- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

rng, anyone?
by Erich von Hollander 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

i'm doing some stuff on this remailer which requires a good rng. perl's rng just calls c's rng, which totally sucks. does anyone know of a cryptographically sound rng i can use? i could just call it from perl or something. thanks, e

2 1

fake pgp messages
by hh＠xcf.Berkeley.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in the process of doing stuff to fight traffic analysis, i need to generate a bunch of fake pgp messages. it is possible to asciiarmor random bits, but this is pretty easy to spot. does anyone know a good way to generate a large amount of bogus pgp messages? e

4 3

Number Theory
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Murphy writes: >... > >and see the major number theorist in this department, Dr. Keith Matthews. >He is a really nice guy, and is always interested in writing and/or >distributing programs for number theory calculations. He even showed me >one of his newest programs, and demostrated it by factoring 2^71 -1 for Is this really that impressive? MapleV and my 386dx-20 just factored it into 212885833 * 48544121 * 228479 in a matter of 23 cpu seconds. >he teaches, and could I post it to the list. Voila! Not only did he have >it printed out on paper, but he also mailed me the relevant LATEX files. way cool. thanks for the legwork.. >{Textbooks: Number Theory} >... >N. Koblitz, "A course in number theory and cryptography", QA3.G7NO.114, Speaking of who .. he's at my university. :) Nice guy; one of the people who offered to help me with the remailer situation last year. Funny thing; last year the computer administrators wouldn't even allow a copy of PGP to reside on their systems -- now it is part of their public account (student-run officially University unsupported software, usable by all). >H. Shapiro, "Introduction to number theory", QA 241.S445 1983, this isn't the Hawk Shapiro..? >D.E.R. Denning, "Cryptography and Data Security", Addison-Wesley, 1982, > QA76.9.A25D461982 sigh. mt Matt Thomlinson University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. phone: (206) 548-9804 Check my home page -- ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/public/phantom/home.html PGP 2.2 key available via email, or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

3 2

my remailer taking some (mild) heat [LONG]
by collins＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For your edification: I run a remailer. Someone used it to post copyrighted material. I was contacted to help resolve the issue. The person who contacted me, Brad Templeton, was neither abusive nor unreasonable, but he did express some interesting attitudes. I am reposting the dialogue here. My added comments begin with '#'. I must emphasize that I sympathize with Mr. Templeton and bear him no ill will. I am interested in his views---and your reaction to his views---of remailers, their legality, and future. ##### Brad Templeton wrote: ##### Somebody posted an AP Wire story to comp.org.eff.talk using your remailer. We'll need to know who it was or have you contact them so we can get them to make amends for the copyright violation. Thanks. ##### I responded:: ##### Brad, # I included his initial message here This is distressing to me. I don't run a remailer to abet infringers of copy (or other) rights. I certainly do not condone this action. Unfortunately, there is little I can do after the fact. My remailer is not the sort that requires a priori relationships. If a message has the right sort of header, the remailer sends it on its way ... no questions asked. I never see any mail that passes through my remailer. I keep no logs, the efficacy of which would be compromised in any case by remailer chaining or encryption. I can block remailing to or from any particular address, but my remailer is incapable of taking action based on content. I am sorry that I can neither tell you who it was, nor contact them ... not because I don't wish to, but because I am unable to. I will happily assist you in any way that I am able. What follows is my public policy with respect to the remailer. It details my capabilities and attitude. # I included my remailer policy here, which most of you have seen. # E-mail me privately for copies. I hope this is of some assistance to you. ##### Brad Templeton wrote:: ##### I understand your policy, and I suspect that down the road that while anon remailers will continue to exist and serve a purpose, those that allow people to break laws behind them (defamation and copyright, and possibly kiddie-porn in particular) will have to shut down. The law is clear on this. If a newspaper publishes libel, the newspaper is liable with the writer, and fully liable if they hide the writer's name. You'll be in that boat, and shutting down or logging after the fact won't do you much good. I think the right answer is a remailer that logs, allows replies (like the finet one) and which opens up in the case of illegal postings, or any other postings that don't follow its rules. It might say that it demands a warrant, for example. What you're doing is of little value. Anybody can post anon to USENET anyway, if they don't care about replies. I am surprised you would take the risk to add no functionality. ##### I responded: ##### Brad, My immediate advice to you is to send mail to the same distribution that the illegal material followed, requesting contact from the sender. This would have the same enforcability of reply as Julf's remailer. People rarely mail things to lists they don't themselves read, so it is likely to be read by the intended. As I said before, I will help you in any way that I can. I understand that, lacking a perpetrator, I am the next visible target for your ire ... so I am taking your comments as predictions about society (as I'm sure you intended) rather than personal comments (as so many people are wont to read into e-mail these days). # I included his first two paragraphs here. My remailer is not a newspaper; rather it resembles the post-office, a phone switch, or the hole in the tree trunk in "To Kill a Mockingbird". All of these allow communication with some amount of anonymity selected by the sender (up to and including `no return address`). Newspapers have editors. There is a presumption of knowledge over their content. _Of course_ one sues such a publication for libel or error---they have advertised their control over their publication so that readers may trust in its verity and appropriateness. One _must_ sue when such a trusted publication causes damages. Angry people can 'cement over the hole', but it won't be because my remailer broke either faith or law. >I think the right answer is a remailer that logs, Any phrase that starts with 'the right answer is' is questionable. If there were a 'right answer' for communication we would only need one of: newspapers, phones, tv's, postcards, conversations in the hall, pounding a broom handle on the ceiling, short-wave radio, ad infinitum. The right media depends on the situation and the people involved. >allows replies (like the finet one) My remailer allows replies; the sender need only include a return address (possibly encrypted) exactly like the US Post Office. My service is completely different from the finet one. Julf's system requires its own machine and huge space resources for mapping tables. Such a system is beyond my resources. >and which opens up in the case of illegal postings, or >any other postings that don't follow its rules. My service conforms to this statement. I was---and am now---happy to help you resolve this issue to the best of my ability. I won't support, condone, or abet illegal activity; however, I can't and won't spy on law abiding users on the slim chance that I could detect illegal activity a priori. I will enact restrictions that prevent illegal activity whenever I can do so without impacting citizens (e.g., I can block addresses, etc.). >What you're doing is of little value. It is unfortunate that your only contact with my remailer was of little (in fact negative) value to you. In in another situation you---as other people certainly do---might value it highly. >Anybody can post anon to USENET anyway, if they don't care about replies. My remailer makes no provisions for posting to usenet. It is simply a remailer; it can do nothing that sendmail cannot do. >I am surprised you would take the risk to add no functionality. One if by land; two if by the information super-highway. We're all together in this, ##### Brad Templeton wrote: ##### I thought it was for netnews, that is what I saw. Actually, anybody can do anon E-mail as well, but fewer know how. You are not a newspaper, but I truly believe you are taking on all the liability for bad things in the material remailed. ##### The End? ##### Scott Collins | "That's not fair!" -- Sarah | "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis 408.862.0540 | for comparison is." -- Goblin King ................|.................................................... BUSINESS. fax:974.6094 R254(IL5-2N) collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D Cupertino, CA 95014 ..................................................................... PERSONAL. 408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

