December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions. --Declan] --- Subject: Re: The Commerce committee votes are up at crypto.com Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:29:17 -0400 From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger(a)cdt.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Declan -- If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list (in this case, cypherpunks). This message is not a question -- it's an attack. It assumes the answer before it's asked, and it's nothing more than read meat thrown to a hungry crowd. If you have questions about how we set up the site, or how we feel about the results of Wednesday's Commerce Committee vote, all you have to do is contact us. We will be happy to talk to you. This is the way every other journalist we work with operates. Unfortunately, your pattern is different. I would have thought that after last week's unfortunate incident you would have learned something. Perhaps I was assuming too much. Jonah At 11:19 PM -0400 9/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Thanks, Shabbir, for putting this vital information online. But I'm a >little puzzled. I fear the CDT/VTW crypto.com web site may be misleading. > >You say, for instance, that opposing SAFE yesterday was a vote "against >Internet privacy" and "against passing the SAFE bill out of committee." >That's not true. The Markey-White-amended bill the committee approved >yesterday was not the SAFE bill. It was a deviant version with important >differences from SAFE. > >The Markey-White amendment includes: the doubled crypto-in-a-crime >penalties (10-20 years!), the sop to eventual mandatory key recovery by >including liability immunity for turning over keys to the Feds or the >sheriff of Podunk County, the bogus NETcenter that effectively gives the >NSA a statutory basis for domestic evildoing, etc. (Markey wanted to take >credit for killing the original SAFE. He told the Washington Post "after >the vote" that the original, better, Goodlatte SAFE "no longer exists as a >political option." That's right -- thanks to his own amendment...) > >The second and third votes are essentially the same: should the above >provisions be in the Commerce committee of the bill. But why do you avoid >taking a position on whether the second vote on Markey-White was good or >bad? > >If the second description was to avoid taking a position on Markey-White, >it doesn't work. You say in your third description that a vote for the >amended Markey-White bill was a good one. Why would CDT/VTW endorse such >disturbing legislation? (And not admit it?) To what extent was CDT/VTW >involved in drafting Markey-White and to what extent did you encourage >committee members to vote for it? > >Also, the description for the third vote is misleading by itself. It just >says "report SAFE" when it should say "report SAFE with Markey-White >provisions" out of committee. > >And, given these problems with Markey-White, why is the CDT/VTW crypto.com >site counting a vote for the Markey-White-amended bill as a vote for >"Internet privacy?" I should think that given the problems -- such as >doubling of crypto-in-a-crime and sop towards mandatory key recovery -- >that a vote against the Markey-White-amended bill is a //good// vote, not >one against Net-privacy. > >If a legislator wanted to vote for Internet freedom and reject deviant >bills, he should have voted against Oxley, Markey-White, and against >passing the bill with Markey-White out of committee yesterday. (That would >have left the cleaner Judiciary committee version of SAFE as a more likely >option.) Rep. Brown, for instance, did just that -- yet you tar him as >against Internet freedoms. > >Go figure. > >-Declan > > >crypto.com says: > >>Voted in favor of Internet privacy at the full >>Commerce committee vote on Sep 24 1997. This vote was >>against attaching the Oxley-Manton 'Big Brother' >>amendment to SAFE. >> >>Voted against the Markey-White amendment at the full >>Commerce committee vote on Sep 24 1997. The vote was >>against attaching the Markey-White amendment to SAFE. >> >>Voted against Internet privacy at the full Commerce >>committee vote on Sep 24 1997. The vote was against >>passing the SAFE bill out of committee. > > > >At 17:56 -0400 9/25/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote: >>Last night's votes on SAFE in the Commerce committee are in place at >>http://www.crypto.com/member/ >> >>Simply select the member of Congress you're curious about, either by zip code >>or by state, and you can see how they voted in the three Commerce votes >>last night. Then, you can call and yell or send kudos. * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt -- Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800 Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151 <jseiger(a)cdt.org> PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger

8 11

InfoWar 22 (Part III of 'The True Story of the InterNet')
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

