December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PGP
by kyleb＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Does anyone have the latest version of PGP for Windows and/or DOS If so please reply directly, since I am not yet on C'Punks. Thanks, KyleB(a)juno.com

1 0

Word lists for passphrases
by gregmi＠galileo.mis.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are there any publically available word lists which contain just about every word in the English language? It's not absolutley necessary, but I'd also like the list to include english names. Thanks in advance. begin 644 tagline.txt enum MicrosoftBoolean {TRUE, FALSE, MAYBE}; Greg Miller: Programmer/Analyst (gregmi(a)mis.net) http://grendel.ius.indiana.edu/~gmiller/ end.

2 1

Re: The Net and Terrorism
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3 Jul 96 at 14:48, jim bell wrote: [..] > But as I've pointed out elsewhere, there's a big difference between "We're > gonna do this!" and "Someday we may have to do this." My impression is > that the government has tried to completely erase the dividing line > between these two concepts. As far as the government is concerned, "gonna do this" and "may have to do this" is the same, since the "this" is illegal. There is no dividing line. I suspect that since they (alegedly) had specific targets planned it leaned closer to the "gonna do this". From the minimal discussion in the media I have read, it appeared to be another 'revenge for waco and ruby ridge' action rather than a 'defense of civil liberties from a potential totalitarian government' action. (I'm rather skeptical as to how blowing up a specific IRS office would be effective were the government to change into a totalitarian regime.) Rob. --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Lack of PGP sigs
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Another minor problem is when PGP-sigs are made using something other than MD5 as a hash algorithm, at least until certain modifications of PGP become 'standardized' until PGPlib is released. Rob. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3b Charset: cp850 Comment: SHA1 is used instead of MD5 for this signature iQEVAwUBMdvzjwTNlSxdPy6ZAQIbRwf8DFyAdkQemj6z8nGb8MAkg9Hi0t9AZgpT /7IaNy7x7+P1ahY5TRm0gZRaRr3A3scz4jCCP2IUbKnP/3SnVsvWH/GuH2EnGzQQ UhZODymDzaeWVhoQH0GNhDsAf3yLVyr6CQPWsP0aMDD4HBCFKDjr5ip9XsZRYCo1 P+7GbT+/oIRtztEFufguecIalfh275rT/FyDioblKxgyK+AX8hQ+3POzJgayPbc8 7AosgiFv9UGD4O4ComQyurZi/eFdn/x6NqrVKUVRK0KOWDVEYqAhDz45oP94//NQ ahE8viIm6irCu6PS+yf62RZvZafXLccHCBG2rUOm6gYEsB3XtuM/Vg== =SQBi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Re: What remains to be done.
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Another need is for file/disk-encryption utilities. I'm not familiar with what's out there for Macs, but for PCs there's SFS and ASPICRYP for SCSI drives (with no source!) and SFS, SecureDrive and SecureDevice for HD (or FD). The latter won't work on Win95. AFAIK, SFS and SecureDrive aren't 100% friendly with Win95 either, though they'll work. There's a need for something that will work under Win95, WinNT, and/or OS/2 for encrypting partitions. Aside from a few commercial or shareware apps which use some variant of DES, there's little out there. (One problem is that DD kits for Win95/NT and OS/2 cost $$$.) Rob. --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

