December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The future will be easy to use
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:06 AM 11/27/95 -0800, Raph Levien wrote: > As I see it, any system that does must have the following > properties: > > * Some variant on the Web of Trust. > > * Online key-servers for getting keys in real time. > > * A clean mechanism for validating keys through alternate channels. > > There are three possible outcomes: we build it, the NSA builds it, or > Microsoft/Netscape builds it. Specs, anyone? I suggest a few requirements: Store the keys, and information about the keys in a *real* database (for windows apps, we can redistribute the Microsoft access and or the paradox database engines royalty free, and drive them through ODBC to minimize dependency on specific vendors.) Support tree of authentification: A key that is *named* Peter by Sam, or *named* Informix Corporation by the Delaware corporate registrar, shall be considered equivalent to any other key given the same name by same authority, whether that authority be Dark Unicorn, or the state of Delaware. This last property is essential if PGP keys are to be used as a basis for exchanging promises to pay and directives to pay. A very common use of this feature, pending the development of user friendly software that makes every man is own bank and his own credit rating agency, would be as follows: Sam generates a long key on a clean off line computer: He uses it to name itself Sam and to name several shorter keys "Sam". He then puts the private long key on a floppy disk and buries it in a hole in the ground along with his gold and his stash of SKS ammo, and most likely never uses it again. He publishes the long public key, and uses the shorter private keys for actual encryption. From time to time, he changes keys, without any disruption or inconvenience. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

Inexpensive Crypto Boxes...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, The recent discussion on the <$1000 computer/appliance/digital-widget got me to thinking and I had a spasm... The new Sony Play Station is operating under a stripped down Unix. Considering the speed that these boxes are designed to run at it seems a natural for somebody to come up with a crypto workbench on ROM to install in one of these babies. Could program one of the game controller ports as a serial port and hook it to a Linux box (for example). Ta ta

3 2

Re: Cypherpunk Certification Authority
by torrejr＠pcnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So far, everybody on the net has discussed the fun part(s) of the CA issue. The techies talk about protocol, encryption ... in short the real FUN stuff. I have enjoyed diverging opinions of some of the participants. Many make excellent points and have taught me more than I ever dreamed to learn. Lawyers are already making money and preparing for the future :-) Some lawyers argue about liabilities and drool over new laws being proposed all over the country by other lawyers to guarantee future lawsuits. Another lawyer does not believe CAs are an option and make a good buck selling books to prove it (Electronic Commerce Law-Ben Wright squire) another publishes the American Bar Association CA liabilities, names it draft of the digital signature guidelines and goes to work for Verisign (CA? DS? UH?). I can keep talking about good stuff that has happen in the last few months for about everyone interested in the last frontier (the electronic one) and its trading posts (electronic commerce), but the fact is that there are no CAs in full production yet. Yeah! Verisign is around .... Santa Clara. Of course I have other choices (Did I say great choices?) like Cost in Sweden and at one time EuroCert in England was advertising on the net. I have been asking myself ... WHY? I can't accept the standard response: Fear to liability! Granted that the liability factor is important but my gut feeling tells me that's not the whole story. The hardware and the software is out there (I haven't commented on the quality of this stuff!). I thought that several companies who have indicated interest have all it takes to make a successfull CA but nobody seem to move reasonably fast. Is it possible that the process of issuing and maintaining a certificate is so complex and expensive? I think that MITRE did a study for NIST and they came-up with a cost of $800 per year per federal employee to maintain and administer a Federal CA. Any suggestion? PS I want to thank Robert Hettinga for his excellent work promoting the principles of the Cypherpunks, and for diseminating critical information that helps shape the corporate world for a better electronic future. ------------------------------------- Juan Rodriguez i Torrent torrejr(a)pcnet.com 11/27/95 23:54:24 -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Directed Hamiltonian Path Problem
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:04 AM 11/28/95, Thaddeus J. Beier wrote: >> I am curious on whether there are any applications of the directed >> Hamiltonian path problem to cryptography, zero-knowledge proofs, etcetera. My >> reaosn for asking is that I've come across something in my field (molecular >> genetics) that can be used to solve such problems in a couple of weeks or so. >> -Allen >> >> >Secret sharing can be done by Hamiltonian paths. No public key code has been >found to take advantage of those, or any other NP complete problem, so far as >I know. DNA computing really doesn't solve the Hamiltonian graph problem, it >just makes the biggest one that you can solve a little bit bigger. 500 point >graphs remain insoluble (pun unitended) for earth-sized vats of DNA. > >Really. Thaddeus beat me to the punch, as I was going to say just about the same thing. The work by Adleman on "vats of computers" is intriguing, but is no real solution to the problem of exponential or superexponential growth: a problem that Adleman's vat could solve with a fish tank full of DNA computers in a day could be easily outpaced by a key length "only" a bit longer. Check the archives for many articles on this topic. Also, check the Web search engines for conferences, papers, etc. on this. --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: The future will be easy to use (fwd)
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> One thing that David didn't mention is security add-ons to the "network >> computers" that are supposed to be rolled out within the next few months -- >> the successors to X terminals, $500 boxes with a good screen/sound, >> cheap cpu, and a few megs of ram and flash memory to hold a web browser. >> I expect some folks to make a good living by writing add-ons (including >> crypto add-ons) to these gizmos. >> > >Don't hold your breath. The current market surveys say that there is no >market for them. Check out this weeks PC Week or Mac Week, as they both >have several articles discussing this. Bottem line is that the under $1000 >computer seems to have no future either in industry or the home. > >Realisticaly, who in their right mind would buy a diskless workstation to >connect to Internet? You certainly wouldn't do crypto on it because it has >to boot from somewhere else and this leaves all kinds of security holes. >Also, there is the fact that at the current time there are no generaly >useable apps on Internet beyond the web and most companies would rather have >their employees doeing something more productive than hanging ten. > >Anyone who bases their business on this technology won't have a business. The same sort of things could be said of the telephone compared with written correspondence. Why would anyone have one in their business or home? Anyone can overhear a conversation, people will just chat, the only thing you can do with it is talk, there is no record of the correspondence, why would anyone want to talk to people on the other side of town? etc. Think telephone, not computer. Think people over 40 who want a communication tool with zero maintenance and zero learning curve. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | "The Internet, of course, is more +1 415 390 9732 | than just a place to find pictures | of people having sex with dogs." stevenw(a)best.com | -- Time Magazine, 3 July 1995

