December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Crypto = Competitive Advantage?
by Andrew Loewenstern 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jason Weisenberger writes: > > Apparently the opening price was doubled very shortly before the > IPO > (late yesterday afternoon) from $14 to $28. By lunch-time > (in NYC), > shares were trading at $72. > > Amazing aint it - a moron girl at Goldman Sachs of course told me > I was crazy and anyone who felt Netscape was going to go over the > top was a moron. It may have "opened" at $28, but the first bid was $71 and now it's trading at $50something. Not quite so spectacular as at first glance... So unless you shorted it or were an insider it wasn't such a hot thing (so far). Quarterdeck is probably a better buy. ob crypto: the "top secret" source just posted looks interesting... 64-bit blocks, 80-bit keys, 32 rounds hmmmm.... andrew

1 0

Crypto = Competitive Advantage?
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note to Mr. Bill - I was watching CNBC this morning while reading my mail and they had a story on the Netscape Communications IPO (ticker NSCP btw). Some analyst said when asked whether Microsoft couldn't just wipe them out that the most important part of Netscape's product was that it offered end-to-end encryption. He said that this was important for the growth of the nets and was something that people wanted. DCF "Competitive Advantage - Markets vs Politics - in a market your customers go out of their way to give you their money, in politics the 'customers' go out of their way to keep from giving you their money."

4 3

Re: Crypto = Competitive Advantage?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:17 PM 8/9/95, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Note to Mr. Bill - > >I was watching CNBC this morning while reading my mail and they had a story >on the Netscape Communications IPO (ticker NSCP btw). Some analyst said >when asked whether Microsoft couldn't just wipe them out that the most >important part of Netscape's product was that it offered end-to-end >encryption. He said that this was important for the growth of the nets and >was something that people wanted. As long as the Netscape IPO topic has come up... A former member of our list, Marc Andreessen, just became worth $70 million or so in today's IPO. (IPO = Initial Public Offering, or "Internet PGP Offering") Personally, I think this valuation of Netscape at a few billion dollars is way too high. They've got a leading product, which most folks have gotten for free, and they've signed a bunch of corporate deals. But a few billion for a brand new company? ...and who knows how many of their sudden multimillionaire developers will now leave...? Crypto could be the next big wave of IPOs, with "Verisign" and "RSADSI" both rumored to be offered. Some of the digital commerce companies may be next. It seems that anything involving the Internet, the Web, and digital commerce is really, really hot. --Timothy C. May, President, Bank of the Web Special note: My ISP has changed its domain name from "sensemedia.net" to "got.net" (as in "got milk?"), so I have to again ask you all to bear with me and use my new e-mail address, "tcmay(a)got.net". ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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."

3 2

How To Spot a Spook page
by merriman＠arn.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As a start on a Web page, here are some things I thought of. What else? What are the initials of some of the world's intelligence groups (CIA, NSA, KGB, DGI, MI5(?), ???) 1> Antennas - more than TV/Ham/CB/Satellite (or 'unusually' shaped antennas). 2> No, or *very* few, visitors (esp. kids) 3> Visitors are seldom the same, or almost always the same. 4> Doesn't talk about job/company. 5> Activity at 'unusual' times. 6> Not very 'sociable' (keep to themselves). Or, tell me to forget it, it doesn't belong here.... :-/ Dave This is a test (3 UUE lines) of the unconstitutional ITAR - 1/713th of the PGP executable. See below for getting YOUR chunk! ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [015/713] ------------------- M=$<(&L`#*IPP",(G6(,,S,`P](<2RWU96XCW86/JBYV8A\D8@X'HB_9H#&\X MX'PCUB.,13B"X8`R?^J-:UB.M_`U\>[#)BS&5$0C,Y#^1CS>1`\T1QTXX6!3 M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/ <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> My web page: http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1148

4 3

Re: Only 1/3 of Government Computers Down So Far
by KALLISTE＠delphi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry, Many people are interested in cryptology because they don't want the NSA (among others) invading their privacy. The Foster story concerns the chief NSA privacy-invasion of modern times: spying on domestic banking transactions. So it's relevant. The Grand Inquisitor role is getting a little old. So if you want to continue to play it, my response is: Fuck Off. -Orlin

2 1

This summer's special delivery?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:59 PM 8/9/95, Matt Blaze wrote: >Someone sent me (to my bell labs address) a copy of this this afternoon via >an anon server in the netherlands. It looks like others got it as well, and >it appears to have been posted to the cypherpunks list, though it hasn't >yet shown up here from the list (my mail seems to be slow today). Did >anyone else have a copy mailed directly to them? I got a copy mailed to me directly as well. I don't know why he/she/it sent it me, but I got it. I have nothing further to add on this. But recall that it was just about this time last year--just before Crypto--that the "alleged RC4 code" was posted anonymously to the list. Hmmhhh.... --Tim May Special note: My ISP has changed its domain name from "sensemedia.net" to "got.net" (as in "got milk?"), so I have to again ask you all to bear with me and use my new e-mail address, "tcmay(a)got.net". ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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."

