December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:06 PM 11/14/96 -0800, you wrote: >> >> I'm still mildly curious as to why support for >128 bit keys is not >> available in any form I know of. > > What do you mean? 3DES ships with Stronghold, and will ship >with C2Net's other products as well. Yes, but I believe 3DES has an effective key length of only 112 bits. Of course, even this is more than sufficient for a long time to come. Clay > >-- >Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 >President FAX: 510-986-8777 >C2Net >http://www.c2.net/ sameer(a)c2.net > > ******************************************************* Clay Olbon clay.olbon(a)dynetics.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. Dynetics, Inc. **********************************************tanstaafl

2 1

San Jose Mercury News declares encryption battle over
by Peter D. Junger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Headline: Encryption battle ends peacefully Technology will block circuitry in exports without U.S. licensing Byline: BY RORY J. O'CONNOR Mercury News Washington Bureau Date: Published: Nov. 16, 1996 Opening: WASHINGTON -- Computer companies and the federal government appear to have peacefully resolved a fierce battle over the export of powerful coding software in computers. The computer makers plan to use new technology that would block the use of code circuitry in exported computers unless both buyer and seller obtain licenses in this country. The coding software is designed to help people prevent their electronic mail, files, credit-card numbers and the like from being read by hackers and thieves. URL: http://www.sjmercury.com/business/compute/encrypt1115.htm -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger(a)pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu

1 0

Executive Order establishing national emergency
by Peter D. Junger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since apparently people are having some difficult in finding Executive Order No. 12924, which continued the authority for the Export Control Regulations that are administered by the Commerce Department, I am posting a copy here. This is taken from the entry for 50 USC 1701 in the House of Representatives internet law library. ----------------------begin quoted text----------------------------- EX. ORD. NO. 12924. CONTINUATION OF EXPORT CONTROL REGULATIONS Ex. Ord. No. 12924, Aug. 19, 1994, 59 F.R. 43437, provided: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including but not limited to section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (''Act'') (50 U.S.C. 1702), I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, find that the unrestricted access of foreign parties to U.S. goods, technology, and technical data and the existence of certain boycott practices of foreign nations, in light of the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.), constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and hereby declare a national emergency with respect to that threat. Accordingly, in order (a) to exercise the necessary vigilance over exports and activities affecting the national security of the United States; (b) to further significantly the foreign policy of the United States, including its policy with respect to cooperation by U.S. persons with certain foreign boycott activities, and to fulfill its international responsibilities; and (c) to protect the domestic economy from the excessive drain of scarce materials and reduce the serious economic impact of foreign demand, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. To the extent permitted by law, the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, and the provisions for administration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, shall be carried out under this order so as to continue in full force and effect and amend, as necessary, the export control system heretofore maintained by the Export Administration regulations issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended. The delegations of authority set forth in Executive Order No. 12002 of July 7, 1977 (50 App. U.S.C. 2403 note), as amended by Executive Order No. 12755 of March 12, 1991; Executive Order No. 12214 of May 2, 1980 (50 App. U.S.C. 2403 note); Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note); and Executive Order No. 12851 of June 11, 1993 (22 U.S.C. 2797 note), shall be incorporated in this order and shall apply to the exercise of authorities under this order. Sec. 2. All rules and regulations issued or continued in effect by the Secretary of Commerce under the authority of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 App. U.S.C. 2401 et seq.), including those published in Title 15, Subtitle B, Chapter VII, Subchapter C, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 768 through 799, and all orders, regulations, licenses, and other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect pursuant thereto, shall, until amended or revoked by the Secretary of Commerce, remain in full force and effect as if issued or taken pursuant to this order, except that the provisions of sections 203(b)(2) and 206 of the Act (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2) and 1705) shall control over any inconsistent provisions in the regulations. Nothing in this section shall affect the continued applicability of administrative sanctions provided for by the regulations described above. Sec. 3. Provisions for administration of section 38(e) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(e)) may be made and shall continue in full force and effect until amended or revoked under the authority of section 203 of the Act (50 U.S.C. 1702). To the extent permitted by law, this order also shall constitute authority for the issuance and continuation in full force and effect of all rules and regulations by the President or his delegate, and all orders, licenses, and other forms of administrative actions issued, taken, or continued in effect pursuant thereto, relating to the administration of section 38(e). Sec. 4. Executive Order No. 12923 of June 30, 1994, is revoked, and that declaration of emergency is rescinded. The revocation of Executive Order No. 12923 shall not affect any violation of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, and other forms of administrative action under that order that occurred during the period the order was in effect. Sec. 5. This order shall be effective as of midnight between August 20, 1994, and August 21, 1994, and shall remain in effect until terminated. William J. Clinton. ----------------------end quoted text------------------------------- -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger(a)pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu

1 0

Re: Remailer Pricing
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: ph(a)netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson) > Right now the remailer network is a mess. There just aren't that many > remailers operating in a timely and reliable manner. I am not knocking > the remailer operators for this, it's just clear that "free" doesn't > make it worth their while to keep the remailers operating perfectly > at all times. I agree with this very much. For a long time we have had two contradictory notions floating around: nobody will pay for remailing services because free ones are available, and the remailer network can't be reliable because the operators don't have the resources to make them work better. Clearly if people understand that the choice is between free remailers that don't work well and for-pay ones which do, things look a little different. Peter's idea of having the remailers keep accounts for people receiving anonymous mail, possibly even sending them a monthly check, would completely change the spam equation. > Furthermore, many remailers don't use 2048-bit keys. Why not? Because > they don't want to spend money on the cycles. That's okay with me - > it's charity. But, if I pay a dollar for a remailer, I can expect > to be able to use a very strong key. Actually when I ran a remailer I had a small key because it was on a system which I did not control. The small key was meant as a signal to potential users that my system wasn't all that secure. The big problem that I always saw with the for-pay remailing model was the fear of greater liability when abusive mail goes through the remailer. I felt that operating a service for free would make it easier for me to argue that I was offering a public service, while running it for pay would mean that I would be profiting from the abuse. I don't know if this is really a valid argument, though. Hal

1 0

Output of your job "cypherpunks"
by L-Soft list server at CCI (1.8b) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> ok Confirming: > SIGNOFF NEWSLETTER You have been removed from the NEWSLETTER list. Summary of resource utilization ------------------------------- CPU time: 0.200 sec Device I/O: 0 Overhead CPU: 0.000 sec Paging I/O: 0 CPU model: Pentium 90/100 (30M)

2 1

Re: Gilmore Sucks! and so does the EFF !!/Censorship on cypherpunks?
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Stephen Boursy <boursy(a)earthlink.net> writes: > aga wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > > > > Cypher-Censored > > > By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > > > > The EFF is just a sham, and Gilmore is just another censor. > > Gilmore can now be known as the "plug-pulling punk." Very apt. > The EFF is owned and operated, heart, body and soul, by the > corporate interests of the net. They don't give a damn about > individual user rights at all--they are to my mind the opposition. That would be fine if they didn't pretend to be what they're not. They're welcome to support or oppose free speech for anyone they please, but they lie and pretend to support free speech not only for their corporate clients. Clearly, John Gilmore has no credibility. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aga <aga(a)dhp.com> writes: > > > > If you send mail to "cypherpunks(a)toad.com", either directly, OR > > in a "Cc:" which is a 'carbon copy', it will goto the the cypherpunks > > mailing list WETHER YOU ARE SUBSCRIBED OR NOT. It still goes. > > > > Well, that is really a fuck-up by John Gilmore, is it not? > Just when is the asshole going to learn how to run a mailing list? Never, but he might get some Cygnus support employee to do it for him. :-) John has the right to configure his private mailing list to reject submissions from non-subscribers or even sepecific people - but not the balls. > > In any case trying to reason with you is like trying to talk > > to a tree stump. It's giving me a headache. So I'm not going > > to accept any mail from you any more. Anything you send that > > get's to me via the cypherpunks mailing list, or via direct > > mail from yourself will be returned unread, to you. I'm not > > under any obligation to accept any traffic from you, so I won't. > > Good, just tell Gilmore what an asshole he is for letting > mail go to his mailing list that is not intended to go there. > And stop sending me your stupid e-mail. Send this shit to > usenet like Mr. Boursy told you to do. Again John Gilmore/EFF demonstrate their true agenda: they can filter out the e-mail they don't like, but they want to prevent others from reading it as well. Clearly their concern for free speech extends only to their corporate sponsors, such as net.pronography peddlers. > > You may have a right to a voice, but I have a right not to listen > > I'm not going to infringe on your right to rant, but damned if > > I have to listen to a single packet of it. The saw cuts both ways. > > time for the alt.asshole.john-gilmore newsgroup An excellent idea, Dr. Grubor! Shall we newgroup alt.flame.john-gilmore or alt.bonehead.john-gilmore or both? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

