December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Digital Watermark
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Financial Times, 22 Feb 96 Digital watermark protects copyright Scientists at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton believe they have developed "a fundamental enabling technology" for protecting the copyright of images and music on the Internet. They have developed a secure method of producing a digital watermark, an invisible code that identifies the owner, which is permanently embedded in the multimedia data. Attempts to remove the watermark would be virtually impossible without degrading the image quality. Moreover, counterfeiting would be almost impossible, says NEC. the Japanese electronics company. The digital watermark is designed to be used in conjunction with cryptography, which limits access to encrypted data to legitimate users. NEC Research Institute: US, tel 609-520-1555 fax 609-951-2481.

3 2

Re: TIS--Building in Big Brother for a Better Tommorrow
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:16 PM 2/22/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >And we should all remember, again, that basic observation: even if "key >escrow" is needed to recover *stored* files, it sure ain't needed for >*communications*!! If a key is being generated for two way communications, then it should be generated via a protocol like Diffie-Hellman which leaves no recoverable knowlege of the key outside the participants, and discarded when the session is over of frequently, whichever occurs more often. This procedure will reduce the incentive for rubber hose attacks to recover these keys. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: url
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:23 AM 2/23/96 -0500, Mutant Rob wrote: >Bill Frantz wrote: >> >> At 2:52 PM 2/22/96 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> >Mike McNally writes: >> >> At <URL:http://www.osf.org/~loverso/javascript/track-me.html> find >> >> some interesting "surveillance" applications of Javascript.[..] >> >When is the patch to let you disable JavaScript inside Netscape going >> >to go out? Its more than time. >> >> Why Perry, it's called Netscape 1.1N. :-) > >I think the Options menu in Netscape allows you to disable it already. You can disable Java but not Javascript via the security options. --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

1 0

Re: IBM Breakthrough?
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:03 2/21/96, Mike Duvos wrote: >Now this has some interesting implications. One of the problems >with teleportation devices in Science Fiction stories is that >they allow for the creation of duplicates. They reduce an object >to a pattern by measuring it, and then recreate it at a distance >by assembling atoms of the same types according to the >appropriate directions. There is no theoretical reason why, once >the pattern has been saved, this process could not be repeated >multiple times. This has implications for things like souls and >self-awareness that many people would rather not think about. Its been used in an SF Story/Series <g>. It is the Venus Equilateral Series by George O. Smith. Midway into the Series, they invent a method of doing Teleportation via destruction of the original item, sending the info to the receiver, and recreating the object. In the process of a Court Case involving if the transmission of the signal between the two Teleportation Devices was a transmission of Energy (which was the province of the other party in the case) or a transmission of Data (which was VE's job), they had to invent a Duplicator (in the process allowing the non-destructive readout of the transmission signal). It gets vary hairy for a story or two until Civilization gets adjusted to the Duplicator (they have to invent something that can not be scanned and thus duplicated to act as "Paper" for Money and Contracts/etc since the bottom fell out of the Economy due to no need for most Factories and the lack of uncounterfeitible currency).

1 0

Re: Secure Mail (Was: IMC resolving security workshop)
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:47 AM 2/23/96 +0000, P.J. Ponder wrote: >ObSecureMail: I got the beta Pronto secure mail, but haven't had tome to >fool with it yet, then I got a mesage about a bad key or something. >What's up with that? My experience so far has not been very positive. I have tried both of the betas on Win95. Neither of the betas have been able to get past the "Synchronising keys" section of the setup. The program just keeps accessing my public keyring for almost 30 mins before it returns a cryptic error 111. What I have seen of it, I am not very happy with some of the design choices. You should be able to tell it the hex id of the key that you want to use with the mailer. Nope! It tries to find what it thinks the key should be based on your e-mail address. Since I have two keys under that address, there is a wee bit of a problem. I have tried generating a new one as well, and i still get the problems with the key sync. (As in it not completing and ending with an obscure error message.) So far, my last message to the beta address has gone unanswered on this problem. I would like to test it further, but getting that far has not been very easy at this stage of the development. Not a hopeful sign. --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

