December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Triple encryption...
by DAVESPARKS＠delphi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Shostack <adam(a)bwh.harvard.edu> wrote: > While the IDEA in th middle might slow down a meet in the > middle attack on 2DES, I don't know that you're justified in claiming > 112 bits of DES key space without something like: > > des|des|IDEA|des If IDEA can be *TRIVIALLY* broken, and assuming the availability of the massive amounts of memory needed to store all of the data required for a MITM attack, then you're technically correct. But, even granting that possibility for the time being, you still have the equivalent of 57 bits of DES keyspace, which is better than totally relying on 3DEA. While a "super DES breaker" machine has been hypothesized, and a cost to build it estimated, I don't recall anyone doing so for a "MITM DES breaker" which would require incredible amounts of memory. At a minimum, it would require not only *TWO* super-DES-crackers, but a very sophistocated machine to gather the blocks generated by all of the various parallel processors comprising the other two machines, store, and continually compare them, searching for matches. IMHO, that "middle" machine would be far more complex and expensive than the other two. A MITM attack might, theoretically, take only twice as long as attacking a single layer, the cost of doing so would be much more than twice as large. Anyone care to estimate what the cost of the RAM alone for the "MITM interface" machine would be? Let's see, for two 56 bit beys, you'd need storage for 2^57 blocks of 8 bytes each, or 2^60 bytes. At $40 per Mb, or so, that would come to ... let's see ... $4 * 10^51 for memory alone. And once the list of blocks started growing as the attack progressed, could the interface processor keep up with the other two, in real time? Massively parallel processors might speed both ends of the attack, but the "database comparison phase" would be the real bottleneck, IMHO. /--------------+------------------------------------\ | | Internet: davesparks(a)delphi.com | | Dave Sparks | Fidonet: Dave Sparks @ 1:207/212 | | | BBS: (909) 353-9821 - 14.4K | \--------------+------------------------------------/

1 0

Re: Triple encryption...
by DAVESPARKS＠delphi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Johnson wrote: > Or for the rabid, clinically paranoid: > > 3des | tran | IDEA | tran | Diamond | tran | Blowfish | prngxor | [11 iterations deleted] > ... about 500 more lines of the same ... > > with a memorized 5 megabyte key. > > And I thought 15 round Diamond with a 256 bit key was overkill worse than > 3 key triple DES! > > Seriously, folks, the weakest links of most cryptosystems are not in the > symmetric key cipher (provided you pick one of the good ones), but in the > key management, associating people with keys, and in picking good pass > phrases. There's always a trade-off, and you've just demonstrated one of the extremes. In the final analysis, it's sort of like deciding whether to spend $1000 on a security system to protect a $500 car, for "security", or leave the doors unlocked and "hide" the ignition key under the mat for "ease of use". Probably something in between makes the most sense. HOWEVER ... I was merely demonstrating one possible permutation on the triple DES method. (More precisely, a permutation to someone else's permutation.) Replacing the middle layer of DES with IDEA seems to be a feasible alternative, since IDEA is as fast as DES, or slightly faster. If a user is concerned enough about security to want to use 3DES in the first place, then an extra 64 bits of keying material is not an unreasonable burden. It also "diversifies" the overall protection in case either DES or IDEA should eventually be found to be exceptionally weak when attacked in a certain, previously unknown, manner. IMHO, "paranoid" would be saying that people *MUST* protect their data to this level, regardless of its actual "value", as opposed to merely presenting options for an end-user the choose from, including some common-sense key management guidelines as well. A single iteration of the 512 layer "overkill" scenario might even make sense, actually, under certain extraordinary circumstances. Unless the various algorithms react in some sort of strange way to actually *WEAKEN* each other, your final security is equal to that of the STRONGEST of the mix. OTOH, if we *KNEW* that the best attack against IDEA was brute force, then single IDEA would suffice for just about any conceivable application. What would you like to suggest in the way of key management to make that "link" at least as strong as the algorithmic one? Your point is certainly a valuable one, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. That would be like saying that I won't buy a lock for my front door until I've first replaced all my windows with something more sturdy than glass. It depends on the nature and source of any potential attacks. To follow the analogy, some "burglars" are better at lock picking than glass-smashing. /--------------+------------------------------------\ | | Internet: davesparks(a)delphi.com | | Dave Sparks | Fidonet: Dave Sparks @ 1:207/212 | | | BBS: (909) 353-9821 - 14.4K | \--------------+------------------------------------/

