeting witnesses at a convenience store on 26th Ave N between James and Knox Aves at 11:00 a.m. to take them down to meet with the mayor. From talk among various people, this may turn into a community rally, though exact plans are unclear at this time. Our meeting Saturday is likely to be a good bit larger than usual, with many folks talking about the lawsuit. We will soon need folks to get into neighborhoods to talk about the lawsuit and find folks who want to be part of it. Stay tuned for further actions regarding this shooting tonight and the ongoing problem of police brutality. ____________________________________ Communities United Against Police Brutality 2104 Stevens Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 Hotline 612-874-STOP (7867) http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/08/23/7786142 Dozens of people shouted at police officers and broke windows in a city bus and a news van late Thursday, protesting after a 10-year-old boy was injured by a bullet that ricocheted from a police officer's gun. The officer was shooting at a pit bull dog that had been turned loose on police who were trying to serve a search warrant on a house suspected of narcotics activity. But the bullet hit concrete and ricocheted into the arm of the boy who wasn't in the line of fire, a police spokeswoman said. The boy's injury wasn't life-threatening and he was being treated at a local hospital, the spokeswoman said. The incident happened at 7:30 p.m., but tensions grew later as TV news crews arrived to cover the event. About 75 to 100 people gathered in the north Minneapolis neighborhood and shouted at police and journalists. The windows were broken out of one news van and a city bus, the police spokeswoman said. Two reporters for the Star Tribune of Minneapolis were assaulted and suffered minor injuries, an editor at the newspaper said. Officers remained on the scene late Thursday, but they hadn't been able to search the house that originally brought them to the neighborhood. Last week, dozens of people gathered in another north Minneapolis neighborhood to protest when two police officers shot a 19-year-old man who threatened them with a handgun.

1 0

Et tu Blogus?
by Matthew X 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

TaramaniaWired News: "They're already calling her the Weblog Candidate." Tara Grubb gets some more good publicity. Props to Paul Boutin, the writer, for processing a lot of complex information quickly. I think the story is a little short on the Weblog angle, actually, but I understand that Wired needed to do some remedial work for people who haven't been following the whole P2P issue (which, by the way, I will revisit in my N&R column on Sunday.)Boutin notes that the digital rights issue will follow the chairmanship of Coble's subcommittee to another district, so that running against the man may be "futile." But it's not futile, there's a bigger picture. The next chairman is going to be in the bloglight from day one. Both the entertainment industry's dollars and the weblog network will follow the issue to that representative and his/her opponents. P2P is almost certainly not going to knock off Howard Coble , but that's not the point. The weblog has moved from talk to action.Using the Internet for politics is not new, and in Tara Grubb's case the weblog network may be a meaningful but not revolutionary step in the development of Web activism. But there is something else going on that may prove more important than the Berman-Coble bill: Tara Grubb has a weblog of her own. Unmediated, instantaneous, regularly updated, one-to-many-to-one communication from a candidate for the United States House of Representatives. Others candidates will surely follow.And others will surely not. Blogs are tools, not toys, and somebody could end a political career pretty damn fast by letting out some 2 AM brainfart onto the Web. Politicians will have to be careful with their weblogs...and yet the immediacy of the medium might allow some candidates to be less concerned with looking perfect every moment. A talented weblogger in a tight race, connecting to bloggers everywhere, is going to win an election, soon http://radio.weblogs.com/0107946/2002/08/23.html#a156 JimBell in 04. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54693,00.html and http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26811.html

1 0