December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Self-signed certificates
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's some trouble-making I'm doing on another list (one that believes in X.509 certs and CAs).... :) - Carl >Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 17:34:46 -0400 >To: Greg.McPhee(a)Software.com (Greg McPhee) >From: Carl Ellison <cme(a)cybercash.com> >Subject: Re: Self-signed certificates >Cc: ssl-talk(a)netscape.com > >At 01:51 PM 7/2/96 -0700, Greg McPhee wrote: >>> >>>If you have encountered an old friend of yours on the net and want to make >>>sure that you can exchange keys with her without some active eavesdropper >>>getting in the path and substituting keys, then a CA's cert is probably >>>worthless to you. [I have a paper at this month's USENIX Security Symposium >>>on this subject.] >> >>I want to understand why the "CA's cert" above is worthless. Assuming the >>"CA's cert" is a self signed certificate identifying a CA, then is it >>worthless because it is an untrusted CA, or because my old friend and I >>don't have personal certificates signed by this CA? >> >>Couldn't wait for the paper :-) > >OK -- at the risk of boring the list... :) > >There are many definitions for "identity". In this one case, I'm using the >example of an old friend. We meet again on the net and want to trade keys, >for private communications. Much of the loose talk over the years about >certificates says that if she and I have certificates from a good CA, then >we can be assured we aren't being spoofed. That statement isn't true. > >To state it more formally, a CA's certificate in this case is neither >necessary nor sufficient. > >The CA binds a key to *its name for a person* -- trying to make that name >globally unique and meaningful -- but all it can promise is to make the name >unique. It can't promise to make it meaningful *to me*. The CA is not >aware of my existence, much less of what I know about each person in the >world. There might be 100 certificates for "Sue Robinson" -- with various >other information to distinguish them from one another -- but when I knew >her she was going under the name of Laura and I have no clue what her other >distinguishing information is. I had lost touch with her. > >I could ask her, over the net, and she would tell me all those new bits of >information. > >Trouble is, I need an authenticated channel to her in order to be sure I'm >not being spoofed while she tells me her SNail address (or whatever makes >her cert unique). I can't get an authenticated channel without the cert. >Impasse. > >Thus the cert from the CA is not sufficient. > >It is also not necessary. The paper I'm presenting gives a protocol with >which Sue and I can use our shared memories (what makes us old friends in >the first place and, in a real sense, the *true* definition of "identity") >to prove to each other that there is no eavesdropper over a confidential >channel we create. Once we've done that, we then we can tell each other our >keys and each issue a cert for the other's key. At that point, we have >certified keys for each other without involving a CA. What's better, I have >her certified key from a "CA" I can trust above all others -- myself. > >[QED] > > - Carl

1 0

Re: Message pools _are_ in use today!
by um＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>alt.anonymous.messages is not an ideal message pool-- it is a hack. >(Granted, it *is* a really cool, clever, and practically useful hack.) I agree that alt.anonymous.messages is not perfect. But if you download all articles and don't post to alt.anonymous.messages without using a remailer, the only real threat are denial of service attacks with cancel messages etc. >If folks have better ideas for how to achieve really good recipient >anonymity, I hope they'll speak up! I think a DC+ net would achieve the same degree of anonymity more efficiently. (It's not trivial to estimate the traffic caused by a remailer net as proposed by Ian, so I may be wrong there.)

2 1

Re: Info on alleged new German digital wiretapping law?
by um＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rich Graves <llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu> writes: >None of the Europeans I ran into at today's SAFE conference had even heard >of the legislation decried at > > http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=3027 > >and in alt.fan.ernst-zundel. What's up? The report is correct. The mainstream press has completely ingnored the wiretap legislation, probably because it is part of the long-awaited new telecommunications law to end the Telekom monopoly.

