- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: News: 'U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship'
by Greg Broiles 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

At 03:19 PM 9/1/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: > > > > When you talk about "collaborating" and ZKS selling beta software to > > the NSA, are you saying you've got information that ZKS gave the NSA > > access to more information than the general public got, and/or that > > the NSA got their access or information meaningfully earlier than the > > general public? > >Actually, it would be far more more informative to get them to explain >exactly what happened instead of relying on third-party empty hearsay and >hot air from me, since honestly that's all I've got. But I'm sure there are >a lot of reasons--some of them contractural--you'll never hear the whole >story. Especially given that you'll never get anything more than loose talk >from the other side. Well, if all you've got is hearsay and hot air, then I think it's unfair to tag them with words like "collaborator" or suggest that they're not trustworthy - those are pretty serious allegations to make. I'm aware of examples of cryptosystems and companies which were compromised by intelligence agencies - and also aware of baseless FUD and conspiracy theories spun against uncompromised software unfairly. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids

2 1

Re: Using supercomputers to break interesting ciphers
by Faustine 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

Faustine wrote: Tim wrote: (snip) >You are now backpedaling furiously away from your "common to newbies" >claim that fast computers might be used to break ciphers. Here's a chunk >of dialog from an August 8 post of yours: >(comments after ">" are from Tim) > >Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting >>cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? >"Since when did people stop trying? The last time I heard a researcher >>talk about trying to break a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher was last >>Thursday." >This, and similar comments you made about the Sandia and IBM >supercomputers, clearly imply you think one of the uses of these >supercomputers is to "try" to break what I called >Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers. If I had known that to you "computer crunching" is synonymous with "brute forcing large keys" I certainly would have expressed myself differently. >Many who are exposed to crypto to the first time, and who haven't >thought about the issue of factoring large numbers, simply "assume" that >a worthwhile goal is to "try" ("Since when did people stop trying?") to >break such ciphers with faster computers. >(To be sure, there are interesting projects on faster factoring methods, >better quadratic sieves, searches for Mersenne primes, all that good >number theory stuff. Some of it is even being done at Sandia. But this >is a far cry from the common belief that Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers >may fall to attacks with mere supercomputers. Do the math on what a >trillion such Sandia computers could do if they ran for a billion >years...then realize there are keys already in use today which cannot be >attacked by brute-force (or probably any other direct means) with all of >the computer power that the universe could ever support. Mind-boggling, >but I realized this via some calculations just after starting to look >closely at RSA.) >You are now backpedalling, claiming you never meant this. Backpedalling has nothing to do with it. "trying to break Cypehrpunks- interesting ciphers" does not equal "using supercomputers to brute-force large keys." "Interesting cryptograhic applications" does not equal "brute- forcing large keys". Why is this so difficult. >Similar to the way you claimed "if someone else is convinced it's >interesting enough to be willing to foot the power bill (as I had >anticipated would be the case)," well AFTER I posted an article pointing >out that the power bill alone for running older Pentiums and G3s would >pay for faster new CPUs to make the old DIY machines a waste of time. >Fact is, you HADN'T "anticipated" this...you saw my calculations of >watts and MIPS and only _then_ did you retroactively "anticipate" that >power concerns make such arrays of old machines a lose. Check the >archives. The "as I had anticipated would be the case" refers to being allowed to build it in someone else's facility, on their dime. I never said the first thing about having done any of the calculations mentioned in your post. It's their facility, I anticipate they find it interesting enough to let me build it there, they foot the power bill. What's so tricky about that. In fact, I meant for the passage to serve as a sort of explanation of the circumstances in which power costs weren't enough of a central issue for me to have considered them. The end of the sentence you omitted, "where's the downside?" might make this clearer. Obviously, not clear enough. >When some adds a gratuitous "As I had anticipated would be the >case" under these circumstances we know we are in the presence of a faker. You interpreted it as referring to what you thought it ought to in order to bolster whatever view you want to have of me. Nothing new. ~Faustine.

1 0

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Nomen Nescio 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

Tim May writes: > And in both of these examples I gave, "Nomen Nescio" took a literal > reading of the examples. "But Ireland is not a communist regime!" "But > they are not Jews!" > > Examples, like the half dozen I gave, are designed to convey to the > reader the range of uses, needs, and justifications. The specific stands > for the general. > > Both Nomen and Aimee are remarkably block-headed in seeing the big > picture. You need to read your own posting more carefully: > Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools > for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet > spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters > in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control > information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in > Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad > governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, > think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are > forbidden to. You yourself were the one who raised the issue of morality. Your examples were intended to be cases of "sweet spot" (that is, profitable) applications which were also morally acceptable. It is entirely appropriate in that context to examine whether these examples meet the test of both being profitable and moral. When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden. Do you think that bin Laden, if he succeeded, would bring in an era of enlightened government supporting individual liberties? The man is a religious fanatic. He is associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which he helped put into power. This is the same Taliban which has destroyed priceless cultural treasures because they were not Islamic, forbids women to work or attend school, and sends armed police to attack when men and women eat in the same room behind closed doors. Oh, and last week they banned the Internet. Osama bin Laden, a perfect poster child for the cypherpunks. We're definitely not seeing the same "big picture" if you think he is a good example of someone cypherpunks should support.

