December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: A Beehive in their Bonnet, from The Netly News
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 12:41 PM 10/20/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: ... >A Beehive in Their Bonnet >by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > > John Caldeira's remark in a beekeeper's discussion > area on Prodigy seemed innocuous enough: It > described how to rid honeybees of parasites. "Two > ounces of Mavrik mixed with one gallon of water and > sprayed on the bottom boards of one's hives several > times a year. It is reportedly very effective," > Caldeira wrote. > > Honey may attract flies, but this discussion about its > production drew swarms of bureaucrats. The Texas > Department of Agriculture charged Caldeira with > violating a state law banning unapproved discussions > of bee medicines and fined the 42-year-old hobbyist > $600. A draft statement from the department > complains that Caldeira was "criticizing > regulations" and improbably argues that "the honey > market in the U.S. could become depressed because > of widespread concerns about its safety and due to > Mr. Caldeira's suggestion that commercial beekeepers > are using Mavrik in their hives." Effectively conceding that Mr. Caldeira has more reputation- capital than they do. Gee, I wonder what an enterprising bee- keeper would need to do to keep these bureaucrats at bay? ;^) Suppose that instead of "Mavrik" the solution were instead the regular burning of hemp byproducts nearby? If nothing else, this would certainly lead to docile bees... JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQEPAwUBNEvklzUhsGSn1j2pAQGqqQfPV4xHkB2JIySmL7mdcNSbu9D79EVPeGPu lk448L9pQw6UgDQy6cIn6+xY4/0zwEGItf0gEPwkT7upTBKpoOJEIk7zlJPgw0H1 7WZZDARj1scqM7YVIIq5ce1c/3jMUfqTZ3HcXhxJ9rPtHmU4+PW5Y6uJisSE2fKY f3JrGhcfOfkdhGPSBNZTmtfwnBZRORXbv1aM+ibqgLcipWr7SrfyrLoE8VQr4pEd BJ7aBgoQK0cNw4f9vLcETTrPCrEsJqbRoFfl97apehp1zmSoKYn1AeriRK4qE0mD v7dY2sclypzpH59wF45mddMUO7uYdaZ7EzxDV3ll6qqEpA== =krnc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: A Math problem related to cryptography
by phelix＠vallnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 19 Oct 1997 18:36:26 -0500, Jeffery Walker <jeff(a)beol.net> wrote: > > I have been working on some math and C++ code to implement it. The >problem relates to a possible new means of factoring. However, I have run >into a problem which I cannot solve. Indeed it maybe impossible. The >problem is this: > > Find and equation using only multiplication, division, GCD, LCM and >powers (not addition or subtraction) in terms of a and b which is equal to >a+b for all Integers. If so desired it can be assumed that a and b are >relative primes with a>b. Note that equivalent problems include but aren't >limited to finding a similar equation for a+1. If other functions such as >logs are required they may be allowed but I would have to look into it. > > To encourage people to answer I am offering $20 for a solution and >$10 for a proof that it is impossible. I will judge all answers as to the >validity both in terms of actually being correct (or in the case of a proof >a valid argument) and in that they do not use functions such as addition or >subtraction which are not allowed. > (why do I get the feeling that I'm doing somebody's homework assignment) Claim: In the realm of Integers, There does not exist a formula using only multplication,division,GCD,LCM,and powers such that f(a,b)=a+b for all integers a,b Proof (by contradiction): I assume that a,b are primes > 2. Lets also define x,y,z,w,m,n and any integer >=0 and C,D,E as any integer > 0. Now let's look at the operations available to us: multiplication and powers: C=C*(a^0)*(b^0) CD=E(a^0)*(b^0) where E=CD a=1*(a^1)*(b^0) a^2=1(a^2)*(b^0) Cab^2=C*(a^1)*(b^2) well , all results can be expressed in the following form: C*(a^x)*(b*y) division: a !| b and b !| a (here !| means "does not divide") (From here on out, lets assume that a !| C,D,E and b !| C,D,E. it makes things simpler) Ca/a=C*(a^0)*(b*0) Ca/D=E*(a^1)*(b^0) assuming that E | C I won't go through all this. It should be obvious that for all allowed divisions, the result can be expressed as C*(a^x)*(b*y) GCD: gcd(a,b)=1 gcd(a,C)=1 gcd(Ca,Da)=max(a,gcd(C,D)) gcd(Ca,Db)=gcd(C,D) gcd(C(a^x),C(a^y))=C(a^(min(x,y))) gcd(C(a^x)*(b^y),D(a^z)*(b^w))=gcd(C,D)*(a^(min(x,y)))*(b^(min(z,w)))) =E(a^m)*(b^n) for E=gcd(C,D) m=min(x,z) and n=min(y,w) so, all results of GCD can be expressed in the form: C(a^x)(b^y) LCM: LCM(C,D)=CD/gcd(C,D) LCM(C(a^x)*(b^y),D(a^z)*(b^w)) =CD*(a^(x+z))*(b^(y+w))/gcd(C(a^x)*(b^y),D(a^z)*(b^w)) =( CD/gcd(C,D) * (a^(|x+z-min(xz)|)) * (b^(y+w-min(yw)) = E(a^m)*(b^n) where E=CD/gcd(C,D)=lcm(C,D), m=x+z-min(x,z) , n=y+w-min(y,w) so, all results of LCM can be expressed in the form: C(a^x)(b^y) Now, as you can probably tell by now, I don't remember a damn thing about groups, rings, and fields. If i did, I could have done all of the above in one paragraph. SO, what I'm trying to say is that all the numbers you can operate on here will be of the form C(a^x)(b^y). SO you really have to prove at least the following C(a^x)(b^y)=a+b for some C>0, x,y>=0 integers Now, you could probably say that C=a+b, x,y=0, but that's a cop out and is probably not allowed. Now, watch while I cop out and provide an easy counterexample: assume some formula exists such that f(a,b)=a+b with f only using *,/,gcd,lcm,^ operators let a=5, b=7 Since I know that ultimately anything I do with constants and the operators 8,/,gcd,lcm,^ will result in something in the form of C(a^x)(b^y), I won't even mess with the formula there must exist some C>0, x,y>=0 that makes: C(5^x)(7^y)=5+7=12 of x>=1 and y>=1 then C(5^x)(7^y)>12 for all C>0 if x=0 and y=0, C=12 (this works) if x=1,y=0 then 5C=12. there is no C which satisfies this. if x=0,y=1 then 7C=12. there is no C which satisfies this. so, the only solution is C=12, or more generally, C=a+b oops, that can't be the formula since we're not allowed to do that. QED. Well, that was pretty sloppy, so lets be more general about this: C(a^x)(b^y)=a+b Now, I'm sure that somewhere in the history of mathematics somebody has proven that for primes a and b where a,b>2 that a*b>a+b. So, for any x,y,C>0, C(a^x)(b^y)>a+b. C, of course, cannot be negative, or zero, so all were left with is x or y being zero. Let y=0. we have: C*a^x=a+b C*a^x - a = b a*(C*a^(x-1) - 1 ) = b a*E=b Now, a and b are primes and a!=b. From the fundamental theorem of algebra, every number can be represented by a series of primes such as: p1^a1 * p2^a2 * p3^a3 * ... In a*E=b, if we factor each side down to its primes, we find that the right hand side does not contain the prime 'a' which is on the left hand side, so a*E != b. A similar argument can be used for the case x=0. This leaves the only solution to C(a^x)(b^y)=a+b being x=0,y=0 C(a^0)(b^0)=C=a+b which isn't allowed. QED Now, If you're like me, you've probably read the above and don't have a f*cking clue what I meant (I sure wouldn't if I read all that crap). So here's the executive summary. With the operators you've defined on the number set you want to work with, no matter how complicated or crazy your formula is, I can express the result at C(a^x)(b^y). And hopefully, I've shown that C(a^x)(b^y) cannot equal a+b except in the trivial case of C=a+b (with x,y=0) which is what you don't want. >Thanks, >Jeff >P.S. I am very interested in joining the coderpunks list as I do program >and am interested in cryptography as related to programming. If someone >would be kind enough to recommend me I thank you. > I wasn't aware that you had to be invited to the coderpunks list. Just send a message to majordomo(a)toad.com with the following in the body: subscribe coderpunks -- Phelix, who really should have been able to give a better proof (especially since one of my degrees has the word 'Mathematics' on it)