InfoWar 22 / TEXT
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The True Story of the InterNet Part III InfoWar Final Frontier of the Digital Revolution Behind the ElectroMagnetic Curtain by TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> Copyright 1997 Pearl Publishing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- InfoWar Table of Contents * Forever Young ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forever Young ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis and Jonathan were resting in each other's arms on the couch by the old oak table, and quietly discussing the wide variety of posts to the CypherPunks mailing lists in the wake of the House Commerce Committee's defeat of the Oxley amendment to the SAFE bill and their approval of the Markey-White amendment, instead. "It seems strange that the our future destiny is so deeply intertwined with events that happened over a century ago." Alexis said. "It seems even stranger," she continued, "that our past is being transmogrified through the InformEnergy we are exchanging with that era through the Trei Transponder." "Not to mention the present" Jonathan added, showing her the post he had just pulled up on the GraphiScreen behind them. Subject: FWD: Dear Representative Oxley From: Anthony Garcia <agarcia(a)Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> To: cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM For what it's worth. -Anthony Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:47:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Anthony Garcia <agarcia(a)Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> To: Mike.Oxley(a)mail.house.gov Subject: Dear Representative Oxley At this time, it looks like your ignorant, anti-Constitutional amendment to the Safety And Freedom through Encryption Act will be passed by the Commerce Committee. This legislation may go on to be passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. In case this occurs, I would like you to make note of my home address and telephone number. They are: Anthony Garcia [address & phone elided for broadcast on cypherpunks list] If I move to a new address in the future, I will update you. I telling you this because I fully intend to willfully break your stupid law exactly 1 minute after the moment it goes into effect on January 1st, 1999. I will: - Manufacture an encryption product that does not support key escrow (I will compile source code for encryption software which does not support key escrow.) - Offer to sell that encryption product to any takers for the sum of $1. - Offer that encryption product for free to the public via FTP or HTTP file transfer over the Internet. - Import an encryption software product which does not support key escrow by means of file transfer over the Internet from a foreign source. So, get ready to arrest me, Big Mike. Get out your old FBI shield and shine it up, because I AM GOING TO BREAK YOUR LAW. GOT IT? Sincerely, -Anthony Garcia agarcia(a)neosoft.com P.S. When you have some free time, look up a document known as the "Bill of Rights", and review the sections titled "First Amendment" and "Fourth Amendment". Alexis gazed at the post with interest, but seemed mystified as to what import it had for the Magic Circle's present situation. "I don't remember seeing this post in the archives we went over yesterday, but it certainly doesn't to seem unusual for the CypherPunks list." "It wasn't in the mailing list archives yesterday." Jonathan told her, waiting for the import of what he was saying to begin sinking in, as evidenced by Alexis's ever-widening eyes, before continuing. "All of the posts that were in the archive yesterday are either nonexistent, or changed, when compared to emails we're pulling from A Player To Be Named Later's digital implant through the Trei Transponder." Bubba and Priscilla walked up, hand in hand, joining in the conversation. "If you check the archives you will find," Bubba said solemnly, "that the Oxley amendment to the SAFE bill passed on September 14, 1997." After taking a sharp elbow to the ribs, Bubba added, grinning, "We have Priscilla to thank for pointing out this most interesting anomaly in the fabric of history, as we seem to currently be experiencing it." "Bubba told me I was confused." Priscilla said, gloating at her correcting of the Magic Circle's most prestigious purveyor of ancient history. "He said that I must have read in the CypherPunks list archives about the Oxley amendment being passed at a later date, since it had been one of the turning points in history in the battle for control of the InterNet. I told the old fart," Priscilla said, as Bubba now nudged her in the ribs, "to'check the archives.'" Jonathan and Alexis laughed at her imitation of Tim May, circa. 