6 9

The History Place - Triumph of Hitler
by Jim Choate 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-fuehrer.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Using supercomputers to break interesting ciphers
by Tim May 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

On Saturday, September 1, 2001, at 01:53 PM, Faustine wrote: > Tim Wrote: >>> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: >> >>> Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful >>> for >>> brute-force cryptanalyis, >> >> I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though. > >> You did indeed. Several times you alluded to what big and powerful >> computers the NSA must have, the better to blow our house down. When it >> was pointed out to you the nature of brute-forcing a big key, and how >> useless computers are, you seemed not to get the point. > > Oh, well that might have a little something to do with the fact that I > never made the point that brute-forcing keys was the way big and > powerful > NSA computers are going to blow our house down, mightn't it. The fact > that "brute-forcing keys" was the only thing you could think of when you > saw my phrase "interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications" > and then chose to fixate on proving what a damn poopy head > whippersnapper I > am instead of deigning to bother over what methods I meant to refer to > is > indicative of your own limitations, not mine. You are now backpedaling furiously away from your "common to newbies" claim that fast computers might be used to break ciphers. Here's a chunk of dialog from an August 8 post of yours: (comments after ">" are from Tim) >Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting >cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? "Since when did people stop trying? The last time I heard a researcher talk about trying to break a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher was last Thursday." This, and similar comments you made about the Sandia and IBM supercomputers, clearly imply you think one of the uses of these supercomputers is to "try" to break what I called Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers. Many who are exposed to crypto to the first time, and who haven't thought about the issue of factoring large numbers, simply "assume" that a worthwhile goal is to "try" ("Since when did people stop trying?") to break such ciphers with faster computers. (To be sure, there are interesting projects on faster factoring methods, better quadratic sieves, searches for Mersenne primes, all that good number theory stuff. Some of it is even being done at Sandia. But this is a far cry from the common belief that Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers may fall to attacks with mere supercomputers. Do the math on what a trillion such Sandia computers could do if they ran for a billion years...then realize there are keys already in use today which cannot be attacked by brute-force (or probably any other direct means) with all of the computer power that the universe could ever support. Mind-boggling, but I realized this via some calculations just after starting to look closely at RSA.) You are now backpedalling, claiming you never meant this. Similar to the way you claimed "if someone else is convinced it's interesting enough to be willing to food the power bill (as I had anticipated would be the case)," well AFTER I posted an article pointing out that the power bill alone for running older Pentiums and G3s would pay for faster new CPUs to make the old DIY machines a waste of time. Fact is, you HADN'T "anticipated" this...you saw my calculations of watts and MIPS and only _then_ did you retroactively "anticipate" that power concerns make such arrays of old machines a lose. Check the archives. When some adds a gratuitous "As I had anticipated would be the case" under these circumstance we know we are in the presence of a faker. --Tim May

1 0

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Faustine 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

Tim Wrote: >> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: > >> Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for >> brute-force cryptanalyis, > > I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though. >You did indeed. Several times you alluded to what big and powerful >computers the NSA must have, the better to blow our house down. When it >was pointed out to you the nature of brute-forcing a big key, and how >useless computers are, you seemed not to get the point. Oh, well that might have a little something to do with the fact that I never made the point that brute-forcing keys was the way big and powerful NSA computers are going to blow our house down, mightn't it. The fact that "brute-forcing keys" was the only thing you could think of when you saw my phrase "interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications" and then chose to fixate on proving what a damn poopy head whippersnapper I am instead of deigning to bother over what methods I meant to refer to is indicative of your own limitations, not mine. ~Faustine.

