December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Reputation in action
by gregburk＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well, this looks like a chance to quickly correct some mistakes without spending a lot of time framing the issue. tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: > But this latest episode illustrates the role of reputations. Namely, my own > reputation is not being harmed by bizarre commentaries from the Vulis-bot. ..among people who directly know you. You seem to see this as an example of reputations in action. But there isn't any "repute" in there at all. Surely this grand theoretical "reputation" framework isn't needed to describe simple direct experience. And it seems to me that your usage of "reputation" has at different times meant both direct and indirect exposure. This clearly discards important information, often to the detriment of your analysis. Perhaps you can explain why the two separate things are the same in some important way, aside from merely that they both involve esteem. > As its reputation is (apparently) pretty low, and associated with Serdar > Ardic-style rants about "sovoks," "the cabal," and "spit," such an entity > can hardly "assassinate" my character. > A few years ago Larry Detweiler, aka "vznuri" ("visionary"), aka "S.Boxx," > aka "Pablo Escobar," aka several other alternate personalities, wrote > dozens of screeds denouncing me, Eric Hughes, Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, etc. > Did this have an effect on our reputations? Not to people I respected, of > course. And if Detweiler's rants affected my reputation with his peers, > including Dimitri Vulis, Ludwig Plutonium, Doctress Neutopia, Serdar Argic, > well, this is to the good. > In the mathematics of reputations, a negative reputation held by one whose > own reputation is negative is a positive. I don't think this is an example of any such thing. I would not respect a person even a tiny bit more just because a kook disrespects them. In fact, since the kooks frequently hold each other in very low esteem, the suggested polarity-math is self-contradictory. Rather, I think this is an example of how direct exposure supercedes reputation. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQBVAwUBMjs9GLMyVAabpHidAQE4PQH/dfVepFTivql8LtygN8BBoE/l03K7NOIH HVvH4QbHBY2MyVNviRN9R6MF2LsJRYp5SzFfdC+1vm/ohnhWEYZ4aA== =LdoS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: forward secrecy in mixmaster
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> This has been discussed extensively for Internet security reasons, and the > Photuris folks decided to use a common modulus (actually, several with different > lengths.) I think they chose a strong prime (form p = 2q+1, q prime), > specifically to avoid small-prime attacks, though they may have decided > that that was no longer necessary. I assume from the last sentence that you know that the use of strong primes is no longer advantageous but I will just reiterate it here for the good of those writing code which implements strong primes: Strong primes are no longer of any benefit for cryptographic applications. The elliptic curve method of factoring takes no longer to factor a "strong" prime than it does for any other general number. You may *SLIGHTLY* hinder progress if an attacker sieves first, but as you should have done so when you created the primes in the first place it won`t be a problem because there wont be any small factors. Implementing strong primes won`t make your code any less secure, it will just take longer to create the keys and won`t gain you any security, all te big boys are using elliptic curve factoring methods now so you really have nothing to gain. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Http://www.fatmans.demon.co.uk/crypt/ "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQCNAjH9j+cAAAEEAMBvREiQR0ot9dFCO0TiSCSunAYLv2g1Bc6I3bz8FzKXNH53 6mieJf/W4rD+CxJpT0q9RQaaoRtkHJLwbjfK2il3D7mEahMAyqvF/xRJNqkXfhM3 sRJM0Jh43l+W0M5vwokbEbk25/bxWWGspTsLD3YHbzKnG6pOcL5OPIRbv66xAAUR tCdQYXVsIEJyYWRsZXkgPHBhdWxAZmF0bWFucy5kZW1vbi5jby51az6JAJUDBRAy NwfvNkCBjDT0xHEBATQPA/9TORmN/UjNecj03q4anpvdyCLiez5sKuNbnYK50RiP Jj4QpWWvST3smyQ0A86DrZY/re056MXwQmARESx0rFZxdnD0oORICl5r8dJLIy3b j8rbA5olXwZwKz73/X5s13v/pvHYX4cIsbVK8NHXqh5llSKt6TBAuGgkIGF29z5k C4kAlQMFEDI3B9mdtf/umVkv7QEBcRYD/1FBteLqsUmr81euxqqnnrpLlyHb58B/ 9sdATuua4uSjX46hXDZ264YozspNrzSB4NEdrmXOWVX3fiE0ga6XkSSkIeF23V90 En37Z0BdbFzgF00FRYTFyTq8eezQrdg/+rBPUsZUmG5wpq3e12FKHQsX01i+1mB2 YmqqwCV5e95eiQCVAgUQMh8uSb5OPIRbv66xAQEqJwP/fxQyiCasjFcbDpsFfsYp put5cCC/9pOx6X3DlbKShPMpUOS+A9HsTEmJQN8Iawv1nSwPdtc2cR/GhW6ilVjW LSloGdMVLabm9pGpZZMkRaZlXFUkOv7VhfgsUiL+vIDryBCAwUZCzQiWycjt/cPi mUqFH41Z7NkyO8ZFdi5GGX0= =CMZA -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

