December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

MS Server Gated Crypto: strong encryption w/ exportable browsers if the server is US-OK
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The jist of http://eu.microsoft.com/industry/finserv/m_finserv/m_fordev_g.htm is, MS has US permission to export a DLL containing 128-bit SSL *worldwide* since the encryption is enabled IFF there's a Verisign "SGC certificate" on the *server*. This apparently will work with Netscape servers in addition to IIS. This facilitates gov't-trusted banks doing business with clients with generic MS browsers. And it facilitates MS's growth in the web world. Thoughts: Since US law (*) doesn't recognize digital IDs or the authority of Verisign, this implies the government has enforced some arbitrary judgement calls biassed towards this system, no? Additionally, the US would be seeming to trust the implementation in MS's new DLL which checks for and verifies signatures. All in all, some clever/cunning positioning by MS. This is set up for banks, and the certificates are strong. But they seem like the weak point --could a generic certificate be circulated amongst the Undesirables so they could enable this feature in IE browsers with the new DLL? (*) I understand that the government of Utah now recognizes some form of digital signatures. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu "How do you know you are not being deceived?" ---A Compendium of Analytic TradeCraft Notes, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

1 0

Re: Question on U.S. Postal Service and crypto (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 10:45:28 -0800 > From: David Miller <dm0(a)avana.net> > Subject: Re: Question on U.S. Postal Service and crypto > I'm not so sure about this, Robert. I've heard the rumor that it is a crime, > but I have also heard that if something is delivered to your box, it is yours > and you are not required to send it back unopened if it is not addressed to > you. I tend to believe the latter, as it is the side of the story shared by > USPS employees. The way it works is if a company send you (ie addressed to you or your physical address) and *then* attempts to recoup costs for the product or item delivered *and* you did not request the item *then* it is yours. It must be either addressed to you or the occupant of that delivery address, it is important to note that the test in all this is whether you requested something from the company. If the item is specificaly addressed to a 3rd party it is a crime to open it. I haven't looked into what the requirements for re-delivery are, as far as I am aware you could either return it to the post office for dead-letter filing or dump it in the trash. > It certainly is a federal crime, however, for the indended recipient to get > into your mailbox to get a message which was incorrectly delivered to you, > however! Technicaly, it is a crime for *you* to put stuff in your mailbox. When the home pick-up was eliminated a few years ago (supposedly because of the drug and bomb threat) the mailbox on your house or in your apartment was turned into an *exclusive* delivery point for the USPS. When you or I ask somebody to drop it in the box because we are not home we are technicaly committing a crime. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:09 AM 1/8/98 -0800, Jim Gillogly wrote: >Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >> scientists who agree to government secrecy to develop >> their inventions are agreeing to a lot more than >> mere secrecy. they are committing to a paradigm that >> is at odds with science itself, which only advances through >> the open literature. > >Why limit your annoyance to government scientists? Scientists >in private industry are in the same position, developing (e.g.) >algorithms and analytical methods protected by trade secrets. >Society recognizes this tendency and tries to advance science >anyway by offering patent protection. You don't make money by >giving away your intellectual capital. Seems to me that schools >and independently wealthy scientists/foundations are the only >ones who don't merit your censure on this count. >-- Nuri was obviously going through the angst of realizing responsibility as a creative technologist. You are adding antibusiness sentiments to this. The fact is, you choose who/what you work on. And face it, many government scientists think they're wearing white hats. As do those in industry and academia, as well as the independant investigator. The British scientist reporting on his discovery of PK was not *bitter* that others found it too. He was explaining the secretive context of its development in one closed shop. He undoubtably thinks his work was Good. It is only some readers who are thinking that the Brit is trying to usurp something. He's not. I thought the Brit's explanation was helpful for understanding PK beyond the confusing complexity of the RSA-implementation of it. It does not detract from the efforts (or patents) of anyone, that PK has been discovered multiple times. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu "How do you know you are not being deceived?" ---A Compendium of Analytic TradeCraft Notes, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

