December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Stegno and DAT and digital music...
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In this week's Sunday NYT, Hans Fantel, their music guy, writes at length about the new "dithered" CD's and how the guys have improved the sound. He says that the original CD format was limited to 16 bits of sound because of costs. But many audiophiles reacted very negatively to the tinny, metalic quality to the music. For this reason, the companies have developed 20 bit DAT recording tape and then come up with ways to "dither" this into 16 bits. I am curious if anyone knows the details of these algorithms. Also, his point suggests that flipping the least significant bit of 16 bit music may not be imperceptable to some ears. If the classical music starts to sound tinny then there might be something subversive in the least significant bits. -Peter Wayner

2 1

Remail: errors
by HFinney＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have been out of town for the last week, so I missed some CP mail. It looks like some good things are happening with remailers, though. Kudos to Karl, Sameer, and the others for their work! I have received many messages to my remailer in the last week which came from remail(a)tamsun.tamu.edu, which were PGP-encrypted apparently in an effort to get my remailer to send them. They did not work, though, because there was no "Encrypted: PGP" header to trigger the remailer's decryption. This can be arranged by creating the message something like this: ======================================================== :: Request-Remailing-To: hfinney(a)shell.portal.com :: Encrypted: PGP - -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- <rest of message> - -----END PGP MESSAGE------ ======================================================== This would then be sent to remail(a)tamsun.tamu.edu. I don't know whether the multiplicity of such erroneous messages is just due to one person stubbornly re-trying, or whether there is an error in one of the new programs for creating chained remailer messages. Hal Finney hfinney(a)shell.portal.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBLJaNuKgTA69YIUw3AQHrNwQAowMEQwuH6YyHoj6T7AqZFLNdTf+eqJ9L LhAatHS94nmC1smkfVNq0dZmigmkvBdMNEPlBZemmxALz+KJw6OSY/ULSBmuVNEq 5rJANh3XimoJWqLISy2lZiuC5Fw2R7UvRadcdM94pncSVvev92Fyf7CqEOOtrGAK PUzRds7BVNo= =FpLa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

more than spread spectrum
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are alternatives to spread spectrum, if we're threatened with loss of freedom to communicate. We could lay our own wires/fibers. We could set up a mesh network of infrared lasers through the air. Last time I looked, there were no laws against shining lights out your window as long as they didn't bother anyone. An infrared laser could hardly bother anyone. We could produce a line of cheap cards to plug into a PC which would do packet routing, using a variety of physical links -- our own wires, lasers, very low range radio, .... Each card would connect to three or more neighbors and become part of the global mesh. Adaptive routing with no global map would suffice for the card and would keep the whole system peer-to-peer with no need for central control and no chance for central tapping. Of course all of these solutions require a high density of users. A college campus might be the right place to start. We could then branch out to cities. I suspect that a place like Chicago or NYC with high rise apartments might be the place to start -- many options for line-of-sight communications. The benefit isn't just for Cypherpunks. It's a free network for the masses -- like the original USENET (with each user donating routing and store/forward) but with unrestricted, low-range, continuously operating physical links. I'll volunteer to do the software for the node card. Does anyone have hardware design/fab to donate to the effort? - Carl

4 3

(Fwd) Re: Alt.Gvmt.Bad.Bad.Bad
by blancw＠pylon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by Michael Conlen: Theft could be from thoes who do not protect there property and from thoes who do not respect others property, so can it also be said that 'bad government' can be from people not protecting there rights and people who have no respect for the rights of others? ............................................................... What should be said is that theft does not happen of its own accord; someone must decide to accomplish the so-called criminal act. To describe theft as the result of another's inaction is to imply that human action of any kind is mostly automatic, that there is a pull which will evoke action upon intelligence the way gravity affects inanimate objects, and that nothing better could be or should be expected from it. It is also to imply that the possession of intelligence is negligible because any opportunity for taking advantage of another's vulnerability will be irresistible to humans, as if they were basically scavengers looking for the spoils of other people's negligence. In which case, rather than speaking of bad Government, the aim should be to question the existence of intelligence & the possibility for morality. I don't know who would be qualified to discuss it, though, without the possession of the one and an appreciation of the other. Blanc

