December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: More signs that key escrow is coming
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: >Things seem awfully quiet on the list the past 24 hours.... > >Lucky Green wrote: > >> This RFP contains the final specs for a new multimedia architecture the >> cable companies intend to deploy. >... >> ".c4.11.7.1.1 Security System Objectives: >> The Offeror shall specify [..] whether it is possible to hide information >> in the digital signature number of which the signer would be unaware, which >> could conceal information. " >> >> Such as parts of the key? > >This sounds like it's a concern about subliminal channels in the >DSS/DSA signatures, a la the concerns raised by Gus Simmons last year. >I don't know what the use would be, unless it's concern (by whom?) >that viewing preferences could be back-propagated. > The RFP is not just for a system that sends Multimedia to the subscriber. The specs call for Homeshopping, private financial transactions, encrypted credit card transaction, etc. Just what info do they intend to conceal that the "the signer would be unaware" of? Just wondering, -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger

1 0

Re: Security of PGP private keys
by dmandl＠lehman.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: jrk(a)sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) > > PGP secret keys are protected by a password. Yet people have said that one > should not keep one's secret keyring on an insecure machine. Why? > > -- ____ > 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. Why take chances? Once the evil intruder has the file, she can throw test passwords at it from now till doomsday and might be able to crack it. 2. On shared machines, there are ways for users with the appropriate access to read your keystrokes (like, for example, when you type in your pass phrase). Anyone with that access should also be able to grab your secring.pgp with no problem, and that's that. --Dave.

1 0

CASH: crosspost
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At risk of irritating some folks who already saw this, a crosspost: > Medvinsky, Gennady and B. Clifford Neuman. "NetCash: A Design > for Practical Electronic Currency on the Internet" Proceedings > of the First ACM Conference on Computer Communications Security > (November 1993) [available via anonymous FTP, > <URL=ftp://prospero.isi.edu/pub/papers/security/netcash-cccs93.ps.Z>]. > Addressing the pressing problem of how to conduct fiduciary > business on the Internet, Medvinsky and Neuman describe a > system that allows clients, merchants, and currency servers to > interact in a secure fashion over an insecure medium. The > framework presented here addresses, to varying degrees, the > following issues: security, anonymity, scalability, > acceptability, off-line operation, transferability, and > hardware independence. The authors readily admit that this > scheme does not solve all of these problems perfectly, but it > does allow for the integration of other protocols when utmost > anonymity and offline capabilities are required. - DR

