December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The War is Underway (fwd)
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:22 PM 5/11/97 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >As I recall, 3des ( DESk1 -> DESk2^-1 -> DESk3 ) has an effective >keylength of 112 bits. Less than IDEA. Schneier discusses this. Unfortunately, Schneier doesn't do a very good job at discussing the strength of 3DES. This probably is to be expected, since there is no fixed effective keylength of 3DES and a more detailed discussion would likely exceed the format of Applied Cryptography. The work factor of breaking 3DES depends on the number of known plaintexts. At best, the effective keylength is 112 bits. At worst (this is an unlikely, perhaps unrealistic worst) the effective keylength is ~90 bits. Contrast this with DESX, which has been proven to be twice as hard as DES, therefore having an effective keylength of 112 bits. >It costs little today to develop a cipher with larger keyspace. (DES with >independent subkeys already exists and has a basic keyspace of 768 bits. >A meet in the middle attack reduces keyspace to 2^384. Schneier discusses >the cipher briefly). If users are willing to deal with large keys (I >certainly am) then software designers are restraining a more secure >implementation. It costs lots to develop a cipher with a larger keyspace that has a known, or reasonably assumed, work factor of higher than 112 bits. Again, it takes years to cryptanalyze a new cipher. It isn't software designers that are restraining more secure implementations. The software designers don't have any better algorithms to work with because the theorists haven't agreed on anything better yet. -- 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

FW: Anonymous Remailers
by Roger J. Jones 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----Original Message----- From: Tim May [SMTP:tcmay@got.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 11:52 AM To: Roger J. Jones; 'cypherpunks(a)toad.com' Subject: Re: Anonymous Remailers At 5:17 AM -0800 5/14/97, Roger J. Jones wrote: >Why is it that some who are very concerned about their personal privacy >utilize anonymous remailers that: > >1) Log all of their mail messages? With chained, multiply-encrypted messages, logs are ineffective unless all of the links in the chain collude to trace messages. While this is certainly possible, it seems unlikely. >2) Are in many cases reputed to be run by foreign intelligence services? This allegation was made by some clueless Washington think tank authors. They provided no evidence, only innuendo, and they were unwilling or unable to provide any further comments when queried by several Cypherpunks. I suggest that just because you chose to characterize the sources as "clueless Washington think tank authors" does not (as they say in Star Trek - The Next Generation) "make it so". The "allegation" that foreign governments actively participate in actions to violate personal privacy ("borrowing" laptops from traveling businesspeople, taping phones, etc.) are all documented in various places. Of course, they could all the result of a single psyop with excellent results. But I doubt it. And given that many or even most of the remailer operators are members of the various related Cypherpunks or Remailers Operators lists, and are known to various of us, the notion that most (or even many) remailers are run by intelligence agencies is absurd. >Do they really trust the owner of the remailer? (Unless of course, it is >their remailer?) I seem to be missing something. I don't recognize your name on this list. Fine, as we always like to see new subscribers. But I surmise you just haven't spent enough time yet reading and thinking about these issues. You may surmise what you choose. In fact, that is the essence of free discourse. Of course, knowing is far better than surmising. If you care to suggest a reading list please feel free to mail it to me direct. And yes, I am new to this most charming and entertaining list. Thank you for the welcome Welcome to the Cypherpunks list. * Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Spam IS Free Speech
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

