December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Firewall Penetration
by vin＠shore.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Frank Willoughby <frankw(a)in.net> wrote: >FWIW, of @70 firwalls on the market, only @5 are adequate to protect >a company from the hazards of the Internet. Ah, Frank, are you talking here about session hijacking and is end-to-end crypto the defining factor of the robust five? Suerte, _Vin Vin McLellan +The Privacy Guild+ <vin(a)shore.net> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, Ma. 02150 USA Tel: (617) 884-5548 <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>

1 0

Re: Game Theory and its Relevance to Cypherpunks
by Lora Crouse 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:21 AM 7/21/96 -0700, you wrote: >He will cite >Hudson, Heritage, RAND, ... AEI, and Cato whose shining lights best >understand who it is that is signing their paychecks. These are the folks >that bought us Vietnam, did not pay for it in lives or money, but profited >immensely. >-- Llywarch Hen I can assure you the Cato Institute would not have supported the Vietnam War (assuming they had be in existence around that time, which they weren't). They didn't even support the invasion of Iraq. Maybe you should do a little research before painting such a broad stroke against think tanks. Lora

1 0

Boycotts and Etiquette
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:19 AM 7/22/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Honestly, this boycott campaign looks out of place on Cypherpunks, at >least to me. I mean, we are for freedom of speech, aren't we? >Sternlight is talking about on-topic things. How come that renowned >defenders of freedom of speech resorted to name calling and attempts to >push their opponent out of the public forum? Note that I have not called for a boycott of Sternlight. The voices you here adding their name to a list are biasing the statistics. Those who don't want to respond to Sternlight, or me, or Vulis, Bell, or VZNuri/LD, should simply *not respond*! A novel idea, eh? I think I have been relatively polite to David, though I sure do wish he'd "pull his punches" with his gratuitous insults (e.g., by ending posts with dismissive remarks about the moral beliefs of his opponents, to name one example). I call these "ad hominem" remarks, in that they call into question the motivations or the basic competence of others to comment, though perhaps David believes that since they are "true," they cannot be ad hominem. {It ain't ad hominem, it's truth.) Perhaps a better word is "disrespectul," in the sense that I get the impression that David thinks nearly everyone who engages in argument with him is either childish (a term he characterized my views as :-}), or foolish, or disingenuous, or oafish, or deceiving, or... Some examples: "...so your contention is false on its face." "Some live in the conversation in their head and require that everything be spelled out. Very well, then:" "Isn't that nice. Some creep is proud enough of his skill at accessing the trivially available InterNIC finger data that he posts it to invoke harassment. And being a coward as well, he hides behind an anonymous remailer." "Another attempt to accuse, read minds, and impute motives." ..... Actually, I started to go back through the Sternlight CP posts I have saved (*), and found a curious thing: the intelligent comments vastly outweighed the "one line repartee" insults! I believe the majority of Net participants (here, in the crypto newsgroups, etc.) lose sight of the good comments because of the flamish ones. (* Indeed, I may have skewed my sample toward less-flamish posts, as I delete most of the simple insult posts.) I believe David would be better served by not yielding to the temptation to add throwaway lines, such as he used in replying to me: " Where I come from we call that "theft". Your ethics may vary in California." This is unneeded, and adds to a tone of ad hominem attack. It is roughly equivalent to making snide remarks about the motives of Kallstrom, Denning, Freeh, etc. Not very persuasive. In fact, in one analysis of the nature of flaming he noted: "And when on occasion (as happens) I rise to provocation, my take on it isn't that the other guy posted "flame bait" but that I allowed myself to be out of control. It's always possible to respond with the standard weapons against provocation when such is deliberate: rapier-like wit, reductio ad absurdum, literate sarcasm, or simple silence aka the filter file. Actual contumely in a response is seldom necessary, except perhaps by reference on rare occasion. We're not children here." Good advice. I agree with him here, and will not try to collect more examples of rudeness...Perhaps we react too strongly to the "Sternlightisms" and lose sight of the better points? Still, in my several years of seeing his posts in sci.crypt, talk.politics.crypto, talk.politics.org.eff (?), and elsewhere, I've seen that often his policy points get lost in the clutter of arguing with others on non-substantive points, of getting pulled into nonsensical crap about "SternFUD," "Bowdark," the "UnDoctor," and whom he has *Plonk*ed. Personally, as a neo-Calvinist who believes that those with whom I disagree on matters of politeness and basic morals are best punished by silence from me, I have often simply ignored threads that involve this kind of pettiness. (But, like David himself said, sometimes I, too, get pulled in...) There is a spectrum of rudeness and "disrepect." I certainly don't hold myself up as a standard of politeness. At one end are some truly rude folks, much ruder than Sternlight, me, or even Perry ("Llywarch Hen" and Vulis come to mind, recently). At the other end are some truly polite folks, such as Hal Finney and Bill Stewart, who make their points while avoiding personal characterizations or cleverly-worded insults. Rather than wasting list space with talk of "pledges" and boycotts, maybe a better approach is for us all to concentrate on better posts.... --Tim May (P.S. I don't intend to pull my punches on the "controversial" posts I like to write, such as about guns, or Ritalin, or "queer rights." While these posts apparently are "offensive" to some here, this kind of post is perfectly "fair game" as I see it.) 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."

