December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cellular phone triangulation
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Toto wrote: > So far, as a result of the plethora of laws passed to enable law > enforcement agencies to 'catch drug dealers', I have seen only a > few minor criminals who are claimed to have been brought to justice > as a result of these laws, while seeing documentation of hundreds > and thousands of ordinary citizens being harassed and having their > human rights violated by these same laws. > And still, we have people like Mark, who seem relatively intelligent > and informed but who still echo the party-line of Big Brother when > He proclaims that the average citizen must be subjected to new and > better ways to monitor the movements and activities of His citizens > in order to 'protect' them from 'drug dealers'. Somehow, I thought my original post was ambiguous enough to be interpreted as support for the government's expansion of surveillance capabilities or the War on Some Drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that the original intention of requiring cell phone providers to have the ability to triangulate all the signals they receive was so that drug dealers and other Enemies of the People could be caught easier. Since, drug dealers frequently use cell phones to avoid tracking, I thought that this was probably the primary justification. Just like the current GAK proposal, the government has found another way to justify a proposal to fool people into thinking that it's really for their own good. Many people have grown tired of hearing about the government's "compelling interest" in fighting "crime." The government claims that GAK is not only for violating people's rights by trying to get people to believe that it is a valuable service because it will allow people to recover their crypto keys if they ever lose them. In the case of the cell phone proposal, the promise of better 911 service is used to justify this latest violation of civil rights. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMuu7UizIPc7jvyFpAQG55gf6ApVENBJJEIQ+9xKs/9ldaSRbDvemI1DY Q0MyPkuOHo4e97i3dMYFk42Jb+OA+O0Q0kdsxRV0Y2i26GxTvC362+f/xI2+dTly YvyhPwgUyztfVC+IrjQgpuvqOMWthqdBrkZR7cJAs7KQG49CiWMAVcmCmQGUWJU/ mv2TRHAw3GT0NYIqF5FhTFAEoXcPZAjuEHP1pYPOPJ1zjrUkp6adcK2khgFHKwYp L8Pc9YLTJ/VNuw1n02PcfnitzPfgQIdhQVJAxwRClCxyifBKzQW1BtcMKyPhoxHY roTqotTzpIROBJVGZStx99mEscYG3KJCymDp6zqEfC78WWcUhoMMYg== =N8mn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their civilians in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did. ................................................................ The U.S.G. has many more resources than most of us to do these things, including equipment, cooperative troops, money, and recognition from other governments. If other nations disagree with the U.S.G. they have the resources to discuss, bargain, negotiate, criticize, form alliances, take their chances and retaliate, etc. These things are done on a level not accessible to the most of us. All that we individuals have are access to telephone lines, computers, and modems. Yet even as we speak the world is being "wired" with cables to further make this singular communication possible and open up avenues to non-government organized activities: international corporations are se tting up offices, services, and correspondence wherever in the world they can find markets. All this is happening even while the governments are complaining to each other about what their citizens are posting (tch, tch) and threatening to deprive each other of that privilege. While governments and their True Believer citizens are dealing with each other on one level, the rest of the world is reorganizing itself into a different order of living and doing business. They are sharing ideas and examining their concepts and beliefs, they are conducting a lot of their disagreements on the net (instead of physically against each other on the ground), opening up to a broader view of relationships between individuals, or to governments, or to religions, sexuality, etc. The situation hasn't completely changed yet, but it is in process. .. Blanc

4 5

Elliptic curves
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[reep] May's family tree goes straight up. All of his ancestors were siblings, to dumb to recognize each other in the dark. _ O O _ \-|-\_/-|-/ Timmy C[reep] May /^\ /^\ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1 0

