December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"m5(a)dev.tivoli.com" 22-FEB-1996 11:47:13.40 >Perry E. Metzger writes: > > If you start with 100 bits of entropy, your stream will have only 100 > > bits of entropy. If you start with 1024 bits, you will have a kilobit > > of entropy, and so forth. > > > > This may seem like a lot, but it really isn't. I'm an almost complete novice at cryptography, and even I know that Perry is completely correct in this. Look at it this way. You've got a computer algorithm doing something or another. Given the two pieces of information (the entropy) of the initial somewhat random number and the number of iterations, it will produce _one_ and _only one_ number out the end. Now, if you have a high-quality PRNG (that's what this is), it will be very hard to predict what set of numbers will turn out just from knowing the algorithm, but you're still not adding to the number of possibilities from your initial random number. >...and note that IPG does us the favor of ensuring the keys conform to >this elaborate battery of statistical tests. Thus, there are bunches >of keys that "aren't random enough" and thus not among the set to be >considered when trying to break one. Quite. It's about like my doing an experiment with randomly selected groups and deliberately selecting only ones that match my preconcieved notions of how it's supposed to be. You can do that for things that aren't what one is looking at (i.e., controlling for stuff), but do it with the _result_ and you'll be laughed out of any respectable journal in which you try to publish it. -Allen

1 0

Re: Hash of plaintext as key?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:56 AM 2/22/96 -0800, John Pettitt <jpp(a)software.net> wrote: >I have this application which encrypts software prior to distribution. I'd >like to pre-encrypt most of the data (individual files) and then just >encrypt all the individual file keys with a customer specific key at run >time. (This is mostly a CPU cycle saving thing). Depending on the security environment you're running in, this can be fine or can be dangerous; think about your threat models carefully. For some applications, it makes a lot of sense. It does give you a traffic analysis problem - Eavesdroppers can tell that you sent the same document to Alice, Bob, and Eve, but not Fred, in case this matters to you. You could strengthen it a bit by superencrypting the copy you send to the user with a very fast Snake-Oil algorithm, but Eve has the real document (and the version encrypted with the good algorithm), so she's got known plaintext for cracking messages sent to Alice and Bob if she wants. In a DES world, you might do almost-triple-DES by encrypting with two common keys up front and use DES with separate third keys for the final stage. With RC4 or RC5, that doesn't gain you much, since the difference between RC4/40 and RC4/256 is all in the key-scheduling phase, not the bulk part. >I thought I'd use the MD5 (or SHA) hash of the plaintext as the key. Plenty >of entropy in the entire plaintext, a different key for each file and if you >know the plaintext to calculate they key you don't need the key anyway! It doesn't really gain you anything; generating pseudo-random key bits isn't much work compared to encrypting the files or public-key encrypting the file keys to send to users, and there's no benefit other than getting some extra entropy bits (which you may want to do anyway to stir into your entropy pool in addition to using a random number source.) What it does risk, in case this threat matters, is that somebody who can guess the documents you might be encrypting can calculate their MD5s and trial decrypt. This lets them verify whether a given document is in the encrypted database, for instance. One of the NSA Rainbow Books discusses secure databases - maybe Purple or Gray? #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs Pager +1-408-787-1281

1 0

SET spec available
by John Pettitt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The SET transaction spec is now available on www.visa.com (and presumably on www.mastercard.com although I didn't check). Highlights are: It cops out on the big one - how to identify card users in the first place to issue certificates. The MS/Visa 'credential' that looked like a certificate but wasn't has been replace by X.509 -- John Pettitt email: jpettitt(a)well.sf.ca.us (home) jpp(a)software.net (work)

1 0

Re: pcmcia
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:58 AM 2/22/96 +0000, you wrote: >I am just assuming that the Association (PCMCIA) has a way of distributing >specs, etc. You can call them in San Jose, CA @ 408 433 2273 $475.00 for non-members, paper only. $715, paper/CD both. >I also assume they have a web page and all that, maybe >even a citizen-unit subscribed to this mailing list who probably could >point us in the right direction. www.pc-card.com, I believe >I think PCMCIA cards offer a lot of >potential as wallets and general purpose privacy prophylaxis engines. Absolutely, and without doubt. They are coming. >I don't know anything about the technology, but the device drivers, et al, >could be publicly reviewed and recompiled on trusted machines, presumably, >and the device itself could be tested (I assume) with a publicly >available routine that once again one could install from source, etc. There are commercially available drivers, tested rigorously. Fortezza cards and s/w are very solid, as well as other cards derived from that type of technology. Fortezza cards are self-testing. > >how much do the slots cost to add on to pc's that don't already have them? >Is there a parallel interface, for instance, that can plug into a >printer port? SCM Microsystems, 408 370 4888 has a "Swap Box" product. I don't know the cost. >-- >PJ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >On Thu, 22 Feb 1996, Adam Shostack wrote: > >> P.J. Ponder wrote: >> >> | obligatory crypto comment: has anyone looked at the iPower card and >> | gotten one to play with? Where else could one get a PCMCIA card that was >> | programmable and had a little memory on it? How hard would it be to make >> | one - in other words, what could we get the cost down to for an >> | encrypting pcmcia card? there couldn't be much to it, really, could there? >> >> I got one, its very badly documented; theres some source in >> Visual basic for windoze. I haven't had time to track down real docs >> so I can do anything. Anyone know who I can call to get real >> documentation? >> >> Adam >> >> >> -- >> "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." >> -Hume >> > >

