December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

DES challenge news (fwd)
by 3umoelle＠informatik.uni-hamburg.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Distributed key cracking efforts have been discussed in detail on cypherpunks and coderpunks for quite some time. A Swedish group trying to solve RSADSI's DES challenge chose to ignore the results. Here is what they got (from RISKS 19.14): >Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:56:54 +0200 (MET DST) >From: Thomas Koenig <ig25(a)mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de> >Subject: DES challenge news You may remember RISKS-19.09, in which I discussed the risks in a network-wide attack on the RSA DES challenge: The Swedish group at http://www.des.sollentuna.se/ didn't give out its source, so the client could, in fact, do anything, such as crack a master EC-card key. The reason given was client integrity. Well, a month after this, the promised source code release has not happened. Instead, it appears that somebody disassembled part of the client, made a version that reported fake "done" blocks, and then sent these to the servers. Moral? Don't ever think that nobody can read compiled code. Don't try to run a cooperative effort like this in a closed development model. Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig(a)ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25(a)dkauni2.bitnet. ------------------------------

1 0

Re: Spam IS Free Speech
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 14 May 97 at 14:57, Rick Osborne wrote: > Ross Wright wrote: > > >You can not retaliate against free speech, Rick. That's a bad > >thing, plain and simple, black and white. > > with him on this. I've got only a minor problem with Sanford > sending spam (it being unsolicited and all), I'm just saying that I > should not be denied the right to spam him right back. You can spam him back, but with just as many megs as he sends you. Match him meg for meg, not 10,000 megs for 1 meg. I have a unique way of dealing with spammers. I set up a list of the e-mail addresses of the spammers. Each time a new spammer spams me, I send him a copy of the addresses, telling him "I am not interested in your product or service, but my associates will be. Here's their addresses." Then I add him to the list, and so on. This way the spammers are spamming each other. Poetic Justice. And no harm done. > Do you see my point? It's all in > whether or not it's *solicited*. > Simply having an email address, to me, is *not* an invitation for > everyone > in the world to send me mail to it. Well, if you publish it on a website it *is* free game. > >What's your problem with your 'delete' key? > > Nothing. Like I said: I've got filters. I'm just saying that I > shouldn't have to use them (in a perfect world), as all "spam" I get > should be solicited. No perfect world here. Hell the deep dark secret that everyone glosses over is the fact that advertisers are using years of behavioral analysis to better market to us. That's the real conspiracy. > > >By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as > >giving away your e-mail address [...] it's an open invitation for > >me to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages. > > Nope, you're getting confused here. Giving my email address is akin > to the *white* pages, while asking for spam is the *yellow* pages. I agree that the gathering of e-mail address from usenet and from mailing lists is a bad thing. *But* if you have a web page, you have a yellowpages ad. > If I were to put my phone number in the white pages of the local > phone book (which I don't), it would be so that someone who has a > *need* to contact me could. If I wanted people calling me for no > reason, I'd put an ad in the yellow pages. See what I'm saying? Right, but you see what I am saying about a web page being a yellow pages ad, right? > >You have the right to make some snotty reply, but no right > >to intentionally harm. > > Aha! There's the rub! If I'm paying for my connect time, then spam > *is* harmful. Please, a few megs between cyber-clients? No harm no foul. You get more megs of crap just from this list! I'd bet real money on that! > >Rick, what if someone decided they did not like an opinion > >you expressed on this list and did the same thing to you? > > Did what? Set up a robot to flame me? I'd hope they at least had > the guts to not do it anonymously, but I can't fault them for not > liking me. Set up a robot to send you megs and megs of crap, just for one e-mail, that's what I am saying. You wouldn't like that very much! > >You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at > >someone for something they say or some ad they send you. > > So why then do I not have the right to lash out at them in return? You do. One for one. Mano a mano. No more, no less. > >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? > > So you're saying that if I came along and dropped a few billion > pamphlets for a campaign of mine on your house. > *intentionally* cause the problems, I am in the clear? Give me a > break. But, you see, they send the pamphlets to a few billion addresses, not just to your house. Apples and oranges. > >Free Speech : Good Mail Bombs : Bad > > Spam = Mail Bomb = Arp attack. No essential difference. Why isn't > a mail bomb or arp attack proctected by your idealized free speech? Spam is not equal to an arp attack or a mail bomb. One letter to one address is quite different than 10,000 letters to one address. > >Are you a self centred ass, who's personal feelings are more > >important that the Constitution? > > Yes, I am a self-centered ass. Me too, by the way. An opinionated one, as well. > No, my feelings are not more > important than the Constitution, my feelings help *make* the > Constitution, remember? It's moot, anyway, as I'm not advocating > removing free speech. No you are advocating harming others who are speeking freely. > >You could be doing so much more with your time. > > True. And I could be doing *more* with my time if I didn't have to > spend it setting up spam filters! > > >No war, no battles, no skirmishes, no need for "Anti-Spam Laws". > > I agree. I'm not asking for any laws, just the right to annoy > spammers just as much as they annoy me. Why can't I do that? If I > decide to spam them, not our of retribution, but as an exercise of > my right to free speech, then how is it any different? Again, I say: One Meg Per One Meg. Equal and fair. > >Just be nice, and everything will work out for the best. > > You're more optimistic than I. Well, I just hope that this dosen't get carried away, that's all. Match them meg for meg that you personally receive, and everything really will be OK. And if we keep the government out of it. > It must be nice to not be cynical. It's just an act. I am pretty jaded. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

