December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NIST seeks DES replacement.
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

See: http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1111/des.htm Federal Computer Week, Nov 11, 1996. "DES set for overhaul." by HEATHER HARRELD The content is kind of thin, but it amounts to a statement that NIST is preparing a Federal Register request for a successor to DES. Most the article concerns the termendous hassle replacing DES will be for government agencies (FCW is a trade rag for people working with computers in the Federal and State sectors - I used to get it when I was at MITRE.) There's a truely clueless comment at the end, where Mike Schwartz of "Prime Factors Inc., an Oregon-based security firm" is quoted as saying "...DES shows no signs of weakening." ----------------------------- While 3DES-EDE is the obvious replacement, it would be far from an easy switch, since there are a huge number of fielded devices for handling the 64 bit single DES keys. I wonder how good a drop-in replacement could be made if the goal was to NOT have to replace the key handling infrastructure - just replace a single software module or chip. If we use the bits currently devoted to parity in DES keys for actual key data, we gain 8 bits, or a factor of x256 in the keyspace. If we further complicate the key schedule setup, so it's much slower than DES in both hardware and software (lots of rotates, multiplies, state, etc), we can make life a lot more difficult for brute force attacks. Maybe some version of Blowfish, using the same key twice - I have not studied Blowfish, so I don't know if this introduces an obvious weakness. Happy Thanksgiving! Peter Trei trei(a)process.com Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei(a)process.com

1 0

Re: Star Trek: First Contact
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, The Deviant <deviant(a)pooh-corner.com> wrote: > >On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >> Mark Allyn 206-860-9454 <allyn(a)allyn.com> writes: >> >> > Are any of the characters in the new Star Trek gay? >> >> The bold guy who plays Captain Picard is very gay in real life. >> (He probably hated all those love episodes with women :-) >> > >Patrick Stewart is married, isn't he? So was Rock Hudson. Let's not forget that in the '50s, Liberace sued (successfully! - and collected significant monetary damages!) "Confidential" magazine for implying that he was homosexual. Not that it makes any difference at all.

1 0

PBS Re-runs...
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PBS locally was rerunning an episode of "Life on the Internet" last night. It was the one about PGP and Phil Zimerman. It was pretty old (by net standards). Phil had just gotten his case dropped. (And they mentioned the FBI's "Search for the Unibomber" page. What I found frightening about the whole thing was Jim Kalstrom's comments during the whole thing. He brought up the Four Horsemen, as well as their brothers, cousins, sisters, and the contents of a large family horseman reunion. He kept mentioning as to how we had to be able to tap CRIMINALS. What he never mentioned is who those suspected criminals are. ("We have met the enemy and they is us!") Personally I found the argument on the government side pretty weak. (My wife's comment was that they got lazy using all these newfangled toys and did not want to have to get back to doing real police work and real investigations.) Kalstrom made it pretty clear by his own words that he wanted to "catch the bad guys" and he did not care what rights he trod on doing it. Phil came off real well on the program. The one thing that failed to mention is the amount of foreign development that has gone into PGP. (As well as the availability of it at sites around the world.) --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

1 0

PO-2 Brain wave meters.
by Napalm 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has NE1 heard of these things? Supposedly you plug it into your printer port and it shows you your brain waves so you can try to reach "alpha" waves or something. I think they cost around $500. If it`s for real you could do some neat things with it; how bout your computer waking up when you wake up... that terminator 2 plot comes closer every day.... NEway if anybody knows anything about it let`s have it. L8R -Napalm SFNF9UY(a)SCFN.THPL.LIB.FL.US

2 1

IQ and age
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Contrary to popular armchair psychology, there is no significant evidence >that IQ and age are inversely related. In general, however, the older we >get, the less we use our brain, and it becomes like a muscle that we no >longer use. Contrary to popular belief there is no sound evidence for believing many of the claims made for IQ tests. IQ measures ones ability to do IQ tests and little else. They were originally invented as a means of measuring the response of mentally defective patients so that their progress under different treatment regimes could be compared. There is no evidence to support the many claims made that IQ measures "innate" intelligence. If you practice IQ tests your score will increase. When I was 10 I used to spend each Friday afternoon practicing IQ tests for the entry examination to the upper school. My "IQ" increased by 30 points over that time, an most of the people in the class managed to improve their score by at least 10. >The point: Yes, you can improve your brain, and you can take proactive >steps to increase your IQ. Absolutely, it may not be the best idea if you want to be able to fit in socially however. You will then have to leave in a world where everyone you meet has a lower IQ. Phill

