- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

AT&T/SUITS
by Sandy 22 Apr '93

22 Apr '93

_________________________________________________________________ FROM THE VIRTUAL DESK OF SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Punksters, AT&T: CO-CONSPIRATORS At the last physical San Francisco meeting, I mentioned a curious conversation I had with an AT&T representative. I had called him for info about the ATT Secure Phone 3600. What I reported to the meeting was that while the representative would not "confirm or deny" that the 3600 had a backdoor, his demeanor suggested to me that it did. Now in reviewing the conversation in my memory, I realize that what I was hearing from him was a SMUGNESS. It had the flavor of the cat that swallowed the canary. He obviously knew about the upcoming announcement. In retrospect, I see that he was playing with me by dropping hints such as: "If the NSA were to ask us to put a backdoor in the 3600, of course we would have to cooperate." Talk about your "secret government." Where are Slick Willie's "town hall meetings" when you need them? SUITS ME Let a hundred flowers blossom. Those of us who wish to fight the good fight in suits, should do so. Likewise, those who wish to remain long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking hippies, should follow their hearts. I have no problem with the "Cypherpunks" moniker. It hasn't hurt us, and it has brought us some favorable publicity. I think Perry is being an alarmist. In one point, though, Perry is right. He said people will listen to unconventional folks who present reasonable ideas. But it appears that Perry thinks our support of freedom and privacy is somehow unreasonable in the eyes of Joe Lunchbucket. I respectfully disagree. I think we represent the essence of American values. All we have to do is put it in terms the are immediate and personally relevant to the average American. For the record though, as Tim May can attest, I am bi-cultural. I have gotten in touch with the Suit inside me. If Cypherpunks ever needs a spokesperson in a "dress for success" suit, I'll be glad to volunteer. There is one condition, however. I will only do it if I'm teamed with someone not in a suit; preferably with long hair and wearing tie-dyed. Think of the photo op! S a n d y _________________________________________________________________ PLEASE RESPOND TO: ssandfort(a)attmail.com (except from CompuServe) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

non-cypher related question on audio analysis
by jet＠nas.nasa.gov 22 Apr '93

22 Apr '93

This is only the tiniest bit related to crypto, but that doesn't seem to be much outside the criteria for submissions to this list.. :-) Anyone got pointers to decoding audio tones? An intro book, source code, newsgroup, mailing list, somebody I can take to lunch? I'd like to sample audio with my SGI, and suck out various simple tones and combinations of tones. (DTMF, single pitch variant tones, etc.) thx. -- J. Eric Townsend jet(a)nas.nasa.gov 415.604.4311 NASA Ames Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation | play: jet(a)well.sf.ca.us Parallel Systems Support, CM-5 POC | '92 R100R / DoD# 0378 PGP2.1 public key available upon request or finger jet(a)simeon.nas.nasa.gov

3 2

A question...
by crunch＠netcom.com 22 Apr '93

22 Apr '93

Excuse the high bozo factor, but... I have a question... Does the Clipper Er: Wiretap chip provide a means of authentification?

