December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Coersion Re: don't use passwords as private keys (was Re: Using a password as a private key.)
by Richard.Bragg＠ssa.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From information given by a security consultant teaching a course I attended : The easiest way to get a password from someone is to ask them. Many people will tell you if you look official, friendly etc Torture is less likely to work as people don't like to have to do something. They are often willing to "volenteer" information as long as they still appear to be in control.

1 0

No Subject
by insight＠sprynet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oct.30th,1998 Y2K Solution! 8 Pine Circle Dr., Silicon Valley, Calif. OTC Company "TCFG" 21 st. Century Frontier Group has through several members of their administrative research department leaked vital information about their companies efforts. Everyone was tight lipped and interviews were refused, and through un-named sources we have learned that the technology and software solution are in the process of being patented! In over 1640 trials, using various data systems the use of the new technology and software solved the Y2K problem 100% of the time. This small publicly traded company "TCFG" which is just 3 years old is through various sources now negotiating with the "Big Boys"! "TCFG" the letters to look for!

1 0

Re: Airline id
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Naaah, you pull rail-spikes to get trains, no big ba-da-boom required. Yow! So buying a crowbar gets you thrown in the can for conspiracy to possess terrorist weapons of mass destruction!

1 0

Re: 4 Horseman not so bad..
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:06 PM 10/29/98 -0500, Chip Mefford wrote: >On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Anonymous wrote: >> At 07:52 AM 10/29/98 -0500, Chip Mefford wrote: >> >> but some peope are scared of >> >> drugs/paedophiles/terrorists etc, so thats the way in for the jackboots. >> >> To oppose it we need to reduce fear. >> Right. The new Happy Net campaign. >Well, > >Sorry, I don't mean to sound pollyanneish, thats not my point. >Its just a point of view I had never heard expressed before, and >I thought it was interesting. > >Fighting fear with more fear isn't working. >Its just that simple, a different approach >I think is worthy of investigation. > Your observation is in fact correct. The fear must be shown to be *exaggerated* for the benefit of the fearmongers. The intrusion must be shown to be not just intruding on "them" but on "us". (Europe's recent interest in Echelon may be an example of the latter.) Sheeple will *eventually* learn (again) that nasty people will always do nasty things with the technology du jour, and mostly the police just mop up afterwards. (If it isn't the State doing the nasty things in the first place.) Of course, we might have an intervening dark ages for a millenia or two, but in the long run, you get a clue or go extinct. You don't ban something as basic as metal or encryption because some people do bad things with it. And you don't depend on laws to secure privacy. In the meantime, morons whine for State control of metal, while barbarians are destroying the town's wooden walls with metal rams, and protective metal walls aren't being deployed because the townies fear that the bad townies will abuse metal. "Freedom of choice is what you have, freedom from choice is what you want" -Devo "Those that would trade liberty for security should be shot" -Kite Sparko

1 0

Re: Random array (fwd)
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I said: >> One could modify Greg's suggestion slightly by attaching an auxiliary >> array of 256 random numbers to each of the members of the original >> array and then using the most efficient handy sort algorithm to sort >> those random numbers, dragging along their associated original array >> elements. This way it doesn't have a chance to interfere with the >> operation of the sorting algorithm, at the cost of an extra array. Jim Choate responded: > If I understand the process. Each array would cycle through in parallel > sorting 2 elements of each array. Once that was finished we'd then sort the > arrays themselves according to some process. From your description it seems > to imply that you're going to sort the 1st element descending at that point. > This in effect mis-orders each array after every sort. > > This sort of system is an IFS and could lead to determinism (ie a cycle of > sort patterns that repeat endlessly) or chaos (ie a pattern that doesn't > repeat). It in and of itself doesn't guarantee any randomness merely a > continously munged sort. I expressed myself badly. Steve Gibbons posted a message to Coderpunks expressing more clearly what I had in mind: Fill up the high bits of your N words with random numbers and the low bits with an index from 0 to N-1. Sort the array, then mask off the high bits. If the random numbers were unique, you are left with a randomly shuffled array. -- Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 9 Blotmath S.R. 1998, 16:48 12.19.5.11.12, 10 Eb 5 Zac, Seventh Lord of Night

