December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: (fwd) Re: BSD random() - any good (source included)
by sidney＠taurus.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wants to hear from the silent majority before he'll believe that a significant number of people were not interested in 65k of fortran code and seeing the same message quoted 0, 1, 2, and 3 levels deep. (I thought that was a really nice touch, even better than the Fortran code). I'll add my two cents, and we'll see if we can get all 698 other people on the list to respond. I won't be elitist and try to use statistics to prove the point (As in, if 11 people bother to respond, 10 against and 1 supportive of the mailings, and there are 700 people subscribed to the list, than what is the probability that there are at least 600 people who not only aren't interested in having the stuff dropped in their mailbox, but don't even want to waste time writing about it or waste other people's time by have them read stuff about it.) After all, we saw how useless simplified explanations of the relationship between breaking RSA and factoring of large numbers were at convincing certain people in other discussions, or reasoning about the uselessness of making keys that take trillions of universe lifetimes to break instead of mere millions of years. This discussion has been very useful to me. It got me to finally read up on Eudora Mail's filtering facility, so now I know how to kill e-mail automagically based on various specified criteria. Thank you, Jim. It's always good to learn new things. By the way, referring to a random number generator as "cryptoweak" does not mean that it is somehow relevant to cryptography. A cryptoweak something is a thing that is *not* useful for cryptography. Well, I suppose an article on how cryptoweak RNGs could be used in a cryptographically strong system would be of interest to this list, but so would an article on how Twinkies and taco sauce could be used to create strong cryptography. But please don't forward any usenet articles about Zippy's diet on the theory that cypherpunks should be interested in it because of its strong non-relationship to the purpose of this list. -- sidney <sidney(a)apple.com>

1 0

(fwd) Re: BSD random() - any good (source included)
by an65＠vox.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 3:20 PM 07/07/94 -0500, Jim choate wrote 69K of forwards > (so far) that I would much rather look at in sci.math or > sci.stat.math than in my mailbox, unrequested. Didn't we have > a little forwarding talk recently enough for your avarage > televangelist viewer to remember it? > Kindly cut it out. I guess cypherpunks would rather not write or even read code, but simply gossip about usenet kooks and pedophiles. > ___________________________________________________________________ > Jamie Lawrence <jamiel(a)sybase.com> > c@lib@n -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)vox.hacktic.nl Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)vox.hacktic.nl Direct replies to the sender of this message are -not- anonymised..<YuK>..

9 15

Re: All the free energy in the universe
by doug＠OpenMind.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May writes: >Not to split universes here, but it is interesting to consider that >some ciphers may not be breakable in _our_ universe, in any amount of >time. > >Our universe presumably has some finite number of particles (currently >estimated to be 10^73 particles). This leads to the "even if every >particle were a Cray Y-MP it would take..." sorts of thought >experiments. > >But I am considering _energy_ here. Ignoring reversible computation >for the moment, computations dissipate energy (some disagree with this >point). There is some uppper limit on how many basic computations >could ever be done with the amount of free energy in the universe. (A >rough calculation could be done by calculating the energy output of >stars, stuff falling into black holes, etc., and then assuming about >kT per logical operation. This should be accurate to within a few >orders of magnitude.) The above analysis may be incorrect... there may be no limit to the amount of computation that can be done with a given finite amount of energy. The late Nobel laureate Richard Feynman became very interested in the subject of computation and physics towards the end of his life. My understanding is that he concluded that there was no apparent limitation to the amount of computation that could be completed with a given amount of free energy. Computation may indeed always dissipate energy, but Feyman's conclusion was that this dissipated energy can be made arbitrarily small -- that there is no fundamental quantum limitation on the amount of computation that can be performed at any given mass-energy scale. The kT per logical operation can always be reduced to finer and finer scales. Presumably, this would require advances to ever new technologies, based on new physical forces that are relevant at finer scales (down to computation based on the interactions of quarks as in QCD, gravitons, etc.) Of course, since I can't give you references, you have to take this with a brick of salt... can anyone else comment on whether they have heard this about Feynman's conclusions? This is distinct from the issue of "quantum computers" and Shor's recent results... that issue has to do with whether quantum mechanics can be used to produce *qualitatively* different types of computation. In the above, I am simply discussing the use of quantum mechanical principles to produce fully "classical" computers, but with every greater computational powers using a given amount of energy, based on physics of the ultra-small. In fact, classical computers today rely on quantum mechanics, as the transistor cannot be described without it (electron tunneling, etc.) __ __ __ __ Doug Cutrell / ) /__) /_ /\ / /| /| / /\ / / ) doug(a)OpenMind.com \_/ / (_ / \/ / |/ | / / \/ /__/ ===================================================================

2 1

Request: tamper-proofing executables
by Dan Marner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would appreciate any pointers to documents, source code or programs that deal with using cryptographic techniques to detect or prevent modification of executable code. I am looking for something that uses either a signature or a one-way hash to detect modifications at run time. Of particular interest is information on signing a file that includes the signature as part of the file. Is this possible with any of the common algorithms? Thanks! Dan -- Dan Marner dmarner(a)mis.nu.edu Network Weasel National University "Not on MY network!"

