December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

How To Subscribe?
by kdf＠gigo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would someone please netmail me the current subscription procedure? Thanks. JE -- : Fidonet: John Erland 1:203/7707.12 .. speaking for only myself. : Internet: kdf(a)gigo.com

1 0

Re: Netscape 3.0 and encryption choices
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:04 AM 8/20/96 -0700, Ted Cabeen wrote: >In Netscape 3.0, the program allows the user to specify which encryption >standards to allow connections with. It allows encryption with 128-bit RC4, >128-bit RC2, and 156-bit(I think)3DES. Of these three, which would be the >most secure method? The gereral consensus of the experts is that 168 bit 3DES is the best choice. DES has been well studied, 168 bit keys are large enough to be safe, and the ITAR forbids its export. (ITAR also forbids export of 128 bit cyphers as well, but ITAR is the only NSA approved reputation agent for crypto, so we use what we have.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming here? Is spamming free speech? - Vipul

3 2

Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rush Limbaugh reports: That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck". The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of us) were mentioned that they deemed threatening. Ahhh, good to live in a free country....

3 2

Re: Key Length Correlation
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:02 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >I've read Blaze and diffie's paper on Semetric Key Length. I'm currious >how semetric key length correlates to public key cryptography length. Does >public key length have to be much longer, (assuming the algorithms are strong), >to provide the same level of security as a shorter semetric key? TIA According to Applied Cryptography V2, Symmetric and Public-key Key Lengths with Similar Resistances to Brute-Force Attacks Symmetric Public-key Key Length Key Length 56 bits 348 bits 64 bits 512 bits 80 bits 768 bits 112 bits 1792 bits 128 bits 2304 bits Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

cryptoanalysis 002
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I agree on expanding the symbols to represent the alphabet. For example, if the crypto-alphabet for e is 23, 45, 190, 200, etc, one can remove some of the frequency for a letter. This definately makes it harder to attack with the frequency analysis method because the "resolution" of the distribution for the letter is lessened to a near randomness. (So it looks, there are still clues, eh?)

1 0

Re: Pappieren, bitte! (and Taxes, National Debt)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:18 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >One estimate I have seen places the overall national debt, counting >obligations and promised payments, at $20 trillion, or four times the >official number. And it is still increasing every year. To see how large >this is, there are 100 million taxpayers in the U.S., roughly. This means >each of these taxpayers has an average indebtedness of $200,000. Most >American households do not have this amount of money in total net worth, >obviously. Thus, they "owe" much more than they are worth. > >Obviously enough, the portion of this debt is not distributed uniformly >amongst households, or won't be if it is ever collected. But you get the >drift. The country has been spending far more than it has been taking in >for many years, and is far worse shape than "official" figures about the >National Debt would tend to suggest. > >Neither Dole nor Clinton appear to want to talk about this, both having >done their parts to make the situation what it is today. This is exactly why I'm astonished when a few people occasionally (and, prematurely) reject my "Assassination Politics" idea. If the problem is as big as all that (and it is!) then these people are well and truly guilty of way more than enough crimes to merit their deaths. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 20 Aug 96, 18:36, Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: > Rush Limbaugh reports: Well, if Rush was a reporter this might have some meaning. > > That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You > Suck". How long were they in jail? And many other questions come to mind. > > The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the > rest of us) were mentioned that they deemed threatening. I'd wonder about that. > > Ahhh, good to live in a free country.... > This is as free as it gets these days. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 21 Aug 96, 4:07, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: > I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of > spamming here? Is spamming free speech? > > - Vipul The way I see it: if you narrow your targeting, by research, you can send SPAM to people who may really have a need for your products and services. I send spam. I am very apologetic, but I send only to software manufacturers. I sell software media and duplication, so most software makers can relate to a request for me to quote on their needs. BUT I OBJECT to spamming of usenet, and my mailing lists that I read. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Re: Hackers invade DOJ web site
by Frank Stuart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[...] Will Day (willday(a)rom.oit.gatech.edu) wrote: >I understand how it affects their claim for the security of escrowed >keys, but I'm afraid I don't follow the other argument. How would the >wide availability of strong encryption have helped prevent the breakin? >How would encryption in general prevent breakins? I'd love to use this >as an argument for strong encryption, but I don't see how it really >applies. Since we don't know how the intruders broke in, we can only speculate. I can think of several scenarios where cryptographic techniques could help. I can also think of several where they wouldn't. When you've only got 20 seconds to explain to a non-technical audience, I don't think it's dishonest to say that it might have prevented it. Off the top of my head, here are a couple examples: 1. It's possible that a DOJ employee logged in from a remote site while the intruders were snooping somewhere along the way. If the link had been encrypted, that would have made things much more difficult or impossible for the attackers. 2. Perhpas the intruders used IP spoofing and .rhosts to break in. If machines had to be cryptographically authenticated, a rsh from the wrong machine wouldn't work. I think my 20 seconds are up. :> | (Douglas) Hofstadter's Law: | It always takes longer than you expect, even Frank Stuart | when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

2 1