December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: IRS LEARNING . . .
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com D.>Lets have a discussion as to what political organization we D.>ultimately want to bring about. If this has already been done, then D.>please send me references. Don't give this one away: Case 1 A<----------->B Free Trade - Free Market Case 2 A<----------->B "Fair Trade" - Regulated Market ^ | | C - A Government Case 3 ------------------- | A<----------->B | Free Trade - Free Market ------------------- ^ | _____| | | | | | | C - A Government | | | |--Strong crypto, anonymous networks, digicash, etc. We know what to call a political or economic system in which political intervention doesn't occur because it has been technologically excluded. It is called a free market and a voluntary society (to avoid the "A" word). Duncan Frissell --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

Internet show on PBS
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

from author of `Zen & the Internet', don't miss it! ===cut=here=== Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 16:03:12 -0700 From: Brendan Kehoe <brendan(a)zen.org> The Computer Chronicles (a show on PBS) will be doing a program about the Internet, to be aired on your local PBS station the week of November 1st. It'll have stuff about World Wide Web (demo'd by April Marine at NASA Ames), virtual communities (with Howard Rheingold), the Net in general (me), Internet Talk Radio (with Carl Malamud), the gigabit testbeds [I think] (with someone from Bellcore), and something with Phil Kahn at ARPA. The producer of it is really psyched; it sounds like it's gonna be pretty cool. Brendan - -- Brendan Kehoe brendan(a)zen.org Stop the murder! Support dolphin-free networking. ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

THE CYPHERPUNK CAUSE
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

now I understand why `someone' told me in private email, `THERE IS NO CYPHERPUNKS CAUSE. GET THIS DELUSION OUT OF YOUR HEAD.'

1 0

Re: on anonymity, identity, reputation, and spoofing
by jamie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >1) how long they have been on the list in days, 0 if none at all >2) how many postings they have posted here >3) maybe a posting/age ratio -- some people seem to be very sensitive >or tune out people with a high one. >4) another idea: tracking the number of responses a given poster has, >average, per original post, measured by `re: [x]' subject tracking. > Each of these suggestions call for data that may contribute to identifying individuals, tracking their behavior or providing information useful to decypher some messages. This has a very NSA feel to it. -- ................................ Jamie Dinkelacker Palo Alto CA Jamie(a)netcom.com 415.941.4782

2 1

Re: PSEUDOSPOOFING
by jrk＠sys.uea.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An entity posting as "L. Detweiler" <ld231782(a)edu.colostate.lance.longs> writes: >PSEUDOSPOOFING > >the activity of misleading people into thinking that an identity is >unique when it really isn't! i.e. posting behind `real' addresses not >specifically noted as anonymous! Such as that posting itself? BTW, someone has claimed in email to me that they wrote the "cypherpunk mindfucking" rant as a satire. Still an utter waste of time. -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk(a)sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

1 0

Monitor radiation overlooking.
by blaster＠rd.relcom.msk.su 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello! I read about overlooking of monitor radiation. Introder can scan the electron-beam radiation from electron-gun. He simple transmit this radiation to self electron-gun and sinchronize frequance. This method work with b/w monitor. The overlooking of color-monitor more dificult - introder will see 4 gradation of gray (all guns off, work one, two, three guns). But we can select spesial colors (red-blue or blue-green) and allways will work only one (or two) guns. In this way introder will see dark (or light) gray screen without any information!!! Is it corect? Do now present more improve overlooking system? Some words about DES - I spoke with one cryptoanalisyst from KGB and he sow, that for number crypto algotitm c(key, text) (key is keyLength tall) present f(key, text), that for all key1 and key2 present key with length keyLength, that c(key2, c(key1, text))==f(key, text). He also say, that now present f() for c()=des(), more f() wery like des(). That`s why for decrypting of des(k1, des(k2, ... des(kN, text) ... )) we must try 2^56 keys with spetial function. --- Victor A. Borisov aka blaster; Relcom R&D; Email: blaster(a)rd.relcom.msk.su; Phone: +7(095)-943-4735; +7(095)-198-9510; === Don`t panic! ===

2 2

Re: Monitor radiation overlooking.
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Once more, sorry for my poor English. Your English is much better than my Russian. :-) I've cleaned up spellings and punctuation in the quote below, to reflect my understanding. Was I correct? >I want to say that DES isn`t group. We can`t say >that: >A k1, k2; E k0; ST des(k2, des(k1, text))=des(k0, text) > (A means "for all", E means "exist", ST means "such that"); > >or: E k1, k2; A k0; ST des(k2, des(k1, text))!=des(k0, text) > >I say that: >E f(k, text); A k1, k2; E k0 ST len(k0)=len(k1)=len(k2) and >des(k2, des(k1, text))=f(k0, text) > >f() is like des() but f() is not des()!!! >My friend says that the intruder must try only 2^56 keys for des(des()). What's missing in the last statement is the qualification of <text>. Is it A text or E text ? Meanwhile, some method of learning f would be nice :-). Is it also claimed that: E g(k,text); A k1,k2,text; E k0 ST len(k0)=len(k1)=len(k2) and des(k2, f(k1, text)) = g(k0,text) for f(,) as defined above? (That is, does this method continue to apply for an indefinite number of DES copies?) - Carl

