December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: towards a theory of reputation
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, James A. Donald wrote: > >> Any attempt to discuss and analyze reputations using >> morally neutral language is bound to wind up as boring long >> winded meaningless complicated word salad. At 12:19 AM 11/22/95 -0800, Wei Dai wrote: >I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you give an example to how >to discuss reputation (i.e., the concept of reputation, not a particular >reputation) using morally non-neutral language? Under current circumstances, where we have a large oversupply of free government supplied retributive violence, the most important from of reputation is "credit rating", which indicates willingness to pay ones legitimate debts and perform contracts. Willingness to fulfill ones obligations is not at all the same thing as willingness to act in a way that improves other peoples utility. Fulfilling an obligation assumes normative criteria. Any attempt to describe credit worthiness in terms of its effect on the utility of creditors misses the point. Before the nineteenth century, when most governments were reluctant to provide adequate retributive violence, and were more concerned with collecting taxes than upholding law and order, the most important form of reputation was the reputation for being a "gentleman" which encompassed both willingness to pay ones just debts and "gentle" conduct, gentle conduct meaning that you were unlikely to kill or harm people without good reason, but did not require that you went around performing good works. Now if someone has a reputation for good workmanship, this might seem non normative, but such a reputation is a mixture of two components: "X has good quality products" which is not normative and is a fact rather than a reputation, because it does not involve a prediction of future behavior" and "X will fulfill the spirit and intention of a contract" which is a reputation, and is normative. For example although in principle X might have simultaneously have reputation for good workmanship and a reputation for not paying his debts and not delivering on contracts, such a combination would seem unusual and surprising. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

key for Alice as promised
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, I wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Russell Nelson wrote: > > > anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com writes: > > > Alice here ... > > > > How do we know this for a fact? > > We don't. > > As an incentive for Alice to generate herself a PGP key, I hereby > place Alice on notice that if she doesn't sign her next post, and > provide a PGP key, I will create one for her, and steal all the > postive (?) reputation that she has developed so far. > > You have 24 hours Alice, otherwise a key gets posted to here, and to > the keyservers with your nym on it. Well 24 hours have passed, and Alice remains unrepentant: On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, the old Alice de 'nonymous wrote: > Alice here ... > > No, *I* am the real Alice, and I refuse to use PGP signing. So here we go Alice's key: Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 1024/23292ED1 1995/11/22 Alice de 'nonymous <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Key fingerprint = CA 76 81 41 54 CE E7 D6 62 EE 6D 65 EE FB A3 55 - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzCzCFsAAAEEAKR2yXr+FeTjjR0YdGboF9KN4nxTRJ1STZ0CEsL5gTHQcCEo +ELfT2ejkFFtoW9y8c1b6YVItstdPTBZ4TomzM2h1bgToKRn0vRliO4DpOF1J1sZ +2PJwSK22OGIIvSTKf15S7vxRRa6Xnw5IM3WzU5lIrh1OwH7RIbu8OQjKS7RAAUR tClBbGljZSBkZSAnbm9ueW1vdXMgPGN5cGhlcnB1bmtzQHRvYWQuY29tPokAlQMF EDCzCdqG7vDkIyku0QEBW2sD/REBXmnHJ6Nr/xEUoJGr3CbH9voIGQkkzINplsrk koqXlI9puVkBkPUtTMnsewDyUumRR54ZDQ+sApi7rYa/DsSpWbiDaDC1kS5qKHT+ gfBfIxCkEt3Zjzot8vWKJgpC4GY5WC7q5bkmqcfrBNBctl5aWI1lD1qV6iIZ/9fW 2PEA =h413 - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Anything posted without being signed by the above key isn't from me. Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMLNjIIbu8OQjKS7RAQETOAQAjLmudAEP/z61BylOtyFhCif5U/BrQ2Pd uWLdy12Z16YVpczNEXeHDztsIE1BTNeGrb85OJywqc3G0M5WU9zzIRY+QlgPJzzJ CFx5danXzVr5A6Bmp2TponUZ4mE1qNoDfANlHMt4nSV1Fn4JqU89sJx7WSmQE0o5 KlPw3Yo4E48= =eOri -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Spam the Sign!
by Frank Stuart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>[regarding suggestion that netscape give mit or someone a 128 bit version >to place on an ftp server] > >This is not an apology for the the ITAR, just my usual lawyerly overcaution: > >Suppose A gives B a program that is export controlled, intending for B to >allow it to be exported. Has A conspired with B to export the program? > >Let's ask the grand jury investigating Phil.... That's a possible problem, I suppose, but wouldn't you be protected if your license agreement with MIT (or whoever) specified redistribution "for domestic use only"? | (Douglas) Hofstadter's Law: Frank Stuart | It always takes longer than you expect, even fstuart(a)vetmed.auburn.edu | when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

