- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: "Key Escrow" --- the very idea
by solman＠MIT.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > ...The cost of conducting these negotiations in the > > physical world is enourmous. > > > > The cost of conducting these negotiations in the real world is negligible... > > Is "the real world" a typo? I suspect you mean something like "in > cyberspace". :) It is most certainly a typo. > I'm not familiar with the line of reasoning you're referring to here. I > suspect it's a large topic. Does it rest on the assumption that cyberspace > and the physical world are largely disjoint? > I think they're not. Activities in cyberspace often > "are about" or "have influence on" the real world. Sometimes vice versa. > Doesn't this mean laws can't be divided into those about the physical world > vs. those about cyberspace, but must in fact be about both? You are entirely missing my point. The superior efficiency of cyberspace, its low transaction costs, have created possibilities there that can not exist in the physical realm. In both realms people have different wants and desires. Because they interact with each other, the actions of one individual can have an impact upon the actions of other individuals. Without any form of social agreement, there would be no security, no certainty about anything. This can be highly inefficient. There is no point in starting a big project today, if there is a high probability that somebody will kill you tomorrow. There is no point in doing something that other people would find useful if there is no mechanism for you to exchange it with them for services that you find useful. To circumvent this inefficiency, individuals enter into contracts with one another. A and B might agree not to kill each other. In exchange for giving up this element of their freedom, they get security. Security has value. It enables them to undertake long term projects that might otherwise not have been possible. But a contract like this is not useful without some mechanism of enforcement, so A and B have to agree to pay for some sort of policeman. This policeman would receive compensation for enforcing the contract between A and B. HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL WORLD AND CYBERSPACE. In the physical realm, in order for a contract like this to work, large numbers of people have to be bound to it. This is true for the following reasons: A) The number of people bound under the contract must be large enough to make it unlikely that the policeman can control them or break his contract. B) Negotiating a contract like this takes alot of time. The compensation for the policeman has to be determined. The mechanisms for disciplining murderers (and determining guilt) have to be determined. The mechanisms for enforcing the contract between the police and the people have to be determined. The mechanisms for determining how much each person will be required to pay have to be determined. This is an extraordinarily inefficient procedure in the physical world. To deal with this inefficiency we have developed laws. Laws specify that all sentient individuals within a given area have to agree to a specific contract. There is no contract negotiation, there is just a contract that automatically applies and because a substantial majority of the individuals within a given locality respect the laws, this system works. In fact legal systems are highly inefficient artifacts in the physical world. In cyberspace, the two motivations for extending contracts to all participants (i.e. having uniform laws) are no longer present. Point A is no longer true. You don't need to have an enforcing policeman whose power is balanced by the large number of people he protects, cryptography can take the policeman's place as the contract enforcer. Point B is no longer valid because the entire negotiation process can be automated by computer with negligible transaction costs. Without any motivation for laws, individuals can get their security through personal contracts with other individuals. If you don't want to worry about fraud, subscribe to a fraud protection agency that you like. Any individual agent that wants to make you an offer will have to first be approved by the fraud protection agency. In exchange for this approval, the agent will pay the protection agency money and then pass along that cost to consumers that required the approval. Alternatively, the agent can agree not to violate the rules of the FPA, and give the FPA a deposit. If the agent screws up, victims of fraud could collect recompense via the method of adjudication specified by the FPA. If the agent isn't willing to agree to the fules of the FPA, then the user and that agent just won't do business. There can be thousands upon thousands of FPAs in a scheme like this and individual FPAs can offer all sorts of protection plans. In the real world a system like this could never be implemented, the cost of administering it would be too great. How could stores know what standard of honesty was required for each individual customer if different customers lived under different laws? The store has to be notified of the specific rules governing a specific customer. The store has to pay a tiny amount to the FPA. It has to be verified that this amount is collected. The store must then alter its sales strategy for the customer. This would clearly no work in the real world. If I wanted to buy a watermelon slush outside of the Kendal T (something I am about to do) it would cost me about $200 in transaction costs beyond the $1 for the slush. This is where the difference lies. It simply becomes feasible to have individually tailored social contracts once you enter cyberspace. Individuals with incompatible social contracts simply can't communicate with one another. You get absolute freedom AND absolute security. JWS

1 0

Una FTPaper 2
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ftp.hacktic.nl/pub/incoming/unabomb.txt

1 0

Netscape responds.
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Netscape now has an article on their home page about the latest break in their security. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

