May 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Zero Knowledge in the Cave
by Major Variola (ret) 15 May '03

15 May '03

At 04:20 AM 5/15/03 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: >Zero Knowledge in the Cave > >There is a cave with a large entry room. From this room lead two >passageways, 1 and 2. Each of 1 and 2 branches into a myriad of smaller >passages, twisting and turning through the massive rock formation. >The passageways go on for miles and have never been fully explored. > >One of the big questions has been whether passageways 1 and 2 ever >connect up. Is there a way of getting from 1 to 2? Many have >searched, but none have ever succeeded. Most people believe that >no connection will ever be found. > >At least, no one used to. Now an explorer comes to you and claims to >have found a passage from 1 to 2, not a very long one, either. If so, and if "many have tried", then either: they have not been systematic xor the passage is deeply in there. The explorer's traversal rate constrains its depth. He will >prove it to you, but to you alone. Being a secretive type, he wants no >one else to know. If you accompany him to the cave, he will prove the >existence of the passageway to you. > >But there's a problem. You carry a video camera and record everything >that you see. If he shows you the existence of the passage, you will >be able to show the video tape to others, and they will learn of its >existence as well. > >Not to worry, he says. Come with me. So you enter the large entry room >of the cave together. He is risking that you have not put a tracer on him. So he has a UV lamp and a geiger counter. And carries a fully closed breathing system, trails brush behind him to conceal footsteps, etc. And has sanitized the cave to a much larger depth than he uses. >Now the simplest thing to do in order to demonstrate the existence of the >connection would be for him to leave through passage 1 and return through >passage 2. He could easily do this. However, your film record of the >event would prove to anyone else who saw it that there was a connection. Why is the film record assumed more reliable than your recollection? The time it takes him to demonstrate it constrains the depth of the solution. Perhaps he will require you to dose yourself with a time-distorting amnesic (E.g., tequila :-) which will make others not believe you? >Another way must be found. The explorer tells you what to do. Merely showing that something can be done (nukes, a blue LED, public key crypto) motivates others to investigate more, even without the ability to reverse engineer an instance. Again, the time it takes for the explorer to solve it constrains solutions. >Following his instructions, you leave the entry room for a few minutes, >while the explorer enters one of the passageways. You then re-enter the >room, and loudly call out one of the passageway numbers, either 1 or 2. >In a few minutes, the explorer comes out of the requested passageway. As a counter to the "twin" deception, you give him a tamper-"proof" sealed token which lets you know that its "him" that emerged. This does not work if Paul Kocher is the explorer :-) >You then leave the cave and repeat the process many times. Each time, the >reporter enters one of the passageways unknown to you; when you return and >name one of them, he is able without fail to exit from the named passage. I don't see why it matters that the entry point is unknown to the tester. >You reason that if there were no connection between the passageways, >the only way the explorer could come out the passage that you named >would be if he had gone in that same one. This would be rational (to you) even if the entry point is unknown AND he never calls off a test. He would have to guess >which one you were going to choose, and if he were right, he could >come out that one. But you have repeated the test dozens of times. >The chances that someone could guess right so often is infinitisimal. Infinitismal for large versions of "dozens" >The only logical explanation is that the passageway does exist. If the token is untampered with, ie no "identity" fraud. How good are the explorer's Flaps & Seals & Forgery friends? >Excited, you return to the tavern where you met the explorer and show >the other patrons your tape. But to your surprise, they just laugh. >They don't deny that the tape is real, that the explorer did come out >of the passageway you named. But they don't believe in the connection. > >Instead, they claim you are in league with the explorer in an attempt to >perpetrate a fraud. You have simply predetermined together the sequence >of numbers you would call out. Each of you has memorized the sequence, >and so each time the explorer is able to anticipate the number you will >call next. He enters that passage and is able, after a suitable pause, >to exit from that same one when you call its number. > >You leave the bar, frustrated. You are convinced that the connection >exists, but even though the tape shows all of the evidence that was so >convincing to you, no one else finds it persuasive. The explorer has >achieved his goal of proving the existence of the connection to you and >you alone. > >Questions for the student: > >1. How could you have done things differently, to produce a tape that >would be convincing to others? Use a more believable RNG. (Eg parity of hash of closing Dow Jones price that day, assuming you can't control this (without a lot of collaborators), and its publicly verifiable.) Keep filming as you rush the tape to the bar. (If you have a good video processing lab, you might have faked all outcomes well in advance, however. Are we assuming tape is always trustworthy?) The "zero (public) knowledge" part seems to depend on the observer's private (but publicly untrustable) generation of random choices. Is that the point? >2. What counter-measures and conditions could the explorer have put in >place to prevent you from getting a convincing tape in this manner? He could generate counter-tapes which are also submitted to the bar, reducing trust in your tapes. The tequila he splashes you with also helps (the UFO abduction discrediting attack on credibility :-) As does the sudden appearance of extra funds in your bank account. (Humans reason about other humans motivations.) Stimulating puzzle. Of course, we only have to believe what we can verify (or we can start a religion..), so if it is true in reality, others can verify it, xor it was a folie-a-deux, a commonplace phenomenon since the invention of language. ----- DSM-IV: Diagnostic criteria for 305.90 Caffeine Intoxication A. Recent consumption of caffeine, usually in excess of 250 mg (e.g., more than 2-3 cups of brewed coffee).