1 0

ANON SITES:
by $HOME/.sig 22 Apr '93

22 Apr '93

The present plan prosed by John Gilmore is good 3-4 U.S. Sites willing to risk litigation and counter-litigation. And I have a another sort of plan that still really requires an out of country A-server(anonymous posting server). A number of PGP-related services may be set up behind such a screen. Having PGP encryption in the style of PAX would be crucial to maintain the anonymity of such services. #1. Michael Grafs PGP Key-Server #2. Anonymous Digital "face" banks(ala Chaum) #3. Gray Market Exchange #4. Encrypted Anonymous Mailing Lists(Example: Dark Technology) #5. Data Havens. #6. alt.whistleblowers(really "hearing aid" see Brunner, J. "Shockwave Rider" A vast network of anonymous servers may be maintained behind the screen of a single foreign site A-server ready to come on line at a single command if suppression attempts are experienced. However AARM type scripts will continue to be a threat,I also think we should look at the possibility of both port 25 and port 119 manipulation with auto-search and random selection of NNTP and SMTP open servers as well as header addition to confuse path analysis... I know this is normally regarded as unprofitable but considering what we are up against... Addition dialup slip and ppp hosts could use a variety of 9.6-56kb dialup sites to provide rotating xntp synchronized anonymous posting and mail services.Uucp sites could play as well on email-based services via uucp. Are any foreign sites up for running David Clunies PAX Code??? cheers kelly - -------- - -- To add the following key block to your PGP2.0 Public Key Ring save this entire message to a file and enter the following command: pgp -ka [name_of_file_saved] The above key block is included on every message I send from - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.2 mQCNAiqua1sAAAEEAMhfx9J4HPDUZReVFsxS1EZh1jArbIKYtFsL8qit1xCDU8xk Sg/MyOVg37CXv/zKGhjrYt1/F4zntHewIDMm3LkH/G/do74zq1R1NrukD5PUbU8/ aeOvsFmjI3HGJGQNpPXXd8eegxHeggOpQPqLNbsl+VSFY5qka/gXinP2G6VzAAUR tB9rZWxseSA8cGxlaWt1IWtlbGx5QG5ldGNvbS5jb20+tBFzbmFrZUBjYWRlbmNl LmNvbbQdS2VsbHkgR29lbiA8a2VsbHlAbmV0Y29tLmNvbT6JAJUCBRAq0+Yk4nXe Dv9n9wsBAUbXA/9nPYjlRcak+JHZzrU8IHwqvSi/eA8IxKfviB0aaOgEkJOgoSrD FzGl0wq9usgqywl1cG05pHhy9dE5YisPrhQUq7Vo3piOxsrhAxdX3OP14wEfqpIU g23lgq55DKKHVf5ea+/F84mdTO7l3Ef4BzfwdKa7YfsFzLOcjWthwnQa84kAlQIF ECq1XovhoOw8SgKpbwEB8bgD/RkyuGei5GZFmXACvF5tBJ2UsCOmmv1c4y4gFQ6U /YO+lO22kVbW497tKJYZyJIMqCj9AnlhqPePiYrj76n951tF3R5AkmTaBIC1SAB6 2oB7xgOSnrt0LxZJml6cLROM6ZpFYIvOVp5GHGlVWu9vxP7BKo+z4LnzFlQzu83O Et4U =PfOI - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- pleiku!kelly(a)netcom.com.... ------- End of Unsent Draft

1 0

life, universe, everything
by AOLCHTNN＠vax1.tcd.ie 22 Apr '93

22 Apr '93

I got your address in mondo8. I need information on encryption software. Unfortunately, external telnets have been impossible for some time now, so I can't look for it through the usual channels. Thanks in advance. AOL

