December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Are cypher punks capable?
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Against Moderation wrote: > In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not > completely trivial. Do you think that a cypher punk is not able to solve these problems?

2 1

[UPDATE] Making OCR'ed code transfer easier
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deceased Vilus has such a small penis because the mohel who circumcised him was trying to do the world a favor. _ /| `o_O' Deceased Vilus ( ) U

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Scott V. McGuire 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Scott V. McGuire wrote: > > > (Even within the community, some people are more a part of > > it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.) > > Is this like saying "some of the pigs were more equal than the others"? > No, in this case there is not even a pretense of equality. - -------------------- Scott V. McGuire <svmcguir(a)syr.edu> PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E 96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMveNb97xoXfnt4lpAQEqMQP/QfEoEMy+deAwSB1l5J4i9pNolcSJ47Bw SuhfHyMwCWzzmeB0G+Ce5WVUPw0CH/gJcA8+WYRXdumF3ddhmxxKi7uWkfFYBvTH 4ZuiuvelFPgGuC0yOMcXQ3Hn18li+hKvdJuEpcRRJBD5aYYvQA9SNfs8c+ezgPOc 8hs2/3LbASM= =7FcR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: CAST
by Peter Gutmann 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've just had mail from Carlisle Adams in response to my question about the status of CAST-128: >CAST-128 is available free for commercial and non-commercial use. This >has been stated publicly in a press release from Entrust Technologies >(see http://www.entrust.com/press.htm for details). The cipher >itself is described in complete detail, along with test vectors, etc., >at the same web site (see the "Technical Papers" section of >http://www.entrust.com/library.htm) > >Feel free to post this response wherever you think it appropriate. > >-------------------------------------- >Carlisle Adams >Entrust Technologies >cadams(a)entrust.com >--------------------------------------- The algorithm is well worth looking at (see the URL above) - it's a nice royalty-free drop-in replacement for IDEA for example. I've had a version half-finished for inclusion in cryptlib for a few months now, but something else always seems to crop up... Peter.

1 0

Re: MY DEPARTURE, MODERA
by DAVE HODGINS 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- AB> My main complaints about the `filtering' service forced upon the list AB> readership are that: AB> 1. It was done to the main list! If cypherpunks were left unchanged, AB> and a `cypherpunks-edited' were created I wouldn't have a problem, it AB> would be just another filtered list. However there are already As a lurker (I've only sent 4 messages to the list in the last 3 years), I agree completely with Adam Back's post. I'd also like to point out, that I rarely read all of the messages, and tend to select which messages to read, based on the subject. Because of this, I missed the message announcing that the moderation had started, and that there was a new, unedited list. I didn't realize the moderation had started, until I noticed the lack of autobot insults, and then looked at some of the messages from the moderation thread. I get the list via email, through a pcboard bbs, mixed in with all of my personal email. I wrote a program, to separate everything from the list into separate folder. Switching over to the unedited list, will require a bit more for me, then just unsubscribe/subscribe. I'll wait and see if the moderation continues on the main list. If it does, I'll go through the bother of switching to the unedited list. Regards, Dave Hodgins. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQEVAwUBMveOxYs+asmeZwNpAQEDxwf+O0NjHdHdD3zdu6JHtF+ESmQHkmknmZos INN9YQQPmFEsn5Dd3CEsr9YAcqgJUUVGoStcJqM9RQ2SeN0ASa/aRoXICGWMxjuO crV18nSNL6ZJ92/V/Q4/LDe7O8zMIS3w86WRTH5JEhnrN+EabH5QnlpF9CNPRwAD TsS9I/IiXKNtVUxMUvTDB93DHEDGkkFcqiNUfGPvDq8cHeSDVqrZ1EQNOOhDkglY rk2/+E7IleUIv+b7PgoDk5Z8T5n3eNJBqAnOC9qWJsJPE7eZHXX9xZO7sod9c8IK p/SthYca2tI2/7yt3wW4oQP/FT5mIXmWECy84l9+Mlb78P1eq7ZyCQ== =Mv14 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- ~ RM 1.31 0820 ~ Internet:Dave.Hodgins@Westonia.com Rime->1347 Fido 1:250/636