3 4

uses for PGP
by Ed Carp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's the text of a message I sent to Phil. Thought I'd share it with y'all... ----------

1 0

Rejected mail
by John C. Brice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ag588 is rejecting mail from you

3 2

Re: fake pgp messages
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What about a chron task that creates a new PGP key every x hours and encrypts random Usenet posts, according to traffic patterns (if there it tons of real activity, don't do much, if little, do more. just a thought. -j

1 0

Re: Need info re Clipper/encryptions
by PAPAMICHAIL 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm writing a script, need someone to advise me on technical points re encryption, cracking computers and other things I probably shouldn't know. If there's anyone out there that can help please contact me via CompuServe 72133,1415 P.S. I'm no computer wiz. Thanks - ERB

1 0

Re: Another reason for anonymity
by Jim Sewell - KD4CKQ 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Preface: I inadvertently sent this via regular mail to Tim directly instead of on the list. He noted, correctly, that it should have been put to the list so I'm copying it there. Jim <My computer told me that Timothy C. May said:> > > (You should carry these discussions on the main list, so I can justify > putting more time into the replies.) > > > <My computer told me that Timothy C. May said:> > > > [ discussion of anonymity and defamation of character omitted since it's been posted before. - JCS] > > > > But what about the credit checking systems now or the "Data Hiway" (I'm > > growing very weary of the I.S. catchphrase) of the near future? What if > > I can type, anonymously, that Tim May is a pedophile and every newspaper, > > and thus every home, in the world sees it? Do you think you'd get a job > > as a elementary school teacher? Not likely. People always remember the > > accusation but rarely the retraction. Do you think Michael Jackson will > > ever shrug off the child molestation charges? Not fully. Even now, if > > I have a business and I tell XYZ Credit Check Company that you didn't > > pay your bill and owe me $1,000,000.00 then you're ruined! Oh, that's > > right, for me to report it I have to say who I am and then you can sue > > me for ruining your life. > > False or frivolous accusations are often made, and people take into > account the source. This is what free speech entails. Once again, though, if someone is granted anonymity then people can not take into account the source unless reputations are attached to the pseudonym, as you mention: > Look into how "reputations" work. > > As to the Michael Jackson case, people believed it because his > behavior supported the charges, there were corroborating witnesses, etc. > But we are guaranteed the right to face our accusor in legal cases which would go away with complete anonymity. > > > (What about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Let those who see > > > there's no fire beat the shit out of the twerp who shouted "Fire!" > > > Seems fair to me.) > > > > > > > Oops, tactical error, Tim. Under your statements a guy can shout "Fire!" > > anonymously so who do you "beat the shit out of" then? Neither argument > > (for or against anonymity) is water proof. > > No, if its anonymous, then it can't be punished anyway. I'm in favor > of "screenable anonymity": set your e-mail filters to ignore any > messages except from those names or pseuodonyms you place faith in. > Simple. Ok, so it is not just blind anonymity but rather one with some degree of responsibility and reputation, thus your psuedonym becomes known as a distinct entity that is not tied to you. Perhaps... > (My point about the "Fire!" example is that a rare, and solvable, > problem has been used inappropriately for decades to place legal > limits on free speech.) And a valid point it is. It seems that in 50 years we could have come up with a better example of limiting freedom than this. -- Tantalus Inc. Bringing people together Jim Sewell-KD4CKQ 2407 N. Roosevelt Blvd. to have a little fun. Internet: jims(a)mpgn.com Key West, FL 33041 CIS: 71061,1027 (305) 293-8100 "We keep coding and coding and coding..."

1 0

PGP encryption
by marssaxman＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are there any shareware/freeware/PD PGP-like encryption systems for the Macintosh? Or is there a Mac version of PGP and I just haven't heard about it? -Mars

1 0