December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: PGP keyid collisions?
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: wcs(a)anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204) > Hal points out that brute-forcing a 24-bit Key-ID isn't all that hard; > the usual formulas tell you what fraction of numbers are prime in the > desired range, though without looking them up I'd expect it would take > around 2**30 - 2**35 tries to find a specific one; I suppose this > means the NSA has already done it :-) Right, but the point is that you have to search for a prime q anyway; PGP's algorithm is basically to repeat q += 2 until you find a q which is prime. It uses a sieve to speed this up a lot. I was pointing out that you can basically change the 2 to a 2^24, still use a sieve, and find a key just about as fast. So matching an existing key ID should not take much if any longer than just generating a PGP key in the first place. > > I understand there is already at least one 24-bit collision on the > > public key servers, not unexpected given a few thousand keys. > > I assume PGP does the right thing, except in cases of pilot error > (e.g. doing key lookup by KeyID) ? Even if it does, this has > some design impact on systems using random public-private key generation > for meet-me remailer cutouts. > Bill PGP actually uses a 64-bit key ID internally, only displaying the lower 24 bits for conciseness. It would be practically impossible to get a 64-bit key ID collision by accident (well, almost impossible, anyway). However, the technique I mentioned could easily generate such collisions. PGP does check for the case of matching key ID and does something, but I forget what. 24-bit key ID matches shouldn't have any effect except for, as Bill says, extracting/deleting keys based on key ID. Hal

1 0

Re: archiving on inet
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kirk Sheppard asks > >Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings >on a hard disk for an indefinite time, or on a cd-rom, or a cd that is >re-writable, or tape or any other storage device? Not very much I would >argue. I don't believe that _storage_ is the issue at all. If I purchase a copy of a book, I don't believe that I'm violating copyright by making an archival copy of it _for_ _my_ _own_ _use_. If I start distributing or selling copies to other people, however, that's a different matter. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

2 1

new, improved remailer GUI
by nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have added some features to the remailer GUI I built in Mosaic. It now has a radio button for choosing to use the CP remailers, and toggle switches for selecting remailers. It's also been moved, and the old one is no longer there, so don't use it. it's new location is: http://monet.vis.colostate.edu/~nate/mailer.html Give it a try, and tell me what you think. BTW, this one is fully open for business, so use it as much as you like! - -nate - -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nate Sammons <nate(a)VIS.ColoState.Edu> <nate(a)yuma.ANCS.ColoState.Edu> | | Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory | | Data Visualization/Interrogation, Modeling, Animation, Rendering | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

clipper petition
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- CPSR sends: Electronic Petition to Oppose Clipper Please Distribute Widely >On January 24, many of the nation's leading experts in >cryptography and computer security wrote President Clinton and >asked him to withdraw the Clipper proposal. >The public response to the letter has been extremely favorable, >including coverage in the New York Times and numerous computer and >security trade magazines. >Many people have expressed interest in adding their names to the >letter. In response to these requests, CPSR is organizing an >Internet petition drive to oppose the Clipper proposal. We will >deliver the signed petition to the White House, complete with the >names of all the people who oppose Clipper. >To sign on to the letter, send a message to: Clipper.petition(a)cpsr.org >with the message "I oppose Clipper" (no quotes) >You will receive a return message confirming your vote. - From noclipr(a)snyside.sunnyside.com Tue Feb 1 08:39:20 1994 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 08:39:14 -0800 From: clipper.petition(a)snyside.sunnyside.com (via CPSR automation) Subject: Your petition regarding opposition to Clipper Apparently-To: Brian D Williams <talon57(a)well.sf.ca.us> Your name has been added to the petition asking President Clinton to withdraw the Clipper proposal. We will deliver the signed petition to the White House at the end of the project. If you have any comments or questions, please email us at clipper(a)washofc.cpsr.org. "We have not yet begun to Encrypt!!" Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced comunication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLU6xXtCcBnAsu2t1AQHs8wP/cpftWyNnUtvEBcp5SuY/YR9h45DO/W7H VlgiVXf/aiOULr0dCMgJdu5BhoeV/C6MXEP0xfPNPSsk4JbpO2bn0yfcDLT69heU 9dGPE1ygVZsX4bOesk8s9eTaE+vSGpQcHXaotGrTWXo5Zsi7SFqdhraJEXFx9wnb g6lln31WF1A= =O1C5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: archiving on inet
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Jim - > > >Where is this agreement that it is ok to distribute material through a 'stor e- > >and-forward' network stated in the copyright law? I would be very interested > >in the proviso that exempts such networks from liability. > > It's not embedded in the law; as I said, it's an implicit permission I grant > when I post a message to such a network. Just as, when you buy a program on > a floppy disk, you are implicitly granted the right to copy it from the disk > into your computer's memory in order to run it: the nature of the work > requires that specific type of copying. There's nothing new there. > > >The bottem line is that when I got my feed I was not asked to sign any kinjd > >of waiver releasing any material that I generate from copyright infringement > >as long as it was on a hard drive (or any other media). I did not sign any > >kind of contract at all as a matter of fact. Legaly I still retain my right > >of copyright on every bit on every drive (whether magnetic or otherwise) in > >the internet and even your personal drive if you transfer the mail and other > >material to it for offline processing. > > One more time. The nature of the work and your chosen distribution medium > (netnews) requires a variety of copying for it to work: store-and-forward > for propagation, copying into the memory of my system and onto my screen so > I can read it. You grant permission to do that implicitly when you make the > work available by that mechanism. > > Once I have received the copy you have implicitly authorized me to have, > what I can *do* with that copy is governed by the Copyright Act and its fair > use exemptions. I can use it for purposes of scholarship (i.e. I can keep it > in an online or paper folder and refer to it later) and I can excerpt pieces > for critique, among other things. What I *cannot* do is redistribute it by > any other mechanisms and for any purpose other than your initial netnews > distribution. > > I have spent a lot of time studying this part of the law. Really. I already > heeded my glib advice about reading the damn copyright act. Have you? > > Jason > when I buy a software program the copyright notice specificaly states that I am allowed to make copies for backup purposes. Some of them notices on high- dollar packages even tell me how many I can keep and whether I can keep them on a network or not.