1 0

Should we become "suits"?
by pmetzger＠lehman.com 22 Apr '93

22 Apr '93

No one said anything about becoming "suits", Tim. The problem is this: the name "Cypherpunks" makes us sound like people who break into computers for fun or other such stuff. I was on the phone with John Markoff of the New York Times a couple of days ago, and I was unhappy that no one had yet changed the name of the group because I frankly felt that I could not encourage him to subscribe -- the results would be unpredictable. I encouraged him to read more sci.crypt instead, which he has already been doing. I've been associated with radical political causes for a while. I've found that in general, the radicals are their own worst enemy. People are NOT happy about being lectured to by strange-acting people. Bill Winter of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire was their chairman over the period in which the LPNH went from four members of the state party to actually becoming a force in New Hampshire politics. New Hampshire is the *only* LP outpost to make any significant electoral inroads, *anywhere*. He once told me this: you can get people to accept strange sounding ideas when promulgated by normal looking people. You can get them to accept normal-sounding ideas when promulgated by strange looking people. You can't get them to accept strange ideas when promulgated by strange people. No, I'm not saying you should wear a suit. I'm not saying John Gilmore should cut his hair and start wearing Armani. I'm just saying that our name is a stumbling block. Why shoot ourselves in the foot for something worthless? The simple change in our name from something confrontational that makes us sound like machine crackers to something that expresses what this group is about would make a radical positive change in our image. Now, what are the benefits of keeping the current name "cypherpunks"? Well, lets see Tim's list. >In a sense, Cypherpunks fill an important ecological niche by >being the outrageous side, the radical side...perhaps a bit like the role >the Black Panthers, Yippies, and Weather Underground played a generation >ago. None of whom accomplished any of their goals. You REALLY want to emulate them? I've been an occassional visitor to #9 Bleeker Street, where Dana Beal, last of the Yippies, holds court. He doesn't wash regularly, and he wonders occassionaly why no one takes his drug legalization crusade seriously. Hint: they are connected. We can't afford to lose this fight. This is a matter of life and death. Playing out fantasy games about being 1960s radicals is fine and well -- when you don't care about the outcome. We can't afford to lose, so we can't afford to emulate losing strategies. > And, frankly, my guess is that even most of Middle America will >feel somewhat more comfortable listening to a John Gilmore, for example, >than a Bill Gates-type nerd clone. People know honesty and sincerity when >they see it, and they know lawyers when they see them. It's been 25 years >since the hippie heyday, and most Americans have adjusted to varying >outward appearances. Well, I'm not proposing that John not be a spokesman -- most of our interaction with the media is happening electronically and not in person, and John is eloquent. But you are fooling yourself if you think people listen to Hippies over Suits. I'm speaking as a person who used to have long hair and worked exclusively in Tee-shirt and shorts. I feel more comfortable dressed that way -- but these days I wear a suit because thats what gets me paid. I'm also speaking as a person who's extensively looked at this question in connection with my activism in the Libertarian Party. The fact is this: over and over again, every scientific study thats been done (by lots of people), every anecdotal comparison I can make in things like why one LP candidate did well and another did poorly or why one local group soared while another failed, each one of them point to the same conclusion: that conclusion is, sadly, that you are completely wrong Tim, and that people judge by appearances, and that even the most down and out people in our society will take the word of a person who looks respectable over a person who doesn't. This includes hackers -- hackers will trust grungy looking people as soon as they have verified that they are fellow hackers, but watch what they do sometime when they drive by a hitchhiker as casually dressed as themselves. Take a sample of hackers, put them in a sociology lab, show them videotapes of people making statements who are dressed like hippies and dressed like bankers, and five will get you ten that they react just like the rest of the population. Influencing the public is not a guessing game any more -- its a science. People have done honest to god studies on this. I'll happily forward you references if you want. >We don't all have the same politics...some of us are >anarcho-capitalists, some are socialists (I hear), some are nonpolitical >(as near as I can tell), some decline to state, and some may off in their >own uncharted territory. But what we all seem to believe in common is that >no government has the right to force us to make tape recordings of all of >our conversations (to be placed in escrow, in case the government someday >needs to listen to them!), to tap our phones, to insist we speak in >government-approved non-coded language, and to use their "Wiretap Chips." Fine and dandy, but how does changing our name to "cryptoprivacy" harm any of this? >In any case, it's much too late to change the name now. No its not. Its perfectly easy. >And note tha the "Hackers Conference" has not changed _their_ name, >either, despite the negative publicity given the name. They aren't doing any lobbying. Their name doesn't matter. Their image makes no difference at all. Ours does. >As for respectablity, is our goal to be "co-opted" into the >Establishment? Tim, I'm an anarchist. Do you REALLY think I'm about to become co-opted by the establishment? Is it REALLY your belief that changing the name of the group to "cryptoprivacy" would turn me into a raving statist, foaming at the mouth about imposing regulatory control structures? >There are already several groups, as I've mentioned, made up of lawyers >and "respectable spokesmen" like Mitch Kapor and Mike Godwin (wherever he >is now). No one can log in to their groups -- we provide an essential service. I WANT the New York Times reporter reading this group, but I don't want him to think we are crackers or nuts. >But I don't plan to shave off my beard, cut my hair, start wearing suits, >or be "moderate and reasonable" in my arguments. Who asked you to? You aren't going on television, and moderating your ARGUMENTS is useless. I'm talking about appearances, nothing more. Our name is cheap and easy to change. It costs us little, and I'm not proposing we change anything else. Perry

