December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>We ought to speak out against this Chineese net, and start asking >questions about Western companies that are collaborating in its >construction. *definitely*! >We ought to allow the free export of any crypto tools to any country for >any reason. No! You have no duty to promote an entity that actively acts against your fundamental principles >But if there are going to be any restrictions at all, it >ought to be on tools used for anti-democratic controls. The essence of the measure, or guideline stated in your previous paragraph is to protect freedom and the individual. Therefore, we must *personnally* put try to act in a way compatible with our basic view of how life should really be.

1 0

The V-Chip glass is half full
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As a incurable optimist, I would like to offer a view contrary to all the V-Chip doom and gloom. Consider the Movie rating system as a precedent. In the old days there was a rating system in Hollywood which made it impossible to show a married couple sleeping in the same bed. This situation is analogous to modern TV where George Carlin's 7 naughty words may not be spoken. Contrast that with today's movies. There is a much wider latitude about the movies you can make and distribute. All you have to do is label them NC-17, R. or X and you are clean. Of course, there are newspapers which will not allow you to advertise and theaters which will not show the X/NC-17 movies, but that's the way the market works. With some luck, we will be able to see on TV what we can now see in the movie theater, and the prudes will screen it out with the V-Chip the same way they now screen it out with the movie rating. Everyone is (more or less) happy. Panglossianly yours - Bill

2 1

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, David K. Merriman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 08:27 AM 02/9/96 -0800, Simon Spero <ses(a)tipper.oit.unc.edu> wrote: > > The Administration has repeatedly stated its belief that those parts of > >the bill are unconsitutional, and does not intend to enforce them. > > So why the fornicate did they include them? What's the point of passing laws that they say they're not going to enforce, unless it's either to enforce them later, or soften up the public for something _slightly_ more tolerable later. > ['Fornicate' isn't really a synonym for 'fuck' - only single people can 'fornicate', but married people can still 'fuck' (though apparently there isn't the same motivation)] Basic laws of politics... The reason the telecommunications bill got signed into law in spite of the Exon ammendment is that the bill it was attached to was politically unvetoable. Not only was telecommunications reform an important part of the Clinton/Gore Agenda from 92, but also the amount of lobbying and financial muscle being put behind the bill was such that a veto just because of the CDA would not have been sustained - further, such a veto would be perfect fodder for this Autumn's festival of negative delights. Since it is clear that the courts must reject this part of the bill, it's better to denounce the measure, but sign the bill anyway, knowing that the nasty bits will be cut out (or rather, the nasty bits won't be ... oh, you know what I mean). If the CDA wasn't so blatantly unconstitutional, then I believe that the President would have vetoed it- the anti-abortion elements make it completely unacceptable; however, since the courts really have no choice but to remove the indeceny provisions, Bill gets a pretty nice equivalent of a retroactive line-item veto. Simon p.s. Talking about Negative Ad's: there's a great new book out called "Going Negative" by Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar. This book is an extended write up of some extremely well designed experiments designed to measure the effect of poltical advertisments on the public. For perhaps the first time ever in the Social Sciences, the authors performed actual, real, honest to goodness experiements, and the data are quite convincing. The most worrying results are that 1) Political advertising is isomorphic to the prisoners dilemma, and once an opponent uses a negative ad, the only way to respond is with counter-attacks 2) One of the main effects of negative advertising is not to change peoples votes, but to reduce turnout.

