- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

(fwd) WWII Enigma traffic
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Newsgroups: sci.military Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sundog.tiac.net!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub2!ranger!military From: lharnisch(a)delphi.com Subject: WWII Enigma traffic Message-ID: <CtMKns.J91(a)ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com> Sender: military(a)ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com (Sci.military Login) Organization: Delphi (info(a)delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 00:43:04 GMT Approved: military(a)ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com Lines: 13 >From lharnisch(a)delphi.com Does someone know the location of archives (or preferably microfilm) containing undeciphered German Enigma traffic? It isn't important whether it was cracked by the Allies during the war... am simply seeking some original German traffic to test computer program.... I have already gone through messages in the journal Cryptologia...... Pls E-mail me if you know of some sources... Thanks.... Larry Harnisch

1 0

Patently Absurd?
by will＠thinkmedia.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I realize this may seem absurd, but for the sake of humor could there be any relationship between the Dept. of Justice near pardon of Microsoft on charges of Anti-trust and the potential adoption of a software encryption standard in Chicago with the blessing of NIST and some goverment agencies. Would it be ridiculous conspirancy theorizing to think that MS and Justice made a deal? I have nothing to back this up, just reading the news and cypherpunks. ______________________________________________________________________________ Opinion is a flitting thing, Thinking Media Research But Truth, outlasts the Sun-- will(a)thinkmedia.com If then we cannot own them both-- (408) 423 3720 Possess the oldest one-- Emily Dickinson

1 0

Re: LITTLE BROTHER INSIDE
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:47 AM 7/27/94 +0000, wb8foz(a)nrk.com wrote: >contempt to release her. More recently, Supreme Court ruling defining >limits of civil contempt (UMW vs. JOHN L. BAGWELL) may have an effect on >this.) I know a guy in SF who won the Irish Sweepstakes and refused to repatriate his winnings. Did 2 years for tax evasion and two years for contempt (I think). Contempt was for his refusal to repatriate. Do you know what sort of restrictions the Supremes put on contempt jailings? I always figured that you should shower the judge and other judges in these cases with letters stating in great detail why you will never purge yourself of your contempt. Serves as evidence that holding you is useless and hence illegal punishment not a "legal" attempt to coerce you. DCF "But your honor, I'm desperately trying to *conceal* my contempt for this court!"

1 0

Remailer ideas (Was: Re: Latency vs. Reordering)
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was thinking some about remailers and means to create more effective ones. I think the idea of padding messages has been kicked around (has anyone implemented it?), but what about random compression? Some messages are compressed, others are padded, some are left alone, perhaps shooting for a median message size (everything coming from this mailer tries to be 9k, or as close as possible). Of course, this requires a standard so that other remailers downstream can make the message readable. Another thing that occured to me is the thought that if there were an organized web or remailers, remailers could bounce messages between them automatically- a header could identify the number of bounces perhaps, I haven't thought too much about the implications of doing so, but if every message through the web bounced around 30 times with reordering, padding/compression, PGP, etc. then traffic analysis would be pretty damn hard, I would think, even for someone monitoring the entire web of remailers' traffic. This all assumes that: - remailers can agree on a standard for the above needed features - a semireliable web of remailers can be maintained - some method fordealing with denial of service attacks can be found (a coredump sent to the web could play all sorts of hell, as could an 'evil' remailer that sneaks in and changes the how-many-times-through identifier). The third problem could be delat with by deciding on a size limit- if a message is over 65k (or whatever) it is bounced- if you're sending something big, split it. The first one could probably be done- if someone (grin- if I find any time soon, this is a project I'd like to do) wrote a nice package that was easy to install and use with a feature set that could be agreeable to most. The second one is the problem, but could be dealt with by the first by establishing automated communication- when someone installs the package, send a control message another remailer already part of the web which 'registers' it, and then the web consistently tries to maintain itself by checking on the others and dropping ones that go down off the list. Some sort of method would have to be found for ones that drop off then later come online again so that control messages didn't have to be manually initiated every time, but that shouldn't be that hard. What are the problems in the above? Would Perl be a good choice for doing this? I saw some code from a remailer some time ago, but lost my mailbox a while back (which could also mena that this is a dry rehash of an old discussion... apologies if I am rewriting someone elses thoughts). Anyone still have this? Am I talking out my ass? -j -- "Blah Blah Blah" ___________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence <jamiel(a)sybase.com>

3 2

Re: GUT and NP
by Ray Cromwell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bezerk's original comment makes two assumptions. 1) continuum phenomena are real and space is not merely quantized at a level which is undetectable by experiment (just because physics models it as a continuum doesn't mean it is so) 2) all of this precision actually makes a difference For instance, at the level of brain chemistry, who cares about quantum precision when thermal noises will swamp it anyway? (the Penrose argument even goes as far as assuming quantum gravity, a force pitifully weak, as a signficant factor) One of the reasons digital manipulation became popular was because analog data was too prone to error. Why will a quantum computer, which seems even more sensitive to external perturbation, be any different? And regardless of whether quantum computers work or not, they are still algorithmic if they can be simulated (however slowly) by a turing machine. It's a rigorous mathematical definition. Claiming otherwise uses algorithm in a manner different than was intended. It's like the way Ludwig Plutonium solves all those famous problems in sci.math by assuming different definitions of primality, etc. Quantum computers might be faster than classical computers, but non-algorithmic, I don't think so.

