December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Complete package for Cantsin Protocol No. 2
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steffen Zahn wrote: >I have put together a package for Cantsin 2 Signatures, to generate >the keys, sign documents and check signatures. I've been looking this over and it's a nice job. The code is clean and orderly. I haven't had a chance to play with it yet, but it looks like everything is done the right way. For example, it doesn't tell you how many valid signatures a file has, it outputs a fragment of the file for each valid signature. The database of known keys has the nice property that you can name each key anything you like. The source code is completely unencumbered. This is great! For some reason, it has been the custom to issue free software with all sorts of restrictions, in particular restrictions which hamper its commercial use. But, if we are giving it away to people so they will use it, why restrict it? If somebody can use it to start a cypherpunk company, this is a Good Thing. (This can even be a Very Good Thing for the original programmer. ;-) It might be a good idea to publish the SHA1 checksum of the file you are distributing. The checksum of the file I got (cantsin.tar.gz) was: D054C9E4ABD5CEE0C5A4343E5D1E2EF91C00048A I may not approve of the restrictions on free speech in Germany, but at least the German government isn't trying to stop people from publishing arithmetic. The truth is, that for Monty Cantsin's activities, he would get a better deal on free speech if he were German. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Complete package for Cantsin Protocol No. 2 To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

2 1

Re: Singapore
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Mr. Frissell asserts that Germany lacks rights >such as freedom of speech and >association. >This is not true. >The German Basic Law provides for everyone the right to freedom of speech, >religion and association. >However, Germany prohibits hate speech i.e. National Socialism and >incitement to racial, religious and national hatred. >The reason for this exception is the German history. And thus there is no true freedom of speech and such in Germany. I can either say "Fuck the Jews" or I can't. I can either say "Bill Gates can blow me" or I can't. I can either post naked pictures of myself or I can't. (And yes, this means that there is no true freedom of speech and such in the United States either.) Nice try.

3 6

Singapore & Freedom
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

harish.pillay(a)brokat.com wrote > ..much deleted text... > >So, yes, the govt does at times choke the entrepreneurship drive >of the local population, but there are industries where the >coexistence of private initiative and govt-linked companies have >been possible and viable. Please advise what industries and the companies involved. >Let's analyze the premise of an educational system. .... >It has been a fine balance between a fully liberal system and >one that generates worker units for the most part of the last >30-35 years. ... It will take 5-10 years before an increasingly >liberal system is in place - an increasing thinking population >that is part of the global information flow that will >characterize the next centuries economies. This last sentence appears to have been taken right out the PAP policy manual, and it is a good policy statement. Educational systems are generally engineered by society to help prepare the students for life in that society. In western societies the educational system is engineered by a number of different groups in that society in what is thought to be in the best interest of the society. Who is doing the planning in Singapore and for what ends? I believe you will find Elder Statesman Lee has a major involvement at this time. If you look you will find an accelerated push to generate a more technical population. Children in Singapore start school at 5 years of age, after 5 years of schooling, what is the daily homework load for a 10 year old student?? Three to 5 hours per day? If this figure is not correct please advise the correct figure. What percentage of parents feel compelled to hire tutors to enhance their child's education or just so they get good grades? Is 60% too low?? What type of bonuses do school principals receive, is it based on the overall grade-point average of the students in their school? Why the big push? Who is the primary beneficiary of this push? Is this being done for the benefit of the worker units or the collective good of the controllers of the political group in power? Harry and his buddies have done a fantastic job with Singapore Inc. over the last 40 years. Harry had a great vision and splendid execution of that vision. Problem now is that he is rather long in the tooth and his people have changed. Instead of loosening up and allowing more democratic freedoms Harry and the boys are finding excuses to state that Singaporeans must work harder and expect less in the way of freedoms. Harry has stated many times that one of the biggest problems with western style democracies is that the voters can defeat a perfectly good government and install a bunch of goofs who spoil everything. True enough, we sometimes vote goofs into power, but at least we have the choice. Harry and the PAP have destroyed every bit of political opposition or made the opposition unpalatable to the voters. >Pray tell me how the SG govt has brought BB into reality? ... Singapore is surrounded by the Muslim hordes who covet their wealth and it has no internal security apparatus? In the 50s Singapore literally had a den of spies. The regional den of spies is now Bangkok. Why do ya figure they all moved their operations?? The Singaporeans politely asked them to leave? Have you ever had any dealings with your nation's security apparatus? If you did you would notice something strange. You just got picked up for something that happened last week but these people know about your whole life. They know how many hours you spend at the office, when you are out of the country, who you socialize with, and any vices you may have. Maybe they really don't do the Big Brother thing, they probably just have a crystal ball and got lucky with a few guesses and bluffed the rest. If you believe this last statement I have a real deal for you on some excellent used cars. When the Singapore government announced their intent to connect every household to the Internet they asked every citizen to become an informant and watch their neighbors (neighbours) for subversive activity and report any such activity to the authorities. Now, if you connect to those 100 restricted porn sites and saved copies of all you viewed on your computer and the authorities discovered that porn what would be your fate? Or are you immune to this threat? >Interesting that you hide behind an anomymous name... I notice your government does not like anonymous dissent either. The standard procedure in Singapore in dealing with trouble makers is to dig up their records, school, National Service, employment, and whatever else they can get and then tear the poor souls apart. Harry has participated in this tactic many times. Just so it will not bother you, I admit I am a low-life. Dropped out of school, fired from every job, do drugs, abuse alcohol, guns, no church, beat my kids, beat my wife, beat my dog, and I hang-out in second-rate strip-joints with bikers who deal drugs and loanshark. Plus I collect welfare..... I use anonymous mail for many reasons. The reason here should be pretty obvious. SingMonger

