December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc wrote: > Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist > philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded > to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even > though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only > recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the > existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? I value Reason (big 'R'), humor (small 'h'), and A/ambiguity (take your pick). Anarchy is only a pause between dictators. Fascism is necessary to remind us not to take freedom for granted. One should call for 'order' during the rein of anarchy and for 'freedom during times of Fascism. I have 'appeared' and/or 'come out of lurking' on the CypherPunks list at various times since it's inception, under various personas. Few have noticed, and fewer, still, have ever accurately described, as you have, what I truly value about the CypherPunks--"a unique group of stray cats." The CypherPunks have, over the years, weathered varying sorts of 'problems' in the development of the list, as a result of various 'voices of Reason' prevailing in the setting the list's direction--even when those 'voices' were diametrically opposed in their beliefs. What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). If the day comes when I am able to file away the CypherPunks list under this-or-that category, then I will put a tombstone in the file, as well, and put flowers in it once a year. Toto > Side note: > Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been > wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although > it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some > kind of statement about it. > > .. > Blanc

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, jim bell wrote: > At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: > >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > > > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they > >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call > >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to > >> control > >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file > >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > > > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? > > To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a > few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against > Public Policy," or similar. I should point out that in my previous post, I was refering to the specific instance of libel -- not any general lawsuit. I can think of very few instances where a rich person would sue someone without the resources to even defend himself for libel just to harass the defendant. I'm sure there are a few cases, but it wouldn't be worth the plaintiff's time or money. I would be interested if anyone knows of any specific examples of this. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvQQAyzIPc7jvyFpAQFAfQgAp5qsAm9LZdXeR3+8s4LkUv5qH6Ju8Rda te3EJ90gjHxDcv/QRopQ3fRM5KzsHgr5JqPRWDFF0Zo3CxbRsB8x/CK3aIo2axpt xEAeA/TT3oBWOCXFs2fVR6dCy4XAMh4e/q58kNnDqqUnJNBgto5kr8Hp4op9Ypgi WO0G0Su6L8JuBwnui6Ni5XxHSBchBwu6Z0Jv0TFrG43lnS++K+UriX9cIYxR8JVH roUg/9SDCZysmuEvNh8VMLAd492wD2jhge4LiiYaSNWrpe5JD2jA/nJ9Olevpu3v 4+75YOpRIgHAugMyl/bbNZgTjStoLUicHATyt7PLEUtj/sbmPbakkQ== =qrVu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is > trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: > > 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. But other than two points they already do. The two points being, 1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. That degree of difference being how much money there is available for the lawyer and their willingness to enforce the concepts of justice in the society based upon their perceived ability to profit by it. 2. The extension of acceptance of reasonable legal representation by lot from not only the defence but also the prosecution. My solutions to these two issues are: 1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case should be pursued. 2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary resources by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal representation of both parties by lot. 3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). 4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. > 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant > level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, > until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. This axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have (ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are NOT created equal. > 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of > corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide > unnecessary. But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. There is nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear that such activities in no way reduced corruption. If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes threats and the carrying out thereof. On another issue, it was asked what purpose there is in suing a poor person. Simple lack of monetary wealth should be no more reason to exempt a party from justice than having large quantities. A citizen should face the consequences of their actions, how rich or poor they are is an irrelevant issue. Concepts required for a true working democracy: Liberty Justice Equality Fraternity Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: [GSM] Hardening mailing lists against spam attacks
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > > __o > _ \<_ > (_)/(_) This guy keeps forgetting to add 'crypto-relevant' to his headings. No wonder they go to 'flames'.

1 0

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. ................................................ Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological makeup? = I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. .......................................... Hm, well, I'm not in the custom of doing either of those things, but thanks for the compliment! = But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. ............................................... Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. = Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. ............................................ Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division of History & Philosophy .... .. Blanc

2 1

PGP 2.1
by lwjohnson＠grill.sk.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? Thanks

1 0

Re: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes.
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: | > What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong | >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken | >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it | >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). | > | | Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal | ball in hand. I wear three around my neck. Its a new age thing. More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, AFAIK. Adam -- Pet peeve of the day: Security companies whose protocols dare not speak their name, because they don't have one. Guilty company of the day is now V-One.