2 1

Prime Number Gen's.
by aba＠dcs.exeter.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Rev. Ben" <samman(a)cs.yale.edu> writes on cpunks: > Does anyone know of where I could get source, royalty free, in the US for > a good Prime Number Generator? GNU code sounds like it would fit the royalty free bill. Try the GNU multi-precision library: gmp-1.3.2.tar.gz from all good GNU sources. I get my stuff from ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/gnu/ if you don't have a GNU ftp site to hand. There's a function int mpz_probab_prime_p(mpnum, SURETY) which returns true if the prime passes SURETY probablistic prime tests. I think if it passes say 25 tests, then there will be less than a 1/2^25 chance that it is not prime. Also, on: http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa-keygen.html I've got some code Aggelos Keromitis <kermit(a)forthnet.gr> wrote using the GNU mp library for generating RSA keys, it uses the probab_prime function, like this: while (!mpz_probab_prime_p(&p, 25)) /* Find a prime */ mpz_add_ui(&p, &p, 1); Where p is a random starting point. Ie just add one and repeat. It would be faster to check for some more obvious things like even nos, etc. But it seems to work well enough, and generates working RSA keys. Adam -- HAVE *YOU* EXPORTED RSA TODAY? --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ --rsa--------------------------8<------------------------------- #!/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL $m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2%Sa 2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print pack('H*',$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length($n)&~1)/2) -------------------------------8<------------------------------- TRY: rsa -k=3 -n=7537d365 < msg | rsa -d -k=4e243e33 -n=7537d365

3 3

>actual< classification categories
by tbyfield＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have copies of declassified documents with the following markings: secret (1985) top secret (1986) classified (1984) confidential (1985) eyes only (1986) Some have various combinations, such as: secret/sensitive top secret/sensitive eyes only/top secret/sensitive This isn't a complete list, but it's better than idle speculation. The vast majority of declassified paper documents that I've seen (not a small number) have explicit statements regarding _who_ is allowed to see it, _how_ they are allowed to move and/or distribute it, control #s and copy #s, semicomprehensible strings of characters, and so on; many have thiings like destruction instructions and expiry dates. More and more, slight variations are being introduced into each version for purposes of compartmentalization. It's conceivable that this is the source of the typo Hal spotted, but I doubt it. The fact that specific instrux were relegated to a separate "label file" seems very suspect; the fact that the warning tag is tacked onto the end is maybe noteworthy--it's in a different format, which is possibly odd, but it might've been put there for silly theatrical purposes. Basically, "top secret" without further comment is James Bond stuff, since in and of itself it doesn't tell those who need to know what they need to know. My guess is that someone stuck the "top secret" stuff on the beginning and end of something they found. But that doesn't make it a hoax, necessarily. Ted

