December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

It Used to Be Eric's Inscrutable Deficiency
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In glancing through and deleting so many messages about how blasphemous and perverted John Gilmore is for having "censored" one list afficionado (more symbolically than in actual fact), I am amused to recall that it used to be Eric Hughes who was the bad guy identified as the Egotistical Slave Master who abused his ownership privileges. Now he's left the list, it is JG who gets the drift & drivel about list management. Strange, too, that those who clamor for freedom of speech are accusing JG of being contrary to his principles. They expect that just because individuals should be at liberty to speak, everyone must therefore be prepared to tolerate all manner and kind of insults against themselves (or be a passive witness to it). In that case, it would mean that because individuals are to be free "to do" as they will, therefore that courtesy and manners are no longer valid, that high standards of personal behavior are not important, that self-command is not required, that exercising one's best judgement is of no practical value for life in the real world. It would mean that in the environment of liberty, it would be incorrect for individuals to prevent assaults against themselves or their morals, against their personal preferences, or against their choice of topics for a discussion list which they started. This would mean that, for instance, it wouldn't be right for free individuals to prevent from being sexually molested, because it would be "censorship" against the perpetrator. These complaintants against censorship must not understand the purpose for freedom of action, of expression, etc.; that they do not understand the need for being "free": it is so that one may, without interferance from uninvited participants, engage in arranging the elements of one's existence for the greatest benefit to oneself. Tolerating insulting drivel does not fall into that category. The environment of liberty to express oneself also permits the exercise of the highest logic possible to an unfettered intelligence. Filling up the mailing list with irrelevant accusations about bizarre sexual practices is not of any logical benefit towards enlightenment on the subjects of encryption or privacy. .. Blanc

3 2

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:24 ðì 16/11/1996 -0500, Tim Scanlon wrote: >Stephen Boursy wrote, along with a horde of others with no lives: >[lots of worthless crap snipped out] As an aside, some of this "worthless crap" written by Stephen Boursy and "others with no lives", happens to contain jewels of wisdom and humility such as the following: (cut and pasted from another posting): >> P.S. I never understood the (American?) preoccupation about... "putting >> out flames". If I find flame-messages boring, I don't read them! >> If anyone insults me, I reply; If anyone speaks nicely, I also do. >> The (American?) preoccupation about flames conceals a deep _fear_ >> of freedom, freedom of the other person's freedom. > > > This is very true. I'm worried about the US--our lack of respect >for free speech--our extremely poor social services for the poor, etc. >It is not a country I'm proud of at the moment. Much of what is >praised about the US--our stability of government--is our downfall--we >should be able to toss a government like we have out on its ass and >string up the leaders on telephone polls. Are you aware... tiny Tim, that Stephen Boursy's comment should make Americans feel PROUD, and that his response to my rant made me think a LOT? Perhaps learning from the humility and wisdom of others has also been banned inside your... tiny-Tim brain cells. Happy Recovery Geirge

