December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

MPJ2 Encryption Algorithm
by mpjohnso＠nyx10.cs.du.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For a sneak preview of the MPJ2 Encryption Algorithm article I just submitted to the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, anonymous ftp to csn.org and look in the mpj directory or call my BBS at 303-938-9654. I used the same mechanism used by rsa.com to isolate the nonexportable stuff (source code, programs) from the Constitutionally protected publication (article describing the algorithm). Seems strange to me, but if it works for the Department of State and rsa.com thinks it won't get them in trouble, then I guess I'm not sticking my neck out too far. Any technical types among you want to take a look at the algorithm and tell me what you think about its security? I've been trying to break it for several years, but I'm just an amateur who reads a lot. Why MPJ2 and not just IDEA or 3DES? Never put all your crypto eggs in one basket. Besides, MPJ2 is royalty-free. Go build some useful code or hardware. (MPJ2 is faster and simpler in hardware, once the key is set up). Mike Johnson mpj(a)csn.org (aka mpjohnso(a)nyx.cs.du.edu) Never thumb your nose at a giant, but don't let the giant intimidate the life out of you. -- Jack's Goose.

1 0

Elm Filtering on CC???
by hatzm＠bigbird.cso.gtegsc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it possible to get Elm's filter to pick out messages that are cc'd to the cypherpunks list? I would like to keep all the cypherpunk mail in one place and have no trouble getting it properly copied when the message is "to" the cypherpunks list. I'm just not sure how to work on the CC part. Thanks! Mike

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by fnerd＠smds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Godwin sez > In order to get to a world in which free markets can meet our demand for > high-bandwidth connectivity, we have to dig ourselves out from the > market-failure position we're in now. And because government is part of > the problem, changing government policy is part of the solution. So, > that's one of the major thrusts of EFF's NII policy. As I understand it, for both telephones and cable TV, it is still common for local governments to "grant" "franchises" to single companies for phone and cable wires. If there were one thing to change, that would be it. In other words, the "market failure" you're talking about is in a situation where the law forbids a market. And the change required is that the government not be involved. It would be nice if that were how EFF stated its NII policy: Yankee Go Home. Also, isn't the FCC is somehow involved in defining cable and telephone services, and what combinations of services companies are allowed to offer? Or am I thinking of "information providers" vs....something? Here again, the limitation is merely in what's legal. -fnerd(a)smds.com quote me -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvtoxiQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2toust1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hanC0R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 9

New Cash Card Announced
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today's WSJ reports that VISA USA intends to launch a "prepaid" travel card for use in ATMs and POS terminals. The card, meant as an electronic travelers check, would be yet another form of cash substitute. This would, in reality, be a Visa card you could purchase for cash. Presumably US sales of these cards would be subject to cash transaction reporting rules but not those in other countries. Interesting scenario. I buy one of these babies for $100,000 in Switzerland. I arrange to have it not yet "turned on." (Many of the new prepaid phone cards must be activated before they can be used.) I enter the US carrying a card worth $0. I order it activated. Suddenly I have a $100,000 cash card in the US without having imported $100,000 into the US. The nice thing about the explosion of payment forms that is going on right now is that the regulators tend to get swamped. It is hard to regulate things with 10 different payment forms (cash, checks, money orders, travelers checks, credit cards, ATM cards, debit cards, bank wires, consumer electronic money transfers, and bill payment services). When these new cards hit and all of the new electronic banking payment systems are up and running, the Feds will be hard pressed to even keep up with the bare outline of the payments system much less regulate it closely. Duncan Frissell "Dowd's the name, Elwood P. Here, let me give you one of my cards. Don't use that phone number it's the old one use the other number. I'd like you to meet a friend of mine. His name's Harvey. He's a Pooka." --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

AT&T Encryption Product
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NCR - An AT&T Company ____________________________________INTRA CORPORATION From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com> Location: Pleasanton District To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Location: The Real World,or at least Cyberspace Subject: AT&T Encryption Product Well, it was interesting to see Philippe Nave's posting about an AT&T encryption software product (using the government's digital signature and secure hash standards instead of RSA and MD-5, so it won't be PGP- or PEM-compatible). Prices seemed a bit high, though not bad for AT&T, who are cutting some new market turf as well as typically pricey, and the encrypted Zmodem software may be useful. Does anybody know if there are any other SHA / government-signature products out? (I'm assuming there won't be much freeware because of the patent issue; people who don't mind violating RSA's patent generally use PGP.) Bill