2 1

No Subject
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

well, if it is not the world's greatest thinker and knowledge bearer on Nastrodamus posting an announcement on a message we've already seen at least twice, and hashed. read the threads before you post!

1 0

Re: Internet Terminals
by Jordan Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From mclow(a)owl.csusm.edu Mon Nov 27 20:07:37 1995 Would you write and send e-mail if you had no way of archiving it? This is what AOL is. Would you use "net-quicken", if it required all your data to be stored on a shared disk at Intuit? Who are you kidding? All your banking information is stored *at your bank* today; how is that any different? OBCrypto: none. /jordan

1 0

Re:ETH_ic?
by mp＠moonmac.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nb5s $bp2s writes, >> ...the case has killed the hacker ethic. "If I saw someone >> on the Internet with a security weakness, at this point >> I would be reluctant to act the Good Samaritan and >> report it," said Jeffrey Kegler, an independent software >> consultant in Sunnyvale Calif. "If I saw weakness in >> Intel's machine, I'd keep it to myself." If I saw a weakness in Intel's machine I would happily inform the company in the safest way possible: posting it to Cypherpunks, alt.destroy.microsoft, comp.sys.intel and any other appropriate newsgroup, via anonymous server. I'm sure the information would wind up in the correct hands _eventually_. Not that I'm suggesting anything, of course. |^^^^^^Please don't add "*(a)aol.com" to your twit filter. Thank you.^^^^^^| | mklprc(a)aol.com | "Give them a light and they'll | | mp(a)moonmac.com <*> follow it anywhere!" | | http://www.teleport.com/~mklprc/ | -- Firesign Theater | | No Microsoft products were used in the production of this message. | \----smuggle FSF terrorist BATF (fnord) FBI nuclear Saddam PGP Clinton---/

1 0

Re: The future will be easy to use
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:12 PM 11/27/95 -0800, Jonathan Zamick wrote: > it > means forming a group, made up of Cypherpunk members perhaps, but much > smaller, and capable of working together. Also capable of handling not only > the theory, but good solid code, GUI, PR, meetings, talking to the > government, etc. Skip the talking to the government bit: Ignore, do not confront. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

Re: The future will be easy to use
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:38 PM 11/27/95 -0500, James Black wrote: > As soon as PGP 3.0 is released I am planning on incorporating PGP into >Pine, and start putting it into more programs, to increase the usage of >encryption things before they go out. Is there any public spec for PGP 3.0? --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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