December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

latency
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Looks like we had a little latency of our own on the list the last couple of days. Anyone know what happened? Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAi3uZ2MAAAEEALWQtxX77SZSaFls6cVbPp+fZS4MNyKK3ZFYQo0qWyj+0tMq YgRTPRJRaCQixo63RttknogfPp514qdVMZw5iPeOXmD+RxrmTTwlbGqA7QUiG1x5 LG2Zims5zk4U6/rt8hwLh0/8E4lIb9r5d31qc8L1A9Twk/cmN8VrTvyYOzAZAAUR tClEYXZpZCBLLiBNZXJyaW1hbiA8bWVycmltYW5AbWV0cm9uZXQuY29tPokAlQIF EC3uaE3Fa078mDswGQEBbI8D/0FiwDcbfeNyDVJ+7EIWHjIxVkIGu+ArYUEllR3G SBHVZ9Vh7n8bNXeNHMnG5cZ23TLMVvweyhxFS+cDi+I7omeDNr6x65z500LxfUvL K5bSuSiBVkTp2z+/iojY/662JwKHzEEunuJ4CO8Yhxy11CdeszEX7DpXzRxLL92r EmO2 =4ZfP -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP2.6ui/RIPEM public keys/fingerprints.

1 0

Re: RemailerNet
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199408051528.LAA18523(a)cs.oberlin.edu> Jonathan Rochkind writes: > You seem to be talking about a Julf-style anon system, where the system > knows who you really are. If the system is corrupt, if Julf were an > NSA agent, then the entire system is compromised and useless. If you are using unmodified Internet hardware and TCP/IP as the underlying transport system, then your point of entry into a remailer network definitely knows which machine is originating a message and the point of exit definitely knows where it is going. If your transport system is the email system, the same holds true because email runs on top of TCP/IP. While fiddling with email headers may make you feel secure, it gives you no protection. It is a large project (say 30,000 lines of code, some of it at the kernel level) to build a remailer network which does not use SMTP and TCP/IP. >From the scale of efforts that you are talking about, I assume that you do not intend to do this. So the remailer gateways know the source and destination addresses, they know your electronic identity. This may or may not lead them to your physical identity. That can be concealed fairly easily, especially in large institutions with poor control over their network resources. But this has nothing to do with our discussion now. > I like the cypherpunks remailer concept better, where each link in the chain > only knows the next link in the chain, and security is achieved by > multiple links. If several of the links are actually NSA agents, your security > is reduced, but not compromised completely. If you've got a chain of, say > 10 links, even if 7 of them are evil NSA agents, you still can probably retain > your anonymity. Return addresses are accomplished by encrypted > "resend-to:" blocks. It seems much preferable to have a system where it > isn't neccesary to trust any one net entity completely, as it is in a > Julf-style anon-ID system. [Of course one could use a combination of both > in communications too, but I wouldn't feel safe unless my anonimity was > safe even if the Finish FBI raided Julf's site.] Promiscuity leads to infection. Each contact with a new RemailerNet gateway increases the probability of your being compromised. If you modify the proposed RemailerNet to allow reposting at gateways, you have all of the benefits of the system described above, without the risks. Reposted messages would be encrypted with the far gateway's public key. The near gateway would then have no idea of the ultimate destination of the message. In a well designed system, the far gateway would also not know the identity of the sender. > When looked at with this goal in mind, I think maybe the newsgroup as a method > of passing remailer net information makes a bit more sense. > > I don't think the possibility of the newsgroup being spoofed is actually > fatal to the system. Let's examine ways in which it could be attacked: > > 1) The Enemy could introduce completely made-up "i'm here" messages, pointing > to non-existent remailers. ... > 2) The Enemy could announce his own Evil-remailers to the net. These remailers > would in fact exist, but would do evil things designed to compromise the net... > 3) The Enemy could intercept announcement messages from good remailers, and > replace their public key with his own. ...He could then intercept all mail to this > good remailer, and read it, and forward it on, or drop it in the bitbucket. > 4) Denial of service: The enemy could intercept the announcement messages, and > keep them from getting to the newsgroup. ... > 5) The enemy could intercept announcement messages from good remailers, and > replace both the public key and address with his own. This is really just a > combination of several of the previous attacks, nothing new. In the early to mid 1950s the FBI set out to penetrate Communist Party USA cells. At some point, when the fear of the Red Menace began to recede, people began to talk. The communists said, "you could always tell who were the FBI agents. They were the ones who paid their dues." The FBI was actually providing most of the funds for CPUSA. If anyone cared enough, what they would do is (a) put up enough remailers so that they were, say, a steady 80% of those announcing in the alt.x group; (b) provide a good, reliable service nearly all of the time; and (c) drive the other 20% out of business with a steady disinformation campaign (rumors, complaints, etc) and other more aggressive tactics. The FBI types running (a) and (b) would be well funded and they would be the sort of steady, unimaginative people who run small businesses well. The CIA field agents masterminding (c) would be very well funded network freaks, some of them ex-hackers. They could operate outside the USA and pay little or no attention to US laws. Pity the poor 20% in the face of such attacks. Any traffic sent through this remailer network would have only a tiny chance of getting through without being compromised. If you picked 5 remailers, the chances of all being non-FBI would be about .2^5, 3 in 10,000. The other 9,997 messages would be copied immediately to Langley. The proposed RemailerNet could be attacked in much the same way. But if the network were widely distributed so that gateways were in different legal jurisdictions and different countries, and if most of the people involved knew one another, it would be more difficult to compromise it. -- Jim Dixon

3 2

Re: Remailer ideas
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408051709.AA14763(a)ah.com> Eric Hughes writes: > Jim Dixon analogizes between the Internet and remailer networks. The > analogy has some merit, but yet breaks down badly with the very first > point: > > * all packets should be acknowledged > > This is not the way the Internet works. There are some problems with vocabulary here and some conceptual problems. The objective is a system which is highly reliable and resistant to traffic analysis. If you have three messages in, one 10 bytes long, one 1000 bytes long, and one 1,000,000 bytes long, and you send them out to three different destinations, it does not take genius to see which is which, no matter what order they are dispatched in. But if you send them out as packets, each say 4096 bytes long, with all packets acknowledged, and the routing of the packets is random, and noise has been introduced ... traffic analysis is very difficult. TCP/IP is designed to work in an environment which is unreliable but also unhostile. The sliding window algorithm and acknowledgement at the message level is suitable for that environment. TCP/IP has been optimized for speed. [stuff omitted] > Further, in email, there's currently no notion of a connection. The internal functioning of RemailerNet is not the same as the functioning of the email system. All RemailerNet communications are reliable. Packets are acknowledged and the acknowledgement includes a hash of the packet contents, so that the packet cannot be tampered with. Acknowledgements will in general take different routes from packets. > * users should communicate with trusted gateways > > This point is only half true, because the analogy only subsumes one > kind of trust. For remailers there is both trust in delivery and > trust in silence, the destruction of the message and information about > it. 'Trust in silence' is a good term. This can be enhanced in a number of ways. If you are corresponding with someone you know, you encrypt your messages. If you are corresponding with a stranger, you encrypt your message with the public key of a far gateway; then post it to the far gateway through a near gateway. The near gateway knows who is sending, but cannot read the message and does not know the destination. The far gateway decrypts the message before delivering it, so it knows the message and the destination, but not the sender. If you are sufficiently paranoid, you put your message inside yet another envelope, mailing it through the near gateway to a far gateway, which posts it on to another gateway, which finally posts it to its destination. Remailer gateways should be spread very wide geographically if the network is to be secure. If you are very concerned about anonymity, bounce a message through gateways in, say, the USA, Finland, Russia, and Ireland. If your concerns are about your employer, say, the probability of his getting at four different gateways in four different jurisdictions simultaneously is vanishingly small. If your concerns are about governmental authorities, they are not that much higher. -- Jim Dixon

1 0

Re: Latency vs. Reordering (Was: Remailer ideas (Was: Re: Latency vs. Reordering))
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408051716.AA14773(a)ah.com> Eric Hughes writes: > Back to the start, I guess. > > > Specifically cryptographic elements are easily added to the system > > * packets can be delayed for random intervals > > Let me repeat: > > REORDERING IS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE FOR REMAILER SECURITY. > > ADDING LATENCY IS NOT. No need to shout, we heard you the first time. ;-) In a system that is carrying continuous traffic, random packet delay is functionally identical to packet reordering. If messages are fragmented, random delays on sending packets out is functionally identical to reordering. More importantly, RemailerNet as described defeats traffic analysis by more significant techniques than reordering. Reordering is a weak technique. The introduction of noise, 'MIRV'ing of messages, fragmentation of messages, random choice of packet routes, and encyphering of all traffic are stronger techniques. -- Jim Dixon -- +-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Jim Dixon<jdd(a)aiki.demon.co.uk> | Compuserve: 100114,1027 | |AIKI Parallel Systems Ltd + parallel processing hardware & software design| | voice +44 272 291 316 | fax +44 272 272 015 | +-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