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"gbroiles(a)netbox.com" "Greg Broiles" 4-FEB-1997 14:55:18.91 >But my impression is that many moderation opponents would also be opponents >of a move to Usenet. Perhaps I'm wrong. But Usenet offers precisely what many >people claim we must have for the list to be viable, e.g., >uncontrolled/uncontrollable distribution and messaging. So I'm curious about >whether or not the proponents of an open, uncontrolled list really want it to >be *that* open and uncontrolled. In the past, there's been strong opposition >to that. But it's possible that most of the people who had strong feelings >about not wanting to be subjected to the downside of Usenet have already left >the list. >(And if the current opponents of moderation don't want to see the list be >quite that open, I think what we're arguing about here is not "censorship v. >no censorship" but "what degree of censorship do we want? one lump, or two?", >which pretty much eliminates anyone's claim to have a moral high ground from >which to argue.) Umm... there's a difference. Moderation is control by a _person_; not moving to Usenet is control by nobody except how things happen to be set up. >The good side I see to a move to Usenet is that it lets people use the >comparatively better tools for managing messages - e.g., NoCeM, threading, nn >(whose killfiles will kill by thread, author, regexp, and can be time limited >so you can easily give annoying people a 30-day 'timeout' and see if they're >still a kook later on), AltaVista and DejaNews archiving/searching, and >server architecture that's designed to cope with storing/indexing many >messages. Hmm... since both you and Bill Stewart are pointing out various advantageous things about Usenet, I may need to retract my previous statement that mail fitering is better. On the other hand, other people have mentioned the susceptibility of email to write-your-own filtering and other processing. (For instance, I've got a project that needs cypherpunks (and other controversial groups) to be on mailing lists instead of (or at least as well as) news servers to work right.) Is there a full-scale equivalent of procmail for Usenet, including functions like shunting messages to programs et al? >The down side is that Usenet is more or less a sewer these days, and some of >it's bound to spill over. Quite. -Allen

2 1

IBM's SecureWay Key Recovery technology
by Marshall Clow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From <http://www.ibm.com/Security/html/prkeyrec.html>: >At the RSA Conference, IBM announced the details of its highly >anticipated SecureWay key recovery technology. IBM is developing this >technology in response to market demands for exportable strong >encryption required to advance the growth of global e-business. >[ yada yada yada snipped ] I attended this presentation. Basically, what they do is to add two packets to the "channel setup process", one that depends only on the coorespondents, the other that contains the information about this particular session. A problem with this, as I pointed out to the presenters, is that the first packet can be trivially used for traffic analysis. The eavesdropper may not be able to determine who is cooresponding, but they can tell if it is the same people as in a previous conversation. >From <http://www.ibm.com/security/html/wp_keyrec2.html> >In order to minimize the preparation overhead, the recovery information >is prepared in two phases: one phase is independent of the particular >session/archive key being prepared; the second phase is dependent on the >particular key and session parameters. The first phase, which uses >public-key encryption, can be shared across multiple invocations of key >recovery preparation, thus reducing overhead. The public-key encryptions >can be stored for repeated use. > As you can see, IBM suggests cacheing the contents of the first packet, so that you don't have to recalculate it each time. Imagine how easy traffic analysis would be if the identification packets were identical instead of just related. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.

1 0

Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?!
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"gnu(a)toad.com" "John Gilmore" 4-FEB-1997 12:20:22.10 >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. You're making an invalid assumption... namely that people who stayed on the moderated list are neccessarily wanting it to be the main list. This isn't the case with me, for instance. I'd also point out that some of us - including me - were taking the time to take a look at what happened with the moderated list. On the one hand, it did result in a decrease in the trash messages... on the other hand, it also drove away 1+ good posters (TCMay for one). As I've said before, I might wind up going with Sandy's (or some other) filtered list. But changing the name (effectively, to cypherpunks-unedited) was a bad idea. >I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my >"censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing >something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was >to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't >make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. I can see how you might ignore objections from those who did make the signal/noise get worse... but from those who didn't? _I_ tried to help you by letting you & Sandy know when something was going wrong. >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete >suggestions to me about how to get the list back on track. They >involved a lot more work than the previous setup. I told him if he >was willing to do the work, we could try it. As Dale suggests, I >wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and >passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. I (and others, I believe) are gratified by y'all's attempts to help. I just think that you went about it the wrong way. >Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! [...] >The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over >deciding how to run the list, and running it? Would you be willing to help in starting up a distributed list? That would appear to solve at least some of the toad.com problems (keeping it running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) with which I am sympathetic. >If you want to help organize what I'll call the `progressive crypto >community', for lack of a better term, then please do. Otherwise, in >the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". I'm willing to help the _libertarian_ crypto community, to the limit allowed by my available resources (I'm a grad student). Organize? I'm not so sure to what degree that's helping. Progressive? I'm not a liberal. Slight but meaningful difference in terms. >PS: Can we talk about crypto too? It's clear from the last few days >of press releases that the pro-GAK forces are again working to confuse >novices into thinking that two very different things are the same >thing. Last time it was "public key infrastructure" and "key >recovery". This time it's "strong crypto" and "56-bit DES". What >should we do about this? Educate the public? The public won't listen until 56-bit DES is broken; then, they can be told that "somebody broke the cryptography used by banks" and they might listen. In other words, what can be done is supporting DES-breaking efforts (ideally, via the collection of different possible keys and their indicators, as someone had mentioned earlier - sorry, I'm a biologist, not a mathematician, so I've forgotten the actual terms. It was something that would essentially enable the near-instant breaking of _any_ DES code after the competion of the project. My apologies if I've gotten mixed up on this). -Allen

