December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Passphrase generation
by Internaut 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that didn't add up (no pun intended :). The IDEA algorithm it seems is 2^128 = 3.402823669209e+38 = 16 bytes (charactors). The charactor count seems kinda small (I am presuming the 16 charactors are truely random). Indeed, 128(ASCII charactor set)^16 = 5.192296858535e+33. Is my thinking right here? Is it better to do this- 94(printable ASCII set)^20 = 2.901062411315e+39, yielding 20 charactors? Also, if you come up with a phrase and put enough (perhaps 5 or 6) ASCII nonsense in there for it not to be in any crack dictionaries, how random is that? Is it only as random as the extra charactors you put in? How would you calculate that? Also, how many charactors do you have to add of a set to add its permulations (i.e. Does gibber&sh add all ASCII symbols to the equation)? Thanks, Internaut

2 1

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:44 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >This time I have opted for a point by point. >At 07:59 PM 2/5/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into >>useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. >>(Those people who still think military spending is really necessary >>obviously haven't read AP.) >This point I can not argue with, at least not directly. I do believe that >the military way is wasteful of resources. Notice, however, that "pre-AP-theory," there was never any "good" way to theorize getting rid of the military: It always appeared that OUR military was needed to protect us against THEIR military. AP fixes that problem. > However, this is one area that >has actually benefitted the lower-income bracket in that it gives them >"inexpensive" (off-chance of death) access to good training. "War is good business...Invest your son!" There's no doubt that militaries look like a good deal to at least some fraction of the population. However, as is usually true, the amount of money that could be saved if we didn't have to buy military junk would do just as well applied to other products or services. >>2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes >>to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the >>non-government private sector. >Three things that promote technological growth, expansion, war, threat of war. >As for expansion. we really have no where else to go. As for war and threat >of war, the computer was invented during a war, atomic energy was harnessed >during war, the internet was created during threat of war. Many >advancements, though not all, come to benefit society later. For that >matter, steel was probably invented during a war as well, but I can't prove it. I think that's a somewhat distorted way to look at it. War drastically changes the economics associated with technical developments: In WWII, millions of dollars became available for development of computers due to their ability to decrypt codes. It is by no means surprising that suddenly making it 10x more affordable to buy computers (not by reducing their costs, but by raising the amount of money provided) would make computers appear to be the product of war. You may recall estimates (which are frequently re-quoted, BTW)that proposed that there would only be a market for (say) 5-10 computers in the world. That estimate is frequently cited as an example of how wrong they were, but in reality that estimate assumed pricing based on then-current costs, and they were probably accurate! It is the _subsequent_ development of transistors which made those original estimates "wrong." Nuclear power, similarly, was born in a flood of money for the same war. Expensive government installations, such as Los Alamos, NM, Hanford Washington, and Oak Ridge Tennessee were built for that purpose. Activities which would have been highly uneconomical during peacetime were suddenly worth doing. If war makes technical development happen, it is only because of how supremely wasteful it is. Useful things still get done, but they get done in a highly uneconomical fashion and _before_ they would normally be done in a non-war world. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Taking advantage of Newt's phone calls
by Michael Gurski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It seems like Sprint's taking advantage of the tap on Newt's little call there by advertising how Sprint Spectrum is private and no one can listen in, with little "signal" graphics going from one SS phone to another in DC... Cute... |\/|ike Gurski mgursk1(a)umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/ finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index" Hail Eris! -><- O- |Member, 1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570 | Team My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them. | OS/2 Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man! iQCVAwUBMv4NVCKEMrE5tbrdAQFIpgQAsS87dmofyalpLJMJjIRk71KmZheEbhnJ WNvCO2fvvxP5aURbeh/MwVV7KOL0hcISPVWoFXrP9HmWSuhc3X7TRCQKVGESTOzS 9z2TaTF8hcAV8PFN3CCReBU5p/6OUBLN85pMbgyk818hAMf9LRhnroauSzQlXtGz iAhkvhlnBUg= =eAZ+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Ken Bass Interview Schedule Corrections
by ISP-TV Main Contact 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** ISP-TV Schedule Correction *** Ken Bass (counsel for Phil Karn) interviewed live on "Real Time" *** >> *** Monday, Feb. 10 *** << Note the date correction *** 9:00 PM ET *** Ken Bass is a partner in the firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, and is the head of that firm's Appellate Practice Group. Recently Venable served as counsel to Phil Karn during his dispute with the Department of State concerning export of a diskette containing the source code for cryptographic algorithms published in the book _Applied_ _Cryptography_, having already received permission to export the book. See http://isptv.digex.net/real.time.html for more information about "Real Time" Call-in questions will be taken during the show at (301) 847-6571. **** This video interview can be viewed on the ISP-TV main CU-SeeMe reflector at IP 205.197.248.54, or other ISP-TV affiliate reflectors listed at http://isptv.digex.net/members.html. See URL http://isptv.digex.net for more information about the ISP-TV Network To get email about future programming on ISP-TV, email the word "subscribe" to isptv-prog-request(a)isptv.digex.net. To obtain Enhanced CU-SeeMe software, go to: http://goliath.wpine.com/cudownload.htm

1 0

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP
by Aron Bierbaum 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP

1 0

Re: No Dimitri?
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dead Vulgar K>rust< Of The Moment's police record is many times longer than his prick (well, that's not hard). o_o ( ) Dead Vulgar K>rust< Of The Moment ( | | ) ' " " `

1 0

Who's Censoring Who?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson. Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own pure-blackhearts. Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out Sandy, it was just a drill. It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war gaming.

