December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Russell Nelson says: >> Date: Wed, 25 May 94 10:25:30 -0700 >> From: hughes(a)ah.com (Eric Hughes) >> >> You have to assume that RSA isn't being run by idiots. Either they're >> looking at closing their doors in seven years, or they've got a plan. >> >> I asked Jim Bidzos about this last year. He told me they're planning >> on becoming a supplier of cryptography code and expertise. >> >> If they had expertise, they wouldn't need patents. > >Make no mistake, they have expertise. As much as we like to denegrate >them, they are responsible for several algorithms we all use every >day, like MD5. > >That said, I agree that the patents are unsavory. However, none of us >thus far have shown the testicular fortitude to challenge any of them. > >Perry > Such software patents really need to be challenged, If you are interested in helping, please contact the LPF (League for Programming Freedom). I'll send their addr shortly.... By the way, I re-subscribed myself to this list last night. Thanks for all the great notes. :) -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Factoring with a quantum computer (Citation)
by rjc＠gnu.ai.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James A. Donald (jamesd(a)netcom.com) writes: > persuasion to get him to put up the pot. Alas, Michael was > not willing to let the pot for the bet go outside the > control of him or these dubious people. Eventually I > resorted to a vigorous attempt to shame him into putting up > the money. > > My unkind comments concerning Michael and his pals > eventually resulted in me being expelled from the > Extropians list, for flaming Michael and defaming the Exi > board. First let me explain something to people who don't know. The extropians list has a legal arbitration system to help keep down flames. We have rules against bringing verbal assaults into heated debates so that if you feel someone is insulting you, you may 'press charges'. If evidence is presented, the person usually gets a warning. 3 warnings and your posting privileges get revoked for a period between 24-72 hours to allow a 'cool down' period on the list. This was implemented out of neccessity because the list was averaging between 150 to 300 messages a day with most of those coming from only a handful of people. A common way of resolving a standoff debate on the Extropians list is to put your money where your mouth is -- a bet. This causes someone to get off their lazy ass and go look up the citation and present it to the list for judgement of the bet. Michael suggested having the bet held by the treasury of Extropy, Inc, the non-profit which runs the list. Extropy, Inc. has *never* been accused of financial impropriety with people's funds. They run an honest operation with far more altruism than libertarians should bear (e.g. the board members go into debt to maintain service to extropians even when revenues are low) James Donald insinuated that some board members were dishonest, *BUT*, he was not kicked off for this. Michael and one of the board members pressed charges under our flaming/insult rule and James had his posting suspended for some period (a few days, 72 hours I think) Usually, we rely on an honor code to enforce posting priveleges. We do not software block punished people from posting, but rely on their honor and fairness to commit themselves to arbitration. Donald didn't stop posting, so he had his priveleges turned off in software. He still wasn't "deleted' (kicked off from the list) The final act which led to his removal was that he circumvented the list security system by forging the headers of his message so as to appear to be Perry Metzger. This is a serious offense on the list software we run because each user has database information associated with their account, and our software is pay-for-use. Posting under someone else's account corrupts the list statistics, deducts list credits from their account, and could, depending on software limits set, use up their daily posting quota. For the act of forgery, James Donald was deleted and for no other reason. Extropy, Inc. has given Harry S. Hawk full autonomy in managing the list. The board can not kick off people just because they hate them, which the board didn't hate James Donald anyway. He started and esclated innuendo for no reason whatsoever. The legal system has been used rarely since and things are relatively calm now. If James Donald thinks he was kicked off because the list owners hated him, he is sadly mistaken. He should have honored the legal judgement and restrained himself from posting/flaming for the time limit set. Furthermore, he shouldn't have forged headers especially since it wastes my time when I have to go manually correct people's accounts. disclaimer: I hold no animosity towards James Donald, I hardly know him. I am merely stating what I recall as the historical record since I am the one who manages the software engineering side of the list. -Ray

2 1

Re: RSA's "Sink Clipper" poster
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On May 20th, Bob Snyder mentioned he got a free anti-Clipper poster from RSA. Interested, I sent an e-mail to info(a)rsa.com asking how I could get one of the posters (I included my business mailing address). Kurt Stammberger from RSA replied "We'll send you one!" A tube with three of the posters arrived today. If anyone else want a poster, all you need to do is ask RSA. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Re: MIT has released PGP 2.6
by edgar＠spectrx.sbay.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: Jeffrey I. Schiller <jis(a)mit.edu> CC: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Jeffrey, I received your announcement of PGP 2.6 on Cypherpunks. I have one question I hope you will address. You said, In order to fully protect RSADSI's intellectual property rights in public-key technology, PGP 2.6 is designed so that the messages it creates after September 1, 1994 will be unreadable by earlier versions of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to Public Key Partners by MIT and Stanford University. ... Because earlier versions of PGP (including MIT's Beta test PGP 2.5 release) will not be able to read messages created by PGP 2.6 after September 1, 1994, MIT strongly urges all PGP users to upgrade to the new format. The intent of the format change is to discourage continued use of earlier infringing software in the U.S., and to give people adequate time to upgrade. As part of the release process, MIT commissioned an independent legal review of the intellectual property issues surrounding earlier releases of PGP and PGP keyservers. This review determined that use of PGP 2.3 within the United States infringes a patent licensed by MIT to RSADSI, and that keyservers that primarily accept 2.3 keys are mostly likely contributing to this infringement. ... The problem is that messages generated by PGP 2.6 after 9/1/94 will also be unreadable by PGP 2.4 (VIACRYPT PGP) which is completely legal for both private and commercial use in the USA because it has a license issued by RSADSI. This is the -only- version of PGP which may be legally used commercially. They will also be unreadable to users of PGP 2.3 who reside overseas. These persons are not violating RSA's patents because those patents are not valid overseas. I will not willingly give up my current ability to exchange encrypted e-mail with commercial entities, or with users outside the USA/Canada. What is the legal status of PGP 2.5, which does not have this delayed action crippling "feature"? Is the 2.5 license valid? If so, why would anyone in their right mind switch from 2.5 to 2.6? Why is RSADSI and MIT acting against the interests of their own licensee, ViaCrypt? (And shooting themselves in the foot by reducing their ViaCrypt royalty income)? Enquiring minds want to know! -- edgar(a)spectrx.sbay.org (Edgar W. Swank) SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Cupertino, Ca

