December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Threat Model: Biowar
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody(a)hidden.net (Anonymous) writes: > Highly contagious airborne diseases are known to exist. Germ warfare > laboratories are also known to exist. The owners of these labs will > do anything to get and keep power. > > The Internet and crypto-anarchy threatens those who currently have > power. How will they respond? > > One response would be a biowarfare attack on the civilian population. > Ironically, this would be seen to legitimize central authority. A > problem would have been created ("by terrorists"). Strong authority > would be seen by most as the solution. An epidemic may be used to > justify ID check points everywhere, the careful monitoring of civilian > activities, and control of all movement within the country. > > >From the rulers' point of view, the biowarfare attack has the > additional attraction that it isolates people, which makes control > easier. While it may be harder to put somebody in jail, communities > are easily controlled when you can limit their food supply. AIDS was very beneficial to humankind by killing many sexual perverts and drug addicts. I wish other future epidemics would be as successful. By the way, does anyone remember the AUM group in Japan, which was also active in Russia? I never worked for them directly myself, but I knew someone who did. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: VSACM V2.0 Source Code Request (fwd)
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> writes: > Forwarded message: > > > Subject: VSACM V2.0 Source Code Request > > Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 23:31:49 -0600 (CST) > > > I would appreciate receiving a copy of the source code for your > > encryption software, for the purpose of peer review. > > These sorts of requests are setting a bad precedence. All that should be > needed for peer review is the algorithmic expression of the software, not > its source code. The only issue that public review should consist of is the > strength of the algorithm. Questions relating to specific implimentation > questions should be done between vendor and client in private (caveat > emptor!). What those questions should be should be open to public review as > well. Class, not instance. > > Public review should be concerned with the characteristics of specific > algorithms and not the honesty of the particular implementor. I disagree. Remember when a widely available C implementation of the Blowfish algorithm was found to have a bug that significantly weakened its security? The bug was in the C implementation, not the algorithm itself. By the way, I requested the source code from Mr.Ramos within minutes after he made the offer on this mailing list and haven't heard back from him yet. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

File Posting Limitations
by DataETRsch＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm wondering if there is a limit on the size of a file that can be tagged to a message posted to the cypherpunks mailing list. Jeremy Yu-Ramos DataET Research

5 4

Re: TEMPEST protection
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >> - Whenever I need to do something secret, like reading pgp-encrypted >> messages, use ssh to connect from that laptop to my main Unix host >> (manifold.algebra.com) and read those off of the laptop screen. >> How secure would that arrangement be? At present, I do not feel that >> the additional security is worth even $700, but who knows, that >> may change. If you're doing it for isolation reasons (keeping private stuff on your laptop instead of your Internet-connected machine to reduce breakin risks), it may be worth something. If you're doing it for TEMPEST, don't bother; laptops may put out less than CRTs, but I've still had my laptop emit signals that showed up on a nearby TV semi-legibly (out of sync, but Bad Guys can deal with that...) If you find a TEMPEST-shielded PC at an NSA Surplus auction, it'll probably be a 386 at best, and maybe a 286, so it may not be fast enough to bother with. Shielding this stuff is a Black Art, though paying a lot of attention to cables and boxes and tight corners with metal connectivity helps a lot. And just using a slower processor instead of that 200MHz microwave tower also helps. On the other hand, Matt Blaze has done some good work on cooperative encryption between smartcards and real computers, where the smartcard does a critical part of the computation and the bigger computer does the bulk of the work; you could still keep your secret keys on the slow shielded box. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: International Government Regulation, Banking, Encryption
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: perun!news2.panix.com!news.panix.com!panix!arclight.uoregon.edu!news-m01.ny.us.ibm.net!ibm.net!news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net!not-for-mail From: Simon Wild <siwild(a)ibm.net> Newsgroups: alt.security Subject: International Government Regulation, Banking, Encryption Message-ID: <3328C3FE.6316(a)ibm.net> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 11:20:30 +0800 Reply-To: siwild(a)ibm.net Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: slip202-135-10-84.hk.hk.ibm.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I hope that someone can help me in my quest to gather information on current/future Government Regulation/Legislation around the world that attempts to enforce encryption over the WAN for banks. Link Level or Application Level ? Acceptable key length ? Standards ? etc... Simon

