December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: ping
by Robert A. Hayden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 9 May 1994, Jim Miller wrote: > This is an obnoxious, bandwidth-wasting test message. Please > flame..er..ignore. ok ) ( ( ( ( ) () @@ ) (( ( ( ( )( @@ ( )) ) ( ( ( ( ()( /---\ (()( ( _______ ) ) )(@ !O O! )@@ ( ) ) ) < ____) ) ( ( )( ()@ \ o / (@@@@@ ( ()( ) /--| |( o| ( ) ) ((@@(@@ !o! @@@@(@@@@@)() ( | > \___| ) ( @)@@)@ /---\-/---\ )@@@@@()( ) | /---------+ (@@@@)@@@( // /-----\ \\ @@@)@@@@@( . | | \ =========______/|@@@@@@@@@@@@@(@@@ // @ /---\ @ \\ @(@@@(@@@ . . | \ \\=========------\|@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ O @@@ /-\ @@@ O @@(@@)@@ @ . | \ \----+--\-))) @@@@@@@@@@ !! @@@@ % @@@@ !! @@)@@@ .. . | |\______|_)))/ . @@@@@@ !! @@ /---\ @@ !! @@(@@@ @ . . \__========== * . @@ /MM /\O O/\ MM\ @@@@@@@. . | |-\ \ ( . @ !!! !! \-/ !! !!! @@@@@ . | | \ \ ) . . @@@@ !! !! .(. @. .. . | | \ \ ( / .( . \)). ( |O )( O! @@@@ . ) . | | / / ) ( )). (( .) !! ((( !! @@ (. ((. . . | | / / () )) )) .( ( ( ) ). ( !! )( !! ) (( )) .. | |_< / ( ) ( ( ) ) (( ) )).) ((/ | ( | \( )) ((. ). ____<_____\\__\__(___)_))_((_(____))__(_(___.oooO_____Oooo.(_(_)_)((_ ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden(a)krypton.mankato.msus.edu \ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=- \/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is \/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- (GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++ n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

1 0

shit for brains (fwd)
by lassie!jim%lassie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FORWARDED MAIL ------- From: netcomsv.netcom.com!crynwr.com!nelson (Russell Nelson) Date: 09 May 94 Originally To: netcomsv!lassie!jim%lassie (Jim Nalbandian) You have shit for brains. I have to call long distance to get my email. Stop this bs. NOT ONLY ARE YOU PEOPLE IGNORANT BUT YOU ARE GOING TO BE BOMBED -russ <nelson(a)crynwr.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do. -- * Spelling errors are intentional and international * Jim Nalbandian netcomsv!lassie!jim%lassie(a)netcom.com Tempe, Arizona, USA N7SZS(a)K7BUC.AZ.US.NA No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain there right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. <-------- Thomas Jefferson --

1 0

Re: What's happened to the mail?
by Peter Murphy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, did anyone write "who cypherpunks" to Majordomo? I did. The number of people it contained was about 10 (although it would probably be more than that by now). My guess is that someone (possibly Jim Nalbadian (sic?)) was the culprit. On a related matter, do you need an old (i.e. about 2 weeks old) copy of the cypherpunks mailing list, so as to bring it back to its old glory? ======================================================= | Peter Murphy. <pkm(a)maths.uq.oz.au>. Department of | | Mathematics - University of Queensland, Australia. | ------------------------------------------------------- | "What will you do? What will you do? When a hundred | | thousand Morriseys come rushing over the hill?" | | - Mr. Floppy. | =======================================================

1 0

Idiots
by lassie!jim%lassie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well it seems like you people are really as stupid as it seems. Anybody (That is the dumb fucks name) decided to mail me twenty or so messages thru a remailer to try and clog my slow timeshare environment mail reader. Also someone named Ryn R. Snyder (This guy is extra autistic) did the same thing. Too bad I read all my mail offline by UUCP on an old slow IBM PS/2 MOD80 (intresting though, local supermarkets use this model computer as a product code server). Would not it be funny if someone set there .forward command in there little used Internet timeshare terminal environment to the cypherpunks mailing list and then subsribed to the list. I guess most people missed the point about distribution but that's OK, CLIPPER is a much better crypto program anyway. People that are not members of the Internt clique are expossed to it almost nightly on the news wheras they are not exposed to PGP or other RSA type crypto. I think marketing whizzes call this product recognition (don't ask me I am just a dumm as dirt sod buster). Oh well, I must go now, I now you all respect and adore me as much as I do you. Also it seems that the few fools that send repeated stupid mail to my box are in the minority. Thanks for the excelent and way cool mail that the rest of you send. 32% had heard or read about Internet (AKA Superhighway) 68% had NEVER heard or read of Internet I quess that 68% can FTP to a site to get PGP (etc.). Out of that agregate I wonder what percent has heard of PGP or RSA? CLIPPER? -- * Spelling errors are intentional and international * Jim Nalbandian netcomsv!lassie!jim%lassie(a)netcom.com Tempe, Arizona, USA N7SZS(a)K7BUC.AZ.US.NA No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain there right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. <-------- Thomas Jefferson --