NT and C2
by Weld Pond 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here is the URL to an article in Network World by Winn Schwartau entitled, "One expert shares his views on Microsoft securitey features. http://www.iquest.net/cgi-bin/gate2?|mmMgT008://bbb.PHDx10.ix0/ibLD1P7i/ExU… If you need a username/password try cypherpunks/cypherpunks Here is an excerpt: Since Microsoft Corp. products are usually robust, I was looking forward to seeing what type of security features the company implemented in Windows NT Workstation Version 3.5. But after walking through the system with Microsoft product managers and developers, I was dismayed to find how woefully short on security features Windows NT is. Despite the fact that the U.S. government is expected to certify Windows NT as a secure operating system, Microsoft's first serious venture into security is not very impressive. Windows NT may pass muster with the federal government, but it does not meet the real-world security needs of corporations running complex, heterogeneous networked environments. Weld Pond - weld(a)l0pht.com - http://www.l0pht.com/~weld L 0 p h t H e a v y I n d u s t r i e s Technical archives for the people - Bio/Electro/Crypto/Radio

2 1

NetManage - Cylink Press Announcement
by Bob Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are quite a few open issues regarding the reliability, interoperability, and licensing of public key technology. All parties interested in access to code for testing and comment please respond to this email address. Thanks Bob ------------ NETMANAGE, Inc. Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Donna Loughlin, NetManage, (408) 973-7171 Donna(a)netmanage.com NetManage Licenses Public Key Cryptography from CYLINK The Two Firms to Promote an Open Interface for Internet Security which Corrects Flaws and Eliminates Financial and Interoperability Barriers for Cryptography. Cupertino, California - September 19, 1995- NetManage, the leader in TCP/IP Applications for Windows and Internet productivity software, announced today that is has signed a licensing agreement with CYLINK Corporation for technology which incorporates the fundamental patents covering public key cryptography. NetManage will be providing support for public key authentication and data encryption as a fundamental component of its Chameleon Enterprise strategy. The two firms further announced that they plan to provide support for an open interface for Internet security which will address recent flaws found in cryptographic implementations used by Netscape Communications and other unpublicized security holes in existing Internet security protocols. The standard is further intended to eliminate the financial and interoperability barriers that have been holding back widespread use of public key cryptography on the Internet. In a separate announcement released yesterday, CYLINK announced that it had prevailed in a patent lawsuit with RSA Data Security which found that RSA had infringed U.S. patents held by CYLINK which cover all known implementations of public key technology. About Internet Security ----------------------- Establishing a secure Internet connection requires any computer software program to perform two functions: Authentication of the user, and bulk encryption of data. The Authentication phase allows two computers to verify that each party is who they claim to be, and that they are authorized to enter into a secure communications session. This is done via 'public key' technology, which was developed and patented originally by Stanford University and licensed exclusively by CYLINK Corporation. During the authentication phase the two computers also agree upon the encryption method to be used for bulk data transfer during the time the two computers are communicating data between one another. These ciphers can be implemented in either software or hardware, including PCMCIA cards. Popular encryption ciphers include DES, Triple-DES, SAFER, IDEA, Skipjack, RC-2 and RC-4 and are available from a variety of software and hardware vendors. Limitations of Current Internet Security Standards -------------------------------------------------- Current implementations of security protocols proposed as standards by Netscape Communications and RSA Data Security, Inc. include security flaws and fail to fully accommodate open and interoperable secure communications between computers which use different bulk encryption ciphers. These problems have limited the adoption of Internet security as a widespread interoperable feature of all Internet software and hardware products including end-user applications, servers, firewalls, and secure routers. NetManage and CYLINK, along with other major software and hardware developers, will be announcing next week the release of a publicly available security implementation which allows for plug & play interoperability for users of Internet security, and the endorsement of protocol extensions which improve the reliability of current proposed Internet security standards. This open implementation will not lock software or hardware developers into the use of encryption technology from any one vendor. Related APIs, key exchange technology, and encryption will be made publicly available to other software and hardware developers. Licensing will include source code and no per-copy royalty fees. About NetManage --------------- NetManage Inc., the fastest growing software company in the United States, develops markets and supports an integrated set of Internet-based applications, servers and development tools for Microsoft Windows, Windows 95 and Windows NT. NetManage software allows corporations to facilitate communication, sharing of information and collaboration between workgroups using Internet technology. The company's award winning products include Chameleon, Internet Chameleon and ECCO. NetManage is a public company, whose shares are traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol NETM. Its products are sold world-wide by NetManage's direct sales force and authorized channel partners. About CYLINK ------------ CYLINK Corporation is the worlds largest provider of enterprise-wide network information security products and wireless communications. CYLINK is the exclusive holder of the fundamental patents which broadly claim the invention of public-key cryptography (Diffie-Hellman, Hellman-Merkle, and Helman-Pohling) and which were originally developed at Stanford University. Headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, CYLINK serves Fortune 500 companies, financial institutions and government agencies. Licensees of CYLINK technology include CISCO Systems, and other prominent hardware and software developers. # # #