2 1

Crypto Law Survey updated
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have just updated my survey of existing and envisaged cryptography laws and regulations. See the Crypto Law Survey at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm This update includes: -new entries on Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Romania, Turkey (import/export) and on Argentina, Malaysia, South Korea (domestic) -update on European Union (Commission Communication: advises export adaptation, wary of key recovery, EU will use encryption itself), Belgium (govt proposal), Brazil (import/ use controls possible in 1998), France (expected decrees delayed by NL), Germany (Kanther chip; no regulation intention), Sweden (Cabinet Office report), Turkey (perhaps domestic controls), US (BXA seeks comments; Bernstein hearing scheduled; SAFE Act amended/ uncertain future; KMI FIPS meetings; AES candidate call) -clarification on Poland (import), Singapore, South Africa, UK (export) -URLs added to EU (KRISIS), France (critique), UK (list of responses), US (KMI FIPS, amendment S909) Kind regards, Bert-Jaap --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bert-Jaap Koops tel +31 13 466 8101 Center for Law, Administration and facs +31 13 466 8149 Informatization, Tilburg University e-mail E.J.Koops(a)kub.nl -------------------------------------------------- Postbus 90153 | This world's just mad enough to have been made | 5000 LE Tilburg | by the Being his beings into being prayed. | The Netherlands | (Howard Nemerov) | --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/bertjaap.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Cato forum tomorrow: should money laundering be a crime?
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>(Why is this discussion limited to just the four of us? Surely Declan and >his Cato buddies are worthy to hear our arguments? I dislike the "taking >things private" mindset, when the lists are already so cluttered with Toto >rants and other consumers of vast amounts of bandwidth.) If my header lines implied this, it was inadvertent. I agree more 'relevent' content on CP is desireable. >I haven't quite said that all forms of communication/spending money will be >speech and therefore protected. (Besides, we all know of many forms of >speech that are unprotected.) > >What I (and Michael Froomkin, in his own CFP talk) have argued is that >digital money will be _undetectable_ in many cases unless government >demands that the contents of a private communication be revealed. A kind of >prior restraint on speech. > [snip] >If the government determines, somehow, that Alice was >involved in an illegal transaction, tax evasion, money laundering, etc., >they can try to get her on that. But they can't insist that words be >submitted to a government agent for approval." Isn't uttering a check protected speech? What about if a check is stego-coded in some political rant? Can the Feds insist I not utter that speech? --Steve PGP mail preferred, see http://www.pgp.com and http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html RSA fingerprint: FE90 1A95 9DEA 8D61 812E CCA9 A44A FBA9 RSA key: http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0x55C78B0D --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | tel: (702) 658-2654 CEO | fax: (702) 658-2673 First ECache Corporation | 7075 West Gowan Road | Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | Internet: schear(a)lvdi.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me ECache or give me debt! "It's your Cache"

