December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Renewable Energy Stuff (was citizenship silliness) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

First, let me say (again) to everyone .... Quit sending these responses to my private email. If you want to discuss it keep it on the list. Any further such private submissions go into /dev/null unread. This also means you don't need to cc: if you send it to the cpunks list since I'm subscribed...;) Now, back to more intersting discussion... Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:26:47 -0600 (MDT) > From: Jim Burnes <jvb(a)ssds.com> > Subject: Renewable Energy Stuff (was citizenship silliness) > Apparently hemp hurd gassification yields a fairly sizeable, renewable > amount of energy per acre. Lemme see if I have the reference.... > Historically Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.) has been a very high yielding plant > (Haney 1975). Assuming that hemp produces up to 4 tons/acre seed plus 10 > tons/acre stalks, Table 1 shows how many gallons of liquid fuel import could be > saved by each of the following proven biomass fuel conversion routes. > > Table 1. Conversion technologies for hemp stalks and hemp oil > > CONVERSION CONVERSION GASOLINE EQUIV > TECHNOLOGY EFF - % GAL/ACRE > > 1 Ethanol from fermentation of hydrolyzed cellulose 20 200 > 2 Digestion of whole stalks to methane 50 500 > 3 Producer gas from thermal gasification of stalks 85 1000 > 4 Methanol from syngas from gasification of stalks 65 750 > 5 Methanol from pyrolysis of stalks 3 30 > > OIL SEEDS - 4 tons/acre > > 6 Hemp Seed oil from Seeds, no conversion 100 300 > 7 Biobioesel premium diesel fuel from hemp seed 90 270 > oil combined chemically with methanol You're going to seriously claim that 1 gallon of hemp oil is equivalent to 3 gallons of gasoline? I don't think so. I've seen hemp burn and it don't burn anywhere near that efficiently. I also notice it doesn't mention what it costs to raise that 4 tons/acre... ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Spot The Fed
by Raymond D. Mereniuk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

About a week ago I sent a message the list regarding Toto and how I found it hard to believe he was a country & western artist. I mentioned a tribute to Toto and an URL pointing to a web page on a data security product at a web site which is total spoof. The URL lead to a page touting a data security product called PUP, Pretty Useless Privacy. I shamelessly plagiarized Toto's concept, and even some of sentences, from a post on Pretty Lousy Privacy. I even managed to get most of the characteristics of Snake Oil in one sentence. The graphics on the page is a Snake Charmer. Now you figure the Feds will visit for sure, just try and spot them. Resolve the IP addresses to a domain name might work but if they had a clue they would use dummy domains. I would like to nominate the folks at IP address 204.249.179.54, or better yet the whole Class C as possible Feds. The IP address does not resolve to a domain name, actually all the IP address in the Class C plus the 204.249.178 Class C. I didn't bother to try any other neighbouring Class Cs. I can understand a few IP addresses of isolated machines not resolving to a domain name but not the whole Class C. You should also be able to see the default gateway's domain name. Seems like this may be the site of some paranoid privacy loving folks. If I have slandered any Cypherpunk and their company, who may be at least privacy loving, please accept my apologies in advance but please let me know if I made a mistake.

2 2

Re: Archives? What archives? (fwd)
by Sparkes, Ian, ZFRD AC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's the deal... if someone gets a copy of the archives to me somehow, I pledge that I will get them burned and will distribute them for cost price. I assume there will be two CDs as the data is apparently around 1GB. I have already checked, and for a run of 300 (should be enough to cover all the non-apathetic CP list members) the costs are: DM1,67 = 92 cents each = $1,84 + VAT = $2,15. Add postage onto this. A really great idea would be to include the coderpunks archive on any space that were left over. But first of all, I'll keep the focus as the greatest enemy of 'good' is 'great'. Note: IMPORTANT: The rep was emphatic - you shouldn't forget that this price includes *2 color* labelling! Makes the offer kind of irresistable doesn't it? Why am I doing this? Because just as Tim pointed out, this has been discussed more than once but there have been no results. At least none that I have heard of in the last year. One point - I am outside of the US. Good for europeans, but perhaps a little expensive for US-CPs. Maybe someone would like to take over the US distribution. (WHGIII?) I could get 50% to the states for distribution. Anyone wants to arrange this with me, contact me off-list. If no one does, then I'll start bugging people until something happens <g>... Ian At 14:28 04.09.98 -0500, you wrote: >In <Pine.HPP.3.91.980904210041.12475B-100000_cor.sos.sll.se>, on 09/04/98 > at 09:02 PM, Asgaard <asgaard_cor.sos.sll.se> said: > >>Ray Arachelian wrote: > >>>It was done... Remo Pini (www.rpini.org or some such) was the dude > >>www.rpini.com > >>Crypto CD Vol 1 has lots of stuff on it but I never found any archive of >>the CP list(s). Perhaps I didn't look enough. > >I didn't find any either. > >Also someone mentioned previously of pre-1995 online archives. Anyone have >a pointer to these? > >There is a local company here that does CD duplication and Harddrive >archiving to CD. I can check and see how much they would want to burn a CD >with the CP archives on it. I would imagine that list members would prefer >RockRidge extensions? OS/2 supports both Joliet & Rockridge so it does not >matter to me one way or the other. :) > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------- ----- >William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net >Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 > >Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice >PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. >OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html >---------------------------------------------------------- ----- > > >

