December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 7 Feb 1996, Jordan Hayes wrote: > > it _is_ anonymous ... > > And then: > > > can be refilled at ATMs > > You make a deposit or something? How does the transaction clear? > When they finally look in the envelope, they credit the card? > > Or do you mean just 'anonymous' between the user and the merchant? > > /jordan > sorry i wasn't clear: it is anonymous between the user and the merchant, and between the user and the card distributer (in this case Visa). "Refilling" at ATMs is essentially a download of "cash" from your bank account into the card.

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Jim Small wrote: > DO you know where I can find glide.c , or (newer) to bruteforce > .pwl files? http://www.c2.org/hackmsoft/ There will also be a utility for extracting and decrypting file sharing (Win95 as server) passwords as soon as the code is refined and the ReadMe is written. -rich

1 0

Re: DSN
by um＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>[RSA in 5 lines of Scheme, deleted.] >Got any short prime-number generators? I am writing some more Scheme code (not optimized for size, though). Have a look at http://www.thur.de/ulf/crypt.scm -- Ulf Möller * E-Mail: <um(a)c2.org> * WWW: http://www.c2.org/~um/

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:01 PM 2/9/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > Whoops. I didn't mean to send that one to the list (re: ethics of >assasination). Sorry. I am still trying to decide on whether other discussions >of the non-Crypto aspects of Assasination Politics are appropriate; I would >appreciate mail back from Perry in response to my email to him. > Sorry again, > -Allen If Perry is REALLY sincere about objecting to the NON-crypto part of AsPol, he should demonstrate this by writing notes which are focussing on the crypto aspects, rather than just complaining. Jim Bell

3 2

Re: Choices
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:05 AM 2/11/96, "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" >Think I have been consistant - am FOR things which add to my choices and >AGAINST those which reduce the choices available. In general I do not >mind paying a delta for increased choice so long as it is small No, I don't think you're consistent. "Tim's Fine Televison Sets" does not like the idea of having to put CC (and, soon, V-Chips) in its t.v.s. Men with guns are telling him he must comply, or else. Your "am FOR things which add to my choices" ignores the fact that mandatory closed-caption hardware is an infringement on the basic property rights of someone who offers products for sale. Those who want CC devices, or V-chip devices, or automatic text-to-speech converters are of course free to buy them, if someone is selling them. They are not free to demand that my widget include them. --Tim [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the Communications Decency Act] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said. "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

Building in Big Brother
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Building in Big Brother: The Cryptographic Policy Debate Edited by Lance J. Hoffman Springer Verlag Publishers Copyright: March 1995 Price:$29.95 ISBN 0-387-94441-9 _________________________________________________________________ "If you ever wondered how a particular computer technology could attract the interest of the directors of three intelligence agencies, the heavyweights in the computer industry, a gang of programmers turned freedom fighters, and the President of the United States, you need look no farther than Building in Big Brother. This book outlines the next civil liberties battle in the United States." - Marc Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy Information Center "One-stop-shopping for even the most sophisticated analyst of the policy wars over cryptography." - A. Michael Froomkin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Miami Law School "Lance Hoffman has compiled an extraordinarily useful and well balanced collection of materials on cryptography and its applications. This book will instantly become a definitive compendium." - Peter G. Neumann "Though Lance Hoffman is a dedicated opponent of current government policy, he has assembled a volume that should be -- and will be -- on the desk of every cryptographic policymaker in Washington. He has accurately recorded the many voices in a debate that will profoundly affect our future, for good or ill, well into the twenty-first century. This book is an important contribution to the history of encryption. It is an even more important contribution to those who are struggling to shape that history." - Stewart Baker, Steptoe & Johnson (formerly General Counsel to the National Security Agency) "An authoritative source of political writings by the major players in the crypto revolution." - Philip Zimmermann, Creator of PGP _________________________________________________________________ Includes Steven Levy's peerless "Cypherpunks vs Uncle Sam" and other Shortstop-proof cpunx ammunitions.