3 4

Re: PROPOSAL: cypherpunks-news@toad.com? (was: rand-test)
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<snip> >I am inclined to agree with Perry in as much as the volume of posts to >the cypherpunks list is greatly increased by reposts of news from >other mailing lists, USENET newsgroups, WWW sources, newspapers, TV >programs, films, books, talks, etc. While some of the information >posted is interesting, and relevant, some others are less relevant, >bordering on noise. > >The proposal: a separate list for current-event reports/news/reposts. 1. Creating a separate list, IMHO, will not stop cross-posts to the list. People will merely add one more list to their "cc" line. 2. More importantly, I am troubled with the "this is OUR list" attitude that some people have expressed. Yes, it is a pain when their are cross-posts that are completely off-topic but, as Adam correctly points out, some are interesting and relevant. One of the tenets proposed by those on this list is free speech. Most of us are on more than one list, so I'm assuming that most of us receive 100+ messages a day. It is irritating to read something that's been crossed to c|punks that has nothing to do with this list. However, it only takes a few seconds to arrive at that conclusion and trash the post. The "they are targeting this list" borders almost on paranoia. While some paranoia is healthy :) - it should not lead to the cry to ban posts that have been *deemed* to be inappropriate. I find it interesting that those who express that the net should be a community where expression is to be encouraged and defended - until the time arrives when such "unsolicited/unwanted/offensive/irrelevant" expression knocks on one's front door. Regards - Lynne ******************************************************* Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | "The key to life: Poughkeepsie, New York | - Get up; E-mail: | - Survive; lharrison(a)mhv.net | - Go to bed." *******************************************************

2 1

generating provable primes
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Several days ago someone (I forgot who he was) asked about code for primality tests. I just implemented an algorithm to generate random provable primes that is only about 50% slower than generating probable primes. It will be in the next version of Crypto++, but I've attached code for the main function in case anyone is interested in the algorithm. Full description can be found in "Fast Generation of Prime Numbers and Secure Public-Key Cryptographic Parameters" by U.M. Maurer in Journal of Cryptology, Volume 8 Number 3, 1995. The paper also describes a more complicated algorithm that produces primes with a more uniform distribution. There was discussion some days ago about generating strong primes for DH exchange moduli. Eric Young reported that he spent tens of hours of CPU time to generate a 4096 bit prime p such that (p-1)/2 is also prime. However, there is really no reason why DH exchange moduli must be of the form 2q+1 where q is a prime. It should be sufficient that they are of the form rq+1, where q is a large enough prime (say more than 256 bits). The following algorithm generates a provable prime p=2rq+1, where q is a prime with at least half the length of p. bignum ProvablePrime(RandomNumberGenerator &rng, unsigned int bits) { const unsigned smallPrimeBound = 29, c_opt=10; bignum p; BuildPrimeTable(); if (bits < smallPrimeBound) { do p.Randomize(rng, bignum::Power2(bits-1), bignum::Power2(bits)-1, ODD); while (TrialDivision(p, 1 << ((bits+1)/2))); } else { const unsigned margin = bits > 50 ? 20 : (bits-10)/2; double relativeSize; do relativeSize = pow(2.0, double(rng.GetLong())/0xffffffff - 1); while (bits * relativeSize >= bits - margin); bignum a,b; bignum q = ProvablePrime(rng, unsigned(bits*relativeSize)); bignum I = bignum::Power2(bits-2)/q; bignum I2 = I << 1; unsigned int trialDivisorBound = (unsigned int)min((unsigned long)primeTable[primeTableSize-1], (unsigned long)bits*bits/c_opt); boolean success = FALSE; do { p.Randomize(rng, I, I2, ANY); p *= q; p <<= 1; ++p; if (!TrialDivision(p, trialDivisorBound)) { a.Randomize(rng, 2, p-1, ANY); b = a.ExponentiateMod((p-1)/q, p); success = (Gcd(b-1, p) == 1) && (b.ExponentiateMod(q, p) == 1); } } while (!success); } return p; }