3 2

Keystroke sniffer question
by Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. Is there a file name to look for? Where do people get them? ======================================= Scott Bellavance scott-b(a)ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~scott-b/homepage.html ======================================= -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzAu56UAAAEEAL8pOdPu2pw5E91f99ByJWT+O1smtcOlIr6GL9TdCbdZ6I2U UPLl7RL5cV4e3Wv4nIIZiOIePMAUouM5fQZib4vnGpCKM/WxfGQBRGafsq2mlzvE IKLBrdYhQ5STl/qZIaCKI2+V4hdsvTPaI0PCqGzGoiDv9gbbZ40Gi3F38KqtAAUR tCtTY290dCBSLiBCZWxsYXZhbmNlIDxzY290dC1iQGl4Lm5ldGNvbS5jb20+ =Hfbk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > >> My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > >> my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > >> If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > >> able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > >> new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > >> passphrase? > > Passphrases are MD5-hashed into 128-bit IDEA keys and used to > encrypt the secret key; there's a "pgpcrack" program out there > that does dictionary-style searches to find if you've got > wimpy passphrases. So if your passphrases is "secret", you lose, > but if it's "fjhw;doifvjuc-[09efiu v` 2 4rnhc;ljoipcvjpoiewujfgv;loik" > you're probably pretty safe, unless that's written on the yellow > sticky you left on the side of the PC. > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > they've already gotten you.... If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should > not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a > free and open society must tolerate any action. > > This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY > ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no > means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. > It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open > society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting > individualy or in concert. I have waited, with bated breath, for you to take a position which is short, concise, and well-reasoned. Well, you finally did, but you just couldn't leave it alone, could you? I think that what you have written (above) is a valid and meaningful statement of your position. I see what follows, however, as a train of 'logic' which follows a pre-defined, emotionally-charged justification of a defensive position you have taken, as a result of a real or imagined 'slight'. I have followed your 'libel' thread, as rambling (and sometimes dichotomously incoherent) as it is, and I recognize that you are passionate in your beliefs (for which I salute you), but I think that perhaps your interests might be better served if you let logic lead your emotions. If you did so, I might well hire you as my lawyer (to defend me in your libel suit against me), since you do have a 'bulldog' sense of determination in pursing any position you take. The million-and-one posts you made with the results of your search-engine research on libel only served to accentuate your inability to fully understand the issues underlying libel and defamation. Your own opinions regarding your thoughts and opinions regarding these same issues were much more poignant and enlightening. I would hope that, in the future, you would justify your beliefs and opinions with a revelation of your own points of logic (or illogic) rather than attempting to support them with legalese rulings which often stand on a foundation of sand, especially under close judicial scrutiny. You do, indeed, raise some points that are worthy of valid consideration, and debate, but they tend to get lost in your excessive arguments regarding them. Toto

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that > philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just > government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. I've seen this kind of statement so many times I just have to point it out: "which this moderation policy *clearly* (emph. mine) is not". Why is it so clear to you, but not everyone? Am I missing something? Didn't Reagan, Bush, North et al make it clear enough to Americans that much of what the govt. does has been privatized, as if we didn't know already from the 1970's assassination hearings in the Congress, or from when Carter fired the 900 security guys and they went to work for "private" contractors? I ask you again to look at the motives of the people involved. John Gilmore isn't about to waste a second of his personal time "moderating" this list (who could blame him?), and I can't for the life of me see a reason why Sandy would want to devote so much time to it. Have you or anyone seen a real reason why Sandy would want to do this? Is he so devoted to crypto and personal freedom that he'll do *anything* to eliminate the postings which "threaten" this list, or could there be some other, hidden motivation? My long experience in the real world says that professional people do *not* devote a great deal of their time to things like this unless there is an *awfully* good reason. > On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Toto wrote: > > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > > > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > > > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > > > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > > > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > > > repercussions). > > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > > > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > > > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > > > would be the end of freedom! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while?

