December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Comments on "Encryption is Key to Securing Data" 22 Jun 98
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This note is to comment on your article, "Encryption is Key to Securing Data," that appeared in the 22 Jun 98 issue of InternetWeek. I'm not sure where to start. Almost every statement made in the copy is erroneous. (There was an error when I tried to download the article from your website, so I will retype. Apologies for minor typos.) Encryption is Key to Securing Data by Dayna DelMonico "Although encryption terminology can make even the most technically astute user cringe, encryption is fairly simple." I agree, although the rest of this article seems to prove me wrong. "It's the process of scambling and unscrambling information." Partly. It's confidentially (what you said above--making sure secret things stay secret), integrity (making sure data doesn't get modified in transit), authentication (the digital analogue of a signature), and non-repudiation (making sure someone can't say something and then later deny saying it). Cryptography is a lot more than simple encryption. "Encryption products showed up when MIS managers adopted two basic encryption technologies from the federal government: private and public-key encryption." Nothing correct here. The Federal government has no public-key cryptography standards; MIS managers have nothing to adopt from the Federal government. You might be thinking of DES, a symmetric encryption algorithm. (More on this confusion below.) In any case, commercial use of cryptography products has developed completely independently from government interference. In fact, things like export control and key escrow are making it harder to buy secure commercial products, not easier. "With private key encryption, the sends and recieve are the holders and use the same key (algorithm) to secure information." No. First off, private-key encryption is a bad term; use "symmetric encryption." Second, I'm not sure what they are the holders of. With symmetric encryption, both the sender and the receiver must have the same key; that may be what you mean. In any case, the key and the algorithm are completely seperate. This is one of the cornerstones of post-Medieval cryptography. "With public key encryption, senders and receivers hold a commonly used public key, with an additional private key held only by specific institutions." Not even close. With public-key encryption, each receiver has a public key and a private key. The public key is published. The private key is held, in secret, by the receiver. To send a message to someone, the sender gets the public key form some public database and uses it to encrypt the message. The receiver uses his private key to decrypt it. There are no specific institutions that have additional private keys, unless you are thinking about key escrow systems (which are related, but not the same). "To protect systems from the loss of the key, many vendors offer assymetric encypion, which uses two keys." Sort of. Assymetric encryption is the same as public-key encryption (just another word), and there are two keys. But the reason for using public-key encryption is not to prevent the loss of a key, but to facilitate key management. (With symmetric encryption, both the sender and receiver have to share a key. How this sharing takes place can be very complicated.) "Users can choose from products based on various schemes. Beware, however, that even stronger encryption methods are on the horizon and destined for the next generation of encryption products. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is expected to complete and Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) by the end of the year." Even NIST has said that AES will not be finalized before 2000. And AES is just a new symmetric algorithm; it has nothing to do with public-key cryptography. "The new standard wil luse a 128-bit block size, with key lengths of 128-, 192-, and 256-bits, as opposed to the current 64-bit blocks with 56-bit key standard." True. The current standard is DES. "RSA Data Security also has proposed its own algorithm to content for the new AES standard." Sort of. NIST has solicited proposals for algorithms. Fifteen groups submitted, including RSA Data Security. RSADSI is competing with other groups--Cylink, IBM, Entrust, Counterpane Systems, NTT, etc--not with NIST. NIST does not hav an algorithm. "RSA's extensions to DES, RC4 and RC5 implement multiple keys as well as digital signatures." Many mistakes here. RSADSI submitted RC6 to the AES process, which uses many ideas from RC5. It has nothing to do with DES or RC4. I'm not sure why multiple keys is something to talk about; as I said above, every algorithm post the Middle Ages uses multiple keys. And digital signatures have nothing to do with the AES process. AES is a new symmetric encryption algorithm; digital signatures are done with public key cryptography. They are different. "Another contender is Blowfish II." I submitted this algorithm. We called it Twofish, but some early press reports called it Blowfish II. "The Blowfish scheme, often referred to as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), lets the sending and receiving computers negotiate a complex number." First, Blowfish is never referred to as PGP. Blowfish is a symmetric encryption algorithm. PGP is an email security product. PGP could have decided to use Blowfish, but it used IDEA and CAST instead. Those are two different encrytpion algorithms. And neither PGP, nor Blowfish, nor anything else discussed to or alluded to in this article, involve sending and receiving computers negotiating complex numbers. "That number is used to scamble the transmission and unscramble the data that is received." What you mean to say, I think, is that PGP uses public-key cryptography for key exchange. The sender uses the reciver's public key to encrypt a session key, and that session key is used to encrypt the email message. "For more on encryption and encryption products, a buyer's first stop should be the International Computer Security Association. This ICSA is an independent organization that tests and certifies security products." ICSA is a private for-profit company, despite what the name implies. And while they do do some testing and certifying of security products, they do not test or certify encryption products. Honestly, I can't believe this article made it into print. Don't you have editors? Bruce Schneier President, Counterpane Systems Author, Applied Cryptography http://www.counterpane.com

