December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Applied Cryptography MPLS Book Release
by Charles Gimon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Did I mention that Bruce Schneier and Ms. Cooper are charming hosts with an excellent caterer? Probably not, with all the Netscape/GAK hoo-hah going on. Well, if you'll excuse me for posting thanks a couple of days late, thanks for an excellent time. It was good to see some of the local folks in person again.

1 0

FW: websurfer 4.6 (fwd)
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

so much for compatibility....guess I'm sticking with netscape for now. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 16:49:34 PST >From: Netmanage Technical Support <Support(a)netmanage.com> To: Michael Froomkin <froomkin(a)law.miami.edu> Subject: FW: websurfer 4.6 Hello, Thank you for emailing NetManage Technical Support. WebSurfer 4.6 was designed to work on Winsock 1.1 compliant systems. Since you are running Winsock version 2.0 this may be the reason for the application not working. We will report this to Engineering so hopefully in a future release WebSurfer might be able to support this new Winsock version. Thank you for considering Chameleon WebSurfer, Support(a)netmange.com == [earlier, I had said:] won't start on my pentium 100 w/ 20Mb running qemm 7.04, windows 3.11, winsock 2.0 rev B on a novell 3.x LAN. Netscape runs fine. This might help: Trumpet Winsock Version 2.0 Revision B Copyright (c) 1993,1994 by Peter R. Tattam All Rights Reserved. THIS IS AN UNREGISTERED SHAREWARE VERSION FOR EVALUATION ONLY. Ethernet address = 00:00:F4:D2:64:D3 WINPKT packet driver located on vector $66 IP buffers = 32 Performing bootp...Bootp successful My IP = 129.171.188.92 netmask = 255.255.255.0 gateway = 129.171.188.1 Task WEBSURF(22E7) did not call WSACleanup. Task WEBSURF(38EF) did not call WSACleanup. -----------------End of Original Message----------------- If responding to a previous message please include the original for our reference. To ensure a faster reply be sure to reply to 'support(a)netmanage.com' and not to individual sender of messages. -- /\ **********/@@\ ********************************* \__/ NetManage Inc. W AA W Home of Chameleon TCPIP for Windows |__AYA__/ TCPIP Apps for Windows and NT AXXV VXXV W VUV W Technical Support (408)973-8181 |_/ V \_/ __ Fax (408)973-8272 \ [_ \ \_____/ MIME enclosures are OK gopher server: gopher.netmanage.com www: http:/www.netmanage.com For a list of current NetManage products use WebSurfer and go to: http://www.netmanage.com:80/netmanage/products/upgrade.html Serendipity 11/20/95 10:36:42 AM This message was sent by Chameleon

2 1

lance's netscape-gak page
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lance asked me to announce his page to the list, if he fell asleep. Looks like he hasn't announced it, so here's the announcement. Lance's netscape-GAK page is available from his homepage at http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ the graphic is nice. ;-) -- sameer Voice: 510-601-9777 Community ConneXion FAX: 510-601-9734 The Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376 http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest") sameer(a)c2.org

1 0

Info on Netscape's key escrow position
by Jeff Weinstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had lunch with Jim Clark today, and explained the furor that was currently going on in cypherpunks and elsewhere. After lunch he sent me the e-mail that I've attached below to pass along. I think the gist of it is that if governments require key escrow, we will have to do it in order to sell our products with encryption into those countries. We've actively lobbied against the government's proposal through our participation and support of industry efforts by the ITAA, BSA, SPA and others. Next week we will be sending two representatives to the NIST key escrow conference in DC. In preparation for that meeting we have been formulating an official company position on key escrow and export restrictions. Phil, myself, and other folks with cypherpunk leanings are involved in writing the policy statement. We are planning on taking a firm position against the government's key escrow proposals. Some time next week we will be posting our statement publicly, and will welcome your comments on it then. After the NIST meeting we will also be talking to folks in congress and the white house about our position, looking for help in getting the current export limitations removed. We will also be looking for help in getting the government's position on export controlled FTP sites clarified so that we can make the US version of the Navigator with 128-bit crypto available for download by those people who are legally allowed to use it. We don't have any plans to stop doing separate US and export versions of our software. As long as our customers want strong crypto and the government lets us sell it, I think we will keep doing it. --Jeff Jim Clark wrote: > > I made some pragmatic comments. > > I said that if we are to use this encryption technology in business, we must > have a better solution than to limit keylength or put keys in escrow. All > governments of the world have a valid concern about terrorism and other > activities of concern to the security of their nations. All of them will > continue to restrict our ability to provide products to their markets unless > we build in some mechanism that allows them to legally access > information that is in the interest of their national security. (We obviously > cannot be involved in determining what is legal by the laws of that country.) > This is not just a US government problem. Until recently, France did not even > allow us to sell products with 40-bit keys, much less 128-bit keys. > > A lot of ordinary citizens are rightly concerned about their own privacy. I > am one of them. I do not want the government to snoop on me, but in fact the > government, through the FBI, can now tap my phone without my knowing it by > simply getting sufficient evidence that I am conducting illegal activities, > then presenting this evidence to a court to get permission. I have no say in > the matter. > > If we as a company were to take the position that in no case will we allow > a government to get access to our encrypted messages, or refuse to allow > key escrow with our products, the governments of the world will quickly put > us out of business by outlawing the sale of our products in their countries. > The fundamental issue is how do we accommodate the requirements of governments, > while protecting our rights as citizens. > > None of this represents the position of Netscape with respect to what we > will do. But if we do not come up with a solution to this problem that is > acceptable to each government, we will not be able to export our products, > except with a short key length (e.g. 40 bit keys), and that will not be > acceptable to corporate customers in other countries. They will create their > own solution, and we will not be able to sell to a larger world market. In > fact, we could even be ordered by our own government to establish a key > escrow system for its use inside the US. > > Ironically, anyone in the US may import unbreakable encryption technology from > another country -- we just cannot sell it back to them. No one ever accused the > government of being rational. > > I chair an industry group called the "Global Internet Project", with members > from almost twenty companies, including companies from Asia and Europe. This > was the central issue we all agreed upon this morning, and we are putting > together a policy statement whose purpose is to educate lawmakers on the > importance of quick resolution of this matter. > > Thanks for your concern. Let me know what you like and don't like. Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist Netscape Communication Corporation jsw(a)netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw Any opinions expressed above are mine.