1 0

RFC: A UNIX crypt(3) replacement
by Joshua E. Hill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm trying to think of a function to replace UNIX's crypt(3). My design criteria are as follows: 1) I want it to be secure. 2) I would like to use a cryptographic hash. 3) I would like to use well understood cryptographic primitives. 4) I would like to use a salt, and I would like the salt to be considerably larger than the current salt. 5) I would like the process to be able to be more computationally intensive than crypt(3). 6) The ability to use the algorithm in any setting domestic (US) and abroad is a concern, but not a primary one. #1 is important for the obvious reasons. #2 is important because a one way hash allows for a secure way of checking the original password against the entered password. No password should be able to be recovered by simply reading a file, or finding an internal key. #3 is basicly a result of #1 #4 and 5 makes the password system more resistant to a dictionary- type attack. Several of the more popular password guessers (ie: Crack) get a significant speed increase from the fact that they only have to hash each of the words once per salt. I would like it to be possible for each user to have an independent salt (for any reasonable system size). I would also like this function to be able to be scaled to that it can be slower than crypt(3). This will also hinder a dictionary attack. #6 is a byproduct of silly legal concerns. The algorithm that I developed was heavily influenced by RFCs 1852 [1] and 1828 [2] (IP Authentication using SHA and MD5, respectively), and "Keying Hash Functions for Message Authentication" by Mihir Bellare, Ran Canetti, and Hugo Krawczyk [3] This algorithm borrows several concepts from [3]: The idea of the keyed hash, where the key is used as the hash's IV, or Initial Value. Its security is completely based on the choice of the key, and the strength of the underlying hash function. The concept of the NMAC (Nested MAC), and security analysis of it. The Algorithm: Given that: . = the concatenation operator P = the user pass phrase H(m) = the hash of the message m l = length of the hash returned by H(m) H(k,m) = the keyed hash of message m, using key k (as the IV) N = salt, length l = (n1 . n2) where n1 and n2 are sub-salts i = the iteration number E = a temporary value = (e1 . e2) K = key = (k1,k2), where k1 and k2 are the sub-keys used in the NMAC NMAC(k, m) = H(k1, H(k2, m)) In several cases a value is said to be equal to the concatenation of two other values (we'll take N as an example); ie N = (n1 . n2) This means that N is divided into two equal sized chunks, n1 and n2. (n1 . n2) = N initially: (1) E = H (P) (2) k1 = (e1 . n1), k2 = (e2 . n2) (3) T0 = NMAC(K, n) And then: (4) T(i) = NMAC(K, T(i-1) . n . T(i-1)) (repeat (4) a number of times) In (1) the user pass phrase is hashed using the non keyed hash, and the resulting value is kept in E. In (2) k1 is formed by concatenating the first half of E and the first half of the salt. k2 is formed by concatenating the second half of the key with the second half of the salt. Now each sub-key is of length l. In (3) the NMAC of n is assigned to T0 and then in (4) T(i) is calculated by doing the NMAC of the value of the previous hash concatenated with n concatenated with the value the previous hash. Step (4) is repeated a known number of iterations. "Keying Hash Functions..." [3] seems to imply that the security of this hash would be based on the length of l and the underlying hash function, H. Because of the way that K is used, the security granted is a function of l/2, not l. (For further explanation see [3]) I was thinking of implementing this using SHA-1. This would lead to a 160 bit value for l, hence the security would be based on an 80 bit key. Some modifications that I have considered, and would like feedback on are: I was thinking of making the keys used for the hash come from the previous hashes, and then hash a constant string. ie: T(i) = NMAC(T(i-2) . T(i-1), P . n . P) instead of having a more-or-less constant key, and constantly changing what is being hashed. I also am not sure that the string that I'm hashing is ideal. Would (n . P . n ) be better? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Metzger, P. and Simpson, W. "Request for Comments: 1852, IP Authentication using Keyed SHA" [2] Metzger, P. and Simpson, W. "Request for Comments: 1828, IP Authentication using Keyed MD5" [3] Bellare, Mihir and Canetti, Ran and Krawczyk, Hugo. "Keying Hash Functions for Message Authentication" I very much appreciate comments on any portion of this, or on my general approach. Thanks, Joshua -----------------------------Joshua E. Hill----------------------------- | If you not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate | -------jehill@<gauss.elee|galaxy.csc|w6bhz|tuba.aix>.calpoly.edu--------

4 9

Re: More Euro Key Escrow
by Bryondp＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

take me off this list

1 0

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by cvhd＠indyweb.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:52 AM 11/16/96 -0800, you wrote: >What a week! What is this? "Net Loon pig-pile on Cypherpunks day?" >So far i have killfiled three people in the past two days. (That is the >total number I filtered to trash before that date.) >For those of you who are sick of wading through this mess, I am willing to >show you what it will take to filter those of your choice to /dev/null or >its local equivelent. (procmail can be your friend!) >Maybe after some creative filtering, the list will settle back to the usual >noise, instead of the net-loon noise. As the smoke from the first rounds of cyber-gunfire of the Gilmore vs Vulius shootout were wafting thru C-space several of us were bemoaning the fact that the entire issue hadn't been handled thru creative filtering on the part of list members as opposed to the heavy-handed "Big-Bro'ish" plug pulling by Mr. Gilmore. The "net-loon noise" level increase was predictable. Like you I will continue to perform creative filtering in order to extract the 4 out of 240 messages worth reading in any given 48 hour period. cvhd

