July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 10:06:03PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > > I was unable to locate any other states with statutes addressing "mask > wearing" in public (without intent to commit burglary). No doubt the rest > of the offending rules are ordinances instead. > Also see 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1985 for criminal and civil penalties, respectively, for "two or more persons" who "go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege" secured by the US constitution or the laws of the United States. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604

1 0

Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 10:06:03PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > > I was unable to locate any other states with statutes addressing "mask > wearing" in public (without intent to commit burglary). No doubt the rest > of the offending rules are ordinances instead. > Also see 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1985 for criminal and civil penalties, respectively, for "two or more persons" who "go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege" secured by the US constitution or the laws of the United States. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604

1 0

Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 10:06:03PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > > I was unable to locate any other states with statutes addressing "mask > wearing" in public (without intent to commit burglary). No doubt the rest > of the offending rules are ordinances instead. > Also see 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1985 for criminal and civil penalties, respectively, for "two or more persons" who "go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege" secured by the US constitution or the laws of the United States. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604

1 0

Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 10:06:03PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > > I was unable to locate any other states with statutes addressing "mask > wearing" in public (without intent to commit burglary). No doubt the rest > of the offending rules are ordinances instead. > Also see 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1985 for criminal and civil penalties, respectively, for "two or more persons" who "go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege" secured by the US constitution or the laws of the United States. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604

1 0

Re: MD5 collisions?
by Greg Rose 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

At 14:12 2004-08-17 -0300, Mads Rasmussen wrote: >Eric Rescorla wrote: > >>Check out this ePrint paper, which claims to have collisions in >>MD5, MD4, HAVAL, and full RIPEMD. >> >>http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/199.pdf >> >>The authors claim that the MD5 attack took an hour for the first >>collision and 15 seconds to 5 minutes for subsequent attacks >>with the same first 512 bits. >So what's the status?, the MD5 collisions has been confirmed by Eric >Rescorla (taken the type into consideration), the MD4 by David Shaw, what >about Haval and RipeMD?. > >I did a test on the RipeMD results and couldn't get the results written. >Anybody else having the same problems? > >Any news on Antoine Joux and his attack on SHA-0? how did he create the >collision previously announced on sci.crypt? Eli Biham -- has collisions on 34 (out of 80) rounds of SHA-1, but can extend that to probably 46. Still nowhere near a break. Antoine Joux -- his team announced the collision on SHA-0 earlier this week. There is concentration on the so-called "IF" function in the first 20 rounds... f(a,b,c) = (a & b) ^ (~a & c). That is, the bits of a choose whether to pass the bits from b, or c, to the result. The technique (and Eli's) depends on getting a "near collision" in the first block hashed, then using more near collisions to move the different bits around, finally using another near collision to converge after the fourth block hashed. This took 20 days on 160 Itanium processors. It was about 2^50 hash evaluations. Xiaoyun Wang was almost unintelligible. But the attack works with "any initial values", which means that they can take any prefix, and produce collisions between two different suffixes. The can produce the first collision for a given initial value in less than an hour, and then can crank them out at about one every 5 minutes. It seems to be a straightforward differential cryptanalysis attack, so one wonders why no-one else came up with it. The attack on Haval takes about 64 tries. On MD4, about 4 tries. RIPE-MD, about 2 hours (but can improve it). SHA-0 about 2^40 (1000 times better than Joux). Xuejia Lai clarified that the paper on E-print has been updated with correct initial values. They were initially byte-reversed, which they blamed on Bruce Schneier. Greg. >Regards, > >Mads Rasmussen >Open Communications Security > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >The Cryptography Mailing List >Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com Greg Rose INTERNET: ggr(a)qualcomm.com Qualcomm Australia VOICE: +61-2-9817 4188 FAX: +61-2-9817 5199 Level 3, 230 Victoria Road, http://people.qualcomm.com/ggr/ Gladesville NSW 2111/232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 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'

1 0

nym-0.5 released
by Jason Holt 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

nym-0.5 is now available from: http://www.lunkwill.org/src/nym/ Most notably, this release fixes a bug whereby the client code didn't check that returned signatures are valid. Thus, a token server could "tag" clients by returning invalid signatures which the CA would then detect. A preprint of an academic paper on nym is also now included in the distribution as well. -J ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling
by Robert J. Berger 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

[So now we get an idea of at least one thing the NSA is doing with the Data they have collected from the phone companies - Rob] Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html May 15, 2006 10:33 AM Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report: A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources. "It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation. ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls. Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation. One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen. Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan. Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers. The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded. A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators. May 15, 2006 | Permalink bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbb Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC. Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868 http://www.ibd.com ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[IP] Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