1 0

The "excrable" e$
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:02 AM 2/24/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >I can only hope that someone soon trademarks the stupid "e$" and thus >enjoins the rest of us from using it. Or, as Mr. May has said in the past, "the excrable" e$. ;-). >(On a serious note, yet another example that the American copyrighting and >patenting engine is overrevving.) Say "amen", somebody. Actually, *I* seem to be the unfortunate wretch who coined (ahem...) the term "e$", as it refers to a dollar digitally spent on the internet. My apologies to those spenders of yen, marks, and pounds. I hope I can take some solice in the notion that all money's fungible. :-). In addition, there's no reason not to use e¥, or e£, if people can read your character maps. One of the reasons I chose e$ is that I believe $ is way down deep in the ASCII character set, and thus most machines will display it. Ethnocentrism and potential trademark enfringements aside, a bit of pronounciation may be useful here: when I see "e$" alone in text, I say "e-money" (again, my apologies), and when I see "e$10.00", I say "ten e-dollars". Speaking of trademarks, I had hoped that by using "e$" everywhere that we could avoid such legal mechanations, in the same vein that various mathematical notation schemes cannot be copyrighted (I think). For the lawyers out there, is it possible to do the equivalent of a GNU GPL "copy-left" with a potential trademark like "e$"? If it is, I'd like to do that. Ubiquity is power, and all that, "excrable" symbols and all... <PlugMode-on> Anyone interested in discussing trends in, or the consequences (economic, social or otherwise) of *financial* cryptography on public networks, is cordially invited to subscribe to the e$ mail list. Send "subscribe e$" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)thumper.vmeng.com, and, after you've subscribed, introduce yourself! The list is unmoderated. <PlugMode-off> Cheers, Bob Hettinga (e$mpressario) ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