2 1

Re: PGP 2.5
by anon1df3＠nyx10.cs.du.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

|> Another RSAREF limitation is that it cannot cope with keys longer than |> 1024 bits. PGP now prints a reasonably polite error message in such a |> case. |Reasonably polite? It says "Error: Bad pass phrase." That doesn't |sound at all polite to me. And since my key is 1234 bits, I'm vastly |unimpressed. What in the world is the point of this restriction? |I see a lot of "what it is" but not "why it is" in the docs. Would one of This restrcition comes from RSAREF code, over which the PGP team had no control. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but to me the development of a free, legal, source code version of PGP is such a positive development that it easily outweighs any of the problems (key sigs, incompatibility with big keys, etc.) that the new release has brought about. When the jump from verison 1 to verison 2 was made, everyone's key became obsolete, and everyone survived. Everyone will survive this time, too. I'm also very pleased with some of the new features (like the default for PGPPATH, which will make PGP a lot more accessible to casual users).

3 2

05\03\94 - VOLUNTARY NATURE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (fwd)
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

pulled this of the IITF server. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NIST 94-21 May 3, 1994 Contact: Anne Enright Shepherd VOLUNTARY NATURE OF (301) 975-4858 TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE STRESSED BY NIST OFFICIAL IN TESTIMONY A government-developed technology to protect the security of telephone conversations and other information communicated over telephone lines is meant to be used by both the government and the private sector on a strictly voluntary, as-needed basis -- and is not intended to be mandated in the future, a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) official said today in congressional testimony. In statements to both the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and House Subcommittee on Technology, Environment and Aviation, NIST Deputy Director Raymond Kammer stressed that the "voluntary key escrow" coding system "first and foremost, was devised to provide solid, first-rate cryptographic security for the protection of information held by the government when government agencies decide such protection is needed for unclassified government communications." He cited as examples the protection of tax records, Social Security records, census data and other proprietary information when transmitted over telephone lines. At the same time, Kammer pointed out the importance of strong encryption protection for citizens and U.S. companies. Encryption "protects the individual privacy of our citizens.... Private-sector organizations can also benefit from encryption by securing their product development and marketing plans, for example. It also can protect against industrial espionage," Kammer said. But the increasing proliferation of encryption techniques also is expected to make the law enforcement community's job more difficult, he said, and the voluntary key escrow approach provides a way for law enforcement authorities -- when legally authorized -- to decode messages sent over telecommunications systems using the key escrow technique. The initiative is intended to strike a balance between the needs of law enforcement and national security with the needs of businesses and individuals for security and privacy. In every instance, Kammer stressed, the system is being made available on a strictly voluntary basis. Each federal agency can use the key escrow technology to protect its information on an as-needed basis. Companies can choose to use the system when they need excellent security -- or they can use any other encryption technologies available in the marketplace. "Let me be clear," Kammer said. "This Administration does not seek legislation to prohibit or in any way restrict the domestic use of cryptography." - 30 - NOTE TO EDITORS: Copies of the NIST testimony are available to reporters by calling (301) 975-2762. -- Stanton McCandlish * mech(a)eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps. When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it." - Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994