2 2

A Pretty Good Story, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

********* http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1617,00.html The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com/) December 8, 1997 A Pretty Good Story by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Phil Zimmermann had it easy fighting the U.S. government: At least everyone else was on his side. Today the legendary cryptographer and founder of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) is finding that his latest adversaries are just as determined but much more diverse. Earlier this fall PGP drew fire for releasing PGP 5.5 with a so-called "message recovery" feature that a corporation could require users to turn on to let the boss read their e-mail. Then, when McAfee Associates announced last week it would buy PGP, formerly supportive privacy advocates screamed that the company's new owners were part of the "Key Recovery Alliance," a group of firms devoted to producing data-scrambling software easily snoopable by the government. Now the complaining may stop, at least for a while. The McAfee-PGP combo, called Network Associates, has dropped out of the alliance. "I never would have allowed my own company to join the Key Recovery Alliance," Zimmermann told me yesterday. "As soon as I found out about McAfee being a member, I tried to do something about it." [...]

4 3

Re: Hate speech in Germany...
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Herngaard wrote: >Mr. Frissell asserts that Germany lacks rights such as freedom of >speech and association. This is not true. The German Basic Law >provides for everyone the right to freedom of speech, religion and >association. However, Germany prohibits hate speech i.e. National >Socialism and incitement to racial, religious and national hatred. I believe this is exactly what Mr. Frissell had in mind. Incidentally, I heard that last year there were a series of raids on bookstores for "hate" literature. One of the books seized was Art Spiegelman's "Maus". The justification was that it glorified violence. (Feel free to correct me if this is baseless rumor. ;-) >>Reply to Duncan Frissell: >>If the German people desired to abolish the Radikalenerlass they >>could do so simply by changing their goverment precisely as >>U.S. citizens could abolish use of capital punishment against >>minors. Is there any difference? > >There is a difference, in that calling for the abolition of laws >banning 'hate speech' can easily be labelled as 'hate speech' in >themselves. > >I think it's true for banana republics. However, as far I know >itsn't illegal in Germany to call for the abolition of all hate laws. >But calling for the abolition of human rights is certainly against >the law. !!! It sounds as if in Germany one may not discuss even the most basic political philosophy without violating the law. I'm not sure what is meant by "calling for the abolition of human rights". What would be some examples of things somebody could say and what would be the penalties? (Presuming you are allowed to give examples, that is.) >Yes. But if the majority of the voting population *really* wanted to >install a hate speech censorship regime, they could elect a House >and a Senate being able to change or amend the Bill of Rights. It >seems that criminalization of "flag desecration" to many is what hate >speech is in Europe. This is exactly correct. >In addition, we do not prohibit pornography, and obscenity is a >non-existent legal category. Another good point. Many in the U.S. have become so accustomed to these speech restrictions that it seems normal. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Hate speech in Germany... To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