4 7

RE: What can one do for remail operators? (fwd)
by David Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > I think the single most important thing we could do for remailer operators > would be to figure out how to make the remailers *truly* *anonymous*. That > is, we need a net.hack of some sort that allows remailers to send their > messages in a way that leaves no trace whatsoever of the original poster > *and* leaves no trace of the remailer itself. > > Net.veterans will perhaps recall a thread I started a while back along > these lines... this is a technical problem, and I have the utmost > confidence that the skills to solve this problem are around here somewhere. > If I may make a humble suggestion, I would suggest that this problem is > more immediate and pressing than many of the issues currently being > debated. > One option might be for the remailer to forward messages giving a false ID/address - essentially, lying about who they are and where they live :-) That would seem to take care of the outbound traffic; how to deal with the inbound traffic is an exercise left for the reader ;-) Dave Merriman

1 0

Re: DES Vulnerable, Why?
by koontzd＠lrcs.loral.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>My question: if triple-DES is so damn tough to break, what is wrong with DES? > Triple-DES is a trivial variation on DES. Brute Force Key Search ala' Weiner.

1 0

"Just say NYET to NYET"
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I appreciate Nathan's openness and honesty about the inherent biases that affect his life. In numerous dealings with the religious right I've found that hard to come by. I also appreciate the fact that he is a strong believer in privacy, although privacy, in his view, seems to be something restricted to adults. Censorship is an attempt to apply Paternal/Maternal authority outside the family unit. A place IMHO it does not belong. I see the internet somewhat differently though, I see it as another world, that just happens to be accessable from our own, kind of like America was about 500 years ago. The only difference is that it was previously uninhabited. I like it the way it is! Now like the other world I occupy, here comes the religious right, who aren't content to live there own lives, there going to tell me how to live mine. (for my own good of course!) No way Dude....... I've fought your kind before, and knew it was only a matter of time before I'd have to fight you here. I for one am ready. I thought Hal Finney had an excellent suggestion, why not form your own private family values or whatever access provider, you could censor to your hearts content! That would save ya'll from having to move to Singapore or some other La-La land. Just another unwashed, uneducated, heathen, savage, heretic.... Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham "Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth

1 0

Re: (fwd) Possible compromise of anon.penet.fi
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: barnett(a)convex.com (Paul Barnett) > Newsgroups: alt.privacy .... > Someone has been collecting email addresses, apparently from postings > to Usenet, and forging them to anonymous postings through > anon.penet.fi to alt.test. ...... > My condolences to those people that have been caught in this net. > This is one of the most despicable forms of net.terrorism that I have > encountered. It's an interesting weakness, and at least as serious as the naXXXXX / anXXXXX problem that reveals your identity if you send email to another anonym. The one anonym I've used on anon.penet.fi is already known to at least one other person (to whom I'd sent mail about the fact that they'd included their .signature in an anonymous article :-) I disagree with the "despicable" opinion, though it's certainly a serious problem and it would certainly have been nicer if the cracker had done only a limited number as a demonstration (maybe this counts; I don't know.) BUt if our tools have technical weaknesses, it's *much* nicer to find out from a non-police-agency cracker than to learn about it when they start knocking on your door. It sounds like there's a need to separate the email and news-posting parts of the anon.penet.fi software, or go to stronger anon-reply methods like the one on the newer cypherpunks remailers. Bill # Bill Stewart AT&T Global Information Solutions, aka NCR Corp # 6870 Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton CA, 94566 Phone 1-510-484-6204 fax-6399 # email bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com billstewart(a)attmail.com # ViaCrypt PGP Key IDs 384/C2AFCD 1024/9D6465

2 1

Re: Just say NYET to censors
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:58 AM 07/28/94 +0800, Jacob Levy wrote: >Would you agree to: Nope, can't watch that XXX movie without first keying >in your ID? Not to mention watching that [insert your favorite nonmainstream politician] speech... I think the real issue here is that any form of censorship simply sucks (censorship here is content based filtering of ideas- I am not talking about people who choose not to devote thier resources to something- that is a related but different idea). The original poster is trumpeting censorship 'for the children.' Is anyone else sick of the Save The Kids excuses used to puch nasty legislation through (Polly Klaas starts rolling over...)? I firmly believe that if parentd don't want children seeing something it is the parent's responsibility to take control of what the children see. If they don't have the time/energy to be a responsible parent *as they define it*, then maybe they should have thought about that beofre they had a kid. In any case, someone else's desire to 'shield' thier child from some forms of expression has nothing to do with my expression thereof. >--JYL <Jamie steps down... and tries to think about stuff having more to do with crypto> -j -- "Blah Blah Blah" ___________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence <jamiel(a)sybase.com>

1 0