December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT
by Mullen Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DataETRsch(a)aol.com sez: >Comment: "Why the hell is the file size limit 258 bytes off? What, are keys >kept in file headers?" >Reply: Keys are NOT stored in headers. The 258 (actually 256) byte header is >used to store certain IMDMP special security option settings. The header is >itself secured using a 128-bit encryption code. [My apologies in advance for not having looked at your web site] What security option settings are in the header? What kind of security would be lost by knowing its contents? I assume there is some sort of risk, hence the encryption of the header. When is the header decrypted? Where is it decrypted to? If it is decrypted into memory before use, one could read the plaintext straight from memory. Is the key for the header static (same for all files), or changing? I assume that when the source code becomes available, you will disclose the structure of the file header... How will the source code be distributed? Thank you for your time. Patrick Mullen Patrick.Mullen(a)gsc.gte.com (preferred email for non-list email) _______________________________________________________________________________ From: DataETRsch(a)aol.com on Fri, Jan 10, 1997 0:46 Subject: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Hello, In compliance with the large volume of source code requests DataET Research has been receiving, the undocumented Pascal source code of UDCM (containing the IMDMP encryption algorithm) will be released in approximately one month. Also, the shareware version of UDCM completely complies with ITAR since only 56-bit keys are allowed. The registered version allows 2048-bit keys. The registered version can only be sold within the U.S. and Canada. Also: IN RESPONSE TO THE FLAME MAIL DATAET RESEARCH HAS RECEIVED: A "comment:" is from a flame mail. A "reply:" is DataET Research's reply to the comment. Comment: "What do you mean by 'extensive research'." Reply: Benchmark tests. Source code comparisons. Documentations of other algorithms. "Applied Cryptography". Comment: "Yah, okay, since when is a DLL not royalty-free?!" Reply: Read some component catalogs. Go search the Internet. Comment: "That stupid line about 140 function bloats your ad." Reply: Is this constructive criticism or what? Comment: "What the hell does DLL size have to do with cost-effectiveness?" Reply: Upload time. Disk creation time. Minimal archive size increase. Comment: "I've never even heard of IMDMP before. Is this a joke?" Reply: UDCM (IMDMP) came out January 1st, 1997. How do you think successful companies start anyway, with millions of dollars upfront? DataET Research is a relatively new company. Comment: "What kind of industry standard is IMDMP above?" Reply: 128-bit encryption. Average DES is 128. PGP tops 1024. IDEA goes at 128. RSA the same. Full security IMDMP is 2048-bit. Any other questions? Comment: "Any bonehead can tell that 256 bytes is 2048 bits." Reply: Does anybody out there feel insulted? Comment: "Why does IMDMP need sub-algorithms? Is there something wrong?" Reply: Sub-algorithms of IMDMP are basically algorithm modes. There is nothing wrong with IMDMP's structure. Why don't you see what sub-algorithms are for yourself? Go try out UDCM: http://members.aol.com/dataetrsch/udcm.html. Comment: "What algorithm doesn't process both binary and ASCII?" Reply: Go search the Internet for one. You'll find many dinky ones. Comment: "What algorithm doesn't allow multiple encryption layers?" Reply: Go search the Internet for one. You'll find many dinky ones. Comment: "Who says IMDMP doesn't have any back-doors or magical keys?" Reply: What more do you want us to prove? The source code will be out in about a month. Comment: "Why is there a dumb 2,147,483,390 file size limit?" Reply: It has do with 2^32 DOS file pointer long integer variables. You developers should know that. Comment: "Why the hell is the file size limit 258 bytes off? What, are keys kept in file headers?" Reply: Keys are NOT stored in headers. The 258 (actually 256) byte header is used to store certain IMDMP special security option settings. The header is itself secured using a 128-bit encryption code. Comment: "What the do you mean by 'file specific unique encryption'." Reply: For the idiot who sent this message to us: Why don't you download UDCM V2.0 and view its documentation for yourself? Comment: "Isn't IMDMP illegal?!" Reply: The version of UDCM (IMDMP) being distributed on the Internet, the shareware version, allows only 56-bit keys. The registered version allows 2048-bit ones. The registered version is only sold within the U.S. and Canada. Comment: "I want the damn source code to IMDMP now. How do we know for sure that IMDMP is better than DES and all the others you mentioned?" Reply: Wait one month please. Jeremy K. Yu-Ramos President DataET Research Data Engineering Technologies ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP;10 Jan 1997 00:46:36 -0400 Received: from toad.com by delphi.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 5:45:24 GMT Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA20172 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:15:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA20163 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:14:52 -0800 (PST) From: DataETRsch(a)aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id UAA11665 for cypherpunks(a)toad.com; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 20:14:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 20:14:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970109201419_1207964145(a)emout18.mail.aol.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk

