December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Internet Security Hearing
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded by Gleason Sackman - InterNIC net-happenings moderator ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()() ---------- Text of forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 17:42:43 -0700 From: richard bryant <rbryant(a)HYDRA.UNM.EDU> To: Multiple recipients of list COMMUNET <COMMUNET(a)uvmvm.bitnet> Subject: SS&T Special Notice Re: Internet Security (fwd) According to SSTPRESS: >From SSTPRESS(a)HR.HOUSE.GOV Thu Mar 17 16:21:07 1994 Date: 17 Mar 1994 18:15:18 EST From: "SSTPRESS" <SSTPRESS(a)HR.HOUSE.GOV> Subject: SS&T Special Notice SS&T|NEWS COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2320 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 March 17, 1994 Special Notice Because of considerable advance interest in next Tuesday's hearing on Internet security, we are taking the liberty of including a witness list for the hearing with this week's calendar mailing. The hearing will take place beginning at 9:30 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn on Tuesday, March 22, and will be chaired by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA). The Subcommittee's interest in the issue arises in part because the Internet is a prime method of communication between researchers in academia and industry. It is also a major means of communication for federal researchers at agencies under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Recent break-ins on the Internet prompted the federal Computer Emergency Response Team to issue a special alert to Internet users on February 3, and suggest that the system may be more vulnerable than generally acknowledged to deliberate destruction or alteration of computer files. The hearing will evaluate the status of security on the Internet today and will examine measures currently available to enhance security, assess the effectiveness and degree of implementation of such measures, and identify obstacles to enhancing Internet security. A background memo prepared for Members by the Subcommittee is available from the Committee press office by fax (202/225-8280) or email (sstpress(a)hr.house.gov) Broadcast reporters who plan to attend the hearing should register with the House Radio and Television Gallery, and can call the Committee press secretary (202-225-3359) for logistical information and early access to the hearing room. # # # For further information: Rick Borchelt, 202/225-3359 (fax 202/225-8280) (email "sstpress(a)hr.house.gov") ______________________________ George E. Brown, Jr. Chairman Robert S. Walker Ranking Republican Member SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE Hearing on Internet Security March 22, 1994 9:30 a.m. - 2318 Rayburn House Office Building Tentative Witness List Mr. L. Dain Gary, Manager Computer Emergency Response Team Operations (CERT) Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (CERT is one of the coalition of response teams that form the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, or FIRST) Mr. Thomas T. Kubic Chief, Financial Crimes Section Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, DC Dr. Vinton G. Cerf, President Internet Society Reston, Virginia (Senior VP of Data Architecture, MCI) Mr. Lynn McNulty Associate Director for Computer Security Computer Systems Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland (NIST is the secretariat for FIRST) Dr. Stephen D. Crocker, Vice President Trusted Information Systems Glenwood, Maryland (Chair, Privacy and Security Research Group, Internet Research Task Force)

