December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

retraction re: triple-DES
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some of you may remember that I was promoting triple-DES-CBC using three feedback loops rather than one, claiming that is was clearly at least as secure as triple-DES with one feedback loop, while being faster for pipelined operation. It is clearly faster in a pipeline but Eli Biham has shown me his attack on inner-loop triple-DES and it's quite good and I was quite wrong...at least for chosen-ciphertext attacks. The inner loops weaken the resulting cipher drastically, under those attacks. I might still use the inner loops to get longer brute force attacks (as noted by Burt Kaliski in a posting here a while ago), if I knew that chosen-ciphertext attacks couldn't happen, but my original claim is clearly wrong and I thank Eli for pointing that out. Meanwhile, there are probably better ways to get the longer key for avoiding brute force (eg., XOR with a single secret value or with a simple (fast) PRNG). I'm told that Eli has a paper in preparation explaining his attack in full and I'm looking forward to that paper. I am sure that its location will be announced to this list when it becomes available. - Carl

1 0

Re: Public key encryption, income tax and government
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE----- Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR Originator-Name: cme(a)sw.stratus.com Originator-Key-Asymmetric: MIGbMAoGBFUIAQECAgP+A4GMADCBiAKBgCl79/jl0DEVl1GQzOHlzjDmChDDxnWO Acd7jShj2x1vclFh6vbHx9IJqkQdwNhNAWf8XnTrqBDN+VSBc1qdT6nSEAbNPxHD XcvY2DudhuRaRBVLgUQ4scTK657m90Q+bTL5yIh2MaFipUw9BgbIXPTDlksSskWP 9oHjo+pCJC+lAgMBAAE= MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA, C3gMSFO0aMHOYmm5S1biubEdUqIq8HEhOvSHO8n/+DqknxLju55dTCcI43u6rhH9 Nh6A0d8+9rZFi1P+sNAJ/kk0ory5q144Chg1z1Aukf/uLrhDLYkZZhplL0tFSi5y YWmf6jzlH5I6tcTzMbpf5/5iHFsgLiFJ0LVFn1rYwTY= In article <jdurr-100194200236(a)nubs92.ccs.itd.umich.edu> jdurr(a)eland.com (J. Durr) writes: > >from Strategic Investment, p 11, November 11 1993 > >Escape to Cypherspace: >The Information Revolution and the demise of the income tax > >by James Bennett > >The ultimate revenge of the Nerds > > Readers of Strategic Investment are already aware of the crucial >role of the microchip in eroding the power of governments over their >citizens. Recent developments herald an expansion of this role that >promises to dwarf the effects seen to date. >[...] in >the coming decade, it may create consequences which change the life of >everyone on the planet more than the atomic bomb. Mr. Bennett is clearly a victim of the popular impression that privacy is somehow new. Anything which can be done with public key encryption can be done already with private communications (whispers, notes which are mailed and destroyed, secret mail drops, couriers, secret-key encryption, ...). All the hype over cryptoanarchy is overblown. We are capable of anarchy, income tax evasion and secret bank accounts today. Look around you. How much of that do you see in your own life? What makes you think that you'll see any more of it in 10 years? - Carl P.S. His claim that RSA markets RIPEM was humorous -- but sad. Maybe it's always like this when the general public gets interested in something technical. -----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----

2 1

amusing quote
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found this quote amusing: >obviously, I don't give a damn, do I? somehow my life has become far more >exciting now that I have so many enemies and have discovered all their >blackest secrets. I've been keeping out of the Detweiler fray, and wouldn't ordinarily quote him, but this is unusual...I'm taking him at face value here; that probably *is* the source of his motivation for all his frothing at the mouth. Paranoia is entertaining to him. The quote comes from talk.politics.crypto, where I was grazing the other day. Doug -- Doug Merritt doug(a)netcom.com Professional Wild-eyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife HC_III Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci SF GA VR CASE TLAs