1 0

Re: Cylink
by Andrew Loewenstern 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

anonymous claims the WSJ said: > The arbitrators ruled that RSA hasn't had the right to sublicense > the Stanford patents since 1990. > > Cylink said it would seek royalties from companies that have licensed > software code from RSA and are redistributing it, arguing that they > are infringing the Stanford patents. hahahaha, this is funny if it's true... Anyone know which two patents they are referring to? (diffie-hellman and merkle-hellman?) Any ideas on how this will change the legal status of RSAREF and PGP? andrew

4 3

A Netscape Server implementation error
by Andrew Roos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Sameer Thanks in advance for the T-shirt, and I like the Web site. On the subject of Netscape implementation errors, I note that the SSL protocol specification states in section 5.6.1 (CLIENT-MASTER-KEY) that "It is also an error if CLEAR-KEY-LENGTH is non-zero and the the CIPHER-KIND is not an export cipher". However, I note that Netscape Commerce Server 1.1 will happily accept a "secure" connection using the non-export cipher SSL_CK_RC4_128_WITH_MD5, even if the CLEAR-KEY-LENGTH is set to 16 and the *entire* master key is sent unencrypted. Here is an extract from an SSL session with www.netscape.com which illustrates the oversight: ------------------------------- Start of Session --------------------------- (1) The session was initialised as normal, and the following values were exchanged in the SERVER-HELLO and CLIENT-HELLO: Challenge: a2 ff 2e 94 8d f9 f4 e2 2c f6 bd ae 7f 47 db 6c Connection id: ef 47 3b 44 db d9 8d 1a f0 da 3e 14 73 97 a3 1f (2) I then sent the following CLIENT-MASTER-KEY message, which is reproduced in full: SSL Record Header: 80 9a Message type: SSL_MT_CLIENT_MASTER_KEY 02 Cipher kind: SSL_CK_RC4_128_WITH_MD5 01 00 80 Clear key length: 16 00 10 Encypted key length: 128 bytes 00 80 Key arg length: 0 00 00 Clear key data: the *entire* master key sent in the clear af 24 2e e8 2b b1 75 d1 27 a2 b8 76 8b 49 c3 f3 Encrypted key: this is a zero-length block formatted using PKCS#1 block type 2 and encrypted under Netscape's public key. Since it contains no data, an eavesdropper would not need to decrypt it in order to decrypt the rest of the session. af 24 2e e8 2b b1 75 d1 27 a2 b8 76 8b 49 c3 f3 9b 9b 0b ff cd e8 2f 2c 0d 16 4e 90 73 26 4e e7 e0 3f 45 8a ce 9a 21 d6 2a 6b b8 9a 20 4e bc cf d0 01 36 86 1c db e0 8b a8 e3 4c 9b 15 11 ea 95 b1 50 3f c9 42 9a 97 77 0f 9d 29 97 7e 87 1b 8f 77 b6 c9 c6 53 90 5b 74 4c 92 99 62 ad 8b bf 4c 28 ac 1b 11 32 64 56 c9 f0 d5 6f c9 89 6b 55 3f b9 42 aa 7b 7c f0 a1 89 93 22 13 46 e2 58 63 23 b2 51 83 92 76 46 05 65 87 86 5b 52 5a d1 02 ee (3) I calculated the session keys in the normal manner, using the master key which was sent entirely in the clear. The result was: Client read key: 14 3e 84 a6 54 57 d6 51 94 cf 54 f5 5a 29 4a ef Client write key: 9d e1 16 77 92 ee 89 f2 2d 30 c2 a2 e1 77 9f 5d (4) Instead of disconnecting, the Netscape server sent the following reply (the header has been removed): 28 40 00 75 b8 d6 60 68 f5 cf ba 65 78 49 35 83 d3 3a b5 d3 81 23 2d f8 7d c6 f8 47 4d 0c 62 c3 b4 This was decrypted using the client read key to give the following SERVER_VERIFY message: Message Authentication Code: 7b 95 2a 84 a1 55 fc 59 32 6b 53 ec e0 1d 80 4a Message type: SSL_MT_SERVER_VERIFY 05 Challenge data (which agrees with the challenge sent in the CLIENT-HELLO): a2 ff 2e 94 8d f9 f4 e2 2c f6 bd ae 7f 47 db 6c (5) The negotiation phase of the protocol was concluded with encrypted CLIENT-FINISHED and SERVER_FINISHED messages as per normal. (6) I sent the encrypted HTTP command "GET / HTTP/1.0" and received the following text (after decryption, stripping MAC and header, etc: HTTP/1.0 200 OK Server: Netscape-Commerce/1.1 Date: Tuesday, 19-Sep-95 21:15:23 GMT Last-modified: Tuesday, 19-Sep-95 21:14:09 GMT Content-length: 5278 Content-type: text/html Followed by the Netscape home page, which included the following statement: Find out how Netscape is responding immediately to upgrade customers and minimize risk of future threats. (7) Having obtained the warm, fuzzy feeling I so desired, I closed the connection secure in the knowledge that my secrets were safe with Netscape. -------------------------------- End of Session ----------------------------- This shows that Commerce Server 1.1 is prepared to accept a "secure" connection which is completely insecure as the entire master key has been sent in the clear and an eavesdropper could decrypt the session without any cryptanalysis. This does not mean that sessions between "well-behaved" browsers and Netscape servers are insecure, since the browser will send all 16 bytes of the key encrypted. Neither could it be used for an active attack, since if a new master was substituted for the one sent by the client, this would be detected during authentication of the SERVER-VERIFY message. However, it would provide an opportunity for a malicious browser supplier to "doctor" secure browsers so that they sent all (or part) of the master key in the clear, even when using non-export ciphers. (Of course there are better ways to do this; the "random padding" of PKCS block type 2 comes to mind). Although this is not nearly as important a result as Ian and Davids, it is the first server hack, so can I have another T shirt? :-) Andrew ________________________________________________________________ Andrew Roos <andrewr(a)vironix.co.za> // C++ programmers have class (but not much inheritance) PGP Fingerprint: F6 D4 04 6E 4E 16 80 59 3A F2 27 94 8B 9F 40 26 Full key at ftp://ftp.vironix.co.za/PGP-keys/AndrewRoos

