December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Free RSA chip
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:04 PM 9/16/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >I secured a 30 page data sheet for the new NTT (actually NLC, a subsidiary >of NTT) RSA accelerator chips. The NLC0048 LSI chip can handle keys up to >1024 bits. The secret key can be stored on-chip. If you want a copy of the >data sheet, email me your fax number. > >Furthermore, I have *one* sample chip that I am willing to loan to >somebody in the SF Bay Area with sufficient hardware knowledge to put the >chip to good use. If you think you qualify, let me know who you are and >why you think that you should get the chip. I apologize in advance to the >qualified candidates that do not get the chip. There is only one (that I >can loan out). I don't want the chip, but I'd like to know a few things. 1. How much of a secure telephone does it contain? a. voice A/D/A? b. modem A/D/A DSP? c. Keyboard multiplex? d. control microprocessor? e. Encryption section? 2. Is there any indication that NT+T has worked with any other manufacturers to design some sort of inter-telephone negotiation standard, one that would allow the kind of inter-compatibility that modems have today? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: IBM_gak
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:17 AM 9/16/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, John Young wrote: >> 9-15-96. PcWe: >> "IBM Boosts Encryption Initiative " >> >> IBM security initiatives next month will include a >> new way to build encryption into software and >> technology that could enable U.S. companies to export >> products with strong encryption algorithms. IBM also >> will introduce several "key-recovery" technologies >> that could enable businesses to satisfy the >> requirement imposed by the U.S. government that it be >> able to access encrypted data on demand. > >Aparently, Al Gore's recent phone calls to everybody who is anybody in the >industry have paid off. After HP, TIS, and other unnamed parties, now IBM >is supporting GAK. Folks, this battle is lost. Domestic GAK is coming to >a PKI near you. So, the "Little Tramp" and the "Great Dictator" turn out to be one and the same... Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Lexis-Nexis scare = opportunity
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been reading articles about the recent flap over Lexis-Nexis' P-TRAK database with interest. A recent Associated Press article said that the lines at Lexis-Nexis have been jammed with individuals requesting they be removed from the database. Lexis-Nexis is certainly not the only database of its kind, but it has certainly generated quit a bit of attention and panic In terms of cypherpunk goals, I think this is a positive development. It demonstrates ever-so-clearly that the average "Joe Schmoe" does not follow the government line that privacy and security are mutually exclusive concepts. Rather, there is an instinctive recognition that privacy and security are inextricably linked. Only when the government pulls on emotional (as opposed to logical) strings by pulling out the "if you only knew what we knew" & "if it saves just one life" arguments does the easily swayed public get pulled in the other direction. The flap over P-TRAK repudiates arguments by Freeh and others that American citizens want to give up their freedoms in the interest of security. If you are in a position to influence government policy (ie. Jim Ray with Judge Kozinski, EFF personages involved in the Bernstein case, PRO-CODE advocates, et al.), then keep these clippings handy. Here is a concrete example that our government and law-enforcement leaders are woefully out of touch with average citizens (not to mention reality!). The leap from P-TRAK to GAK is not that large in the so-called court of public opinion. Sometimes monkey-wrenching is as simple as pointing out the obvious. me _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto: omega(a)bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: ANYONES CREDIT CARD # per your request.
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sat Sep 21 12:32:13 1996 > > > Note: Lexis-Nexis is only accepting written or fax requests. You > have the > > > option to fax your removal request to (513) 865-1930 state your full > name > > > and complete address. Or mail the request to: > > > Lexis-Nexis > > > Attn: P-Track > > > P.O. Box 933 > > > Dayton, Ohio > > > 45401-0933 According to the 800 number, you may also be removed from their database by sending a letter to p-trak(a)prod.lexis-nexis.com. You need to send your name and address, and probably your Citizen- Unit Social Insecurity Number. dave - ----- David E. Smith, P O Box 324, Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 dsmith(a)prairienet.org http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith send mail with subject of "send pgp-key" for my PGP public key "The world's at stake. Don't confuse me with details." -- Captain America, "Onslaught" ... famous last words -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMkQmnzVTwUKWHSsJAQEClgf/XsSOwYPANaQBXVg+vq/Oh5qgqEMZtyxZ CVy45RYlulXWKMixmWMn7OkebSug53xVfQoBR5SlZ3oCXN+KlQm0bLI1MKiiO0nv SlRz35x6O2lkXXQcyBF1brrk++1uXRQRsKIACh/ceTdMkkTyUk+u0imRschGslqp L84BVvhi/VVASrCgmY5HbwkeeqNlzDUpa5uD9ST10G9UvCMrf6IexEOzvGvfCzmt CFOELYK6e8iiVkP8sPQgj+yQaP08LyezlYuSRu+GcZhr3QljCuOjUghjCIe/aoJk 7RRSiGC/GXGtO/Ut5pOiTOkWmaTPiHUsxnb4cX2lijLyI+jXy5K5qA== =vyc3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: WinSock Remailer Version ALPHA 1.3 Now Available
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Remo Pini (rp(a)rpini.com) wrote: : To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com : Date: Thu Sep 19 09:07:16 1996 : Has it already been exported by some sinister anonymous? If so, where? ftp.replay.com:/pub/replay/pub/remailer/wsa13.zip where else ...? -- Alex de Joode | Replay IP Service & Web DZign -- The Netherlands usura(a)replay.com | http://www.replay.com mailto:info@replay.com