3 3

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.28 - FBI Director to Testify at Senate Crypto Hearing
by shabbir＠vtw.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would disagree with you here jim. Perhaps you have a selective memory, but representatives from all the organizations attended the Clipper II hearings at NIST in Maryland and gave the pro-GAK folks a good drubbing. (with NIST's microphone too. They're such good sports...) Person after person got up at the first of those (and subsequent ones) and grilled representatives from the FBI, NSA, NIST, and the White House. The ACLU, EPIC, EFF, CDT, and VTW were all there and pitched in. Somehow I don't think that getting grilled is what's missing. The thing that's holding us back here is that we're all pretty sold on our arguments. When the White House comes to their senses, or Congress overrules them, or the market makes them irrelevant, then we'll have some progress. -Shabbir J. Safdar * Online Representative * Voters Telecomm. Watch (VTW) http://www.vtw.org/ * Defending Your Rights In Cyberspace jim bell writes: >At 02:12 PM 7/21/96 -0400, Bob Palacios wrote: >> The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 28 > POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 28 July 21, 1996 >> CONTENTS: (1) FBI Director to Testify at Senate Crypto Hearing; Netizens Can >> Participate in Hearing Live Online >>In an effort to ensure that concerned Internet users can participate in >>this important policy debate, > >If there is anything worth complaining about, it is that there simply hasn't >been a "debate" in this "important policy debate." The pro-GAK few have >consistently avoided appearing in a format in which a genuine debate can >occur. And I don't mean a question-and-answer scenario either, whether the >questions are asked by Congress or the news media. I'm talking about a REAL >debate, one where the pro-GAK's can be seen to _lose_ by being torn to pieces. > >Jim Bell >jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: A Snake-Oil FAQ
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:48 PM 7/21/96, David Sternlight wrote: >So is your comment. What was broken was not public key, but a particular >key length (and by implication shorter ones). You can do that with just >about any system, even a one-time pad, by brute force, but it won't buy you ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >much more than sharpening your skills, for longer keys. This is not correct. The one-time pad is "information-theoretically secure," as proved early on by Shannon. This is much more than being "cryptographically secure," for which the term "brute force" is applicable (albeit essentially still impossible, for a large enough work factor). (I just looked at later posts and saw your response to Simon Spero's rebuttal: "Theoretically Simon is right. Nevertheless one-time pads have been broken through trial and error when they have been reused either out of laziness or force majeure." It is _very_ important that people understand that "reusing a pad" is not a valid use of a _one-time_ pad. Such misuse, while important in actual cryptanalytic history, is no more a "brute forcing" of the pad than is buying a key from an opponent, obtaining it through burglary, etc. All important methods of cracking codes, but not at all what is meant by "brute force.") --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: Game Theory and its Relevance to Cypherpunks
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Tonnesen <stonnes(a)ix.netcom.com> is the winner of the 5 point prize, for his submission to me, the first I received with the correct answer: At 3:24 AM 7/22/96, Steve Tonnesen wrote: >>"I have a .45 and a shovel; I doubt you'll be missed." (5 points to >>whomever first identifies the movie this was in) > >"Clueless", I believe. > --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: Netscape
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sun Jul 21 22:19:11 1996 > > The government has yet to enforce ITAR. The only thing they have been doing > > is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto. If anyone was > > ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost > certainly > > be found to be unconstitutional. > > So do it. None of this anonymous bullshit, or trying to drag Netscape > into > it. > > I'd donate whatever I could to a Cypherpunk Legal Defense Fund. We only > need > one volunteer with a lot of time on his/her hands. > > -rich > Could be fun. I haven't been in a lawsuit in quite a while (i.e. never). I'd love to spend some time in court, as a thought exercise and a token claim to fame. I'll be uploading something to hacktic as soon as I can get into Netscape's server to download it myself :) dave - ---- David E. Smith POB 324 Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 dsmith(a)prairienet.org http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith send mail of 'send pgp-key' subject for my PGP public key "If a train station is where a train stops ... ... then just what is a workstation?" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Automagically signed with Pronto Secure for Windows. iQEVAwUBMfLzOTVTwUKWHSsJAQGEfAf/Su1LVpvIzhwuFKtMbR3j38gB+HnRjfvs /yveJSWh5q+KooVHUvaKdkRwGFvs3Q/xpBaxnUTiZqsdpRcbAh6uKC/w8mYAe/Vt GuaZl/eIz7FGRk5IF/yY691/R2yknxdujDSuzw5B+r9YJBvRqO5sCWbBfJFkElR0 3hDEy6PXddG69ujN+OYiqTAbgatee0jIycAZg5lYl45JVaNer0GcrJtNWqzfyMnI 5c91JAg/raOclYZPHqqNjqUqi1oTY+ItSeVgZ3QpBIs1ggG5wADG1uLsQZh4W6jn e93PFYXJWC4AzNYxLIuI/eMj22yCn7d2EEniwH6gtmRK/k5oBiuOvA== =hz7e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 5:32 AM 7/22/96, jim bell wrote: >At 02:25 AM 7/22/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >>(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 > >Which raises an interesting question: Why aren't they (still) restricting >PC-type computers for export? While it might not appear to make a great >deal of sense either, a PC is just as much a tool for encryption as the >software which runs on it. And it's obvious that given the two scenarios >below: But they _are_ (so far as I know, though I haven't checked recently). That is, there are export restrictions on computers and programs which can perform certain mathematical operations faster than some specfied limit. For example, FFTs faster than a certain rate. My copy of Mathematica, updated less than 18 months ago, says "Not for Export," and this was not because it contained any crypto code, but because of the performance on certain algorithms (on commonly available machines). COCOM-type restrictions were relaxed several years ago, of course. And a lot of the old COCOM restrictions were not on export per se, but on export to specific countries. Including by transshipment ("CPU-laundering"). --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: CDT Policy Post 2.28 - FBI Director to Testify at Senate Crypto Hearing
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:15 PM 7/21/96 -0400, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote: > >I would disagree with you here jim. Perhaps you have a selective memory, >but representatives from all the organizations attended the Clipper II >hearings at NIST in Maryland and gave the pro-GAK folks a good drubbing. >(with NIST's microphone too. They're such good sports...) > >Person after person got up at the first of those (and subsequent ones) and >grilled representatives from the FBI, NSA, NIST, and the White House. >The ACLU, EPIC, EFF, CDT, and VTW were all there and pitched in. Somehow Okay, I should remember "never say never." However, wasn't Clipper II about a year ago? They're a little gun shy if they haven't arranged something since then. I guess that's progress. In any case, a gentle reminder: I think you should withdraw the official position you originally publicized concerning the Leahy encryption bill. Fair enough? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

