December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?!
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> 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. As I, and a number of other list members, have said: Why did you not rename the lists so that cypherpunks(a)toad.com was uncensored??? You and I know perfectly well that probably 1250 of those addresses are people who don`t know the censorship is taking place, don`t read the list (defunct accounts), don`t know how to change their subscription, are too lazy to care either way etc... I would guess there are less than 100 that have considered the issues and decided to subscribe to the censored list. > If I was a social scientist I might want to run the experiment both > ways, or six different ways. Name it this, or name it that. I'm not; > all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable > for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. No, it was usable to those with time and patience or the rather rudimentary knowledge necessary to set up filters. Now all we are doing is relegating a list that was once subscribed to by intelligent and well educated people into a playground for the inept. I`m not being elitist but if we can`t expect a member of this list who actually uses it for discussion to know how to set up filters then he might as well unsubscribe. > 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. You should indeed have shut down the list. The problem being not that you choose to run a censored list but that you have associated the name cypherpunks with it and in doing so you have destroyed the reputation that the name cypherpunks once had. > Unpaid labor for a peanut gallery of spoiled children isn't very > gratifying. Paternalism is the root of all statism. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

EXTRA CHARGE FOR INTERNET SERVICE !
by Brian Adrian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just received this from another mailing list. PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments, responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to isp(a)fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for litigation. Let everyone you know here this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of. isp(a)fcc.gov Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our voices may be heard! It's time to let them know just who is paying their salaries. Don't sit back and be quite on this one, SPEAK YOUR MIND, LET THEM KNOW THIS IS BULLSHIT !!!!!!!!!! Just passing it along... Brian Adrian e-mail: chow(a)niven.imsweb.net Web page: http://home.imsweb.net/~chow/

1 0

Re: "Why am I being completely censored"?
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I'd just appreciate it if someone would explain to me just why > I'm being completely censored from the cypherpunks list. ... > Absolutely none of my recent postings are even going to > cypherpunks-unedited, I've received no response to my mail to > gnu(a)toad.com asking why, and I've received absolutely no bounces > indicating that there are delivery problems. I haven't investigated your story because you didn't provide enough details and because I have been busy with other things. There is no infrastructure here for blocking postings from going through cypherpunks-unedited. It really is unedited. Perhaps there is a mailer problem (at your end or at mine). If you cc'd yourself on your messages to cypherpunks, please send me a verbatim copy of such a message that did not appear in cypherpunks-unedited, including all the header lines. I can trace whether it was ever seen on the toad.com end and what happened if it was. Hmm. Your message that I just received, about this problem, was cc'd to cypherpunks. It did not make it into the cypherpunks-unedited list. In examining the message header itself, there is an "Approved: yes" line. My guess is that your attempt to be too tricky has screwed you. Majordomo is probably zapping postings that claim to be, but aren't actually, moderator-approved. This is just a guess. Please try making a posting to cypherpunks without such a line, and see if it goes through into the unedited list. Let me know. John

2 1

Re: Cypherpunks FOIA request
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:40 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >I'm not sure what I think about the response from the SF FBI branch - it >seems unlikely that they'd never have paid any attention to the list, given >the media coverage in Wired and other places. My attorney used to fly planes with nuclear cargo. Another friend of mine has been visited several times by the FBI. In either case, the FBI claimed upon receiving an FOIA request that they have no record on either person. Does anybody here believe that the USAF would let pilots take off with nukes on board without ever conducting a background investigation (which are handled by the FBI)? I didn't think so. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