1990's. "Nuke DC!" the Cowboy approached, waving a handful of freshly printed posts from their current subscription to the CypherPunks mailing list of a century earlier. The Cowboy had resurrected some old printers that Melissa had smuggled out to him from the closely guarded Museum of Antiquities. d'Shauneaux had brought them back from one of his midnight meetings with her the previous week. Subject: Re: SAFE = Security and Fascism through Escrow Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:00:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Ray Arachelian <sunder(a)brainlink.com> To: cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote: > As our Big Brothers in D.C. continue to abuse the language by taking SAFE > in a direction 180 degrees from the original intentions, it seems only fair > that we rename the bill the Security and Fascism through Escrow Bill. Erm, Tim you've somehow managed to misspell SODOMY. There's no securiy in SAFE, by definition, it's a security hole through which the citizens get sodomized. ==============================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 ========================== The Cowboy announced, grandly, "There is no record in the archives which shows any indication that the SAFE bill became generally known on the CypherPunks list as the 'Sodomy And Fascism through Encryption' bill, as now seem to be happening." The Cowboy showed the group a color printout of the new SAFE T-shirt being produced by Adam Back, with a Swastika and the word 'SAFE' composed of a series of toilet plungers. "Bill Stewart suggested to Adam that it be a 'scratch and sniff' T-shirt, but Back pointed out to him that SAFE was already beginning to smell bad to an increasing number of people, anyway." The small group shared a chuckle or two, as the Cowboy continued. "In addition to the challenge issued to Oxley by Anthony Garcia, and the posts by May and Arachelian, which didn't exist in our recent previous pastif that makes senseI have found that even the posts that do exist in the archives are not the same as the ones we are currently receiving from that same point in time. "There has been a subtle quantum shift in the tone and direction of the posts to the CypherPunks list, as well as to the rest of the history surrounding the InterNet during that crucial nadir point in the InterNet's evolution." The Cowboy pulled out a bottle of Jim Beam and passed it around the tablean indication that he was about to drop a bombshell on his compatriots. After everyone had downed a stiff shot of the ice-cold bourbon, he asked, "What did we all agree were two serious errors in Chapter 20 of 'InfoWar.'" he asked the others. Alexis was the first to speak. "Well, in general, we agreed that it was a ridiculously overdone parody of a conspiracy theory worthy of ? the Lunatic's deranged mind." "In specific," Jonathan added, as the group laughed, once again, "attributing the chapter as being written by Bill Gates, wherein the man purportedly connects himself to one of the sleaziest maneuvers in the history of the perversion of democracy and justice, then proceeding to make it look as if he had cowardly submitted to blackmail by the anonymous post that linked him to the original Indio gathering of weapons dealers, as well as the thinly veiled threat of violence to 'a billionaire to be named later.' "Not even the most unbalanced of the CypherPunks list members was likely to fail to see this as a shallow attempt at smearing Gates by making it look as if he had taken up the challenge that ? the Lunatic had sent anonymously through the TruthMailer as A. Fiend, to write his own chapter of 'InfoWar,' revealing some dark secret from his past, and asking him to provide some real, but improbable evidence of his authorship by making reference to some future event, based on his own inside information." The group nodded in agreement with this statement by Jonathan, and then Alexis brought up the second major inanity the group had found in the 'InfoWar' chapter titled, 'A Billionaire To Be Named Later.' "We agreed that it was a pretty wild stretch to intimate that