December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Stupid XOR Question
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 10:05:16 -0700 >From: Anonymous User <nobody(a)c2.org> >Subject: Stupid XOR Question >ok dumb questions here......... > >how do i xor a simple string of plaintext? > In C, you open file f and while (((c = getc(stdin))!=EOF)&&((d = getc(f))!=EOF)) putc(c^d, stdout) ; If I remember correctly, Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.exeter.ac.uk> has a signature block for the full C program to do this. It's that tiny. In a way, that program is better than RSA in 3 lines of PERL. It's provably unbreakable (provided the ranno source, f, is used only once and is truly random). +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme/home.html | |PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | | ``Officer, officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song.'' | +----------------------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison -+

1 0

Re: IPSEC goes to RFC
by Rev. Mark Grant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is this solely a US effort, or is any work being done outside the US ? If there is, I might be able to help out at least for the next couple of months. Mark P.S. Thanks for your work on this, Perry...

1 0

Re: Bank Fees and E-Cash
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:53 PM 8/11/95 -0400, Tatjana vonBernhardi wrote: > you have surpassed yourself in assumption here. > > your hope that e-cash will some how reduce bank fees is a long stretch. Eventually people will bypass the banks, directly transferring funds to each other. This will reduce the banks fees to zero. The banks will gradually lose control of the indecently lucrative funds transfer business, and have to go to the bread and butter business of borrowing short and lending long, and evaluating credit worthiness, and providing guarantees of payment. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Richelson's Latest
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeffrey T. Richelson has a new book: A Century of Spies: Intelligence in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995, 534 pp., $30.00. ISBN 0-19-507391-6. Jacket copy: "Richelson covers the crucial role of spy technology from the days of Marconi and the Wright Brothers to today's dazzling array of Space Age satellites, aircraft, and ground stations. He provides portraits of spymasters, spies and defectors ... the 'black magic' of U.S. and British codebreakers. A final chapter probes the still-evolving role of intelligence in the new world of disorder and ethnic conflict, from the high-tech wonders of the Gulf War to the surprising involvement of the French government in industrial espionage." Blurb: "This is the missing book -- the primer -- on the craft of intelligence. It is a highly informed briefing, set in historical persepctive, by the best of the spy watchers." -- William E. Burrows, author of "Deep Black." -- Watchers of spy watchers will recall Richelson's excellent, "The U. S. Intelligence Community," and other fine work on spy satellites and Soviet intelligence.

1 0

Richelson Doesn't Know C (was Re: Richelson's Latest)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:45 PM 8/12/95, John Young wrote: > Jeffrey T. Richelson has a new book: > > A Century of Spies: Intelligence in the Twentieth Century. > Oxford University Press, New York, 1995, 534 pp., $30.00. > ISBN 0-19-507391-6. This is all well and good, for ciphergroupies, BUT WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH CODING IN C? :-} Seriously, I've read (or used as a reference) Richelson's books. His book on U.S. Intelligence Agencies had a lot of good stuff on the more obscure agencies, and is a great supplement to Bamford. At least some cryptographers think this stuff is useful, as Whit D. borrowed my copy for several months. I look forward to getting this new one! --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net (Got net?) | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-728-0152 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Corralitos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

LEO Sly Bug Buy, Bye Spy Shop
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As follow-up to an earlier thread, and Tim's post on LEOs, them and us, this excerpt from House Report 105-162: Background and Need for the Legislation Section 2512 of title 18, United States Code, prohibits the advertisement of any electronic, mechanical or other device, ``primarily useful for the purpose of surreptitious interception of wire, oral or electronic communications.'' This section was drafted with the intention of ``significantly curtailing the supply of devices * * * whose principal use is likely to be for wiretapping or eavesdropping.'' \1\ The Committee report listed several examples of devices which would fall under this prohibition, including microphones designed as wristwatches, cuff links, tie clips, fountain pens or cigarette packs.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 94-95 (1968). \2\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, legitimate law enforcement users were swept along with this prohibition on advertisements. Because of the restriction under Sec. 2512, companies which manufacture devices designed for wiretapping are not permitted to advertise the sale of their products to police departments. These companies are aware of cases in which a defendant was charged and convicted for violation of Sec. 2512, and although they would like to make the law enforcement community aware of their products, they do not wish to risk criminal sanctions.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See, e.g., United States v. Ron Wynn, 633 F. Supp. 595 (1986). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Law enforcement officers, particularly undercover officers, often use devices which would fall under the definition of a device ``primarily designed for surreptitious interception.'' It is a strange anomaly in the law that police departments have the authority to use electronic intercepts, but they may not receive mailings about improvements to such equipment. This exception is particularly significant since electronic interception equipment is frequently updated and improved. As an example, police officers and informants often use body microphones to record criminal activity. Covert devices are critical for the collection of evidence, yet many experienced criminals are aware of traditional attempts to disguise body transmitters. These transmitters have been miniaturized, and can now be disguised in some common facade unfamiliar to criminals. By not allowing companies which manufacture intercept equipment to advertise to police departments, police officers' lives are unnecessarily put at risk. H.R. 1840 will provide relief to companies which manufacture electronic interception equipment, by allowing them to advertise the availability of their products to agencies of the United States, States, or political subdivisions, so long as the recipient of the mailing is duly authorized to use such devices. The Committee appreciates the extensive input of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in drafting this legislation, to ensure that the bill was crafted as narrowly as possible while still achieving the intended effect. [End report excerpt] ----- For full report and bill: http://site108240.primehost.com/hr1840.txt (14K)

