December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Fun at US Customs
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apparently, US Customs doesn't even need a warrant to detain you for days without the opportunity to talk to an attorney, x-ray you, pump your stomach, give you laxatives, chain you to a hospital bed, or insert their arms up to the elbow in one of your body openings. Are laws of other Western nations similar? While I can understand strip-searching travelers on occasion, the rest of this stuff seems a tad much, especially in the absense of anything resembling due process. Declan didn't write this, so I will post the whole thing. :) ----- WASHINGTON (AP) -- Returning to Chicago from Jamaica, Gwendolyn Richards was plucked from a line of air travelers by a Customs Service inspector and ordered into a bare, windowless room. Over the next five hours, she was strip-searched, handcuffed, X-rayed, and probed internally by a doctor. The armed Customs officers who led Richards in handcuffs through O'Hare International Airport and drove her to a hospital for examination suspected she might be smuggling drugs. They found nothing. ``I was humiliated -- I couldn't believe it was happening,'' said Richards, who is black and has joined a civil rights lawsuit against Customs. ``They had no reason to think I had drugs.'' Richards, 27, isn't alone. Officers last year ordered partial or full strip searches or X-rays for 2,447 airline passengers, and found drugs on 27 percent of them, according to figures compiled by the Customs Service. Customs officials say tough tactics are necessary to catch the growing number of smugglers who swallow cocaine-filled balloons, insert packages of heroin into their body cavities, even hide drugs in a hollow leg or under cover of a fake pregnancy. ``We still have a major drug problem in this country,'' Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in an interview Wednesday. ``We have to do this.'' Richards and others who have sued Customs have alleged they were targeted because of their race. Sixty percent of those pulled aside last year for body searches or X-rays were black or Hispanic, Customs figures show. Thirty-three percent of Hispanics who were searched were found to have drugs compared with 31 percent of blacks and 26 percent of whites. Kelly said race isn't a factor. ``There are higher risk countries and higher risk flights,'' he said. ``Those flights may be more populated by a particular ethnic group.'' Last year, the Customs Service seized 858 pounds of cocaine and 803 pounds of heroin attached to or inside international air travelers' bodies, officials said. More than 70 percent of the heroin seized at airports was smuggled that way. Acknowledging that searches ``can get pretty traumatic,'' Kelly said Customs is reviewing its policies and experimenting with new technology that might reduce the number of body searches. The review comes after several lawsuits and complaints from travelers who say they suffered abusive treatment and hours of confinement. For instance: --A Florida mother says her baby was born prematurely because Customs officials forced her to take a prescription laxative when she was seven months pregnant. In a lawsuit filed last month, Janneral Denson, 25, said she was taken from the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and shackled to a hospital bed for two days so inspectors could watch her bowel movements. She says her son, born 12 days later, suffered damage. --Two Jamaican-born U.S. citizens each filed a $500,000 claim in September over body cavity searches and X-rays in Tampa, Fla. One of the women learned afterwards she was pregnant and agonized that her fetus might have been harmed, according to their attorney, Warren Hope Dawson. The baby was born healthy. Customs policy requires a pregnancy test before a woman is X-rayed, but Dawson said the pregnant woman was not tested. --A 51-year-old widow returning from an around-the-world trip was held for 22 hours at a San Francisco hospital, x-rayed and given the same powerful laxative. Amanda Buritica of Port Chester, N.Y., won a $451,001 lawsuit last February. A Boston nurse, Bosede Adedeji, won $215,000 in a similar lawsuit in 1991. Customs officials note that fewer than 2 percent of the 68 million fliers who pass through Customs each year have their luggage opened. Far fewer -- about 49,000 people -- are personally searched, usually with a pat down. The 1,772 strip searches last year ranged from people told to remove their socks to passengers like Richards who were ordered to take off their underwear and bend over. Strip searches are performed by officers of the same gender. The Customs review found 19 passengers who were subjected to pelvic or rectal exams by doctors while inspectors watched. Drugs were found in 12 of those cases. Congress and courts have given Customs broad authority to search for drugs, weapons and other illegal imports. The Supreme Court ruled that Customs officers at airports and border crossings don't need the probable cause or warrants that police need to search possessions. Customs officers can perform a strip search based on ``reasonable suspicion'' that someone might be hiding something illegal. A Customs handbook obtained by The Associated Press advises officers that reasonable suspicion usually requires a combination of factors, including someone who: appears nervous, wears baggy clothing, gives vague or contradictory answers about travel plans, acts unusually polite or argumentative, wears sunglasses or acts sick. Race isn't cited. Customs officers can detain people for hours, even days, without allowing them a telephone call to a lawyer or relative or charging them with a crime. Inspectors say they keep detainees from making calls so that drug associates aren't tipped off. Generally, if someone is detained for eight hours or more, a federal prosecutor is notified. Richards is among more than 80 black females who filed a class-action lawsuit claiming they were singled out for strip searches at O'Hare because of race and gender. The plaintiffs include a 15-year-old girl, a mentally retarded woman, and a woman who uses a wheelchair. Many decided to sue after seeing news reports on Chicago's WMAQ-TV about strip searches of black women. The agency has hired an outside contractor to review how inspectors deal with the public, and is exploring ways to make the system less hostile. In a test at Miami and New York airports, some passengers selected for strip searches are given the option of having an X-ray instead. The service is also studying new imaging technology that shows things hidden under people's clothes. Customs officers seek passengers' written consent for an X-ray, but it isn't required. Some travelers say they felt coerced. Las Vegas police officer Rich Cashton said a Customs inspector who stopped him at Los Angeles International Airport last year grew angry when Cashton asked what would happen if he refused an X-ray. ``He said, 'If you don't sign this form, I'm going to take you down to the hospital and pump your stomach,'' Cashton recalled. ``He was using that threat as intimidation to make me sign a consent form, which is definitely illegal.'' Cashton, who identified himself as a police officer, was let go. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, I'm Special Agent Murfrock of the IRS and this is Special Agent Prenfrew. We'd like to speak with you about C. J. Parker, maybe known to you as "Toto" or "TruthMonger..." Sorry, I don't recognize any of those. Isn't Toto the dog? The dog? Yes, Dorothy's dog in... (stops when he notices that the agents are scribbling furiously in their notebooks) May we come in? No, I was just about to go to sleep. I'm not well. Sorry to hear that. We have an e-mail here that you sent to Toto, and another he sent back to you... May I see those? (takes the printouts) Sorry, doesn't ring a bell. Well, if you look at those headers, the ones circled in red, you will see that... You must be kidding! There are more people forging e-mail headers than live in St. Louis! Everybody knows that. Would you mind if we just come in for a moment? Yes, I would. I told you, I am going to sleep. Would you mind if we look at your computer? Why would you want to do that? Well if you didn't send or receive these messages, you have nothing to worry about. I don't see any reason to do that. We can get a warrant, very quickly, as a matter of fact. If you cooperate, things will go better for you. I love to cooperate. I want to cooperate. I am cooperating to the fullest extent I believe is required of me. Ask me something that makes sense and I'll answer it. Have you ever heard of a group called the Cypherpunks? It rings a bell. Are you a member? No. How do you explain the fact that we found your e-mail address on a Cypherpunks membership list in a computer we seized? I have no idea. I don't join organizations. Are you a member of the Majordomo organization? No. The only majordomo I've ever heard of is a mail list manager. Where have you seen this Majordomo? Oh, everywhere. I think it's worldwide in scope. (scribble scribble) It's some kind of utility program. Everybody uses it. (scribbling stops) What can you tell us about it? Nothing, really. If you want to get on a mail list you send a "subscribe" message to a majordomo. If you want to get off, I think you send an "unscrive" message. Have you ever done that? Maybe. I don't recall. Anyone can submit your e-mail address to lists, so you don't even have to subscribe to be on an e-mail list. And there's so much spam these days that I don't recognize half the stuff I get. Spam? (the agents look at each other) Junk e-mail. I delete most of my e-mail without even reading it. Sometimes my email program crashes and it all gets deleted before I can look at it. (scribble scribble) How many lists have you joined? I don't remember. I never paid any attention to those things, and since I banged my head three months ago, I haven't been remembering a lot of things. (scribble scribble) So, are you denying being a member of the Cypherpunks? I don't know what that means. Have you ever subscribed to the Cypherpunks e-mail list? I have no idea. You have no idea? You don't remember? I don't know what I've subscribed to, unsubscribed from, what I get, don't get. E-mail is a complete mess and I ignore most of it. I'm really not very good at those things. May we look? No. Are you going to make us get a warrant? Get what you like. My disk crashed last week and I threw it away. Lost everything. In fact I just formatted my new disk and the only data on it is manuscripts for the columns I write. Columns? I write for a magazine and a couple of newspapers. (oh shit) (scribble scribble) Oh yeah? Which ones? I don't think that's appropriate. Well, we'll be back. Here's my card in case you think of anything you'd like to tell us. Sure. One more thing. Have you ever been invited to join something called The Circle of Eunuchs, e-u-n-u-c-h-s? I don't recall ever hearing of anything like that. Do you know who Tim May is? Nope. Sounds like a real common name, though. How about Blanc? Is that French? Never mind. Thanks. We'll be seeing you. (I don't _think_ so) ----- AmnesiaMonger

