December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: A glance at the future of missing child identification
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These transponders are already used for many year. They inject them in pigs and cows to identify them. And some car manufacturers put the into the ignition keys as theft protections. Technology is not new. Perhaps it is already used for criminals? Somewhere I heard that in America criminals are sentenced to stay at home because the jails are overfilled. A sender is attached to their leg and the police is informed if he leaves his home. Perhaps a drug dealer may be more usefull if he moves free and has a transponder inside which he doesn't know about, that having him in jail. Here in Germany most department stores have big antennas at the doors which are normally used to detect thefts. Perhaps these antennas also recognize certain people. You can be sure even criminals go to department stores, undergrounds, or bus stations. Some hidden antennas and it's easy to be on their track. But it might be difficult to hide them on x-ray images... Brrr, disgusting idea... :-{ Hadmut

1 0

Re: Where is the key cracking farming software?
by aba＠dcs.exeter.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dan Bailey <dan(a)milliways.org> writes on cpunks: > There must be several versions of the code at this point. The > Cypherpunks release, Damien's release and whoever else wrote some code > to do the chore. If someone could pass me a pointer to the version > that's best-commented and most understandable (one man's C is another > man's crypto) I'd like to port it to Windows NT and write a simple > installation to install it as a service. Yep there's lots of versions of the brutessl software, ones I know of (in no particular order): - Damien Doligez wrote one - Andrew Roos wrote on (this is the one we're using for the challenge) - Eric Young wrote one - I wrote one More related softwares, specifications etc. - Piete Brookes, Andy Brown, and I wrote a protocol specification for a SMTP style key doler - SKSP (Simple Key Search Protocol) - draft RFC like document on brute (www url below). - Piete wrote a unix socket based key server and client for generic unix machines (in perl). - Andy Brown wrote a Windows NT client which talks the same protocol - David Byers did a MasPar port of the brutessl code > Perhaps a general-purpose OO bruteforcing library (addition to > Crypto++?) would be a good idea. Just pass a pointers to the > encrypt() and decrypt() functions to use for this session to the > Cracker object, which in turn takes a number of bits and starts > cracking.:) The socket based key distributer allows you to write clients which interact with the key server. Take a look at Andy's code. > The problem with this is the disparity among out-of-the-box encrypt > and decrypt functions. But I suppose it's nothing that couldn't be > overcome with wrapper functions. Just thinking out loud. :) Not sure how Andy addresses this in the NT code (I don't have NT), but for the unix client you'd just get another brute force program, compile it and update the client. Piete has a WWW URL for the software (the protocol spec is there too) at: http://www.brute.cl.cam.ac.uk/brute/ (Brute is a subsubdomain he set up for the purpose). Also this: ftp://ftp.brute.cl.cam.ac.uk/pub/brute/ should work. And the socket server runs on: sksp.brute.cl.cam.ac.uk (port 19957). I think we're ready to start another challenge, this one a collaborative project like the brute rc4 one. Just need some challenges now (asked Hal about this). Adam

4 3

Legality of suverting computational cycles via Microsoft
by solman＠MIT.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anybody here know if it is illegal to get unwiting users to download benign viruses via MSN? Doesn't this sort of hole, by its very nature, make it trivial for people to violate Europes future electronic privacy laws? (despite Microsoft's guarantee that MSN would follow those rules.) JWS

1 0

Re: Netscape to copyright URLs?
by monty.harder＠famend.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

RJ> Essentially, they want us to help them create the perception RJ> that if you don't show the "Netscape Now!" flag (didn't Nixon have RJ> a similar slogan?) on your page, that you're just not a high- RJ> quality operation. Or maybe they're trying to change the subject Let's just create our own flag, and use it instead, then. * If we had ham, * We could have ham and eggs, * If we had eggs. --- * Monster(a)FAmend.Com *

1 0

Denning questions/reverses her position?
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm too old for this! I never thought I would see the day that Dorothy Denning would terminate her star role as a shill for the Clinton/LEA encryption ban! from: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C13000%2C00.html?nd Two supporters of Clinton administration's stance on encryption released a report today finding that encryption has not inhibited law enforcement efforts, with at least one author questioning her belief in the administration's position. The authors--Dorothy Denning, a Georgetown University computer science professor, and William Baugh Jr., vice president of Science Application International Corporation-- ______________________________________________________________________ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBM+Eh5L04kQrCC2kFAQF9wwP+INGEAnc+1akKc+dP7re8fleX4PJrmsYU UKzxgBZAsWcZC7L5WkaOygckHznOc+a37iHzDFtt3sr86DP0D/4j675qJdt/O4B+ jbxXumJ8EXmTN9bOvXK8x9JRGjR9aWzjeaJKN3X+fH4Bjbw76FR9xIFkhhNvZqnM ahBzZyL2cZ4= =MlQZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: The sorry state of non-US crypto
by carolann＠censored.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On August 23rd, Lucky Green succintly stated: Who cares if someone violates ITAR, if >overseas users can't find the exported software? Lucky, all we (I) can do is keep sending them the stuff. All it takes is just one person to really learn that a lot of folks are in this. When they do that they don't have to be so 'secretive' about their actions. I just try to remind myself, "I'm just an electronic envelope maker", that's all. I also like to think I'm lucky enough to get a job in marketing the stuff. Love Always, Carol Anne -- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

