December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Growth of actions definded as crime. Which math formula?
by alt＠iquest.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:00 AM 9/6/95 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >Created crimes are few and far between. You mean like buying a 30 round magazine, or putting a different stock of your choice on a rifle, or owning an automatic weapon, or mailing crypto out of the country, or hiring someone due to their race, or not hiring someone because they are "fat?"

1 0

Re: cryptography eliminates lawyers?
by Rob Lowry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Rob, > > re: Will Cryptography put lawyers out of business? > > I see no connection between the use/non-use of crypto and the > occurrence/non-occurrence of the conflicts and threats of conflicts > which give rise to the use of lawyers. What's the connection? I know from my employers perspective, that lawyers are retained for more than just litigation. Often they handle the exchange of critical documents and transactions that need to be kept confidential. The impact of crypto as I see it is a reduction in the use of legal services of this nature, not in litigation. Using a lawyer to pass on tech specs on a new product to the patent office is a common occurance, as it is assumed that the lawyer can maintain the secrecy required for handling these documents. Should the patent office offer a key, you could just as easily send an encrypted message in place of a lawyer handling this. There are bound to be other options and opportunities as well for lawyers to use crypto.. securing a companies documents or whatever. RobL

1 0

Re: PGP5i supports RSA keys?
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>TWAK! > >Barring a _severe_ breakthrough in the entire nature of computing, >you still >need at least 1 atom to store one bit of information. It would take >more >computing power than all the atoms in the world, with the ability to >store 1 bit >on a atom and other dazzling feats of miniaturization, to crack a >2048 bit key >barring algorithmic breakthrough. TWOK! Au contraire, mon ami... Breaking a 2048 bit key is approximately 1E16 (10 to the 16th power) harder than breaking a 512 bit key. The RSA-129 factoring effort broke a key of approximately 430 bits using about 6,000 MIPS years. That is about 2E17 instructions. Some estimates are that with current algorithms, a 512 bit key could be broken with not too much more work. If so, the total work to factor a 2048 bit key would be roughly 1E33 instructions. Eric Drexler estimates that with nanotech, it should be possible to create a 1 GHz processer that fits in 1/8 of a cubic micron. It would take 1E24 such processors to factor a 2048 bit number. If we wanted to factor that 2048 bit key in 1E6 seconds, a couple of weeks, we would need 1E18 processors, which would fit in a cube 100,000 microns on a side. This is 10 cm on a side, about the volume of a soccer ball. A far cry from the whole earth, no? "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Re: Growth of actions definded as crime. Which math formula?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:32 PM 9/6/95, Al Thompson wrote: >At 02:00 AM 9/6/95 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: > >>Created crimes are few and far between. > >You mean like buying a 30 round magazine, or putting a different >stock of your choice on a rifle, or owning an automatic weapon, >or mailing crypto out of the country, or hiring someone due to their >race, or not hiring someone because they are "fat?" Or drinking alcohol, or owning gold, or possessing a copy of a Traci Lords video, or selling bullets recently declared illegal, or having a "men only" gym (but "women only" gyms are legal), or making condoms available, or not making condoms available, or teaching women how to use birth control, or denying a Satanist a job at a child care center on the basis of his religious beliefs, and so on. Too many transient, created crimes. To answer Lucky's original question, one way to measure the total number of new laws--most of them covering "created crimes"--is to measure the total number of volumes of statutes at the Federal, state, and local levels. I've seen figures on the "linear feet" of regulations, and how they are growing exponentially, but I don't recall the numbers. Something like the total number of laws doubling every 10 years or so, but don't quote me on this one. Whether these are "created crimes" in most cases is unclear, but certainly the really basic crimes (murder, assault, rape, theft, etc.) were adequately covered 20 years ago, or 50 years ago, etc. I can see some reasons for refining the definitions in the light of new situations, but I have to conclude that _most_ of the vast number of new laws and statutes deal with "created crimes," as I understand the term. --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: cryptography eliminates lawyers?
by dsc＠swcp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cort Starrett wrote, >Put bluntly, will cryptography put lawyers out of business? Even in a cryptoanarchy I would want to treat customers kindly and I would want to make sure that in any agreement that both parties are clear as to when we are complying or not. A lawyer might help in complex cases. Especially if UCC is referenced. And in some kinds of escrow a "judge" might be invoked if there is a despute. The judge might be a lawyer or might bring in a lawyer as an expert. The nature of the work of a lawyer in a crytoanarchy might be very different. Lawyers might even become highly respected and liked! Dar (list newbie) =========================================================== Dar Scott Home phone: +1 505 299 9497 Dar Scott Consulting Voice: +1 505 299 5790 8637 Horacio Place NE Email: darscott(a)aol.com Albuquerque, NM 87111 dsc(a)swcp.com Fax: +1 505 898 6525 http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html ===========================================================