?
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In <517ia2$dmn(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> llurch(a)stanford.edu (Skippy) writes: ! Too long. A few hours ago, the blocking ended, so Ingrid's wacky analysis ! of how this is all a ZOG plot is moot. Your consistent defence of censorship noted. The mere fact that censorship is evadable, never justifies the evil. Would you make the claim that there are no drug laws merely because it's easy to evade the laws against possession?

1 0

Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> >> Hallam-Baker writes: >> > Pity you guys missed out on the idea of trades unions and think that >> > employment is some kind of serfdom in which you loose all your >> > rights the day you sign up. If you hadn't sold your government to >> > the cooprorations a while back you might have got out of the middle >> > ages. >> >> Yes, we could be a workers paradise like one of those lovely European >> countries with double digit unemployment and all. Too bad we didn't go >> in for democratic socialism while we could have, eh? > >Perry, hate to burst your bubble but unemployment in the UK _trippled_ >in the first eighteen months of rule by that great socialist Margret ^^^^^^^^^ >Thatcher. One third of UK manufaturing industry went bankrupt in the >only large scale application of Freedman's ideas. Ummm. We're being Hallam-Baker PhD'ed again. I think she was a little bit Tory. Conservative, maybe? Right wing? Funded by industry? On kissing terms with Reagan? Socialist, no. Or was this an attempt by Doctor Sarcasm at wit? Actually the UK is now way ahead of the rest of Europe in terms of deregulation, low labor costs, efficient manufacturing, etc. Germany and France are now up the familiar creek because of their too-socialist policies. But there are those who say that Thatcher's slash and burn approach was appalling. You get the government you deserve, but not necessarily when you deserve it. That's what causes all the fuss. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Technology (n): | | A substitute for adulthood. stevenw(a)best.com | Popular with middle-aged men.

1 0

FLO_odd
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2600, Summer, 1996 Flood Warning by Jason Fairlane This program scans a host to determine which ports are open, or listening for connections. Once a list of receiving ports has been compiled, the program then floods each of them with the specified number of SYN packets. Don't use this software without permission. I'm serious. It's very very very bad. This is probably one of the worst forms of Denial-Of-Service attacks there is. No one will be able to connect to your target's machine. It's bad. [Code follows.] ----- http://jya.com/floodd.txt (12 kb) FLO_odd Thanks to XX.

2 1

Re: Alien and Sedition Acts [WAS xs4all.nl] then Terrorists
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Look for something along these lines from Congress in the not too distant future. All in our best interest, of course. (from 'In Pursuit of Reason: The Life of Thomas Jefferson, Nobel E. Cunningham, Jr.) "The first alien act (June 25, 1798) empowered the president to order the deportation of any alien he judged "dangerous to the peace and saftey of the united State" or had reasonable grounds to suspect was involved in any trasonable intrigue against the government. It was up to the president to determine what constituted a danger." "Even more sweeping and more objectionable to Republican opponents of the administration was the sedition act (July 14, 1798). Passed in the final days of of the session, after Jefferson had left for Virginia, the act made it unlawful for any person to combine or conspire together to oppose any lawful measure of the government, to prevent any officer of the united States from performing his duties, or to aid or attempt to procure 'any insurrection, roit, unlawful assembly, or combination.' Furthermore, it provided for the punishment of any person writing, uttering, or publishing 'any false, scandalous and malicious writing' against the president, the Congress of the government of the united States, made with the intent to defame them or exite against them 'the hatred of the good people of the united States.'" >At Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:54:29 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> Then again, the only reason I am not a terrorist is that the government >>hasn't YET defined hate speach directed against the government to be >>terrorism. > >Don't be so hasty in saying this. > >A couple of months ago Clinton signed some sort of bill having to do with >terrorism, terrorist organizations, funding of same, and deportation of >alien-units suspected of being allied with terrorist organizations. (I seem >to recall another such act being passed in early 1995, so there may be more >than one of these things...) > >Given the mounting hysteria about terrorism (by the government, at least), >and given the various laws on the books, I would not be surprised to see >some Web sites prosecuted as "harboring" terrorists terrorist-symps. > >If any of you are not citizens of the U.S., and are here on visas, I would >give this some real serious thought. Of course, maybe deportation is a >blessing in disguise. > >--Tim May

