December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Export Restricitons of Crypto
by dwomack＠runner.utsa.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Message 4/14 From Senator Bedfellow Apr 10, 94 02:39:14 pm -0400 >Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com> >Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 14:39:14 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Export Restrictions of Crypto >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Does anyone have the cite for the restrictions on the export of crypto, >where crypto is classified as munitions for export purposes? >I know ITAR says absolutely nothing about crypto, so its a US goverment >thingee. >Thanks >Ben. Take a look in International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR 120-130), Department of State, Office of Munitions Control, November, 1989. See Part 121 - The United States Munitions List, Category XIII - Auxiliary Military Equipment, paragraph (b), quoted as follows: (b) Speech scramblers, privacy devices, cryptographic devices and software (encoding and decoding), and components specifically designed or modified therefore, ancillary equipment, and protective apparatus specifically designed or modi- fied for such devices, components, and equip- ment. Regards, Dave

1 0

Re: REMAIL: pseudo-account remailer @andrew gains anonymous feature
by ub075＠freenet.victoria.bc.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >I added an anonymous feature to my remailer. > >If you have an address of the form mg5n+eaxxx(a)andrew.cmu.edu, >anonymous mail can be sent to that address by changing it to the format: >mg5n+anxxx(a)andrew.cmu.edu >An encrypted reply address is created for the sender of the anonymous message. What happens if I already have an encrypted reply address? What happens if I already have SIX encrypted reply addresses? Which one is used? Or is *another* one created? -- Ryan Perkins - 1:340/13 | I feel that suicide jumpers see a glimpse of ub075(a)freenet.victoria.bc.ca | sanity as they throw themselves from the ledge. Ask for PGP 2.3 public key | That's why they scream all the way down. 8C5357 : 9F FF BA 93 54 D5 18 78 4B 1E DA GC E3 4E

3 4

Re: Pseudonyms and Reputations
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From Hal: <other discussion on a game deleted> This does suggest an alternative form of "is-a-person" credentialling, though. Rather than trying to verify identity at a distance, . . . . . ................................................... I'm sure I don't understand, said Alice in Wonderland: cryptology is to create anonymity sufficient to prevent the identification of a person; however, it is desireable to have a method/means of verifying identity such that in games or digicash or whatnot, someone cannot take advantage of that ability to obfuscate precise references to themselves. How could these two opposing needs be simultaneously satisfied? It sounds like a self-defeating proposition. Blanc

1 0

Re: Export Restrictions of Crypto
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You can get a copy of the ITAR regulations from cpsr.org /cpsr/privacy/crypto/export_controls dave > Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 14:39:14 -0400 (EDT) > From: Senator Bedfellow <samman(a)CS.YALE.EDU> > Subject: Export Restrictions of Crypto > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Message-Id: <Pine.3.07.9404101413.P29469-9100000(a)jaguar.zoo.cs.yale. > edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > Does anyone have the cite for the restrictions on the export of crypto, > where crypto is classified as munitions for export purposes? > > I know ITAR says absolutely nothing about crypto, so its a US goverment > thingee. > > Thanks > > Ben. > > > ____ > Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral. > -James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine" > > > >

1 0

RE: MacPGP and AOL
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> AOL will not allow me to upload MacPGP on the basis that there is > a court case pending against the author, and therefore it should not be > allowed. My question is since the court case is pending why can't they > allow it on until a verdict has been reached? Is this common for > commercial online services or ftp sites to ban it? Jim Bodzos of RSA has a simple plan that goes roughly like this: if you make money off of RSA, he makes money. CompuServ pulled PGP a long time ago, way before PRZ's lawsuit, because they were the only ones making money off PGP in the country -- all those $$ for download fees. EFF had it in their forum, as did several others, all were pulled. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: MacPGP and AOL
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuben Halper sez: > AOL will not allow me to upload MacPGP on the basis that there is a > court case pending against the author, and therefore it should not be > allowed. My question is since the court case is pending why can't they > allow it on until a verdict has been reached? Is this common for > commercial online services or ftp sites to ban it? Sadly, yes. We've been through similiar situations with other online services. But maybe this opens up some stego possibilities. What if some public-spirited cypherpunks were to write some non-crypto-related software, say a simple PD game, hide PGP in it, and put it up on all the online services. The program could have a hidden bit of code, that when given the proper password, would desteg and decrypt PGP. Something with lots of graphic images, large mazes, or other large files would work well. It'd probably take a while before the net.cops figured out what was going on, and by the time anyone tried to squish it, the program would (hopefully) have been handed down enough times that it'd be impossible to trace it back to the original author. Plus you'd have thousands of people uploading it all over without even realizing what they had. Any takers? :)

1 0

Zero Knowledge, Hamiltonian Cycles, and Passwords
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Page 85 in Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" begins a good introduction to zero knowledge proofs and such.