1 0

Re: Citizenship silliness. Re: e$: crypto-expatriatism (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:03:25 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: Re: Citizenship silliness. Re: e$: crypto-expatriatism (fwd) > There already are several, the problem is the cannot be centralized > the way oil is. That's not really the problem... > Alcohol is acceptable (and in some ways better) than gasoline for > cars and motorcycles, but anyone can set up a still and compete with RDS & > Standard. The problem with alcohol is that there isn't enough free land in order grow enough plant material to provide the necessary quantities without seriously restricting the amount of land available for actual foodstuffs and living space (unless you want everyone to move to Black Rock desert or live on the top of a mountain). Alcohol is also much more of a fire hazard than gas. It burns hotter, isn't put out by water spray easily, and burns invisibly (well all right in the near-UV). > A mix of solar Again not enough land to make it feasible, not to mention the low efficiency of even the best panels. > wind Not enough places in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) where the wind blows with sufficient force 18 hours a day to make it economical. > coal Coal isn't an acceptable substitute, mainly because there isn't enough low-sulphur deposits in the world to supply the US, let alone the rest of the world. Plus it isn't renewable. > hydroelectric Not enough rivers with sufficient hydrodynamic head to make this work for the US let alone the rest of the planet. > nuclear I'll buck the general consensus because I like nuclear energy, however there is a single MAJOR caveat, we need fussion and not fission reactors to make it economical. The waste problem with fission reactors is enough to vote in the negative on them. > and other sources cop-out. The reality is that the clathrate deposits occur across the entire ocean. The existing Magnesium Nodule treaties could be extended to cover the countries that don't have coastlines. They are the first renewable, occurring in sufficient quantity, and with realizable and economicly feasible methods for mining, processing, and distributing to have been put on the table. As to the gas and oil folk being against them, they're about the only ones with an existing infrastructure (ie extracting oil and gas from the sea floor) to take advantage of the source, implying that existing changes in the infrastructure would be minor. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Forwarded mail....
by Bernardo B. Terrado 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you have the same mail? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:27:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Jrjeffro(a)aol.com HaCkaZ OnlY Da EliTeHelLO YaLL DiS is Da MaDD AAOOLL HaCka Ima startin a GreWp fOR HaCs Only So In OthA WerDS yA gOttA KnOw The WAreZ anD HoW toO UsEr FaTe AnD AOL So MaIl Or Im Me FoR Da TeTaIls If YeR LeeTo K Pe@CE FrOmE The LeeTs HacKJeFFrO) >

1 1

RE: PEDIATRIC ADVISE - FREE WEBSITE
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Oh and the language they use! It's all > f*** this and f*** that -- if only their Mothers could hear them. Who's to say they can't? Mothers can read mailing lists too you know :-) Ken

1 0

cypherpunks archive
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm looking for a/the cypherpunks archive, particularly one that covers 92-present. infinity.nus.sg doesn't seem to work anymore. Cheers, Julian.

2 1

Error.
by Connectfree Admins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are experiencing some technical difficulties with our software. Please ignore this message.

