December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Dear Cypherpunks /from NHK Clew
by hanabusa＠bnn-net.or.jp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Cypherpunks, We are a film crew from NHK, Japanese Public Television (Japan's largest TV network). As you may have all seen the announcement posting, we would like to attend tomorrow's CP physical meeting for filming. We consider the "Crypto War" you are all fighting, not only a U.S domestic issue. It is a historic process which would effect the basic order/system of the global network society for the 21st century. In the midst of the ongoing changes of the idea of how a nation, a corporation and an individual ought to be, we would like to portray your assertions and proposals through the discussions of tomorrow's CP meeting, demonstrations, speeches and booings(just kidding..). We assure you all that we will do our best not be of your distractions. (I know you won't, but) I hope you don't show up with a tie and a three piece suit just because you'll be on TV... ;-) We look forward to the usual (or perhaps more than ever) Cypherpunkish meeting tomorrow! _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Shuichiro Hanabusa (hanabusa(a)bnn-net.or.jp) Producer/Special Programs NHK Enterprises 21 Inc. Location: San Mateo/Carifornia _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

2 1

Brassard on Grover's Shake
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gilles Brassard writes on Grover's "quantum shake" searching algorithm, demonstrates how it would break DES, and assays the promise of QC research. He notes that enviable NSA funds favor LAQC. ----- http://jya.com/qshake.htm

1 0

Enlightened commentary on Netizen.
by das＠razor.engr.sgi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

First, Rebecca Vesely has a special report, the main thrust of which is that three firms being allowed to export 56 bit encryption indicates flexibility on the part of the government. http://www.netizen.com/netizen/97/05/special2a.html To top it off, here are two gems from the followup discussion. http://www.netizen.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.37387 2. 56 ONLY A SLIGHTLY SMALLER JOKE Ric Allan (ricrok) on Wed, 5 Feb 97 11:53 PST If it takes a college student four hours to break a 40bit code it should take him/her about six hours to do the same to 56bits. Then what excuses are the government and its butt-kissing companies going to give us for not allowing *real* coding? 4. 56bits will not take 6 hours to crack Piers Cawley (pdcawley) on Thu, 6 Feb 97 05:05 PST Rick seems to be missing the point about strong encryption -- the reason that DES/IDEA encryption is hard to crack is because the key system is based on the fact that factoring big numbers is a long, slow tedious process which gets exponentially harder as the length of the number increases. What this means is that it'll probably take the college student, ooh... 24 hours to crack a 56 bit key. However, the question has to be asked, why the fuck should we non US citizens go and buy cryptographic software that is deliberately coded to allow the US government to read our mail? -- Anil Das

1 0

Re: NETLINK_IPSEC
by Hugh Daniel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The #define you are looking for is in: /usr/src/linux/include/net/ip_forward.h in my 2.0.25 source tree. I sugjest that you upgrate to the current 2.0.XX kernel (I have used 2..0.28 with the ipsec-0.4 distrabution). ||ugh Daniel Linux FreeSWAN Project hugh(a)toad.com

1 0

Re: My messages not appearing on either of the lists?
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"mpd(a)netcom.com" "Mike Duvos" 7-FEB-1997 20:56:39.36 >That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet >seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. >Others mileage may vary. IIRC, Majordomo sends out messages _approximately_ in the order of the person's subscription. In any event, it has to send them out in _some_ order, and on a mailing list as large as cypherpunks, it's going to take a while to get from one end to the other. -Allen

1 0

NETLINK_IPSEC
by Jeremey Barrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- When running 'make modules', NETLINK_IPSEC and IPFWD_NOTTLDEC are undeclared. I added NETLINK_IPSEC to include/net/netlink.h, but IPFWD_NOTTLDEC is not to be found. I'm running kernel 2.0.0, the INSTALL.txt file in the ipsec distribution mentions 2.0.24, is that the minimum kernel to run on? Thanks. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvvG3C/fy+vkqMxNAQECrQQAgjHE7CIQZyTHV9wfLvuoxk8TkOVHMSJD +gpHAme20wSOOtIVw3ZBJxDvCiFiyHFaoEI0o/Xkqs6fXUoRgjQkLvuSJi3dgm+N 3gVB7Gf14dK14qChJyEyPMlMXAe2hWehxojTizS2LHfX7gvzPHMN0D5DGEKsM+MN wYfDdGzNsX8= =lK+H -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product?
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > At 10:07 PM +0000 2/7/97, Against Moderation wrote: > >Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the > >message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that > >I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it > >probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people > >on the various lists confirm this for me? > >A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames > >and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets > >rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case, > >it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but > >dishonesty. Normally I'd address just the list, but in this case I'm sure you'll understand. Check the archives of Sandy's moderation announcements, and I believe you'll see where he claimed that although *all* messages would make it to the -unedited list, he admitted that some of those would not make it to either the -edited or -flames lists, due to the anomalies of hand-editing.

