- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CryptoStacker Update
by RYAN Alan Porter 09 Jun '93

09 Jun '93

This is an update on the CryptoStacker undertaking for those interested. I am still at the research/initial_design stage, so any further suggestions would be welcome. I am working on several other projects right now so actual coding will likely not begin in earnest for at least a week or two, I also do not wish to rush things any more than I need to... The CryptoStacker engine will probably consist of a block driver style device driver running under MSDOS which will intercept blocks of data going to the disk and encrypt them, and intercept blocks of data coming from the dish and decrypt them. The system should be completely seamless and hopefully will remain at one abstraction level. The intercepted functions will be the read/write functions of interrupt 13h. The initial version will be a simple driver with no sector remapping and will have to be installed on an already existing partition seperate from the boot partition. Hopefully in the future it will be possible to create a false disk by remapping sectors and extracting all drive data from a single file stored on the physical drive, a la Stacker's one huge file. This would allow for installation without the backup and reformatting of the hard drive. The keys will initially be stored on floppy disks and password protected. For simplicity, I will use one single key for the whole disk during development, but I hope to be able to provide at least one key per track in the initial version. I intend to make the key hooks as modular as possible and as open as possible in order that the possibility of PCMIA cards holding keys, barcode keys, datacard keys, etc, will be possible in the future. The encryption engine will be completely in software for the widest possible spread. This is the single only design consideration that I am absolutely set upon, and even then I will be glad to implement any advice on how to make the code as open as possible for future hardware assistance. I would like to see it expand into hardware in the future as encryption hardware hopefully becomes easier to find. The actual encryption algorithm is a more difficult case to comment on. I have done a lot of research on DES, since most of the advice that I have recieved has pointed in that direction, but I can see that it will be extremely slow and unwieldy in software. I would like to use an algorithm which would be a little more optimized for software but alas, I am more than a little afraid of the wrath of the cypherexperts who will shun any non-DES product. I am looking into the IDEA engine now, and I like the fact that it also has the capability to take in 8bytes and put out 8bytes, but that is about all that I know about it. Things that make DES attractive to me: 1) Takes 8 bytes, puts out 8 bytes. 2) Nonlinear. 3) It is its own inverse. 4) I understand it (a factor not to be underestimated) Things that make it unnattractive: 1) It is slow as hell, especially with triple iterations. If anyone knows of some algorithms that have been widely examined which meet at least a few of the 'pro' arguments and doesn't meet the 'con' argument, please let me know... There has been some consideration on the possibility of having the key time out after a preset interval. I like the idea as an option to the user who really wants it, but I have a lot of reservations about how to make a system time out gracefully when this happens. I have some ideas for how to do this with a multitasking OS, but they just seem like hacks to me, I am looking for elegant solutions. There has also been some contemplation as to how to shield a key from being read from a PC's memory. It has been suggested that I just inform the user of the security hole and not worry about it. This seems lazy and counterproductive to me, and I would like to at least make some effort to hide the key. Any good virus writers out there? Most of my techniques involve hiding code on mass storage, but I'm sure there are some tricks to memory someone might suggest. Well, that seems about it. I hope that this has been more coherent than the flurry of replies that marked the beginning of this, and less offensive... -Ryan the Bit Wallah