God, Last summer we had the whole "Spam as Free Speech Debate". Now Rick Osborne drags it up again. You can not retaliate against free speech, Rick. That's a bad thing, plain and simple, black and white. Some of your metaphors are kinda harsh, and a bit cartoonish. On or About 12 May 97 at 13:43, Rick Osborne wrote: > I said: > >I appreciate the inference as to my (lack of) intelligence. ;) > > To which Vulis wrote: > >Your lack of ethics, rather. You choose to work for someone who > >chooses to use inadequate Microsoft software, and you brandish > >these choices as an excuse to interfere with somene's free speech. > > I'm not brandishing anything as an excuse, simply stating this: I > should not have to walk through the street (get my email) Well, you are doing OK so far. > wearing 4 > inches of kevlar (using spam filters), It depends on what street you are walking, here. Kevelar *may* be in order. What's your problem with your 'delete' key? Broken? > *just in case* someone > decides to whip out a submachine gun (spam). Now, here's where you start to go really crazy. Spam as a weapon? Please, Rick get ahold of yourself. It's just e-mail. Nothing scary or harmful, right? Right? > It should not me my > job to defend myself from psychos, rather people should have to ask > my permission to infringe upon my space and time. You got a website? You post to usenet? I know you post to this list. By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as giving away your e-mail address. Maybe that's unethical, but it's a fact. And if you do have a website, it's an open invitation for me to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages. > How am I taking away from Sanford's right to free speech by just > spamming him back? Free speech is a right. You have the right to make some snotty reply, but no right to intentionally harm. You are doing wrong if you try to harm someone who is exercising their right to free speech. Rick, what if someone decided they did not like an opinion you expressed on this list and did the same thing to you? See, it's all the same thing. You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at someone for something they say or some ad they send you. > I sgree with this weekend's discussion on arp > attacks: technically, they should be no different than spam attacks. > WHy then should he (or whoever) have the right to spam me without > fear of retribution? Because FREE SPEECH IS A RIGHT WE HAVE! Why all this talk of retribution? No one has a right to retaliate, get it? First Amendment? I didn't read in there the right to get back at some poor advertisers, did you? > Actually, and this is just MHO, I don't really care if the 100 or so > spams/arps I send them are but a mosquito's bite to them. Free Speech : Good Mail Bombs : Bad > It makes > *me* feel better. Ahhh, at last the point. Are you a self centred ass, who's personal feelings are more important that the Constitution? Feel better? How about when those black suited ninjas break into your house to steal your rights? That's my metaphor of what you are doing to people who spam you... > I'm not in this necessarily to shut anyone down > (though it would be a nice side-effect), just to annoy them as much > as they annoy me. Like I said, I'm more of the passive-agressive > type, so I'm not here to wage a war, just a few small skirmishes. It's talk like this that those good old boys in D.C. love. Bad internet, bad. Um, there is no war against spammers. Did you know that? You could be doing so much more with your time. Please reconsider. Thank you. No war, no battles, no skirmishes, no need for "Anti-Spam Laws". Just be nice, and everything will work out for the best. I'm more worried about this anti bomb making recipe law that the government is yammering about now. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

2 1

Re: Disinformation in L.A.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 13 May 97 at 22:14, Lucky Green wrote: > >month that calls for new legislation to ban bomb-making info > >online. Now Feinstein's office tells me she's going to introduce a > >bill. > > Feinswine never saw a gun/mind control bill she didn't like. She is > an ultra fascist that rose to power thanks to the yellow dog Bay > Area voters. No, she rose to power over the murdered corpse of her boss. Was she involved? I lived in San Francisco for years and NEVER voted for her, it's hard to vote for a murderer =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

1 0

Kent's government spin...
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin, assuming that others on the list are not capable of understanding what someone posts unless he explains it, wrote: > And Tim did *explictly advocate* the assasination of government > officials: > "Chiles and his co-conspirators should be shot for high crimes against > the Constitution. After Clinton, Freeh, Kerrey, and the other > traitors." The punishment for high crimes against the Constitution is execution, which differs from assassination. It seems to me that those most worried about government criminals being punished for their crimes are those participating in those activities while trying to justify or downplay them. Kent, why don't you start a thread explaining how important it is for government to feel free to imprison grandmothers for plugging other people's parking meters without fearing retribution from those who don't wish for their government to place them in a cage like an animal for plugging parking meters? (You could start by explaining that we need to protect our prison- based economny, in the interests of a strong GNP.) I think this would be a good project to display to everyone the type of mentality that you represent. TruthMonger