1 0

Dear Cypherpunks /from NHK Clew
by Sh.Hanabusa 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Cypherpunks, We are a film crew from NHK, Japanese Public Television (Japan's largest TV network). As you may have all seen the announcement posting, we would like to attend tomorrow's CP physical meeting for filming. We consider the "Crypto War" you are all fighting, not only a U.S domestic issue. It is a historic process which would effect the basic order/system of the global network society for the 21st century. In the midst of the ongoing changes of the idea of how a nation, a corporation and an individual ought to be, we would like to portray your assertions and proposals through the discussions of tomorrow's CP meeting, demonstrations, speeches and booings(just kidding..). We assure you all that we will do our best not be of your distractions. (I know you won't, but) I hope you don't show up with a tie and a three piece suit just because you'll be on TV... ;-) We look forward to the usual (or perhaps more than ever) Cypherpunkish meeting tomorrow! _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Shuichiro Hanabusa (hanabusa(a)bnn-net.or.jp) Producer/Special Programs NHK Enterprises 21 Inc. Location: San Mateo/Carifornia _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

1 0

Sandy suppresses truth about his moderation policy
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Below are some interesting facts implying that: 1) Sandy uses a bot to reject articles of people he does not like 2) When I exposed him with an article showing all Received: dates, he a) rejected the article exposing him and b) changed his moderation software so that Received: headers for the cypherpunks-flames do not show the times when messages came in 3) Sandy apologized to Tim May for rejecting one of Vulis's articles, and yet he rejects my message quoting same article. I question how genuine were his apologies to Tim. At this point, I have enough data to conclude that * Sandy is not a good moderator * Sandy does not have the interests of his readership in his mind * Sandy should not be trusted At this point, two events are likely to happen: either moderation ceases, or Sandy and John will pull the plug on the unedited and flames list. - Igor. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Note that there are no more incoming Received: lines in the message that went to flames, BUT yesterday the received lines were there. Note also that my address (From: line) has been rewritten in such a way that my name disappeared. I believe that the latter is due to a sloppy perl script that got screwed up by presence of "@" character in my name. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Received: (from geek@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) id SAA06751 for ichudov; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:57:04 -0600 Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id JAA03038 for geek+test+cypherpunks-flames(a)algebra.com; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:12:23 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id KAA16283 for <geek+test+cypherpunks-flames(a)algebra.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA24873; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702071511.HAA24873(a)toad.com> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:34:36 -0600 (CST) From: ichudov(a)algebra.com To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>, tcmay(a)got.net Subject: Re: anonymous remailers Sender: geek(a)algebra.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO [I am sending a copy of my article to Tim just to make sure] Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > C'punks, > > On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It > > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal > > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. > > > > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is > > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had > > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com," thus I surmise it > > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more > > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) > > Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message > in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same > as the Flames list. > > I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I > read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, > my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think I am attaching Vulis's posting below, so that the mistake could be corrected. Judging by the dates in the headers, it went to flames list in 3 seconds after arrival to toad.com. That makes me think that somehow it got routed there without human involvement. > a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high > 90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a > definite improvement over the prior condition. I see three problems with the current state of the list: 1) There is no charter and no criteria that I am aware of, so your 90% statement is meaningless 2) Moderation policy has not been set (or voted upon) by the readers, therefore it was not optimised to serve the readers 3) Crypto-relevant posts, not containing any flames, get rejected. >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Thu Feb 6 22:20:35 1997 Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id WAA12996; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:20:29 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA01326; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08550; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08545; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA07700 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 97 23:07:09 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:24:48 EST for cypherpunks(a)toad.com To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: anonymous remailers From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: <iJkq2D46w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:22:05 EST In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604(a)mail-relay.internetmci.com> Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO c.musselman(a)internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > remailer? Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

BXA Encryption Regs
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Federal Register: February 7, 1997, Page 5797-5798: Bureau of Export Administration Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Partially Closed Meeting A meeting will be held March 4, 1997, 9 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 1617M-2, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, N.W., Washington, DC. Agenda, General Session 1. Opening remarks by the Chairman. 2. Report on the status of The Wassenaar Arrangement. 3. Discussion on the Encryption Reg. 4. Presentation of papers or comments by the public. ---------- A bit more on this in the full notice at: http://jya.com/bxa020797.txt ---------- Note: February 13 is the cutoff for comments on EAR for EI: http://jya.com/bxa123096.txt

1 0