2 1

Re: A Math problem related to cryptography
by phelix＠vallnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 19 Oct 1997 18:36:26 -0500, Jeffery Walker <jeff(a)beol.net> wrote: > > I have been working on some math and C++ code to implement it. The >problem relates to a possible new means of factoring. However, I have run >into a problem which I cannot solve. Indeed it maybe impossible. The >problem is this: > > Find and equation using only multiplication, division, GCD, LCM and >powers (not addition or subtraction) in terms of a and b which is equal to >a+b for all Integers. If so desired it can be assumed that a and b are >relative primes with a>b. Note that equivalent problems include but aren't >limited to finding a similar equation for a+1. If other functions such as >logs are required they may be allowed but I would have to look into it. > > To encourage people to answer I am offering $20 for a solution and >$10 for a proof that it is impossible. I will judge all answers as to the >validity both in terms of actually being correct (or in the case of a proof >a valid argument) and in that they do not use functions such as addition or >subtraction which are not allowed. > (why do I get the feeling that I'm doing somebody's homework assignment) Claim: In the realm of Integers, There does not exist a formula using only multplication,division,GCD,LCM,and powers such that f(a,b)=a+b for all integers a,b Proof (by contradiction): I assume that a,b are primes > 2. Lets also define x,y,z,w,m,n and any integer >=0 and C,D,E as any integer > 0. Now let's look at the operations available to us: multiplication and powers: C=C*(a^0)*(b^0) CD=E(a^0)*(b^0) where E=CD a=1*(a^1)*(b^0) a^2=1(a^2)*(b^0) Cab^2=C*(a^1)*(b^2) well , all results can be expressed in the following form: C*(a^x)*(b*y) division: a !| b and b !| a (here !| means "does not divide") (From here on out, lets assume that a !| C,D,E and b !| C,D,E. it makes things simpler) Ca/a=C*(a^0)*(b*0) Ca/D=E*(a^1)*(b^0) assuming that E | C I won't go through all this. It should be obvious that for all allowed divisions, the result can be expressed as C*(a^x)*(b*y) GCD: gcd(a,b)=1 gcd(a,C)=1 gcd(Ca,Da)=max(a,gcd(C,D)) gcd(Ca,Db)=gcd(C,D) gcd(C(a^x),C(a^y))=C(a^(min(x,y))) gcd(C(a^x)*(b^y),D(a^z)*(b^w))=gcd(C,D)*(a^(min(x,y)))*(b^(min(z,w)))) =E(a^m)*(b^n) for E=gcd(C,D) m=min(x,z) and n=min(y,w) so, all results of GCD can be expressed in the form: C(a^x)(b^y) LCM: LCM(C,D)=CD/gcd(C,D) LCM(C(a^x)*(b^y),D(a^z)*(b^w)) =CD*(a^(x+z))*(b^(y+w))/gcd(C(a^x)*(b^y),D(a^z)*(b^w)) =( CD/gcd(C,D) * (a^(|x+z-min(xz)|)) * (b^(y+w-min(yw)) = E(a^m)*(b^n) where E=CD/gcd(C,D)=lcm(C,D), m=x+z-min(x,z) , n=y+w-min(y,w) so, all results of LCM can be expressed in the form: C(a^x)(b^y) Now, as you can probably tell by now, I don't remember a damn thing about groups, rings, and fields. If i did, I could have done all of the above in one paragraph. SO, what I'm trying to say is that all the numbers you can operate on here will be of the form C(a^x)(b^y). SO you really have to prove at least the following C(a^x)(b^y)=a+b for some C>0, x,y>=0 integers Now, you could probably say that C=a+b, x,y=0, but that's a cop out and is probably not allowed. Now, watch while I cop out and provide an easy counterexample: assume some formula exists such that f(a,b)=a+b with f only using *,/,gcd,lcm,^ operators let a=5, b=7 Since I know that ultimately anything I do with constants and the operators 8,/,gcd,lcm,^ will result in something in the form of C(a^x)(b^y), I won't even mess with the formula there must exist some C>0, x,y>=0 that makes: C(5^x)(7^y)=5+7=12 of x>=1 and y>=1 then C(5^x)(7^y)>12 for all C>0 if x=0 and y=0, C=12 (this works) if x=1,y=0 then 5C=12. there is no C which satisfies this. if x=0,y=1 then 7C=12. there is no C which satisfies this. so, the only solution is C=12, or more generally, C=a+b oops, that can't be the formula since we're not allowed to do that. QED. Well, that was pretty sloppy, so lets be more general about this: C(a^x)(b^y)=a+b Now, I'm sure that somewhere in the history of mathematics somebody has proven that for primes a and b where a,b>2 that a*b>a+b. So, for any x,y,C>0, C(a^x)(b^y)>a+b. C, of course, cannot be negative, or zero, so all were left with is x or y being zero. Let y=0. we have: C*a^x=a+b C*a^x - a = b a*(C*a^(x-1) - 1 ) = b a*E=b Now, a and b are primes and a!=b. From the fundamental theorem of algebra, every number can be represented by a series of primes such as: p1^a1 * p2^a2 * p3^a3 * ... In a*E=b, if we factor each side down to its primes, we find that the right hand side does not contain the prime 'a' which is on the left hand side, so a*E != b. A similar argument can be used for the case x=0. This leaves the only solution to C(a^x)(b^y)=a+b being x=0,y=0 C(a^0)(b^0)=C=a+b which isn't allowed. QED Now, If you're like me, you've probably read the above and don't have a f*cking clue what I meant (I sure wouldn't if I read all that crap). So here's the executive summary. With the operators you've defined on the number set you want to work with, no matter how complicated or crazy your formula is, I can express the result at C(a^x)(b^y). And hopefully, I've shown that C(a^x)(b^y) cannot equal a+b except in the trivial case of C=a+b (with x,y=0) which is what you don't want. >Thanks, >Jeff >P.S. I am very interested in joining the coderpunks list as I do program >and am interested in cryptography as related to programming. If someone >would be kind enough to recommend me I thank you. > I wasn't aware that you had to be invited to the coderpunks list. Just send a message to majordomo(a)toad.com with the following in the body: subscribe coderpunks -- Phelix, who really should have been able to give a better proof (especially since one of my degrees has the word 'Mathematics' on it)