1 0

Verilog encryption broken
by Bruce R Koball 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following is an article that I posted in the EFF conf on the WELL. Though it's written for non-tech readers, I thought it might be of interest to the cypherpunks. -- Bruce -------- A recent anonymous posting in the comp.lang.verilog newsgroup on Usenet has generated a raging controversey and threatens to shake up the electronic design automation (EDA) community. The posting was a program that broke the encryption scheme used to protect the proprietary libraries that are part of Cadence Design Systems high-end IC design tool Verilog-XL. Verilog is a sophisticated CAD tool that allows engineers to design and simulate new chips before they are manufacturered. These libraries contain detailed descriptions of integrated circuit building blocks (called cells) and are usually supplied by different chip manufacturers in an encrypted format because their information could be used to reverse engineer the proprietary cells and the chips built with them. Cadence also uses the encryption to prevent these libraries from being used with lower-cost Verilog clones that are available. The anonymous poster claimed that he was doing this in protest of Cadence's pricing policies. The program was written in Perl, a Unix scripting language, and contained Verilog encryption tables. It exploited debugging features that were left in Verilog by Cadence programmers to break Verilog's rather simple encryption scheme. Cadence's response on the net was swift and strongly worded: > > Newsgroups: comp.lang.verilog > From: robert(a)cadence.com (Robert Donohue) > Subject: Cadence Official Position on Protected Code > Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc. > Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 00:11:36 GMT > > On September 14, 1993, someone posted on the 'Internet' a program > relating to Cadence Design Systems Verilog technology. This disclosure was > unauthorized by Cadence and is illegal. Any copying of the program or any > use of it would be unlawful, subjecting the infringer to substantial civil > and, potentially, criminal penalties. > > Cadence is investigating this unauthorized disclosure and copying, and > will take all available legal actions against the person who made the > disclosure when his or her identity is learned. Any person or entity using > such illegally posted code will also be the subject of the same legal > action. You should immediately destroy any copy you may have made of the > program. Anyone having information about the illegal posting should contact > Robert Donohue, Cadence's General Counsel, at 'robert(a)cadence.com' or > telephone (408) 944-7748 or fax at (408) 944-0215 in the United States. > As might be expected, much heat has been generated in subsequent net discussions. Several issues are at stake. There has been some discussion over the legality of the posting and potential subsequent use of the Perl script. Cadence has apparently received heat from its users for what some have perceived as its heavy-handed reaction. Some Verilog users have complained that hacking on the libraries is sometimes necessary because of the insufficient documentation of their contents. Perhaps the most serious implication for the EDA community is the apparent ease with which the protection of numerous ASIC vendor's intellectual property was broached. The data contained in these libraries are the "crown jewels" for these chip manufacturers and are typically protected by non-disclosure agreements between the manufacturers and their customers. There has been some mention of liability on Cadence's part for any unauthorized disclosure that may occur. Finally, this incident will undoubtedly provide more ammunition for those who have been criticising the growing phenomenon of anonymous remailing services on the net. -------- P.S. Does anyone on this list know if the offending post was made through an anonymous remailer? -brk

2 1

PGP Business Week article
by VACCINIA＠UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In case anyone is interested, there is a very sympathetic article in the Oct. 4, 1993 "Business Week" magazine about PGP and encryptation in general. It's on page 43. I'll just hit the highlights, but check it out. >Oddly, the crackdown on software {re:PGP} comes just as the administration is >loosening export controls on computer hardware. But the schizophrenia may be >more apparent than real."I don't think they've got the export policy together >enough to be split", says a key congressional staffer..... "This is an area >that has essentially been turned over to the spooks". >Meanwhile, there is growing concern in congress about possible damage to >exports. Quality encryptation software, "is available from foreign >manufacturers... and is easily transmitted using only a long-distance >telephone line and a modem," complained Representative Sam Gejdenson >(D-Conn.) and a high-powered bipartisan group of collegues in a Sept. 20 >letter to the President. >Still, the NSA can't stave off the inevitable for long. Gejdenson hopes to >produce legislation by early next year to revamp government policy on high- >tech exports. The result will probably include looser restrictions on >encryptation software- and a victory for Phil Zimmermann in his battle to >keep snoops out of his cyberspace. Hee-Hee, write Rep. Gejdenson via compuserve or any other way and let him know you support him on this one. I think if we keep at it we win. Scott G. Morham ! The First, Vaccinia(a)uncvx1.oit.unc.edu ! Second ! and Third ! Levels of ! Information Storage and Retrieval ! DNA, ! Biological Neural Nets, ! Cyberspace