1 0

Anonymity
by don＠cs.byu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a project relating to the need for anonymous remailers, I would like to find out about someone in particular. (I would like to do so without the resulting information getting circulated any more than it probably already is.) Specifically, I have a full name and an email and am curious how much information can be collected. (whoever has those US-population CD's, that's the kind of thing I'm looking for) Preferrably I would like to go from the email address only to a SSN or address or something unique, but I will make the two of them my starting point if necessary. The point being, of course, that anonymous remailers are the only thing that keeps many email addresses from becoming a life history. Anyone who can help me research please send PGP encrypted (key 0x994b8f39) mail. Thanks -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMR2C0cLa+QKZS485AQFGNgL/XIOSJqabFsiHa9xtwWb1kltGbjcMnLZ4 appMShASZNBUULl9dj7qwyhSxVosgaaKIHPMd9H4DiywRG47WYXxqbKDI1dBSA+l f7Wy68QYA0RVtL9oci6z+w6UGpwfRbnV =rP7B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

"internet underground" magazine
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

just went to Barnes&Noble to check out magazine titles on the Internet/cyberspace, and walked away with 10 separate titles!! anyway, there is a new one that will be especially appealing to cpunks here. I haven't seen it mentioned here: "internet underground". issue #3 has interesting articles on - web transaction tracking, by S.Garfinkel - "my secret life with Phil Zimmerman", S.Garfinkel - how to send anonymous email. mentions cpunk remailers. by editor S.Ellerman plenty of other fluff. maybe some people here may want to contribute. often when magazines start out they are hungry for writers and getting into them is not as hard. I suspect "internet underground" may end up covering cpunk topics regularly with or without anyone's help from here. (oh, the spooks are rolling in their coffins. heh.)

1 0

"feudal" states and national destiny
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't wish to get this one going on c-punks, but you will see shortly just how quickly the "feudal" national powers are going to be able to erect national firewalls. We are entirely dependent on AT&T, Sprint, MCI, British Telcom, and so on for nation to nation or region to region communications --and they in turn are entriely dependent on the various national governments for the _franchise_ to "enter" or operate within the country. telephone lines are a trickle of information --the old uucp when I complained when the daily _total_ traffic exceed 2 megabyte and the heydey of TrailBlazers. today it's 154 Mb/sec trunks, and they are bogging down. the governments regulate these lines and outside the U.S. most governments own these lines. satellites are another perfect example; the governments control the franchises for the up and down links and the allocation of frequencies. and, who controls the satellite launches? Even the European consortium is controlled --forget the Chinese and the Russians! Is the government doing something illegal vis a vis communications policy (other than the obliteration of free speech with CDA)? No, but it is obvious they will, since the CDA or whatever is their intent and they have the power to enforce their intent --if nothing else by invoking FEMA, which a cornered Clinton might do. the extremists are almost always ignored. we are certainly viewed as extremists. nobody took the Libertarian party seriously until Howard Stern ran for governor of NY --and that was the circus of Will Rogers, not a political platform. Years of cooperative political graft (the interest in the status quo) has made the two party system the only __succeedable__ political system in the U.S. eventually, only violent revolution of the masses succeeds --men of rational thoughts and wise counsel are easily suppressed, if not eliminated. As for the dreamers who believe the government is or will NOT do (be doing) something illegal, the line forms to the right for reeducation. __________________________________________________________________________ go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say: yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off. _________________________________________________________________ attila__ To be a ruler of men, you need at least 12 inches.... There is no safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be.

1 0

Re: Choices
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:05 PM 2/10/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote: >Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands (and if you do not >think communications with sites such as anon.penet.fi are inside the charter >of the NSA, I have this prime Florida land - we're in the dry season now 8*). Needless to say, I disagree. Government does not possess ANY "rights." Merely powers. Secondly, the Constitution says NOTHING about the authority of the Federal government to "regulate" (or, for that matter, even merely MONITOR) communications cross-border. Sounds to me like you're arguing the statist line. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto.

