December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PGP Comments Considered Occasionally Harmful Re: Pronto making a comment
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To cypherpunks, Re: mbabcock and Jim Ray's discussion. >> How did you get Pronto to do a comment? > >I added a "comment=" in my config.txt ;) ... the old fashionned way. ... >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.3i >Charset: ascii >Comment: http://www.cyberbeach.net/~mbabcock/PGP/ Note that the comment makes traffic analysis much easier. Sure, you can send your mail through five different remailers, but if each layer of PGP has your home page URL or some other distinctive Comment:, it's traceable. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.7.1 Comment: PGP available outside U.S.A. at ftp.ox.ac.uk iQBVAwUBMif6ZvthU5e7emAFAQHh2AH/R4KY4MPQBjF2XCeeFCY5XPVQTePvPwT6 5MAAzyTL/8RwU0Ul7G7rQgeb/08CxqetC0Ry22AhMV8uEV6DgTbcLg== =4Ttw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Reassign Authority!

1 0

FWD: Re: Tiger?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bruce Schneier wrote in sci.crypt : > > In article <505bms$2m1(a)kadri.ut.ee>, sander(a)haldjas.folklore.ee (Sander > Vesik) wrote: > > > Bruce Schneier (schneier(a)counterpane.com) wrote: > > : Tiger is a one-way hash function designed by Eli Biham and Ross Anderson. > > : It is optimized for a 64-bit chip (DEC Alpha). While interesting, Tiger > > : is very new, completely unanalyzed (except by the authors), and hence > > : still suspect. On the other hand, it's lightning fast on 64-bit machines. > > > > : Wired is displaying typical uneducated hype in its mention. I recommend > > : that everyone look at Tiger, but that no one use it yet. > > > > It is round 2.3 times faster than MD5 on my Pentium - so the part about > > high speed on the 32bit chips also seems to hold. > > It is certainly fast, and it is definitely not your typical snake oil. > It's just a mistake > to start using an algorithm immediately after it is published. > > Bruce > > ************************************************************************** > * Bruce Schneier APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY, 2nd EDITION is > * Counterpane Systems available. For info on a 15% > * schneier(a)counterpane.com discount offer, send me e-mail. > * > * For Blowfish C code, see ftp.ox.ac.uk:/pub/crypto/misc/blowfish.c.gz > ************************************************************************** -- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # Dispel Authority!