1 0

RC5 encryption
by vcarlos35＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forgive this seemingly naive question, but.... Where does RC5 derive its security from? I know about the ROTL stuff and the key expansion methods (I have the RSA Cryptobytes, HAC, AC, etc.) However, I personally can't see how it would work. I know its supposedly secure because of the data-dependent rotations, and other features. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ROTL assembler command shifts all bits to the LEFT one and moves the "overflow" bits back into the right end of the register: 0100111011 to 0011101101 if it rotates left by 2 How does this make it hard to decrypt? The round function seems MUCH weaker than IDEA's, CAST's, or even GOST and Blowfish. Vincent Carlos

1 0

Re: consensus on pgp? can we consolidate for action?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: > I encrypt both my SMTP and POP links using SafePassage Secure Tunnel. > 128 bit SSL v3 with client certs. You can download a free eval copy of > SPST at http://www.c2.net/products/spst/ Without the certs, it shouldn't > take longer than 15 min. to set this up at your site. > > Disclaimer: I work for C2. Will these constant lies from C2Nut employees never stop? I've been at C2 for three months, now, and I haven't seen Lucky do any work, yet. CorporateSpyMonger

1 0

Your "RIGHT" to Speak to Big Brother
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today Janet "The Bitch of Waco" Reno held a news conference announcing that, in her not-so-humble opinion, Microsoft Corporation was in violation of a consent decree by virtue of bundling Internet Explorer with Windows '95, and that she was asking for a $1 million a day fine. Ho Hum. However, one tiny item in her news conference caught my attention. It wasn't related to IE or Windows, but to company secrets protected by non-disclosure agreements. Even though Microsoft has indicated that it does not intend for its non-disclosure agreements to be binding in a way which prevents persons from disclosing anything they like to the DOJ in a criminal investigation, the Feds apparently want the concept of non-disclosure to the government scrapped. Everyone, they claim, has a "right" to speak to the government on any subject whatsoever, which cannot be abrogated by anything as flimsy as a contract or agreement, designed to protect anothers secrets. After all, the government is your friend, and is here to help you. This was made clearer when The Bitch of Waco introduced her minion, Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein. "We're asking the court to order Microsoft to tell everyone who has signed or who in the future will sign a non- disclosure agreement, that it doesn't apply to the government, period. We won't allow anyone to interfere with the people's right to provide information to their government." And there you have it. The people's right to provide their neighbor's proprietary information their government shall not be infringed. How Constitutional-Sounding. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

3 2

RE: Impeachment of Janet Reno -- was Justice Department Sues Micr
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:20:09 -0400 Reply-To: com-priv(a)lists.ecosystems.net Originator: com-priv(a)lists.psi.com Sender: com-priv(a)lists.psi.com Precedence: bulk From: Com-Priv <com-priv(a)lists.ecosystems.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv(a)lists.psi.com> Subject: RE: Impeachment of Janet Reno -- was Justice Department Sues Micr X-Comment: Commercialization and Privatization of the Internet All right, I will justify (again) my position. Re: the bundling of a software with an Operating System. I will not say that I agree that there should be any restrictions or regulations regarding what applications can be "bundled" with an operating system. I will say that I vehemently disagree that the government should legislate what constitutes an operating system and what applications may be included. But I will concede that there is an ethical question regarding of bundling of any product with that of another in an effort to make bundled product competitive on something other than its merits. But please do not insult my intelligence. This is not the core issue at hand. Microsoft has been bundling IE since before it even had a version number when Windows 95 was originally released more than two years ago. I just took a close look at Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2, and you cannot not install IE -- that was released last summer. So I ask, why is this coming up now? The answer was given in the letter to the DOJ that Ralph Nadar's organization posted to this very list not more than one month ago. "Microsoft should not be permitted to...integrate the MSE with the operating system in ways that are unavailable to other firms." This is not the consumer public via DOJ against Microsoft, this is Netscape via DOJ against Microsoft. This is not about Windows 95 and IE 3.0, this is about Windows 98 and NT 5.0. Windows 98 and NT 5.0 have evolved the core operating system interface and functionality to be seamlessly integrated with and based upon Internet standards CIFS, LDAP, HTTP, HTML/XML, etc. This is what Netscape is attacking. There is a natural progression and market pressure to natively integrate Internet-based standards into both OS's and applications -- to legislatively prevent that is absolutely ridiculous and harmful to consumers. It would be the equivalent in my mind if the Australian maker of the Trumpet Winsocket (the most popular TCP/IP stack for Windows 3.1) had sued Microsoft for bundling TCP/IP with Windows 95/NT. All I can say about Netscape is the ability to successfully build and market software that complements or enhances another software package is dependent on a good relationship with that software vendor -- this is self-evident in the market. To self-proclaim yourself the destroyer of that vendor and then except that vendor to support you is utterly moronic -- they get what they deserve. For our mercenary government to pull out their guns in service of Netscape and force Microsoft to permit their existence is criminal. To proclaim Microsoft a monopoly and use that as justification to completely disregard reason, objectivity and rights of property, and disrupt the free market with subjective law and reason of guns is repulsive. I have trouble calling myself an American. Matt "You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. Your fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. Once declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers---and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system...that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be easier to deal with." _Atlas Shrugged_ --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

YOUR LISTING ON YAHOO!
by brian＠firstgear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

