December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Fixing pgp 2.6
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I think we can expect strong legal pressure from RSA to > shut down the remaining U.S. key servers, even those > which don't use illegal versions of PGP. They succeeded > once in shutting down the key servers which used PGP; they > will succeed again in shutting down the others due to the > contributory infringement threat. > ViaCrypt PGP 2.4 is perfectly legal in the U.S. U.S. operators can run key servers that except only version 2.4 and higher keys. I don't think RSA has a legal leg to stand on the U.S. key servers reject all keys with a version number less than 2.4. <wink> <nudge> Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Re: PGP outside the US
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So: US users can legally use PGP 2.5. Foreign users can also use PGP 2.5 until the US decides to kidnap them. As far as I know there are no laws against sending encrypted traffic across the border. Where lies the problem? With people like me who commute from the UK to the US regularly and don't particularly look forward to a strip-search and a flashlight up the butt every visit. (Unless the customs officer is *very* cute...) This is why I specifically don't want a copy of 2.5/2.6... - and I can't see any need for it anyway. G

2 1

Re: PGP 2.6 and the future
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Allan Bailey says: >> I'm willing to wager that this 2.6 and maybe 2.5 versions are >> hacked by the NSA to put in their spiffy key-escrowed backdoor. > >How much are you willing to wager? I'll take the bet at any size. I'll pick up any piece of this action which Perry is unwilling, or unable, to cover. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

PGP 2.6 incompatibilities
by VACCINIA＠UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- First I would like to say that Mr. Bailey is being taken (should have recanted while you had a chance), that being said, it is worth it to get someone to examine the code in a thorough manner. I'll ante up $10 to help alleviate the pain of losing this bet, Mr Bailey. Only good things can come of such a bet in my opinion. Perhaps, the above code analysis will present some new insights into patches and maybe even improvements! Someone wrote the list to say that the RSAREF code in 2.5 is not as good as Phil's, MIT seems to agree since it now has implimented new RSA code "while you wait". I'm not using this new code unless the type of patch Adam Shostack has suggested is implemented, that is, it is fully compatible with previous (i.e. 2.3, 2.3a, 2.4) versions. This attempt at divide and conquer cannot be allowed. I would like to use a PGP which does not violate intellectual property rights (no matter the shaky legal patent grounds, at least here in the U.S.), but I'm not willing to use an "us" (americans, canadians) version of PGP leaving "them" (anyone else) totally incompatible. That just incapacitates all of us. Bring on PGP 2.6a. Scott G. Morham !The First, VACCINIA(a)uncvx1.oit.unc.edu! Second PGP Public Keys by Request ! and Third Levels ! of Information Storage and Retrieval !DNA, ! Biological Neural Nets, ! Cyberspace -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLdfjrD2paOMjHHAhAQGSmQQA11SRVxevsL3NNvaBRyYc0yzqLjfxJ3dN 7I2leHc73nRwPwhhUJt2xeooHLlAlOHtLa+FBcbz8E03/vd8aBe7G0t7I4h0pSoB ujT5FRrArqV2x7AlVZquhbRECJ2nhwcIxN862GLvOYYQtIbC7NKvOYCFYMVt0p+x N1/28tvfRD4= =EB2O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Fixing pgp 2.6
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>In order to fully protect RSADSI's intellectual property rights in >public-key technology, PGP 2.6 will be 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. PGP 2.6 will continue to be able to read >messages generated by those earlier versions. So it will produce readable messages before Sept 1, 1994? Then there must be an if somewhere in the program to check the date. That should be fix- able with a patch of a few bytes to the object code. The best way to uncripple it would be to distribute a small .exe program which patches your version of PGP in place. Also include the source for the .exe so nobody thinks it does anything evil. We are being divided and conquered. If PGP 2.6 succeeds, our goal of a worldwide strong crypto standard is dead. This needs to be stopped. --- Mike

2 1

Ripem Mac, MacPGP and NEON
by GERSTEIN＠SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey guys- Can anyone tell me what the latest version of Ripem for the Mac is, as well as where I can find it. Also, does anyone know when MacPGP 2.5 or 2.6 will be available? Reply to either question via private mail as I am no longer on the list :( Neon- Mail me if you did/did not get my post to you. Adam Gerstein GERSTEIN(a)SCSU.CTSTATEU.EDU