2 1

InfoWorld
by fergp＠sytex.com 09 Jun '93

09 Jun '93

INFOWorld June 7, 1993 Volume 15, Issue 23 pages 1, 103 IS managers assail data encryption rule 'Clipper chip would allow snooping by Scott Mace And Shawn Willett GAITHERSBURG, Md. -- IS managers and computer vendors last week blasted the Clinton administration's plans to mandate use of the "Clipper" data encryption chip. During hearings hosted by the U.S. Commerce Department here last week and in interviews, many IS managers and vendors said they fear the encryption standard could make their operations vulnerable not only to snooping by the government, but by criminals as well. IS managers and consultants from Bankers Trust Co. of New York and Deloitte &Touche voiced these concerns at the hearing and chided the government for shrouding the process in secrecy. "The secret process up until now has been destructive to public trust," said William Murray, IS consultant at Deloitte & Touche, in Wilton, Conn. "It is only a matter of time before hackers figure out a back door to de-crypt it," said Sheldon Laube, national director of information and technology at Price Waterhouse, in Menlo Park, Calif. Laube echoed the concerns of other corporate data managers. "If the government can de-encrypt it, we have to assume competitors can as well," said Bob Holmes, computer technology research analyst at Southern California Gas, in Los Angeles. The chip, which would be installed in data communications devices, including computers, modems, fax machines, and phones, encrypts data so outsiders cannot listen in or steal sensitive data. But government agencies, such as the FBI, could ask for a court order to obtain the "keys" to decode the data. No one would be forced to implement the chip, but the administration proposal could mandate government agencies to buy it, effectively forcing its widespread adoption. The Clipper chip, jointly developed by the National Security Agency and the national Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was also assailed by computer vendors. Oliver Smoot, vice president of the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA), testified that its members would have to develop separate product lines for the United States and overseas because a few foreign governments would want to give the U.S. government the capability to decode their data transmissions. This, along with the inclusion of the chip in every computer, would mean higher prices, Smoot said. CBEMA members include Apple Computer Inc., Compaq Computer Corp., IBM, and Hewlett-Packard Co. The plan has also been hotly contested by computer industry civil libertarians, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which urged that the Constitution's prohibition of illegal search and seizure be applied. NIST and other government agencies countered that the chip is very resistant to tampering. It uses a key escrow system, where two or more government agencies will hold parts of a decryption key, for use by law enforcement with a valid court order. The FBI expects organized crime and terrorists to begin encoding information. Paul Ferguson | The future is now. Network Integrator | History will tell the tale; Centreville, Virginia USA | We must endure and struggle fergp(a)sytex.com | to shape it. Stop the Wiretap (Clipper/Capstone) Chip.

2 1

Re: CERT: the letter from CERT to berkeley.edu admin
by Ross E. Jones 09 Jun '93

09 Jun '93

In message Tue, 08 Jun 93 14:13:05 EDT, smb(a)research.att.com writes: > >Based on what you sent out, I confess that I see nothing wrong with >CERT's note. I agree that the rights of people who develop copyrighted software must be respected. This is fundamental to working in software development. My problem with the letter is that CERT did not verify the accusation before it was sent. Friend-to-friend this could be considered a "heads-up", but from a semi-official source such as CERT, this message takes on more of the characteristics of not-so-subtile arm twisting. It resulted in soda being closed down for a while to the detriment of all the users. Ross E Jones BDM, Federal rjones(a)abq.bdm.com Phone: (505) 848-5733 Fax: (505) 848-4047

2 1

Re: CERT: the letter from CERT to berkeley.edu admin
by peter honeyman 09 Jun '93

09 Jun '93

and what do you make of their report on julf's non-existent ftp area? steve, you know me well; you know i'm not a raving lunatic or or a conspiracy-freak nut-case. but i believe it is more than a coincidence that soda and penet were suddenly tarred by the same brush. perhaps cert is being used as a weapon, as marc suggested. that is the most benign interpretation i can think of. so i ask you again: don't you think cert might be jeopardizing its effectiveness through these actions? peter

5 4

Re: Encrypting Cypherpunks mailing list postings
by dmandl＠lehman.com 09 Jun '93

09 Jun '93

From: crunch(a)netcom.com (John Draper) > Mikes response to the ideas of encrypting the Cypherpunks mailing list... > > >I was (thinking?) of distributing a common secret key to > >people > >who we know are not spooks, and who would be interested in the cypherpunk's > >cause. > > I think it MAY be possible to write a perl program that would take the > incoming mail encrypted with a single common public key for Cypherpunk > mailing list mail, than would decrypt it internally, then for each > person in the mailing list, using their public keys, encrypt each > message for the individual recipients, and mail them out. But this is a PUBLIC LIST. Our readers from the NSA/FBI/CIA will get the messages along with everyone else--encrypted with their keys, of course, so no spies can read them! I just don't think any of this makes sense for a list this large and this open. Anyone can subscribe. For smaller circles of friends who know and trust one another, it would be more useful. BTW, wouldn't this all be easier using the "multiple recipients" feature of PGP anyway? This is exactly the kind of thing it was designed for: Server gets message, server multiply-encrypts to all subscribers, server distributes message the same way it does now. But again, I think this is pointless on a list like this. > The ravers can really use something like this to keep the Full Moon Raves > location a secret and known ONLY to those dedicated ravers that want to > attend. Yup. Agreed. This is exactly the kind of group that should be using PGP in this way. I do think that it would be a good idea to make an active effort to distribute and certify keys. This will also help to promote the use of encryption, which should be one of our main goals. Also: Making a sub-list of people who are "known not to be spooks," on a list like this, is dangerous. Would be nice if we could really do it, but there would almost certainly be agents getting included in the sub-list, as well as exclusions of folks who aren't agents. --Dave.