1 0

Re: Random array (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:53:20 -0800 > From: Jim Gillogly <jim(a)acm.org> > Subject: Re: Random array (fwd) > Jim Choate responded: > > If I understand the process. Each array would cycle through in parallel > > sorting 2 elements of each array. Once that was finished we'd then sort the > > arrays themselves according to some process. From your description it seems > > to imply that you're going to sort the 1st element descending at that point. > > This in effect mis-orders each array after every sort. > > > > This sort of system is an IFS and could lead to determinism (ie a cycle of > > sort patterns that repeat endlessly) or chaos (ie a pattern that doesn't > > repeat). It in and of itself doesn't guarantee any randomness merely a > > continously munged sort. > > I expressed myself badly. Steve Gibbons posted a message > to Coderpunks expressing more clearly what I had in mind: > Fill up the high bits of your N words with random numbers and > the low bits with an index from 0 to N-1. Sort the array, then > mask off the high bits. If the random numbers were unique, you > are left with a randomly shuffled array. Ah, ok I think I have it..... So we start out with N words (2 bytes): 0 1 2 ... n-2 n-1 n * * * * * * ^ 15...8 7...0 rng ind So the ordering of bits 8-15 moves the originaly ordered indexes to positions correlated to relative magnitude of the rng part. That certainly looks like it'd work. Thanks for the clarification. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED SAT OCT 31 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + CYBER AFFAIRS SEX NETWORK + HI TECH PORN + XXX 4 FREE + LESBIAN PALACE + 123 PORNO + XXX FEMALES + FORBIDDEN PLEASURES + WET CUMSHOTS & WILD HARDCORE + KANDY'S LAND + WILD WORLD OF SEX + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/2941.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/249.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/19240.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/17350.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/24968.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- If you haven't visited STUFFED in the last few days, you're in for a real treat. It's faster than ever before and now, as a subscriber, you get 35 FREE new pics every day, plus over 100 more at carefully selected FREE sites we link to. This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

Re: IP: FCC Proposes Location Tracking for Wireless Phones
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:03 AM 10/30/98 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >(2) PUBLIC COMMENT SOUGHT - A CHANCE TO TELL THE FCC THAT CELL PHONE >TRACKING IS NOT ACCEPTABLE! > >CDT has established a special "Action" page to make it easy for citizens to >contact the FCC and file comments opposing the location tracking proposal: >http://www.cdt.org/action/filing.html Be sure to mention ECHELON to get it into the US public eye.

1 0

Re: Shuffling (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: iang(a)cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) > Subject: Re: Shuffling (fwd) > Date: 30 Oct 1998 18:46:44 GMT > >> o The resulting deck is then achieved by having cards fall from one or the > >> other of the two parts; a card will fall from one of the parts with > >> probability proportional to the number of cards remaining in the part. > >It also doesn't address the problem of 'clumping' where a group of cards (ie > >royal flush) stay together through the shuffling. This is the reason that > >real dealers try for a 1-for-1 shuffle each time. > > It actually _does_ address the normal, statistical clumping that goes on. > It _doesn't_ address clumping that occurs because, say, you were playing > poker while eating a peanut butter sandwich. :-) What I was refering to was that let's say we've just finished playing a hand of cards and the next dealer collects them from each player and stacks them up prior to shuffling. Since the selection of cards is related to the thickness of the two half-decks (and not a strict 1-to-1) it is reasonable to expect an above average number of such shuffles (ones with grossly uneven card counts, exactly what that would be I don't know), now as a player I'm going to know about this bias and can use it to my advantage. I admit it probably won't change the odds much but sometimes a few hundreths over a long time can make a difference. It seems to me the next question that needs asking is: Given the probability model we've discussed what does the difference in odds relating to clumping show in relation to uneven deck splitting. If the deck is split even (26:26) v 27:25 v 28:24 v etc. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Random array (fwd)
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> And what's so bad about doing this: > > for (i=0; i < n-1; i++) { > swap_positions(array, i, i+rand(n-i)); > } > > which populates the array by randomly choosing the next element? That one's fine, and is equivalent to Knuth's Algorithm P, except that it does two more additions per iteration. -- Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 9 Blotmath S.R. 1998, 19:16 12.19.5.11.12, 10 Eb 5 Zac, Seventh Lord of Night

1 0