December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: More elveator problem
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 9 Dec 1995 00:23:41 -0800, Jerry Whiting wrote: >More on The Elevator Problem: >I'll confess that we're working on a new private key encryption product. Free >and clear of existing claims on intellectual property, I'd like a protocol >that answers the elevator problem: how can Alice and Bob agree on a private >key via a compromised channel? I don't want them to meet under a street lamp >and whisper in each other's ears _before_ trying to establish a secret on a >crowded elevator. [..] >Something that I neglected to mention before is that Alice and Bob do have a >unique ID within this system, not that they necessarily know each others. If >one assumes that they do, they then share a secret: the knowledge of each >other's unique ID. [..] Wait... are unique IDs secret from others? Can they share theirs with ea. other without compromising something? Maybe using a hash of their combined secret ideas (adding them, or mixing the bits... how long is the unique ID?) can be used to generate a "key" to exchange other information.... >Jerry Whiting >jwhiting(a)azalea.com

2 1

*fnord* "Encryption Flaw Rattles Security Industry *fnord*
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Encryption Flaw Rattles Comuter Security Industry" SAN FRANCISCO - The discovery of a vulvnerability has shaken the computer world's faith in the safe use of the data-security technologies on which most current and planned electronic banking, shopping and "digital cash" systems are based. The vulnerability has been found in a class of technologies known as public-key encryption - designed to provide electronic transactions by scrambling data so they can be read only by people with the proper mathematical keys to the code. The flaw was identified by Paul C. Kocher, a 22-year-old researcher, who demonstrated a way that an electronic eavesdropper who is able to monitor the repeated process of unscrambling the incoming messages could figure out the private key. It can be done by repeatedly keeping track of the precise length of time it takes to unscramble each message. --From TimesFax, Mon. Dec. 11 Internet Edition

1 0

*fnord* "Encryption Flaw Rattles Security Industry *fnord*
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Encryption Flaw Rattles Comuter Security Industry" SAN FRANCISCO - The discovery of a vulvnerability has shaken the computer world's faith in the safe use of the data-security technologies on which most current and planned electronic banking, shopping and "digital cash" systems are based. The vulnerability has been found in a class of technologies known as public-key encryption - designed to provide electronic transactions by scrambling data so they can be read only by people with the proper mathematical keys to the code. The flaw was identified by Paul C. Kocher, a 22-year-old researcher, who demonstrated a way that an electronic eavesdropper who is able to monitor the repeated process of unscrambling the incoming messages could figure out the private key. It can be done by repeatedly keeping track of the precise length of time it takes to unscramble each message. --From TimesFax, Mon. Dec. 11 Internet Edition

