December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Electronic Signature Act Of 1996
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 4 Jun 96 at 10:33, Ben Holiday wrote: > Florida now recognizes electronic signatures as legal and binding. In > other words - its okay to sign it by modem. > > The electronic Signature Act of 1996 passed the Legislature unanimously > and became law Friday. The law does not specify how an electronic document > must be signed, but it probably will mean coding the text and typed > signature so they cannot be changed by anyone other than the writer. [..] I've seen some legal arguments that an email message that reads "Bob, Sounds good--it's a deal. --Alice" can in some circumstances be as binding as an oral contract or a scribbled note, which is not meaningless though not as strong as a legal signed contract. As long as one can show Alice *did* write that, that it referred to a specific deal, etc. etc., it holds some legal weight. But I'm no lawyer, and one should never trust legal advice form Usenet or the c'punks list. 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: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:30 PM 6/4/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >My question for member of this list is: When Bell finally >goes too far and they arrest or shoot him, how can we best >capitalize on his martyrdom? Or in a more negative light, >what damage control will we need to do in that case? I think there's a non-trivial chance that this list could be shut down and anyone who's made interested sounds in the idea brought in to assist the police in their inquiries. Damage control will probably be a doomed cause. The media will end up with selected quotes advocating crypto-anarchy and speaking in a disparaging tone of those heroic men and women who keep nuts like us reined in, and the only people who will hear a balanced account will be those who are already wholly or partially immune to the propaganda mills. Did I mention I've been feeling pessimistic about a bunch of this stuff lately? -- Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

Re: Markoff in NYT on NTT/RSA chip
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:46 AM 6/5/96 +0000, jonathon wrote: > paul: > >On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Paul Robichaux wrote: >> the NTT chipset for use, say, in a Motorola cell switch (made in IL) would >> seem to be problematic. Buying chips in Japan for shipment to Moto's phone >> factories in Singapore and Malaysia, however, would appear to be OK. Under > > So the companies simply ship their _entire_ production > facility offshore, to whichever country has no crypto > export regulations. > > << Any guesses on just how long ITAR stays around, once > several companies announce they are terminating the employment > of 1000+ people, for work overseas, because of ITAR? >> > > And doing all of their manufacturing offshore means they could > use Triple-DES, or BlowFish, or any other crypto algorithm. I seem to recall an announcement recently that Senator Burns is going to have a hearing "soon" on his crypto bill. If that's true, I think it would make a good publicity scene if somebody (if possible someone giving testimony) were to show up with one of these NTT encryption chips, wave it around a bit, and say "I can bring this chip into the country, why can't I take it out again?" Even if you can't get ahold of the real chip, any multi-pin bug will probably do for the sound/video-bite. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Cost of brute force decryption
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 4 Jun 96 at 10:58, Bruce M. wrote: [..] > "If you can ensure secrecy either until no one cares about the > information or so that cracking the code costs more than the information > is worth, it's 'secure enough.' > > "For example a 40-bit key takes about $10,000 worth of supercomputer > time and two weeks to crack. Although this key may be adequate to > protect my checking account, it's probably not large enough for the > accounts of a major corporation. [..] The figures look familiar. No references around. I'm not sure it would require a whole two weeks for 40-bits, though. Possibly less than a day? (Or was that why you asked baout the figures?) The "$10,000 worth of supercomputer time" is fuzzy. One thing that's left out is that once an organization already owns the equipment and has the money to spare, it may be worthwhile to crack things of less importance like personal checking info, email, etc. 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.