1 0

(fwd) CarlMStarrsimulationExperiment
by ichudov＠galstar.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: mercury.galstar.com!not-for-mail From: ichudov(a)galstar.com (Igor Chudov) Newsgroups: ok.general Subject: CarlMStarrsimulationExperiment Date: 16 Mar 1997 00:36:32 GMT Organization: Bool Sheet Software Lines: 24 Message-ID: <5gffag$3gb(a)mercury.galstar.com> Reply-To: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov) NNTP-Posting-Host: galaxy.galstar.com X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] joe was pulled off a major drug case in the wiretapping of my phone i expect a jealous husband to tap my phone on in gardner ks on and the aftermath info need not lead to indictments or arrest call me or write me your info is worth money also it will help stop wiretap authourity from expanding i will give you your reward as soon as i accept your infomation and we agree what that reward is it could be a trade a car cash etc i have nothing to hide i know what i did and @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ No, the above was NOT written by me, nor by carl starrs. It was generated by a perl script, which emulates writing styles of different people. The way it does it is by keeping track of pairs of words and their most frequently used subsequent words. It reads articles (or any text really) written by the target person, builds the style tables, and then geenrates the "most likely" text. Carl starrs was a good target for two reasons, one of which is that he does not use punctuation. KIBO RULES!!! CLONING MADE EASY!!!

3 2

Secure checksums
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's a rumor that Tim May sells his dead relatives as fertilizer as they constitute the best shit in California. \|||/// ~|||// ____ .) // Tim May (____ @ / \ \ ) /\ \ \/ (_

2 1

Dark Fiber Redux
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just to throw a little gasoline on the George Gilder "Dark Fiber" discussion around here, I found a huge, spiffy trove of Gilderama at: http://www.computer.org/internet/9701/gilder9701.htm Wherein the esteemed (at least I do ;-)) Mr. G says: > Remember that the fibersphere I've written a lot about is based on >wavelength-division multiplexing of tremendous amounts of bandwidth, which >can serve as a substitute for switches with all optical repeaters. And by >the way they've just developed fluoro-zirconate repeaters that can handle >the whole bandwidth of fiber. I don't know whether this technology will >actually prove out or not, but for the first time they have demonstrable >all-optical amplifiers that can handle the entire intrinsic bandwidth of >fiber, which is quite an amazing development in just a year or two. The >erbium-doped fiber amplifiers top out at 4.5 terahertz, so they can't >accommodate the potentially 25-75 terahertz that every fiber, >theoretically, could hold. What this means, of course, is that (kind of, as CDMA etc., counts a switching, I guess) like wireless, electromagnetic bandwidth, some day you'll have huge glops of non-switched fiber bandwidth to play with. In theory, at least, everyone gets a color, or frequency, and they listen on that frequency for their inbound stuff. If you want to send someone something, you literally tune them in and send it. Actually, I see these frequencies using CDMA carrier waves when it eventually happens, but you get the idea. The implications for cryptography are rather cool. I don't *think* these doped optical amplifiers interfere with so-called quantum cryptography (not to be confused with quantum computing, of course). If I remember my SciAm back issues, quantum crypto is cool, because if anyone touches the signal from Alice to Bob they're detected immediately. Or, is it that the signal drops? Can't remember which. Anyway, you need uninterrupted fiber to do QC, and that's what you have with optical non-switched amplification, whether you're disturbing the photons is another story. Anyone here know for sure? I remember discussion about this, but I don't remember the answer. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/