the VTW---FBI Connection
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have received information that VTW is run and supported by the FBI, which we have suspected for reasons listed here. I) They appear to have no financial support or funding source. They do not accept donations. They have no corporate funds. And yet they appear to be a thriving business. II) They are secretive about their location, and do not seem to have a headquarters. The address listed in the NIC is a vacant lot in of all places Brooklyn, NY. They do not have a listed telephone. III) On a tip from a "friend" we learned that the power leader behind VTW is a cleancut man with the unusual name "Shabbir M. Safdar." Not exactly a common name. Several people say they've met him. Our "friend" says that Mr. Safdar is in reality an agent of the FBI. IIII) We didn't believe this without external verification. So we called the Brooklyn office of the FBI and asked for Agent Safdar. No such person. I called the Washington office. No such person. Checked if there is any agent named Safdar. They don't give out this info. Then we tried to find ANY public records on a Safdar, with no luck. No driver's license in NY, DC, NJ, etc. No phone, etc. Odd that such a person does not exist and yet runs a "human rights" organization? Then Alice called the NY FBI office. Asked for Agent Safdar. Guess what? "He's not in. Can I take a message". No message, thanks. He'll get the message all right. Now the big question: What is the FBI trying to do getting all these names? What else has "VTW" been doing? And what other organizations like them are there? Who else is in on it? What does this say about EPIC, CDT, EFF? Are Blaze and Schneier dupes, or willing participants? What about their ISP? I think we are all owed an explanation. This is serious. Maybe FOIA or a lawsuit before they burn the files. What do you want to bet "VTW" quietly fades away after a few prefunctory denials, and gets replaced by another organization in due course? Faithfully, Net reporter team Alice and Bob

7 6