December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Why is Kirk Sheppard Wasting Our Time? (was Re: Why is Chris Knight aTwerp?)
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have in fact myself received _two_ such _billets doux_ from Kirk "I claim without evidence to be a lawyer, but so far I only play one badly on the net" Sheppard. I've asked his permission three times whether I can repost them, but have gotten no specific response, other than further insults, silliness and blathering. I can't help but wonder why, given his strongly negative reaction to people who try to argue with him, why on earth he might be inclined to pursue the law as a profession. Nor can I help but wonder how seriously I need to take someone who addresses mail to me with the subjects "Why is Lefty a Twerp?" and "Why is Lefty a Twerp and an Idiot?", wherein he complains about ad hominem attacks. I also wonder, given his tendency to call those who _do_ argue with him "twerp" and "idiot", whether he receives many citations for contempt of court. >Is there any chance that this will get back to the discussion at hand, or >are you tired of this toy and trying to find something else to play with? Highly doubtful. I enjoy a battle of wits as much as the next person, but I'm afraid I have to draw the line at an unarmed opponent. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: PGP
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >About how many calculations does it take to crack a 1024 bit key? If >someone has limitless time, money, etc., they can break it...but how >many calculations does it take? I did some calculations on this a few months ago, and it works out to be on the order of 4.42 10^29 steps. So then you can figure out how much real time it takes given machine speed. I also made some calculations for other sizes - to get the rest of the article gopher to chaos.bsu.edu and look at Misc/"Bits and Factoring Difficulty" where I have been archiving various cypherpunks posts, apparently flying the face of copyright laws blah blah blah blah. Since I wrote that I give permission for it to be at the gopher site ;) >Also, there is a password used to protect the keyrings. Assuming a >strong password how many calculations does that take to break? Well, if it's an 128 bit IDEA password, and brute force is the fastest way to "break" it, then 2^128 = 3.4 10^38. Karl Barrus klbarrus(a)owlnet.rice.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLU7jtYOA7OpLWtYzAQFV8wQAjugItETGxmxMkXyGN798/9DwUnhpHU7g A7NskB3jBRSFvFJYwp1B/0c80v2I14LjZg1FHU2zlUD2NPza91mSRc0hW4WcY3Sq 2RQjZIUBxz9Fu+4XPEQWT7iFOh+MhGbx60h5QktXDaJaS46QrrsPz2SXaMbdG7iu BiyraoH3mu8= =aMtI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Why is Chris Knight a Twerp?
by Chris Knight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It sure was short trip for you to go from person to prick. My "attacks" have been on your logic. Something that has always been a prime goal of a debate. Lacking anything intellignet to say, you resort to the text quoted below, and your attempted personal slight of refering to me as "Master Knight" in your current posts. Is there any chance that this will get back to the discussion at hand, or are you tired of this toy and trying to find something else to play with? If all you have left is attacks, name calling, and rudeness, perhaps you should find other toys and leave the discussions to adults. -ck On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote: > Dear Stupid, > > Why you are intent on attacking me for no reason is beyond me. I didn't > attack you personally, what is the matter with you? Also I am not > interested in gratuitous advice regarding "trying to write sometime". I > can see why you might be bitter as you obviously lack the intelligence > and education to make much money writing. > > Kirk Sheppard > > kshep(a)netcom.com > > P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to > Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." > U.S.A. > - Emiliano Zapata > > >

