December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Brands excluded from digicash beta
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PAP wrote: >I just want, in a short message, let you know that there exist some >satisfied ecash testers (the system itself and the support when we >set-up our digishop and our plain customers cyberwallets). > The only thing I could eventually complain about is that I even received >a second (unsollicited) account Id and password to retrieve ecash >software because of a bug in the requests management :-) I have been a beta tester since the days of the very first Ecash clients which would freeze my computer when run ;-) I am very impressed with the latest clients. They work flawlessly. The only thing missing is off-line transfer capability. Since the current beta has a (dimmed) button for this, I don't think we will have to wait much longer. -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: He's the Big Kahuna
by lmccarth＠ducie.cs.umass.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May writes: > Eric Hughes wrote: > > Someone else wrote: > > > I'd feel just about as strange (I hope) if people were saying "Look, > > > Tim's the boss. He's the Big Kahuna. If you don't like his policies on > > > his list, leave." > > "This is one _tasty_ burger" > Something to do with the metric system? Security through obscurity. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLt+fJ2f7YYibNzjpAQEWRAP/d0dYaMQf0R4XZZRuIwW8kzqZj8p/27XA +TDupyHkn2Bpu/02JziAccWbRVLyA8XgVwN69Su1TBrqhRTEI8cQZG7jC/WJ4HHl iYV50CnKyoz3d5peAowI14BD6x7EnJkR70TomnyEsxQhK60E1VDpZDrxV2EsGqNI n9PQpw6SCPg= =woV8 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBFAwUBLt+gXyoZzwIn1bdtAQFQMwF/YbIgSqTwy1c2dGhbGPvZD226C1jgPDfU 6RSkqzK1nRujQfC8CMuaOlHW9/HjC3S9 =Wb4P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address belonging to the signature and forwarded.]

1 0

Re: First Virtual?
by Andrew Lowenstern 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark Terka writes: > Ok, so what are our options, given that this company seems to think > of security in terms of a plastic padlock. From corresponding posts > on the list, the only other alternative, Digicash, doesn't seem to > be too responsive to anyone's participation right now. It seems to me that DigiCash mistakenly 'jumped the gun' and announced before they were truly ready to test. This is such a common ocurrance in the computer industry that I'm suprised people are making noise over it. However, it indicates their reluctance to ship something before it's ready, which is good considering the technical and political challenges of the task they are undertaking. How can you really compare the proposed DigiCash systems versus FirstVirtual? One is a 'toy' system for moving credit card numbers around without actually broadcasting them in the clear, the other is a cryptographically secure digital cash type system. It's not suprising that FirstVirtual is ready sooner than DigiCash. However, assuming each system was ready and working as advertised, which would you trust for your financial transactions? With the possibility of millions and billions of dollars of commerce ocurring on the net in the near future, which do you think most people will want to use? While FirstVirtual may have it's place in the world of online payment systems, it is IMHO no replacement for a real digital cash system. The fact that most of the people who have even heard of these new payment systems are unaware of the not so subtle differences should alarm most cypherpunks. Digital cash isn't going to happen overnight (although most of us would like it to), and the last thing we want is for systems like FirstVirtual to become the de facto standard for online payment... andrew

