December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Matsui-san Attack
by buckley＠wti.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

]> A bigger problem is that PEM uses DES rather than IDEA. I just learned ]> of a new attack by Mitsuru Matsui of Mitsubishi that requires 2^43 ]> *known* plaintexts, not chosen ones. The note I received says that it ]> ``breaks the scheme in 50 days on 12 HP9735 workstations''. This was ]> presented last week at the Japanese Conference on Cryptography and ]> Information Security. 50 days on 12 HP9735 = 600 days on a single HP9735 The 735 has a pretty fast Mflop rating (compared to Sun, IBM, SGI, PC, and Macs). Using a comparable breaker on the average machine, it is going to take two years to "break the scheme". That leaves two years to create stronger/tighter strategies.

3 2

PGP
by dwomack＠runner.utsa.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was wondering if anyone has an answer to a question on PGP.... About how many calculations does it take to crack a 1024 bit key? If someone has limitless time, money, etc., they can break it...but how many calculations does it take? Also, there is a password used to protect the keyrings. Assuming a strong password how many calculations does that take to break? If there isn't some special method, an assumption that leads nowhere, just how much "brute force" effort is really required? Thanks, Dave

2 1

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

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 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: 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

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

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote: > Dear Master Knight, > > You have a double standard, or a bad memory. Saying "I'm glad your'e not > a politician" is most definitly a personal attack on me, not my > arguments. An incorrect jump of conclusions. This was a comment on your arguments. I would not sleep well at night if the arguemnts you use were helping to write the laws regarding copyright and intelectual property. > You became a prick first, and I am happy to join in. Happy? Perhaps "At Home" is a better turn of phrase. If fact, it seems you were looking for an excuse to switch to flame mode. > If you look at the thread carefully you will see that you made the ad hominem > attack first, I do admit in joining you in the gutter however. Also, I > really don't care what you're thoughts are? Why should I. Why should you care? I would like to end this useless chatter and go back to the discussion. It appears that you do not. > Just stop calling names when it hasn't been done to you. Or didn't your're mother and father teach you that, Master Knight? It hadn't? OOPS! I guess I misread the subject of this message... Seems you have the thread confused. -ck

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Kirk "I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm!" Sheppard astounds me by posting > >This book analogy is not accurate. It is my contention that usenet >postings are not copyrighted. Our postings are not disseminated like a book... Immaterial. What on earth does "like a book" mean? Do you contend that only works printed on paper can have copyright protection, or only works which are sold in bookstores, or only works which are bound in signatures? As a trivial counterexample, movies broadcast over cable and songs played on the radio retain copyright, without any question or doubt. They aren't "disseminated like a book", either. >we are paid nothing for the use of our postings on the multitude >of machines that our postings appear. Are you suggesting that there is any connection whatsoever between the ability to copyright a given work and some third party's willingness to pay for it? Are you claiming that if I write a book and decide to give copies away rather than sell them that my work is thereby not copyrighted? If so, you're clearly and without any doubt whatsoever in error. Are you _positive_ you're a lawyer? >Or, in the alternative, if copyrighted, by posting them in the electronic >>ether, we give up most of our rights regarding dissemination, copying etc. Aha. This would explain why there's no legal problem with my recording the complete works of the Beatles off the radio and then reselling them, no doubt. >Perhaps we may still >have some residual rights regarding accuracy and the like. Also the >posting regarding the legal blurbs on software, really was off point, >since what they they were refering to was a "license", and again there is >some doubt about how enforceable the individual licenses that the >software companies give. That is, some of these licenses may have >provisions that are not enforceable. So, let's see here. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm Stephen King. I write a book, using a word processing program on my computer, and saving the results to a magmeto-optical disk. Is it copyrighted? Clearly, it is. I sell the book to a publisher, who prints it onto paper, sews the paper into signatures, binds it between covers, and sells several million instantiations of this book to B. Dalton's. Is it still copyrighted? Clearly, it is. THe publisher takes a copy of my magneto-optical disk, adds some support software licensed from Voyager, Inc., and presses a CD-ROM version of my book. Is it still copyrighted? Clearly, it is. At the same time, I distribute several long sections of the book, via email, to a private mailing list of friends. Is the book still copyrighted? Clearly, it is. OK, now, here's the tough one. I give one of my friend's permission to post a long (i.e. clearly too long to constitute "fair use") section of this book to rec.arts.books, with a copyright notice prominently displayed at the very beginning of the posting, i.e. Copyright (c) 1994 by Stephen King. All rights reserved. You claim that this posting, suddenly and magically, no longer enjoys copyright protection. On what basis? To approach this issue in another way, I wonder whether you're familiar with "Internet Talk Radio", a scheme wherein voice broadcasts can be done over the Internet. If I were to pay the appropriate fees to ASCAP to allow me to broadcast a song by Pearl Jam over Internet Talk Radio, are you claiming that Pearl Jam's copyright to _their_ _own_ _music_ would be destroyed by _my_ having played it back over this medium? This would clearly seem to be your contention. I think you need to give this a wee bit more thought, Kirk. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: archiving on inet
by sfi＠verity.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger(a)lehman.com> > > > > > >Chris Knight says: > >> If all you are concerned with is "Material differnce", then you think > >> it's perfectly ok for me to sell you a good copy of a magazine? By your > >> "logic" (loosely used), you had to pay for the copy, and you had to pay > >> for the original, so what's the difference? The difference is the WILL > >> AND PERMISSION of the author! As the author of this message, I willingly > >> placed it within the net. I HAVE NOT, NOR WILL NOT, GIVE FREE PERMISSION > >> TO A CD-ROM PUBLISHING HOUSE TO PUBLISH MY WORK. > > > >Try to sue for damages when your work is available for free to > >millions of people. The judge will laugh in your face, copyright or > >no. Damages are, after all, related to lost revenue -- if you allow > >anyone who wants to see something for free in one medium, you will > >have a fucking hard time to keep them from examining it in another > >equivalent medium. Usenet is NOT a magazine. Failing to put a > >copyright notice in your work destroys whats left of your ability to > >do anything. I'm sure you can pay a lawyer to sue for you, but this > >isn't exactly one anyone is going to take on contingency. I believe this is completely fallacious. Simply because I don't include a copyright statement _does not_ mean that my material is not copyrighted (look it up). Secondly, the issue at hand is not so much redistribution (I think that can be resolved by attribution) but rather that the redistribution was done for profit. I think that is where you can be hanged (metaphorically speaking). I do not think it wise to defend such an indefensible (morally and legally) position. Perhaps you should reconsider. Stef

2 1