2 1

unsubscribe
by B Peterson 15 May '03

15 May '03

unsubscribe

1 0

unsubscribe
by B Peterson 15 May '03

15 May '03

1 0

unsubscribe
by B Peterson 15 May '03

15 May '03

1 0

Re: Brinworld++ U.S. Vigilantes Test Drones on Mexican Border
by Tyler Durden 14 May '03

14 May '03

You forgot to include the part where the drones follow each of the 100,000 Mexicans all the way to the farms they work for 50 cents an hour. Come to think of it, to multiply the real purpose of the drones, there should be a picture of a taco and a fuck-you middle finger painted on each of the drone's belly. -TD >From: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >To: "cypherpunks(a)lne.com" <cypherpunks(a)lne.com> >Subject: Brinworld++ U.S. Vigilantes Test Drones on Mexican Border >Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:55:18 -0700 > >MONTERREY, Mexico (Reuters) - An Arizona vigilante group is testing >homemade "drone" reconnaissance planes on the U.S.-Mexican border to >monitor illegal immigrants entering the United States in lonely desert >areas. > >Glenn Spencer, head of the American Border Patrol vigilante group, said >on Tuesday the group has been testing two Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for >about a month and plans to have a fleet making passes over the border by >early July. > >"We want to show how the application of this technology can solve the >border problem," Spencer told Reuters. > >Police and residents say they are aware of the drones, similar to >unmanned U.S. military aircraft used in Iraq. > >Hundreds of thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants cross the border in >search of work every year. Three vigilante groups, some of them armed, >have sprung up in Arizona in the last three years to monitor the border >and hand over any illegal immigrants they find to U.S. Border Patrol >agents. > >The groups say U.S. authorities allow too many Mexicans to flout U.S. >immigration law. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, some have also said >unrestricted immigration poses an unacceptable security risk. > >Area residents say the drones invade their privacy and foster poor >cross-border relations. > >"The Mexican populations along the border are indignant," said Miguel >Escobar, a Mexican Foreign Ministry official based in Arizona. > >Ray Borane, mayor of the border town of Douglas, Ariz., said the group's >activities are racist. > >"BORDER HAWK" > >The vigilantes say they plan to outfit each UAV with a global >positioning device to pinpoint migrants, and then forward hose >coordinates to the Border Patrol. > >Dubbed the Border Hawk, the $5,000 drone has a wingspan of 5-1/2 feet >and flies at an altitude of 300-400 feet -- under the 500 feet mandated >for aircraft that need certification by the Federal Aviation >Administration. > >The craft are made by members of the vigilante group with experience in >electronics, Spencer said. > >Mario Villarreal, spokesman for the Bureau of Customs and Border >Protection in Washington, said: "We appreciate the community's efforts >in notifying us of suspicious activities... We encourage them to call >the Border Patrol or law enforcement but those efforts should be within >the law." > >He refused to comment directly on the vigilantes or their planned use of >drones. > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51414-2003May13.html _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