1 0

*fnord* Addition info *fnord*
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: pck(a)netcom.com (Paul C. Kocher) Subject: Announce: Timing cryptanalysis of RSA, DH, DSS Message-ID: <pckDJEEzH.DJ3(a)netcom.com> Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 01:33:17 GMT Lines: 67 Sender: pck(a)netcom20.netcom.com I've just released details of an attack many of you will find interesting since quite a few existing cryptography products and systems are potentially at risk. The general idea of the attack is that secret keys can be found by measuring the amount of time used to to process messages. The paper describes attacks against RSA, fixed- exponent Diffie-Hellman, and DSS, and the techniques can work with many other systems as well. My research on the subject is still in progress and the current paper does not include many of my findings. I will eventually publish a full paper, but am releasing a preliminary draft now to alert the community as quickly as possible. A copy of the abstract is attached at the end of this message and the full text can be downloaded in PostScript format from: ftp://ftp.cryptography.com/pub/kocher_timing_attack.ps ftp://ftp.cryptography.com/pub/kocher_timing_attack.ps.gz I've also made an HTML version which is accessible at: http://www.cryptography.com (The HTML uses subscripts and superscripts which aren't supported in older web browsers. The PostScript version is the "official" one and looks nicer.) The results have already been seen by Matt Blaze, Martin Hellman, Ron Rivest, Bruce Schneier, and many others. While the full significance of the attack is not yet known, I think everyone who has seen it considers it important (including Netscape who awarded me a $1000 bugs bounty prize). ABSTRACT. Cryptosystems often take slightly different amounts of time to process different messages. With network- based cryptosystems, cryptographic tokens, and many other applications, attackers can measure the amount of time used to complete cryptographic operations. This abstract shows that timing channels can, and often do, leak key material. The attacks are particularly alarming because they often require only known ciphertext, work even if timing measurements are somewhat inaccurate, are computationally easy, and are difficult to detect. This preliminary draft outlines attacks that can find secret exponents in Diffie- Hellman key exchange, factor RSA keys, and find DSS secret parameters. Other symmetric and asymmetric cryptographic functions are also at risk. A complete description of the attack will be presented in a full paper, to be released later. I conclude by noting that closing timing channels is often more difficult than might be expected. Cheers, Paul Kocher ********************************************************************* VERY IMPORTANT: If you send me e-mail, please understand that I probably won't have time to respond to all who write. Please keep messages SHORT and send them to pck(a)cryptography.com (**not** my netcom address -- misdirected messages will be ignored). PGP when used for e-mail is not vulnerable to the attack. Please state in your note whether you would like a reply. ******************************************************************** __________________________________________________________________________ Paul C. Kocher Independent cryptography/data security consultant E-mail: pck(a)cryptography.com (please see above before replying) ======== Xref: news2.new-york.net sci.crypt:5320 Path: news2.new-york.net!spcuna!uunet!in1.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews From: jmrubin(a)ix.netcom.com (Joel M. Rubin) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Announce: Timing cryptanalysis of RSA, DH, DSS Date: 11 Dec 1995 04:35:47 GMT Organization: Union of anti-organizationalists Lines: 11 Message-ID: <4agcf3$enr(a)ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> References: <pckDJEEzH.DJ3(a)netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-sf17-18.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Dec 10 8:35:47 PM PST 1995 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7 I just saw a small article with your name on page 1 of the N.Y. Times Fax 8-page Internet Edition. (Monday, December 11, 1995) They change the edition at about 10:30-11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time (0330-0400 the next GMT day) so if you read this before then, you might want to download http://nytimesfax.com/times.pdf. It is in Adobe Acrobat format. Of course, there is probably a larger article in the paper edition. ======== From: jmrubin(a)ix.netcom.com (Joel M. Rubin) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Announce: Timing cryptanalysis of RSA, DH, DSS Date: 11 Dec 1995 04:38:58 GMT Organization: Union of anti-organizationalists Lines: 7 Message-ID: <4agcl2$enr(a)ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> References: <pckDJEEzH.DJ3(a)netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-sf17-18.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Dec 10 8:38:58 PM PST 1995 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7 In case you don't already know, there is an article about your work in Monday's N.Y. Times. I just read a very small version of it in http://nytimesfax.com/times.pdf. (Adobe Acrobat-format 8-page edition) The N.Y. Times Fax on the web changes edition about 10:30 or 11 P.M. New York time so if you want it, get it before then.

1 0

Time-based cryptanalysis: How to defeat it?
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Assuming Alice is decrypting a secret message sent to her by Bob (on her very slow C64 ;), and Mallet is watching with a stopwatch in hand, hoping to determine Alice's secret key... It would be good to place inside the decryption routines a timer (WELL PLACED!) that waits a random-number of cycles (based on key-strokes, mouse position, etc.) to defeat this type of cryptanalysis?

1 0

Re: More FUD from First Virtual
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:51 AM 12/10/95 -0500, Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(a)fv.com> (Tense Hot Alien In Barn) wrote: >In any event, I could write a virus that sits in >front of the e-cash program and steals your keys when next you run the >e-cash program. Software's just too easy to fool. That's why I regard >the risk of catastrophe as being fairly large in software-based e-cash >schemes. How is this different for an ecash program vs. a First Virtual email acknowledgement program, where either a (really hairy) virus, or, more practically, an active email interloper could fake FV acks? While hardware may be the best encryption solution for the average user (as you say, and I think I agree with you), it needs to have some password interface such as a small keypad on the front of the smartcard, to prevent its usability after theft. Of course, there are problems with digicash as well; my Digicash play-money account thinks it's empty (in spite of having half a dozen coin-looking files), and doesn't recognize any of the half-dozen passwords I've guessed I might have used with it, so I'm not able to use Sameer's digicash-powered remailer. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0663 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281

