December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: MIME (again)
by bshantz＠spry.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I'm using a version of ELM which claims to be MIME-compliant and usually is, >but all I saw in Peter Cassidy's message was a collection of random-looking >extended-ASCII characters. Usually when something arrives in a locally- >unsupported MIME format (like Amanda's GIF a while back), I just get an >"unrecognized format" error message. I didn't see any error messages at all >this time, just a meaningless jumble of characters (different, incidentally, >from the PGP-cipherptext-like characters Tim quoted). Hey, I've figured it out!!! It's the AOL Good Times virus!!! (**WINK**) We've all been had!!! Oh, sorry, I panicked. :-) -- Brad

1 0

Re: rad
by DBERLIN＠peddie.k12.nj.us 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wish the NSA executives would come out of the closet... That's nice

1 0

Re: pgp lib
by shawn leas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Don't get me wrong. I understand how difficult it is to do this and I > am not ragging on the PGP developers for being slow or lazy or > anything like that (I know they are underpaid). BUT, somebody must > write a PGP library if we are to see major advancement in the > penetration of crypto software into the mainstream. The question is, > who is writing it? It almost seems as if PGP development is now > happening in secret, and nobody really knows what the statusis on pgp > 3.0 and the rumored library. There are people on this list who know, > but nobody is telling. If the PGP people really are making progress > on a PGP library, we need to know. We can probably help. If not, we > also need to know so we can write one. Here here! I agree. There are those who know, and to merely shut out all the expertise that might be on this mailing list is nonesense. I think the pgp library approach is very interesting. It could make pgp almost as common as winsock. We know that there is vast interest in finding a good front-end for pgp. The thing is, no one wants to dig around in code that utilizes poor modularity and try to flesh out an API. Once 3.0 comes out, one could build an app under windows using a PGP v2.x DLL, and a newly made PGP v3 DLL that would handle all kinds of keyfiles, a one step option to convert keyfiles, etc... I think the idea of writing a PGP DLL while the format will change in v3 of PGP is still feasable. Just use it again for backwards compatability. a PGWINP.EXE, a PGPV2.DLL, and a PGPV3.DLL. Or whatever. I've only had experience in UN*X, and maybe I'm oversimplifying everything. But, then again, what is ever simple when you have the trusty old 'windoze' GPF errors. I much preferr the unix 'segmentation fault (core dumped)'. Anyway, I will happily stand corrected on anything I say. Remember, just an idea! #include <stddisclaimer.h> #include <stdbroken_bsd_routine_defines_and_other_solaris_shortcomings.h> #include <stdbugs.h> #include <Niki_taylor.h> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBLu99gCdA5IMp25vRAQFM7gf9Fmzx1ueMjuh9iORMQG03+33Z9DRUsL7W s8AFAQCHEwSSLgCNUZBQoRXhgb56c1z+Wvjhk6FvZTF6GyMqdF/8pkJTeQl2tHgo ayX61LDPqu7Xlx5tDyBblfJZ0kJJpF/SIpBe6dUIquSq5NxHodNcH8UmWNXzJ7LO 9fYl5/UJozyqLZHFPISNI/yIZtMJmFn1ogzIFagxrF4YxUVGe6+UAw+ZYfxiYYfb 8yVDdfmCkcjk3ksEcFtgmXs1ZJwAZ8B1IVeAWuJZSxSsO9Au6sO3q3rtFLEY3Vgu Ml45vI9gTJDlR0lwB0tAfx/R/VDfr2ji5Bra27ru69NUvt2zB54pMg== =Jx1p -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Some info of interest (possibly)
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Any cypherpunks who would like to do public demonstrations or talks is invited to attend the sixth annual RobotFest held here in Austin, TX. It will be held in the city coliseum on April 1 & 2. If interested then please contact me through e-mail or call voice to 512-458-5818. The Central Texas Linux Users Group Meeting will be held Dec. 17, 1994 (this Saturday) at the downtown library here in Austin. We will be located in the 4th floor conference room. We will have several versions of PGP available for dos, amiga, and Linux boxes. If any c-punks would like to address the group please come on by. As of yesterday I got the ISDN link from my internet provider to ssz working and it should be accessible both dial-up and from internet some time next week. We have the full C address 204.96.173 for our use and have about 16 machines assigned at this time. We plan on dedicating at least one machine (and IP) to crypto related issues and software. Anyone who has experience doing crypto in Linux is eagerly sought for reference. Any c-punks who are planning on attending HoHoCon here in Austin are invited to drop by and party while they are in town..... Merry Christmas.

2 1

re: mime
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Probably because that is the direction mail is going. If you can't > do it too bad, but don't expect everyone else to wait around for you > to catch up. Time to move your mail into the early 90s and get a > MIME-aware mail agent... Ah, a refreshing sentiment ;) There is an EXCELLENT article in this month's Scientific American which touches upon this issue. "Ensuring the Longevity of Digital Documents". It mentions how a Shakespeare sonnet written four centuries ago is still readable. Data stored/formatted in completly cutting edge ways from a decade or two ago is in danger of becoming unreadable. (8" floppy disks, paper tape, CDC 876 mag tapes anybody?)