1 0

Re: the public key minefield
by baumbach＠atmel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You seem to have missed my earlier summary of how patents are structured. > A separate part of the patent from the claims describes how to build the > claimed device. The claims aren't supposed to. Do you agree or disagree that: 'the concept of "anti-gravity" device is not patentable. If I could duplicate the effect of your anti-gravity device without using any of the same novel mechanisms. My device would be separately patentable.' ? If you agree, then how can you patent "public key systems" as a concept? If you disagree, then we can leave it at that. Peter Baumbach baumbach(a)atmel.com

1 0

Re: the public key minefield
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You seem to have missed my earlier summary of how patents are struct ured. > A separate part of the patent from the claims describes how to build the > claimed device. The claims aren't supposed to. Do you agree or disagree that: 'the concept of "anti-gravity" device is not patentable. If I could duplicate the effect of your anti-gravity device without using any of the same novel mechanisms. My device would be separately patentable.' ? If you agree, then how can you patent "public key systems" as a concept? If you disagree, then we can leave it at that. The question is phrased improperly. Apart from the fact that the concept (though not the reality) of anti-gravity is prior art, they didn't patent the concept of public-key cryptography. Rather, they patented a class of devices fitting a certain description, with one public key cryptosystem as an example and as a separate set of claims. To use your analogy, I could patent anti-gravity achieved by interposing a screen of some substance opaque to gravity, and patent Cavorite as an instance of that class. If you had another use for Cavorite, you'd be home free. Or if you found a way to neutralize gravity by beaming anti-gravitons downward, you'd probably be clear, too. But if you found another substance besides Cavorite that was opaque to gravity -- yes, that would be covered by my patent. (Fortunately, H.G. Wells didn't patent his literary device. But I can't think of another science fiction author who used that technique....) It's certainly possible that all possible cryptosystems that achieve the same effect would be covered by their description. That, of course, is the mark of a good patent attorney's work -- that he or she managed to fashion so broad a claim. But maybe you can find a better way to do what you really want to do, which is trade keys and authenticate messages. And if you do -- well, then, the patent system has succeeded in its goals, in that the monopoly assigned to someone else has stimulated you to find another way to do things, and thus furthered the useful arts and sciences.

2 1

Re: Verilog encryption broken
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bruce R Koball <bkoball(a)well.sf.ca.us> said: >P.S. Does anyone on this list know if the offending post was made >through an anonymous remailer? -brk In looking at the newsgroup in question, it appears that someone cancelled the controversial article, but it is clear from responses that the poster was "an33929(a)anon.penet.fi". Doug

1 0

Clinton UN Speech / Msg to Prez/VP
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In his UN speech this morning, Clinton talked about cracking down on nuke and missile proliferation, and he also mentioned eliminating cold-war-era restrictions which are harming American business. Let's put together a message to president(a)whitehouse.gov and vice-president(a)whitehouse.gov (since Gore is the info-highway guru) stating our position. Points we should make: (please modify and add to this list) * Crypto export restrictions are among the most obsolete and oppressive of these restrictions. * Americans can be jailed for exporting software which is widely used throughout the world (e.g. DES), and which in many cases was even developed outside the U.S. * These restrictions have already hurt American software companies. * They will prevent America from taking the lead in many crucial information technologies. * They will leave American companies vulnerable to industrial espionage. And our position on Clipper: * Clipper should not be established as a mandatory standard for the general public or for business. * Alternatives to Clipper should not be restricted. * Telecommunications companies should not be coerced into using Clipper. * Clipper chips should not have any special export status due to the fact that we keep the keys. This would put American makers of crypto hardware at a serious disadvantage in the world market. * Clipper should be reserved for its stated purpose - protection of non-classified information within the Federal government. * Use outside the government should be purely voluntary. * The whole concept of key escrow needs serious public examination. While the government may have the right, with a warrant, to knock down your door, key escrow is equivalent to requiring every citizen to give the police a copy of his or her key. This is a major departure from the status quo, not a continuation of it. --- MikeIngle(a)delphi.com P.S. It could be worse. Remember Clipper was a Bush administration plan. Bush was a former CIA head. He also had a dictatorial attitude and felt no need to justify his actions to anyone. Bush would probably have tried to ban crypto outright as soon as Clipper was ready.

3 2