December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: lambda 2.09 - French Telco Act Censored?
by jt＠freenix.fr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 09:41 PM 7/19/96 +0100, Jerome Thorel wrote: > >>OECD FAILS TO ACT ON KEY-ESCROW ENCRYPTION; THE US ACCUSED OF "POLICY >>LAUNDERING" [deleted] Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com wrote: >Lemme see... The Europeans are now complaining about the US government >pushing key escrow on them? So where did that "emerging consensus" go?!? That was not a complaint -- but a modest report <g>. Anyway, the major countries which are to complaint about the US pressure are Japanese, Australians, and Scandinavian countries, which are less keen to let intelligence agencies controling individuals or industry secrets. France and the UK, however, are sitting side by side with the US. But I can add that my source is from the US :-) And that US business circles around OECD discussions think no international guidelines could emerge after any OECD meeting. Jerome Thorel ==-== Journaliste / Free-lance Reporter ==-== Paris, France ==-== ID Press Card +++ Carte de Presse No 72052 ==-==

1 0

Re: Netscape download requirements
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>If they disagree with what Congress and the administration have done, there >are well-established ways to petition Congress to change it. If they fail, >t.s.--that's the way our system works. YOU don't get to force your will on >the wider population, nor do YOU get to tell them that they are poor >benighted fools who should agree with YOUR views on civil liberties. To >assert otherwise is fascism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, pick one. I don't think that demanding more liberty can in any way fall into any of those three categories. What happened to protecting a minorities Rights from the Majority? Simply because a majority decided they should take away my Rights (in this case to encryption, and for the sake of argument, I will concede for the moment that a majority actually did decide this) doesn't mean they should be taken away. This is what the Constitution and other founding documents are designed to protect us against. Saying "I have the Right to give encryption to anyone I want" is not forcing my will on the wider population, it is an attempt to keep the wider population from forcing their un-Constitutional will on me. //cerridwyn//

1 0

Re: MIT harassed over publication of PGP book
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:06 AM 7/10/96 EDT, Hal Abelson wrote: > >Now, we learn of a back channel communication from State to DOE to >Sandia, which has prompted Sandia to want to act as a policeman for >MIT vis a vis export controls. > >This is troubling for what it says about how the State Department is >dealing with export issues surrounding information about cryptography, >and about the extent to which policies are being administered in a >clear and above-board manner. A blue ribbon panel of Ivy League administrators warned in the mid 1950s that Universities which accepted public funds would lose their independence and become mere functionaries of the federal government. They were right and you all had fair warning. DCF

2 1

RE: ABC news on Internet Telephony
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:54 PM 7/18/96 -0700, you wrote: --- all the following points are based on swiss circumstances, they may not apply to US --- >point to point circuits are more efficiently handled by circuit >switching rather than packet switching networks. Nicholas >Negroponte wrote an interesting piece about asynchronous vs >synchronous, I believe it is in his book "Being Digital." Well, from a users point of view, sending packet data over a packet mode bearer service is more efficient (and cheaper). An interesting developement in this direction is the PMBS-A/B modes of ISDN (packet switching to the public switch). The existance of this service suggests its usability. >ADSL is an interesting attempt at digital telephony but expensive >and basically would mean replacing existing central office >switches. (backbone bandwidth) We have a well developed DQDB-MAN and ATM net around, and bandwidth is available (and getting cheaper by the minute). Currently, a onetime investment of around $2500 per client is necessary to provide >5MBit/s transfer volume (via the cable TV networks or the existing broadband networks) >In a packet network you have to either dedicate a portion of the >bandwidth for a synchronous circuit, or you have to have a very >fast network and use very small packets (ATM), expensive either >way. Not if you have a dedicated packet switching network for asynchronous packet transfer only. If you use it for both you don't have to have a very fast network, you have to have a network with predictable and constant packet delay. (that's not the same as fast!) >A single central office has many times the bandwidth of the widest >part of the internet, and the average state has hundreds of CO's. >If even a small portion of the Internets current users tried >placing a call things would grind to a halt. A huge increase in the >number of backbones and their bandwidth would solve this, but who >will pay the bill? I guess Internet-telephony is one of the bandwidth killers. >TANSTAAFL > >Sometime ago the discussion was on the cost of laying new fiber, >may I suggest the realworld heuristic of "a million dollars a >mile." There are of course a lot of alternatives: - Existing wiring (5 MBit/s over 6 copper wires is possible) - Usage of the cable networks - Radio transmissions (RITL - radio in the loop) - Satellite transmissions >Please note I am not trying to make fun of anyone personnally, I am >in the words of Jubal Harshaw "heaping scorn upon an inexcuseably >silly idea, a practice I shall always follow." Neither am I, but isn't anyone? ----------< fate favors the prepared mind >---------- Remo Pini Fon 1: +41 1 350 28 82 mailto:rp@rpini.com Fon 2: +41 1 465 31 90 http://www.rpini.com/remopini/ Fax: +41 1 350 28 84 soon:PGP: http://www.rpini.com/remopini/rpcrypto.html --------< words are what reality is made of >--------

