December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Borders *are* transparent
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:13 AM 7/20/96 +0600, Arun Mehta <amehta(a)giasdl01.vsnl.net.in> wrote: >Is enought information available for someone else to write >software that would be able to >communicate with Netscape's at the US-level of crypto? If so, the >US government is simply >forcing Netscape to open a window of opportunity for some foreign >software company to come up with a competing product for the >international market. A case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? The encryption and protocols used by Netscape are their SSL protocol; you can get the Australia-written SSLeay package to do it, though if you want to use it in the US you need to make sure you've taken care of RSA patent-licensing issues. There are two ends of the problem - browser and server. It's really hard to compete with Netscape's browser, since they add N more features per week, though you could make a far smaller adjunct browser to handle secure transactions that you leave running in another window while doing Netscape. On the other hand, competing with their server is possible, being done, and potentially big business. During the Pro-CODE Senate hearings, Barksdale put up a poster of a web page in South Africa for a web-server called Sioux, which is some relative of Apache and maybe Apache-SSL, and which makes a big point on its web page about not being limited by US ITAR restrictions. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Confuse Authority!

2 1

Re: NCs (network computers)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:53 PM 7/21/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >I thought this was a great message on the future "network computers" >that may be coming out soon. a balanced view that shows how there >may be a niche, and that there are also places where they will >not be appropriate. the NCs could really potentially change the >computer and cyberspace as we know it in a very significant way. I think that the concept of "network computers" as presented is nearly a joke. (It's a rehash of the common portrait of terminal/modem computers that was commonly promoted in the late 60's and early 70's.) Their main advantage was supposed to be cost: The "$500" figure is the one which is commonly presented. However, in the middle of 1995 the components of computers which were NOT bargains were memory, which was kept artificially high by what I can't help concluding was price fixing, and over-priced CPU's from Intel. The memory-price problem has now been solved after an extreme price decrease, and the CPU-price problem can be avoided to a great extent by staying with 486's or lower-end Pentiums. What, then, are the remaining advantages of a "NC"? The one thing that these network computers were supposed to save on, in addition to this, was a hard disk, but when I keep seeing those ads for $170 1-gigabyte hard disks, it's hard to imagine how anybody would WANT to save this amount. Let's do a comparison: Even a 28.8 kbps modem can't transmit much above 3500 bytes per second after decompression, which is about 3 million seconds of data to fill a 1 gigabyte hard disk, or about 800 hours. You'd have to be buying Internet access time for $170/800, or 20 cents per hour, to justify re-loading anything twice from the Internet as opposed to storing it locally. Hard disks are a bargain, and it isn't worth NOT having one. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Length of passphrase beneficial?
by Wayne H. Allen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:38 96.07.21 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > >Erle Greer wrote: > I think its a poor assumption that your home won't be searched >if you're doing something that makes you want a 2048 bit key. Your kidding, because someone set up PGP to a large key your assuming their doing wrong and the guy's going to get busted. Wow. I set up a long key myself but never have used the silly thing, that mean I'm guilty too. (Gotta go, a black helecopter just landed in the back yard) > A >thousand bits of keylength should be good enough for most things that >don't need to stay secret more than 5-10 years. > Not if he keeps the passphrase to the key availiable to all. The original poster did mention it was to only his wife at home who was a risk. A psudo- random alph-nummeric key of the size he claims can't be memorized so it has to be on the h-drive or a floppy. He may as well fess up now to the Mrs before she publishes all cause she's in. Wayne H.Allen whallen(a)capitalnet.com Pgp key at www.capitalnet.com/~whallen