2 1

InterNIC Guardian Object Draft
by Eric Eden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We're distributing this to the Internet community for comments and suggestions. If you have any ideas for improving this draft please let us know. I apologize in advance for the length, but the authors are really interested in your thoughts. Thanks, Eric Eden erice(a)internic.net InterNIC Registration Services 703-736-0145 [ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/policy/internic/internic-gen-1.txt ] [ 2/96 ] Jasdip Singh Network Solutions Mark Kosters Network Solutions The InterNIC Guardian Object DRAFT Table of Contents 1. Introduction....................................................... 1 2. Main Features of a Guardian........................................ 1 3. Guardian Attributes................................................ 1 4. Registering the Guardian Attributes................................ 4 4.1 Using the New Contact Template.................................... 5 4.2 Using the Modified Registration Templates......................... 5 5. Linking Guardian Information to Existing Records................... 5 6. Notification....................................................... 6 7. Object Update Rules................................................ 6 7.1 Request from a Contact with Authentication Information............ 7 7.2 Request from a Contact without Authentication Information......... 7 7.3 Request from a Sender not listed as a Contact..................... 7 8. Object Use Rules................................................... 8 8.1 Request from a Contact............................................ 8 8.2 Request from a Sender not listed as a Contact..................... 8 9. Other Guardian Issues.............................................. 8 9.1 Number of Guardians per Object.................................... 8 9.2 Protecting Guardian Information................................... 9 9.3 Displaying Guardian Information................................... 9 10. Conclusion........................................................ 9 11. References........................................................ 9 12. Acknowledgements.................................................. 9 A. The Proposed Contact Template...................................... 10 B. The Proposed Link Template......................................... 12 C. The Proposed Notify Template....................................... 14 D. Object Update Rules................................................ 15 E. Object Use Rules................................................... 16 F. Examples........................................................... 17 F.1 How to Register a New Contact with Authentication Information..... 17 F.2 How to Link Guardian Information to Existing Records.............. 18 F.3 How to Update a Guarded Record.................................... 19 F.4 WHOIS Display of Guardian Information............................. 20 [Page i] 1. Introduction This document proposes a model to authorize changes made to the Objects (Domains, Networks, Autonomous System Numbers, and Hosts) registered with the InterNIC. The registration activity at the InterNIC has increased exponentially with the rapid growth of the Internet. In the absence of a formal authorization model, the likelihood of making malicious changes to the registered Objects has also increased and could have serious consequences at the affected sites. For example, an unauthorized update could lead a commercial organization to lose its presence on the Internet until that update is reversed. 2. Main Features of a Guardian - A Guardian is an Object that protects other Objects from unauthorized changes. It is basically a Contact with Authentication Information. - The different authorization schemes to authenticate a Guardian are MAIL-FROM, CRYPT-PW, and PGP. - The use of a Guardian is optional. - An Object may be guarded by multiple Guardians with each Guardian having an equal authority to make changes to the Object. 3. Guardian Attributes Currently, the InterNIC allows a registered Object to be updated if the request came from one of its Contacts. This model is weak due to potential mail spoofing. To allow for stronger authorization schemes, the proposed authorization model defines a new Object called Guardian. A Guardian is basically a Contact with Authentication Information. It inherits the attributes of a Contact Object and has the additional authentication attributes. The definition of a Guardian is derived from a Contact because a particular Contact (Administrative, Technical, or Billing) represents some form of holding of a registered Object and the holder of an Object is most likely to guard it also. [Page 1] The attributes of a Guardian are: Name Required Type Required Address Required Phone Required Fax Optional Email Required Notify Update Optional Notify Use Optional Auth Scheme Required * Auth Info Required * Public Optional * The Auth Scheme and Auth Info attributes are required only for a Guardian Object (a Contact with Authentication Information) and not for a Contact Object (a Contact without Authentication Information). Name, Type, Address, Phone, Fax, Email, Notify Update, and Notify Use are the attributes a Guardian inherits from a Contact Object. Auth Scheme, Auth Info, and Public are the additional authentication attributes of a Guardian. Name Name of a Guardian. Type Type of a Guardian. It can have values I (Individual) or R (Role Account). Address Postal address of a Guardian. Phone Phone number of a Guardian. Fax Fax number of a Guardian. Email Email address of a Guardian. [Page 2] Notify Update This attribute determines if and when a Guardian should be notified about the update of an Object the Guardian is responsible for. It can have values BEFORE-UPDATE, AFTER-UPDATE, and NOT-CARE. BEFORE-UPDATE The Guardian will be notified before updating the Object. AFTER-UPDATE The Guardian will be notified after updating the Object. AFTER-UPDATE is the default value. NOT-CARE The Guardian will not be notified about the Object update because it does not want to be notified. Currently, a Guardian's Notify Update attribute will be the same for all the Objects the Guardian is responsible for. In future, it will be defined on a per Object basis for each of