December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

CRYPTO EXPORT LEGISL
by bmorris＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com FF> were axed with an unbelievable 13-0 unanimous vote, in clear blatant FF> Look, something is going on here that doesn't meet the eye. Nothing is FF> ever unanimous in Washington. These guys were told something by somebo The fix was in... NSA probably broke some arms. And that is how the game is played and what we are up against. * RM 1.4 B0037 *

1 0

Re: Self-Righteous, Self-Anointed Defenders of the Public Trust (fwd)
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 05:17:24 +0000 From: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <schoff(a)us.psi.com> To: weber(a)world.std.com (Bob Weber), com-priv(a)psi.com Subject: Re: Self-Righteous, Self-Anointed Defenders of the Public Trust I'm encouraged that you support their first amendment rights! At Internet world in California a couple of weeks ago during a press conference with some Internet luminaries under the kleig lights of CNN and the McNeil/Leher report I saw first amendment issues tossed out the window - by the luminaries. I don't intend to defend either of these individuals (other than their 1st amendment rights, Gordon can tell you himself how we get along like oil and water) but I think you are lumping two very different people together with two very different objectives. Gordon's role is that of an investigative reporter, he ferrets out FACTS and then creates surmises as to the why's. It you read his publications and messages it is pretty easy to differentiate the facts from the surmises. This is appropriate. Gordon reported a fact which IS interesting to many people - a "NewYork" NAP in NJ almost in PA very close to an infamous NSA facility. Here is another one to add to his collection - in 1992 MFS bought a competive CAP in DC who's principal fiber plant connected many Federal facilities including all the hush hush ones. This company had many security cleared staff and facilities. These facilites are now merged with the commercial MFS facilities in a manner that is NOT known to the general public. NSF has openly wiretapped the backbone of the NSFNet since day one and is quite proud of it. There is a clear interest in the Federal Police Forces and the current administration to wiretap every communications device manufactured in the US, as the FBI's chief counsel, he's going to defend Americans through microchips. The postal service is going to issue us all ID cards, and the FINCEN is all setup to take in all banking transactions in realtime, next step all electronic commercial financial transactions. Historically both the NSA and the FBI have wiretapped outside of the warrant process and outside of the law and in the case of the NSA domestically which is both illegal and outside of their charter. How does this all fit together? Don't know, I'm just a dirt farmer from upstate NY, but Gordon's got a PHD so he'll continue to work on his surmises, and others will too. Having the facts is a good thing, old Jefferson would have probably agreed. One of the requirements that every Internet service provider should put on their NAP contract should be that the NAP provider will not wiretap, and will not aid or abet any wiretap knowingly outside of a federal warrant. Many people have lied for their country so this is not by any means a sure test, but it is a right first step. Since you questioned both of their motivations (personal grudges), let me question yours - are you owned in anyway by the US government or under their influence (even financially) to post your message binding those two very different people together? Have your or do you hold a Security clearance. Or maybe you hold a personal grudge against Gordon? Undoubtedly the answer is no except for the security clearance, and you can always lie for your country. It just seems strange that you would think that no one is interested in wiretapping issues in the current enviroment where the media talks about it weekly. Sitting here in the PSI Tokyo office the Japan Times has articles on it. I know you don't live under a rock. Marty

1 0

PGP in July Byte, p.193
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A very positive, technically astute discussion by William Stallings, stallings(a)acm.org, who concludes: "PGP is young, strong, and coming on. It is already being widely used, and its growth is being fueled by the rapid growth in Internet use and the increasing reliance on E-mail for everything from legal documents to love letters. It is already the practice of many people to include their PGP fingerprint in E-mail messages. Expect to see more of this and to see such fingerprints appearing in print, as one does with this article, in the future.

