December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

multiposts...
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Many apologies for the multiple posts that emmanated from eff.org yesterday. I noiced that both mine and Danny's showed up twice. No idea what caused it, but it does not appear to be doing it now... -- Stanton McCandlish Electronic Frontier Foundation Online Activist & SysOp "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -JFK -=> mech(a)eff.org NitV-DC BBS 202-232-2715, Fido 1:109/? IndraNet 369:111/1

1 0

Electronic Production Costs
by Hastings＠courier8.aero.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When I mentioned the cost of the Julieboard at $125 wired and tested, I said that volume (say 1,000,000 units) would bring the cost down. I didn't mean to say that I could build one board from parts myself for less than $125. Using a commercial manufacturing assembly line on the final product should lower the cost, figuring efficiency and volume discounts on the components, and getting the Hell out of Ontario with its high income and value added taxes will make a big difference.The Julieboard performance/price ratio was unheard of a few years ago when I looked at the A&A Williams synthesizer. The author/designer of Julieboard says he has done frequency-hopping spread spectrum designs, and the next project he publishes for the ham radio market could be a digital transceiver. Kent - <hastings(a)courier8.aero.org> "Ask not for whom the bill tolls."

1 0

Dangers of skipping...my solution for now
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Earlier I wrote about the dangers of skipping too many messages, of a kind of "response cluster" when the same question gets answered many times. Somewhat making their point, several people have responded to me privately saying they try to answer questions in e-mail and then let the questioner summarize the responses in public, if he wishes. Advantages of this approach: - reduces repetitive answers (saves list bandwidth) - questioner can synthesize from all answers Disadvantages: - others may want to see the answers and may, under this approach, flood the list with "me too" lines (seen in many newsgroups, when "send answer in e-mail" gets met by "Hey, I'd be interested, too" follow-ups). - others may not know the question has already been answered, resulting in much wasted time (e.g., 30 private e-mail messages all addressing the Navajo code talker question). (Aside: there's a standard game theory example on how often one should help...it works better in game theory than in practice.) Finally, to me the most serious problem with moving more responses to private e-mail is that the discussion group aspect of the list gets lost. So I still don't have an answer. However, as an experiment, I plan to try to move as many of my responses off the list proper as possible. Things that are clearly of interest to a reasonable fraction of the entire list, I'll still post to the list. (Note again, as many of us have described, the Extropians list software allows threads to be ::excluded, as well as authors, so repetitive traffic can be reduced. It takes a minute or so to send off the ::exclude, so many of us prefer to just hit the "D" key promptly. Still, a portent of things to come.) -Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

1 0

FLAME: breaking DES
by an42035＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been following this argument, and I cannot let this post slide without comment. As near as I can tell, Karl pointed out an attack which shows that double encrypting really doesn't buy you much security over single encrypting. Perry has chosen to ridicule this for impracticality. (Incidentally, I notice a slight error in a followup post by Karl, undoubtedly a typo on his part. The number of chosen plaintexts needed by differential cryptanalysis is 2^47 and not 10^47. While still a large number at more than 100 trillion, it is at least much smaller than 10^47!) This fact seems to have eluded Perry, despite his apparent expertise. There are other meet-in-the-middle attacks, such as the one Chaum and Evertse use against a DES variant (fewer number of rounds), described in "Cryptanalysis of the DES with a reduced number of rounds" at CRYPTO '85. The meet-in-the-middle attack Karl posted is by Merkle and Hellman, from the 1981 paper "On the Security of Multiple Encryption", Communications of the ACM. Strange, but I don't recall Perry asking if Merkle and Hellman were worried that others might think they beleived this. Incidentally, the complexity of factoring a 2000 bit number is on the order of 2.4 X 10^43 steps. >Whenever Perry Metzger defends an opinion of his well, somebody whines. >Whenever Perry Metzger disagrees with someone's arguments, someone else >crys "unfair! He's using his WITS on me!" >Whenever Perry Metzger has to stop and demonstrate something as simple as >arithmetic to end an argument, someone cries "foul! sarcasm! Hey, he's not >playing nice!" Well, if Perry were to have the BALLS to make impracticality arguments against the experts who actually created the protocols and methods, instead of taking cowardly pot-shots, maybe we wouldn't think he's full of shit. The attack is impractical, and if Perry weren't so strung out he could have written a coherent post stating despite the cleverness of the attack, it is out-of-reach with today's technology, with some calculations showing this. In the 1980 paper by Helleman "A Cryptanalytic Time-Space Tradeoff", Helleman suggests it is possible to pre-compute and store 2^56 results, and use this information to lookup keys. Cost: estimated at $5 million. (Although this is for singly encrypted text). Funny, but I don't recall any dissenting papers by Perry on this subject. He didn't ask if Helleman really wanted people to think he beleived this. >Y'all need to develop slightly thicker skins. Perry's efforts could serve to >raise the thought level of other posters to this list, if they'd stop reacting >to each prod with an irritated swipe back at the prodder. First off, Perry Metzger had treated this list to such CYPHERPUNK (?) gems as: 1) his dripping sarcasm 2) posts about theories on government, anarchy, and nazis 3) riduling posts obviously mistakenly sent (one such post with several ^H in it) 4) mailing list vs. newsgroup and how he can handle 300 mails a day and get work done 5) posts on the wide variety of services banks offer in New York 6) posts on the former libertarian orientation of Rep. Dana Rohrbacher 7) other pointless garbage If Perry wanted to raise the thought level of other posters, he would quit posting such bilge. Ah, but then, he wouldn't be posting at all! If he would take his BULLSHIT to private email, this list would improve vastly. If I missed the cypherpunk content in the above examples, point it out. He has a rather inflated ego and is quick to insult others: >You don't know anything about hashing, then. So if Perry feels that "you can lead a horse to water but can't make him think" he could perhaps pull his head out of his ass, wipe the shit from his eyes and ears, buy a fucking clue at the nearest store, and shut up. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