3 2

Gilder on CDA, Crypto Export, DES, and Financial Cryptography
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's nice to see that the clueful memes are spreading, Gilder's congenital statism aside :-). Also from http://www.computer.org/internet/9701/gilder9701.htm . > Petrie: While we're on the subject of choice, what do you think about the > First Amendment issues currently before the Supreme Court concerning the > use of legislation to block the viewing of pornography on the Internet? > > Gilder: My belief is that you don't have to change the laws to deal with > the child pornography or snuff films or other extreme cases that are > employed to justify sweeping regulation of the Net. I think they're a > distraction, they're a red herring. My 12-year-old son is on the Net all > the time and I'm eager for the evolution of techniques applicable at the > terminal to lock out certain domains of the Internet to children. But I > think that porn of sufficiently revolting character is widespread all over > the society. If the politicians want to crack down, how about the > Spectravision boxes in every hotel room? > > To focus on the Internet bespeaks another agenda. And I don't > approve of the other agenda, which is to control this new communication > system, because the way they controlled the old one has been a disaster--it > has greatly slowed the extension of bandwidth and led to this kind of > optical illusion, or nonoptical illusion, that bandwidth is somehow scarce > and difficult to create. > > Petrie: This also reminds me of the paranoia about security on the > Internet. For example, online banking on the Internet requires you to have > a US-grade security browser, a user ID, and a password to access the same > service you can use three digits to access by telephone. > > Gilder: I completely agree with that observation. There is a paranoid note > in this encryption and privacy issue. But I think corporations do have a > real problem. If you're sending billions of dollars of value across the > Net, you've created a huge incentive for people to break your codes and > skim off some small proportion of your value flow. > > Petrie: But we're not talking about financial transactions. Those have been > secured for quite some time. > > Gilder: But how? They're using the DES (data encryption standard) algorithm > which is a fairly low level of encryption employed by banks for > transmitting funds. I know it works--I really don't agree with the thesis > that the Internet is insecure--however, I'm willing to imagine there are > applications where you want more security than currently exists. But we are > talking about a lot of issues here all at once. The encryption issue about > terrorism, for example. Banning strong encryption in order to thwart > terrorists means that only terrorists will have strong encryption. I really > think that's accurate--or at least only foreign countries will be able to > have encryption. So the encryption technology will tend to move overseas > where it's completely beyond the reach of US security. > > I think the government's going to figure out that they want the best > encryption to be American. And to disagree with the current wisdom, there > is an arms race. The arms race is with the terrorists. There's no question > about it. But there is no quick technical fix for this arms race. The > government has to understand this is a dynamic rather than a static arms > race, and you won't be able to solve the problem by treaty. The problem is > that of evil in the world, and it's something all of us, including people > who want a wild and woolly Internet, depend on our government to address. ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/

1 0

A Moment of Your Time Please
by friend＠your.friend.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If this message is unwelcome, please delete it. You will not receive another from me. Dear online marketer, I have GREAT NEWS FOR ALL BULK EMAILERS and everyone who markets a product or service online. No more FLAMES No more getting kicked off your ISP for bulk emailing No more need to have a THROWAWAY ACCOUNT No more need for a BULK EMAIL FRIENDLY ISP This new ADVANCE software is designed to ELIMINATE all the above and keep you FOCUSED on making money online. This software was designed to work with NETCONTACT & FLOODGATE. A must have for all bulk emailer. It's Every bulk emailer's dream! I used to have the usage of a virtual provider "Earthstar" and one morning to my surprise their wires had been disconnected by the telephone Company. I could no longer send out E-mail without being identified by the receiver of the E-mail and reported to my ISP and perhaps kicked off of my local provider. Then I ran across the coolest software that would assist me in sending E-mail and not being identified by anyone. Whether you live in a country that doesn't allow you to use free speech, your shy and want to send an anonymous love poem to someone, you want to advertise your product without losing your ISP account, or you just want to flame your boss without anyone knowing, then you may need the E-mail Cloaking Device. This 32 bit shareware program enables you to send anonymous correspondence all over the world. If you would like to receive a free demo copy of this great software, go to the Register page. Fill it out and put TRG Associates as your Sales Rep. go to the Register Page: http://www.hootowl.com/cloak/registerJ.htm And then GO TO: http://www.hootowl.com/cloak/emailJ.htm and download the demo version of Email Cloaking Device (ECD). It will allows you to e-mail up to 5 e-mails at a time. If you decide you want to e-mail more at one time, you can order the commercial version by sending your name, address, e-mail address and a money order for $299.95 To: TRG Associates P. O. Box 337 Greenville, TX 75403-0337 Phone 903-450-8809 The commercial version has no restriction on how many people you can send a message too at once. Also, the annoying message box that tells you of each message sent has been taken out so that you can push one button, walk away from your computer and send thousands of messages at a time. Also a very important point, we use this software and know how to use it and can offer you technical support. Good luck and may your next bulk e-mailing make you a million. Your Friend :-) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to remove ALL e-mail you consider junk then go to: http://catalog.com/tsw/efilter/ and download this program. It will do the repelling job for you automatically. Is this a great time to be alive or what? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0