1 0

CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM - June 24, 1998
by CTIA Daily News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

===================================== Welcome to today's edition of the CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM. Please click on the icon for the most important news in wireless communications today. CALEA Summit being held July 21 & 22 in Washington, DC. Register Now!! Call (202) 785-0081 =====================================

1 0

Skipjack extensibility
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NSA made a claim that Skipjack couldn't be extended past 80 bits of key. Most plausible explanation to my mind is that they're lying. Second is that there is an attack against a class of Skipjack-like ciphers that requires only a few plaintexts and 2^80 operations. Third is that some common key-lengthening tricks like those for 2-key-3DES, DES-X, and DEAL fail when applied to Skipjack. I can hardly fathom one resistant to all three, but I guess it's possible with NSA. Seems to me that you could always figure out some construct so that no practically-secure cipher with Skipjack's observable properties could evade having its key lengthened with much probability. Or maybe not. IANAC. Besides, it's impossible to make a cipher that can't be used to construct constructs with bigger key lengths: Skipjack(cryptovariable, IDEA(key, plaintext)) -- terminology jab intended -- provably has an effective key length as long as IDEA's. Even if that is cheating...

2 1

NSA Declass Query
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Spyrus claims in a press release yesterday that NSA announced declassification of SKIPJACK and KEA on June 6, earlier than the DoD notice on June 23. Does anyone know where and how NSA made this earlier announcement, and whether there is a document on it? We've queried Spyrus but no answer yet. Spyrus has scheduled a June 30 conference on its release of a FORTEZZA library and products in connection with the NSA declassification. Bruce Schneier is a keynote speaker. http://www.spyrus.com/company/releases/pr_swf.html

1 0

CIA 4 Nags: Hackers Crypto Y2K Foreigners
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

June 24, 1998 CIA Head Forsees Better Hackers Filed at 5:43 p.m. EDT By The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- Intrusion into government computers will become increasingly more sophisticated and better organized and is likely to involve hostile nations, CIA Director George Tenet told lawmakers Wednesday. "Potential attackers range from national intelligence and military organizations, terrorists, criminals, industrial competitors, hackers and disgruntled or disloyal insiders," Tenet told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "We know with specificity of several nations that are working on developing an information warfare capability." While Tenet did not identify the countries, committee Chairman Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who received a classified briefing on Tuesday, named some of them. Citing published reports, Thompson said China, Russia, Libya, Iraq and Iran and at least seven other countries are developing information warfare programs. The challenge facing U.S. intelligence will be to detect attacks on U.S.computers and information systems by organized or individual hackers. In some cases, Tenet said, disruptive intrusions orchestrated by hostile states may be disguised as amateurish efforts by individual hackers. "Our electric power grids and our telecommunications networks will be targets of the first order," Tenet said. "An adversary capable of implanting the right virus or accessing the right terminal can cause massive damage." The shift of the computer hacker problem from individuals and terrorist groups to governments is only beginning, Tenet said, but he added, "Down the line we are going to encounter more and it will be more organized." Tenet cited one case, without naming it, of a foreign government targeting the United States for intrusion into information systems. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., asked if the U.S. government is taking steps to develop its own offensive hacking capability to disrupt adversaries and to serve as a deterrent for computer-based attacks. "We're not asleep at the switch in this regard," Tenet replied. Air Force Lt. Gen. Kenneth Minihan, head of the National Security Agency, said it was not going too far to think in terms of an "electronic Pearl Harbor," a well-organized assault on the United States based on strikes aimed at electronic information systems. The most sensitive information centers, such as CIA and Pentagon classified files, are heavily guarded against such intrusion and, in most cases, are fenced off from Internet-type transfers. The problems are more likely to arise in less well-guarded areas such as financial networks or industrial control centers. "They're not going to attack our strengths," Minihan said. A key area of vulnerability within the intelligence community, Tenet said, is the possibility of a disloyal or disgruntled employee wreaking havoc with CIA computers. Another scenario stems from the difficulty the CIA is encountering finding enough software specialists to grapple with the "Year 2000" problem, caused by computers not being programmed to recognize the shift in the calendar from 1999 to 2000. Most of the contractors available to help the agency, Tenet said, would use foreigners, affording "an easy opportunity to come in and see how your system works and what your vulnerabilities are." The running debate over the availability of increasingly sophisticated encryption technology, which scrambles messages and data from unauthorized intrusion, also poses a worry, Tenet said. Unless the computer industry and the government find a legislative compromise, the government could fall victim to hackers able to hide their own actions in impenetrable encryption codes. It may take a major computer-hacker incident to create the political pressure needed to allow the government the "recovery" power to access encrypted databases. "There is a train wreck waiting to happen unless we deal with the recovery aspect of the encryption debate," Tenet said. ------

