December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Proof that "cypher punks" have complete degenerated...
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 04:24:14 +0000, geeman(a)best.com wrote: >It wasn't worth commenting on. >Appending data after the ctrl-Z as stego? >Not even worth a letter to the ed! >> No one even commented on the latest Dr. Dobbs issue. I know - I was amazed that made it into the issue. It's almost amazing that someone would go to such effort to do this and miss all the [IMHO] easier ways. Simply astounding... # 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

Code+Data separation
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Allowing code and data to reside in the same areas of memory is a nice convenience, but it makes security harder to implement because it means code is modifiable and data can be created which just happens to do bad things if it is executed. Are there any modern processors which keep the code and data separated? Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

3 2

Life with Dale
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> :I spent part of my growing up years in Leroy West Virginia, pop. :about 15, give or take. I know about hillbillies, and I know about :guns. :If you had the impression I am a whiner, or that that defines me as a :person, you're about as clueful as the other old farts who attack :people they don't know anything about. Name one thing Dale has not experienced.

5 12

Re: Executing Encrypted Code
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:18 PM 12/19/1996, Ben Byer wrote: >> At the last meeting references were made to processors which only >> execute encrypted code. Decryption occurs on chip. >> >> If each chip has a unique public/secret key pair, and executes >> authenticated code only, there are some interesting implications. > Let's see... What about this scenario: > Alice gets a contraband copy of PGP 4.0 off the Internet. Since the > public-key algorithm is publicized so that people can encrypt software > to a chip, PGP 4.0 has the ability to encode/decode/generate keys for > the chip. Alice generates a public key/private key pair 0x12345678, > in software. Alice goes to www.microsoft.com and orders Office '99 > online, and tells Microsoft "Hi, my name is Alice, my credit card > number is 31426436136778 and my PGPentium's public key is 0x12345678." > Microsoft unwittingly sends Alice a copy encrypted to 0x12345678, for > which she has the private key to. Alice decrypts Office '99, and > reencrypts it with public key of her PGPentium, as well as the keys f > all her friends. The software vendor would be wise to check that the public key was legal. It would be a simple matter for the manufacturer to publicize all public keys that had been installed on chips. > Does the authentication defeat this? I'm sort of waving my hands around when I say "authentication". One approach is for the manufacturer to authenticate software submitted by approved vendors. The vendors are then tasked with encrypting it for the correct processor. > Our computers would only run software from Microsoft? Scary. There are all sorts of nifty deals that could be made. Microsoft could commission a special run of the processors which only run Microsoft approved software. Machines using these processors could be given away or sold at a steep discount. You could also timestamp the software so that it only runs for a given length of time. This will encourage people to upgrade regularly. ;-) The processors could also support metering. The processor could support some sort of API for the software to tell it how many computrons had been used and stop it from running after they run out. This means that light users or evaluators of software pay relatively low prices while heavy users pay high prices. This is a great deal for all concerned. Right now software vendors try to do this with clever deals, but it's crude at best. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