4 3

Re: Java
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I find myself agreeing with nearly all the points about Java that Larry is making, so something may be wrong.... At 8:58 PM 6/4/96, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: ... >I suppose if I was over 40 and worked in a conservative wall street firm, >I'd have a totally different view. maybe Java is all about a generation >gap in computing. hey!! the first language that the "older generation" >hates. sounds like a good reason to go after it, sort of like rock-n-roll >and Woodstock suddenly being aged and uncool. This can't be the whole story. I'm 44, and Java looks pretty damn exciting to me, too. Not exciting to stand elbow-to-elbow and be trampled the crowds at Moscone Center for Java One, but exciting enough to get the Metrowerks Java compiler for the Mac and half a dozen or so of the Java books (some of which are even pretty good--I most like "Core Java" and the Gosling book). I don't have the energy or time to write a Detweiler-length article about Java (though I think I did a month or so ago), but will say that I think the security problems are, first of all, no worse vis-a-vis the language itself than problems with any language. For me, the main attraction of Java lies not in the applets, but in the Net-centric model that makes, in theory (and hopefully in practice) a Macintosh roughly the equal of a Sun or SGI or Pentium. Until Java and associated programs and tools appeared, I was seriously thinking about getting a Pentium or Pentium Pro (shudder, even though I admire my former employer and current stock benefactor, Intel) and putting Linux on it. Now I feel more confident that the Mac is a viable competitor in a Net-centric world. Java may be the Great Equalizer (something Sun may come to regret). Perry has some valid points vis-a-vis the most naive uses of applets. Were I the security manager of Morgan Stanley, I would certainly not want traders downloading "kewl" applets and (possibly) causing Big Problems. So what else is new? Java as a language and as a platform-independent implementation is an achievement. As for Scheme and Smalltalk, both mentioned by Perry, I have both of these and of course neither has caught on a big way. I won't even speculate about the many reasons. And in some ways a more important comparison is to Perl and TCL, along with more obscure languages like Python and REXX. The welter of Net-oriented languages shows signs of being much-simplified by the wide adoption of Java. It will be interesting to watch the next several years of developments. -- 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: Multiple Remailers at a site?
by loki＠infonex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:40 PM 6/4/96, Scott Brickner wrote: >Bill Stewart writes: >>>I don't think multiple remailers at the same site help anything. >> >>Assume Alice, Bob, and Carol are on abc.com and Xenu, Yak, and Zut >>are on xyz.com. Remailing between Alice, Bob, and Carol doesn't >>make appear to make much difference, but it does reduce the damage >>if one of the remailer's keys is compromised. On the other hand, >>mail from Alice -> Xenu -> Bob -> Yak -> Carol -> Zut adds traffic >>to the system, and makes traffic analysis more difficult, >>even if the Bad Guys are watching site abc.com and have stolen >>Alice, Bob, and Carol's keys. > >Wait a minute. More traffic should make analysis easier, since traffic >analysis is mostly statistical work on the source and destination (not >necessarily "from" and "to"). A bigger sample makes more reliable >results. > >For traffic analysis, I don't know *who* sent the message (it was, >after all, anonymized), but I do know a site which transmitted it and >one which received it, the time it was transmitted, and maybe its >size. Multiply this times a whole bunch of messages, and I can infer >information about "common interests" between those sources and >destinations. > >The delays and mixing done by remailers make it harder by >disassociating the true sender from the true receiver. If a remailer >were to ignore this step, the analyst can deduce from the two data >points > > "message a, source A, destination RemailerX, time t, size s" > "message b, source RemailerX, destination B, time t+0.001s, size s" > >that there's some connection between A and B. The more such evidence, >the stronger the connection. If the remailer does a good job with >the delays and shuffling, then it becomes difficult for the analyst >to match message a with message b, leaving him with what he already >knew (that A and RemailerX have a common interest, as to B and RemailerX, >but the interests may be wholly unrelated). > >Multiple remailers on the same machine increases the resolution of >the address information, at best, improving the analysts ability to >make connections. The same traffic load going to a single remailer >at the site makes the analyst's job harder. > >>The other threat it helps with is that if XYZ.COM gets complaints >>about that evil user Zut, she can kick her off (Bad Zut!) >>and still leave Xenu and Yak alone; if the remailer service >>were provided by the machine owner herself she might be directly liable. > >Hmm. Nothing really stops the machine owner from creating a personal >anonymous account to run the remailer. When someone complains, shut it >down and create a new one. There isn't yet a law which requires that >the owner be able to identify the user. This affords the same >protection that multiple users does. The time correlation attack can be defeated by sending mail into the remailer network with a period roughly equal to the propagation time of a message through a chain. That way your messages correlate with absolutely all receipts of all messages. That contains no information. -Lance ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: On the Hill: Child Porn "Morphing"
