December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

How I Would Ban Strong Crypto in the U.S.
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:18 AM 7/15/96, Dave Banisar wrote: >Its now up at http://www.epic.org/crypto/key_escrow/wh_cke_796.html > Thanks. I took an initial look, and it looks like the same old stuff. The report speaks of an "emerging consensus" (for key escrow). I see just the opposite, unless the report is speaking only of the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement community and its foreign counterparts. Business has made it clear (cf. the several recent reports) that it is opposed to the Administration's plan, and that if a market for some form of key escrow exists (as it certainly does, in specific contexts), that the market can supply the solution. And certainly the civil liberties groups and groups such as ourselves are not part of this "emerging consensus." Ditto for the "average man in the street," as evidenced by opinion polls (I recall 80% opposition reported by one of the newsweeklies, but don't quote me), by anecdotal reports (e.g., Zimmermann's tale of his discussions), and by opposition to Clipper I, Clipper II, and now Clipper III. A bunch of Congressmen, including the axis supporting the Burns bill, obviously are not part of this emerging consensus. The National Research Council report made it clear that a distinguished panel of cryptographers, computer scientists, and policy professionals did not think key escrow is desirable. And the hundreds of folks in attendance at recent SAFE and NRC travelling roadshows were obviously not in support of key escrow. Business, civil liberties groups, professional organizations, and most Net people are opposed to the Administration's key ecrow proposals (such as they are understood to be, in Clipper I/II/III). So, who is in this "emerging consensus"? Moving on to the wisdom of imposing a government solution to what either is or is not a market need, there is great danger in deploying even a nominally (at this time) "voluntary standard." This is a danger many of us have felt for years to be the main danger of nominally (and ostensibly) "voluntary" systems. Imagine a voluntary system supported and funded by the government, using its power to limit exports and to "jawbone" foreign governments. (No time here to examine the obvious issues--cf. the archives for many explications over the past several years.) Once widely deployed, and perhaps mandatory in countries like France, Singapore, Iraq, and the like, it would take very little more to simply pass a law restricting the non-escrowed alternative in the U.S. (Sure, such a law might be unconstitutional, for the reasons we so often discuss. Sure, there are many circumventions possible. Sure. The point is not to rehash these points again but to indicate why Cypherpunks and civil libertarians should NOT support any plan, even a "voluntary" plan, that puts such power to set standards in the hands of the government. Even a "signed promise" is not enough, given the dangers of "flipping a switch.") Is this a plausible scenario, though? Well, were I in the LEA/TLA community, this is what my fallback plan would probably be. Realizing that a full-frontal ban on strong crypto, or crypto without backdoors, would not fly at this time (unless Oklahoma II happens, in which case all bets are off), and realizing that the plans for Clippers I, II, and III have been fizzling, I would push for a relatively harmless-sounding "voluntary key escrow" plan. I would push hard on Netscape, Microsoft, Novell, Sun, Apple, and the other companies (but mainly on Netscape and MS, for obvious reasons) to bundle in "trusted third parties" and all that GAK stuff. Bundle it in, make it easy to use, make it easy to export, make it easy to spread in crypto-hostile countries, and hope like hell that it undermines the push for PGP and S/MIME. I would work closely with Mossad, GCHQ, SDECE, Chobetsu, Savak, and all the other secret policemen of the world to make sure that while America might remain an "island of strong crypto" for a while at least, that the same could not be said of other countries. That is, I would work to help them limit crypto use in their own countries to GAK-only forms. (Those pesky survivalists, militia members, and ACLU folks in America could keep using their Bass-o-matic and PGP tools, but most of the rest of the world would be mostly limited to GAK and New World Order software.) Then, in about 2002 or so, depending on how many more serious terrorist incidents have occurred, I would drop the hammer on strong crypto. Maybe an Executive Order, maybe a state of national emergency, maybe a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause, maybe an Act of Congress.... Once a New World Order-approved GAK system is widely deployed, outlawing of "rogue cryptography" in the U.S. is more manageable. That's what I would do. (But not being on that side of the ideological fence, I will instead fight GAK as I always have. And I will not be fooled by talk of how "Americans will always be free any form of cryptography." Not when those same reports from the Administration, and the testimony of Louis Freeh, etc., is in the same breath taling about the need to stop pornographers from encrypting their files, and so forth. Do they think we're stupid?) Don't be fooled. --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."