2 1

Re: Leaving the Country
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim writes: > I say "popularization" instead of coinage, because Goldwater use a > variant ("There isn't...") in his 1964 campaign, reportedly written by > one of his speech writers, Karl Hess. (The same Karl Hess who is > involved in libertarian matters.) _was_ involved, I'm afraid. Karl's heart disease caught up with him this spring. He'll be long remembered. Bill # Bill Stewart AT&T Global Information Solutions (new name for NCR!) # 6870 Koll Center Pkwy, Pleasanton CA 94566 1-510-484-6204 fax-6399 # Email: bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com billstewart(a)attmail.com # ViaCrypt PGP Key IDs 384/C2AFCD 1024/9D6465 KH: "A good friend, good lover, good neighbor" Q: "That's all there is to being an anarchist?" KH: "What did you expect, a lot of rules?" Karl Hess, 1923-1994 - R.I.P.

1 0

Re: National I.D. Cards
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brian writes: > It would seem we are missing a point about having National I.D. > cards. The rest of the world seems ready to rush in and adopt some > form of "Clipper" chips to monitor their own citizens. (There doing > it in the U.S.!) Do we really doubt they will adopt "The Card" as > well? (don't leave home without it!) > > Step 2: International I.D. Cards...... > > Can you say "New World Order?" Sure you can....... Various other people write: > But what about the tourists? But we've had *international* ones for years. Passports. Go visit Morocco, or Egypt, or other places with heavy-duty bureaucracies, especially *French* bureaucracies, and you'll find you need to show your passport or National ID Card to stay in a hotel or change money; some of those places even have the beginnings of computer infrastructure to let them coordinAte that information. Disgusting, but all too common. In Egypt, they stick paper stamps like postage stamps on all the paperwork to show you've paid the fees. We've escaped that stuff for a long time (not surprising, considering how upset some of our ancestors got about a 3% tax on tea...), but we could join the rest of the world just about the time they're giving it up....

1 0

Detweiller
by Random H0Z3R 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hello, I hope this isn't a stupid question (if it is, the anonymity protects me!!) ghio said that Detweiller must have forged that Big Collision message sent to his remailer, because the person it was attributed to hadn't logged in. I wonder if "rsh" shows up in that type of login?? maybe he "rsh"ed to the account to send from there?!?! and didn't log in to have a cover story?? btw, I haven't seen anything from Detweiller at tmp(a)netcom.com. I assume he still has the account?!?! maybe if someone calls netcom and complains they will do something?? i'm glad ghio caught that message in his mailbox through careful screening so that it wouldn't go out to the newsgroups. I always thought the remailers were automated, but I guess in most case the operators are screening all the stuff. this is good, because we don't need any more Detweiller junk out there (amazing how peaceful things are without him!!!) too bad if the message was forged, because it would be LOTS of fun to EXPOSE THE BASTARD!!! (insert evil smirk here) BTW, here is something I was wondering. on the Detweiller message he has an "errors-to: /dev/null" field. what does that do? why did he put that in there, anyway? i've never seen any documentation reference it. do the remailers handle it? "wondering"

1 0

Re: Leaving the Country
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

frissell(a)panix.com writes: >All the New England States including Taxachussets have State Liquor Stores. Nope. As a many year Mass resident I have never seen a state liquor store in the state. Sure, plenty across the border in New Hampster, but not in MA. One of New Hampster's big tax sources is nasty property taxes. Nice regressive taxes on wealth (both taxing wealth and regressive taxes annoy me), to support a state which does its best to not exist. -kb, the Kent who is currently in California where I can buy booze on *Sunday*, and at a *grocery* store. Cool! -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 32:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