1 0

Journalism and the Internet conference at Freedom Forum
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:53:34 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Journalism and the Internet conference at Freedom Forum [I'm on the "Online journalism, governments and the First Amendment" panel tomorrow. I expect rating systems will come up. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 10:48:22 -0500 From: Adam Powell <apowell(a)freedomforum.org> Subject: Journalism/Internet conf webcast Tomorrow's "Journalism and the Internet" conference will be webcast in its entirety, so those who cannot join us in person will be able to join sessions on line. Webcast listeners will also be able to submit questions and comments via e-mail for panelists during the webcast. Below is the schedule (all times EST): "Journalism and the Internet" conference Rooftop Conference Center The Freedom Forum 1101 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22209 8:30 a.m. -- Welcome and introduction Charles Overby, The Freedom Forum; Richard Sammon, National Press Club 9 a.m. -- Keynote address Speaker: Steve Case, America Online Moderator: Adam Powell 9:45 a.m. -- "Where are we/How did we get here?" Panelists: Llewellyn King, King Publishing; Sam Meddis, USA TODAY; Stephen Miller, The New York Times; Marc Weiss, Web Development Fund Moderator: Don Brown, QRadio 11 a.m. -- "Standards and ethics online" Panelists: Rajiv Chandrasekaran, The Washington Post; Steven Levy, Newsweek; John Markoff, The New York Times; Jai Singh, CNET Moderator: Lee Thornton, University of Maryland 12:30 p.m. -- Luncheon program -- "Sports journalism online: Special case or leading edge?" Welcome: Peter Prichard, The Freedom Forum Speaker: John Rawlings, The Sporting News Moderator: Gene Policinski, The Freedom Forum 2:15 p.m. -- "Online journalism, governments and the First Amendment" Panelists: Donna Demac, Georgetown University; Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Declan McCullagh, Netly News/Time magazine; Lynn Povich, MSNBC Moderator: Paul McMasters, The Freedom Forum 4 p.m. -- "Politics '98 online" Panelists: Farai Chideya, ABC News; Kathleen deLaski, America Online; Mike Riley, CNN/Time's AllPolitics; Omar Wasow, MSNBC Moderator: Robert Merry, Congressional Quarterly Newseum Broadcast Studio The Newseum 1101 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22209 1 p.m. -- "Journalism and the Internet" public program Journalist of the Day: John Markoff, The New York Times *** We will also have live webcasts of the Saturday programs: Newseum Broadcast Studio The Newseum 1101 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22209 1 p.m. -- "Journalism and the Internet" public program Journalist of the Day: Jai Singh, CNET 2:30 p.m. -- "Journalism and the Internet" public program Technology demonstration: John Pavlik, Center for New Media, Columbia University Discussion: Benjamin Davis, MSNBC Steve Geimann, Society of Professional Journalists Lisa Napoli, New York Times *** Adam Clayton Powell, III Vice President, Technology and Programs, The Freedom Forum 703-284-3553 fax 703-284-2879 apowell(a)freedomforum.org apowell(a)alum.mit.edu http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/welcome.asp

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Honig wrote: > At 05:09 AM 1/8/98 -0800, Jim Gillogly wrote: > >Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > >> scientists who agree to government secrecy to develop > >> their inventions are agreeing to a lot more than > >> mere secrecy. they are committing to a paradigm that > >> is at odds with science itself, which only advances through > >> the open literature. > > > >Why limit your annoyance to government scientists? Scientists > >in private industry are in the same position, developing (e.g.) > > Nuri was obviously going through the angst of realizing responsibility > as a creative technologist. > > You are adding antibusiness sentiments to this. > > The fact is, you choose who/what you work on. I'm not adding antibusiness sentiments -- I'm questioning why the Vladster limited his angst to government. I did, in fact, choose to work in private industry, and I'm not opposed to inventors reaping the rewards of their brain power -- and that goes for the inventors of public keys and RSA, who I feel earned their rewards. -- Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 17 Afteryule S.R. 1998, 17:43 12.19.4.14.17, 1 Caban 15 Kankin, Ninth Lord of Night

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:09 AM -0800 1/8/98, Jim Gillogly wrote: >Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >> scientists who agree to government secrecy to develop >> their inventions are agreeing to a lot more than >> mere secrecy. they are committing to a paradigm that >> is at odds with science itself, which only advances through >> the open literature. > >Why limit your annoyance to government scientists? Scientists >in private industry are in the same position, developing (e.g.) >algorithms and analytical methods protected by trade secrets. >Society recognizes this tendency and tries to advance science >anyway by offering patent protection. You don't make money by >giving away your intellectual capital. Seems to me that schools >and independently wealthy scientists/foundations are the only >ones who don't merit your censure on this count. Scientists even in schools and foundations are often secretive, too. The notion that "science" is about blabbing one's latest discoveries or theories is overly simplistic. Many scholars and scientists choose not to publicize their work for years, or decades, or, even, never. Consider Andrew Wiles, Princeton math professor, and the prover of Fermat's Last Theorem. He labored in secrecy for many years, only going public when he felt his results were complete. (As it turned out, they were not, and he needed another year or two to fill in some gaps.) Corporate scientists now outnumber academic or foundation scientists, and they are quite understandably under various restrictions to keep results secret, at least for a while. Science does not "only advance through the open literature." There are many other checks and balances which accomplish the same effect. I could give dozens of examples of where the open literature either did not exist or was not used...and science still advanced. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 7