2 1

Re: Should we become "suits"?
by dmandl＠lehman.com 22 Apr '93

22 Apr '93

1) God bless Tim May. I am in complete agreement with his response to Perry Metzger re his name change proposal (shouldn't be a surprise, as I believe I was the first one to express my horror at it). 2) The time I can devote here at work to this sort of thing is very limited. If I had more time, I'd send a much more in-depth response to Perry's proposal; I don't, so this will have to be shorter and pithier than I'd like. Perry says: > No one said anything about becoming "suits", Tim. I think you did, even if it was indirectly. > The problem is this: the name "Cypherpunks" makes us sound like people > who break into computers for fun or other such stuff. I was on the > phone with John Markoff of the New York Times a couple of days ago, > and I was unhappy that no one had yet changed the name of the group > because I frankly felt that I could not encourage him to subscribe -- > the results would be unpredictable. I encouraged him to read more > sci.crypt instead, which he has already been doing. I don't have the same problem you do with people who "break into computers," though I wouldn't do it. Nevertheless, the cypherpunks as a group never advocate, and rarely even discuss, cracking. I couldn't care less what journalists think, especially journalists from the New York Times. If someone makes an inference like that (the sort of distortion or basic cluelessness I wouldn't be surprised to see in the NYT), he's a bad journalist, and that's his problem. And what does our name have to do with "the results" of subscribing to the group? I take it you're referring to the content of our discussions, which wouldn't change along with our name--unless you're also suggesting that we should tone down our more inflammatory rhetoric (and I think it's a short step from the name change to that anyway). > I've been associated with radical political causes for a while. I've > found that in general, the radicals are their own worst enemy. People > are NOT happy about being lectured to by strange-acting people. So don't lecture them. I don't lecture people. I think people are open- minded about reasonable-sounding ideas if they make sense and are explained in a reasonable way. > Bill Winter of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire was their > chairman over the period in which the LPNH went from four members of > the state party to actually becoming a force in New Hampshire > politics. New Hampshire is the *only* LP outpost to make any > significant electoral inroads, *anywhere*. He once told me this: you > can get people to accept strange sounding ideas when promulgated by > normal looking people. You can get them to accept normal-sounding > ideas when promulgated by strange looking people. You can't get them > to accept strange ideas when promulgated by strange people. Big deal. If they became a wing of the Democratic Party they'd have even more supporters. The electoral system is a scam, and the LP is deluding itself by getting involved in it. (Ancient anarchist wisdom: "If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.") I won't get any deeper into this, because it's getting way off the subject. > The simple change in our name from something confrontational that > makes us sound like machine crackers to something that expresses what > this group is about would make a radical positive change in our image. > > Now, what are the benefits of keeping the current name "cypherpunks"? > > Well, lets see Tim's list. > > >In a sense, Cypherpunks fill an important ecological niche by > >being the outrageous side, the radical side...perhaps a bit like the role > >the Black Panthers, Yippies, and Weather Underground played a generation > >ago. > > None of whom accomplished any of their goals. You REALLY want to Do you really think the Black Panthers would have accomplished more if they wore suits? Ever hear of Cointelpro? The murder of Fred Hampton? In fact, the Panthers were much more reasonable than John Q. Public thought they were. There was a massive propaganda campaign from the government and the straight press to appeal to white America's basic racism and make the Panthers look like some crazed niggers who wanted to kill whitey and rape his daughter. It would have been the same thing no matter what. I've got news for you: if we do change our name, and the FBI is pissed enough, they'll call us crackers and cypherpunks anyway. There are millions of precedents for this. > emulate them? I've been an occassional visitor to #9 Bleeker Street, > where Dana Beal, last of the Yippies, holds court. He doesn't wash > regularly, and he wonders occassionaly why no one takes his drug > legalization crusade seriously. Hint: they are connected. I know Dana. People don't take him seriously because he's a jerk. > I WANT the New York Times reporter reading this group, but I don't > want him to think we are crackers or nuts. How can the name we use influence his opinion of us more than the 50 messages a day posted to the group? I don't have time to respond to the rest of Perry's message; there's just too much to say. But I repeat: there are more "respectable" groups involved, like the EFF and CPSR, so you're free to work with them when talking to the media. Perry, I have very strong differences with your views of how the media and the "spectacle" work, and I can't do justice to the subject given this limited space and time; it's also not directly relevant to cypherpunks business. For anyone wanting a more modern take on how the media works today, I humbly suggest you read the situationists, who addressed all these issues twenty-five years ago, or Jerry Mander's great book "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television." --Dave.

2 1

Answers revealed! Film at Eleven!
by fergp＠sytex.com 22 Apr '93

22 Apr '93

To make a long story short, don't try to (-e) encrypt anything with PGP on a STACKERed drive -- it ain't gonna work. When I got in this morning, I proved this point by encrypting without nary a problem on a non-compressed drive. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Cheers. (BTW, Kelly -- the second message that you sent is still crippled. What are you doing? Software (PGP) development? ;-) Paul Ferguson | Uncle Sam wants to read Network Integration Consultant | your e-mail... Centreville, Virginia USA | Just say "NO" to the Clipper fergp(a)sytex.com | Chip...