4 3

Re: GAK and self-incrimination?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:57 AM 12/10/95 -0800, you wrote: >The Fifth protects you against *compelled* self-incrimination - in >particular, the right to be free from the "cruel trilemma" of > > o conviction of a substantive crime, based on your > (true) testimony > o conviction of perjury, for lying when asked to incriminate > yourself > o contempt of court sanctions, for refusing to answer Testimony was often compelled by more direct means than threatened contempt citations. Piling rocks on people until they talked was still in use in the 1600s, unless I've got my dates wrong. It may have gone out of fashion slightly after witch-burning, but was still in recent cultural memory of the Constitution's authors. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0663 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281

2 1

key escrow arguments (fwd)
by David W. Crawford 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From rre-request(a)weber.ucsd.edu Thu Sep 18 23:31:28 1997 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709190039.RAA19449(a)weber.ucsd.edu> From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> To: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Subject: key escrow arguments Resent-Message-ID: <"36_1eD.A.HwE.7mcI0"@weber> Resent-From: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Reply-To: rre-maintainers(a)weber.ucsd.edu X-URL: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html X-Mailing-List: <rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> archive/latest/1680 X-Loop: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: rre-request(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:08:56 -0400 From: Andrew Grosso <agrosso(a)ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> [Published last year in the Federal Bar Journal.] THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ARGUMENT FOR MANDATORY KEY ESCROW ENCRYPTION: THE "DANK" CASE REVISITED by Andrew Grosso (This article is a revised version of a talk given by the author at the 1996 RSA Data Security Conference, held in San Francisco, California. Mr. Grosso is a former federal prosecutor who now has his own law practice in Washington, D.C. His e-mail address is agrosso(a)acm.org.) I would like to start by telling a war story. Some years ago, while I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, I was asked to try a case which had been indicted by one of my colleagues. For reasons which will become clear, I refer to this case as "the Dank case." The defendant was charged with carrying a shotgun. This might not seem so serious, but the defendant had a prior record. In fact, he had six prior convictions, three of which were considered violent felonies. Because of that, this defendant was facing a mandatory fifteen years imprisonment, without parole. Clearly, he needed an explanation for why he was found in a park at night carrying a shotgun. He came up with one. The defendant claimed that another person, called "Dank," forced him to carry the gun. "Dank," it seems, came up to him in the park, put the shotgun in his hands, and then pulled out a handgun and put the handgun to the defendant's head. "Dank" then forced the defendant to walk from one end of the park to other, carrying this shotgun. When the police showed up, "Dank" ran away, leaving the defendant holding the bag, or, in this case, the shotgun. The jurors chose not to believe the defendant's story, although they spent more time considering it than I would like to admit. After the trial, the defendant's story became known in my office as "the Dank defense." As for myself, I referred to it as "the devil made me do it." I tell you this story because it reminds me of the federal government's efforts to justify domestic control of encryption. Instead, of "Dank," it has become, "drug dealers made me do it;" or "terrorists made me do it;" or "crypto anarchists made me do it." There is as much of a rationale basis behind these claims as there was behind my defendant's story of "Dank." Let us examine some of the arguments the government has advanced. It is said that wiretapping is indispensable to law enforcement. This is not the case. Many complex and difficult criminal investigations have been successfully concluded, and successfully argued to a jury, where no audio tapes existed of the defendants incriminating themselves. Of those significant cases, cited by the government, where audio tapes have proved invaluable, such as in the John Gotti trial, the tapes have been made through means of electronic surveillance other than wire tapping, for example, through the use of consensual monitoring or room bugs. The unfetted use of domestic encryption could have no effect on such surveillance. It is also said that wiretapping is necessary to prevent crimes. This, also, is not the case. In order to obtain a court order for a wire tap, the government must first possess probable cause that a crime is being planned or is in progress. If the government has such probable cause concerning a crime yet in the planning stages, and has sufficient detail about the plan to tap an individual's telephone, then the government almost always has enough probable cause to prevent the crime from being committed. The advantage which the government gains by use of a wiretap is the chance to obtain additional evidence which can later be used to convict the conspirators or perpetrators. Although such convictions are desirable, they must not be confused with the ability to