1 0

IDEA and timing attacks
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Kelsey <jmkelsey(a)delphi.com> wrote in sci.crypt > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > [ To: sci.crypt ## Date: 08/24/96 03:11 am ## > Subject: IDEA and Timing Attacks ] > > I'm still kind-of recovering from this year's Crypto conference, but > I told several people I would post this. At the rump session this > year, I presented an arguably practical timing attack on many > implementations of IDEA. There are actually two attacks available, > but one requires extremely fine timing results. After I gave the > presentation, Willi Meier told me he had independently found the > same results, and had implemented the full attack (which I hadn't > yet done). > > There are two different attacks. The most practical is an > adaptive chosen-plaintext attack, which requires about 5*n*2^{16} > chosen plaintexts (read ``five n times two to the sixteenth''), > where the parameter n depends on the precision of timings available > and the timing variability of the implementation. The second attack > is ciphertext-only, but requires timing measurements precise enough > to detect the difference between a single multiply of a zero vs. > nonzero value. It requires about 5*n*2^{16} values, as well. > > The basic idea behind the attack is as follows: in many > implementations, a zero input into the multiply operation is handled > by an if statement, and so does not cause a multiply instruction to > actually be executed. The result on a 486 is that it is > significantly faster to multiply by a zero rather than a nonzero > value. This timing difference gives us a really nice way to learn > information about the internal values of the cipher. > > This presentation is necessarily not very good, since I can't embed > a diagram here. If you have a copy of _Applied Cryptography_, then > turn to the section on IDEA (page 321 in the hardback version of the > second edition). The diagram shows one round of IDEA, and then > (after the ellipses) the output transformation. > > The chosen plaintext attack works as follows: > > 1. Build a run of n*2^{16} chosen plaintexts, by choosing a > single value for X_1, and choosing n of each possible value for X_3, > with X_2 and X_4 taking on values at random. Time the encryption of > each batch of n plaintexts with the same X_3 value. > > 2. Choose a new value for X_1, and then build another run of > chosen plaintexts exactly as above. > > 3. For each of these two runs, if the value of Z_5 is not zero, > there should be a different value for X_3 that gives the lowest > encryption time. (These are the values that force the input to the > multiply with Z_5 to be zero.) Call these X_3 and X_3'. This gives > us two equations in two unknowns, and we can solve for it with a > 32-bit brute-force search. (There may be faster ways, as well.) > > (X_1 (*) Z_1) = (X_3 + Z_3) > (X_1'(*) Z_1) = (X_3'+ Z_3) > > We now have recovered Z_1 and Z_3. > > 4. Let's call the input to the multiply with Z_5 A. We can use > knowledge of Z_1 and Z_3 to force A to keep the same value. We then > choose three new runs of chosen plaintexts, each containing 2^{16} > batches of n plaintexts apiece. Each of these ensures that A and > X_2 are kept constant, so that we wind up three difference values > for A, X_2 and X_4 which correspond to zero inputs into the multiply > with Z_6. This means that we wind up with three equations in three > unknowns. > > (A (*) Z_5) + ((Z_2 + X_2 ) XOR (Z_4 (*) X_4 )) = 0 > (A' (*) Z_5) + ((Z_2 + X_2' ) XOR (Z_4 (*) X_4' )) = 0 > (A''(*) Z_5) + ((Z_2 + X_2'') XOR (Z_4 (*) X_4'')) = 0. > > This can be solved with a 48-bit brute force search (there are > probably faster ways). We now have 80 bits of IDEA's key, and can > brute-force search the remaining 48 bits. > > Note that this is actually an adaptive chosen-plaintext attack as > described. I'm pretty sure this can be turned into a proper > chosen-plaintext attack with some work, and I'll probably be hacking > on this in the next few weeks, as time allows. > > The ciphertext only attack is simpler in some ways. The first 32 > bits are extremely easy to recover--find the average time to encrypt > blocks with each value in their first and last 16 bits, and then > solve for the subkey values that would be necessary for those > multiplies to have zeros as their inputs. Next, we look for a > correlation between low encryption times and the values for Z_3 in > the output transformation that would result in zero inputs into the > previous round's MA box multiply. Finally, we attack the second > multiply in that MA box, using all four output values. The > approximate computational difficulty is 2^{48}, as before. > > There are other timing attacks on IDEA. We gave one in our paper at > Crypto this year (the one on related-key cryptanalysis of several > ciphers, by Bruce Schneier, David Wagner, and me), and the > related-key timing attack is where I got the idea to try a timing > attack on the whole cipher. > > All timing attacks are implementation-dependent to some extent. On > a Pentium, I suspect the timing attack will be considerably harder. > (One person I discussed the attack with said he thought it would > take longer to do the conditional branch for the if statement than > to do the multiply, so we might have zero multiplies taking more > rather than less time.) > > Most applications aren't really susceptible to timing attacks, > because of the way they're used. In addition, chosen-plaintext > attacks on block ciphers are pretty nicely thwarted by using CBC or > CFB modes. It is probably also possible to implement IDEA so that > it executes in constant time. I should point out that it is *NOT* > enough either to add random delays (which fall out if you add more > samples), nor to just get rid of the big timing difference with zero > inputs (though that will make timing attacks somewhat more > difficult). As long as internal (secret) information is being > leaked by timing, the cipher is probably vulnerable to some kind of > timing attack. > > --John Kelsey, jmkelsey(a)delphi.com / kelsey(a)counterpane.com > PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > > iQCVAwUBMh7GKEHx57Ag8goBAQEqGQQApXRQUMWz3gpJIwGrLbVhcgcpSMXyrq0g > iTi2qjH7dJjmWugpLnbm18XHzOPZMKizdZ/gin1O3Rk89dXfqK4sIICwY3QmkwFR > ZQ2My4mTUn27ibjAjZTDuvxLXnqqoOFRrMUTQGIlMTCZdBooSWrif+pTLQbIsoPr > saHlDl2bWts= > =tWIq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Building the Singapore Free Press
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Suppose you wanted to build a free press for a country like Singapore that has a government that doesn't want one - on the net, from the inside and outside. What tools would you need? Assume a Firewall Curtain proxy that can block sites and keywords but can't really block encryption. Also assume that the ISPs inside the Firewall Curtain can't do much to help you, given government licensing and other threats. How can you help people communicate with each other without interference? The Web isn't a bad tool for it, but it's easy to block specific web sites and specific host machines, so you'd need some combination of replication and DNS-manipulation to let sites change names conveniently and frequently. Has anybody developed a good DNS mechanism for reassigning namespace conveniently (e.g. a meet-me system allowing any machine to connect up to a given name, so anybody who wants to can be foobar23.remailer.net)? There are web conferencing tools that would be a decent user interface. You'd need some mechanism for anonymous submissions; remailers and web-based forms both work. Journalists have a long history under pseudonyms in British colonies and other non-free territory :-) You'd need a mechanism for finding the news from inside SG; search engines like AltaVista can pretty much handle that except that you need a method for sending encrypted requests, so the Firewall Curtain can't block them and the government can't tell what you're searching for. Perhaps an SSL-protected form with a CGI to submit to AltaVista? Does anybody know the protocols of the Firewall Curtain well enough to slide things into the cache? (This is an httpd hacking question....) What other tools would be useful? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Reassign Authority!