2 1

microstock market
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ultimately what cyberspace does in many ways is decrease the "granularity" of economic transactions. you can imagine that an economic transaction has an overhead cost associatd with it needed to manage the bureacracy of the cash transfer. the army of people that have to support check passing, such as the mailman, bankers, etc., the people in the company that have to open envelopes and punch keys, etc. ad infinitum. these vast teams/roles of people are going to vaporize to move into other aspects of the economy. increasingly, the overhead of an economic transaction will move toward the infinitesmal. this radically changes many business models. consider the stock market for example. you have a situation where it doesn' t make sense for a company to be traded on the stock market except after some threshhold has been reached. I suspect this threshhold is due directly to economics that could radically change in the near future (say a decade). what I suspect this might mean is not merely new kinds of stock markets, but a massive plethora of new forums in which business can be transacted in cyberspace. I think we are going to see many new stock exchanges as the capital moves towards the ones that most efficiently handle it. and increasingly, I think you will see very small companies have stocks. you will also see a much better means by which an investor can judge the value of a company. the assets will be more open and thoroughly revealed on public web sites of the company. increasingly the outsider will be able to "peer into" a company for investment or business purposes. the companies with the most open policies are going to be those most favored by their customers. what would be neat is if one could invest in very small companies or ideas. I suspect our economy is moving in exactly this direction. also in addition to this, I suspect that regulations governing stock transactions are going to be challenged and increasingly melt away in the long run. the open market will find its own ways of guaranteeing the safety of its transactions that will make government interference only draining or damaging. so you can imagine that our economy of today is like moving around big boulders-- you need a lot of people and organization to create economic transactions. in the future, transactions are going to decrease in granularity and you will have a system more like the flow of electricity throughout an entire system. the revolutionary implications of cyberspace have barely begun to be uncovered. ultimately it will radically change the nature of our economics and government systems just as the introduction of the printing press did in its time.

2 2

OTP
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated cud is completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is cross-ruminated. \|/ /~~~~~~~\ | O O | -ooo-----U-----ooo- Timmy May

2 1

The E-Bomb
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dave Emery has pointed to an article, "The E-Bomb - a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction," which describes the work being done on EMP weapons. The piece is at Infowar.com, but we've borrowed a copy to put at: http://jya.com/ebomb.htm (93K + excellent diagrams) It may help explain that unearthly blast in the Aussie Outback discussed here a few weeks ago. Someone suggested HAARP as an explanation, and another hinted at other godawful research being done that similar to what the genius Tesla was doing early in the century to shatter the planet and fry the sky, and now, it seems, coming true.

1 0

BXA Docs
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BXA has published two short crypto-related docs, both dated May 8, 1997. William Reinsch's testimony on Goodlatte's bill: http://jya.com/bxa050897.htm Press release on Reinsch's ABA talk about the new regulations for financial transactions: http://jya.com/bxa050897-2.htm

