December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

Of course, if it was a substantial improvement over the other "Internet Phone" stuff that's out there, and had a good way of dealing with switching, etc., then people would use it to make "free" l.d. phone calls on the net, and the cryptography would get a free ride. Generally, you are right in suggesting that anything that requires people to crawl behind their computers, attach new cables, purchase and debug a sound card under Windows, and generally engage in techno-weenie hardware manipulations will have less appeal than something plug and play. Even given the extremely user-hostile elements of PGP the software, I would be surprised if PGPFone became as popular.

5 4

No Subject
by Bryan Strawser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a previous message, Timothy C. May said... > > What is your working definition of "nym server"? There have been discussions concernign this before both on here and other mailing lists, such as remailer-operators. A nym server is an operation similar to anon.penet.fi, but more secure. Sameer has two of these operating now that uses PGP encrypted reply blocks and such. [omega.c2.org and alpha.c2.org, both of which use different operating methods] What John is attempting to do is have a nymserver like anon.penet.fi, where folks can create an alias and send/recieve mail/postings to it. However, unlike Julf's system, a secure nymserver would prevent the owner from being able to divulge who the real-life person is behind the alias because of the PGP encrypted reply block and other options involved. Bryan -- Bryan Strawser, Gondolin Technologies, Bloomington, IN USA Remember Waco feanor(a)gondolin.org Live free or die

2 1

Bay Area Meeting This Weekend?
by Joe Thomas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm just about to fly out to San Francisco, and I realized that coming up is the second Saturday of the month, the traditional meeting time for the Bay Area Cypherpunks. I haven't seen any meeting announcements, so please e-mail me if there 's one scheduled (and if you can give a ride from S.F. if so!). I've just temporarily unsubscribed (I'll catch up on the archives when I return), so please cc me if you announce the meeting to the list. Thanks, Joe Thomas

1 0

No Subject
by Rich Helton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

help <rich_helton(a)msmgate.mrg.uswest.com>

1 0

Re: EU Data Protection
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 7:13 PM 8/11/95, Derek Bell wrote: >> I think you miss an important point; your opinion is subjective, but >>data can relate to objective facts (e.g. credit records). Would you take the >>same stance if a credit bureau claimed that you couldn't pay back half the >>loans you took out? There's a difference between what information you maintain for internal purposes and what information you give to other people. I don't really _care_ what nonsense a credit bureau may have in their internal records, only what they tell other people about me. If they somehow think I'm a bankrupt Communist space alien, but tell their credit-rating customers that my credit looks ok, it's not my business. If they use their own internal records to decide that _they_ don't want to lend me money, well, somebody else will get my business; it's in their interest to be accurate. A more interesting question is whether reporting credit transactions in private communications with their data customers constitutes libel if they inaccurately say bad things about me, and do I have a right to force them to tell me. Tim May thinks this kind of forced speech violates the US Constitution; I'm less bothered by laws telling corporations what to do (since corporations are fictional creations of the state) than by laws telling human-owned businesses or individual humans what to do. Tim May replies: >Think about it: the name "data privacy" sounds good, at first blush, but >what it really means is that my records are not private, that my records >are inspectable by government agents to see if I have stored any illegal >facts or correlations. Yeah. If you register your computer and its data with the Data Police, they have the right to inspect it. If you _don't register, that gives them reasonable suspicion to believe that you might have "illegally unregistered data" on the machine, so they have the power to inspect it. Kind of like proving you're not a witch.... #--- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0664 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281 #--- Storyteller makes no choice - soon you will not hear his voice. His job was to shed light, and not to master. RIP, Jerry

1 0

Re: PRZ encrypted voice software release imminent
by sbryan＠maroon.tc.umn.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:59 am 8/11/95, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: [snip] >>I can't violate my NDA, but PGPFone will be a *major* revolution for >>communication security. I would not be surprised to see several hundred >>thousands of users. PGP will plale in comparison. > >I sincerely doubt this. if someone could find a way of doing >voice encryption through simple idiotproof hardware adapters >(I am thinking of cups that you could attach to any standard phone) [snip] Am I the one of the few who thinks that PGPFone is the biggest CypherPunk event for years? I think it will be even more significant if we get strong encryption built into the low level infrastructure of Internet as Perry and others are pursuing but that isn't an event that will be big news next week. A lot of people who don't usually think or talk about fundamental issues of privacy and technology will be doing so next week. I hope that some of the people here who have contacts in the press are ready to say useful and clarifying things to reporters who would be just as happy to concentrate on usual suspects (drug dealers, et al). On the speculation of attaching cups to a standard phone I think this has an air of unreality. To apply strong encryption you need a digital signal. That doesn't necessarily imply a computer but sufficiently powerful computers are going into people's homes at an astonishing rate already. I use MegaPhone on my Quadra 660av at home and I can't wait to try out PGPFone. Even without PGPFone I have thought for a while that computer based telephony is getting ready to take off. Combining CallerID, customized call handling, high quality speakerphone capability and a truly useful personal directory (TouchBase Pro is too sluggish, but getting there) there were already the ingredients of substantive usefulness. If you can add in street maps fetched with an AppleEvent or even a QTVR enhanced map then you get something that might make even an AT&T ad envious. Adding complete privacy (relative to previous levels available) and possibly authentication makes this a very big event. +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |Steve Bryan Internet: sbryan(a)maroon.tc.umn.edu |Sexton Software CompuServe: 76545,527 |Minneapolis, MN Fax: (612) 929-1799 |PGP key fingerprint: B4 C6 E2 A6 5F 87 57 7D E1 8C A6 9B A9 BE 96 CB +----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: More "S-1" foolishness
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 20:53:58 -0700 >From: Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> > >The other thing I noticed that really makes me question this is that G1 >only uses 4 of its 8 input bits. As I wrote, it is equivalent to >parity(i&0x17). A bit is a terrible thing to waste, and it is hard to >imagine why it would do this intentionally. G1 may not be that important >an element of the cipher but why throw away four bits? Not that I say this is real, but... I can maybe understand throwing out 4 of the bits if G0 picks them up. G1 is never used alone. However, has anyone already noted that fullkey[INTEGRITY][i][j] = 0x08 ; for all i and j? For that matter, fullkey will be a constant for any key with all the bytes the same. This might constitute a class of weak keys. - Carl

2 1

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

Re: your mail
by wmono＠Direct.CA 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:28 PM 08/11/95 -0400, K. M. Ellis wrote: >SHUT UP. > That was entirely useless. 1) You directed your mail to a dummy address representing an anonymous remailer. 2) You wasted even more bandwidth, time, and disk space by posting yet another useless post to cypherpunks. Please note the To: and Cc: fields carefully next time you address a mail! -- William Ono <wmono(a)direct.ca> PGP 2902B621 fingerprint = 51 6B BC 81 57 D8 FF 6A 5A A1 A4 6B 9A E3 E5 EE = fingerprint PGP-encrypted mail welcome! Witty Quote Goes Here

1 0

Re: PRZ encrypted voice software release imminent
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by sbryan(a)maroon.tc.umn.edu (Steve Bryan) on Fri, 11 Aug 3:59 PM >A lot of people who >don't usually think or talk about fundamental issues >of privacy and technology will be doing so next week. PRZ is due to receive a prestigious design award for PGP this month, which may give a boost to public awareness of crypto's value for privacy.

1 0