1 0

Re: PGP 2.5 Beta Release Over, PGP 2.6 to be released next week
by Ezekial Palmer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 14:56:06 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)imsi.com> Besides, since 2.5 is legal, and doesn't have this "feature", and can be fixed by people at will, I suspect that no one will see any reason to use 2.6... I still haven't seen a good reason to stop using 2.3a . . . . Zeke -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLdgC/hVg/9j67wWxAQE4gQQAgS7erpez7HooIXwHQri0pK3iNPYjAH5d ostRb9+NA9usyJrQ8kC+mQbV67R9dcnqZqivHEx63OXN+Wbo1zy3sZb8W5hs+S8r /cM1FcWJOb9gKVksIFi2DJHP3RljoLHeZQbYJutcTgFhWxokyjOo+rig4gzacfp5 jMlcA3BzXGM= =RyRf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[ANON] Stalemate in ca-firearms
by anonymous＠extropia.wimsey.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[[Reply-To: john.nieder(a)tigerteam.org]] -=> Quoting Chan(a)shell.portal.com to John Nieder <=- Ch> I stand behind what I said about not allowing anon postings Ch> & don't have time to argue about it. I hope you'll vent some Ch> of the anger you apparently directe at me at your legislators Ch> instead. It would be a lot more productive.... I don't think so, honestly. My legislators (Feinstein, Burton, Pelosi and Boxer) are just like you: They have their agenda, they won't address the issue, they don't care what I think and they don't want to hear about it. Did I leave anything out? It's discouraging to someone who used to think the truth mattered. I won't bug you any more on this, but think about it, Jeff. Really. |%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%| | <john.nieder(a)tigerteam.org> * CP2A * PGP Key # E27937 on all servers | |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=| |"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude | | better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in | | peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the | | hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may | |posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams, 1776| |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| |BOYCOTT: Pepsico <KFC - Taco Bell - Frito-Lay - Pepsi-Cola> & Gillette| |%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|

1 0

[ANON] War in rec.guns Winds Down, All Parties Lose
by anonymous＠extropia.wimsey.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[[Reply-To: john.nieder(a)tigerteam.org]] -=> Quoting Dputzolu(a)cs.uiuc.edu to John Nieder <=- Dp> | I mean, think about it: Would you be polite to Charles Schumer? Dp> I understand completely, and was frustrated about the lack of Dp> thoughtful response. However, by posting in a flame tone you did give Dp> the moderator an excuse to (assuming he was) censor your post. Well, look at it this way. After having several buttheads stamp on your big toe, you're throbbing sore and about ready to kill the next guy who does it. Anti-gun net administrators on another network used obscure and broadly-ignored rules, particularly a dusty "real names only" policy to kill off the best gun forum I've ever seen. Jeff Chan then listened to a couple of really messed up anti-anon people and unilaterally banned remailed posts on ca-firearms(a)shell.portal.com without valid reasons or discussion (note from my previous cross-posts that he STILL won't discuss it to this day). Now this "Magnum" person, for completely illogical and uninformed reasons is doing the same goddam thing on rec.guns, in spite of the fact that I have pointed out the specific fallacies in the anti-anon argument. This is like talking to Sarah Brady about bogus HCI anti-gun claims. I mean, _deja vu_! | Dp> However, you have made quite an accusation. I did see at least | Dp> a few posts arguing the pro-anon side (including mine). Dp> | Obviously, he excluded _mine_, and admitted it. Dp> Right, but he has reasonable reasons for this. If he doesn't for Dp> the other ones, then... There's _always_ a good reason to exclude something you don't want anyone to hear. You show that the Greifer post eventually appeared, but did it do so AFTER the "Closure on [ANON]" post? If so, it was likely retrieved and stuck in AFTER I started raising hell about it. I got that post some time ago. I didn't see the Vetleson post in any case, and certainly none of the short, supporting pro-anon messages that I got that were Cc:ed to the group. If "Magnum" says that his anti-anon position was overwhelmingly supported (despite the fact it was based on erroneous propositions) we only have his word for it, as he filters all messages to the group before we see them. In the first couple of days after my post, I received twelve netmail posts (most, perhaps all, showing headers indicating they were also posted to the group), eight of which supported my pro-anon post, two of which were illiterate anti-anon blasts of one or two lines, and the remaining one was upset at the angry tone of the post. The later mail was about in the same proportion. Only _one_ anti-anon post questioned a single of my assertions, and that was on a technical point about which the respondent was in error (I will post my response to him after I'm done with this message). Is this "overwhelming" anti-anon support? I think not. A very heavy majority who wrote to me supported remailer use, and we are told that people are more likely to write to bitch than to agree on any given issue. Maybe the posts to "Magnum," whoever he is, were completely anti-anon, but it just doesn't seem plausible to me. I'm sure at this point it's too late to know, but it's established that he didn't show us _every_ message that came in, but merely an edited "digest." If he's the moderator, he can obviously do whatever he pleases, no matter if it's the usual capricious and petty nonsense we've all come to expect from the sort of people who tend to become moderators. What bugs me is this charade of consensus...which even if it did exist would be in favor of a demonstrably flawed policy that should be rejected on the basis of objective criteria anyway. Dp> You'll notice that all anti-anon responses were Dp> either butt-kissing | "me-too" posts of moderator adulation, or else Dp> completely ignored the | arguments in my post. Dp> I know, I know. I hoped rec.guns would have a few more free-thinkers, Dp> but it seems most don't see past the end of their muzzle. [Sigh!] This is another subject, but one that ought to be addressed at some point in an appropriate venue. I am _really_ distressed at the intellectual insularity of the RTKBA crowd who are, as a group, probably the squarest bunch of anal-retentive old ladies I've ever had the misfortune to be allied with. Their political unsophistication, narrowness and conceptual introversion drives me nuts. They also have this infuriating timidity about yelling when stepped on. Note the collective reaction (and yours) when I did. Dp> This may be true, but rec.guns has its own rules. Just because someone Dp> makes the superior arguments doesn't mean they win the debate. That's Dp> life. No kidding. Dp> On the other hand, IF consent was engineered, that isn't fair Dp> play, and can and should be acted on. "Fair play" is nothing but a quaint irrelevancy in 1994. Anyone in serious RTKBA lobbying discovers that in a BIG hurry. If fair play mattered, none of these anti-gun bills would have got past committee. Anyway, there's no way that we can "prove" what the input was at this late date. All this mail is ephemeral and gone by now, I'm sure. If "Magnum" fiddled the outcome, as I suspect he did to one degree or another, I don't even really care any more. The wrongheaded policy is passed, just like the recent wrongheaded gun laws, and that's _that_. I see that the moderator (whose comments indicate he _still_ doesn't understand the mechanics of remailers or the point of their use) has essentially told Greifer in this belated entry, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts." The abusive and plainly stupid no-anon policy has made rec.guns lots of new enemies and accomplished nothing else of substance. I've dropped rec.guns as a waste of my time and an insult to common sense. If anything useful at all has come out of this, it's that more and more people are getting fed up with the insularity, intellectual dishonesty and hidebound mindset prevailing in these traditional gun forums. Alternative venues are sorely needed. I think we're going to see them established soon. Stay tuned. |%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%| | <john.nieder(a)tigerteam.org> * CP2A * PGP Key # E27937 on all servers | |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=| |"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude | | better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in | | peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the | | hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may | |posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams, 1776| |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| |BOYCOTT: Pepsico <KFC - Taco Bell - Frito-Lay - Pepsi-Cola> & Gillette| |%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|