4 4

Re: Remailer ideas (Was: Re: Latency vs. Reordering)
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199408061404.KAA02300(a)cs.oberlin.edu> Spencer Mullen writes: > Jim Dixon writes: > > >Commercial remailers would probably be very concerned with legal > >issues, both criminal (pornography, etc) and non-criminal (copyright > >violations). > > It would seem that remailers shouldn't be anymore accountable for > passing on illicit pornography than the postal services are today. I really do not want to try to argue the legal issues here; I am not a lawyer and claim no expertise. At a practical level, if you were running, let us say, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) and offered remailer services, you would in time attract the business of people who used your services for various unlawful purposes. You could not stop this without going through everyone's private mail. This would itself probably be illegal and certainly would lose you business. I understand that Playboy magazine spends lots of money pursuing people for copyright violations, and that criminal charges have been filed by the authorities in Tennessee or Arkansas against someone in California who sent them pornographic materials over a telephone line. The Post Office has what is called in the UK "crown immunity" against such prosecutions. So do "common carriers" in the USA. They are given special legal status. I do not know, but I believe that the telephone companies are legally common carriers. As a remailer gateway operator, you would probably have to argue things out in court, which could be very expensive. In the case of criminal charges, you would have to expect to lose your equipment for some time, and perhaps your freedom. I suspect that legally the key step would be to never store messages for any period of time. It would be prudent to erase them as soon as their receipt was verified. This would also save disk space, and it would be in line with the 'trust in silence' ethic. I would do this and then publicize the fact that I did so widely. This would discourage public prosecutors, who really don't like to do futile things. And I would incorporate the gateway and make sure it wasn't worth a great deal. This would discourage civil suits; clients get very irritated when they win the lawsuit and find that after all their legal expenses the target has filed for bankruptcy. -- Jim Dixon

1 0

Remailer listings/strategy
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This may have been hashed out in a previous incarnation, but on the subject of remailers and their availability, why not just have each one broadcast a message of it's availability periodically (hourly? every 4 hours?) on, say, the Cypherpunks mailing list. Then, each remailer could also listen in, read in who's up, and if it doesn't hear from a remailer within some period of time (or some number of scheduled broadcasts), assume that it's down until it hears from that system again. This would also allow individuals to maintain personal listings of available remailers, as well, and automate the process of keeping track of what remailers are up/down/available. The additional traffic wouldn't seem to be _too_ much of a burden, those individuals who didn't want the broadcasts cluttering up their mailboxes could filter them out, and doesn't require massive effort or changes to implement (ie, new newsgroups, etc). What blazingly obvious thing am I missing here, or does it make too much sense to work? :-) Dave Merriman Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP2.6ui/RIPEM public keys/fingerprints.

2 1

Re: A Different EFF on DigiTel Bill
by mnemonic＠eff.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199408291422.KAA10836(a)pipe3.pipeline.com.778170390>, John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> wrote: >(If anyone cares, Mike posts zingers and unhealthy thoughts >like c'punks' regularly on list Cyberia-L.) Somebody's got to give those law professors some grief. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (202) 347-5400 |"And walk among long dappled grass, mnemonic(a)eff.org | And pluck till time and times are done Electronic Frontier | The silver apples of the moon, Foundation | The golden apples of the sun."

1 0

RE: (none)
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jeff Gostin <detailed explanation of 'who cypherpunks' are> So, that's "who cypherpunks". :-) ......................................................................... I really meant to ask 'where cypherpunks'. It had been a whole day & more without the hordes messages and my day seemed empty, without code or purpose, lacking controversy & jibber jabber. Blanc

3 2

Re: RemailerNet
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199408061739.NAA05213(a)bwh.harvard.edu> Adam Shostack writes: > | If you are using unmodified Internet hardware and TCP/IP as the underlying > | transport system, then your point of entry into a remailer network > | definitely knows which machine is originating a message and the point > | of exit definitely knows where it is going. > > IP is not reliable & trustworthy. It it was, RFC931 ident > servers would be useful. ;) Theres source routing to make packets > appear to come from someplace else, and there is outright forgery, > which has limits, but can work quite well. My "if you are using unmodified ..." clause shows that I understand this. You can send from a very large network and forge your TCP/IP or (more difficult) Ethernet source address. But I can sit on the same network, build a table relating TCP/IP to ethernet (or whatever) addresses, and filter out messages that should not be there. There are commerical packages that do this sort of thing. Basically, this is a different topic. One problem is designing a generic software package and set of protocols that will allow you to route mail anonymously. This is a general problem. The hacking of specific networks is a different, if related, problem. -- Jim Dixon

2 1

What are Appropriate Topics?
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Timothy C. May "As for pure crypto being discussed on the list, there's a fair amount of that. I've posted my share of explanations of zero knowledge proof systems, dining cryptographers protocols, complexity theory, etc. I'm not saying this to defend myself, per se, but to note that these topics produced almost no discussion, almost no interest. Make of this what you will." I would say some reasons for the silence are that: . those who have read your comments have not thought extremely much about these themselves, so are not ready to add anything at the time. . your treatment of the subject matter was thorough enough that others don't feel the need to add further to your points. . you presented some deep thoughts that require time to digest & process. . the ideas you have about future events may have no present means to carry them out, good as they may be, and the way from point A to point B is not yet possible to achieve, as no practical method or system could yet be constructed. "* what happens to tax collection in an era of unbreakable cyphers? * how will the state react?" I would add: how will the general population react, when their security blanket is rendered ineffective? (* crypto anarchy issues from the perspective of the other side) * what's really holding back the spread of digital cash? What is the status of the work on this? I would like to keep up with its progress, if there are sources for the information. (besides The Economist) * where do we go from here? [Who's 'we', Kimosabe? :>) ] Where was anyone planning to go? There isn't anywhere else to go, physically, so it's necessary to resolve the problem of interacting in the same place at the same time with opposing methodologies. How does that work? (You aren't going to be invisible all the time, nor to everyone.) "..."Cypherpunks write code" is just one manifestation of the idea that we can actually change the world through the technological development of privacy-enhancing systems..." And privacy-enhancement isn't the *only* thing which will change the world, is it? There are other forces of cause-effect and influence which determine people's reactions to each other and to the problems of living. It lies within the broader subject of 'control': self-control, self-determination, as managed by the individual. This is where the controversy occurs - whether any or only some individuals shall be "permitted" to excercise it, and to what tolerable degree, and who shall be the "authority" that makes that decision. Much as some on the list would wish otherwise, "privacy-enhancement" goes in the direction of favoring the individual above the group, and this is difficult for some people to live with. I have seen some of Tim's ideas for future possibilities in terms of things which could come to pass or could be achieved, but I realized that I have not seen anything from him to indicate any projects which he is actually working on to bring these about. You do communicate a lot of information & ideas and do much work of explaining & clarifying fuzzy areas, which is excellent & valuable, but it still waits for others to put together the actual parts & pieces of things, if they are to be brought into actual existence as functional systems which can be employed and which can affect future conditions. "For want of a horseshoe, the war was lost." I would like to read more on what you have to say about this, as you are the pre-eminent poster on the list who likes to digress into abstract discussion. Blanc

1 0

Re: Voluntary Governments?
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Hal What does it mean to speak of a government in cyberspace? It is the government in physical space I fear. Its agents carry physical guns which shoot real bullets. ................................................................ Good point. What does it mean to speak of governance (or 'govenment') at all? Questions I would seek to have the answers to, in making decisions about government per se: . Who or what is to be governed? . What is inimical/destructive and to be regulated/prevented, or what is sacred which is to be upheld? . How will anyone come to know the difference? What difference does it really make (to anyone in the real world)? . Who is to do all the work of preventing or upholding (how do they qualify for the job)? . What is to be done about non-conformists to the rules (without contradicting the rules?) . When did you realize that you were an absolute authority on the subject? Blanc