1 0

Official comment
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/aes/aes_home.htm#comments OFFICIAL Comments - Anyone may provide NIST with OFFICIAL public comments on the AES candidate algorithms. NOTE THAT ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED SHALL BE MADE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. A comment may be submitted by sending an e-mail message to AESFirstRound(a)nist.gov. OFFICIAL Comment http://www.aci.net/kalliste/bw1.htm to appear at http://zolatimes.com/ Title: Black and White Test of Cryptographic Algorithms Black and White Test of Cryptographic Algorithms by William H. Payne The purpose of this article is to explain the underlying principles of cryptography by examples, and to show some criteria that should be met by cryptographic algorithms before they are seriously considered for adoption. Cryptography is the art or science of scrambling plaintext into ciphertext with a key so that it cannot be read by anyone who does not possess the key. Digital information is stored in the form of 1s and 0s, called BINARY. Binary Numbers Lets count from DECIMAL 0 to 15 in BINARY by adding 1 to the previous number. decimal: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 binary: 0 1 10 11 100 101 110 111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111 Notice that first we start with a single number position, which can be 0 or 1 in BINARY. This number position is a bit. Call this first bit b0. Notice that b0 is either 0 or 1. That is, b0 = 0 or b0 = 1. To get to DECIMAL 2, we have to introduce a second BINARY bit--call it b1. We have b1b0 = 10. Next, for DECIMAL 3, we have BINARY b1b0 = 11. binary: 0 1 10 11 100 101 110 111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111 numbered bits: b0 b0 b1b0 b1b0 b2b1b0 b2b1b0 b2b1b0 b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 Notice that the bit subscript represents a power of 2. That is, b0 really means b0*2^0, where * is multiplication, and ^ exponentiation (for example, 2^0 = 1, 2^1 = 2, 2^2 = 4, 2^3 = 8). The subscript on b is the same as the power on 2. If we had b26, we would know its meaning was b26*2^26. If b26 = 0, then this value is 0. If b26 = 1, then this value is 2^26. Now look at "1111" (which in BINARY is equal to DECIMAL 15). In this case, b3b2b1b0 = 1111. The right-most BIT (b0) is the least-significant bit, because it corresponds to the lowest power of 2. Converting Binary Numbers to Decimal Numbers To convert a BINARY number ...b3b2b1b0 to a DECIMAL number Y, we simply write Y = b0 + b1 * 2 + b2 * 2^2 + b3 * 2^3 + ... The bits b0, b1, b2, b3 are limited to the values 0 and 1 ONLY. Performing the exponentiation of powers of 2 and reversing the bits gives Y = . . . + b3 * 8 + b2 * 4 + b1 * 2 + b0 . Most of us were brought-up to understand that the most significant digits are to the LEFT of the previous digit. For sake of economy of writing and easy conversion, binary numbers are frequently represented in base 16, or HEXADECIMAL, abbreviated HEX. Hexadecimal Numbers BinaryweightsHEXDECIMAL 8 4 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 4 4 1 0 1 5 5 1 1 0 6 6 1 1 1 7 7 1 0 0 0 8 8 1 0 0 1 9 9 1 0 1 0 A 10 1 0 1 1 B 11 1 1 0 0 C 12 1 1 0 1 D 13 1 1 1 0 E 14 1 1 1 1 F 15 Conversion from binary to hexadecimal or hexadecimal to binary is easy if you remember 1010 is A 1100 is C 1110 is E B is one greater than A, 1011. D is one greater than C, 1101. And F is one greater than E, 1111. Computer Memory Computer memory is frequently organized as BYTEs which are eight bits. Since one hexadecimal digit represents 4 bits, it takes two hexadecimal digits to represent one byte. There are 2^8 = 256 different binary values that can be represented in a byte. These 256 values (written in HEX for brevity) are: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E 3F 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 4A 4B 4C 4D 4E 4F 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E 5F 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 6A 6B 6C 6D 6E 6F 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 7A 7B 7C 7D 7E 7F 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 8A 8B 8C 8D 8E 8F 99 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 9A 9B 9C 9D 9E 9F A0 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 AA AB AC AD AE AF B0 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 BA BB BC BD BE BF C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 