3 3

Re: Net and Terrorism.
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:58 AM 7/4/96, attila wrote: > U.S. cash has eliminated a lot of Soviet weapons, including, I >believe > some chemical. however, keep in mind: the obsolete, and expensive to > maintain, hardware predominated. However, you will never be able to >buy out > the religious terrorists --they are on a "mission." > > The Western world faces far more threat from fundamentalist religious > terrorists than it does from the Soviet Union, etc. > > There is no cure for the "revolutionary" terrorists --just death >for their > own brand of glory. If we do not even print their obit, there is no glory! I recall that Attila is one of several Mormons on the list, from a recent thread where I happened to mention Mormons as an example (and got comments, including a statement that "Mormon" is a slur). Anyway, I should point out that Mormons (or Latter Day Saints, I guess) are spreading quickly around the world...all WITHOUT using "conversion by the sword," as some other well-known religions are wont to do. Islam, notably, was known for this policy of conversion by the sword: entire national populations were given the choice of converting to Islam or being put to the sword. Most converted, naturally enough. (cf. various histories, incl. Wright's "Sacred Rage.") Islam is one of the religions teaching that "martyrs" go directly to Paradise/Heaven/Valhalla. A terrorist who explodes himself goes directly to sit at Allah's dinner table. His relatives, too, as I understand their beliefs, though the surviving relatives have to wait until they die to get this benefit. Further, if a large Middle Eastern city, e.g., Tel Aviv or Haifa, were to be nuked by Believers, then all of the vaporized Muslims in the city would automatically be martyred, and would also go to Paradise. This makes it more "acceptable" to Believers to hit targets which may contain their own kind. (The famous "Kill them all and let God sort them out" line really does apply to many Muslims.) (Two other religions come to mind as having similar beliefs about death in battle and afterlives: the Viking "berserkers" circa 800-1100 A.D. and the Japanese/Shinto suicide pilots in WW2. I'm sure there are other examples.) Most other religions which have strong beliefs about an afterlife, including Mormons, Catholics, and other flavors of Christianity, nevertheless have not adopted this "martyr" concept. This may explain why few suicide bombings and suchlike come from these groups. (There are exceptions. Many Christian sects believe that abortion is immoral and a grave sin, and that those who bomb or shoot up abortion clinics, a la John Salvi, are doing God's work and are ensured a place in Heaven. Personally, I expect to see more such "terrorist" acts in the coming decades, in the U.S.) Calling a spade a spade, Islam is in some sense a "terrorist religion," in that physical force is seen by many Muslims as a legitimate mechanism of conversion. The wrinkle that those who die in the service of Allah go directly to sit at his side is of course a major incentivizing factor for more truck bombs, nerve gas attacks, and even nukings. We should all be thankful that Mormons, as economically powerful and as well-organized as they are, steer far clear of this kind of recruiting and service to their beliefs. (It's been 30 years since I've been in Salt Lake City, but I understand that strip clubs exist there--from reading certain news groups!--and that alcohol is not illegal there. This government tolerance of things inimical to the dominant religion would be unthinkable in, say, Mecca.) There are of course other flavors of Islam, including arts-loving, peace-loving, and scholarly sorts. The propagation of science and math through the Dark Ages owes much to Arabic scholars, of course. Hence, we cannot blanketly condemn Islam. However, for the sake of the discussion about terrorism, it's important to recognize that some significant fraction of Muslims believe these notions of martrydom and are willing to engage in horrific acts to accomplish certain ends. (The Arab world is very poorly connected to the Net at this time. It'll be interesting to see what happens if and when they become well-connected, with PGP, remailers, information markets, etc.) --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 3

Re: Word lists for passphrases
by Erik E. Fair 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You could just snarf up a week's worth of netnews... Erik