1 0

Re: Rabin
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Earlier, anonymous asked: > In the Rabin PK system, your modulus is a Blum integer, a number n > of the form p*q, where p and q are primes equal to 3, mod 4. > According to Schneier, p. 289, encryption is done by C = M^2 mod n. > On the next page, he gives four possible square roots of C: > Anybody know the right way to do square roots mod a Blum integer? Well, I'll look at what Schneier says; maybe there is a typo in the formula... but the way you can solve this is with the Chinese Remainder Theorem. If c = m^2 mod n, then a solution is a common solution of m^2 mod n = c mod p m^2 mod n = c mod q Since p+1 and q+1 are divisible by 4, then (a^((p+1)/4))^2 = a since a is a quadratic residue modulo p, and then a^((p-1)/2) mod p = 1 anyway, you calculate x1 = a^((p+1)/4) mod p x2 = a^((q+1)/4) mod q and then use the CRT four times to get the solution. For this example, p = 7, q = 11, n = p q = 77, m = 50 c = 50^2 mod 77 = 36 x1 = c^((p+1)/4) mod p = 36^2 mod 7 = 1 x2 = c^((q+1)/4) mod q = 36^3 mod 11 = 5 So now you use the Chinese Remainder Theorem for the following four cases CRT(n, p, q, x1, x2) CRT(n, p, q, x1, q - x2) CRT(n, p, q, p - x1, q) CRT(n, p, q, p - x1, q - x1) yeilding: CRT(77, 7, 11, 1, 5) --> 71 CRT(77, 7, 11, 1, 6) --> 50 CRT(77, 7, 11, 6, 5) --> 27 CRT(77, 7, 11, 6, 6) --> 6 Sorry, but I don't have time to write out the steps for the CRT ;) It's pretty straightforward, given the algorithm. so (71, 50, 27, 6) satisfy the equation x^2 mod n = c x^2 mod 77 = 36 as you can see, the original message (m = 50) is one of the choices. This is similar to an oblivious transfer protocol. Actually, I think it is an oblivious transfer as described by Blum. Karl Barrus klbarrus(a)owlnet.rice.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLdguSYOA7OpLWtYzAQG35wP+MpdhCUBtSodd53Ppn41UHcKSpkkamx13 YqMmlmP0dKsRV2Vas1IVdcIGcjcowBxDT7IkRJO9UNtj33BB2tTsRDNOi2GqERZl AARVL/y941EIAXwwj2w+WQ/jCAaFhy4ohvZVbI5snWw6D+dsxQ7jMx193ehLjnu1 ieEL4BvHUzA= =MJ0E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1