1 0

RE: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
by jamesd＠echeque.com 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

-- > > Whether Aimee is a fed or not, her quite genuine ignorance > > made her incapable of knowing what views sounded > > cypherpunkish, and what views sounded violently anti > > cypherpunkish. If she is a fed, she probably also goes > > around buying crack and pretending to be a thirteen year old > > interested in sex talk. And if the feds were to assign a fed > > to our list, that is the kind of fed they would assign. That > > is all they have. On 31 Aug 2001, at 15:21, Faustine wrote: > Bah, it's dangerous to be so sure. And all the fevered talk > about Aimee being a fed is hysterical. Feds tend to stick out in the same way she does. That does not prove she is a fed of course, it is not even particularly good evidence that she is a fed, but there are feds on this list. > Haven't you ever gone to a usenet group and baited people just > for the hell of it because you were bored? She does not know enough about us to bait us correctly -- she also issues appeasing win-their-confidence stuff, and it is the wrong stuff. That incompetent buttering up very fed like behavior. Someone who does not know enough to issue the right win-their-confidence stuff usually does not care enough to issue win-their-confidence stuff. Of course it could be she is merely incompetently trying to douse the flames she has incompetently raised. The distinctive characteristic of an undercover fed is that they are pretending to be someone they are not, and doing it badly, confused about what their role is, and uninformed of how real people in that role act -- for example her recent flame againt ZKS. Real people who are really concerned about the security of ZKS, and really hate and fear the NSA, do not talk like that. Now quite possibly she is just upset by getting continually flamed, and is just putting on a rather bad act to persuade us she is on our side. But putting on a rather bad act is also something feds do. Incompetent acting is does not mean one is a fed, but if one is a fed, it means one acts incompetently. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bvNfX+TTSpcSyw5LeyYoLXnLQ9EH6kfdobAIiWak 4NRdJFF3U6D8FTP9TYHQBiDeMBYxQri3bc6UwVsLe

2 1

Adult Friend Finder Cupid Report for oddodoodo
by cupid＠adultfriendfinder.com 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

Dear oddodoodo, The following are some of the recent members that match your Cupid search on the Adult Friend Finder web site located at http://adultfriendfinder.com: Match 1 HANDLE: QWERTZX76 TITLE: "LOOKING FOR SOMETHING NEW" PROFILE: http://adultfriendfinder.com/cupid/12685571_44933 LOCATION: ST. AUGUSTINE, Alaska, United States GENDER: AGE: 25 Match 2 HANDLE: donte0409 TITLE: "hi how u doing thank you from coming" PROFILE: http://adultfriendfinder.com/cupid/12661617_68748 LOCATION: brooklyn, New York, United States GENDER: AGE: 25 You have a total of 2 new matches on Adult Friend Finder! Standard members only get up to 5 matches per email - more on site... Gold members get up to 20 matches sent. Upgrade today! To change your Cupid profile or to turn off the reports, just logon to Cupid and click on the "Update your Profile" link on the main page. Have a website? Click http://adultfriendfinder.com/go/pa to learn how to make big money by referring members to Adultfriendfinder.com. Thanks, The Adult Friend Finder Team "Tell a friend about adultfriendfinder.com!" ******** Other excellent sites by Adult Friend Finder ********* http://alt.com - BDSM/Fetish personals http://outpersonals.com - gay sex personals http://likemynudephoto.com - rate your photos http://nudecards.com - Send your friend a spicy free ecard! http://slutpost.com - 1000s of free hot photos! http://adultfriendfinder.com/karas/ - Preferred hot adult site http://dine.com - Find a great restaurant for your date! *************************************************************** Adult Friend Finder is anti-spam. This email is sent to you as this email address is associated with the opt-in member "oddodoodo" on http://adultfriendfinder.com. To remove yourself from the mailing list, please log into Adultfriendfinder.com with your handle and password. ***************************************************************

1 0

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Tim May 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

On Saturday, September 1, 2001, at 11:30 AM, Faustine wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 01:27 PM, Faustine wrote: > >> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: > >> Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for >> brute-force cryptanalyis, > > I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though. You did indeed. Several times you alluded to what big and powerful computers the NSA must have, the better to blow our house down. When it was pointed out to you the nature of brute-forcing a big key, and how useless computers are, you seemed not to get the point. --Tim May

1 0

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Faustine 01 Sep '01

01 Sep '01

On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 01:27 PM, Faustine wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: >> Tim wrote: >>> But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design >>> eventually. >> If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen >> interest in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. >> Perhaps the NSA wanted to use the product without making illegal >> copies? >> Your earlier point (that they wished to reverse-engineer the product) >> is in fact undermined by this fact that they bought N copies. > > Unless you believe reverse engineering is only useful for making pirated > copies, there's no reason to assume any sort of contradiction at all. > > As if the NSA would use anything from the private sector they didn't > know inside out. >Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for >brute-force cryptanalyis, I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though. > it appears you also believe the myth about the >mighty NSA knowing more than the private sector. >You _really_ need to get an education on these matters. Are you actually claiming NSA implements COTS technology completely straight off-the-shelf? And what do any of these "you poopy head whippersnapper" comments have to do with the fact that you found a contradiction where there was none? Boss Tom Turkey in full strut. ~Faustine.

1 0