December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

penet spoofs
by rjc＠powermail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yours truly has been stung. Someone used rjc(a)powermail.com to create a penet address. Since I have never used that address to post anywhere else except cypherpunks, the spoofer is probably on cypherpunks. I thought it might have been caused by a penet'er being subscribed to cypherpunks but a similar thing did not happen to my other accounts. -Ray

3 2

penet.fi attack
by L. Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

roy(a)sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail): > In list.cypherpunks, Alan Westrope: > > > Me too, but I suspect the asshole just sent a 'who cypherpunks' request > > to majordomo(a)toad.com. > > Maybe not. My personal address was used, but my list subscription > address wasn't. (cypherpunks gets gated to a local newsgroup here, so I > can read it with news tools) Ditto. El creepo was definitely using the real list for the attack (and oddly, I got two total: one last night and one this evening). -- L. Todd Masco | Bibliobytes books on computer, on any UNIX host with e-mail cactus(a)bb.com | "Information wants to be free, but authors want to be paid."

1 0

Re: Larry Detweiler and his 'Fucking Hypocrisy'
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: Anonymous User <nobody(a)c2.org> : Ironic what you say, Graham. Given the fact that the subject : matter is PORNOGRAPHY, often involving explicit depiction of : sexual intercourse, which is somewhat of a "religion to some", : maybe that's exactly what Nathan was asking -- for pornographers : to keep their "fucking religion" off the net... Classic, a lesson in hypocrisy from Detweiler! Larry, the day I call for government regulation to stop decent atheist kids from being allowed to access evil underground Christian fsp sites is the day you can start bleating hypocrisy. Another deliberate flame-bait from Detweiler. Excuse me if I don't waste my time refuting anything else he said. G

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Muchas apologies for the forwarded post, but I thought you folks might find this of interest... From: Perillo(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil Newsgroups: comp.security.misc Subject: Fwd: SHA, Proposed Modification. Date: 29 Jul 1994 10:03:21 -0400 Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway Lines: 611 Sender: daemon(a)cs.yale.edu Message-ID: <940729135927.373949(a)DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL> NNTP-Posting-Host: babyblue.cs.yale.edu The following is the Request for Comments citation summary, on the revision or fix of the Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) released by NIST on July 11th. Enclosed is the "technical details sheet" of the proposed modification that has been floating around NIST for the last two months. - Robert ---------------------------- Federal Register 07/11/94 Citation="59 FR 35317" [Docket No. 940675-4175] RIN 0693-AB33 Proposed Revision of Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 180, Secure Hash Standard AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; Request for comments. SUMMARY: A revision of Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 180, Secure Hash Standard (SHS), is being proposed. This proposed revision corrects a technical flaw that made the standard less secure than had been thought. The algorithm is still reliable as a security mechanism, but the correction returns the SHS to the original level of security. The SHS produces a 160-bit output called a message digest for a message of any size. This message digest can be used with FIPS 186, Digital Signature Standard (DSS), to compute a signature for the message. The same message digest should be obtained by the verifier of the signature when the received version of the message is used as input to the Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA). -------------- Proposed Modification of the Secure Hash Algorithm In Section 7 of [1](page 9), the line which reads b) For t=16 to 79 let W(t) = W(t-3) XOR W(t-8) XOR W(t-14) XOR W(t-16). is to be replaced by b) For t=16 to 79 let W(t) = S1( W(t-3) XOR W(t-8) XOR W(t-14) XOR W(t-16) ). where S1 is a left circular shift by one bit as defined in Section 3 of [1](page 6), namely S1(X) = (X<<1) V (X>>31). ASCII translator's note : S1 is actually, S superscript 1. W(t-n) is actually, W subscript, t or t-n. References: [1] FIPS PUB 180; Secure Hash Standard Computer Systems Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology 1993 May 11 ___________________________________________________________________ Robert J. Perillo, CCP Computer Scientist Cerberus Systems Washington, DC ___________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: "Just say 'No' to key escrow."
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: solman(a)mit.edu : This is a relatively inane conspiracy theory. Gates hardly requires any : assistance since the feds were already committed to setting up licenses : in bands that are good for these types of networks. Both the FCC and Hughes : have sped up their efforts towards these systems in recent days. That's just the terrestrial side. What about actually getting the birds up? : And the satellite system is not Bill Gates. He is an investor, and a fairly : small one. Gates and McCaw (sp?) gave that venture much more by attaching : their names to it than they did by giving a few of their millions. I seem : to recall Gates' share being 7 megabucks. All the more reason to look at the investors more closely and see what other quid pro quo's have been arranged. : will be too late and that B) software based escrows are a good thing because : they take the wind out of hardware based encryption efforts and they are : difficult to make mandatory. This sort of talk is dangerous. If cypherpunks don't have a united front against SKE, I can't see the less radical front organisations like EFF and CPSR (well, maybe just EFF) going balls to the wall against it either. Compromises should be resisted in order to force USG to show their true colors when they finally demand to outlaw all non-escrowed crypto. Otherwise it'll sneak up on us in the night like the Christian Coalition's goal of taking over the Republican party. G