an LMBoyd sampler sent out two months before was a veiled message from the Circle of Eunuchs to the Internet Content Coalition warning them of a serial killer/mass murderer from the north, where ? the Lunatic and polar bears live. "Although the timing of the mentioned email was rather synchronous with the Coalition's agenda..." The Cowboy broke into a wide smile, asking the others, "Did anyone happen to read the LMBoyd sampler for July 25, 1997?" The others looked at one another questioningly, each nodding negatively. The Cowboy lay a post in front of the group, which they proceeded to read with amazement. Subject: Sampler: September 25 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:15:01 -0700 From: sampler-request(a)lmboyd.com To: multiple recipients of <sampler(a)lmboyd.com> ====================================================== Tennis players might quote Shakespeare's Henry VI: "O monstrous fault!" Basketball players, Henry V: "Hear the shrill whistle." Bowlers, The Tempest: "Mercy on us, we split." Golfers, King John: "Give me an iron." Baseball players, Othello: "You did bid me steal." Hockey players, A Midsummer Night's Dream: "Gentle Puck, come hither." Great horned owls lay round eggs. 1. Did the Eskimo of old believe in God? A. They did. They thought God, the Supreme Environmentalist, created polar bears to prevent humans from over-multiplying. So they wouldn't eat up everything in one season. ============================================== LMBoyd Web Site / U. S. Newspapers / Start Email / Stop Email http://www.LMBoyd.com/postscript.htm "This was sent out after chapter 20 of 'InfoWar' had been sent to the CypherPunks list." Bubba commented. After checking the date and time that chapter 20 had been sent, he said, sounding even more perplexed and amazed, "A little more than a single hour afterward." The Cowboy let each of them read the post, once again, to confirm for themselves what secrets it revealed. "Fucking unbelievable!" Jonathan exclaimed. "The 'A Billionaire To Be Named Later' chapter is not only followed shortly thereafter by a completely unrelated item which contains not only a confirmation of the claim of Circle of Eunuchs involvement in the LMBoyd web site, but even expands on it, by adding the reference to hockey players, such as the Author, as well as a repetition of the theme wherein polar bears hunt and consume humans." "And adding a reference to 'horned owls' dropping 'round eggs'?" Alexis noted, looking at the others for confirmation she wasn't imagining things. "Nukes?" Bubba Rom Dos, poet and philosopher, also pointed out that the LMBoyd sampler began with a reference to Shakespeare, and that the last quote attributed to A Player To Be Named Later in the chapter attributed to Gates was a reference to Shakespeare being a member of the Magic Circle-a distinct impossibility. "Thus, the author of chapter 20 could only have been using that analogy to set up the confirmation by the later LMBoyd sampler that the Circle of Eunuchs was involved in the use of the samplers to pass messages. Jonathan asked the question that everyone was now rolling over in their mind. "What does this do to our other conclusion, that the chapter was not authored by 'Bad BillyG,' himself?" The Cowboy sat down and knocked back another shot of Jim Beam, as the Trei Transponder began to quietly hum in the background. It was causing something tucked away in the back of the Cowboy's mind to begin resonating, and he struggled to bring it to the forefront of his consciousness where it could be examined in the light of reason "A Player To Be Named Later had no connection to the LMBoyd web site." the Cowboy stated emphatically, surprising the others, who were lost in their own contemplation. The Cowboy looked at each of the others, in turn, and announced, "But Gates did!