2 1

http://www.c2.org/hacknetscape/critique.phtml
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My response to netscape's press release. -- sameer Voice: 510-601-9777 Community ConneXion FAX: 510-601-9734 An Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376 http://www.c2.org (or login as "guest") sameer(a)c2.org

1 0

Re: Crypto + Economics + AI = Digital Money Economies
by szabo＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wholeheartedly agree with Tim that economics should play an important role in analyzing cryptographic protocols. It lets us step back and ask what features are important, and in general what we are trying to accomplish: usually something very different than the military uses of cryptography that have given rise to the current methodologies. To economics, especially game theory, I add a vast body of knowledge about human relationships, especially those involving commerce, that civilization has accumulated over the years: law, especially business law. If we step back and look at what many cypherpunks are trying to achieve, a major idealistic theme is a Ghandian cyberspace where violence can only be make-believe, whether in Mortal Komat or "flame wars". Cypherpunks want our telephone networks, Internet businesses, etc. to be both protected from force, and not dependent on force for their existence. Our 20th century information commerce systems, from publishing to credit cards, have often been very dependent on the threat of violence, usually law enforcement, to protect intellectual property rights, deter fraud, collect debts, etc. There is no utopia in sight where such threats can be completely eliminated, but we can recognize that they exist and carefully work to reduce our dependence on them. In a far more practical vein, the dawn of international commercial networks that criss-cross hundreds of jurisdictions with complex, obscure, and often contradictory regulations, gives rise to a vast market opportunity for substituting, where possible, network security mechanisms for law enforcement dependencies. The recent discoveries in cryptographic protocols provide us with a rich toolbox for solving these problems. Perhaps the most fundamental building block of business law is the contract. Strongly related to Tim's ontology of money is an area I have developed quite extensively called _smart contracts_. The terms of contractual relationships can often be formalized and standardized, and then performed via network-based protocols. These protocols, along with economic incentives, protect the performance of the contract from both fraud by the principals and attack from third parties. This is also the basic task of law enforcement in commercial law; thus smart contracts when successful reduce dependence on law enforcement as well as losses to fraud and cracking. Of special interest to cryptologists is that the principles of contract provide us with a methodology for the use of cryptography that is very different from, and potentially far more lucrative than, the traditional military paradigm. I have much more to say about these things in my essays under http://www.digicash.com/~nick/, and in a forthcoming article for _Extropy_. Nick Szabo szabo(a)netcom.com