1 0

Re: Mailing list liability (fwd)
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:13 PM 11/9/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >> From markm@gak Sat Nov 9 21:03:24 1996 >> Note that none of these say anything about any commercial service being held >> liable for defamatory statements because the service cancelled a user's >> account or prevented a user from posting in certain areas. I really don't >> see why you consider unsubscribing someone from a mailing list the equivalent >> of monitoring posts and exercising editorial control. > >It is exactly editorial control because it prevents, a priori, submissions by >Vulis under that account. He is FORCED to resort to other means. That is >what the courts will see, it is what the jury will see, and it is what will >eventualy sink the list, and place its operator under financial burden for >years. This is inaccurate. Vulis is still sending posts to the list and they are distributed to subscribers. You seem to have assumed that submissions are only accepted from subscribers. This assumption is wrong. >I joined this list under my own volition, I agreed to no review by the list >operator at any time. I did not agree to not hurt his feelings with my >comments or views. I did not agree to agree with the operator of the list. >I did not agree to make him feel warm and fuzzy inside. I agreed to NOTHING >other than my permission for him to put your submissions in my email box. I have a very hard time seeing a contract here - I don't think there was anything close to a "meeting of the minds" to the terms you seem to imagine, nor do I see any consideration. As you've indicated above, you took on no obligations - which suggests that your relationship to the list owner is not that of a party to a contract, but as a recipient of a gift. The donor of a gift (or series of gifts) is free to stop giving at their whim. > The >only way I can be removed from this list and not open the operator up to >legal consequences is by my own volition or the total cessation of this list. >This applies to every member subscribed so long as their is no proviso posted >at subscription time. I disagree strongly. I also strongly disagree that there was/is any contract between Gilmore and list subscribers or authors. And I strongly disagree with your ideas about posting notices and the "default" situation where notices aren't posted. I think that you're mixing up your analyses re defamation and contract (they are **not** the same thing). I also think you're using contract-style language to describe obligations apparently imposed by law, which is misleading. Further, I'm not aware of any law which would impose the obligations you imagine. If you've got better information, perhaps you'd be kind enough to post a citation so the rest of us can catch up with you. The case summaries you posted don't support your conclusion. The only one that's even in the neighborhood is Stratton-Oakmont; which, as I pointed out before, is appreciably different factually (the degree of control was much greater, the forum was advertised as a controlled one, and the defendant inspected the message before it was made public), did not receive further scrutiny at an appellate level, and has been criticized by commentators and scholars as being poorly reasoned. Stratton-Oakmont is a poor case to rely upon. As far as I can tell, you're basing your legal conclusion on the depth and quality of your feelings about this issue, which is always a mistake. Finally (and dispositively), the entire field of liability for "publishers" of online information was changed by the Communications Decency Act. See <http://www.gdf.com/lb4-1.htm#N3> for more. But this discussion reminds me of the unproductive discussions that various legal-minded folks (myself included) have had with Jim Bell from time to time. And I try not to spend time on unproductive pursuits. So I am not going to write more about this. I've offered my analysis, and readers can & will give it whatever weight they think it merits. If I don't respond to your messages, it's not because I don't think you're wrong, it's because I don't think saying it over & over helps anyone. Mike Godwin has written and thought a lot about liability for defamation in the online service provider context. I recommend his work to people who want to learn more. It's clear that you think John Gilmore did the wrong thing when he excluded Vulis. The notion that a relatively inflexible and harsh liability scheme awaits system operators who wander into some form of content control can be an attractive one. I don't blame you for liking that idea. But your conclusion is not supported by case law nor traditional theories of contract, tort, or property law. The result you want (any content control = duty to inspect every message = harsh result) might be a good one but it is not the state of the law today. If you're getting your legal information from computer media or mass media you're probably getting partially incorrect information or interpretation. -- Greg Broiles | "In this court, appellant and respondent are the gbroiles(a)netbox.com | same person. Each party has filed a brief." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Lodi v. Lodi, 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 219 Cal. | Rptr. 116 (3rd Dist, 1985)

2 1

Re: One Big Telecoms Company
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:23 PM 11/15/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Progress? Most major cities (when I was a kid) had *several* competing >newspapers, Few realize that NYC today has circa 20 daily newspapers (circa 5 in English and circa 15 in other languages). In addition, I can read a hundred daily newspapers (or more) on the nets. DCF

