December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: IPSP and Netscape
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <94Dec13.08.6313(a)qualcomm.com>, you write: |> Privacy and authentication are also provided by IPSP. However, IPSP |> provides all sorts of advantages -- immunity from traffic analysis, no |> requirement to change the way an application operates to start using |> it, protection of the entire IP stack (not just TCP sockets), very |> minimal changes required to applications that want to use the |> information provided by the IPSP layer for authentication (and no need |> to change your read or write calls or anything), etc, etc, etc. Uh, I don't see that IPSP provides any automatic immunity to traffic analysis. It does make certain kinds of fine-grained traffic analysis a little more difficult. E.g., you can't tell what upper level protocols are in use, and if you share a single SAID between each host pair you can't tell which or how many users are sharing the path. But you can still tell that the hosts are communicating. If you use IPSP in the IS-IS tunnel mode, you could help protect the identities of the end systems on each end, but again you can't hide the fact that the ISes are talking. Something like IPSP *could* serve as the basis of an anonymous forwarding IP network analogous to the existing anonymous remailers, but this would take a lot more work. And you could generate bogus filler traffic between a pair of IPSP hosts to help cover the real traffic between them. Phil

1 0

Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files (Uni Doesn't Get It)
by blancw＠pylon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> From: Dave Mandl: Could you send me some powerful handguns and silencers? Oh, and while you're at it, give me all of your addresses and precise travel schedules for the next two weeks. As an "amoralist," I'm sure you won't put short term morality before my long-term goal. Thanks. >From Uni: I fear what you request would probably violate many laws. Providing you with weaponry has little to do with providing you the information you might need to obtain and modify such weapons as you will need. ......................................................... Uni, if the laws did not reflect your own moral stand regarding the uses of technology, would you nevertheless not have any personal thoughts at all on the matter? Laws come from the mind of mankind, you know, not vice versa. (Unless, of course, one is mindless and absolutely needs someone else's decisions to guide their moral reasoning.) .. Blanc

1 0

Premier Rae of Ontario
by lmccarth＠freya.cs.umass.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A week or so ago I incorrectly referred to Bob Rae as the Prime Minister of Canada, when he is in fasct the Premier of the Province of v Ontario. As a former resident of OttOttawa, I'm well aware of the division of Canada into provinces. I misunderstood not the nature of the office itself, but rather the identity of the individual involved. I appreciate being corrected, but now I *have* been corrected, I really don't need any more mail about the issue. Thanks BTW this message is full of typos because I'm using a typically lousy terminal emulator program on dialup from a PC to a Unix system, which does not offer any support (AFAIK) for the crucially-important backspace key/ character. Suggestions on any sort of packasge offering an improvement would be welcomed. The ones I have now offer me heaps of fancy features I never use, and hold my hand through many parts where I don't need it. Incompatible standards sauck. This is very annoying so I'm getting out now. (Not signing because this connection is terrible) - -L. Futplex McCarthy - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLwKLzyoZzwIn1bdtAQEDwQGAje19PbaItVp7+fGPu7k/81IWixDxKsEE GKfVfoSKLxpLfGXv6cW2Vd9vSGIqXqxq =c1pZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

DigiCash unlicensed for US use
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone: > > > I don't think so. It appears that the initial implementation of > >DigiCash works exactly that way [based on what I've read on their W3 > >server]. Of course, I could tell you more exactly had they replied to > >any of my four separate attempts to try it out .. > > Interesting. I too have made four requests and still not received any > software. Can you say "vapor?" > > dave It says very clearly at the DigiCash web site that the technology is NOT LICENSED FOR USE IN THE USA. I've been using the client quite happily from India; though I know for sure that US sites (eg. HotWired) have e-cash servers, there are obviously difficulties in using it there. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "In between the breaths is rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in the space where we live" rishab(a)arbornet.org - Lawrence Durrell Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 Voicemail +91 11 3760335 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