2 1

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Llywarch Hen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:15 PM 7/21/96 +0000, you wrote: >Again, I am not crusading against guns and armed self-defense, but >I am indeed saying that simply having a firearm at home does not insure >safety and security. You have to go beyind having a gun and get a dog >and/or a metal door. A good fence is also a plus, although may not >always be possible. I'd certainly agree with that, but would like to add that an unloaded gun is of no use and a gun in the nightstand or in the trunk of your car is also of no use. For all cases other than home intrusion, the gun has to be worn -- I recommend a shoulder holster. In the case of home intrusion, one can hope that the intruder has no desire to be successful and permits you to get the drop on him. Perhaps he'll slam the refrigerator door allowing you to fumble around under your pillow for your weapon. I know of people who have walked out of museums with paintings trailing alarm wires -- so let's hope our intruder is an amateur and best of all is scared off by some phony security signs, fake alarm wires, etc. In these parts most guns seemed to be used by the temporarily depressed teenaged children of gun owners. One kid managed to live as a vegetable having successfully removed the source of his unhappiness -- his brain. Tough luck. Pretty hard to aim properly when you are upset. Lesson: keep your cool. Now for street wear I strongly recommend a variety of loads. Probably my favorite is a reversed semi-wadcutter. This puppy is extremely inaccurate since it starts tumbling as it leaves the barrel. At extremely close ranges it'll tear up some flesh and further out it'll walk nastily through outer clothing completely wrecking it for formal wear and continue through enough skin to be damaging. Low on kinetic energy, it will however transfer its entire momentum where it counts. A semi-automatic will not properly feed these, so you gotta be traditional if you are of the big clip persuasion. A few observations: since our hog leg is shoulder-holstered we will need a coat. Now if you want to take a piss, court-houses, airports and a few other public buildings are out. We would feel foolish being tackled and thrown to the floor while hunting for the restroom even if we slipped past security. So here we are, sweating and chafing with a gun and a coat and a urinary tract infection. Feel safe yet? -- Llywarch Hen

5 5

Re: INFO: Submit your testimony to Congress for hearings on July 25!
by initialization 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

vtw(a)vtw.org writes: > UPCOMING HEARING INFORMATION > > The Senate Commerce committee will be holding hearings on the Burns/Leahy > Pro-CODE bill (S.1726) this Thursday July 25, 1996 in Washington D.C. > > Like most everyone that doesn't live in Washington, you can't be there > in the flesh. But you can be there virtually through www.crypto.com! > > A RealAudio cybercast of the hearing is being coordinated by Jonah Seiger > (CDT). If you have the RealAudio software (it's free from www.realaudio.com) > you can listen to the hearing live. You can also telnet into the chat room > and pose questions to the staffers who will be online. > > If you wish to make your voice heard, take a moment and submit your own > written testimony through the web page at http://www.crypto.com. When > you submit your testimony, you can also submit a question for FBI Director > Louis Freeh who is scheduled to testify. We'll provide a copy of the > questions to the committee members, and urge them to pin down Director > Freeh on some of the finer points of the issue. > > This is an amazing time for democracy. Never before have American citizens > been able to have so much representation in the halls of Congress without > actually being physically there. Don't let this debate go on without your > input! > > A complete profile of the cybercast and the net-presence effort is available > at http://www.crypto.com/ until the hearing, and at > http://www.crypto.com/events/ after that. > This is an amazing time for Big Brother, who, in the person of VTW, is gathering the names and addresses of all who oppose it, one by one, under the Rube of "testimony" and "democracy"? What do you think will happen next? You think Big Brother is going to hear what you say and say "oh my god they are right!" and then turn around and mend its ways? NO! You will be marked as a trouble maker in your file, and rounded up or worse, when the time comes! They have duped many into participating, and others, prominent ones like Blaze, Diffie, Schneier, Zimmermann, have been blackmailed into working for them. Turn your back on this sham "democracy". Fuck their "hearings". And demand truth from "VTW". VTW=NSA+FBI front.

1 0

NSA Lawyers Believe ITARs Would be Overturned if Tested in Court
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:23 PM 7/21/96, James A. Donald wrote: >At 03:27 PM 7/20/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote: >> Why not consider what the consequences will be? Do you seriously >> believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR? > >Yes: > >Widespread politically motivated disobedience forces >the state to either demonize the disobedient, (as with drug users) >or give up enforcement. This is a standard and effective method >of forcing the repeal of laws, a method which has had a long record >of success for several hundred years. Further, I know someone who saw internal NSA memoranda from their legal folks that court challenges of the ITARs should be avoided if at all possible, as the ITARs would likely be overturned on constitutional grounds. (Not all of them, presumably. Shipment of hardware ("arms") would likely not be affected. But the ITARs that stop the spread of knowledge, published papers, and speech (such as speaking where a foreigner can hear!) would likely be overturned.) --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."