2 1

Newsgroups, Sternlight-bashing and screaming children
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NCR - An AT&T Company ____________________________________INTRA CORPORATION From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com> Location: Pleasanton District To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Location: cyberspace Subject: Newsgroups, Sternlight-bashing and screaming children I consider the Sternlight-bashing suggestions to be unreasonable; Sternlight may rave from a warped, pro-government viewpoint, but he is capable of carrying on civilized conversations, even when he's (continually) grinding the same axe. The coffee-house analogy is a very good one, and there *is* occasionally a screaming-children problem on usenet; I assumed the original poster was referring more to the perpetual-newbie types rather than to the newly arrived, chronologically-deficient college students, most of whom are either quiet, productive, or both (though a college student and the author apparently felt otherwise :-) I still prefer having this as a mailing list, in spite of the volume; I can read sci.crypt when I want to, though I'll probably have to get a netcom account rather than keep telnetting into my old system now that I've moved. Thanks; Bill

1 0

rant pointer
by Eli Brandt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

L. Detweiler has a rather hefty essay in the latest Risks on the subject of `pseudospoofing', social parasites, "a criminal group called the CryptoAnarchists" (with members such as "Eric May" and "T.C. Hughes"), and such matters. I will not forward it to the list, unh unh, no way. PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail Eli ebrandt(a)jarthur.claremont.edu

3 3

P. Metzger
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Assuming you are not P. Metzger, please help him to understand how to implement a kill file rather than assaulting me with mailbombs. ===cut=here=== [insert minimailbomb here]