2 1

Re: The Net and Terrorism
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:43 PM 7/4/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >On 3 Jul 96 at 14:48, jim bell wrote: >[..] >> But as I've pointed out elsewhere, there's a big difference between "We're >> gonna do this!" and "Someday we may have to do this." My impression is >> that the government has tried to completely erase the dividing line >> between these two concepts. > >As far as the government is concerned, "gonna do this" and "may have >to do this" is the same, since the "this" is illegal. There is no >dividing line. A couple of decades ago, a relative of mine was in the Army Reserve. Every summer, they went on exercises, and in one particular exercise (this is probably true of all of them, as well), they invented some sort of fictional scenario in which America was bordered by two fictional countries, the one to the south was called "Taco Land" and the one to the north was called "Big Tree Land." I complimented him on the Army's ability to hide the meanings of these fictions so well! B^) Naturally, the Reserve went out and set up camp, etc, and did everything an army was supposed to do under such exercises. So why were they allowed to do this, while ordinary citizens weren't? Now, you may respond, "Hey, they're the Army, that's their job and they're allowed!" Maybe. But then again, as "ordinary citizens" we have a job to do as well. And part of that job may involve ensuring that if the government stops being limited to the strictures of the Constitution, they can take it down and replace it with something better. (See Declaration of Independence, for example.) Frankly, nothing of what I've heard that this Arizona group did ought to be illegal. I interpret the 2nd amendment ("arms") to include the dictionary meaning, "objects used as weapons," so I don't see any legitimate restriction of explosives. As for scouting, practicing, and making possible-but-not-certain plans, I see nothing wrong with this either. (Remember, the Army has plenty of plans, too... few of which ever are carried out.) >I suspect that since they (alegedly) had specific targets >planned it leaned closer to the "gonna do this". Then, unfortunately, your "logic" is atrocious. If you see a likely enemy, it makes sense to identify his assets well in advance of any actual hostilities, even if those hostilities are not certain. (to fail to do so would be completely irresponsible.) That's what these people appear to have done. > From the minimal discussion in the media I have read, ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's a CLUE. The reason there's been "minimal discussion" is because the lap-dog media wants to avoid the entire "we're gonna do this/someday we may have to do this" issue. It's not that they want to put the dividing line in a slightly different location, they want to deny that there is ANY SORT of a dividing line at all! For the media to acknowledge that the people have a RIGHT to simply collect weapons of all kinds, including explosives, for a potential future confrontation with the government would, then, require debate as to how far this could go. I think that would lead to the logical conclusion is that no action is illegal short of actually engaging in an attack. > it appeared to be another >'revenge for waco and ruby ridge' action rather than a 'defense of >civil liberties from a potential totalitarian government' action. I don't really see any valid distinction, here, except in _time_. > (I'm rather skeptical as to how blowing up a specific IRS office would >be effective were the government to change into a totalitarian regime.) > >Rob. Local people can be expected to act locally. They'll take care of their part of town, you take care of yours, right? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Restrictions on crypto overseas
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In many countries there are none. France is pretty bad. > Greetings. > > I am looking for a concise description of the restrictions overseas on the > use of cryptography, and how those restrictions affect the operation of a > cryptographically-enabled web server. > > I have been told that users of programs like PGP in france are required by > law to register their secret keys with the state security apparatus. Does > this mean that users of secure web servers need to register their secret > keys as well? Is anybody doing this? Is the law enforced? > > What about other nations that have recently passed restrictions on the use > of crypto? Other than Russia, which are they? Is there a list anywhere? > > Thanks. > > > ====== > Simson's Summer Info: > > Mailing: 304 Newbury Street, #503, Boston, MA 02115. 617-876-6111 > Summer Salon: 236 Marlborough St. #2 Boston MA 02116. > > -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 Community ConneXion, Inc. FAX: 510-986-8777 The Internet Privacy Provider http://www.c2.net/ sameer(a)c2.net

2 1

Re: What remains to be done.
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> > A. Methods to run secure websites on insecure servers. > [...] > A software solution which permits local decryption makes traffic analysis > less useful, presents the opportunity to use front end and disposable www > pages on domestic ISPs while imposing no liability on the ISP itself, and > opens several more effective traffic analysis deterants. I don't quite understand what is being proposed here. If the information on the web site is encrypted, who is supposed to be able to decrypt it? Just one person, or some select group of people? My concern is the difficulty of keeping keys secret if they are made available to more than one or two people. Once the keys are known to those who would oppose the publication of the information they can go to the ISP just as easily as if the information were not encrypted, and get them to take it down if it is illegal. It would seem that an equally effective method would be to use no encryption, but just a secret URL, one which is not linked to from elsewhere - an "island in the net", so to speak (apologies to Bruce Sterling). Hal

3 2