1 0

Fw: Public Interest Summit Organizing Kit
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sounds to me that these guys don't want to hear from inside the Beltway folks like me. How about some of the left coast folk? ------------------------------ From: Richard Civille <rciville(a)civicnet.org> Fri, 18 Mar 1994 21:07:24 -0500 (EST) Cc: ace-mg(a)esusda.gov, alt-politics-datahighway(a)eff.org, bluemt(a)cni.org, com-priv(a)psi.com, communet(a)uvmvm.uvm.edu, ednet(a)mr.net, libnet(a)mr.net, net-people(a)nic.state.mn.us, nii-regional(a)rain.org, nii-summit(a)cni.org, nii_agenda(a)civicnet.org, publib(a)nysernet.org, pubpol-l(a)vm1.spcs.umn.edu, roundtable(a)cni.org, ruralnet(a)gibbs.oit.unc.edu, telecomreg(a)relay.adp.wisc.edu, board(a)cap.gwu.edu Subject: Public Interest Summit Organizing Kit Shaping the National Information Infrastructure Public Interest Summit -- ORGANIZING KIT -- NOTE: Use this electronic mail address for contact: <summit(a)tmn.com> Your participation is essential to making the Summit responsive and effective. We are sending you the enclosed "kit" of questions, organizing suggestions, and formats for sending your discussion materials back to us. This is a call for you and your organization or group to discuss the information highway issues -- as YOU see them. Send back your replies for lead ins to the panel discussions, and as questions and concerns for panelists and Administration officials to consider -- as soon as you can. Please use the questions listed below to help organize your discussion group. It is important to hear as many voices across the Nets as possible, as soon as possible. However, it is even more important for us to use the Net to go beyond the Net. We hope the following ideas will be helpful in organizing discussion groups in classrooms, in church, at work, at home; in service organizations, and activist groups; for radio call-in talk shows, local cablecast panel discussions and anywhere where people meet to talk about what is important to them. We must move very quickly to make this work and we need you. Remember, we are talking about beginning a wave of change this week, that will grow in power and momentum beyond the Summit and into the Spring and beyond. -- Registration -- Register with us to become an organizer/moderator of a discussion group (either on-line or off-line). Send e-mail to <summit(a)tmn.com> with "register" as the subject line and a brief description of your project and group. If you cannot email, see the alternative contact points below. We will work for broad discussions among the online communities but we believe that it is ultimately the "real world" that will make the difference here, not simply Cyberspace. We encourage you to organize off-line discussion groups and send us the summaries using the questions and formats given below. -- Video Opportunities -- This is a media event. We are also searching for good, brief, video shots. Do you have good local public media contacts? Do you know of good video opportunities -- important new voices that should be heard, projects in your community using information technologies for good public benefit that should be recognized? Tell us about them as soon as you can. Send your ideas to us at <summit(a)tmn.com>. We are prepared to work very quickly with local public television and cable access groups, who can tape and Fedex the tape to us for inclusion in the program. Video shots must be a maximum one minute in length. We must have all tape submissions received no later than Friday, March 25th and earlier if possible. -- Questions for Discussion Groups -- 1. What is important to your group? 2.What does your group want in terms of connectivity to the NII? 3. What does your group want not to happen with the NII? 4. What special requirements do you have that might be missed in the national planning for the NII which is taking place now in Washington, DC? 5. What would you be able to do with the NII, that you would not otherwise, if you did not have to worry about the cost of access? 6. What one key question would you want the Administration to give you an explicit answer to about the NII? 7. How can you describe the positions your state and federal representatives are presently taking on your concerns about the NII? -- More Ideas -- You might consider several scenarios such as these for your discussion group. Make up your own! * Print this notice and take it to your group (church, class, work place lunch, family) for discussion, summarize the results, and send them to us. * Use the questions for a discussion item in your local community or civic network and report back with summaries of key points. Direct, attributed quotes are very helpful. Pose questions directed to specific panelists or to specific issues. Organize a local press conference. * Help increase the spread of the dialog by taking these questions to people and groups well beyond your own networks of friends and acquaintances, whether online or offline. Fax this Notice all over town. Photocopy fliers and distribute. Get these materials into the hands of those who are not members of online systems. -- Contacts, Format and Deadlines -- Please e-mail results of discussions back to the Public Interest Summit to <summit(a)tmn.com>. Include: - Your name - Name of online community, community/civic network or organization - Describe the process you used for your discussion (was it a working lunch, a bridge club, a call-in talk show, who moderated, how was it organized, etc.) - e-mail address of contact person, or phone if email is not available Please provide a summary, and several vivid highlights, and direct quotes that can be attributed to real people. No more than two pages or 4k. Please e-mail group discussion summaries by Sunday, March 27 at the latest. Videos must be received by the 25th and not be longer than one minute in length. The earlier the better, there is a great deal of pre-production work to be done. Things earlier will be summarized and posted to gopher servers under the menu heading: "Public Interest Telecommunication Summit" including new questions as they arise. If you cannot email you can contact the Summit production team through: The Benton Foundation 202-638-5770 (voice) 202-638-5771 (fax) Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: FOIA text
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jdblair(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.EDU: > Does anyone know an ftp site where I can find the full text of the > Freedom of Information Act? ftp: ftp.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Access_govt_info/FOIA/us_foia_act.txt other articles, acts, cases in the same directory. ftp.eff.org is full of information, articles etc of interest to cypherpunks, particularly in the Policy directory. Most of the material I'm putting into a hypertext WWW guide to cpunks is from there. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "What is civilisation rishab(a)doe.ernet.in, rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in but a ribonucleic Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 hangover?" H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: A Certain Monk at a certain village in Hanoi I thought I'd share this with you: -----------CUT HERE------------- program Hanoi(input,output); type Pegnumber = 1..3; var N: integer; Procedure WriteMoves (N: integer; Peg1, Peg2, Peg3: PegNumber); begin {Moves} if N=1 then writeln('Move a ring from ', Peg1:1, ' to ', Peg2:1) else begin {else} WriteMoves(N-1, Peg1, Peg3, Peg2); writeln('Move a ring from ', Peg 1:1, ' to ', Peg2:1); WriteMoves(N-1, Peg3, Peg2, Peg1) end {else} end; {Moves} begin {Program} writeln{'Enter the number of rings and'); writeln('I''ll explain how to play Towers of Hanoi.'); readln(N); writeln (' To move ', M,' rings'); writeln (' from peg 1 to peg 2 proceed as follows:'); WriteMoves(N, 1, 2, 3); writeln (' That does it.') end. {Program} ------------AND HERE----------- I've used it on 64 rings, and it works fine. Of course this runs slowly and does tend to use a lot of storage. The stack really grows too large. I'm hoping that it may be possible to use this type of call with some bandwidth growth to help defeat analysis. "Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?" "That depends a good deal on where you want to get to." said the Cat. --Lewis Carroll