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:45 PM 6/4/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >"Morphing" seems to be the latest buzzword for putting childrens faces on >the bodies of adult models in sexually explicit poses and seems to have >attracted enough attention to warrant congressional attention. The ability to use the faces of famous political people (e.g. Bill&Hillery or Bob&Libby) in XXXX rated political satire probably has a wider market. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

3 2

Fight-Censorship Dispatch #12: CDA deathwatch, copyright update
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fight-Censorship Dispatch #12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CDA deathwatch begins ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Declan McCullagh / declan(a)well.com / Redistribute freely ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this dispatch: CDA deathwatch begins, vultures start to circle Copyright update: sucks to continue, sucks to delay Fred Cherry, back in action! MIT's Seth Finkelstein weighs in on copyright Internet Caucus prepares pro-Net resolution June 4, 1996 WASHINGTON, DC -- The CDA deathwatch has begun and hungry scavengers are starting to close in on the ill-begotten law's moldering carcass. The Philly court yesterday attracted still more hovering media vultures by saying they'll announce when they're ready to release their decision. What a tease. This evening I called Chris Hansen, who's leading the ACLU's legal team challenging the CDA in Philadelphia's Federal court. He told me: The court will try to give as much advance notice as possible. This is unusual but not unheard of -- all along the court has treated this as a very important case. They had the court historian come in and take pictures the first day. And the clerk himself has been present, not his deputies. (In case anyone's interested, I'm still offering 3:1 odds in our favor in Philly, though all bets are off when we get to the Supreme Court.) In the last week, the ALA/CIEC and ACLU media operations shifted into overdrive, pumping out a flurry of press advisories telling mediaperns to be on the lookout -- that a decision is expected "any day now." That was the idea, at least. Conventional wisdom said that our three-judge panel in Philly would want to rule before the court in New York City that's currently hearing a weaker, parallel challenge to the CDA. After all, Federal judges are political beasts and it's a cinch that any of 'em would want to write an opinion in this landmark case. Final arguments in the NYC case were scheduled for yesterday. But at the hearing, the Manhattan court decided it had more questions for both sides and gave the government until June 7 to file responses and the plaintiff, Joe Shea, until June 13. That means that our court has until the end of next week to issue its decision -- and still come out first. And so the deathwatch groans onward... +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ COPYRIGHT UPDATE: SUCKS TO CONTINUE, SUCKS TO DELAY +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ I wrote in my May 30 dispatch that there's "a fighting chance that this braindead copyright bill will pass this year." Now I'm not as sure. The House subcommittee markup session that tentatively was scheduled for June 5 has been cancelled, and it won't take place before June 12 or 13. That's good and bad. The upside is that this ill-fated bill likely won't pass in any form this session -- but the mucky underside is that the courts will continue to rely on a Clinton administration white paper released last fall by copyright czar Bruce Lehman. Lehman, who heads the Patents and Trademark Office, hatched this boondoggle that slams online fair-use rights and slaps service providers with hefty fines if one of their users violates someone's copyright. A well-connected lawyer in DC sent me email on this earlier tonight: No copyright legislation is going to be passed this year. This comes from [Important Name deleted --DBM]. That means the White Paper will guide courts for at least the next very critical six months. The Scientology v. Lerma court has been looking [for] legislative direction, but they can't stall much longer. They will have to base their decision on the only thing they have, the White Paper. Somehow, I suspect the Church of Scientology won't mind that one bit. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ FRED CHERRY, BACK IN ACTION! +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Fred Cherry, everyone's favorite net.loon and a truly redoubtable USENET flamer, took center stage briefly at yesterday's Shea v. Reno CDA hearing in New York City. The amateur lawyer succeeded in joining his lawsuit with Joe Shea's and has been merrily introducing excerpts from soc.motss "homonazi" flamewars into evidence. He maintains that to reply to flames, he must use "indecent" or "patently offensive" language, which could violate the CDA. Mark Mangan writes on the June 3 hearing: In his deep, raspy voice [Judge] Cabranes then called Fred Cherry, who had attended every day of the hearings in hopes of consolidating his case. The chief judge looked at a paper and pronounced Cherry's name again. Someone leaned over the seats and tapped Cherry. He awoke, arose, gathered his plastic bags and umbrella and, wearing his overcoat, approached the bench. He walked straight to the microphone and rested his belongings at his feet. Cherry started his hurried talk about how he "despised the ACLU" and what he was there to discuss "goes all the way back 30 years." I interviewed Cherry earlier today. Here's what he told me: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: HOW DID YOU FEEL AFTER THE HEARING? A: The judges were nice to me. I can't believe how nice they were. That's not what I'm used to when I see judges. Q: WHAT ABOUT YOUR REQUEST THAT THE CASES BE CONSOLIDATED? A: [Shea's attorney, Randall Boe] said he's worried that if I join, I'm so far behind that it'll slow him down. That they won't be able to get to the Supreme Court... I'm just going to tag along like a caboose hitched onto a train. [Shea and his attorney] don't want me. They filed a brief, about two pages, saying they didn't want me. Q: WHAT DID YOU TELL THE JUDGES YESTERDAY? A: I came up with something [posted] by Rod Swift that Jesus had a large penis. Everybody [in the courtroom] was going crazy. Everyone was laughing. Q: WILL YOU INTRODUCE THOSE POSTS INTO EVIDENCE? A: They're going to give me more time. There's going to be an order -- it hasn't come down yet. They'll issue an order allowing me to present more exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I asked Cherry for the penis-posts he read aloud, but he still hasn't sent 'em to me. I was able to track down some seemingly representative ones that I archived at EFF's web site in April: Your ass is so blocked up that you do need some therapeutic relief for your constipation -- a condition which has backlogged all the shit right back up into your head, Fred. nobody has suggested that fred cherry should be thrown in jail, sued for libel, or even so much as fined. i have suggested the wisdom of packing his asshole with shards of broken glass, but i wasn't serious. i wasnt _that_ serious anyway. Whatever you think of Cherry's antics, you gotta grant him one thing: not many people have the balls to demand that a Federal court uphold their right to flame. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ MIT'S SETH FINKELSTEIN WEIGHS IN ON COPYRIGHT +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ By Seth Finkelstein (sethf(a)mit.edu) The fight over the future of copyright law is raging over two competing concepts: information should be for the public good vs. info is "private property." Previously, information has been tightly linked to a physical object -- a book, a record, a tape. Now, with electronic communication, the full implications of "copyright" -- where using your printscreen key may be illegal if not explicitly allowed by license -- are becoming clear. Since this "property" is so abstract, it's frightening to contemplate the regulation needed to control the network to ensure no unauthorized information gets distributed. In the censorship battles, there's at least *some* material which is safe. Not so in the copyright wars, where every message may be required to carry "identification papers," to establish that it's not fugitive property that has escaped from its rightful "owner." (And what does this do to anonymity online?) Unlike many, I don't believe any particular outcome is inevitable. It's a question of what sort of future world emerges from the *political* process. It can be either an electronic commons, shared by all, or a series of tollbooths on every public online street. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ INTERNET CAUCUS PREPARES PRO-INTERNET RESOLUTION +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ The congressional Internet Caucus is about to introduce a non-binding resolution promising to do good by the Net: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that -- (1) Congress should educate itself about the Internet and use the technology in personal, committee, and leadership offices; (2) Congress should work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to facilitate the growth and advancement of the Internet; (3) Congress should maximize the openness of and participation in government by the people via the Internet so that our constituents can have more information from and more access to their elected representatives; (4) Congress should promote commerce and free flow of information on the Internet; (5) Congress should advance the United States' world leadership in the digital world by avoiding the passage of laws that stifle innovation and increase regulation of the Internet; and (6) Congress should work with the Internet community to receive its input on the issues affecting the Internet that come before Congress. --------------------------------------------------------------------- In