December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

MacPGP 2.5
by MWayne＠eworld.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have any info on whether or not this new version will be available for Macs? How about for PowerPC Macs? Thanks --Mitch

1 0

Missed stuff
by Tommy the Tourist 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sorry to be a pain. I just resubscribed after whatever it was that happened that caused the massive unsubscription. Anyway, I missed the start of the PGP 2.5 thread. If someone archived the messages between the unsubscription and now, I'd appreciate it they'd get in touch with me so I can get a hold of them. Well, except for the Nalbandian message maybe :-) Zeke -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLc7O2hVg/9j67wWxAQHSZgQAhW9bM3QA1GWjIt7+j1eXjh/fDxGHWq3h p8I2x3HnY5kSPU6/0N66Y+gUISHt7z/ojkZ7tadDgUjAMCeqM3eGPJDjoal1VdIJ 7/OEpsjFVcuHwpZp5qrNHjOd4GGcpixmU1/CY6+FPUUyNXmOak9HlqZ4KMWG/dx3 Gr0p5IKA5lI= =aZVk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------ To respond to the sender of this message, send mail to remailer(a)soda.berkeley.edu, starting your message with the following 7 lines: :: Response-Key: ideaclipper ====Encrypted-Sender-Begin==== MI@```$YS^P;+]AB?X9TW6\8WR:>P&2'9,7.YM5[DU*:IVOLYZ'LR#3R6]%Q. F!LKO;7PXSNM7K3\Q(-"OG(+>&OAJ66?'R7<U=C=-A$)S[(AIZ>L` ====Encrypted-Sender-End====

1 0

[anon1df3@nyx10.cs.du.edu: Re: PGP 2.5]
by dat＠ebt.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

|> Another RSAREF limitation is that it cannot cope with keys longer than |> 1024 bits. Projecting current progress in factoring, how long will 1024-bit keys be secure against something like NSA? Is it the case that by standarizing on 1024-bit keys for the forseeable future, are we merely providing a window of opportunity for cryptopunks which will work fine for awhile but which will slam shut forever once the NSA becomes able (as a result of vast computer power, if nothing else) to routinely factor numbers this large, maybe in about 2150 or so? Remember people thought RSA-129 would take a long time. Cypherpunks write code that will remain secure for a long, long time I hope. Standardizing on RSAREF might, in the very long run, eventually have the same crippling effect that standarizing on clipper could have in the short to intermediate term. If people become complacent about this limitation, it could become institutionalized. If everybody uses PGP 2.5 for the next hundred years, what happens then? If the public PGP depends on RSAREF whose evolution is controlled by RSA, and if eventually a new version comes out which is incompatible with the older versions, and for which source code isn't as readily available, and the world standardizes on it, and it isn't interoperable with older versions, then we lose control, even if we now distribute a version of PGP 2.5 with the key restriction removed. I would be happier if PGP 2.5 did not impose such a limit on key length. If we standardize on something with limitations, we have to remove them in the future. If we standarize on something without limitations, future generations don't have to worry about it. In addition to distributing crypto to the masses, we need to ensure that no infrastructure gets imposed which obviates our methods. I don't know if the 1024-bit key restriction will over time become an important limitation or not -- do you? A better question -- how long will it take? I don't think I'm being paranoid, I'm just curious about the details about what is known about just how hard factoring is, and how that corresponds to the exponential growth in technological capability, and where the crossover point lies for 1024-bit keys. Maybe I should just read the book instead of posting... (Naah!..) -- dat(a)ebt.com (David Taffs)

2 1

Re: Idiots
by Robert A. Hayden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 9 May 1994, Jim Nalbandian wrote: > >I consider this to be a threat and grounds for removal and notification > >of his service provider. As the owner of several mailing lists, this > >kind of childish behaviour can bring certain nodes to their knees, and > >without the max-posting protections of LISTSERV, majordomo will keep > >sending until it dies, killing toad.com in the process. > > Gee Bob, can't you take a joke?? Not when it will spam the net. This is about as funny as Green Card Lawyers, the Clipper Chip, and Janet "Flambe'" Reno. ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden(a)krypton.mankato.msus.edu \ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=- \/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is \/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- (GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++ n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

1 0

Re: [ Secure Mosaic]
by Jack Bzoza 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 26 Apr 1994, Augustine Lo wrote: > To successfully combine simplicity of operation and key administration > functions with a high level of security that can be accessible to even > non-sophisticated users, significant changes were necessary for > existing WWW security protocols. EIT developed a new protocol called > Secure-HTTP for dealing with a full range of modern cryptographic > algorithms and systems in the Web. > > Secure-HTTP enables incorporation of a variety of cryptographic > standards, including, but not limited to, RSA's PKCS-7, and Internet > Privacy Enhanced Mail (PEM), and supports maximal interoperation > between clients and servers using different cryptographic > algorithms. Cryptosystem and signature system interoperation is > particularly useful between U.S. residents and non-U.S. residents, > where the non-U.S. residents may have to use weaker 40-bit keys in > conjunction with RSA's RC2 (TM) and RC4 (TM) variable keysize > ciphers. EIT intends to publish Secure-HTTP as an Internet standard, > and work with others in the WWW community to create a standard that > will encourage using the Web for a wide variety of commercial > transactions. > > Availability > > EIT will make Secure NCSA Mosaic software available at no charge to > CommerceNet members in September and NCSA will incorporate these > secure features in future NCSA Mosaic releases. > How likely is it that these specs will be publicly available so that others can build client front ends to this application? Thanks

1 0

This is an abstract from a talk at Cornell University...
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Lecture-Peter Shor-Factoring in Poly time Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 02:23:57 GMT FACTORING IN POLYNOMIAL TIME ON A QUANTUM COMPUTER Peter Shor, AT&T Bell Labs Richard Feynman and others have challenged the traditional Turing machine model of computation. A new model of computation based on quantum mechanics has recently been proposed. It is too early to know whether quantum computers will be practical. However, it is shown that quantum computers can factor integers and compute discrete logarithms in polynomial time. Lecture Hall D (north end), Goldwin Smith 11:40am, Monday, May 9 ----------------- Any comments on the veracity?