MSIE 128 Bit
by Steve Shelby 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 Nov 16 11:56:26 1996 "WorkHorse's interface is pretty ugly and the rendition is buggy, but the SSL connection does work: I got through mbanx's "Sign in" link at http://www.mbanx.com/banxing/5welcome.html , whereas MSIE and NS3 were kicked out due to their 40-bit RC4 limit." - ---- Microsoft has a 128 bit version of their Explorer available. You have to jump through a few hoops, but they have it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMo3yP0F1dOf86f8dAQHs1QQAwYuTk5Lqvb2vBgvOVef1ToFIUtG5JN70 dBmD8JM23N0ZROsF03+wFGUT71pMAuu3BjuJQBOm0r9idPBwdcq6CaVf8QoU5+/Q tbj6b9PFx9EbpE4bZqoGPf3ePRFg6ImMSdyKDeM5vIMKJO8BwQZugqP2CgblkzlG yvEgPyiUlek= =ZlSn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:37 AM 11/16/96 -0800, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: [snip] >I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of >nonsense. Please do us all a favor and try to sue John. I'm sure >that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they >can come up with a viable cause of action. And John has deep >pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue >"freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists. Such a case would obviously fail. John has the right to ban anyone he wants from a list that he is hosting. I do question, though, whether or not it was the best way to handle the situation. As I have argued, the availability of end-user filtering made banning Dimitri from the list unnecessary, IMHO. And the list owner giving people the boot sure doesn't fit with the picture I have had of what cypherpunks was about. YMMV. I think that John is doing a lot of great things for crypto (his participation in the Bernstein case, S/WAN, etc.) and I agree with at least 90% of the things I see him doing. I think he made the wrong call with Dimitri, though. >You >could be heroes (or look ten times as foolish as you already do). Actually, if John was trying to cut down on the noise by banning the Kook, I think it's backfired. It seems like there is even more irrational chatter now... Rich -- Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/

3 2

HP does it
by mael＠umcc.umcc.umich.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9611/15/encryption.reut/index.html Hewlett-Packard to unveil encryption 'breakthrough' encryption links November 15, 1996 Web posted at: 9:00 p.m. EST PALO ALTO, California (Reuter) -- Hewlett-Packard Co. said Friday that it will unveil technology Monday that will provide a breakthrough in the long-deadlocked debate over use of software encoding for secure data traffic. If the encryption technology has won the backing of industry and the U.S. and other governments -- which Hewlett-Packard officials say is the case -- the development could eliminate a key obstacle to the growth of electronic commerce via the Internet. Hewlett-Packard Chairman Lewis Platt will provide details on the technology, which includes technology patented by the Palo Alto computer giant as well as other technologies, a company spokesman said. Technology from RSA Data Corp. the de facto standard-setter for Internet security, will be involved Hewlett-Packard officials said. Senior Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp. executives were also scheduled to attend Monday's news briefing at the National Press Club in Washington, Hewlett-Packard officials said. The technology will make it possible to export products containing so-called "strong encryption," which have not been exportable under national security laws dating back to the Cold War. Under national security law, the U.S. government has allowed the export of software and other computer products containing only "weaker" data encryption technologies. Encryption has been classified as a munition because of its potential for use by terrorists, spies or other criminals to conceal messages. Encryption programs use mathematical formulae to scramble confidential information, such as electronic mail messages or credit card numbers, rendering them unreadable to computer users without a password or "software key" that can decode the coded material. For years the domestic computer industry has complained that such government restrictions have hampered its competitiveness in world markets, and that its customers did not necessarily want the government to be able to decode internal data. The industry says the laws have prevented it from offering some of the most recent Internet technologies, even within the United States, because it is impossible to prevent computer users outside U.S. borders from gaining access to technologies publicly available on the Internet. Companies and their customers want to use encryption to protect confidential communications and electronic commerce. Silicon Valley executives recently noted that consumer devices, such as WebTV Network's Web-browsing television device that hit store shelves this autumn, use the same levels of strong encryption as used in military systems. WebTV said it is using keys composed of 128 bits, or characters, of data to encode and decode its communications to its set-top boxes providing consumers with the best level of security available over the Internet. The government recently proposed that the constraint be eliminated by providing a key recovery system, in which authorities could recover keys to crack messages if they received a court warrant to do so. Industry has rebuffed this as difficult to manage. The solution being offered by Hewlett-Packard would be flexible, allowing customers to use the levels of encryption required by different governments, the company said. "This is going to allow very strong encryption," said a spokeswoman. Hewlett-Packard said its technology would provide a means of "solving the data security and integrity issues that have impaired and frightened users and companies from exploiting the full power of the Internet." Copyright 1996 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

1 0