December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Another crypto talk in NYC (Wed., Aug. 24)
by dmandl＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A friend has invited me to give a cypherpunk/crypto/clipper talk at ABC No Rio in scenic downtown Manhattan later this month. Here's the announcement: ------- Start of forwarded message ------- From: diseased(a)panix.com (Edward Hirsch) Newsgroups: panix.events Subject: Privacy in Cyberspace Talk Date: 15 Aug 1994 21:33:41 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com Hi folks. On August 24, at 7pm, cypherpunk, Semiotext(e) editor, WFMU personality, and panix resident Dave Mandl will be leading an open discussion on privacy in cyberspace. The talk will be at ABC No Rio, a non-profit, collectively-run art gallery and performance space located at 156 Rivington Street, on the Lower East Side. Admission is free/donation, and all are encouraged to attend. For more info, email to diseased(a)panix.com. ------- End of forwarded message ------- -- Dave Mandl dmandl(a)panix.com

1 0

medusa & xsplit
by Arsen Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please forgive the delay, I've been busy restoring my files due to a nasty hard drive failure. Not to worry, I haven't lost the sources to Medusa nor Xsplit, and yes I do have a fix for xsplit.... =============================================================================== | + ^ + || ' . . . . . . . Ray (Arsen) Arachelian || | \|/ || . . . ' . ' . : . . rarachel(a)photon.poly.edu || |<--+-->||. . . |' '| .' . . ... ___ sunder(a)intercom.com || | /|\ || . . \___/ . . . : .... __[R] || | + v + || . oOOo /o.O\ oOOo :. : .. |A|"And disks to fix before I sleep" =========/---vvvv-------VVVV------------|I|----------------------------------/ / . : . ' : ' |D| This signature pannel is / / The Next Bug to kill(tm) --- now open. / /___________________________________________________________________/

1 0

Would you guys object to a posting of source code?
by Arsen Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would you guys object if I posted Medusa on here in compressed/uuencoded form? (I won't include the Detweiler fuzzybase, nor the executables to save bandwidth..) Since Medusa isn't crypto software it shouldn't pinch ITAR's ass too hard... =============================================================================== | + ^ + || ' . . . . . . . Ray (Arsen) Arachelian || | \|/ || . . . ' . ' . : . . rarachel(a)photon.poly.edu || |<--+-->||. . . |' '| .' . . ... ___ sunder(a)intercom.com || | /|\ || . . \___/ . . . : .... __[R] || | + v + || . oOOo /o.O\ oOOo :. : .. |A| "And bugs to kill before I sleep"|| =========/---vvvv-------VVVV------------|I|----------------------------------/ / . : . ' : ' |D| This signature pannel is / / The Next Bug to kill(tm) --- now open. / /___________________________________________________________________/

1 0

Re: Are \\"they\\" really the enemy? (Systems commentary)
by blancw＠pylon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have met the enemy, and it is not the system. Responding to msg by jdd(a)aiki.demon.co.uk (the real Jim Dixon): Regardless of how this discussion began originally, the only part that I was commenting on had to do with John's remark that since governments & societies are both beastly, composed of people of that sort of character, what is it that we think we are going to do if the governing system of operations is overthrown? From this I read: what difference does it make if the present system (the best in the world) is removed, since the objections to it are not also resolved by that action, seeing as how the character of its parts (the people) remains the same; and what is thereby left, if it is successfully un-done? (anticipation: more of the same, but worse, and more difficult for the individual to deal with the consequences)? This was said in the context of a discussion of systems, with reference to what the system which we are governed by (controlled) offers, and how this compares to the feasibility & success of systems per se to accomplish desired ends. It is true that systems are of different kinds & types: from the non-conscious physical which existed prior to the presence of humans on the planet, to fully conscious, reasoned plans of action (as you said: designed). A family may be conceived (by some people) as a system of operations and sometimes it functions that way, although lately they seem to be mostly dis-functional. Families are started whether anyone is fully self-aware, or in control of, their nature; it's usually the result of other motivations unrelated to wanting to control mankind so that it can be morally improved and will function cooperatively as a harmonious whole. But a system designed for the purpose of corralling the disparate energies of a large group of diverse individuals (who are not necessarily in the family) cannot (should not) merely "bumble along" in a mindless sort of way, supposing that everyone is going to agree to and abide by every decree which is delivered to them, for the satisfaction of a purpose which they may not fully appreciate. Human beings are pretty adaptable, but if the governors blithely promulgate measures for living which grates on the sensibilties of the constituency, this is the time when surprising aspects of 'human nature' rears a heretofore invisible head. This is when they begin to 'raise hell'. This is when you realize that it would have been better for someone to know a little more about the facts & the truth & the real nature of mental beings, so that these problems could have been prevented (but nooooooooooooo, there have to be loud, angry debates and arguments and fights and wars, etc.) Apparently, SomeBody didn't know what to expect, didn't plan on it, or didn't care. I don't just propose that a person exercise, develop, and use their own judgement: I recommend it. One may be caught in a system which they were just born into and seems to be 'just there'. But exceptional people, like Thomas Aquinas, might decide to devote their life to reason and seek to know what lies beyond the immediate given. A system is useful for coordinating efforts towards a particular goal, if all of those who participate in the activities are rewarded by the results. Whether it was there when you first became conscious of being alive or whether it is a recently bright idea, if it does not bring satisfactory results & returns, what could it make sense to suffer it? You may not have a choice initially about the system within which you find yourself, but you will be led to the felt need to make alternative choices by your unhappiness with it; you will have to decide what to do about it - stay or go, improve or tear down? You will have to think about what you depend upon (or whom) for the realization of your requirements or desires (something the Bengalis realized subconsciously), and you will have to take a measure of your happiness/disatisfaction and try to determine what will work better. Covertly or otherwise. Blanc I really don't mean to prolong a discussion which lies so far away from the list topics; I do think, however, that there are reasons for the way things are & the way things work, and the better grasp that one has of these reasons, the better that one can compute regarding the right actions to take or the judgements which one will bring to bear upon the actions of others as they affect oneself.