6 9

RE: A Helpful Tip for Impatient Souls
by Anonymous User 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tommy the Tourist <nobody(a)CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> (Anon User) wrote: Welcome back, Tommy, we missed you! <g> Hope you're enjoying your new (CSUA) "home"... (Time for everyone to update their "chain.ini" file, BTW.) > Those wishing perhaps the ultimate in Cypherpunks ease-of-use > and greatest peace of mind, may find it useful to simply delete > everything that does NOT come from one of the following email > addresses: > tcmay(a)netcom.com > frissell(a)panix.com > sandfort(a)crl.com But Tommy ... if we did that, we wouldn't be able to read *YOUR* posts, either. Perhaps anyone who had a fetish for "ease-of-use", or was troubled by even seeing "cryptographically INcorrect" ideas (the analog of "politically correct") would tire of Cypherpunks altogether and just read the party line from Sternlight and Co. (tm). <g> The other problem is that if some brave, anonymous soul wanted to, let's say, "leak" the Clipper algorithm to the net, he'd have to forge e-mail from one of the "approved sources" above to gain an audience. However, despite your anonymity, Tommy, don't I see your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek? I sure hope so... I find the posts from the "approved three" individuals highly informative. OTOH, if *THEY* did as you suggested, traffic would be drastically reduced because it would only consist of those three talking amongst themselves. --- Diogenes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLkOdOeRsd2rRFQ1JAQHi4AP+LuJhvQPRiB0rZvDjuhfZwG+Q95N8WpTt 4lVNjLecXHKjFE6qn6tsed3/Fh/mwQUzRzx4kUihvRxqR3MAoBp1/SREXt+Rsd30 4zsxIs+BDkCCloX7rxVptZLJYG587oaIQOL0Wn/7MiDKChm/LoXrdbRwUeLL2gIU ZvvMDBBuYpI= =Vk7F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

e$: Cypherpunks Sell Concepts
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:38 PM 8/6/94 -0700, Blanc Weber wrote: >From: Timothy C. May >* what's really holding back the spread of digital cash? > > What is the status of the work on this? I would like to keep > up with its progress, if there are sources for the information. > (besides The Economist) e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$e$ I'll bite. I think that practically the only thing holding digital cash back at this point is pure and simple hucksterism. The whole concept of e$ (shorthand for e-money, with apologies to other currencies) should be promoted more. People who Really Work for a Living in Finance should be educated about the potential impact of strong crypto on money. There was a comment from Perry a while back which hit home with me. He said: >The problem is not a need for a killer app -- there are dozens. The >obstacle is regulatory problems, and finding a large and reputable >sponsoring organization (like a big bank). Now, that makes sense to me. It would go a long way towards legitimizing e$ and strong crypto if a largish bank put up a pilot project where they were exchanging, that is, making a secondary market in, real e$; maybe even DigiCash(tm). Ethier they or someone else could actually underwrite it, because you have to have both to make the market exist. Having heard what Eric has said about potential regulatory problems, I think that most of them are inadvertant obstacles, because they certainly weren't put there to obstruct e$, which didn't exist when they were written. I think if a reasonable (i.e. not illegal) business case were put to the regulators, they would (as usual) conform to whatever business interests want. I think that in order for the above to happen, some softening up of the targets has to occur. I understand that there are people on this list who are interested in selling seminars on strong crypto to the finance community. What about doing that in the context of a conference program to a larger audience? Get some famous heavies in the business world and in cyberspace to salt the conference flyer with. A certain EFFer comes to mind, among others who may be sympathetic to e$. Invite mostly businesspeople, preferably those in finance and finance operations, but also regulatory/political types. Teach them what e$ is and how it works. In return, e$vangelists can learn what questions their potential market actually need to have answered before e$ will be real. Maybe a deal or two happens, who knows? Repeat the process every year or two, but start the first one off as a "ground school" in the fundamentals. This thing doesn't have to be affiliated with the cypherpunks list any more than the original Computer Faire was affiliated with the Homebrew Computer Club. I wrote up an agenda when I was in the throes of the idea, and it's somewhere around here (I *know* it is...). Off the top of my head, I figured there'd be a schmooze reception the evening before, a brief primer on strong crypto and e$ in the morning, a schmooze luncheon (with speaker), a "where do we go from here" panel populated with business heavies in the afternoon, and a schmooze reception (with product demos, if any) in the evening to close. Notice it's very heavy on the schmooze. I challenge you to do huckster without lots of schmooze... This is not to be a volunteer effort. People who worked on this would get paid. The conference wouldn't happen if the attendance numbers weren't there. The participants will pay somewhat serious money to attend, and they will be interested in making money with the information obtained and contacts made at the conference. I'm pretty sure I want to do this one. I'd like to do it on this coast (Boston) because the money's over here, anyway, and there's still some technology over here that hasn't been made obsolete in the Bay Area. Besides, the east coast's halfway to Amsterdam, right? (yeah, I know, so's Anchorage...) So. Does anyone have any pointers? Cheers, Robert Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