1 0

Brinworld++ U.S. Vigilantes Test Drones on Mexican Border
by Major Variola (ret) 14 May '03

14 May '03

MONTERREY, Mexico (Reuters) - An Arizona vigilante group is testing homemade "drone" reconnaissance planes on the U.S.-Mexican border to monitor illegal immigrants entering the United States in lonely desert areas. Glenn Spencer, head of the American Border Patrol vigilante group, said on Tuesday the group has been testing two Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for about a month and plans to have a fleet making passes over the border by early July. "We want to show how the application of this technology can solve the border problem," Spencer told Reuters. Police and residents say they are aware of the drones, similar to unmanned U.S. military aircraft used in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants cross the border in search of work every year. Three vigilante groups, some of them armed, have sprung up in Arizona in the last three years to monitor the border and hand over any illegal immigrants they find to U.S. Border Patrol agents. The groups say U.S. authorities allow too many Mexicans to flout U.S. immigration law. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, some have also said unrestricted immigration poses an unacceptable security risk. Area residents say the drones invade their privacy and foster poor cross-border relations. "The Mexican populations along the border are indignant," said Miguel Escobar, a Mexican Foreign Ministry official based in Arizona. Ray Borane, mayor of the border town of Douglas, Ariz., said the group's activities are racist. "BORDER HAWK" The vigilantes say they plan to outfit each UAV with a global positioning device to pinpoint migrants, and then forward hose coordinates to the Border Patrol. Dubbed the Border Hawk, the $5,000 drone has a wingspan of 5-1/2 feet and flies at an altitude of 300-400 feet -- under the 500 feet mandated for aircraft that need certification by the Federal Aviation Administration. The craft are made by members of the vigilante group with experience in electronics, Spencer said. Mario Villarreal, spokesman for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in Washington, said: "We appreciate the community's efforts in notifying us of suspicious activities... We encourage them to call the Border Patrol or law enforcement but those efforts should be within the law." He refused to comment directly on the vigilantes or their planned use of drones. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51414-2003May13.html

3 2

Re: Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy
by Major Variola (ret) 14 May '03

14 May '03

At 10:44 PM 5/10/03 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: > I think that's the only way gov't ought to be allowed to fund itself, >by selling lottery tickets. Only if the funds go to math depts. ---- "Today I am going to teach you how to count" --Prof. Arthur Mattuck

2 1

Re: what fields to hash with hashcash (Re: A Trial Balloon to Ban Email?)
by Adam Back 14 May '03