1 0

"Agents Spy Internet Data"
by NetSurfer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A little birdy sent this my way, and I thought you might find it of interest. And this article is "scanned, not shaken or stirred." ;-) COMPUTERWORLD AUGUST 1, 1994 Agents spy Internet data By Mitch Betts Langley, VA After decades of viewing public information as practically useless, U.S. intelligence agencies are planning to exploit the wild and ultrapublic Internet in search of cheap but useful nuggets of information. By summer's end, the Central Intelligence Agency and five other intelligence units will hook up to the Internet to collect and share "opensource," or unclassified, information, CIA official Joseph Markowitz confirmed. "The six-node Internet link will give intelligence analysts an access point to the Internet at large, including access to electronic mail by subject-matter experts across the globe,"Markowitz said in a recent interview. He is director of the CIA's Community Open Source Program Office, which opened March 1. "The Internet will be a gateway to commercial on-line information services, he added, as well as a vehicle for sharing open-source intelligence with sister agencies such as the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency." Naturally, the spy agencies are keenly aware of the danger of security breaches from Internet hackers. Markowitz said they are installing a commercial-grade "firewall"--essentially a server with access-control software--to protect internal computer networks from Internet intrusions. In addition, a special, undisclosed hardware device will allow analysts to transfer Internet files to their high-security workstations while preventing file transfers in the opposite direction, Markowitz said. These days the Internet is getting crowded with investigators of all sorts. Many private-sector researchers already use the Internet to supplement their heavy-duty use of online vendors such as Dialog Information Services, lnc. For example, John F. Quinn, a business intelligence professional in Vienna, Va., and former CIA analyst in Japan, recently used the Internet's Gopher navigation tool to collect information on foreign reaction to the death of North Korea's leader. James Cook, a California-based business investigator, runs an Internet-based discussion group called InfoPro, where information professionals swap advice and establish far-flung contacts. But using the Internet for intelligence has a downside. For example, queries posted on public news groups or mailing lists may alert the world to the research topic unless the query is artfully phrased. "There is a danger of tipping your hand," Quinn said. "I use the lnternet to contact a colleague [directly], but I am loathe to post something publicly." Another problem is information overload and the urgent need to filter incoming Internet messages. "The information will be affordable and accessible, but electronic filtering hasn't progressed as far as we'd like," Markowitz said. Furthermore, private-sector researchers warned there are no quality-control police on the Internet. The danger of getting outdated or bad information is quite real. On-line researcher Helen Burwell in Houston put it this way: "The Internet is a great big closet full of junk and treasures, so you have to go in there judiciously." "You may get to know 100 to 500 new contacts, including ones in Italy and Russia, but the next question is how competent and reliable are they?" said Cook, a due diligence consultant for business investors. "You need to build a circle of trusted people." Markowitz agreed that it takes a lot of mining to get a few nuggets from the Internet. "With open sources, there's lots more information available, but it has a poor signal-to-noise ratio," he said. A big challenge is getting the clandestine service to accept open-source intelligence as being valuable, Quinn said, because the spy culture figures that "if it's not secret, it' s not worthwhile . " One reason for the new interest in on-line resources is they are low-risk and cheap when compared with billion-dollar spy satellites at a time of shrinking budgets. Further, the spy agencies are being asked to provide unclassified reports about more diverse topics, Markowitz said. "The reality is that open sources are now superior in many cases to existing classified sources, such as in dealing with African crises, where the intelligence community has mediocre to nonexistent capabilities," said Robert D. Steele, president of Oakton, Va.-based Open Source Solutions, Inc., a non-profit organization that promotes the broader use of open-source intelligence. "The creation of our office is a recognition that open sources are a valuable resource. As we draw back in some parts of the world, our office provides an information safety net," Markowitz said. --------------------------------------------- Watering holes in cyberspace Intelligence analysts are likely to be poking around in these Internet nooks and crannies: Open Source Intelligence Resources: Gopher: gopher oss.net Somalia News Update: Usenet newsgroup: alt.current-events.somalia China Headline News Service: E-mail: info(a)asiainfo.com Reports by Voice of America Correspondence: Gopher: gopher.voa.gov Slovakia Document Store: World Wide Web: http://www/eunet.sk Gopher: gopher.eunet.sk E-mail: sds(a)slovakia.eu.net Gateway Japan E-mail: gwjapan(a)hamlet.umd.edu -NetSurfer #include standard.disclaimer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == = = |James D. Wilson |V.PGP 2.7: 512/E12FCD 1994/03/17 > " " " |P. O. Box 15432 | finger for full PGP key > " " /\ " |Honolulu, HI 96830 |====================================> \" "/ \" |Serendipitous Solutions| Also NetSurfer(a)sersol.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1 0

