December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: PGP 2.5: Mini-review
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: Schirado <schirado(a)lab.cc.wmich.edu> : >Printed keyIDs have been incresed to 32 bits, as there were enough keys : >out there that 24-bit keyIDs were no longer sufficiently unique. The : >previous 24-bit keyID is the LAST 6 digits of an 8-digit 32-bit keyID. : >For example, what was printed as A966DD now appears as C7A966DD. : So even though the keyservers only have 5,000 or so registered users, : there are enough people out there using PGP and NOT registering their : keys with the servers that this extra bit of coding was necessary? Hmm. : 24 bits gives us 16,777,216 unique ID's. 32 bits gives us 4,294,967,296. : Are there really over 17 million PGP'ers out there, or is my math-impaired : brain missing something painfully obvious? It's the old "birthday paradox" game. If you're generating numbers at random within a certain range, how many numbers do you have to generate before you have a probability >= 0.5 of generating two the same? Do it first for range = 0..2^24-1 and then for range = 0..2^32-1 ... G

1 0

Re: quantum Computing
by juola＠bruno.cs.colorado.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rick Busdiecker writes: > Not true. What that means is that a polynomial time solution exists > for an NFA. The only part has not been shown. Mike McNally responds: >While we're being picky, I'll point out that (unless I'm wrong of >course) it's not really an NFA, but a non-deterministic Turing >machine (an "NTM"?) that's the automaton at issue here. That is correct. As a matter of fact, it's an easy theorem that an NFA has the same computing capacity as a DFA; it is not known whether this theorem holds for more powerful machines, and is in fact the heart of the P ?= NP conjecture.

2 1

Re: PGP 2.5 / PGP 2.6
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Wed, 18 May 1994, Dave Otto wrote: > >MIT's press release on 2.6 also mentions bugs in 2.5 that have been >pointed out to them. I'm all for liberating 2.5 from MIT but we need to >fix the bugs in it that they fixed in (or are fixing in) 2.6. If this is done successfully, it might be a good idea to name it PGP 2.7 for obvious reasons.

1 0

FW: James Fallows on Clipper
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

See The Atlantic Monthly June 1994 "Open Secrets"

1 0

Re: quantum Computing
by peb＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seth Lloyd has an interesting paper, "A Potentially Realizable Quantum Computer", available at ftp.santafe.edu (I don't know the exact path). It is based on a cellular automata material that receives pulsed/phased array strobing light. It uses reversible logic so it dissipates little energy. As I understand the proposal assumes future materials and manufacturing abilities, although Lloyd says that quantum dots may be the right direction. As gtoal mentions, the P vs. NP question is speculative. My intuition is that the many worlds hypothesis will not be a holy grail of computation (because similar theories about faster than light communcation ended up not being useable due to very low level conservation rules). Then again, we may be surprised. Paul E. Baclace peb(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: So PGP2.5 is becoming clearing...
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Given that to my knowledge no court, federal official, or other >> organization that counts recognises "freeman status" to my knowledge, >> it would seem to be a very small loss. > >What they certainly _do_ recognize, however, is that a person who _does_ >agree to the PGP 2.5 terms has affirmed that he _is_ a national person. >This could be used by a court to negate any subsequent denial by the >person that he is a subject of the United States of America or Canada. >The absence on one's record of such affirmations is a prerequisite for >freeman status. Given that this "freeman status" seems to exist only in your fevered imagination, who's to say what might or might not be a prerequisite for it? I'm finding this whole thread extremely silly. Are you actually attempting to suggest that if someone not currently a US citizen were to use PGP 2.5 he would somehow become a "subject" (whatever _that_ is) of the United States? This would undoubtedly come as exciting news to Haitian boat people and Chinese nationals jammed into the cargo holds of trawlers in San Francisco Bay. What, I wonder, do I have to do to qualify for "moonman status"? -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

dos app STACKER, passwd?
by steve willey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

does anyone know how password protection for the dos compression utility stacker works? and more importantly how it can be cracked. i will pay 5 Ghost Marks for USEFUL info. thanks, steve

1 0

Re: Caller ID info...
by fnerd＠smds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In this report... > Report and Order And Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of > March 29th, 1994 (CC Docket No. 91-281) ...FCC apparently decides that per-line blocking should be prohibited since people might forget to unblock it when calling 911. John Levine says, > In other words, per-line blocking is a bad idea because subscribers > are too dumb to unblock calls when they want to unblock them, although > they're not [too] dumb to block calls when they want to block them. To me the question is, why can't the phone company provide options for blocking-on-all-but-911-calls, and unlisted-except-for-911? More precisely, why can't the FCC allow for this simple possibility? The reasoning seems to be, "since we can't understand why people want this, we must prohibit its even being an option:" > > ...For the > > foregoing reasons, we find that a federal per line blocking > > requirement for interstate CPN based services, including caller > > ID, is not the best policy choice of those available to recognize > > the privacy interests of callers. Thus, carriers may not offer > > per line blocking as a privacy protection mechanism on interstate > > calls. "...We find" it "is not the best... thus, carriers may not offer" it. What about what the customers and consumer groups have found and fought for? What is wrong with letting this be decided on a regional, if not provider, if not local, if not personal level? Why must FCC impose least- common-denominator reduction of services? > > ...with comments due by May 18th. That's today. I'm faxing this ill-prepared complaint to 202-632-6975. > > Comments must reference the docket number (CC Docket No. 91-281). > > Send ten copies (yes, 10) to: > > > > Office of the Secretary > > Federal Communications Commission > > Washington DC 20554 -fnerd quote me - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - and i dreamed i was flying high up above my eyes could clearly see the statue of liberty sailing away to sea --Paul Simon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

PGP 2.6 announcement
by fhalper＠pilot.njin.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have a copy of the announcement stating the PGP 2.6 would not accept message from previous versions of PGP after September 1, 1994? If so please send it to me. Thanks, Reuben Halper

1 0

Re: Caller ID info...
by peb＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Strange reasoning. Why not use the "*70" style code that turns it off for one call, just as *70 disables call waiting for modem use? Paul E. Baclace peb(a)netcom.com

1 0