2 1

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:33 PM 2/10/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >> >If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply >> >because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and >> >moraly or ethicaly undefensible. >> >> That's a misleading statement: You said, "simply because..." As should >> be abundantly clear from my other arguments, I wouldn't wish to see anyone >> killed "simply because" of the fact I "don't agree with them." It is their >> ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what justifies my seeking >> their deaths, should I choose to do so. >> > >But it is not clear at all. I think it is, to most people who read my words. > Exactly how do their actions violate your rights? How specific do you want me to be? I think the examples I gave in my essay made it clear what I believe. >Are these the rights that you believe that you possess or the ones >that are recognized? "recognized"? Usta be, "free speech" wasn't "recognized" in many jurisdictions. Are you suggesting that because it wasn't "recognized" that it wasn't a right? Or what, exactly, WERE you suggesting? >Do the actions have to effect you directly and >immediately or must you merely percieve a threat? All of these issues are >unclear in your presentation. Ultimately, your questions are more philosophical than is appropriate for CP. >And for the final one, doesn't your putting a >contract out on them violate their rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of >hapiness)? The answer to that depends dramatically on that someone else's actions, now doesn't it?!? > The only answer to this is 'yes', Already contradicted above. > meaning that to be ethical you >must put a contract out on yourself. Because your own actions violate >somebodies rights. This catch-22 situation regarding deadly force is why >anarchy does not work. I'm afraid your "logic" is a more than a bit faulty. This reasoning would deny anyone the right to self-defense. > A perhaps less different example might be: If you >dislike bigots then you are a bigot. Perhaps, but bigotry isn't a crime, nor a violation of someone else's rights. > In short, you can't help but become what you hate the most I _don't_ hate the use of self-defense. >. It pays not to hate or be quick to use violence >since they are so strongly related. > >It is not yours, the governments, or anyone elses right to decide who lives >and dies. You have a double standard. > >> >> >Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or >> >another. >> >> That's about the weakest argument I've heard in a long time. I'm amazed >> that you weren't too embarrassed to post it to the list. While I don't know >> precisely what your definition of the phrase "government employee" really >> is, I "every citizen" is a "governement employee" then you must have a >> REALLY weird definition of that. >> > >Then Lincoln had a equaly weird view: Government of the people, by the >people, for the people. Voting in an election does not make a citizen a "government employee." > Perhaps this failure to recognize a basic premise of >representative democracy explains your apparent dichotomy in the concepts of >rights. In effect, your rights and their rights. When in fact there is no >difference. Perhaps your weird view of the world explains your opinions. >I would suggest you read the Declaration of Indipendance and the Gettysburg >Address (again) to get a better perspective on what and who is supposed to >run this government and how. I am not particularly concerned with "this government." I don't consider "this government" to be somehow "special" from a rights standpoint. >> >By resorting to violence you are no better than the ones you proport to >> >protect us against. >> >> Sorry, I disagree. Now, I am certainly aware of the classic "Gandhi-type" >> total non-violence principle, but it turns out that very few people actually >> believe in that. > >Might does not make right. On the other hand, exercise of self-defense is not generally considered "wrong," either. I merely am advocating a new type of self-defense, one that can be exercised anonymously. In doing so, it can be a vastly more powerful weapon against government tyranny. >Ethical cohesion does not rest on numerical >values. So what's your point? > In case you have missed my comments before. I am not non-violent. I >do not support the use of violence in any format except in direct and >immediate self-defence. Aha! So what this means is, anybody who can assemble a sufficiently large force (governments, usually) can use the threat of use of that force to keep people from resisting, without hope of ever winning. Classic statist position. >In which case make the beggars eyes bleed, no defeat >and no surrender. Have you been smoking something? > This means that if you walk outside and see a person >breaking in your car that in and of itself is not sufficient motive for >deadly force unless they attack you. Who says? Agents of the government punish criminals every day that do things to OTHER citizens. Do you find that to be wrong? If not, your problem is clear: You have a double-standard about rights. > I do believe (contrary to yourself I >would guess) that if you were walking down the street and somebody suddenly >grabbed you that would be sufficient motive to kill them in self-defence. > In >cases like this there simply isn't enough time to evaluate the extent of the >threat, it is clear there is an apparent threat though. In short if your >person is violated physicaly without your premeditated permission then deadly >force is justified. I also believe that you are ethicaly justified in >stopping a person from assaulting