Cellular Encryption Docs
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to David Wagner and Steve Schear, we've learned about the latest documents on cellular encryption which supercede the 1992 CAVE document, Appendix A to IS-54, which contained the CAVE algorithm. Here are the latest, followed by ordering information. TIA/EIA/IS-136.1-A -- TDMA Cellular/PCS - Radio Interface - Mobile Station - Base Station Compatibility - Digital Control Panel, October, 1996, 372 pp. $350.00. Addendum No. 1 to IS-136.1-A, November, 1996, 40 pp. Free. TIA/EIA/IS-136.2-A -- TDMA Cellular/PCS - Radio Interface - Mobile Station - Base Station Compatibility - Traffic Channels and FSK Control Channel, October, 1996, 378 pp. $310.00. TIA/EIA-627 -- 800 MHZ Cellular System, TDMA Radio Interface, Dual-Mode Mobile Station - Base Station Compatibility Standard, June, 1996, 258 pp. $120.00. These documents can be ordered from: Global Engineering Documents 15 Inverness Way East Englewood, Colorado 80112 Telephone: 1-800-854-7179 However, each of the documents lists the following related supplements which contain "sensitive information" and may be obtained by US/CA citizens from TIA by signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement and acceptance of export restrictions: Appendix A to IS-136. Appendix A to 627. Common Cryptographic Algorithms. Interface Specification for Common Cryptographic Algorithms. These controlled documents can be requested by calling Ms. Sharon Vargish at 1-703-907-7702, who will fax an NDA, and upon receipt of the completed form, will send the controlled documents at no cost. Here's the NDA: AGREEMENT ON CONTROL AND NONDISCLOSURE OF COMMON CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHMS REVISION A TO IS-54, IS-95, AND IS-136 [Note: 627 supercedes IS-54; IS-95 is for CDMA] "I, _________________________, an employee/consultant/affiliate (typed name) of __________________________, hereafter, "the company," (Company name) _____________________________ (Company address) _____________________________ and a United States or Canadian citizen, acknowledge and understand that the subject documents, to which I will have access contain information [which] is subject to export control under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 120-130). I also understand that the subject documents represent valuable, proprietary and confidential business information of TIA and its members. I hereby certify that this information will be controlled and will only be further disclosed, exported, or transferred according to the terms of the ITAR. ______________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date ______________________________ _____________________________ Printed Name Witness ______________________________ _____________________________ Title Printed Name of Witness [End NDA]

1 0

Re: Hi again, and an invitation to kibitz
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In addition to David Wagner's comments, I'd like to point out several more weaknesses. - Would Kerberos work just as well? No sense reinventing the 3-headed dog. - You're not authenticating the server to the client. - If the challenge is different every time, the server needs to keep the user's password in plaintext (unlike Unix encrypted passwords.) This means that attacks on the server's file system can steal it, and since the password is used for session encryption, it can be used to forge sessions as well. - Alternatively, if the challenge is always the same (per user), then even one eavesdrop kills you, as with Unix passwords. - Since you're using the same 7-byte password hash for the first third of the authentication as for the session key, the dictionary attack on E(challenge, First-seven-bytes) gives you the session key, so you can eavesdrop just fine. If the password is too short, you can then dictionary-attack MD4 to find it also. - There's a Diffie-Hellman variant that can do logins. Unfortunately, it's patented (by some guy from Siemens in Paderborn DE, who patented it in Germany about 2 years before I rediscovered it, and patented it in the US about 6 months before :-) It covers any login methods using commutative hashes H1(H2(x)) == H2(H1(x)). The Siemens version extends it to authenticate both ends to each other; I extended it to get a session key for encryption and/or authentication. This really shouldn't have been patentable - my rediscovery shows that it must be pretty obvious to anyone skilled in the trade :-), and rather than reinventing the wheel, I was reinventing the hubcap or tire swing.... > In article <199701140755.CAA04514(a)mail.intercon.com>, >Amanda Walker <amanda(a)intercon.com> wrote: >> (a) Server sends 8-byte challenge to client >> (b) Client sends Microsoft NT authentication response to the server >> (take the password in Unicode form, do an MD4 hash, pad with 0s to 21 >> bytes, split into 3 7-byte groups, use these as DES keys to encrypt >> the challenge three times, send the 24-byte result as the response). >> (c) If authentication fails, close the connection. >> (d) If authentication succeeds, all subsequent traffic is enccrypted with >> DES in CFB mode. Until April :), the DES key used is taken from the >> first 7 bytes of the MD4 hash of the password (after April, we expect >> to switch to Diffie-Hellman key exchange first, followed by a revised >> authentication handshake). > At 11:20 AM 1/17/97 -0800, David Wagner wrote: >Some weaknesses: >- It doesn't resist dictionary attacks (no salt) when the attacker can make > one active probe (forge a fixed challenge and get the client's response). In particular, an 8 byte challenge is nowhere near enough, though the average million-dollar DES-cracker won't be as easy to adapt for 2**64 cycles of hash+DES*3 - and don't handle each third separately! At least do something like 3DES-EDE and return an 8-byte response, or hash the three output bytes together and send the hash. Using >=16 bytes of challenge would be better, or >=24 if you want printable challenges. >- It doesn't stop replay attacks (replay a fixed challenge, now the same DES > key is used, so replay DES-encrypted session data). You may not be able to replay a given challenge usefully, assuming it's different each time, but MITM attacks work ok after you've cracked the password by dictionary attack in the previous round. >- DES-encryption doesn't provide message authentication against active > attacks; use a MAC too. >- You should use independent DES keys for each direction of the connection. >- Also the DES encryption key doesn't change for each connection. It should. # 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: Cellular location...
by Three Blind Mice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Mark M. wrote: > I wonder how expensive it would be to put a GPS receiver in a cell phone and > have the option to transmit the coordinates on a separate channel. There > would be little difference between this and forcing cell phone companies to > triangulate every call. The primary motivation for this is almost certainly > "location escrow" to make it easier for the feds to track drug dealers. Of course, one could always follow the ID4 example and triangulate cells from a single location, preferably using equipment that any small-time operator can find in his own car. -- 3bmice