1 0

Weak Random Number Generators
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jerry(a)terminus.dell.com a while ago said he'd made a hardware random number generator, and offered to send out data generated by it, inviting people to look for weaknesses. I followed up on that and found problems with one of the two sets of data he sent (files a.bin and b.bin, one produced with his hardware and one with a software RNG, but which is which was not identified). He apparently is too busy to acknowledge my response, so I thought I'd post the results I emailed him here, for those of you interested in weaknesses of RNG's. The weakness is shown via ascii graphics of the results of the analysis, which makes it accessible and intuitive. -------------- included message ------------------ As I suspected, it only took a few minutes of programming to find periodicity in the phase space. The set you called "a.bin" is the one that shows a great deal of obvious structure. The intrinsic resonance is related to powers of two (I haven't figured it out more closely than that), which is what one might expect from software methods, but less likely from hardware methods (unless there's a power-of-two bias introduced by an ADC). On the other hand, I may be seeing structure in your psuedo-random number generator...they're notoriously bad unless you went out of your way to find a really really good one. The b.bin file appeared ergodic, almost completely filling the 2d phase space I picked as an easy-to-implement test. I may try another few tests shortly. For your amusement, I produced two psuedo-RNG files, one using the ancient and decrepit rand() function, well known to be a very poor source of randomness (c.bin), and one using the more carefully constructed BSD Unix random() function (d.bin). The latter also has its flaws, but they are far better hidden than those of rand(). Note that c.bin is even more grossly flawed (structured) than your a.bin. Meanwhile, if a.bin happens to be from your software RNG rather than from your hardware RNG, then you need a new one! I have one of the better ones lying around somewhere, let me know if you need it. Below is what I saw from my crude-ascii graphics output from the four test sets. If you think this would be of interest to cypherpunks, feel free to post this there...or tell me to. Doug (Note that I'm using a 35 by 80 window to view these) 2811> ran < a.bin . . .... . . .... . . ..... . ... . . . . ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . .... . ....... . .... ... ... .... .. ..... . ..... .... . ..... . ..... . ..... . .... . .... . . .... .... . ... . . ... . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .. ... . . ..... . . ..... . ..... . .... . . ....... ...... ..... ... . . ..... . ..... . ..... .... 2812> ran < b.bin ........................................................... .... . .............................................................. ..................................... .......................... ................................................................ ...................................... ......................... ..................... .......................................... ................................................................ ........................................ ....................... ................................................................ ................................................................ .................... ................. ......................... ................................................................ .......................................... ..................... ................................................................ .................................... ........................ .. ............................. .................................. ............................................. .................. ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................ ............................... ................................................................ ......... ..................................................... ............................ ................................... .......................... ..................................... ................................................................ ................................................................ ........... .................................................... ................... ............................................ .......................... ..................................... ................................................................ ................................................................ .............................................................. . 2813> ran < c.bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2814> ran < d.bin ................................................................ ................................................................ ... ............................................... ....... .... ........................................................... .... ................................................................ ........................................................ ....... ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................. .............. ...................................... ......................... ................................................................ ............ ................................................... ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ............... ................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ .......................... ................ .................... ................................................... ............ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ -------------- end included message -------------

1 0

No Subject
by ltech1!ltech1!mercury＠heifetz.msen.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubscribe

1 0

Crypto and Taxes, Etc.
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com In a recent post, Carl Ellison <cme(a)sw.stratus.com> opined: >Mr. Bennett is clearly a victim of the popular impression that privacy is >somehow new. Anything which can be done with public key encryption can >be done already with private communications (whispers, notes which are >mailed and destroyed, secret mail drops, couriers, secret-key >encryption,...>. > >All the hype over cryptoanarchy is overblown. We are capable of anarchy, >income tax evasion and secret bank accounts today. Look around you. How >much of that do you see in your own life? What makes you think that >you'll see any more of it in 10 years? > - Carl PM has already responded pointing out that cryptography makes such things more convenient and this is certainly true. It is much easier to participate in real free markets if secrecy is cheap and easy. There is another aspect however that is tied up with crypto and telecoms. In traditional Black Markets, the transactions are illegal. In future Black Markets on the nets, most of the transactions will be legal. Legality certainly encourages transactions relative to illegality. If I am a non-US citizen resident in a tax-haven jurisdiction, I have no US tax liability for my non-US source income. I also have no tax liability in the haven jurisdiction as long as I wasn't working in that economy. This was OK in the past if you were a bank or a rich owner of passive income. You could accumulate it free in a tax haven. Most people couldn't participate, however. With commerce on the nets, however, it becomes much cheaper to arrange your affairs (if you are a non-US citizen) such that you have no tax liability. You may also be able to operate in a much looser regulatory environment. While it is true that you could accomplish all of the above using traditional technology, the nets mean that you can do it more cheaply (meaning it becomes economically appropriate for more transactions) and in a mainstream market not off to the side in a tropical pesthole. You can have all the benefits of forum shopping while not giving up access to the richest markets of the OECD countries. If a Brit or an American chooses to download a financial product, a video, a drug synthesis description file, medical advice, or some other bits of information from you (you being located somewhere on the nets) they may be breaking various laws (depending on the contents of their download) but you may not. Thus it is legal, today, for an American to purchase an unregistered foreign security but it is illegal for me to promote such a thing domestically. On the nets, we are all foreign and we are all domestic. It would be legal to promote the sale of an unregistered foreign security over the nets. What happens to the SEC? As I said in London in November (and *think* about this folks): "And what can we call this new form of social organization growing on the nets and in the modern fluid business environment? When two or more people can meet together and communicate freely and privately without interference by outsiders, they can trade -- they can form a market. If this trade on the nets is made free from even the *possibility* of external regulation, what we have is a free market and a free society." Unless you can block this communication, we've got a market since 90% of the economy will be in non-physical goods and services within a very few years. Sorry to repeat myself... DCF Frissell Glossary - OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) AKA the 24 richest countries. (The 12 EEC Members, US, Canada, Japan, Aus, NZ, the non-EEC countries of Western Europe including Iceland, and Turkey.) --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. Detweiler, I would claim that you have the brain of a cabbage, but obviously you've expended a fair quntity of intellect figuring out this tremendous conspiracy of cryptoanarchists and their devious leaders attempting to sink you (if they're anarchists, how can they have leaders anyhow?) Dozens of people have stated that they have met all the people you think are the same. You are living in a self-consistant delusion -- there is no way to demonstrate to your satisfaction that your claims are false, because you won't accept testimonial evidence and you wont go through any effort to check out the evidence you have been given that you can check out yourself. There is no amount of effort that will convince you of the truth. Meanwhile, you continue to post huge disruptive messages about topics 99% of the net doesn't care about both under your name and under "an12070(a)anon.penet.fi" to dozens of newsgroups. I'd say if anyone around here is a problem its YOU. Nick Szabo is a real human being, last I checked. He was a computer science major at U.W. and later worked at JPL in Pasadena. He shared a basement apartment with a Tibetan holy man. While he was about as odd as any other hardcore C-Sci guy I know of, he's a lousy candidate to be a leader, a tentacle, or any other part of a massive cryptoanarchist conspiracy. This won't dissuade you (obviously, I'm just another member of the conspiracy. My tenous link with Nick proves it for a fact. In fact, Jeremy Anderson is just an alias! I picked up the driver's license, credit cards, passport, and personality dossier 8 years ago in Tiajuana from a shadowy man known only as "rodriguez, with two lower case r's".) Let's try a different tact. Yes Detweiler. You have sucessfully exposed the international cryptoanarchist conspiracy. Unfortunately, our vast experience with media manipulation and our connections with the highest levels of government will hamper your ability to make further progress. We are proud to count as members of our conspiracy such luminaries as Socks Clinton, Bobby Inman, Connie Chung Yu-Hwa (who while mascarading as a mild-mannered TV anchor is our connection with the Chinese Kuomintang's massive intelligence apparatus), and the 23 secret leaders of the Masons. We've been monitoring your actions for years with bugs, wiretaps, and secret agents. One night, while you slept, a crack surgical terrorist team entered your domicile, sedated you heavily, and planted radio-controlled electrodes in your head. Should you ever get a positive identification on any of the leaders of our cabal, a radio signal will be sent causing you to go into a massive seizure, whereupon the elctrodes will disintegrate, leaving no trace of our work for the forensics experts to sift through. The situation really is hopless Detweiler. We can wipe your existence off the face of the planet any time. While we figure you're too driven and fanatical to co-opt, we're happy to fight to a draw. Congratulate yourself. Your superior intellect has exposed more about the inner workings of our organization (and I use the term loosely) than we expected any mere mortal to be able to manage. We consider our protection mechanisms to be strong enough that you won't be able to cause much damage to our command and control structure. Relax, take the day to go hiking in the mountains, enjoy life, and know that your personal desires and plans are safe from interference for now. Regards, Jeremy Anderson Assistant Secretary of Propaganda United Thought Patrol P.S. Don't try to archive this message, it's wired with virtual explosives. -- Jeremy Anderson Freelance programmer and Chinese translator jeremy(a)cyberspace.com PGP public key available on request Good cheer and smiles dispensed freely