3 2

New version (1.2) of CFS now available
by Matt Blaze 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Source code for the latest version of CFS (release 1.2), the Cryptographic File System, is now available upon request for research and experimental use in the US and Canada. CFS pushes encryption services into the Unix(tm) file system. It supports secure storage at the system level through a standard Unix file system interface to encrypted files. Users associate a cryptographic key with the directories they wish to protect. Files in these directories (as well as their pathname components) are transparently encrypted and decrypted with the specified key without further user intervention; cleartext is never stored on a disk or sent to a remote file server. CFS employs a novel combination of DES stream and codebook cipher modes to provide high security with good performance on a modern workstation. CFS can use any available file system for its underlying storage without modification, including remote file servers such as NFS. System management functions, such as file backup, work in a normal manner and without knowledge of the key. CFS runs under SunOS and several other BSD-derived systems with NFS. It is implemented entirely at user level, as a local NFS server running on the client machine's "loopback" interface. It consists of about 5000 lines of code and supporting documentation. You must have "root" access to install CFS. CFS was first mentioned at the work-in-progress session at the Winter '93 USENIX Conference and was more fully detailed in: Matt Blaze, "A Cryptographic File System for Unix", Proc. 1st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Fairfax, VA, November 1993. (PostScript available by anonymous ftp from research.att.com in the file dist/mab/cfs.ps.) and in Matt Blaze, "Key Management in an Encrypting File System", Proc. Summer '94 USENIX Tech. Conference, Boston, MA, June 1994. (PostScript available by anonymous ftp from research.att.com in the file dist/mab/cfskey.ps.) The new version differs from the version described in the papers in a few ways: * The encryption scheme has been strengthened, and now provides greater security but with the online latency of only single-DES. * Support for the smartcard-based key management system is not included and a few of the tools are not included. * The performance has been improved. * The security of the system against certain non-cryptanalytic attacks has been improved somewhat. * User-contributed ports to a number of additional platforms. * Hooks for adding new ciphers. * 3-DES and MacGuffin encryption options. * Timeout options allow automatic detach of encrypted directories after a set time or period of inactivity. CFS is being distributed as a research prototype; it is COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED software. No warranty of any kind is provided. We will not be responsible if the system deletes all your files and emails the cleartext directly to the NSA or your mother. Also, we do not have the resources to port the software to other platforms, although you are welcome to do this yourself. The software was developed under SunOS and BSDI, and there are also unsupported user-contributed ports available for AIX, HP/UX, Irix, Linux, Solaris and Ultrix. We really can't promise to provide any technical support at all, beyond the source code itself. We also maintain a mailing list for CFS users and developers; subscription information is included with the source code. Because of export restrictions on cryptographic software, we are only able to make the software available within the US and Canada to US and Canadian citizens and permanent residents. Unfortunately, we cannot make it available for general anonymous ftp or other uncontrolled access, nor can we allow others to do so. Sorry. Legal stuff from the README file: * Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994 by AT&T. * Permission to use, copy, and modify this software without fee * is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice is included in * all copies of any software which is or includes a copy or * modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting * documentation for such software. * * This software is subject to United States export controls. You may * not export it, in whole or in part, or cause or allow such export, * through act or omission, without prior authorization from the United * States government and written permission from AT&T. In particular, * you may not make any part of this software available for general or * unrestricted distribution to others, nor may you disclose this software * to persons other than citizens and permanent residents of the United * States and Canada. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED * WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, NEITHER THE AUTHORS NOR AT&T MAKE ANY * REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY * OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. If you would like a copy of the CFS source code, please send email to: cfs(a)research.att.com DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THE SENDER OF MESSAGE. You must include a statement that you are in the US or Canada, are a citizen or legal permanent resident of the US or Canada, and have read and understand the license conditions stated above. Also include an email address in a US or Canada-registered domain. The code will be sent to you via email in a uuencoded compressed tarfile.

1 0

Re: The Market for Crypto--A Curmudgeon's View
by Amanda Walker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I disagree here -- I've gotten a couple of jobs where my net > reputation preceded me and was the primary motivator for my getting > an interview. I was also told at one of them to continue posting as I > did because they felt that their reputation was enhanced by mine. Indeed. Every job I've had since part-time consulting in college has been gotten through the net, and with me electronic presentation and reputation a large factor in getting hired. My official title at InterCon is "Software Engineer / Net Goddess", and among my official responsibilities are to competently and professionally represent myself and my employer on the Internet. The whole reason I'm on cypherpunks, in fact, is because we're ramping up on supporting encryption & authentication in our commercial software, and this is where the ideas are. > And "cannot make money on the net"? How do you see this? Much as I > hate the metaphor, I don't make money on the local highways either, > but they're a part of real life. It would also be hard to ship things without highways & airports :). This is why the net is an example of infastructure. InterCon probably makes more money from people who download our demos over the net, or see reviews and recommendations on comp.sys.mac.*, than we do from our traditional printed advertising (and given the quality of a couple of our MacWeek ads, this is a darned good thing :)). > Just because the reputations aren't digital yet, nor is the cash, > doesn't mean that the Net isn't real life. It's as real as nearby > I-94. And a lot more interesting and complex. I agree. And reputations *are* becoming at least partially digital. I've refused to hire people because I've seen them being twits on the net, and I've hired people (and been hired) because I make a generally good net.impression. It even got my picture in Fortune magazine this spring. If that's not at least a start at a digital reputation, I'm not sure what is. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation

1 0

Re: recent voice over data (fwd)
by Dave Emery 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message:

1 0

Re: Scalability of Ecash System / Article on Internet Cash available.
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:33 AM 12/2/94 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: >Filched from buyinfo, where they've been talking a lot about e$ lately... Oops. Sorry folks. That's what I get for letting my outbound mail stack up... Call it a prequel to the Brands excluded thread... Sorry again. Long story. Bob 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