engines, it is becoming more and more difficult to be found among the MILLIONS of listings. If you"re like the rest of us you have found it extremely frustrating. You spend lots of time and money developing your site and then you're listed number 30, or 80, or even 200th. You're NEVER FOUND. *************************** GOOD NEWS The good news is we have found a SOLUTION. After months of fighting the search engine battle we got LUCKY. A programmer recently became associated with our firm who had done some CONSULTING WORK for six months with one of the major search engines. With his help we developed a REPORT on the major search engines and how they really work. ***************************** REPORT His report is excellent. We have been using the material in the report for over five months. IT WORKS! With it, our sites are in the top TEN listings on all major search engines and we have experienced a virtual stampede of people to the web sites. HITS ARE UP, SALES ARE UP, and most importantly, everyone is HAPPY. *************************** YOUR COPY Now, YOU CAN HAVE A COPY of his report. In it you will find: How to vault in the TOP TEN on any search engine using any keyword. Strategies that put you ahead of 95% of the other sites online. How to STAY in that TOP TEN. How to improve your chances of being found in about 10 MINUTES. How the search engines calculate CONFIDENCE ratings (and what that means to you). Killer META TAGS that totally blow away your competitors. Which search engines are the very BEST FOR YOU. How to get your site REGISTERED for FREE at over 200 locations, in one easy step (it takes 10 minutes). How to BLOCK out part of your site from the search engines (and why you should do it). The effect of REPEATING KEY WORDS. (good or bad?) What happens when you repeat them too many times? LATEST FORMS for developing the best meta tags. Meta Tag strategies that can broaden your audience and build high volume web traffic for you. We tell you exactly what to do and show you SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. And it's SIMPLE and EASY to understand. So you can put the principles to immediate use. The benefits of site UPDATING. How often? What NOT to do! Avoid making those errors which can cost you. and even How to legally "steal" your competitor's web traffic and send it to your site. Type in your competitor's name and YOUR NAME will appear FIRST! *************************** WHAT DOES IT COST? The material is only $15, and is unconditionally guaranteed to work for you. Just follow the instructions and you will find your site in the top ten too. Ordering is SAFE and EASY. For more information, or to RECEIVE this 18 page report by email just go to our INSTANT-DELIVERY SECURE order form at: http://www.lr-publishing.com/SES2/ (Order on line and you will receive your report in JUST 60 SECONDS.) Now that your site is up shouldn't you take this MOST IMPORTANT LAST STEP so people can find it. ****************************** UNCONDITIONAL GUARANTEE Remember, we UNCONDITIONALLY GUARANTEE IT WORKS. You can't lose. ******************************** SPECIAL FREE BONUS Order within 48 hours, we and will include, AS A FREE BONUS, information on over 500 SEARCH ENGINES and directories where you can list your site for free. (Some are very specialized and targeted). SPECIAL NOTE: If you are busy and don't have time to go to our web site INSTANT-DELIVERY SECURE ORDER FORM, you can order by FAX. (The unconditional guarantee still applies!) Just fill in the FAX FORM AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. Then FAX it to us at: 1-305-289-1884 If you order by FAX your copy of the report will be sent to you by email within 24 hrs. Or, if you prefer, you can send your order with a CHECK by snail mail to the address below. (Be sure to include your email address for delivery.) Whichever method you choose to order, YOU'LL BE GLAD YOU DID! Best of luck with your web site! Leeds Publishing 5800 Overseas Hwy., St. 35-154 Marathon Key, Fl. 33050 Fax 305-289-1884 http://www.lr-publishing.com/SES2/ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ FAX ORDER FORM (Please print clearly) FAX TO: Leeds Publishing FAX NUMBER: 1-305-289-1884 Hi: Here is my order for Search Engine Secrets at $15 only. I understand it is unconditionally guaranteed. Include my FREE BONUS of 500 search engines. Send by email ASAP. Date:__________________ NAME:_______________________________________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS:______________________________________________________________ (PLEASE be accurate. One small error and we can't send your order). CARD TYPE:_________________ CARD NUMBER:_________________________________________________ EXPIRATION DATE:______________ NAME ON CARD:________________________________________________ Thanks for ordering. Your copy of the report will be sent to you by email ASAP. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Copyright 1997 Leeds and Rousseau Publishing. All rights reserved. Form 10-16 GD-Yahoo

1 0

Cypherpunks Related (?) or merely about DC in general?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Q. How did Sir Alexander Fleming change Spain's bullfighting? A. Before he invented penicillin, countless toreros died of infected wounds. After, even the smallest arenas were equipped with penicillin syringes. And the performances became much more exhilarating. Said one cape artist: "Now I can stand closer to the bull." http://www.LMBoyd.com/postscript.htm

1 0

I am a homosexual!@#$!@#@!!
by Bronc Buster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, my name is Bronc Buster and you all know me. but what you donot know is that I AM A HOMOFAGGOT who likes lil' boys cocks and stuff. you all have to email me here cuz some body email bombed my other adress and then my new one. i also want to see pics of your cocks but please wtrie my name on your dick before you mail them to me so i know You love me. off to spank my small monkey, Bronc Buster ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

French GAK
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wall Street Journal, October 20, 1997: French Proposal For Encryption Is Worrying EC By Jennifer L. Schenker A proposed French law ensuring government access to corporate electronic communications is setting off alarm bells in the business community and on the European Commission. France, presenting the law as a liberalization of its current policy, is the only Western country that bans any domestic use of cryptography - technology that encodes data for protection against prying eyes. France also places strict controls on the export of encryption tools, a restriction imposed by certain other countries, including the U.S. The new rules, submitted to the European Commission on Thursday, allow businesses operating in France to encode their corporate secrets but require that keys to unlock the code be given to a French government-approved entity in which the majority of the capital or votes is retained by French nationals. Microsoft Corp., Netscape Communications Corp. and the Business Software Association have raised objections to the French proposal. The BSA represents major international software publishers and high-tech companies, including Novell Inc., Compaq Computer Corp., Apple Computer Inc. and Lotus, a unit of International Business Machines Corp. The proposal also requires companies selling products with embedded encryption software in France to reveal "source code" - the rough equivalent of asking Coke to reveal its secret formula. Some believe that such a key-recovery system would make it easier for competitors to gain access to a company's secrets. The BSA's European chapter is expected to release a public statement this week supporting the European Commission's decision earlier this month to reject the key-recovery approach to encryption, which is championed by both the U.S. and France. The commission, which will formally comment on the French proposal by month's end, is concerned partly because the French ownership requirements may violate internal market rules. "I do not say this is the best system. It is the least bad in trying to find a balance between national-security interests, economic interests and the protection of personal privacy," said Gen. Jean-Louis Desvegnes, chief of France's Central Service for the Security of Information Systems, a civilian agency that reports directly to the French prime minister's office. He indicated that France might be flexible on the ownership requirements. -----

1 0

everybody wants a piece of Microsoft's monopoly
by Zooko Journeyman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you thought Microsoft and Bill Gates were bad for the evolution of our precious technology, you'll _love_ the new "Guvsoft", lead by everyone's favorite businesswoman Janet Reno. The race to see who can play "Little Mister Gates" best and earn a cut of the action is accelerating. Pundits are already taking bets on Scott "Now Selling Licenses For 100% Pure Anything-Non-Microsoft" McNealy, Steve "Competition Is Great As Long It Doesn't Actually Affect Us" Jobs, and Janet "I've Already Demonstrated My Grasp Of Tactics And Tact" Reno. I mean, _sure_ Microsoft is an oppressive monopoly, but then what the hell is the USG? Zooko

3 2

Re: EC refutes GAK
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I originally posted this to the c2.net crypto list but apparently it never appeared, I've reposted it here in case anyone finds it useful] >The report also notes a new (to me, anyway) method of bypassing GAK while >maintaining full compliance with the law: > >"Users could encrypt a relatively large number of session keys in a way that >the previous key encrypts the next one, always using one or several official >escrow/recovery systems. Only the last key would be used to encrypt the >message. There's another way to foil GAK which I don't think has been mentioned before, using what is often referred to as "malicious obedience" in the military (or "you asked for it, you got it" elsewhere): Since I don't trust any cryptosystem based on mathematical principles, I encrypt all my communications using a one-time pad communicated on CDROM (700+MB if you push it). To limit the exposure of each pad, I change it once a month at a cost of ~$1 per CDR blank. If I communicate with around 100 people that's 100 x 12 x 700+MB or (rounding things up a bit) a terabyte of keying material a year. Since they use their own pads to communicate back to me, anyone wanting to intercept a years worth of traffic to/from me would need to archive 100 terabytes of keying material (I'd make sure I spread out the bits of pad I used so they couldn't just keep the useful bits and discard the rest). In any case since this will only be used for court-authorised intercepts (just keep repeating that until you believe it), everything would have to be archived without any changes so it could be used as evidence. At a cost of $100/month in CDR's this should comply with any GAK law (instant access to keys, etc), but will also do a reasonable job of overwhelming any centralised repository charged with storing the data. Of course since I don't trust the government any more than I trust those nasty cryptosystems based on mathematical principles, I'd use triple DES underneath the OTP just to be sure. Peter.