4 3

Re: Executing Encrypted Code
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:41 AM 12/20/1996, Scott V. McGuire wrote: >On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Peter Hendrickson Wrote: >> The manufacturer of the encrypted-code processor would protect its >> instruction set using intellectual property law. Given the high >> price of a fab, it is entirely feasible to stop anybody from building >> a new architecture which can execute the code about as fast as >> the encrypting-code processor. > It seems to me that this is where this scheme would be broken. Have > intellectual property laws been (successfully) used in this way? I don't know, but I bet it would be possible to arrange if there was support for it. Or, maybe the instruction set itself remains a trade secret. Sure, it could leak out, but aren't there laws against industrial espionage? (If the instruction set was secret, the manufacturer might have to provide a compilation service.) > And even if so, would they be enforced in all the countries where the > chips might be fabricated? Yes, if the laws exist they would be easy to enforce. What does a state-of-the-art fab cost now? $5 billion? $10 billion? I was generous when I said "G-7". Which countries can really compete in this market? The U.S. and Japan, I believe. There is no reason to rule out extra-legal pressure, either. The USG appears to have played the policeman in supporting the DRAM market in an informal way. It would be very easy to have a chat with the Japanese government about the importance of stopping software piracy. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Ebonics
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In order to remain compliant with the new California law requiring increased use of "Ebonics," the new academic name for "Black English" (and known by honkey mofos as "ghetto jive"). Apparently the coloreds have had enough of "standard English" and its repression of their culture. To meet the requirements of this new law, 10% of my posts from now on will be written as best I can manage in the Ebonic language. Switching to Ebonics: De honks be chimin.' Code be fly! I's huffa be gots to be sizing, bitch. PGP 3 be dope, nuffin but bad! I be axing you if it be outa honkeyland or outa Afrika? Dat bitch Reno be sayin' it be 'legal be usin' dope 'warez. Day be hos. --a melanin-challenged honkey mofo Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Test files for encryption
by Steve O 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can someone point me to any standard files that are used when testing encryption strength. Iie i'm looking for a gourp of files that may have been used by an agency or Internet group in the past that when encrypted were tested for byte frequency etc. as well as cryptoanalytic atacks. thanks in advance. steveo privsoft(a)ix.netcom.com

1 0

Re: Executing Encrypted Code
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-20 03:30:46 EST, you write: << > >You could also timestamp the software so that it only runs for a given > >length of time. This will encourage people to upgrade regularly. ;-) > >> If anyone thinks it is anything but trivial to track down a call for time/date and a comparison of the two.. and then overwrite the area with some nop's to make sure the address jumps come out the same.. your sadly mistaken =-}

1 0

C2Net Party: January 24th
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.c2.net/party/ C2NET is having a party January 24th at 654 Mission St. San Francisco assorted snacks, a cash bar and live music by WEIRD BLINKING LIGHTS with dj accompaniment by DJ FLINT and DJ PINNIPED will be present for your enjoyment Festivities begin at 8PM We hope to see you there --- Directions: >From the West or North: Take Oak Street East. Turn left on Laguna. Turn right on Fell. Fell crosses Market and becomes 10th Street. Merge left within one block of Market. Turn left on Mission. >From the East: Take Hwy 80 West across the Bay Bridge. Take the first exit on the left (Harrison Street exit) Turn left on Harrison. Turn right on 3rd Street. Turn right on Mission. >From the South: Take Hwy 280 North. Follow 280 to its end at 4th & King Streets. Follow King Street to its end at 3rd Street. Turn left on 3rd. Turn right on Mission. >From BART: Take BART to the Montgomery station Walk south on New Montgomery Street Turn right on Mission. Parking: There is a commercial parking lot across the street on Mission and another one on the corner of 3rd and Mission.

1 0

Key Escrow Rule
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Federal Register of December 13, 1996 has published "Licensing of Key Escrow Encryption Equipment and Software" This parallels the draft regulations for encryption export provided by Steptoe & Johnson on December 11 but sets provisions specifically for key escrow products. We've put it at: http://jya.com/ke121396.htm (39 kb) Here are excerpts from the opening: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This interim final rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by imposing national security controls on Key escrow information security (encryption) equipment and software transferred from the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List following a commodity jurisdiction determination by the Department of State. This interim final rule also amends the EAR to exclude key escrow items from the de minimis provisions for items exported from abroad and to exclude key escrow encryption software from mass market eligibility. Further, key escrow encryption software is subject to the EAR even when made publicly available. ... Once transferred, key escrow encryption items will be controlled for national security reasons. A license will be required from the Department of Commerce to all destinations, except Canada. This is an initial step in liberalizing the treatment of encryption exports. The Bureau of Export Administration is preparing regulations to further implement the Administration's encryption policies, which will be published in the Federal Register in the near future. ...

1 0