December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Mail server for crypto files on csn.org?
by exabyte!smtplink!mikej＠uunet.UU.NET 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Problem: the time-varying directory name changes too fast for reliable mail server access to the crypto software on csn.org:/mpj/ for those who don't have live ftp access, but are legally qualified to get that software under the ITAR. It IS possible, but you have to get README.MPJ then request the software right away (before I log in to csn.org to check my mail the next time -- usually one to three times a day whenever I feel like it). Proposed solution #1: change the ITAR. Unfortunately, I can't do this unilaterally. Write your Congressional Representative about changing the ITAR. Proposed solution #2: set up a "secure" mail server on csn.org itself. My idea is to have a filter program scan incoming mail for requests for crypto programs. The request would have to contain a statement that the requestor won't break the law, as well as the names of the files requested. If the mail scanning program is able to detect a valid destination for crypto software, it could then mail uuencoded or radix-64 encoded copies of the software requested in the message. Here is where I confess some ignorance and ask for help: How do I do this? Could someone send me source code for any automatic mail handling programs they have written for a Sun host, or perhaps point me at some good documentation? I could probably muddle through this in time, but I'm not to proud to accept a head start. ___________________________________________________________ |\ /| | | | | \/ |o| | Michael Paul Johnson Colorado Catacombs BBS 303-938-9654 | | | | / _ | mpj(a)csn.org ftp csn.org \mpj\README.MPJ for access info.| | |||/ /_\ | aka mpjohnso(a)nyx.cs.du.edu mikej(a)exabyte.com | | |||\ ( | m.p.johnson(a)ieee.org CIS 71331,2332 VPGP key by finger | | ||| \ \_/ |___________________________________________________________| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.4 iQCVAgUBLXYgQj9nBjyFM+vFAQFccQQAo/zjyDzpsH0Ik1pGI6D+0ST8M7I84TYe /O9rqZRc4HpX5N4htPML9dm6+RrJoNzm9vXvxqhdptAB1nxzkRJgnVpTtH9nhFAM 6hX5k52H2t4Htq5diuAtk31CQG8t0GzA7iJ1qVhqwMG/pgoddRoX+cyVd5rdzX9j TN5+NZYugbU= =nSyZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Standard for Stenography?
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eli makes a reasonable case for leaving out the length field altogether. The desteg program would produce a file of width*height bits, and it would be up to the next layer to produce text from that. However, I'm not sure it's a *compelling* case. If adding the length doesn't actually hurt security, I'm inclined to keep it. >Tangentially, why choose bit permutation for your second-level >encryption? There are plenty of schemes that will be a lot faster >than doing all that bitmangling. Slowness is not necessarily bad - it also makes it harder for attackers to search through large numbers of images for ones with hidden data. But the main thing that the permutation gives you is that it spreads out the data bits among unmodified bits, making statistical tests harder. For a 1000 byte message in a 640x480 image, only 2% of the bits will be changed. If that 2% was all jammed into the first 80000 pixels of the file, it might be detectable; if it's spread evenly throughout the file, it's probably safer. --- Jef

2 1

CA meeting
by mdbomber＠w6yx.stanford.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is the CA Cypherpunks meeting on Saturday, 12 March? I want to try to go to it. Internet: mdbomber(a)w6yx.stanford.edu Matt Bartley GPS: 33 49' xx'' 117 48' xx'' (xx due to SA :-)

1 0

UK cypherpunks ready to meet at 2000 or 2200 on 12 March?
by russw＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To the UK participants on the cypherpunks list, and particularly those in the southeast (London, Kent, Essex, etc): Are any of you interested in holding a meeting synchronous with the physical/teleconference meeting of 12 March in Mountain View, CA and other US locations? Regardless of the technical arrangements, I can guarantee a venue that day in London for you. If you decide to go the way of a brief telephone call-in from London, I will pay for the call. If interested, let me know immediately, and I'll make calls to those nearby who are not on the list, but who are interested and sympathetic. Cheers, Russell Russell Earl Whitaker russw(a)netcom.com Director, Extropy Institute 408-366-5435 ================================================================

1 0

CFP roomshare...
by W Lee Nussbaum 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know this is not quite appropriate to this list, but here goes: Is anyone going to Computers, Freedom, & Privacy 4 in Chicago later this month, and interested in splitting a room to keep costs down? Please mail me at wln(a)tla.org if you are interested. Thanks. - Lee

1 0

Re: Standard for Stenography?
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Firstly, congratulations for Sergey Goldgaber's stubborn pushing of >this topic, for Bill Stewart's observation: "simple stego-programs, >stealthy encryption programs" I disagree with pretty much everything in your message, and since I'm the one who opened the topic and who is writing the code, my opinion would seem to count for quite a bit more than yours. I'm not going to repeat the reasons why the kind of standard you propose is a bad idea, you can fetch the messages as easily as I can. Cc:ed to the list only so that no one thinks Gary's proposal was accepted. The permutation idea remains the best. By the way, this discussion is an example of something I have labelled the "silence is invisible" phenomenon. It goes like this: there's a discussion; some of the participants work out an answer, and as far as they're concerned the discussion is over. However, other participants don't understand the answer, and keep on talking. In a physical meeting, the talkers would notice the annoyed looks on the faces of everyone else; or if the meeting had a good facilitator, he or she would catch on to the misunderstanding and correct it; but in cyberspace, those feedback mechanisms don't happen. --- Jef

4 5

spooks
by fhalper＠pilot.njin.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If there are any spooks on this list aren't they required by law to say that they are if somoeon asked if anyone on on th list was employed by CIA, DOD, FBI or NSA? Reuben Halper

3 2

Delete from mailing list
by leonar716＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would like my name deleted from your mailing list. Too much junk mail.

1 0

Re: Voice encryption
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The problem with secure voice systems isn't doing the encryption, which is relatively easy; it's designing a voice compression system that's cheap enough and fast enough to work with the class of modems you're willing to use. <- I dont want to use modems. -uni- (Dark) Who was the bay area speaker you were talking to?

1 0

Color Copiers
by nobody＠soda.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

rustman(a)netcom.com says... >nobody(a)soda.berkeley.edu says... >> >> On a slightly related topic, I know of an instance where the >> Secret Service located a stolen color copier with somewhat >> greater speed than one might have expected. >> >> Is it possible that these machines either: >> (1) contain transponders >> or >> (2) hide a "signature" in their output ??? >1. Why was the secret service looing for stolen property? >2. This is an urban legend. There is no "signature" on the output of Canon CLC copiers. >because these copiers are so maintenance-intensive, and since Canon >*owns* most of the CLC dealers, it would be very easy for them to check >their s/n records when they are servicing the equipment (which needs to >be done when the devices are moved)! >pretty exciting, huh? >-- >Rusty H. Hodge, Cyberneticist <rustman(a)netcom.com> The _event_ is not an urban legend. (The signature hypothesis could be). Check the Chattanooga papers (late '92 or early '93). A copier was ...uh... relocated to a residence. I doubt that the manufacturer was invited to make service calls. The secret service was involved because of what was being copied. It could just be that the SS (funny coincidence of initials) is very good at its job, but I wonder.

1 0