December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Dale on a tear (again)
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:04 PM 1/5/97 -0800, Dale obviously wrote: :I'll bet Hitler was disenchanted by the declaration against him by the World Jewish Congress. : :I'll bet Andrew Jackson was disenchanted with the decisions of the :Seminole Indian leaders to not just lay down and die. : :And now Sandy is disenchanted. What a hypocritical asshole. What can one make of this fellow Dale? Either he is Dr. V's mouthpiece or he has gone off the deep end. A pity in either case -- a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

1 0

Re: Relative Strength of 40-bit Crypto Implementations
by Rick Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: A client asked me today about where he could find evidence of the : relative strength of different encryption algorithms, when all are : restricted to 40-bit keys. He assumed dot-Gov was going to restrict his : export product to the 40-bit limit, but he wanted to provide the strongest : security he could within that limitation. There is a tiny technical wrinkle here -- the simpleminded approach is to use a 40 bit secret key appended to a constant, the smarter approach is to use some disclosed random data that, combined with 40 secret bits, produces a much longer key. It's like the salt in Unix passwords. The simple approach can allow an attacker to use a dictionary attack. The smarter approach means that the algorithm's full key length gets used. So, for example, you have 128 bit RC4 in which 88 bits are random but disclosed while the remaining 40 bits are still secret. The only practical problem is disclosure of the extra random bits, which the government expects the software to do. This is one of the uses of the big chunks of random data that host exchange in SSL V3. In earler SSLs they built the disclosed bits right into the protocol, an explicit field for disclosing part of the key. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com secure computing corporation

1 0

infowar - defense - DOD
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DoD Information Warfare (IW) Department of Defense Topic(s): Government BPR Project Reports [Home] Document Listing by: [Title] [Author] [Topic] [Coverage] [Source] Abstract: Lead Agency: OASD (C31) Functional Area: Command and Control Project Title: DoD Information Warfare (IW) Functional Area: Command & Control Lead Agency: OASD(C3I) Summary: To achieve information superiority in support of national military strategy, a joint DoD team reengineered DoD Information Warfare processes. A high-level model was developed to provide a consensus view of key processes and data. This evaluation will lead to the development of a national IW policy, an assessment of IW vulnerability, and a standard risk management process. Description: The mission of this project was to develop a baseline activity model for current IW processes, identify improvement opportunities, and recommend a plan for the application of Business Process Reengineering to IW. Representatives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and the Defense Information Systems Agency participated in the project. Improvements: Nine specific improvements were identified including: Development of a joint, coordinated effort to identify and assess the vulnerabilities of military operations and systems and the defense information infrastructure. Development of a standardized process for risk management. Development of a national policy for the conduct of IW. Benefit: The improvements will provide an improved ability to achieve information superiority in support of national military strategy by affecting adversary information, information systems, and information processes while leveraging and defending U.S. information, information systems, and information processes. Predicted Savings: Not reported Investment: Not reported Point of Contact: LCOL Liz Anderson OASD (C3I) IW 6000 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301-6000 (703)614-0624 DSN: 224-0624 INFOWAR.WPD 3252D.html

1 0

[CRYPTO] Quadratic residues
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy May's family tree goes straight up. All of his ancestors were siblings, to dumb to recognize each other in the dark. /\ o-/\ Timothy May ///\|/\\\ / /|\ \

1 0

Great Opportunity!
by AllTheCash＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought this may be of interst to you! I recently researched a company who has all the traits of becoming a key player in the Health & Nutrition industry. The companies name is I.D.E.A. Concepts and They are Steamrolling the competition! ...FREE Multi-Page Custom Website Does All The Work For You! ...No Sign Up Fees! ...Incredible Pay Structure..You recieve your checks every 2 weeks! ...Top Notch support from Doctors and Biotech News letters! It's hard to really sum up all the benefits of this outfit in one short letter so please take a look for yourself at what they have to offer... .....What Do You Have To Lose! http://www.multi-level.com/millennium/quickmoney.html Best Of Luck, D.M.C.