1 0

Voice encryption info request
by David T. Witkowski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm looking for technical info on analog voice encryption techniques, including app notes and schematics if available. Any help would be appreciated, direct email replies are preferred. ...dtw /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | I'll do whatever my Rice Krispies tell me to do... | | | | ******* Notice of impending email address change: ******* | | New interim address: dwitkow(a)eis.calstate.edu | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3 mQCNAqeeBhcAAAEEAM8M83T/IpKEFbho61dHQIiXx3gFcmBNqMGKtAFFprt9obHH GQ0N1sm/T9DNnS59IxYkB1e08rEMHlearsiw48/p/A43jsYiwYVvy2IBPw6Lnwwc Cdtgbkou/PPiDq/M5nzC9EziljDAE8QhJISKgmez89d4HlLsNqhwMY4XVqGjAAUR tDJEYXZpZCBULiBXaXRrb3dza2kgPGR3aXRrb3dzQG5lcm1hbC5zYW50YXJvc2Eu ZWR1Pg== =PqVE -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

[anon1df3@nyx10.cs.du.edu: Re: PGP 2.5]
by dat＠ebt.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

|> Another RSAREF limitation is that it cannot cope with keys longer than |> 1024 bits. Projecting current progress in factoring, how long will 1024-bit keys be secure against something like NSA? Is it the case that by standarizing on 1024-bit keys for the forseeable future, are we merely providing a window of opportunity for cryptopunks which will work fine for awhile but which will slam shut forever once the NSA becomes able (as a result of vast computer power, if nothing else) to routinely factor numbers this large, maybe in about 2150 or so? Remember people thought RSA-129 would take a long time. Cypherpunks write code that will remain secure for a long, long time I hope. Standardizing on RSAREF might, in the very long run, eventually have the same crippling effect that standarizing on clipper could have in the short to intermediate term. If people become complacent about this limitation, it could become institutionalized. If everybody uses PGP 2.5 for the next hundred years, what happens then? If the public PGP depends on RSAREF whose evolution is controlled by RSA, and if eventually a new version comes out which is incompatible with the older versions, and for which source code isn't as readily available, and the world standardizes on it, and it isn't interoperable with older versions, then we lose control, even if we now distribute a version of PGP 2.5 with the key restriction removed. I would be happier if PGP 2.5 did not impose such a limit on key length. If we standardize on something with limitations, we have to remove them in the future. If we standarize on something without limitations, future generations don't have to worry about it. In addition to distributing crypto to the masses, we need to ensure that no infrastructure gets imposed which obviates our methods. I don't know if the 1024-bit key restriction will over time become an important limitation or not -- do you? A better question -- how long will it take? I don't think I'm being paranoid, I'm just curious about the details about what is known about just how hard factoring is, and how that corresponds to the exponential growth in technological capability, and where the crossover point lies for 1024-bit keys. Maybe I should just read the book instead of posting... (Naah!..) -- dat(a)ebt.com (David Taffs)

2 1

PGP 2.5 working on UNIX
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Note -- I built it for my UNIX machine but I needed to edit the rsaref2 makefile in 3 places to specify gcc. cc barfed on the make. The instructions say to make your own directory, but you need to edit the makefile and run make in place in the rsaref2/install/unix directory or the pgp makefile won't find it. You should make rsaref2 first. - Carl P.S. I'll sign my new 1024 bit key with my old 1264 bit key later. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.5 iQCVAgUBLc7EflQXJENzYr45AQEiqAP/Wg4jq/u8636hMd/zmKS8opL683rKnL0a Jv+WVNIqOASyA9UYoAXegmmXDIohW1PjzudQ3SkZPxfhr9yLrz4h7KUZSowNAdlq XaVBJETumF60YYKPzjDLSj2j3z9yqC8HR4Vv5HtbEv/nEIM8RsFW03rIn4HcUiiO fCCA5K70ouc= =6i8v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.5 mQCNAi3OxA8AAAEEALNdAXftavTBG2zHV7BEV59gntNlxtJYqfWIi2kTcFIgIPSj KlHleyi9s5dDcQbVNMzjRjF+z8TrICEn9Msy0vXB00WYRtw/7aH2WAZx+x8erOWR +yn1CTRLS/68IWB6Wc1x8hiPycMbiICAbSYjHC/ghq2mwCZO7VQXJENzYr45AAUR tC5DYXJsIEVsbGlzb24gMTAyNC1iaXQga2V5IDxjbWVAc3cuc3RyYXR1cy5jb20+ =tEQq -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

RE: C'punks list
by michaelrgn＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What has happened to the list?? My C'punks incoming mail atopped yesterday (5/8/94). I sent a "Who cypherpunks" command and my name is no longer there. There was only about six names that were returned. I've been lurking for a little over a month now and really enjoy the discussion. Where did everyone go??? Mciahel Ragan

2 1