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Player To Be Named Later lay on his bed, Baby lying by his side and looking up quizzically at him, wondering about the soft humming noise coming from her friend's head. He reached down and stroked her on the back of the neck, saying, "Modern technology, Baby. Someday I'll get you a digital implant, too, so that you can bark at the doggies of the future." He laughed and rose to get Baby a bowl of milk. BillyG had done his homework, that much was certain. And the man had added some personal touches to chapter 20 of 'InfoWar' that would have done justice to even the most diabolically astute members of the legendarily insane conspiracy of the slippery, esoteric--and definitely mythical--Circle of Eunuchs. He had immediately noticed BillyG's reference to the Shakespeare line from the first sentence of the last chapter of "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre." Having the quote, "And one man, in his time, plays many parts." spoken by A Player To Be Named Later was an obvious implication that he and the Author were one and the same person. Keeping the 'true identity' of the Author 'in play,' as Bubba called it, was a Circle of Eunuchs tradition. As well, the last chapter of TXCSM, titled 'it ain't over 'till it's over,' contained a reference to the "He who shits on the Road will meet flies on his return." quote, which was a usual part of the TruthMailer header, but was not included in the TruthMailer email which had originally challenged BillyG to write a chapter for 'InfoWar.' That TXCSM chapter also made reference to Pearl Harbor Computers motto, "We've been bombed since 1941.", which meant that the Magic Circle had been brought full circle to closure by the veiled reference to the nuclear bomb in the follow-up LMBoyd sampler which served to confirm the details of the chapter 20 reference to a previous LMBoyd sampler. "And the ending of the second sampler," he told Baby, who was listening intently, "with a direct reference to the polar bears mentioned in the one from two months beforea fucking classic in-your-face Circle of Eunuchs maneuver that says everything and proves nothing!" The timing of the confirmation post was likewise a classic maneuver. Anyone who went to the trouble of checking the timing of chapter 20 and the following LMBoyd sampler could easily miscalculate different time zones involved and come to the conclusion that it was a clever ruse, but those who were familiar with headers and time zone references in InterNet processing would know beyond doubt that chapter 20 had been submitted to the list previous to the release of the LMBoyd sampler. The Coupe de Gras, of course, was that chapter 21 of 'InfoWar,' which was titled 'Lying Fucking Nazi Cunt Sex Criminal,' and which had its authorship attributed to the President, quoted another email which had been posted to the CypherPunks list before the House Commerce Committee's meeting on the Oxley amendment to SAFE, as well as sent to over a hundred Congressmen and Senators, and which alluded to an argument that would be raised during the closed meeting-a fact which would be later confirmed by those in attendance. The chapter itself intimated that this precognition of a later event might be attributable to guessing the probable from previously available information, even if it was a bold long-shot, but anyone who understood the full import of the reference to the 'Forever Young' Eternity Server and the demise of the Huge Cajones remailer would know beyond doubt that the author of chapter 21 had access to information that came from deep within the walls of the Whitehouse. The ending of chapter 21 with the reference to the coming assault on Intel might be viewed as information that could have leaked out before chapter 21 was written, but anyone who reread the passage a month or so in the future would see the reality of what was being implied in the description of the true agenda of 'total information control' being pursued by the dark powers within the Whitehouse and the government intelligence agencies pulling the President's strings. "Two perfect chapters, Baby." A Player To Be Named Later knocked back a shot of Scotch and rolled himself a cigarette. "Anybody who checks the true facts involved in their creation and distribution will prove to themselves, beyond all doubt, that their authorship and their wild-eyed claims are exactly what the manuscript purports them to be." He laughed and threw Baby a chocolate chip cookie in appreciation of her rapt attention to his maniacal monologue, and gave her a conspiratorial wink. "Yet," he continued, "just let them try to tell someone else of their discoverythey will find them self running from the men with the butterfly nets, in short order." "But," A Player To Be Named Later continued, laughing diabolically, "they ain't seen nothing, yet!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" "InfoWar (Part III of 'The True Story of the InterNet') Soviet Union Sickle of Eunuchs Secret WebSite ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

