December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

LIST: encrypted
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

About receiving this mailing list encrypted.... I beleive Hal Finney is (was?) offering such a service. Basically you send in your public key, and Hal pipes all list mail through pgp and remails it you, from one of his anonymous remailers. I don't think many people opt for this :) but the option is there (unless Hal isn't offering it anymore). He'll probably answer when he reads the list mail! -- Karl L. Barrus: klbarrus(a)owlnet.rice.edu keyID: 5AD633 hash: D1 59 9D 48 72 E9 19 D5 3D F3 93 7E 81 B5 CC 32 "One man's mnemonic is another man's cryptography" - my compilers prof discussing file naming in public directories

1 0

help getting files off csn.org???
by dan＠kypris.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey all! Can someone help me out as to how to get the pgp-related stuff off csn.org? Unfortunately I don't have real ftp, only ftp through the ftp-mail-server. I have grabbed the README.MPJ file and immediately sent an ftp request to get files from the ever-changing I_will_not_export/??? directory, but get back a "no such directory". How often does the directory name change? Am I just not going to be able to get them through ftp-mail requests? Thanks, Dan --- Daniel A. Nichols Voice: (214) 307-0474 Kypris Software Systems Fax: (214) 306-3409 2601 Frankford Rd. #2703 E-Mail: dan_nichols(a)kypris.com Dallas TX 75287-4517 NeXTMail Welcome!

1 0

Standard for Stenography?
by Gary Jeffers 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", & for Norman Hardy's notice of the possibility of non-randomness in the low order bits of pixels. Here are my proposed standards & suggestions for stenography. 1. The stenography module is just a simple program for inserting data into a picture. The data is not plaintext! Ideally, stealth pgp is the encryption method. There should be no clever variable positional stenography. No security through obscurity. No "TOWERS of BABBLE". It must be standardized for easy conversation. I agree with Bill Stewart on this: simple stego programs, stealthy encryption programs. 2. The 1st position of the stenography is defined as the 1st pixel transmitted or received. The 1st several pixels should make up the header. The header should be of a fixed size with fixed sized & positioned fields. The header follows: 1____6 7_________17 18>>>>>>> checksum; "STENOGRAPHY"; the encrypted text The numbers refer to pixels. One bit of encrypted data per pixel. The 1st field is a checksum particular to that RSA key. The 2nd field consists of the word "STENOGRAPHY" in caps. The remainder is devoted to the encrypted msg. itself. The checksum is a standardized checksum method that has the same checksum as the RSA key. You need this in case you have given out several public keys. The checksum may also be an integral multiple of the RSA key. The reason for the checksum is in case the recipient has multiple keys, this will help him select the correct one without using huge numbers of cycles. Only 6 bits are used since that would be all that would be necessary & to eliminate the possibility of a huge number that would be large enough to constitute a legal proof. Also, by using a small number, investigators are not given much of a clue. By allowing integral multiples, you allow a fairly large number of keys but also stop small numbers from popping up a lot - no statistical suspensions! The reason for the "STENOGRAPHY" field is to assist your computer in determining if this is a stenography file & that the correct key was chosen without attempting to decrypt the whole file. I know that this presents the possibility of a small "known plaintext attack", but a good encryption system should stand up to such an attack. RSA can ... can't it? 3. No "lossy" picture methods! Two methods immediately suggest them -selves: JPEG & GIF. JPEG is ordinarily a lossy method but I am told that it has a no loss option. GIF is not a lossy method. I hear that JPEG has the ability to carry more bits per pixel than GIF so I would suppose JPEG. Also, while earlier I suggested 1 bit of encrypt per pixel it may be cool to use more. 4. Norman Hardy has suggested something that I have wondered about: are low order bits of pixels really randomly distributed? You graphic/ statistic ace's out there need to check this out & inform us. Possibly, some methods do & some don't? Inquiring cypherpunks need to know! I don't know too much about graphics, so I could use a lot of help. 5. What are the best pictures to use? I would suggest soft focus pin- up girls, mountain ranges, clouds, fields of grain, dense vegetation. Would soft focus help in all these types? note: I think kiddie-porn would be a bad idea. The above suggestions support the stealth method- strong encryption- simple stenography- public key- standardized model. If I have missed anything or you have a better idea, please let us know. Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers

2 1

Money Laundering thru Roulette
by rees＠cs.bu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As several people asked for the reference to the guy who perfected a system for playing roulette in which one "neither wins or loses", he was Marcel Duchamp and it happened in 1924. This is on page 126 of the Eudaemonic Pie by Thomas Bass. Of course, as several people pointed out, there are a large number of ways to break even in roulette. So if you have bad money that needs laundered, why not bet evenly on red and black each time. Or even easier, buy 10,000 dollars worth of chips and then cash them in immediately. New and different money on demand. I get the impression though that I am missing something in the discussion since no one has mentioned something like this and that merely replacing the money isn't the objective here. --Dave

4 3

Re: Press Release on Secure NCSA Mosiac
by catalyst-remailer＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal wrote: > I suppose it goes without saying that the kinds of privacy-protecting > credentials we have been discussing are not what is being discussed here. No, but hopefully the standard can be extended (officially or unofficially) to include them, even if only a relatively small fraction of organisations will use the privacy-protection extensions initially. Hopefully once some organisations are doing so they'll have a real competitive advantage over those who want to collect marketing data. >This is outrageous! Where on earth did they get the idea that non-U.S. >residents have access only to 40 bit keys and RC2/RC4? Don't worry - as soon as it hits the streets in Europe I'm sure a number of us will be ripping out the RC4 code and implementing real encryption systems instead.... (assuming it comes as source code, otherwise we'll have to upgrade the normal Mosaic source instead once the standard is settled). Overall, I think it's a good thing, and hey, at least it isn't using Clipper !

1 0

LP Press Release about Digital Telephony Act and Clipper (fwd)
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 00:58:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Libertarian Party Headquarters <lphq(a)access.digex.net> Subject: LP Press Release about Digital Telephony Act and Clipper To: eff(a)eff.org NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE Washington DC 20003 For immediate release: April 18, 1994 For additional information: Bill Winter, Director of Communications (202) 543-1988 Libertarian Party Announces Opposition to Digital Telephony Act Calling it a "serious infringement of civil liberties and a gross violation of property rights," the Libertarian Party National Committee unanimously voted to oppose the Digital Telephony and Communications Act of 1994. At their quarterly meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, the governing body of America's third-largest political party charged that "the Digital Telephony Act would make furnishing the FBI with easy wiretapping capability the overriding priority for designers of telephone equipment and related software." "It is a lie to call this legislation a 'Privacy Improvement Act,'" said Bill Evers, the National Committee member from California who sponsored the resolution. The Digital Telephony Act, noted the resolution, "requires telephone, cable television, and computer network companies to ensure that the government can conduct surveillance while private communication is going on. It requires the installation of surveillance-facilitating software in telephone switching equipment to expose personal information - such as telephone-calling patterns, credit card purchases, banking records, and medical records - to the view of the government." "Such personal information should be the private property of either the company that assembles it or the individual to whom it pertains," said Evers. Libertarians also oppose the Digital Telephony Act because it "would require a fundamental re-engineering of the communications infrastructure at great expense to American taxpayers, and to the owners of private communications systems," said Evers. The Libertarian National Committee also unanimously voted to oppose the National Security Agency's Escrowed Encryption Standard - the so-called Clipper Chip system - or any "government policies promoting or requiring specific encryption methods for civilian use." The party also urged the "repeal of the U.S. ban on export abroad of Clipper-free encryption devices produced by American companies." "Government-mandated encryption standards will foster indiscriminate surveillance of private communications by the government," charged Evers. The resolution said "the Clinton Administration plans to induce American manufacturers to install government-readable encryption devices in every telephone, fax machine, and computer modem made in the United States." "The Clinton Administration is explicitly denying that the American people have the right to communicate in private," said Evers. By contrast, he said, "The Libertarian Party has long upheld the civil liberties of the American citizen." Approximately 120 Libertarians serve in elected and appointed office around the country, including four State Representatives in New Hampshire and two mayors in California. The Libertarian Party platform calls for vigorous defense of the Bill of Rights, free enterprise, civil liberties, free trade, and private charity. # # # The Libertarian Party America's third largest political party 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE (202) 543-1988 Washington DC 20003 Internet: LPHQ(a)digex.net ***Send email or call 1-800-682-1776 for free information package by mail***