2 1

everybody wants a piece of Microsoft's monopoly
by Brandon Crosby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > If you thought Microsoft and Bill Gates were bad for the > evolution of our precious technology, you'll _love_ the > new "Guvsoft", lead by everyone's favorite businesswoman > Janet Reno. > > > The race to see who can play "Little Mister Gates" best > and earn a cut of the action is accelerating. Pundits > are already taking bets on Scott "Now Selling Licenses > For 100% Pure Anything-Non-Microsoft" McNealy, Steve > "Competition Is Great As Long It Doesn't Actually Affect Us" > Jobs, and Janet "I've Already Demonstrated My Grasp Of Tactics > And Tact" Reno. > > > > I mean, _sure_ Microsoft is an oppressive monopoly, but then > what the hell is the USG? > > The Dept of Justice pulled an Antitrust on Microsoft (sourced, the morning news)... $1 mil/day fine. Based on Internet Explorer. -Brandon Crosby

1 0

tell me more...
by adri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! I just loved +The Plot, Thickening;, it4s great! I4m from Portugal and I4m very concerned about these kind of problems nowadays. I think we4re coming to state of apocalyptic brainstorm, I think it4s also simtomatic. Please send news because I became curious about cyberstuff. Email me to adrimacedo(a)rocketmail.com Thank you.

1 0

index.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo Navigation Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Tech banner IBM Active Channel for Microsoft Internet Explorer. Find out about your chance to win a computer click here for official rules and information. rule U.S. SAID VULNERABLE TO COMPUTER ATTACK cyberwarfare October 21, 1997 Web posted at: 5:02 a.m. EDT (0902 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- A report concluding the nation is vulnerable to electronic warfare was delivered to the White House Monday by a presidential commission. The classified findings and recommendations of the Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection say the danger of computer attacks that could shut down communications and power grids is real and requires early action. "Today, the right command sent over the Internet to a power generating station's control computer could be just as effective as a backpack full of explosives and the perpetrator would be harder to identify and apprehend," the panel wrote in its executive summary to the report. The report recommends stepping up research and establishing a nationwide program to educate people on the scope of the problem. It also recommends revising existing laws to ensure protection against electronic attacks through the Internet. "Law has failed to keep pace with technology. Some laws capable of promoting assurance are not as clear or effective as they could be," the panel wrote. Because revamping laws would be a "lengthy and massive undertaking," the commission offered several suggestions to jump-start the process. "We identified existing laws that could help the government take the lead and serve as a model of standards and practices for the private sector," it wrote. "We identified other areas of law that can enable infrastructure owners and operators to take precautions proportionate to the threat." P.J. Crowley, a White House spokesman, said a task force composed of representatives from several government agencies will review the report and come up with recommendations, which is likely to take the rest of the year. In addition, an advisory committee headed by former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., and former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick will work with the private sector on ways to protect against cyber attacks. At a conference on computer security two weeks ago, commission Chairman Robert T. Marsh said the ability to do serious harm over the Internet is real. "While a catastrophic cyber attack has not occurred, we have enough isolated incidents to know that the potential for disaster is real and the time to act is now," he said. Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. rule Related stories: * Threat of 'techno' terrorism being explored - March 18, 1997 * Military sees high-tech future - March 8, 1997 Related sites: Note: Pages will open in a new browser window * Argonne National Laboratory Decision and Information Sciences - Presidential Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection Survey Form * Naval Research Laboratory Information Technology Division - Clinton creates Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection * U.S. Business Advisor - Survey -- Presidential Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection * The Whitehouse - Executive order on Critical Infrastructure Protection External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive. _________________________________________________________________ Infoseek search ____________________ ____ ____ _________________________________________________________________ rule Watch these shows on CNN for more sci-tech stories: CNN Computer Connection | Future Watch | Science & Technology Week rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards You said it... [INLINE] IBM Active Channel for Microsoft Internet Explorer. Find out about your chance to win a computer click here for official rules and information. rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

1 0

Dark is faster than Light
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bell Labs Proves Existence of Dark Suckers For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light. However, recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light, they suck dark. Thus they now call these bulbs dark suckers. The dark sucker theory, according to a Bell Labs spokesperson, proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass heavier than that of light, and that dark is faster than light. The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. Take for example, the dark suckers in the room where you are. There is less dark right next to them than there is elsewhere. The larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have a much greater capacity than the ones in this room. As with all things, dark suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the black spot on a full dark sucker. A candle is a primitive dark sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the path of the dark flowing into the candle. Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have a very limited range. There are also portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these can't handle all of the dark by themselves, and must be aided by a dark storage unit. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable dark sucker can operate again. Dark has mass. When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from this mass generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating dark sucker. Candles present a special problem, as the dark must travel in the solid wick instead of through glass. This generates a great amount of heat. Thus it can be very dangerous to touch an operating candle. Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper, you notice it gets slowly darker and darker. When you reach a depth of approximately fifty feet, you are in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats to the top. The immense power of dark can be utilized to mans advantage. We can collect the dark that has settled to the bottom of lakes and push it through turbines, which generate electricity and help push it to the ocean where it may be safely stored. Prior to turbines, it was much more difficult to get dark from the rivers and lakes to the ocean. The Indians recognized this problem, and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe travelling in the same direction as the flow of the dark, they paddled slowly, so as not to stop the flow of dark, but when they traveled against the flow of dark, they paddled quickly so as to help push the dark along its way. Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in an illuminated room in front of a closed, dark closet, then slowly open the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet, but since the dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet. In conclusion, Bell Labs stated that dark suckers make all our lives much easier. So the next time you look at an electric bulb remember that it is indeed a dark sucker.

1 0

PGP, CMR, and OpenPGP
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As a Corporate Security Officer, I personally would prefer a solution like Adam Back's CDR that leaves the copy of the corporate data on the user's hard drive to the current PGP CMR. As long as the email data didn't need to be encrypted during local storage (i.e. encrypted against the possibility of industrial espionage), I wouldn't care whether the copy of the corporate data was encrypted -- actually it would be a lot easier to leave it in plain text (as I think Tim May suggested). (A single file in Unix mail(1) file format would make a nice auditing/reporting tool, so you could remember what you had sent to whom all in one place.) Corporate keys as in PGP CMR just means another key to manage that provides a single point of weakness in the company's security architecture. Without forcing everyone to run on a secure OS on hardware they can't directly access (i.e. no desktop computers), any additional security provided by a CMR system (as in providing unalterable records of encrypted email that was sent) can be easily bypassed. OpenPGP, meanwhile, should work on non-GAK/CAK solutions, while PGP Inc. should come up with a new product name (like 'BizSecure' only less whimsical) for its line of corporate encryption programs. (It might even be better business for PGP to set up a wholly-owned subsidiary, whose name does not even incorporate the term 'PGP' or its derivatives, for marketing such products, as those products would not be tainted by personal privacy reputation of the name 'PGP'.) 'BizSecure' and its kindred would then interoperate with OpenPGP standards only to the extent of the common non-GAK/CAK functionality of the two systems. ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm(a)indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "Their walls are built of cannon balls, their motto is 'Don't Tread on Me'"