the Objects a Guardian is guarding. Notify Use This attribute determines if and when a Guardian should be notified about the use of an Object the Guardian is responsible for. For example, a Guardian of a Host may be notified when someone else lists it as a DNS server for a Domain. It can have values BEFORE-USE, AFTER-USE, and NOT-CARE. BEFORE-USE The Guardian will be notified before using the Object. AFTER-USE The Guardian will be notified after using the Object. AFTER-USE is the default value. NOT-CARE The Guardian will not be notified about the Object use because it does not want to be notified. Currently, a Guardian's Notify Use attribute will be the same for all the Objects the Guardian is responsible for. In future, it will be defined on a per Object basis for each of the Objects a Guardian is guarding. Auth Scheme Authorization scheme used to authenticate a Guardian before updating the Object it is guarding. The proposed schemes in an increasing order of strength are MAIL-FROM, CRYPT-PW, and PGP [1]. MAIL-FROM MAIL-FROM will parse the FROM: field in the mail header of an update message and match it with the email address of the Guardian guarding the Object to be updated. MAIL-FROM is the default Auth Scheme. [Page 3] CRYPT-PW CRYPT-PW will encrypt the cleartext password supplied in an update message and match it with the encrypted password of the Guardian guarding the Object to be updated. Initially when a new Guardian is being registered or the authentication information is being added to an existing Contact, the encrypted password MUST be supplied. The Unix crypt(3) routine SHOULD be used to encrypt a cleartext password. PGP PGP stands for Pretty Good Privacy [2]. The sender will sign the update message with a Guardian's secret PGP key. The InterNIC will verify the received update message with the Guardian's public PGP key. How to register a Guardian's public PGP key with the InterNIC will be explained in another document. Auth Info Information for the selected authorization scheme. The authentication information stored in the database for a Guardian registered with the InterNIC is: MAIL-FROM Email address of a Guardian. CRYPT-PW Encrypted password of a Guardian. PGP Key ID of the public PGP key of a Guardian. Public Boolean indicating whether the authentication information for a Guardian will be public or not. Public means visible in WHOIS. It can have values Y (Yes) or N (No). The default value is Y. Note that the terms "Guardian" and "Contact with Authentication Information" are used interchangeably in the remaining document. 4. Registering the Guardian Attributes There will be two alternatives available to register or update the Guardian attributes: - Using the new Contact Template, or - Using the registration templates for Domains, Networks, Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs), and Hosts modified to include the authentication information for the Contacts. Note that registering a PGP-authenticated Guardian will be a two-step process because the Guardian will first have to register its public PGP key with the InterNIC and then report the key ID as Auth Info using one of the above methods. [Page 4] 4.1 Using the New Contact Template A new Contact Template is proposed to independently register or update a Contact with Authentication Information. Appendix A describes the new Contact Template and its use. 4.2 Using the Modified Registration Templates The registration templates for Domains, Networks, ASNs, and Hosts will be modified to include: a) The Authentication Information for the Contacts. b) The Authorization Section in the beginning of the template to authenticate the Guardian updating the Object. It SHOULD be filled only when the Object is being modified or deleted, and if the Object is being guarded. It has the following items: Auth Scheme Authorization scheme used to authenticate the Guardian updating the Object. It can have values MAIL-FROM, CRYPT-PW, or PGP. Auth Info Information for the selected authorization scheme. The different Auth Scheme and Auth Info combinations are: Auth Scheme Auth Info MAIL-FROM Ignored. The FROM: field in the mail header of an update message will be parsed to verify the Guardian. CRYPT-PW Cleartext password. PGP Ignored. The sender SHOULD sign the entire update message with the secret PGP key of the Guardian updating the Object and send it in cleartext to the InterNIC. 5. Linking Guardian Information to Existing Records There are two ways to link Guardian information to existing records: a) Once the authentication information is added to an existing Contact, all the database records the Contact is responsible for will be automatically guarded by that Contact and any subsequent update request from that Contact for one of those records will be first authenticated. This approach should be used carefully because here a Contact guards either all or none of its Objects. [Page 5] b) A new Link Template is proposed to do a wholesale linkage of Contacts with Authentication Information (Guardian Objects) to database records (Guarded Objects) in a single transaction. This approach is more flexible because the records that need to be guarded by a particular set of Guardians are listed explicitly in the Link Template. Appendix B describes the new Link Template and its use. 6. Notification The rules to update or use an Object will depend on when its Contacts are notified. There are two types of notification: Active Notification If the Notify Update attribute for a Contact of an Object is set to BEFORE-UPDATE, the Contact will be notified before updating the Object and the request will only be processed if an ACK (Acknowledgement) is received. If the Notify Use attribute for a Contact of an Object is set to BEFORE-USE, the Contact will be notified before using the Object and the request will only be processed if an ACK is received. Passive Notification If the Notify Update attribute for a Contact of an Object is set to AFTER-UPDATE, the Contact will be notified after the Object has been updated and the processed request will be revoked if a NAK (Negative Acknowledgement) is received. If the Notify Use attribute for a Contact of an Object is set to AFTER-USE, the Contact will be notified after the Object has been used and the processed request will be revoked if a NAK is received. An ACK or a NAK MUST be received within a certain time interval to be effective. Clearly, active notification is safer than passive notification. Appendix C describes the new Notify Template and its use. 7. Object Update Rules A request to update an Object could possibly come from a Contact with Authentication Information, a Contact without Authentication Information or a sender not listed as a Contact for the Object. [Page 6] The Object Update Rules for such requests are: 7.1 Request from a Contact with Authentication Information The request will be processed immediately with notification to all the Contacts with Notify Update attribute set to BEFORE-UPDATE or AFTER-UPDATE. 