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On marte, 01.12.1998, "Blanc" <blancw(a)cnw.com> wrote: > I received my visit from the friendly IRS guys tonight, asking > about CJ/Toto. Pre-schoolers'R'Us. You got a visit from the advance guys. > It seems that they had a copy of two emails...one of them the one > in which I chastized him for sending a threatening letter to Billg. Admissions, admissions. Would some duly licensed bar attorney on this list PUH-LEEZE tell these children how to behave in the presence of criminal inquisitors? > They wanted to know about my associations with Toto (I still think > of him by that name), of course, of which I had none except through > email. So _you_ say! They open doors; you walk through them; you can easily find yourself in Wonderland. Don't come crying to _me_! > In our conversation, There is no such thing as a "conversation" with them; there is only an "interrogation." Everything you say is interpreted as an admission, a denial, or an evasion. You are a perp. You are dogshit. > I discovered things that I didn't know about Toto's situation: You mean you heard more _allegations_? If you're not careful, your neighbours will be the next ones to be "discovering things we didn't know" about _you_. That's the way they turn people against targets, and anyone they interview can become another target in the blink of an eye. > that he had sent threatening letters to the Mounties, Alleged, and only to _you_ as far as you know... > and that he had threated to kill the judge trying Jim's case. Alleged, and only to _you_ as far as you know... > I'm afraid CJ really went over the edge here and backed himself up > in a corner. GodDAMN! I'm glad you're not a friend of mine! I don't know if I even want to _know_ whether you're wearing panties or not anymore. > I should have chastized him more severely and counseled him against > rash acts of unkindness (not that I hold myself responsible for what > he did, but he did pay attention to me). Geez! I wonder what you must gush up about your _enemies_! > Kind of amusingly, one of them asked if CJ had ever asked me to join > the Circle of Eunuchs! heh. Yeah, that's funny. It should also have set off all your alarm bells that you're dealing with clueless fuckwits who can't find their fly without a map and whose only interest in life is putting anybody they can in prison, on any excuse whatsoever. If they can weave together a Circle of Eunuchs or a Cult of the Kernel or a conspiracy of Fanatic Followers of the Seashell, they'll be content to do it. You could tell them that the leader of the militant arm of the Circle is the infamous but cryptic "General Error" and they'd write it down with a straight face. To you, it's a joke. To them, it's a statement with possible evidentiary value. And nothing's funny. > I explained that it was Toto's Art imitating Life, creating stories You don't explain _anything_ to them. You can only give them leads and evidence. Of course, if you *insist* on having such a fucking good memory and on gushing on about all sorts of things, well, don't be surprised if they conclude that you _do_ know a lot about this Toto stuff, after all, and maybe merit another, more probing interview. > We had a bit of discussion on a number of things, I'll _bet_ you did! Sounds like you made a nearly _perfect_ subject for interrogation. > including the subject of free speech and how close one can get to it > before being subject to arrest. Ooooooo! That sounds _delicious_! You can entertain attorneys with that one. You will be thrilled at the wondrous range of awful expressions they make. Some may even quietly throw up in a corner. > I asked them what that crucial point was when this would happen, > since there is no crime until action is actually taken. Shows how much _you_ know. And now you get your legal advice from the IRS CID? That's really bright. > They said this would be when... > I referenced as an example the web site... Nice of them. Did they indemnify should you rely on their advice and get busted or sued? Didn't think so. > One of the investigators also brought up the issue of... > I remarked that one must always be prepared for the unexpected... > they made some points about taking threats seriously... "Hyperseriously" is more like it. You're a regular motormouth, aren't you? Now they have you knowing a lot more about Toto-ish things than just the email showed, they have you red-flagged as "attempting to draw the agent into arguments about law or the Constitution," they have you flagged as being way too bright for an innocent person, and demonstrating an interest in discussing the technicalities of the law on threats to public officials, which interest, just coincidentally, happens to dovetail quite nicely with the essential subject matter of their investigation. I'd give pretty good odds you're going to get another visit. If you don't have a lawyer present on the next one, I'd say you're, uh, sorry, there's just no other word: _stupid_. > I asked if cypherpunks would actually be subpoenaed to appear at > CJ's trial. They said it depends on CJ: if he accepts a deal, he > would likely get a reduced sentence, but if he takes them to trial > then there could be quite a number of Cpunks called forth. Ooooooo! Lovely! FUD! Big time FUD! Divide and conquer FUD! CJ becomes the bad guy for not cutting a deal and instead inconveniencing all those busy Cpunks, all of them probably suddenly writing code instead of flaming each other in endless and pointless threads of non-crypto! > I suggested if that happens we could all go out to dinner > : ) and they thought this would be quite interesting. Of _course_ it would! More "conversation," leads, admissions, denials and evasions! More grist for the mill! More perps! Get them to pick up the tab -- they'll be able to put it on their expense reports! It's called an informal group interrogation. Geez, how can bright people be so fucking STUPID? > One of the investigators expressed a great interest in the cpunk > dicussions and concepts; Doh! It's his _job_ to be interested in a subject matter touching on an active investigation. > I described...I'm sure given a little time and several dinners we > could convert him to the Dark Side. <g> Geez! Don't you realize that they _are_ the Dark Side! Have you been living under a rock for the last few decades? "You know, Gunther, those Gestapo men who visited last night to ask about the Goldblums next door were very polite. One of them expressed great interest in concepts and discussions of Judaism, and Jewish family trees. I described something of what the religion is about and referred him to some libraries and gave him some titles to read. I'm sure, given a little time and several dinners, we could convert him to our side." Right. Maybe you understand now why I'm not on the Cpunks list? RabidFreedomMonger

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have this really, really bad memory problem. It gets worse under stress. I also have this metaphysical dilemma thing. I know the guy next door. I guess. Actually I don't know him. I've called him Joe, but it wouldn't be right for me to say to anyone official that his name is Joe, because I've never checked his ID, so I don't really know, and even if I had checked his ID, I still wouldn't _know_, would I? He's always been a nice fellow, and I wouldn't want to cause him undeserved harm by leaping to conclusions about him. Does he have a wife? I don't know. I may have seen a woman around his place, but I couldn't leap to the conclusion that she is his wife. I might assume so out of courtesy to them, but I wouldn't presume to tell someone official that he is Joe or that he has a wife, because I really don't know. Most of what I _think_ I know, and which serves quite well for inviting each other to our barbeques and for borrowing small tools, is stuff I don't actually _know_ and don't care about one way or another. And that affects my memory when people ask questions about him. Did I see those two young men snatch a purse from that lady over there? Yes. Can I describe them? Yes. Did I notice what they were wearing and in which direction they ran? Yes. Do I know anything about Joe? Nope. Does he have a wife? I have no idea. What does he do for a living? Gosh, I have no idea. The law requires you to give up information you have when asked by a law enforcement officer investigating a crime. The law does not and cannot require you to notice things or to have a good memory. If your memory gets worse as the things being investigated stray farther and farther from common law crimes and into the realm of "bureaucrime" and thought crime, well, that's just too fucking bad. I'd make a really bad juror, too. It's not a memory thing there, it's more of a comprehension thing. I just have trouble seeing guilt if the law itself is bogus. Not guilty. What? Are you crazy? They had him dead to rights laundering money! Sorry, I just can't believe the evidence. It just doesn't add up for me. Explain why not! Sorry, I can't. It just doesn't work for me. If more people had these problems, all the bureaucrimes and other victimless crimes would, sadly, be history overnight. The IRS would lose every single case that went to a jury, and within months the income tax would be repealed, a no-audit, no-go-to- jail sales tax would be in place, and most of the people working for the IRS would be looking for a new job. I would be very saddened by the rude reality of all that, but, hey, what the hell? Will these problems that afflict me spread? You'd better hope your sorry ass they do! If they don't, we're all in for a very rough ride, and not 50 years from now, but tomorrow and next year. We're already well down the slippery slope. Personally, though, I think we're in for a shitstorm. That's because people are basically unprepared for the degree of evil that has been refined and distilled in government. They're still way too willing to spout off about things they don't even know, to presume the worst, even of their friends and acquaintances, to play full rube right into the hands of truly evil people who have _their_ act down to a science. If large scale genocide has been going on all through the last several years in Bosnia while people on this list have been consumed in flame wars and pseudo-propellor-head duels on a scale of delicacy of the medieval mace, how much more easily can and does largely bloodless subjugation take place all around us? If people can allow Ruby Ridges and Wacos to take place without congressional offices being _filled_ every day with outraged citizenry and recall petitions being launched for every politician who even hesitates in taking a firm stand, how can we think that the gradual sapping of our liberty will evoke a response until things first get very, very bad. There is a peaceful solution available today. At one level you don't have to have a good memory in all things to be a law- abiding and responsible citizen-unit. Just say "No, I don't remember" about things that are none of your business. At another level, you don't have to put up with bureaucrimes when you sit on a Grand Jury or a trial jury. Just say "No." Don't argue; don't convince; just say "No" across the board to bureaucrimes. It takes 51% of the voters to win an election. It only takes 5% of the jurors to kill a bad law. Nothing else will work. Nothing else has ever worked. If this is not done now, we will all face terrible choices and tragedies within as few as ten years. AmnesiaMonger

1 0

Fun at US Customs
by HyperReal-Anon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Las Vegas police officer Rich Cashton said a Customs inspector who >stopped him at Los Angeles International Airport last year grew angry >when Cashton asked what would happen if he refused an X-ray. > >``He said, 'If you don't sign this form, I'm going to take you down to >the hospital and pump your stomach,'' Cashton recalled. ``He was using >that threat as intimidation to make me sign a consent form, which is >definitely illegal.'' > >Cashton, who identified himself as a police officer, was let go. "Sir, we'll have to ask you to come with us." "What is the problem, officer?" "We have reason to believe that you are bringing contraband into this country. Please remove your clothing and bend over." "Comrade, surely you must be mistaken! I am a loyal citizen!" "Remove your clothing and bend over or we'll do it for you, Libertarian scum." "Libertarian? You are mistaken, comrade! I am a loyal citizen! I am a card-carrying party member!" *shows card* "That's fine, Officer Cashton, if that is your real name, but how can we be sure that you are who you claim to be?" "My biometrics, of course, comrade!" *he's scanned* "Sorry for the mixup, Comrade Cashton. We're about to go find some pretty young 15 year old girls to strip search and do body cavity searches on, then temporarily plug their body cavities so that they do not use them in indecent ways or for smuggling contraband." "Comrade, whatever do you mean?" "Are you sure you're a fellow jack booted thug? Do you have your manual? You must have your manual at all times! Fine. You may borrow mine, comrade. Read the section titled 'Rape of the Citizenry'." "Ah, I understand now, comrade. I was not aware that such actions were permitted. Let's go." ***Fifteen minutes later*** Young woman 1: (crying) "What have we done, officers? I am loyal!" Young woman 2: (sobs incoherently) Customs Officer: "You are suspected of smuggling contraband into this country! You are traitors!" Young woman 1: "My sister and I most certaintly are NOT traitors!" Customs Officer: "Then prove it. Remove your clothing and submit to a body cavity search. Officer Cashton? Take your pick." *searches are performed* Customs Officer: "Now, ladies, we have concerns that you may attempt to smuggle contraband out after the body cavity search is performed." Young woman 2: (sobs incoherently) Young woman 1: (crying louder) "But there is no contraband here! How can we smuggle it out?" Officer Cashton: (removing a bag of cocaine from his pocket and throwing it at the women) "Yes there is." Customs Officer: "Ah, I see you are a quick study, Comrade Cashton! Now ladies, just to make sure you don't smuggle anything out in your body cavities, we've invited the ground crew here to fill them and lead you naked in chains to your flight after they tire of your company." Officer Cashton and Customs Officer together: (giving a Nazi-style salute) "Heil Klinton! Heil Reno! Heil Freeh!" ...... StatistMonger

