December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Card Playing Protocol?
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something that frustrates me in fighting about crypto issues is the amazing quantities of ignorance available on the subject. I wish people knew more. Yes, if they understood how a meet-in-the-middle attack works that would be nice, but I would settle with something far simpler: It would be really nice if people had practical experiance *using* cryptography in a friendly, innocent, and non-threatening way. Familiarity breeds comfort. How to do this? What about a multi-player game which requires cryptography to implement the play? One possiblity would be a cryptographic implementation of playing cards. This has very obvious and easy to understand graphical implementations. So simple a small child can easily understand the product--which means possibly even the ITAR police would get the concept. This "digital deck of cards" would be flexible enough to allow the playing of most card games with the addition of the same manual book-keeping as is needed with physical cards. For assistance in keeping score, bidding--or God forbid--betting, there would be a journaled, low-bandwidth communication channel which would be--very important here--in the clear. The digital cards would be cryptographically strong. Players would appreciate that cheating could be accomplished by cracking the codes, and yet no one seems to be able to cheat. (Note, cheating through collusion in a game like bridge would still be possible.) The cards would not be suitable for distributing porn, bomb making secrets, or drugs, yet would drive the ITAR police *crazy*. What if a deck of the these cards were to be illegally exported from the country?!?!? Try telling all those Regular Citizens who are getting on the net and discover they can play cards that the cards are dangerous munitions. What a wonderful way to make the ITAR police look completely silly. Oh, and to be sure they *do* get upset, make the cards just open enough that they *do* constitute something more general-purpose. (Make calls to PGP, or let others make calls to the crypto functions in the digital cards--something like that.) Comments? Suggestions for a game other than cards that would be better or more suitable? Is anyone already working on a Card Playing Protocol? -kb, the Kent who tries to cause trouble -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 32:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

5 4

Re: Leaving the Country
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy wrote: >>From what Tim alludes to, I still think he is just plain wrong about how >bad things would be on him. He's probably getting bad advice from >practicing lawyers who have a vested interest in having financial privacy >"difficult" to obtain. (More billible hours, more fees.) For the rest >of us who aren't retired zillionaires, though, there is plenty that can >be done. I have read Sandy's and Duncan's posts with great interest. Could one of you perhaps give some concrete examples what a normal person can do to avoid government intrusions such as the national health card, taxes, etc and _get away_ with it? Thanks, -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger Please write to clipper.petition(a)cpsr.org and tell them you oppose Clipper.

1 0

Re: Card Playing Protocol?
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:44 PM 07/15/94 -0400, Kent Borg wrote: >Comments? Suggestions for a game other than cards that would be >better or more suitable? What about implementing a Multiplayer Game Protocol? That way, you can play cards, checkers, chess, Life(TM), - all those games that used to be really popular circa precolor macintoshes. Have an API for game developers to plug into and let the net.gaming begin. >Is anyone already working on a Card Playing Protocol? Not that I know of, but this is both good and silly enough that I might see if I can find some time. Need to bone back up on real coding... >-kb, the Kent who tries to cause trouble jl, the Jamie who appreciates the subtle. -j -- "Blah Blah Blah" ___________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence <jamiel(a)sybase.com>

1 0

Re: Card Playing Protocol?
by Ben.Goren＠asu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just so people know: complete protocols for poker can be found in Schneier. All you need is a snazzy GUI. And, with ecash, you can even do all your betting. Nice idea! b& -- Ben.Goren(a)asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music net.proselytizing (write for info): Protect your privacy; oppose Clipper. Voice concern over proposed Internet pricing schemes. Stamp out spamming. Finger ben(a)tux.music.asu.edu for PGP 2.3a public key.