today's Campaign Dispatch column on HotWired, Brock Meeks writes: The caucus is now 47 members strong, double its original membership. But the fight for Net survival -- hell, for simple respect -- is far from over. Neither a second-term Clinton nor a Dole presidency gives us much reason for hope. We'll be in the trenches for several years to come; it's time to get our hands dirty. More hot air from Congress? Sure. But it's a sea change compared to where the Net community was a year ago, around the time that TIME magazine's infamous Cyberporn cover appeared, Marty Rimm published his fraudulent smut-study, and Sen. Chuck Grassley held the "first-ever" cybersmut hearing in July... Stay tuned for more reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today's unsubstantiated rumor: Y'all remember Jason "The Weasel" Baron, the DoJ's lumbering, cyberchallenged lawyer? Word from an attorney friend of mine says that Baron is predicting the DoJ will *lose* on the CDA, three-zip. Want to subscribe to the announcement-only fight-censorship mailing list for future Fight-Censorship Dispatches and related updates? Just send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" in the body of a message addressed to: majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu Mentioned in this CDA update: Mark Mangan's Shea v. Reno June 3 update: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2691 EFF's archive on the Fred Cherry v. Reno case: http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Fred_Cherry_v_DoJ/ EFF's archive on the Joe Shea v. Reno case: http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Am_Reporter_v_DoJ/ ACLU predicts decision soon: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2673 U.S. Congressional Internet Caucus: http://www.house.gov/white/internet_caucus/netcauc.html Creative Incentive Coalition on copyright: http://www.cic.org/ Digital Future Coalition on copyright: http://www.ari.net/dfc/ Brock Meeks on online copyright: http://www.hotwired.com/muckraker/96/20/index3a.html Brock Meeks on Internet Caucus, non-binding resolution: http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/96/23/index1a.html Ron Newman's web page on the Church of Scientology: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/ Fight-Censorship list <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/> Rimm ethics critique <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/rimm/> Int'l Net-Censorship <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/international/> This and previous Fight-Censorship Dispatches are archived at: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/> Other relevant web sites: <http://www.epic.org/> <http://www.eff.org/> <http://www.aclu.org/> <http://www.cdt.org/> <http://www.ala.org/> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Electronic Signature Act Of 1996
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think more apropos to the discussion of electronic signatures is UCC 1-201(39), "'Signed' includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing." Comment 39 to 1-201 indicates "[a]uthentication may be printed, stamped or written; it may be by initials or by thumbprint. It may be on any part of the document and in appropriate cases may be found in a billhead or letterhead. No catalog of possible authentications can be complete and the court must use common sense and commercial experience in passing upon these matters. The question always is whether the symbol was executed or adopted by the party with present intention to authenticate the writing." And comment 2 to 3-401 (re negotiable instruments) indicates that a signature may be "handwritten, typed, printed or made in any other manner." So I don't see why that wouldn't include a PGP signature, a traditional ".signature" block, or the typed "/s/ Greg Broiles" used in some circumstances. (Of course, the UCC doesn't apply to every transaction, nor is it adopted in identical form in every state, blah blah blah.) But it's always nice if the legislature is willing to say "This is the right way to create an electronic signature" because then we don't have to wonder. (However, a signature and a contract are not the same thing - and you don't need to have a contract to have an enforceable obligation. A nonrepudiable document still isn't a self-executing one.) -- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles(a)netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

3 2

Re: Java
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Clay Olbon II wrote: > > Has anyone written a Java app to implement the Chinese Lottery? Seems like > a natural way to do it. A small cash prize might entice lots of folks to > let it run in the background... We have plenty of Java code that does crypto. If anyone can think of a suitable target (and perhaps a suitable prize for the winner), we'll help knock up some code. Click this if you're interested http://systemics.com:79/ (alternatively finger @systemics.com) The only targets I can think of are the Sun/Microsoft crypto API keys (but I would guess that these keys are too large for an attack to be feasible), and the unix password of David Sternlight (which was posted to sci.crypt last summer). Gary -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

1 0