CA CB CC CD CE CF D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 DA DB DC DD DE DF E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 EA EB EC ED EE EF FF F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 FA FB FC FD FE FF Representing Language on a Computer The problem of how to represent characters in a computer has been solved several ways. One way is the American Standard Code of Information Interchange (ASCII). ASCII represents characters as 7 bits. Here is table modified from a web site ( http://members.tripod.com/~plangford/index.html) Hex Char Description Hex Char Hex Char Hex Char ---------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- 00 NUL (null) 20 40 @ 60 ` 01 SOH (start of heading) 21 ! 41 A 61 a 02 STX (start of text) 22 " 42 B 62 b 03 ETX (end of text) 23 # 43 C 63 c 04 EOT (end of transmission) 24 $ 44 D 64 d 05 ENQ (enquiry) 25 % 45 E 65 e 06 ACK (acknowledge) 26 & 46 F 66 f 07 BEL (bell) 27 ' 47 G 67 g 08 BS (backspace) 28 ( 48 H 68 h 09 TAB (horizontal tab) 29 ) 49 I 69 i 0A LF (line feed, new line) 2A * 4A J 6A j 0B VT (vertical tab) 2B + 4B K 6B k 0C FF (form feed, new page) 2C , 4C L 6C l 0D CR (carriage return) 2D - 4D M 6D m 0E SO (shift out) 2E . 4E N 6E n 0F SI (shift in) 2F / 4F O 6F o 10 DLE (data link escape) 30 0 50 P 70 p 11 DC1 (device control 1) 31 1 51 Q 71 q 12 DC2 (device control 2) 32 2 52 R 72 r 13 DC3 (device control 3) 33 3 53 S 73 s 14 DC4 (device control 4) 34 4 54 T 74 t 15 NAK (negative acknowledge) 35 5 55 U 75 u 16 SYN (synchronous idle) 36 6 56 V 76 v 17 ETB (end of trans. block) 37 7 57 W 77 w 18 CAN (cancel) 38 8 58 X 78 x 19 EM (end of medium) 39 9 59 Y 79 y 1A SUB (substitute) 3A : 5A Z 7A z 1B ESC (escape) 3B ; 5B [ 7B { 1C FS (file separator) 3C < 5C \ 7C | 1D GS (group separator) 3D = 5D ] 7D } 1E RS (record separator) 3E > 5E ^ 7E ~ 1F US (unit separator) 3F ? 5F _ 7F DEL Now let us take two different one-word messages we might wish to cipher: "black" and "white". We can use the preceding table to find the ASCII codes for the characters in "black" and "white". messagecharacterASCII (Hex)Binary Message 1black62 6C 61 63 6B0110 0010 0110 1100 0110 0001 0110 0011 0110 1011 Message 2white77 68 69 74 650111 0111 0110 1000 0110 1001 0111 0100 0110 0101 But before doing this, we must understand the general "cipher problem." The Cipher Problem We have three elements in the encryption process: 1. The plaintext message 2. The key 3. The ciphertext Lets start REAL SIMPLE. Let's consider a situation where the plaintext message, the key, and the ciphertext are all the same length. To make it even simpler, let's make each one only one bit long. So the key can be one of two possibilities (0 or 1), and so can the plaintext and the ciphertext. So, in all, there are 2*2*2 = 8 total possible encipherment circumstances. Lets enumerate ALL 8 POSSIBILITIES. Possibilities Table PossibilityKeyPlaintextCiphertext 1000 2001 3010 4011 5100 6101 7110 8111 Thats it! There are no more possibilities than these 8. What does this mean for the encryption process--the "algorithm"? An ALGORITHM is a deterministic processes that accepts inputs and transforms them into outputs. "Deterministic" is important in that the same inputs ALWAYS produce the same output. Consider ANY algorithm which takes as its inputs the key values of 0 or 1 and the plaintext message values of 0 or 1. ANY algorithm can only produce one of the ciphertext outputs seen above. Image the following hypothetical but REAL SIMPLE algorithm: Hypothetical Algorithm: Find the value of the Key in column 2 of the Possibilities Table and the Plaintext message in column 3; then chose as the Ciphertext output whatever number is found in column 4 of that row. But there, of course, is a catch with a valid CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHM. Given the Key and the Ciphertext, one must be able to get back the Plaintext! A cryptographic algorithmic should have an INVERSE. So a cryptographic algorithm could not produce ALL of the eight combinations seen above for the reason that it is impossible to invert some of the possibilities. For example, some of the mappings are incompatible from an inverse standpoint, because same values of the key and ciphertext can lead to two different values of the plaintext. Notice how the following pairs of possibilities conflict: 1 and 3; 2 and 4; 5 and 7; 6 and 8. PossibilityKeyPlaintextCiphertext 1000 