1 0

Look, a chain letter :-)
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I received a curious mimetic e-mail. The cypherpunks relevance is: will we or will we not bring down the White House server? :-) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To whoever may read this, This is not a typical chain letter, in that by passing it on to as many people as you can, you are taking part in what may yet become the world's biggest practical joke. The U.S. Government has recently passed an act which enforces censorship on the internet. A group of internet users has now come together to kick back at this oppression, and have a bit of fun at the same time. The aim of this exercise is to re-establish the United States as "The Land of the Free", not a fascist state where freedom of speech and thought are curtailed. Communist Russia fell as a result of such limits being placed upon the minds of the general populus. On receiving this letter, please pass it on to as many friends or E-mail lists as you can. We predict that if everybody copies the letter to 5 other addresses, by February 29th 1996, this letter should have reached in excess of 2 million people. That's when the fun begins........ On February 29th, please send the message: Dear Mr. President, Do you remember this: And afterwards enclose the pre-typed copy of the Bill of Rights. By sending the letter on the date above, you will contribute to either one huge petition for freedom, or else lead to a crash of the White House server. Send all letters to: President(a)Whitehouse.gov Remember that solidarity is the key to success THE BILL OF RIGHTS Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: [No subject]
by Yee, Peter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Earlier, I mentioned that two and a half protocols survived the >> day. The remaining one is MSP. It's actually not a bad protocol. It >> has two features that none of the others have: the ability to label >> classified messages, and a cryptographically strong signed receipt. >> Both of these functions are highly important for government users. It >> looks like government suppliers are going to go ahead and implement >> it, and the government is going to use it. >Although these benefits are present in the current MSP, I >don't see anything inherent in MSP that makes it necessarily superior in these >areas. If you were doing normal MIME-type receipts (whatever that means, since >I think there are three different drafts under way currently), and you simply >added the ability to cryptographically sign a timestamp in the "proper" MIME >receipt type, then MSP would lose this advantage. FIF. I guess this could be said about any of the protocols. With enough changes they all have the same feature set. :-) MSP just has it now and it works. >I think labeling could potentially be done by follow-on >versions of other packages as well, since I think we all agree that generic >labeling which can be used both for standard gov't-style classification levels >and compartments, as well as for business-style sensitivity labeling. In fact, >I'd almost be inclined to say that it would likely be as easy (or easier) to >create a new general-purpose labeling system for use with any of the >competitors than it would be to modify MSP to support business-style labels in >addition to the gov't-style labels I'm sure it has today (maybe it already has >labels, but I don't think that this is that tough of a problem to solve in any >event). Well, read MSP first before assuming. And of course, see above comment. -Peter

1 0

Re: "E-Money" is trademarked
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:54 AM 2/24/96, Jim Miller wrote: >FYI, I learned tonight that Electronic Funds Clearinghouse, Inc., holds >the trademark "E-Money" which is licensed to E-Money, Inc. a Delaware > >Corporation. See the Web page http://www.efunds.com > >I guess I will have to rename my E-Money mini-FAQ. I guess we're left with "D-marks" (D for digital...). I can only hope that someone soon trademarks the stupid "e$" and thus enjoins the rest of us from using it. (On a serious note, yet another example that the American copyrighting and patenting engine is overrevving.) --Tim Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: REM_ote
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:28 PM 2/23/96 -0600, Alex Strasheim wrote: >> Might want to be careful calling Marianne a borderline liar. She's our host >> for Cypherpunks meetings at Sun, where's she's in the Java group. The >> article didn't make it clear that she's with Sun and not Netscape. She's >> also been coming to Cypherpunks meetings since the beginning, and posts >> here occasionally. > >I apologize for the remark, it was out of line. I don't know who she is, >or what she actually said, for that matter. > >But the fact remains that these sorts of security problems were predicted >well before Java was widely deployed. They're serious, and this isn't >going to be the last one. An awful lot of people aren't going to patch >their copies of Netscape any time soon, either. I agree these problems will continue to show up from time to time. With a large security kernel, you will have security bugs. However, if the fixes come out in a week, then the hacking potental is greatly reduced. >(A useful feature for Netscape might be a facility that checks >periodically to see if a security patch is in order, and displays a >warning if it is.) A very good idea. An advantage for web based products. >Problems with security are a fact of life. I've made embarassing mistakes >that compromised security for some of my users. When that happens you >have to come clean, tell the truth, and fix the problem. Don't try to >convince people that you didn't screw up, that the problem isn't serious. >Don't say things that will encourage users to put off installing a >security patch. And don't underestimate the ability of your attackers. This is all true. However, from what I know, in this case you would need to know the details of the flaw, and be able to generate a java bytecode stream which takes advantage of the problem. If the fixes come out quickly, then your attackers don't have much time. However if they discover the flaw before you do you are in deep shit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: REM_ote
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:32 PM 2/23/96, Alex Strasheim wrote: >> Marianne Mueller, Java security engineer, also said the chances of such >> hacking occurring are "remote." > >This is the sort of bullshit that gets companies in trouble. Netscape has >a good record of responding to and fixing security problems. Why should >they feel the need to do spin control? This borders on lying. Might want to be careful calling Marianne a borderline liar. She's our host for Cypherpunks meetings at Sun, where's she's in the Java group. The article didn't make it clear that she's with Sun and not Netscape. She's also been coming to Cypherpunks meetings since the beginning, and posts here occasionally. I'm sure she can speak for herself, but she may not see this comment for a while, hence my comment here. As for the substance of her remarks, best to let her elaborate. Though, knowing journalists, it's quite possible that her "remote" remark was embedded in a much longer comment, which the reporter chose to cut. --Tim may Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 3