6 6

FutureNet Registration
by FutureNet Server 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Congratulations, you have just sucessfully registered for FutureNet, Europe's most popular e-zine. Your registration details are: Username: cypherpunks Password: cypherpunk You should bookmark a page within FutureNet so that you can revisit the site without having to type in your username and password again. The URL for the FutureNet homepage is: http://www.futurenet.co.uk/,cypherpunks,cypherpunk,/menu.html Keep this message somewhere safe, it contains your FutureNet reader identification details. If you have any problems accessing FutureNet, send mail to webmaster(a)futurenet.co.uk.

1 0

Why Netscape employees should not leave...
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:33 AM 12/2/95, sameer wrote: >> >> So, for a 15% reduction in salary and 30 days of job search, is it worth it? > > 30 days? in silicon valley? you *must* be joking. (i suppose >the market for good net-folks isn't as big over on the right coast.) Just a minor clarification. I don't speak for any of the Netscape employees here (nor am I encouraging them to leave...they cay do *more* within Netscape than merely be resigning in some sort of protest). The _salary_ figure is not the key issue. Stock options are. Their stock options were almost certainly priced before the big run-up in price these last few months, and most likely priced at the IPO price or even lower. It is quite likely that these stock options are worth far, far more than salary. True, other companies offer stock options, but their Netscape options are already "in the money" by a wide margin, which is an incredible incentive to stick around. I'm critical of Netscape, like others are, on various issues. But I sure do hope we never turn this criticism into suggestions that Jeff and the other Netscape folks here should quit in protest. That smacks too much of "you're working for the war machine!" stridency. (Next we'll be having people dump buckets of blood over piles of Netscape Navigator at Fry's.) I read the Jim Clark statement that Jeff forwarded. It seemed noncomittal on the actual issue of whether Netscape will build a U.S.-supported GAK (as opposed to offering GAK for the Iraqis or French). I await with interest the clarification of the anti-GAK stance that Jeff alluded to. --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."

5 4

EXO_ner
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SenXon and The Washrag blow today about which has the most to be ashamed of and hide from the filthy lingerie leering republic. EXO_ner (sheer kb)

1 0

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Netscape browser chose the wrong time, this morning, to tell me that my demo copy was about to expire.

1 0

Re: Why Netscape employees should not leave...
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Of course given the great market success of the other Clipper products, I wouldn't be counting my stock options before they hatch. Browsers are not that complicated. Nor are HTTP servers. A US-only, truly secure system would be easy to build. SSL is designed to be expanded to include new algorithms. It's pretty good in that respect. If I were considering launching a Clipperized Browser, I would really consider the negative effect it would have on its marketability and its stock price.

2 1

Netscape GAK page.
by loki＠obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have gone back and improved the "Netscape GAK?" page based on a good nights sleep and some helpful suggestions (thanks you all who mailed me about the page). I would appreciate feedback on the page, especially from Netscape or its employees (in an official or unofficial capacity). I have tried to be even handed in my presentation of the information, while not hiding the fact that I strongly disagree with the stance that Netscape has taken. <http://www.obscura.com/~loki/GAK.html> -Lance -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMMCoVPPzr81BVjMVAQF5vQf/R1AgxAEhjR8AkD29WbRFHqA7wpw5R6dq B2YJGM9J2g5g9y6gf/YKTGVp/Lp4qmExhi3zZPkOsHefF/xufBZ7N42depO9F0dS cqGcCq8+qhTYeNhjjqMn1DgM9oeuVJdDCF1KUonUhQiiWthTAlgFLsWwcQznq7FK J533laBREzrXmxAQbfxnw/cc7J9wRPuzUgDQ61RlO8x1VtZxugSvbVpFDpDBYL1A W028bnKJfK52cp6nliKjjk6k5ElccPsLk82mS0Fyhfh+Gt4QMLx+UHuKgaVwGHsa m6sAXMxuWDg2x3myW0NKxs8qj9hDZzwG4T7/QFSKbkQkQGFIvWa+Fw== =h3v6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

2 1