4 4

Re: wealth and property rights
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:17 PM 11/27/96 -0500, Jim Wise wrote: >Actually, at the risk of interrupting your little diatribe, the average >welfare recipient is on the dole for under 4 months. While we're on the >subject, I may as well point out that the average welfare recipiant is also >white, lives in a lower-middle class suburban neighborhood, and has two or >fewer children, but you'd never know it from watching the pols... Just because lots of white folks get it for a short time it must be OK then ;-) Welfare (and the so-called safety net) hurt far more people than it helps. The poverty rate in this country is unchanged after 30 years of transfer payments totalling over a trillion dollars. The worst living conditions in the country are in areas of subsidized housing. It ought to start clicking with someone soon that the only people the current system really helps are in Washington DC. I don't have a solution, but I can face the reality that what we currently have doesn't work. By extension, I believe that most changes offered (more $$, minor tweaks to the system), will offer similarly poor results. > >At any rate, as I mentioned in my last post, you and I are paying three times >as much to corporate welfare as to personal welfare... > >[Source: Michael Moore _Downsize_This_, NY Crown Books, 1996] Micheal Moore is far down on my list of reputable authors. His point is blatantly untrue, as it equates direct transfer payments (welfare) to tax breaks (in the same light, your mortgage and dependant deductions should count as transfer payments to individuals). Not that I am for corporate welfare. Personally, I am for elimination of corporate income tax entirely - who do you think really pays it? Hint - it is you and me in higher prices for goods and lower return on investments. As such, it is the worst kind of tax, an invisible one. >> See my above points. Implement this and prepare the for US to become a >> third world country. 100% inheritance taxes would probably be the largest >> incentive for people to leave (they leave now with ONLY a 50% inheritance > >Actually, the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the world, and far >less of your tax money goes to welfare (or foreign aid, or disaster relief, >etc.) than in any other industrialized nation... BINGO! You win the prize. We also have lower unemployment, higher GDP growth and more economic stability than any of the other large industrialized counties. You think there might be a correlation there? >Yes, your taxes do go to those who are producing nothing, namely a bunch of >CEOs and wealthy shareholders This is just silly. If you run a business you are employing lots of folks, and you are delivering a product or service. This is producing. If you are a shareholder, you are risking your capital to support a business, hoping that business will grow, producing more jobs, etc. Besides, because of the growth of 401K plans, the majority of Americans now fall into the shareholder category. >> them even greater incentives for producing nothing (heck, get welfare >> payments up around $50K and I would quit work - I could find lots of >> enjoyable and intellectually stimulating ways to keep myself busy!). > >Or welfare payments of up to $500 million at a shot, if you happen to be GE, or >General Motors... As I said, I don't agree with corporate welfare. Of course, GM produces far more jobs than the average welfare recipient. >The only examples of large-scale socialism we have are in extremely statist >environemnts. Statism is brutal and innefficient no matter what economic >system it pays lip service to. Agreed. But how do you redistribute wealth without a statist society? The only reason I pay taxes is because I will go to jail if I don't. Clay ******************************************************* Clay Olbon olbon(a)ix.netcom.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. **********************************************tanstaafl

1 0

desecration
by captain.sarcastic 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.christiangallery.com/digest.html