pi == 3 [was: Re: Chutzpah! FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: David HM Spector <spector(a)zeitgeist.com> > Re: Pi.... > > I believe the enlightened Legislator who attempted to legislate Pi was > none other than Jesse Helms (although this could be a legislative > myth!) and when Ol'Jesse proposed it (because he was "sick of all these > egg-heads with their big numbers") John Glenn said something on the > order of ' if your legislation passes Senator, I wouldn't want to > driver over any bridges in your state!' > _DHMS Not Helms, and not recently. From 'Extraordinary Pi', http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~nickjh/Pi.htm : Indiana State Legislature House Bill No. 246, 1897, set the value of Pi to a to 3. Duh ! Actually the wording of the bill is really unclear and can interpreted in various ways. Other interpretations include 3.2, 4 and 9.2376. The bill goes on in a confused way to contradict other areas of elementary geometry, and to contradict itself. It got passed all the way up to Senate level, then a Mathematics Professor noticed it by chance, informed the Senate, and it was posponed indefinitely at its second reading. Peter Trei

1 0

Peter Landrock's CRYPTO 97 rump session
by Chris Hall 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know that many of you attended this years CRYPTO and probably went to the rump session too. Does anyone remember the details of Peter Landrock's presentation? If I recall correctly, he presented an amusing talk in which an attacker tried to blackmail a bank by claiming knowledge of the bank's RSA private exponent. He did this by revealing successive bytes of the exponent starting with the most significant. The ransom doubled with each successive byte revealed (and I believe he got up to 52 in his example). The catch was that any person can do this for the first X number of bytes of the exponent *without actually knowing d* (where X varies depending at least upon n). What I would like to know is what the details of the attack were: 1) Am I out of my mind and there was no such attack? 2) Given an RSA modulus n and public exponent e, can someone determine the X most significant bytes of e (presumably X is less than half of the byte length of e)? 3) If so, what are the restrictions on e? Are there choices of e which make this attack infeasible? 4) If so, does one get only the most significant bits of d that are non-zero (i.e. if d=0x0078... then one gets 0xF000 back as the result)? Or does one actually get the "length" of d (i.e. log_2(d) can be derived)? Please post any response to the list (so other people can have the info), but please Cc me too. I am subscribed to a filtered version of the list and may not see the reply. Thanks, Chris Hall

2 1

clean machine
by rarab＠buffnet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can anyone tell me if a person could expect to encounter any difficulty with US Customs if they leave the US with PGP on a lap top machine? Would you be questioned about the contents of your machine? Would you be obliged to demonstrate that the machine was "clean" before it would be permitted to leave the country? Would a person be compelled to divulge the contents of any floppy disks in their possession before leaving the country with them? Perhaps the prudent thing to do is download PGP to your machine after leaving the US. I must take a decision on this matter in a few months. Any advice would be appreciated. Cordially, rarab

2 1

Now we know why they ban crypto...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Lotus-FromDomain: BIONOMICS@INTERLIANT @ OUTBOUND From: "VitaminB"<VitaminB(a)bionomics.org> To: "DAILY DOSE"<DAILY_DOSE(a)maxager.com> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:17:40 -0700 Subject: <<Vitamin B>>(September 26, 1997) Le Brain Drain Mime-Version: 1.0 Vitamin B: Your Daily Dose of Bionomics September 26, 1997 Le Brain Drain In the age just past, a nation's natural resources were the key to its success; today it is its intellectual capital. And with the world linked like never before, nations must nurture intellectual capital lest it walk away. But don't believe us. Ask our friend Olivier. When Olivier Cardic figured out that if his electronics company were based in England his 1995 net profit would have been $300,000, compared to just $80,000 in France, he decided to do what 1,000 French entrepreneurs have done already. Move. In the era of globalization, voting with your feet becomes a pretty easy stroll, especially when the country you're in is France. Consider this: British employers pay 10.2% of salaries in payroll taxes, compared with an insane 46% in France. According to Jean-Pierre Letouzet, president of RGA Systemes, a systems engineering company, "We live in a Marxist system. France has never been capitalist. We're not prepared for globalization, and we're sinking." Last year, Cardic asked French authorities on national radio to, "Explain to me why it is better to be unemployed in France than a worker in England?" The French authorities didn't have an answer for him. Neither do we. Source: _Business Week_, October 6, 1997 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