1 0

new zip cracking code
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have any pointers to cryptanalysis papers on the Zip encryption scheme (presented below)? I've seen a few MSDOS executeables which used some sort of brute force attack, which didn't seem particularly intelligent or effective for long passwords. If anyone has some pointers, or source I'd be glad to hear of it. From what I can see of Schlafly's algorithm a bute force attack could be speed up a great deal by pre-compution and expansaion of elements of the first 3 or so rounds at the very least. Ideas anyone? Decryption ---------- The encryption used in PKZIP was generously supplied by Roger Schlafly. PKWARE is grateful to Mr. Schlafly for his expert help and advice in the field of data encryption. PKZIP encrypts the compressed data stream. Encrypted files must be decrypted before they can be extracted. Each encrypted file has an extra 12 bytes stored at the start of the data area defining the encryption header for that file. The encryption header is originally set to random values, and then itself encrypted, using 3, 32-bit keys. The key values are initialized using the supplied encryption password. After each byte is encrypted, the keys are then updated using psuedo-random number generation techniques in combination with the same CRC-32 algorithm used in PKZIP and described elsewhere in this document. The following is the basic steps required to decrypt a file: 1) Initialize the three 32-bit keys with the password. 2) Read and decrypt the 12-byte encryption header, further initializing the encryption keys. 3) Read and decrypt the compressed data stream using the encryption keys. Step 1 - Initializing the encryption keys ----------------------------------------- Key(0) <- 305419896 Key(1) <- 591751049 Key(2) <- 878082192 loop for i <- 0 to length(password)-1 update_keys(password(i)) end loop Where update_keys() is defined as: update_keys(char): Key(0) <- crc32(key(0),char) Key(1) <- Key(1) + (Key(0) & 000000ffH) Key(1) <- Key(1) * 134775813 + 1 Key(2) <- crc32(key(2),key(1) >> 24) end update_keys Where crc32(old_crc,char) is a routine that given a CRC value and a character, returns an updated CRC value after applying the CRC-32 algorithm described elsewhere in this document. Step 2 - Decrypting the encryption header ----------------------------------------- The purpose of this step is to further initialize the encryption keys, based on random data, to render a plaintext attack on the data ineffective. Read the 12-byte encryption header into Buffer, in locations Buffer(0) thru Buffer(11). loop for i <- 0 to 11 C <- buffer(i) ^ decrypt_byte() update_keys(C) buffer(i) <- C end loop Where decrypt_byte() is defined as: unsigned char decrypt_byte() local unsigned short temp temp <- Key(2) | 2 decrypt_byte <- (temp * (temp ^ 1)) >> 8 end decrypt_byte After the header is decrypted, the last two bytes in Buffer should be the high-order word of the CRC for the file being decrypted, stored in Intel low-byte/high-byte order. This can be used to test if the password supplied is correct or not. Step 3 - Decrypting the compressed data stream ---------------------------------------------- The compressed data stream can be decrypted as follows: loop until done read a charcter into C Temp <- C ^ decrypt_byte() update_keys(temp) output Temp end loop -- +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ |Julian Assange | "if you think the United States has | |FAX: +61-3-9819-9066 | stood still, who built the largest | |EMAIL: proff(a)suburbia.net | shopping centre in the world?" - Nixon | +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