10 10

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates
by clark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: david(a)sternlight.com, jimbell(a)pacifier.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sun Jul 14 23:08:09 1996 > At 4:48 PM -0700 7/14/96, jim bell wrote a typically argumentative > message. > I've gotten wiser over time and don't plan to respond. I think both our > positions are quite clear and readers may make up their own minds. > > This post is a courtesy to others who may have been expecting more. It's > a > one-time statement to this list, which I've just joined, of my current > practice: Silence does not constitute assent. > > David More time required, apparently. Professional liars will put anything in writing. Judas' Sheep, too. Compromise is surrender. ec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMenELqr9Bm6Zdjx5AQE4XQf+Je9KZ+3sVL+tACTfTxjqmnuzaq4XNvAN oH92/O5f4ilWYomeacqXYuEmc7Owk2bAVIA3IO2ZxbbBBKkb8Gy4xILEVyzVC825 +FDccpwwNETkVWGaLcoo8h7FHuWnNTfVmQ23IyTo7lIYy7g3Fkr4KJPBac4BInv4 GRy5qazCrLMEXHT0VHOrNsi+cCejlGBQAkrwqWNFonNVr3+FpZY9+Yo8AZGWTiPY d7yTWlFbAIANXLshSHatsVAb9uKTIzJeosGM9Hhq6hK9rYBXJhcfHat+7SkOKzJI we6Hgg4D/TVzLmJAo3X8yUPDDDm9YyA2RbdF1FLZg6qzYr+vvSjuTg== =2/4c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [NOISE, FLAME] Cypherpunk kook slanders
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:23 PM 7/14/96 EDT, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: [Alot of bullshit deleted] >I remember how someone recently argued on news.groups that Bruce Bough's votes >should be invalidated because he's dying from AIDS. I strongly disagree with >Dan's (?) reasoning, which was, I recall, that someone with only a couple of >months left to live shouldn't be telling others how to run Usenet after his >death. I think we should consider Bruce's opinions as being representative. >After all, a Usenet vote is an interest poll, and the voters are just a sample >of a larger population. Not everyone who thinks like Bruce Bough is going to >die together with him from AIDS within a few months (sigh). Let him vote. I have no idea where you got the idea that Bruce has AIDS. I know Bruce well. He does not have AIDS. You have no clue as to what the hell you are talking about. I understand him being pissed at the accusation. This society does not deal very well with people with AIDS. Bruce has a justifiable concern as to lasting damage to his reputation due to unfounded allegations. (Of course, it is not as bad as accusing someone of being a child mollester, as your friend Dr. Grubor enjoys doing to people he disagrees with...) Bruce *does* have health problems. He has worked DAMN hard to overcome them. They are not a figment of his imagination, nor are they the result of AIDS. They are a very real problem which he is trying to deal with in the best way he can. As for him "dragging outside articles into this group"... You must mean him mentioning your recieval of the "Net Kook of the Month Award". It probably was off topic. After reading your forwards however, it was not undeserved. Another thing that you need to do is learn how to comprehend written english. You stated: >In article 2, Bruce Bough follows up on my article and threatens to prosecute >me under the Americans with Disability Act for misspelling his name. He did nothing of the sort. He threatened to prosecute you for slandering him (by stating he has AIDS when he does not), not for the spelling of his name. He stated: >Further, you might want to read up on the Americans With Disabilities >Act. Slanderous and defamatory statements about the handicapped - and my >government agrees that I do have a real problem, though it's not AIDS - >open you up to interesting liability. I don't understand why you feel the need to cast aspersions on those you disagree with. But you should not be surprised when it pisses people off. Bruce is a very nice guy who has some health problems. I know few people who have met him who have not gotten along with him. Why I should take the word of someone with your attitude over his is unclear to me. Acting like an asshole does not gain any sympathy for your cause. Bruce has killfiled you. I do not blame him. You remade my killfile list as well. Get a life. --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