2 1

S/MIME Crack? Beware press bearing incomplete stories
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What I did: write a Windows 95 screen saver that automatically brute forces 40-bit RC2 keys. The screen saver is has an easy interface, and parallizes nicely. What I didn't do: break S/MIME. I did not find any flaw in the S/MIME security specification. I did not find any flaw in any of the cryptographic algorithms used. I did not find any flaw in any software implementation of S/MIME. There is nothing wrong with the S/MIME standard. What I find, though, is that many S/MIME implementations don't interporate at anything stronger than 40-bit RC2. I find that the default encryption is 40-bit RC2, and the user isn't given any indication that the encryption level should be changed. 40-bit RC2 is weak. This is nothing new to anyone who reads the S/MIME specifications. In fact, the S/MIME specification is very forthcoming in discussing security of 40-bit RC2. > 2.6 ContentEncryptionAlgorithmIdentifier > > Receiving agents MUST support decryption and encryption using the RC2 > algorithm [RC2] at a key size of 40 bits, hereinafter called "RC2/40". > Receiving agents SHOULD support decryption using DES EDE3 CBC, > hereinafter called "tripleDES". > > Sending agents SHOULD support encryption with RC2/40 and tripleDES. Later in the spec, the following appears: > Before sending a message, the sending agent MUST decide whether it is > willing to use weak encryption for the particular data in the message. > If the sending agent decides that weak encryption is unacceptable for > this data, then the sending agent MUST NOT use a weak algorithm such > as RC2/40. The decision to use or not use weak encryption overrides > any other decision in this section about which encryption algorithm to > use. And even later: > 2.6.2.3 Rule 3: Unknown Capabilities, Risk of Failed Decryption > > If: > - the sending agent has no knowledge of the encryption capabilities > of the recipient, > - and the sending agent is willing to risk that the recipient may > not be able to decrypt the message, > then the sending agent SHOULD use tripleDES. > > 2.6.2.4 Rule 4: Unknown Capabilities, No Risk of Failed Decryption > > If: > - the sending agent has no knowledge of the encryption capabilities > of the recipient, > - and the sending agent is not willing to risk that the recipient > may not be able to decrypt the message, > then the sending agent MUST use RC2/40. And: > 2.6.3 Choosing Weak Encryption > > Like all algorithms that use 40 bit keys, RC2/40 is considered by many > to be weak encryption. A sending agent that is controlled by a human > SHOULD allow a human sender to determine the risks of sending data > using RC2/40 or a similarly weak encryption algorithm before sending > the data, and possibly allow the human to use a stronger encryption > method such as tripleDES. I wrote this screen saver not to trash S/MIME (even though the announcement was used by another company), but to 1) illustrate that 40-bit RC2 really is insecure, and 2) try to force companies who implement S/MIME to get DES and triple-DES to interoperate. I heard recently that RSADSI has said there is a triple-DES message on their website that can be understood by both Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape Communicator. I don't know about the message, but when I tried to get DES and triple-DES to interoperate a few months ago I couldn't. Bruce ********************************************************************** Bruce Schneier, President, Counterpane Systems Phone: 612-823-1098 101 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis,MN 55419 Fax: 612-823-1590 http://www.counterpane.com

1 0

RE: Chutzpah! FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I believe the enlightened Legislator who attempted to legislate Pi was >none other than Jesse Helms (although this could be a legislative >myth!) and when Ol'Jesse proposed it (because he was "sick of all these >egg-heads with their big numbers") John Glenn said something on the >order of ' if your legislation passes Senator, I wouldn't want to >driver over any bridges in your state!' Alas (according to my failing memory) it was legislator from my home state of Indiana during the early part of this century, who had planned to make a killing in textbooks if Pi == 3.0 was accepted. Fortunately he was called on it when it went before the whole legislature. I just have to wonder, how much of what we hear from various LEAs is due to the political desires of the people doing the talking -- I'd suspect that a majority of line officers (or the majority of those who are informed on the topic) would have something quite different to say. "In a confusing situation, follow the money. If there isn't any money, follow the power." Domestic crypto controls just fall _way_ too easily into the trap of increased state power (vs. the actual percentages of crimes whose investigations are impeded by crypto) to make me think that this is anything other than just a blatant political move on the part of the LEA managers. ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm(a)indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "Their walls are built of cannon balls, their motto is 'Don't Tread on Me'"

