December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Prof Shamir arrested
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Bell wrote: [many things on "fraud"] Excuse me if I don't react on this in detail. We have already explained it, and there it stands: fraud means playing a game without abiding by its rules. It's perfectly legitimate to establish a game and to introduse rules of the game with it. If you want to play the game, play by its rules, otherwise don't play it. If you play it while cheating, though, you must bear the consequences ("go directly to jail" ;-). Bert-Jaap --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bert-Jaap Koops tel +31 13 466 8101 Center for Law, Administration and facs +31 13 466 8149 Informatization, Tilburg University e-mail E.J.Koops(a)kub.nl -------------------------------------------------- Postbus 90153 | This world's just mad enough to have been made | 5000 LE Tilburg | by the Being his beings into being prayed. | The Netherlands | (Howard Nemerov) | --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/bertjaap.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: [SERDAR ARGIC] Ray Arachelian's role in massacare of 2,500,000 Moslems
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:08 PM 10/21/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >> You have to beg. You have to grovel. You have to prove yourselves >> worthy of the honor. > >So it IS intellectual dishonesty and cowardice. I thought so. >Is there anyone on the list who thinks Dimitri is a man? Emotionally: no Biologically: maybe (There is that unexplained trip to Sweden.) I think that he should look into Trepanning, Phrenology, or both opon his trip to the Bay area. (When and if he ever goes...) Actually Vulis has proved his colors over and over opon the net. That is why he gets so little respect here and elsewhere. Maybe he thinks that you are all planning some sort of welcome out of "Deliverance" or something... ("We're gonna make you squeal like a modem, boy!") Explains the request for banjo players on some of the other lists, however... --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"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.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Prof Shamir arrested
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:00 PM 10/22/96 +0300, Jüri Kaljundi wrote: > Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Rabid Wombat wrote: > >> Or is this the Avi Shamir who broke FEAL-8? > >Can you tell more of this? There is an Windows disk encryption utility >called Teamware Crypto that uses FEAL-8. This program is quite popular in >Europe, distributed and made by ICL Data. The attacks on FEAL are pretty lengthy. _Applied Cryptography_ 2nd edition by Bruce Schneier has a list of attacks on page 311. The Shamir attack is not the one to worry about. Matsui and Yamagishi have an attack that breaks it in 2^15 known plaintexts. If you do not have a copy, I can dig up the references on it. (It is too late/early for me to do it clearly at this point...) Hope that helps. --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"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.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

2 1

Dimitri goes to California - was Re: [SERDAR ARGIC] Ray Arachelian...
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:08:17 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > So it IS intellectual dishonesty and cowardice. I thought so. > Is there anyone on the list who thinks Dimitri is a man? Not me. Pick another speaker, poll the pledgers for agreement and don't ask Dimitri again. And just when I let him out of my killfile in the hope I'd see him accept the challenge. -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

2 1

Re: Prof Shamir arrested
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:28 PM 10/22/96 -0500, Douglas B. Renner wrote: >On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Bert-Jaap Koops wrote: >> Excuse me if I don't react on this in detail. We have already >> explained it, and there it stands: fraud means playing a game without >> abiding by its rules. It's perfectly legitimate to establish a game >> and to introduse rules of the game with it. If you want to play the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >BIG Problem here. > >> game, play by its rules, otherwise don't play it. If you play it >> while cheating, though, you must bear the consequences ("go directly >> to jail" ;-). >> Bert-Jaap >I sincerely wish the world were THAT simple - there would be fewer problems. [much good stuff deleted] >In short, I disagree very strongly that it is as simple as playing by the >rules. The first rule is that you cannot know all the rules. Further, any >rule you _do_ know may be subject to change. You have to become an >expert on what is likely to be static for your own purposes, and act >within the limits of your own knowledge. Self-knowledge being perhaps our >greatest challenge, there are _bound_ to be problems on all sides. > >Perhaps the widespread dissemination of strong crypto will ultimately >have a scale-tilting effect on matters of taxation. >-Doug Thanks for helping to demolish Koops' argument, what little there is of it. It's particularly inappropriate that he would try to use a "game" analogy to defend his idea, because games are generally considered voluntary and it's obvious that his invention would not be used in a purely voluntary basis. Even if the only interference is the taxation of people who don't "play" and the subsidy of people who do, that can't be consider a voluntary arrangement. I look at it this way: Koops is building only one piece in a jigsaw puzzle of tyranny. He doesn't want to talk about the complete picture, but it's there and it's not pretty. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Prof Shamir arrested
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bert-Jaap Koops (E.J.Koops(a)kub.nl) wrote: : Jim Bell wrote: : [many things on "fraud"] : Excuse me if I don't react on this in detail. We have already : explained it, and there it stands: fraud means playing a game without : abiding by its rules. It's perfectly legitimate to establish a game : and to introduse rules of the game with it. If you want to play the : game, play by its rules, otherwise don't play it. If you play it : while cheating, though, you must bear the consequences ("go directly : to jail" ;-). : Bert-Jaap What Mr. Bell probably means is that 'if the powers that be' decide to unilateraly change the rules, you are lost in limbo. The notion that 'the powers that be' can be relied opun is seriously flawed, for example take in account some of the dealings of our own guvment, the abolishing of the WIR -overnight-, the proposals of Vermeent that totally neglected art. 1 WvSr. Basicly 'fraud' is a definition that benefits 'the powers that be', one that seriously harms our rights and liberties. You also state "If you want to play the game, play by its rules, otherwise don't play it." Well sometimes people have no other option then to play, and dropping out if gouvernment changes the rules unilateraly can be to costly an option .. bEST Regards, -- Alex de Joode http://www.replay.com/people/adejoode I have a linux emulator for Win95: it's called "loadlin" ... *g*