7.2 Request from a Contact without Authentication Information 7.2.1 Object has at least one Contact with Authentication Information All the Contacts with Authentication Information will be notified before processing the request. If the InterNIC receives an ACK first before the waiting time indicated on the Notify Template expires, the request will be processed. Otherwise, the request will NOT be processed. 7.2.2 Object has no Contacts with Authentication Information 7.2.2.1 Object has at least one of the other Contacts with Notify Update Attribute set to BEFORE-UPDATE All the other Contacts with Notify Update attribute set to BEFORE-UPDATE will be notified before processing the request. If the InterNIC receives an ACK first before the waiting time indicated on the Notify Template expires, the request will be processed. Otherwise, the request will NOT be processed. 7.2.2.2 Object has none of the other Contacts with Notify Update Attribute set to BEFORE-UPDATE The request will be processed immediately with notification to all the Contacts with Notify Update attribute set to AFTER-UPDATE. The Contacts with Notify Update attribute set to NOT-CARE will not be notified. 7.3 Request from a Sender not listed as a Contact All the Contacts will be notified before processing the request. If the InterNIC receives an ACK first before the waiting time indicated on the Notify Template expires, the request will be processed. Otherwise, the request will NOT be processed. If the request from a sender not listed as a Contact is rejected, the sender MUST present an evidence that the organization using the Object has approved it to update the Object. Another request from the same sender must be faxed to the InterNIC on the corporate letterhead and must contain the tracking number of the initial request. The sender could also present its contract with the organization using the Object. Appendix D gives a summary of the Object Update Rules. [Page 7] 8. Object Use Rules One of the more common registration problems is a Domain holder using without permission someone else's DNS servers or someone else's IP addresses to number its DNS servers. The Object Use Rules will help prevent such illegal use of Objects, particularly Hosts and Networks. A request to use an Object could possibly come from one of its Contacts or a sender not listed as a Contact for the Object. The Object Use Rules for such requests are: 8.1 Request from a Contact The request will be processed immediately with notification to all the Contacts with Notify Use attribute set to BEFORE-USE or AFTER-USE. 8.2 Request from a Sender not listed as a Contact 8.2.1 Object to be used has at least one Contact with Notify Use Attribute set to BEFORE-USE All the Contacts with Notify Use attribute set to BEFORE-USE will be notified before processing the request. If the InterNIC receives an ACK first before the waiting time indicated on the Notify Template expires, the request will be processed. Otherwise, the request will NOT be processed. 8.2.2 Object to be used has no Contact with Notify Use Attribute set to BEFORE-USE The request will be processed immediately with notification to all the Contacts with Notify Use attribute set to AFTER-USE. The Contacts with Notify Use attribute set to NOT-CARE will not be notified. Appendix E gives a summary of the Object Use Rules. 9. Other Guardian Issues 9.1 Number of Guardians per Object The number of Guardians for an Object will be equal to the number of its Contacts with Authentication Information. Each Guardian will have an equal authority to make changes to the Object. In future, multiple Contacts of the same type (for example, Technical) will be allowed for an Object. If an Object has no Contacts with Authentication Information, it will not be guarded at all. [Page 8] 9.2 Protecting Guardian Information By default, a Guardian will guard itself (that is, only the Guardian will have the authority to make changes to its information). However, a Guardian can be guarded by another Guardian. If a Guardian is guarding itself and needs to update its authentication information or scheme, the update message MUST contain the Guardian's old authentication information. Otherwise, the Guardian can not be authenticated before the update. For example, if a Guardian's Auth Scheme is MAIL-FROM, and it needs to either update its email address or change its Auth Scheme, the update message must come from its old email address. 9.3 Displaying Guardian Information The authentication information for a Guardian will be visible in WHOIS unless the Guardian chooses to keep it private. This information will be public by default because a Guarded Object should be protected by the inherent strength of the selected authorization scheme rather than by hiding the authorization information for its Guardian. The WHOIS display for a Guarded Object will be extended to indicate that the Object is being guarded. 10. Conclusion The increased market value of the Objects registered with the InterNIC, particularly Domains and Networks, has necessitated the need for more secure database transactions. This Guardian proposal will help solve most of the current, unauthorized Object update and use problems at the InterNIC. It balances operational expediency with stronger authorization by allowing the Contacts of an Object to select the appropriate level of security (MAIL-FROM, CRYPT-PW, or PGP) for the Object. 11. References [1] Karrenberg, D., Terpstra, M., "Authorisation and Notification of Changes in the RIPE Database", ripe-120, RIPE NCC, RIPE NCC. [2] Garfinkel, S., "PGP Pretty Good Privacy", O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. 