2 1

Re: THAT is what makes ---Snipshit---------
by dshipman＠ewol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> time for ------Snipshit--------- >> An excellent --------Snipshit------------- > >In that case ---------------Snipshit------------ >Jai Maharaj >%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:% Om Shanti %:%:% Splash!! Another one falls from filter to Crap Bucket. Damn, a week ago I didn't even know how to *use* a filter! DLS --------------- A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:00 ìì 16/11/1996 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >Rich Burroughs <richieb(a)teleport.com> writes: >> >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. > >Sure he does - I've been saying all along that John Gilmore has the right to >act dishonorably, which he exercises. Yet the censorship supporters keep >attributing to me the diametrically opposite view - that the state can force >John to carry even the opinions he disagrees with. This is not what I've been >saying, of course. John Gilmore lied when he attributed this opinion to me (as >quoted by Declan McCulough). Only his honor could force him to do that, but he >has no honor and no credibility. John had the right to exercise censorship on >his private mailing list, which is precisely what he did. > >> 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. > >Same here - I used to have respect for John Gilmore, but now I don't. Neither do I, or my friends who heard about it. What worries me is that people still subscribe to the cypherpunks list after this assault on free speech takes place. If pimps like Gilmore ever succeed in controlling people in the Net, it will be because of people accepting to become prostituted. I am not a petty nationalist, but where I come from, after such an expulsion a lot of people would unsubscribe, and the issue would appear in the daily newspapers (several pages of which every week are devoted to Internet news and activities). Pity I'm too busy nowadays (in dictionary software production). I would gladly write articles on Dimitri's expulsion and the facade of Free Speech in mailing lists etc., as I occasionally have written articles as a part-time journalist. Believe me, the nature of the (cypherpunks) list as well as the importance of the person expelled (at one time I wanted to interview Dimitri for other things he exposed), makes VERY HOT NEWS indeed. But since I have no time, it's likely someone else will report this. What we're REALLY interested in, is exposing fallacies about Freedom of Speech when "private mailing lists" are the biggest threat to it, nowadays, ever since the Net was invented. I will pass this on to relevant people and see what happens. Sincerily George A. Stathis P.S. already cross-posted this to "Eleftherotypia", perhaps the biggest and most democratic-minded newspaper in Athens, Greece. (if it bounces, I got the address wrong and will resend).

2 1

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:52 ìì 16/11/1996 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >> Thank you in advance for your filtering instructions (yawn). >> >> BTW, why would anyone give a shit whether you killfiled anyone or not? > >But, Dale, that's the whole point of censorship: people like Alan Olsen >and John Gilmore and Jim Ray aren't satisfied when they've killfiles a >source of noise they consider annoying so it doesn't bother them anymore. >They feel compelled to silence it altogether. They claim altruistically >that they don't want the noise to bother anyone else, such as the clueless >newbies who keep subscribing to this mailing list and don't know how to >use mail filters. (Sandy Sanford's concern for them was soooo touching...) Rather infuriating, too, that newbies are PATRONISED. It's well known among my own circle that forcible expulsions from mailing lists serve the purpose of controlling the information-flow to _newbies_ mostly; since hard-liners and experts know how to killfile anyone anyway... But sometimes, in other mailing lists, "killfile-terrorism" appears, meaning an attempt to influence EVERY newbie into killfiling someone whose messages are no longer read, but the messages of his critics are read. It's a return to the MIDDLE AGES, because it means that the words of the prosecutor are heard, but the defense of the accused is deleted. Greek friends and I have been studying this Mechanism of Repression for rather a long time. It's probably encouraged by the EFF, too, in the sense that (the goal is): Turn the Internet into cows and sheep flocked together by pimp-cowboy list-owners. It nearly turned me into a Yankee-hater till I realized there are quite a few open-minded Americans similarly infuriated and concerned. One Net-friend of mine (an American lady) has a doctorate in History and Law and remarked that FEW PEOPLE IN THE STATES REALIZE WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, and how EASY it is for the freedom-bashers to succeed. Lastly, I have now read nearly ALL of Dimitri Vulis' postings (in the F-K list), and consider it CRIMINAL censorship if anyone tries to stop him from speaking out. His talent at exposing fallacies is magnificient. This is the beginning of the END of pimping-on-the-net in the name of "privacy". George

1 0