1 0

ComputerWorld article on Clipper/Capstone
by fergp＠sytex.com 09 Jun '93

09 Jun '93

ComputerWorld June 7, 1993 Vol. 27, No. 23 page 21 Fed officials pan ban of old encryption specs by Gary H. Anthes Gaithersburg, MD Federal officials responsible for shaping information security policy said last week that legislation mandating use of the government's recently proposed encryption technology -- and banning the use of older but popular techniques -- is neither wise nor legal. In April, the White House said it intended to establish as a federal standard an approach to encryption called "key-escrow." This method would require that the keys needed to unlock a coded conversation be kept by government-approved agencies and retrieved only for court-ordered wiretaps. Dubbed "Clipper" for voice communications and "Capstone" for data, the approach is intended to balance the conflicting objectives of users -- who demand absolute security and privacy -- and law enforcement agencies, which are looking for a legal "backdoor" into coded criminal communications. Protecting rights to privacy But the idea has been challenged by civil libertarians who fear abuses by a technologically empowered Big Brother, and by some users, especially those such as banks that have made large investments in cryptography based on the older Data Encryption Standard (DES), which some fear could be banned by the government. Protesters so far include the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, Information Technology Association of America, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Business Software Alliance, Software Publishers Association and Information Systems Security Association. Raymond Kammer, acting director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), acknowledged that a ban on existing techniques would be considered. "But my personal opinion is, I can't see doing anything that would take away any freedoms we now enjoy," Kammer said. "We tried to come up with a technique that would not require legislation," said Clint Brooks, advisor to the director of the National Security Agency, which developed and now strongly supports the key-escrow approach. Brooks predicted it would be years before criminal use of DES would be wide-spread enough to present obstacles to law enforcement agencies, which cannot crack DES codes. "Let's wait and see if legislation is needed," he said. While the majority of those attending a public hearing at the NIST last week spoke out against the government's proposal, a few strongly defended it saying criticisms are either misdirected or deal with fixable flaws. Donald Alvarez, national defense science and engineering graduate fellow at Princeton University, outlined six ways that Clipper could be breached but finished by saying, "I definitely believe it is possible to address the needs of both [users and law enforcers], even with the Clipper and Capstone chip sets." 8<---------- End of Article ------------- In a small, corner-page, footnote box on the same page -- "Keyed up In a statement filed with the Computer System and Privacy Advisory Board, Citicorp raised the following concerns about Clipper: o The private sector was not adequately consulted. o The algorithm used in Clipper/Capstone is not compatible with other commonly used encryption methods and will only cause costly disruptions for businesses. o The algorithm -- which is to be secret but will be examined by a handful of government-chosen experts -- "will undergo inadequate scrutiny and hurried review." o The databases and access systems associated with Clipper may be flawed and insecure." Paul Ferguson | The future is now. Network Integrator | History will tell the tale; Centreville, Virginia USA | We must endure and struggle fergp(a)sytex.com | to shape it. Stop the Wiretap (Clipper/Capstone) Chip.

3 4

Re: Timothy C. May:superhacker
by AOLCHTNN＠vax1.tcd.ie 09 Jun '93

09 Jun '93

Why doesn't Tim and anyone else who suspects that they have reached the much-sought status of "superhacker on gov't files not just write to their local friendly federal government office and ask for a copy of their own records? As far as I know, the US freedom of information act allows anyone access to information about them that has been stored by the government. (I'm not a laywer and not even a US resident so don't quote me on any of this; but then I'm not charging legal fees either.) Of course any interesting information they've got is likely to be classified, but at least you'll find out whether any such information is stored on the files. Of course, requesting your own government file is likely to draw attention to yourself, so it's probably best not to do so unless you're sure that they already know that you know-that-they-know-something. Yours becoming increasingly paranoid by the minute, Antoin O Lachtnain, Trinity College, Dublin (Colaiste na Trinoide, Baile Atha Cliath)

