December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

reassuring press release
by Bradley W. Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Mon, 09 May 1994 18:54:08 -0400 (EDT) >From: Stanton McCandlish <mech(a)eff.org> >Subject: 05\03\94 - VOLUNTARY NATURE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECURITY >INITIATIVE (fwd) >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >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 >clear," Kammer said. "This Administration does not seek >legislation to prohibit or in any way restrict the domestic use >of cryptography." ^^^^^^^^^^^^ !!!!!!!!

1 0

I am sorry I bothered you.
by lassie!jim%lassie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am sorry to have bothered the group known as cyberpunks. Please forgive me, but I must go. There is a TV program about guns in America, I must watch this so I may have a good laff. They say you can buy a gun on the street anywhere. I doubt if I could here near Arizona State University (rated #1 party school by playboy magazine). But if an econimist would look at graphs for public assistance from the Fed and comparied it with crime rate per 1,000 citizens in an area he probly could find an area to purchase guns rather rapidly (he probly would not need to look at the crime figures, just public assistance). Freenzy like a shark. The newspapers do a survey to see what people are concerned about. They are concerned about crime. So they write articles about crime. People get more concerned about crime. So they write more articles 8 (that is supose to be sideways) Intresting to note, no one brags about the statistics involving police officers and violent gun related crime. Could it be that having a hand gun strapped to your belt deters crime? Or is it just the bullet proof vest. I know this is stupid second amendment talk, but it is only one away from cryptographies 1st amendment and 3 away from the 5th that should allow you to have any crypto your heart desires. After they strike down the right to protect your documents on your word processer, what next, torture for confessions? Well one thing for sure you probly won't have a gun to defend your freedom of speech or your freedom to assemble or any other freedom you can think of that can be taken away in the proclamation of national intrest. Sorry for bothering you. -- * 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: 05\03\94 VOLUNTARY ... SECURITY INITIATIVE
by drzaphod＠brewmeister.xstablu.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> . . . 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. I would have been impressed if they left out "intended." The above "testimony" is meaningless. How is NIST supposed to know what diabolical plans NSA/etc has in store for us. > 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. This is the same argument used for the Digital Telephony Bill. That's MANDATORY . . it won't work if it's voluntary. > . . . Companies can choose to use the system when > they need excellent security -- or they can use any other > encryption technologies available in the marketplace. Can companies believe the government's secret[obscure] crypto is safer than PGP or it's offspring? Why does the government feel the need to spend all our money and provide us with inferior encryption? ANSWERS: 1] They're lying to us. 2] They have too much money..and we trust them to print it? It's too bad people, in general, believe what they hear, not what is done. The Master Plan to hypnotize our nation [+the world?] into supporting what they have not a clue about continues . . . -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - DrZaphod #Don't Come Any Closer Or I'll Encrypt! - - [AC/DC] / [DnA][HP] #Xcitement thru Technology and Creativity - - [drzaphod(a)brewmeister.xstablu.com] [MindPolice Censored This Bit] - - 50 19 1C F3 5F 34 53 B7 B9 BB 7A 40 37 67 09 5B - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

This is an abstract from a talk at Cornell University...
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Lecture-Peter Shor-Factoring in Poly time Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 02:23:57 GMT FACTORING IN POLYNOMIAL TIME ON A QUANTUM COMPUTER Peter Shor, AT&T Bell Labs Richard Feynman and others have challenged the traditional Turing machine model of computation. A new model of computation based on quantum mechanics has recently been proposed. It is too early to know whether quantum computers will be practical. However, it is shown that quantum computers can factor integers and compute discrete logarithms in polynomial time. Lecture Hall D (north end), Goldwin Smith 11:40am, Monday, May 9 ----------------- Any comments on the veracity?

2 1

MacPGP 2.5
by MWayne＠eworld.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have any info on whether or not this new version will be available for Macs? How about for PowerPC Macs? Thanks --Mitch

1 0

Missed stuff
by Tommy the Tourist 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sorry to be a pain. I just resubscribed after whatever it was that happened that caused the massive unsubscription. Anyway, I missed the start of the PGP 2.5 thread. If someone archived the messages between the unsubscription and now, I'd appreciate it they'd get in touch with me so I can get a hold of them. Well, except for the Nalbandian message maybe :-) Zeke -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLc7O2hVg/9j67wWxAQHSZgQAhW9bM3QA1GWjIt7+j1eXjh/fDxGHWq3h p8I2x3HnY5kSPU6/0N66Y+gUISHt7z/ojkZ7tadDgUjAMCeqM3eGPJDjoal1VdIJ 7/OEpsjFVcuHwpZp5qrNHjOd4GGcpixmU1/CY6+FPUUyNXmOak9HlqZ4KMWG/dx3 Gr0p5IKA5lI= =aZVk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------ To respond to the sender of this message, send mail to remailer(a)soda.berkeley.edu, starting your message with the following 7 lines: :: Response-Key: ideaclipper ====Encrypted-Sender-Begin==== MI@```$YS^P;+]AB?X9TW6\8WR:>P&2'9,7.YM5[DU*:IVOLYZ'LR#3R6]%Q. F!LKO;7PXSNM7K3\Q(-"OG(+>&OAJ66?'R7<U=C=-A$)S[(AIZ>L` ====Encrypted-Sender-End====