12. Acknowledgements The authors thank the InterNIC staff for some very useful suggestions, especially Eric Eden, Tom Newell, Kim Hubbard, Duane Stone, and Carley Johnson. [Page 9] Appendix A The Proposed Contact Template [ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/Contact-template.txt ] [ 1/96 ] ***************** Please DO NOT REMOVE Version Number ***************** Contact Version Number: 1.0 ************** Please see attached detailed instructions ************** Authorization 0a. Auth Scheme.............: 0b. Auth Info...............: 1. (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete.: Contact Information 2a. NIC Handle..............: 2b. Name....................: 2c. (I)ndividual (R)ole.....: 2d. Street Address..........: 2e. City....................: 2f. State...................: 2g. Postal Code.............: 2h. Country Code............: 2i. Phone Number............: 2j. Fax Number..............: 2k. E-Mailbox...............: Notify Information 3a. Notify Update...........: 3b. Notify Use..............: Authentication Information 4a. Auth Scheme.............: 4b. Auth Info...............: 4c. Public (Y/N)............: The Contact Template will be used to independently register or update a Contact (with or without Authentication Information). [Page 10] Items 0a-0b SHOULD be filled only when a Contact is being modified or deleted, and if the Contact is being guarded. These items contain the information to authenticate the Guardian updating the Contact. Item 0a is the authorization scheme for that Guardian. It can have values MAIL-FROM, CRYPT-PW, or PGP. Item 0b is the information for the selected authorization scheme. The different items 0a and 0b combinations are: Item 0a Item 0b MAIL-FROM Ignored. The FROM: field in the mail header of an update message will be parsed to verify the Guardian. CRYPT-PW Cleartext password. PGP Ignored. The sender SHOULD sign the entire update message with the secret PGP key of the Guardian updating the Contact and send it in cleartext to the InterNIC. Item 1 is the registration action type. It can have values N, M, or D. N registers a new Contact. M modifies the information for an existing Contact. D deletes an existing Contact if it is no longer linked to any Object. Items 2a-2k contain the basic information for a Contact. Item 2a is the NIC handle assigned to a Contact. Items 2b, 2c, 2d-2h, 2i, 2j, and 2k are respectively the Name, Type, Address, Phone, Fax, and Email attributes of a Contact. Items 3a-3b contain the notification information for a Contact. Items 3a and 3b are respectively the Notify Update and Notify Use attributes of a Contact. Items 4a-4c contain the authentication information for a Contact. These items are optional, and are required only if either the authentication information is being added to an existing Contact or a new Contact with Authentication Information is being registered. Items 4a, 4b, and 4c are respectively the Auth Scheme, Auth Info, and Public attributes of a Guardian. [Page 11] Appendix B The Proposed Link Template [ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/link-template.txt ] [ 1/96 ] ***************** Please DO NOT REMOVE Version Number ***************** Link Version Number: 1.0 ************** Please see attached detailed instructions ************** 0. (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete.: Object 1a. Identifier..............: 1b. Type....................: 1c. Function................: Linked Object 2a. Identifier..............: 2b. Type....................: The Link Template will be used to do wholesale database changes in a single transaction. Some of the more commonly requested database changes are: a) Link or unlink Contacts (with or without Authentication Information) to or from existing Domains, Networks, ASNs, and Hosts. b) Link or unlink DNS servers to or from existing Domains and Networks. Item 0 is the registration action type. It can have values N, M, or D. N links the Objects (Contacts or DNS servers) in the Object Sections to the Objects (Domains, Networks, ASNs, and Hosts) in the Linked Object Sections. M modifies the linkage. D unlinks the Objects in the Object Sections from the Objects in the Linked Object Sections. Items 1a-1c contain information for an Object (Contact or DNS server) in the Object Section. Item 1a is the Identifier of the Object. Item 1b is the Type of the Object. Item 1c is optional and is required only if the Object is a Contact. It is the Function Type of a Contact. It can have values AC (Administrative Contact), TC (Technical Contact), or BC (Billing Contact). The Object Section SHOULD be copied for each Object (Contact or DNS server). Items 2a-2b contain information for an Object (Domain, Network, ASN, or Host) in the Linked Object Section. Item 2a is the Identifier of the Object. Item 2b is the Type of the Object. The Linked Object Section SHOULD be copied for each Object (Domain, Network, ASN, or Host). [Page 12] The different Identifiers and Types of the Objects are: Object Identifier Type Domain NIC Handle/Domain Name D Network NIC Handle/Network Name N ASN NIC Handle/AS Name A Host NIC Handle/Host Name H Contact NIC Handle I/R [Page 13] Appendix C The Proposed Notify Template [ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/notify-template.txt ] [ 1/96 ] ***************** Please DO NOT REMOVE Version Number ***************** Notify Version Number: 1.0 ************** Please see attached detailed instructions ************** 0a. (A)ck (N)ak.....: 0b. Comments........: Object 1a. Identifier......: 1b. Type............: 1c. Tracking Number.: The Notify Template will be used to notify a Contact of an Object before or after updating or using the Object, and get its approval. The InterNIC will fill in the information for the requested Object update or use in the template (Items 1a-1c) and send it to a Contact of the Object for approval. The Contact will, in turn, fill in the ACK/NAK response in the template (Items 0a-0b) and send it back to the InterNIC. If no ACK or NAK is received within 4 days for an Object update request or 2 days for an Object use request, the InterNIC may assume an implicit ACK or NAK depending on the type of request. Items 0a-0b contain the response from a Contact. Item 0a is the ACK/NAK response. It can