2 1

Re: Remailers and ecash (fwd)
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Picking up a thread of a few weeks ago (sometimes life intervenes)... What I propose is: employee -> encryptor -> email -> remailer -> delivermail -> recipient -> decrypt which forces the opponent to both monitor traffic much more closely (to get around the traffic analysis-resistance of remailers) and to decrypt the actual messages. The point being to force the opponent to employ other, less safe (more chance of discovery) techniques, like bribing your employees or sending in agents as employees of the cleaning company, etc., etc. This use of remailers I think could be worth money to corporations. Unless you are a truly huge corporation, you are not going to be in a position to set up private email links with everyone you need a private email link to. Using the Internet, while deploying security measures appropriate to the application, is just too cost-effective. My proposal is just that using encryption and remailers together gives you more security than either technique will alone, perhaps enough that commercial remailers could flourish. ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm(a)indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "Their walls are built of cannon balls, their motto is 'Don't Tread on Me'"

1 0

Re: GAK "service" charges (Re: EC refutes GAK)
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: >Peter Gutmann <pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz> writes: >>[multiple terabyte CDrom based keying material] >Reckon they'll twig, and charge you per megabyte to offer you the "service" >of allowing them to "recover" your communications in real time. Yes, but how will they phrase the requirements? A CD is a single key (in fact 1,000 CD's are all part of a single key)... this leads to the same problem I heard of here a few years ago w.r.t. outlawing gangs: "It would be impossible to word any comprehensive anti-gang legislation in a manner which didn't also outlaw the police". The same goes for certain aspects of escrowing, any escrow rules which are in any way practical and useable will also be open to all sorts of creative interpretation ("You must deposit a copy of your encryption key with the government" -> "Here's the key. Where can I park the forklift that moves the container of CD's?"). Peter.

2 1

Re: SMTP Encryption Exten
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Quoting In:ericm@lne.com to Harka <=- In> If your mail goes to an intermediate MX site, it'll sit in the In> clear on the disk there until its sent to its final In> destination. Even if all mailers supported ssmtp, the mail In> would not be secure. True, but an encrypted tunnel to fetch your e-mail will at least render wiretaps on your phone-line useless. While that doesn't really matter if all your e-mail is PGP-encrypted, the truth is that a lot of e-mail is still in the clear. That at least would be protected to a degree... Btw., does anybody know if there's an crypto-enhanced direct-dial-up program such as minicom out there? Ciao Harka ... "Use a Cipher - Be Free!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNE0TyjltEBIEF0MBAQEsawf/SyzCJ5vHC9gvn9aX4Efuxt9rNe6UqXoh 78ZpKba5X0QvkvPyG+4TAopLZUXL5Qjs5TKQmEhBcCnw4+bHv36T4nzaDPNKsD39 RFtCddWgpF1pIUQ7GIdY/mMTh5UGMibXgqU9Z1kZKP0j8pJJPn4aK1uSas+Yne69 /OdDX3PBBgbw66DxOqjdE6+pC0v5LS1janXUuEMXo8nV1MfpBnStI9ORAcyNeCtu H8KlnQcLwUhuEnTn/VeEwRZJIFPf3hUFcuxVdcooHgqDbY9d+zbSsFiqVE3EyMji bSiBTMK9N/jQ7VFllhkqLihJbA/Q27KP4M6hV4NMqDdh3Sfv6Bd7iw== =jbpL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

Bill Gates, the Bully Savior, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

***************** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1517,00.html The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com/) October 21, 1997 Bill Gates, the Bully Savior by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) When the Justice Department yesterday accused Microsoft of using its operating system near-monopoly to violate the law, the government did more than attack the world's largest software company. It also handed Microsoft's chief competitor, Netscape, a major business -- and political -- victory. Netscape has long been urging the Clinton administration to rein in Bill Gates. For years its lobbyists have bent the ears of powerful Washington policymakers. And, unlike many other Silicon Valley chiefs, Netscape's Jim Barksdale -- a veteran of such highly regulated companies as Federal Express and McCaw Cellular -- appears to truly understand how Washington works. So was Janet Reno motivated by politics, or law? "Fundamentally, I think it's a legal issue," says Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. "But to say whenever the wealthiest man in America and one of the most powerful companies in America is challenged by a cabinet official, you can't say there's no political impact. You're in a political world at that level." When asked to name the most pressing issues Netscape faces in Washington, company lobbyists rattle off a long list of topics from encryption to copyright and education. But antitrust has always topped the list. This, after all, is the company's primary policy goal: to stop what it considers to be Microsoft's predatory practices. "This is not a Netscape-Microsoft issue," says Netscape's public policy counsel Peter Harter. "This is not a browser war. This is about obeying the law." Perhaps. But clearly Netscape has been complaining to the government about Internet Explorer since the Microsoft browser first hit the Net. Naturally, the company cheered Janet Reno's suggestion that Microsoft be punished with a fine of up to $1 million a day. "We're very supportive of the actions the Department of Justice has taken," Roberta Katz, Netscape's chief counsel, told the Netly News last night. "This lawsuit is about preserving competition as we move to the era of digital commerce." It is, of course, also an efficient way for Netscape to protect its commanding share of the browser market. "Bill Gates is a successful rival who makes it difficult for others to do business. Rather than compete against him head to head in the market, competitors turn to antitrust laws," says Don Boudreaux, a professor of law and economics at Clemson University. "What people at Netscape probably don't like is the fact that Internet Explorer is a good product." Netscape has slowly been emerging as the grand marshal in the Everyone But Microsoft parade. Last year Netscape hired the heavyweight Silicon Valley law firm of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, whose partner Gary Reback is a veteran anti-Microsoft campaigner. In November 1994 Reback prepared -- after a request from the Department of Justice, which was investigating Microsoft -- a 100-page white paper on behalf of three anonymous high tech clients. The theme: Microsoft's apparent anticompetitive behavior. [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