1 0

DA to DAta censors by D.A.
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Copyright 1994, Nutthin Puke. All jellies preserved. Intelectual arguments pending. DA-- Determined Atheists Before I start, it may be informative to consider that I consider myself to be a hard-line member of the Atheist Preservative movement, and a hard- line advocate of religious freedom. I am a PhD candidate in tantric sexual practices at the University of California at Sodom, and I got the 'Separation of Church and State' language added to the 1774 Republican Party of Texas platform. I am a member of Atheists against Christians, and am two hundred and twenty-seven years old. As the American community continues to grow, the differences of conviction that exists generally in the world find their way into the community. Some demand that newcomers to the USA adapt to the atheist mores of this society. Some demand that the USA, as a newcomer to the world, adapt to the religious beliefs of the outside. As recent events have demonstrated, the less reasonable, on both sides, may be endangering the integrity and availablity of the USA. Calls for USA-wide religious censorship, it may be expected, will continue to grow unless the USA can find some way to police itself. Yet "police itself" is a term that sends the USA into fits. My solution, DA, is for the appropriate users to directly censor the publications that they might legitmately lay claim to censoring--publications that flows to minors over which they have legal authority and responsibility. Specifically, this is a plan to create two sorts of reader in the USA-- adult and minor. Adult readership may only be obtained by persons of age eighteen. Minor readership may only be obtained in the presence of adult readers, refered to as supervisor librarians. Adult readers would have full access to anything in the USA. Gospel tracts, prayer meetings, Turner TV, and like press being viewed by a minor, would cause a Clipper call to an adult supervisor to allow access. Newspaper editors, in particular, would censor any letters submitted from a confused Christian juvenile reader. The legal framework that I see important in aiding such a system is as follows: State Level: 1) Declare to hold harmless those Church bookshops for charges of Contributing to the Delinquacy of a Minor that obtain and verify the age of bible readers, and maintain a DA system of access for minors. Certain acceptable verification methods specified, with authority to add methods delegated to a regulatory agency. Emphasis to be on ease and speed of verification. Special consideration for in-church bookshops. 2) Make it illegal to misrepresent age and name data to a religious bookshop. Require library operators to maintain a record of age and name of religious book readers for thirty days after borrowing a Bible or putting a request for a religious publication on hold. 3) Declare aiding in tampering with DA system to be "Contributing to the Moral Degeneracy of a Minor" and "Promoting religion in direct contravention of Californicate Provision 69". Federal Level: Pass paralell laws for Churches operating with dioces in two or more states, or for Churches operating with 800 'dial-a-prayer' numbers. I believe that such a system would protect the full free expression of religion currently enjoyed in the USA, while reaffirming parental responsibility in the upbringing of their children. The burden of controlling access devolves all the way to the parents, making perversion charges against Church elders patently frivolous. Advocation-of-religion charges would then be MUCH more difficult to press, since a jury could be told that specific steps were being taken to prevent access to minors. If parents complained that they didn't want to go to the trouble of spelling out what their children could access, the response is clear: "Oh, so it's not worth the effort to you?" Despite slurs in this group to the contrary, I believe that the proposed god.* heirarchy may well be the first in a series of attempts to censor atheism in the USA. Remember, we already have had a censor for porn, religion, and unwholesome Hostess-brand snacks. It is not really a question of _if_ but _who_ and at _what level_ will this censoring take place. Nutthin (Adjusting kinky underwear) With apologies to Tim May for stealing his schtick.

