- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Learning to divide ( again )
by Jyri Poldre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

RE every1. Recently i became involved in project of designing semi-custom VLSI device for endecryption. The device uses variable length RSA for key exchange and IDEA for data encryption. For pipelinig IDEA block we have to use 6 multipliers 16 bit ant that leaves us with 96 bit adder for RSA calculations. ( The chip should be reasonably cheap ). Otherwise the RSA speed would not be so cruicial but we have to generate both keys in chip ( involves physically random generator based on variable frequency being samled with constant clock, VF generator is inside chip ) to guarantee absolute secrecy - you cannot tell Secret component if you do not know it. To generate keys we have to use Fermat test for primality and that takes time. Although the RSA keys need not to be changed so very often it is still important to keep the process running in 'normal' time limits. So - I can use multiple operand adders ( meaning a+b+c+d with one carry-propagation time ) For RSA basic operation a*b mod Z i have decided to use radix4 modified Booth algoritm for multiply , but i am still not sure about divide. Has any1 encountered similar problems? I would greatly appreciate Feedback, cause i have to make up my mind in some weeks. If you are interested in more details about the design, let me know. I would like it to be good product for use in different applications. JP from PLDesign lab of Tallinn Technical University.

1 0

Re: Email firewall etc
by remailer＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in once said: RI> Vincent.Cate(a)FURMINT.NECTAR.CS.CMU.EDU: RI> > Companies like the idea of firewall machines to protect the security of RI> > their internal nets. I bet they would also like something called an RI> > "email-firewall". Names are important. :-) I think of the RI> > email-firewall as a slightly modified anonymous-remailer. RI> RI> I haven't delved into the wide world of remailers out there, but I'd like a RI> remailer that encrypted, though did not necessarily anonymize, incoming mail. RI> RI> I'm not really bothered about the NSA reading my mail. In fact, I'm not usually RI> concerned whether someone in New York, for instance read my mail. But I might RI> not want people closer to home (local sysadmins, etc) to read it. I'm sure many RI> others share this position. RI> RI> The problem is that I can't ensure that people encrypt their mail to me. They RI> may not bother, or be unable. An alternative would be for them to send it to RI> a remailer, which, knowing my public key, would encrypt and forward it to me. Version 1.99 of my Remail for Waffle actually does this: it checks if the recipient of the remailed message has a PGP public key, and if so, it encrypts the outgoing message, if it is not encrypted already. The remailers remail(a)vox.hacktic.nl and remailer(a)jpunix.com use this program. For testing you can also use remail(a)desert.hacktic.nl, or remailer(a)desert.hacktic.nl PAtrick

1 0

Re: compatibility with future PGP
by remailer＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ebrandt(a)jarthur.cs.hmc.edu (Eli Brandt) once said: EB> > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)imsi.com> EB> > People overseas want to be able to use this program, too. There are EB> > 250 million people in the U.S., which constitutes under 1/20th of the EB> > Earth's population. EB> EB> You dropped the part of his message where he said that he believed EB> v2.5 was available abroad. If it's not, I don't think it will take EB> long. And once it's escaped from this little prison state of ours, EB> overseas users incur no risk in using it: they can't even be EB> Noriega'd, since they've broken no law in any country. It can be obtained from IRC, /msg pgpserv help. Patrick

1 0

No Subject
by catalyst-remailer＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ftp.netcom.com//pub/mpj has source for new macpgp

1 0

Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >What if (the cypherpunk community) comes out with a secure program that > >doesn't rely on RSAREF? Can it be done? > > Bizdos and gang will _still_ hold the patent on RSA-style public key > encryption. What you're suggesting is, in essence, exactly what Phil > Zimmerman did with PGP 1.0. There are three different problems here: - Doing secure programs without the RSAREF implementation of RSA; this has US patent license difficulties unless you buy their stuff. - Doing secure programs without the RSA algorithm - other public-key methods are available, such as Diffie-Hellman, though RSA has a lot of technical advantages for many applications. PKP/RSADSI own patents that expire in 1997 that they claim cover the whole field of public-key crypto, and nobody's challenged the breadth of those claims in court. - Doing secure programs without public-key algorithms at all - you *can* use secret-key algorithms to do security, as long as you're willing to do key distribution by some usable but inconvenient method, and security systems like Kerberos can do this. But Public-Key variants solve a lot of the technical difficulties and make implementations much easier.