1 0

Re: "Export" controls
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You sure it's not Microshaft? More meanings. Macroshit ? But I digress. >A little experiment is often a good thing. I heard that the guys who >made the DES cracker have had $$ requests for machines and/or chips. Their architecture has real $$ value because it cracks 99% of "encrypted" traffic. >In case you missed it, my original reply was an attempt to open >discussion on some type of cooperative effort. Offering the real stuff for sale in US requires some investment. Whether it is hardware (128-bit crypto engine on a PCI card ?) or software plug-in for the aforementioned OS that makes all traffic go through IPsec with 128-bit non-DES block cipher, some amount of money must be put to a risk. We are not talking here about free stuff. We are talking about products that can be deployed by non-programmers, businesses etc., that will be supported professionally (the perceived quality of professional support vs. free stuff is immaterial here.) >purposes. I wonder how many DES or IDEA engines could be put on a 500K >gate array? It would fit about 35 instantiations of Twofish. That should >be enough for a phone or a disk encryptor. Hardware is overkill for the single voice line. PGPfone works fine there. >Who want to get them done. <-- the key item If there is a demand, it will be done. Let's run a small poll: How much would you pay for transparent hardware/software solution that encrypts all traffic between peer users (assuming all rational crypto requirements are met, like available source code etc.) ? >No sense pushing the button without critical mass. The main problem with hard crypto is that it is so equalizing. Any pauper can cheaply encrypt and make it hard for any government to break. This is not the case with guns, where more resources almost linearly buy more power. - One of the posters mentioned that PGP is retailed in CompUSA. My mistake, I did not check them (but I did check 3 other big chains). - On the wild side, suppose that all crypto restrictions are terminated. Some would say that now "they" can break all available stuff. In any case the value of crypto products in the eyes of buyers would fall. If it is legal it is no good. Most of the research would lose the best people. Cypherpunks would cease to exist. A very dangerous proposition.

1 0

What's Down ....!!!!
by COM PLAIN 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In this letter i wanna know some tricks how to take revange, of a operator by hacking his code ,, can you help me ??? in alamak chat www.alamak.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

blanc's MIB
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:54 PM 12/1/98 -0800, Blanc wrote: >I received my visit from the friendly IRS guys tonight, asking about CJ/Toto. How did you authenticate them, or why was it unnecessary? >Kind of amusingly, one of them asked if CJ had ever asked me to join the Circle >of Eunuchs! heh. Should have said, "I 'know nothing' about such things" One of the investigators >expressed a great interest in the cpunk dicussions and concepts; I described >something of what the list is about and the flow of subscribers through it, and >referred him to the archives, saying '94-'95 were some good years. I'm sure >given a little time and several dinners we could convert him to the Dark Side. Or he could have gotten more intelligence from you.

1 0

Re: Fwd: FC: Gun groups take aim at new FBI database
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From frissell(a)panix.com: Some of the following statements do not (in my recollection) apply to those in California... > >The following statements are true: > >It is legal to own a car without a driver's license or vehicle registration. In CA only "junk" cars can be unregistered. An unregistered car on private property can be cited under a long list of circumstances. > >It is legal to drive an unregistered car without a driver's license (in >some circumstances). It is never "legal" to drive an unregistered vehicle (or even tow it without a trailer) on CA roads. The judge may let you off if you have "a real good reason". But the cops can and in most cases will cite you! > >No permission is required to purchase a car and felons, the mentally ill, >children, aliens and those guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses >can buy cars and most of the above can drive cars on public streets and roads. I do believe that there are some legal restrictions for children purchasing cars... > >You are not required to report the purchase of a car to anyone. Since every car in CA MUST be registered, every change of ownership must be reported. If you do not you are subject to a fine. They give you ten days to report the transfer of ownership. > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US with a >license from any jurisdiction on earth. Only for a limited period of time in CA... > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US that is >registered in other states or nations. Not if the owner is a resident of CA, and again only for a limited period of time. > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US that is >owned by and registered to any person or legal entity. > >Legal entities can own and register cars and permit anyone they like to >drive them. > But they assume all the liability and even possible criminal consequences for letting unlicensed persons drive the car. >Note that if we regulated guns like driving, the above would mean that you >could buy and use a gun on your own property without licensing, >registration or reporting. NOT in CA... > >DCF >

1 0

Hi
by jt9＠mail.dsd.it 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you know what the number one factor is, that will determine whether your business is a success or not? ADVERTISING! Effective conventional advertising is quite expensive. So what do you do? Direct email is one of, if not thee most effective method of advertising in the 90's. You can get your ad out to hundreds of thousands, even millions, for only a fraction of the cost of traditional advertising. The wave of future advertising is here, don't miss it. We will send your advert for you. We have gone through painstaking methods to insure that we have the the most quality lists on the Internet. We send your ad for your, all you have to do is create it. 250,000 addresses - $199 350,000 addresses - $250 500,000 addresses - $350 1 million addresses - $700 For advertising to 3 million or more ask about our special rates. For more information or to place an ad call IMC Marketing at (909) 627-3557

1 0

Re: Fwd: FC: Gun groups take aim at new FBI database (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 11:01:25 +0100 > From: "Albert P. Franco, II" <apf2(a)apf2.com> > Subject: Re: Fwd: FC: Gun groups take aim at new FBI database > Some of the following statements do not (in my recollection) apply to those > in California... > > > >The following statements are true: > > > >It is legal to own a car without a driver's license or vehicle registration. > > In CA only "junk" cars can be unregistered. An unregistered car on private > property can be cited under a long list of circumstances. Only if they can see it. Otherwise they'd need to execute a warrant to even find it. Park it in a garage or a niche in the backyard, problem solved. > >No permission is required to purchase a car and felons, the mentally ill, > >children, aliens and those guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses > >can buy cars and most of the above can drive cars on public streets and > roads. > > I do believe that there are some legal restrictions for children purchasing > cars... There are legal restrictions on children buying anything. Technicaly the sale isn't final without a guardians signature as co-signatory of the bill of sale. > >You are not required to report the purchase of a car to anyone. > > Since every car in CA MUST be registered, every change of ownership must be > reported. If you do not you are subject to a fine. They give you ten days > to report the transfer of ownership. In most states the time limit and further instructions are on the vehicle license. If you buy it via a loan then other terms may apply. > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US with a > >license from any jurisdiction on earth. > > Only for a limited period of time in CA... Unless it's an international license that is recognized by the US this isn't true. Simply having a drivers license from England, for example, won't allow you to drive a vehicle in any of the states anymore than your CA license will let you drive legaly there. > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US that is > >registered in other states or nations. > > Not if the owner is a resident of CA, and again only for a limited period > of time. Actualy as long as the owner isn't a resident (not the driver) and doesn't stay in whatever state over some period set by the legislature then it is permissible. In a lot of states it is between 30-90 days. I'd bet the limit in CA is the residence time limit. I rather doubt that anyone staying in CA 11 days automaticaly becomes a resident with a right to vote in state elections and such. > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US that is > >owned by and registered to any person or legal entity. > > > >Legal entities can own and register cars and permit anyone they like to > >drive them. > > > > But they assume all the liability and even possible criminal consequences > for letting unlicensed persons drive the car. It depends on the insurance limitations. My Bronco II is technicly uninsured, and therefore illegal to drive, unless I am the driver. In some cases even if the driver is licensed the owner still assumes liability. At least here in Texas irrespective of who is driving the vehicle, the owner is ultimately responsible for the vehicle. So if you loan it to cousin Bippy and he has a wreck and runs away guess who gets to go to court on leaving-the-scene charges. Now if you roll on Bippy the situation may change. > >Note that if we regulated guns like driving, the above would mean that you > >could buy and use a gun on your own property without licensing, > >registration or reporting. > > NOT in CA... Move to Texas. You can still drive your unregistred, uninspected vehicle on your own property at your own speed and have wrecks at your convenience (within the constraints of your deed restrictions of course). Way too many bubba's still live in Texas for this sort of stuff to go over at all. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: open-pgp / s/mime interoperability
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: >Peter Gutmann writes: >>>open-pgp public keys aren't based on X.509 keys, so I would've thought >>>s/mime implementation would barf on them. >> >>Actually S/MIME *could* support the use of PGP keys, but there's a field >>(the SubjectKeyIdentifier) missing from the CMS SignerInfo which prevents >>this. >Surely this in itself should be a compelling argument for inclusion of the >SubjectKeyIdentifier? I'm trying to get this adopted for CMS, the underlying data format for S/MIME. The silly thing about this is that alternative key identifiers (like PGP keys) were going to be included in RSADSI's PKCS7v2, but aren't included in the IETF version of the same thing. The result is that you have a private company going out of its way to accomodate open standards, and the IETF going out of its way to lock them out. Weird. >If it allows conversion of PGP keys into S/MIME X.509 keys. You don't need this conversion, with key identifiers you can use both SPKI and PGP keys directly within S/MIME. There's no need to convert them into an X.509-like format first. Peter.