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > At 08:02 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Toto wrote: > > I also think that the other list members involved in this thread are > >'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. > > It's odd that you would say this. I get that impression ("nobodies") about > practically EVERY subject discussed here. Why name this particular one, as > if it were somehow special? Jim, "You're 'nobody', till 'somebody' loves you..." Everybody has their own prediliction as to what interests them, and what is 'frivilous' on the list. Someone, in private email, mentioned that they felt that 60% of the posts were 'uninteresting'. I replied that this seemed to be a close approximation of many list members' beliefs, but that, if we all moderated/censored out 'our' 60% of 'uninteresting' posts before the list was sent out, that there would be precious little left. I don't know if you recognized my comment as humor, since I have an aversion to using 'happy faces' (the result of a childhood trauma), but I just love to poke fun at the plethora of personas on the list who seem to believe that anything outside of their immediate scope of interest is somehow 'unworthy' of being posted the list. By the way, in order to prevent this post from going to the 'flames' list, I will NOT say that you are a low-life, scum-sucking Nazi piece of shit. I will likewise refrain from suggesting that your mother wears army boots, you are a child-pornographer, an imbecile, and a pervert, or that you beat your wife and children regularly. By golly, I think I'm 'getting the hang of' this new, improved, Politically Correct, nicey-nice list format. Toto

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. -Declan On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Toto wrote: > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > > repercussions). > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > > would be the end of freedom! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while? > > >

2 1

Re: GSM technology
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:37:38 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >At 09:43 AM 1/20/97 -0500, Nurdane Oksas wrote: >> Does anyone use ADSL lines? or are they still very expensive? > >I just had a very interesting talk with somebody from Northern Telecom (Canada's Phone Company). NorTel has apparently skipped ISDN and is now deploying ADSL. Some areas already have access to ADSL at, can you believe this, $60/month. > I'm not sure about Nortel but ADSL is availible in Calgary from CadVision. http://www.cadvision.ca It's not cheap. BCTel is yapping about offering it by the end of the year.

1 0

NOISE.SYS Home Page
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I now have an under-construction home page for NOISE.SYS, in case you're interested: http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/software.htm#noise (NOISE.SYS is a crypto-RNG device for DOS boxes.) Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Greg Broiles Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) .................................................................. Heh - Jim B. and Jim C.: the Yin & Yang of Society At Large. What could a discussion between them produce. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Lesher <wb8foz(a)nrk.com> writes: > USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. > Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 > 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. Don't let the old-fashioned look deceive you. Most mail storage boxes use lever tumbler locks (similar to what's used in safe deposit vaults, though obviously the mailbox locks have a flimsier plug). Lever tumbler locks are in general much harder to pick than pin tumbler locks (the kind on most doors).

2 1

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, rex wrote: > Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> wrote: > > >If you want to look at it a different way, if you are involved with a drug > >offense and are not using a weapon, you'll get a lower sentence than a > >full fledged drug crime. It's a step in the right direction - i.e. away > >from manadatory sentencing of a flat time period for a crime regardless of > >circumstances. > > But Putra got the same sentence she would have gotten had she been > convicted on both charges. The fact that she was acquitted meant nothing. That this is true once, does not make it so in all cases. You also lose sight of the general scheme of things. That the sentence imposed may have the same maximum sentence with sentencing enhancements and a lesser included offense as with conviction of a "great offense" means nothing with regard to the validity of sentencing enhancements. That theft and low level bank fraud have the same penality when theft is enhanced with a "victim was infirm or helpless" or a "firearm was used in furtherance of the crime" could as easily reflect a lack of vigor and spite in the prosecution of bank fraud as it could reflect severe vigor and spite in the prosecution of theft. Please note that the difference between: "But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." and "But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." is subtle at best. Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate allegedly said: > > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should [...] > > This is not my case at all. I hold that [...] > means do I hold [...] > I hold [...] > worthless. I DO hold [...] > all speech. I further hold [...] > I further hold [...] > I further hold [...] Whew! That's a lot of holding, my friend. I've heard that prunes help. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