or killing a 3rd party for the simple >reason that it could be you next. However, once that immediate threat is >over (for example a 4th party knocks the gun out of the muggers hand and >knocks them on the ground) then use of deadly force is not justified. But the big problem with this position is that the government specializes in NON-IMMEDIATE threats. The cop says "come with me", and if you don't comply he pulls a gun. If you pull one back, he shoots at you. If you're holed up, he brings in reinforcements. Etc. Etc. Etc. In effect, you have defined "self-defense" quite carefully in order to ALLOW the use of threats and violence by GOVERNMENT people, without the right of the citizen to fight back. As long as those threats and that violence is overwhelming and "legally justified," you'll give the citizens no right to resist. Sorry, but I won't play your little tyrannical games. >> Most people seem to think that they are entitled to >> protect themselves from violations of rights. The fact that these >> violations of rights may be done by "government employees" is at most >> irrelevant, in that this doesn't justify it. Anybody who feels entitled to >> use violence against a burglar, rapist, or murderer is correct; attempting >> to deny me the right to protect my property from GOVERNMENT people is, in >> itself, a violation of my rights. >> > >Rights as you use them are only relevant between a government and a citizen. What exactly do you mean by that? >I as an individual person am not forced to provide you with a forum for free >speech or any other rights guaranteed in the constitution. Apparently you, >as many people do, confuse the rights that are yours in regards the >government with privileges and contractual obligations which govern >interpersonal actions. Apparently you are simply confused. > The local grocery store is not mentioned in the >Constitution. They are under no obligation to provide protection for your >life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Your basic argument rests on a straw >man premise, namely that rights guaranteed you by government are guaranteed >you by any and every other possible entity. This is clearly wrong. Apparently you are STILL simply confused. >It is not ethical to kill another simply for being a burglar. Justa sec. In early 1800's England, nominally considered a "civilized country" many such crimes carried the death penalty on conviction. Further, until about the 1960's, rape was a crime which was often punishable by death in the US. Are you as ignorant as you sound, or have you forgotten that YOUR version of reality isn't the only one that has ever existed? > How much must >they steal before you are ethicaly justified in killing them? A $1,000 >dollar stereo? Perhaps a $.20 pencil off your desk? Shouldn't the crime victim decide? After all, it's HIS property, right? What makes you think YOU have the right to decide what crimes he should have to tolerate, huh? >Does this not justify >your employer killing you for using their machines for your own use,it is >theft of services after all (and you are on their property). If employers were to start doing this, they would have a VERY difficult time finding new employees to replace their former ones. > If you have >sufficient force detain them. The legal system will take them from there Like most statists, you ascribe way too much legitimacy to "the legal system." >(assuming of course we revamp it with the other laws we discuss so heatedly >on here). What I propose is a simple and humane system. So do I. But we clearly differ. Hmmmm. How can this be? > If a person commits >a crime which leads to the death or injury another they spend the remainder >of their life in a solitary cell with no chance of parole. In other cases >what should occur is they must work a regular job and provide restitution >for an extended period (ie $100/mo. to you for 30 years). Should they fail >to abide by this or they commit another crime then off they go for 20 years >or so, again with no chance of parole. I also strongly object to plea >bargaining. The whole concept of sending somebody to jail for 2-3 years is >silly and counter-productive. It leads to nothing but professional criminals, >in effect state run training grounds for the criminaly inclined. While in >jail they should be forced to live in work camps and not prisons as we >currently know them (unless they fall into the above 'harm another' >category). What should occur is that they are forced to live a relatively >normal lifestyle. In short, they work 8 hours a day and must pay for their >housing, food, etc. from their earning. What needs to occur is to train >persons to make a living and gain some success at managing a day to day >lifestyle. Our currrent system treats criminals as animals, which does >nothing to prevent further violence on their part, it only increases any >sense of isolation they may have. The only reason I didn't delete the previous paragraph is that it makes absolutely clear that you believe in YOUR way of doing things, and that there cannot be any other way. Sorry, I disagree. >> Are you a statist? >> >No, as I have said on many occassions, I am a strict Constitutionalist. That's part of your problem. It is probably more accurate to say that you are a "strict Establishmentarian." You hide behind the Constitution as if it is some sort of "Gift From God." It isn't. As the recent joke goes, "The Constitution may be bad government, but it's better than what we have now." Because it's true. The current government doesn't follow the Constitution. Some of the people who call themselves "strict Constitutionalists" simply want to force a slightly modified version of tyranny on us all. Jim Bell