Denning questions/reverses her position?
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm too old for this! I never thought I would see the day that Dorothy Denning would terminate her star role as a shill for the Clinton/LEA encryption ban! from: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C13000%2C00.html?nd Two supporters of Clinton administration's stance on encryption released a report today finding that encryption has not inhibited law enforcement efforts, with at least one author questioning her belief in the administration's position. The authors--Dorothy Denning, a Georgetown University computer science professor, and William Baugh Jr., vice president of Science Application International Corporation-- ______________________________________________________________________ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBM+Eh5L04kQrCC2kFAQF9wwP+INGEAnc+1akKc+dP7re8fleX4PJrmsYU UKzxgBZAsWcZC7L5WkaOygckHznOc+a37iHzDFtt3sr86DP0D/4j675qJdt/O4B+ jbxXumJ8EXmTN9bOvXK8x9JRGjR9aWzjeaJKN3X+fH4Bjbw76FR9xIFkhhNvZqnM ahBzZyL2cZ4= =MlQZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

CypherRant: Reasons why private cryptography should not be regulated.
by paul.elliott＠hrnowl.lonestar.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- CypherRant: Reasons why private cryptography should not be regulated. Paul Elliott is solely responsible for this document. Please distribute widely. FBI director Freeh has been going around pushing his stupid plans for cryptography regulation. Usually, these plans take the form of some kind of mandatory key escrow. Mandatory key escrow schemes are requirements that encryption keys be given to government agencies with the promise that the keys will not be used without a warrant. Now let me give some reasons why Freeh's requests should be ignored. 1) It is unconstitutional! a) First amendment. Electronic communications are a form of speech and the cryptography regulations try to regulate this speech to a form the government understands. Congress shall make NO LAW ....or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; ... They really meant it! b) Second amendment. Cryptography is arms. Even U.S. government ITAR regulations admit this. Therefore cryptography is protected by Second amendment. c) Ninth & tenth amendments. Article I section 8 does not give congress the power to tell us what computer software we can run on our computers. Therefore that power remains with us, and we should be able to run whatever cryptography software we want the displeasure of congress not withstanding. d) The power to search, if a warrant exists, which is mentioned by the fourth amendment, does not grant the government the right to succeed in finding what the it is looking for. In other words the power to search, is not a power to guarantee a successful search. It is not a power to require citizens to run their lives in such a manner that any government search will be successful. For more information on this, see the following World Wide Web url: http://www.clark.net/pub/cme/html/avss.html Since all Senators and Congressmen take an oath to preserve and defend the constitution of the U.S., this should be the end of the argument. However, watching some of the stupid laws that have come out of congress in past years, tells me I should supplement the above with additional argument. I am not a lawyer and I am not trying to be one. I have no opinion as to whether private cryptography regulations will be found unconstitutional. There are a number of cases where out courts have made decisions which do great violence to the plain meaning of the text of our constitution. Knowing what the courts will actually do is the business of lawyers. Understanding the constitution so that one may know what the courts should do should be the business of every citizen. 2) The excellent NRA argument "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" applies with equal force to cryptography! Professional criminals will circumvent with ease any government regulations on cryptography. Billions of bytes travel the internet yearly. The techniques of steganography make it absolutely trivial for any motivated person to conceal any encrypted messages. The Big Brother cryptography regulations will affect only ordinary citizens. 3) Cryptography is already in use by legitimate business. Any government regulation of cryptography will probably cost huge amounts of money for software and hardware costs for existing systems to be changed to a form that the government approves. The existing ITAR regulations probably cost the U.S. economy large amounts of money because U.S. companies can not market cryptography software internationally. By discouraging private cryptography, the ITAR regulations probably enables a large amount of computer crime since it makes it difficult for people to protect themselves. The ITAR regulations have not and can not prevented strong cryptography from making it outside the U.S. How many tons of cocaine illegally enter the U.S. every year? Yet the government ITAR regulations propose to regulate the export of software that can fit in a shirt pocket, or travel by wire concealed with billions of bytes of data that leave the U.S. every year. It is time for the U.S. government to start living in the real world! According to an article in the August 17, 1995 Wall Street Journal, ITAR regulations have required Netscape to use inferior encryption methods in the international version of its World Wide WeB browser software. This inferior encryption method has actually been broken by a French Hacker! Because of its computational intensity, this weakness in the encryption method does not represent an immediate danger. However as more powerful computers continue to develop, this and similar vulnerabilities will present a danger for those who wish to use the internet for commerce. 