1 0

Detweiler Abuse Again...
by Matthew Ghio 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems our old friend is up to his stupid tricks again. After his drivel began appearing on various newsgroups, I stated logging messages, and found this... >From vkj(a)netcom.com Fri Jul 15 11:20:35 1994 >Received: from TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (tigger.StCloud.MSUS.EDU [134.29.33.14]) >by kaiwan.kaiwan.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP > id LAA12671 for <ghio(a)kaiwan.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 1994 11:20:34 -0700 > *** KAIWAN Internet Access *** >Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 11:20:34 -0700 >From: vkj(a)netcom.com >Message-Id: <199407151820.LAA12671(a)kaiwan.kaiwan.com> >Received: from <netcom6.netcom.com> (netcom4.netcom.com) by > TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (MX V4.1 VAX) with SMTP; Fri, 15 Jul 1994 > 13:22:01 CST >To: ghio(a)kaiwan.com >Errors-To: /dev/null >Request-Remailing-To: mail2news(a)demon.co.uk > >## >Subject: ATTENTION: OPERATION `BIG COLLISION' WILL COMMENCE SHORTLY >Organization: CRAM >Newsgroups: alt.current.net-abuse,news.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.culture.usenet,alt.culture.internet,alt.censorship,talk.politics.crypto > > >To Whom It May Concern: > >We will shortly be commencing operation Big Collision. During this period you >may experience minor fluctuations and disturbances in multitudinous channels >over the cyberspatial continuum. This will be the first of our larger scale >meme construction, fabrication, and penetration projects. > >We assure you that these operations will help maximize overall communications >efficiency in the Matrix and invigorate and energize the advancement of >unhindered meme propagation within the lower-vibratory realms, as well as to >relieve some tensions by combatting recent degradory eruptions. Emphasis and >urgency will be focused on the most drained and threatened areas. > >Please exercise the utmost caution in your personal meme possession and >conveyance during this period of transition. We apologize in advance for any >inconvenience this may cause. > > \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | / / / / / / / / / / > _______ ________ _____ _____ _____ > /// \\\ ||| \\\ /// \\\ |||\\\///||| > ||| ~~ ||| /// ||| ||| ||| \\// ||| > ||| __ |||~~~\\\ |||~~~||| ||| ~~ ||| > \\\ /// ||| \\\ ||| ||| ||| ||| > ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ > / / / / / / / / / | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > >C y b e r s p a t i a l R e a l i t y A d v a n c e m e n t M o v e m e n t Looks like he figured out how to use port 25... And look who wasn't logged in... > % finger vkj(a)netcom.com > [netcom.com] > > V K Jayakumar (vkj) > Home: /u4/vkj > Shell: /bin/csh > No unread mail. > V K Jayakumar (vkj) is not presently logged in. > Last seen at netcom8 on Thu Jul 14 22:09:39 1994 > > > No plan. And detweiler... > % finger tmp(a)netcom.com > [netcom.com] > > (tmp) > Home: /u3/tmp > Shell: /bin/csh > No unread mail. > Last login on ttypc from NETCOM-den2.netc, on Thu Jun 30 17:40:37 1994 > > No plan. Has he really been logged in for 15 days? Please CC me in any responses, as I haven't had much time to keep up with the cypherpunks list lately... :(

1 0

Factoring
by L. Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jamesd(a)netcom.com (James A. Donald) writes: > n is the number of bits, and factoring can be done in considerably less > than 2^(n/2) > > When discussing complexity it is usual to use a measure of problem > size that corresponds to the physical size of the answer or > the question. > > Thus thus if you are factoring a 1024 bit number, n is 1024, not > 2^1024 Ah. Thank you -- it's amazing the number of obviously wrong answers I received to my question, all of them taking an authoritative tone (from "your algorithm doesn't work" (it does) to "your algorithm takes enormous amounts of memory" (in fact, it takes 3n)). Makes one realize (again) how sceptical one must be towards answers received on the 'net, "even" from cypherpunks. [This isn't to slam anyone, just to suggest that people take a little more time to think before hitting the 'r' key.] -- L. Todd Masco | Bibliobytes books on computer, on any UNIX host with e-mail cactus(a)bb.com | "Information wants to be free, but authors want to be paid."

2 1

Re: Card Playing Protocol?
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jamiel(a)sybase.com wrote: >What about implementing a Multiplayer Game Protocol? Cool, but only to the extent it falls out nearly for free, being too general is an enemy of actually getting results. Besides, it seems a better application of any urges to be general would be to work with *any* transport medium from an alt.games.moves to IRC to email (AOL, Compuserve, etc., in addition to Unix mail) to TCP/IP to pagers. So let's tag things and leave room for expansion with new tags, but let's build one thing first. Don't get me wrong, I would love for it to be general--like become the basis for general purpose transactions--but the very fact that that occurs to me warns me that it is best to make version 1.0 first, and then 2.0, etc. Plus, being general about allowing new tags will certainly tweak the ITAR police. Ben.Goren(a)asu.edu wrote: >Just so people know: complete protocols for poker can be found in >Schneier. All you need is a snazzy GUI. Do you *really* think I would propose such a thing without a handy place to crib from? Some people! Hell, I might have to write some code here, and I'm lazy. Oh, it would be nice to be bit more general than just poker. Just a deck of cards, places to put them, the ability to reshuffle and rearrange stacks on the table, play cards from your hand, etc. The enforcement of plays is through the same technique as with a real deck: other players are watching. The cryptographic aspects are the interesting ones, not implementing any particular game. Besides, I'm lazy, remember. Ben.Goren(a)asu.edu also wrote: >And, with ecash, you can even do all your betting. Noooooo! This is a political move. It should be nothing more wicked than a deck of cards. (To some people that is bad enough. Maybe there would be a Rook option...) Just a deck of 52-cards (and how many for Rook?) and a table on which to play. And that worries me. What are the fundamental operations with cards? Can everything be modeled as different stacks on the table? Some have special privilages: I can see my hand, you can't; the top n-cards of some stacks are visible to everyone; some stacks are visible to all (playing a trick). Any player can manipulate any card--though if you grab one from my hand I might get upset, every player will see the manipulation. Some cards are face up (or once were), some are face down (shuffled with the whole deck or a subset). Interesting realization: there is a set of card tricks which can be performed in this environment and a set which cannot. I suppose there would then be a set of magicians who are willing to perform with this deck and a set who will not. (And how many will use magic tricks as proof of having factored RSA-XXX?) Where to put the information about face down cards: To make slow interactions possible, is there a way every player can have all information--but can be challanged that cards have not been peeked at? And how to keep you from checking my hand in poker after I--maybe--bluffed you into folding. Hmm, there is a tension here. Looks like I need to carefully read pages 78-81. -kb, the Kent who is practicing looking innocent and saying things like "Who me?? MUNITIONS??? All I wanted to do was to play gin rummy. With my mom in Minnesota." -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 32:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

