December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Anonymity on the net
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alan Wexelblat writes: [Asks, why is anonymity/pseudonymity useful when posting?] > Case 1) technical postings of a research/white (in the sense of whitenet/ > blacknet) nature. Here anonymity would be a hindrance. I post in large > part to help my name be known in certain academic circles. In this case I > would tend to wonder at people who posted anonymously and would (as was > mentioned in this list) tend to discount their information. In research > circles, name value means a lot. An anonymous/pseudonymous poster may want to expose faulty reasoning or research methods on the part of a previous poster, where that poster is their boss, faculty advisor, department chair, [employee of] generous donor to a nonprofit org .. etc. This is also useful for revealing insider information of a sensitive or "whistleblowing" nature; see below. > Case 2) technical postings of a black nature. Here anonymity is a big help, > as you may have some question about the legality of what you are doing. But > the question I have is: why post at all? What gain is there from > publicizing this kind of information? Perhaps the gain is some assurance of > safety from retaliation from parties who might feel themselves wronged by > what you posted. In this case, anonymity wins. This is useful for posting security holes that CERT/vendors won't acknowledge or address; it seems generally useful when posting something that might get you (a) fired or (b) sued. Consider the (ongoing, I think) litigation against the person who posted negative comments about a stock to Prodigy. SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participants) actions aren't (to my limited knowledge) common in the online world, but aren't so uncommon in, say, logging-protest world. Even where a SLAPP suit isn't successful (in terms of a favorable verdict), they can be very burdensome to defendants. (The suit against the poster to Prodigy may or may not be a real SLAPP, but it's at least similar.) > Case 3) non-technical postings (social, talk). Again I wonder what is the > value of anonymity in this case. To have a social conversation is to build > a community of like-minded people and to contact people whom you want to > relate to in some way. Anonymity defeats this social building and relation > process. There are still several places where it's not 'politically correct' to be known as a reader of/poster to groups like soc.motss, alt.sex.bondage, or other "controversial" groups. People may still want the sense of community that they can get from participating, while wanting to avoid the enforcement of PC-ness, possibly at the end of a baseball bat. Famous/infamous people may also want to participate in the online world without being swamped by "fan mail" - I suspect it'd be virtually impossible for, say, William Gibson to post to Usenet without being overrun by zillions of letters. I believe that Steve Wozniak (post-Apple) attended college under an assumed name for similar reasons. > A counter-response to this might be to say that we want to put privacy in, > not anonymity. But again, I wonder about this. If I want my message to be > read only by a certain list of people, why am I posting to a newsgroup > instead of to a mailing list? Distributing "secret" information widely, in an encrypted form, can frustrate traffic analysis - if I suspect that X is doing something nefarious, I could look through sendmail logs (or whatever) to see who she's talking to, and create a list of suspects. However, if X posts her secrets to the net - in an encrypted format - and those secrets are dispersed to the world, I can't draw any conclusions about anyone who happens to receive that encrypted message in their alt.test newsfeed. There's also no chance that anything peculiar will be showing up in postmaster mailboxes because of bounced mail; it's also a much easier way to talk to 200 people at once. (Assuming that it's meaningful to talk about sharing a 'secret' with 200 people .. :) > There's no point in privatizing the substrate, since anyone can get a client > that will decrypt at the far end. > > In sum, I guess I'm somewhat baffled at why one would want to use anonymity > and/or privacy enhancement technology on one's news postings. Generally, to (a) say/do something controversial, and avoid retribution; (b) for an [in]famous person to say/do something mundane; or (c) to make anonymity/pseudonymity not seem so peculiar, so instances of (a) and (b) won't stick out like sore thumbs. -- Greg Broiles greg(a)goldenbear.com Baked, not fried.

3 2

Tech: Truth about Canon Copiers
by an4914＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > This is interesting. Since most of the change-making machines in > laundromats seem to use the side with the dead white guy, I wonder if it > would work to use this copy? > ----Dave REes (rees(a)cs.bu.edu) > >Nah, the changers just say "this side up" - the scanner may be looking at >the underside of the bill, or at both sides (more probable). > Or, they may not "scan" at all! Ever wonder why wrinkles, folds, and other mutilations wreck their ability to recognize your cash? I think many of them may be measuring paper thickness, folks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

The Final Ultimatum
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunk leaders, state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the charges of routine, systematic, rampant, and conspirational pseudospoofing and deception of the media and your followers, publicly to all those you have affected in Cyberspace. Cypherpunk followers, demand publicly and privately of your leaders the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and accept nothing less. Otherwise, watch the `movement' and your reputations dissolve before your eyes far beyond the present deterioration, to near total oblivion. You have 24 hours. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

2 1

Re: Pyrrhus Cracks RSA?
by cfrye＠ciis.mitre.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You know the people who could break DES, RSA, PGP, etc. Shamir >unpacked Diffie's knapsack. What is most probable, is that these >ciphers will stand for some unforeseeable time until someone who >may not be born yet comes along and breaks them all as an idle >{exercise on her way to greatness in another field. > >But the NSA? No way, Jose. They might be nerds who hacked some >code at 3 am. But you put them on a salary and benefits in a >pyramid, then tell them not to talk about their work, and you >thwart whatever creativity they had. The NSA can kill you. But >t({they can never out-think you. Strong words that, IMHO, put way too much faith in the argument that a "restrictive" work environment inevitably crushes individualism and creativity. Any organization, .gov or !.gov, that: * recruits the best and the brightest and pays them well; * gives access to substantial computing/financial resources and academic knowledge; * fosters team-building, creativity, and competition *within the group*; * rewards achievement and provides status *within the group*; and * provides other movitivation, be it patriotism/pride/whatever, will produce more than its fair share of advances in a field. Given a concentrated environment and an advanced set of tools, it seems improbable that any group, regardless of organizational affiliation, could be outperformed *on an evolutionary basis* by a loose band of academicians and private researchers with irregular contact. Revolutionary change is impossible to predict, though I feel that no organization with sufficient resources would throw away promising methods without thorough investigation. Even so, I do personally believe that private individuals may have an edge in revolutionary research. Unfortunately, both statements are unverifiable. The key point to remember is that motivation is relative - regardless of our personal opinions, if someone seeks status within a group then more "restrictive" environments are not a hindrance to creativity. -- Best regards, Curtis D. Frye cfrye(a)ciis.mitre.org "If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they pay me and make you feel foolish."