3010 2001 4011 5100 7110 6101 8111 But there two different cryptographic algorithms that could be made from the Possibilities Table, both of which have inverses: Cryptographic Algorithm 1 PossibilityKeyPlaintextCiphertext 1000 4011 6101 7110 Cryptographic Algorithm 2 PossibilityKeyPlaintextCiphertext 2001 3010 5100 8111 Of course, the output of Algorithm 2 is merely the same as the output of Algorithm 1, with 0s and 1s switched. (This is called a logical NOT operation.) Logic and Its Electronic Representation Logic, sometimes called Boolean logic when it is dealing with 0s and 1s, has several elementary rules. In computers, TRUE is usually represented by a 1. FALSE is represented by a 0. Electrically a 1 is usually, but not always, represented by a HIGH VOLTAGE. A zero by a LOW VOLTAGE. The three basic operations in logic are NOT, AND, and OR: Logical OperationInput(s)Output NOT0 1 1 0 AND000 010 100 111 OR 000 011 101 111 A derivative operation called an EXCLUSIVE-OR, abbreviated XOR, is defined as follows: Logical OperationInput(s)Output XOR000 011 101 110 In XOR, if the two input bits have the the same value, they sum to 0. If they have different values, they sum to 1. Now look back at Cryptographic Algorithm 1. It is, in fact, the exclusive-or (XOR) of the key and plaintext. Algorithm 1: Ciphertext Output = Key XOR Plaintext. Cryptographic Algorithm 2, meanwhile, is just the NOT of Algorithm 1. Algorithm 2: Ciphertext Output = NOT (Key XOR Plaintext). The REALLY IMPORTANT property of the XOR is THAT IT HAS AN INVERSE. By contrast, logical AND does not have an inverse for the reason that if the Key and (Key AND Plaintext) are both 0, then the Plaintext itself is ambiguously either 0 or 1. Logical OperationKey InputPlaintext InputKey AND Plaintext AND000oops 010oops 100 111 Likewise, logical OR does not have an inverse for the reason that if the Key and (Key OR Plaintext) are both 1, then the Plaintext itself is ambiguously either 0 or 1. Logical OperationKey InputPlaintext InputKey OR Plaintext OR 000 011 101oops 111oops So logical AND and OR dont work well for a crypto algorithm, but the XOR does because it has an inverse. How to Create Two Keys for Deniability The XOR works even better from a legal standpoint. Imagine the following conversation: Ciphercop: We have the ciphertext 0 and we CAUGHT you with the key with a bit value of 1, so you sent a plaintext 1. Citizen: No I did not! You PLANTED the key with bit value 1. The real key bit is a 0, and I sent 0 as the plaintext. Lets generate a key for the REAL WORLD crypto messages "black" and "white", messagecharacterASCII (Hex)Binary Message 1black62 6C 61 63 6B0110 0010 0110 1100 0110 0001 0110 0011 0110 1011 Message 2white77 68 69 74 650111 0111 0110 1000 0110 1001 0111 0100 0110 0101 and see if we can produce a REAL EXAMPLE of a SECOND KEY. Heres a key, which we will call key 1: key 1: 1010 0101 1100 0011 1110 0111 1111 0000 0110 1001 Key 1 doesnt look too random. Each group of four bits is followed by its logical NOT (e.g. NOT(1010) = 0101, etc.). Which leads to another lesson. To claim that a sequence of 0s and 1s is random requires statistical testing. Otherwise, the state of the sequence is UNKNOWN. Here's another key, which we will call key 2: key 2: 1011 0000 1100 0100 1110 1111 1110 0111 0110 0111 These two keys produce the same ciphertext for the two different messages "black" and "white". black0110 0010 0110 1100 0110 0001 0110 0011 0110 1011 key 11010 0101 1100 0011 1110 0111 1111 0000 0110 1001 ciphertext (XOR)1100 0111 1010 1100 1000 0110 1001 0011 0000 0010 white0111 0111 0110 1000 0110 1001 0111 0100 0110 0101 key 21011 0000 1100 0100 1110 1111 1110 0111 0110 0111 ciphertext (XOR)1100 0111 1010 1100 1000 0110 1001 0011 0000 0010 So when the ciphercops FALSELY accuse you of encrypting "black", you SCREAM "Bull pucky!", and produce key 2 to show that you, IN FACT, encrypted "white". Then sue the government--pro se, of course. (See http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm.) The recipe for producing the second key in this example is simple. Take two plaintext messages of the same length. Encrypt one of them with an arbitrary key that yields a ciphertext of the same length. XOR the ciphertext with the second plaintext message. The result is the second key. Store this one for plausible deniability. So from the standpoint of plausible deniability it is BEST to have TWO KEYS for any given encryption: 