1 0

Re: Rwanda and "anarchy"
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:48 5/14/97 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >Kent Crispin wrote: >> In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for >> obvious reasons. Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't >> consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs. > >There is no such thing as anarchy, and there never will be. I think it's at least a little tacky for you to ignore recent work which may have already shown your claim to be false. For the rest of you out there, I suggest that you check out AP part 9. There are excellent reasons that people considered true anarchy to be unattainable, because it was considered fundamentally unstable. Even I believed that, before 1995. Now, I've changed my opinion, and for good reason. Anarchy becomes stable if the population can anonymously target those who threaten danger to the rest. AP will do exactly this, so anarchy will become stable. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials....
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:27 5/14/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 03:07:43PM -0400, Tom Allard wrote: >> How pedantic. Webster's New World Dictionary (also reputable, I might add), >> has THIS to say about "Anarchy": >> >> anarchy n. [Gr. an- without + archos, leader] 1. the absence of government >> 2. political disorder and violence 3. disorder; confusion >> >> Note the etymology. Taken to its roots, the word simply means "no leader". > >Note the second definition. A definition which it included because of years of misuse. It is said that language is a living thing, which it is, which means that if an error is made frequently enough it becomes the truth. Most of us understand this concept. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 21:11:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary You get a sense of the inevitable when you're handed a stack of press releases congratulating a committee for passing a bill -- an hour before the vote happens. That's what happened this afternoon when the House Judiciary committee unanimously approved SAFE, a bill that generally loosens export controls on crypto. Now, today's vote doesn't mean that the bill will move to the floor unmolested, and it doesn't mean that all its problems have been fixed. The Judiciary Committee doesn't have jurisdiction over export relaxations, and the bill's opponents pledged to fight when the measure moves to the International Relations committee. Then there's that portion about using crypto in a crime: it's been modified, cleaned up, but not removed. High and low points of today's hearing. I'll keep these short since I've got to get to sleep: * In another blow to the White House, the New Democrat Coalition is demanding that the White House change its crypto-policy. A letter the group of centrist Dems sent to Clinton today said: "We are deeply concerned that current policy restricting exports of cryptography technology poses a real threat to U.S. dominance..." * The heinous section of the law that would create broad new Federal felonies for some uses of crypto was replaced. The amendment, offered by Rep. Delahunt and adopted unanimously includes eight hurdles: "Any person who, in the commission of a felony under a criminal statute of the United States, knowingly and willfully encrypts incriminating information relating to that felony with the intent to conceal such information for the purposes of avoiding detection by law enforcement agencies or prosecution..." It's a solid improvement, but this language still has no business becoming law. Problem is, nobody seems to have the balls to stand up and yank it. Delahunt, the amendment's sponsor, said the bill without the amendment "could have a chilling effect on the development and use of encryption." He added: "I recognize that some supporters of this amendment would like that this section be removed altogether." But it doesn't seem likely. * The word on the streets is compromise. Hyde, chair of House Judiciary, brokered a meeting in his offices yesterday bringing together spooks, law enforcement, Goodlatte, and staffers. He says they're "very close to resolving any difficulties." Rep. McCollum chimed in: "It's just a matter of time before we work something out." Rep. Buyer said, and I am not making this up: "We should be good listeners to the NSA." Rep. Berman: "I hope there would be some way to bridge the differences between the administration and Goodlatte." More on this later... * Rep. Hutchinson introduced an amendment that passed unanimously: (a) The Attorney General shall compile, and maintain in classified form, data on the instances in which encryption (as defined in section 2801 of title 18 USC) has interfered with, impeded, or obstructed the ability of the Department of Justice to enforce the criminal laws of the United States. (b) The information compiled under subsection (a), including an unclassified summary thereof, shall be made available, upon request, to any Member of Congress. Problem is, a similar provision is *ALREADY LAW*. (It passed last year as part of an omnibus spending bill.) Brock Meeks wrote about it in his last Muckraker column: http://www.muckraker.com/ And this is bad news: we already know that piss-poor crypto -- we're talking Brian Milburn-style, or WordPerfect strength -- has interfered with investigations. But with the NSA's help, cops were able to tunnel through it. That's why the Feds should be looking not at whether it *interferes* with an investigation, but whether it has *derailed* one. At least when the NRC report came out last year, not one investigation was derailed through the use of crypto. But even if it has derailed an investigation -- well, that may be the price of freedom... * Rep. McCollum (R-Fl), a real Big Brother type of guy, added an amendment to page 4, line 14 that passed unanimously. Addition is in caps: Subsection (a) shall not afect the authority of any investigative or law enforcement officer OR ANY MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY acting under any law in effect on the effective date of this chapter, to gain access to encrypted information. Now what the hell does this mean? Says McCollum: ""it is truly a technical amendment." * Rep. Rothman was the only one who pointed out how government access to keys reduces freedom: "It raises civil libertarian and totalitarian issues for me." He recounted how at a recent hearing he asked the administration: "Let's cut to the chase: do you want to mandate this access?" The reply: "No, no, no." I've said it before and I'll say it again: Congress desperately wants to compromise. They're aching to split the difference, cut a deal, and screw the pooch in the process. Just watch for the backroom scheming over the next few months. And if the worst features of all the crypto-bills are combined into one package that's attached to a huge spending bill that "just has to go through" -- well, don't say I didn't warn you... -Declan

5 5

Re: Just Say "No" to Congress
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:25 AM 5/15/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Tim wrote: > >> We're basically under assault from all directions. The bozos in Congress >> and state governments are spinning out new laws and obscure regulations >> faster than we can react...and of course they're using our money to >> generate these laws and lobby for them. Further, a mostly-brainwashed >> Washington media population is surprising uncritical of these blizzard >> drifts of new laws. > >Hmmm... Do I get counted in the "mostly-brainwashed" category? I am sure that Tim knows by now that you don't fall into that category. Still, most members of the Washington media population seem brainwashed. At least judging by the stuff they publicize. >FYI, here are two bills that Feinstein introduced recently: Sigh. She is my Senator. [Don't blame me. I voted against her. But she hits the feelings of the Bay Area head on. "Big brother will bring you multi-cultural happiness." She is such a hypocrite. Even carried a gun after Moscone and Milk were shot and she thought herself in danger. Once she felt safe again, she went on TV and said that if she could get the votes in the Senate for total confiscation she would push for it. What's good for the goose...] -- 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