CDR design document
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here is a proposal for consideration for inclusion in the OpenPGP standard: http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/cdr/ (Also attached text version below [1]) It describes a mechanism for commercial data recovery which attempts to minimise the security risks inherent in allowing disaster recovery of stored encrypted documents. The CDR design also avoids the security risks in building systems which send recovery information over open communications networks, as the CMR proposal currently does. The CDR design offers the option of more ergonomic recovery from forgotten passphrase. CDR allows for more secure use to be made of the existing pgp5.0 key expiry functionality when applied to communications-only keys because they can be deleted with out loss of data-availability, providing a form of PFS which is backwards compatible with pgp5.0 and pgp5.5 clients. Comments? The only change addition to the standard required is to create a distinction between a storage only key and a communications only key. This distinction could be made via the use of an extra flag, ideally so that keyrings can remain standardised and interchangeable between different implementations. The document can also be viewed as a recommendation to implementors of how to avoid security risks (and related government abuse risks) in implementing data recovery systems. I would like to see the OpenPGP standard accomodate both the CMR and CDR design so that each can fly on it's technical merits. (And political merits, cryptography being a highly political field, a politically unpopular design may suffer for other than technical reasons). Adam [1] http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/cdr/ ==============================8<============================== Commercial Data Recovery This document describes a mechanism, Commercial Data Recovery (CDR), to allow companies to recover stored encrypted information as part of a disaster recovery plan. Introduction This document is centered around the OpenPGP standard, and therefore explores first what is possible within the existing standard. Several of the CDR variants presented can be achieved entirely within the pgp5.0 standard without adding any new functionality. Commercial disaster recovery requirement PGP is commonly used for two purposes: file encryption, and encryption of email communications. The situation arises in a commercial setting that individuals are protecting information which the company would like to be able to recover in the event of disaster: in the event of the user forgetting his passphrase, or in the event of the unexpected death of the employee. Stored files which the company may require the ability to recover include encrypted files stored in the files system, on backup tapes, or on floppy disks; and encrypted sent and recieved emails stored in mail client folders. Security vs Availability There is a security risk in adding data recovery mechanisms: the additional risk that recovery procedure is used by other than the owners of the data to recover plaintext. A central goal of the CDR design described in this document is to minimise this security risk. Keys used to encrypt email which is transmitted over the Internet are more valuable to an attacker than keys used to encrypt stored files because of the relative ease with which an attacker can obtain copies of emailed ciphertext. Stored encrypted files in contrast are protected by all the physical security systems the company is relying on to protect it's paper files, plaintext data stored on disks, and backup tapes. For this reason the CDR approach treats communications keys as more sensitive than keys used to encrypt locally stored information. Separate Signature and Encryption Keys added in pgp5.0 This section describes a feature added to PGP with the pgp5.0 release: separate signature and encryption keys. Readers familiar with pgp5.0 functionality may like to skip this section. pgp2.x RSA keys pgp2.x (and pgp1.x) only had direct support for one type of public key: the RSA public key. RSA public keys were used both as signature keys, and as encryption keys to transfer session keys. The ability to generate RSA keys, and to interoperate with pgp2.x is retained in pgp5.x. pgp5.x El Gamal (DH) encryption and DSA signature keys One reason for the introduction of separate key functionalities is the addition, starting with pgp5.0, of the DSA digital signature algorithm which can only function as a signature system. In addition the El Gamal (EG) public key system which was also added with pgp5.0 is used only as a public key encryption system. (There are some El Gamal variants which can be used to produce digital signatures, but these are not used in pgp5.0). (El Gamal is a Diffie-Hellman (DH) variant which is sometimes also referred to confusingly as DH.) The DSA is itself a DH signature variant. Patent issues Another significant reason for the adoption of EG and DSA in particular is the freedom from patent encumbrances these algorithms now enjoy. RSA by contrast is patented, and unpatented algorithms are generally preferred for internet standards. Key expiry feature added in pgp5.0 One general security principle is that keys used to protect communications should be replaced periodically to reduce the value to an attacker of an individual key. Migration path The pgp5.0 standard provides support for this functionality in terms of the ability to attach expiry dates to signature and encryption keys. (In the pgp5.0 and pgp5.5 clients the signature and encryption keys are treated as a pair, and are given the same expiry information, but both the pgp5.0 and pgp5.5 clients can already cope with signature-only keys and encryption-only keys with different expiry information.) Web of Trust In pgp5.0 with the EG public keys, the Web of Trust (WoT) is based on the signature keys only. The users signature key is authenticated in the web of trust. The user signs his own encryption key thereby transferring trust to it. This ensures that encryption keys can be expired and replaced without affecting the web of trust. Limited Perfect Forward Secrecy Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) refers the technique of destroying old communications keys to ensure that past traffic can not be compromised after the point of re-keying. One way to use the pgp5.0 key expiry facilities is to have signature and encryption keys with very different expiry periods. For example a signature key could be given no expiry period (the pgp5.0 standard supports expiry periods of `forever'), and encryption keys could be given an expiry period of 6 months. To obtain PFS, a more secure way of dealing with expired encryption keys is to actually irretrievably delete them. This then simulates PFS: an attacker is unable to decrypt traffic encrypted with old communications keys even if he is able to coerce co-operation from the recipient. No one can be coerced because the key has been deleted. It seems reasonable that some users may want to use key expiry for this purpose, and this does not require any modifications to the existing pgp5.0 standard. Key expiry problems for stored encrypted data One problem introduced by key expiry is that any stored data encrypted to the expired key becomes less available. For security reasons the expired key should ideally be deleted, and in this case access to the data is lost. Alternatives are to attempt to store the old keys more securely, this then presents the problem that some stored data is harder to access than other data, and presents additional key management problems for old keys which will be confusing for users. Re-encrypting after key expiry One method to solve this problem is to re-encrypt all of the encrypted files at the point of re-keying. However this method has disadvantages in that not all of the encrypted data may be easily available. Some of the encrypted data may be on backup tapes, on floppy disks, or stored inside `zip' or `tar' archives on the disk and hence may be missed. Separate storage keys The simplest solution to this problem seems to be to encrypt to a separate storage key. Within the pgp5.0 standard this storage key would be a separate El Gamal key with a long expiry date. With this system we then have three types of keys: signature-only keys, communications-only keys and storage-only keys. This could require minimal or even no modifications to the pgp5.0 standard, storage and encryption keys could be differentiated between by: * location storage-only key is stored in (for example a separate keyring) * application being configured to use a chosen encryption key as the storage-only key by giving a keyID * convention on expiry dates (expiry date `forever' could be storage key, other values could be communications keys) * extra flag to indicate a storage-only key Once the separation of key types is made, the security benefits of re-keying can be more fully obtained. Sent and recieved email folders To maintain availability after re-keying of encrypted sent and received emails archived in mail folders, the email plaintext would be encrypted with the storage-only key. This then means that data availability for encrypted files on disk, floppy disk, and backup tape is maintained; and that availability for archived sent and received emails is maintained. Storage Recovery If the system is being used in a commercial setting, disaster recovery can be provided by storing recovery information to allow recovery of the storage-only key. There is still some additional danger over the case where there is no recovery procedure: the risk that an attacker may be able to compromise the recovery information. However because the encrypted data is all protected by the companies existing physical security mechanisms the security risk is minimised. Another form of storage recovery would be to include recovery information with each file, and this would be a valid combination achieved by placing CMR-style requests for additional crypto-recipients on the CDR storage-only key. However this practice makes recovery from forgotten passphrase more problematic: to restore user access to the data after forgotten passphrase, the recovery agent would have to decrypt all stored files (be they on hard disk, backup tape, floppy disk, or stored inside `zip' or other archives), then the user would have to generate a new storage-only key, and re-encrypt all of the files. Given the frequency with which users are prone to forgetting passphrases implementors may decide to avoid this option for ergonomics reasons. CDR vs CMR PGP Inc has an alternative data recovery proposal called Commercial Message Recovery (CMR). The CMR proposal involves sending recovery information with the message in the form of a second crypto recipient. In addition mechanisms are provided in the form of a proposed CMR public key extension to the IETF OpenPGP standard which indicates a request to the sender to include this recovery information. In addition facilities are provided in the form of PGP Inc's SMTP policy enforcer to partially enforce the inclusion of this recovery information by bouncing mail which does not include it. Security comparison PGP Inc's CMR proposal makes re-keying problematic because data is archived in email folders still encrypted to the encryption key. This tends to encourage the practice of having very long term communication encryption keys. Indeed the beta pgp5.0 implementation the author tried makes the recommendation that most users would give keys an expiry period of `forever'. In addition a security risk with the CMR proposal is that an attacker is able to obtain via coercion, bribery or burglary the CMR key used to encrypt the traffic for this key. With a purloined CMR recovery key, and given the long life time encouraged for such keys the previously passive attacker may be able to recover years worth of old traffic. Another risk is that companies may for simplicity have only one CMR key, thereby putting at risk the entire companies secured communications over periods of years. This is naturally a bad practice, and one which is discouraged by PGP Inc also, but the author remains cynically confident that some corporate users will ignore such advice. Privacy Comparison PGP Inc proposese the CMR communications recovery mechanism as a privacy respecting method of achieving data recovery. The privacy features of the CMR proposal are that there are proposed flags which are attached to a public key to indicate statement of intent about plaintext handling to the sender who is about to use the public key. Three statements of intent are possible with the current CMR proposal: * personal key (no flags set) * company use key, company may read message, please encrypt to listed company CMR recovery key(s) (recovery flag set) * company may read message, encrypt to listed CMR recovery key(s) or the message will be bounced (strict recovery flag set) PGP Inc's statement of intent in plaintext handling is a useful concept, in that it explains explicitly to the sender who will be able to read the message, and how the plaintext will be handled. Statement of intents are always advisory, in that they are impossible to enforce; however they are useful in encouraging ethical behaviour in this regard. Statement of intent messages are independent of recovery mechanism, and apply equally to the CDR mechanism described in this document. In fact the author would like to encourage a fuller set of statement of intent flags for both sender and recipient, allowing keys to be marked with intents: * personal key, messages not archived * personal key, messages archived * key used for company business, messages not archived * key used for company business, messages archived * key used for company business, messages archived and recoverable And, in addition a similar privacy argument could be made to allow the sender to express his preferences with regard to plaintext handling on a per message basis. This could generalise the -m function of pgp2.x which instructs the recipient not to save to a file. (The -m flag is the sort of electronic version of `please burn this document after reading', this flag is mildly enforced by the pgp2.x command line application). These set of flags would allow a sender to send a `normal communication message', or a `official statement, please archive with recovery if available', or `sensitive do not archive' and so on. A privacy respecting implementation could provide support for these functionalities. Whilst obviously easy to over-ride, this is felt to be a useful exercise in encouraging respect for privacy. In addition the recipient should have ability where company policy allows to choose which messages to archive, and which to archive with company recovery information. >From a privacy perspective the CDR and CMR proposals are approximately equivalent; the statement of intent flags, and the social value of encouraging companies to respect privacy are useful in both. Government access to communication key politics Another aspect of the whole data recovery area is that the US government, French government, and UK government (as well as other governments) have expressed an unhealthy interest in obtaining private individuals, and companies communications keys. Many privacy advocates view this development with fear, as it seems to many a particularly Orwellian development. Usually the Government Access to Communication Key (GACK) attempts try to deflect criticism by focussing on unrelated issues as a vehicle to introducing GACK: * Terrorist attacks and requirement for emergency government access to communications traffic * Government assistance for companies to recover stored plaintext via key escrow infrastructure. * Assisting electronic commerce by helping put in place Certification Authorities and digital signature laws However readers who have followed GACK politics will recognise the above for what they are: attempts to put in place GACK via indirect routes (respectively: the four horsemen of the infocalypse argument (the fallacy that terrorists will obey laws and use encryption systems which have government backdoors), the Clipper I, II and III attemps (various attempts by the US government to bribe and bully companies into building a GACK architecture), and the UK TTP (Trusted Third Party) proposal where `TTPs' are a euphamism for a Certification Authority (CA) which has been coerced by law to keep individuals private keys). Scenarios governments might shortly try this to request master keys for communications might be France, where the government is changing from a position of no encryption software without license, to a position of unlicensed encryption software being allowed provided that the governments has a back door into the communications. Other examples being perhaps the UK (with it's highly controversial TTP licensing proposals), or the US with the administration and law enforcement community pushing hard for access to communications keys. It is likely, particularly in the UK, and US in the authors opinion, that government backdoors would be demanded in carefully orchestrated stages, designed to minimise public opposition. There might be trials where the traditionally more regulated financial organisations were required to comply, next perhaps government funded research labs, and business organisations accustomed to large amounts of government regulation Only towards the end would people using government funded networks (academics), Internet services providers (ISPs) and individuals be regulated. The final phases may use a terrorist activity, or national emergency, or other scandal as justification for increasing the requirements. It is likely also that the justification will be in terms of wholesome sounding public safety safeguards. Political Comparison PGP Inc's CMR proposal loses heavily in the political argument in the author's opinion because the protocol design supports the practice of allowing third and fourth party access to communications traffic. Particularly with the multiple CMR key requests per key which are rumored to be coming in the next version of PGP, it will be easy technically for a government to request that one of the recovery keys belong to the government. Governments already have the political will to have access to communications; the barriers are technical, and individual's resistance to the notion. The danger with the CMR proposal is that it could become the enabling technology for push button suveillance, the enabling technology for wide scale secret service signals intelligence keyword scanning. This probably not what it's proposers intend, however the danger is there in building the technology. The CDR proposal on the other hand focusses on recovery information of stored information only, and as a design principle avoids sending recovery information over open networks. Whislt governments may be interested to obtain storage keys, they have much less value, because the ciphertext is much harder to obtain. Also non-compliance is much harder to detect: a government law enforcement agency would not know if an individual was actually using storage software with government backdoor key access without physically obtaining the storage media. For most individuals the point at which governments executes a dawn raid is a point at which the individual is already in trouble. The CDR proposal is much closer to the status quo in political terms.