1 0

Re: pgp library
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim McCoy responds: > In addition to this, the code really sucks as far as modularity > goes. The next big version of PGP, which is supposed to include > library hooks, etc., will probably not be out for five or six > months. I do know of some people who are interested in working on > a PGP compatible library of crypto code, but I am not quite sure > what the status of that project is at this time... This is really a shame, because at the current time one of the most lacking aspects of most crypto software is the key management interface. Encrypting and decrypting pgp format messages is easily accomplished in an acceptable manner using the actual pgp binary. However, writing a decent key-management interface is practically impossible when your only interaction with the PGP key-management code is via the system() function call. Of course, shelling out to the PGP binary isn't the only solution. It's not impossible to create a simple library for encrypting and decrypting pgp format messages (there's PGPTools, and you can roll your own). But you are doubly screwed because the PGP development team has made it clear that the keyring file format will change in 3.0. Who wants to spend time writing a key management API (which, I admit, is NOT trivial...) which is guaranteed not to work in the next version of PGP? Why spend the effort to write a decent PGP front-end, which would necessarily include a key-management interface, when 1) Any effort expended in writing your own library or sprucing up PGPTools is supposedly being duplicated by the PGP team as we speak, and 2) your code is going to break anyway... ? PGP front-ends aren't the only application type whose progress is being slowed by this situation. IMHO, any app that uses PK-crypto should support PGPformat keys, even if it's output isn't designed to be fed into PGP. Don't get me wrong. I understand how difficult it is to do this and I am not ragging on the PGP developers for being slow or lazy or anything like that (I know they are underpaid). BUT, somebody must write a PGP library if we are to see major advancement in the penetration of crypto software into the mainstream. The question is, who is writing it? It almost seems as if PGP development is now happening in secret, and nobody really knows what the statusis on pgp 3.0 and the rumored library. There are people on this list who know, but nobody is telling. If the PGP people really are making progress on a PGP library, we need to know. We can probably help. If not, we also need to know so we can write one. Phase (yes you too can have a pseudonym) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLu9kW5Ot8/1bCL+9AQGHaQP/dEaZ+3h/o8AB/gu0VLOjs14F8cgUwkm2 zpqgqFmh6Bna3GzANxSqf7R6Idmwp+y6hzk9YbDiItCE+r0inv9tp0pAE7JlPLg1 bWxM2Nd8r+ZpKhLExepNftJ9iiBewCtWNg9ylxs78VR3QjeKLBWlpcPODeIa2C0S kZlqVBwUBKY= =s1Nh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAy7vWyUAAAEEALwtONPeyYZ6jAYbFWgq8zTqttIclI/1wTjuFC3EkDzsjJM2 kkojkebMTwcJwLUgAL2+2EouAuM+MpyqAs+8/uMW42eP8kCS5XbLzSk5pisZpH/B kflaSeQ6lS6fr66nDHpR33wxQ+0lJWf94rJbaSWZGP2iN1W1jJOt8/1bCL+9AAUR tDlQaGFzZSBKaXR0ZXIgPGFsdC5zZWN1cml0eS5wZ3A+IG9yIDxjeXBoZXJwdW5r c0B0b2FkLmNvbT6JAJUDBRAu71tLk63z/VsIv70BAQkbA/9UUtJpfeTzi+OcNxQn QQEsP+xeusQWaJnS91sEYmjtzDJTqHOZ02Lh2tya0YZVl7ra8WJ6fbTzLR96s+vQ q+qYOwUUq+1OB6L4gdssK5ofRD/4M4dkWJlilY3eHI7Kch8KL/b2L1RG+r0rnEnG 6mH5XaHu7Lebf8wjtexJmKoWXQ== =mpBD -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

(fwd) I don't use PGP. (Was:I NUKED PGP.)
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: news1.digex.net!access1!unicorn From: unicorn(a)access1.digex.net (Black Unicorn) Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp Subject: I don't use PGP. (Was:I NUKED PGP.) Date: 14 Dec 1994 18:11:29 GMT Bretton Wade (bw16(a)cornell.edu) wrote: : In article <3clri0$jqn(a)crl.crl.com>, jdulaney(a)crl.com (John Dulaney) wrote: : > 1) Too difficult to setup for the average user. : The "average" user of PGP is somebody who understands why they need PGP. : I'd say almost everybody with that level of knowledge is capable of : understanding "type randomly for a while", and the three or four standard : options to pass to PGP for day to day use. : > 3) I may forget to decrypt and miss an important note. : pay attention. If you need the security... : > 2) Requires that I exit my E-mail reader to decrypt which takes : > too much time. : > : > Suggestions: : > 1) Make it operable INSIDE PINE for example. : > 2) Put it in EUDORA or other MOSAIC/NETSCAPE browser and make it : > work AUTOMATICALLY, seemlessly, in the background. : > : read the newsgroup for about 30 seconds before you post. A lot of people : have put a lot of work into this sort of stuff. Some good, some not so : good, but that is for you to evaluate. : Bretton I'm a Mac user. MacPGP is a general nightmare. For those of us who have shell accounts, it is such a annoyance as to cause me to dislike using it at all except for the most extreme messages. I fear I am not of the ability, or of the spare time to work on making a seamless application myself or else it surely would have been a project on the top of my list. PGP needs to be a drop and drag application. I want a box sitting on my desktop, a box I can drag any document to and press two buttons after a mouse click and drag and encrypt/decrypt/sign a message which can then be copy/pasted to Zterm. Currently the only thing that nears the transparancy of this sort of thing is the bulky, annoying, poorly packaged and massively oversized, not to mention rarely working, MacPGP Kit. It doesn't seem to work out to any time advantage when I factor in the debugging and outright code crashes into my computation. The modular PGP project has been out there for almost a year. Any progress on this front? Does anyone care? Now that some lists are beginning to delay or reject unsigned messages altogether, I would really like to be able to reply to a simple note in less than the 7 minutes it currently takes me. This is the single most problematic hitch in PGP. It's not easy to use, to install, or to apply. Every move toward transparent crypto simply serves to increase user base and deter a prospective ban. It should be in EVERYONE's interest to try and push for a easier front end, while still allowing a flexible and detailed set of advanced options for the expert user. Curve Encrypt is a classic example of simplicty and ease. PGP front end designers for the Mac should take its example. -uni- (Dark) Spelling errors disclaimed, I've been up for 30 hours. -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!