1 0

Card Playing Protocol
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oh, GREAT! Tim says (roughly): "Go for it, too bad you are doomed to lose interest shortly." Geeze, I hate people who make generalizations which are, well, likely to be borne out yet one more time. (I *hate* that!) <Mutter grumble hrumph errrrrrah, phooy!> So I am either supposed to put my tail between my legs now, or take this as a challenge to "Follow through this time.", or let it soon die quietly and hope Tim takes mercy and doesn't rub my nose in it. Grrr. I *hate* reality. So here is where I am: 1) I am wondering whether a "digital deck of cards" is a good choice. 2) If it is, I am wondering how the protocol would roughly be framed (Fundamental card operations, etc.), with an eye towards what the cryptographic protocols can offer. 3) Then, if things make sense, appear tractable, and (drum roll) I haven't gone onto fresher blue-sky ideas, I figure out how to start building the damn thing. 4) And if I ever get to building it I will start first with the little pieces (the cryptographic fragments) which might be useful individually when I lose interest in building the larger beast. I assume that I will have to do real work at each of these stages--though I welcome any help. Both now when the talk is still cheap and later when the bits hit the disk. So far I am at step #1, nudging towards portions of step #2. I refuse to be shamed about abandoning step #3 until I have at least embarked on it. (Then you can make fun of me.) Just producing a complete RFC-quality protocol would be something not to be sniffed at. In fact, I am prepared to stop there and *still* feel smug. (So there!) As for getting people to want to use this digital deck of cards, I rely on my passion for good user interface design combined with the continuing popularity of card games. (And people's continued interest in playing games with other people rather than just computers.) So I am currently at step #. Is the Card Playing Protocol a good choice for being: 1) cryptographically interesting 2) tractable 3) "harmless" 4) appealing to users? Comments? (You too Tim.) And Tim, don't worry about my eyes becoming glazed over with images of Donald Trump. I don't like The Donald. Gambling is boring. (Besides, generalized transactions are far more appealing to a megalomaniacal fool like me. How CPP applies remains for me to understand...) -kb, the Kent who is going to be Cometing tomorrow, handy annual open house at JPL this weekend, etc. -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 32:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

3 2

Re: Rappin. with Jesus
by DAVESPARKS＠delphi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Did I tell you I got to talk to Jesus face to face yesterday? Yup, I ran > into him at the store. No, this was different than Elvis! Honest! He > even gave me his card! He was a very nice person, and very helpful. Oh, > did I mention. His last name was Guardado. <g> I've often wondered that the "H" in "Jesus H. Christ" stands for, too! <g> > (Don't tell anybody I listen to KIFM -- the local jazz station -- 98.1!) I also won't tell anyone the TITLE of this message, which implies that the Almighty might actually enjoy rap "music". > Well I went to the zoo to see you. Errr. I went to the primate exhibit You been readin' Darwin again? What's the name of his book? "The Origin of Feces", or something like that? <g,d,r> Best kept in the "reading room", anyway...

1 0

Re: National ID cards are just the driver's licenses...
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:59 PM 7/15/94 -0700, sameer wrote: > Keep in mind though.. Tim says this often and I agree with >him. The splinter lists have *not* had much traffic. I created the >remailer-operators list, and there hasn't been much traffic. I wasn't >surprised, but I thought I may as well start it. (Whenever I do any >remailer hacking and/or changes I *will* [I think I have, as well] >post to the remailer-operators list.. I still encourage others to do >the same.) A Hardcore Privacy list could well get more "crossover" action than a list for a Cypherpunks-specific topic. DCF "Note that the future capability to conduct a wide range of financial transactions electronically will allow anyone on earth to wake up in the morning and say 'I guess I'll become a bank today.' A bank is just a network node running a particular flavor of server software."

1 0

Please ignore the previous message
by DAVESPARKS＠delphi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please ignore my previous message. It was intended for an individual, and I sent it to the Cypherpunks list by mistake. :-( /--------------+------------------------------------\ | | Internet: davesparks(a)delphi.com | | Dave Sparks | Fidonet: Dave Sparks @ 1:207/212 | | | BBS: (909) 353-9821 - 14.4K | \--------------+------------------------------------/

1 0