3 2

Encrypted Magic Folders
by Alex Woolfson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello! First of all let me go on record by saying that I really like the idea and the interface you've designed for your product, Encrypted Magic Folders. The interface is easy to use and efficient. Job well done! There are, however, some security concerns I'd like resolved before I would be interested in purchasing your product. You scramble filenames which is an excellent idea. I might suggest that you also scramble the directory names as well. When using the freeware program Directory Snoop 1.1 designed by Kent Briggs (www.briggsoft.com) in Windows 95, I was easily able to find the directories that EMF had hidden. I wasn't able to access them, but I could see they were there *and also what their names were*. I don't know if it is possible to hide these directories from such a program (although, obviously, that would be ideal), but it seems that we should at least be able to scramble the directory filenames so that little information is gleaned about which directories are worth attacking by cryptanalysis and which are not worth the attackers' trouble. On the question of encryption algorithms, let me add my voice to those who have been suggesting that you use strong and tested algorithms like IDEA or Blowfish. I feel very strongly that this is essential to any product that purports to provide true security to its users. If your product were meant to merely keep your kid sister from reading your files, then the security through obscurity your product seems to offer would be sufficient. But your marketing materials suggest that you wish to offer a greater level of security than that. Not being a cryptologist, I consulted with members of the Cypherpunk mailing list to aid me in evaluating the security of your software referring them to the "How Secure Is It?" section of your Help file. These guys really know their stuff. The verdict was unanimous--that the security of Encrypted Magic Folders was not sufficient for anything but the most casual uses. I have included below one of the more thorough and detailed of the replies in the hopes that it will be useful in improving the strength of your software. I would also feel more comfortable if you were willing to have the source code of your product reviewed by industry experts (such as Bruce Schneier of Counterpane Systems who wrote the very well respected Applied Cryptography book as well as Blowfish). If you are concerned about someone stealing your idea, non-disclosure agreements should be able to offer sufficient legal protection. Truly secure algorithms and programs can withstand this kind of scrutiny without compromising their security. Relying on the fact that your company is "too small and obscure" for an attacker to develop an prepackaged attack offers little comfort--if someone really wants to have access to my files, I imagine they'll devote the time to attempt to crack your product--copyright infringement notwithstanding! If you haven't already, I would strongly suggest that your developers read Schneier's book Applied Cryptography. It does a much better job of explaining the difference between true security and security through obscurity. And it's written for programmers who wish to use cryptography in their programs. It's not a bad read, either. :-) I am really interested in purchasing a product like Encrypted Magic Folders, but for such an application, security is obviously the biggest priority. I believe others who have not taken the trouble to write you feel the same way. If EMF makes use of strong encryption and is willing to have the source code of its product reviewed by industry experts, I would be interested in paying for it. For a $60.00 product, I believe it is fair to expect this kind of protection. Yours Alex Woolfson Below is the response of Ray Arachelian of the Cypherpunks list. There is a bit of sarcasm involved, but I trust you'll be able to see beyond it to the valid criticism he makes. I hope you find it useful. On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Alex Woolfson wrote: > EMF's encryption offers good protection and excellent speed. It > hasn't been broken yet. It is, as far as we know, exportable. THERE > IS NO BACKDOOR. Should you forget your password there is nothing we > can do to decrypt your encrypted files. If it is exportable, then it is weak encryption by definition. The question is how weak. Reading their marketting crap provides more insights in just how lame this is: > Quite a few people ask us how big EMF's key size is. They've learned > from other encryption programs that the bigger the key the stronger > the encryption. This really doesn't apply to EMF. > > We developed our own encryption instead of using a standard because > we wanted EMF to be able to decrypt at the byte level. In this way > we only need to decrypt/encrypt the data your programs require and > not the entire file. In other words: security through obscurity. Smells like snake oil, looks like snake oil, it even has bits of snake scales in it. Heck, if they say that the key size is not important, it's likely very tiny, or regardless of what key size you'd use (if you had any choice), it's such a weak cypher that it wouldn't get you anything. > In theory, because we decrypt at the byte level, the biggest key we > could use would be 8 bits - which is a joke. So instead of > decrypting every hunk of data using the same key, as most other > encryption programs do, we developed an algorithm to vary the key > based on the data's location within the file. In this way we get > both high security and high speed. We are trying to patent EMF's > encryption method. Whoop. so the key is the location of the data? At most, this means a 32 bit key on most file systems, 64 bits on newer file systems. This assumes that your file is long enough for that. But as a key, this is totally useless