1 0

Re: FLO_odd
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sep 14, 1996 22:03:28, '"Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com>' wrote: >The software in question should come with a warning attached: use it and go to >jail. Its a felony to maliciously disrupt someone's machines. ---------- Heed Perry: here's the author's warning at the commencement of code: /* !!THIS PROGRAM IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS!! NO GUIDELINES * ARE PROVIDED FOR THE CODE CONTAINED HEREIN. IT IS MERELY * A DEMONSTRATION OF THE POSSIBLE DESTRUCTIVE USE OF IP * SPOOFING TECHNIQUES. THE AUTHOR CLAIMS NO RESPONSIBILITY * FOR ITS USE OR MISUSE. - JF (3/8/96) */

1 0

Why organizations turn statist.
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:44 AM 9/11/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > A wonderful idea, Stephan! You might try contacting > EFF to see if a German branch exists The EFF is ultimately a business lobby group, because it gets most of its funding from businesses. It is therefore potentially subject to the same corruption as other business lobbies. Business lobby groups are intermediaries, and therefore serve two masters, both the politicians and the businessmen, not one master. Frequently they serve the interests of the politicians at the expense of their donors, at the expense of the goals that the lobby group is supposed to pursue. Suppose for example you have a lobby group that represents the widget industry. On the one hand, the CEO of General Widgets might ring them up and say: "We are being trashed by these great japanese widgets, and unless something is done about it we might have to reduce prices or improve quality", and the lobby organization has a little chat with some tame politicians about the terrible suffering the Japanese are inflicting on American workers. That is the way lobby groups are supposed to work, but seldom do. On the other hand sometimes the politician (or a gofer on his staff), rings the lobby and says: "I need a million dollars fast: What potential political action gets the chairman of General Widgets waking up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night? What could destroy the widget industry, and yet be politically feasible?" Shortly thereafter the lobbyist has a little chat with chairman of General Widgets about forthcoming legislation. The lobby group gets a big bag of money, some of which it passes on to the politician, and the threatened legislation evaporates until the next election. To be a successful lobby group, the EFF needs to get its fingerprints on legislation, so that it can make threats and promises to businessmen in the computer industry. Thus the EFF's best interests as an organization are contrary to our desires and contrary to the announced aims of the organization. Legislation, any legislation, is in their interests and legislation, any legislation is against our interests. Our interests, and the EFF's interest are opposed with no apparent mutual good possible. Now it is possible that the EFF is virtuously pursuing its supposed goals, rather than its practical interests. We should consider the available evidence in order to infer what it is in fact up to. According to Dave Barry the word "politics" derives from the Greek "poly" meaning many, and "ticks" meaning small disgusting bloodsucking parasites. In order to be well funded, the EFF needs government regulation of the net. The kind of regulation that would be most effective in ensuring large donations would be regulation that compels internet businessmen to lobby the government. for example regulations that make impossible, inconsistent, and contradictory requirements on those who provide software, hardware, and services, for example a demand that big companies police the net in ways that even governments would find extremely difficult, such as the British child porn crackdown, or legislation which if properly crafted would have the effect of giving some businessmen a monopoly of some aspect of the net, and putting other businessmen out of business, for example legislation that requires case by case approval of software, or legislation that compels the businessman to invade his customers privacy, and also prohibits him from invading that privacy unless he has a waiver issued by the state. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

Re: Jury Nullification = Voting One's Conscience
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:24 PM 9/11/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > And I don't think there has _ever_ been a case of a juror prosecuted/jailed > for voting his or her conscience, regardless of jury instructions. Where have you been for the last twenty years? In fact a juror was recently jailed for this. She had informed the other juries of the likely severity of the punishment for pot, and refused to vote for conviction. She was charged with perjury and various contrived and bogus charges. The basis of perjury charge was that she had sworn there was no reason she could not do justice, and, according to the court, she was not doing justice because of her opposition to the drug laws.. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

Uses of Computational Chaos
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is reasonably obvious that using _computational_ (as opposed to physical) chaos won't increase entropy. But how about using it to make an attacker work harder to use any flaws in your method of generating random bits? As a simplistic example, say that the scribble window you're using tends to result in a 1 for each 3rd bit. Nice and simple for an attacker to exploit. But if that output is then fed into a chaotic system as its starting conditions, and you then take the state of that system after a sufficient number of iterations and use it as the basis for the IDEA key or whatever, the attacker doesn't just have to search through all the IDEA keys with the third bits being 1's - they have to process each of those through the chaotic system and use those results. Sort of like factoring - checking any two given prime factors will be rather easy, it's just the sheer number you have to check that makes things difficult. (This can be thought of as an odd variety of hash, particularly if you do something like chopping off the most-significant-bit in the chaotic system's output.) -Allen

1 0