December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Flood Warning
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:47 PM 10/3/96 GMT, John Young wrote: > High-Tech Leaders Join Forces to Enable International > Strong Encryption > > See: http://www.ibm.com/news/alliance2.htm This is apparently no longer valid. Is there a new one? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: NYT on IBM GAK
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:51 AM 10/3/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: >Rich Burroughs wrote: > >| The word "boycott" leaped into my mind. I personally do not believe that I >| will be buying products from any of these companies, as long as thay >| participate in this GAK charade. > > Folks, > Lets be reasonable. Its time to jump on board the GAK >bandwagon. After all, where better to disrupt the music? We need to >start writing GAK software, and it better be up to the high standards >that the NSA sets for itself. > > Once we've written it, and its being distributed, we can say >'See, another broken bit of GAK software. Not even the NSA could get >it right. Our data is too important to be using broken software to >protect us.' > And we have 56 bit exportability in hand. >Adam The problem is that the appearance of defeat could easily guaranteee the real defeat itself. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Key recovery/RSA/Bidzos/WTF?!?
by Walt Armour 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What's up with some of these press releases? Can anyone clear up the confusion with RSA/Bidzos/Key recovery? Here are some quotes: ================= >From NYT:CyberTimes (2 Oct) "Clinton Encryption Plan Is Generating Resistance" Executives of the International Business Machines Corp. said late Tuesday that they were still lining up the final list of companies in the alliance. Those involved will include Digital Equipment and smaller data-security companies including RSA Data, Cylink and Trusted Information Systems. ================= >From NYT:CyberTimes (2 Oct) "Clinton Encryption Plan Is Generating Resistance" "The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos, chief executive of RSA Data Security, one of the country's leading developers of data-scrambling software. "We warned IBM that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." ================= >From BusinessWire (2 Oct) "JOINT PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT/ HIGH-TECH LEADERS JOIN FORCES TO ENABLE INTERNATIONAL STRONG ENCRYPTION" "Export controls are a fact of life," said Jim Bidzos, president of RSA Data Security. "The key recovery alliance's approach will allow companies to use cryptography with differing levels of security in an interoperable way. When the alliance implements this technology it will give the user a new level of flexibility that did not exist before. In an imperfect world this technique will at least allow you to take advantage of what governments around the world will allow." ================= So is RSA part of this or not? Is the middle quote above mis-attributed? walt

2 1

Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:17 AM 10/3/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Remo Pini wrote: >> Date: Thu Oct 03 08:08:42 1996 >> > >* A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching >> > >* of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this >> > >* subchapter. >> > Okay, everybody, call Estes! We've got some crypto to export...er...laun >> > ch! >> If I get the above wording correctly (unicorn, help me!), it is sufficient >> to put the cryptostuff on a disc in a LAUNCHABLE device, it never says that >> the payload has to be delivered by air. So, just put that thing in a bag >> and get it through customs... (or does "by reason of ..." mean that the >> exclusive means of export allowed is launching ?) > >The launching alone will not cause it to be an export. If it is launched >and then ends up outside the U.S., it could be an export. Certainly if it >is launched with the purpose of exporting crypto, it will be an export. Too bad you didn't support this with a logical argument. The wording was clearly intended to be an exception to a rule. What the wording doesn't include is the "exception to the exception," most likely because they weren't thinking in too great a detail when they wrote the regulations. But if the regulation is "wrong," the fault of that is those who wrote the regulation. (and we, the public, are entitled to assume that the regulation is "right" in its literal meaning.) It appears that the government left a loophole so large that you could drive a truck...er...shoot a rocket through it. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 3

chaining remailers
by scottb＠aca.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can someone point me to where I can get software to take advantage of chaining remailers for Windows 95?? Actually, can this be done through a Windows enviroment, or do I need to run Linux? /sb

1 0

Re: ADJ_ust
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 10:26:12 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Personally, I think there's a lot of hype about this whole "infowar" thing. >Sure, security measures and vulnerabilities always need to be looked at, >but a lot of the rhetoric is being driven by journalists looking for lead >stories. This is certainly the case with 99% of the computer industry press! I certainly have no problem believing that a group of well-supplied professionals could, with enough time and [political] support, take down a single target. For instance, if the CIA,FBI and NSA wanted to hose the 1st Bank of China, I have a feeling that they would - eventually. I have strong doubts that someone would come up with a non-nuke that could destroy stuff indiscriminately within a useably large area. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