Re: cypherpunks and guns
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Final comment: If I find the motivation, I may finish an essay I've been > > working on about how we, the Cypherpunks and the World, are *retrogressing* > > in crypto areas. Most of the exotic applications are no longer being > > discussed, and various mundane commercial products are the main focus. Yawn. > > You mean things like Onion Routers, Crowds & the like? Tim May doesn't know anything about Onion Routers, Crowds, or any of the other new privacy technologies like Adam Back's prototype Eternity service. In truth, he has lost all interest in cryptography and now spends his time talking about guns and making racist comments. He wonders why the cypherpunks list no longer attracts quality cryptographic ideas. He need look no farther than the nearest mirror. His violent rants and his off-topic, offensive posts have done more than anything to drive good people off the list. The single best thing that could happen to the cypherpunks list (and the cypherpunks movement, for that matter) would be for Tim May to leave the list and disassociate himself from the cypherpunks. He would be much more comfortable joining the KKK and the local militia. After him, Paul Bradley, William Geiger and Dimitri Vulis can follow. This will leave fine thinkers with good hearts like Adam Back, Bill Stewart, Wei Dai and others, people who still believe that cryptography can make a strong contribution to our freedom.

2 1

RE: MS Server Gated Crypto: strong encryption w/ exportable browsers if the server is US-OK
by Trei, Peter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Netscape got this deal quite some time ago, so it's hardly a special priviliege for MS. It lets certain (trusted by the US government) servers to use strong encryption with US products outside of the US. Peter Trei Disclaimer: I am not speaking for my employer. > ---------- > From: David Honig[SMTP:honig@otc.net] > Reply To: David Honig > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 12:02 PM > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: MS Server Gated Crypto: strong encryption w/ exportable > browsers if the server is US-OK > > > The jist of > http://eu.microsoft.com/industry/finserv/m_finserv/m_fordev_g.htm > is, MS has US permission to export a DLL containing 128-bit SSL > *worldwide* > since > the encryption is enabled IFF there's a Verisign "SGC certificate" on > the > *server*. > This apparently will work with Netscape servers in addition to IIS. [...] > ------------------------------------------------------------ > David Honig Orbit Technology > honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu > > "How do you know you are not being deceived?" > ---A Compendium of Analytic TradeCraft Notes, > Directorate of Intelligence, CIA > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Search Engines
by Brian Franks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I saw your listing on the internet. Get your web site(s) submitted to over 250 of the worlds best search engines for only $39.95! (Yahoo, Lycos, AOL, Excite, Hotbot, Linkstar, Webcrawler, and hundreds others). A professional will view your site and put together a list of the best key words and submit your site: mailing you the computer print out of ALL the search engines your site(s) were submitted to. (you should have in 5-10 days) To put your web site in the fast lane and receive more traffic, mail your check for only $39.95 to NetWorld at the below address. To start your submission today, fax a copy of the check you are mailing to (760) 639-3551 and be SURE to include BOTH the web site address and email address for each site you are having submitted. This is a one time fee. Mail Checks to NetWorld PO Box 326 Oceanside, CA. 92049 Sincerely, Brian Franks NetWorld http://www.max2001isp.com/networld/submit.htm (800) 484-2621 X5568

1 0

FWD: AES Update - Known Answer Tests, Monte Carlo Tests, syntax, and formats
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: foti(a)csmes.ncsl.nist.gov >Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 16:41:40 -0500 >To: smid(a)csmes.ncsl.nist.gov >From: Jim Foti <jfoti(a)nist.gov> >Subject: AES Update - Known Answer Tests, Monte Carlo Tests, syntax, > and formats > >Folks, > >A Happy New Year to you all! 1998 should be quite exciting and hectic for >all of us involved in the AES development effort. > >Here is the latest news regarding AES. I have just posted Known Answer >Test and Monte Carlo Test documentation on our AES home page. The actual >link is: <http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/aes/katmct/katmct.htm>. > >Information on the API should be made available within several weeks - we >are actively and diligently working on that. When that information is >posted, I will send you a notification message similar to this one. > >In addition, we will soon have a survey for you which will be used to >expedite the exportability of AES analysis packages (which will be made >available when we announce the "complete and proper" submissions later this >summer). More information to follow soon. > >As with past messages, this is being sent to all persons who have expressed >an interest in the AES development effort (one way or another) within the >last year. > >Kindest regards, >Jim > > > >******************************************************************* >Jim Foti > >Security Technology Group >Computer Security Division >National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) > >TEL: (301) 975-5237 >FAX: (301) 948-1233 > >******************************************************************* > >

1 0