Re: How I Would Ban Strong Crypto in the U.S.
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:58 AM 7/15/96 -0400, about six months ago, when Clipper III was new, Raph Levien wrote: >1. The battle over whether applications can contain strong encryption >algorithms has basically been lost. For example, SSL-enabled >applications are widely available over the world, thanks in large part >to the work of Eric Young. The same will happen for any other encryption >protocol that catches on. Unfortunately, the Government hasn't given up on this one; Peter Gutman's recent articles on export policy in New Zealand and Australia suggest that Our Public Servants are trying an end-run by getting those countries to stop export and development by productive crypto authors, targeting the toolkits that are being widely used inside and outside the US. >2. The battle for key management has not yet been fought. Yeah. I haven't heard much from Clipper III recently, since they've been trumpeting Clipper IV "Key Recovery" recently, but that doesn't mean it's not going on. Unlike politican efforts such as Key Recovery, infrastructure attacks such as PKI may require long-term technical development - the Cooperative Research and Development Alliances (CRADAs) are not just to bribe otherwise-valuable companies to stay out of the way, they're to do things that may be sprung on us later; I'd predict this coming summer. For instance, back in July, John Young quoted a Business Wire article about = Toronto -- Certicom Corp. a leading information security = company, today announced that it will participate in an = initiative by the U.S. Commerce Department's National = Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which will = lead to the development of the elements of a public key = infrastructure (PKI). Certicom are the folks who do Elliptic Curve Cryptosystems, which haven't been used much due to patent questions and RSA's dominance, but which allow much shorter public keys and may have some speed advantages, both of which are quite important for smartcard use. >3. Anybody can write an application that supports strong encryption >algorithms. Witness SSH, a very impressive and useful program, which was >basically done by one person, Tatu Ylonen. However, building a key >management infrastructure will take lots of money, hard work, and >cooperation. .... >4. Thus, the best leverage for the TLAs to win is to guide the >development of a key management infrastructure with the following >property: if you don't register your key, you can't play. I believe that >this is the true meaning of the word "voluntary:" you're free to make >the choice not to participate. .. >6. Export is a two player game. The other country has to allow import of >the stuff, too. If the Burns bill passes, the "administration" would >strong-arm other countries to prohibit import of strong crypto, still >leaving US developers with no market. It failed, and they've now got an Ambassador strong-arming other countries to prohibit export. >7. Building this stuff is too much of a task for the TLAs. They tried it >with Clipper, and it failed. They hoped that building the Tessera card >would be enough - that once they threw it over the wall, it would be >eagerly snapped up by industry. >8. Thus, they're going to cajole, bribe, and coerce software companies >to play along. This fact is quite nakedly exposed in the document (good >thing the injunction against the CDA is still in force :-). Yeah. Clipper IV is getting a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon to get export permission for their 56-bit software. Many of the people who are most vocal about it are the usual suspects anyway, but it's closer to commercial usability that industry's more cooperative this round, especially with more Internet money fever. >> Don't be fooled. >Who? Us cypherpunks? >Raph :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > they've already gotten you.... > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? - Igor.

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc wrote: > From: Toto > What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, > but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal > of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in > general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). > ........................................................................ > Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, > anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their > leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly > works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can > unsubscribe (sp?). I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. I told Attila the Hun, in private email, that when I opened his messages, that I never knew whether to "pucker-up or duck", because he was just as likely to chastise me as agree with me, depending on his personal opinion of an individual post of mine. I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. > I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to > fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. >plus the fact that > many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political > issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long > treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read > yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. > plus a lack > of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it > difficult to think in a straight line. I, too, agree that you can lead a horse to water, but a stitch in time saves nine. > Sometimes the posts on the list > come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions > among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine > points of difference. Some of the more rambling threads are indeed the result of not understanding that some of the clueless aren't seeking a clue, but merely to hold on to their ignorance. But I would rather err on the side of believing that the person I am replying to is sincere in wanting to discuss an issue in order to gain a broader understanding of it. Toto

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jan 1997 15:37:01 -0500, you wrote: >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >passphrase? Depends how paranoid you are, how good your passphrase is, how much you trust the repairman not to snoop, etc. For the hell of it I'd revoke my key and issue a new one though. It's not a minor inconvenience, and when people use your old key you can still decrypt the message... just send 'em a note that you prefer they use you're current (unrevoked) key. --Rob

1 0

Flaming Moderators
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attila T. Hun wrote: > "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack > upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our > doom.' > --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771 Looks like Sam needs to be autobotted to the 'flames' list. Toto

1 0

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). ........................................................................ Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can unsubscribe (sp?). They *don't* have to take it, or identify with the cpunks any longer. I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, plus the fact that many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), plus a lack of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it difficult to think in a straight line. Sometimes the posts on the list come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine points of difference. Whom can one blame for what does not exist (on the list) - there is no mechanism for its production; only the attractions of the subject and the aim, are what bring in the participants who could provide substance and depth. Perhaps waxing lyrical on the features of Eudora and regular reminders on the benefits of mail filtering would be encouraging to "the timid"? .. Blanc

1 0