prevent the crime. The value of mandating key escrow encryption is further eroded by the availability of super encryption, that is, using an additional encryption where the key is not available to the government. True, the government's mandate would make such additional encryption illegal; however the deterrence effect of such legislation is dubious at best. An individual planning a terrorist act, or engaging in significant drug importation, will be little deterred by prohibitions on the means for encoding his telephone conversations. The result is that significant crimes will not be affected or discouraged. In a similar vein, the most recent estimates of the national cost for implementing the Digital Telephony law, which requires that commercial telecommunications companies wiretap our nation's communications network for the government's benefit, is approximately three billion dollars. Three billion dollars will buy an enormous number of police man hours, officer training, and crime fighting equipment. It is difficult to see that this amount of money, by being spent on wire tapping the nation, is being spent most advantageously with regard to law enforcement's needs. Finally, the extent of the federal government's ability to legislate in this area is limited. Legislation for the domestic control of encryption must be based upon the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause would not prohibit an individual in, say, the state of California from purchasing an encryption package manufactured in California, and using that package to encode data on the hard drive of his computer, also located in California. It is highly questionable whether the commerce clause would prohibit the in-state use of an encryption package which had been obtained from out of state, where all the encryption in done in-state and the encrypted data is maintained in- state. Such being the case, the value of domestic control of encryption to law enforcement is doubtful. Now let us turn to the disadvantages of domestic control of encryption. Intentionally or not, such control would shift the balance which exists between the individual and the state. The individual would no longer be free to conduct his personal life, or his business, free from the risk that the government may be watching every move. More to the point, the individual would be told that he would no longer be allowed to even try to conduct his life in such a manner. Under our constitution, it has never been the case that the state had the right to obtain evidence in a criminal investigation. Rather, under our constitution, the state was given the right to attempt to obtain such evidence. The distinction is crucial: it is the difference between the operation of a free society, and the operation of a totalitarian state. Our constitution is based upon the concept of ordered liberty. That is, there is a balance between law and order, on the one hand, and the liberty of the individual on the other. This is clearly seen in our country's bill of rights, and the constitutional protections afforded our accused: evidence improperly obtained is suppressed; there is a ban on the use of involuntary custodial interrogation, including torture, and any questioning of the accused without a lawyer; we require unanimous verdicts for convictions; and double jeopardy and bills of attainder are prohibited. In other words, our system of government expressly tolerates a certain level of crime and disorder in order to preserve liberty and individuality. It is difficult to conceive that the same constitution which is prepared to let a guilty man go free, rather than admit an illegally seized murder weapon into evidence at trial, can be interpreted to permit whole scale, nationwide, mandatory surveillance of our nation's telecommunications system for law enforcement purposes. It is impossible that the philosophy upon which our system of government was founded could ever be construed to accept such a regime. I began this talk with a war story, and I would like to end it with another war story. While a law student, I had the opportunity to study in London for a year. While there, I took one week, and spent it touring the old Soviet Union. The official Soviet tour guide I was assigned was an intelligent woman. As a former Olympic athlete, she had been permitted in the 1960's to travel to England to compete in international tennis matches. At one point in my tour, she asked me why I was studying in London. I told her that I wanted to learn what it was like to live outside of my own country, so I chose to study in a country where I would have little trouble with the language. I noticed a strange expression on her face as I said this. It was not until my tour was over and I looked back on that conversation that I realized why my answer had resulted in her having that strange look. What I had said to her was that I had chosen to go to overseas to study; further, I had said that I had chosen where to go. That I could make such decisions was a right which she and the fellow citizens did not have. Yes, she had visited England, but it was because her government chose her to go, and it was her government which decided where she should go. In her country, at that time, her people had order, but they had no liberty. In our country, the domestic control of encryption represents a shift in the balance of our liberties. It is a shift not envisioned by our constitution. If ever to be taken, it must be based upon a better defense than what "Dank," or law enforcement, can provide. end