1 0

swipe working on infinity.c2.org
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I managed to get swipe into the kernel here at infinity.c2.org-- If any sites would like to install swipe on their systems and setup encrypted channels between our sites, and then do some experimentation with it, maybe some development (I don't really have time to develop stuff.. but..), please mail me. -- sameer Voice: 510-841-2014 Network Administrator Pager: 510-321-1014 Community ConneXion: The NEXUS-Berkeley sameer(a)c2.org

3 3

Chauming for Cash
by mpd＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone successfully obtained a copy of the software for David Chaum's DigiCash system? He has it for sale on his Web page at http://digicash.support.nl/ but apparently it can only be purchased with electronic money. A classic chicken and egg situation. :) I sent him some mail but so far have not gotten a reply. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.3a Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

(None)
by Jeff Gostin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Frezza (via RadioMail) <frezza(a)radiomail.net> writes: > So much for lobbying. ...and, apparently, by/for/of the People. > Look, something is going on here that doesn't meet the eye. Nothing is > ever unanimous in Washington. These guys were told something by somebody > that caused them to vote like this. Ah, the "Deep Throat" Theory... I was waiting to see how long this would take the surface. I agree. Something _very_ unsavory is happening here, but I doubt we'll find out what it is. If I had to guess (and this is VERY uninformed, as far as wild speculation), someone in the NSA with the Power To Do So, said that they would blatantly ignore the rules, and consider all crypto their private little hunting grounds. Being as the NSA probably is used in some Intelligence work, and lots of other things the Government Hopes We Don't Find Out About, Congress probably ran the other way, as it was in Their Best Interests. Of course, this is wild speculation. It could just be that the Director of the NSA makes one hell of a matzah ball soup, and they didn't want to lose the saturday afternoon Matzah Ball 'Fests... ;-) --Jeff -- ====== ====== +----------------jgostin(a)eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+ == == | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,| == == -= | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig. | ==== ====== | Now with a new fresh lemon scent! | PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: Prime magnitude and keys...a ?
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Feeding frenzy! Getcher teeth in now, be there or be square.

1 0

Re: swipe working on infinity.c2.org
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I got one of the disks. Amusing disclaimers on the back. Haven't tried reading it yet. When I talked to Phil Karn months ago about IP encryption, he was talking about encrypting each packet independently - I guess you have to do that with IP since it's not a reliable protocol. But it sounded a little risky to me - maybe vulnerable to attack via known bits at the start of each encrypted section. Encrypting at the TCP level would allow inter-packet mixing, but then you miss all the UDP protocols such as (old) NFS. Maybe you could post a quick summary of the encryption mode used? --- Jef

3 3

House Rules Committee Membership
by jmdaluz＠kquest.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kyle Wilson (ksw(a)cs.odu.edu) posted the membership of the House Rules Committee, next stop for H.R. 3937. Here's the list with phone/fax numbers added. Voice Fax Democrats: Joe Moakley (MA), Chairman 1-202-225-8273 1-202-225-7304 Butler Derrick, Jr (SC) 1-202-225-5301 na Anthony C. Beilenson (CA) 1-202-225-5911 na Martin Frost (TX) 1-202-225-3605 1-202-225-4951 David E. Bonior (MI) 1-202-225-2106 1-202-226-1169 Tony P. Hall (OH) 1-202-225-6465 na Alan Wheat (MO) 1-202-225-4535 1-202-225-5990 Bart Gordon (TN) 1-202-225-4231 1-202-225-6887 Louise McIntosh Slaughter (NY) 1-202-225-3615 1-202-225-7822 Republicans: Gerald B.H. Solomon (NY) 1-202-225-5614 1-202-225-1168 James H. Quillen (TN) 1-202-225-6356 1-202-225-7812 David Dreier (CA) 1-202-225-2305 1-202-225-4745 Porter J. Goss (FL) 1-202-225-2536 1-202-225-6820 Jose M. daLuz KnowledgeQuest Online Research jmdaluz(a)kquest.com (508) 996-6101 (vox) (508) 996-6215 (fax)

1 0

DSS
by Dan Harmon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Network World of June 6, 1994 has a brief article on DSS. In the article it says that "some firms do not appear worried about legal threats fron PKP. AT&T, which sells SecretAgent - software that uses both DSS and RSA signatures - has not obtained a patent for DSS from PKP; neither has Information Security Corp., the Deerfield, Ill. bases company that develops SecretAgent exclusively for AT&T." What do they know that we do not? Makes you wonder about all of PKP's claims. Has PKP ever sued anyone over their patents or have they just threatened? Very curious. Dan Harmon

1 0