1 0

Where is Secure Drive 1.4?
by scottg＠b4a206.mdc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- <Decloaking after 3+ years> Hi Folks, I have a previous version of SecureDevice (v1.3). Is v1.4 the current version or something higher? Where is an FTP site so I can grab it? TIA, scott gallaher <scottg(a)b4a206.mdc.com> | I believe in the 1st Amendment. TECO Master & DBA | Pornography is just a fringe benefit. PGP Key fingerprint: AD A8 C9 AA D7 D3 6A E3 0C 58 5A 10 41 37 45 EE GCS d- s+: a C++++ U->L++++ P? L>+++ !E[teco+++] W N++ k- w--- !O M- V$ PS+ PE Y++ PGP(++) t+ !5 X R(++) tv+ b++(+++) DI+ !D G e++ h----(*) r+++ y++++(++*) -- Geek Code V3.0 <Resuming lurking mode...> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBME4SV9PstJd5R1NxAQFN9wH/UYh59UzgBKotUs/HDYJ7jHEPlcmOIy/E Zo74KQcSb9QtaPMntSpHiZq3W1ZaIRrl+jx9HkZbsBbXHRVi7+HGXQ== =xvbE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re:
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Mix <mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > The optional penis smiled as the blue arc-phase > crossed the scamper gap. There were many of us > who felt gloved by the discharge, as if irradiated > with baby milk powder. > Later, the arc-monster cried quietly in the > humming chair, whilst remaining still enough > for the scamper gloves to plunge authoritatively. > - A'Tak A'Tdorn I assume that messages of this type are some form of steganographic communication. I just wish that they were in alt.anonymous.messages: here they are just noise to most of us (though I suspect John Young parses them just fine :-). At least they're more entertaining than Platypus' 'agraphic typo' technique. Peter Trei

1 0

BoS: Bug bugs privacy file but a fix is on the way (fwd)
by Patrick Oonk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From best-of-security-request(a)cyber.com.au Tue Aug 26 08:30:06 1997 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 16:16:35 +1000 (EST) From: darrenr(a)melb.convergent.com.au (Darren Reed) Message-Id: <199708260343.NAA08202(a)duchess.melb.arcsystems.com.au> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:43:37 +1000 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: darrenr(a)cyber.com.au Old-Status: O Resent-Message-ID: <"kYO8a.A.IkC.-PmA0"@plum> X-Loop: best-of-security(a)cyber.com.au Errors-To: best-of-security-request(a)cyber.com.au Precedence: list Resent-Sender: best-of-security-request(a)cyber.com.au To: best-of-security(a)cyber.com.au Resent-From: best-of-security(a)cyber.com.au X-OS: FreeBSD3.0-current X-Mailing-List: <best-of-security(a)cyber.com.au> ftp://ftp.cyber.com.au/pub/archive/b-o-s/ X-Subscription: To unsubscribe from this fine mailing list mail best-of-security-request(a)cyber.com.au with Subject: unsubscribe Subject: BoS: Bug bugs privacy file but a fix is on the way A "flaw" in the encryption program PGP 5.0 was reported to the Australian security organisation AusCERT lat week, and a recommended fix was issued later in the week. Security consultant Paul Drake, an expatriate Australian working for a company called NetSafe, said he had discovered a bug that menat PGP 5.0 (for "Pretty Good Privacy") kept passwords in memory "at all times", as well as part of the text of whatever had been encrypted. The keyfile was also being kept in a relatively insecure file, he said. AusCERT confirmed the problem had been reported and said they were investigating. PGP advocate peter Moon, who is pushing for wider use of the software in Australia, said while the problems pointed out by Drake were "valid", they were more weak points than "bugs". "The PGP encrpytion algorithm is - as anyone knows - as solid as a rock. The attacks are all based on the principal that if you want to break into the strongest box in the world, the easiest way is to pinch thekey." He said a product called bcwipe could clear the saved information and the keyfile should probably be deleted altogether. Drake said PGP, a United States-based company, would release "PGP 5.01" without the problem. -- Jenny Sinclair, Page D4, The Age, Tuesday 26 August 1997 -- | Patrick Oonk - http://patrick.mypage.org/ - patrick(a)pine.nl | | PGP Key ID 0xDA2E93FA - Internic PO59 - <clicketyclick> | | Pine Internet B.V. Consultancy, installatie en beheer | | Tel: +31-70-3111010 - Fax: +31-70-3111011 - http://www.pine.nl/ |

1 0

*Burp Test - Ignore *
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* BURP Monger *

1 0

Re: Commerce Department encryption rules declared unconstitutional
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan wrote: >I think that's about right. One of the important questions was how broadly >Patel would rule, whether her ruling would apply just to Bernstein & >associates or whether she would enjoin the government from enforcing >ITAR/EAR at all. > >Unfortunately, she chose the former. But look on the bright side: her >narrow decision may be less likely to be reversed, no? Does this not shift now to Peter Junger's suit: same issues, broader challenge, same opposing arguments? Did Patel rule narrowly in Bernstein to set the stage for the broader case in the works? BTW, is there a suit being readied to follow Peter's? Karn II? PRZ 6.0? What say, Peter, Lee, Cindy, Phil, Phil, Anthony et al?

5 5