1 0

Re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications (Was: Choices)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:02 AM 2/11/96, lmccarth(a)cs.umass.edu wrote: >Padgett writes: >> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands > >(not wishing to start a flamewar) Why do you think so ? It isn't so. There are no restrictions, regulations, rules, or guidelines about communicating with non-citizens/sites. None. No permits are needed, no forms have to be filled out, no government offices have to be visited to explain one's reasons for communicating with a non-citizen. Just pick up the phone, or type a message in your computer, or whatever. We citizens of the U.S. do it many times a day. (There are two special cases, which hardly make Padgett's point: "Trading with the Enemy Act" sorts of restrictions which limit commercial contacts with Cuba, North Korea, and a few other countries. And the espionage laws. That is, give nuclear weapons info to North Korean and you're in big trouble. And there are various other kinds of minor rules, such as that no citizen may engage in private diplomacy, bypassing the normal channels. I don't believe these special cases are what Padgett could have meant when he described the regulatory powers of government.] --Tim May, who is even now communicating with foreigners without regulation Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 3

POINTERS: 02 08 96 Edupage
by James M. Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friend, 02 08 96 Edupage includes-- COPYRIGHT IN THE DIGITAL AGE (European Film Companies Alliance: "It's mine!") INTERNET USAGE POLICIES (Employees' rights: NOT!) Cordially, Jim NOTE. Archives: http://www.educom.edu Edupage dated 02 08 96 is archived under date 02 09 96.

1 0

Re: China
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:18 PM 2/10/96 +0530, you wrote: > Remember that starting this year, satellites of Iridium and other >LEO satellite projects will start to go up, spreading bandwidth around >the world. How will the Chinese government build a firewall against >satellites? Say, for instance orbiting anonymous remailers with pgp? Will >happen some day. Remember that much of censorship, as with cryptography, is economics. With Iridium satellite time at $3/minute, charged to the recipient, it's well within the financial means of a Banned Pharmaceutical Wholesaler, and well outside the financial means of an average Chinese university student, partly because the Chinese economy has much lower price and wage structures than the major Western economies do. On the other hand, renting a few gigabytes per day of satellite broadcast time to broadcast isn't out of the question, or at least renting a few tens of megabytes per day wasn't out of the question a couple years ago :-) On the other hand, as you say, if the Chinese government tries a Tien-an-men in cyberspace, the students _will_ have better tanks. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs Pager +1-408-787-1281

1 0

Re: American Reporter on CDA 2/8/96 (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:28 AM 2/10/96 +0000, Sean Gabb. wrote: >What a splendid article! I will keep it on disk forever. Congratulations! You're now an Unindicted Co-Conspirator! #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs Pager +1-408-787-1281