2 1

Clueless "Attachment converted" uses
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:48 AM 7/15/96, Gregory A Empey wrote: >On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:55:29 -0800 jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> >writes: >>At 10:59 AM 6/20/96 -0400, Intense wrote: >>> >>>does not matter - it will be renewed in the interest of the >>government >>>The goverment want's there backdoor... would you expect less? >> >>As far as I know, patents can't be "renewed." I've heard they can be >>"re-issued," amended, but to my knowledge that doesn't extend their >>term. >> >>Jim Bell >>jimbell(a)pacifier.com >> > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:UUE.DOC (WDBN/MSWD) (0000FAD8) OK, I _usually_ delete these "Attachment converted" messages, which (fortunately) deletes the attachment in my "Attachments" folder, but for some reason this time I fired up my word processor and opened the attachment. All I found was this crap: "Hey, im ready to seriously f*ck-up MCI for no apparent reason, and im also giving credit card (and calling card) #'s away for no apparent reason, just reply to skitzo(a)juno.com." I urge people to NOT use attachments when ordinary plain text will obviously work. There's a time and a place for richly formatted messages, a la MIME, but not on a mailing list with heterogeneous platforms, mailers, and varying graphics capabilities. Think of our mailing list as being like Usenet, where graphics messages and oddball formats are frowned upon (except in the binaries groups, and a few of the non-English language groups). And especially not clueless nonsense like this call for "fucking up MCI." --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."

4 3

Re: Reasonable validation of a software package
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I expect this problem can usually be handled without formal CAs. If you publish your PGP key fingerprint in your advertising and make the key available on your web page, then your users have a way of independently verifying your key. As the finger print appears in more and more places (letterhead, product packaging, etc.), it is less and less likely that your attacker can reach them all to modify them. The important thing is diverse paths. If you include your key in the package with the product and print the fingerprint on the outside, it becomes relatively easier for your attacker to replace the whole thing as part of an attack. At 11:33 AM 7/13/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote: >This illustrates the need for and role of certification authorities. > >See http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/trusted.htm for some >info. > >On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, Lyal Collins wrote: > >> This touches upon a favourite rant of mine. >[...] >> So, now you need to ensure that you can get your public key >> (to verify the digital signature with) in the hands of all >> your possible, or intended, recipients. >> >> Now the race is on for as many people as possible to generate >> PGP public keys/certificates bearing your name, or variations >> of it. Once that occurs, there is a fair chance that one of >> these keys will verfiy the digital signature on a piece of >> software purportedly from you. Still, not many people will have >> your true PGP public key/certificate, but, them's the breaks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:05 PM 7/13/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >On 12 Jul 96 at 18:23, Bob Palacios posted: > >[Banner Snipped!]] >> CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 27 July 12, 1996 >[..] > >> Today's statement is essentially a re-statement of the Clipper III proposal >> released in May. Among other things, the Vice President: >> >> * Called for the liberalization of export controls provided computer >> users participate in a "global key management infrastructure" >> designed to make personal encryption keys accessible to law >> enforcement. > >This is particularly problematic... if the mainland Chinese gov't >requested a key from a N.Amercian or European (or even UN controlled) >escrow agency, who is to say it isn't really for political reasons >(even though they may claim the persons are drug smugglers)? > >Or what if the 'crime' was, say, discussing Mormon beliefs, which is >illegal in Singapore (and I think Russia as well)? > >Or what if some terrorist was using keys escrowed in a country that >sponsered terrorist acts? Deranged Mutant is absolutely right. There are about 150 (or so) governments in the world. When people talk about making keys available to government (or law enforcement), always ask, "Which governments can access these keys?" If I were a non-French corporation, I would feel distinctly nervous if the answer included France. (There are a number of other countries where the security services have also been suspected of engaging in industrial espionage.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Lack of PGP signatures
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:38 PM 7/5/96 -0400, "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> wrote: >OK, now the point of this message: somebody pointed out that if a binary was >clear-signed using an option that would strip it down to 7 bits, the binary >would be corrupted and therefore, such an option on PGP would be a Bad Thing. >Then, I pointed out that not only would there be no point in a clear signature, >since that would make the binary useless to someone without PGP anyway. It >is best to sign a binary and extract the certificate to a separate file, which >you noted above. So an option that would strip data down to 7 bits would not >affect the ability to sign a binary. Such an option would probably be a Good >Thing. Not everybody limits their language to the 96 characters supported by ASCII; many people use languages that have umlauts and cedillas and accent marks and haceks and other inkblots above/under/around their letters, or symbols like section markers and Yen and British Pound currency symbols. A signature form that trashes files down to 7 bits would not only annoy these people, but also their readers :-) One readily obvious alternative - hashing only the lower 7 bits of each letter, but not damaging the letter itself - is probably worse, because the message can be altered by changing high bits without changing the signature, while the shred-them-all method at least leaves you sure what you're signing. But they're both pretty bad.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Re-delegate Authority!