3 2

CEB1B PREMEIERE ISSUE
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp26uix.sig * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp26uix.zip MacIntosh: * _DE:_ ftp://ftp.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pub/virus/crypt/pgp/mac /MacPGP2.6ui_beta.sit.hqx * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/PGP/MacPGP2.6ui_V1.2sources.cpt.hqx Other sites to look for the above mentioned files at: ftp.informatik.uni-hamburg.de /pub/virus/crypt/pgp This site has most, if not all, of the current PGP files. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca /pub/crypto/software/dist/US_or_Canada_only_XXXXXXX/PGP (U. S. and Canadian users only) See /pub/crypto/software/README for the characters for XXXXXXXX This site has all public releases of the freeware PGP from 1.0 through 2.6 and 2.6ui. black.ox.ac.uk (129.67.1.165) /src/security/pgp26uix.zip (MS-DOS executables & docs) /src/security/pgp26uis.zip (Unix, MS-DOS, VMS, Amiga sources, docs, info on building PGP into mailers, editors, etc.) There are several other versions of PGP here, including the MIT release. ftp.csn.net /mpj/public/pgp/ contains PGP shells, faq documentation, language kits. ftp.netcom.com /pub/dcosenza -- Some crypto stuff, sometimes includes PGP. /pub/gbe/pgpfaq.asc -- frequently asked questions answered. /pub/qwerty -- How to MacPGP Guide, largest steganography ftp site as well. PGP FAQ, crypto FAQ, US Crypto Policy FAQ, Steganograpy software list. MacUtilites for use with MacPGP. Stealth1.1 + other steganography programs. Send mail to qwerty(a)netcom.com with the subject "Bomb me!" to get the PGP FAQ and MacPGP guide if you don't have ftp access. ftp.ee.und.ac.za /pub/crypto/pgp soda.berkeley.edu /pub/cypherpunks/pgp (DOS, MAC) ftp.demon.co.uk /pub/amiga/pgp /pub/archimedes /pub/pgp /pub/mac/MacPGP ftp.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ftp.funet.fi ftp.dsi.unimi.it /pub/security/crypt/PGP ftp.tu-clausthal.de (139.174.2.10) wuarchive.wustl.edu /pub/aminet/util/crypt src.doc.ic.ac.uk (Amiga) /aminet /amiga-boing ftp.informatik.tu-muenchen.de /pub/comp/os/os2/crypt/pgp23os2A.zip (OS/2) iswuarchive.wustl.edu pub/aminet/util/crypt (Amiga) nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100) /pub/crypt/pgp23A.zip /pub/crypt/pgp23srcA.zip /pub/crypt/pgp23A.tar.Z ftp.uni-kl.de (131.246.9.95) qiclab.scn.rain.com (147.28.0.97) pc.usl.edu (130.70.40.3) leif.thep.lu.se (130.235.92.55) goya.dit.upm.es (138.4.2.2) tupac-amaru.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (137.226.112.31) ftp.etsu.edu (192.43.199.20) princeton.edu (128.112.228.1) pencil.cs.missouri.edu (128.206.100.207) StealthPGP: The Amiga version can be FTP'ed from the Aminet in /pub/aminet/util/crypt/ as StealthPGP1_0.lha. Also, try an archie search for PGP using the command: archie -s pgp26 (DOS & Unix Versions) archie -s pgp2.6 (MAC Versions) ftpmail: For those individuals who do not have access to FTP, but do have access to e-mail, you can get FTP files mailed to you. For information on this service, send a message saying "Help" to ftpmail(a)decwrl.dec.com. You will be sent an instruction sheet on how to use the ftpmail service. Another e-mail service is from nic.funet.fi. Send the following mail message to mailserv(a)nic.funet.fi: ENCODER uuencode SEND pub/crypt/pgp23srcA.zip SEND pub/crypt/pgp23A.zip This will deposit the two zipfiles, as 15 batched messages, in your mailbox with about 24 hours. Save and uudecode. For the ftp sites on netcom, send mail to ftp-request(a)netcom.com containing the word HELP in the body of the message. World Wide Web URLs: (Thanks to mathew(a)mantis.co.uk) _________________________________________________________________ MACPGP 2.3 Program * _UK:_ ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/pgp/MacPGP/MacPGP2.3.cpt.hqx * _UK:_ ftp://black.ox.ac.uk/src/security/macpgp2.3.cpt.hqx * _SE:_ ftp://isy.liu.se/pub/misc/pgp/2.3A/macpgp2.3.cpt.hqx * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/macpgp2.3.cpt.hqx * _FI:_ ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/crypt/ghost.dsi.unimi.it/macpgp2.3.cpt.hqx * _US:_ ftp://soda.berkeley.edu/pub/cypherpunks/pgp/macpgp2.3.cpt.hqx.gz Source code Requires Think C. * _UK:_ ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/pgp/MacPGP/MacPGP2.2src.sea.hqx -- version 2.2 only * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/macpgp2.3src.sea.hqx.pgp * _FI:_ ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/crypt/ghost.dsi.unimi.it/macpgp2.3src.sea.h qx.pgp Documentation PGP is rather counter-intuitive to a Mac user. Luckily, there's a guide to using MacPGP in ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/qwerty/Here.is.How.to.MacPGP. _________________________________________________________________ OS/2 PGP You can, of course, run the DOS version of PGP under OS/2. * _DE:_ ftp://ftp.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pub/virus/crypt/pgp/2.6ui/pgp26ui-os2.zip * _US:_ ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/pgp26os2.zip ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/README.MPJ for the ??????? _________________________________________________________________ AMIGA PGP 2.3 * _DE:_ ftp://ftp.uni-kl.de/pub/aminet/util/crypt/PGPAmi23a_3.lha * _US:_ ftp://ftp.wustl.edu/pub/aminet/util/crypt/PGPAmi23a_3.lha Source * _DE:_ ftp://ftp.uni-kl.de/pub/aminet/util/crypt/PGPAmi23a3_src.lha * _US:_ ftp://ftp.wustl.edu/pub/aminet/util/crypt/PGPAmi23a3_src.lha _________________________________________________________________ ARCHIMEDES PGP * _UK:_ ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/archimedes/ArcPGP23a _________________________________________________________________ DOCUMENTATION ONLY * _US:_ ftp://net-dist.mit.edu/pub/PGP/pgp26doc.zip * _UK:_ ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/pgp/pgp26doc.zip * _US:_ ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/mpj/public/pgp/pgp26doc.zip * _US:_ ftp://ftp.ftp.csn.net/mpj/public/pgp/pgp26doc.zip _________________________________________________________________ LANGUAGE MODULES These are suitable for most PGP versions. I am not aware of any export/import restrictions on these files. German * _UK:_ ftp://black.ox.ac.uk/src/security/pgp_german.txt * _US:_ ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/public/pgp/pgp_german.txt * _US:_ ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/public/pgp/PGP_german_docs.lha Italian * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp-lang.italian.tar.gz * _FI:_ ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/crypt/ghost.dsi.unimi.it/PGP/pgp-lang.italian.tar.gz * _US:_ ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/public/pgp/pgp-lang.italian.tar.gz Japanese * _US:_ ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/public/pgp/pgp-msgs-japanese.tar.gz Lithuanian * _US:_ ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/public/pgp/pgp23ltk.zip Russian * _RU:_ ftp://ftp.kiae.su/unix/crypto/pgp/pgp26ru.zip (MIT version) * _RU:_ ftp://ftp.kiae.su/unix/crypto/pgp/pgp26uir.zip (ui version) * _US:_ ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/public/pgp/pgp26ru.zip Spanish * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp-lang.spanish.tar.gz * _FI:_ ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/crypt/ghost.dsi.unimi.it/pgp-lang.spanish.tar.gz * _US:_ ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/public/pgp/pgp-lang.spanish.tar.gz Swedish * _UK:_ ftp://black.ox.ac.uk/src/security/pgp_swedish.txt * _US:_ ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/public/pgp/pgp_swedish.txt _________________________________________________________________ OTHER SITES Some cryptographic software is available from ftp://van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca/pub/crypto/software/. Read the README file and proceed from there. BBS sites: Colorado Catacombs BBS (See also the entry above for PGP 2.6) (303) 772-1062 Longmont, Colorado (2 lines) (303) 938-9654 Boulder, Colorado (free call from Denver CO, but 1 line) For free access: log in with your own name, answer the questions, then select [Q]uestionaire 3 from the [M]ain menu. Verified: This morning. Hieroglyphics Voodoo Machine (Colorado) Jim Still (aka Johannes Keppler), sysop. DOS, OS2, and Mac versions. (303) 443-2457 Verified: 5-2-94 For free access for PGP, DLOCK, Secure Drive, etc., log in as "VOO DOO" with the password "NEW" (good for 30 minutes access to free files). Exec-Net (New York) Host BBS for the ILink net. (914) 667-4567 The Ferret BBS (North Little Rock, Arkansas) (501) 791-0124 also (501) 791-0125 Special PGP users account: login name: PGP USER password: PGP This information from: Jim Wenzel <jim.wenzel(a)grapevine.lrk.ar.us> If you find a version of the PGP package on a BBS or FTP site and it does not include the PGP User's Guide, something is wrong. The manual should always be included in the package. If it isn't, the package is suspect and should not be used or distributed. The site you found it on should remove it so that it does no further harm to others. ARCHIE WHO? There are many more sites. You can use archie and/or other "net-surfing" tools to find a more up-to-date listing, if desired. - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.7 mQCNAi4PT2QAAAEEAPPCZnrshEJ9PSnV+mXEwjM4kzJF0kyg2MnLMzo83vWI40ei jogncqdkXT0c2TQWg+Bsu9ckFoXdId0utumYv0aqd8yI/oU/DwJ1zJrqRL2PFbxe ZLofHoKFjvq1TiNiJq9ps3jW6iYS4IU1SzyKhjmyE+K0+WyrPPX0zg8FAL9FAAUR tCdNaWNoYWVsIFBhdWwgSm9obnNvbiA8bXBqQGNzbi5vcmc+IG1wajiJAJUCBRAu G3chZXmEuMepZt0BAZtAA/0Rw5mintlUDgHycNbeoyIiMHoLu8jWaCSaiGSt+dDU 1A/bUCo+gorv5TYxOClRf3XHjD6zSooWyUz3ehotrzPYLunhVOE2YBxPU+OvKFOc 37mcZrnXGBlF5NblnSYxp0186tGaTm7WMWx7NDlHT4GvhzHJQSOoo48ykDkKm/mk LIkAlQIFEC4PWbs/ZwY8hTPrxQEBKyMD/A7kv91C1ZZIRtkbC9k9lsWOgOnO8wG8 bGMajaco465Z5llWD+Y8QCMdSWcowtOBGfW0Wv1bZ1uebeCpg1L66pJ7C+BOExrk gPqRVCstLLiVerKGeSOZo3yXtxYKYX7mHQPrHp98ef7fUG4IiKS+S+znmGxpJwrV sHZRlhJ3hXUsiQCVAgUQLg9ZefX0zg8FAL9FAQFBTAQAh4u4Vun7WhPuL6fsXiXm paaGfeLtd3biRj/aOMAG1eHuhVdWejx71ormyKTdNB2YV56bpsE3JQ/KhBuYDo0N SkRnqeM2S+Ef7aZEg6Q44uXG52pqCZUldtCeYfOs3aLCR9SMlc6Y3zmpSwB1wKP0 5+tN9zruNYVKKBLWEIFAY7W0K01pY2hhZWwgUGF1bCBKb2huc29uIDxtLnAuam9o bnNvbkBpZWVlLm9yZz60IE1pY2hhZWwgSm9obnNvbiA8bXBqQG5ldGNvbS5jb20+ tChNaWtlIEpvaG5zb24gPDcxMzMxLjIzMzJAY29tcHVzZXJ2ZS5jb20+tCtNaWNo YWVsIFAuIEpvaG5zb24gPG1wam9obnNvQG55eC5jcy5kdS5lZHU+tC1EbyBub3Qg dXNlIGZvciBlbmNyeXB0aW9uIGFmdGVyIDI3IEp1bmUgMTk5Ni4= =rR4q - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ___________________________________________________________ |\ /| | | | | \/ |o| | Michael Paul Johnson Colorado Catacombs BBS 303-772-1062 | | | | / _ | mpj(a)csn.org aka mpj(a)netcom.com m.p.johnson(a)ieee.org | | |||/ /_\ | ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/README.MPJ CIS: 71331,2332 | | |||\ ( | ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/mpj/README.MPJ -. --- ----- ....| | ||| \ \_/ |___________________________________________________________| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.7 iQCVAgUBLkq2xfX0zg8FAL9FAQFTNgP+MRZEelkRWavsKsLKgTpZEXix++Bhk8CW s1jgJkyFEgEjS5EDPsKUOZKT+peohlfSmMO1dvO4125b+g+jg3rI/BQQOnWA65PT 8ylmelaoQSrzPhbYvPCk/a7zzOqoGnfa3x4C3ECJBRKFvofaZOgo1pzzCxwwa/wW PtYKpgCtp34= =H24Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Section 3: Michael Johnson's PGP bomb contribution. From: Michael Johnson <mpj(a)csn.org> Subject: PGP Time Bomb FAQ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- PGP TIME BOMB FAQ There has been some confusion about the annoying "Time Bomb" in MIT PGP 2.6, as well as some other PGP version compatibility issues. This is an attempt to clear up some of that confusion. WHY IS THERE A TIME BOMB IN MIT PGP 2.6? In the process of negotiating for the right to distribute a fully legal version of PGP that the patent assignees agree doesn't infring upon their patents, MIT agreed to include an inducement for people to upgrade from the alledgedly infringing freeware PGP 2.3a to the clearly legal freeware MIT PGP 2.6 or the also clearly legal Viacrypt PGP 2.7. Folks, you may not realize it, but the RSADSI/PKP concession to allow a freeware PGP in the USA is BIG TIME GOOD NEWS! To induce a small incompatibility with a downlevel version of PGP with several bugs in it is a small annoyance by comparison. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE TIME BOMB? On 1 September 1994 UT, by your system clock, MIT PGP 2.6 will start generating encrypted message and signature packets with a version byte (offset 3) of 2 instead of 3. It will accept either 2 or 3 as valid. This means that messages from PGP 2.3a and old messages from MIT PGP 2.6 can be read by MIT PGP 2.6, but new messages from MIT PGP 2.6 cannot be read by PGP 2.3a. See pgformat.doc in the MIT PGP 2.6 distribution for the location and use of these bytes. This time bomb is activated by code in pgp.c that looks like this: #define VERSION_BYTE_OLD 2 /* PGP2 */ #define VERSION_BYTE_KLUDGE 3 ... boolean legal_kludge; int version_byte = VERSION_BYTE_OLD; ... /* Turn on incompatibility as of 1 September 1994 (GMT) */ legal_kludge = (get_timestamp(NULL) >= 0x2e651980); ... if (legal_kludge) version_byte = VERSION_BYTE_KLUDGE; Although a method for disarming the time bomb is obvious to the casual C programmer, disabling this feature invalidates the RSA license to use the program, and really doesn't gain you much for reasons that will become obvious below. HOW DOES THIS TIME BOMB AFFECT COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER VERSIONS? The bottom line is that PGP 2.3a and before (as well as Viacrypt PGP 2.4) cannot read all of the latest PGP version formats, starting on 1 September 1994. Here is a summary of the version bytes generated and understood: Format generated Formats before/after understood Version 1 Sep 94 (all times) - ---------------------------- ----- ---- ----------- 2.3 2 2 2 2.3a 2 2 2 Amiga 2.3a.4 2 2 2,3 Viacrypt 2.4 2 2 2 2.6ui 2 2 2,3 MIT 2.6 2 3 2,3 Viacrypt 2.7, pkcs_compat=1 2 3 2,3 Viacrypt 2.7, pkcs_compat=2 2 2 2,3 Viacrypt 2.7, pkcs_compat=3 3 3 2,3 (Not mentioned above is MIT PGP 2.5, which was a buggy beta, nor several other versions that are outside the mainstream PGP project). If you are using one of the versions above that cannot understand version byte 3 messages, you should upgrade to one that does. The upgrade from Viacrypt PGP 2.4 to Viacrypt PGP 2.7 is only US$10, and also provides several other enhancements. As you can see, people with downlevel versions of PGP will not be able to read all PGP messages directed at them, nor will they be able to verify all of the signed messages they might wish to verify. It is also worth noting that none of the new versions have any trouble reading the old format messages. WHAT IS THE RSA KEY MODULUS LENGTH LIMIT? The RSA key modulus length limit for compatibility with all mainstream PGP versions is 1024 bits (military grade). I recommend the use of this length, at least for now. PGP 2.3a, running on some platforms (but not others), use to be able to generate and use 1264 bit keys. In addition, some people have hacked their own copies of PGP to generate and use longer keys (up to 8192 bits or some such crazy number). Distribution of these hacked versions under the "Pretty Good Privacy" trademarked name is not recommended, since it upsets the trade mark owner (Philip Zimmermann) and interferes with some of his long term plans to support longer keys in a more organized fashion. IS 1024 BITS LONG ENOUGH? Conservative estimates of increasing computing power, advancing mathematical knowledge, and the propensity of certain spy organizations to spend lots of money on these things say that 1024 bit keys are strong enough for at least 20 years or so. Less paranoid prognosticators say that such keys are good for hundreds of years. More paranoid prognosticators think that someone has already broken RSA and not told us about it, so no RSA key is safe. My opinion is that RSA keys with a modulus of about 1024 bits in length is more than adequate to protect most electronic mail and financial transactions. What do you think? HOW DOES THE STRENGTH OF RSA AND IDEA COMPARE? As implemented in PGP, the IDEA cipher used for bulk encryption appears to be stronger than the RSA cipher. In fact, to strengthen the RSA to the same level as the IDEA cipher (assuming a brute force attack), it would take an RSA modulus of about 3100 bits. WHY NOT ALLOW LONGER RSA KEYS, ANYWAY? OK, so you are more paranoid than me, and want the RSA key to be at least as strong as the IDEA cipher. Why isn't there a higher limit to the RSA key size? First, there is the minor problem that RSAREF and BSAFE (which are tied to the RSA patent license for the freeware and some commercial versions of PGP) have a key length limit of 1024 bits. Changing this involves negotiations with RSADSI/PKP, and could take some time. Second, allowing longer key sizes could create a Tower of Babel problem of incompatible PGP versions, since not all versions could handle these long keys. Third, the implementation of longer keys needs to be done in an orderly manner such that all mainstream PGP versions (Viacrypt, MIT freeware, BSAFE-based commercial, and possibly a non-USA variant) are first upgraded to accept, but not generate, the longer keys. After all PGP users can accept the longer keys, then PGP versions can start generating the longer keys with no interruption in service. It still makes sense to have a length limit for compatibility reasons. I have asked Philip Zimmermann to increase that to at least 4096 bits when he can, and I think that he will do that in an orderly manner if there isn't too much in the way of hassles with RSAREF and BSAFE licensing. If this isn't secure enough for you, shift to conventional encryption and manual (direct person-to-person) key exchange, making sure that your keys have at least 128 bits of entropy. This can be done with pgp -c or another private key encryption program called dlock that has the virtues of (1) NO patent problems, and (2) very strong encryption. (DLOCK is not nearly as user friendly as PGP, but what do you want for free?) HOW DOES PKCS BYTE ORDERING IN KEYS AFFECT COMPATIBILITY? PGP versions 2.2 and before generated key and signature block formats with a different byte order than derived from the PKCS standards. PGP 2.3 also generated this old format if you specified +pkcs_compat=0 in config.txt or on the command line. This old format is now obsolete. Unfortunately, the old format cannot be parsed by RSAREF or BSAFE, so PGP versions based on these crypto engines (like MIT PGP 2.6) cannot read those packets. Viacrypt PGP,