timestamp.c
by weidai＠eskimo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- /* timestamp.c - Automatic PGP Time Stamper v0.1 * by * Wei Dai <weidai(a)eskimo.com> * * Put the line "|timestamp" in your .forward file, and this * program will automaticly scan all your mail for a certain subject heading * and if found, will sign the body of that mail with PGP, and send it back. * Otherwise, the mail goes to your regular mailbox. * This is probably most useful as a "trusted" time stamping service. * * Use for experimental purposes only. Feel free to modify it, but please * send me some e-mail if you do more than change the #defines. */ #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <fcntl.h> #define MAILBOX "/usr/spool/mail/weidai" #define MAILLOCK "/usr/spool/mail/weidai.lock" #define PGPPATH "/u/w/weidai/.pgp" #define LOG "/u/w/weidai/.timestamp.log" #define COMMAND "Time Stamp This Mail" #define MAXLINE 1024 #define FROM "From " #define SUBJECT "Subject: " void Remove_nl (char *); main() { char sLine[MAXLINE], sFrom[255], sFile[255], sTmp[255]; char *p; FILE *fOut, *fMail, *fLog; int bDoIt, fd; fLog = fopen(LOG, "a"); sprintf(sFile, "/tmp/pts_%d", getpid()); fOut = fopen(sFile, "w"); sFrom[0]=0; while (fgets(sLine, MAXLINE, stdin) != NULL) { fputs(sLine, fOut); if (strncmp(sLine, FROM, strlen(FROM)) == 0) { fputs(sLine, fLog); for (p = sLine + strlen(FROM); *p && *p != ' '; ++p); *p = '\0'; strcpy(sFrom, sLine+strlen(FROM)); Remove_nl(sFrom); } else if (strncmp(sLine, SUBJECT, strlen(SUBJECT)) == 0) { fputs(sLine, fLog); bDoIt = (strncasecmp(sLine+strlen(SUBJECT), COMMAND, str } else if (strlen(sLine) <= 1) break; } if (sFrom[0]==0) bDoIt=0; if (bDoIt) { fclose(fOut); fOut = fopen(sFile, "w"); while (fgets(sLine, MAXLINE, stdin) != NULL) fputs(sLine, fOut); fclose(fOut); sprisFile); system(sTmp); fputs(sTmp, fLog); fputs("\n", fLog); unlink(sFile); sprintf(sTmp, "/usr/ucb/mail -s 'Time Stamp Output' '%s' < %s.as system(sTmp); fputs(sTmp, fLog); fputs("\n", fLog); sprintf(sTmp, "%s.asc", sFile); unlink(sTmp); fputs("*** time stamped ***********\n\n", fLog); } else { while (fgets(sLine, MAXLINE, stdin) != NULL) fputs(sLine, fOut); fclose(fOut); while ( (fd=open(MAILLOCK, 0)) != -1) { close(fd); sleep(5); } fd=creat(MAILLOCK, 0600); close(fd); fOut=fopen(MAILBOX, "a"); fMail=fopen(sFile, "r"); while (fgets(sLine, MAXLINE, fMail) != NULL) fputs(sLine, fOut); fputs("\n", fOut); fclose(fMail); fclose(fOut); unlink(MAILLOCK); unlink(sFile); fputs("--- personal mail -----------\n\n", fLog); } fclose(fLog); return(0); } void Remove_nl (char *string) { int i=0; while(string[i]!='\n' && string[i]!=0) i++; string[i]=0; } -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLlRcjjl0sXKgdnV5AQEv2AQAid9urvFjtaQjPYvpqcwhWLy8CCH2OI+O 9mWNnubDZuReH97upNvFYWbDQkFew2Gjfbsj7RwrYSe85gQm+RV0F+/ud64lTCe1 eoPuFrBy2kXugbtJVtp+HB2BGSNc2GtgxIfc61Z3x3E6F4eDagZxtAn2m3ht9Vib n41IQtRk1uA= =ojFS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- PGP Public Key available