1 0

No Subject
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:24:01 +0800 (CST) >From: Bernardo B. Terrado <bbt(a)mudspring.uplb.edu.ph> >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, coderpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: MERRY CHRISTMAS! guys! Fuck Christmas, Bernardo "Go Fuck Yourself" Terrado. You and those bastards in the black helicopters can suck my Christmas cock. >sorry if you're angry with this Why the fuck would I be angry? Go fuck yourself, Bernardo. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"If a student is particular about his studies, especially while he is too >young to know which are useful and which are not, we shall say he is no >lover of learning or of wisdom; just as, if he were dainty about his food, >we should say he was not hungry or fond of eating, but had a poor >appetite. " ---- PLATO Wasn't Plato that cocksucker who didn't pay his taxes to THE MAN? >By the way, it's Bernie not Bernardo. >`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Oh FUCK! My apologies, Bernardo. If I had known you preferred "Bernie", then I would have told you to go fuck your mother instead of yourself. Warmest fucking regards to you and yer moms, -- PureFuck -- finger HillarysAsshole(a)whitehouse.gov for a good time

1 0

Fwd: FC: Emergency Powers and National Emergencies
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan points out some scary stuff here but no president (even Clinton) would be stupid enough to do something so outrageous. They would have to know that it would spark a long running a especially bloody revolution. Why risk it when they can just keep approaching totalitarianism incrementally with such activities as the FuckingDICks "Know Your Customer" activities. It's much quieter and infinitely less likely to result in a revolution. APF >> >>"The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the >>means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call >>reserve forces amounting to 2 1/2 million men to duty, institute martial >>law, seize and control all menas of transportation, regulate all private >>enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control >>the lives of all Americans... >> >>"Most [of these laws] remain a a potential source of virtually unlimited >>power for a President should he choose to activate them. It is possible >>that some future President could exercise this vast authority in an attempt >>to place the United States under authoritarian rule. >> >>"While the danger of a dictatorship arising through legal means may seem >>remote to us today, recent history records Hitler seizing control through >>the use of the emergency powers provisions contained in the laws of the >>Weimar Republic." >> >> --Joint Statement, Sens. Frank Church (D-ID) and Charles McMathias (R-MD) >> September 30, 1973 >> >> >>I came across this and the Senate special committee's 1973 report on >>Emergency Powers Statutes in Time Magazine's library. Powerful stuff. >> >>-Declan >> >>

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now there's a really intelligent response to the MIB! I think Blanc would have done a better self-service to have responded that way. MAKE THEM GET A WARRANT! It's your ONLY legal defense against a fishing expedition! It's our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to require a warrant before letting them in! We are NOT criminals just because we do not allow the MIBs to make ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL searches of our properties! If they can't convince a judge AND obtain a specifically worded search warrant then they are obviously fishing! Tell to go find a real deep lake... I also give the writer an A+ for the Clintonian and Reagonesque touches! APF > >Hello, I'm Special Agent Murfrock of the IRS and this is Special >Agent Prenfrew. We'd like to speak with you about C. J. Parker, >maybe known to you as "Toto" or "TruthMonger..." > >Sorry, I don't recognize any of those. Isn't Toto the dog? > >The dog? > >Yes, Dorothy's dog in... (stops when he notices that the agents are >scribbling furiously in their notebooks) > >May we come in? > >No, I was just about to go to sleep. I'm not well. > >Sorry to hear that. We have an e-mail here that you sent to Toto, >and another he sent back to you... > >May I see those? (takes the printouts) > >Sorry, doesn't ring a bell. > >Well, if you look at those headers, the ones circled in red, you >will see that... > >You must be kidding! There are more people forging e-mail headers >than live in St. Louis! Everybody knows that. > >Would you mind if we just come in for a moment? > >Yes, I would. I told you, I am going to sleep. > >Would you mind if we look at your computer? > >Why would you want to do that? > >Well if you didn't send or receive these messages, you have >nothing to worry about. > >I don't see any reason to do that. > >We can get a warrant, very quickly, as a matter of fact. If you >cooperate, things will go better for you. > >I love to cooperate. I want to cooperate. I am cooperating to the >fullest extent I believe is required of me. Ask me something that >makes sense and I'll answer it. We have learned sooo much from our wonderful President Clinton, haven't we?! > >Have you ever heard of a group called the Cypherpunks? > >It rings a bell. > >Are you a member? > >No. > >How do you explain the fact that we found your e-mail address on >a Cypherpunks membership list in a computer we seized? > >I have no idea. I don't join organizations. > >Are you a member of the Majordomo organization? > >No. The only majordomo I've ever heard of is a mail list manager. > >Where have you seen this Majordomo? > >Oh, everywhere. I think it's worldwide in scope. > >(scribble scribble) > >It's some kind of utility program. Everybody uses it. > >(scribbling stops) >What can you tell us about it? > >Nothing, really. If you want to get on a mail list you send a >"subscribe" message to a majordomo. If you want to get off, I >think you send an "unscrive" message. > >Have you ever done that? > >Maybe. I don't recall. Anyone can submit your e-mail address >to lists, so you don't even have to subscribe to be on an >e-mail list. And there's so much spam these days that I don't >recognize half the stuff I get. > >Spam? (the agents look at each other) > >Junk e-mail. I delete most of my e-mail without even reading it. >Sometimes my email program crashes and it all gets deleted before >I can look at it. > >(scribble scribble) >How many lists have you joined? > >I don't remember. I never paid any attention to those things, >and since I banged my head three months ago, I haven't been >remembering a lot of things. > >(scribble scribble) >So, are you denying being a member of the Cypherpunks? > >I don't know what that means. > >Have you ever subscribed to the Cypherpunks e-mail list? > >I have no idea. > >You have no idea? You don't remember? > >I don't know what I've subscribed to, unsubscribed from, >what I get, don't get. E-mail is a complete mess and I >ignore most of it. I'm really not very good at those >things. > >May we look? > >No. > >Are you going to make us get a warrant? > >Get what you like. My disk crashed last week and I threw it away. >Lost everything. In fact I just formatted my new disk and the >only data on it is manuscripts for the columns I write. > >Columns? > >I write for a magazine and a couple of newspapers. > >(oh shit) >(scribble scribble) >Oh yeah? Which ones? > >I don't think that's appropriate. > >Well, we'll be back. Here's my card in case you think of anything >you'd like to tell us. > >Sure. > >One more thing. Have you ever been invited to join something >called The Circle of Eunuchs, e-u-n-u-c-h-s? > >I don't recall ever hearing of anything like that. > >Do you know who Tim May is? > >Nope. Sounds like a real common name, though. > >How about Blanc? > >Is that French? > >Never mind. Thanks. We'll be seeing you. > >(I don't _think_ so) > >----- > >AmnesiaMonger >

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is anyone aware of any critical evaluations performed on the security of the Network Associates (a.k.a. McAfee) PGP for Personal Privacy? Traditionally, PGP source code has always been available for evaluation by the Net community, but this isn't the case with the newer commercial versions. Additionally, and this is a bit paranoid, but PGP in the past has come with digitally signed files to authenticate the integrity of the files. Once again, commercial versions offer no such guarantee that the software hasn't been tampered with between the factory and the store shelves. Comments?

2 1

Welcome to ChemWeb.com
by info＠chemweb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Dr cypherpunks cypherpunks Congratulations. Your registration has been successful and you are now a member of ChemWeb.com, the World-Wide Club for the Chemical Community. Your free registration allows you access to all of the facilities at http://chemweb.com. You can now browse and search journals in the library, databases, the conference diary, the shopping mall, and the job exchange, as well as keeping up to date with the latest news from The Alchemist on-line magazine. If you ever forget your password or username, just send an e-mail to info(a)chemweb.com with your name/e-mail address, and we will help you find it, without you having to re-register. We are constantly improving the ChemWeb club site, and we welcome any suggestions you may have. I hope you find ChemWeb.com useful, and I look forward to seeing you there soon. Sincerely, Bill Town, Chief Operating Officer, ChemWeb, Inc.

2 1

ChemWeb password
by info＠chemweb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Dr cypherpunks cypherpunks Someone has used our password utility located at http://chemweb.com/user_gateway/html/forgot_password.html to request that the password for your account be sent to this email address (the one that we have on file for your account). If it wasn't you, don't worry, because no one can ever get your password except you (we only mail it to the email address on file). Someone probably entered the wrong address by accident. If it was you, then here's the information that you've been waiting for. Your Member Name is: cypherpunks Your Current Password is: cpunks For additional help with technical problems, please see our online help guide at http://chemweb.com/help/html/index.html ChemWeb administration

1 0

ADV: We'll Pay You To Make Our Phone Ring
by 5dfs＠mail.gnosis.it 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Business Friend, You are receiving this offer because we have corresponded in the past, or because you have been referred to me as someone interested in business opportunities. If this message has reached you in error, please accept my apologies. To remove your address from future mailings, please reply with "remove" in the subject heading. ******************************** ALL YOU DO IS ADVERTISE OUR 800 NUMBER - THAT'S ALL ! * You get $100 for EVERY SALE plus ENDLESS RESIDUALS! * Just MAKE OUR PHONE RING ! * Easiest, most profitable business around * You can earn thousands of $$ your very first month ! * No selling required - our expert sales team closes sales for you * We send out huge checks weekly * No meetings, phone calls, no hassles * Advertise any way you want - email, flyers, classifieds, postcards, etc. If you are an average person like myself who has always wanted to generate a large easy income from home, but you don't want the hassles of inventory, marketing plans, or direct selling, then THIS IS FOR YOU. All you do is advertise our 800 number and your ID number, and our trained staff do the rest for you. Don't just take my word for it - listen to some amazing testimonials from existing members: 1-888-446-6951 (He made $10,000 his first month) 1-888-446-6949 (He erased all his debt in one month) 1-888-715-0642 (She averages $1,000 every week) 1-888-703-5389 (He can't believe it's this easy) You also have the peace of mind of offering one of the best products available: a lifetime membership in a discount service providing guaranteed low prices on over 250,000 products and services. Hotel & Travel Services, Major Appliances, Dentists, Legal Services, 7.5 cents/minute long-distance, Groceries... YOU CAN START TODAY - CALL NOW: 1-800-811-2141 (ID # 66078) 8am - 10pm CST Mon-Sat ***************** P.S. I am really excited about this and YOU souuld be too. I called and checekd this out it in not a two or 3 tier pusiness oppertuniety it is one level ONLY..you get payd for the people you bring in and have to do nothing else. The savings in they buying end of it is really great too from there catalog of 250,000 items is absolutely great also so I joined and hope you do to if not for the business end but for what you going to save buying alone it is worth it... THANKS FOR YOU TIME Michael T. Kacer reply to me with your # & e-mail and i will help u if i can