1 0

The Depravities of Cypherpunks
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I did not understand Mr. Metzger at first. When he sent me messages in the form `go away and leave us alone' I thought he was suggesting I be censored from the cypherpunks mailing list. Apparently he is only objecting to personal email from me. Well, after receiving 40 messages with the concatenated contents of other messages from him and myself over the matter, in response to the following two, I certainly will not do so. Mr. Metzger did say it was OK for me to post to the Cypherpunks list, for which I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude in his allowing me his permission. He threatened to send me 400 letters the next time I sent him personal mail however, and of course he is certainly capable of it. I mailed postmaster(a)lehman.com, asking him to encourage Mr. Metzger to learn how to use a kill file instead of sending me mailbombs in response to his obvious intense mental anguish at seeing my name <g>, but unfortunately Mr. Metzger is the postmaster at his site. Mr. Hughes is quite perplexed at my sheer rage at Mr. Metzger's unsurpassed childishness. He didn't approve of me attempting to shame Mr. Metzger (a close personal friend, I suppose) into refraining from sending me mailbombs and dealing with his own insanity in a more proactive manner -- like figuring out how to implement a kill file in his mail -- by informing the cypherpunk world of his puerile prank. I told Mr. Hughes that it was likely that Mr. Metzger was his own site administrator (I was not positive at this point, alas). Mr. Hughes has not responded to that letter. Mr. Hughes is also quite puzzled why I should violate Mr. Metzger's privacy in revealing his `private' mailbomb to other members of the community he (supposedly) resides in. I guess he believes that mailbombs, like everything else, are a private matter. My apologies, Mr. Hughes, for what you consider an inappropriate use of your mailing list. My personal opinion is that I had essentially no other recourse, and even the `recourse' I chose was obviously ineffective! I asked Mr. Hughes to condemn Mr. Metzger's behavior. So far his only comment is that it was `rude'. Maybe he will have another opinion upon learning of Mr. Metzgers 40 letter bomb just received, or his 400 letter threat. Or maybe he thinks that Mr. Metzger is just another patriotic cypherpunk, perhaps even deserving of a medal! Also, I have mail from Mr. Jason Zions (jazz(a)hal.com) also complaining that I violated Mr. Metzger's privacy in revealing his mailbomb to me to the list as a whole. This strange code of cypherpunk chivalry I am not familar with. I am quite bewildered! Perhaps someone can point me to an FTP site housing the Cypherpunk Code of Chivalry. I looked on soda.berkeley.com and found the Cypherpunk Charter (By E.Hughes) talking a lot about things like privacy and software, but it didn't really seem to address the issue of mailbombing. Maybe the basic idea is just privacy *everywhere*, even with cyberspacial assault and societal criminals. I guess I did miss the point. If all the other cypherpunks condone or applaud Mr. Metzger's behavior, please let me know. I'm not really sure what the consensus is on this. (Of course, here, no one can really be sure of the consensus on *anything*! <g>) I certainly haven't heard from anyone I respect yet, assuming these people are still on the list. BTW -- I do get the impression that the list membership is down. Perhaps Mr. Hughes can reveal that directly. Some people have been blaming me for the `deterioration of the list' lately. Another person told me that the list had `quite improved since I stopped posting'. I'm not sure what to make of all this -- unless both were tentacles, I suppose that might explain it all. Frankly, I have been posting very little lately compared to my Golden Cypherpunk Days. (ah, the carefree and naive life of youth.) Also, Mr. Hughes has always advocated software solutions like kill files, and if anyone objects to my presence, please put me in yours. It is silly to continually be offended by me! The people who are interested in listening will not plonk me, and those that are inflamed by my postings *will* -- what could be simpler? That certainly couldn't be a problem for anyone, could it? I mean, if what I am saying has no merit, people will immediately recognize that, right? To paraphrase somebody else, `There is only a message'. * * * P.M., after the 40 letter mailbomb >If you insist on 400 detweiler, I'll send them to you. Last warning. Mr. Metzger, I assure you an apocalypse in cyberspace will happen before I will ever send a message to the address pmetzger(a)lehman.com. In fact, perhaps you could tell me all your other addresses, so I do not inadvertently send mail to them. For example, I had a glimmer of hope that postmaster(a)lehman.com was not you, and paid dearly for it with your 40 letter mailbomb. Mr. Metzger, Do you pseudospoof? This could be a problem. What if I inadvertently send something to one of your tentacles? Does that count? Will you mailbomb me in that case, or just forgive me for my stark ignorance? I have to ask a favor, if you don't--perhaps you could give me a list of all the addresses you post from. I mean, that would compromise the pseudoanonymous security of your identities, but on the other hand I have absolutely no desire to be subject to another explosion in my mailbox when I open my mail! I guess in this case, you might have to decide which is worth more, your hatred for me and insane desire that you not see any communication from me in any form, or your passionate goal of further undetected, secret pseudospoofing. You have to forgive me for my instinct of replying to the letters in my mailbox. It has served me well until now. I assure you I will now make an exception in your case! For example, my response to your last letterbomb threat might have been `please don't do it!' but I now realize that would have gotten me `nowhere' (or wherever it is that bomb victims go) thanks to the previous two mailbombs! Thanks for the valuable education in cyberspacial netiquette! (All my habits and perceptions in cyberspace have been radically altered lately in response to changing circumstances, and your mailbombing is just the latest incarnation, so I certainly shouldn't be complaining!) HOWEVER -- I will continue to post to the cypherpunks list, since you, Mr. Metzger, have so kindly given me permission and I am still not being censored yet. Please, please, please Mr. Metzger, do not interpret this as sending you private mail! I certainly have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to be subject to your 400 LETTER MAILBOMB. Perhaps some other cypherpunks, who have no objections to your behavior so far, and criticize me for taking a stand by condemning it publicly, would like to VOLUNTEER IN MY PLACE. So, here is what bought me the 40 letter mailbomb: ===cut=here===

1 0

L. Detweiler's latest rant on comp.risks
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would suggest that everyone with any interest at all in the latest L. Detweiler rant, which appears on comp.risks, to send a short message to RISKS attesting to the separate existence of the following individuals, as listed by LD at the end: >I thank the following eminent Cypherpunks for ideas in this article, >although it should not be construed to be representative of their >opinions, and neither can I provide any guarantee they represent >unique people: >G.Broiles, A.Chandler, J.Dinkelacker, H.Finney, E.Hughes, M.Landry, >T.C.May, N.Szabo In particular, I'd like to see short messages from each of the above people to RISKS attesting to their own individuality. Also, if LD has accused you in public or private of not existing, please send a message stating this. The address is risks(a)csl.sri.com Keep your comments short and polite, and mention "L. Detweiler" in each of them. We need everyone who has been involved to send a message. Please speak out. Thanks. Eric

1 0