Re: FLAME: breaking DES
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to <an42035(a)anon.penet.fi> > >Well, if Perry were to have the BALLS to make impracticality arguments >against the experts who actually created the protocols and methods, >instead of taking cowardly pot-shots, maybe we wouldn't think he's >full of shit. Firstly, these are bold words coming from someone posting through an anonymous remailer. Secondly, what do you mean "we", kimosabe? I can only imagine that you're referring to yourself and your intestinal parasites. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Midwest Cypherpunk Meeting
by jdblair＠nextsrv.cas.muohio.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are there enough Cypherpunks in the Midwest to have a meeting, no matter how small? I've been following the list (rarely posting) for quite a while now, but I'd like to discuss these issues in person, and maybe feel a little less isolated here in Ohio. E-mail me back directly if there is any interest. John Blair jdblair(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu

1 0

!FLAME: breaking DES
by holland＠CS.ColoState.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OK, I sort of wanted to break up the constant flaming on this thread, so I thought I would introduce my own (admittedly ignorant) way to break DES. 1. Start with a full keysearch of all 2^56 possible DES keys. 2. If you have plaintext to work with, compare each sample decryption with the plaintext. 2a. If you don't have plaintext, I would try washing the decryptions through a pattern searching algorithm that would include a dictionary, patterns from compression programs like PKZip, machine language instructions, and any other possible form of communication that can be represented as a binary string. At least that's how I would do it. If anyone has any suggestions, corrections, etc. I wouldn't mind hearing them. Doug

1 0

Re: pornography & the ``cypherpunk cause''
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Edward Elhauge <ee(a)lever.com> said: >A counter-example might be: > 1) Someone breaks down my door while I am eating. As per California law >there is a REBUTABLE PRESUMPTION (embedded in statutory law) that my life is >in danger and that deadly force is justified. Consequently, my response to the >situation is ruled justifiable homicide. Doesn't this need to be phrased more cautiously? As I understand it, you need to demonstrate to the jury that you feared for your life, and someone breaking down your door is not enough for that. Unlike in some other states, in California it is essential that there be a clear threat to your life. > 2) Someone breaks down my door while I am eating. A feeble minded guest >of mine shouts out "I don't think he's armed." Consequently, the police find >that the man is either not armed or had a water pistol. I might do 5-10 for >manslaughter or 2nd degree murder. The phrasing of this makes me think that you and I have the same impression of the law, but that you just were a bit terse in phrasing #1. >Your example doesn't involve a law that requires knowledge or a state of mind >to be guilty. Laws about the transport of illegal information do! I tend to be concerned about arguments that don't take the infamous "ignorance of the law is no excuse" into account. That is, one needs to make a clear distinction between ignorance of the law and ignorance of the action itself. There have been times in this particular thread when I wasn't clear whether people were making that distinction. Doug

2 1

RSA crap
by Godzilla's Home Boy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Howzsa battles going. What are the chances of getting caught using pgp out of this country? I have friends in Russia, I'd like to use more than ordinary encryption getting to them.

1 0

Re: Spread-spectrum net (vulnerability of)
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Matthew J Ghio <mg5n+(a)andrew.cmu.edu> said: >Switching frequencies rapidly to prevent triangulation is still the best >defense. Think from the point of view of the spotters. They can look at a broad-spectrum scan, gradually eliminate known sources, and end up homing in on the remaining high power signals. Doug

2 1