3 4

LE Risks with No Crypto
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Did anyone notice the fun little bit in the story of the bust of the Viper Militia in Arizona? The state employee that BATF sent to infiltrate the group almost "assumed room temperature" because an ally of the Militia working for AT&T pulled his long distance phone records. The infiltrator was questioned rather closely about some of his phone calls to official numbers. He managed to persuade them that he wasn't a Fed. Too bad AT&T doesn't use an encrypted open books system to store is records so that "bad guys" can't abuse those records and put our heroic law enforcement personnel at risk. This is a perfect illustration of the fact that technology puts the government most at risk because it will always be the juiciest target. "Worth the powder to blow it up with." DCF

3 2

Lack of PGP signatures
by David F. Ogren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Tue Jul 02 19:40:44 1996 I've noticed recently that two PGP programmers (Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Atkins) do not seem to PGP clearsign their messages to this list. In fact, a surprisingly small percentage of messages on the C-punk list are signed. This despite the fact that the average subscriber is at least literate in PGP. Does anybody have any speculation on why this is? Is it because people consider mundane mail unimportant enough to sign? Is it because the members of this list are more concerned with encryption than authentication? Is it because most mail programs are not PGP aware? Is it because of the weaknesses in MD5? David F. Ogren | ogren(a)concentric.net | "A man without religion is like a fish PGP Key ID: 0x6458EB29 | without a bicycle" - ------------------------------|---------------------------------------- Don't know what PGP is? | Need my public key? It's available Send a message to me with the | by server or by sending me a message subject GETPGPINFO | with the subject GETPGPKEY -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMdmzfeSLhCBkWOspAQEdaAf7BzkKqxVyzBY4TAKoSXqO2DhFpceMGfv1 WJhMXHCi9FnZuCHs2hl03vhf/DReX1Y6YWU9ntLhpO8kY6eDeRdq/M9eyD/le1df lZXewrfWrv/JSQgDEmUgao01EkVCVILAx/mUzeBTYPx0nx4CVKUw5pCOJvcO4oVs Y9K1w7ivSpVtwvonYSrqWjT3qDDXm2aCID+YlffH2c+nDBXPgv094fj5Fzzoi+4i sS8u/otxz8d2A+NlhqKJZWxkPtBi0AA2VO6L2Mx8ZmlwRWaD4EiTjaozusPq5GoE tEh9YIPt4+CJZTiLwRRh1x+OqWIDQOJMcDlLmNhiYxFYuevWhmbLPA== =/E0F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 5

Re: But what about the poor?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:55 PM 7/2/96 -0700, Martin Minow wrote: >Jim Bell wants to get rich running a key escrow business (:-) >> >>Oh, but what a business opportunity! I assume a floppy can hold 1000 keys. >>Even if I undercut the going rate of $200 per year by a factor of 10, that's >>a potential income of $20,000 per floppy per year. A box of 20 floppies on >>the shelf, and I'm set for life! >> >Add in the cost of a bank vault I'm assuming that the keys are, themselves, encrypted. > and the ability to provide any key >to an approved law enforcement agency (i.e., one that provides you with >a legitimate search warrant for the key) with a 2 hour response time >(24/7/365). Easy solution! Make 'em show up at the front door. It'd cut down on the requests, I'd say... This would be an excellent way of getting around the "response time" requirement: The time the cops take to actually arrive and request the key is THEIR time, not that of the escrow agent. Locate the escrow agent in Encampment, Wyoming, and see how many can find it! > Also, you will have to take in keys as they are provided. However, this raises an interesting question: Can key-escrow agents change the terms of their operation to delete such responses (or slow them...) for the cops? Or, for that matter, can they charge the cops an arm and a leg for the key? (Say, $100,000 per?) Another question: The cops probably assume that the escrow agent is NOT going to inform the key holder that the key has been delivered. But if the stated policy of the escrow agent is that the key owner MUST be informed, what are the cops gonna do about it? Further, how are the cops going to evidence the existence of a valid warrant? (As opposed to a forgery?) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