1 0

Info War
by EVERHART＠Arisia.GCE.Com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If the government should happen to be serious about wanting to prevent some possible info war scenarios, one might expect a number of things to be seen. * I'd expect that there would be at least some statements about the unwisdom of standardizing on MS operating systems or unix versions which have little or no security, building an infrastructure with security holes one can drive a truck through. * I'd also expect that the anti-crypto campaign to be at least scaled WAY down, so as to encourage more open use of crypto components in security solutions. (Crypto won't help if your OS comes with a backdoor that allows anyone on the Internet to get r/w access to your disks...this has been reported to me in all Microsoft OSs they currently have, though with NT it's under certain common but not completely ubiquitous circumstances. The others are wide WIDE open. Other bugs doubtless exist. * I'd expect some comments on the automatic running of downloaded images and how to secure them. Java? Reported at Princeton to be totally unsecurable....no models exist. I believe you can run the thing securely, but by having some security in its environment., I'd expect a lot more about what is needed, and where it can be found, encouraging development of such features. If on the other hand this is a ploy to justify violating people's privacy and in fact is not concerned with improving our posture, I would expect more Clipper chips, etc., and nothing seriously beneficial. (I consider that freedom of speech & the press means that I can choose not only what to say, but how to say it. If I use a language (crypto) that is hard for some not spoken to to understand, I regard this as an essential part of the freedom. Last I looked, this is still written. (BTW, if you think that the Supreme Court is supposed to be the arbiter of constitutionality, your reading of Marbury vs. Madison is seriously flawed. Congress and the President (& other federal employees) take an oath of office and are supposed to be deciding that what they do is Constitutional before doing it. Alas that they generally don't take this seriously...) We'll see what actually happens. I'd like to hope for the real effort to avoid problems. I fear we will get the bogus one, suitable for control freaks but not useful ultimately in dealing with the threats. Glenn Everhart

1 0

INFO: Submit your testimony to Congress for hearings on July 25!
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

============================================================================= ____ _ _ _ / ___|_ __ _ _ _ __ | |_ ___ | \ | | _____ _____ | | | '__| | | | '_ \| __/ _ \ _____| \| |/ _ \ \ /\ / / __| | |___| | | |_| | |_) | || (_) |_____| |\ | __/\ V V /\__ \ \____|_| \__, | .__/ \__\___/ |_| \_|\___| \_/\_/ |___/ |___/|_| Virtually attend the upcoming hearings on July 25, 1996 Submit your own testimony Listen to the RealAudio cybercast Ask Louis Freeh a question (FBI) Date: July 20, 1996 URL:http://www.crypto.com/ crypto-news(a)panix.com If you redistribute this, please do so in its entirety, with the banner intact. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents Upcoming hearing information How to receive crypto-news Press contacts ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPCOMING HEARING INFORMATION The Senate Commerce committee will be holding hearings on the Burns/Leahy Pro-CODE bill (S.1726) this Thursday July 25, 1996 in Washington D.C. Like most everyone that doesn't live in Washington, you can't be there in the flesh. But you can be there virtually through www.crypto.com! A RealAudio cybercast of the hearing is being coordinated by Jonah Seiger (CDT). If you have the RealAudio software (it's free from www.realaudio.com) you can listen to the hearing live. You can also telnet into the chat room and pose questions to the staffers who will be online. If you wish to make your voice heard, take a moment and submit your own written testimony through the web page at http://www.crypto.com. When you submit your testimony, you can also submit a question for FBI Director Louis Freeh who is scheduled to testify. We'll provide a copy of the questions to the committee members, and urge them to pin down Director Freeh on some of the finer points of the issue. This is an amazing time for democracy. Never before have American citizens been able to have so much representation in the halls of Congress without actually being physically there. Don't let this debate go on without your input! A complete profile of the cybercast and the net-presence effort is available at http://www.crypto.com/ until the hearing, and at http://www.crypto.com/events/ after that. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO RECEIVE CRYPTO-NEWS To subscribe to crypto-news, sign up from our WWW page (http://www.crypto.com) or send mail to majordomo(a)panix.com with "subscribe crypto-news" in the body of the message. To unsubscribe, send a letter to majordomo(a)panix.com with "unsubscribe crypto-news" in the body. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESS CONTACT INFORMATION Press inquiries on Crypto-News should be directed to Shabbir J. Safdar (VTW) at +1.718.596.2851 or shabbir(a)vtw.org Jonah Seiger (CDT) at +1.202.637.9800 or jseiger(a)cdt.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- End crypto-news =============================================================================