1 0

Re: Spam IS Free Speech
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ross Wright wrote: > > You can not retaliate against free > speech, Rick. That's a bad thing, plain and simple, black and white. Crock of shit, Ross. It costs me money to download unwanted spam. What's this "free" bullshit? > You got a website? You post to usenet? I know you post to this > list. By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as > giving away your e-mail address. Maybe that's unethical, but it's a > fact. And if you do have a website, it's an open invitation for me > to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages. And if a woman wears short skirts, what kind of open invitation is that? Are banks who advertise that they handle money announcing an open invitation to the greedy? > Free speech is a right. You have the right to make some snotty > reply, but no right to intentionally harm. Spammers neither know nor care if they are causing harm to the finances or mental well-being of others. If a spammer declares their right to cause me financial loss and denial of service for the time it takes me to rid myself of their unwanted intrusion then they can have no expectation that I, in turn, will not declare what level of financial loss and denial of service I will cause them. > You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at > someone for something they say or some ad they send you. So spammers have no right to lash out at my sending them a gigabyte of email regarding the evils of spamming. > > It makes > > *me* feel better. > > Ahhh, at last the point. Are you a self centred ass, who's personal > feelings are more important that the Constitution? Ross has failed to explain just how the Constitution promotes the spammer's right to intrude upon the spammer's life and cause them financial loss while denying that right to the spammee. Ross' personal feelings seem to be important enough to him to cast slurs on those who disagree with his black-and-white opinions regarding his right to spam others without them having a corresponding right to reply in kind. Gander. Goose. TruthMonger

1 0

Proxy Cryptography draft available
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Matt Blaze posted the following to cryptography/coderpunks. Looks like potentially cool stuff. I had to use ftp://research.att.com/dist/mab/proxy.ps as a URL, but that may just have been Netcom DNS weirdnesses. >Subject: Proxy Cryptography draft available >Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 18:37:10 -0400 >From: Matt Blaze <mab(a)research.att.com> >Sender: owner-cryptography(a)c2.net > >I've put a draft of a new paper in my ftp directory. Comments and >discussion welcome. In particular, I'm curious if anyone can find >any real practical application for symmetric proxy functions. > >ftp://ftp.research.att.com/dist/mab/proxy.ps > >Proxy Cryptography > >Matt Blaze >Martin Strauss > >AT&T Labs -- Research >{mab,mstrauss}(a)research.att.com > >Abstract: > >This paper introduces {\em proxy cryptography,} in which a {\em >proxy function,} in conjunction with a public {\em proxy key,} >converts ciphertext (messages in a public key encryption scheme or >signatures in a digital signature scheme) for one key ($k_1$) into >ciphertext for another ($k_2$). Proxy keys, once generated, may >be made public and proxy functions applied in untrusted environments. >Various kinds of proxy functions might exist; {\em symmetric} proxy >functions assume that the holder of $k_2$ unconditionally trusts >the holder of $k_1$, while {\em asymmetric} proxy functions do not. >It is not clear whether proxy functions exist for any previous >public-key cryptosystems. Several new public-key cryptosystems >with symmetric proxy functions are described: an encryption scheme, >which is at least as secure as Diffie-Hellman, an identification >scheme, which is at least as secure as the discrete log, and a >signature scheme derived from the identification scheme via a hash >function. > > # 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: Disinformation in L.A.
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Didn't her boss's murderer walk on the charge by using the defence that he ate too many Twinkies? No political intrigue here...