1 0

Skipjack SIMULATIONS
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

willis(a)rand.org http://www.jya.com/skipjack-fi.htm Markus.Kuhn(a)cl.cam.ac.uk http://www.jya.com/skipjack-uk.htm perry(a)piermont.com http://jya.com/skipjack-pem.txt mab(a)research.att.com http://www.jya.com/skipjack-mab.htm colin(a)nyx.net http://www.jya.com/skipjack-cp.txt Guys I looked at your neat, what I would call, SIMULATIONS of the skipjack algorithm. I get an uncomfortable feeling in terms of work involved in implementing /* The permutation G */ #define G(l, r, key, koff) \ ((l) ^= F[(r) ^ (key)[(koff)%10]], \ (r) ^= F[(l) ^ (key)[((koff)+1)%10]], \ (l) ^= F[(r) ^ (key)[((koff)+2)%10]], \ (r) ^= F[(l) ^ (key)[((koff)+3)%10]]) on, say, an 8051. NSA gave Sandia similar algorithm SPECIFICATIONS. I simulated Benincasas NSS/USO algorithm in Forth to make sure I THOUGH that I understood it. And could produce the test vectors. http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm In the REAL WORLD at Sandia some of the following considerations IMMEDIATELY DOMINATE THE ALGORITHM. 1 power budget 2 thermal constraints 3 size limitations 4 conducted and radiated emissions 5 radiation-hard requirements 6 speed requirements 7 memory requirements 8 red/black analysis 9 hardware fault tolerance [DELFAS] 10 implementation work GUESS 11 software technology limitations [Can we use Forth?] 12 ... I am guessing that putting Skipjack on, say, on a smart card might involve some hairy engineering. NSA KG units Brian Snow showed me were fairly small in size. Say about 1-2 inches x 1-2 inches x 5-6 inches. Shift register crypto technology is much simpler than number-based crypto technology. Size, power, scalability, ... are the reasons, I think, that NSA uses shift registers for its GOOD STUFF. Also, NSA/Sandia had SOME REAL project DISASTERS with number-based crypto. Expensive, embarrassing, ... What ever happened to Sandias low- and high-speed public key crypto chips? I am very pleased to see all of this information getting out so everyone can look at it. I may have a project coming up - protecting gas pipeline survey data from competitors. I DO NOT plan to TRY TO reinvent a crypto algorithm. I will implement someone elses idea. Good idea from a liability standpoint too! Morales and I need to complete our SETTLEMENT PROJECT so that we can all move on to other CONSTRUCTIVE projects. Best bill http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2 http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html Subject: Judicial Misconduct at Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:29:01 -0600 From: bill payne <billp(a)nmol.com> To: art morales <armoral(a)sandia.gov>, senator_hatch(a)Hatch.senate.gov, senator(a)thurmond.senate.gov, chuck_grassley(a)grassley.senate.gov, senator_specter(a)specter.senate.gov, senator_thompson(a)thompson.senate.gov, info(a)kyl.senate.gov, senator_dewine(a)dewine.senate.gov, john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov, michigan(a)abraham.senate.gov, senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov, senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov, senator(a)biden.senate.gov, senator_kohl(a)kohl.senate.gov, senator(a)feinstein.senate.gov, russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov, dick(a)durbin.senate.gov, senator(a)torricelli.senate.gov CC: steve dillingham <" Steven.Dillingham"@hq.doe.gov>, Robert Nordhaus <" Robert.Nordhaus"@hq.doe.gov>, mrgall(a)ix.netcom.com, jy(a)jya.com, art morales <armoral(a)sandia.gov>, federico pena <" Federico.F.Pena"@hq.doe.gov>, RJPARK(a)sandia.gov, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, ukcrypto(a)maillist.ox.ac.uk Monday 6/22/98 1:02 PM Senate Judiciary Committee http://www.senate.gov/committee/judiciary.html Republicans Orrin G. Hatch, Utah, Chairman senator_hatch(a)Hatch.senate.gov Strom Thurmond, South Carolina senator(a)thurmond.senate.gov Charles E. Grassley, Iowa chuck_grassley(a)grassley.senate.gov Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania senator_specter(a)specter.senate.gov Fred Thompson, Tennessee senator_thompson(a)thompson.senate.gov Jon Kyl, Arizona info(a)kyl.senate.gov Mike DeWine, Ohio senator_dewine(a)dewine.senate.gov John Ashcroft, Missouri john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov Spencer Abraham, Michigan michigan(a)abraham.senate.gov Jeff Sessions, Alabama Democrats Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov Joseph R.Biden, Jr., Delaware senator(a)biden.senate.gov Herb Kohl, Wisconsin senator_kohl(a)kohl.senate.gov Dianne Feinstein, California senator(a)feinstein.senate.gov Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov Richard Durbin, Illinois dick(a)durbin.senate.gov Robert Torricelli, New Jersey senator(a)torricelli.senate.gov Purpose of this e-mail is to give written proof of criminal judicial misconduct by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals clerks Hoecker, Fisher, and Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis and help get this matter settled. Thursday March 30, 1995 I wrote Tenth Circuit clerk Hoecker to request a copy of the docket sheets for case 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al Hoecker did not answer my letter. On Tuesday March 5,1996 I wrote Judge Lucius D. Bunton to ask his help to get a copy of the docket sheets. No response. On Monday September 23, 1996 Arthur R Morales and I wrote Henry A. Politz, Chief Judge U.S. Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit to ask his help to get a copy of the docket sheets of my case and Morales Tenth Circuit case 95-2204. Tenth Circuit also refused to send Morales copies of docket sheets for his case. Politz is Bunton's boss. No response. Friday May 30, 1997 I wrote Antonin Scalia to get this help to get a copy of the docket sheets. No response. 5 May 1998 citizen John Young finds docket sheets on Source: PACER, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, 1-800-279-9107 and posts them on Internet at http://jya.com/whp-10usca.htm Docket as of April 10, 1998 0:05 am Proceedings include all events. 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al shows that I filed my Brief of the Appellant on 2/19/95. 2/23/95 [835344] Appellant's brief filed by William H. Payne. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 2/19/95 Oral argument? pro se. Appellee/Respondent's brief due 3/24/95 for Thomas P. Wright, for Robert Surran, for Paul A. Stokes, for Mary J. Stang, for Tommy A. Sellers, for Craig A. Searls, for Albert Narath, for Preston B. Herrington, for Peter S. Hamilton, for Roger L. Hagengruber, for James R. Gosler, for Harold L. Folley, for Robert L. Ewing, for C. William Childers, for Harvey J. Brewster, for Sandia Corporation (mbm) mbm writes "Appellee/Respondent's brief due 3/24/95" Sandia had sent me a copy of its brief by 3/28/96. I filed attached MOTION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S DEMANDS ON BASIS THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLEES FAILED TO FILE BRIEF WITHIN 30 DAYS SPECIFIED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 31 on Tuesday the 28th day of March, 1995 My February 28 MOTION at the Tenth Circuit is filed WITHOUT notice of service logged. 4/4/95 [845484] Appellant's motion filed by Appellant William H. Payne [94-2205] to grant appellant's demands on basis that appellees' failed to file timely brief. Original and 3 copies c/s: y (mbm) In 1995 FRAP 25 (a) stated "[b]riefs shall be deemed filed on the day of mailing if the most expeditious form of delivery by mail, excepting special delivery, is used." FRAP 25 has been changed by 1998 to http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#25a Since I mailed Appellant's motion filed by Appellant William H. Payne [94-2205] to grant appellant's demands on basis that appellees' failed to file timely brief on 3/28/98, it is likely Sandia's lawyer Friedman received it 3/29/95. Tenth Circuit logs 3/30/95 [844759] Appellee's brief filed by Sandia Corporation, Harvey J. Brewster, C. William Childers, Robert L. Ewing, Harold L. Folley, James R. Gosler, Roger L. Hagengruber, Peter S. Hamilton, Preston B. Herrington, Albert Narath, Craig A. Searls, Tommy A. Sellers, Mary J. Stang, Paul A. Stokes, Robert Surran, Thomas P. Wright. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 3/27/95 Oral Argument? y (appellant is pro se) Appellant's optional reply brief due 4/13/95 for William H. Payne (mbm) Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure [FRAP] 26 (c) states (c) Additional Time after Service. When a party is required or permitted to act within a prescribed period after service of a paper upon that party, 3 calendar days are added to the prescribed period unless the paper is delivered on the date of service stated in the proof of service. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#26c While the Tenth Circuit ASSERTS Appellees brief was, in fact, served on 3/27/95 evidence given below points to the brief was served, in fact, on 3/29/95. I allege that Friedman affixed a false date of service to Sandia's brief. I WAS NEVER PROPERLY SERVED. I wrote Wednesday March 29, 1995 Dan Friedman Simons, Cuddy & Friedman Pecos Trail Office Compound 1701 Old Pecos Trail POB 4160 Santa Fe, NM 87502-4160 505-988-4476 505-984-1807 FAX Dear Lawyer Friedman: Today at 14:00 hours I found a green and white about 9x13 inch envelope in our mail box at my home. Mailing label indicated that the envelope came from your firm. CONFIDENTIAL was stamped on the mailing label. I wrote "Received at 14:00 hours on W 3/29/95 with no POSTMARK OR STAMP by W. H. Payne" at the bottom of the envelope. There was no STAMP OR POSTAGE METER LABEL or POSTMARK on the envelope. Therefore, I gave the envelope to US Postal Service supervisor Mel at 14:49 hours today at the Postal Receiving station at 9904 Montgomery, NW in Albuquerque. Mel has a copy of the cover of the envelope with Mel's note written on it. Mel told me the post office was going to return the envelope to your firm for proper mailing. I ask: 1 What did this envelope contain? Please identify the documents precisely. 