1 0

singapore and penet
by morgan＠keilin.helsinki.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is a report in a Helsinki newspaper (Helsingin Sanomat 31 Aug 1996, p A11) that the Singapore government has asked Finland to help them obtain the name of a person who posted via anon.penet.fi to usenet. Apparently the messages in question criticize the strict laws in Singapore and were signed using the name of the former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew. -- ===================================================================== Joel.Morgan(a)Helsinki.FI http://blues.helsinki.fi/~morgan =====================================================================

1 0

Re: anon.penet.fi closing down
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

! what would be alternatives to anon.penet.fi..... ! ========================================== ! Blake Wehlage <jwilk(a)iglou.com> ! ±» RëVðLû¡ØÑ Bø+ ©ÖmP@ñ¥ «± ! Goto: http://members.iglou.com/jwilk Gee, aren't you already using an account you started with fake personal data?

1 0

found the flight-800 missle thing
by Alan Horowitz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 22:51:33 -0800 From: Dan Robbins <kl7y(a)alaska.net> To: alanh(a)widomaker.com Subject: RE: Our old thread on airport security (fwd) >Return-Path: <cas(a)alaska.net> >Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 11:46:10 -0800 >X-Sender: cas(a)alaska.net >To: kl7y(a)alaska.net >From: Cas Gadomski <cas(a)alaska.net> >Subject: RE: Our old thread on airport security (fwd) > >>Return-Path: <jcs1(a)MAILNET.ho.ATT.com> >>From: jcs1(a)MAILNET.ho.att.com >>Original-From: jcs1(a)MAILNET.ho.ATT.com >>Original-From: "Schaefer, John" <jcs1(a)MAILNET.ho.ATT.com> >>To: "'Cas Gadomski'" <cas(a)alaska.net> >>Subject: RE: Our old thread on airport security (fwd) >>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:32:38 -0400 >> >>Cas: >> >>As far as I know, PETN while often used as a detonator, is also a >>component of many initiators (a "booster" rather than a detonator--that >>is the detonator fires the larger booster charge, which fires the main >>charge) but it is also found as a main charge many weapons. >> >>Am not familiar with what we/"they" use as a bursting charge in SAMs but >>I would expect that they would use something with major blast >>capabilities like PETN. I've always like Octol for a big blast but >>there are all kinds of things out there now. As to fragments the >>message is right on target. One report from the crash sited frag damage >>of plane parts and some bodies but the subject never appeared in the >>press again. >> >>For air to ground against surface targets or tunnels NOTHING beats a >>fuel-air bomb. Next best thing to a nuke. (One story out of the Sandbox >>War relates a couple of British SAS folks observing from a distance a >>concentration of enemy when the USAF unloaded an FAE bomb on the target. >> The Brits called their HQ to report that the US had gone nuclear! >> >>Am still wondering about the "missile" theory. An errant SM-1 is highly >>unlikely, and Stingers and Strellas have a very small warhead (2-3 >>pounds) and the plane would have been at the far limit of their range >>even if fire from directly underneath. We may never know what happened. >> (One really way-out theory was that it as done in by a major SAM fired >>from a submarine by China/Iran/Iraq/Martians, etc. (take your pick). >>Next will be it was shot down by a particle beam weapon fired from a >>UFO. >> >>If I was a terrorist who wanted to do an airliner externally the best >>way would be to sit in a very small fiberglass boat about a half-mile >>off shore of JFK very late at night or very early in the morning (to >>avoid spectators) and get them with a Stinger/Strella on climb out. >>Toss the launcher overboard and paddle away. >> >>As to terrorist bombs in crowded places I still can't believe that some >>nut hasn't used dynamite and a couple of propane tanks--MAJOR bang >>there. A standard "home" size tank as used for cooking with a big >>initiator would probably clear a major mall. Very