1 0

Re: CERT
by Clark Reynard 09 Jun '93

09 Jun '93

Marc Horowitz <marc(a)GZA.COM> writes: >>> From: Clark Reynard <clark(a)metal.psu.edu> >> Excepting the Morris Worm, can you name a SINGLE Computer Emergency >> which CERT has halted? It is simply an organization to keep the >> crypto-fascists wired into the net. >My experience with them in the past has been as a clearinghouse for >users to report security-related bugs to vendors, and for vendors to >provide fixed back to users. They've done an admirable job at this; >the major complaint is that they are too slow. They also help >distribute tools like COPS to validate unix workstation security. Granted. However, as you say, they are terribly slow and inefficient even at this. While I read CERT adisories and clippings, it is rare that I discover anything which could be called 'news.' >They are a proactive organization, not a reactive organization, so >it's meaningless to ask what "Computer Emergencies" CERT has "halted". Perhaps, then, their name is inappropriate. The term "Computer" seems to imply they are involved with computers. This is true. However, "Emergency," when modified by "Computer," seems to indicate that they are involved in some way with "Computer Emergencies," whatever this means. When combined with "Response," the previous terms seem to imply that they are intended to "Respond" to "Computer Emergencies," which, as you say, they don't do. They ought to change their name, or find some computer emergencies to which to respond. >I think that calling them "crypto-fascists" is at best an unsupported >smear, and at worst slanderous. A quibble: I believe you mean 'libellous.' They are crypto-fascists; that is to say, they are 'hidden' fascists. (However, I'll grant that calling them fascists is probably not productive, however amusing it may be.) [Peter Honeyman's comments deleted.] >I agree with Peter. If CERT is beginning to overstep its bounds. >perhaps someone should make a calm, rational complaint. I shall do so. Don't worry, I won't call them crypto-fascists. I shall forward it when I send it. ---- Robert W. F. Clark Stop the Clipper Chip rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu Proposal! clark(a)metal.psu.edu

1 0

Encrypting Cypherpunks mailing list postings
by crunch＠netcom.com 09 Jun '93

09 Jun '93

Mikes response to the ideas of encrypting the Cypherpunks mailing list... >We're not. I was very tired and was using my other, much smaller, brain to >think with. ;^) I was (thinking?) of distributing a common secret key to people >who we know are not spooks, and who would be interested in the cypherpunk's >cause. I think it MAY be possible to write a perl program that would take the incoming mail encrypted with a single common public key for Cypherpunk mailing list mail, than would decrypt it internally, then for each person in the mailing list, using their public keys, encrypt each message for the individual recipients, and mail them out. Naturally this would be SLOWER THAN MOLASSIS!! But it would be worth a try to see how it works. Lets talk about it at the upcoming Cypherpunks meeting. The ravers can really use something like this to keep the Full Moon Raves location a secret and known ONLY to those dedicated ravers that want to attend. As far as the Cypherpunks mailing list goes, it may not be appropriate to encrypt to the group ALL the time, but SOME messages might be worthy of encryption.

1 0

Re: ALERT / My email address is...
by fnerd＠smds.com 09 Jun '93

09 Jun '93

Hi, folks. Just in case at any point in the near or far future, cypherpunks has any extended mail problems, and anyone wants to get in touch with me as a person who was on the cypherpunks list, feel free to send to fnerd(a)smds.com or ...uunet!smds.com!fnerd I know there are hacks to find out who the subscribers are, (or are they plugged?) but I'd just like to publicly say that it's okay to take down my address, whoever you are. What's yours? I think publishing the raw list might be construed as impolite and disrespectful of privacy, but a compilation of willing addressees might be nice. It would be interesting to see how close we could reconstruct the list by skimming private archives and communicating with acquaintances. It would be interesting to have list software that worked the way those exponential-spreading, redundant, church-closing- because-of-snow phone call networks work (i.e., Usenet with even more emphasis on decentralization and redundancy). Also, a virtual archive server on the same model would be cool. -fnerd quote me

6 6