1 0

ACAPULCO H.E.A.T.
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Today's episode of "Acapulco H.E.A.T." was a treasure trove of privacy and technology issues. The story was about a renegade biologist who had "supplied both sides with biological weapons in the Iran-Iraq war." It seems he's now living in South America where he owns a casino and--in his spare time--is using genetic engineering to create an army of super-soldiers. The only example we see, though, is a steroidal acromegalic who looks like a young Arnold (he has some sort of European accent, too). H.E.A.T. "hack" the casino's computers to give themselves a million dollar line of credit. In the meantime, they use a homing device they plant on the bad guys van, they find his secret jungle lab where they plant a microcam to spy on the bad guy's genetic operation. Through the use of a room bug the *fire* into an exterior wall with a rifle, they learn that the bad guy and an accomplice use marked cards, which can be read with special contact lenses, to cheat at chemin de fer. Using a special hand-held electronic lock pick, our heroes defeat a card-key hotel lock and break into the room in which the marked cards are kept. There, they substitute their own marked deck. After that, a fortune gets won, things get blown up, machine-guns are fired, truth and justice prevail. The usual. While this episode had no bikinis, it also had no Fabio. As they say in Blackjack, it was a "push." S a n d y P.S. There was no "Acapulco H.E.A.T." report last week. Fabio was in that episode, and he tried to act. I was too bilious to write. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

CPP: Card Playing Protocol
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Having reread pages 78-81, I guess pagers, usenet, and slow email are pretty much out. I looks like I am going to have to track down the proceedings from Crypto 85, 86, and 87. (Still in print? Expensive??) All the main sources seem to be in them. Though all the applicable literature talks of playing poker, it seems more general and politically wiser to talk about playing cards. Besides, "PPP" is already in big-time circulation meaning "Point-to-Point Protocol", "PP" for "Poker Protocol" is only two letters--of course verboten. "PGP" for "Pretty Good Poker" would only get Phil's lawyers after me. That leaves "CPP", for a nice wholesome card game. -kb, the Kent who might actually do it -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 32:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

2 1

Re: Card Playing Protocol?
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)netcom.com writes: >Find a _reason_ to use crypto in games... Easy. Three quick ones. 1) If you like nice distributed "I don't need no stinkin' trusted server" ways of doing things, it is the only way to play some virtual games. 2) Games are very important. (Quick: Name 10-industries which are bigger. ... Betcha ya made at least one mistake.) 3) A simple game of cards is very non-threatening. It doesn't smack of anarchists or revolutionaries or anything frightening like that. Those words scare a lot of people. This is politics man, these things matter. Tim also writes: >An obvious problem with crypto card games is this: what does it >provide that is worth the extra effort of doing encryption? I admit I originally considered a situation where the user actually saw the crypto elements in action, I have since convinced myself that is silly. At least in the case of doing cards, too complicated. Seeing the results is pretty powerful, however. Also, remember who suggested this (today): I am a user interface freak. The effort is in the protocol, the user never sees it, she only notices that she can now be part of the World Wide Duplicate Bridge Tournament that she heard about on All Things Considered. The effort in building the protocol? I love that stuff. The effort in writing the software? I like that stuff somewhat--but there is possible *profit* here, I might not have to write more than the crude 0.9 version. Some game company might finally bring down ITAR. (Now that is economic might.) The effort in CPU time or communication bandwidth? Shit! We are talking a world of digital video, for christsakes! What's a few computrons and bauds burnt to deal a hand of go-fish? Is there a flavor of effort I forgot? -kb -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 32:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

5 5