Re: Bitcoin And The Electronic Frontier Foundation
by Anon Mus 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Kyle Williams wrote: > Coderman sent this to me, and I'm a little upset because the extra > $60.00/month for 0 bitcoins is very annoying. I have since stopped > trying to generate bitcoins, because it's just wasting electricity. > More comment inline below debating this point. > > > For those who are wondering if it's worth trying to generate bitcoins, > here is something to think about. > I've had a single Quad-Core (2.6GHz/core, 12MB L2 cache) server > crunching on bitcoins for about 6 months now. About 2-3 months ago, it > stopped generating bitcoins. > Someone is out there with a lot of GPU's, crunching away at the bitcoin > network and is hording/generating all the bitcoins. I say this because > the amount of chatter on the bitcoin forums in regards to GPUs vs CPUs > has exploded, and new GPU clients are being released. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jeffrey Paul <sneak(a)datavibe.net <mailto:sneak@datavibe.net>> > Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM > Subject: Re: Bitcoin And The Electronic Frontier Foundation > To: coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com <mailto:coderman@gmail.com>> > Cc: Sarad AV <jtrjtrjtr2001(a)yahoo.com > <mailto:jtrjtrjtr2001@yahoo.com>>, Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org > <mailto:eugen@leitl.org>>, > cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net <mailto:cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > On 15 Nov, 2010, at 19:19 , coderman wrote: > > > > > the cuda cards are killing bitcoin, why bother? > > > > (i suppose it is an interesting footnote...) > > > > Nothing could be further from the truth. Mining/Minting operations > have little/nothing to do with the viability of the network itself. > > > That's correct, it has to do with the number of operations per second > you CPU/GPU can do. The network is based on the number of supporters. > Apple's and oranges. > > It's a novel way of dealing with inflation, but, if anything, the easy > availability of cheap and fast GPUs is accelerating adoption. > > > You're twisting facts together here, again apple's and orange's. > Inflation aside, GPUs will generate bitcoins much, much faster than a > CPU. > > > > Opportunists will quickly drive the profit from generating down to > almost exactly that of the power costs, but that's to be expected. > > > No, the value of bitcoins starts to be cut in half as the more bitcoins > are generated. > > "The number of blocks times the coin value of a block. The coin value > is 50 bc per block for the first 210,000 blocks, 25 bc for the next > 210,000 blocks, then 12.5 bc, 6.25 bc and so on." -- > http://www.bitcoin.org/faq#What-s_the_current_total_amount_of_Bitcoins_in_e… > > So when the value of BTC's starts to be cut in half, and with INFLATION > now at a record high, the cost of electricity is NOT GOING DOWN. > Hence, the chance of you generating bitcoins will go down because a CPU > can not compete with someone else's GPU, more power/electricity is > being used to generate (or not generate) bitcoins, and after the last > six month's of running bitcoin, I haven't generated a single block in > over two months because someone has already cornered this market with > GPU's. > > They are also the driving force behind a free market. Or do you think > they are killing those, too? :) > > > Of course someone quotes the "free market" when they have a large > corner of it. Free market's always FAIL when someone is hording all > the (bit)coins, and while it may support free market's, it certainly is > not a fair market today. If 2,000,000 bitcoins are spread about a few > thousand people, and 19,000,000 coins are held by 1 person, your "Free > Market" goes down the drain because one person could out-buy anyone > else. > > One last point; by looking @ the #bitcoin channel on IRC, it shows that > about 600 people are wasting their CPU cycles because someone has most > likely has a cluster of GPU's working away at this. This is the wasted > cost of TRYING to generate a bitcoin. If only one person can generate > the block (ie, 50 Bitcoins right now), then 599 people are wasting their > electricity and time. So the ~$60 a month (increase in my electric > bill) * 599 = $35,940. Even if we decide to be really conservative (not > realistic in this case) and cut this cost down by a tenth, it's still > ~$3,594 being wasted per month while someone else get's the coins. How > "green" or "eco-friendly" is that? > > Now I ask the community, If your chance of generating a bitcoin block > for yourself is slim-to-none, would you want to waste your time and > money trying to generate bitcoins? > > Don't get me wrong, I hate what is happening to the USD, and love the > idea of crypto currency, but I see some serious flaws with bitcoin. He > who has the biggest cluster will win the day, and leaves the rest of us > with next to nothing. > > - Kyle A few months ago I saw this as well using a dual core 2.666, but I found a little trick which increases the coin production. Just re-boot every 2-3 days, then you usually get a flush of coins. At the time I considered getting an i7, just out, which has on chip hardwired encryption circuits. Its lightning fast on generating the hashes and even half a dozen of these were generating bitcoins then anyone with lesser technology doesn't stand a chance. http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/index.htm It sounds to me like these are now being used. Time to upgrade. It would be interesting if anyone had experience of using the i7. On the question of cost. If you have a machine which already has to run 24/7 (say a Tor node) then the extra cost of max CPU usage is about $5-15/mo. (My dual core costs about $15/mo without bitcoin) *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo(a)torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: Bitcoin And The Electronic Frontier Foundation