1 0

Re: A Snake-Oil FAQ
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 21 Jul 96 at 6:03, The Deviant wrote: > > I've written a short "Snake Oil FAQ" below. It's incomplete and > > needs some work (adding a few definitions, rewording, aesthetic > > formatting, etc.), so think of it as a 'beta' FAQ (please don't [..] > Looks very nicely done. I think you pretty much covered it... but... Thanks. > > Be wary of marketing gimmicks related to "if you can crack our > > software" contests. > > > > Even the best cryptographers and security professionals have done this. > RSA did it with their Public Key system, which took 20+ years to break. Note the words "marketing gimmicks". The $100 reward isn't a gimmick in the same way as "we'll give you our company" or "we'll give you five free copies of our software". But yes, that sentence could be reworded differently. > Throughout history, many security mechanisms, even the best ones, > including Cyphers, Locks, Firewalls, etc. have been known to go as far as > to offer prizes (some extremely high, upwards of a million dollars, some > as low as RSA's famous $100 prize) > > I think that this one really is just a bit too broad. Oddly enough, RSA's RC2/RC4 is also an exception to the proprietary algorithm warning, (some would dispute that), so that section needs some minor rewriting. *sigh* I'll work on it. Thanks, 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

Re: Netscape
by David Sternlight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:42 AM -0700 7/21/96, Mark M. wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Bill Stewart wrote: > >> First of all, the goverrnment _has_ enforced ITAR; I've seen references >> (ummm, on the net...) to a few cases of things like exporting TV decryptors, >> as well as all the enforcement about illegal trafficking in guns and such. > >I haven't heard of anyone ever being indicted for exporting cryptography. I >should have made it clear that I was refering to ITAR as it applies to crypto, >and not other items that would fall under ITAR. > >> But second, if you're threatened with jail and large fines, and have >> to pay your lawyers lots of money to avoid being railroaded, >> that's enforcement even if it's not the full-scale due process type. > >Quite true. I was just refering to someone actually being tried and found >guilty of violating ITAR by exporting cryptography. I'd be very interested in >any references to companies or individuals being prosecuted for exporting >crypto. Irrelevant. Why should they have to if nobody has done it and fessed up? A law that is enforced because nobody is willing to violate it is just as good as the kind where they shoot you after one overtime parking offense. Better, because nobody gets shot. David

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:28 PM 7/21/96 -0500, snow wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Elliot Lee wrote: >> >> IOW, if a 'pre-dawn unannounced ninja raid' [sic] occurs on you, you are >> pretty well beat, if only because the other side knows what they are doing >> and you have no idea of their plans. >> The only protection against lawlessness is not lawlessness, it is reason. > > I'm probably starting to sound a little bellish on this, "Post-bellum"? B^) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

evidence from the NIC - interpret and use as you will.
by ante 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

See who is sleeping with who. These are the supporters of the sham "hearings". Voters Telecomm Watch (VTW-DOM) 115 Pacific St., #3 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Domain Name: VTW.ORG Administrative Contact: Safdar, Shabbir (SS155) shabbir(a)PANIX.COM (718) 596-7234 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Panix Network Information Center (PANIX5) hostmaster(a)panix.com +1 212 741 4400 Record last updated on 27-Sep-95. Record created on 06-May-94. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.ACCESS.NET 198.7.0.1 NS2.ACCESS.NET 198.7.0.2 The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. Blaze, Matt (CRYPTO-DOM) 101 Crawford Corners Rd Room 4G-634 Holmdel, NJ 07733 Domain Name: CRYPTO.COM Administrative Contact: Blaze, Matt (MB19) mab(a)CRYPTO.COM (908) 949-8069 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Network Information and Support Center (PSI-NISC) hostinfo(a)psi.com (518) 283-8860 Record last updated on 06-May-93. Record created on 06-May-93. Domain servers in listed order: NS.PSI.NET 192.33.4.10 NS2.PSI.NET 38.8.50.2 The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT2-DOM) 1634 Eye Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 USA Domain Name: CDT.ORG Administrative Contact: Weitzner, Daniel (DW151) djw(a)CDT.ORG (202) 637-9800 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Palacios, Bob (BP282) bobpal(a)CDT.ORG (202) 637-9800 Billing Contact: Kolb, Danielle (DK1006) dkolb(a)CDT.ORG (202) 637-9800 Record last updated on 19-Apr-96. Record created on 20-Dec-94. Domain servers in listed order: NS.CAIS.COM 205.177.10.10 NS2.CAIS.COM 199.0.216.1 The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information.

2 1