2 2

re: index.html
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> U.S. SAID VULNERABLE TO COMPUTER ATTACK > > "Today, the right command sent over the Internet to a power > generating station's control computer could be just as effective as > a backpack full of explosives and the perpetrator would be harder to > identify and apprehend," the panel wrote in its executive summary to > the report. "Today, we decided to hook up the computer that controls the power supply of several states to the most hostile WAN in history. OMIGOD, THERE'S AN INSECURE POWER GENERATION CONTROL COMPUTER HOOKED UP TO THE INTERNET! Everyone in the US, $2 please, so we can fix it." > > The report recommends stepping up research and establishing a > nationwide program to educate people on the scope of the problem. It > also recommends revising existing laws to ensure protection against > electronic attacks through the Internet. > This sounds like a bad cyberpunk novel. Two crackers in some hotel room in a hyper-crowded city in Japan, hacking the "power control network". Suddenly, one of them stops and says, "Shit." The other looks up, startled. The first says, "I forgot. This is against the law." A pause. Then they both start rolling around a floor covered with anti- static bags, polystyrene, and fast-food cartons laughing until they turn blue. > > "Law has failed to keep pace with technology. Some laws capable of > promoting assurance are not as clear or effective as they could be," > the panel wrote. > When I hear the "Law has failed to keep pace with technology" mantra, I get the feeling that lawmakers want license to pretend that Moore's Law applies to them, as well. Double the amount of criminal laws and regs every 18-24 months. > "We identified existing laws that could help the government take the > lead and serve as a model of standards and practices for the private > sector," it wrote. "We identified other areas of law that can enable > infrastructure owners and operators to take precautions > proportionate to the threat." "We think we can do what we want with what we already have. Give us the money anyway." Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Golem

1 0

Re: Your "RIGHT" to Speak to Big Brother
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/20/97 11:13 PM, Eric Cordian (emc(a)wire.insync.net) passed this wisdom: >And there you have it. The people's right to provide their >neighbor's proprietary information their government shall not be >infringed. How Constitutional-Sounding. can you say INSLAW ????? they are sooooo trustworthy! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNE08NcdZgC62U/gIEQJ2/wCaAwcjQLogUeAp7eBQk8n73OhmCjYAoON9 Z3FYtXeYgUYXlChaGYXu1IBk =Rho8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." -- Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead (1943)

1 0