- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: inman vs. crypto
by sommerfeld＠orchard.medford.ma.us 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

' "My Answer", he said "would be legislation which would make it a criminal offense to use encrypted communications to conceal criminal activity. This isn't so bad all by itself, but... ..you could have a registry of institutios which can legally use cryphers. If you get somebody using one who isn't registered, then you go after him." ' ... this is absolutely unacceptable! BTW, I just called Sen. Kennedy's office. Kennedy is on the Armed Services committee, and according to the secretary is in favor of the nomination, but I asked a staffer to ask Kennedy to ask Inman about how he reconciles the First Amendment with statements he's made like these. - Bill

1 0

Inman
by dmandl＠lehman.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I seem to recall a major article on Inman in Covert Action Information Bulletin back in, oh, 1982 or so. It might have even spanned a couple of issues of the magazine. It was chock full of dirt (the kind only CIAB could dig up), but unfortunately I can't remember many of the details. Would anyone on the list happen to have a copy? --Dave.

1 0

VIACrypt PGP ?
by James Still 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I would appreciate some commentary as to whether the VIACRYPT PGP MSDOS >package is licensed for use by PKP (Public Key Partners). >It is my belief that it is. Could anyone who has purchased ViaCrypt PGP answer my question? What is the executable filename? Is it still PGP.EXE or did they throw their own little proprietary in there with a VIAPGP.EXE or some such? I appreciate your response! (I'm about to put out another version of a shell program and thought about extending support to ViaCrypt's if it is a different exec...) --- still(a)kailua.colorado.edu -----------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Bobby Inman
by koontzd＠lrcs.loral.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) >He was head of MCC in Austin for several years and then his own >company, a kind of high-tech holding company (Westmark was the name, I >think). > >I recall seeing a company selling crypto products, "Ultron," in 1988 >or so, and noting the mention that it was a division of Inman's >company, Westmark. Ultron is around the San Jose area, a manufacturerer of a Type I CCEP chip, comprised of a classified piece of silicon contained in a 68 pin PGA package along with a 8741 family single chip computer. Ultron also appears to be the originator of the crypto ignition key (speculation). I recall seeing adds for the chip in Electronics, circa 1985-6.

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 10:27:58 -0500 From: sommerfeld(a)orchard.medford.ma.us (Bill Sommerfeld) BTW, I just called Sen. Kennedy's office. Kennedy is on the Armed Services committee, and according to the secretary is in favor of the nomination, but I asked a staffer to ask Kennedy to ask Inman about how he reconciles the First Amendment with statements he's made like these. I just called Sen. Kennedy's office as well. If you're a Massachusetts resident, consider giving them a ring and talking to a staffer. If enough people do this, Sen. Kennedy might actually ask Inman a couple of questions on the topic. (Which, I suspect, is the best we can hope for; but it is *something*.)

1 0

Re: Bobby Inman
by karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Inman's first job after retiring from his spook's life in the Navy was to start MCC in Austin, TX. I saw him speak in 1984 at Bell Labs Murray Hill shortly after the AT&T divestiture, before Bellcore got its own facilities. He was there to sign up Bellcore for MCC membership, although we didn't know it yet. He gave an almost content-free talk about "regaining America's technological leadership" or something like that. When he finished, I got up and asked him how he could reconcile his stated need to lead the world in high technology with a DoD-dominated export control system specifically geared to keeping us from selling those very technologies in which we lead the world. He waffled like a classic politician. I was still trying to decipher his answer long after he finished. After MCC, I think he went to Westmark, a defense contractor. He also showed up on at least one Baby Bell board of directors (SW Bell?). As a shareholder, I made it a point to specifically withhold my vote for him when the proxies got mailed out. (To be sure, big corporation proxies are about as meaningful as ballots in a Communist election, but what the hell -- unlike the Publishers' Clearinghouse sweepstakes, at least they pay postage. Eventually I started voting against ALL of the directors on all of the Bell proxies, just for the hell of it.) After what Inman tried to do to civilian crypto in the late 1970s, the word "slime" keeps coming to mind. But then again, there are plenty of Inmans in the military-industrial complex. Phil

3 3

Re: Writable CD-ROMS as one-t
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you record - say - 5 of them and send them by 5 seperate couriers and xor them together to send the message, your enemy has to compromise etc 5 people. Or your enemy has to penetrate your site or your correspondent's site, and copy five CD-ROMs instead of one. CD-ROMs have one advantage: there's a lot of data. But that's not all good, because you *really* want to destroy any keying material you've ever used. I've heard People Who Know say that in the spook and government world, one-time pads are falling out of favor --- because their practical security isn't as good as a really high quality conventional cipher with a dynamically-negotiated session key. I repeat: *practical* security; your enemy isn't going to hit you or bribe you with a copy of Shannon's theorems.

