December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

That All.net loon...
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Think of this as an interesting experiment in reputation building, where the bad guys won, and got a lot of business from the ignorant. Remember Fred Cohen, the lunatic who had his telnet port booby-trapped to fire off complaints to root and postmaster? http://www.atria.com/People/dawson/tbtf/archive/04-14-96.html http://www.dhp.com/amusement.html http://all.net/journal/netsec/top.html http://all.net/journal/netsec/9603.html http://all.net/journal/netsec/9604.html I feel so sorry for Keith. He was trolled in a big way. I also found this AMAZING BREAKTHROUGH in preventing IP spoofing very amusing: http://all.net/journal/netsec/9606.html -rich

1 0

The Electronic Freedom March needs YOUR Help !!!
by Keith A. Glass 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friends of Free Speech on the Net: On June 30th, 1996, a large anti-CDA rally, the Electronic Freedom March, is planned for the Ellipse, in front of the White House. But without your help, it won't happen. We need volunteers to help us plan the EFM and the logistics required for it, people to help us raise funds to pay the expenses (the Park Service has required us to provide 80 porta-potties, at a cost of nearly $4500.00 alone, and that's not our only requirement. . .), and people to help us run the March on June 30th. Not to mention publicity, etc. We need your help. **I** need your help. I've posted this to the DC area groups, as well as to a few groups that I feel might be useful in gathering more volunteers and interested people. But I need your committment to help NOW, or we won't be able to run the EFM, or as it's been called, the "Million Geek March". Come on, out there: help us out !!! -- * Keith A. Glass, Annandale, Virginia, USA, Filker/punster at large * * Washington Coordinator, Electronic Freedom March * * 30 June 1996, Washington DC URL: http://www.efm.org * * Note: the following line is an intentional act of Civil Disobedience: * * FUCK THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT--DEFEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT ! *

1 0

Knowledge of TCP/IP
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:56 PM 4/16/96 -0400, Noel Yap wrote: >Knowledge about TCP/IP is alot easier to control than knowledge about the Berlin Wall (ie, how many Chinese will even know of the existence of TCP/IP -- in the US, where this is freely available, how many citizens know of it's existence)? > Applications software distributed commercially or on a "free" basis allows people who know nothing about TCP/IP or C++ or Visual Basic to use all of these things to get work done. They need not understand completely what they are doing. DCF

1 0

No Subject
by bharper＠customcpu.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am very interested in cryptography and all related subjects but I cannot find enough info about it, and am wondering if anyone can please email me anything you know and the basics. Thanks!

2 1

[NOISE] Is this getting through?
by Moltar Ramone 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I seem to have stopped getting CP mail... is there a problem with the list, or is it just my machine? (Right now, it's 4/16 at 7:00pm; reply accordingly) Jon ---------- Jon Lasser (410)494-3072 - Obscenity is a crutch for jlasser(a)rwd.goucher.edu inarticulate motherfuckers. http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D) - Fuck the CDA.

2 1

Re: why compression doesn't perfectly even out entropy
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

rick hoselton writes: > At 05:34 PM 4/16/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > >> ...it is possible ... for Hamlet to appear out of a random number generato r, > > >> But even if it came from a completely random source, it would > >> still make a bad one-time pad. > > >No it wouldn't. > > Are you sure you want to claim that the text of Hamlet would make > a good key for a one-time pad? If the text of Hamlet were produced by a truly random number generator, then it would make a fine one time pad. A cryptanalyst seeing patterns in it would have no way of knowing that the patterns were caused by the input being "Hamlet" -- he would have no way to demonstrate that just because the first five hundred words of the key appear to have been "Hamlet" that the rest would be -- and indeed, there would be far more cases where the rest wouldn't be. If, on the other hand, what you are doing is using books as keys for ciphers, then "Hamlet" is a very poor one. > >There is a tiny but nonzero probability that xoring > >your one time pad with your text will result in a cyphertext equal to, > >say, the Bible. Big deal. > > Most unusual, and you're right, its inconsequential. But if you use the > text of Hamlet or the text of the Bible for your KEY to a one-time-pad, > you're very likely to get broken. IF you are using a one time pad system that truly has a random source of keying material, AND the 1 in 2^1460536 event of the key being Hamlet occurred, THEN no, you aren't likely to get broken. Note that the probability of having this happen is astronomically low, but then again, the probability of ANY given one time pad being generated is astronomically low. If you are just picking books off the shelf and playing one time pad with them, yes, you are correct, you will likely be broken. > >If the key is really random, the > >cryptanalyst has no way to tell what the underlying text was. > > But that silly cryptanalyst might not know that you got Hamlet from > your random number generator. He might think you copied it out of a > book! Then, Hamlet stops being a random number. The context changes. I don't think you are considering this clearly. It is far, far more probable for the cryptanalyst, thinking the key was "Hamlet", to get out a plausible but totally bogus text, than it is for the key to actually be "Hamlet". Of course, it is also far, far more probable for you to be stupid than for a random number generator to put out "Hamlet", but if you go around getting rid of RNGs that produce "Hamlet" or anything close, you have in theory given information to the attacker that gives them a slightly better chance of attacking you since your pads are no longer purely random. The reason all this isn't stupid to discuss and actually has some importance is just this fact. If you build a system that discards things that "don't look like they have enough entropy" (which certain people around here have proposed), you are giving the cryptanalyst a very strong piece of information about the key, so your key is no longer totally unpredictable. An irony, but something important to keep in mind. Every once in a while (once in every four billion bits, or so) your random number generator will put out 32 1's in a row if it is functioning properly. Any given small segment of the output of a good RNG might not look "random", but "random" isn't a property of a given number -- it is the property of the infinite sequence itself. Perry