1. The REAL KEY 2. The key you can CLAIM was the REAL KEY. Just in case you get caught. "Have we gone beyond the bounds of reasonable dishonesty?" --CIA memo (The CIA quote is from Weird History 101, by John Richard Stephens, page 55.) None of us want to get caught going beyond the bounds of reasonable dishonesty. Thus far two criteria of a worth candidate for cryptographic algorithm have been established. Criterion 1: The ciphertext is invertible with the help of a key back into the plaintext. Criterion 2: There is ALWAYS a second key. Just in case you get caught. Plaintext and Ciphertext Sizes The plaintext and ciphertext should be the same size. First, note that if the plaintext is longer than the ciphertext, then the ciphertext is not invertible. For example, lets suppose that the plaintext is two bits long and the ciphertext is one bit long. PlaintextCiphertext 0 00 or 1 0 11 or 0 1 0oops 1 1oops After the first two ciphertext bits have been assigned to plaintext pairs, the next two plaintext pairs (10,11) must conflict with this assignment. The ciphertext thus correspondents to more than one plaintext possibility. We run into problems for the reason that we cannot establish a one-to-one correspondence between the plaintext and cipher text and, therefore, cant possibly have an inverse. Second, if the plaintext is shorter than the ciphertext, then the ciphertext can't be trusted. It may include too much information. For example, lets suppose that the plaintext is one bit long, the key is one bit long, and the cipher text is two bits long. Iran Cryptographic Algorithm KeyPlaintextCiphertext 0 0 00 0 1 10 1 0 11 1 1 01 Not only is the above algorithm invertible, but now the crypto key has been sent along with the ciphertext in the second bit position! That is, the first bit in the ciphertext is is the value of (key XOR plaintext). The second bit is the key itself. So if you XOR the two ciphertext bits with each other, you recover the plaintext bit. You might ask who would be audacious enough to pull such stunt. The Great Satan, of course. For the story of how the National Security Agency (NSA) bugged the encryption equipment that was sold by a Swiss company to 140 nations around the world, see the following links: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm http://caq.com/cryptogate http://www.qainfo.se/~lb/crypto_ag.htm http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm And the Great Satan got caught. No plan B. Or in crypto parlance, no second key. So we have a third criterion for a cryptographic algorithm we might wish to adopt. Criterion 3: The length of the plaintext equals the length of the ciphertext. In simple terms, if more bits come out of a crypto algorithm than go in, WATCH OUT! Otis Mukinfuss and the Advanced Encryption Standard Bruce Hawkinson (BHAWKIN(a)sandia.gov) WAS Sandia National Laboratories Lab News editor some years ago. In one editorial, Hawkinson wrote that while we was traveling for Sandia, he spent his motel time looking up strange names in the phone book. One name I recall mentioned was Steely Gray who was a government office furniture salesman. Hawkinson concluded his article by writing his all-time favorite name was Otis Mukinfuss. Hawkinson was no longer editor of Sandias Lab News shortly thereafter. J. Orlin Grabbe has done an excellent job writing about cryptographic algorithms in Cryptography and Number Theory for Digital Cash. One inescapable conclusion from Grabbes internet article is that from a laymans standpoint public key cryptography is an incomprehensible mess. A Muckinfuss. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is holding a CONTEST to select an Advanced Encryption Standard to replace the current Data Encryption Standard (DES). Click through the candidates to view some additional examples of Mukinfusses. So another criterion has been established for a cryptographic algorithm to be considered for adoption. Criterion 4: The crypto algorithm must be simple and CONVINCE EVERYONE that it is ONLY PERFORMING ITS SIMPLE INTENDED FUNCTION. While we are at the NIST web site, the NIST Advanced Encryption Standard contest reminds me of a the plot of a recent movie, The Game, starring Michael Douglas and Sean Penn: The film is a thriller directed by David Fincher (Se7en). "The Game" is what begins when a high-powered businessman named Nicholas Van Orton (Douglas) receives the birthday gift of a lifetime from his