1 0

Re: "Export" controls
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Their architecture has real $$ value because it cracks 99% of > "encrypted" traffic. > What type of attack was used in the famous test? Known plaintext? It gets a bit tougher in the real world doesn't it? > Offering the real stuff for sale in US requires some investment. > Really? > We are not talking here about free stuff. We are talking about > products that can be deployed by non-programmers, businesses etc., > that will be supported professionally > Every product I ever worked on started off as a big ugly prototype sprawled across a table top hooked to all sorts of life support systems. And not all products are taken to market by those who did the initial design work. License. For something like we're discussing here I think the *big* cash outlay comes post-prototype with mask, fab, plastics, production lines and marketing. Upfront it's mostly neurons. I expect it would be easier to convince a manufacturer to participate with a working prototype than it would with only an idea. > Hardware is overkill for the single voice line. PGPfone works fine > there. ^^^^^^^^ > No it is not. 500k gates may be too much but I maintain that you simply cannot trust the Wintel HW, Windows or anything you cannot analyze in detail and freeze. Besides, people like little palm-sized gadgets. > How much would you pay for transparent hardware/software solution that > encrypts all traffic between peer users > We all know the magic price points. But is that particular product all that interesting? Even if peer traffic is encrypted the system can be infected and can transmit anything ( disk, RAM eg ) to other adresses. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the networking stuff to feel that a system can be secured while it is on-line. Now an embedded system for secure e-mail that used a PC as a gateway might be kind of cool. You drop encrypted attachments onto a driver that sends them to the unit where you read them. Anything you enter and encrypt at the unit is presented as a file at the host to be attached and sent. USB would be plenty quick for that sort of stuff. You might say that it should be done on the host as SW or on another PC but we're back to the Wintel HW again. No thanks. I wonder what could be done with a palm pilot. Are full schematics and BIOS and driver code available? You *might* throw out everything but and build it there. You'd want to do some EMI testing. I still like my SCSI/IDE gizmo for off-line PC's. > The main problem with hard crypto is that it is so equalizing. Any > pauper can cheaply encrypt and make it hard for any government to > break. > Yes, and it needs to be priced accordingly. Although corporations do tend to spend nicely at times. The key, as with any business, identify your customers and make a product for them. Not easy, I admit. > This is not the case with guns, where more resources almost linearly > buy more power. > Gun talk is amusing. I agree that what is going on with gun law is disturbing but as far as disagreement with the Reptilians is concerned power is political. As soon as it becomes violent you've lost. Except in the event of a full-blown revolution. Then we all lose. > On the wild side, suppose that all crypto restrictions are terminated. > Some would say that now "they" can break all available stuff. In any > case the value of crypto products in the eyes of buyers would fall. If > it is legal it is no good. Most of the research would lose the best > people. > Don't you think that this sort of a poker bluff would be a little too much even for the boldest thinkers in gov't? The stuff they fear most would be commoditized and I think, in spite of your point, far more of it would exist than does now. Marketeers would reduce it to bullet items on packages but many engineers would deliver reasonable products within the cost constraints. > Cypherpunks would cease to exist. > Is that why CP exist? Because cryptography has some legal gray areas? I don't think so. Enough This is a painfully slow conversation.

1 0

Suggested Reading
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declarations of Independance: Cross-examining American ideology Howard Zinn ISBN 0-06-092108-0 $14.00 US ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

No Subject
by Xena - Warrior Princess 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

U.S. claims success in curbing encryption trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Clinton administration officials Thursday said they had persuaded other leading countries to impose strict new export controls on computer data-scrambling products under the guise of arms control. At a meeting Thursday in Vienna, the 33 nations that have signed the Wassenaar Arrangement limiting arms exports -- including Japan, Germany and Britain -- agreed to impose controls on the most powerful data-scrambling technologies, including for the first time mass-market software, U.S. special envoy for cryptography David Aaron told Reuters. The United States, which restricts exports of a wide range of data-scrambling products and software -- also known as encryption -- has long sought without success to persuade other countries to impose similar restrictions. ``We think this is very important in terms of bringing a level playing field for our exporters,'' Aaron said. Leading U.S. high-technology companies, including Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp., have complained that the lack of restrictions in other countries hampered their ability to compete abroad. The industry has sought to have U.S. restrictions relaxed or repealed, but has not asked for tighter controls in other countries. Privacy advocates have also staunchly opposed U.S. export controls on encryption, arguing that data-scrambling technologies provided a crucial means of protecting privacy in the digital age. ``It's ironic, but the U.S. government is leading the charge internationally to restrict personal privacy and individual liberty around the world,'' said Alan Davidson, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based advocacy group. Special envoy Aaron said the Wassenaar countries agreed to continue export controls on powerful encryption products in general but decided to end an exemption for widely available software containing such capabilities. ``They plugged a loophole,'' Aaron said. The new policy also reduced reporting and paperwork requirements and specifically excluded from export controls products that used encryption to protect intellectual property -- such as movies or recordings sent over the Internet -- from illegal copying, Aaron said. Encryption uses mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software ``key.'' One important measure of the strength of the encryption is the length of the software key, measured in bits, the ones and zeros that make up the smallest unit of computer data. With the increasing speed and falling prices of computers, data encrypted with a key 40 bits long that was considered highly secure several years ago can now be cracked in a few hours. Cutting-edge electronic commerce and communications programs typically use 128-bit or longer keys. Under Thursday's agreement, Wassenaar countries would restrict exports of general encryption products using more than 56-bit keys and mass-market products with keys more than 64 bits long, Aaron said. Each country must now draft its own rules to implement the agreement.

1 0

Twofish/AES News
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are some new papers on the Twofish webpage. We have improved our performance numbers. On Pentium-class machines, key setup is faster. We also have large-RAM implementations, that speed key setup at the expense of 256K of RAM. We aso have a variety of performance options on smart cards, trading RAM off for speed. And finally, we have a new hardware implementation that reduces the total gate count. Details are in Twofish Technical Report #3: http://www.counterpane.com/twofish-speed.html Dave Barton has implemented Twofish in Delphi: http://www.hertreg.ac.uk/ss/d_crypto.html And finally, we have compared the performance of all AES submissions on 32-bit processors, smart cards, and hardware. Our results are in. http://www.counterpane.com/AES-performance.html As always, thanks for your support. Bruce ********************************************************************** Bruce Schneier, President, Counterpane Systems Phone: 612-823-1098 101 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55419 Fax: 612-823-1590 Free crypto newsletter. See: http://www.counterpane.com

1 0

Make your own IQ test online!!! (Free+FUN)
by phormiga＠bigfoot.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

you can do it now! YouŽll know your IQ in a few minutes Go to http.//www.hormiga.org/iqt.htm FREE AND FUN YouŽll know your Intelligence Coeficent Spanish version http://www.hormiga.org/iq.htm

1 0

Mixmaster client 4 the Mac OS?
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I heard sometime last summer that the mixmaster client was being ported to the Mac. Does anyone know the status of this project?

1 0

ChemWeb password
by info＠chemweb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Your request for a ChemWeb password has been received. We will try to help you out as soon as possible. For additional help with technical problems, please see our online help guide at http://chemweb.com/help/html/index.html Thank you ChemWeb administration

1 0

Apology for mixup in press release mailing list
by Teemu Hukkanen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Due to an unsuspected flaw, our mailing lists were slightly misconfigured which allowed replies to the original press release email to be forwarded to all recipients in the list. -- postmaster(a)datafellows.com

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by HyperReal-Anon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Now there's a really intelligent response to the MIB! I think Blanc would >have done a better self-service to have responded that way. > >MAKE THEM GET A WARRANT! It's your ONLY legal defense against a fishing >expedition! It's our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to require a warrant before >letting them in! We are NOT criminals just because we do not allow the MIBs >to make ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL searches of our properties! > >If they can't convince a judge AND obtain a specifically worded search >warrant then they are obviously fishing! Tell to go find a real deep lake... > >I also give the writer an A+ for the Clintonian and Reagonesque touches! > >APF The MIB have a convenient way around this. If you let them in voluntarily, they're nice. If you make them get a warrant, they come back, guns drawn. They barge in and tear the place up for hours. Maybe they'll hack down some of the walls to search for drugs. In the end, you have something which is a cross between a pile of papers, a bunch of dust, electronic parts, wiring, torn up books, destroyed furniture, and a pile of crumbled drywall to call home. Heil Klintonkov! Heil Reno! Heil Freeh! StatistMonger

3 2

Re: I Got Mine
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The MIB have a convenient way around this. If you let them in voluntarily, >they're nice. If you make them get a warrant, they come back, guns drawn. >They barge in and tear the place up for hours. Maybe they'll hack down some >of the walls to search for drugs. In the end, you have something which is a >cross between a pile of papers, a bunch of dust, electronic parts, wiring, >torn up books, destroyed furniture, and a pile of crumbled drywall to call >home. > >Heil Klintonkov! Heil Reno! Heil Freeh! > >StatistMonger > Unfortunately, this is true. That's why I loved the response given by Anon! It accomplished all the right things without giving them cause for coming back!! VERY, VERY GOOD! APF