1 0

No Subject
by Peter Murphy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found Timothy May's post on Hamiltonian cycles in graphs very in- teresting. However, my main reason is due to the relevance between this subject and the P - NP problem. Although I am familiar with the practical aspect of this terminology (through my numerical mathematics subjects), I am a bit hazy on the "pure", theoretical side. Does anyone have any references on this matter. I am especially interested in the "P=NP?" problem. Thanks. Peter Murphy. <pkm(a)maths.uq.oz.au>

1 0

Re: Pseudonyms and Reputations
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Blanc Weber <blancw(a)microsoft.com> > I'm sure I don't understand, said Alice in Wonderland: cryptology is > to create anonymity sufficient to prevent the identification of a > person; however, it is desireable to have a method/means of verifying > identity such that in games or digicash or whatnot, someone cannot take > advantage of that ability to obfuscate precise references to themselves. > > How could these two opposing needs be simultaneously satisfied? It > sounds like a self-defeating proposition. > > Blanc You don't try to satisfy these simultaneously. Rather, one or the other goal is achieved by the participants voluntarily participating in a protocol. In some contexts, absolute anonymity is desired and achieved. In others, the participants agree to some restrictions on their anonymity in order to allow various kinds of agreements. I may not be willing to loan you money if you are totally anonymous; on the other hand, I might be able to loan it to you if your anonymity would be broken only if you didn't pay it back, for example. If you didn't want to take the chance on breaking your anony- mity, you wouldn't have to. You would just choose not to play my game. The point of a lot of this work with pseudonyms and credentials and such is to create a lot of different possible options along the scale between perfect anonymity and perfect identification. That way people will be able to trade off their various requirements and come as close as possible to their ideal position. Hal