brother he alienated years ago (Penn). What Nicholas gets is entry into a mysterious new form of entertainment provided by C.R.S. (Consumer Recreational Services) simply called "The Game." It proves to be an all-consuming contest with only one rule: there are no rules. By the time Van Orton realizes he is in, it is too late to get out. ... (See http://www.movietunes.com/soundtracks/1997/game/.) NIST does not appear to publish any criteria for winning the AES contest! Look at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/confpage/980820.htm and decide for yourself. Perfect Cryptography Here we have described a process of encrypting a plaintext by XORing it with a key of the same length. This encryption technique is called a "one-time pad", or Vernam cipher. Just as long as each key is only used once, the encryption technique is perfectly secure. The one-time pad described here satisfies all criteria mentioned so far: 1. The ciphertext is invertible with the help of a key back into the plaintext. 2. There is ALWAYS a second key. Just in case you get caught. 3. The length of the plaintext equals the length of the ciphertext. 4. The crypto algorithm must be simple and CONVINCE EVERYONE that it is ONLY PERFORMING ITS SIMPLE INTENDED FUNCTION. I add Criterion 5: The length of the key must equal the length of the plaintext. Extensive mathematics or complication fails Criterion 4. Public key cryptograpy that uses the RSA algorithm MAY fail Criterion 1 if the message divides the product of the two prime numbers, p and q, used in the modulus. Most crypto algorithms are designed so that the key cannot be recovered from a plaintext-ciphertext pair. Therefore, they fail Criterion 2. Criterion 3 is much more difficult to ensure against. Black and White Hats American western movie producers used to aid their audiences in identification of the heroes and villains. The heroes wore white hats. The villains, black hats. US government agencies adopted the term black hatter to describe an employee whose job it is to break into THINGS. Or screw them up: http://www.jya.com/whp1.htm A white hatter is one who analyzes THINGS to make sure they cannot be broken into. And they cant be screwed up. But the empirical fact is that the black hatters can figure-out methods to transmit the key on a covert channel, tell the white hatters they did this. And the white hatters cant find out how they did it. Algorithmic Processes Suppose the key is five bits: 1 0 1 0 1 Suppose the plaintext is six bits: 1 1 1 1 1 1 And the ciphertext is also six bits: 1 0 1 1 0 1 Ask the cryptographer give you a key which changes ONLY the sixth bit of the ciphertext, as in the following: 1 0 1 1 0 0 You like the other 5 bits just fine. If the cryptographer cant, then you might look for another algorithm to adopt. Conclusion We have five criteria to judge the outcome of the NIST Advanced Encryption Standard contest. If none of the algorithms pass the five tests, we will not be discouraged. We know that Gilbert S. Vernam and Joseph O. Mauborgne solved the crytptography problem in 1918, when they created the one-time pad. (See "What is a One-Time Pad?".) William H. Payne P.O. Box 14838 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87191 505-292-7037 Embedded Controller Forth. Generalized Feedback Shift Registers Here are some links to some of my students: Ted Lewis (Friction-Free Economy) John Sobolewski (HPCERC) -30-

1 0

CJ Key Check
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bear in mind that that information on this matter may be used to hammer or help Carl Johnson if not others. As Adam Back has proposed: To check the validity of the allegations made by the IRS about Toto(s)'s messages in the Carl Johnson complaint, a review is underway of archived messages to see if there are any signatures by a key before the private key has been posted, especially if the post in question has been (or may be later) cited by the IRS. If there are none, then the IRS "authentication" of the claimed Toto posts evaporates. Even if there are some, the `authentication' becomes more suspect if there are others which are made after the key post. To assist checking messages an initial list of candidate keys is available (none of the anonymous keys show a link to Carl Johnson of the IRS complaint): http://jya.com/anon-keys.htm Additional candidates and findings of message checks are welcomed, with a nod to the opening caution.

1 0