1 0

ChemWeb.com
by Davina Heaven 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Dr Cypherpunks Thank you for your message to ChemWeb.com. Please enter your Member Name (user name) and Password exactly as shown below (please note that our system is case sensitive and will not tolerate spaces): Member Name: cypherpunks Password: crossfire If you have any further queries or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me again. Yours sincerely, Davina Heaven Customer Services ChemWeb Inc. 50 New Bond Street London W1Y 6HA Tel: +44 (0)171 499 4748 Fax: +44 (0)171 499 4102 http://ChemWeb.com World Wide Club for the Chemical Community > -----Original Message----- > From: cypherpunks(a)toad.com [SMTP:cypherpunks@toad.com] > Sent: None > To: info(a)chemweb.com > Subject: ChemWeb password > > Request for password: > > Full name: cypherpunks cypherpunks > Current e-mail: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Other e-mails: > Member name: cypherpunks > Comment:

1 0

ChemWeb password
by info＠chemweb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Dr cypherpunks cypherpunks Someone has used our password utility located at http://chemweb.com/user_gateway/html/forgot_password.html to request that the password for your account be sent to this email address (the one that we have on file for your account). If it wasn't you, don't worry, because no one can ever get your password except you (we only mail it to the email address on file). Someone probably entered the wrong address by accident. If it was you, then here's the information that you've been waiting for. Your Member Name is: cypherpunks Your Current Password is: crossfire For additional help with technical problems, please see our online help guide at http://chemweb.com/help/html/index.html ChemWeb administration

1 0

The Beeb speaks like a cypherpunk once removed...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- There's some discussion on the BBC about that Chinese businessman who's now in the klink for "conspiring against the state using the internet" :-). The Beeb has an internet correspondent, and he's, right now, talking about strong crypto, anonymous remailers, and quoting Gilmore's censorship is damage line. All without using the words "strong cryptography", or "anonymous remailers", or "John Gilmore". :-). He was talking about how the Chinese website was hacked within hours and painted over with pro democracy stuff and links to Amnesty International, among other things. All of this was in a favorable, horse is out of the barn, this is good for freedom, light. Cheers, Robert Hettinga -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQEVAwUBNmfw9cUCGwxmWcHhAQEDEwf9H9xqZ2LU935VawA9ZwpzFPF2CKrl1xam jzGJX2uTOhiYGtkQhZ2hFY7/ISoNGXvinwHACycXVi5AdxR6//2tzr1szjk4bgB5 NvKW+1gJJWP5bD0Kz3JwYui3t2fAetjSg94HCxcWbSQM4NJVP6IBXyg48ZtGmkVE UqvhwYc41NHVDgZt/ist5EQEAWcWh3/qApEbeS8xG7SP4FZeCeogCidVmQuMWC1u sAQbrd5fdFdTcUs0feuk9zBpEklTe3AljfnDbfSEUpyok29L+9R3cqAyh/5GM0yd 3uVQTmqOSMLK0o+L9tuejgkaTGnI7Co2NXaYbh/jPKGzm/OAYr7/fQ== =FU5E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

1 0

Wassenaar Statement
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Secretariat of The Wassenaar Arrangement has issued brief public docs on the recent meeting: http://jya.com/wa-state98.htm Only one brief mention of encryption: "8. The WA agreed control list amendments to take into account recent technological developments. The amendments to the lists included elimination of coverage of commonly available civil telecommunications equipment as well as the modernisation of encryption controls to keep pace with developing technology and electronic commerce, while also being mindful of security interests. Participating States also discussed the potential need for the WA and national export control authorities to respond quickly and effectively to the emergence of new technologies." Which appears to confirm that each state will implement and announce its encryption policy as it sees fit. The US has jumped to proclaim to its constituencies that it has won. Though it's the secret agreements that remain to be publicized. Note the gaps in the public docs and dissimulative assurances. We also offer a recent related message from Denmark on its fluid crypto policy: http://jya.com/dk-crypto98.htm

1 0

TESTING... Seems like I don't get all my mail...
by Jan Dobrucki 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TEST TEST TEST TEST JDO

1 0

Surf the Web 20-Times Faster
by RealNetworks News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear RealPlayer User, Want to speed up your Internet connection without purchasing a new modem? Tired of long-download times and network problems? For a limited time, RealNetworks invites you to download PeakJet 2000-which can speed your web surfing up to 20-times faster-for only $14.95! Read on, or download now: => http://www.realstore.com/specials/onesurfing.html How does it work? PeakJet's technology automatically learns from your browsing habits. While you read through a page, PeakJet 2000 intelligently works behind the scenes and preloads and freshens links according to your interests. When you click, the next page appears almost instantly. All you do is download PeakJet 2000 and start surfing at lightening speed! PeakJet 2000 also offers these great benefits: - Speeds Web surfing up to 20-times faster without requiring a new modem-and works with any modem speed. - Maximizes idle modem time; intelligently preloads pages while you go about your normal browsing. - Economizes bandwidth by devoting cache to your favorite links or frequently visited Web pages. - Comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee. PeakJet 2000 was awarded a 5-star rating by ZDNet. For a limited time, it is only $14.95 - the lowest price for PeakJet 2000 anywhere! To download now, visit: => http://www.realstore.com/specials/twosurfing.html Thank you for continuing to use RealNetworks products. Maria Cantwell Senior Vice President RealNetworks, Inc. Seattle, WA USA ---------------------------- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL Participation in RealNetworks product updates and special offers is voluntary. During the installation of the RealPlayer software you indicated a preference to receive these e-mails. For information about unsubscribing from future announcements, do not respond to this email, instead visit: http://www.real.com/mailinglist/

1 0

joy of export, h/ware
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:06 AM 12/3/98 -0800, Michael Motyka wrote: >> Their architecture has real $$ value because it cracks 99% of >> "encrypted" traffic. >> >What type of attack was used in the famous test? Known plaintext? It >gets a bit tougher in the real world doesn't it? Not really. >> Offering the real stuff for sale in US requires some investment. >> >Really? Interesting question. Open a delaware corporation and sell munition-quality gate arrays in the back pages of Popular Electronics or EE Times... keep us posted... >I expect it would be easier to convince a manufacturer to participate >with a working prototype than it would with only an idea. Duh :-) >> Hardware is overkill for the single voice line. PGPfone works fine >> there. ^^^^^^^^ >> >No it is not. 500k gates may be too much but I maintain that you simply >cannot trust the Wintel HW, Windows or anything you cannot analyze in >detail and freeze. Besides, people like little palm-sized gadgets. * 10,000 gates cost less than a paper clip. 500K is high for a block cipher. * If we don't find something to do with them, at the rate we're producing them, the earth will be covered with silicon and its compounds soon. :-) * Its not like we'd ever put floating point routines, or blitting routines, out of business by integrating those functions in Si, is it? Naah, we'd never accelerate encryption with hardware, the CPU is bored and has nothing better to do, and its soooo expensive to print chips.. (That being said, I'll point out to myself how many asics have been replaced by dsps...but not without some inefficiency) * PGPfone on a very fast cpu plus fast link is still less pleasant than a noisy cordless (no pun intended). * We'd never take encryption hardware through the same path as modems, would we? First used between companies, then used for remote access, eventually you can't buy a bloody machine without one. Getting cheaper, faster, closer to the motherboard, taken for granted by applications. Ever seen a 300 baud, 40 lb modem, cost probably $3000 in 1970 dollars? The final level of deployment is when garage-door-openers, car remotes, and childrens' toys (e.g., radio controlled cars) use encryption chips... or chips with encryption, anyway. >Now an embedded system for secure e-mail that used a PC as a gateway >might be kind of cool. You drop encrypted attachments onto a driver that >sends them to the unit where you read them. Anything you enter and >encrypt at the unit is presented as a file at the host to be attached >and sent. USB would be plenty quick for that sort of stuff. Yes, the PC can be used as an untrusted router if the encryption is done outside it. The outside encrypting unit should also perform NAT, otherwise the PC (doing the tunnelling) can broadcast traffic ('trap and trace' in the pots world) info. The lower power used in PDAs really helps keep the boys in the White Van Across the Street busy. Email is so low-bandwidth that software suffices. Secure video conferencing on your Dick Tracy (tm) telewatch needs h/w support. --- Is 5% of YOUR communications encrypted or anonymous in '98 ?? ---

1 0

Re: Wassenaar Statement
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If these reports are correct, the United States could end up being one of the countries with the most LIBERAL export controls. In the United States, it is currently legal to export any cryptographic software you like - as long as it is in printed form. This is because of fears of violating the First Amendment. Not all countries have such strong conventions for protecting the printed word. PGP source code is being exported in printed form, scanned in overseas, and then distributed from there. If the Wassenaar Arrangement prevents it from being exported from its current overseas distribution site, a solution can be to ship it in printed form from the U.S. to a wide range of other countries. As long as those countries don't prohibit domestic distribution of crypto software, strong cryptography can still be made available almost everywhere. The PGP source code books begin with a section that is, in effect, a "how-to" for printing software in such a way that it can be reliably scanned. Each page and each line has a checksum. The books come with a Perl script short enough to enter by hand that does basic checksum verification. This is used to read a second, longer Perl script that can do error correction; and this is then used to bootstrap into the full script which will read the books, create all the files, organize the directories, and reconstruct the entire source code tree. It may be that in the future this will be the most effective way to communicate internationally about security software. It would be good for other groups to become familiar with this technology which has been pioneered by PGP.

