December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Windows for Workgroups 3.11
by Mike Markley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- | From: Derek Atkins <warlord(a)MIT.EDU> | To: Andrzej Bursztynski <psee(a)sam.nask.com.pl> | Cc: <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> | Subject: Re: Windows for Workgroups 3.11 | Date: Wednesday, July 06, 1994 7:19AM | | > Just wonder if anyone had a closer look at the "Advanced security" option | > built in the Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.11. You can use a soft | > of a public/private key when sending a mail via fax (Class 1) driver | > Micrsoft Fax at Work. The key seems to be quite short and I wonder if that's | > a real secure solution comparing eg. to PGP? | | If it really is public key, and if the keys really are quite short, | then its probably really *not* secure. Remember than a 129-digit | (~425 bit) RSA key was broken in 8 months! A 384-bit RSA key is | therefore not secure! | | -derek | The 129 digit key was broken in 8 calendar months and not 8 CPU months, correct? If so then for most purposes a 129 digit key is more than adequate. If you are faxing a contract to someone then if the deal isn't signed in 8 months the odds are that information about it will leak from a different source than your fax. If I had information that I wanted to be secure for several years than I would consider using many more digits than 129. As to Windows for Workgroups 3.11, I don't know anything about the security features that are included. Mike. ===================================================== Mike Markley <mmarkley(a)microsoft.com> I'm not a Microsoft spokesperson. All opinions expressed here are mine. =====================================================

2 1

FW: Windows for Workgroups 3.11
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Ingle sent out an inquiry in May about public-key encryption in WinFax 4.0 in Microsoft at Work. This is the reply which I received from someone here: We don't use D-H (Diffie Hellman is what I assume you were referring to) at all. We pick a 64 bit random number to RC4 with and send the number encrypted with an RSA key... I have made an inquiry specifically about WfW 3.11, but it may be a few days before I get a reply. Blanc

1 0

stream ciphers and realtime communications?
by Jonathan Rochkind 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, I finally did my duty and picked up a copy of Applied Cryptography. :) I've only given it a cursory browing so far, but I have a question. When I first saw reference to stream ciphers in the book, I imagined that they would be ideal for realtime encrypted communications, like voice (in cellular phones, perhaps). But after reading further, it appears that stream ciphers aren't being used much in this manner, or much at all. Is this correct? I know that there are plenty of encryption protocols and methods for realtime communications (clipper chip, for one), but do they just use block ciphers with relatively small blocks? (Is the security of such things as RSA and IDEA effected by size of block? There's got to be a minimum block that works; you can't do IDEA on a single byte, or can you?) Can anyone outline what kinds of methods are used for voice encryption and other realtime methods, as contrasted with email and delayed transfer methods?

2 1

Re: Windows for Workgroups 3.11
by Mike Markley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry says: | | Mike Markley says: | > The 129 digit key was broken in 8 calendar months and not 8 CPU months, | > correct? If so then for most purposes a 129 digit key is more than | > adequate. If you are faxing a contract to someone then if the deal | > isn't signed in 8 months the odds are that information about it will | > leak from a different source than your fax. | | This isn't true. If you are signing the contract digitally, for | instance, you would want to be sure that no one could forge your | signature to change the terms after the fact -- a few months isn't | enough for such purposes, only something that will last for fifteen or | twenty years is okay. | | Perry | I'll definitely agree that for something as binding as a signature that I would want to have a very large key. For daily communication it seems that fairly weak keys should be more than adequate as long as they can't be broken in a reasonable amount of time. I'm interested in what most of the people on this list would consider a reasonable amount of time though. It seems that the average person doesn't have adversaries with the know-how and computing power to break even a 64 digit key let alone a 129 digit key. Consider the group of people that broke the RSA key, they would not fit the profile of the average person, let alone the average computer user. I doubt if the local police department here could convince the NSA that they need to crack my e-mail because I might be conspiring to commit some illegal act and I doubt that they could put my e-mail out on the net saying, "here's some encoded data, does anybody know what it says?" Right now that's the only two ways that I could think of for someone to get some encrypted data unencrypted. Mike ===================================================== Mike Markley <mmarkley(a)microsoft.com> I'm not a Microsoft spokesperson. All opinions expressed here are mine. =====================================================