2 1

SASE Suggestion
by loki＠nately.UCSD.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have been meditating on this problem of return addresses, and have a proposal. The remailers can not be allowed to choose the return path, as any corrupted remailer will corrupt the rest of the path. I suggest the following SASE packet format. Notation: A(foo) = foo encrypted to remailer A P = some sort of one use postage token. end is a flag indicating the final destination. x,y,z,b are large random integers. n is a large prime. Packet: This will rout reply from A -> B -> C -> Bob A(P,x,B,B(P,y,C,C(P,z,Bob,end))),A(b,n,message) Upon receiving the packet, A does the following: A decrypts the packet (both parts separately). A calculates a new b' = b^x mod n and encrypts B(b',n,message) So B receives B(P,y,C,C(P,z,Bob,end)),B(b',n,message) C receives C(P,z,Bob,end),C(b'',n,message) Analysis: The message, which would normally be encrypted to Bob, is never transmitted in the clear. Bob can easily compute b'' to confirm that the message was correctly routed, but this reveals no information about the path the message has taken. The first remailer will refuse to deliver the message twice, because of the expired postage token, so the same path will not be reused. So, what do you think? It does require some work from the remailers, but not too much more than now. - ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell who does not speak for CASS/UCSD loki(a)nately.ucsd.edu PGP 2.3 key available by finger or server. "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche - ---------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLU7fRFVkk3dax7hlAQH4MgP9HIQPR3esnHbJuELXtCmTGXvQoLHgoA+L OeW1WOM6WczcOEwzFRsto8k2vrTsSMDPAqhTm+Ylgy83x8ez+yquoKmfFqiNQzWY Vcoy7ng/Jgu9i9snIGlsVdq6cpKTS8YKiR3EmnQrbpXetL7cFBZRN4yJ+dadS77q cT2rY82uzw4= =YTIz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Capt'n Kirk and Major Tom... Both lost in space...
by Chris Knight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I did not consider that a flame war, it was just a bit of banter. You seem to lack both a sense of humor, and the intelligence to discern it in others. As for re-posting personal mail, there is nothing unethical about it. Your vehemence on this point just goes to prove how much you wanted to hide your true personality from those on the net. Since you don't seem to want to end this, I will. Post all you want, personal and private. You have proven beyond a doubt that you have no points of view worth discussing, nothing to be learned, and nothing worth replying to. -ck On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote: > Dear Master Knight, > > You have quickly forgotten the crap about sending valium etc. You started > the flame war then by reading my small post literally and started it > today by making personal insults. This is your habit. My habit is to > respond in kind. Also, the trick of reposting private mail to a list > shows the level of your personal ethics. Quite low from this vantage point. > > Kirk Sheppard > > kshep(a)netcom.com > > P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to > Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." > U.S.A. > - Emiliano Zapata > > > On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote: > > > > > This is the second idiotic flame war you have started with me in the last > > > two weeks. > > > > Perhaps you have your mail lists confused. Until only a week ago, I > > was not posting in this echo. Secondly, you started this "war". > > > > > I would never again apologize to you. > > > > There was a first? > > > > > I do take some small pleasure in the fact that you are so lazy that you > > > don't change the subject line when you reply, so on each reply you republish > > > the condition of your being. It gives me a small chuckle each time I read the > > > "truth" of your intellect. > > > > It is truely sad that these are the pleasures in your life. > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Archiving mail-lists...
by jazz＠hal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would be interested in a discussion on the mail-list on this issue. Please refrain from sending personal mail. In particular do you think such a archive without every members permission is un-ethical? Unethical, hell; illegal is closer to it. I retain the copyright to everything I post; although implicit permission to redistribute to the mailing list is granted when I send to cypherpunks(a)toad.com, I have granted no permission to anyone else to use my intellectual property (i.e. my posts, valuable or not) for any other purpose. Would a archivist necessarily need the permission of the mail-list sponser? In an actively-moderated group (i.e. where the moderator chooses which messages to forward, constructs digests, etc.) the moderator possesses a copyright on the collection of material (but not on the material itself); if you were republishing a substantial part of the collection (in your case, all of it) you'd need rights to the collection copyright also. Study copyright law (including the Berne Convention, to which most nations having Usenet sites are signatories). Understand what you're getting yourself into. Jason

8 18

Re: PGP
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Brute-forcing IDEA takes about as much computation as factoring >something between a 1200 and 3000 bit RSA key (I've heard both >numbers, but I don't know the numbers). So, in the current >implementation, RSA is the weak link! Yes, I think that the turnaround point is right around 1600 bits, at which IDEA is "easier" than RSA. Assuming of course brute force is the fastest way to break IDEA; the fastest (known|published) factoring method runs in time proportional to the formula I typed out, etc. Karl Barrus klbarrus(a)owlnet.rice.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLU7l2IOA7OpLWtYzAQE7fwP6A6ENOTE7dUl0gbqEk17NRLPnExCHa2za HEt3LTfbn/0gpTfrwnKUTCKP3TAvnVJJ/cDFxRR1RkaTyHxA0RvQR/b8SosFK2Uc HEY5I5AqNVUKE9TceDXcBnYmmMbZAIMpdMMTknrn3Eyo1kcfLGTfOInH0wM35Rdl /o/sPMmc23s= =S2+w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Read-Once Messages?
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has there been any work done on messages that can be read a single time, preferably only by a designated recipient, and is not amenable to being captured as it is "played"? I know that Gibson's poem _Agrippa_ had some sort of self-destruct feature built into it, but I don't know what mechanism was used to implement this. Any pointers or suggestions would be appreciated... -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

3 2

"bio-radar"?
by HO JUNYA 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the current issue of Defense Electronics, the editor talks about some "bio-radar" technology, in the hands of both the US and the Soviet bloc.. Does anyone know more about this, or know where to get more information?

1 0

Re: archiving on inet
by loki＠nately.UCSD.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This thread seems way off topic. Lance

1 0