1 0

new zip cracking code
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have any pointers to cryptanalysis papers on the Zip encryption scheme (presented below)? I've seen a few MSDOS executeables which used some sort of brute force attack, which didn't seem particularly intelligent or effective for long passwords. If anyone has some pointers, or source I'd be glad to hear of it. From what I can see of Schlafly's algorithm a bute force attack could be speed up a great deal by pre-compution and expansaion of elements of the first 3 or so rounds at the very least. Ideas anyone? Decryption ---------- The encryption used in PKZIP was generously supplied by Roger Schlafly. PKWARE is grateful to Mr. Schlafly for his expert help and advice in the field of data encryption. PKZIP encrypts the compressed data stream. Encrypted files must be decrypted before they can be extracted. Each encrypted file has an extra 12 bytes stored at the start of the data area defining the encryption header for that file. The encryption header is originally set to random values, and then itself encrypted, using 3, 32-bit keys. The key values are initialized using the supplied encryption password. After each byte is encrypted, the keys are then updated using psuedo-random number generation techniques in combination with the same CRC-32 algorithm used in PKZIP and described elsewhere in this document. The following is the basic steps required to decrypt a file: 1) Initialize the three 32-bit keys with the password. 2) Read and decrypt the 12-byte encryption header, further initializing the encryption keys. 3) Read and decrypt the compressed data stream using the encryption keys. Step 1 - Initializing the encryption keys ----------------------------------------- Key(0) <- 305419896 Key(1) <- 591751049 Key(2) <- 878082192 loop for i <- 0 to length(password)-1 update_keys(password(i)) end loop Where update_keys() is defined as: update_keys(char): Key(0) <- crc32(key(0),char) Key(1) <- Key(1) + (Key(0) & 000000ffH) Key(1) <- Key(1) * 134775813 + 1 Key(2) <- crc32(key(2),key(1) >> 24) end update_keys Where crc32(old_crc,char) is a routine that given a CRC value and a character, returns an updated CRC value after applying the CRC-32 algorithm described elsewhere in this document. Step 2 - Decrypting the encryption header ----------------------------------------- The purpose of this step is to further initialize the encryption keys, based on random data, to render a plaintext attack on the data ineffective. Read the 12-byte encryption header into Buffer, in locations Buffer(0) thru Buffer(11). loop for i <- 0 to 11 C <- buffer(i) ^ decrypt_byte() update_keys(C) buffer(i) <- C end loop Where decrypt_byte() is defined as: unsigned char decrypt_byte() local unsigned short temp temp <- Key(2) | 2 decrypt_byte <- (temp * (temp ^ 1)) >> 8 end decrypt_byte After the header is decrypted, the last two bytes in Buffer should be the high-order word of the CRC for the file being decrypted, stored in Intel low-byte/high-byte order. This can be used to test if the password supplied is correct or not. Step 3 - Decrypting the compressed data stream ---------------------------------------------- The compressed data stream can be decrypted as follows: loop until done read a charcter into C Temp <- C ^ decrypt_byte() update_keys(temp) output Temp end loop -- +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ |Julian Assange | "if you think the United States has | |FAX: +61-3-9819-9066 | stood still, who built the largest | |EMAIL: proff(a)suburbia.net | shopping centre in the world?" - Nixon | +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: OK, here's what's wrong.
by avatar＠mindspring.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:55 PM 2/8/96 -0800, you wrote: ><snips> > >>Tell me whats wrong with this section of the telecom bill. I have a six >>year old boy I am trying to raise >>and it is hard enough to teach him respect and values without explaining why >>Ned Beatty is being >>bungholed in the woods by Billy Bob or why the Terminator splattered this >>guys brains all over the >>wall. >> Tell me why parents should not be able to censor their OWN >>television so that they may raise their children the way THEY see >>fit...................Did your dad give you his old >>playboys?.........NOOOOO............ >>Did he take you down to your grandmothers autopsy before her >>funeral?...................I Don't Think So..... > >Agreed. And the government didn't have to force him. > >> Honestly, don't you believe that what a child is exposed to effects >>his judgement, perception, >> attitude,and character?? > >Yes. > >>All I'm saying is it's tough to raise a child these days without the added >>distortion of modern >>programing and parents need not be denied any tool that can help them >>achieve success. > >Agreed, the question is, should the "V." chip be forced in, by government, >or should free-market demand, like your very eloquent demand above, be the >engine. I choose the free market. I might think differently about child- >rearing than you. I may want my kid to see violence or sex, or I may just >not want him/her to see both together. I may want him/her to see the truth >about history and hemp, and you may not. That's the point of a free society, >I don't get to affect your kid's upbringing, and you don't effect mine. The >problems come in when something is forced instead of being allowed to develop >naturally in the marketplace ecosystem. In the ecosystem, there would be >multiple systems and multiple standards of what is "indecent." Filtering >services would flourish, without taxing me. In a coercive government system, >I am forced to buy a TV whith a goddam chip I will never use (no kid) and >there is one standard, and I get taxed. > > >> (3) The average American child is exposed to 25 hours of >> television each week and some children are exposed to as much >> as 11 hours of television a day. > >My parents limited me to 1hr / day, after homework, I chose what to view. >[But I turned into a guy who is a cypherpunk, likes nice blowjobs, reads >Playboy, smokes cigars, etc., so what did they know? <g> Nuff said, point taken. > > > >> (6) Studies indicate that children are affected by the >> pervasiveness and casual treatment of sexual material on >> television, eroding the ability of parents to develop >> responsible attitudes and behavior in their children. > >So get rid of your TV altogether! [Some really do, with excellent results.] Agreed. > >> (7) Parents express grave concern over violent and sexual >> video programming and strongly support technology that would >> give them greater control to block video programming in the >> home that they consider harmful to their children. > >So obviously, the free-marketplace won't work here. Your right again. >> (8) There is a compelling governmental interest in empowering >> parents to limit the negative influences of video programming >> that is harmful to children. > >There is compelling individual interest in being left alone and taxed less. And again. >> (9) Providing parents with timely information about the >> nature of upcoming video programming and with the technological >> tools that allow them easily to block violent, sexual, or other >> programming that they believe harmful to their children is a >> nonintrusive and narrowly tailored means of achieving that >> compelling governmental interest. > >And the marketplace will never do _that_! Alright, Alright already, I can admit defeat..................................Which is more than I can say for most of us. >[Sorry I must be as sarcastic as I am, it's a symptom of Libertarianism;)] > >PS -- Much better .sig. THANX >Sighpsi. > >Thanks for your point of veiw. Charles Donald Smith Jr. ||The government is my shepherd I need not work. It alloweth me to lie down on a good job. It leadeth me beside stilled factories. It destroyeth my initiative. It leadeth me in the path of a parasite for politics sake. YEA, though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficet spending I shall fear no evil, for the government is with me. It prepareth an economic utopia for me by appropriating the earnings of my grandchildren. It filleth my head with false security. My inefficiency runeth over. Surely, the government should care for me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in a fools paradise forever.................AMEN! || nuke'm if ya got'em||

