December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PGP 2.5 / PGP 2.6
by Tommy the Tourist 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I feel that we should stick with PGP 2.5. It makes me wonder when MIT comes out with version 2.5 and then TWO weeks later decides to scrap it and go with a new version. WTFO? Something smells wrong here! I say stick with 2.5 and don't upgrade to 2.6! ------------ To respond to the sender of this message, send mail to remailer(a)soda.berkeley.edu, starting your message with the following 8 lines: :: Response-Key: ideaclipper ====Encrypted-Sender-Begin==== MI@```&]S^P;+]AB?X9TW6\8WN:^P&2$:G<'CM.^XL(UI)(0XA"*@FT;^`?8\ M05_9?3X9LT68(?"HY91G\H"\(O.7"27L;H0>302V#6U:^E3CT3U%5EL766HC :3@6;`,2S/8'$0\9OR@)X"G8KG]1SV=<K#C(` ====Encrypted-Sender-End====

3 2

Re: quantum Computing
by peb＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seth Lloyd has an interesting paper, "A Potentially Realizable Quantum Computer", available at ftp.santafe.edu (I don't know the exact path). It is based on a cellular automata material that receives pulsed/phased array strobing light. It uses reversible logic so it dissipates little energy. As I understand the proposal assumes future materials and manufacturing abilities, although Lloyd says that quantum dots may be the right direction. As gtoal mentions, the P vs. NP question is speculative. My intuition is that the many worlds hypothesis will not be a holy grail of computation (because similar theories about faster than light communcation ended up not being useable due to very low level conservation rules). Then again, we may be surprised. Paul E. Baclace peb(a)netcom.com

1 0

So PGP2.5 is becoming clearing...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Have you seen this? If you would rather that I not send such things to this list, I can do that. let me know, -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6 6

ACAPULCO H.E.A.T.
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, This week's episode, "Code Name: Stalemate," was a two-parter. The Team goes to Venezuela to protect Andre Sokal, an ex-KGB agent, who is playing in a big chess tournament. Andre in now part of the Russian reform movement and Communist hard-liners want to assassinate him. H.E.A.T.'s archenemy, Strake, is hired to do the job. Strake is a violent but sensitive megalomaniac who eschews a simple bullet to the head because a good assassination is "a theatrical performance that must show the genius of the assassin" or something like that. Strake first shoots one of the real chess players in the back, which shows curiously little genius. He then replaces him with a surgically altered double. It goes downhill from there. The crypto and hi-tech angles are many. Ashley (Catherine Oxenberg, who I have been told was *not* Ringo's wife) replaces one of the other chess players. (No, she doesn't shoot her in the back, they were old friends. Ashley just happens to play at the grandmaster level and anyway, Chrissie will be feeding her computer generated moves via a radio receiver in Ashley's eyeglass frames. Strake's ringer is also strategically impaired and so Strake is helping him with a laptop with a screen that only the double can see because he is wearing special glasses. (Why not just use an LCD screen? Nobody can read those things either.) Unfortunately, Strake has brought in an electronics communication expert from Russia (Ivan something-or-other). Ivan spoofs the H.E.A.T. computers and satellite communications uplinks. When the Team discovers their communications have been compromised, Mike tells Ashley not to use their normal communications until the system is secure. When she asks how should communicate, Mike tells her to "use the phone." (Now *that's* secure!) Ivan is available to Strake, because his research funding dried up when the USSR went belly up. Too bad, because "he was on the verge of developing a microchip which would have been able to decrypt any secure computer." Yeah, right. To be continued next week. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Graph isomorphism based PK cryptosystems?
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:42 5/25/94 -0400, smb(a)research.att.com wrote: > This is one of the main > reasons behind such publications as the IBM Technical Journal--the > publication of results not worth patenting themselves, but definitely > worth preventing others from patenting. > >Actually, no. IBM has a separate publication for just that purpose. >The Technicnal Journal (and others like it) are intended as PR vehicles >and as gold stars for researchers -- that's an important part of our >salary, as it were. I think that you are refering to IBM's "Technical Disclosures" publication. Its entries are in the form of patents, presumably in less finished form. They carry thru the process of writing up the patent, at least in rough form, and then decide whether to go to the greater expense of patenting it. If they decide not to patent it they publish it in Technical Disclosures.

1 0

Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >What if (the cypherpunk community) comes out with a secure program that > >doesn't rely on RSAREF? Can it be done? > > Bizdos and gang will _still_ hold the patent on RSA-style public key > encryption. What you're suggesting is, in essence, exactly what Phil > Zimmerman did with PGP 1.0. There are three different problems here: - Doing secure programs without the RSAREF implementation of RSA; this has US patent license difficulties unless you buy their stuff. - Doing secure programs without the RSA algorithm - other public-key methods are available, such as Diffie-Hellman, though RSA has a lot of technical advantages for many applications. PKP/RSADSI own patents that expire in 1997 that they claim cover the whole field of public-key crypto, and nobody's challenged the breadth of those claims in court. - Doing secure programs without public-key algorithms at all - you *can* use secret-key algorithms to do security, as long as you're willing to do key distribution by some usable but inconvenient method, and security systems like Kerberos can do this. But Public-Key variants solve a lot of the technical difficulties and make implementations much easier.

1 0

Re: SUE - the legal morass (fwd)
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Was the dinosaur encrypted? Yes, but the key diddn't have enough bits to protect it for more than 50 million years under attack by the Feds :-)

1 0

(fwd) FBI Digital Telephony Wiretapping a Done Deal??
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From alt.politics.crypto, several forwards deleted: >US NEWS & WORLD REPORT, May 30, l994 >THE FREEH LOBBY. Thanks to intense personal lobbying by FBI >Director Louis Freeh, there are now sufficient votes on Capitol Hill to >assure passage of legislation that would make it far easier for law >enforcement officials to wiretap the nation's telephone system. The >snoop-friendly measure, which may be introduced this week, would >require manufacturers of telephone, computer and cable >communications equipment to design and build their machines so >that they could be readily accessed by wiretap and other types of >eaves-dropping devices used my US law enforcement agencies. The >legislation would cover communications equipment now in use as well >as items not yet on the drawing board.

2 1

Re: Magazines commonly predate issues, e.g. June Byte at hand
by jpp＠jpplap.markv.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oops. Boy, that was sure a snide, surly thing for me to say. Let me publicly apologise to you Harry, and to the readers of Cypherpunks. I though US News & World Report was a news paper, but that doesn't really excuse my tone. Sorry again. j'

1 0

Re: (fwd) FBI Digital Telephony Wiretapping a Done Deal??
by sidney＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jpp(a)jpplap.markv.com (Jay Prime Positive) said: >> >US NEWS & WORLD REPORT, May 30, l994 >A little early with this report aren't you? Weekly magazines are displayed on newstands for more than one day and are labeled with the end of their expected display period so that potential customers will not think that they are out of date. Similarly, people who have subscriptions should receive the magazine before the date on the cover. I guess news is like milk: You get it before the expiration date that's printed on the label. -- sidney markowitz <sidney(a)apple.com>

1 0