1 0

Re: ERIK HUGHES: EGOTISTICAL PRICK
by ddt＠lsd.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Subject: ERIK HUGHES: EGOTISTICAL PRICK FWIW, I know Eric and can spell his name properly. From the numerous times I've been in his presence, it's my humble opinion that he's about the furthest thing from the bozo described in this flame that I can imagine. Whoever posted this rudeness is cruelly clue-challenged about Eric's character. From the content of his/her attack, this person should really apologize, but from the puerility of it, I doubt the author is mature enough to admit it. BTW, Eric was and is an early and consistent contributor of quality thinking to this list as far back as I can remember, which is early '92, has donate a lot of time and effort to helping maintain it, and I have no problem with him being photographed or known as a "founder." He's never in any way abused or even preened about it, afaik, and seems appropriately non-egotistical at all times, both in person and in posts. I'm pretty sick of ad hominem attacks like this on the net, but they usualy emanate from sleep-deprived teenagers with no manners who post anonymously, and not from responsible individuals trying to add a voice of humility to an important debate. Laugh it off, Eric, and ignore it (as I know you will). As for the idea of mandatory signatures: on the surface it's a pain and I don't much like it, but then, it does do an important thing in promoting "verifiable" posts. I don't post much material to the list (mostly I learn from you guys), and don't find it particularly onerous. Someone who contributes regularly might find it an inconvenience. Lots of things are way more inconvenient, if you ask me (like applying for an FOIA report). I think it might have the positive side-effect of providing an incentive for people to post meaningful information, and not lots of noise to the list (thereby somewhat diminishing the high volume). What effect does it have on anonymity, though? That could be a serious sticking point: as much as I dislike flames and idiocy from anonymous posters, I will defend their right to post anonymously regardless of how unpleasantly it smells. dave ____________________________________________ "Even the mad scientists called me crazy!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLt/zWaHBOF9KrwDlAQFzfAP+MusVHsSaPVq0jzLvqBCUVf8O+JAFbQXZ PKNHai6WXNJqECknifZ9GTYg0tccKY4G+xWjED6oLjeK3V1ds7hIaWNUrFg8Ok6r hH1oPnIMqxY6Iqc0XrgyY+5JnOBVWILA+Iwxy1I0UP+J10Tz8qUY1Q4CL5Ld7yqd FE7JafKUxOw= =Yoe9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

AA BBS case
by moulton＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A few months ago there were several posts about the AA BBS case. Here is the info about the sentencing. According to an AP story, Robert and Carleen Thomas were sentenced December 2, 1994 to 37 and 30 months in prison respectively for "transmitting pornography via computer and selling obscene videotapes". The defendents will be ordered to surrender their computer equipment according to U.S. District Judge Julia Gibbons. The defendants will begin their sentences in about two months and will not allowed to remain free during appeal. The Thomases' operated the members-only Amateur Action Bulletin Board System in California. They were tried and convicted in Tennesse.

1 0

Re: using us crypto sw outside usa
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I was wondering what is the legal status for using rsaref ooutside usa. > Is it legal or not? There are three problems - getting a copy, patent, and copyright. Getting a copy of RSAREF means that somebody has to export it, which the US government strongly disapproves of. On the other hand, if you're not a US citizen, and not in the US, and your government doesn't have laws against possessing things that other governments don't want you to have, no problem. Patent - the RSA algorithm patent doesn't apply outside the US, so no problem. Copyright - Most governments do honor U.S. copyrights. Some of the early RSAREF versions said that you may not export it, so there may be copyright problems if you use them outside the US. Newer versions have a warning that the US government doesn't permit export, and recommends talking to a lawyer if this affects you, but doesn't say that you may not do so - so there isn't a problem with permission, and therefore not with copyright. That's nice, because otherwise I would have had to pay somebody outside North America to write a clone. (I had offered anybody on the net outside the US/Canada $100 to do so, but nobody took it, and I now cancel that offer because RSA doesn't forbid overseas use and copies have apparently gotten distributed.) > Also, what is the legal status of RC4 code posted to the net? Uncertain. It was protected by trade secret (not giving anybody copies unless they sign a license contract), but somebody apparently violated their contract and disclosed it anyway. Some places have laws against using information released like that, some don't, some allow the originator of the information to sue. There's also the problem of verifying whether that *really* is RC4. Bill Stewart

1 0