1 0

How's the list?
by Phil Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought I'd ask how the list is going... it seems to have gone downhill; there are now totally gratoitous insults to tcmay that don't seem to serve any purpose besides making sure the archive (if there is one) isn't fit for family viewing. Hey, at least when I was insensitive, I put effort into it. And I didn't use an automatic daemon. Anyway, I thought I'd catch up on current events with the following questions: * I take it SSL still hasn't been strengthened? * I'm now working part of the time at a company that has a lot of mail-order sales; are any of you aware of how much credit card fraud is going on out there right now? Might some of this actually be from unsecure SSL transactions? * Did anyone come up with any interesting embellishments (or maybe precedents?) to my bidirectional Dining Cryptographers idea? I can't believe I'm the first to come up with this... I guess it's public domain now, since I missed the one-year deadline for patenting it. Well, I gotta run... Phil Fraering "And the moral of the story is, pgf(a)acadian.net *never count your boobies until they 318/261-9649 are hatched*." - James Thurber, "The Unicorn in the Garden"

3 2

Re: ANYONES CREDIT CARD # per your request.
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:40 PM 9/21/96 -0500, David E. Smith wrote: > >According to the 800 number, you may also be removed from >their database by sending a letter to p-trak(a)prod.lexis-nexis.com. >You need to send your name and address, and probably your Citizen- >Unit Social Insecurity Number. True. You *do* have to give your Social Insecurity Number ["SIN"(tm)]. While they have discontinued publishing SIN's, they have them in their databanks and require you to state it as their way of "verifying" that it is the "real" you making the request to be removed. ************************************************************ Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | "The key to life: Poughkeepsie, New York | - Get up; lharrison(a)mhv.net | - Survive; http://www.dueprocess.com | - Go to bed." ************************************************************ DISCLAIMER: I am not your attorney; you are not my client. Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