1 0

Private Idaho source code now available
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Private Idaho 2.8b3, a bug fix version of the popular Windows freeware PGP and remailer utility, is now available. This will be my last official release of PI for the foreseeable future. Due to other projects and new directions, I haven't been able to spend as much time as I'd like coding and supporting Private Idaho. Instead of seeing it die on the vine, I've decided to release the source code under the GNU General Public License (export disclaimer - the sources do not include, or have ever contained, cryptographic algorithms). I'm hoping one or more, like-minded, privacy-oriented developer(s) will step forward to continue with PI's evolution. There's a lot of functionality in the application right now, but there are still some enhancements to be made (localized and 32-bit versions, some more minor bug fixs, etc.). I'll still be maintaining the Private Idaho Web page, and if new versions do appear, they'll be distributed there. See http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/pi.html for complete details on getting the sources. Thanks for all the support and feedback you've provided over the past several years. Joel

3 2

Re: Encrypting ZIP drives?
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:35 PM 1/21/97 -0800, you wrote: >I am looking for a transparent (strong) encryption of ZIP drives. >Any advice would be appreciated. IBM or Mac? Methinks (and I haven't tried it, but I think I will soon) that at least on the IBM side, the usual realm of existing software (SecureDrive/SecureDevice are the first things that come to mind) ought to work. After the Iomega ZIP drivers are in place, the Zip drive is 'just another drive' as far as most applications can see. dave

1 0

Re: Donna Rice, etc.
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Yes, it's the very same Bimbo who scuttled Gary Hart's campaign, I think you have to give Gary all the credit for that; the "Hey, I'm not doing anything wrong and you could follow me around 24 hours a day and not find anything" bit convinced me that Hart was a major flake, and doing it when the only credible Democrat to take over after him was Walter F@#&! Mondale was just unconscionable. If he'd said something like "Get Off My Ass" or "Reagan's not on his first wife, so what's your point" or "my marriage is off limits" or whatever I'd have had some respect, and for a Democrat he hadn't seemed to be that bad. > but when she tries to tell me what I should or shouldn't be able to > see, my reply *must* be: > Fuck you, you hypocritical, ignorant, little slut. >I am also going to take issue with her trysting with a married man. >I wish Hart's wife had verbally beaten the living shit out of her. She's a _former_ bimbo, who has ostensibly rehabilitated herself. Not that that puts her in a position to throw stones at other people.. >Obligatory Crypto Policy reference: Why couldn't she have scuttled >Feurher Clinton's career, instead? Not enough room to fool around on a bass-fishing boat? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

2 1

Re: Dr. Vulis' social engineering "experiment"
by Bill Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> wrote: > At 02:22 AM 1/21/97 -0800, Toto wrote: > >Bill Campbell wrote: > > > >> I feel we at a *critical* crossroads in this debate, and one of the > >> more important voices has *very* effectively been silenced. > > > > Dr. Vulis? There was an 'attempt' to silence him, but it hasn't > >worked, to date. > > > I believe he is referring to silencing the list, not Vulis. As long as the > members of this list are argueing over semantics, the government has one > less challenger in the fight over our rights. > Remember, one of the oldest tactics of war is to turn the enemy against itself. I thought my meaning was obvious, but thanks for pointing it out to those who didn't get it. When I first began reading this list, I realized that a lot of important information was being put out; and it certainly raised my awareness of issues that I had not previously thought about. I believe that many other subscribers to the list also were exposed to many of these concepts, and that many subscribers to the list were people who could make a difference. I fear that many have now left the list, since it now seems to resemble, in many ways, a list consisting of high school age "wannabes" who think it's really cool to attack people just because they can. The downward spiral into inconsequential meaningless postings began with posts containing the word "fart". So cool, dudes. =Bill=