1 0

Re: Modified Token Posting Scheme
by ed.falk＠Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > How about this simple policy scheme: > > > > > > 1) posts from known list members forwarded to list automatically > > > 2) posts with "approval cookie" also forwarded automatically > > > 3) otherwise, forwarded only after approval by moderator, > > > > I.e., libel from Timmy May, Ray Arachelian, and the rest of the gang > > is approved automatically, and when a victim tries to defend himself > > and to point out that Timmy May is a liar, the response is delayed > > and probably rejected by the moderator. > > > > It's been said that the best response to speech one doesn't like > > is more speech. "Cypher punks" want to take away the victim's > > ability to respond to the lies being posted on their mailing list. > > You are far from being the victim of anything. If anything you're a big > huge thug who spams the list, posts racist flames, posts homophobic > flames, uses social engineering to find out info on his "enemies" and > then posts that info online with requests that others send flames to that > person's employers. Besides, in my scheme, the first two options are explicitly there to avoid moderation. Just post under your real name or generate an authentication cookie.

1 0

Re: FW: Modified Token Posting Scheme
by ed.falk＠Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >> How about this simple policy scheme: > >> > >> 1) posts from known list members forwarded to list automatically > >> 2) posts with "approval cookie" also forwarded automatically > >> 3) otherwise, forwarded only after approval by moderator, > > > So does this mean that any personal attacks or useless and annoying > drivel from the likes of Timmy May, Ray Arachelian and Sandy Sandford > would be automatically forwarded to the mailing list even though they > are frequently more annoying than the spam posted by the people who > would be censored by Gilmore ? No, just the opposite. My scheme allows people to route around moderation by authenticating their posts. The goal here is to keep *random* stuff, such as spam, off the list.

1 0

NEW
by express＠capella.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

THE FOX FIRES HAVE STARTED BURNING! http://www.mlmers-ad-net.com/FoxTeam/Fox FREE WEB PAGE AND CHECKS SENT OUT DAILY! Let it begin, John

1 0

American Cyber Mall
by rgwjr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

AMERICAN CYBER MALL http://www.usacm.com FREE WEB PAGE CONTEST, WEEKLY DRAWING !!! Visit the American Cyber Mall http://www.usacm.com and you can register to win a FREE web page with FREE 12 months hosting !!! Just our way of say thanks for visiting our new award winning cyber mall. American Cyber Mall http://www.usacm.com TO BE REMOVED FROM LIST REPLY WITH SUBJECT = REMOVE

1 0

Sandy is God...Listen to Him!
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Don't understand all this issue about Sandy and John filtering the list. Don't we want order and control? We need Sandy to decide whether our articles should be read by others. Sandy is our spokesman, our leader, our navigator. When he founded the Cypherpunks group, he wanted ``order and control, ``and now he has been forced to re-assume control of the group to put controls in place. Hey, if Sandy and John say we have to stick to certain topics, well, dammit, they are in control and we have to do what they want. Sandy and John are our leaders. Forget this stuff about the Cypherpunks list being a group seperate from toad.com. Forget this idea that John is just the host of the list...he is actually the co-controlled. And we'd better pay attention. Why didn't Sandy and John just announce a new filtered list, like Blossom has? Why make their control the default for the whole list, with the the unfiltered list harder to subscribe to and eventually to go away completely? Good questions! Ask not the reasons for God's decissions. This is Sandy's list, and John's machine, and if they say they know best what is a flame and what is not, I say we should just take our medicine and learn to love their wise decisions. If they say we can only write flames if they approve, OK. If they say we must only write about libertarian topics, OK. If they reject our messages without explanation, OK. Sandy is our Leader. And anyone who doesn't respect our Leader should just leave. Bye -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 07dTgUBMs4Q8hvikii9febJAQEbrAQAmgwAeqSsi2qIkqakNRPCpwCwNnYudNop zyxE2LueC+WuhugtLeyDDet+WgefE9X84F4qxn/QVB+tJAGbZzfCPO24shelX21k mk80oevKqzcfAAzbB4tMtXe5gl6+zykExXjsx4J/KjMNPL0QAE490uvnKqus/a2H 0l2AU9k/Kp8= =ix2B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0