1 0

OGY, chaotic scrambling
by Laurent Den-Hollander 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A few years back i ran thru a paper emanating from a navy labs researcher (i think the name was Peccora) about using synchronised chaotic signal generators as a signal scrambling/encrytpion scheme. Has there been any kind of progress in this line of work, practical applications ? Answer on C4i-pro or directly email to Denholl(a)ceram.fr L. Den-Hollander. OIT engineer.

1 0

Welcome to cypherpunks
by Majordomo＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- Welcome to the cypherpunks mailing list! If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "Majordomo(a)toad.com" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe cypherpunks Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypher(a)infinity.nus.sg> Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: About cypherpunks ----------------- I. Administrivia (please read, boring though it may be) The cypherpunks list is a forum for discussing personal defenses for privacy in the digital domain. It is a high volume mailing list. If you don't know how to do something, like unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo(a)toad.com and the software robot which answers that address will send you back instructions on how to do what you want. If you don't know the majordomo syntax, an empty message to this address will get you a help file, as will a command 'help' in the body. Even with all this automated help, you may still encounter problems. If you get really stuck, please feel free to contact me directly at the address I use for mailing list management: cypherpunks-owner(a)toad.com Please use this address for all mailing list management issues. Hint: if you try to unsubscribe yourself from a different account than you signed up for, it likely won't work. Log back into your old account and try again. If you no longer have access to that account, mail me at the list management address above. Also, please realize that there will be some cypherpunks messages "in transit" to you at the time you unsubscribe. If you get a response that says you are unsubscribed, but the messages keep coming, wait a day and they should stop. For other questions, my list management address is not the best place, since I don't read it every day. To reach me otherwise, send mail to eric(a)remailer.net This address is appropriate for emergencies (and wanting to get off the list is never an emergency), such as the list continuously spewing articles. Please don't send me mail to my regular mailbox asking to be removed; I'll just send you back a form letter. Do not mail to the whole list asking to be removed. It's rude. The -request address is made exactly for this purpose. To post to the whole list, send mail to cypherpunks(a)toad.com If your mail bounces repeatedly, you will be removed from the list. Nothing personal, but I have to look at all the bounce messages. There is no digest version available. There is an announcements list which is moderated and has low volume. Announcements for physical cypherpunks meetings, new software and important developments will be posted there. Mail to cypherpunks-announce-request(a)toad.com if you want to be added or removed to the announce list. All announcements also go out to the full cypherpunks list, so there is no need to subscribe to both. II. About cypherpunks The cypherpunks list is not designed for beginners, although they are welcome. If you are totally new to crypto, please get and read the crypto FAQ referenced below. This document is a good introduction, although not short. Crypto is a subtle field and a good understanding will not come without some study. Please, as a courtesy to all, do some reading to make sure that your question is not already frequently asked. There are other forums to use on the subject of cryptography. The Usenet group sci.crypt deals with technical cryptography; cypherpunks deals with technical details but slants the discussion toward their social implications. The Usenet group talk.politics.crypto, as is says, is for political theorizing, and cypherpunks gets its share of that, but cypherpunks is all pro-crypto; the debates on this list are about how to best get crypto out there. The Usenet group alt.security.pgp is a pgp-specific group, and questions about pgp as such are likely better asked there than here. Ditto for alt.security.ripem. The cypherpunks list has its very own net.loon, a fellow named L. Detweiler. The history is too long for here, but he thinks that cypherpunks are evil incarnate. If you see a densely worded rant featuring characteristic words such as "medusa", "pseudospoofing", "treachery", "poison", or "black lies", it's probably him, no matter what the From: line says. The policy is to ignore these postings. Replies have never, ever, not even once resulted in anything constructive and usually create huge flamewars on the list. Please, please, don't feed the animals. III. Resources. A. The sci.crypt FAQ anonymous ftp to rtfm.mit.edu:pub/usenet-by-group/sci.crypt The cryptography FAQ is good online intro to crypto. Very much worth reading. Last I looked, it was in ten parts. B. cypherpunks ftp site anonymous ftp to ftp.csua.berkeley.edu:pub/cypherpunks This site contains code, information, rants, and other miscellany. There is a glossary there that all new members should download and read. Also recommended for all users are Hal Finney's instructions on how to use the anonymous remailer system; the remailer sources are there for the perl-literate. C. Bruce Schneier's _Applied Cryptography_, published by Wiley This is required reading for any serious technical cypherpunk. An excellent overview of the field, it describes many of the basic algorithms and protocols with their mathematical descriptions. Some of the stuff at the edges of the scope of the book is a little incomplete, so short descriptions in here should lead to library research for the latest papers, or to the list for the current thinking. All in all, a solid and valuable book. It's even got the cypherpunks-request address. IV. Famous last words My preferred email address for list maintenance topics only is hughes(a)toad.com. All other mail, including emergency mail, should go to hughes(a)ah.com, where I read mail much more regularly. Enjoy and deploy. Eric ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to play with secure communications of all kinds. Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress. Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy. [Last updated Mon Feb 21 13:18:25 1994]

1 0