- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

diplomacy
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I sure hope the following was diplomatic enough. NSA exhibited NO SENSE OF HUMOR when I pointed out 'deficiencies' in its crypto algorithm work. But, too, the agrieve Islamic fundamentalists may not have too good senses of humor. But with that experience, my sensitivities are hightened. Later, guys. Back to POSTCARD COMMUNICATIONS! Sunday 1/18/98 6:24 AM Jim Allen Thanks for the call on Friday night. You said that there might be a problem in the way the interrupts were turned on. I told you I would give this some thought. Here is the routine to turn on the interrupts ;* Call DasIntOn(IoPointer&, ErrorFlag&, SystemState&, IoData&(0, 0), ;* IoParm&(0, 0), LgradThres) from Visual Basic. DasIntOn PROTO FAR, VBIoPointer:dword, VBErrorFlag:dword, VBSystemState:dword, VBIoData:dword, VBIoParm:dword, VBLGradThres:dword DasIntOn PROC FAR EXPORT, VBIoPointer:dword, VBErrorFlag:dword, VBSystemState:dword, VBIoData:dword, VBIoParm:dword, VBLGradThres:dword Prolog ;* Stage 1 Get addresses of IOPointer, ErrorFlag, SystemState, ;* IoData, IoParm, LGradThres which point back into VB static array. mov eax, VBIoPointer ; get VB IoPointer address mov IoPointer, eax ; move it to asm mov eax, VBErrorFlag ; get VB ErrorFlag address mov ErrorFlag, eax ; mov it to asm mov eax, VBSystemState ; get VB SystemState address mov SystemState, eax ; move it to asm mov eax, VBIoData ; get VB IoData address mov IoData, eax ; move it to asm mov eax, VBIoParm ; get VB IoParm address mov IoParm, eax ; move it to asm mov eax, VBLGradThres ; get VB LGradThres address mov LGradThres, eax ; move it to asm ;* Stage 2 zero the interrupt counter and system state mov IntCount, 0 mov LocalSysState, 0 ;* Stage 3 install dummy interrupt vector call SetDummyIntVector ; Set dummy IrqLevel interrupt ;* Stage 4 make sure interrupt is masked on the das board call DisableDasInt ;* Stage 5 Set up Irq level in bits 4-6 of register 9 call SetDasIrqLevel ;* Stage 6 set up counter 0 with number of rows AND enable ;* hardware trigger. This is done in Counter0SetUp. call Counter0SetUp ;* Stage 7 Enable interrupt on 8259a call EnableIrqMask ;* Stage 8 Set Irq 5 highest prority in 8259a - didn't seem to ;* make any difference in performance ; call Irg5HighestPriority ;* Stage 9 Burst length set-up call EnableDasBurstMode ;* Stage 10 - clear fifo call InitDasFifo ; read and discard 256 fifo words ;* Stage 11 Set application interrupt vector call SetDasIntVector ; Set IrqLevel interrupt vector ;* Stage 12 Set LocalIop to DataRows - 1. MOV ax, DataRows - 1 ; set LocalIop = DataRows mov LocalIop, ax ; les bx, IoPointer ; get address IoPointer% mov es:[bx], ax ; also set VB IoPointer% = 0 ;* Stage 13 Set hardware trigger call SetHardwareTrigger ;* Stage 14 Clear flip-flop on Pin 25 call ClearDasPin25 ;* Stage 15 Enable interrupt on das board call EnableDasInt Epilog ret 24 DasIntOn ENDP This got a bit complicated. The ComputerBoard clone of the Keithly-Metrabyte a/d converter powers-up in an UNKNOWN state. Or at least partially UNKNOWN. One of the random states includes triggering spurious interrupt. So a dummy handler had to be inserted to possibly field bad data. The attempt was made to interface directly to hardware without a microcontoller buffer was partially successful. Sampling at the 1 Khz rate revealed that Windows occasionally did its own thing as a result of a task switch and, therfore, interrupts were missed. To detect when this happened we modified the ComputerBoards das 1400 board so that a hardware count of interrupts received could be compared to the software count. Since the a/d values were buffered a FIFO, the FAST Pentium could catch up. But this caused the interrupt handler to increase in size from about 1 K lines, including white space and comments, to 2 K lines. Naturally we wish to be in the problem solving, as opposed to problem creating, or assignation of blame. I think we have to consider all possible problem sources. I am looking at the AC POWER INTERFACE LS SOV Schematic dated 11-8-96. I see that the power to the analog and digital cards was run via a serial port db 