1 0

Mr. Bill wants you!
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems that Microsoft is hiring a "Program manager for Electronic Commerce". I just saw it in misc.jobs.offered: >Program Manager for Electronic Commerce >You will lead the design and deployment of a new electronic commerce >service at Microsoft. Your experience in cryptography, banking, electronic >commerce, or communications will be put to use on this project. >Requirements include at least three years of software development and >project management experience and a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science >or a related field. Oh Boy. <tssst>You cannot resist the Dark side of the Force, Luke...<tssst> Lots of "or"s and not many "and"s in that requirements punchlist though... Usual apologies to MSerfs, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

1 0

Re: Remailer listings/strategy
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Mailing lists are a poor forum for sending "I'm up" messages out, >for various reasons: > >1. Volume. 20 remailers x a message every 4 hours = 120 message a day >to the list. Not a good idea, for many reasons. Okay, every 8 hours. Now we're down to 60 messages - not too different than a lively C'punks day. :-) > >2. Scaling. Even with fewer than 20 remailers, the system breaks down. >Imagine if our goal of hundreds of remailers is met! So instead of one central remailer, we use some number of 'regional' listservers (4 remailers, each handling 5 'local' remailers). Then if one croaks, it's a minimal loss to the system. > >3. Not automated. Sending a text message out to everyone, and then >having interested folks write a script to parse the messages and >whatnot, is more work (probably) than having them finger or ping the >remailers themselves (don't have to go through mail as the >intermediary). And the remailer operators themselves would have to do >the donkeywork of creating and sending messages automatically, which >most of them probably won't do. "Cypherpunks write code" > >4. Mail to the list is hardly perfect itself, as we've seen many >times. Delays, downtime, etc. Why inject a new delay/variable? (2) above. > >5. Function. Basically, it's not the function of a mailing list like >ours to broadcast such messages. If many remailers do it, why not >money providers, other mailing lists, etc.? C'punks remailer was used as a f'rinstance (functionality example). So there's a different remailer mailing list, and a banks remailer mailing list, and money provider's mailing list, ad nauseum. Who cares? Those interested in remailers listen in on the remailers mailing list, and don't listen to the banks list, and versey-vicey. > >6. Not all remailer users are going to be on the Cyherpunks list, so >why would the list be the solution? (Better would be either >distribution of the pinging scripts, a centralized finger pinger (I >like the sound of that: "finger pinger") such as Matt Ghio was >running, or perhaps an "alt.anonymous.messages.status" group, acting >as a message pool. (5) above >These are just the objections that come inmmediately to mind. >--Tim May Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP2.6ui/RIPEM public keys/fingerprints.