2 1

First Source release SKIP Implementation shows up
by Kelly Goen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: skip-info(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch Return-Path: <skip-info(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch> Received: from ktik0 by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id UAA10299; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 20:12:46 -0700 Errors-To: caronni(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch Reply-To: skip-info(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch Originator: skip-info(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch Sender: skip-info(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk From: Germano Caronni <caronni(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch> Subject: SKIP (Security on the IP Layer) Sources X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello everybody, the Swiss version of SKIP is now available as a pre-alpha source code release for IRIX, NetBSD, Nextstep and Solaris. You may get it from ftp://ktik0.ethz.ch/~ftp/pub/packages/skip. Have fun, Germano Excerpt from the README: ======================================================================== This is ENskip, pre-alpha 0.10. ENskip is a security module for the TCP/IP stack. It provides encryption, authentication and sequencing of packets on the IP layer between two or more machines. For more information on the SKIP protocol, see the Internet Draft draft-ietf-ipsec-aziz-skip-00.txt and following. You might also want to check http://skip.incog.com for information about the background, the protocol itself and future directions of it. ENskip is pre-alpha. If you are not absolutely sure what this is all about, you might want to read the draft, and perhaps reconsider using this package. No bug-fixes, installation help or any other support is granted. If you have any suggestions, comments or contributions to make ENskip work better, mail to skip(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch. Enjoy! M. Hauber and Ch. Schneider G. Caronni ======================================================================= - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMCwX8rH8jId7euXhAQEJ4gP9EiwqFbUQI7XsLRDmZidFdzGHsTk2CQYx GnDBM9Z5F117UDd5NLyK99h2QVuffjK9LxMd4KbTrO5gwKM/OeZHoJTdkfQHb3mN FJrg++hWlrTggrrv6mPQuB2j4TzbsHwed2uLN/f9HmImFQtZ5UPqIUgTueJy5DDa 3DKmCVnpsfU= =sjb1 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: Euro Comm Adopts Privacy Directive (NewsClip)
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:45 PM 8/11/95 -0500, Anonymous wrote: > > > European Commission Adopts Privacy Directive > > Brussels, Aug. 11, -- The European Commission is now well on > its way towards affording a high level of protection to > personal data held on computer systems, following the formal > adoption of a Directive on the protection of personal data, > Newsbytes has learned. This is an even greater threat to privacy and rights than it appears. In addition to the fact that enforcing such a law in a world where everyone has computers would require massive government intrusion, one must also consider the objective, the intent of such a law. The intent of course is to limit what we are permitted to know of each other. In a world where contracts are largely enforced by reputations, (for example your visa card), governments can suppress freedom of contract by suppressing what information is available. For example bankruptcy laws that violate freedom of contract are in part enforced by controlling what information credit bureaus are permitted to keep. Indeed such restrictions are the major goal of existing restraints on credit bureaus. So not only does this law require extensive violation of freedom and privacy, the intent is also violation of peoples rights. Both ends and the necessary means are, as usual, similar. In the long run I do not think such laws can be effective unless governments use the same means to suppress privately computer mediated communication as the Chinese Empire used to suppress private paper mediated communication. (The Chinese not only made paper a state monopoly, but they also castrated anyone with knowledge of paper making so that the knowledge would not be passed from father to son.) This very vigorous enforcement did not hold back the tide for ever, but it held it back for a long time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