1 0

Send email list - go to jail for life in China [/.]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_224000/224907.stm > Cyber dissident awaits trial in China > By China Analyst James Miles > > A man is awaiting trial in Shanghai prison charged with using the > Internet to try to subvert the government. > > Patrick Lin, 30, was arrested in March for sending 30,000 Chinese > e-mail addresses to an Internet magazine run by Chinese dissidents > abroad. [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Ethical programming guild? [/.]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://slashdot.org/features/98/12/04/1158251.shtml > The following was written by Slashdot Reader James Moyer . > > In proposing this idea, I think that it would a little bit of > background would be appropriate. I am a student at Ohio State, and I > have a strong interest in civil liberties and privacy issues. In fact, > I am now in the process of organizing an on-campus student > organization to criticize Ohio State's overuse of the social security > number, biometric identification and other related issues to privacy > directly concerning the university. > > Here on Slashdot I use the nickname JimBobJoe posting from email > address vampire(a)innocent.com. > > I also consider myself a Libertarian, and from many of the postings on > Slashdot, it appears that there are quite a lot of Libertarians out > there too. There is no coincidence, in my mind, that some of the most > stringent privacy laws in the nation hail from a highly technical, > Libertarian state, being Washington state. In the same vein, it is > rather amusing to see countries such as Malaysia attempt to draw > computer professions into their country, where the severity of their > laws turn many away. [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

export of printed crypto [Was Re:Wassenaar Statement]
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The PGP source code is open, published in book form and this gets stronger 1st amendment protection. US crypto companies have also read the relevant portions of the EAR. Yet, none, to my knowledge, have tried this. Would any attorney reading the list care to comment? The EAR clearly states that printed crypto is not subject to the EAR whether the material is publically disseminated or not. Anyway, about one second after somebody did this another extra- constitutional "emergency" executive order would prohibit it. -Wassenaar >In the United States, it is currently legal to export any cryptographic >software you like - as long as it is in printed form. This is because >of fears of violating the First Amendment. Not all countries have such >strong conventions for protecting the printed word. >PGP source code is being exported in printed form, scanned in overseas,

1 0

Streams, Voice, and Sensitive Dependence
by Lee Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is my understanding that the PGP algorithm is primarily intended as a block cypher. Therefore, wouldn't an Outer Block stream cypher be more effective for phone conversations? Both solutions require hardware for a practical (tolerably noiseless) implementation, so there's nothing to be gained by streaming data into a block format. In any case, there has been a lot of recent work in dynamic systems (Chaos), especially in the fast computations of Julia Sets. Has anyone seen a paper on exploiting the sensitive dependance in these systems for pseudorandom number generation?

2 2

Re: joy of export, h/ware
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>What type of attack was used in the famous test? Known plaintext? It >>gets a bit tougher in the real world doesn't it? > > Not really. > Even if you don't know what you're looking for? Help me out with that one. > * PGPfone on a very fast cpu plus fast link is still less pleasant > than a noisy cordless (no pun intended). > You trust PGPfone on commercial HW enough to do your spy work with it? A system with dedicated audio compression ( http://www.dspg.com/ e.g. ) and a modem could probably be used to establish a secure, full-duplex link over the POTS. A microP, possibly with a small gate array to accel the crypto, would be able to handle the rest of job. Actually a pretty simple product. It could even use your dial-up account and be your internet phone. I know it has been done. I just won't be happy 'til it's in 50 million homes. > * We'd never take encryption hardware through the same path as modems, > would we? First used between companies, then used for remote access, > eventually you can't buy a bloody machine without one. Getting > cheaper, faster, closer to the motherboard, taken for granted by > applications. Ever seen a 300 baud, 40 lb modem, cost probably $3000 > in 1970 dollars? > Yes, I have. Fortunately encryption HW will not have to go through that sort of process. The frontier has been tamed, there are freeways everywhere - all you have to do is pick a lot and build. IOW - that 300 baud modem if done from scratch now would cost nowhere near $3000/unit. > The final level of deployment is when garage-door-openers, car > remotes, and childrens' toys (e.g., radio controlled cars) use > encryption chips... or chips with encryption, anyway. > The time is ripe. > The outside encrypting unit should also perform NAT, otherwise > the PC (doing the tunnelling) can broadcast traffic ('trap and trace' > in the pots world) info. > Clueless again! What is 'NAT'? > Email is so low-bandwidth that software suffices. > Absolutely. The issue there is more one of trustworthy HW and SW. Back to WINTEL/MICROSNORT. Again, !barf!.

1 0

Wassenaar Addendum
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Caspar Bowden in the UK says by telephone that a Wassenaar spokesman told him today that the WA org will issue next week a detailed "template" which specifies terms of the recent agreement to control encryption. It will go well beyond what has been heretofore generally agreed to by the member states under which there was a good bit of latitude for each to determine its own policy. This is an unprecedented united front by the members, and the paper will be a first for detailed export controls issued by the Wassenaar org rather than by each nation. When ready it will be put on the Wassenaar Web site: http://www.wassenaar.org. We've made a request to DoC for elaboration of the press release yesterday which featured David Aarons' general claims, but no response yet. The USG may not comment until the WA paper is issued. Caspar posted a capsule of his infor on UK Crypto: From: "Caspar Bowden" <cb(a)fipr.org> To: <ukcrypto(a)maillist.ox.ac.uk> Subject: News from Wassenaar Secretariat Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 16:23:58 -0000 Message-ID: <000101be1fa2$9da127e0$dc77e4d4@cpsb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Just talked to Dirk Weicke, Senior Adviser to Wassenaar Organisation. (Tel:+43 1 516360) No written details will be issued until next week, but gist is: *) No alteration to question of whether Wassenaar covers intangible exports. Up to signatory states to interpret and legislate. *) mass-market software, symmetric key length limited to 56-bits *) software generally available, but with other restrictive tests on end-user re-configurability, symmetric key length limited to 64-bits *) Assymetric key lengths (not sure how relates to above) limited to: RSA & Digital logarithm: 512 bits Elliptic curve : 112 bits -- Caspar Bowden http://www.fipr.org Director, Foundation for Information Policy Research Tel: +44(0)171 354 2333 Fax: +44(0)171 827 6534 ----------

1 0

Re: Streams, Voice, and Sensitive Dependence
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Lee Davis"<lee.davis(a)thomasmore.edu> skribis: > In any case, there has been a lot of recent work in dynamic systems (Chaos), > especially in the fast computations of Julia Sets. Has anyone seen a paper on > exploiting the sensitive dependance in these systems for pseudorandom number > generation? A number of attempts have been made to apply chaos to cryptosystems. The two that I've broken suffered from the same fault: although it's difficult to find the precise starting point (key) due to sensitive dependence, chaotic systems are by definition non-random, and have preferred orbits. If the cryptanalyst finds an orbit that's close to the one used by the actual key, the stream is mostly the same; this is good enough to hone the attack for the next pass. I'm not saying chaos has no applications in cryptography; only that the applications are not obvious. -- Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 14 Foreyule S.R. 1998, 19:37 12.19.5.13.7, 6 Manik 20 Ceh, Sixth Lord of Night

1 0

Re: Mixmaster client 4 the Mac OS?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: loki(a)sirius.infonex.com Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:08:01 -0800 To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com>, mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com From: Lance Cottrell <loki(a)infonex.com> Subject: Re: Mixmaster client 4 the Mac OS? Sender: <mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com> Precedence: Bulk Several people have offered, but none have produced a fully functional version. -Lance At 8:53 PM -0500 12/3/98, Robert Hettinga wrote: >--- begin forwarded text > > >Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 01:42:19 +0100 >From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> >Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. > It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. > Please report problems or inappropriate use to the > remailer administrator at <abuse(a)replay.com>. >Subject: Mixmaster client 4 the Mac OS? >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net >Precedence: first-class >Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> >X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > >I heard sometime last summer that the mixmaster client was being ported to >the Mac. Does anyone know the status of this project? > >--- end forwarded text > > >----------------- >Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> >Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> >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' ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)infonex.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.infonex.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

1 0

Re: joy of export, h/ware
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> What type of attack was used in the famous test? Known plaintext? It >>> gets a bit tougher in the real world doesn't it? >> >> Not really. Michael Motyka <mmotyka(a)lsil.com> skribis: > Even if you don't know what you're looking for? Help me out with that > one. The question was "in the real world": in this case, as opposed to artificial challenges, you often (or normally) do have access to known or chosen plaintext. This can involve expected headers ("\nSubject: " somewhere near the beginning of a message has a good chance of giving you a 64-bit block), standard plaintext (". The " is a perennial favorite), or known C idioms ("#include <stdio.h>\n") can all be tried. The EFF hardware is set up to look for various kinds of patterns. For example, it can check the high bit on the recovered plaintext, to see whether the result is ASCII. This is certainly the easiest way to get in if you're breaking normal uncompressed messages or source code. If it's compressed, you still may be OK -- most compression packages put magic file identifiers at the beginning, and some have guessable trees there. If you're breaking a transaction stream it's likely to be even easier, with the standard headers, even if you don't go to the trouble of injecting your own know transaction into the stream. -- Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 14 Foreyule S.R. 1998, 20:22 12.19.5.13.7, 6 Manik 20 Ceh, Sixth Lord of Night