5 4

Re: support for "crack DES"
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> NetScape might not hawg the glory, but Bully Billy will trumpet > to the world that HE devised the means, HE directed the breakers, > and MicroSlop is the "benevolent" [read greedy, vicious, corrupt, > threatening predator] organization which "pulled freedom loving > Americans clear from the *very* mouth the the beast." Considering the situation -- considering that RSA has even signed on to this scheme -- I'd have to say that I don't give a rat's ass what Bill Gates claims. If Micro$oft bucks the system, I'll gladly applaud their stand. The situation is not good at all. Cracking DES (whether distributed or through a hardware crack, or both!) seems critical at this point. me -------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send a message with the text "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key. --------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

How to Compete under Clipper-3
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> * Even if some industry participants fall for it, the majority will not. > The "deal" is simply not any good for anyone but the Administration. > Expect the same opposition to Clipper III as we saw with Clipper I and II. The difference is that some weak companies will decide to fall for it. These companies may think that two years of 56-bit un-escrowed products (with promises of key escrow in future releases) will be competitive against 40-bit un-escrowed products. They're right, but that's not the competition they will be facing. The right competitive strategy is to build strong crypto using 168-bit Triple-DES, in a country that has a sane government and a respect for privacy. Such products would sell well against 56-bit products or key-escrowed products produced by the weak companies that tried to lean on the government for a competitive edge. If the US government ends up ever imposing import restrictions on crypto, it will be completely clear to everyone that their goal all along has been to restrict the availability of privacy to AMERICANS. The export laws, their continual announcements that "Americans are free to use any crypto they want", and all their preaching about impacts on foreign intelligence would be known as an obvious sham all along. Import restrictions would not be any more Constitutional than export restrictions. The Constitutional right to receive information (in the form of source code) from outside the US will enable companies to bypass any import restrictions that survive Constitutional scrutiny. They can do their crypto development in a free country, ship binaries to most of the world from there, ship source code to the United States, and compile that source code to binaries for local US distribution. None of these actions will violate any US export or import controls that can be Constitutionally imposed. Such development can be done in dozens of countries. Some countries who aren't afraid of their citizens having privacy will find it economically advantageous to remain free, despite US pressure to suppress privacy. A small industry of good cryptographers will grow into a large industry there, as the US pressures the rest of the world to become less free. John