1 0

Re: archiving on inet
by mcb＠net.bio.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jason Zion writes: > Yep. When you're providing a netnews feed, you're acting as a node in a > store-and-forward network. A CD-ROM is not a part of a store-and-forward > network; it is a permanently fixed repository of information. You can't hold > up a netnews feed in a courtroom and point at it saying "there it is"; you > *can* do so with a CD-ROM. > > So I suppose you want to give some > kind of list of what types of media are acceptable for transmitting > netnews feeds, and which are not? You seem awfully confident about something that has never, to my knowledge, been litigated at the appellate level. The difference you posit between a netnews feed and a CD-ROM seems very tenuous to me -- not the kind of thing I would feel supreme confidence in trying to convince a judge of. As far as "holding something up" and saying "there it is", I could do the same thing in court with a hard disk containing a news spool and a CD-ROM drive containing a CD with a copy of a news feed. Set up two windows side-by side and they have the same article in them, right down to the Message-ID, byte count, even a CRC or SNEFRU checksum. *Now* try to convince the court they are different animals for copyright purposes... > A CD-ROM isn't a medium for transmitting netnews feeds; it's a permanently > fixed copy of the contents of such a feed. Static versus dynamic; permanent, > ephemeral. Is this hard to understand? Yes, very. And I have been in computing since 1975 and a licensed attorney since 1981. So I think it is fair to say that if I find this murky and confusing, and believe that copyright law does not divide these types of cases into neat little boxes, then others may as well. > The plain and simple fact is: When you post a message to usenet, you do > so with the expectation that others will receive it. You can have no > way of knowing or limiting who may get it; that is given by the nature > of the network. Usenet news is, and is intended to be, publicly > accessable information. If there is something you don't want > distributed, then DON'T POST IT! > > Learn a little about law; while you're at it, learn a little about usenet. > When you post a message to usenet, you have tossed it into a flood-routed > store-and-forward network. You implicitly give permission for copying > appropriate to the propagation of messages in that network. You neither > grant permission nor withhold permission for Fair Use. Everything else, > though, is not granted unless explicitly granted. > > If I post a message, under the terms of the Berne Convention and current US > copyright law, a recipient was not granted the right to print a copy and > publish it in a book. What makes you think I granted them permission to > publish a copy in a CD-ROM? The only permission I granted was that they > could (a) read it and (b) forward it via usenet protocols. Except that it is extremely difficult to put one's finger on "Usenet protocols". *Most* people are using (for example) RFC1036-compliant Netnews article formats and either NNTP or UUCP for transport. BUT, this certainly does not apply to everybody -- some people read newsgroups as e-mail (SMTP, UUCP, QuickMail, cc:mail, Lotus Notes, etc.). Some people receive netnews feeds in the form of magnetic tape; some as large batched file transmissions on IBM mainframe networks. Some get news articles via friends who operate informal "clipping services" and save and print articles of interest and send them via snail-mail. Some people archive newsgroups and put them on FTP/gopher/WWW/WAIS server where they may be indexed and retrieved years later. I would not want to have the burden of convincing a court that any of these are beyond the purview of "Usenet" and thus, in your scheme, implicitly copyright infringements. It is not that I vehemently disagree with any of the points made above -- who knows what will eventually evolve as a legal standard? -- I just think that it is a wildly unsettled area and pronouncements of bright-line criteria in the absence of relevant legislation *or* jurisprudence is fatuous at best. -- Michael C. Berch mcb(a)net.bio.net / mcb(a)postmodern.com