1 0

Re: Design proposal: crypto-capable generic interface
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:11:00 -0800 (PST) >From: Raph Levien <raph(a)c2.org> >Subject: Re: Design proposal: crypto-capable generic interface >Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951122094209.29001A-100000(a)infinity.c2.org> > In restrospect, "daemon" was a poor choice of words to describe my >proposal. "Slave process" gets the idea across much better, I'm a great fan of programming by cooperating processes -- but I still worry when it comes to crypto. What we need to do, if we want real security, is hold all the crypto secrets (therefore the crypto itself) in a device (PCMCIA card?) in the physical posession of the user. The cooperating-process model could make that easier -- but, if designed wrong, it could call for the device to give up a secret to be sent by IPC over to the slave process. >> > This requires that >> >keys have some nonforgeable names, which is unfortunately not a >> >feature of PGP 2.6.2. S/MIME will do it just fine, if you buy into the >> >Certifcation Authority (<wink> at Nick Szabo). >> >> Public keys, if that's what you're talking about, have perfectly good >> nonforgeable names -- themselves. They are unique. They are the proper >> name which can collect all the attributes of that key which are of interest >> (e.g., permission to spend $, name of a human who knows the private key, >> attributes about that human, etc.). > > Ok. But public keys have one serious disadvantage: their size. [...] > I propose using the MD5 hash of the whitespace-free MOSS >representation of the public key, in hex. It's simple enough to be >described in one sentence, but does everything I want. That sounds fine -- but why deal with a text MOSS representation? It's the modulus which is unique -- so just hash the binary bytes of the modulus, MSB first. There's no need to force anyone checking a key to have all the MOSS printing software in the loop. You might also consider using SHA instead of MD5 -- but that adds to the character count on your business card. [I printed up my own business cards with PGP fingerprints for my 2 primary keys -- and it took up about 1/4 of the card, in a readable font.] > Note that PGP 2.6.2 does _not_ allow the use of a public key as the >name of a public key, unless you do a horrible hack such as replace the >pubring.pgp file with the one public key of interest. PGP keyring structures do use the key as its own name, I believe. The UserID is a separate entity, associated with the stand-alone key. A signature applies to a pair (UserID,Key). If I could change the PGP keyring structure, I'd add a new entity -- an Attribute block -- a string and my key ID, with a signature on the Attribute+ObjectKey. This can be done today with the UserID and signature -- and I've even tried it. It works, but PGP is used to accessing keys by the text in a UserID field and that's not appropriate. The Attribute would give a statement I'm prepared to stand by, giving testimony about the key being signed or the person who has demonstrated the ability to sign something I've verified with that key. We might need to add something like MOSS's aliases, for my use only, to let me access keys. If I know someone as Bobby -- that's an association in my own head -- not applicable to anyone else. When I access him by that alias, that's for my use. Therefore, only I should define it and only I should sign the association. This is what I'd use instead of PGP's UserID blocks -- alias blocks. I commend TIS/MOSS's aliases to people's study. The MOSS guys have used the alias structure not only to define nicknames of importance only to me but also to define crypto-lists (like mailing lists). Needless to say, the assignment of aliases needs to be protected. An attacker mustn't be allowed to slip a new alias and/or new key into your ring -- especially if it's a crypto-list definition. > Thanks for the suggestion. However, my concerns are with >implementation and deployment, not research. I am perfectly willing to >consider cryptographic algorithms to be black boxes that do what they say >they will. I think the charter exists to start a new list. John Gilmore >has already offered to start a "coderpunks" list on toad.com. Shall we >take him up on it? My suggestion is that if you want this limited in content, it'll have to be moderated. - Carl +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)tis.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | |Trusted Information Systems, Inc. http://www.tis.com/ | |3060 Washington Road PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2| |Glenwood MD 21738 Tel:(301)854-6889 FAX:(301)854-5363 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