1 0

Re: Quantum Computers
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:09 AM 9/18/96 -0400, Rick Osborne wrote: > I'm sorry if I seem to be making light of a very serious topic, but, last > time I checked, computers don't have a reverse. Quantum computers *do* have a reverse. Indeed even when operated in classical mode they *still* have a reverse. A quantum computer is a reversible computer operated at very high speed and very low energy. Reversible computers were invented before quantum computers. Reversible computer were invented in order to demonstrate that there was no lower limit to the energy required to perform certain computational tasks. Later people speculated, and very recently demonstrated that a reversible computer operated in the quantum regime could do things that no classical computer could do. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: [Noise] anonymous bacon
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:28 AM 9/21/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote: >Jonathan Corbet wrote: [Government Access to Meat stuff from Risks deleted] > >Did you ever see one of those mattress tags which reads something like >"removal of this tag is a violation of ..... and is punishable by ..."? >They could tag the stuff, then make it a violation of law to cut the >meat before final consumption. The IRS is very concerned about barter, >and besides, how are you gonna go half way on legislating against >untraceable barter (other than to prohibit dividing the beef)? And meat tenderizers would be outlawed, because it would be viewed as an effort to obscure the markings. (You could be sent to jail for beating your meat!) Think of the legal liability for selling someone meat that is later involved with the drug trade! The way the laws are going, you could lose everything for selling a steak to a known drug user. Soon you would have meat market laws similar to the alcohol laws in Utah. You will have to eat the steak on the premises, in front of a government authorized and licensed vendor. (Until the cholesterol police make meat consumption a crime.) Soon we will have gangs fighting over the illegal meat trade. Meat will be murder! Instead of "drive-ins", we will have "drive-bys". Government will have an even bigger reason to put a steak through our civil rights. Our goose will be cooked! Then people will go to trading vegetables and grain. And all the "honest folks" will be left with nothing to eat but rocks. (Until, those too are banned because someone might throw one...) --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Going AP Shit on the Internet
by Black Art 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:34 PM 9/21/96 -0400, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: > >[AP drivel deleted] > > [Examples of where AP would fail deleted] > >Both the assumption AP rests on are utterly false. It is neither possible >to assasinate people at will nor will it intimidate. > >In addition *ANYONE* who attempted to implement AP would be someone *I* >would regard as a tyrant and therefore a legitimate target by the rules >of AP. I would naturally consider it permissable to engage the support of >others in their suppression. Since we now live in the fantasy land of AP >I can now wipe out anyone anywhere so I eliminate all AP leaders. I'd buy that for a dollar! I would expect that only a small portion of the "targets" on an actual AP system would be political figures. People have a far broader range of people they would like to see eliminated. How many "hits" would John Tesh have gotten after the Olympics? How many "hits" would Urkel get after anyone actually watched him on TV? These powers could be used for good or evil! People do not just want to kill politicians. Many of them would like to kill people they find annoying in their general lives. TV stars. Advertising executives. Bosses. Bill Gates. Brings stalking to a new level! Say a company came out with an Internet browser that was considered the "market leader". A less scrupulous competitor (who has a large company and lots of cash) could afford to have key personnel off-ed as a part of "doing business". (And it would not have to be the figureheads. Less well-known people in charge of key areas, like security could be off-ed.) Is your job important to KILL FOR? They could even hide it in the sales and promotion budget. It could change the face of business forever! Who do you want to kill today? There is no mechanism to assure that AP is used for only the people that Mr. Bell would like to see killed. If it is implemented, then EVERYONE is a target. >I think that this type of talk is incredibly dangerous. There are plenty of >people on the net who are psychos and if you spread AP drivel arround someone >is going to act on it. Probably not Jim Bell, more likely a psychopath who >lurks on the list but does not post. Actually, I would expect that the various government agencies would do their best to track down those trying to implement such a system. Governments do not take competition lightly. The odds of getting a real hit man are also small. The FBI has agents who frequently pose as hit men for the sole purpose of tracking down those who want to eliminate their friends and neighbors. Only organized crime and government have easy access to assassination. ("Government Access to assassination" Escrow anyone?) >If you call for people to be murdered - and let us not forget that this is >what AP is about you bear the responsibility when someone acts on it. I do not think that Mr. Bell is willing to examine the moral consequences of the things that he advocates. (He would get alot more respect from me if he would own up to it and admit he is wanting to see mass murder for hire.) There seems to be a big blind spot here. It would also be a great excuse for the bluenoses who want to regulate the net into extinction. (Advocating murder is not taken well in our society, even if the targets deserve it.) >I consider AP to be very close to calling for the assasination of the >President of the USA. That is a federal crime and there is a law that >requires the investigation of any such threats. I suggest that people >think *very* carefully before engaging in this dangerous nonsense any >further. Facilitating the murder of others through hiring of hit men is illegal no matter who the target is. I wonder how he would find a service provider that would dare host the site. I know of no "data haven" that would risk having a murder for hire server anywhere near their site. They would find their feed cut pretty quick or feel the sting of legal liability or both. (Part of being a "data haven" is not to attract attention to yourself. The first rule of not being seen is "Don't stand up".) >PS it is not censorship to stop people from advocating murder. I disagree with this conclusion. It IS censorship. The only thing that seems to change it is the subject matter. If it was changed to "it is not censorship to stop people from advocating cryptography" or "unrestrained sex" or "destruction of the ruling party" would you still agree? Sometimes advocating murder is considered valid. (As the various people in the media talking about how "we should have offed Husain (sp?).) How do you make the distinction. Whoever is in power this week? I think not. Besides, if you want to weed the nut cases out of society, you let them advocate such things in public. Makes it easier to cart them away before they hurt someone. (Unless they are in Government office. By then, it is too late.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Black Art blackart(a)ctrl-alt-del.com "The Government will mind its own business the day that Malcolm McDowell becomes a spokesman for Crisco."

2 1