4 3

FW: FW: A third voice re: science and spirit
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: <nobody(a)shell.portal.com> "Ingore"? Is that anything like an "AlGore"? Is that a verb to describe the state of the country, as in "we've just been INGOREd"? ........................................ Could be, if you want it to be. But it could also be part of some shocking, nonsensical AlGoreYTHM. Blanc

1 0

No Subject
by trollins＠debbie.telos.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 6 Jul 1994, Mike Markley wrote: > can't be broken in a reasonable amount of time. I'm interested in what > most of the people on this list would consider a reasonable amount of > time though. NEVER is what I consider a reasonable amount of time. I don't want my secure thoughts broken for public display in my lifetime. Or any of my children's lifetime. Or there children's lifetime. .......... -tom

1 0

Re: MAIL: chained remailing strategy
by an104090＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was curious about the pros and cons of anonymous remailers holding and randomly sending outgoing mail. It seems to me that the risk of a third party determining the original sender of an anonymous piece of mail through the use of timestamps is less pressing than the risk presented by the physical storage of that mail on someone's machine for extended periods of time. Of course, with chained remailing, these risks dramatically decrease, but would I rather have the first remailer in a chain storing my mail until midnight or immediately bouncing it to another anonymous remailer? Gedeon Edwards ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

Re: Kevin Mitnik
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am under the impression that I would not like Mitnik personally, but I have never personaly met him... Would I turn him in? Well, put it this way: I would not harbor him but neither would I work very hard to figure out where he is or whether a particular "nobody" on this list be him. I see two values in him being on the lam: 1) His activities point out the need for more secure computer systems--the fact that he mostly relies on "Social Engineering" is lost on most people. 2) He is a romantic outlaw who is not a pedophile, nuclear terrorist, or murderer--his existance distracts from those totems. (Whether he actually *fits* this romantic image is beside the point, I am talking images here.) Mr. Mitnik (if you are listening): keep your sense of humor, try to be "mostly harmless", don't get caught molesting small boys--or anyone else, try to confine your public exploits to "honorable pranks"--things the man on the street will admire and not recoil from. Be wise. -kb, the Kent who keeps his nose clean -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 31:15 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

1 0

First Monthly Meeting July 10th
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Community ConneXion: The NEXUS-Berkeley is having its first public monthly meeting on July 10th, 12pm, the Sunday after the cypherpunks meeting. It will be upstairs at Kip's in Berkeley. It will be very informal. We'll be able to snag a table to fit all of us, I think, and from my experience at Kips on Sunday afternoons it should be quiet enough. We'll probably have to get some food so they don't kick us out. Shouldn't be a problem. Items on the agenda: (not yet formalized/finalized.. suggestions welcomed) Privacy Privacy services Privacy emphasis Community building a local discussion group forum moo Organization Need to get more organized Find someone to help with that Issue of investors? NexusBucks Scheme goals Directions: From I-80: Take the University Exit, go East on University until you reach Shattuck. Turn right onto Shattuck. 3-4 blocks south turn left onto Durant. Continue on Durant about 4-5 blocks, Kips is on the left the block before Telegraph. Find parking. (It shouldn't be very tough.. not like there will be an actual *lot*, but not tough..) Summary: Nexus-Berkeley Meeting July 10th 12pm-? (maybe 4-5?) Kips in Berkeley I'd like to make this a regular thing, to have a meeting every month the sunday after the cypherpunks meeting. -- sameer Voice: 510-841-2014 Network Administrator Pager: 510-321-1014 Community ConneXion: The NEXUS-Berkeley Dialin: 510-841-0909 http://www.c2.org (or login as "guest") sameer(a)c2.org

1 0

Tempest: It'll Receed
by kentborg＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The trends are in our favor. Micros are getting more complicated OS's (a Tempest attack on world.std.com is going to be a mess, I guess) making for more complicated emissions, wimpy batteries and Energy Star stickers will slowly drive down all emissions (why waste the power?), and so many appliances are now emitting from their embedded CPUs--which is another thing that will drive emissions, the FCC. But let's not get cocky: mostly we are sitting ducks for anyone who wants to build a fancy radio, it is only the trend which good. -kb -- Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899 kentborg(a)world.std.com kentborg(a)aol.com Proud to claim 31:15 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!

1 0