1 0

Press/Digital Wins US Dept of Comm. Approval to Export Encryption Prod. (fwd)
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:37:24 -0500 From: DIGITAL PRESS RELEASE <irprod(a)nimv03.das.dec.com> To: pr-news(a)majordomo.das-x.dec.com Subject: Press/Digital Wins US Dept of Comm. Approval to Export Encryption Prod. |||||| Digital Press and Analysts News |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Digital Equipment Corporation Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-2571 Editorial contact: Patrick Ward (508) 493-9441 patrick.ward(a)mail.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Wins US Department of Commerce Approval to Export Stronger Encryption Products 56-bit Data Scrambling Technology Safeguards Internet Commerce Worldwide MAYNARD, Mass., February 3, 1997 -- Digital Equipment Corporation today announced that it has won United States Department of Commerce approval to export 56-bit encryption products worldwide, the strongest yet for protecting Internet commerce worldwide. Last week a University of California at Berkeley graduate student used a set of workstations to crack a 40-bit encryption code in 3.5 hours. "The same workstations would require more than 20 years to break a 56-bit Data Encryption Standard (DES Code), according to Samuel H. Fuller, DIGITAL's vice president and chief scientist. "The Commerce Department's action enables DIGITAL to provide its international customers with complete systems for electronic commerce over the Internet, including the necessary security software," according to DIGITAL's Chairman, Robert B. Palmer. "This makes the Internet more attractive for our customers worldwide, and represents an exciting market opportunity for DIGITAL." "We are very pleased with the leadership shown by DIGITAL's top management, including Robert Palmer, in making a long-term commitment to develop, produce and market key recovery products and to take advantage of the Administration's new policy on encryption exports," said Sue E. Eckert, assistant secretary for Export Administration. DIGITAL will immediately export 56-bit encryption for its OpenVMS operating systems and for its RoadAbout/DES Product for wireless LAN computing. Shipments of the 56-bit export version of AltaVista Tunnel will follow this year. "AltaVista Tunnel software can simply and cost-effectively create 'Virtual Private Networks,' allowing customers who are traveling or at remote sites to securely access their company's private network over the public Internet," said Ilene H. Lang, president and chief executive officer of AltaVista Internet Software, and a vice president at DIGITAL. "Now the Virtual Private Networks we offer to customers in the United States can become Global Private Networks as the market expands worldwide." The Commerce Department announced on December 30 that American companies could export "strong" or Data Encryption Standard (DES) encryption products, such as DIGITAL's industry-leading AltaVista Tunnel, if the companies could demonstrate progress in developing key-recovery products over the next two years. Previously the US government had restricted export of strong encryption for security reasons. Digital Equipment Corporation is a world leader in open client/ server solutions from personal computers to integrated worldwide information systems. DIGITAL's scalable Alpha and Intel platforms, storage, networking, software and services, together with industry- focused solutions from business partners, help organizations compete and win in today's global marketplace. #### Note to Editors: DIGITAL, the DIGITAL logo and OpenVMS are trademarks of Digital Equipment Corporation. CORP/97/537 ============================================================================ Digital Press and Analysts News is sent as a courtesy to members of the press, analyst and consulting community. For subscription information please contact pr-news(a)pa.dec.com. All Digital press releases, fact sheets and backgrounders are archived on ftp.digital.com in the /pub/Digital/info/pr-news directory. They are also available at http://www.digital.com/info/pr-news/ on the World Wide Web . ============================================================================

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Boursey writes: > Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a > while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore. They represent > the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open > in their critisism of the EFF in this regard. A large corporation > waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend > over you can be sure they'll bend over. It's not clear from where I sit that the EFF is intrinsically evil. A case can be argued for their initial good intentions followed by the subsequent poisoning of this intent by people with lots of money. Of course, -any- organization is as susceptable to infiltration as their weakest member. > Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet You possess only what will not be lost in a shipwreck.

2 1