2 1

Updated/corrected posting
by hkhenson＠cup.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

About two years ago I helped a guy from Milpitias (just north of San Jose) deal with a BBS bust at what he described as a "light" porn BBS. The San Jose cops realized shortly that they had really goofed by not considering the ECPA and related laws in their search & seizure. The result was that they gave his system back after five weeks, and stated in a written release that this guy's activities were within the scope of the law. The BBS is called Amateur Action, and the sysop's name is Robert Thomas (408-263-1079). Robert's lawyer, Richard Williams's phone number is 408-295-6336. Last night about 8 pm, Robert (who I have yet to meet in person) called. A search warrant was being served at that very moment by the US Postal Inspectors, who (with the help of San Jose cops) were packing up his equipment and carting it out--again. Robert managed to get one of these inspectors on the phone with me. This inspector seemed to be rather knowledgeable of such things as the ECPA, 2000aa, and the Steve Jackson case. He stated he was completely unconcerned about their lack of warrants for email! He piously stated that, because it was their intent to bring the system back within a "few days" and, as a result of the short interruption of user access, and their good intent "not to look at private email," they were completely safe from the provisions of the ECPA. This postal inspector gave his name as David Dirmeyer, from Tennessee (does this sound like Bible Belt prosecution for pron?) and gave me the name of the US Attorney he was working under, one Dan Newson with a phone of 901-544-4231 in TN (though he stated that the phone # would be of no use because Dan was at a conference for a week). For what it is worth, the postal inspector said they were using the San Jose cops on the bust because they did not have the expertise themselves to move the system and make copies. According to the investigator, they did not know that they could get a court order to have a backup of the system made on the spot. It may be that Robert is the target. (In spite of not meeting him, I suspect Richard may be the kind of smart alec who attracts the attention of cops.) Robert said there was a mystery package which came today in the mail today (which his son and wife picked up and she opened). The package turned out to be real honest-to-gosh kiddy porn. Robert claims not to have ordered it, and considering that his wife picked the (unexpected) package up and opened it, I think this is the actual case. Robert was busy with system problems that afternoon and had not gotten around to doing anything about the stuff. The guy who sent it is known as "Lance White," who Robert thinks is one of his BBS members. (As is postal inspector Dirmeyer.) They had Robert pull all postal correspondence with this guy (video porn orders) from his files and took it with them. Robert thinks the postal folks may be after this guy, and his BBS just got caught in the middle. An interesting side point is that while they asked for the package which came that day when they came in, they did not have a warrant for it, and said they would have drive over to SF to get one unless he volunteered to give it up. Robert signed off that they could take it, and they did. He noted this morning that the original warrant he has was neither signed nor dated, though a judge's name was typed in. I don't know if this is something of marginal concern to those of us concerned with government abuse of people's computers and communications or a major concern. I intend to find out more, but if the ECPA is applicable, this guy had about 3500 users, over 2k pieces of protected email on his system, plus (I think) agreements with his uses for him to represent them in an ECPA related legal action--two million dollars if I am multiplying right. (My "Warning to Law Enforcement Agents" was part of his signup screens.) Question for Mike Godwin. One aspect of this case gives me the shakes. *Anyone* with a grudge (and access to this kind of stuff) can send you a package in the mail and tip off the postal inspectors. Short of the obvious (don't make enemies!) how can you protect yourself from this kind of attack? My non-lawyer thoughts: Burn it at once! Call my lawyer. Call the cops. For a while this will be a very serious problem, because *any* of us with readily available morfing tools can make (what looks like) kiddy porn out of legal porn. Keith Henson 408-972-1132 hkhenson(a)cup.portal.com