1 0

Re: Privacy Without Tears
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>If everyone not only has a link to these pages in text, but also has their >>"PGP secured!", or similar little graphic on their pages, linked to these >>sites as well, it would save a lot of people a lot of redundant explaining >>and it would help spread the word about PGP like wildfire to the masses. > >I like that a lot! A nifty graphic would be the old-fashioned engraving of a >padlock on the O'Reilly book about PGP. ViaCrypt's PGP version for Windows has a more modern-looking padlock; the icon I use for the Program Manager group I keep PGP, Private Idaho, etc. in is the Safe icon that's one of Program Manager's builtins. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs Pager +1-408-787-1281

1 0

No Subject
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From proff Sat Feb 10 18:09:57 1996 Subject: new zip cracking code To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 18:09:57 +1100 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3806 Does anyone have any pointers to cryptanalysis papers on the Zip encryption scheme (presented below)? I've seen a few MSDOS executeables which used some sort of brute force attack, which didn't seem particularly intelligent or effective for long passwords. If anyone has some pointers, or source I'd be glad to hear of it. From what I can see of Schlafly's algorithm a bute force attack could be speed up a great deal by pre-compution and expansaion of elements of the first 3 or so rounds at the very least. Ideas anyone? Decryption ---------- The encryption used in PKZIP was generously supplied by Roger Schlafly. PKWARE is grateful to Mr. Schlafly for his expert help and advice in the field of data encryption. PKZIP encrypts the compressed data stream. Encrypted files must be decrypted before they can be extracted. Each encrypted file has an extra 12 bytes stored at the start of the data area defining the encryption header for that file. The encryption header is originally set to random values, and then itself encrypted, using 3, 32-bit keys. The key values are initialized using the supplied encryption password. After each byte is encrypted, the keys are then updated using psuedo-random number generation techniques in combination with the same CRC-32 algorithm used in PKZIP and described elsewhere in this document. The following is the basic steps required to decrypt a file: 1) Initialize the three 32-bit keys with the password. 2) Read and decrypt the 12-byte encryption header, further initializing the encryption keys. 3) Read and decrypt the compressed data stream using the encryption keys. Step 1 - Initializing the encryption keys ----------------------------------------- Key(0) <- 305419896 Key(1) <- 591751049 Key(2) <- 878082192 loop for i <- 0 to length(password)-1 update_keys(password(i)) end loop Where update_keys() is defined as: update_keys(char): Key(0) <- crc32(key(0),char) Key(1) <- Key(1) + (Key(0) & 000000ffH) Key(1) <- Key(1) * 134775813 + 1 Key(2) <- crc32(key(2),key(1) >> 24) end update_keys Where crc32(old_crc,char) is a routine that given a CRC value and a character, returns an updated CRC value after applying the CRC-32 algorithm described elsewhere in this document. Step 2 - Decrypting the encryption header ----------------------------------------- The purpose of this step is to further initialize the encryption keys, based on random data, to render a plaintext attack on the data ineffective. Read the 12-byte encryption header into Buffer, in locations Buffer(0) thru Buffer(11). loop for i <- 0 to 11 C <- buffer(i) ^ decrypt_byte() update_keys(C) buffer(i) <- C end loop Where decrypt_byte() is defined as: unsigned char decrypt_byte() local unsigned short temp temp <- Key(2) | 2 decrypt_byte <- (temp * (temp ^ 1)) >> 8 end decrypt_byte After the header is decrypted, the last two bytes in Buffer should be the high-order word of the CRC for the file being decrypted, stored in Intel low-byte/high-byte order. This can be used to test if the password supplied is correct or not. Step 3 - Decrypting the compressed data stream ---------------------------------------------- The compressed data stream can be decrypted as follows: loop until done read a charcter into C Temp <- C ^ decrypt_byte() update_keys(temp) output Temp end loop -- +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ |Julian Assange | "if you think the United States has | |FAX: +61-3-9819-9066 | stood still, who built the largest | |EMAIL: proff(a)suburbia.net | shopping centre in the world?" - Nixon | +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

1 0

WIT_nes
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NYT Web site does not seem to offer today's Sunday magazine article on the federal Witness Security Program, as revealed through one family's trauma of official death and rebirth: WIT_nes (38k in 2 parts)

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's hard to tell the difference between "Assasination Politics" and government-sponsored provocateurism, a well-documented practice to stigmatize anarchical and anti-authoritarian ventures. However, it takes guts and thick skin to advocate overthrow of authority, knowing that reasonable people will think you're a nut seeking celebrity martyrdom. Happily for the careers of agent-and-anarchist back-stabbing back-scratchers, there is no easy way to know for sure which is which, or even if there's any difference when the media juggernauts are provocateuring both roles for melodramatic infotainment.