2 If any Certificates of Service were included in the envelope, then what were the dates affixed to these documents? 3 Who placed this envelope in our mail box? Lawyer Friedman: It appears you missed an important filing date. And are in the process of attempt to correct your failure. But may be using illegitimate methods to conceal your failure. Please respond as soon as possible so that we all may discover what has happened here." ... Lawyer Friedman did not respond to the above letter. But Friedman did mail me Appellees brief many days later in envelope showing TRUE MAILING date. Certificate of service on received Appellees brief did not reflect postmark date. 10th Cir. R. 25.4 in 1995 page 62 reads Papers not accepted for filing. -- The clerk shall not file papers that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these rules See 10thCir. R. 42.1 But Tenth Circuit clerks Fisher and Hoecker despite my protests and submission of evidence may have stamped FILED on Sandia's IMPROPERLY SERVED Appellee/Respondent's brief according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Laywer Friedman FALSIFIED THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Friedman DID NOT MAIL ME "Served on 3/27/95." d) Proof of Service; Filing. A paper presented for filing shall contain an acknowledgment of service by the person served or proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and manner of service, of the name of the person served, and of the addresses to which the papers were mailed or at which they were delivered, certified by the person who made service. Proof of service may appear on or be affixed to the papers filed. When a brief or appendix is filed by mailing or dispatch in accordance with Rule 25(a)(2)(B), the proof of service shall also state the date and manner by which the document was mailed or dispatched to the clerk. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#25a Crime apparently committed by Hoecker and Fisher is § 1017. Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully sealed Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper or with knowledge of its fraudulent character, with wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses, buys, procures, sells, or transfers to another any such certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper, to which or upon which said seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1017.shtml Despite my protests of judicial misconduct Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis award decision to Sandia 10/6/95 [890055] Order filed by Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis "...All outstanding motions are denied..." (found in Order & Judgment of 10/6/95) [879579-1] Parties served by mail. (pdw) when these judges should not have had Appellees brief before them. Then in an apparently attempt to conceal what happened 10/6/95 [890076] NOTE: THIS ENTIRE CASE IS SEALED. Terminated on the Merits after Submission Without Oral Hearing; Judgment Affirmed; Written, Signed, Unpublished. Moore, authoring judge; Barrett; Weis. [94-2205] (pdw) I WON MY APPEAL, pro se, ON A TECHNICALITY but judges Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis awarded the win to Sandia Labs! Members of Congress, judicial misconduct in this matter has been well-documented. Court records filed with the Tenth Circuit. But CURRENTLY under seal. Lawyers involved in this matter attempt to use the legal strategy of IGNORE and STONEWALL to attempt to deny me justice. Ignoring and stonewalling by lawyers forced Morales and me to seek visibility so lawyers could no longer ignore and stonewall. Lawyer attitude apparently is that they ignore rules of civil procedure or even the law so long as their actions are invisible to public scrutiny. Visibility was achieved by suing the National Security Agency which revealed even more judicial misconduct http://www.jya.com/whp052898.htm. I would like to settle all matters involved with this unfortunate cyrpto-related matter, which includes criminal violations of the Privacy Act. DOE lawyer Steve Dillingham asked me to prepare a settlement offer in 1994. I wrote a settlement letter May 22, 1994 to Dillingham. Nothing happened. June 11, 1998 I made several modifications to my 1994 settlement letter and sent it e-mail to Robert Nordhaus, Chief Counsel, DOE. I ask that you 1 help with settlement of my six-year-old since I won my appeal at the Tenth Circuit, 2 investigate Tenth Circuit case 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al to bring the guilty to justice. Sincerely william payne 505 292 7037 I am not reading e-mail http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2 