2 1

"tentacles"-- I don't get it!!
by nobody＠cicada.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I hate to intrude here but I have been seeing all the smoke out in the newsgroups about this "tentacle" business and L. Detweiler (who is this guy??!). I hope I won't be flamed so I am sending this through a remailer. (I love your technology, one of my friends went to a cypherpunk meeting once and told me about the cooler stuff.) I sent L. Detweiler some of these questions but he never responded, so I was hoping people here could help me understand what is going on out here!!! So anyway... Could someone define "tentacle"? Detweiler said, out in the newsgroups: > > 1) the cypherpunks betrayed me. they even got a an old college friend > to pretend he was real. M.Dale sent me mail claiming he was real. I > did not ask for this mail. But if you send me lies, I will call you a > liar. I don't agree with that in the least. (With what he says they did, not the paragraph itself). > > 2) Szabo is one of the most valuable cypherpunk tentacles as far as > reputation. `he' has been posting to the net for a long time in > many groups. this is why they fought so tenaciously to protect him. > > 3) T.C.May said at a cypherpunk meeting that everyone I have accused of > being a tentacle is real. T.C.May is a liar. I dare you, Mr. May, > to come out of your hole. I will tear your postings to shreds. I > will rip the lies apart. I will decapitate the tentacles, and they > will be afraid to show their sickly green faces anywhere respectable. > I have followed this thread for such a short time (relativly speaking). I think I picked up on the "Cryptoanarchist" part (someone who doesn't support the regulation of cryptography?). From what I've been able to gather, the talk is about "tentacles" coming from one "Medusa." > 4) B.Stewart says that he saw N.Szabo and J.Dinkelacker at the > last cypherpunk meeting, *and* their drivers license. B.Stewart is > an Accomplice. I challenge anyone who saw them to tell the world > you did. Did you really see the Phantoms? > > 5) the whole affair proves that the conspiracy is very active, > involves very many people, and has gotten quite out of control. > > 6) anyone who supports the cypherpunks or their leaders are > accomplices to lies and the `hidden agenda' of black marketeering, > manipulation, tax evasion, deception, money laundering, overthrow > of governments. And these are just the *obvious* ones. So many makeshift terms here that I'm not familiar with. Could someone Define "cypherpunk." (I HAVE heard of "CyberPunk," but couldn't extract a meaning out of that either.) Please enlighten me. > > 7) cypherpunks are responsible for a huge increase in trash lately > to newsgroups. It is a means of drowning my signal in noise. They > are nothing but conspiracists, powermongers, and extremists. > What trash is this? The only thing I have seen (so far, as I believe) are various messages written by an12070 (L. Detweiler?) that have erupted into flame wars. Keep in mind that I'm NOT FLAMING ANYONE here. > hey cypherpunks! you think that because no one challenges your > ridiculous posts, calling me insane, that no one believes me? that > no one is taking me seriously? That no one is stunned that szabo > is nothing but a worthless, slimy snake? the joke's on you. there > are a fantastic number of lurkers `out there' who are beginning to > sense the lies. > CyberAnarchists... Is that someone who doesn't want CyberSpace regulated? Personally, I have nothing against the free exchange of information (does anyone here?). I was really upset when he said > death to cyberanarchists-- by anarchy... > > > stay tuned, soon they will all be SQUISHed > > -- is this one of the "violent death threats" that everyone has been talking about? thanks for the help, I just want to know. sorry that I missed some of the earlier stuff. I will be watching this list for a reply. BTW that stuff that Detweiler is doing with signatures, switching them around, it is kind of ironic given that the cypherpunks are really into that thing. He seems to be really pissing you guys off. but I gotta admit it really is a sort of new art form in cyberspace, kinda like Graffiti. although, there is so much activity lately that it kind of makes me wonder if there is a whole team of people out there. there have been a lot of rumors about infiltrators and double agents. we'll see what the future brings. personally I think remailers are God's Gift to Cyberspace, and anything done to limit their capabilities or infringe on the privacy of whoever uses them is CENSORSHIP and ORWELLIAN POLICE STATE. we'll prove to Detweiler that we are not the hypocrites he claims we are, that under no circumstances whatsoever will we *ever* betray the people who use our remailers, even if they are our enemies, because Privacy is all that matters. .adAMMMb. .dAMMMAbn. .adAWWWWWWWWWAuAWWWWWWWWWWAbn. .adWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWbn. ..adMMMMMP^~".--"~^YWWWWWWWWWWHHMMMMMMMMbn.. "~^Y" / ..dMWMP".ammmmdMMMUP^~" | Y dMAbammdAMMMMMMP^~" | | MMMMMMMMMMMMU^" -Row l : Y^YUWWWWUP^" \ j "-..,.^ mveaudry(a)turing.acs.ryerson.ca & ld231782(a)longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (and how many more that I haven't revealed yet? Could I actually be jmurphy(a)apple.com? could I be 3CJS5@qucdn. QueensU.ca? Who am I? Who cares?)