2 1

Pondering Clipper
by Adam Lake 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Heard enough about Clipper? I have been receiving cypherpunk material for about a week now. I am new to cryptography, and new to security(feel free to laugh). I hope this posting is appropriate.. Well enough excuses for what I am about to say but I might like Clipper. 1.) From what I am hearing (largely propaganda from both sides) Clipper will be OPTIONAL. If I am businessman X and I dont know squat about security (but realize it is a good thing) wouldnt I want something I could feel secure with? For me, wouldnt Clipper be a good thig? 2) If, for some reason, I wanted to keep something even more secure so the government couldnt see what I was doing, couldnt I just encrypt a message before or after it goes through the Clipper Chip? I would think this would prevent the government as well as anyone else from reading my message en route 3) Right now I can pick up cellular phone conversations and intercept data through any network lines with a datascope. For anyone who doesnt wan this to occur wouldnt it be nice if they couldat least be reasonably certain that no one could understand what they are hearing or seeing? 4) Also, would it be unreasonable to have an on/off switch on the Clipper chip? Please dont assume me to be a pro-clipper individual. I am merely trying to form a logical, educated opinion on the issue. I will always feel skeptical when the FBI say we just need this to maintain our current state of survellience capability (or is that survellience state ;-) And I am also aware that if anybody thinks these keys will be kept confidential unless the government has a warrant blah blah blah well I better stop there.......... lake(a)uenics.evansville.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Space for rent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Pondering Clipper
by sonny＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Lake <lake(a)uenics.evansville.edu> says: -> I have been receiving cypherpunk material for about a week now. I am new -> to cryptography, and new to security(feel free to laugh). I hope this -> posting is appropriate.. Well enough excuses for what I am about to say -> but I might like Clipper. [Don't worry, each individual should be able to make up her/his own mind regarding issues such as this (ie., individual privacy).] -> 1.) From what I am hearing (largely propaganda from both sides) Clipper -> will be OPTIONAL. If I am businessman X and I dont know squat about [If the claim that Clipper will be "OPTIONAL" is propaganda, you might want to take it with a grain of salt. "OPTIONAL" today might not mean "OPTIONAL" tomorrow.] -> security (but realize it is a good thing) wouldnt I want something I -> could feel secure with? For me, wouldnt Clipper be a good thig? [If you are arguing that ignorance about security is a prerequisite for considering Clipper to be a good thing, you may be correct.] -> 2) If, for some reason, I wanted to keep something even more secure so -> the government couldnt see what I was doing, couldnt I just encrypt a -> message before or after it goes through the Clipper Chip? I would think -> this would prevent the government as well as anyone else from reading my -> message en route [If you have the technology at hand to encrypt a message before or after it goes through the Clipper chip using a method that the government can't crack, you don't need to spend money (as a prudent businessman) on Clipper hardware.] -> 3) Right now I can pick up cellular phone conversations and intercept data -> through any network lines with a datascope. For anyone who doesnt wan [Not bad for someone who is "new to security(feel free to laugh)."] -> this to occur wouldnt it be nice if they couldat least be reasonably -> certain that no one could understand what they are hearing or seeing? [Yes. This is why many people don't want Clipper. They want to be "reasonably certain that no one could understand what they are hearing or seeing"] -> 4) Also, would it be unreasonable to have an on/off switch on the Clipper -> chip? [I don't know.] -> Please dont assume me to be a pro-clipper individual. I am -> merely trying to form a logical, educated opinion on the issue. I will -> always feel skeptical when the FBI say we just need this to maintain our -> current state of survellience capability (or is that survellience state -> ;-) And I am also aware that if anybody thinks these keys will be kept -> confidential unless the government has a warrant blah blah blah well -> I -> better stop there.......... -> -> lake(a)uenics.evansville.edu >James<

