December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Algorithims ?
by john.ellis＠wmcmail.wmc.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Were can i get a set of the most popular algorithims from for encryption, and does any one have and info on the algorithim used in the second WW by the germans, (The Enigma system) any info would be greatfully recieved Cheers John

2 1

DEC Alta Vista
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check out Digital's new Web and newsgroup search engine at: http://www.altavista.digital.com/ Makes OpenText, Lycos, etc. look like turtles. Crypto-relevance: The spider they used appears to have fully indexed the HTML Cypherpunk list archive. Extremely fast searches on your favorite topics... Joel

2 1

Re: NIST GAK meeting writeup, LONG part 3 of 3
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:48 PM 12/14/95 -0500, you wrote: >jim bell writes: >> It _is_ less voluntary, because it interferes with my right to escrow my key >> with an organization that is willing to take the dispute to arbitrary levels >> of uncooperativeness with the government. I might insist, for example, that >> the organization only store the key outside the country (beyond the reach of >> US Courts) and require MY PERMISSION for them to release it to the >> government. I might also insist that they further encode the key so that >> only an independent foreign organization (out of reach of US courts) could >> provide the key to decrypt it. >> >> If key escrow is REALLY REALLY REALLY "voluntary", then such arbitrary >> restrictions should be do-able. > >Unless I've missed something large, you can have an _uncertified_ key escrow >agent store your keys in Fidel Castro's beard, and only release them with >written permission from your goldfish. > >Whether or not you use a certified key escrow agency would remain your >choice, AFAIK. > >I'm not expressing support for the certification standards that have been >presented. But I don't consider it cause for great alarm that the USG wants >to play in the escrow agent rating bureau business. Here's the problem: "Clipper" ALREADY isn't "voluntary," because the public has already been forced to pay for its development via stolen tax dollars. At least hypothetically, the government could misuse its discretion even further to push a Clipper-like solution, in order to skew the market against the adoption of good encryption. Follow me so far? They could go as far as to subsidize Clipper-installed telephones, making them cost &50 at your local discount store, competitive with non-crypto phones. Okay, I presume that the company that makes Clipper chips (VLSI Technology) must ultimately sell them, UNPROGRAMMED, to manufacturers who are to build those telephones. I see a business opportunity to act as a VOLUNTARY escrow agent, but one that only agrees to keep the keys for the chips for "30 feet or 30 seconds." In other words, build (or modify) Clipper-type telephones with chips that are ostensibly escrowed, but due to the agreement with the end user the keys will be erased. (Or, the keys will be kept encrypted, unbreakably, with the "key to the key" given to the end user, who will presumably burn it on receipt.) What I _DON'T_ want to see happen is for the USG to be able to refuse escrow-agent status to an organization which is actively hostile to the concept of key escrow, an organization which is willing to work with end-users to thwart the USG's access to products which (due to the fact they were never exported) do not fall under any ITAR-type regulations.