2 1

ACLU opposes deviant Markey-White version of SAFE
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The House Commerce committee approved the deviant Markey-White amendments as a "compromise" package. Note: "It is now clear that any version of this bill will be used to attack domestic encryption protection." -Declan ----------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Emily Whitfield (212) 549-2566 Thursday, September 25, 1997 Phil Gutis (202) 675-2312 WASHINGTON -- Citing civil liberties concerns, the House Commerce Committee late yesterday overwhelmingly beat back an attempt by law enforcement to hijack what had been introduced as a pro-privacy encryption bill. The American Civil Liberties Union, which supported the original version of H.R. 695, the Security and Freedom through Encryption Act ("SAFE") applauded the committee's action, but said it could not support the new version of SAFE, which contains a new set of civil liberties problems. "We survived the hijacking only to find that we are still in enemy territory," said Donald Haines, Legislative Counsel on privacy and cyberspace issues for the ACLU's Washington National Office. "It is now clear that any version of this bill will be used to attack domestic encryption protection. Therefore, the ACLU strongly opposes bringing any encryption legislation to the floor at this time." The amendment that was rejected yesterday sought to reverse the original intent of SAFE, a bill that would ease controls on export of strong encryption technology. Sponsored by Reps. Michael Oxley, R-OH, and Thomas Manton, D-NY, it would have given law enforcement agencies easy access to every private computer file, e-mail, telephone conversation, and online communication in America. By providing this "backdoor" for law enforcement, the ACLU said the amendment would leave a door open to others seeking unauthorized access to private communications. But in rejecting the law enforcement power grab, the Committee essentially re-wrote the SAFE bill, adopting amendments that would: š Establish a "codebreaking" center for law enforcement that would improperly involve the National Security Agency (NSA) in domestic affairs. š Reinstate an objectionable provision in the original SAFE bill that would criminalize, for the first time ever, the use of domestic encryption. š Double the penalties for criminal use of encryption, up to a maximum of 20 years in prison. š Provide immunity for anyone who turns over encryption "keys" to law enforcement, setting the stage for a mandatory "back door" for law enforcement access to private files and communications. "We were heartened that privacy and free speech were cited by so many committee members as the reason why the FBI amendment had to be rejected," Haines said. "We now call upon all members of the House to take these fundamental civil liberties into account in considering any bill addressing the use of encryption." With yesterday's vote, the last of five versions of the SAFE bill may now proceed to the House Rules Committee for a decision on how the bill will be presented to the House. The chairman of that committee, Gerald Solomon, R-NY, has vowed publicly to block any version of SAFE that does not have the Oxley-Manton amendment. In a letter sent to members of the Commerce Committee yesterday, the ACLU joined a broad spectrum of groups in calling for "no compromise on privacy protection by encryption." The letter urged the members to oppose the Oxley-Manton amendment, as well as any attempts to limit the right of all Americans to get and use whatever encryption protection they want. The letter was signed by the ACLU, Americans for Tax Reform, The Eagle Forum, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy International and the United States Privacy Council. "All efforts, direct and indirect, to restrict our right to the greatest possible privacy protection must be rejected," Haines said. "Whether you are sending sensitive corporate documents or your family's travel plans, you have a right to speak privately." The last three committees to act on SAFE (National Security, Intelligence and Commerce) have all added anti-privacy provisions, while bills from the Judiciary and International Affairs committees lack provisions to protect First Amendment rights in the the use of encryption. Both those bills also contain the criminalization provision present in the other bills, although without the even stiffer penalties added to the new version of SAFE. A group of leading scientific, educational and engineering organizations also voiced their opposition yesterday to any legislation imposing strict domestic controls on encryption. The groups said that the amendment would have a "grave effect" on cryptographic research in the United States, and could also negatively impact U.S. commerce while benefiting overseas companies not subject to controls. Encryption programs scramble information so that it can only be read with a "key" -- a code the recipient uses to unlock the scrambled electronic data. As more of our messages are sent via computers, digital switches, and wireless phones, they must be encrypted, otherwise our messages can be seized and read by others. There are no laws that now prohibit using as strong encryption as possible inside the United States. But, unless keys are made available to the government, the Clinton Administration bans export of encryption equipment and software, treating the products as "munitions." In response to these continued attacks on privacy rights, the ACLU this summer launched Take Back Your Data!, a nationwide citizen campaign to fight for legal reforms to privacy laws and resist further encroachments on the right to privacy. Through its website at www.aclu.org, the ACLU urges visitors to contact their elected officials and voice support for or opposition to pending legislation. In addition, the ACLU said that it is drafting omnibus privacy legislation that would, if adopted, fulfill the basic goals of the Take Back Your Data! campaign. The legislation will be unveiled later this fall, followed by a broad-based effort to encourage members of Congress to co-sponsor the legislation.

1 0