1 0

ACAPULCO H.E.A.T.
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, This week's episode, "Code Name: Stalemate," was a two-parter. The Team goes to Venezuela to protect Andre Sokal, an ex-KGB agent, who is playing in a big chess tournament. Andre in now part of the Russian reform movement and Communist hard-liners want to assassinate him. H.E.A.T.'s archenemy, Strake, is hired to do the job. Strake is a violent but sensitive megalomaniac who eschews a simple bullet to the head because a good assassination is "a theatrical performance that must show the genius of the assassin" or something like that. Strake first shoots one of the real chess players in the back, which shows curiously little genius. He then replaces him with a surgically altered double. It goes downhill from there. The crypto and hi-tech angles are many. Ashley (Catherine Oxenberg, who I have been told was *not* Ringo's wife) replaces one of the other chess players. (No, she doesn't shoot her in the back, they were old friends. Ashley just happens to play at the grandmaster level and anyway, Chrissie will be feeding her computer generated moves via a radio receiver in Ashley's eyeglass frames. Strake's ringer is also strategically impaired and so Strake is helping him with a laptop with a screen that only the double can see because he is wearing special glasses. (Why not just use an LCD screen? Nobody can read those things either.) Unfortunately, Strake has brought in an electronics communication expert from Russia (Ivan something-or-other). Ivan spoofs the H.E.A.T. computers and satellite communications uplinks. When the Team discovers their communications have been compromised, Mike tells Ashley not to use their normal communications until the system is secure. When she asks how should communicate, Mike tells her to "use the phone." (Now *that's* secure!) Ivan is available to Strake, because his research funding dried up when the USSR went belly up. Too bad, because "he was on the verge of developing a microchip which would have been able to decrypt any secure computer." Yeah, right. To be continued next week. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:39:32 -0800 > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) > Personally, I try to let people know that they may use even my > private email in any manner they see fit. I have no objection to > even those who disagree with me using it to attack me or misdirect > others, or whatever. > I agree with Jim's 'defacto public domain' idea, as long as it > does not conflict with the reality of the need for intellectual > property rights. > e.g. - copyright and patent law I am not preventing people from retaining their rights. I simply recognize that there are entirely too many different views of 'fair use' to create a blanket order. I also recognize that one responsibility in a democracy of all citizens is the protection of the results of human effort. The best way to protect and preserve information is to place it in the public domain. Of course the other option is to sell large 'collections' to groups like Microsoft who would end up charging you out the ya-ya for looking at 'their' pretty pictures. Wonder what DaVinci would have thought of the way we treat HIS paintings? But I digress. Given that people have many highly individualistic views about copyright of their expression and the need to preserve that expression we must ask ourselves how? One obvious answer is to place everything in the public domain, I am shure the information race we experience now would be nothing compared to that worlds output. However, this prevents truly gifted individuals from being able to spend the time (eg lifetimes) needed to truly master some forms of expression. We certainly don't want to support them on the public dole, so there must be some way for them to make a living off their work. So we recognize their originality or inherent worth in their expression. We also recognize that there can't be complete and total protection because most people would not find a buyer for their expression simply from lack of knowledge. So, lets find a middle ground, one where people can tell other people about things they experience as well as feel secure that their efforts have some inherent worth and also some failsafe to ensure that as much effort as possible gets archived. So let's require each person to include their prefered choice of copyright in their communications, otherwise it falls into the public domain. The only resolution of this approach is that everyone gets what they want. Not relevant in this forum, but I also believe that material being held in copyright should fall into the public domain when the copyright holder dies. > If you are having trouble understanding the concept I am dealing > with, here, then I suggest that you drink a bottle of Scotch and > read this post again. That's certainly one way to get in the correct attitude...;) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: PGP 2.5 in Europe
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Adam Shostack <adam(a)bwh.harvard.edu>: > >As I said in my first message, I've heard 2.5 has already found its way So has 2.6, actually ;^) The ITAR is really not workable; we fight it to make legitimate what happens anyway - whenever any new 'munition' is released, it appears magically on the major crypto sites in Finland and Italy. As no one would dare risk the wrath of the National Surveillance Agency by fsp upload, how do they do it? Telepathy? Does export by telepathy violate ITAR? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA The National Short-Sleeved Shirt Association says: Support your right to bare arms! --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Decoding the Electronic Future
by catalyst-remailer＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