1 0

Fowarded messages from RISKS
by fergp＠sytex.com 22 Apr '93

22 Apr '93

Greets. These two forwarded message are from the RISKS Forum (14.51). I thought some of you folks might be interested. (Padgett Peterson is a fellow assembler buff who is better known on comp.virus.) ---- Forwded Messages -------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 9:21:53 EDT [RISKS-14.51] From: Clipper Chip Announcement <clipper(a)first.org> Organization: FIRST, The Forum of Incident Response & Security Teams Subject: Slide presented at White House briefing on Clipper Chip Note: The following material was handed out a press briefing on the Clipper Chip on 4/16. Chip Operation Microchip User's Message +----------------------+ ------------------> | | 1. Message encrypted | Encryption Algorithm | with user's key | | | Serial # | 2. User's key encrypted | |--> with chip unique key | Chip Unique Key | User's Encryption | | 3. Serial # encrypted Key | Chip Family Key | with chip family key ------------------> | | | | +----------------------+ For Law Enforcement to Read a Suspect's Message 1. Need to obtain court authorized warrant to tap the suspect's telephone. 2. Record encrypted message 3. Use chip family key to decrypt chip serial number 4. Take this serial number *and* court order to custodians of disks A and B 5. Add the A and B components for that serial number = the chip unique key for the suspect user 6. Use this key to decrypt the user's message key for this recorded message 7. Finally, use this message key to decrypt the recorded message. - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 93 09:12:57 -0400 [RISKS-14.51] From: padgett(a)tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: "Clipper Chip" I suppose we should have expected something after all of the sound and fury of the last few years. The announcement does not really give enough information though. My first thought involves conventional compromise: what happens if the keys are captured through theft *and you know about it* - how difficult is it to change the keys ? What do you do between the time the loss is detected and the time a new key set is approved. How difficult is it to program the chip or do you need a new one ? (and if the chip can be reprogrammed, how do you prevent covert changes that will not be discovered until authorization to tap is received and the agency finds out that it cannot ?). Potentially this must occur every time a trusted employee leaves. For some time, I have been playing with dynamic access cards ("tokens") as seeds for full session encryption rather than just for password devices. Since the encryption requires three parts (PIN, challenge, and token) which are only physically together at the secure system, and since only the challenge passes on the net, and since once encryption starts you have not only provided protection to the session, you have also authenticated both ends simultaneously (by the fact that you can communicate), it seems ideal. *And everything necessary already exists*. >From several US companies. It just has not been put together as a commercial product (FUD at work 8*(. Since key generation is on-the-fly at the onset of the session, obviously what the gov needs is not the key but the "key to the key" (of course computers, even a PC, are really good at this. The real question is "Why a new chip ?" The technology to do this has been around for years and several DES chips are available commercially today. The BCC laptop (I like Beaver better 8*) 007 provides this internally today with (I believe) the LSI-Logic chip and Enigma-Logic's PC-SAFE (plugs) does the same with software alone. As indicated in the announcement, financial institutions have been using encrypted transmissions for years without any great outcry. IMHO the real hold-up has been $$$ - cheap error-correcting modem technology to prevent synch losses rather than a lack of good crypto algorithms. Today this is a done deal (actually we have known how to keep in synch since the sixties but you couldn't buy 56kb for under $300.00 at BizMart - now part of K-Mart ! - then). True, there are a lot of questions yet to be answered, but again IMHO most center on the exception cases and not the encryption technology itself. Padgett ---- End Forwarded Messages -------------------------- Cheers. Paul Ferguson | Uncle Sam wants to read Network Integration Consultant | your e-mail... Centreville, Virginia USA | Just say "NO" to the Clipper fergp(a)sytex.com | Chip...

1 0

DC Meeting this weekend?
by William Lee Nussbaum 22 Apr '93

22 Apr '93

Hello, all... If there is going to be a DC meeting this weekend, please try to determine by this evening what it will be... I won't have mail access after about 9am tomorrow until the end of the weekend, and I will be in DC (Although, since I'm traveling with others, I don't know whether I'll be able to make it even if I do know, but if I have some sort of contact information, that can be worked out in other ways.) Please excuse the pushiness, just trying to get a hectic couple of weeks organized... - Lee

1 0