1 0

[noise?] Media
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This was forwarded to me. It was too good not to share... >"Tonight on tales from Encrypt, we have a ghastly little story involving >Congress and your Web page." --- | If you're not part of the solution, You're part of the precipitate. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

1 0

Re: Encrypting ZIP disks
by David Lesher / hated by RBOC's in 5 states 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Proving a crack with revealing how is trivial. Someone sends Paul cyphertext; he returns clear. Proving the opposite without posting the code is a joke. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy Sandfort wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Toto wrote: > > I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be, > > anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is > > already crazy. > Apparently, Toto does not know very much about John or me or our > relationships with the "Establishment." It is who are using a > intellectually dishonest smokescreen of "freedom of speech" in > order to disrupt and hamper the work of Cypherpunks who are > dancing into the arms of the "Establishment." [some snip] > This is a voluntary list folks. We tried incivility and that did > not work. Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse > in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. If most > list members like the change, it will continue. If not, then we > can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else. In the > meantime, get over it. If you really like flames and spam, show > John and me how it really should be done. Start another list. > Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot > more than homesteading. Actually, it is a certifiable fact that the list subscribers can jump to the unmoderated list whenever they want to. It is also a certifiable fact that they (97% or so) have *not* done so. Because of these facts, I must conclude that either: 1. The subscribers have spoken by staying put, or, 2. The subscribers are so lazy and unaware of what's going on that they've just left things as is. Now, in my opinion, we've come to this: Some people here will hold the optimistic view of the bulk of the subscribers, and others will hold the pessimistic view (the bulk will presumably be in-between).

3 2

Re: PGPmail for Windows, Version 4.5
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:45 AM 1/26/97 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Anyone running Windows 95 who hasn't grabbed the beta of PGPmail 4.5 from >http://www.pgp.com/ is crazy. It works seamlessly with Netscape 3.0 and >Eudora Pro 3.0. The 30-day demo of Eudora Pro is at: http://www.eudora.com/prodemo/. PGPmail 4.5 now has beta 10 available - the download is smaller than beta 9. Eudora Lite 3.0.1 also supports plugins, so it should work. It also supports filters, which has allowed probable flames to quietly vanish from my inbox :-) BTW, from a non-government-user perspective, the questions asked to establish export permission are nicely worded. Rather than asking "Are you a US Subject", and "Do you agree to follow every vague detail of the Export Laws", as some sites do, it asks > - Is the requesting computer located within the United States? [N/Y] > - Do you acknowledge affirmatively that you understand that PGPmail is > subject to export controls under the Export Administration Act and > that you cannot export the software without a license? [N/Y] > - Do you certify that you are not on any of the United States Government's > lists of export-precluded parties or otherwise ineligible to receive this > transfer of cryptographic software subject to export controls under the > Export Administration Act? and then has a button saying "I certify that the above answers are truthful", which is flexible enough that I don't have to feel bad about not being _absolutely_ certain that my packets aren't getting routed through Canada, or that I'm not on some list that bans telephone company employees from downloading cryptographic software on Tuesdays, or whether computers 30 feet above the US are subject to this week's export rules :-), or having to say "No" to Question 2 because I understand that you _can_ export this software without a license (just do it) even though the Feds disapprove.... # 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