by Anon Mus 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Kyle Williams wrote: > Coderman sent this to me, and I'm a little upset because the extra > $60.00/month for 0 bitcoins is very annoying. I have since stopped > trying to generate bitcoins, because it's just wasting electricity. > More comment inline below debating this point. > > > For those who are wondering if it's worth trying to generate bitcoins, > here is something to think about. > I've had a single Quad-Core (2.6GHz/core, 12MB L2 cache) server > crunching on bitcoins for about 6 months now. About 2-3 months ago, it > stopped generating bitcoins. > Someone is out there with a lot of GPU's, crunching away at the bitcoin > network and is hording/generating all the bitcoins. I say this because > the amount of chatter on the bitcoin forums in regards to GPUs vs CPUs > has exploded, and new GPU clients are being released. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jeffrey Paul <sneak(a)datavibe.net <mailto:sneak@datavibe.net>> > Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM > Subject: Re: Bitcoin And The Electronic Frontier Foundation > To: coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com <mailto:coderman@gmail.com>> > Cc: Sarad AV <jtrjtrjtr2001(a)yahoo.com > <mailto:jtrjtrjtr2001@yahoo.com>>, Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org > <mailto:eugen@leitl.org>>, > cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net <mailto:cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > On 15 Nov, 2010, at 19:19 , coderman wrote: > > > > > the cuda cards are killing bitcoin, why bother? > > > > (i suppose it is an interesting footnote...) > > > > Nothing could be further from the truth. Mining/Minting operations > have little/nothing to do with the viability of the network itself. > > > That's correct, it has to do with the number of operations per second > you CPU/GPU can do. The network is based on the number of supporters. > Apple's and oranges. > > It's a novel way of dealing with inflation, but, if anything, the easy > availability of cheap and fast GPUs is accelerating adoption. > > > You're twisting facts together here, again apple's and orange's. > Inflation aside, GPUs will generate bitcoins much, much faster than a > CPU. > > > > Opportunists will quickly drive the profit from generating down to > almost exactly that of the power costs, but that's to be expected. > > > No, the value of bitcoins starts to be cut in half as the more bitcoins > are generated. > > "The number of blocks times the coin value of a block. The coin value > is 50 bc per block for the first 210,000 blocks, 25 bc for the next > 210,000 blocks, then 12.5 bc, 6.25 bc and so on." -- > http://www.bitcoin.org/faq#What-s_the_current_total_amount_of_Bitcoins_in_e… > > So when the value of BTC's starts to be cut in half, and with INFLATION > now at a record high, the cost of electricity is NOT GOING DOWN. > Hence, the chance of you generating bitcoins will go down because a CPU > can not compete with someone else's GPU, more power/electricity is > being used to generate (or not generate) bitcoins, and after the last > six month's of running bitcoin, I haven't generated a single block in > over two months because someone has already cornered this market with > GPU's. > > They are also the driving force behind a free market. Or do you think > they are killing those, too? :) > > > Of course someone quotes the "free market" when they have a large > corner of it. Free market's always FAIL when someone is hording all > the (bit)coins, and while it may support free market's, it certainly is > not a fair market today. If 2,000,000 bitcoins are spread about a few > thousand people, and 19,000,000 coins are held by 1 person, your "Free > Market" goes down the drain because one person could out-buy anyone > else. > > One last point; by looking @ the #bitcoin channel on IRC, it shows that > about 600 people are wasting their CPU cycles because someone has most > likely has a cluster of GPU's working away at this. This is the wasted > cost of TRYING to generate a bitcoin. If only one person can generate > the block (ie, 50 Bitcoins right now), then 599 people are wasting their > electricity and time. So the ~$60 a month (increase in my electric > bill) * 599 = $35,940. Even if we decide to be really conservative (not > realistic in this case) and cut this cost down by a tenth, it's still > ~$3,594 being wasted per month while someone else get's the coins. How > "green" or "eco-friendly" is that? > > Now I ask the community, If your chance of generating a bitcoin block > for yourself is slim-to-none, would you want to waste your time and > money trying to generate bitcoins? > > Don't get me wrong, I hate what is happening to the USD, and love the > idea of crypto currency, but I see some serious flaws with bitcoin. He > who has the biggest cluster will win the day, and leaves the rest of us > with next to nothing. > > - Kyle A few months ago I saw this as well using a dual core 2.666, but I found a little trick which increases the coin production. Just re-boot every 2-3 days, then you usually get a flush of coins. At the time I considered getting an i7, just out, which has on chip hardwired encryption circuits. Its lightning fast on generating the hashes and even half a dozen of these were generating bitcoins then anyone with lesser technology doesn't stand a chance. http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/index.htm It sounds to me like these are now being used. Time to upgrade. It would be interesting if anyone had experience of using the i7. On the question of cost. If you have a machine which already has to run 24/7 (say a Tor node) then the extra cost of max CPU usage is about $5-15/mo. (My dual core costs about $15/mo without bitcoin) *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo(a)torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0