as the key is the location which is visible to all. Likely they would be wise to "mix" this location key with the passphrase. This offers little more than CBC would. The only difference is that CBC is based on the previous block, where this is based on the location of a byte in the file (which is known) whereas a CBC depedns on knowledge of the previous block. If they did it the right way, they'd use the passphrase to build a lookup table of large keys based on the byte location within a file, but because this depends on your passphrase, your security is still that of the passphrase at maximum. There may be ways to weaken this. > Having said all that, truth is, most encryption isn't "cracked" by > breaking the algorithm, it's done by guessing the password. Brute > guessing of passwords tends to level the playing field tremendously. > We actually have an advantage because we aren't an established > standard. Because we're small and relatively obscure chances are no > one will take the effort to write a password guessing program (which > incidentally would violate copyright and intellectual property laws.) > Even if someone were to go thru all this effort we could easily > change the encryption method for the next update. This is total bullshit. It's Grade A, government approved exportable snake oil. Just because they are small and obscure it doesn't guarantee you any extra safety. Just because nobody has bothered to write a brute forcer for their code doens't mean nobody can do so. And no, this would not violate any of their copyright if the author of the brute forcer proggie wrote it without copying their code. It might violate intellectual property laws if they had a patent on it, but they can't get one since they're going by security through obscurity. They claim to be applying for a patent, but if they do, their code is published and their weaknesses will be displayed. It might violate trade secret laws if someone who has the source or the algorithm shares it, but not if someone reverse engineers it (depending on reverse engineering laws of course.) Just because they could "rewrite" the code in the next update against cracking or brute force attacks does not buy you security. FYI: If you use this crap and someone steals a copy of the encrypted files off your hard drive, it doesn't matter what new updates this company produces. The fact is you used the older breakable version, the attacker has your cyphertext and will decode it. > If we used an established encryption method like DES or Blowfish then > your files would probably have to be fully decrypted when opened, > would exist on disk as unencrypted while you're using them, and then > would need to be encrypted when closed. Translation: We don't use CBC, because that would be more work and slow down our crappy cypher. Deeper translation: break any portion of any encrypted file and you'll likely break the whole thing if not huge parts of it. "Established encryption methods (sic)" use CBC because it adds security. Their algorithms are well published and well known so people can find their weaknesses and publicise them. Whatever weaknesses there are in this thing are hidden from those who can't or won't reverse engineer it. But there are plenty of those who can and will, and have no qualms about releasing it anonymously, or worse: keeping the expolit to themselves so as to exploit those stupid enough to use this lame shit. It only takes one cracker with a good disassembler to reverse engineer their code and find all the holes, and they'll be out of business. If what protects your data is the cypher, and not the key, then breaking the cypher is all you need to do. Heck, I'd bet they use something really shitty like this: (since "key size is not important", and "depends on location".) char code(char *passphrase, char data, long location); { int i; char c; for (i=0; passphrase[i]>0; c^=passphrase[i++]); return (data ^ c ^ (char)(location & 0xff)); } Gee, I probably violated their "intellectual" property by guessing their code, heh. > This has multiple > disadvantages. First, if your computer shuts down while you have > "encrypted" files open, then those files would be unencrypted. This > doesn't happen with EMF as your encrypted files are always encrypted > as stored on disk. The second disadvantage is that it slows things > down tremendously. Not if you use an encrypted disk driver. then, all your data is encrypted all the time. (You get into other issues such as keeping the passphrase or key from falling into the pagefiles, etc...) [Meaningless babble deleted.] =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================

1 0

You Could Earn $100 Every Time the Phone Rings!!
by 44096770＠15605.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Double your money to infinity! Let professional salespeople close your contacts! Fortune 5000 is a rock-solid program that pays big checks every Friday! Friendly pros offer great support! You'll get guaranteed lowest prices on over 250,000 name-brand products and services in time for Christmas giving. YOU CAN'T BEAT THIS PROGRAM!!! Call 800 811-2141 code #47990 for the details and start creating your fortune TODAY! Please don't allow yourself to miss this incredible opportunity! Fortune 5000 is head-and-shoulders above the crowd of other opportunities! Pick up the phone NOW while the thought is fresh in your mind and start earning a SUBSTANTIAL income. You will be HAPPY you did! Call (800) 811-2141 code #47990 and say hello to a bright future!

1 0

Super Cool Site!
by lori＠6t9.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I'm Lori. My girlfriends and I have created this way cool site. We would love you to check it out. http://www.6t9.com/dsnm/alpg/ Love, Lori P.S. Being new to this, we were told that if you NEVER want to hear from us again, reply with the subject "Remove" and you won't. That would make us really sad though.

1 0