December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Majordomo results: mailto:pr-news@pa.dec.com
by majordomo＠dws008.ako.dec.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- >>>> What is DEC's official position regarding the new Clipper III proposal? **** @_ **** No valid commands found. **** Commands must be in message BODY, not in HEADER. **** Help for majordomo(a)dws008.ako.dec.com: This is Brent Chapman's "Majordomo" mailing list manager, version 1.93. In the description below items contained in []'s are optional. When providing the item, do not include the []'s around it. It understands the following commands: subscribe <list> [<address>] Subscribe yourself (or <address> if specified) to the named <list>. unsubscribe <list> [<address>] Unsubscribe yourself (or <address> if specified) from the named <list>. get <list> <filename> Get a file related to <list>. index <list> Return an index of files you can "get" for <list>. which [<address>] Find out which lists you (or <address> if specified) are on. who <list> Find out who is on the named <list>. info <list> Retrieve the general introductory information for the named <list>. lists Show the lists served by this Majordomo server. help Retrieve this message. end Stop processing commands (useful if your mailer adds a signature). Commands should be sent in the body of an email message to "majordomo(a)dws008.ako.dec.com". Commands in the "Subject:" line NOT processed. If you have any questions or problems, please contact "majordomo-Owner(a)dws008.ako.dec.com".

1 0

Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>No. And No. This argument will never fly in any court. > >If you want to see why, go to my homepage > >http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin > Thanks, the material was indeed informative. Some great work! However, I found much disturbing. The inference that the Exec branch could on the one hand classify crypto as a munition ('arms' by any other name), while for constitutional purposes the Courts may not exposes a deep-seated legal duplicity. Constitutional interpretations over the past century not withstanding, it is clear (to me) that a substantial number of the Framers would abhor what has become of the Second Amendment's ... right to keep and bear arms. One of the primary reasons put forth by the Framers for such a right was in order to resist the an oppressive state. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. --Thomas Jefferson When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour. --George Washington It is ludacrous to expect citizens armed with no more than side arms, bolt-actions and shot guns to resist the actions of a modern military or law enforcement which citizens may find in violation of their inaliable natural rights (whether mistaken or not). In my opinion, all citizens should be be able to keep and bear any arms (without registration) which the state might use against them. To do so now is a criminal action. So be it. Unfortunately, it is common for groups especially governmental to be come statist, mean spirited and eventually malevolent. I hope jim bell or his ilk are soon successful at putting up functional, anonymous and active AP sites. I can't wait to wager! -- Steve

6 5

Re: ITAR satellite provision
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 02 Oct 1996 09:28:22 -0800, jim bell wrote: >> "Export means, for purposes of this subchapter: >[snip] >>* A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching >>* of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this >>* subchapter. Most of the requirements of this subchapter relate >> only to exports, as defined above. However, for certain limited >> purposes, the controls of this subchapter apply to sales and other >> transfers of defense articles and defense services (see, e.g., Sec. >> 126.1) of this subchapter." > > >Okay, everybody, call Estes! We've got some crypto to export...er...launch! For some reason I'm getting a very comical picture here of a Crypto-CD inside one of those cylindrical oatmeal boxes with about 50 F model-rocket engines strapped to it.... Now, if you could just hit Airforce 1 on the way over - call it sending a message. # 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)

1 0

Re: "Macintosh -- the Surveillance System for the Rest of Us
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:48 PM 10/3/96 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote: >At 7:13 pm -0400 10/3/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >> "Macintosh, the Surveillance System for the Rest of Us." >> >> (Why Apple would go along with this, while Microsoft and Netscape are >> apparently not playing ball, is incomprehensible to me. Apple risks >> alienating its remaining core user base, who often characterize Microsoft >> as "the Borg." So, Apple capitulates, while MS does not. I guess the >> "Macintosh Crypto Forum" didn't do a lot of good, did it?) > >Ouch. > >My first reaction to the above was to say, "Oh, Yeah??? Well, you're ugly, >buddy, and your mother dresses you funny, too!" But, I won't upset the >decorum of so august a forum with such eggregious classlessness. Not here >on cypherpunks. :-). > > >If one were to be completely uncharitable in the interpretation of Tim's >most recent outbreak of vitriol here, it would seem that he's offended that >he wasn't asked first to be the keynote at MacCrypto, the conference a >bunch of us had at Apple a month ago, which, I might add, was a >considerable success. I know what probably happened. A new high-level manager at Apple picked up some old dusty videotape off the shelf, labelled "Super Bowl 1984", played it and said, "Yah know, that guy on the screen was making a hell of a lot of sense until that trouble-makin' bitch smashed it!" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Can we kill single DES?
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 16:27:18 -6, Peter Trei wrote: >1. Is this a good idea? What will happen if DES becomes perceived > as insecure? That's Declan's department (and other non-clueless journalists - declan is just the most visible). If it get's widespread and the target is something like Digicash, it'd get picked up by the Crime/Snoozeweek crowd. >2. What is the probability of success required to make it worth doing? Judging by the people on the list, about 50%.... <g> >3. What would be the consequences of failure? Depends on the type of failure - ranging from dreadful to minor. >4. What other platforms than NT/Win95/Pentium should be considered? > I could write a Unix demon version, but unless it's tailored for the > cpu, a lot of efficency is lost > (The aggregate number of idle cycles available for testing is the > crucial number). A Linux port (Pentium) would be *very* good - lots of Linux people tend to by pro-cpunk. Ditto for OS/2. And who knows, if you hyped the business aspects enough you might even find IBM or some other large corp willing to donate some time on large system. >5. What's a good target? Ideally, we need a plaintext/ciphertext pair, ecash, ecash, ecash! Given all the attention anything that 'will give your VISA number to evil hackers' gets, this is an important target. It's serious and newsworthy. >6. What other incentives can be used to recruit machines? Maybe give away a Pentium to the person who finds it? (Assuming donations from list members, of course) # 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: Can we kill single DES?
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 01 Oct 1996 19:01:08 -0800, jim bell wrote: >Maybe Microsoft would be willing to help? After all, it is THEY who are >going to be limited to DES-strength exports if things continue as they've >been going. How about Intel? Netscape would be a great choice as well - the Internet security market is *very* important. Microsoft has publically said that their cash flow model will work if they make NOTHING off of internet software of any sort. Compare this with the fortunes being spent on "Netscape Enterprise Server" or the like. They could issue press releases talking about how they have the software to keep your VISA secure but the USG isn't allowing them to use it! Microsoft would probably do anything the USG asked if, say, immunity from the DOJ was granted under the table. NTT is also a great choice, as you mentioned above. IBM, Sun, DG, Cray (a Silicon Graphics subsidiary?), etc. might go for some free publicity - I've seen a LOT of press releases out of IBM that talk about "blue-sky" research being done. Given that IBM lives because of big business, they also have a demonstratable interest. I'm sure they'd love to be able to advertise that the data you trust to DB2 (for instance) is entirely secure. The same argument works for DG. Also, IBM has a lot invested in chip fabrication facilities - there's got to be some extra capacity there! Sun has always seemed to be big on tech-demo type things. Cray - well that's obvious. The supercomputer market is heading toward massive parallelism. Leaching time looks interesting! # 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)