http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html Coauthor Lewis in the above is one of my former MS and PhD students in computer science. http://www.friction-free-economy.com/ Monday 6/22/98 1:04 PM Members of Congress Purpose of this e-mail is to give written proof of criminal judicial misconduct by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals clerks Hoecker, Fisher, and Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan and request a congressional investigation. After several years, with Payne, of trying to get Tenth Circuit to send docket sheets from my case, citizen John Young http://www.jya.com/index.htm locates docket sheets and posts them Morales Case Dockets 10th USCA June 12, 1998 on Internet at http://www.jya.com/arm061298.htm. Source: Online records Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals via PACER GENERAL DOCKET FOR Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Docket #: 95-2204 Filed: 9/29/95 Nsuit: 3440 Morales v. Sandia National Lab. Appeal from: United States District Court for the District of New Mexico I filed 11/9/95 [898274] Appellant's brief filed by Arthur R. Morales. Original and 2 copies. c/s: y. Served on 11/7/95. Oral argument? pro se. Appellee's brief due 12/11/95 for Sandia National Lab. (pdw) Sandia files its FIRST ATTEMPT at 12/11/95 [905033] Appellee's deficient brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Appellee's corrected brief due 12/21/95 for Sandia National Lab. additional copies received 12/11/95. (fg) Tenth Circuit court clerk Patrick Fisher writes Wells on December 11, 1995 concerning Sandia's deficient brief [C]orrections, however made, must be accompanied by proof of service upon all other parties to the appeal. ... and issues 12/14/95 [905975] FIRST notice of rules violation for Deborah D. Wells for Appellee Sandia National Lab. (sls) Wells submits 12/21/95 [907974] Appellee's brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 12/20/95 Oral Argument? n Appellant's optional reply brief due 1/8/96 for Arthur R. Morales (mbm) but DOES NOT serve me with a copy. Wells later admits in 2/1/96 [917660] Response filed by Sandia National Lab. Appellant/Petitioner motion to clarify Original and 3 copies. c/s: y response Null Relief Code (fg) Certificate of Service date 30th day of January, 1996, [h]ad Appellant simply made a phone call to the Tenth Circuit, he could have established that the Defendant-Appellee's corrected brief was indeed filed on a timely basis, ... I protested by filing 1/3/96 [909965] Appellant's motion "for the Court to Grant Appeal" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) 1/3/96 [909966] Appellant's motion "for New Trial" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) 1/3/96 [909967] Appellant's motion "to Discipline Defendant-Appellee" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) because Sandia did not properly serve me in violation of Fisher's December 11, 1995 order. The Tenth Circuit court of appeals should NOT, by its own rules, filed Appellee's brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 12/20/95 10th Cir. R. 25.4 in 1995 page 62 reads Papers not accepted for filing. -- The clerk shall not file papers that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these rules See 10thCir. R. 42.1 And is doubtful whether court clerk Fisher had any authority under appellate procedure to permit Wells to correct her deficient brief. Rather Sandia's brief did not comply with with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and should have been summarily rejected for filing. I WON, pro se, my appeal to the Tenth circuit on a technicality but Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan awarded the win to Sandia Labs. 4/2/96 [932848] Order filed by Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan denying parties' motions for general relief(found in Order and Judgment of 4/2/96)--"...During the course of this appeal, the parties have filed various motions for dismissal, summary grant, and sanctions. We find no merit to any of these motions, and they are [920851-1] Parties served by mail. (pdw) by accepting and judging on a documents which was not permitted to be before the court by its own rules. Judicial misconduct in my case has been well-documented as it is in Payne's case. Payne and I speculate that similar judicial misconduct may have occurred at the Tenth Circuit. Sandia lawyer Robert J Park wrote me a settlement letter on Feb 18, 1998. I filled in the blanks and made minor handwritten chages and returned it on February 22, 1998. But my offer has not yet been accepted. I ask that you 1 help have my settlement offer accepted, 2 investigate judicial misconduct in case 95-2204 and punish the guilty. Some citizens can only express such frustrations with the US court system with violence. I seek change by legal reform. Sincerely Arthur R Morales 505 345 1381