PROPOSAL: cypherpunks-news@toad.com?
by Martin Diehl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 11/22/95, Adam Writes: > Perry Metzger <perry(a)piermont.com> writes: > > "James M. Cobb" writes: > > > Friend, > > > > > > > > > The following information from > > > > 1) You are not my friend. > > > > 2) My private mail to you hasn't convinced you to stop this > > barrage of reposts. Would you please do so? > I am inclined to agree with Perry in as much as the volume of posts > to the cypherpunks list is greatly increased by reposts of news from > other mailing lists, USENET newsgroups, WWW sources, newspapers, TV > programs, films, books, talks, etc. While some of the information > posted is interesting, and relevant, some others are less relevant, > bordering on noise. [SNIP] > The proposal: a separate list for current-event > reports/news/reposts. [SNIP] > What do others think? > Adam This is what I think about setting up an additional list: 1. If I subscribe to both lists, it won't change my eMail traffic 2. If the "news, NOISE, off-topic" posts are sent to both lists, my eMail volume will increase 3. The cypherpunks subscribers are not the problem 4. What Adam and Perry (and others) want is that the "news, NOISE, off-topic" posters change their behavior and not post long news items verbatim. 5. How are you going to get those posters to agree to change? My vote, for what it's worth, is don't split the list. It won't work because the extra posts ARE going to go to this list because that's where they believe their readers are. Martin G. Diehl

2 1

Applied Crypto 2nd Ed.
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm surprised no one has been giving their review of Applied Cryptography, 2nd. Ed., AKA The Bible. I have little time for a formal review -- my copy, purchased directly from Bruce (I encourage people to buy straight from him -- he deserves to get the cash!) only arrived a couple of days ago. Its an amazing piece of work. He's outdone the 1st Edition by a large stretch, which I wouldn't have thought possible. I've bought the hardcover -- I'll be opening it up over and over again, I figure... Perry

1 0

Re: Secrets of the Internet
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed. 22 Nov 1995 Simon Spero wrote in "Re:SEcrets of the Internet" that we should "never underestimate the power of GCHQ -- when they unfreeze Alan Turing from the cryogenic vault, good things happen." Not to worry. Turing killed himself after being dogged by the UK's intelligence establishment over his sexual orientation. Ain't no way they're going to unfreeze *him* to work on the issue of "kiddie porn."

2 1

PGP
by Still 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know what the laws are regarding the export of PGP into Canada? I know that it is not allowed to exported overseas but what is the ruling on into Canada. Some sites say that it can be exported into Canada and others say that it can't. Can anyone out there give me some information on this topic? -- T H E M A N , T H E M Y T H , T H E L E G E N D . ****************************************************************************** * Dylan "Still" Boudreau * Knowledge is proud that she knows so much; * * Internet: x93ojg(a)stfx.ca * Wisdom is humble that she knows no more. * ****************************************************************************** * Homepage: http://juliet.stfx.ca/people/stu/x93ojg/welcome.html * ****************************************************************************** When someone says, "That's a good question." You can be sure it's a lot better than the answer you're going to get.

5 7