1 0

CEB 1A PREMEIRE ISSUE
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CYPHER-REBELS ELECTRONIC BOOK (CEB) SEPTEMBER 05, 1994 LABOR DAY ISSUE PREMIERE ISSUE Publisher Gary Lee Jeffers A compendium of the best software & info for today's electronic privacy freedom fighters. This text may be distributed in part or in full anywhere you want. It may be given away freely or copies may be sold. CEB wants to be free & valuable. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. PGP general. Section 2: Michael Johnson's PGP FAQ contribution Chapter 2. Steganography. "A picture is worth a thousand words." Chapter 3. Shells for PGP Section 1. David Merriman's WinPGP26.ZIP Section 2. Ross Barclay's WinFront 3.0 Chapter 4. Generally cool things. Section 1. Loompanics sources. Section 2. Viruses sources. Chapter 5. Getting the Cypherpunks' archived & indexed list. Chapter 6. Remailers & chained remailers. Chapter 7. Current problems in Crypt. CCCCCCCCCC YYYY YYYY PPPPPP HH HH EEEEEEE RRRRRRRRR CCCCCCCCCC YY YY PP PP HH HH EEEEEEE RRRRRRRRR CCC YY YY PP PP HH HH EE RR RR CCC YY YY PPPPPP HHHHHHHH EE RR RR CCC YYY PP HHHHHHHH EEEEEEE RR RR CCC YYY PP HH HH EEEEEEE RRRRRRRR CCC YYY PP HH HH EE RRRRRRR CCC YYY PP HH HH EE RRRRRR CCCCCCCCCC YYY PP HH HH EE RR RR CCCCCCCCCCC YYY PP HH HH EEEEEEE RR RR PP HH HH EEEEEEE RR RR RRRRRRRRRRR RR RR RRRRRRRRRRRRRR EEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRR EEEEEEEEEEE BBBBBBBB EEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSS RRRRRRRR EEEEEEEEE BBBBBBBBBBB EE EEEEEEE SSSSSSSSS RR RRRR EEEEEEEEEE BBBBBBBBBB EEEEEEE SSSSSSSSS RRR RRRR EEEEEEEE BBBBBBBB EEEEEEE SSSSSSSS RRR RRRRR EEEEEE BBBBBB EEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSS RRRRRRRRRRRRRR EEEEEEE BBB EEEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSS RRRRRRRRRRRRRR EEEEEEEEEE BB EEEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSS RRRRRRR RRRR EEEEEEEEEE BBB EEEEEEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSSSSS RRR RRRRR EEEEEEEEEEEE BBBBB EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSSSS RRRRR RR EEEEEEEE BBBBBBB EEEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSS RR RRRRR EEEEEE BBBBBBBBB EEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSS RR RRRRR EEEEEE BBBBBBBBB EEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSS RRR RRRRRR EEEEEEEEEEE BBBBBBBB EEEEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSSS RRRR RRRRRRR EEEEEEEEEEEEE BBBBBBB EEEEEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSSSS PPPPPPPPPPP GGGGGGGGG PPPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPP GGGGGGGGG PPPPPPPPPPP PPP PP GGG PPP PP PPPPPPPPPPPP GGG GGGGGGG PPPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPP GGG GGGGGGG PPPPPPPP PPP GGG GG PPP PPP GGGGGGGGGGGGG PPP PPP GGGGGGGGGGGG PPP Chapter 1. PGP general. PGP is Pretty Good Privacy from Phil Zimmermann. It is currently the best available encryption available to civilians at large. Zimmermann is the programmer on the original PGP versions but now, apparently, just guides other programmers in making improved versions. PGP uses two encryption algorithms: RSA for its Public Key powers & IDEA for its bulk encryption. The advantages of PGP over other crypt/decrypt systems are: 1. RSA algorithm. Allows users to communicate without needing a secure channel to exchange keys. - PUBLIC KEY ENCRYPTION. 2. The program system has been very well done & has huge development support. 3. It has huge popularity. 4. Security is guaranteed with distribution of source code & public investigation. 5. Its free. 6. Both RSA & IDEA are "STRONG" algorithms. MIT,s PGP 2.6 has the blessing of Zimmermann. PGP 2.6 ui is believed to have Zimmermann's approval because he has not attacked it. It is believed that Zimmermann will not endorse the ui version due to possible legal problems. Section 2: Michael Johnson's PGP FAQ contribution From: Michael Paul Johnson <mpj(a)netcom.com> Subject: Where to get the latest PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) FAQ To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- WHERE TO GET THE PRETTY GOOD PRIVACY PROGRAM (PGP) (Last modified: 11 August 1994 by Mike Johnson) WHAT IS THE LATEST VERSION? There is more than one latest version. Pick one or more of the following that best suits your computer, patent restrictions, and export restrictions. Some countries (like France) may also restrict import or even use of strong cryptography like PGP. |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | Platform(s) | Countries | Allowed Use | Latest Version | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | DOS, Unix, | USA & Canada | Commercial | Viacrypt PGP 2.7 | | or WinCIM/CSNav | | Personal | | | | | Research | | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | DOS, Unix, Mac, | USA & Canada | Personal | MIT PGP 2.6 | | OS/2, others | | Research | | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | DOS, Unix, Mac, | Most of the | Personal | PGP 2.6ui | | OS/2, others | world except | Research | ui=unofficial | | | the USA. | | international | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | Mac Applescript | Most of the | Personal | MacPGP 2.6ui v 1.2 | | | world except | Research | | | | the USA. | | | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | Mac Applescript | USA | Research | MacPGP 2.6ui v 1.2 | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | Amiga | Most of the | Personal | Amiga PGP 2.3a.4 | | | world except | Research | | | | the USA. | | PGPAmi23a_4.lha | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | Amiga | USA | Personal | Amiga PGP 2.6 0b0.6 | | | | Research | | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | Atari | Most of the | Personal | Atari PGP 2.3a | | | world except | Research | | | | the USA. | | | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | Atari | USA | Research | Atari PGP 2.3a | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| | Any of the | Countries | Commercial | Any of the above | | above | where IDEA | Personal | | | | is not | Research | | | | patented and | | | | | cryptography | | | | | is not | | | | | restricted. | | | |-----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------------| Note: there are other versions available, but these are either old, or outside of the mainstream PGP project. Look for new versions from one of three sources: Viacrypt (Commercial), MIT (North American freeware), or mathew(a)mantis.co.uk (the unofficially non-designated holder of the unofficial international version that parallels what Philip Zimmermann and the rest of the PGP development team is doing in the USA. Note that the MIT PGP 2.6 is illegal to export from the USA or Canada, but using it outside of the USA and Canada for noncommercial use is not illegal in most countries. In spite of the best efforts of MIT and the other primary developers and distributors of PGP not to violate the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, MIT PGP 2.6 is available on some of the same sites listed for PGP 2.6ui, below. The noncommercial use restriction comes from both the RSAREF license and the patent on the IDEA cipher in Europe and North America. WHAT IS ALL THIS NONSENSE ABOUT EXPORT CONTROLS? For a detailed rant, get ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/cryptusa.zip The practical meaning, until the law is corrected to make sense, is that you are requested to get PGP from sites outside of the USA and Canada if you are outside of the USA and Canada. If you are in France, I understand that you aren't even supposed import it. Other countries may be worse. WHAT IS THE "TIME BOMB" IN MIT PGP 2.6? As a concession to the RSA patent holders (in return for endorsement of the legality of the freeware MIT PGP 2.6), MIT placed an inducement in MIT PGP 2.6 to encourage upgrade from the alledgedly patent-infringing PGP 2.3a to the MIT version. The nature of this inducement is a change in a packet ID byte that causes PGP 2.3a and earlier to reject messages created by MIT PGP 2.6 after 1 September 1994. Altering MIT PGP 2.6 to bypass this annoyance (though technically an easy change to the LEGAL_KLUDGE), invalidates the blessing of Public Key Partners on the licence of MIT PGP 2.6. Therefore, it is a bad idea. On the other hand, it is trivial to hack PGP 2.3a to accept these packets, and that (plus a few other bug fixes) is essentially what PGP 2.6ui is. None of the versions of PGP greater than 2.3 have problems reading the old packet ID values, so for maximum compatibility, the ideal is to write the old value and accept either value. Unfortunately, this time bomb has a negative effect on Viacrypt PGP 2.4, as well, which never infringed on anyone's patents. Viacrypt's solution was to issue PGP 2.7, which, by default acts just like MIT PGP 2.6, but has a config.txt option (explained in the release) that allows compatibility with both PGP 2.4 and PGP 2.6. Naturally, this also allows compatibility with PGP 2.3a. The time bomb is annoying for those who still wish to use PGP 2.3a, and for those who use Viacrypt PGP 2.4 and don't want to spend US$10 to upgrade to Viacrypt PGP 2.7, but considering the magnitude of the concession made by Public Key Partners in legitimizing the freeware PGP for use in the USA, it was worth it. ARE MY KEYS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER PGP VERSIONS? If your RSA key modulus length is less than or equal to 1024 bits (I don't recommend less, unless you have a really slow computer and little patience), and if your key was generated in the PKCS format, then it will work with any of the mainstream PGP versions (PGP 2.3a, Viacrypt PGP 2.4, MIT PGP 2.6, PGP 2.6ui, or Viacrypt PGP 2.7). If this is not the case, you really should generate a new key that qualifies. Philip Zimmermann is aware of the desire for longer keys in PGP by some PGP fans (like me), but wants to migrate towards that goal in an orderly way, by first releasing versions of PGP in for all platforms and for both commercial (Viacrypt) and freeware (MIT) flavors that ACCEPT long keys, then releasing versions that can also GENERATE long keys. He also has some other neat key management ideas that he plans to implement in future versions. WHAT ARE THE KNOWN BUGS IN PGP? These are the most annoying: MIT PGP 2.6 -- the function xorbytes doesn't. Replace the = with ^= to fix it. The effect of this bug is that RSA keys aren't quite as random as they should be -- probably not a practical problem, but worth fixing if you are going to compile the code yourself. MIT PGP 2.6 -- DON'T SET PGPPASS when editing your keys, because if you do, and if you don't change your pass phrase, the key is lost. (If this happens, rename your backup keyring files to the primary files before you do anything else). PGP 2.6ui -- Conventional encryption -c option doesn't use a different IV every time, like it is supposed to. (PGP 2.3a had this problem, too). WHERE CAN I GET VIACRYPT PGP? Versions are available for DOS, Unix, or WinCIM/CSNav Commercial software. Call 800-536-2664 to order. If you are a commercial user of PGP in the USA or Canada, contact Viacrypt in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. The commecial version of PGP is fully licensed to use the patented RSA and IDEA encryption algorithms in commercial applications, and may be used in corporate environments in the USA and Canada. It is fully compatible with, functionally the same as, and just as strong as the freeware version of PGP. Due to limitations on ViaCrypt's RSA distribution license, ViaCrypt only distributes executable code and documentation for it, but they are working on making PGP available for a variety of platforms. Call or write to them for the latest information. The latest version number for their version of PGP is 2.7. Upgrade from Viacrypt PGP 2.4 to 2.7 is free if you bought version 2.4 after May 27, 1994, otherwise the upgrade is US$10. Viacrypt's licensing and price information is as follows: ViaCrypt PGP for MS-DOS 1 user $ 99.98 ViaCrypt PGP for MS-DOS 5 users $ 299.98 ViaCrypt PGP for MS-DOS 20 users or more, call ViaCrypt ViaCrypt PGP for UNIX 1 user $ 149.98 ViaCrypt PGP for UNIX 5 users $ 449.98 ViaCrypt PGP for UNIX 20 users or more, call ViaCrypt ViaCrypt PGP for WinCIM/CSNav 1 user $ 119.98 ViaCrypt PGP for WinCIM/CSNav 5 user $ 359.98 ViaCrypt PGP for WinCIM/CSNav 20 users or more, call ViaCrypt If you wish to place an order please call 800-536-2664 during the hours of 8:30am to 5:00pm MST, Monday - Friday. They accept VISA, MasterCard, AMEX and Discover credit cards. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact: Paul E. Uhlhorn Director of Marketing, ViaCrypt Products Mail: 2104 W. Peoria Ave Phoenix AZ 85029 Phone: (602) 944-0773 Fax: (602) 943-2601 Internet: viacrypt(a)acm.org Compuserve: 70304.41 WHERE CAN I GET MIT PGP? MIT PGP is Copyrighted freeware. Telnet to net-dist.mit.edu, log in as getpgp, answer the questions, then ftp to net-dist.mit.edu and change to the hidden directory named in the telnet session to get your own copy. MIT-PGP is for U. S. and Canadian use only, but MIT is only distributing it within the USA (due to some archaic export control laws). 1. Read ftp://net-dist.mit.edu/pub/PGP/mitlicen.txt and agree to it. 2. Read ftp://net-dist.mit.edu/pub/PGP/rsalicen.txt and agree to it. 3. Telnet to net-dist.mit.edu and log in as getpgp. 4. Answer the questions and write down the directory name listed. 5. QUICKLY end the telnet session with ^C and ftp to the indicated directory on net-dist.mit.edu (something like /pub/PGP/dist/U.S.-only-????) and get the distribution files (pgp26.zip, pgp26doc.zip, pgp26src.tar.gz, MacPGP2.6.sea.hqx, and MacPGP2.6.src.sea.hqx). If the hidden directory name is invalid, start over at step 3, above. File names (shortened file names are for DOS BBS distribution): pgp26doc.zip - documentation only pgp26.zip - includes DOS executable & documentation pgp26src.zip - source code pgp26src.tar or pgp26src.tar.gz - source code release for Unix and others macpgp26.hqx or MacPGP2.6.sea.hqx - Macintosh executable & documentation macpgp26.src or MacPGP2.6.src.sea.hqx - Macintosh source code mcpgp268.hqx or MacPGP2.6-68000.sea.hqx - Macintosh executable for 68000 pgp26os2.zip - OS/2 executable (may not be on the MIT archive) RSA and IDEA algorithms licenced for personal and noncommercial use. Uses RSAREF, which may not be modified without RSADSI permission. Contains "time bomb" to start generating messages incompatible with PGP 2.3 and 2.4 on 1 September 1994 as an incentive for people to not use PGP 2.3a in the USA, which RSADSI claims infringes on their patents. Mac versions are not yet Applescriptable. This version is not intended for export from the USA and Canada due to the USA's International Traffic in Arms Regulations and Canada's corresponding regulations. You can also get MIT PGP 2.6 from: ftp.csn.net/mpj ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/pgp26.zip ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/pgp26src.zip ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/pgp26os2.zip ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/pgp26src.tar.gz ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/mac MacPGP2.6.sea.hqx MacPGP2.6.src.sea.hqx MacPGP2.6-68000.sea.hqx ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/amiga/ pgp26-amiga0b0.6-000.lha pgp26-amiga0b0.6-020.lha pgp26-amiga0b0.6-src.lha amiga.txt See ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/README.MPJ for the ??????? See ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/help for more help on negotiating this site's export control methods. ftp.netcom.com/pub/mpj ftp://ftp.netcom.com/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/pgp26.zip ftp://ftp.netcom.com/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/pgp26src.tar.… ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/ MacPGP2.6.sea.hqx ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/mpj/I_will_not_export/crypto_???????/pgp/ MacPGP2.6.src.sea.hqx MacPGP2.6-68000.sea.hqx See ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/mpj/README.MPJ for the ??????? See ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/mpj/help for more help on negotiating this site's export control methods. TO GET THESE FILES BY EMAIL, send mail to ftp-request(a)netcom.com containing the word HELP in the body of the message for instructions. You will have to work quickly to get README.MPJ then the files before the ??????? part of the path name changes again (several times a day). ftp.eff.org Follow the instructions found in README.Dist that you get from one of: ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/Net_info/Tools/Crypto/README.Dist gopher.eff.org, 1/Net_info/Tools/Crypto gopher://gopher.eff.org/11/Net_info/Tools/Crypto http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_info/Tools/Crypto/ COMPUSERVE The NCSA Forum sysops have a library that is available only to people who send them a message asserting that they are within the U. S. A. This library contains PGP. I have also seen PGP 2.6 in some other places on Compuserve. Try searching for PGP26.ZIP in the IBMFF forum for up-to-date information on PGP in selected other areas. The last time I tried a search like this, PGP 2.6 was found in the PC World Online forum (GO PWOFORUM) new uploads area, along with several PGP shells and accessories. I've also heard that EUROFORUM caries PGP 2.6ui, but have not confirmed this. Compuserve file names are even more limited than DOS, so the file names to look for are PGP26.ZIP, PGP26S.ZIP (source code), and PGP26D.ZIP (documentation only). Colorado Catacombs BBS Mike Johnson, sysop Mac and DOS versions of PGP, PGP shells, and some other crypto stuff. Also the home of some good Bible search files and some shareware written by Mike Johnson, including DLOCK, CRYPTA, CRYPTE, CRYPTMPJ, MCP, MDIR, DELETE, PROVERB, SPLIT, ONEPAD, etc. v.FAST/v.32bis/v.42bis, speeds up to 28,800 bps 8 data bits, 1 stop, no parity, as fast as your modem will go. Use ANSI terminal emulation, of if you can't, try VT-100. Free access to PGP. If busy or no answer, try again later. Log in with your own name, or if someone else already used that, try a variation on your name or pseudonym. You can request access to crypto software on line, and if you qualify legally under the ITAR, you can download on the first call. Download file names: pgp26.zip (DOS version with documentation) pgp26src.tar (Unix version and source code) pgp26doc.zip (Documentation only -- exportable) macpgp26.hqx (MacPGP executables, binhexed .sea) macpgp26.src (MacPGP source, binhexed .sea) mcpgp268.hqx (MacPGP executables, binhexed .sea for 68000 processor). (303) 772-1062 Longmont, Colorado number - 2 lines. (303) 938-9654 Boulder, Colorado number forwarded to Longmont number intended for use by people in the Denver, Colorado area. Verified: This morning. Hieroglyphics Voodoo Machine (Colorado) Jim Still (aka Johannes Keppler), sysop. DOS, OS2, and Mac versions. (303) 443-2457 For free access for PGP, DLOCK, Secure Drive, etc., log in as "VOO DOO" with the password "NEW" (good for 30 minutes access to free files). Other BBS and ftp sites do have these files, as well. I noticed that PGP26.ZIP is being distributed on FIDONET. WHERE CAN I GET PGP FOR USE OUTSIDE OF THE USA? The latest for outside the USA is the "Unofficial International" PGP 2.6 for most platforms, MacPGP 2.3aV1.2 for the Mac (although 2.6ui is under development and should appear very soon), and 2.3a.4 for the Amiga. The latest amiga version is fully compatible with MIT's PGP 2.6. Copyrighted freeware. Version 2.6ui released by mathew(a)mantis.co.uk. Amiga version 2.3a4 released by Peter Simons <simons(a)peti.gun.de> These versions do NOT use RSAREF. No RSA patent problems outside the USA, but this version is not legal for commercial or extensive personal use in the USA. IDEA licensed for presonal use only in countries where the IDEA patent holds. The freeware version of PGP is intended for noncommercial, experimental, and scholarly use. It is available on thousands of BBSes, commercial information services, and Internet anonymous-ftp archive sites on the planet called Earth. This list cannot be comprehensive, but it should give you plenty of pointers to places to find PGP. Although the latest freeware version of PGP was released from outside the USA (England), it is not supposed to be exported from the USA under a strange law called the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Because of this, please get PGP from a site outside the USA if you are outside of the USA and Canada. Even though the RSAREF license associated with PGP 2.6 from MIT no longer prohibits use outside the USA, it still carries the not-for-profit restriction that the original RSA code in PGP 2.6ui doesn't have. On the other hand, patents on the IDEA cipher may limit PGP use in your country to nonprofit applications, anyway. Indeed, I understand that there are some countries where private electronic mail is not legal, anyway. These listings are subject to change without notice. If you find that PGP has been removed from any of these sites, please let me know so that I can update this list. Likewise, if you find PGP on a good site elsewhere (especially on any BBS that allows first time callers to access PGP for free), please let me know so that I can update this list. Source code (gzipped tar format): * _UK:_ ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/pgp/pgp26ui-src.tar.gz * _UK:_ ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/pgp/pgp26ui-src.tar.gz.sig * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp26ui-src.tar.gz * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp26ui-src.tar.gz.sig.gz * _TW:_ ftp://nctuccca.edu.tw/PC/wuarchive/pgp/pgp26ui-src.tar.gz * _TW:_ ftp://nctuccca.edu.tw/PC/wuarchive/pgp/pgp26ui-src.tar.gz.sig.gz Source code (zip format): * _UK:_ ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/pgp/pgp26uis.sig * _UK:_ ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/pgp/pgp26uis.zip * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp26uis.sig * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp26uis.zip * _TW:_ ftp://nctuccca.edu.tw/PC/wuarchive/pgp/pgp26uis.zip Executable for DOS (zip format): * _UK:_ ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/pgp/pgp26uix.sig * _UK:_ ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/pgp/pgp26uix.zip * _IT:_ ftp://ftp.dsi.unimi.it/pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp26uix.sig