1 0

(fwd) FBI Wiretaps. Old news....
by paul＠hawksbill.sprintmrn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For thos who haven't read some of the recent (compelling) newsbytes on Digital Telphony II - Forwarded message: > Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk > From: catalyst-remailer(a)netcom.com > Message-ID: <199403190626.WAA25701(a)mail2.netcom.com> > Subject: FBI Wiretaps. Old news.... > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 22:26:45 -0800 > X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA17267; Fri, 18 Mar 94 22:30:46 -0800 > X-Received: from mail2.netcom.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/13Jan94) > id AA08698; Fri, 18 Mar 94 22:25:42 -0800 > X-Received: from localhost by mail2.netcom.com (8.6.4/SMI-4.1/Netcom) > id WAA25701; Fri, 18 Mar 1994 22:26:45 -0800 > X-To: comp.org.eff.talk.usenet > X-Remailed-By: Remailer <catalyst-remailer(a)netcom.com> > > Today's news. > > WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The FBI warned Friday that wiretaps > might soon become impossible unless Congress updates a law > requiring telephone companies to cooperate with law enforcement > agencies on electronic surveillance. > ``Unless Congress creates a new law, law enforcement's > ability to protect the public against crime will be gravely > eroded and the national security will be placed at risk,'' FBI > Director Louis Freeh told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. > Freeh said new technology such as cellular telephones, call > forwarding and digital switching was making it more difficult > for the FBI and other agencies to operate wiretaps, which he > called one of law enforcement's best tools against crime and > terrorism. > ``We could be out of the wiretap business in a very short > time,'' Freeh said. He said 91 court-approved wiretaps were > abandoned last year because telephone companies could not solve > technical problems. > ``They (telephone companies) have told us they will not be > able to provide the access we need. We have certain requirements > which they tell us are not going into the software,'' he said. > Freeh said he wanted the 1968 law rewritten to require all > telephone companies to meet technical requirements for wiretaps > of new equipment. He said it would cost less than $1 billion and > would be paid in part by the federal government. > He said wiretaps had helped prevent several terrorist > attacks in the United States in recent years, including a 1986 > plot to shoot down an airliner, and helped convict over 22,000 > felons in the past decade. > Freeh said a new law would not jeopardize privacy, but > Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said he was still > concerned: ``My hope is that we can serve legitimate law > enforcement needs without jeopardizing privacy rights or > frustrating innovation and development of new technologies or > undercutting the competitiveness of America's high tech > industries.'' > The U.S. Telephone Association, which represents more than > 1,100 local telephone companies including the regional Bell > companies, said it believed the current law was adequate. It > said its members were cooperating with law enforcement. > Freeh said he had been meeting with representatives of the > telephone industry but had been unable to get a voluntary > agreement that would cover all companies. > - paul

1 0

Re: (fwd) FBI Wiretaps. Old news....
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> ``We could be out of the wiretap business in a very short > time,'' Freeh said. He said 91 court-approved wiretaps were > abandoned last year because telephone companies could not solve > technical problems. I forgot to add, EFF's recent FOIA act asking for equipment interference with court ordered wiretaps showed NO problems. Where the 91 figure comes from is a mystery.

1 0

VIACRYPT/PGP Listservers
by tontine key llc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are there any LISTS that are devoted to developing expertise in the use of the various forms of PGP being peddled by VIACRYPT et al. It would be a boon to us "NEWBIES" and the cause of "Crypto Publicos" if such a forum was available which provided some handholding on the minutia of using the software. Any ideas?

2 1

The CP WWW Home page
by Sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've been setting up a cypherpunks WWW home page on soda. So far I've been linking things into the home page stuff that's already on soda, and there's a good deal more work to be done. If you have some of your work available on the soda ftp site, if you want to make it available, I'd like a little bio info about yourself, (or your psuedonymous identity). So if you would like to send me either HTML pages with information or the proper URL so I can put in a link to your information, that would be great. Other suggestions for links are appreciated as well. (The cypherpunks URL is ftp://soda.berkeley.edu/pub/cypherpunks/Home.html) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLYyRZXi7eNFdXppdAQEY5gQApHsTeZ8iyrt5EvS4y9AVP2ayEYCW89sk I2ZT+HFGd6vhZd+AyDoSosjDKyLaslOyiTCIwWWstCRE9P7yM4ZkZEEIaDWPEsyP 9lsSo8AToC9wHnPvOsYyzLJJKGnkS6M3km23gH05HDUUGXKcvEgsyJTKD2spqBMN Ieacy6ely9E= =wpCz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1