1 0

identity, privacy, & anonymity in cyberspace
by tmp＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hal finney recently wrote an interesting message taking the position that cypherpunk aims are not so much to pursue total anonymity but to promote systems with a variety of degrees in identity and pseudonymity so that the appropriate level can be achieved in various settings. (for example, borrowing money seems to require that one sacrifice some degree of anonymity and privacy). below is a message i have taken to represent the cypherpunk position from hal finney. this came from chaos.bsu.edu, a fun gopher server with a lot of cypherpunk position papers (i assume they are representative). in it, hal argues against identifying anonymous messages, saying that it would mark them with a `scarlet a' and relegate them to the `ghetto'. his recent comments seem more accommodating and less extremist. >The level of anarchy will >inevitably increase as larger numbers of people acquire net access. it seems to me that the cypherpunks already have a name for the kind of anarchy that can happen when somebody uses pseudonyms to harass and cause trouble. that word is `detweiler'. do you really know what `anarchy' is, cypherpunks? as the old parable goes, be careful what you wish for, you might get it. hal argues below that `you already know nothing about the people you interact with on the net' and that `anonymous remailers introduce no more problems than are already present on the net'. these seem to me to be flawed arguments. here's why. first of all, everyone has the experience of going to a party and knowing nobody there. but the fun of the party is learning about the people who are there! do we really want an online environment where identity is as transitory as a nym on IRC? it seems that what everyone is craving behind the banging on the keyboard is what has been called active, human `interconnection' to contrast it to `interaction' with a computer alone (still generally considered an inanimate object). if we want communities, the places we like to live in, it seems that identity is intrinsic to them. next, `anonymous remailers do not introduce any problems beyond those that already exist'-- aren't we trying to *solve* the problems associated with building an online community, our civilizations in cyberspace? it seems to me that if cypherpunks want the rest of the world to adhere to their ideas, they have to show how they are *superior* to those already present, and how they *solve* nagging problems. yes, remailers solve the problem of trying to post messages without identity, but are we sure this is a `problem' we want to `solve'? for example, hal notes that some system operators completely ignore complaints on the net. but do we really want a community of system operators that simply throw any feedback to /dev/null? what about when someone is mailbombing Usenet from a site? isn't what we *really* want a more basic definition of what is allowed and what is not? besides, under the cypherpunk vision, operators would never censor a user for postings-- but is it the case that all cypherpunks can say they have never tried to censor anyone by notes to sysadmins, i.e. of detweiler? regarding the pseudonymity issue, it seems to me a more basic, fundamental design goal might be this: we wish to make sure that people do not use sensitive private information against us. it is not a problem for our friends to know this information-- in fact it is critical that they do (friendship is based on identity!). the cypherpunk vision seems to split the world into two groups: those people i trust (my friends) and everyone else (whom i completely distrust with intense paranoia). this is a very xenophobic and chauvinistic philosophy at heart. hal argues below that there is `no line dividing the clean from the unclean' (real name vs. pseudonymous vs. anonymous etc.). to the contrary it seems to me to be the case that either `i know who you are' or i don't. what does it mean for me to `know who you are'? i admit there is no basic definition, but it does seem to me that should not prevent us from trying to find one. for example, it seems to me you cypherpunks have a very important agenda, but you seem to be extremists. the important goal is `defining what privacy really means' and cypherpunks seem to take the position, `it means that nobody knows anything about me'. our society simply cannot function under this constraint. if i wish to `interconnect', identity is necessary to minimize risk to the people i `interconnect' with. so what the cypherpunks might consider is a less extremist elucidation of what `privacy' means. for example, cypherpunks, what information should a bank be allowed to have on you when you go in to request a loan? what should companies be allowed to do with credit histories, and what rights does the individual have to influence them? if you continue to insist that `nobody should know who i am' i fear you will be bypassed by more sophisticated groups that have a less polarized view of issues of identity and privacy. and it will ultimately be the least controversial proposals that will shape the future we live in. the recent hal finney message as well as recent considerations of `morality' on the list (albeit quizzical) suggest to me you might be open to a more conciliatory, less dogmatic position on these immensely important issues. i am going to sign off for awhile in an attempt to advance some new meaningful projects (such as set up a gopher server), but i thank you for your stimulating conversations and email, and i apologize to anyone i have ever offended (send me mail if you feel i have personally left something unresolved). hal finney's message follows. pseudonymously yours, --tmp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I sent mail to Cypherpunks on this a couple of days ago, but it never appeared. There is a problem with the notion that all "anonymous" remailers and news-posting services should label their messages as anonymous so that users can decide whether to read them or not. This approach abandons one of the strongest arguments in favor of anonymous remailers, which is that the net is inherently an anonymous environment. Especially as more public access Unix systems, BBS systems, and so on become part of the net, we are going to see less and less of the strict controls on identity which were possible when the net was restricted to a few government labs and large universities. The level of anarchy will inevitably increase as larger numbers of people acquire net access. Unless massive and universal authentication efforts are undertaken, it is going to be more and more the case that you will know little about the true identity of a poster. Because of this, those who object to having to read the words of an "anonymous" poster are taking an untenable position. They are already reading words of people about whom they know no more than they would about an anonymous poster. And the argument that "non-anonymous" posters are subject to a form of discipline not available to anonymous posters - messages to the system operator - is clearly falsified by the existance of many sysops who care nothing about complaints. As more and more people run their own machines with net access, these cases will only increase. In short, we anonymous remailer operators have every right to be part of the net. We introduce no more problems than are already happening and will continue to occur as the net grows and becomes more universal. The resistance we've seen is from old-time sysops who are unable to adjust to a changing network environment. Rather than placating obsolete beliefs about network identity by agreeing to mark our messages with the scarlett letter A for anonymity, by accepting that we deserve to be in a ghetto set aside for inferior posts, I feel that we should challenge the net with messages that blur the distinction between anonymous and authenticated posts. The sooner people realize that there is no line that divides the clean from the unclean, the sooner anonymity will be widely accepted on the net. Hal Finney 74076.1041(a)compuserve.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.1 iQCVAgUBK7S2oqgTA69YIUw3AQEfagP8DlzINcvUDn7jc351S+hHTBz5NtB3RbRC l+0rgltFcn6QxWaE0GsWFcOa6RcPOe1DOTlwiJejiT6MbnfuDopbUoS98bCiIzLE 0Q2ZVhtsfLs5zFdUj08bRzzU7zyuzSmNoSsCx01O6OiGZB/zs0PEnx/0XqRtXFD2 RM1YTCPIF7Y= =0zw5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0