1 0

Re: Viacrypt PGP version 4.0
by Erle Greer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:46 PM 7/20/96 -0700, you wrote: >On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Erle Greer wrote: > >> Is there a free/trial/steal/shareware version of Viacrypt PGP Personal >> version 4.0, rather than forking over $129.00? >> >My company sells it for $100, if you want the full version with the book >and everything. > >Joseph Seanor > That sounds like an excellent deal when I plan to purchase it, but I would like to see if there is a crippleware demo first. I already have had 2.6.2 configured with a Windows clipboard utility. I just want to see if the full Win/integrated clipboard feature is more efficient. Thanks Joseph! P.S. I am also erleg(a)sdinter.net, but Majordomo won't unsubscribe me because I don't seem to be on the 'who cypherpunks' list, but my old address is still mysteriously reeiving the list. Any hints? Yes, I wrote owner-cypherpunks with no reply. TIA! /---\ |=================================================| / /\/ \ |If a train station is where a train stops | \ \ / |then what is a workstation? | \ \ / |-------------------------------------------------| /\ |/| /\ |I am not saying that there are no gods; | / \ |\| / \ |just that I haven't had the pleasure to meet one.| / \|/|/ \ |-------------------------------------------------| --------\-------- |Disclaimer: My opinions never reflect that of my | / |employer. | \ |=================================================| v |Please CC: responses via E-Mail; I seldom check | |the newsgroups for responses. | |=================================================| | mailto:vagab0nd@sd.cybernex.net | | http://ww2.sd.cybernex.net/~vagab0nd/index.html | | If you think my Sig is big... | |=================================================|

1 0

ITAR's 40 bit limit
by David F. Ogren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sat Jul 20 19:41:41 1996 Another paradox of the US export regulations. The NSA is allowing 40 bit crypto exports. So as a hypothetical example assume that I write a crypto program that uses 40 bit RC4 to encode data (licensing from RSA). I then get an export license using the accelerated process for 40 bit RC4. I then export my program to Alice who wants to use it to transmit messages to Bob. If she uses my program to encrypt messages to Bob, any reasonably powerful attacker can decrypt her messages. However, what if she runs the program three times with three different passwords. (Ignore the problems of Inner-CBC and Outer-CBC for now.) Now the file is triple RC4 encoded with the equivalent of 80 bit security. Alice and Bob now have strong crypto. And if they run the program five times they have 120 bits of effective protection. The problem of using Inner-CBC is a little tricky, but if we assume that I can export in a DLL format, a Windows program could be written that calls the DLL repeatedly to layer it into triple or pentuple CBC RC4. The entire above discussion is entirely theoretical. I realize that it's a moot point since strong crypto is already perfectly accessible outside of the US. And that strong crypto algorithms can be exported in non-machine readable format (another paradox). (And that running 5-layer RC4 is a really inefficient block cipher.) I just wanted to point out yet another reason why ITAR regulations over crypto are not effectively preventing strong crypto. They are merely making it difficult for American business. - -- David F. Ogren | ogren(a)concentric.net | "A man without religion is like a fish PGP Key ID: 0x6458EB29 | without a bicycle" - ------------------------------|---------------------------------------- Don't know what PGP is? | Need my public key? It's available Send a message to me with the | by server or by sending me a message subject GETPGPINFO | with the subject GETPGPKEY -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMfFutuSLhCBkWOspAQFH7gf9GDjh1tcktyx3Lo4iSxDFTFoB7fuuJO0l SNlkYH1Akchl02b/CWc6CDSAZ8hxoUfoZpqTD7U0xTs1QqOM7y45r1/RvAet870s mkWL7gS5RmiiGN1bgtm844RPAtAhaE0uzT6wJsPQSfAv94CvZGNJEtF2p5lASs2F fK50gmlSbjhhHoh85s/7Ugl7XzTmRGoZzdKQCGpkc6yTJu/aKDyWU3HVSEY9F4Y3 AaHkardJehv/9xqoxks5eqnwjTSJ8+cAptT1iBo6hW+CKv89wQKK/F8RbQb2FWL2 z4GqFfQHdbxVbnspDNtIRUP5qhJuFRhmuS/ARfTYgTN50Gm5g/Cz2w== =2k+F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Crypto '96 reminder -- register if you haven't!
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you haven't already registered for Crypto '96, you're late! But there's probably still time. They no longer guarantee that they will have space for you, but if they do, you'll get in. See http://www.iacr.org for details. It costs about $640 plus plane fare to attend ($420 conference registration, $220 for dorm space and meals). Plus transportation there and back. It's in a beautiful location at UC Santa Barbara, right next to the beach. The weather, food, and discussions are always good, and it's a great way to meet good cryptographers and discuss the future privacy and security of the world. If the papers look too complicated for you, relax; they're cryptic for academic bureacratic reasons. The actual presentations by their authors are quite well explained, and are often lively and entertaining. If you're doing something interesting with crypto, submit a note for the "rump session", short informal talks about work in progress, which will happen on Tuesday evening during the conference. I hope to be speaking there about my latest crypto projects. John Gilmore

1 0

Re: Netscape
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:27 PM 7/20/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote: >> Do you Seriously Believe that Netscape would prefer foreigners >> to develop and use competing products? Of course not. They are >> probably secretly applauding the brave exporters. > >You are wrong. We are worried that our permission to provide these >products will be withdrawn. As far as I can tell, you need no "permission" to "provide these products", at least domestically. The only restrictions that have been implied have been over the delivery of encryption over the 'net, and even that is questionable. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2