1 0

Re: BEST Inc.
by kkirksey＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Simple solution to this problem, especially if you have strong magnets >around.... De-magnitize the card. > >If you are a ham operator, you can use the magnetic mount on the basis of >your mobile antenna whip. If you're not, get a big magnet... > Or a bulk tape eraser from Radio Shack. They've a thousand household uses! No home should be without one! :-) Ken +===========================================================================+ | Ken Kirksey kkirksey(a)world.std.com Mac Guru & Developer | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | When the going gets tough, the tough hide under the table. | | -Edmund Blackadder | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLbQwAesZNYlu+zuBAQEeoQQAieN3U5lMrpk24APiEkFQi42oG65ZE8RX My/fEoNolwMnwIh9MkWQeBjfSx8Ixzwcq3vSla2XgWw6UcXxExvxzSUc1IM38zN1 p1qpoDwBatdonZoua7G3mlrxRgxEVMLCakO3aM9HNj4QTNpjJFDWSv5wzLDwBPaX ptmZjAgT+mo= =rqQB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: Money Laundering thru Roulette
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I neglected to cc: the list on this reply to David Rees, and he was kind enough to send me back the message so I could post it here. This is me speaking: > > Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the point David Rees is making: > > > Of course, as several people pointed out, there are a large number > > of ways to break even in roulette. So if you have bad money that > > needs laundered, why not bet evenly on red and black each time. Or even > > easier, buy 10,000 dollars worth of chips and then cash them in immediately. > > New and different money on demand. > > I get the impression though that I am missing something in the > > discussion since no one has mentioned something like this and that merely > > replacing the money isn't the objective here. > > No, converting one wad of, say, $100,000 into another wad of $100,000 > is not the goal. > > Let us suppose "Hillary" (much more interesting than our usual > cryptographic stand-in, Alice) want to be able to spend $100,000 given > to her by a friend at Tyson Foods in exchange for regulatory favors. > > He gives her a wad of $100,000. She takes this wad to Las Vegas (or, > now, to the nearby Mississippi River gambling boats) and "exchanges" > it. What has been accomplished? Nothing, except the comparatively > trivial change in serial numbers (which _can_ be an issue if the bills > are marked, as in a sting, but this is rarely an issue). > > This is a _kind_ of money laudering, as is literally running currency > through washer-dryer cycles (yes, this is done), but this is not the > common meaning of "laundering," and the one which we're focussing on here. > > No, one of the main goals of money-laundering is to make the > bribe/whatever money appear to be "legitimately earned," so that taxes > may be paid on it (yes) and the money then used for other investments, > buying houses, etc. "Legitimately earned" can mean won in Las Vegas, > or in cattle futures, etc. Hence the schemes here. > > (In Hillary's case, suddenly having $100K that the IRS and other > agencies can find no "paper trail" for would be evidene of bribery, > for example. I suppose Hillary could claim it came out of her > mattress, where she'd been saving money for years, but I doubt this > would fly.) > > U.S. casinos are closely watched for this kind of thing, of course. I > wonder if the IRS looks suspiciously at money won at the casinos on > Paradise Island, Bahamas? Or elsewhere. > > And, germane to our list, the "Internet Casino" that Nick Szabo and > others have talked about someday building. > > --Tim May > > > -- > .......................................................................... > Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, > tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero > 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, > W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. > Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. > "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Remailer Musings
by juola＠bruno.cs.colorado.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I disagree with Brad's interpretation. For example, if I photocopy a book and anonymously snail mail it to people, do you think the postal service is going to take the fall? Nope - they are just a carrier, and are not responsible for content. Like the common carriers - they just receive a message and pass it along. They aren't responsible for message content. If Brad Templeton's view of the world was the prevailing (or correct) one, then every common carrier in the country, including Ma Bell and the US Postal Service, would not exist, because they would've been sued out of existence long ago. On the other hand, part of the rules of being a common carrier are that one is *required* to cooperate with appropriate authorities to prevent this sort of abuse and to catch said abusers if/when it happens. I suspect that Mr. Templeton's lawyer could make a case that by setting up a remailer where one cannot "trace calls," one is violating the requirements of being a common carrier, and thus is responsible for content. - kitten

1 0

re: Sgt Russell
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: joshua geller <joshua(a)cae.retix.com> : I don't see any reason why sgt. harlow shouldn't be as welcome : as anyone else on the list. there are a large number of people : in the military, and any generalization drawn about them is : likely to be false (of course all generalizations are false, but : that is another matter). for those who enjoy paranoia, I would : point out that sgt. harlow is not the only person on this list : with past or present military associations. Quite right. This is ex Signals-Officer 23434072 Toal, G saying 'Roger out to you hello Charlie Papa come in over.' :-) G

1 0