3 2

The New GAK-Clipper Thing will Fail
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Comparing the latest GAK/Clipper III (or is it Clipper IV?) thing to the original Clipper announcement in April 1993, I sense a lot more confusion, a lot more thorny issues, and a lot more vagueness. They just seem more disorganized and less committed than the last time around. Each iteration of Clipper gets less focussed and seems to last a shorter time before the next version is being talked about. A good thing, of course. Some random points: * Unlike with Clipper, where a specification existed and was available within a few weeks for analysis, and where hardware existed (the Mykotronx chips, the AT&T phone), what has been publically presented so far is just a vague commitment to participate. * There seem to be many ways around the new GAK: --superencryption is essentially impossible to stop (e.g., use PGP on text messages, then use the officially-approved GAK--how could this be outlawed?) --the large pool of _existing_ crypto products means people will be using these products for years to come (possibly within GAK wrappers, as just noted)...unless the New World Order (tm) somehow locates, seizes, or otherwise makes criminals out of those who use a once-legal product, how could this be stopped? --the "degrees of freedom" for messages have sharply increased in the last several years: messages inside Web accesses, messages "sent" by posting to message pools (*), direct phone calls, the Net, etc. (* Will posting encrypted messages to the Usenet or world-readable Web sites become a crime? Or will attempts be made to limit distribution of Usenet and access to Web sites? Neither of these seems feasible, but how else could the stated goals of the Administration ("stopping terrorists, etc. from conspiring") be stopped?) (On this point above, yes, I know that there has been no talk of illegalizing the sending of mere encrypted data, only the export of non-GAKked programs. But I think it likely that the LEAs will realize that "criminals" are still conspiring with crypto. One thing they may try is to require that any communication with a non-U.S. site involve GAK. This then raises the Usenet/message pool directly. Since such sites have world-distribution, currently, posting encrypted messages to alt.anonymous.messages or to a mailing list like this necessarily involves export of the messages. It gets complicated to enforce, naturally.) * The Cabal itself seems confused as to what's involved. They seem to be counting on IBM and/or TIS to deliver the solution, and may be just signed on for what they think are reasons of political expediency. * As the IBM scheme gets attacked (in the way Matt Blaze attacked Tessera), as questions are raised about the Key Authorities and their cooperation, and as the _costs_ are revealed....well, I expect further crumbling. (On the "costs" issue, running these Key Authorities, staffing them, complying with subpoenas (and who will _fight_ the subpoenas?), etc., will not be cheap. For software products like Navigator and Explorer, that are either free or very cheap, just who will pay for this infrastructure? Someone at the EPIC Pro-CODE conference in Palo Alto a few months ago--I forget whom--presented calculations of just how expensive a "key recovery" infrastructure could be. Will it cost $50 to send a message to a foreign site? Better to use message pools! :-}) I apologize for the random nature of my comments here. I just see so many points of attack, so many ways to skirt the intentions of GAK, and so much ambivalent commentary from the companies involved, that I am convinced this whole thing will crumble. Unless a "major terrorist incident" galvanizes the effort, it looks to start falling apart almost immediately under the onslaught of Cypherpunks, hackers, other governments (think France wants the USG having access to their traffic?), and the "crypto anarchy" of nations whose borders are not even speed bumps. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: The New GAK-Clipper Thing will Fail
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 AM 10/3/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Comparing the latest GAK/Clipper III (or is it Clipper IV?) thing to the >original Clipper announcement in April 1993, I sense a lot more confusion, >a lot more thorny issues, and a lot more vagueness. They just seem more >disorganized and less committed than the last time around. Each iteration >of Clipper gets less focussed and seems to last a shorter time before the >next version is being talked about. A good thing, of course. Sort of like a "political" version of Zeno's paradox? B^) > >Some random points: >--the large pool of _existing_ crypto products means people will be using >these products for years to come (possibly within GAK wrappers, as just >noted)...unless the New World Order (tm) somehow locates, seizes, or >otherwise makes criminals out of those who use a once-legal product, how >could this be stopped? And I suspect that there will be large numbers of people using non-GAK simply as a protest. Trying to convict even one of them will be difficult; the government has to admit that they're not doing anything illegal, etc. Yet, if the gov't FAILS to prosecute them, that'll destroy an law requiring GAK. [snip] >(On the "costs" issue, running these Key Authorities, staffing them, >complying with subpoenas (and who will _fight_ the subpoenas?), I think it would be appropriate to contact each of the companies which have publicly signed on to this most recent propsal (Clipper 3.XX? Clipper IV?) and point out that (if they still won't revoke their approval) they should publicly and irrevocably commit to challenge each and every key subpoena with a full legal challenge (to the SC if necessary), INCLUDING informing and participation of the key owner/user, with all of his attorney fees paid for by an insurance policy issued specifically for the purpose. This process would probably take at least months, if not years. (This is important, because I believe that wiretaps have set a false precedent: AT+T (before breakup) and local telcos afterwards, being monopolies, had no motivation to challenge wiretap orders, and the practice was to not inform those tapped, perhaps not even after the tap was removed. There is no reason to assume, however, that key-escrow systems should follow that precedent, because the relationship between AT+T and government was not an "arm's length" one. Presumably, key-escrow companies should be entitled, no REQUIRED to verify the legitimacy of any key-release. "It's only fair!" ) The resulting legal atmosphere would become so distasteful to the Dept. of Injustice that it would make key escrow useless as a practical tool, even though it would exist as a technicality. If the DOI objected, companies need merely say the magic words "Richard Jewell" and all ordinary citizens would recognize the problem. The point, of course, is NOT to encourage these companies to support Clipper IV. Rather, goal is to suggest to them a "poison pill" which would make their cooperation meaningless in the end, while at the same time giving them a 2-year free 56-bit export. Think of it as a monkey-wrench they can throw into the works. We can use such a proposal as a sort-of "loyalty to freedom and their fellow citizens oath" because any company which refused such a REASONABLE protection to ordinary citizens would be, in effect, giving their middle finger to the public. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0