1 0

Re: .PWL Spin
by Jeff A. Gehlbach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 02:01 PM 12/15/95 -0600, you wrote: >According to rumor, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com said: >> On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Joel McNamara wrote: <SNIP> >> What would make a University less secure than a corporation?? > >1) Usually more net connected hosts. >2) Lack of adequate sysadmin attention/knowlege. >3) Vague and poorly enforced site security policies. IMHO Microsoft has no concern about the security of any university; educational institutions will standardize on whatever OS the majority of their students are familiar with (=Windows whatever). No, the big priority in Redmond is winning (and keeping) corporate customers. A corporation can standardize around whatever the management likes. A large Virginia-based metals corporation recently standardized on the M$ Office suite with little regard to the hundreds of users who had already effectively entrenched with WordPerfect. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMNIxEY8AYvAI/GnhAQEveQQAtyPwljkPyBCyeD0fv5Bb83TQ4UX6P+g4 tqgQSH+7LpYORHxJvMmWVTocUHWdo+rkx8AngFPvhF9fTl6DB1Qyd8RzeL0Od0f9 WJOcbi5BtS/sqbmU82XWypohk5FCE3fMKCvkCMpNy6ptuvbwLBHmastJxt0FJ8kO wwWQENHp6sg= =O/P9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Balto Sun Followup: Crypto AG a friend of Cypherpunks?
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In an earlier posting, I summarized an article in the Baltimore Sun about the Swiss company Crypto AG that makes encryption machines for the world market. The newspaper ran a follow up article today (12/15/95) that discussed a two page statement issued by Crypto AG. Some of the quotes from the statement that made it into the Baltimore Sun article are: "Pure Invention" "old hearsay" "The allegations are not new at all and just repeat tales which date back 25 or more years" [Crypto AG] "has no political ambitions or claims." My favorite detail, however, was the hint that the rumors are a "well conceived ploy" to harrass a company that is making strong crypto for independent countries. So maybe they're cypherpunks? The rest of the Baltimore Sun article goes on to summarize why the paper printed what it did. These include interviews with apparently anonymous sources identified as "several former Crypto engineers." These engineers told the Sun that they were forced to make design changes by their boss based upon "technical documents provided by mysterious visitors to the Zug plant." -Peter Wayner If you care about this matter, you should dig up the original article from the Baltimore Sun. $3.95. Dial 410-332 6962.

2 1

taking electronic privacy into our own hands
by Eric Anderson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would it be possible to write a program ( i.e. a worm or Trojan) to ferret out personal information that is stored in databases and encrypt it? I was just wondering what such an undertaking would entail. Eric

1 0

Is ths legal?...
by Jay Holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was told today that students at Oklahoma University have their computer accounts subject to administrative inspection and that encryption (even email) without escrow is prohibited. Maybe the story is not quite straight but federal law supposedly protects personal electronic communication and I somehow don't think OU can overide this simply because it passes thru their computers. Sounds like another job for PGP. Jay Holovacs <holovacs(a)ios.com> PGP Key fingerprint = AC 29 C8 7A E4 2D 07 27 AE CA 99 4A F6 59 87 90 (KEY id 1024/80E4AA05) email for key

1 0

Re: Is ths legal?...
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Dec 16, 1995 18:37:05, 'Jay Holovacs <holovacs(a)styx.ios.com>' wrote: >I was told today that students at Oklahoma University have their computer >accounts subject to administrative inspection and that encryption (even >email) without escrow is prohibited. Maybe the story is not quite straight >but federal law supposedly protects personal electronic communication and >I somehow don't think OU can overide this simply because it passes thru >their computers. > First, it may not be true. Second, if it is true, people frequently define the ability to do something as a "privledge" not a "right." As in a hypothetical "Use of student accounts at O.U. is a privledge extended to the students by the University. By using our computer you keep to our rules, including abandoning any notion you might have that your communications are in any way private" etc. etc. --tallpaul

4 4

Political Cleanup program
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Politics is traditionally corrupt, it appears, because donors to politicians and political campaigns expect a quid pro quo for their donations. Various unsatisfactory solutions include campaign spending limits, etc. It occurs to me that it would be a major advance if a system could be set up that would "blind" campaign donations as to their source: The donor could be satisfied that his donation gets to the candidate or cause, but the candidate couldn't know who actually paid the money (and the donor would be unable to prove that he made a donation, for example). Admittedly there are a lot of details that need to be worked out, but if this could be accomplished it would change politics as we know it.

3 2

(fwd) Showdown over e-cash
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: dmk(a)zp.tempo.att.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 20:27:29 -0500 To: www-buyinfo(a)allegra.att.com From: allegra!dmk(a)uunet.uu.net (Dave Kristol) Subject: Showdown over e-cash Take a look at the article by that title at http://www.upside.com/resource/print/9601/ecash.html It's a provocative and rather breathless account of the forthcoming demise of banks as we know them, brought on by electronic transactions. Dave Kristol --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA (617) 958-3971 "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The NEW(!) e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/ >>>>Phree Phil: Email: zldf(a)clark.net http://www.netresponse.com/zldf <<<<<

1 0