1 0

Bank Fees and E-Cash
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - - - Bank Fees and the E-cash Niche. Banks have gorged themselves on rocketing fees for the last five years. The result is that typical bank customer currently pays 150% of the amount of interest collected on accounts in a given year in the form of fees. My prediction, and my hope, is that e- cash will cut through the pretense upon which the rationalization of many of these fees is based, and even market itself on this point- Lower Fees. - - - New Fee Schemes "Overdraft Assistance" and the Myth That Only Irresponsible Bank Customers Bounce Checks or Overdraft. Banks have begun to implement policies intended to help the customer overdraft. They may, for example, cash the largest checks first such than an overdraft will hit with several small checks rather than one or two large ones causing multiple overdraft fees. Banks have begun to routinely delay crediting checks for 48 and 72 hours, and out of state checks for anywhere from 3-14 business days. ATM cash deposits are typically subject to 24-48 hours delay. The "Unofficial Credit." Many times the delays in crediting various transactions are hidden by the "unofficial credit." Most noticeable in ATM deposits, a credit is given but should demands on the account draw into the "unofficial credit" an overdraft will be posted on the rationale that an "official credit" has not yet been posted and the funds are thus not "officially" available, this despite the fact that the funds will appear available to ATM balance requests and statements. Of course the bank will profit from the "unofficial credit" to "official credit" interest float regardless of what overdraft fees might be charged. The "wire credit" and "official wire credit" are another example. Banks receive a wire transfer on Monday, send a "electronic payment advice" the same day, but post the credit to the account "officially" on Tuesday. The original intent is for the bank to be able to take advantage of the interest "float" between the receipt of funds and its credit to the account. The result is an additional overdraft potential. The Separate Wire Office Hours. Often times the bank's "wire" office will close hours before the branch closes. Wires received some hours before closing on Friday will not be credited until the following Monday. The ATM Processing Time Table. Many bank only begin processing ATM deposit transactions an hour before closing, crediting only as many deposits as can be processed in this time, the remainder are not processed until the next morning. ATM debits are, of course, processed all day. Check Processing Time Table. In a given day, debit checks are processed on an account before deposit checks are processed. Obviously, an account that overdrafts overdrafts only because of the order in which checks are processed. - - - The Created Convenience Fee A great many bank fees fall into what I call "created convenience fees." Really created convenience fees resemble airport customs bribes in third world countries. The customs officer makes what should be an easy passage terribly difficult, then demands a "fee" to make travel as easy as it should have been to begin with. The net effect is for the traveler to pay to dispense with a problem created by the party receiving the fee. Nigeria is a prime example. Upon arrival the average traveler will find him or herself embroiled with licensing deficiencies, visa fees, entry fees, the threat of quarantine, seizure of expensive equipment for "inspection" and other such invented requirements. Some hours into the "negotiations" the customs official will offer to "overlook" these transgressions for a "fee." This is a created convenience fee. Banks fall into this category by such programs as "overdraft insurance" whereby banks enact policies which, as we have seen, make it painfully easy to overdraft and then charge a monthly fee to avoid the overdraft charges. - - - The Result Bob is a sort of combination of my own experience and discussions with other bank customers in D.C. Bob has an account in Washington, D.C. with $1500.00 in it. Bob Receives a wire at 3pm Friday for $1700.00 Bob writes five checks on Friday, one for $1400.00, one for $200.00, one for $150.00 and two for $100.00. Totaling $1950.00. Bob deposits 4 checks totaling $2000.00 in the night depository Saturday. Bob deposits $50.00 in cash in an ATM on Saturday Night. Bob checks his ATM balance ($3250.00) and withdraws $50.00 from an ATM on Sunday Morning. Bob's wire arrives after the wire office has closed for the day - an "unofficial credit" is posted Friday before closing anyhow. Bob's bank processes the $1400.00 check first, leaving Bob's account with an "official" $100.00 and $1700.00 in "unofficial funds." Bob's bank processes the $200.00 check, notes a $100.00 overdraft, charges $25.00 for this check, refuses payment on the remaining three checks and drops a $25.00 overdraft fee plus a $10.00 "bad check" fee for each. Total charges: $130.00 Bob's bank processes the $50.00 ATM withdrawal, which overdrafts. $25.00 fee is posted. Total fees so far: $155.00. Bob's balance for the majority of Monday: -$255.00. Bob's bank begins to process deposits, notes all the checks for deposit, $1000.00 of which are out of state. No checks are credited. Bob's bank notes the ATM transaction at the end of the day on Monday, but does not credit it immediately despite the fact that it is cash. Bob's bank credits the ATM deposit to Bob's account on Tuesday. Bob's balance is now -$205.00 Middle of the day Tuesday, Bob's account has been below its required minimum $500 balance for 24 hours. A $50.00 fee is charged. End of the day Bob's wire is "officially" credited - a $10.00 fee is charged for receiving the wire. (No, I'm not kidding) Bob's bank credits the $1000.00 of in state checks on Wednesday Finally, on Friday, Bob's out of state checks are deposited. Bob will likely be liable for $50.00-$75.00 fees for each of his bounced checks as vendors will probably charge hefty fees. Telecheck will have Bob on the 10 most wanted list for $350.00 in bounced checks. Bob's check writing ability is about nil in D.C. for the month it will take him to clear it up. Bob gets a mailing a week later telling him of the advantages of his bank's newest "overdraft insurance" program. $150 a year. Bob, for what would literally be a series of very responsible transactions, is looking at over $215.00 in bank fees, and at least $150 in bounced check fees from vendors because of violation of technical rules the bank has designed to cause fees to be charged. - - - E-Cash I cannot believe that e-cash won't be able to solve some of these problems, and I hope it will limit its own fees to usage. To me this is a classic argument for small house e-cash shops. Citibank and Mastercard are going to fight for their fees. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMClJUS1onm9OaF05AQEhugf/T2FquzHdEhHp8dQI5FRYcuayTusig1F3 pHejUdry84F1MqLArSZukVGxEWtZVR0qh2xq4AiN/UwlW9ZKasFdbPPGJtbD6gpO aALJIhQaYJSTQkW4fmieejhcNPMf7e59YaerOl83LkKS/+1tFi9ib1Xz2ZnmXlph 0mWuJjONzH45tPylyJy8fyB9nrpk5WDCAiLhUSxqHRdVmA9nq6uIIZbdmz7sEpLq 82cHyHXKeufGKGvx26R4z3lu0o5Ykd/dGAWADpJ6OT2bhlWFinApF/HMJAA9mLvi w70StZZL/94ncQQWF7LU5vMhGu7/5WNsrpRTzZXG5A0EfFL0ZAdYPw== =ew58 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 00B9289C28DC0E55 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est E16D5378B81E1C96 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig! *New Key Information* - Finger for key revocation and latest key update.

4 3

Re: "S1" encryption system
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry, yet another correction: the G1 box, G[1][i], is parity(i&0x17), not parity(i) as I said, where parity is 0 or 1 depending on whether its argument has an even or odd number of 1 bits. I have checked via a small program that this is correct and that the earlier formula I posted for G0 is correct. Hal

1 0