1 0

Re: Word lists for passphrases
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:43 PM 7/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >If the purpose is for use with "Crack" or some similar program, it might be >better than you would think. You won't get the "unusual" words, but you >will also get the words in common usage that do not appear in dictionaries. >(Such as fnord, jedi, killfile, and the like...) "fnord" is in _my_ dictionary - can't you find it in yours? :-) >Another thing to look for when choosing dictionaries/wordlists for crack is >not sticking to english. If you have a userbase that is known to have a >certain percentage of people of a non-english background, you will want to >find lists of words from that background. (I had a sysadmin asking me about >Yiddish and Hebrew wordlists for just that reason.) These can be a bit >harder. (Especially for unusual languages.) Grady Ward has his Moby Words databases with some of this kind of information. In addition to the usual sets of languages, it's useful to include any available lexicons of Elvish, Klingon, Unix, and other popular hacker-languages, plus any names you can scam off MUDs, etc. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Re-delegate Authority!

3 2

Defend Mail Bomb
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it possible to defend mail bomb? If not, detect who they are?

1 0

Organized Crime Home Page - Four Horsemen, No Waiting
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, with the UCMJ ( Uniform Code of Military Justice ) and the Oath of Allegiance Military Personnel take on induction being re-written to Support and defend the United Nations and to accept direct and lawful orders from UN personnel, this doesn't surprise me.Soon, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, or someone like him will repeal more of the amendments to our constitution. First our guns, then our code. I'll give up my pass phrase when they pry it from my cold dead fingers ! >Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 18:22:00 -0700 >From: Alan Bostick <abostick(a)netcom.com> >Organization: Arrogant Opinions 'R' Us >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Organized Crime Home Page - Four Horsemen, No Waiting >X-URL: http://www.mywebsite.com:1080/cgi-bin/bvolmgr.cgi?BVpage=management >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Cypherpunks interested in establishment scaremongering are invited >to take a look at the Organized Crime Home Page >(http://www.alternatives.com/crime/index.html) sponsored by a group >called The Committee for a Safe Society, about the world-wide threat >of organized crime. Apparently every evil known to post-Cold-War >society, even the bad weather in Chicago, is the responsibility of >organized crime. Now you know why governments need GAK. > >Alan-Bob says check it out. >-- >Alan Bostick | [Spielberg's] latest is TWISTER, a film that >mailto:abostick@netcom.com | gives whole new meaning to the phrase "giant >news:alt.grelb | sucking sound." -- Patrick Taggart >http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick > >

1 0