US News & World Report Copyright, 1994, U.S. News & World Report All rights reserved. U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT, MARCH 14, 1994 DECODING THE ELECTRONIC FUTURE By Vic Sussman WILL ENCRYPTION SECURE OR DENY PRIVACY RIGHTS? Would you hand over a spare set of house keys to your local police to help them fight crime, trusting that they would never enter your home without good reason? According to opponents of the so-called Clipper chip, a powerful new telecommunications encoding device, that is an apt metaphor for what the White House, the FBI and the supersecret National Security Agency are asking of a gullible American public. Clipper backers insist the innovation will not only help in an increasingly desperate fight against crime but actually give Americans more privacy than ever. The Clipper controversy--which has sparked frenzied debate and angry protests in recent weeks--swirls around a small sliver of silicon that can be built into telephones. Ordinary phones can be tapped with anything from cheap scanners to quaint-tech alligator clips. But Clipper phones use encryption technology to scramble voice, fax, electronic mail and other data transmissions into digital gibberish. Only other Clipper phones can unscramble the information, which makes the Clipper an untappable system. Well, almost. A phone that can't be tapped is every cop's nightmare, because anyone from drug traffickers to terrorists would be able to scheme and plot with impunity. So under a plan hatched by the NSA and backed by the White House, government agents would be able to unscramble Clipper's secret code by using two mathematical keys. To guard against abuse, the keys would be held by two government agencies. Authorities would first have to get a warrant--standard wiretap procedure--before obtaining the decoders. Key escrow, as it's called, may sound good on paper, but critics maintain it will be both invasive and ineffectual. In addition, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont maintains that Clipper is a ``misstep in export policy.'' U.S. companies would have a tough time selling compromised telecommunications products overseas and consequently would have to manufacture both domestic and foreign versions, an expensive proposition. IBM, Apple, Microsoft and the Software Publishers Association, among many others, oppose Clipper. Leahy's Technology and the Law Subcommittee is planning March hearings on these issues. HISTORY'S SHADOW. Critics are also doubtful that Clipper's decoding keys will be sufficient to deter government recklessness, pointing to past abuses by the FBI, NSA and CIA. But Georgetown University computer scientist Dorothy Denning contends that much more stringent controls against illegal eavesdropping exist today. ``The greater danger,'' she insists, ``is losing the ability to wiretap, giving organized crime and terrorism the advantage.'' Law enforcement authorities also say they are looking for no more authority than they already have--to make lawful requests to have the telecommunications industry cooperate in crime prevention. But Marc Rotenberg, Washington director of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, a public-interest group that has collected more than 50,000 signatures on an anti-Clipper petition, doesn't buy that argument. In fact, he says, the government has admitted the system could be easily breached by the NSA, which wouldn't need a warrant if it made its demand under the rubric of national security. Many valid concerns about Clipper, says Rotenberg, ``are similarly dismissed with the claim of national security, a dangerous way to design our civilian communications infrastructure.'' The Clipper chip has been proposed as a voluntary standard. But once the Internal Revenue Service, the Pentagon and other agencies order tens of thousands of Clipper phones, it will be impossible to do government business using any other equipment. Indeed, the biggest fear raised by Clipper is that it is the digital camel's nose under the electronic tent. Another White House proposal, for instance, would require that all future telecommunications systems--everything from phones to online services--be ``wiretap friendly,'' says Jerry Berman, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Even the most vociferous Clipper opponents concede a legitimate need for electronic surveillance, but many would like to see Congress rather than agencies like the NSA determine the proper balance of government needs and individual rights. Cliff Stoll, whose book THE CUCKOO'S EGG focused attention on computer espionage, thinks the Clipper controversy is overblown by both sides. In fact, he contends, the typical telephone or computer user doesn't need any encryption more powerful than pig Latin. Erhaps-pay.