1 0

Cyphers Out There?
by an114＠vox.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:: Encrypted: PGP -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6 hEwCTL2DNtw2i0EBAf4joQKrL2wlyfeRCIHGKaIlSnDhfNdSJ3+MPylu1fix0TIr E//Iw3Z9H2rdbVkJ4gyMQrE7kZzpquyys5ia4031pgAAAjb/CvnS8B2ZX0gpx+dh 8+7dS7i0vbwOePbd/6RIMaemyQhc98npIqQqWodr7z4a+hPp9PyBw5tVPa9N29CF 5b/X50eaeK9vuUVAp1qAB247LsqmQ+nWlFtVXlcy2M3AqZFG0KwvGCg1FLcrSIKj 4gEbp+qD42cetTBe3HFY45Xie1tcEVrTblpibIKZ41NgKcGdRJ8s+ivv/tKu+bDh pftPmiJjqIM1hpOtDqAQvlocP/j4RmxrZFCkdtmczAOKPhG0F6B4tmW/GKY7Kfdk 7vfhrMF6+8sAQSXLSp8xSCpjSGT/RsZKRNOLFK8E6QGCk5MToV5FBtCUd7sVSY7H t+GEsVT4KgLq1jdGGwrsegB99K4ttQ0rYxPn5xQUgUNt6ekOK3v2mfUHQbuY2rdf OTN+RHGRiFI8oplVYVUQGo0q/Ghl7P56TSxVZTHTrxRbFDc/xcnflQHsrVHS/9KC xxP3xuZTrCJaXrZEi8xZ2h/gyQB7xT7VdNvFm4KpFapkt9UP510+4YmyN06SSMq7 zSX4lmcihnf1FGt0A3Q5KOjUjzXz4V4xD9BYtC2Tg+Bp+QtVfJTVhSJ8u8tGs0cB LMSHkj5H2RocbhMhpnmm5Lqnwp+UgUWbH2cVNnx51DbAlOt1NrwetjXs75YZbtfw JBgLj2AOfAi5txky+4xZx/S2uSyrwe0OSFTsBXoSonSSRMjkBPjJ/H0d1XU715oN RSxlTlFIlS8GnUlaiq+eYhHp3sbZILS57A== =YwyP -----END PGP MESSAGE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)vox.hacktic.nl Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)vox.hacktic.nl Direct replies to the sender of this message are -not- anonymised <YuK>

1 0

Al Gore's other home page
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What do you know. Al Gore's home page might be a bust, but he presents the "Tool kit to reinvent government" at http://www.npr.gov/ The page features a huge picture of Al hacking away on his computer. Still, I have the suspicion that his ideas of reinventing the government are somewhat different from ours. Well, he is asking for feedback through his electronic townhall. Let's give him some. -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger

1 0

The Ethics of Remailers
by nobody＠kaiwan.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From ghio(a)kaiwan.com Mon Sep 5 12:16:28 1994 >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 11:09:40 -0600 > From: Patrick Juola <juola(a)suod.cs.colorado.edu> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Needed for a computer ethics class > > > Does anyone have a concise, citeable statement about why anonymous > remailers are a good thing? Some sort of position statment by > Julf would be ideal. Similarly, if anyone has something for the > *other* side of the coin, I'd love to see that. > > I'm in the process of writing a course on computer ethics for > the University of Colorado at Boulder and I think anonymous > remailers would be a good subject for an essay assignment, but > I need enough material (ideally, primary source material) to > lay the groundwork first. > > Patrick >>No, but it's something that I often get asked. I would be interested to hear >>examples of good things that people are using my anonymous remailer for. Well about the best example I can think of is Canadian related. In Ontario Canada there is a ban in effect on a trial of a young lady named Karla Homolka. Karla and her (ex) hubby (who is presently incarcerated awaiting trial) are likely guilty (certainly Karla was found guilty at her trial) of pretty heinous acts of murder, torture etc. So heinous, that the judge banned all publication of the details surrounding Karla's trial. However, when he did so, he apparantly hadn't heard about Internet, because now its quite likely alot of the details have slipped through the cracks. The remailers have been used to protect anonymous sources posting to the Internet in order to help the public circumvent the ban. If they didn't exist, then its quite likely that circulation of the info....even on Internet, would have been made more difficult. The remailers, with their chaining abilities have certainly helped the spread of the info. Other than that, it's likely the remailers are useful for certain politically sensitive operations (ie circumventing ITAR) or socially sensitive (ie in discussions that the politically correct go up in arms about (ie gay rights.. for or against). And then of course there is the old stand-by use of posting stories to alt.sex.stories, etc :>

1 0

PRIVACY 101
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Conrad Walton wrote: ... PS-I lost the note about Sandy's Privacy Seminar. Did I miss it? Nope, no one did. Due to circumstances beyond *my* control, Duncan has been out of town for the last few days (he should return today). He is running the list software and will be starting things out tomorrow (probably). Thanks for your patients. Stay tuned. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

NYC C'PUNKS MEETING?
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks in the New York City area, Are you interested in having a Cypherpunks physical meeting at (aprox.) the same time as the SF Bay Area Meeting? Is there anyone in the area who can volunteer a venue? Alison Armitage of Acapulco H.E.A.T. wants to attend. Please let me know your thoughts via private e-mail. Please include your phone number. Thanks, S a n d y P.S. I lied about Alison Armitage. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: \"Reputations\" are more than just nominalist hot air
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by jamesd(a)netcom.com (James A. Donald) on Sat, 3 Sep 11:51 PM >I really do not want to digress onto the issue of >nominalism and legal positivism, which is seriously >off topic, but a similar approach on other matters has >led to the catastrophic collapse of societies in the >past, and I would claim that it is having something of >that effect in the present. * * * >If such a system was to serve the function that >reputations now serve in the real world, it would lead >to consequences very different from those intended or >desired by Hal. Your elaboration of this claim, to echo Tim's later post, would be welcomed. Tim has mentioned before that "off topic" is solved by artful weaving. Please do. John

3 2

Remailer at Wein?
by Mark Terka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is the remailer at remailer(a)ds1.wu-wein.ac.at up and running? Test messages to that site kept bouncing. Also, how do I get ahold of that remailer's public key for encrypting messages through them? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Terka | werewolf(a)io.org | public key (werewolf) by Toronto,Canada | dg507(a)cleveland.freenet.edu | public key server or request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Reputations/Credentials
by tim werner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 12:56:53 -0800 >From: cwalton(a)earthlink.net (Conrad Walton) > >Give me a better model to illustrate what you think would be better or >worse. Drug dealers only need cash and a gun to make transactions while >they keep totally anonymous. I used to carry a Swiss Army knife, myself (because of the corkscrew), and a lot of the transactions were based on credit. Reputation was very important, whether dealing in cash or not, and I never dealt with anyone I didn't know and trust. tw

1 0