2 1

Re: The Final Ultimatum
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Folks, Detweiler is psychotic. Answering this message of his, even to >flame him, isn't going to get anyone anywhere. There isn't any point >to it. Well, gosh, Perry, thanks for taking upon yourself to respond for the rest of us. A truly noble undertaking on your part. Many people are, in fact, capable of making decisions without your input, strange as this concept may appear to you. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Pyrrhus Cracks RSA?
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've always felt that the NSA and its corp of mathematicians has a much greater chance of breaking anything than the folks in the University. Even in the best situation (MIT), a professor must devote substantial time to raising money to support themselves, their travel expenses and their graduate students. There aren't many folks who hold positions in these schools. The rest are in schools where the professor must also teach 2-4 classes to pay for food. Research is nice in these places, but it doesn't pay the rent. Very, very few people have the freedom and the time to devote to deep exploration of problems like cracking RSA. Most of them are in the NSA. There is no doubt that the restrictive work environment is a pain in the neck. But, most mathematicians don't really have many choices. They can go to a small college and teach forever. They can go to industry and work hard on the industry's problems. Or they can go to the NSA. It really isn't a bad choice in many respects. No classes. No students whining about their grades or asking for an extension. No endless search for grant money. If you want to do algebra or number theory or a host of other problems, it might be considered one of the best environments you could get short of the Institute for Advanced Study.

1 0

Re: Pyrrhus Cracks RSA?
by cfrye＠ciis.mitre.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> = cfrye(a)ciis.mitre.org (Curtis D. Frye) > = boone(a)psc.edu (Jon Boone) >> Strong words that, IMHO, put way too much faith in the argument that a >> "restrictive" work environment inevitably crushes individualism and >> creativity. Any organization, .gov or !.gov, that: >> >> * recruits the best and the brightest and pays them well; > > Do you know how much NSA employees get paid? I'm wondering, because it > is certainly _not_ the case in the CIA. The "analysts" may make somewhere > between the $30K - $45K range, but that's hardly "good pay" for people > who are experts on that kind of analysis, especially when they have Ph.D.s. While I'm not intimately familiar with the workings of the NSA, I would guess that folks w/ Ph.D.'s and no/little work experience are probably brought in near the top end of that range, though the advanced degree would allow for quicker advancement to senior technical or management positions and correspondingly greater pay. Also, be sure to include the labor surplus, government benefits and job satisfaction as factors in considering salary adequacy. > >> * gives access to substantial computing/financial resources and academic >> knowledge; >> * fosters team-building, creativity, and competition *within the group*; >> * rewards achievement and provides status *within the group*; and >> * provides other movitivation, be it patriotism/pride/whatever, >> >> will produce more than its fair share of advances in a field. Given a >> concentrated environment and an advanced set of tools, it seems improbable >> that any group, regardless of organizational affiliation, could be >> outperformed *on an evolutionary basis* by a loose band of academicians and >> private researchers with irregular contact. >> >> Curtis D. Frye >> cfrye(a)ciis.mitre.org >> "If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they >> pay me and make you feel foolish." > > Please tell me how much MITRE pays you. Is your above description a > description of MITRE? MITRE pays me significantly less than what they would pay a Senior VP, which is about the level where I would feel comfortable stating that I "speak for" MITRE. As for the team-building observations I made above, they are made from a general management perspective and are open to debate, though that discussion might be a bit off-topic for cypherpunks if removed from the crypto framework. -- Best regards, Curtis D. Frye cfrye(a)ciis.mitre.org "If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they pay me and make you feel foolish."

1 0

Case Studies Info Request
by Christopher Garrett Goebel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm looking for info, articles, archives, book and journal leads on info related to applied cryptology in the 20th century... for a senior thesis I'm writing on cryptology, warfare, and national security. Specifically, I'm looking for o Clipper chip archives of articles o Articles on Phil (PGP) and RSA disputes o Articles on the export of cryptology I'd also like info on cryptology in the Cold War or leads to such info. Please send info to: genghis(a)blue.engin.umich.edu. Thanks, Garrett

1 0

NSA
by The PUNISHER - Judge 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey all, I just wanted to let you know (as an ex-SEAL), the NSA (and to a limited extent CIA) have UNBELIEVEABLE resources! If anyone could crack RSA, DES, OPP...they could. Never underestimate the power of a "black" budget (or for that matter soup) The PUNISHER Judge; Jury; Executioner....All in a day's work Mob Boss: "500 of my men killed; there is a limit to revenge you know" Punisher: "I haven't reached mine yet"

1 0

Re: (fwd) Technosys, Prosody, the "NSA", and some unfunny BS passed off as a joke
by owen＠autodesk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

And people think that corporations are going to entrust their information assets, and valuable corporate data/communication to a network where forgery is this easy. Right, and I am the emperor of China! This is classic. Expect to see lots more of these *harmless pranks*. LUX ./. owen

1 0