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Citibank in drug cash probe GAO report slams bank for secretly moving millions in alleged drug money December 4, 1998: 10:56 a.m. ET http://cnnfn.com/worldbiz/9812/04/citibank/ Citigroup's Dimon resigns - Nov. 02, 1998 Citibank Buys Into Microsoft-Supported E-Billing Venture - Sep. 14, 1998 General Accounting Office Citibank NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Citibank secretly transferred up to $100 million in alleged drug money for the brother of the former Mexican president and violated its own internal controls on money laundering, the General Accounting Office said Friday. The GAO charged in a report that the second-largest U.S. bank facilitated "a money-managing system that disguised the origin, destination and beneficial owner of the funds." The report, entitled "Raul Salinas, Citibank and Alleged Money Laundering," could lead to congressional hearings against Citibank in the new year. Salinas is the eldest brother of Carlos Salinas de Gortari, who served as Mexican president between 1988 and 1994. There have been repeated rumors that Salinas was linked to drug lords. But according to the report, Citibank's private banking unit asked Salinas few questions when approached by him in 1992. As a mid-level government employee, Salinas earned less than $200,00 a year. But between 1992 and 1994 he moved more than $90 million through Citibank accounts. Checks worth millions of dollars were taken by hand to Citibank Mexico by Salinas' wife Paulina. The money then was moved to Switzerland through a complex series of international transactions. Starting in mid-1992, the GAO said, "Citibank actions assisted Mr. Salinas with these transfers and effectively disguised the funds' source and destination, thus breaking the funds' paper trail." Citibank has its own "know-your-customer" procedures, which it failed to follow in the Salinas case, the GAO said. It was only after Salinas was charged with murder in 1995 that Citibank investigated the source of funds. Even then, according to a bank representative, "Citibank New York's Mexican division believed that all of Mr. Salinas' funds had been obtained legally, with a large portion resulting from the sale of a construction company he owned," the report states. "However, Citibank reportedly knew no details about the construction company, including its name, who had purchased it, or the amount of money generated by its sale." GAO investigators also criticize the bank for establishing a Cayman Islands trust to disguise the source and destination of Salinas' money. Salinas has denied any wrongdoing, saying that the money came from Mexican industrialists who wanted him to establish an investment fund. Citibank said in a statement the report "contains gross errors of fact and interpretation" and "ignores recent progress in strengthened law and industry procedures which Citibank strongly supports in keeping with our commitment to combat money laundering, to comply with the letter and spirit of related laws and to continually strengthen our procedures everywhere we operate." Spokesman Dick Howe added, "We have looked into the matter ourselves and have found that neither the company nor any employee has violated the law. We're cooperating fully with law enforcement authorities." The GAO said it was unable to determine whether Citibank broke U.S. money laundering laws. But the Justice Department also is investigating the company's actions. No law specifically requires banks to know their customers, but money laundering -- concealing the source of funds obtained from illegal activity including drug sales -- is illegal. Salinas is in prison, being tried for murder. Citibank is now part of Citigroup (C) following its merger with Travelers.

1 0

Re: Streams, Voice, and Sensitive Dependence
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It is my understanding that the PGP algorithm is primarily intended > as a block cypher. Therefore, wouldn't an Outer Block stream cypher > be more effective for phone conversations? Both solutions require > hardware for a practical (tolerably noiseless) implementation, so > there's nothing to be gained by streaming data into a block format. > Unless you have a really fast ( 1 Mbit / s? ) data connection you're going to want to do some voice compression. The algorithms I've seen break the audio into discrete time frames and (de)compress frame by frame. As a point of reference say about 16 bytes for every 33 msec of voice. Quality roughly follows data rate, of course. This makes a block cipher seem not so unreasonable. Block cipher or stream cipher, either way you're going to have to introduce a latency of _at_least_ a couple of frames to allow for resends or deliberate out-of-order frame transmission. This makes the block cipher look like the better choice. I think that using HW voice compression and a 33.6 modem you could get a full duplex secure conversation over POTS with a latency in the 0.1 - 0.3 second range and a direct cost in the vicinity of $100. With a reasonably quick microP any encryption method could probably be done as SW. This is not a particularly difficult device to build. Any fine US citizens want to build some prototypes? Mike

2 1

RE: Wassenaar Statement
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> To: "Robert Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com>, <dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu> Subject: RE: Wassenaar Statement Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 18:02:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal We have seen this type of press release before. Uncle Sam goes off to a conference and returns to state that the rest of the world has committed to its position - only to find out later that the rest of the world did not. Anyone remembe the time the crypto Tzar went off to the European Association (a non binding talking shop) and got a similar 'undertaking'. It is more likely that the Wassenaar statement reflects what went on at the meeting. But even then most countries in Europe have a democratic process in which decisions are made by elected representatives and not by beaureacrats at closed treaty negotiations. Just as the munitions acts under which the ITAR crypto regulations are purported to be made clearly do not provide the executive with the powers claimed, neither do most of the European enabling acts for COCOM. Nor in a parliamentary system is it quite so easy for the executive to perform Zimmerman type persecutions. If the same tactics had been used in the UK the Home secretary would have faced political consequences for the failure of the prosecution. The Matrix Churchill affair played a significant part in the collapse of the Major government in the UK. I doubt Straw would be keen on a repeat. The UK DTI proposals requiring GAK as a condition of CA licensing may appear to meet the Freeh objectives but since there is no proposal to make licensing a requirement of doing business the result is most likely to be nobody becomes a 'licensed CA'. There is a legitimate business need for key recovery but nobody offering those services is going to want access to the customer's private keys. Doing so would be akin to keeping triffids as pets. It is not necessary to keep actual private keys to achieve the objective of controlling access to the private keys. Phill --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

1 0

Re: FC: So far, I think Mr. Aarons' Wassenaar statement is disinformation
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 18:19:58 -0500 (EST) From: Peter F Cassidy <pcassidy(a)world.std.com> To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Cc: dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: FC: So far, I think Mr. Aarons' Wassenaar statement is disinformation Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Peter F Cassidy <pcassidy(a)world.std.com> Friends, In e-mail exchanges with EC ministers and government ministers in W. European nations that I have had about Aarons one thing is consistent. All seemed to be shocked and dismayed at his ability to report out facts to the press in the US and to the Clinton Administration that have little to do with actual events. It would not surprise any of them if Aarons' unilaterally declared a 33 nation crypto-control agreement that was based entirely on his baroque misunderstanding of the facts. PFC On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > --- begin forwarded text > > > X-Sender: declan(a)mail.well.com > Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 15:29:29 -0500 > To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: FC: So far, I think Mr. Aarons' Wassenaar statement is > disinformation > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Sender: owner-politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu > Reply-To: declan(a)well.com > X-Loop: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu > X-URL: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > > [John is basing his analysis below on what's been posted on the Wassenaar > site so far, and these kinds of documents aren't always put online > immediately. That said, if Ambassador Aaron is talking about the online > documents and John's analysis is correct, the Clinton administration is > going beyond mere spin: it is trying to deliberately deceive. --Declan] > > ********* > > Subject: So far, I think Mr. Aarons' Wassenaar statement is disinformation > > Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:55:00 -0800 > From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> > > I have not found a single confirmation of the Aarons statement that > the 33 Wassenaar countries have agreed to change the exemption for > mass market crypto software. (The NY Times and Reuters stories both > quote Ambassador Aarons.) > > This lack of confirmation includes the Wassenaar Arrangement statement > itself, which merely says: > > The amendments to the lists included elimination of coverage of > commonly available civil telecommunications equipment as well > as the modernisation of encryption controls to keep pace with > developing technology and electronic commerce, while also being > mindful of security interests. > > http://www.wassenaar.org/docs/press_4.html > > The Wassenaar Arrangement works by consensus; any member can block the > adoption of any item merely by voting against it. The policy Aarons > announced is directly contradictory to the recently reaffirmed > government policies of Finland and Ireland. In addition, Canada and > Germany have recently stated strong pro-crypto positions (while > waffling on the particular issue of the treatment of PD and MM > software). > > The Wassenaar Arrangement also states: > > This arrangement will not be directed against > any state or group of states and will not impede > bona fide civil transactions. > > To the extent that there is any attempt in the Agreement to control > mass market or public domain crypto software, such a provision > would clearly contradict this limitation written into the Arrangement. > The Arrangement is for military goods -- not for civilian goods. > PGP and other civilian crypto tools are not military by any stretch > of the imagination. It's hard to imagine that all 33 countries would > ignore this obvious problem, especially when it was pointed out to them > by concerted lobbying over the last several months. > > I also note that none of the statements are clear about exactly what > is affected. PGP, SSH, SSLEAY, Linux IPSEC, and many other crypto > tools are "public domain" rather than "mass market" software. The > General Software Note (originally from COCOM, and adopted bodily by > Wassenaar when it was formed) exempted both "public domain" and "mass > market" software from all controls. > > Finally, a companion paper released from Wassenaar yesterday shows a > clear concern by the body for human rights and fundamental freedoms: > http://www.wassenaar.org/docs/criteria.html: > > e. Is there a clearly identifiable risk that the weapons might > be used for the violation and suppression of human rights and > fundamental freedoms? > > (In this case if the the Aarons statement was true, Wassenaar itself > would be used for the violation and suppression of human rights and > fundamental freedoms. It's hard to see that the delegates would also > ignore this and vote to suppress human rights and freedoms.) > > So, I see two major probabilities here: > > * Either Aarons is lying, to see how much trouble this stirs up. > This would be taking a page from FBI Director Freeh, who > announced FBI support for domestic controls on crypto last year, > and was then disavowed by the Administration when a ruckus > resulted. > > * Or the NSA has cut a deal with these countries. Then the > question is: what did NSA offer in return? The usual trade > has been access to the flow of wiretaps (as in the UKUSA > agreement that gives Britain, NZ, Australia, and Canada access > to Echelon -- look who the strongest supporters of the US position > are). Another alternative is that they used wiretaps to > blackmail senior politicians in the recalcitrant countries. > (It happened in the US by J. Edgar Hoover for many years.) > > Do either of you have any info that would tend to confirm or deny > one of these theories? > > EFF and the GILC members are checking with various governments to > start to flesh out what *actually* happened. > > I should also note that developments like this are rather expectable. > Every time crypto policies get decided in a closed-door meeting where > the US government is invited, they get worse. Whenever crypto > policies are set in open meetings where the public and the press are > able to watch -- or even, god forbid, participate -- they get better. > The OECD meetings of a few years ago were intended to be the first, > but citizens and journalists swarmed the meeting site, buttonholed > delegates as they entered and left, and turned it into the second. We > should've done the same with this Wassenaar meeting. > > US civil libertarians are prying crypto policy decisions into the > light of day via the courts and the Freedom of Information Act. > Classified NSA/FBI testimony to Congress is getting declassified, and > then its obvious lies are easily rebutted by the public. > > The natural response of a bureacracy that is more concerned with its > own power to wiretap, than with making the right decisions for its > citizens, is to move its crypto maneuvering overseas into "diplomatic > meetings", held under cover of diplomatic secrecy, where they can lie > and twist arms with impunity. > > John > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology > To subscribe: send a message to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu with this text: > subscribe politech > More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > --- end forwarded text > > > ----------------- > Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> > Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> > 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' > > For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to > "dcsb-request(a)ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". > For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request(a)ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

1 0