December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

Graham Toal and His 'Fucking Religion'
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by nobody(a)c2.org (Anonymous User) on Fri, 29 Jul 9:22 PM Not at all. Mr. Graham Toal expresses civilized contempt of such unctuousness horseshit. His deft lance of this pus is salutary.

1 0

penet.fi attack
by Jeff Gostin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"L. Todd Masco" <cactus(a)bb.com> writes: > 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). Might it be that El Creepo is a _subscriber_ here? If he were, he could get a list of addresses that people actually _post_ from. That covers cases like Roy's. Methinks the C'Punks have a Bug in our midsts. Since C'Punks Write Code, C'Punks also Debug Code, and this Bug needs to be Squashed. :-) --Jeff -- ====== ====== +----------------jgostin(a)eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+ == == | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,| == == -= | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig. | ==== ====== | Now with a new fresh lemon scent! | PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: The Strange Case of Amateur Action
by jamesh＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Writes: > It is ironic that although the issues raised by this > case are of the utmost importance, Robert Thomas is just about > the last person anyone would have chosen as their First > Ammendment Poster Boy. Which makes him all the better choice for the Feds. He's harder to justify defending. JJH -- My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music. -Vladimir Nabokov

1 0

Re: NYET to censors, REPOST
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Graham wrote about the NYET proposal: >I see a lot of call here for legislation and government control. > >Keep your fucking religion out of my face, Zook. If you want >censored-kiddynet, create your own one privately out of funds >donated by Good Christians, but take your state control and >stuff it where ypu stuff your crucifix. > Amen, amem. The christian right is attempting to keep their children in ignorance to minimize the effort it takes to brainwash them. I shall not rest posting on the Net until those children ask their parents: "Daddy, do you know how to perform a genuine French duck fuck?" "Gasp!" "Well, we do. Would you like to know?" -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger

2 1

Re: "Just say 'No' to key escrow."
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:08 PM 7/30/94 +0100, Graham Toal wrote: >: 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? > Oddly enough, they're discussing the use of a modified version of Orbital Sciences' Pegasus launcher. It currently uses a B-52 to carry the rocket to ~40K ft., and then lets it go on up to LEO. However, there's no reason they can't use a 747 as the "first stage". 747's are newer and cheaper and easier to maintain, and the result would be private enterprise from the ground up. At the risk of sounding like pollyanna, we may again be seeing fascists behind every Bush(?) here... Yet, conducting a public awareness campaign, in the shrillest possible terms, against SKE (or more properly, government mandated SKE) is a very good idea. It's easy to separate the two on a conceptual basis, and we should. Conspiracy theories about collusion between governments and big business, no matter how monopolistic those businesses, usually don't wash. Economic institutions really can't keep secrets for very long these days, especially secrets with significant economic impact. While I believe that they probably try, it's a little like pissing in the wind (if you're looking for the proper middle-class white northern european unconciousness-raised male metaphor ;-). However, I have to admit people do stupid things for uneconomic reasons. Windows is living proof of that. Microsoft offering a "security" package with SKE in it to their most lucrative market (Large, Hieropatriarchical, Semi-ossified, Ex-industrial Corporations), is very plausible without any collusion with the uncle necessary. Us howling like banshees about it makes real sense in that light. LHSECs really hate it when people howl at them like like banshees. Exhortatory prose (and action) about manning the barracades against SKE makes sense. Conspiracy theories will probably make potential allies laugh. Cheers, Robert Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

3 2

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there a problem with the remailer at soda.berkeley.edu? Or are they simply moving machines around, as the message indicates? I received this "warning" message - (identifying headers removed) ********************************************** ** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY ** ** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE ** ********************************************** The Computer Science Division at the University of California at Berkeley is in the process of moving into a brand new building. This entails moving all machines. If you are getting a warning message that the individual's machine is not responding, you might want to try to contact them using something other than e-mail. Although we anticipate that most machines will be down for From owner-cypherpunks Sat Jul 30 14:16:24 1994 Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks> Received: by toad.com id AA24030; Sat, 30 Jul 94 14:16:24 PDT Received: from MIT.EDU (ATHENA-AS-WELL.MIT.EDU) by toad.com id AA24024; Sat, 30 Jul 94 14:16:04 PDT Received: from UA.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA04630; Sat, 30 Jul 94 17:15:58 EDT From: solman(a)MIT.EDU Received: by ua.MIT.EDU (5.57/4.7) id AA04787; Sat, 30 Jul 94 17:15:51 -0400 Message-Id: <9407302115.AA04787(a)ua.MIT.EDU> To: gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Graham Toal) Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: "Just say 'No' to key escrow." In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 30 Jul 94 14:08:23 +0100. <199407301308.OAA23358(a)an-teallach.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.3 4/7/94 Date: Sat, 30 Jul 94 17:15:50 EDT Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk > : 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? That's the easiest part. International competition for the precious few organizations requiring launching facilities has almost entirely elimintated government intervention in what goes up. Its just like dealing with regulations made by physical world entities in cyberspace. If you don't like the rules, it is easy to move it elsewhere. > : 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. All we need is widely distributed software with optional escrow and the government will be helpless against us. They won't have a prayer of passing legislation that prevents you from using your software, so they'll pass legislation that requires you to use escrows. People will register a key with the escrow and then use a different key for everything. Escrow dies. Of course we should fight anything mandating escrow, but the reality is that if we can force the escrow into software it will be useless to big brother. JWS

3 2