December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

CYPHERPUNKS TO THE RESCUE
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On the noon news in San Francisco, there was an item of crypto interest. It was about something I think they called the "Code Grabber." It is a device which receives and records the coded RF signals used to remotely unlock car and garage doors. The hand-held unit is a little larger than a paperback book. It has a half dozen switches on it. After you intercept someone's code, you can play it back anytime to control that person's car lock or garage door. It's kind of like a TV universal remote. Some politicos have already started talking about banning it, but I think just the publicity will guarantee a healthy black market in such devices. The public will be clamoring for a solution. Enter the Cypherpunks. How can this nifty burglary tool be outsmarted? How about a replacement system that uses strong crypto? The Code Grabber represents a great opportunity for an inventive Cypherpunk to make some money AND promote crypto awareness. The questions are: Could standard auto and garage door openers easily be retrofitted? Could a "crypto remote" with its own CPU be made small enough to fit into a hand-held unit? Could such a system be made for a reasonable cost? S a n d y P.S. I bet there are some other interesting uses to which such a device could put. Any ideas? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 6

Re: CYPHERPUNKS TO THE RESCUE
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:51 1994/07/26 -0400, Russell Nelson wrote: >Why not generate a random number, checksum it, and sign it using a >public key? Or is that overkill? ... Seems good. But to thwart replay of the signed message the garage unit must never accept the same signed number twice. How about the car unit signing successive numbers. The garage unit would remember the last number that it accepted and only accept signed numbers larger than that. Garbled transmissions would then cause no problems. They would be fixed by yet new transmissions, just as with current units.

1 0

No mail?
by will＠thinkmedia.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I haven't recieved the usual deluge in the last 24 hours. Wassup? Is the server down or have I been exorcised? ______________________________________________________________________________ Opinion is a flitting thing, Thinking Media Research But Truth, outlasts the Sun-- will(a)thinkmedia.com If then we cannot own them both-- (408) 423 3720 Possess the oldest one-- Emily Dickinson

1 0

Det./tmp/Nym on Netcom
by whitaker＠dpair.csd.sgi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Noon 25 July 1994 Prepended disclaimer: I do not speak for Netcom or SGI. I have spoken to Bryant at Netcom's operations center in San Jose, California, and he has asked me to pass along the following to the Cypherpunks list and anyone else concerned with L. Detweiler and system user accounts: nym(a)netcom.com tmp(a)netcom.com Both of these accounts have been suspended. The "nym" account was suspended as of late last week. Although it is not Netcom's policy to give out account user information which includes names, addresses, and other such personal data, Bryant was at liberty to say that the user accounts "tmp" and "nym" were the same person. I approve of this company policy, by the way. The accounts department at Netcom has been made aware by Bryant that trouble has been generated by the singular person writing checks in payment of both the "nym" and "tmp" accounts, and has been told not to accept any new orders from anyone suspected to be the same person. Particular attention is being paid to orders made from the Denver area. Bryant has asked me to add that Netcom's way of handling such trouble is strictly complaint-driven. If you have a complaint about a particular user, your best bet is to call Netcom. Bryant can be reached directly at Netcom by calling 408-983-1510. [bcc: Bryant at Netcom (not email address; call phone)] Appended disclaimer: I do not speak for Netcom or SGI. -- Russell Earl Whitaker whitaker(a)csd.sgi.com Silicon Graphics Inc. Technical Assistance Center / Centre D'Assistance Technique / Tekunikaru Ashisutansu Sentaa Mountain View CA (415) 390-2250 ================================================================ #include <std_disclaimer.h>

1 0

CEB 7 - Cypherpunks' Electronic Book - its still alive!
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CEB 7 CYPHERPUNKS' ELECTRONIC BOOK - its still alive! Not long ago someone sent me private email volunteering a workstation to handle the CEB. I have stupidly lost the post. After several hours of hunting thru my unindexed Cypherpunk archives - no luck. Will that person please email me again with CEB in the header? Also, I have a very well qualified volunteer to do the editing of CEB. Hopefully, he may know how to program it as well. I am going to maintain a list of people with different skills who would like to work on the CEB. Anybody would would like to help please post either to me or to Cypherpunks with CEB in the header. Also, would the people who have archieved Cypherpunks' lists please respond as well. PUSH EM BACK! PUSH EM BACK! WWWAAAYYY BBBAAACCCK! BBBEEEAAATTTT STATE! Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers

2 1

Re: My anonymous remailer
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[is cypherpunks down again? Haven't seen any traffic in 24 hours...] : From: ghio(a)kaiwan.com (Matthew Ghio) : Newsgroups: alt.anonymous,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.current-events.net-abuse : Subject: My anonymous remailer : For the second time in one week someone has again mailbombed my remailer. : Last weekend it was the infamous Detweiler, and now some lamer from ysu.edu : just mailbombed someone on one of the freenets by sending copies the same : post from comp.binaries.mac over and over... I guess the freshmen have : arrived early this year. : Maybe it is just coincidence but I am starting to get somewhat pissed off. : I've been running anonymous remailers for quite a while now and have never : had to deal with crap like this. As the remailer is a vaulable service for : many people, I don't want to shut it down or start putting burdensome : restrictions on its use... Suggestions appreciated. I've been pondering this for some time. I think it's time to try a new experiment in anonymous remailing. I think that all remailers should close down, then open up with new addresses and a single shared new policy... the new policy being that each individual remailer will do his best to 'out' all posters - complete disclosure, log files available, posts available, summaries show up via finger etc etc. Give *us* the same access to the info that the LEAs have, and let us try to work out who is posting what. This puts the onus on the posters to use the encryption and chaining features, and on us to generate our spoofing traffic and delay mail and whatever else it takes to foil traffic analysis. Also, we automatically bounce submissions in plaintext at the point of entry - the only cleartext should be at the point of exit (and not even that if it's personal mail rather than news postings). And we should not guarantee service. Postings can get lost for whatever reason. If someone wants to kill postings in cleartext at the point of delivery to newsgroups or mailing lists, let them. That should stop the Detweilers and place the responsibility of abusing the remailers on the shoulders of the remailer operators. If an abusive posting is sent to news from remailer X, it's clear remailer X was the one that passed it on and had the cleartext available. And with a new policy of outing everyone automatically, people *know* we'll read the cleartext at the point of delivery. This seems to me more consistent with the cypherpunk ideal of users securing their own privacy, rather than trusting someone. G

3 2

Re: GUT and P=NP
by jamesd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James A. Donald writes: > > The new operator is a unitary transformation on a single bit. Mike McNally writes > Ok, great. So why is it that a description of a process to be > followed by a quantum copmputer in order to produce some desired > result not an algorithm just because it involves this operator? Obviously one could choose to call these algorithms if one wished, but such a name, if adopted, will obfuscate the fact that such things have very different properties, capabilities, and limitations to conventional algorithms. In particular the results of conventional complexity theory obviously are largely irrelevant to quantum complexity theory, which is why I made my original statement that the development of quantum computers with capabilities that are impossible for conventional computers cannot falsify existing complexity theory and existing complexity theory cannot "disprove" the alleged capabilities of quantum computers. Very likely the name will be adopted but with a qualifier "quantum algorithm". In the event that quantum computers become common (which I do not expect to happen for thirty years or so) I expect the phrase "quantum algorithm" will be replaced by something shorter, so that we have one word for algorithms, and another word for quantum algorithms. We have wandered seriously off topic, and I will make future replies in private email. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Voice/Fax Checks
by Jonathan Rochkind 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I had the impression from that paper that with transferred ecash, a person > earlier on the trail could always recognize the cash even at a later point. > This followed, Chaum claimed, from the need to detect double-spending. That makes sense, and I don't see it as being too much of a problem either. Physical cash works that way too; if I write down the serial numbers of all money that goes through my hands, then if it ever comes back into my hands I'm going to recognize it. It would be nice if ecash could not have this "flaw", but it doesn't seem vital, or even particularly important, to me.

2 1

X-signatures
by Tommy the Tourist 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I see these postings with X-Signed headers... What program produces those as opposed to begin and end PGP signed message? Thanks in advance, ------------ 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@```%U_^P;+]AB?X=];G11Z)9;K(Z[;P22_TM9]%$@YRYIS?>+W\7VO<--Y MH#;CYJ#79DJN+`O2)^&8KOPV(V^K7,$(K4J<<8A)<T4L/_5MJZS[+&#EV'(\ (JK\(RJ,,;\H` ====Encrypted-Sender-End====

1 0

CEB 7 - its alive! Cypherpunks' Electronic Book.
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CEB 7 CYPHERPUNKS' ELECTRONIC BOOK - its still alive! Not long ago someone sent me private email volunteering a workstation to handle the CEB. I have stupidly lost the post. After several hours of hunting thru my unindexed Cypherpunk archives - no luck. Will that person please email me again with CEB in the header? Also, I have a very well qualified volunteer to do the editing of CEB. Hopefully, he may know how to program it as well. I am going to maintain a list of people with different skills who would like to work on the CEB. Anybody would would like to help please post either to me or to Cypherpunks with CEB in the header. Also, would the people who have archieved Cypherpunks' lists please respond as well. PUSH EM BACK! PUSH EM BACK! WWWAAAYYY BBBAAACCCK! BBBEEEAAATTTT STATE! Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers

1 0