1 0

URLs for Anon remailers?
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anybody got some good URLs for info on anonymous remailers for novices and experienced users alike? I need to know which are which so I can hand them out like candy to my .edu friends who aren't _as_ net savvy, but aren't dumb as dirt clods either. Much appreciated. lunaslide "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - -- Abraham Lincoln On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

Re: China
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > At 01:54 PM 2/10/96 EST, you wrote: > >It's not difficult to imagine that governments will seek to regulate the > >possession of modems again. Some may recall that in the U.S. it used to be > >technically illegal to connect a modem to the phone jack without a permissio > >from AT&T. > > Actually, permission from the local phone companies, who owned the system, > I assume? (Though I don't actually remember which parts of The Phone Company > were involved in the Carterphone decision.) Nope. I used modems back when the local phone company _was AT&T. :-) --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Encryption and Backups
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- GNU-Zip (GZip) format has encryption defined, but (AFAIK) not yet implemented. The probably won't use the vile PKZip method... and they probably will implement an unpatented method, if ever. Mark C. Henderson wrote: > GNU tar is not the commercial backup solution many folks will be > looking for, but it works, and has nice built-in hooks which are > intended to call a compression program. > > One can also use these options to call an encryption program, as long > as the encryption program takes stdin as input, stdout as output, > encrypts by default, and decrypts when given the -d option. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMR4ebyoZzwIn1bdtAQE9gwF/cDRa2Ke0i1LoezO68du4VnaR9oQmrRdS qzAQ4mM3zNsiYVRDtDrz3yqlWwtUcse3 =DQKs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: "Rights"
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:15 AM 2/10/96 -0600, Ed Carp wrote: >What happens when there *is* no remedy, when there are no other sites to >go to, when there are no employers who would refrain from violating an >employee's privacy? What then? Then start your own business, as many of the people on this list have done at one time or another. And that is why, under real capitalism, unlike socialism, there will always be employers horrified by the idea of invading their employees privacy. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

cypherpunks, digital cash, and my doctoral research
by David J. Phillips 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm a PhD student at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. My research is on the ways that various groups influence the development of "digital cash" systems. I'd like to work with cypherpunks for part of this research. Right now, I expect this work to include reviewing the list's archives, participating in the list and in physical meetings, and interviewing some people. If you have any thoughts on this (or feelings: revulsion, intrigue, pique perhaps), please drop me a line. Thanks. djp David J. Phillips, Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania I'm researching cultural, economic, legal, and technical aspects of the development of digital cash systems. Let me know if you're interested.

1 0

Re: PGP & Seamless Pegasus
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- JNPGP also has problems when you're encrypting to an address that isn't on the keyring. It'll barf and send the plaintext message out. A really bad flaw. It'd be nice to see it or another utility incorporate support for anonymous remailers, etc. IMO, all this will be made much easier when PGP 3.0 exists as a Windows or OS/2 DLL. PGP will probably take off beautifully then. Rob. Tripp Hardy wrote: > > Let's not celebrate just yet. While it is a great improvement, it still = > causes errors if you try to encrypt an attached file and conventional = > encryption still doesn't work here. The only one that is working all = > around for me is Private Idaho. We are moving in right direction = > though. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMR4cbCoZzwIn1bdtAQGi0wF/X9JB0tJU5H0JNf141u+F7Zf1uDNSUnXx H6STdM5urkwtWvvZCxM9v0lt03D+ro7r =CSSL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0