1 0

Registering Euphoria
by Alan Tu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Terry, Good points. But... 1. Registration brings money, doesn't mean Bob should just blindly make changes. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but I had to say that. 2. However, on the other token, if a nonregistered user makes suggestions nicely, his suggestion should be debated (as we are doing here) and considered by Bob. --Alan

1 0

RE: CIA 4 Nags: Hackers Crypto Y2K Foreigners
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just don't understand how, in 1998, anyone could let Tenet get away with a claim about key recovery like this. Didn't anyone ask him how he expected high-tech hackers (especially those possibly aided by foreign intelligence agencies) to use key recovery? Ern -----Original Message----- From: John Young [SMTP:jya@pipeline.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 5:37 AM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: CIA 4 Nags: Hackers Crypto Y2K Foreigners June 24, 1998 CIA Head Forsees Better Hackers Filed at 5:43 p.m. EDT By The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- Intrusion into government computers [SNIP] Unless the computer industry and the government find a legislative compromise, the government could fall victim to hackers able to hide their own actions in impenetrable encryption codes. It may take a major computer-hacker incident to create the political pressure needed to allow the government the "recovery" power to access encrypted databases. "There is a train wreck waiting to happen unless we deal with the recovery aspect of the encryption debate," Tenet said.

3 2

Biztravel.com $25 Welcome Gift
by reservations＠biztravel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Mr. Cypherpunk, Thank you for joining Biztravel.com. Please note that your member name is CYPHERPUNKS. *********** FREE WELCOME GIFT *********** I`d like to offer you a gift for new members -- we`ll give you a $25 American Express(R) Gift Cheque FREE with your first flight purchase. Here`s how it works: - purchase an airline ticket through Biztravel.com by 8/31/98 - your travel must commence no later than 10/15/98 - we`ll mail you your gift after you take your flight ********** BIZTRAVEL.COM FEATURES *********** Here`s just some of what Biztravel.com offers to make your travel planning easier to manage: + We present you with travel options based on the preferences you indicate in your Travel Profile. This lets you plan your travel according to what`s most important to you, whether its getting the lowest fares, departing at the most convenient time, or insuring you`re maximizing frequent flyer points for the trip. + Our trained travel agents are available 24-hours-a-day via email or telephone. + We don`t stop at airline flights - we offer rental car and hotel reservations too, to provide you with one-stop online travel booking. + Our free bizMiles service gives you a quick and convenient way to check your growing balances of miles and points in the leading airline and hotel frequency programs. + We also have weather reports, driving directions, destination city information, and bizTraveler online magazine which is filled with travel news and tips, fare deals, and more. Thank you again for joining us. And remember - get a $25 American Express Gift Cheque FREE with your first qualifying flight purchase at http://www.biztravel.com Sincerely, John I. Williams, Jr. President & CEO Biztravel.com(R) *********************************************************************** Full details regarding this new member offer are available at http://www.biztravel.com/welcome25b ***********************************************************************

1 0

Dupes in NSA Release
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We need confirmation that pages 11 and 14 are the same in the NSA algo release except for the words "Figure 7" and Figure 8." And that Figures 7, 8 and 9, showing "key formation diagram" are the same on purpose. We've asked ever-helpful Ed Roback at NIST about it but no answer yet. Amazingly, thanks to Vanessa Talieri, NSA has cheerfully Fedexed us a hardcopy, due in tomorrow.

1 0