1 0

Re: Encrypting ZIP drives?
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:21 AM 1/22/97 -0600, David E. Smith wrote: >At 09:35 PM 1/21/97 -0800, you wrote: >>I am looking for a transparent (strong) encryption of ZIP drives. >>Any advice would be appreciated. > >IBM or Mac? Parallel on Win95. Thanks, -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis' social engineering "experiment"
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Campbell wrote: > Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> wrote: > > At 02:22 AM 1/21/97 -0800, Toto wrote: > > >Bill Campbell wrote: > > I believe he is referring to silencing the list, not Vulis. As long as the > > members of this list are argueing over semantics, the government has one > > less challenger in the fight over our rights. > > Remember, one of the oldest tactics of war is to turn the enemy against itself. > I fear that many have now left the list, since it now seems to resemble, > in many ways, a list consisting of high school age "wannabes" who think > it's really cool to attack people just because they can. The downward > spiral into inconsequential meaningless postings began with posts > containing the word "fart". So cool, dudes. The list only suffers when you guys stop posting crypto/political info. For example, if tomorrow there are 100 new posts, and 10 of them are crypto/political relevant, and 10 more are like this one (I'm ignoring the other 80 for this example), then the list is only 10% relevant. Take away these 10, and it's 11.1%, but 10 less posts to read. Turn these 10 into something relevant, and voila(!), the list is now 20% relevant. You see, it's up to you, Bill.

1 0

Re: "Technical data" exemptions in new crypto regs
by Richard L. Field 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That would be Samuel Slater, who built his mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island (still there, on Roosevelt Avenue) in 1793. He reproduced his former boss's factory from memory in order to collect on a bounty offered in the US on the export-restricted patent. - Richard Field At 06:39 PM 1/21/97 -0500, Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> wrote: >This has often reminded me of something that occurred around 1776. >I can't remember if it was before or after. >Remember how the colonies got sophisticated spinning gear? >I believe it was spinning gear. >Great Britain had a ban on the export of functional models, diagrams or >manufacturing instructions to one particular class of equipment. This was >so that they could maintain the monopoly on cheaply made cloth, holding the >outlying colonies in line by maintaining a dependancy. >One man memorized the structure of one of these machines and then came to >the American shores, where he reproduced it workably. > >I can't remember the name of the man or the machine, just that it was used >in the manufacture of cloth, the "spinning jenny" i think. Nor can I >remember the date.

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. And Germany was Hitler and the Nazi Party's own country. Do you really want Clinton and GingWretch having a say in how we run our web? (I don't). It may be 'their' country ('their' being the government), but it is 'their' world ('their' being the people). There was a reason that the Western powers didn't return East Germans who broke the laws of their country by climbing over the wall and running for freedom. Making information available does not 'force' a view on anyone. > > The Web was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice > > between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of > > speech. I want a couple of whatever this guy is on. > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share > data in a easily digestible format. No. The internet was conceived so that the DOD could monitor the communications of physicists and researchers who thought it was awfully nice of the government to provide this wonderful method of sharing data and information. Toto

1 0

Re: Keyword scanning/speech recognition
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've found another collection of references on speech scanning/recognition, the February 1989 CACM, p.193, contains 38 references going back to 1980. It'd be an interesting exercise for anyone with access to a large library to trace back through these (some of them look promising, like a 1980 book "Trends in Speech Recognition" from which a number of references are taken) to see how far back you can go and at what point certain things became feasible. The CACM references would be a good starting point for a search. Peter.

1 0