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 9 May 1994, Jim Nalbandian wrote: > >I consider this to be a threat and grounds for removal and notification > >of his service provider. As the owner of several mailing lists, this > >kind of childish behaviour can bring certain nodes to their knees, and > >without the max-posting protections of LISTSERV, majordomo will keep > >sending until it dies, killing toad.com in the process. > > Gee Bob, can't you take a joke?? Not when it will spam the net. This is about as funny as Green Card Lawyers, the Clipper Chip, and Janet "Flambe'" Reno. ____ 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

Re: [ Secure Mosaic]
by Jack Bzoza 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 26 Apr 1994, Augustine Lo wrote: > To successfully combine simplicity of operation and key administration > functions with a high level of security that can be accessible to even > non-sophisticated users, significant changes were necessary for > existing WWW security protocols. EIT developed a new protocol called > Secure-HTTP for dealing with a full range of modern cryptographic > algorithms and systems in the Web. > > Secure-HTTP enables incorporation of a variety of cryptographic > standards, including, but not limited to, RSA's PKCS-7, and Internet > Privacy Enhanced Mail (PEM), and supports maximal interoperation > between clients and servers using different cryptographic > algorithms. Cryptosystem and signature system interoperation is > particularly useful between U.S. residents and non-U.S. residents, > where the non-U.S. residents may have to use weaker 40-bit keys in > conjunction with RSA's RC2 (TM) and RC4 (TM) variable keysize > ciphers. EIT intends to publish Secure-HTTP as an Internet standard, > and work with others in the WWW community to create a standard that > will encourage using the Web for a wide variety of commercial > transactions. > > Availability > > EIT will make Secure NCSA Mosaic software available at no charge to > CommerceNet members in September and NCSA will incorporate these > secure features in future NCSA Mosaic releases. > How likely is it that these specs will be publicly available so that others can build client front ends to this application? Thanks

1 0

GhostMarks
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The trading of ghostmarks has begun. I've personally been party to a half-dozen transactions from my own personal account, and have more than 20 clients. It's time for trade to begin large-scale. I've placed the names of those clients who agreed to be publicly listed on my finger info: phantom(a)stein.u.washington.edu These are people (although not the only ones) that are ready and willing to begin transactions. Each of them has some sort of supply of ghostmarks. Let the grand experiment begin. Matt Executive Director The Phantom Exchange ("I'm not only the director, I'm also a client!") Matt Thomlinson University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. phone: (206) 548-9804 Check my home page -- ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/public/phantom/home.html PGP 2.2 key available via email, or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

1 0

Re: This is an abstract from a talk at Cornell University...
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: jamesd(a)netcom.com (James A. Donald) > Peter Wayner writes > > Richard Feynman and others have challenged the traditional Turing > > machine model of computation. A new model of computation based > > on quantum mechanics has recently been proposed. It is too early > > to know whether quantum computers will be practical. However, it > > is shown that quantum computers can factor integers and compute > > discrete logarithms in polynomial time. > > It is news to me that a quantum computer can do this, but > is seems plausible that it could. > > Factoring is a member of a class of problems for which it > is plausible that quantum computers have capabilities > fundamentally superior to classical computers. I would be surprised if quantum computers had the capability to factor in polynomial time. The special capabilities that I have seen claimed for quantum computers have a probabilistic component, so that, in effect, you can do a calculation n times faster but have only a 1/n chance of getting an answer. (This is an oversimplification but gives the idea.) In the context of the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM, you might say that the various instances of the quantum computer spanning the multi- verse can be made to work together, but by a sort of conservation of information production, only a fraction of the individual universes of the multiverse get the answer. The one loophole that I see is that this term "quantum computer" covers a lot of territory. They might sneak in some infinities in addition to adding the strictly quantum capabilities. It is known that ordinary computers which can hold arbitrarily-large numbers (and do arithmetic on them in one time step) can factor in polynomial time. If the definition of your quantum computer is so broad that you can squeeze in some outrageous capability like this, then the claim of polynomial-time factoring is more plausible. Hal

1 0