December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Still more "S-1" foolishness
by Matt Blaze 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's a table of where the expanded key schedule bits come from (I think - this could be wrong, I had to tweek some of the output by hand). Note that some key bytes are used much more often, and in more positions, than others, but every key byte does at least end up being used as input to each F eventually (but not always to each "target" byte). Sorry for the opaque notation; this reads best when used in conjunction with Colin's cool graph that he posted to sci.crypt last night. -matt | | G0 G1 F+0 F+1 F+2 F+3 (function input) bytes| 4 5 2 3 0 1 (mixed with byte #) rou|enc-| all all R+6L R+6H R+7L R+7H (output affects) nd |rypt| 0 1 2 3 4 5 (key schedule byte #) # |ed |LLHH LLHH LLHH LLHH LLHH LLHH (posn of orig key byte in sched byte) ====================================== 0 76 5954 9538 5495 4851 8515 5151 1 54 1510 5194 1051 0415 4171 1717 2 32 7176 1750 7617 5071 0737 7373 3 10 3732 7316 3273 1637 6393 3939 4 67 9398 3972 9739 7293 2959 9595 5 54 5954 9538 5495 4851 8515 5151 6 32 1510 5194 1051 0415 4171 1717 7 10 7176 1750 7617 5071 0737 7373 8 76 3732 7316 3273 1637 6393 3939 9 54 9398 3972 9739 7293 2959 9595 10 32 5954 9538 5495 4851 8515 5151 (original key bytes used) 11 10 1510 5194 1051 0415 4171 1717 12 76 7176 1750 7617 5071 0737 7373 13 54 3732 7316 3273 1637 6393 3939 14 32 9398 3972 9739 7293 2959 9595 15 10 5954 9538 5495 4851 8515 5151 16 76 1510 5194 1051 0415 4171 1717 17 54 7176 1750 7617 5071 0737 7373 18 32 3732 7316 3273 1637 6393 3939 19 10 9398 3972 9739 7293 2959 9595 20 76 5954 9538 5495 4851 8515 5151 21 54 1510 5194 1051 0415 4171 1717 22 32 7176 1750 7617 5071 0737 7373 23 10 3732 7316 3273 1637 6393 3939 24 76 9398 3972 9739 7293 2959 9595 25 54 5954 9538 5495 4851 8515 5151 26 32 1510 5194 1051 0415 4171 1717 27 10 7176 1750 7617 5071 0737 7373 28 76 3732 7316 3273 1637 6393 3939 29 54 9398 3972 9739 7293 2959 9595 30 32 5954 9538 5495 4851 8515 5151 31 10 1510 5194 1051 0415 4171 1717

1 1

Stupid XOR Question
by Anonymous User 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ok dumb questions here......... how do i xor a simple string of plaintext? I am running linux 1.2.4