1 0

Re: Timmy May the buffoon
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm glad that you agreed with my assessment of Timmy May. >From remailer(a)flame.alias.net Fri Oct 4 08:00:56 1996 >Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 14:00:48 +0200 (MET DST) >Message-Id: <199610041200.OAA11852(a)basement.replay.com> >To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com >From: nobody(a)flame.alias.net (Anonymous) >Organization: Flame International Inc. >Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to <remailer-admin(a)flame.alias.net> >Subject: your idea > > >>Tim is an ignorant asshole who knows nothing about cryptography and floods >>this mailing list with inane rants and personal attacks. I recommend that >>he be massively killfiled. > >Gosh, we have never heard this from you before! A new idea. > >

1 0

Jon Katz retracts...thanx Jon
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"And a final note, on another topic entirely. In Threads and in my recent columns, I've tried repeatedly to make the distinction between the original Cypherpunk mailing list - designed to ensure anonymous access to information on the Web and, in other contexts, a techno-anarchist movement - and the adolescent pinheads using the name Cypherpunk to successfully block open and free speech on The Netizen's public forums. They are not the same thing. The movement to protect anonymity is an important part of the Web and the Net. The use of the name to anonymously attack people is not an embodiment of that movement, but a perversion of it. I didn't make this distinction clear in my columns this week. Many thanks to the people who pointed it out." -------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Re: The New GAK-Clipper Thing will Fail
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:07 PM 10/3/96 -0800, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote: >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. A really _fine_ post! I'm also impressed by the way they announced it just _after_ Congress ended its session, while they're busy losing the export level in court. On the other hand, boycotts aren't particularly useful, when RSA (who is or is not joining the Bad Guys) owns half the public key patents and Cylink (who definitely is) owns the other half. If you're selling public key, you've got to pay the Bad Guys, until the DH patents expire in 97 (later for RSA.) Or you've got to buy from somebody who's paying the Bad Guys. And the Bad Guys Unindicted Co-Conspirators' announcements haven't even _mentioned_ permitting export of public key technology (since 56-bit RSA doesn't quite make it.) But they _could_ export Kerberos, with only minor hacks needed to implement Key Ripoff. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com America's Open Presidential Debate - Beyond Dole and Clinton! <A href="http://gate.net/~bdcollar/bbe/debate.htm">Tuesday, Oct. 8th 8:00 PM EDT</a>

1 0

Re: WINDOWS NT ????
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:47 PM 10/3/96 +1030, you wrote: >hi, > is Windows NT secured system ? Windows NT 3.51 is a real operating system. It is not as secure as I would like, but it is much better than Windows 3.1, which was totally insecure. It has some good security techniques, but I don't know how secure the networking is, and networking is the big technical insecurity on most machines today. (Well, bad administration is the biggest insecurity on almost all machines for almost all time. And physical security is also big.) Windows 4.x moves the graphics/windowing system into Ring 0, where the "secure" parts of the kernel are. Bad. This means graphics bugs can make the kernel insecure or crash. I don't trust it, especially because Windows 3.1 crashes all the time for me, and stupid bugs make Windows 3.1 behave badly for me. So if they put the window system in the kernel, I don't trust it. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com America's Open Presidential Debate - Beyond Dole and Clinton! <A href="http://gate.net/~bdcollar/bbe/debate.htm">Tuesday, Oct. 8th 8:00 PM EDT</a>

1 0