At 04:13 PM 7/2/96 -0500, snow wrote: >On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, snow wrote: >> Cause disturbances in certain parts of certain cities, then attack >> the 911 system to route officers and firemen to _wealthy_ neigborhoods at >> the expense of the poor neighborhoods. Then complain to the papers about >> it. >> >> Gain control of the power grid (I don't know how possible this is) >> and selectively brown out certain sections of the city during peak demand >> periods. Make it obvious, then do the preceeding idea. >> >> In all of these people will, or could die, but are much more >> effective in undermining the faith people have in the structures that run >> the country. If a bomb blast goes off, people get pissed off at the bomb >> makers, if the power fails, people get pissed at the electrical company. >> If you can create a large enough disturbances they will be better than >> bombs. Hey, great job Chris! Saw the news reports on the national news! B^) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: hard drive encryption
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

you told him to take his hard drive with him. but me on the other hand am wondering because I want my drive secure from everyone. While im here and not here. And Im definitely not going to take myt drive everywhere hehehe Sooo what other programs are out there?? Any shareware versiob..trials..etc.. that anyone knows any WWW sites of? Tanks!

1 0

Re: The Net and Terrorism
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:44 PM 6/30/96 -0700, you wrote: >in reality. it seems to me no nation-state has ever experimented with >trying to take away the root causes of violence and discontent. But here in the U.S., we ARE trying to take them away via the educational system. About the only thing we can effectively do is to provide more educational opportunities that denounce violence, racism, hate crimes, etc. However, you cannot eliminate discontent without eliminating greed; which is simply not possible. Even so, there are a couple of problems with even attempting "to take away the root causes", not the least of which is the Constitutionally protected right to free speech. I am allowed to teach my kid to hate anyone for any reason. I can blame this or that group for this set of troubles, and that the best way to deal with this is not only to scare them away, but to kill as many of them as possible. It may be morally repugnant, but it is protected speech. The countries that sponsor terrorists have not been noted for their successful educational systems. And they certainly are not going to listen to Western discussions on how best to solve their "problems". Do you still not accept that we have a world that contains people who exist in conditions that foster and breed terrorists? If not, look at some more concrete examples. Have you ever met an Islamic fundamentalist? How about a Christian fundamentalist? There really is no difference between them, other than the specific quotations that exit their pre-programmed mouths. When religion enteres the picture, no amount of logic will convince the true believers that they are acting destructively. Even moderately regligious Christians (the people to whom I have been most exposed) have very strong beliefs that X is the word of God, and therefore not subject to question. When this is some destructive (yet not obvious as such) statement, such as "Go forth and multiply", no amount of education or logic will convince them that Zero Population Growth is a good thing. I'm sure you can multiply this into all sorts of destructive behavior preached locally, such as the Southern Baptist preachers who refuse to denounce the maltreatment of blacks or the burning of black churches. There is no force of law that can alter this behavior. My point here is that this behavior is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. So, do you not accept that we have the environment right here that can breed violence and discontent? For the most part, I see kids today being educated with much less "hatred" than even my age group was brought up with (I'm 34). We're moving in the right direction by incorporating diversity in education, entertainment and the workplace, but we can never hope to erase it all. And if even one person retains the seed of violence, they can employ the "warfare of the weak" -- terrorism. >or that they are worth the money. terrorists invariably have a >patricular pathological psychological profile that sees the world >in terms of "martyrs vs. villians" with the villians in the government, >and the villians taking away or abusing respectable citizens. So your point here is one of *agreement* that human nature will produce psychological profiles of people who commit acts of terror. >the "problem" of terrorism will be solved when we take the view >that insanity and violence is *not* >a natural aspect of human behavior (as TCM tends to suggest), Even in spite of your argument above? Violence is here. It's been present since recorded history. We've gotten pretty good at it, actually. I think the record speaks pretty clearly that violence continues to be a part of human behavior, despite any efforts