1 0

Popular Front for the Liberation of Crypto
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) on Fri, 29 Jul 6:32 PM >Grim times in cyberspace. > >Perhaps folks who are more willing to "compromise" with >the law enforcement types can see why I'm so opposed >to helping them hang us. ENR, a construction magazine, reports July 25 on the Davidian site cleanup at Waco: Quote: As the crew sifts through debris, workers are finding human remains. "Mostly we've found childrens' bones," says Fawn. . . . "These are the things that mess with my mind." The project manager adds that he has trouble finding workers for the job. "They are scared of the bones." Only 47 bodies have been identified of the 80 or more victims. End quote. The LEAs endlessly search for easy targets.

1 0

What kind of encryption to incorporate?
by vincie＠blaze.cs.jhu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm finishing up on a stegography(sp?) program that uses GIF and WAV files. It was inspired by Cypherella's Stego program for the Mac. In the program, I incorporate the filename, length, then data to the GIF or WAV file. RIght now, I just use a basic secrey key encryption. It will XOR each data byte with a byte in the password and repeat this. Is there a better way to encrypt the data that is just has easy to code? Sorry if this an FAQ. I couldn't find an FAQ for this group. Michael Ko / ...the chances of getting picked up by another/ The Invincible \ / ship within those thirty seconds are 2 to the / vincie(a)cs.jhu.edu \ \ power of 276709 to one against." - From The \ Computer Science Depart. / \ Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - D. Adams \ Johns Hopkins University/

5 5

Re: No SKE in Daytona and other goodies (fwd)
by paul＠poboy.b17c.ingr.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May disses "that one guy" thusly: > Oh please! Just how many times am I supposed to repeat my point that I make > no claims that any imminent release of Chicago or Daytona or System 7.2 is > likely to have SKE included? I've pointed out that the TIS algorithm is > only now being coded, but that the *general field* of key escrow seems to > involve some behind-the-scenes manouverings which should give us all pause. No doubt. But what does the OS provider gain from including encryption in the OS? At present, customers aren't demanding it. Why add SKE at all when no one's asking for it? Apple is able to export System 7 Pro right now because it uses 40-bit RC2/RC4 for some limited client-server stream encryption. It won't do file or disk encryption. > The real issue is just how all the work on SKE described in the Denning > conference coming up in September (the full agenda is posted in the crypto > newsgroups) is to be implemented if *not* by the OS and system software > vendors. Remember that all these vendors want to sell OSes *and* to control the future of that particular technology. I'd bet that MS At Work is where Microsoft is most interested. FWIW I agree with Tim: it's time to start asking the OS vendors some hard questions. I'll volunteer to talk to Apple. Tim & Blanc Weber seem to have good wires into Microsoft. Bill Stewart's suggestion about shareholder resolutions is a good one, too, for those who are shareholders of the various companies. Finally, never forget the power of "divide & conquer"; if MS does something unpalatable, that gives Novell, Apple, et al a reason _not_ to do that same thing. - -Paul - -- Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG | "Information is the currency of democracy." perobich(a)ingr.com | - some old guy named Thomas Jefferson Of course I don't speak for Intergraph. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLjj9wKfb4pLe9tolAQGNOAP/ToRXGcggXLxr+pOU0Zipt+FXTMFTs7M1 F6c7W/vuNcYX143GsdCu1QG7n7xyZdaBCMp/Z5K2dAI1Q1UaDkFmyrGa+Zr/uolO ZjowvE7uXy1SN+7SmsizAznFetIVzVMgLPrU4wnMRpN+4nm8fQXJOEfopzVpdjA0 xslqhXxgGk0= =NUxC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 5

Re: No SKE in Daytona and other goodies
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

C'punks, On Sat, 30 Jul 1994, Aron Freed, responding to Eric Weaver, wrote: > ... since when has this country been so easy to quit and find a new job > with the same relative pay...[blah, blah, blah]. Aron and Eric, this discussion is off-topic for Cypherpunks. It looks like I'm just going to have to step in and settle this: Eric is right, Aron is wrong. Now stop fighting and shake hands. We have more important privacy battles to wage. Your humble servant, S a n d y

1 0