1 0

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

F*** FOSTER
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

this vince foster thing is BS. total bs. Perry is right. there's not a single smidgeon of honest reporting going on. its just slime being stirred up by internet thugs and rapscallions. let foster rest in peace. multiple people have ruled it was a suicide. perry can attest that it was a suicide. perry can attest that the NSA was not involved. he has seen everything, and if he has an opinion on something, you can take his word that it was based on the FACTS. the FACTS of the case are that FOSTER was fed up with his nothing life, and pulled the trigger and blew his brains out in a park. so what if they couldn't find the brains anywhere? or they are missing a few here and there??? they were splattered on the grass. when there is that much splatter all over the place, you can be sure that the people showing up with the spatula are not going to be that meticulous. they probably did about 5 minutes of scrape, scrape, scaping and then vomited and passed the spatula to the next guy. I mean, cut these guys some slack. the NSA stuff is total, utter poppycock. the NSA has absolutely nothing to do with vince foster. Clinton has nothing to do with foster. Hillary has nothing to do with foster. why, the way people are ranting you'd think there is a major political scandal going on. NOTHING IS GOING ON HERE. please step aside, and move along. PLEASE MOVE ALONG FOLKS, THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO SEE HERE. the fact that foster may have had access to intelligence secrets such as cryptography is IRRELEVANT to the cypherpunks. the fact that a scandal may have taken place is IMMATERIAL to our goals. our goals are to WRITE CODE. FOR GOD'S SAKE, WRITE THAT CODE. I don't care if you have to create code generators. CODE, CODE, CODE. post the code to the cypherpunks list. talk about the code. critique the code. study the code. salvation for all humanity lies in finding the magic formula. and we can't find it, UNLESS WE CODE, DAMMIT. perry understands this. some people think that there is a magic government program that will solve poverty, give freedom to everyone in the US, and solve P=NP. they're WRONG. the government cannot do any of this. BUT PROGRAMMERS CAN!!!! put your programming hats on. if you haven't banged a keyboard a half million times, fired up VI to edit a C file for the ten zillionth time, NO PROGRESS IS BEING MADE. ITS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. if you haven't compiled something recently, RECOMPILE IT JUST TO BE SAFE. we just aren't making any progress without CODE, CODE, CODE. we have an utter shortage of code. the problem is not politics, but LACK OF CODE. anyone can look at the net today and see there is a HORRENDOUS SHORTAGE OF CODE IN CYBERSPACE. we have to train everyone to program NOW or the future is lost to the incompetent. we will be back to Vic 64's if people don't keep up the constant programming. software is the key to salvation. every second devoted to the vince foster thing is a precious second taken away from code. NOTHING POSITIVE CAN COME OF PREOCCUPATION WITH CONSPIRACY THEORIES. PERRY CAN ATTEST TO THAT. remember when PRZ was getting indicted? perry was right on then too. some people were scared shitless and raving out of their minds, saying the world would end tomorrow, but NOT PERRY. perry has NO FEAR. he said that we should CODE, CODE, CODE. and you know what??? HE'S RIGHT. if people followed PERRY, we would not be in this @#$%^&* predicament we are in. if we could just get it so that every person who signed up to the internet could CODE, we would be home free. salvation. utopia!!! then we could rest a little. but only a little, otherwise the NSA will beat us again at the code race. once again: forget Foster. nothing, absolutely nothing about this scandal could possibly help our cause of trying to expose corruption in government to the mainstream populace, to keep them better informed, to put limits on the NSA, to show that they have been involved in horrendous abuses, that there is something utterly smelly in our government. FORGET IT. NOTHING LIKE THIS WILL EVER BE PROVEN OR ESTABLISHED. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, JUST LIKE PERRY SAYS SO. when anything new comes of this foster stuff, just remember that perry predicted way ahead of time that it would amount to NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING. and the more you preoccupy your brains with this TOTAL MINUTIA, the less you are coding. STOP IT RIGHT NOW. just remember, if you don't, you will be SORRY, and when you come crying back to Perry that nothing of value came of all your conspiracy mongering, he will have NO SYMPATHY, in fact if he had a gun around he'd probably be tempted to blow your brains out. and you can just FORGET about the spatula.

3 2

Re: PRZ encrypted voice software release imminent
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:42 8/11/95, Ray Cromwell wrote: >I would like to see a secure voice communication protocol that is divorced >from the particular details of the algorithms used (although a >base level of some voice compression technique + DES + RSA will have to >be used) That way, new and better algorithms can be dropped in depending >on the network used (modem, ipx, tcp/udp, etc) and the bandwidth required >(CELP vocoder, MPEG-audio, lossless encoding, progressive PCM, etc) The codec used is at the very core of any computer telephony system. A standard that doesn't specify the codec(s) can be little more than a standard on message formats, which will be of little value if the other side doesn't implement the same codec. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

Re: PRZ encrypted voice software release imminent
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:36 PM 8/11/95, Ray Cromwell wrote: > My question is, how portable is it, and does it work over TCP/IP rather >than just modem connections (I suggested this about a year ago)? My ideal >implementation would function on the following architectures: > >Unix: can be used through either /dev/tty?? or Socket (probably want >to use UDP). Works on Solaris, IRIX, AIX, NetBSD/FreeBSD/BSDI and Linux. >(audio devices are all proprietary) > > >Windows: uses Window's sound card device drivers, works via either >comport or WinSock > >Mac: uses Mac sound drivers, uses Mac modem port or MacTCP >From the "MacWeek" article, it initially runs on the Macintosh, using the sound capabilities built into (nearly) all Macs. Direct modem connections, with Internet versions to follow. (Windows to follow, too.) Sound quality with 9600 baud modems said to be pretty good, quality with 14.4 modems said to be very good, and quality with 28.8 modems said to be better than standard phone quality. The Mac may be a strange platform to develop on, to many of you, but it has some advantages. The sound tools are relatively standardized and are even built into the OS. Developers can thus count on what users will have. But why the developers actually picked the Mac to do first is something they can talk about. --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."

4 4