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"ravage(a)ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 7-FEB-1996 01:02:52.78 >> If someone has comitted serious enough violations of rights in the > past, then I would call killing that person justified. First, it prevents any Who defines what the rights are? How are the standards to be applied? Self-defence by the person being killed is not ruled out. -------------- Ultimately, as any other system decides whether rights have been violated. Individual determination, no matter how much the cops and courts may claim they're just following the law, is in the end the deciding factor in how they behave. In other words, each person must decide what rights exist. If that person sees another violating those rights, then they ethically must try to do something about the rights-violator - to stop them at the bare minimum. Solutions which also serve the functions of justice (retribution) and discouragement are optimal. ------------- >It also prevents any understanding of what caused that individual to act the way they did. It also prevents any chance of repentance or growth. It also leaves any question of a mistake moot. I personaly don't want to live in a society where by any stretch of the imagination some group of strangers decide if I live or die. This is ultimately the basic human right. If you seriously support this then it is unreasonable for you to support freedom of speech and the elimination of federal intrusions into it. Killing a person is a very effective method to silence speech. If it is a right then no amount of people are sufficient to take it from you. I don't want my great-great-great-grandchildren to live in that kind of world either. ----------- The mistake one is a problem. There are some cases, though, in which the evidence tends to be pretty clear... and those tend to be the ones in which the person thinks they're justified, or claims as much. These tend to be the governmental cases. Regarding restrictions of rights, if someone violates the rights of another, it is right to take away (permanently or temporarily) some of their rights. First, it is necessary in order to prevent further violations - a variety of self-defense. Second, it is just retribution. Third, the manner of such punishment may be chosen to serve as a discouragement; while it would not be right to chose to punish someone on this basis alone, one may consider it when deciding on details. If you don't agree with the above, how do you justify violating someone's rights in self-defense? Shooting them for trying to kill you definitely prevents their speech, for instance. The concept in question is just a temporally altered version. ------------ >> people in question- government agents, etcetera- are generally a bit > different than the gang members who so regularly ignore prison sentences > and the death penalty.) I disagree strongly with this. Historicaly those gang members have risen to become the government. It occurs often enough to clearly indicate that groups in concert tend to behave the same way toward outsiders. It is a function of human psychology. ----------- You're vastly oversimplifying the motivations of the people in government. They can be divided into two basic groups; the ones who believe in a cause, and the ones who just want power. The first can only be stopped by death when their cause is wrong, although if the cause itself is not wrong but their method of gaining it is, they should be discouragable from using certain methods. The second are quite discouragable - they don't have much power when they're dead. ---------- >> Third, and getting away from the self-defense argument, it is > justice. Whose justice? The victims? Does it bring them justice or just ease your feelings of threat? Would you feel justified? I would feel guilty being involved in any manner with the death of another human being. For me, life is the ultimate treasure (hoaky as that may be), no body irrispective of quantity is wise enough to decide that question in any situation. ------------- Justice in the sense of balancing the scales. If one person has taken away from the rights of another, it is balanced to take away that first person's rights to compensate. They caused another to lose freedom; now they will have their freedom limited. ------------- >> >How many people have to decide that another should be killed for it to be > ethical? In short, how many people does it take to decide it is a legitimate > act to take your own life? > ---------------------- > Why should "how many people" make a difference? A democracy consists of groups acting in concert in various sizes toward a quasi-shared mental model. The majority rule is a basic tenent of government theory. The current system says 12 people are sufficient to decide a persons life. Is 12 strangers sufficient to decide your life? I don't think they are sufficient to decide mine. ---------- I don't really care whether majority rule is a basic tenent of government theory (it isn't, aside from studies of democracies). It's all up to each individual anyway. Democracy is bullshit (fuck Exon and the CDA). Since you left me with a "thought question" that I've tried to answer, I'll leave you with one. Were the assasination attempts on Hitler justified? -Allen