4) These regulations make it impossible for an individual to have greater privacy than the U.S. government. The Adlrich Ames case makes it clear that the U.S. is incompetent to keep a secret. 5) The proposed regulations require the American people trust the government, but on the contrary, the government should be required to trust the American people. Recent news stories (Waco ect.) make it clear that it is common for government agents to lie to get a search warrants. Government should be viewed as George Washington did as "a fearful servant and a dangerous master". A recent poll conducted by the Americans Talk Issue Foundation said 76% of the people questioned responded that they rarely or never trust "government to do what is right". This mistrust is well founded. At the same time as administration sources were saying that key escrow schemes would remain voluntary, FBI, NSA, and DOJ experts were saying that the schemes must be made mandatory if they were to be at all effective. If the government is willing to lie to establish a key escrow key system, what makes us believe that the government will not lie when applying for warrants to use that system? 6) It is too humiliating to require a free people to participate in the establishment of their own surveillance prisons. This is what key escrow requires. Consider the words of our revolutionary heritage: Those who would sacrifice essential freedoms for temporary safety deserve neither. Benjamin Franklin If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams Do you think that these men would approve the government's key escrow requests? This information can also be found at the following url: http://www.efh.org/pgp/rant.html - -- Paul Elliott Telephone: 1-713-781-4543 Paul.Elliott(a)hrnowl.lonestar.org Address: 3987 South Gessner #224 Houston Texas 77063 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBMDpEYfBUQYbUhJh5AQHMtgP9HbCfKge22z/4jFi2MKLXqWkYB4vkIFsJ 43J7zdoDIRbfOeoMBNCFOGeIHGQ5TGL1+VFVhRMrzTZEPs/dciqc81O0YlnhiiIR L7Lz06Jlzg2xLtaeaTQjrGewKTT9LeWXpqFSWtpe0xxAqaZ/11ompTAHm0A6NxhU r4QXaBaEzfg= =Axac -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Denning questions/reverses her position?
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm too old for this! I never thought I would see the day that Dorothy Denning would terminate her star role as a shill for the Clinton/LEA encryption ban! from: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C13000%2C00.html?nd Two supporters of Clinton administration's stance on encryption released a report today finding that encryption has not inhibited law enforcement efforts, with at least one author questioning her belief in the administration's position. The authors--Dorothy Denning, a Georgetown University computer science professor, and William Baugh Jr., vice president of Science Application International Corporation-- ______________________________________________________________________ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBM+Eh5L04kQrCC2kFAQF9wwP+INGEAnc+1akKc+dP7re8fleX4PJrmsYU UKzxgBZAsWcZC7L5WkaOygckHznOc+a37iHzDFtt3sr86DP0D/4j675qJdt/O4B+ jbxXumJ8EXmTN9bOvXK8x9JRGjR9aWzjeaJKN3X+fH4Bjbw76FR9xIFkhhNvZqnM ahBzZyL2cZ4= =MlQZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: (Fwd) 1995 Nanotechnology Conference
by J. Kent Hastings 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- [ From: J. Kent Hastings * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- On Tuesday, 22-Aug-95 11:00 PM, James A. Donald, (jamesd(a)echeque.com) wrote: >At 11:00 AM 8/21/95 -0800, J. Kent Hastings wrote: >>Doesn't quantum coherence require molecular precision if it >>is to work on 1024 bit PGP keys? If it works, such keys can >>be instantly factorized. It would be nice to follow that progress. >It requires molecular precision if it is to work on anything interesting: Cracking >1024 bit keys is a long way down the road...[praises other applications] Tim says that quantum codebreaking and nanotech ain't gonna happen, because of things he explained in the past on the list, now available in the archive. I found a great Web version of the cypherpunks archive at http: //www.hks.net/cpunks/index.html and will indeed catch up on the quantum coherence subject. RSA Data Security printed an article in their newsletter, by one of the inventors of working quantum cryptography, which stated that there is a risk of cracking RSA because of efficient hardware factorization. Why would they make this up about their own product? OK Tim, I'll catch up before making further comments on quantum codebreaking. Now about nanotech: The Moore(?) scale mentioned here says the processing power of hardware capacity doubles every 12 or 18 months for a given amount of money. In about 20 years only nanotech will be on the curve. Will hardware progress just come to a grinding halt then or what? What's going on here? I thought cpunx were pro-nanotechnology. Kent -- Check out Neil Schulman's new book, http://www.pinsight.com/~zeus/jneil/ J. Kent Hastings -- zeus(a)pinsight.com -- http://www.pinsight.com/~zeus/

1 0