December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Coda for E=mc(2)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The technical manuscript on which part of "Beyond E=mc(2)" is based was published in Physical Review A [no date given] only after five peer reviews, says the editor of The Sciences.

1 0

re: unix and windows
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > As to the general issue of MSWindows v. Unix, the Unix predominance > for remailer software involves the fact that Unix is on the bulk of > the machines connected to the Internet. It's more reliable for > offering network services than MSWindows and it's got a cleaner > architecture for reconfiguration. None of these explanations, > however, means that there won't be more MSWindows that Unix boxes for > a long time. True. But I think the "balance of power" (actually, balance of numbers) will shift in the future. I make an analogy with manual transmission. For years, if you wanted to drive, manual transmission was the only choice. When automatic transmissions appeared, people scoffed. Now, automatic transmission dominate, and 20% of the driving population prefers manual transmission. For years, if you wanted internet connectivity, Unix was the only choice. When Warp, Windows NT, and Windows 95 (to be released ;) appeared, people scoffed. In the future, 20% of the internet connected will still prefer Unix for some reason. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLu3w8sSF/V8IjI8hAQFdcwQAm00BIeO9ySbZSQAY8QMkF/TlSaR+FsL0 1Ekm27s5G/WzXrOaekMvy0WGGmYJ2/aoFBj2GSSgonxqB8PKTxZtSuSSWeMPszVa evpwrNi3IfcV1lpyBCPVYRmLO3x4zigMjOpG25Ji2DNfVp/Mrda9lNUYo9dodkiT o4rO3dtlZss= =+DOl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Announcing - The DigitaLiberty Forum
by acspring＠knoware.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I am certain that the nattering nabobs of negativism would take issue >with the mainstream miasma of majoritarianism. Sigh. Sometimes I miss Spiro Agnew. ObCryptoContent. SPIRO AGNEW is an anagram of GROW A PENIS -- Man! Woman! Child! All! are up against the WALL of SCIENCE! <acspring(a)knoware.nl> PGP Key print:4C 17 EC 47 A1 6D AF 67 F3 B4 26 24 FE B2 0F 5E

1 0

Re: Clarification of my remarks about Netscape
by Amanda Walker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> All you need to do is get your server certificate from one of > several places, including: > > RSA (commercial CA or server CA) Do you need a server certificate issued directly by one of these PCAs, or does it just need to be rooted there (i.e., can I use my [hypothetical] corporate PCA, which itself has a certificate from the RSA commercial PCA)? If it's the former, I would strongly urge you to extend your clients to include the latter. I don't want to have to go to RSA for every server certificate--that's in part what the PCA hierarchy exists for. Similarly, if I set up a personal server (with my home page, for example), can I'd like to be able to use a certificate issued by the RSA Unaffiliated User CA, which is itself a PCA certified by the Commercial CA. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation

2 1

Re: More 40-bit RC4 nonsense
by raph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sticking my foot in my mouth, I wrote: > If I recall correctly, the first byte out of the RC4 stream has > about a 40% chance of being the first byte of the key. Thus, if the Wrong. It _is_ true that the first byte of the key has a 40% probability of being the first byte of the initial state vector. It is _not_ true that the first byte of the initial state vector is the first byte out of the RC4 stream. Next time I will check the (alleged) source code before making a fool of myself. Thus, my attack shortcut will not work. Kipp Hickman informs me that the salt is concatenated with the secret part in such a way that the secret portion is least significant. This seems wise because of the key/statevector characteristic, but wouldn't make too much difference either way in practice. Sorry for the confusion. Raph

1 0

Re: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Bob Snyder's recent post suggested that my argument in favor of wiring the cops could be use to support wiring of civilians or employees. Not so. Police are public officials. As such, they have no right to privacy *with respect to their public acts*. When off duty, cops have the same right as other citizens to privacy in their private lives. I said my proposal was "anti- *bad* cop" and that it would benefit good cops. Do I need to say that it would only benefit good cops in the line of duty? It would be bad for anyone--cops or civilians--in their private lives. Employees represent an intermediate position. If an employer is foolish enough to require that employees be wired, 'sokay with me. For most employees in most jobs, it would not be acceptable. I think they would get jobs with less intrusive employers. Some employers will wire some employees, whether or not the police are wired. Wiring the cops is a good idea; arguments about wiring employees and citizens are nothing more than red herrings used to avoid addressing the real issue of police accountability. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: the netscape/ssl controversy
by marca＠mcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199412131448.JAA07613(a)cutter.clas.ufl.edu>, avi(a)clas.ufl.edu (Avi Harris Baumstein) wrote: > so while ssl may well be a wonderful protocol, it does not address the > problems that many cypherpunks see as being real. i think it would do > netscape good to listen to and consider the views of many on this > list, as they have many genuinely good ideas Yup, we are absolutely doing so. We do not and have not assumed that SSL is *the* answer to everything, and we will be doing a lot more work over the next year and beyond to tackle many of these other problems. We're listening to everyone, and we love constructive suggestions and feedback. Cheers, Marc -- Marc Andreessen Netscape Communications Corp. Mountain View, CA marca(a)mcom.com

1 0

Re: BofA+Netscape
by marca＠mcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9412131442.AA12105(a)snark.imsi.com>, perry(a)imsi.com wrote: > Marc Andreessen says: > > >I told you in Email, Mr. Andreessen, that new transport level security > > >protocols are useless now that IPSP has come near to standardization > > >and now that prototype implementations are nearly available. > > > > Great, IPSP looks fantastic and we look forward to supporting it > > as it moves through and beyond the "near" phase. > > Given that you haven't read any IPSP documents, I can only interpret > your comments as sarcasm. No, actually, my comments weren't (aren't) sarcasm. Marc -- Marc Andreessen Netscape Communications Corp. Mountain View, CA marca(a)mcom.com

1 0

Re: BofA+Netscape
by marca＠mcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199412131914.LAA26551(a)netcom10.netcom.com>, jamesd(a)netcom.com (James A. Donald) wrote: > > Marc Andreessen says: > > > Great, IPSP looks fantastic and we look forward to supporting it > > > as it moves through and beyond the "near" phase. > > He said that Netscape would look at IPSP when it was beyond > the "near" phase. Nope, I said we "look forward to supporting it". Slight difference. :-) We are looking at it already. Marc -- Marc Andreessen Netscape Communications Corp. Mountain View, CA marca(a)mcom.com

1 0

Enough, already
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't mean to be a wet blanket (well, actually, I do :-), but could folks maybe drop the Netscape stuff - along with the tangential threads it has spawned? I kinda suspect that by now, the subject has been thoroughly flogged to death, and it's cluttering the hell out of the list - without the benefit of actually _resolving_ anything. Netscape is gonna do whatever the hell Netscape is gonna do. "We" can encourage, cajole, reprimand, sneer, laugh, applaud, or whatever; but the bottom line is that clarifying the clarifications of the clarified previous comments isn't accomplishing anything other than making those among us who have to pay for email work overtime to compensate for the subject. It's the holiday season. How about if everyone wishes everyone else a Merry Christmas (or Chappy Chanukka, or whatever else spins your propeller), kisses, and makes up? Dave "I'm just checking how to make Chameleon killfile the subjects 'clarif', 'Netscape', and 'BofA'" Merriman PS - for point of reference, my mailbox has 41 messages in it since I last checked mail (less than 6 hours ago). Only 3 are non-CP; of the 38 that are, only a very, VERY few don't have "netscape" or "clarification" in the subject line. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)fohnix.metronet.com for PGP public key and fingerprint. PGP encrypted Email welcome, encouraged, and preferred. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

1 0