1 0

Re: 4th ammendment and Cryptography
by an56238＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Phil Karn: > ..... Indeed, many of us find cryptography so appealing >precisely because of its purely defensive nature. Phil, if you think cryptography as a purely defensive thing, you are deeply mistaken. Cryptography implies anonymous mail, which in turn implies the ability to do a lot of harm, through calomny, for example. Dont be mistaken: cryptography can be an *offensive* weapon. >Worst of all are the complete loonies (some apparently on this list) >who assert that guns are an essential protection against a tyrannical >US Federal Government. I think there's a place called talk.politics.guns somewhere. There's more than _some_ people on this list that believe in self-defense through guns. - -zap -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCUAgUBLUnZiCk+9PttYUp1AQFj9wP4jF8u77dMj5COxqK5KC+Qp9rCmILRfKXw n52a+TabbNHsntAiBZ0YW3TCuZ8doVPtegmm2M/uChlKdpotNiZLPgi6Kf6wWzFw XJyQAirkXOxRshVwucigEa0DtmIBhMfHYVStvQtUM9lU+tO8KvZo8/KZEb0pXaTW UsfKe4WHbw== =+lKm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

More on remailers
by Matthew J Ghio 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote an automated script to ping the following remailers: hfinney(a)shell.portal.com catalyst(a)netcom.com elee7h5(a)rosebud.ee.uh.edu nowhere(a)bsu-cs.bsu.edu remailer(a)chaos.bsu.edu hh(a)cicada.berkeley.edu hh(a)pmantis.berkeley.edu hh(a)soda.berkeley.edu ebrandt(a)jarthur.claremont.edu remailer(a)merde.dis.org Results were a bit faster with the automated program than before: Here they are: Test #1: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 12:52:58 -0500 (EST) nobody(a)rosebud.ee.uh.edu 12:53:56 (+0:00:58) catalyst-remailer(a)netcom.com 12:53:57 (+0:00:59) nobody(a)shell.portal.com 12:53:57 (+0:00:59) nowhere(a)bsu-cs.bsu.edu 12:53:59 (+0:01:01) remailer-admin(a)chaos.bsu.edu 12:54:06 (+0:01:07) nobody(a)cicada.berkeley.edu 12:54:09 (+0:01:11) nobody(a)soda.berkeley.edu 12:54:13 (+0:01:15) nobody(a)pmantis.berkeley.edu 12:54:16 (+0:01:18) remailer(a)dis.org 13:05:35 (+0:12:37) nobody@eli-remailer 15:32:51 (+2:39:53) Test #2: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 17:18:36 -0500 (EST) nobody(a)rosebud.ee.uh.edu 17:19:04 (+0:00:28) catalyst-remailer(a)netcom.com 17:19:06 (+0:00:30) nobody(a)shell.portal.com 17:19:07 (+0:00:31) nowhere(a)bsu-cs.bsu.edu 17:19:19 (+0:00:43) remailer-admin(a)chaos.bsu.edu 17:19:19 (+0:00:43) nobody(a)cicada.berkeley.edu 17:19:24 (+0:00:48) nobody(a)pmantis.berkeley.edu 17:19:31 (+0:00:55) nobody(a)soda.berkeley.edu 17:19:42 (+0:01:06) remailer(a)dis.org 17:20:43 (+0:02:07) nobody@eli-remailer 17:49:23 (+0:30:47) Results seem to vary depending on current network load and other factors, but some remailers do seem to be generally faster than others. I didn't test elee7h5(a)rosebud.ee.uh.edu since it always batches its messages and sends them out at midnite. remail(a)extropia.wimsey.com only accepts encrypted mail so I'll have to try that one seperately sometime. Note: hal(a)alumni.cco.caltech.edu forwards to hfinney(a)shell.portal.com Also, 00x(a)uclink.berkeley.edu forwards to hh(a)soda.berkeley.edu This makes these addresses a little slower, but I guess it helps foil traffic analysis a bit... Are there only 12 cypherpunk remailers plus two forwarding addresses? There were over twenty at one time... Please let me know if I've missed any.

1 0

Remailer Tearline Conventions
by anonymous＠extropia.wimsey.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Though this subject came up some months ago, I never noticed any final decision. Is there now an accepted tearline convention for the generic cypherpunks remailers? The mail handler here and at most of my other accounts automagically adds the host address and/or my address to all outgoing mail, which is...well..._counterproductive_ when sending mail to a remailer. The extropia remailer by accepting encrypted messages avoids this problem, but most of the other remailers seem to have no provisions for excluding extraneous text and address footers. Was there ever a "8<----(cut here)" arrangement agreed upon and incorporated into the remailers? Thanks.

1 0