have values A (Ack) or N (Nak). Item 0b contains the comments from the Contact on the approval or disapproval of the request. Items 1a-1c contain information for the requested Object update or use. Item 1a is the Identifier of the Object. Item 1b is the Type of the Object. Item 1c is the Tracking Number of the request. The different Identifiers and Types of the Objects are: Object Identifier Type Domain NIC Handle/Domain Name D Network NIC Handle/Network Name N ASN NIC Handle/AS Name A Host NIC Handle/Host Name H Contact NIC Handle I/R [Page 14] Appendix D Object Update Rules IF Request from a Contact with Authentication Information Passive Notification to all the Contacts with Notify Update attribute set to BEFORE-UPDATE or AFTER-UPDATE after updating the Object ELSE IF Request from a Contact without Authentication Information IF Object has at least one Contact with Authentication Information Active Notification to these Contacts before updating the Object ELSE IF Object has at least one of the other Contacts with Notify Update attribute set to BEFORE-UPDATE Active Notification to these Contacts before updating the Object ELSE Passive Notification to all the Contacts with Notify Update attribute set to AFTER-UPDATE after updating the Object ENDIF ENDIF ELSE IF Request from a Sender not listed as a Contact Notification to all the Contacts before updating the Object IF the InterNIC receives an ACK Object updated ELSE IF the Sender faxes a copy of its contract with the Object Holder Object updated ELSE IF the Object Holder faxes the request on corporate letterhead Object updated ELSE Object not updated ENDIF ENDIF Active Notification: IF the InterNIC receives an ACK first within 4 days Object updated ELSE Object not updated ENDIF Passive Notification: IF the InterNIC receives a NAK first within 4 days Object update revoked ELSE OK ENDIF [Page 15] Appendix E Object Use Rules IF Request from a Contact Passive Notification to all the Contacts with Notify Use attribute set to BEFORE-USE or AFTER-USE after using the Object ELSE IF Request from a Sender not listed as a Contact IF Object has at least one Contact with Notify Use attribute set to BEFORE-USE Active Notification to these Contacts before using the Object ELSE Passive Notification to all the Contacts with Notify Update attribute set to AFTER-USE after using the Object ENDIF ENDIF Active Notification: IF the InterNIC receives an ACK first within 2 days Object used ELSE Object not used ENDIF Passive Notification: IF the InterNIC receives a NAK first within 2 days Object use revoked ELSE OK ENDIF [Page 16] Appendix F Examples F.1 How to Register a New Contact with Authentication Information [ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/Contact-template.txt ] [ 1/96 ] ***************** Please DO NOT REMOVE Version Number ***************** Contact Version Number: 1.0 ************** Please see attached detailed instructions ************** Authorization 0a. Auth Scheme.............: 0b. Auth Info...............: 1. (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete.: N Contact Information 2a. NIC Handle..............: 2b. Name....................: Xary Y. Zmith 2c. (I)ndividual (R)ole.....: I 2d. Street Address..........: Fictitious Street 2e. City....................: Imaginary 2f. State...................: VA 2g. Postal Code.............: 22079 2h. Country Code............: US 2i. Phone Number............: 1-703-999-8484 2j. Fax Number..............: 1-703-999-8485 2k. E-Mailbox...............: xyz(a)internic.net Notify Information 3a. Notify Update...........: BEFORE-UPDATE 3b. Notify Use..............: AFTER-USE Authentication Information 4a. Auth Scheme.............: CRYPT-PW 4b. Auth Info...............: %.d!Hr3(a)rm.Gh 4c. Public (Y/N)............: Y Here, a new Contact Xary Y. Zmith is registered with CRYPT-PW as its Auth Scheme. The Contact will be notified before updating or after using an Object it is responsible for. The authentication information for the Contact will be visible in WHOIS. [Page 17] F.2 How to Link Guardian Information to Existing Records [ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/link-template.txt ] [ 1/96 ] ***************** Please DO NOT REMOVE Version Number ***************** Link Version Number: 1.0 ************** Please see attached detailed instructions ************** 0. (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete.: N Object 1a. Identifier..............: XYZ10000 1b. Type....................: I 1c. Function................: TC Linked Object 2a. Identifier..............: HOST.EXAMPLE.COM 2b. Type....................: H In Example F.1, the new Contact is registered with NIC handle XYZ10000. Here, the Contact XYZ10000 is linked as Technical Contact to the Host HOST.EXAMPLE.COM. [Page 18] F.3 How to Update a Guarded Record [ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/Contact-template.txt ] [ 1/96 ] ***************** Please DO NOT REMOVE Version Number ***************** Contact Version Number: 1.0 ************** Please see attached detailed instructions ************** Authorization 0a. Auth Scheme.............: CRYPT-PW 0b. Auth Info...............: Cleartext Password 1. (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete.: M Contact Information 2a. NIC Handle..............: XYZ10000 2b. Name....................: 2c. (I)ndividual (R)ole.....: 2d. Street Address..........: 2e. City....................: 2f. State...................: 2g. Postal Code.............: 2h. Country Code............: 2i. Phone Number............: 1-703-999-8486 2j. Fax Number..............: 2k. E-Mailbox...............: Notify Information 3a. Notify Update...........: 3b. Notify Use..............: Authentication Information 4a. Auth Scheme.............: 4b. Auth Info...............: 4c. Public (Y/N)............: Here, the authorization information in items 0a-0b is first verified and then the record for the Contact XYZ10000 is updated. [Page 19] F.4 WHOIS Display of Guardian Information Whois: XYZ10000 Zmith, Xary Y. (XYZ10000) xyz(a)INTERNIC.NET Fictitious Street Imaginary, VA 22079 (703) 999-8486 (703) 999-8485 Auth Scheme: CRYPT-PW %.d!Hr3(a)rm.Gh Record last updated on 18-Jan-96. Here, the WHOIS display of the Guardian XYZ10000 contains its authentication information because its Public attribute is set to Y. [Page 20]