1 0

Re: Req. for soundbites
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >A local TV station has asked me for an interview, after I sent a graphic >of a mono-digital hand gesture with the phrase "censor this!" to the Prez, >Veep, and the area congresscritters (cc'd to 2 TV stations and a radio >station), accompanied by a 'confession' and demand for swift prosecution. > >Anyone got any nifty sound bites I can try to toss in? I think a few of this sig quotes I've seen float through here would be apprapo. It has the be short and concise, and be easily understood by both side of the issue. Insulting or alienating the do-gooders with a quote that could follow us around for awhile would not be in our best interest. Some good ones I've collected are: "Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1773) "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge "To sin by silence instead of protest makes cowards out of men." -- Abraham Lincoln "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume Let's hear some more. lunaslide On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ Digitally sign your mail too! -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Req. for soundbites
by Joe Zychik 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:08 PM 2/9/96 +0600, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >A local TV station has asked me for an interview, after I sent a graphic of a mono-digital hand gesture with the phrase "censor this!" to the Prez, Veep, and the area congresscritters (cc'd to 2 TV stations and a radio station), accompanied by a 'confession' and demand for swift prosecution. > >Anyone got any nifty sound bites I can try to toss in? This guy has some Congressional Soundbites on his site: Damon Lust http://www.lust.org/~damon/ I didn't stay around to listen to them. But, his head seems to be in the right place. He refers to Congress as Corporate Pyscho Criminals. jz Publisher of the Zychik Chronicle. To subscribe send e-mail with sub-cy in the header

2 1

Re: IBM, RSA Security
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>London, 9 February 1996 -- IBM UK has revealed a little >more of the detail surrounding its deal with RSA Data >Security for the Big Blue range of SecureWay Internet >security products and services. It's certainly nice to see such a range of products coming out of a non-US site, and from IBM at that! Does anybody know if they're using RSAREF-compatible software as part of their system? #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0