4 3

Re: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"bdolan(a)USIT.NET" "Brad Dolan" 9-FEB-1997 10:35:16.85 >"Love it or leave it?" >On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Phil Agre wrote: >> You have plenty of choice. If you don't like our country, move somewhere >> else. I made the point back to Dr. Agre that I can't choose to live in _no_ country (at least not practically), but I can (except for state-imposed limits) live without automobile insurance. I already do so for credit cards, except for one I use only in emergencies. -Allen

1 0

Re: lead remailer is shut down
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970207:0339 zinc <zinc(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> said: +i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the +plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet +using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. +so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one +year. that is the universal problem. we make the remailer chains so they guarantee privacy, but we cannot filter for spam... unless it is the last mixmaster in the chain. it sounds like we need a postprocessor which can 1) contain addresses and domain numbers of known spammers; 2) log senders to obtain a usage profile (over a very short time, and that is itself encrypted) which can spot enormous expansion headers. for instance, linda thompson is accusing a cypherpunk [more like a cypherpunk hater] of faking her address on threatening material to all 100 senators plus Al Bore; interestingly, the perpetrator left enough information in the header, which was returned for addressing Al Bore incorrectly, to be able to narrow the field; and, 3) most spamming seems to follow a pattern which it should be possible to scan for. the problem, of course, being that "innocent" messages will potentially be trashed. whatever it takes, there are a finite number of sites which can host remailer traffic. for instance, I have been debating whether or not we can afford the load on our single T1 which is currently supporting 200 simultaneous ppp connections plus some high-volume commerical web pages. We are at least a year away from T3 due to lack of circuit facilities. let's figure a way to stop at least some of the abuse; you can not stop the individual abuse, but does a spammer have any rights? --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMv4nxb04kQrCC2kFAQHAngP+J+JRSKLXsLcug00moPK78brGzzmSTRVI BQmHM9845OWXazbQVj6Q9+HiV5I+7wGY2INm7i6PI9ebNRptORfCTlHkmMzrwfmj Ji/WzhDkJ0eRvmDwHxBuq5unqYLe9ACtMrOCGQo+EYywNcscsXKKuMvFKAPC/Bp8 M46FHO9AphM= =NEYd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

ANON: anonymizer.com thru proxy server is bad news
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: jmccorm(a)galstar.com (Josh McCormick) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.misc,alt.anonymous,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.misc,alt.2600,ok.general Subject: NOT ALWAYS ANONYMOUS: "www.anonymizer.com" Date: 9 Feb 1997 19:25:46 GMT Lines: 43 Message-ID: <5dl8bq$6h3(a)mercury.galstar.com> THE CLAIM: > Our "anonymizer" service allows you to surf the web without > revealing any personal information. THE PROBLEM: > If you access The Anonymizer through a proxy server, it may add a > variable, such as "HTTP_FORWARDED", that The Anonymizer does not filter > out, revealing your true identity. THE DATA: > Below is a printout of the variables from an "anonymous" session done > through The Anonymizer when accessed through the Squid proxy server. REMOTE_HOST=darkmatter.infonex.com REMOTE_ADDR=206.170.114.24 HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/3.01 (via THE ANONYMIZER!) HTTP_HOST=sol.infonex.com:8080 HTTP_FORWARDED=by http://galaxy.galstar.com:3128/ (Squid/1.0.20) for 204.251.83.41 HTTP_PRAGMA=no-cache HTTP_PROXY_CONNECTION=Keep-Alive THE RESULT: > A CGI script could see that you were using The Anonymizer to hide > yourself, but your true IP address is revealed in the "HTTP_FORWARDED" > string. THE SUMMARY: > Beware using an anonymous browsing service if you are going through a > proxy server. Until they remove the information provided by proxy > servers, using their service isn't as anonymous as they say. THE QUOTE: > (from The Anonymizer home page) "Many people surf the web under the > illusion that their actions are private and anonymous. Unfortunately, it > isn't so." ===================================================================== == Josh McCormick Galaxy Star Systems == == jmccorm(a)galstar.com Providing Quality Internet Access == == Systems Administrator WWW: http://www.galstar.com/~jmccorm == ===================================================================== -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm/ ...for the best in unapproved information "Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken." - inscribed on Egyptian tomb

2 1