1 0

Re: An idea.
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Message-Id: <9310120547.AA26215(a)anon.penet.fi> >From: an24519(a)anon.penet.fi >Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 05:47:52 UTC >Subject: An idea. >I suggest that it might >be a good idea for people to release and sign a short bio on themselves. If all you're worried about is entrapment, you need only ask the person in question if s/he works for any law enforcement or surveillance agency. If they lie, then anything after that is entrapment. I'm not a lawyer but I learned this from my masseuse in SLC UT, where mixed-gender massage is considered a "sex act for hire" and she was constantly subject to entrapment. - Carl

3 2

re: on anonymity, identity, reputation, and spoofing
by Jim Demmers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What if that `opinion' was not an accurate representation of > reality? what if a few people were creating the illusion that some > different kind of consensus existed? what if that `agenda' were > actually something inherently wicked like ... anarchy? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nothing, absolutely nothing (IMVHO) is inherently wicked. This is a virtual forum, and as such, it is not (nor should it be) subject to the same laws that bound similar dialogues in actuality. The cyberspacial medium begs the development of new and unique forms of interaction - and broadening one's means of expression through the use of multiple identities is perfectly valid in my book. As for conspiracies-to-mislead, I must have seen at least 20 or 30 last night while I was watching the World Series. I don't know how many others 'buy' (pun intended) into the crap that passes between their ears during the course of any given day, but I consider myself intelligent enough to weed through the chaff unassisted. Peer pressure has always been a powerful coercive - so what? It's not my job to calibrate the 'moral compass' of others...I leave it to them as an exercise (to be turned in at check out time). > > 1) list members are allowed *one* anonymous identity if any. They are > required to associate some name with all anonymous posts via that identity. > 2) *no one* is allowed multiple `real' identities and in fact any > violation of this is considered an extremely serious breach of netiquette > & honesty. > 3) completely anonymous posts from `outside' the list are allowed; if > no pseudoidentity is given they are assumed to come from `outside'. > Give me a break! A little structure goes a long way but these rules call to mind elementary school experiences that I thought I'd left behind. I can see it now: The Cypherpunks List (schizophrenics need not apply) Let's move on... [the preceeding has not been a flame but a commentary. It should be taken as such.] -jim |=========================================================================| | | | Jim Demmers Public Domain, Inc. INET: jdemmers(a)pd.org | | P.O. Box 8899 jim.demmers(a)oit.gatech.edu | | Atlanta, GA 30306-0899 balder(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | | Phone: 404-377-2627 FAX: 404-894-9135 | | | |=========================================================================|

1 0

crypto technique
by Matthew J Ghio 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was recently doing a calculation involving polynomials when I noticed the following: The function: 1 2 1 y = ( - x + - x + C ) mod P 2 2 where C is any integar constant, and P is any integral exponent of 2, given any positive integer less than P as input in x, will produce a unique positive integer output in the same range, [0,P). Hence we have an encryption technique which works well for binary data. Decrypting this is a bit trickier. It is possible to find the inverse equation for this, (without the modulus) which is: x = SQR(2(y-c) + 1/4) - 1/2 (SQR=Square root) Finding the square root of the modulus is the tricky part, but it is possible, since for every number it is possible to add some multiple of P and find a rational square root (There is a fairly systematic way to do this; I don't want to bore you with the math right now, I'll go into it later if anyone wants. Just trust me for now; it's possible to do without too much computation.) Now, there are some ways to beat this if you were encrypting one byte at a time, such as looking for recurring spaces in ASCII text, but if you were to group 8 bytes together and set p=2^64, it would be fairly difficult to crack. Anyway, in case you're getting bored, here comes the fun part: What happens when we double-encrypt with this technique? Well, obviously you need to use both keys (both values of C) in order to unencrypt it. For encrypting tho, we have a nested function of x: 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 y = - ( - x + - x + C ) + - ( - x + - x + C ) + D 2 2 2 2 2 2 where D is a second constant. This multiplies out to a fourth degree polynomial which can not be easily factored to find it's orininal components. Adding a third layer of encryption creates an eighth degree polynomial which is hopelessly beyond factoring in any reasonable amount of time. Hence, it is impossible to determine the decryption key if one has the encryption key. Therefore, the multiplied polynomial can be distributed as a public key, and the inverse functions needed to decrypt are kept secret (private key). Has this ever been tried before? Has it been broken? I don't see any way to break this, but I could be overlooking something. If this works it seems like it might be simpler to generate keys for than RSA. I wrote out an example of this on paper here, picking some values for C, and got: 4 3 2 y = .125x + .25x + 63.875x + 63.75x + 8159 and I was able to find values of x for values of y. Go ahead, post a number, I can decode it (can you?). Oh, don't forget to say what P is. :) P.S. In case you're wondering where that function came from, and why it always produces integars, it's a representation of the series 1+2+3+4+5...

3 7