3 3

Re: Internet shutdown Feb 29?
by sethf＠MIT.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> This looks completely, totally, and insanely bogus, but I Yes. It would have made a good April Fool's joke. No reality to it whatsoever. > Anybody from MIT ever heard of "Kim Dereksen"? No such person listed as being employed at MIT. You can check how to use the MIT on-line directory by finger help(a)mit.edu There's also no "Interconnected Network Maintenance staff" at MIT, that I know about. > your users will be able to read it. Please pass this message on to other > sysops and Internet users as well. Thank you. This makes it a chain letter. NO! ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf(a)mit.edu

1 0

New WWW Page
by Computer Virus Help Desk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm pleased to announce the opening of a new Anti-Virus oriented Web Page. http://www.a1.com/cvhd This page allows the download of the latest versions of ALL the popular DOS, WINDOWS and WIN95 Anti-Virus Software as well as links to EVERY major Anti-Virus software developer or distributor in the world. On Line Virus Encylopedia, Anti-Virus Tutorials and other utilities are available as well. The page also contains VERY extensive links to Encryption, Privacy, Military, Intelligence, Government and Law Enforcement Web Pages. Look for the addition of a new "On Line" real-time Anonymous Pre-mailer with remailer chaining capabilities to be added in the very near future. Allen Taylor, Moderator, VIRUS_INFO SysOp, CVRC BBS, (317) 887-9568, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA http://www.a1.com/cvhd

1 0

Re: Puffer 2.0 Released
by Kent Briggs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> Is PC1 a stream cipher implemented in a "clean room", by reference to an abstract specification of the algorithm implied by the Alleged-RC4 source code, that interoperates with RC4-40 ? <<<<< Yes, I wrote it in Pascal (Delphi) using only the English pseudo-code provided by Bruce Schneier in the 2nd edition of Applied Cryptography. I call my implementation PC1 to avoid any possible trademark hassles. The sample RC4 vector that the State Dept. sent me for my Commodity Jurisdiction request showed that my implementation is correct. And of course, there are no patents to worry about and I'm not under any non-disclosure agreements. RSADSI's government-sponsored monopoly on 40-bit exportable encryption is over. I generate a key by combining a 40-bit pseudo-random salt with 40-bits of secret key material. The secret key material is the lower 40-bits of a salted pass-phrase after running through a SHA-1 hash. All the specs and file formats are included with the documentation. Kent Puffer is available at http://execpc.com/~kbriggs - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMS5jYCoZzwIn1bdtAQF6dwF/XrD1BgPpNbvh1ZDq5bYg52q3PpYpBchj 3BbJgjS0FudNzkysl65vo4klEDEyHYb9 =9frt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Alternative to e$
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Why not use the name Electronic Cash Unit, abreviated ECU? :-) JFA **** OLD KEY: DO NOT USE ANYMORE UNLESS FOR VERIFYING SIGNATURES **** 1024 bits Key ID:57214AED 1995/10/04 Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> Key fingerprint = 84 96 76 AE EB 7C AB 15 88 47 87 B0 18 31 74 9F

1 0