1 0

Re: MIT TOC SEMINAR-MORRIS/UNKENHOLZ, NSA--Thursday-June 2--2:30pm
by Alan Wexelblat 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I'm going to be out of the country for this talk -- would someone who attends please email me a summary if anything is posted to the list? I'm still not on the list. --AW] > MIT TOC SEMINAR > > Thursday, June 2, 1994 > > Refreshments at 2:15pm, Talk at 2:30pm in NE43-518 > > Title: ``ESCROW ENCRYPTION'' > > by S. Brent Morris and Mark Unkenholz > National Security Agency > > ABSTRACT > >The Escrow Encryption Standard is the new federal standard for >securing sensitive but unclassified information. It could possibly >replace the Data Encryption Standard (DES). This talk will provide a >technical overview of the Escrow Encryption Standard, the external >features of the Skipjack algorithm, and its two current >implementations, the Clipper and Capstone chips. > >Host: Silvio Micali

1 0

creating a v2.6 of PGP for the REST of us!
by Paul K. Strong 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If patches are going to be produced for PGP 2.3a for those of us outside the USA who wish to send PGP encrypted data to USA users of v2.6, will the patches also enable a key from a patched 2.3a to be put onto a USA key-server that only accepts v2.6 keys - will the keys be labelled as v2.6? I take it Pr0duct Cypher's patch doesn't include this? Maybe instead of many people producing different patches (some of which will be good and some bad) a new version (labelled as v2.6euro?) should be released from outside the USA that is derived from 2.3a code; therefore producing a version that is no different in _appearance_ to MIT's v2.6. The point being that an 'ALL-NEW-SUPER-DUPER' version may attract more attention outside the USA than, as some may view it, 'just a pointless patch' would do. Also, some ftp sites and bulletin boards outside the USA don't like carrying software that was illegally exported. A special non-USA version of 2.6 would allow everyone to be happy and compatible. Wouldn't this create a unified world of compatible PGP users? *************************************************************************** * Paul Strong Witty one-liner coming soon! * * * * pauls(a)dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk Finger for PGP v2.3a public key * ***************************************************************************

5 4

fwd from digicash...
by Judith Milhon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Keyserver at pgp.mit.edu back in operation
by Derek Atkins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I am happy to announce that the keyserver at pgp.mit.edu is back in operation, due to the release of PGP 2.6. This server can be accessed by sending mail to the address pgp-public-keys(a)pgp.mit.edu. It will not accept keys labeled as coming from PGP versions less than 2.4. If you have any questions, send mail to the server with a subject of "help", and it will respond with the list of commands that it accepts. Enjoy! - -derek -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBuAgUBLeURuDh0K1zBsGrxAQFAgQLFEqT6ZPreM+dDkFjUaEdFVhKT2iE1cpF9 IPzvH/Sk8IFFJJOWGlbdAbvu+xPM4mljsLTJX1ireagGGmQC5qYXYTB6/CKbBF7E uB2jMHqwDM23uuMsBZNKoXQ= =VJYE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: UNICORN VS. TMP@NETC
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: Bob MorrisG <bmorris(a)netcom.com> : GT> Of course, no-one has considered the possibility that the tmp@netcom p : GT> was manufactured and played out over time solely in order to boost the : GT> credibility of the 'uni' persona :-) [does anyone have any proof that : GT> *either* of these people exist in real life : Aha, that means that you must be them too, huh??? Well, according to our hero David Sternlight, I'm the person behind Iolo Davidson! (Bwaha...etc.) (Wonder if I sue sue him - seems to be the new vogue internet game at the moment :-) ) G

1 0

Re: Unicorn vs....
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"I'd be very interested in which course (or some other undefined course I didn't think of) that the anarchists feel would be reasonable..." I would have considered the nature of the situation - of what it means to have one's words/pseudonymous email image reconfigured by someone whom everyone else on the net pretty much ignores, whose attacks increasingly deteriorate, whose rants are laughable, who argues in circles, and who replies to himself in public email. I would have addressed the circumstance in psychological, rather than legal, terms. Gingerly & carefully, as to a wild beast in the jungle, or to a fool on the highway. Blanc

1 0