1 0

Leahy to hold hearings on Clipper Chip!
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: From: jberman(a)eff.org Jerry Berman Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 19:09:22 -0500 Subject: Leahy to hold hearings on Clipper Chip! Dear Friends on the Electronic Frontier: I have some good news to share with you. Senator Leahy just sent me a letter indicating that he *will* be scheduling hearings on the Administration's Clipper Chip proposal. I would like to thank all of you who sent us messages to forward to him urging hearings. I'm sure that stack of messages we printed out made a significant impact on the Senator -- the stack was over seven inches tall! (We look forward to the day when no trees will have to be sacrificed in the furtherance of democracy!) And if you haven't written a message to Rep. Cantwell yet about her proposed amendment to the Export Control Act, please do so and forward it to cantwell(a)eff.org. This is an address we set up to enable us to collect messages in support of her bill. We have been printing out messages and delivering them each week -- so far we've received over 4500 letters of support. For more information on the Cantwell bill, send a message to cantwell-info(a)eff.org. Thanks again. We'll let you know as soon as the Clipper hearing gets scheduled. Sincerely, Jerry Berman EFF Executive Director -.-.-.-.-.-.-. forward from Sen. Leahy -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Washington, DC 20510 March 1, 1994 Mr. Jerry Berman Executive Director Electronic Frontier Foundation 1001 G Street, Suite 950 East Washington, DC 20001 Dear Jerry, Thank you for forwarding to me the many thoughtful and informative messages you received over the Internet regarding the Administration's recent approval of an escrowed encryption standard, known as the Clipper Chip. Many of the messages urge Congress to hold hearings to review the Administration's Clipper Chip standard. In fact, I intend to hold a hearing before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law, which I chair, to consider the important issues raised by the Clipper Chip. I will let you know when a date for the hearing is scheduled. Thank you again. Sincerely, /s/ PATRICK J. LEAHY United States Senator PJL/jud -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. JOIN EFF!! ========== EFF's work as a civil liberties organization in Washington has been very successful, but the realization of our goals of freedom and privacy online can only come with the active and vocal participation of the entire online community. Now that you have personally experienced both the threat of the loss of your privacy and the power having won the first battle, won't you take that next step and become a member of EFF? By joining EFF, you will help us to expand our reach to educate and involve an even greater number of people in the shaping of these critical issues. Your tax-deductible donation will tie you into the EFF information network and support our public policy and legal work. As a member, you will be guaranteed timely the timely information and mechanism you need to respond on these issues. Our voices in unity *do* make a difference. -------- 8< ------- cut here ------- 8< -------- MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION ================================================ Print out in monospaced (non-proportional) font and mail to: Membership Coordinator Electronic Frontier Foundation 1001 G Street, NW, Suite 950 East, Washington, DC 20001 SIGN ME UP! ----------- I wish to become a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I enclose: ___ Regular membership -- $40 ___ Student membership -- $20 * Special Contribution I wish to make an additional tax-deductible donation in the amount of $__________ to further support the activities of EFF and to broaden participation in the organization. PAYMENT METHOD: --------------- ___ Enclosed is a check or money order payable to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. ___ Please charge my: ___ MasterCard ___ Visa ___ American Express Card Number: _____________________________________________ Expiration Date: _________________________________________ Signature: _______________________________________________ NOTE: We do not recommend sending credit card information via email! YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION: ------------------------- Name: __________________________________________________________ Organization: __________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Phone: _____________________ FAX: _____________________ BBS: _____________________ BBS Name: ____________________ E-mail addresses: ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ PREFERRED CONTACT ___ Electronic: Please contact me via the Internet address listed above. I would like to receive the following at that address: ___ EFFector Online - EFF's biweekly electronic newsletter (back issues available from ftp.eff.org, pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector). ___ Online Bulletins - bulletins on key developments affecting online communications. NOTE: Traffic may be high. You may wish to browse these publications in the Usenet newsgroup comp.org.eff.news (also available in FidoNet, as EFF-NEWS). ___ Paper: Please contact EFF through the US Mail at the street address listed above. NOTE: Paper documents available upon request. "Networks & Policy" Newsletter automatically sent via US Mail. PRIVACY POLICY -------------- EFF occasionally shares our mailing list with other organizations promoting similar goals. However, we respect an individual's right to privacy and will not distribute your name without explicit permission. ___ I grant permission for the EFF to distribute my name and contact information to organizations sharing similar goals. [This form from eff.org 3/7/94 Cantwell--please leave this line on the form!] The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization supported by contributions from individual members, corporations and private foundations. Donations are tax-deductible.

1 0