2 1

Re: Deloitte-Touche, e$pam plug, Moderation, Cypherpunks as a cresote bush
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:09 PM 2/5/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: >In the meantime, if you're interested in e$, or financial crypto, or other >stuff I'm interested ("it don't say e$pam until Bob says it says e$pam" >:-)), you might want to check it. I think that Bob's e$ list should be considered a viable alternative to the other two filtered cpunks lists; I recommend it to people looking for a moderated alternative to the list. (I get e$, but use Eudora and procmail to suck out the duplicates where messages are copied from lists I already get.) He also finds a lot of the stuff that used to show up on cpunks but doesn't any more because people have wandered away. I've been meaning to write up a long message explaining why I think I'm about to drop off of the list. It's peculiar to spend a lot of time discussing things with a group of people over the course of several years and then disappear without saying why. But I'm having trouble coming up with anything more profound than "it's not interesting any more." Philosophically, I agree with Lucky - it looks to me like it's time to kill the list and move on to other things. But that's not my choice to make, and perhaps other people can still extract something useful from this. More power to them if they can. I'm starting to think that cpunks may be similar to college, in that it's a good thing for a few years, but if you stick around too long you just get bitter and cranky and frustrated because the new people keep talking about the same old problems. Don't they know we've already talked about that? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvmSHP37pMWUJFlhAQGu3Qf/WTpImfcNb4883V2h/JHKsZh1hWR+hrSH e7hgtUAujphktzteZi6NqC47QEQHRIbgT/SRHelDB4lJLPv3TtIN09ZUwK6GWb/F QfmoyPXBVfM5Pt/FqPqtPpXnehC7r71SO0jQ2qKqTrhcuSDYNmOjtCrjK/BIEJ7l mMYcxY7JKBq0H8u1BNzZaMfCkEvDytUejgsevusWGGfkwodUSTon81Kbxmy7Yg2w 3vOmESgMz2Vm2av2bHTYBy3CSy3JzB8m2OPQo+Wang6WJDfvJaDaALGuHgem8PH8 0jCjBww2vEOJ0xj62oQ/mD2heEe+TZZnDZ5ZRynID1wOOm7SOOOeAg== =+SRl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

2 1

40-bit RC5 crack meaningless??
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(A gem off sci.crypt. Schwartau's mailing list is turning into the most amazing source of misinformation or disinformation about cryptography on the Net. And he's probably got the most influential audience in Washington re crypto policy. Go figure;-) ---------------- Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Date: 6 Feb 1997 11:43:58 -0500 From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited Newsgroups: sci.crypt Strassmann, the author of this denunciation of RSADS and Ian Goldberg, is the former Director of Defense Information (i.e., CIO,) of the Bush DoD and an often-insightful commentator on business culture and computing. Strange is the logic that channels the mind of the American Defense Intellectual... or, maybe he just doesn't know squat about cryptography??? (Reposted from Infowar Digest, Winn Schwartau's moderated mailing list <mail to: infowar(a)infowar.com> without permission.) >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 >To: "Wright Larry" <Wright_Larry(a)bah.com> >From: "Paul A. Strassmann" <paul(a)strassmann.com> >Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments >Gentlemen: > >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to >IW Defense teams. > >These clues made the cracking significantly easier, >because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous >range of possible searches. > >The following was extracted verbatim from the ><The RSA Data Security Secret-Key Challenge> >posted on <http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/97challenge/>: > >Clue #1: > > " ...all the RC5 contests posted as part of the RSA Secret-Key Challenge >will use 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size. " > >Clue #2: > > " ...The first RC5 contest will consist of some unknown plaintext >encrypted using a 40-bit key;." > >Clue #3: (a giveway!) > > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > unknown message is: .....". > >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >would not apply under infowar conditions. > >What other clues may have been provided to Goldberg >to support private agendas and gain shrill headlines >is also a matter of speculation, but I rest my case. > >I certainly cannot assert that a 40 bit key cannot be decyphered. >However, I do not think that the RSA unqualified claims >offer full and appropriate disclosure. > >Paul > >At 10:21 AM -0500 1/30/97, Wright Larry wrote: >>Following provided for your information. >> >> >>EXPORTABLE CRYPTOGRAPHY TOTALLY INSECURE: CHALLENGE >>CIPHER BROKEN IMMEDIATELY >> >>January 28, 1997 - Ian Goldberg, a UC Berkeley graduate >>student, announced today that he had successfully >>cracked RSA Data Security Inc.'s 40-bit challenge cipher >>in just under 3.5 hours. >> >>RSA challenged scientists to break their encryption >>technology, offering a $1000 award for breaking the >>weakest version of the code. Their offering was >>designed to stimulate research and practical experience >>with the security of today's codes. >> >>The number of bits in a cipher is an indication of the >>maximum level of security the cipher can provide. Each >>additional bit doubles the potential security level of >>the cipher. A recent panel of experts recommended >>using 90-bit ciphers, and 128-bit ciphers are commonly >>used throughout the world, but US government regulations >>restrict exportable US products to a mere 40 bits. >> >>Goldberg's announcement, which came just three and a >>half hours after RSA started their contest, provides >>very strong evidence that 40-bit ciphers are totally >>unsuitable for practical security. "This is the >>final proof of what we've known for years: 40-bit >>encryption technology is obsolete," Goldberg said. <...Rest of the nnouncement from UC Berkeley snipped> >Paul A. Strassmann >55 Talmadge Hill Road, New Canaan, CT. 06840 >Telephone: 203-966-5505; Fax: 203-966-5506 >INTERNET: paul(a)strassmann.com >WorldwideWeb: http://www.strassmann.com >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >

2 1

True story, Fly the Obsfucted Skies (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 00:18:18 -0500 From: Salvatore Denaro <sal(a)panix.com> To: 'Ray Arachelian' <ray(a)earthweb.com> Subject: True story, Fly the Obsfucted Skies I was at the airport, checking in at the gate. An airport employee asked me (and I quote) "Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your knowledge?" I thought about it. I scratched my goatee. I said: "If it was without *my* knowledge... how would *I* know about it?" He smiled. He nodded his head, knowingly. He then gave me this cryptic reply, "That's why we ask." -- Salvatore Denaro "The only difference between me and a madman sal(a)panix.com is that I am not mad." -- Salvador Dali

2 1

Re: ITAR and Paper ROM
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:26 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >I'm not sure if what I did in the 80s, trying to create what I called >'paper ROM, is applicable. [....] >to replace diskettes for inexpensive mass data distribution. > Although a technical success, I abandoned the effort >when I discovered someone had patented (4,488,679) something similar a >few years earlier. Yeah, our patent office is so helpful - granting a patent for "Storage of Information By Making Marks On Paper" :-) You'd think they'd recognize a few thousand years of prior art..... Xerox also has a similar patent; their method uses little diagonals to encode data in. ///\\\/// It really _isn't_ called "cuneform". More practically, sort of, there was the Cauzin Softstrip Reader, which cost about $200 and held enough data to distribute programs back when computers and programs were much smaller; a few PC magazines tried distributing programs by printing them in the back that way. Cute, but not cute enough to stick around very long. # 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: Deloitte-Touche?
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark <mark(a)infolawalert.com> writes: > I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than > or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things William Murray used to post frequently to sci.crypt, alt.security.pgp, etc when I read those forums. He also I think wrote the forword for one of the books on using PGP. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

2 1

Re: mail-to-news fun
by Scott V. McGuire 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: ...snip... > If I were going to restart a remailer, and to offer news posting, > I'd probably limit it to posting to moderated newsgroups only, > so a human can trash things that look like SPAM or abuse; > the abuse that caused me to kill my remailer wasn't something > a simple filter would catch. (I'd also prefix each posting with a > header about this message having been received from an anonymous source, > not verified, not guaranteed to be worth the electrons it's printed on, > probably not written by anybody whose name's at the bottom, etc.... > People don't read mail headers or disclaimers at the bottom, > and putting disclaimers like that into message text for > email exposes the message to traffic analysis.) How does putting it in the message expose it to traffic analysis but not putting it in a header? > ...snip... > > # 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.) > -------------------- 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

3 2