3 2

Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
by Matt Hewn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com From: Matt Hewn <matthewn(a)uiuc.edu> > Black Unicorn writes: > > > Person A requests information. > > Person B says no, because the use of the information is unsound in > > person B's view. > > Censorship? You tell me. > > Not unless person B is trying to force other people not to give out the > information. Failure to release the information himself is not censorship; > it doesn't matter what his reasons for doing so are. Person A requests information from Group C. Person B is a member of Group C. Person B does not ignore Person A. Person B does not speak with Person A. Person B responds to Person A by addressing Group C. Why? If the last sentence I quoted is true, then why tell _us_ why he won't release the information. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBFAgUBLwL4cofkdnX+hcrBAQG+bAGAiXtYzCTQ2+3OOyi+CZg8aAQOS3Yw0w4R OqzDaiy03wyj+CviwvYQl/0GpoOG0d4B =TRQR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Matt Hewn <matthewn(a)uiuc.edu> -- Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth. Truth is absolute.

1 0

Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gentlemen don't read their girlfriends' mail, either..... On the other hand, if the original poster was telling the truth, he _did_ at least say he was trying to read his girlfriend's files, rather than saying "I used Norton Encrypt on some files for a project last year, and I've forgotten the password - is there some way to recover it?" which would have been sleazy and not started a flamewar. Or, if he wasn't telling the truth, maybe he's really trying to break his business competitor's files, or some government's, or he's really L..D.. in yet another disguise. Bill

1 0

Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
by TheElusiveMatthew 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sorry to mail this twice, but I realized I munged the attributions, and wanted to get it right. Ken Arromdee wrote: > Black Unicorn wrote: > > > Person A requests information. > > Person B says no, because the use of the information is unsound in > > person B's view. > > Censorship? You tell me. > > Not unless person B is trying to force other people not to give out the > information. Failure to release the information himself is not censorship; > it doesn't matter what his reasons for doing so are. Person A requests information from Group C. Person B is a member of Group C. Person B does not ignore Person A. Person B does not speak with Person A. Person B responds to Person A by addressing Group C. Why? If the last sentence I quoted is true, then why tell _us_ why he won't release the information? TheElusiveMatthew -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBFAgUBLwMDqIfkdnX+hcrBAQG5gwGAmsK9B5hFkxrre8bvaMEl428irlLSHFZf zXocaI55xpr4ZvImCPpI/BNpKhUI0o6f =sBQJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

rfcs 1750 & 1751
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI, RFCs 1750 & 1751 have been issued. 1750 discusses generating strong random numbers. 1751 standardizes a means of converting a 128 bit number to a set of English words. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

RE: rfcs 1750 & 1751
by p.v.mcmahon.rea0803＠oasis.icl.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> FYI, RFCs 1750 & 1751 have been issued. 1750 discusses generating > strong random numbers. 1751 standardizes a means of converting a 128 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > bit number to a set of English words. Both are informational, and don't represent standards of any kind - although RFC1750 has been subject to extensive review and scrutiny within the IETF security area. - pvm

1 0

Pentium FDIV
by bshantz＠spry.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Haven't seen too much discussion of this and how it would affect crypto in general. Would the FDIV problem cause any problems when looking at large prime numbers? Actually, let me rephrase that, would it affect determining if a large number is prime? Floating point errors can be so much fun. Also, does anyone have the "test" that was floating around the net and in various newspapers a few weeks to see if your machine has the FDIV problem. I lost the little "post-it note" I had it written on. Since then, I haven't been able to reproduce it. (Either the bug went away, or I entered the wrong numbers. **GRIN**) --Brad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>INTERNETWORKING THE DESKTOP<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Brad Shantz bshantz(a)spry.com Senior Software Engineer SPRY Inc. Direct #: (206)-442-8251 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP Public Key at: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html Or email: pgp-public-keys(a)pgp.ai.mit.edu Subj: GET bshantz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

5 4