1 0

Re: NSA Spy Machine and DES
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408190809.ZM4528(a)simple.sydney.sgi.com> Ian Farquhar writes: > Actually, I would be surprised if the "SIMD" processors were not a huge > array of reprogrammable FPGA's, quite possibly Xilinx's. The possibilities > of a large array of these chips, each with local memory, is quite > interesting. I have personally seen an array of 64 Xilinx chips in a DEC PeRL > box doing RSA, at speeds similar or better to almost all available custom > hardware implementations of the cipher. The delays in getting data on and off the chip are too large and the amount of space wasted in redundant functions is too great. You might prototype it using FPGAs, but even this is unlikely. Why not just buy one of the existing SIMD processors and simulate your target system? People used to build fast processors out of separate chips (bit slices). They don't do that any more because it's too slow and too expensive if you are building in volume. -- +-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Jim Dixon<jdd(a)aiki.demon.co.uk> | Compuserve: 100114,1027 | |AIKI Parallel Systems Ltd + parallel processing hardware & software design| | voice +44 272 291 316 | fax +44 272 272 015 | +-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: NSA Spy Machine and DES
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408182235.AA07044(a)snark.imsi.com> perry(a)imsi.com writes: > > Actually, I would be surprised if the "SIMD" processors were not a huge > > array of reprogrammable FPGA's, quite possibly Xilinx's. > > Since SIMD implies array processing, this makes much more sense than > general purpose 64 bit processors. What would make even more sense is an array of special purpose 64 bit processors. This is how most people who build real SIMD machines do it. -- +-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Jim Dixon<jdd(a)aiki.demon.co.uk> | Compuserve: 100114,1027 | |AIKI Parallel Systems Ltd + parallel processing hardware & software design| | voice +44 272 291 316 | fax +44 272 272 015 | +-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: Are \"they\" really the enemy?
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199408182252.SAA26632(a)pipe3.pipeline.com> John Young writes: > >Personally, I find these statements very disturbing, > >because they are so empty. > > Might be applied to your own later comments: > > >You won't tear down the government without replacing > >it. And I would argue that the more violent the means > >used to tear down the government, the more repressive > >its successor. Governments exist in part because we > >are such dangerous animals. I do not think that these statements are empty. Do I really need to prove that people are dangerous? One of the main functions of government is to stop us from harming one another. If you replace government with something else which has the same function (and works), you may call it something else, but it is acting in the same role as a government. Cases of violent replaces of governments from within: the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the victory of the Chinese communists, Pol Pot -- in all of the cases that I can think of, the violence of the revolution was a good predictor of the repressiveness of the government that followed. The revolutions in Eastern Europe over the last few years have almost gone unnoticed, because they have been so peaceful. But they are genuine revolutions. I have seen no one claim that the new governments are repressive, except possibly for Rumania, where the revolution was violent. > This rhetorical ploy comes across as an apology for the status > quo and seems to offer counter-revolutionary cant instead of > your best arguments for making rational, evolutional > improvements to our inheritance. I am not justifying some status quo. My observation is pretty much equivalent to saying that accidents at high speeds tend to be fatal. If you drive a little more slowly and look where you are going, you are more likely to get to your destination in one piece. -- Jim Dixon

1 0

Re: Are \"they\" really the enemy? (Systems commentary)
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199408181927.MAA00813(a)sleepy.retix.com> joshua geller writes: > > > > When a system is designed to organize human behavior (as in > > > "governing" it) it has the inherent mistake of being based on > > > the presumption of complete knowledge of human nature (yet who > > > agrees on what that comprises). > > > Only a philosopher could make such a statement. Only a philosopher could believe that it is necessary to presume complete knowledge to design a system. > > A family is such a system, but it is based on no such presumption. > > Families begin in what is usually a completely mindless activity. > > And any honest parent of teenage children will admit that he or > > she is almost totally ignorant of human nature. If the parent > > doesn't admit it, the child will let the parent know. > > only a rhetor could make such a statement. ? I don't teach rhetoric. > families are not designed. Many people think that they are. But my point is that we all take part in the creation of systems, and we usually do not think about what we are doing when we do it. Blanc said, esssentially, that systems are designed rationally. Most aren't. -- Jim Dixon

1 0