1 0

Re: archiving on inet
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Usenet copyrightable? I still doubt it. Of course, the only way to >find out is to file a very expensive lawsuit. Most posters would not find >their postings worth the expense to sue on copyright. Only a very rich >dilletante, or someone less rich who is a fanatic on the subject is >likely to do so. Also, you would have a hard time answering the >difference between charging for a usenet feed and charging for a cd-rom, >again I see little difference except that one is more prompt in time than >the other. But, again, my newsfeed from a BBS which might be 24 hrs >delayed, and my netcom account which is much faster and a cd-rom differs >only as to time removed from the original posting. So, would you argue, on the same grounds, that you didn't believe that a movie delivered into your home via a cable feed could be copyrighted? How about a movie on a laser disk? Do you understand that there's is a difference between personal use, which does not infringe copyright, and redistribution, which does? Are you _sure_ you're an attorney? -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

2 1

new remailer online
by nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- There is a new anonymous remailer online at: nate(a)vis.colostate.edu It does not yet support pgp encryption, but it does remail fine. This is also the standard remailer used by by WWW remailer GUI (even if no mailers are checked). I will be releasing a copy of my remailer GUI and software in the next day or so. - -nate sammons - -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nate Sammons <nate(a)VIS.ColoState.Edu> <nate(a)yuma.ANCS.ColoState.Edu> | | Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory | | Data Visualization/Interrogation, Modeling, Animation, Rendering | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: Why is Chris Knight a Twerp?
by Chris Knight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It sure was short trip for you to go from person to prick. My "attacks" have been on your logic. Something that has always been a prime goal of a debate. Lacking anything intellignet to say, you resort to the text quoted below, and your attempted personal slight of refering to me as "Master Knight" in your current posts. Is there any chance that this will get back to the discussion at hand, or are you tired of this toy and trying to find something else to play with? If all you have left is attacks, name calling, and rudeness, perhaps you should find other toys and leave the discussions to adults. -ck On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote: > Dear Stupid, > > Why you are intent on attacking me for no reason is beyond me. I didn't > attack you personally, what is the matter with you? Also I am not > interested in gratuitous advice regarding "trying to write sometime". I > can see why you might be bitter as you obviously lack the intelligence > and education to make much money writing. > > Kirk Sheppard > > kshep(a)netcom.com > > P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to > Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." > U.S.A. > - Emiliano Zapata > > >

2 1

Re: archiving on inet
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You too, have fallen into the same trap, as Master Knight, i.e., ad hominem >attacks, unprovoked, launched merely because I disagree with you. Please feel free to identify the "ad hominem attack" to which you're referring. I _have_ questioned your claim to be an attorney, largely because I do not believe that anyone could manage to pass a bar exam while being so utterly ignorant of the basest rudiments of copyright law. >As to >your arguments, no I don't think you have followed my logic at all, and I >certainly cannot follow or agree with your assertions. I found no logic in your postings. This explains, I think, my inability to follow it. I suspect that there are other explanations for _your_ inability to follow, or respond to, _my_ assertions. >My point is that >the redistribution of usenet postings by Netcom, my local bbs, me on my >hard disk to others for pay or not, or by cd-rom are not different and it >is just as legal for Netcom to charge me for providing me a usenet feed >as it is legal for a cd-rom manufacturer to do the same, neither is >paying us a dime nor are they obligated to do so. > >Personal use is not at all relevant. No!? How is it, then, that _I_ can copy a movie legally from HBO but I can't legally sell the tape to you, eh? >Netcom, Delphi are copying and providing usenet newsfeeds >as a commercial service, without paying any royalties to the authors of >the usenet postings. And we can all do the same and use any medium we >want to whether you or Master Knight like it or understand it. None of which has anything, specifically, to do with copyright. Do you understand the concept of "intellectual property" in the least? Are you absolutely, positively, thoroughly _certain_ you're a lawyer? (Hey, can I repost that private email you sent me? I'm sure the list would _love_ to see so deeply reasoned and clearly thought out an argument. Besides, you don't believe that it's copyrighted, do you?) -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0