scary. >> >>As of late Sue and I avoid, if at all possible, crowded public places >>like malls, shopping centers, and theaters. They're disasters waiting >>to happen. >> >>As to sending obnox mail to the "postmaster"--yup, that works. >> >>If you want to really worry read Tom Clancy's new book "Executive >>Decision." >> >>Stout heart and good cheer, >> >>John >> >> >> >>>---------- >>>From: Cas Gadomski[SMTP:cas@alaska.net] >>>Sent: Friday, August 30, 1996 4:52 AM >>>To: Schaefer, John >>>Subject: Our old thread on airport security (fwd) >>> >>> >>>John . . . >>> >>>What do you think??? I'll forward any clarifications and/or updates >>>and >>>confirmations as I get them. >>> >>> Cas. >>> >>>>Return-Path: <kl7y(a)alaska.net> >>>>Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 18:20:13 -0800 >>>>X-Sender: kl7y(a)alaska.net >>>>To: cas(a)alaska.net >>>>From: Dan Robbins <kl7y(a)alaska.net> >>>>Subject: Our old thread on airport security (fwd) >>>> >>>>One problem with this. My friend at work who used to be in EOD >>>>said PETN is found only in detonators and occasionally in boosters, not >>>>in the explosives themselves. He said he knew of no US weapon or bomb >>>>that used PETN in the main charge See 6) below. If PETN is >>>>only in the detonator, then there would not be very much of it in any >>>>explosion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Return-Path: <alanh(a)widomaker.com> >>>>>Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:41:05 -0400 (EDT) >>>>>From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)widomaker.com> >>>>>X-Sender: alanh@wilma >>>>>To: jennett(a)citicom.com, kl7y(a)alaska.net >>>>>Subject: Our old thread on airport security (fwd) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 14:51:54 +1300 >>>>>From: Joop Teernstra <terastra(a)TERABYTZ.CO.NZ> >>>>>Reply-To: Cebu Discussion List <CEBU-L(a)CEBU.USC.EDU.PH> >>>>>To: Multiple recipients of list CEBU-L <CEBU-L(a)CEBU.USC.EDU.PH> >>>>>Subject: Our old thread on airport security >>>>> >>>>>Dear fellow airtravellers, >>>>> >>>>>I think the following is relevant to a point I made at that last >>>>>discussion, >>>>>and I like to share it with you, even if some of you may have seen it >>>>>already: >>>>> >>>>>>Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.conspiracy >>>>>>Subject: Re: POSSIBILITY OF AN RBS 70 SAM ON TWA 800 >>>>>>Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 09:48:51 GMT >>>>>>Organization: The Scannerist >>>>>>Lines: 144 >>>>>>Message-ID: <4vrs85$3cp(a)ash.ridgecrest.ca.us> >>>>>>References: <011303Z25081996(a)anon.penet.fi> >>>>>>Reply-To: cheshire(a)ridgecrest.ca.us >>>>>>NNTP-Posting-Host: annex033.ridgecrest.ca.us >>>>>>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 >>>>>>Xref: news.express.co.nz alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:60503 >>>>>alt.conspiracy:198774 >>>>>> >>>>>>an623250(a)anon.penet.fi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Very concise report. It is also interesting to note that you mention, >>>>>>"Tungsten, perhaps? " Tungsten pellets are not the only thing used by >>>>>>ground to air weapons. Sidewinder [Chaparral] is known to use an >>>>>>"expandable rod" war head. Also, a casing of FRANGABLE tungsten is >>>>>>being used in some weapons. This means that the case itself explodes >>>>>>into thousands of razor sharp pieces. So sharp that you could shave >>>>>>wih them. Bad news for anyone or anything within reach. :-{ >>>>>> >>>>>>>From: RONALD LEWIS <INTELLIGYST(a)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> >>>>>>>Subject: POSSIBILITY OF AN RBS 70 SAM ON TWA 800 >>>>>>>To: Multiple recipients of list FLIGHT-800 >>>>>>> <FLIGHT-800(a)HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM> >>>>>> >>>>>>>According to the 8-23-96 edition of the New York Times, residue of PETN >>>>>>>explosive has been confirmed on wreckage of TWA Flight 800. We now have >>>>>>>either a bomb or a missile as the cause. >>>>>> >>>>>>>PETN is said to be a component of missile warheads as well. >>>>>>>Interesting how >>>>>>>that was mentioned in all of the news reports tonight on various networks >>>>>>>and even local TV. Now that the investigators have concluded that it >>>>>>>definitely was a bomb or a missile, they are supposedly going through and >>>>>>>trying to collect evidence to indicate which it was. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Two things highly significant: 1) Weeks ago, a reliable source >>>>>>>advised me >>>>>>>that the investigators were not worried about explosive residue fading in >>>>>>>salt water because they had other evidence. Components of a missile, >>>>>>>perhaps? Couldn't say. >>>>>> >>>>>>>2) Same source told me the other day that the investigators were now >>>>>>>conducting "metalurgical studies", i.e., they were looking for and >>>>>>>analzying certain types of metal. Tungsten, perhaps? Bombs don't >>>>>>>contain >>>>>>>tungsten but SAM warheads are often surrounded by tungsten balls or >>>>>>>pellets. >>>>>>>They help cut the metal skin of their target aircraft. >>>>>> >>>>>>>OTHER NOTES: >>>>>> >>>>>>>1) Rocket motor of a missile would be capable of touching off a fire in >>>>>>>nearby fuel tanks. An Exocet missile sank the destroyer SHEFFIELD >>>>>>>in the >>>>>>>Falklands War without the warhead even detonating. The missile cut >>>>>>>through >>>>>>>the hull, severed fuel lines and the rocket motor touched off the spilled >>>>>>>fuel, causing a fatal fire. >>>>>> >>>>>>>2) Something ejected the air conditiioning plant in the first >>>>>>>debris field. >>>>>>>What would blow out the missing bottom of the aircraft center without >>>>>>>collapsing the internal structures, then manage to blow the forward >>>>>>>fuselage >>>>>>>off, rip away the right side of the fuselage and cause burn marks >>>>>>>there and >>>>>>>in the adjacent wing? A titanic explosion which quickly ripped the >>>>>>>fuselage >>>>>>>apart faster than Pan Am 103 went. >>>>>> >>>>>>>3) The sound on the cockpit voice recorder is different from any >>>>>>>other they >>>>>>>have heard before on two other 747s downed by bombs (Pan Am and Air >>>>>>>India). >>>>>>>Perhaps the sound was not caused by a bomb? It seems we have only a >>>>>>>bomb or >>>>>>>a missile left at this point. If it's not a bomb, then....? >>>>>> >>>>>>>4) Nose gear damaged in its hold. Nose gear door gone. Right side >>>>>>>forward >>>>>>>cargo hatch blown off in first field. The doors and AC unit located >>>>>>>together. How does a bomb inside the center fuselage do such damage >>>>>>>to the >>>>>>>nose gear area? It doesn't seem possible. However, an external >>>>>>>blast and >>>>>>>shock wave would be consistent with this, especially if it initiated >>>>>>>at the >>>>>>>left rear and traveled forward, rippling along the bottom of the >>>>>>>aircraft. >>>>>>>It would be very interesting to note if the nose gear door found in >>>>>>>Area #3 >>>>>>>(the "first" debris field, that closest to JFK) happens to have been from >>>>>>>the right side. >>>>>> >>>>>>>5) Latest pieces of wreckage with fuselage stringers and stiffeners >>>>>>>AGAIN >>>>>>>show at least subtle evidence of an external explosion rippling the outer >>>>>>>fuselage inward. Look at the video of all outer hull sections recovered. >>>>>>>The outer skin is pushed inward around the stringers. If it had been an >>>>>>>internal bomb, the metal would be almost universally bowed OUTWARD >>>>>>>away from >>>>>>>the stringers and ribs. But they aren't. In virually every case I have >>>>>>>seen so far, the sheet metal is not pulled AWAY from the stringers. They >>>>>>>may be popped loose but even in those rare cases, the indentations on the >>>>>>>outer skin make it appear as though the stringers have been pushed inward >>>>>>>away from the outer sheet metal, not as though the steet metal had been >>>>>>>pused outward away from the stringers. >>>>>> >>>>>>>6) If a bomb, why so little PETN? Why isn't it virtually >>>>>>>everywhere? Pan >>>>>>>AM 103 HAD lots of it even though the bomb went off contained in a cargo >>>>>>>bin. What would account for so little PETN in this case? >>>>>> >>>>>>>A proximity fuze detonation of a missile