1 0

New Kid On The Block
by Aleph One 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Aleph One / aleph1(a)dfw.net http://underground.org/ KeyID 1024/948FD6B5 Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 14:25:20 PDT From: Bob Williams <bobw(a)netmanage.com> To: "Larry J. Hughes Jr." <hughes(a)indiana.edu>, Adam Shostack <adam(a)bwh.harvard.edu> Cc: ssl-talk(a)netscape.com Subject: Re: details on security bug? The problems with SSL extend beyond the random number generation hole widely publicized in the press today. SSL 2.0 poses both financial and interoperability barriers to widespread use of Cryptography that will be addressed in the very near future. ------------------------------- NETMANAGE, Inc. Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Donna Loughlin, NetManage, (408) 973-7171 Donna(a)netmanage.com NetManage Licenses Public Key Cryptography from CYLINK The Two Firms to Promote an Open Interface for Internet Security which Corrects Flaws and Eliminates Financial and Interoperability Barriers for Cryptography. Cupertino, California - September 19, 1995- NetManage, the leader in TCP/IP Applications for Windows and Internet productivity software, announced today that is has signed a licensing agreement with CYLINK Corporation for technology which incorporates the fundamental patents covering public key cryptography. NetManage will be providing support for public key authentication and data encryption as a fundamental component of its Chameleon Enterprise strategy. The two firms further announced that they plan to provide support for an open interface for Internet security which will address recent flaws found in cryptographic implementations used by Netscape Communications and other unpublicized security holes in existing Internet security protocols. The standard is further intended to eliminate the financial and interoperability barriers that have been holding back widespread use of public key cryptography on the Internet. In a separate announcement released yesterday, CYLINK announced that it had prevailed in a patent lawsuit with RSA Data Security which found that RSA had infringed U.S. patents held by CYLINK which cover all known implementations of public key technology. About Internet Security ----------------------- Establishing a secure Internet connection requires any computer software program to perform two functions: Authentication of the user, and bulk encryption of data. The Authentication phase allows two computers to verify that each party is who they claim to be, and that they are authorized to enter into a secure communications session. This is done via public key technology, which was developed and patented originally by Stanford University and licensed exclusively by CYLINK Corporation. During the authentication phase the two computers also agree upon the encryption method to be used for bulk data transfer during the time the two computers are communicating data between one another. These ciphers can be implemented in either software or hardware, including PCMCIA cards. Popular encryption ciphers include DES, Triple-DES, SAFER, IDEA, Skipjack, RC-2 and RC-4 and are available from a variety of software and hardware vendors. Limitations of Current Internet Security Standards -------------------------------------------------- Current implementations of security protocols proposed as standards by Netscape Communications and RSA Data Security, Inc. include security flaws and fail to fully accommodate open and interoperable secure communications between computers which use different bulk encryption ciphers. These problems have limited the adoption of Internet security as a widespread interoperable feature of all Internet software and hardware products including end-user applications, servers, firewalls, and secure routers. NetManage and CYLINK, along with other major software and hardware developers, will be announcing next week the release of a publicly available security implementation which allows for plug & play interoperability for users of Internet security, and the endorsement of protocol extensions which improve the reliability of current proposed Internet security standards. This open implementation will not lock software or hardware developers into the use of encryption technology from any one vendor. Related APIs, key exchange technology, and encryption will be made publicly available to other software and hardware developers. Licensing will include source code and no per-copy royalty fees. About NetManage --------------- NetManage Inc., the fastest growing software company in the United States, develops markets and supports an integrated set of Internet-based applications, servers and development tools for Microsoft Windows, Windows 95 and Windows NT. NetManage software allows corporations to facilitate communication, sharing of information and collaboration between workgroups using Internet technology. The company's award winning products include Chameleon, Internet Chameleon and ECCO. NetManage is a public company, whose shares are traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol NETM. Its products are sold world-wide by NetManage's direct sales force and authorized channel partners. About CYLINK ------------ CYLINK Corporation is the worlds largest provider of enterprise-wide network information security products and wireless communications. CYLINK is the exclusive holder of the fundamental patents which broadly claim the invention of public-key cryptography (Diffie-Hellman, Hellman-Merkle, and Helman-Pohling) and which were originally developed at Stanford University. Headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, CYLINK serves Fortune 500 companies, financial institutions and government agencies. Licensees of CYLINK technology include CISCO Systems, and other prominent hardware and software developers. # # #

1 0