2 1

GhostMarks
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The trading of ghostmarks has begun. I've personally been party to a half-dozen transactions from my own personal account, and have more than 20 clients. It's time for trade to begin large-scale. I've placed the names of those clients who agreed to be publicly listed on my finger info: phantom(a)stein.u.washington.edu These are people (although not the only ones) that are ready and willing to begin transactions. Each of them has some sort of supply of ghostmarks. Let the grand experiment begin. Matt Executive Director The Phantom Exchange ("I'm not only the director, I'm also a client!") Matt Thomlinson University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. phone: (206) 548-9804 Check my home page -- ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/public/phantom/home.html PGP 2.2 key available via email, or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

1 0

Re: This is an abstract from a talk at Cornell University...
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: jamesd(a)netcom.com (James A. Donald) > Peter Wayner writes > > Richard Feynman and others have challenged the traditional Turing > > machine model of computation. A new model of computation based > > on quantum mechanics has recently been proposed. It is too early > > to know whether quantum computers will be practical. However, it > > is shown that quantum computers can factor integers and compute > > discrete logarithms in polynomial time. > > It is news to me that a quantum computer can do this, but > is seems plausible that it could. > > Factoring is a member of a class of problems for which it > is plausible that quantum computers have capabilities > fundamentally superior to classical computers. I would be surprised if quantum computers had the capability to factor in polynomial time. The special capabilities that I have seen claimed for quantum computers have a probabilistic component, so that, in effect, you can do a calculation n times faster but have only a 1/n chance of getting an answer. (This is an oversimplification but gives the idea.) In the context of the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM, you might say that the various instances of the quantum computer spanning the multi- verse can be made to work together, but by a sort of conservation of information production, only a fraction of the individual universes of the multiverse get the answer. The one loophole that I see is that this term "quantum computer" covers a lot of territory. They might sneak in some infinities in addition to adding the strictly quantum capabilities. It is known that ordinary computers which can hold arbitrarily-large numbers (and do arithmetic on them in one time step) can factor in polynomial time. If the definition of your quantum computer is so broad that you can squeeze in some outrageous capability like this, then the claim of polynomial-time factoring is more plausible. Hal

1 0

DigiCash Announcement
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - - -- For Immediate Release -- In an agreement between The Phantom Exchange and UniBank, we are proud to announce the opening of a digital currency server and exchange service at unicorn(a)access.digex.net. UniBank will begin circulating DigiFrancs at 1:38pm EST Tuesday May 10, 1994. (The moment of peak coverage in the annular eclipse of the sun) DigiFrancs are backed by 10 cases of Diet Coke, located at the UniBank "vault" reserves in Washington, DC. DigiFrancs are redeemable for their equivalent value in 16 oz Diet Coke cans (unchilled) on demand FAS Washington, DC. This arrangement implies no agreement between any of the parties and Coca-Cola company. The Phantom Exchange and UniBank have launched a cooperative effort to exchange information and establish realistic floating rates of exchange between our two currencies. As a result PhantomMarks and DigiFrancs will be freely interchangeable at the spot rate. Exchange rates will also be offered for Tacky Tokens from mpd(a)netcom.com's digital bank. Tacky Tokens are exchangeable at UniBank at the current rate subject to some restrictions. No exchange fees will be assigned for the month of May. Current rates of exchange are available via finger at unicorn(a)access.digex.net. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLc8uahibHbaiMfO5AQG7HQP+NChh9+fcegBBdUfiwAt/flUKZBvSEkn/ eNBnuNmRJmm1GLQVn51IWCF8rip17cEvLSSKhV4jBldHOgwFGd5a7jBsHN5bXncC zkDWe6O0q1ftQpGV87smm0NpLUw0Sl7HnXx9SBndcAeUxdEjqag0ROunoCeakcc6 R6HGM2HvlSQ= =Z0Io - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Matt Thomlinson, Executive Director, Phantom Exchange 23:30 PST 5/9/94 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBLc8Yi2SGfFo1zsA5AQGtpwQAuahasIOjAqQ9gcJ3vuXNlr6mH2GU70jd MGC1GpmmhJW+L9LtkabCLYyLOXxA7GjQ0XJZm9nWcPZNOFBTpSNgdGG8kUcw5enU tU19EH2b5Q38KI4ICwz38t4/cbsop23TMJGATG977IKwpzOnvzh5nW88/Q4EoUC2 M8MFz01aqH4= =EJmD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- unicorn(a)access.digex.net: Director/Operator, UniBank phantom(a)u.washington.edu: Executive Director, Phantom Exchange

1 0

Re: Patents on RSA will expire soon....
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The algorithm that factored RSA129 takes about exp(sqrt((log n)(log log n))) steps. Indeed 10^17 instructions is just about how much work was required to factor RSA129--. That formula gives about 10^29 for a 1024 bit number. If computers double in speed every 18 months then they will be only 32 times as fast when the patents expire.

1 0