7 6

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

intelligent networks
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's an interesting article in the July 11'th edition of Communications Week on page 8 of the Network Monitoring & Testing insert. Here are some selected paragraphs: "The convergence of technologies for multimedia promises a new age of "super-smart networks" to give users the ultimate weapon in monitoring and testing." "These new multimedia networks...offer sophisticated self monitoring from a central signal distribution point, or head end, to the customer's doorstep." "..hybrid fiber coax networks are, "a bit of a paradigm shift from previous networks in the sense that a large part of testing is eliminated and replaced by proactive maintenance in surveillance fashion." "The hybrid network has monitoring everywhere, and that surveillance allows us to do proactive maintenance and isolation of problems." "You can ask the network about itself, and discover things such as whether its healthy of not, whether it's got a phone call up, how a phone call is connected through the network or whether or not video is enabled at a particular home." "...the network can test the NIU (Network Interface Unit) on the side of every home to determine whether a problem lies between the central office and the home or resides in a wiring flaw in the customer's home." "...the set-top boxes in the network will belong to the service providers. But for test and monitoring purposes, US West will be able to tap all the information flowing back from that set-top box into the network, Emmot says." With networks like that, who needs a Digital Telephony Bill? Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Re: ATTENTION: OPERATION `WOODCOCK BLUDGEON' WILL COMMENCE SHORTLY
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:23 AM 07/15/94 -0700, catalyst-remailer(a)netcom.com wrote: > \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > _________ _________ _________ > / / \ \ / / \ \ / / \ \ > / / / / / / / / ______ / / / / > / / ~~~~ / / / / / __ \ / / / / > / / / ~~~ __/ ~~~_/ / / ~~~ / > / / ____ / /~\ \ /~~~~_ / / /~~~~~~~ > \ \ / / / / \ \ \ ~~~ _ \ / / > ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ > \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Well, at least it came with a good .sig. -j -- "Blah Blah Blah" ___________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence <jamiel(a)sybase.com>

1 0

True Lies and other wiretaps
by Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's some pretty good bits of government abuse of wiretaps in Arnold's newest mega-blockbuster, _True Lies_. (big abuses of wiretaps really) Apparently the terrorists in this movie must use clipper because the "Omega Sector" (the government superspy agency in the movie) decrypts some of the terrorist's files in a matter of minutes. Probably just another bit of Cameron's humor, because the movie is loaded with unlikely events which are hilarious. -Ray

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 06:41 PM 7/15/94 +0100, Graham Toal wrote: >I'd love to take part in a list for discussing practical ways of >assuring privacy. I've been doing it myself for years. How about >asking Robert Hayden to start up a specific mailing list for it? >(Some name like 'obfusc', for obfuscating database entries etc...?) >- description: 'discussions of practical real-life ways of improving >personal privacy.' How about "Hardcore Privacy" > >Also, you tend to mention things in dribs and drabs... in fact, didn't >you do a sort of mini privacy-101 some years ago by posting little >snippets of advice in your .sig file every post? Do you have >any collected files with _lots_ of this stuff in it already that we >could read? That was me. I'm kind of lazy about pulling everything together in one place. DCF "Give me a rule, I'll give you a work-around."

1 0

Re: Leaving the Country
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:50 AM 7/15/94 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >As a step short of leaving the U.S. (partly because I think that while >the U.S. gets the Net attention for its Gorewellian plans, other >countries are following suit or have already done so), I've been to >Nevada to scout out property (no state income tax, lower real estate >prices, fairly mild climate, little welfare) and plan to check out the >coastal regions of Florida (also no state income tax). FYI - the states with no (general) tax on wages are: New Hampshire* Florida Texas Tennesee South Dakota Wyoming Nevada Washington Alaska* *No (general) sales tax either. How do they do it -- Magic. DCF Privacy 101 - In 1944, my friend Byrt ran into this girl on the street that he knew from his old neighborhood. He told her where he was sleeping. That evening, the Geheime Staatspolizei visited Byrt and invited him to become a guest of the German government. One year later, elements of Patton's Third Army rescued Byrt from his mistake of telling someone where he slept.

1 0