2 1

Re: rad
by Ian Farquhar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Dec 15, 8:45am, ndibble(a)komets.k12.cfa.org wrote: > I wish the NSA executives would come out of the closet... A couple of months ago there was some discussion of this on sci.crypt, as it is widely known that most the the TLA's do have Internet feeds nowadays. The main reason why noone from the NSA comments is simply because there is a perception that anything they say will be taken as NSA policy, disclaimers notwithstanding. Whether this would really happen is debatable, although my personal feeling is that it probably would. In an informational vacuum, people tend to jump to all sorts of conclusions based on inadequate evidence, and this situation would be no different. Ian.

2 1

Kiwi Cypherpunks!
by Tony.Gurnick＠nzdairy.co.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: SMTP%"phillip(a)mserve.kiwi.gen.nz" >To: Bryce Boland <bryce(a)cybernet.co.nz> >CC: >Subj: Re: New zealand meetings? > >On Wed, 14 Dec 1994, Bryce Boland wrote: > >> Yeah, lets do it then. It might be kind of difficult to hook up a >> workstation at GP's, but we can arrange something. Then we might be able to >> arrange a more permanent/suitable venue. >> > >Sounds good to me also ;-) > >CC: DNA <Tony.Gurnick(a)nzdairy.co.nz>, cwedgwood(a)cybernet.co.nz, > pgut1(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz Well thats 2 replys, Man it`s going to be packed! :) When a meeting happens what do we discuss?/do? - an obvious one would be NZ crypto! - New crypto ideas? - NZ Anon remailers & Repositorys - Patents??? (maybe not) - Cryptanalasis (Hopefully, oh please-oh please) Um, what else T PS: Why do we need a workstation? (probably a dumb question)

1 0

Re: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
by snyderra＠dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 8:44 AM 12/13/94, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Police are public officials. As such, they have no right to >privacy *with respect to their public acts*. When off duty, cops >have the same right as other citizens to privacy in their private >lives. I said my proposal was "anti- *bad* cop" and that it >would benefit good cops. Do I need to say that it would only >benefit good cops in the line of duty? It would be bad for >anyone--cops or civilians--in their private lives. > >Employees represent an intermediate position. If an employer is >foolish enough to require that employees be wired, 'sokay with >me. For most employees in most jobs, it would not be acceptable. >I think they would get jobs with less intrusive employers. Some >employers will wire some employees, whether or not the police are >wired. Wiring the cops is a good idea; arguments about wiring >employees and citizens are nothing more than red herrings used to >avoid addressing the real issue of police accountability. Arguably discussions about police abuses are red herrings used to avoid addressing the real issue of workplace monitoring. :-) I really don't want to know how many sips it takes an officer to finish a cup of coffee, or if the officer has a genital itch problem while sitting in a speed trap. I think this crosses the line. And where do we stop? Do we wire other federal employees? Does the secretary for a research group in the FDA need to be wired? It would be a short jump from this to private sector use, which I do oppose. Not everyone has the ability to pick and choose employment. This has wandered a bit off of Cryptological relevence. I don't plan to reply publically to this thread anymore, although I may do so privately. Bob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLu7d0+S0CjsjWS0VAQGa+AP/YSoE66T9JsCFfKUp3spkqhhALYrEF42F SrfApj4YrNRCNHyfV60IOFQem0KZWee6FgzUQHRWjVpFy1Wz3HDZ/vpokCxwTdFi xqG3VbxXgFHm3eQZUTrKueCN5S+P3FkCccHpiz5zlx84619E6u9qH8Ckfak2DBG6 WFJcz4WkUrY= =BxtG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Bob Snyder N2KGO MIME, PGP, RIPEM mail accepted snyderra(a)post.drexel.edu PGP & RIPEM keys on key servers When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

2 1