1 0

TMN, Q3 and security
by kszczypi＠tele.pw.edu.pl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi c'punks, simple question: Does anybody know of an URL with any paper about security in Q3 interface? ''~`` ( o o ) +---------------------------oooO--(_)--Oooo----------------------------+ | Krzysztof Szczypiorski ooo0 http://www.tele.pw.edu.pl/~kszczypi | | kszczypi(a)tele.pw.edu.pl ( ) Oooo. gagarin(a)irc.pl | +-----------------------------\ (----( )-----------------------------+ \_) ) / (_/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv Comment: Use PGP version 2.6 or later iQCVAwUBMmzQggiNWoFBOXE9AQFz+gQAgeCRTBuLY2jXz6H8m5AkMVOHu1ZYJ/J2 gcBCl5jnQAKIQRgyghfCy7MVkQc8NkB+R9kyHTG0eg+pCQusKVnJzr3cjPX2vQOI a7dNezo7O53C0GmrWH6iV2EW89R/APi5WZ4gG8spsmcigqyelF1y/dtuvHXTccIN fxNxuvWd0A4= =OfuH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Pearls before swine
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Throwing beads before swine is not forbidden. Throwing pearls before swine is what you want to avoid. If you think of cypherpunks as swine and your knowledge as pearls of wisdom, perhaps you should stop throwing your pearls before us swine. James ---------- From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Sent: Monday, October 21, 1996 8:10 PM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: [SERDAR ARGIC] Ray Arachelian's role in massacare of 2,5 I think to talk about cryptography to the San Francisco Cypherpunks is to throw beads before the swine. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

RC4 analysis
by jcard＠st6000.sct.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anybody out there done any significant analysis of the RC4 stream cipher? What I am interested in is the expected cycle length of the standard implementation (256 byte state table)? Working with the reduced sizes, the cycle length appears to grow exponentially, but I am unsure how to verify this. Have there been any other results surfacing besides the reports on weak keys? thx. Justin

1 0

Re: one-body, one-cert
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This is picking up a discussion from the SPKI list on the topic of anonymous credentials. I think cypherpunks is a more appropriate forum.] From: Carl Ellison <cme(a)cybercash.com> > Yes. This protects me from the evil CA. However, the original posting > person wanted to make sure that once he had seen bad behavior on my part > (where "I" am identified by my DNA) that every future use of any key by me > will gain me no access to his service. > > I believe these two desires are fundamentally opposed -- irreconcilable. > If someone does a bad thing with some key I'm supposed to control, then I > want to be able to write that key off and get another one to give me > access. If *I* do the bad thing, then he doesn't want me ever to get > access again. > > This is resolvable only if we have a way to detect the DNA behind the actor > -- but we don't. All we have are keys which a person controls -- until he > doesn't. I think in a system like this, participants would need to understand the limitations and design the protocols with them in mind. Ideally, getting access to someone else's keys would be made very difficult, more so than it is today, since the consequences could be so much more drastic. It would be as though evil spirits roamed the world and could invade the consciousness of careless people, taking over their bodies and forcing them to commit horrendous acts. In such a world we could expect people to take whatever careful precautions are possible to avoid such threats. Furthermore, systems which apply punishments for bad behavior would have to be aware of the possibility of such occurances. It would generally not be appropriate to impose draconian consequences for a single bad act. Rather, the possibility would always have to be considered that such actions were not the fault of the apparent perpetrator. We might expect to see systems in which single instances of misbehavior are forgiven, but patterns of repetitive bad conduct are punished. I believe protocols similar to the ones Jim McCoy mentioned from Chaum can provide very flexible (although possibly inefficient) means for controlling credentials in a variety of ways. In the context of limited-participation credentials, then, a reasonable policy would be not to strictly cut off anyone who broke the contract, but rather to consider extenuating circumstances. For example, if a credential is stolen and the owner is aware of it (say it is locked in a hardened smart card), and he can prove that he made a good faith effort to notify service providers that they should invalidate the credential, then this would excuse misbehavior. Even without this kind of evidence, it may be appropriate to give people a limited number of second chances. True, this allows an unscrupulous person to violate the rules some number of times and get away with it. However this may be tolerable as a generally low level of background noise. No society is perfect. Being able to largely deter contract violations while still maintaining privacy for the participants would in my opinion be superior to the world we seem to be heading towards, one in which dataveillance, profiling, and tracking are the norm. Hal

1 0