1 0

CRYPTO/TAX
by Sandy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Hal Finney wrote: I don't agree with the extreme position that cryptography will lead to the failure of the income tax and the destruction of the government. Consider: untraceable, anonymous transactions occur every day - not through cryptography, but through simple cash purchases at the local grocery store, gas station, department store, restaurant, and so on. There are many occupations which primarily involve cash transactions. Are these people immune from income tax? Of course not. Do these people pay such income tax? Of course not. The government's own figures peg tax evasion at "only" 20%. Yeah, and Elvis lives in my closet. The government has many ways of extracting tax in these cases, ranging from periodic audits with heavy penalties (which keep people honest) to imputing income (as in the case of tip income by waiters), to fraud investigations for those living beyond their means. Think "cost-benefit analysis." Duncan has already pointed out that the modal number of years spent in prison by tax evaders is "zero." Hal should get friendly with a weekend mechanic or a waitress. He might want to re-think his belief in the voluntary tax compliance of alternative economy. Perhaps Eric Hughes will recap the "crypto point-of-sale" rap he gave at the previous Cypherpunks meeting. (Or maybe he won't.) What it demonstrated was that the types of economic transactions that can benefit from crypto-privacy is much broader than Hal is imagining. We have already won. S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBK1IgLE5ULTXct1IzAQFC0QP/fWrSeauH3xnD7CFofRO8dTIdVN31etSO LPqw+XOC2us01cBRCyR6BNArbjpscLgiYjdvbEaMGBGbjPw8JFlVlDTI2+WV/b7h 6fLIFgCkUzmFaZKBHaNmiCIQarii8xucVaM8lHt8rZ3tQE9mCe8i6mosagcuDO5B +9/f0an++6g= =sZO9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0