OKC Bomber, or Cowardly Lion? / Re: IRS sending warning notes, violating ECPA?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin wrote: > > Anon pissed out: > > > I am just as certain that Tim has made a conscious decision as to > > >what level of risk he is willing to take to speak his mind and perhaps > > >make a difference in the events of his time, without merely being > > >egoistical, stupid, and suicidal. > As anon clearly points out, Tim toes the line with his speech, > carefully avoiding saying anything that escapes constitutional > protection. ... > Yes, Tim talks a brave talk. But... But...? ...he doesn't cut his dick off with an axe, to show how brave he is? ...he doesn't phone up the DEA and tell them, "I'm shooting heroin, but please don't raid my house?" ...he doesn't take out an ad in the New York Times to announce that he will be nuking D.C. at 4 p.m. on Friday? I once built a bar in Austin, Texas, named "Crazy Bob's Saloon." I put a diving board on top of the 1 1/2 story building and put an old bathtub on the sidewalk below, which I filled with water. All week long we advertised that at noon, on Grand Opening Day, Crazy Bob was going to jump off the diving board, and into the bathtub full of water. During our Grand Opening, 12 noon rolled around and Crazy Bob walked outside, with everyone following him. Crazy Bob looked up at the diving board, then looked down at the bathtub full of water. He looked back up at the diving board, once again, and back down at the bathtub full of water. Then he turned to the crowd, and said, "Folks, they call me _Crazy_ Bob, not _Stupid_ Bob!" Then we all went back inside and partied down. At the end of the night, when everybody had gone home, Crazy Bob and I took a bottle of whiskey up to the rooftop, had some drinks and discussed the fact that, as a man of honour, he was obligated to make the dive, despite the fact that the "sheeple" were more than satisfied by having an entertaining story to go home and tell their friends. Did he make the dive? It's nobody's business but his own. I was there, and at the right time, in the right place, with the right amount of liquor in me and a full moon egging me on, I just might tell you. But, regardless, it would still really be nobody's business except for Crazy Bob's. Perhaps Tim May is the _real_ OKC bomber, or perhaps he is the cowardly lion. (cringing when "Toto" barks :>) Whether Tim "walks his talk" or not is not my business, nor is it Kent's, or anyone else's business. One's public words may reflect their personal anthem, their own flag/values/beliefs, or their words may be merely the braying of mules. What matters is the value, or lack thereof, that we may personally glean from those words, to our own edification or detriment. However, the "rack" is not a "bicycle built for two." When we are put on the rack, to test the strength of our beliefs, then the pain, the certainty or doubt, the salvation or degredation, are all our own. I enjoy the outrageously strong opinions which do battle on the CypherPunks list, and I even have a mail folder titled, "CyberPissing," in which I save the posts which contain classic cheap-shots. I respect those who stand up for what they believe in and are not hesitant about attacking the faults they find in the logic or beliefs of others on the list. I consider it a "public service" when others take a shot that points out my errors/hypocrisy/stupidity, etc. It gives me the opportunity to say, "They are right. I should adjust my belief/attitude.", or say, "They are right, but so the fuck what? It is my personal predeliction to be an asshole about this, and it suits me just fine." It is my personal view, however, that the line between difference of outlook/opinion and spurious, personal slander is crossed when one stoops to denigrate the character of another list member by accusing them of what might be "conscious evils" such as comfortable cowardice, willful hypocrisy, or determined stupidity. Perhaps I will break down on the "rack" and deny all of my strongly held beliefs, but please don't accuse me of being a boastful coward who only holds to my beliefs when it is "safe" to do so. I may hold views which fail to remain consistent when measured against standards that reflect the knowledge and experience of others, but please don't accuse me of willfully attempting to espouse my views only to my benefit and at the expense of others. Sometimes I'm a fucking idiot and probably ought to be taken out and shot, but I strive to come by my stupidity "honestly," and not to use stupidity as an "excuse" to do evil. Tim May is a grouchy old CypherPunk with an itchy trigger finger and Kent Crispin has suffered the misfortune of having the the government secretly implant silicon chips in his brain that flash random images of current and past senators, congressmen and presidents repeating, "I am not a crook...I am not a crook..." I am certain that each of them is equally certain of their beliefs, and the decision as to which of them would make the world a better place by using the Dr. Kevorkian Gift Certificate I sent them for Christmas lies in the hands of the individuals who support or oppose their stance on various issues. My personal opinon is that we should "Kill them both, and let TruthMonger sort them out." Of course, I may be biased in this regard. After all, I am... TruthMonger

2 1

Re: EU Data Protection
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:13 PM 8/11/95 +0100, Derek Bell wrote: >In message <199508041840.OAA01729(a)clark.net>, Ray Cromwell writes: > What worries me about the *lack* of some form of data protection >legislation is that is allows someone to build up a database of information >which is a mishmash of truth, misunderstandings and lies. How would you feel if >"Concerned Citizens against Cryptography" compiled a list of all members >of this list, branding them as `dangerous, possibily criminal subversives'? It is called freedom of speech and freedom of association. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0