made to stop it. >and that >there are specific environmental conditions that breed it. like >malaria, if you take away the swamplike breeding grounds, you will >largely remove it. such a thing is a radical hypothesis, but one that >nonetheless has never really been tested in practice. As I said above, we can reduce some of the breeding grounds, but we can not eradicate them all. And if one were to conduct a study correlating racist attitudes with education with numbers of acts of terror, we might find a direct correlation. The U.S. has a level of tolerance for diversity that I only recently came to appreciate. We hosted a foreign exchange student from Scotland (hardly culture shock to him), but he surprised me when he commented on how surprised he was that different groups of people were mixed together -- black kids hanging out with white kids, catholics and protestants being friends, the sort of thing that I take for granted every day. He expected the subtle racism of home. And lets just say that Great Britain's culture is probably closer to ours than any other country. I am more than willing to agree with you that elimination of hatred and prejudice will go farther than any law enforcement measures to reduce terrorist acts. However, my point, and I believe this is Tim's point, too, is that it will *never* eliminate these acts, and that there must be other ways of dealing with the problems that occur. >>I'm not advocating such "terrorism," by the way, merely telling it like it is. >ah yes, the standard amusing TCM disclaimer. hmmm, your signature suggests >otherwise. This personal attack was completely unwarranted. Are you suggesting that Tim is a sponsor of terrorist attacks, or that he approves of the repeatedly demonstrated governmental penchant for violating our privacy whenever convenient? There was no point to making this statement, other than to foster discontent. >>(Remember, terrorism is just warfare carried on by other means, with >>apolgies to Von Clausewitz.) >disagree. the purpose of warfare has traditionally been to seize I completely disagree with you here. Terror has all the same purposes as general-purpose warfare: it's simply being carried out by a smaller group, without the resources available to an entire government. Look at the Irish Question: they want independance from a government they deem undesirable. Look at the arabian terrorist bombings of Americans in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc.: they want to drive the U.S. Army out. Likewise, the bombing of the Murrah building in OK was a "military" target: it housed the agencies that some small group percieved to be responsible for the attack on Waco. Even the church building burnings happening across the southern U.S. appear to have a specific objective: to frighten the victims; and if the victims left the area, the terrorists would have accomplished their objectives. No hidden purposes here: these are all military actions being carried out by groups that are simply not in a position to negotiate. It is "warfare by the weak". You may think that you hold every answer to terrorism in your hand, that hugs and kisses before bedtime will make the evil monsters under the bed go away. The point of Tim's essay was that, yes, the net can be used by the evil monsters, and yes, the evil monsters are here, and no, the evil monsters are not going away any time soon. Why did you feel it necessary to try to slam his fairly well-researched and quite obvious conclusion? John -- J. Deters >From Senator C. Burns' Pro-CODE bill, which I support and you can find at: http://www.senate.gov/member/mt/burns/general/billtext.htm " (2) Miniaturization, disturbed computing, and reduced transmission costs make communication via electronic networks a reality." +---------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: jad(a)dsddhc.com (work) jad(a)pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'33"N by 93^16'42"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | PGP Key ID: 768 / 15FFA875 | +---------------------------------------------------------+

3 2

Re: But what about the poor?
by minow＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Bell wants to get rich running a key escrow business (:-) > >Oh, but what a business opportunity! I assume a floppy can hold 1000 keys. >Even if I undercut the going rate of $200 per year by a factor of 10, that's >a potential income of $20,000 per floppy per year. A box of 20 floppies on >the shelf, and I'm set for life! > Add in the cost of a bank vault and the ability to provide any key to an approved law enforcement agency (i.e., one that provides you with a legitimate search warrant for the key) with a 2 hour response time (24/7/365). Also, you will have to take in keys as they are provided. Hmm, the SecureCard (tm) I use to dial into my office system generates one key per minute. Assume there are a million out there. Assume keys are 64 bits (8 bytes) + 64 bits of card ID. 16 Mbytes/minute is, according to the back of my envelope, just under 1/4 mbyte/sec, so each of those floppy's will fill up pretty quickly, and you'll need a really, really, big safe to put them in. Of course, Jim probably knows this. Martin.

1 0