7 8

Re: Spectre disapproves of remailers and anonmyity
by The Spectre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed May 14 11:06:28 1997 > Nonsense. People use remailers for all sorts of reasons. I'm waiting... number one reason seems to be spam.. no matter, though.. I've added the filter, and won't take it out unless a very good reason comes along. > (Speaking for myself, and trying to be careful to not implicate myself > (in > further felonies, I've used the available remailers to post > liberated information of various sorts. Go back and check the archives. > You'll find that "Dumpster divings" of information from corporate > conspirators (a la Cylink, Mykotronx) was posted through anonymous > remailers. Who would argue that the cause of liberty would be better > served by posting these items under one's own name, where the Corporate > State could then file lawsuits, order midnight raids, etc.?) Much easier to put something like that on multiple ftp sites and then alert the public to what you've 'found' there. > > As for the time to delete the Vulis spam, you must be innumerate. You insult my position without disproving it. I am not impressed. In any case, I spend far less time now deleting those messages, seeing as how I don't spend any. - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQENAzM2vJwAAAEH/1uuDgh1udD+DbU9ies8Lst3j7bmlM+m+aN0gVwerfx+uA14 AG6RDZwwCLwCZYxh0/AizW1b25nHs5XDFW7QIVo1/agtbyz3rt7plcp3wi+rXPxo zFPgILegG2k81mHYIYVJ1g9bEExVGsNc7GMthkaOjPL2VYirQPRtAa4ZZc6JuCLH I85xIcwuLppYajUU4WMMf4yz+5w1WtTlHdL9+ec6BHoF+fOhsF/8DMd5nveFl0aM G52t+z6okMw9vFjLbEtj0BbDRsMjRJNM5uFQWzU+nPEaUzVP+MySe/yrjR2P3dZa UKjpG3Er7U4DV7rb8mE20Wet10jJoALjG8yMZrUABRG0HVRoZSBTcGVjdHJlIDxz cGVjdHJlQG5hYy5uZXQ+iQEVAwUQM0qy66AC4xvMjGa1AQGNLAf/QY5SyC/jybOQ asYfNqhPFip0gZwUutOOgPdyrEsXoxFOWJ9OG95dzvNJ3of22zh4RLusUt5NT7lB DFUKiP4aQsNf5XmW+qk/R1nmqyO/XHAAAdIos2SGsYew2d3JatIlFZIQ+vMkEOC0 +oPotz7effhkDKeYl+Qdla9eZ1C47Be2NrA1sH26jKYhCob6VnAK+zAin8ZPEnb0 XEKQTMVdE2ehv2Q8PxygZhDI0L6sM6EgguvDWjJuGN4bIhxh22dAyNRJ7CVQsqwV rj4TtkAuqUb0nyQvD2xUeJcB/O+1LCH7oFBE4EG1qEIl7asVjEURrfej7OwxRrA0 J0Lc5tZToA== =tS4W - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBM3nU+KAC4xvMjGa1AQFsJgf+OrDukLzwLrXbh6HAK+oq/bv7k7MVsRY0 UES+6OJbG9zch4p71dGMtUBJgF1jnC1HyIhCY7QHyAcLKD6Nmd1ABmpLXs2LvqC6 u00kP6Xps/zCs8pqloSkQgJWjnqU4qZAqMIIoz0lT2fjBX8YDzBRDZHUS4Jl3y0a ej4MROr159hd4G/7YUOqA1UBnarPV2F0UtoQ9FWzcX8MbBJHLBof4kQawl1M3EVI yy1Eg78VV3UK2EaXAuhyT4SI2OakYg8AwR5PGQl/o0tyIxqqoDoKmv9kL+g8A8Z1 vHvAJNWZ/Sea5APkNbi3LZtN/DNoLMsVd+WwtPkWbfnWKD/7P3fjXw== =TLsw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Public Key Break Paper
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I just took a brief look at it, (thanks for forwarding, Lucky), >and it's pure crap-ola. As a meta-point any securirty person knows that employees and ex-employees are the most serious security risks. Its not exactly unknown for someone to go nuts and then come out with loony paranoid theories. This may not be the case in this instance but its a good idea not to start seeing black helicopters arround every corner... Phill

2 1