December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: My 2.3a Key is listed as a 2.6 (Aaargh!)
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Haa, *my* key was also converted to a 2.6 key (certainly just s/2.3a/2.6/g; , but it _is_ a 2.6-Key now). Now my public key is a 2.6 key and I am not allowed to have or use 2.6, because I'm german. Isn't it lovely? Hadmut

5 4

Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
by Conrad Hughes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Russell Nelson writes: [quoting someone:] > 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. Come on - fine, I don't like that patent (not that it affects me very badly), but where do you think they got the name RSADSI from? Conrad

1 0

Re: removed from list....
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: joshua geller <joshua(a)cae.retix.com> there was a mass unsubscribing, probably from nalbandian. so it is very likely that you did nothing whatever and that no one is pissed off at you. eric wouldn't unsubscribe you without telling you why it was happening and asking you to stop whatever it was that was causing to be frustrated. Actually I was speaking to lile recently and she said that she was removed from the list *after* resubscribing successfully after the mass removal. Something funny is going on. Anyway, if she wasn't taken off by eric, maybe you could resub her? I think she's sloped off in a huff assuming she was thrown out deliberately :-( G

2 1

Patenting graph-based PK
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jpp(a)jpplap.markv.com (Jay Prime Positive): > It would be cool to hear about your graph isomorphism based system in > any case. > > I only worry that if I publish, it could be patented. And I don't > want the algorithm to end up in the hands of the software patent > folks. Especially if they will be making money off it, and I wont. > > Solutions? Patent it yourself. Or publish extensively, with source code, etc. In the US, where patents are still invent-first rather than file-first, this will make it harder for someone else to patent it. If you publish it, it can be taken as prior art, in which case claims on it will be rejected. I'm not a patent lawyer, consult one. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA The National Short-Sleeved Shirt Association says: Support your right to bare arms! --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: PGP 2.5 in Europe
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Adam Shostack <adam(a)bwh.harvard.edu>: > >As I said in my first message, I've heard 2.5 has already found its way So has 2.6, actually ;^) The ITAR is really not workable; we fight it to make legitimate what happens anyway - whenever any new 'munition' is released, it appears magically on the major crypto sites in Finland and Italy. As no one would dare risk the wrath of the National Surveillance Agency by fsp upload, how do they do it? Telepathy? Does export by telepathy violate ITAR? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA The National Short-Sleeved Shirt Association says: Support your right to bare arms! --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: MacPGP interface project
by sidney＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On May 13, Richard.Johnson(a)Colorado.EDU wrote: > From the keyboard of: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)access.digex.net> > >> I would design around MacPGP2.3 v.1.0.5 (or whatever) >> The V1.1 source code doesn't look like it will be around real soon. > >Can someone fill the rest of us in on the true story behind this? Why >is the (copylefted) source code to 2.3a V1.1 not available? I saw the question, but no reply. I did have some problems that caused me to miss cypherpunks mail for a few days after that. Was there a reply on the list? In any case, I too would like to know what is the story with source code for MacPGP. In fact, the latest version executable I've seen is 2.3v1.0.5. From Black Unicorn's quote, it seems that there are sources available for that version and executables for 2.3a v1.1. If that's true, where can I find them? Is anyone applying the patches for 2.6 compatibility? -- sidney markowitz <sidney(a)apple.com>

1 0

ACAPULCO H.E.A.T.
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, This week's episode, "Code Name: Stalemate," was a two-parter. The Team goes to Venezuela to protect Andre Sokal, an ex-KGB agent, who is playing in a big chess tournament. Andre in now part of the Russian reform movement and Communist hard-liners want to assassinate him. H.E.A.T.'s archenemy, Strake, is hired to do the job. Strake is a violent but sensitive megalomaniac who eschews a simple bullet to the head because a good assassination is "a theatrical performance that must show the genius of the assassin" or something like that. Strake first shoots one of the real chess players in the back, which shows curiously little genius. He then replaces him with a surgically altered double. It goes downhill from there. The crypto and hi-tech angles are many. Ashley (Catherine Oxenberg, who I have been told was *not* Ringo's wife) replaces one of the other chess players. (No, she doesn't shoot her in the back, they were old friends. Ashley just happens to play at the grandmaster level and anyway, Chrissie will be feeding her computer generated moves via a radio receiver in Ashley's eyeglass frames. Strake's ringer is also strategically impaired and so Strake is helping him with a laptop with a screen that only the double can see because he is wearing special glasses. (Why not just use an LCD screen? Nobody can read those things either.) Unfortunately, Strake has brought in an electronics communication expert from Russia (Ivan something-or-other). Ivan spoofs the H.E.A.T. computers and satellite communications uplinks. When the Team discovers their communications have been compromised, Mike tells Ashley not to use their normal communications until the system is secure. When she asks how should communicate, Mike tells her to "use the phone." (Now *that's* secure!) Ivan is available to Strake, because his research funding dried up when the USSR went belly up. Too bad, because "he was on the verge of developing a microchip which would have been able to decrypt any secure computer." Yeah, right. To be continued next week. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Graph isomorphism based PK cryptosystems?
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:42 5/25/94 -0400, smb(a)research.att.com wrote: > This is one of the main > reasons behind such publications as the IBM Technical Journal--the > publication of results not worth patenting themselves, but definitely > worth preventing others from patenting. > >Actually, no. IBM has a separate publication for just that purpose. >The Technicnal Journal (and others like it) are intended as PR vehicles >and as gold stars for researchers -- that's an important part of our >salary, as it were. I think that you are refering to IBM's "Technical Disclosures" publication. Its entries are in the form of patents, presumably in less finished form. They carry thru the process of writing up the patent, at least in rough form, and then decide whether to go to the greater expense of patenting it. If they decide not to patent it they publish it in Technical Disclosures.

1 0

Re: Response to Uni's "Lawsuit" Message
by ddt＠lsd.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:07 am 5/24/94 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >How about this, instead: A company called "ID Anonymous, Ltd." sets up in >a business secrecy jurisdiction. It buys Internet access accounts in bulk >from DGS, Netcom, etc. (ID1, ID2, ID3, . . .). It then resells them to >people living in the service territories of the various access providers. >ID Anonymous, Ltd. collects monthly fees from all of its sub-users. It >pays the Internet provider a single check each month for the monthly fees >of all its anonymous account. Under such a system, there is no weak >link. If a user misbehaves, DGS or Netcom can cut off the offending >account, but nobody can reveal the identity of the underlying user. By >being located in an offshore jurisdiction, ID Anonymous, Ltd. is not >susceptible to lawsuits or rubber hose techniques. QED. I like it. I'd be willing to participate and refer users to the service. dave

4 5

WNSTORM on wuarchive.wustl.edu
by rarachel＠prism.poly.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've just uploaded wnstorm to wuarchive.wustl.edu in the /pub/wns directory. I don't know if others can see it yet, but give it a try.

2 1