1 0

Re: a desperate plea
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> No, I wasn't complaining about his personal attacks per se but his long term >behavior on this list and Extropians which is mainly "hit-and-run" >attack posts about once a month which usually generate massive flame wars. >(the last of which ended up with Tim May leaving the extropians list) Let me make sure I understand this: are you claiming that _I_ caused Tim to leave the Extropians list? -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Help writing code
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Let me quickly try to clear up some confusion. I've gotten several replies (real quick response) that are answering a different question. I'm not trying to reimplement TCP/IP. I'm trying to provide a Windows version of NUpop, which is a DOS program that works fine over a simple serial line. Most folks automatically associate SMTP/POP with TCP/IP, but there is no connection. Admittedly they work better with a robust, end to end protocol. But I've been using NUpop for a year over a non-TCP/IP line. I get hundreds of messages a day. It works. But there are no sources available to NUpop, it is a DOS program, and it doesn't support piping messages thru PGP/RIPEM/... I have lots of DOS libraries that do exactly the simple things I need. I don't want to use DOS, I want native Windows code. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)netcom.com Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: help writing code
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message Wed, 27 Oct 1993 10:10:04 -0600 (MDT), mpjohnso(a)nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Johnson) writes: > The only way to communicate reliably over the serial port in Windows is > to upgrade the UART in your serial port to a 16550AFN or equivalent. The > standard UART (16450 in AT class machines) has no buffer and suffers from > frequent dropouts due to data overwrite on receive. If you can't do that, > then an error correcting protocol such as SLIP or PPP is required. A 16550 is clearly a big help, but Microsoft admits that their comm.drv fails often when you are using speeds greater than 4800. I have 16550's in my PC. A step in the right direction is TurboComm, a replacement driver, but that is expensive. A hardware solution is to use an intellegent serial card, like Hayes ESP or Telcor's T/Port. An O/S solution is to use a real operating system, :-) I want a no cost, MS-Windows solution. But I think folks read too much into my use of "robust" NUpop works fine as a DOS program without end-to-end. I simply want that functionality in a Windows program. No more, no less. I'm aiming low end, the mass market with a 386sx and a 2400 modem. Folks like me with a network of PCs in their house and even cypherpunks are not my market. The English majors, history and art majors are the folks I envision when I see a "user" Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)netcom.com Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: Net Regs.
by kwaldman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to my reply to Duncan's *"Net Regulation" Perry wrote: >To: kwaldman <kwaldman(a)BBN.COM> >Subject: Re: Net Requlation >Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 09:53:47 -0400 >From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger(a)lehman.com> >You do realize that cypherpunks is not extropians... >kwaldman says: >> Say the best way to go is to become a perpetual tourist. That is >> you don't have US citzenship and thus are not subject to it's taxes and >> other nosy laws. [Not that other government's don't have nosier laws]. >> Anyway Yes I realize it, and perhaps Perry's right we should move this to extropians. Karl * BTW I spelled Duncan's name wrong twice in 1 paragraph in my last post. Sorry.

1 0

Re: My Views on the Detweiler Matter
by jamie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypheroids and Cypherettes, The eventual recognition that names are symbol strings and not their referents is akin to the realization that the map not being the terrrtory. Yep, sometimes we just keep learning the same old lesson. The Detweiler/Boxx rants have the flavor of a reformed alcoholic distrupting the champagne toast at a wedding, selfishly driven by their world view and utterly unaware of the social dynamics around them. But aside from the rantings, pleas for TrueNameUtopia in CypherSociety, and threats, I sense something else. Take your pick of remark -- "thou doth protesteth too much," or "where there's smoke there's fire," or ... . Seems to me that the essential raison d'etre of L.Detweiler and S.Boxx (and even sometimes The SternLight himself) is purposive to distract c'punks from "writing code" or essays or having fun. This is basic motivated deception used in sports, business and the military ... get the opponent to do something else ... Here's one interpretation: if c'punks weren't pushing the envelope in creating both tools and understanding for things like cryptography, anonymous remailers and digital cash, nor pushing the social bounds through BlackNet, Nyms, Sam Hill, and May's CryptoAnarchy, the Detweiler nonsense wouldn't have emerged. A nerve has been struck; and this seems, in the big picture, to be A Good Thing. I've no doubt that to the true statists, fascists and communists, we are their vision of hell. On the other side of this, they will no longer be the only ones to hide behind anomynity, pull their secret strings, and pronounce agents of change as Evil Incarnate. We stand at the threshold of a new world, in large part to be enabled by cryptography. As "The Net" expands, dark fiber becomes illuminated, online markets flourish and the like, cryptography will be key for economic survival, and it will be in the hands (or machines) of The People, not The State. If such great progress wasn't being made toward providing for personal privacy, the L.Detweiler-Boxxs of the Net would be ranting about something else. So each rant underscores how significant the progress in cryptography is becoming; and it will become more so. In a nutshell, three cheers for c'punks. -- ................................ Jamie Dinkelacker Palo Alto CA Jamie(a)netcom.com 415.941.4782

1 0

subscribe
by jc138696＠longs.lance.colostate.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How do I subscribe? thank you.

1 0

Watch out for carl@com.malamud.t
by carugo o 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

He is a neg!!! e0004353(a)brookes.uk.ac ps i wrote the introductory piece on myself!!

1 0