1 0

What's the "Human Interaction Institute" at CMU For ???
by ssalgaller＠CCGATE.HAC.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Concerned Citizens, Re: Subject, what is Dan Olsen going to be in charge of at CMU ? (ref: CDA debate; expert witness for the CDA) The title could refer to net censorship, or to bio-medical implantation of control computers inside human brains. So which is it ? Or is this not an exclusive or answer ? Stephen S. salgaller(a)ccgate.hac.com or try: salgaller(a)aol.com PS: If anyone can tell me the name of the 1965 movie starring Michael Renee that dealt with the above two issues, please tell me. If you were not aware, the movie dealt with a plan, initially, to link all humanity directly to each other. One could "download" data directly into your brain ! You could also have "mental telepathy" and communicate with others. Michael Renee's character escapes to the past to try to end research done by a scientist, that lead up to the inevitable a totalitarian world government takes control of everyone; even your thoughts are no longer private. You get the idea. This was also done as part of the movie "Terminator 2"; I wonder if the writer of the 1965 movie got any screen credit or royalties for T2 ??? I'm worrying too much, right ? It can't happen here ??? Tim Mc Veigh said he had a bio chip implant. Nah...

3 2

Re[2]: on corporations and subpoenas
by Adam Pingitore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Um, well, then I'm going to have to spam your ass.

3 2

Re: [IRS] Elvis in Escrow
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:40 AM 4/16/96 -0700, Dave Del Torto wrote: >[from SF Examiner somewhere around 12-14 April 96] > >.............................................................................. > >"IRS Worker Took Peek at Celebrities' Records" >[Associated Press] > Memphis - A former IRS employee who said boredom had led him to peek at >the tax records of President Clinton, Elvis Presley and other famous people >has been acquitted of federal charges. > > > >Hmmm. _We_ do it, it's "malicious cracking/hacking" and they toss us in the >clink... _they_ do it, and it's "practice" (and they get acquitted). And >_these_ are the people who want to escrow _my_ keys? As IF! I wonder, how much is NSA's secret key worth? You know, the one they use to grab the extra key bits that Lotus Notes sends them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

4 3

Re: What's the "Human Interaction Institute" at CMU For ???
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:28 AM 4/17/96 -6, Peter Trei wrote: >> PS: If anyone can tell me the name of the 1965 movie >> starring Michael Renee that dealt with the above two issues, >> please tell me. >> >> If you were not aware, the movie dealt with a plan, >> initially, to link all humanity directly to each other. One >> could "download" data directly into your brain ! You could >> also have "mental telepathy" and communicate with others. >> Michael Renee's character escapes to the past to try to end >> research done by a scientist, that lead up to the inevitable >> >> a totalitarian world government takes control of everyone; >> >> even your thoughts are no longer private. >I strongly suspect that you are refering to "Cyborg 2087" aka >"The Man from Tomorrow" a 1966 film starring Micheal Rennie >(note spelling). >It took about 2 minutes to track this down on the net. >Peter Trei A different (and rather funny) treatment of a similar concept was done in the 1967 (?) movie, "The President's Analyst," with James Coburn, Godfrey Cambridge, Severn Darden.

1 0