would touch off the blast >>>>>>>outside >>>>>>>the aircraft. Kinetic energy would still send a large portion of it into >>>>>>>the aircraft, penetrating it and passing through, but most of the >>>>>>>explosive >>>>>>>residue would burn away or dissipate outside of the aircraft. If >>>>>>>they can >>>>>>>find fragments of the 747 underbelly and subject them to tests, I >>>>>>>strongly >>>>>>>believe they will find higher concentrations of both PETN residue and >>>>>>>tungsten fragments embedded in the metal. >>>>>> >>>>>>>If this was a bomb, it had to be enormously powerful, skillfully >>>>>>>planted or >>>>>>>just unfortunately "lucky." The entire bottom of the plane around the >>>>>>>center wing box is said to be missing but, bewteen the passenger >>>>>>>cabin and >>>>>>>the outer surface of the bottom of the plane is some of the most robust >>>>>>>construction known to exist on the 747. How is it, then, that that the >>>>>>>"device" was able to blow off the front of the fuselage, blow away >>>>>>>at least >>>>>>>the right side of the fuselage, then make it past the heavy-duty >>>>>>>wings and >>>>>>>AC unit to shread the bottom of the plane into fragments so small >>>>>>>they may >>>>>>>have to dredge to recover them? >>>>>> >>>>>>>It seems that only a missile could rip away the bottom exterior upon >>>>>>>contact >>>>>>>to blast away the AC unit lying right above that area. As the hot >>>>>>>remains >>>>>>>of the missile body continue into the aircraft, they could tear open the >>>>>>>center fuel tanks and, with the compression of air and kinetic >>>>>>>energy, blow >>>>>>>out the right side and cause separation of the forward fuselage. The >>>>>>>thousands of tungsten fragments and the armor-piercing capability of >>>>>>>the RBS >>>>>>>70 would surely be capable of such incredible damage. It has destroyed >>>>>>>light armored vehicles when fired in the air-to-ground mode, so it >>>>>>>shouldn't >>>>>>>be hard to imagine it doing severe damage to the thin skin of a >>>>>>>pressurized >>>>>>>airliner hull at 13000+ feet. >>>>>> >>>>>>>And there are precedents for using SAMs against airliners and civilian >>>>planes. >>>>>> >>>>>>>In the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, airliners were being used >>>>>>>to ferry >>>>>>>out refugees and to bring in weapons and supplies during the civil >>>>>>>war with >>>>>>>Abkhazian separatists. SAM gunners, in boats out on the Black Sea, are >>>>>>>known to have shot down at LEAST two airliners as they approached >>>>>>>and took >>>>>>>off from Sukhumi, Georgia. >>>>>> >>>>>>>In April, 1995, a Falcon executive jet carrying the president of >>>>>>>Rwanda was >>>>>>>on final approach to Kigali airfield in the capital city of Rwanda >>>>>>>when it >>>>>>>was shot down by a shoulder-fired SAM (RBS 70 is NOT shoulder-fired >>>>>>>but is a >>>>>>>MANPAD, or man-portable system mounted on a pedestal mount). >>>>>> >>>>>>>It has happened before, it may have happened with TWA 800. Now, what >>>>>>>measures do we take to make sure it doesn't happen again? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Ron Lewis >>>>>>>CHIEF MILITARY & AVIATION ANALYST >>>>>>>THE INTELLIGYST GROUP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENT >>>>>>>ON*** >>>>>>>Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. >>>>>>>Please, report inappropriate use to abuse(a)anon.penet.fi >>>>>>>For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help(a)anon.penet.fi >>>>>>>If you have any problems, address them to admin(a)anon.penet.fi >>>>>> >>>>>>Dr Pepper >>>>>>10 - 2 - 4 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Uh, oh! >>>>>Joop Teernstra >>>>>http://serve.com/terastra >>>>>If you want to make up your mind about an argument, see who attacks the >>>>>person, rather than the matter at hand. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>* CEBU-L DISCUSSION LIST * Comments/Complaints, write: >>>>>ADMIN(a)CEBU.USC.EDU.PH >>>>>To unsubscribe, write: LISTSERV(a)CEBU.USC.EDU.PH w/ body text: SIGNOFF >>>>>CEBU-L >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >

1 0

Re: Code Review Guidelines (draft)
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:58 AM 8/29/96 -0500, Igor wrote: >The decision that have just made is not a technical decision, it is >a business decision. You just decided that the needs of security >outweight the need to be able to deal with 100% of potential customers. I strongly agree. You've also potentially annoyed a bunch of Europeans, Unicode-speakers, and other users of non-ASCII alphabets. Just because the domain name in somebody's address is case-insensitive (and culturally-insensitive :-) ASCII, that doesn't mean their user name will be also, especially if their _real_ mail system is some ugly proprietary thing like Microso-Cc:PR0FS-HS.400 or if their name is Swedish or Chinese. > ..... X.400 ..... /OU=foo/O=bar/C=KREV/ (X.400 may be evil, but it does exist :-) > [ ! is almost dead ] ! is still around, especially for gateways to proprietary mail systems. You also need to add colon : and maybe comma , . # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Reassign Authority!

2 1

Below-bit-level encoding
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have info or know of a text source on less-than-bit-level file preparation? I presume the crypto techniques would be the usual stuff; I'd like to dig into bit deconstruction a little, and a text which has a chapter or more devoted to this and other esoteric file processing would be helpful. Note that this is not substitution or bit-packing or whatever. Thanx.

1 0

Waging War On Singapore
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So what is the information that the Singapore dictatorship is trying to ban? Whatever it is, the Singapore internal networks should be flooded with it. How to get an internet account in Singapore, preferably anonymous?

2 1