1 0

Re: The Difference Between The Right And Left
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Sir, [snip generalised rambling] > The left wing is a rather motly collection including many > anarchists, communists and nazis, yet many of the same > types are decidedly right wing. > > A historical anecdote would be the Bucharin-Rykov wing of > the Bolshevik party in the late twenties. They were right > wing while Stalin was left wing. Yet, Bucharin would be > considered quite radical for today's bean counting > politics. Even easier, take the Nazi Party. There name points towards the left wing of the political spectrum, and yet their policies were left wing only for the higher echelon, which makes them right wing, as their policies weren't for the good of the people overall. Their decided tyranny of many spectrums of the population was also deliberately right wing. And yet the regime was not tyrannical according to the mould developed by Stalin. It was popular: it was voted in, and it was supported by the majority of the people throughout it's rule. I think you have some decent points. But they are off topic in this list, and also highly generalised. Such a dissentation is worthy of a thesis, not a mere hundred or so words. Yours Sincerely, Benjamin Grosman > This is, of course, confusing to y'all because your all a > bunch of stupid college kids. > >-- >Cheers! > > ------------------------------------------------------------- bgrosman(a)healey.com.au -- http://www.healey.com.au/~bgrosman/ PGP Encrypted Mail Preferred -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQCNAzKNX9oAAAEEAOIx4HkRU4vckgguzERhVCxgy5psmngHUoW10Xl8kBkjnuc/ ACysH1K98UXlGfet9zjn/XN4RMnGq64EHXvJu56H7OHhwhoerTpVIW5MUYt+QExk KKnRNrdq8WVGoaMywSM4qKbaJr8aNMBWkldUKR4NElvAjIEEO9z0msNPp33RAAUR tClCZW5qYW1pbiBHcm9zbWFuIDxiZ3Jvc21hbkBoZWFsZXkuY29tLmF1PokAlQMF EDKNX9vc9JrDT6d90QEBxVYEAL5nw1NiyaPpG8R2x7lNcqOcavj/cCmDYT8swT02 Z0AO0C7PGpgp9V38Yyki0FB3yaiJhIQ3Kw6xCtuI8f1F4Vfql/nZebzQERl8kTa4 sI/4xSKRT/Riw/wSGupagU1F1wYIPlXOCdUilIfLzVf4IOsxKjJMdm7aKladSxkV N7Yg =Yapx -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

NYC area Cpunks Meeting?
by Marc J. Wohler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- NYC area Cpunk's, I have obtained a meeting place on the upper west side of Manhattan. It is available on Tuesday or Thursday 12/17 or 12/19. What would be your interest in a meeting (party?). Ideas & suggestions for agenda-speaker-entertainment? Season's Greetings to all, Marc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMpyrGGeikzgqLB7pAQE2xwQAyVipF2GeVLQCW2MYhfnWt0RSMb+jiSAX G9ufnekOv2Y54lpXX0rctpbjQ81bCZx4rpWfEzhnogteKhqx/DBYEH/2WCShmZW/ kk2ahsLcep30sBm3c6T3P0tN1qyi3hYHYZCOpK5ptkI1OGjX9FtGDrWSdY5lyWBT RGIxqzpZtBw= =fFNa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: wealth and property rights
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:46 PM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea <security(a)kinch.ark.com> wrote: >On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote: >> >> The average welfare benefit (including food stamps, medicaid, and all the >> other myriad programs) is $10/hr. Compare to a minimum wage of $5/hr. >> Offer most welfare recipients a minimum wage job and they will laugh in your >> face. (In fact, here in Michigan most employers are already paying several >> $$ above minimum wage, and often these jobs are unfilled). > >I am not in a position to argue with you, I simply don't have the facts. >My question is, do You? can you cite where this figure came from, it >sounds like Republican rhetoric to me. Of course, I will point out, that >minimum wage is simply not enough to feed a family. It is (or at least >it should be) reserved for single folks just starting out. Can't give you the exact date, but it was an article in our local paper (The Detroit News). The $10 figure is not exact, as the actual number varies from state to state, I remember that number as being about average. >> >> More bullshit. You don't know what anyones motives are. To ascribe your >> >> motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic. >> > >> >But you claim to know the motives of those on welfare: pot->kettle->black >> >> I don't claim to know the motives. I am examining empirical evidence. As > >Sure you do: "economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs. >going to work". It seems to me that you are claiming their motives are >econmic, is there some other way we should read that sentence? You got me there :-) >It takes an awful lot to prove a causal relationship, empirical evidence >notwithstanding. You haven't made your case, as far as I am concerned >(not that you need to convince me), there are a myriad of other factors >involved. I have no doubt that given two (or three) poor choices, most >will choose the lesser evil and that *may* mean choosing welfare over >working, but I seriously doubt that this is anything but a small >minority of the cases of people who are actually using the system. > >You suggest that what ought to be done is give less welfare. If your >thesis is correct, I suggest that better paying jobs is the real answer >(assuming you agree that minimum wage is too little for most to live >on). Shrinking welfare payouts may serve to get people off welfare but >it won't make it any easier to live on low wages. We DO have a duty to >help our neighbours, do we not? Or has greed taken over entirely? I don't mind helping my neighbors. Of course, they live next door and I know them! The problem is that the welfare creates a system where behaviour that is generally bad for society is subsidized. The incentives are all wrong. And no, I don't think the minimum wage should be increased either. Increasing the minimum wage at a time when you are pushing people off of welfare is the wrong action, because it decreases the number of jobs available. Clay ******************************************************* Clay Olbon olbon(a)ix.netcom.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. **********************************************tanstaafl

3 2