14 May '03

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:02:42AM -0400, Sunder wrote: > And what happens when there's a network outage and a message gets stuck in > the queue for a day on another server? You know a backup MX server when > yours is hosed? > > Do you not accept the mail because the current day doesn't match what's in > the message? Or do you accept mails from a day ago? a week ago? a year > ago? 1922? I was suggesting 30 days. You could up that if you want -- the database won't be that big at say 32 bytes per recieved mail. The day is matched against the day in the token, as Bill said the tokens contain the date and the email address, in fact they look like this: 0:030514:foo@bar.com:482d3c37d5b5c112 where the first field is a version number, 2nd field is date (year,month,day), 3rd field is resource name (for email the recipient's email address) and last field is random junk to make it hash to trailing zeros. if you hash that with sha1: % echo -n 0:030514:foo@bar.com:482d3c37d5b5c112 | sha1 00000bea531c1edbcee4fbb69e094026cd83ed75 You can see that this one has 20 leadings 0s (in binary -- 5x4bit hex digits). > 2nd, why wouldn't the spammer just adjust and send an email to each > recipient with a random, but properly hashed token to match the target > address + today's date? More work for sure, but if enough targets start > adopting it, the spammer will adapt. The token doesn't have to contain an > actual valid coin, and you'll only find out when you try to cash it. If the token is random (ie the spammer put no computational work into it), it won't have the required number of bits of collision and the recipient will reject it. eg I'll just type this one in myself: 0:030514:sunder@sunder.net:0123456789abcdef Then my MTA or my mail-client (or any MTA in the path that does checking) will check: % echo -n 0:030514:sunder@sunder.net:0123456789abcdef aeeaf7971f7e30e2485062b17b43189e5361383f and see that there are insufficient leading 0 bits (none in this case). The tokens are only valid to a given recipient, if a spammer sends you a token address to me, you'll reject it because it doesn't have an address you receive mail for in it. If a spammers sends you the same valid token twice, you'll reject it because you keep a little database of received tokens. There is software here (windows GUI, windows cmd line, unix cmd line): http://www.cypherspace.org/hashcash/ Adam

2 3

Spammer economics (was: Re: CDR: Re: A Trial Balloon to)
by Jamie Lawrence 14 May '03

14 May '03

1 0

Re: Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy
by Tyler Durden 14 May '03

14 May '03

"running gambling operations while declaring gambling immoral and illegal is clearly nonsensical and (I think) unconstitutional" Not to mention the CIA running crack into inner-city neighborhoods and tipping off the local dealers prior to a big DEA bust, all the while declaring all things non-Alchohol to be "drugs", and illegal/immoral. -TD >From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy >Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 22:00:25 -0700 > >On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 03:08 PM, John Kelsey wrote: > >>At 10:03 AM 5/10/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: >>[Talking about government-assisted projects and businesses going broke] >>>Which is all evolution in action, except that government should not be in >>>the construction and business development business. (I would go further >>>and say that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, which states and >>>localities are bound by, justifies taking money from citizens to give to >>>businesses. No matter "how smart an investment" it looks to be. Ditto for >>>governments running gambling operations, but I >> digress.) >> >>It's very clear that this is bad policy, though I'm not too sure it's >>actually unconstitutional. Didn't the states finance and run some of the >>early canals? > >The states also established state religions and banned books, in the >century or so for it to shake out in the Supreme Court that when the states >agreed to support the Constitution as a condition for joining the Union it >meant that they really did have to support the Constitution. > >The Bill of Rights is quite clear that powers not specifically granted to >government by the Constitution don't exist. > >While building canals is arguably related to national defense and the >common good (though I think private actors are better suited to build >canals, and railroads, etc.), running gambling operations while declaring >gambling immoral and illegal is clearly nonsensical and (I think) >unconstitutional. Regrettably, the political stooges who sit on the Supreme >Court have put considering this business of government running gambling >dens about #131 on the list of probably unconstitutional things to look at. > >(I think the courts should hold personally liable those who pass >unconstitutional measures. Imprisoning those who commit acts later declared >to be unconstitutional might disincentivize them to blithely pass >unconstitutional bills.) > >To repeat, government cannot declare gambling a social evil which must be >banned and then turn around and set up its own gambling operations. > >Everyone involved in the many state gambling operations should receive >sentences no less harsh than those imprisoned on gambling charges. This >would mean most would die in prison. Except for those who ought to be >killed for their other substantial crimes, this would be a good thing. > >"I was just following orders" is, of course, not a defense. The lowliest >lottery clerk should receive the same multi-year prison sentence that a Mob >numbers runner would receive. > >The kingpins in the Republicrat parties will, of course, receive effective >death sentences, gang-raped by the lifers they sent to prison for competing >with the JFL/LBJ/Nixon/Ollie North/Bill Clinton/Mena, Arkansas drug >pipeline set up decades ago by corrupt-on-earth Washington politicians like >John F. Kennedy. At least he got whacked. > > >--Tim May, Occupied America >"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety >deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0