25 cable and connector. Pin assignment are Pin Function 1 -15 G 2 +15 GS 3 +5 G 4 +15 G 5 5 GS 6 tied to pin 7 7 +15S 8 15 S 9 5 10 tied to pin 10 11 +15 12 tied to pin 11 13 15 S 14 tied to pin 1 15 +5 GS 16 tied to pin 3 17 nc 18 tied to pin 5 19 +24 ground 20 tied to pin 19 21 +5 S 22 tied to pin 9 23 tied to pin 22 24 +24 volts 25 tied to pin 24 The +24 volts runs to solenoids. The remaining power runs to both digital and analog Ics. While some are left wondering why engineers had not thought of running analog, digital and solenoid power down an inexpensive 24 pin PC serial port cable before, perhaps, we might all guess, other engineers lack sufficient innovative audacity. One engineer opined last summer, when I was working in the shop on the digital FX, that the PC Data System boards may have to be redesigned. Lets hope that such a major revision is not required. Naturally, me being a TOTAL CONSERVATIVE [as evidenced by Morales and my genocide court filing], I plan to physically separate the analog and digital IC s on the digital FX. And I am thinking about on-board power regulation to keep the 80c32, analog, and digital chips super-happy. In the field, of course. I will leave in several hours. In my grey rabbit. Air travel safety worries me more now. Especially after publication of last book. Just in case, I will bring my passport. The thought of two machines located 180 miles NW of Edmonton not working well is, of course, chilling. I sure glad the 8051 version of PC Data System is working fairly well. And is MAKING money for Metriguard. See you on Tuesday, Allah willing. Later bill Title: Payne/Morales v. NSA -- Defendant's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment 16 January 1998 Source: William H. Payne See related files: http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney District of New Mexico __________________________________________________________ Post Office Box 607 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 505/766-3341 505/766-2868 FAX 505/766-8517 January 5, 1998 W.H. Payne P.O. Box 14838 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87191 Re: Payne & Morales v. Minihan USDC NM CIV 97-0266 SC/DJS Dear Mr. Payne: Enclosed is a court-endorsed copy of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Evidence from Admissions. Sincerely, JOHN J. KELLY United States Attorney [Signature] JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL Assistant U. S. Attorney JEM/yh Enclosure cc/enc: Arthur R. Morales [Stamp] FILED United States District Court District of New Mexico 98 JAN -5 PM 3:46 Robert M. Marsh District Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO WILLIAM H. PAYNE ) ARTHUR R. MORALES ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) CIVIL NO. 97-026 SC/DJS ) LT GEN KENNETH A. MINIHAN ) USAF Director, National Security ) Agency, ) ) Defendant. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM ADMISSIONS Defendant Minihan responds to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Based On Evidence From Admissions1 as follows: 1. Commencing in October, 1997, Plaintiffs served numerous sets of Requests for Admissions on various employees of the National Security Agency and on current and past employees of the Sandia National Laboratory. 2. Counsel for Defendant was not served with copies of any of said Requests for Admissions until sometime after the individuals had been served.2 ____________________ 1 It should be noted that the instant Motion for Summary Judgment constitutes Plaintiffs' second motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed an initial Motion for Summary Judgment on June 4, 1997 to which Defendant responded on June 19, 1997, and Plaintiffs filed a Reply on July 1, 1997. Said initial Motion for Summary Judgment has not been ruled upon. In addition, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Arthur R. Morales on September 23, 1997, and a Motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiff William Payne's Freedom of Information Act action on October 3, 1997. All briefing by all parties has been completed on those Motions. 2 On October 13, 1997, Plaintiffs mailed a First Set of Admissions to Kenneth Minihan. However, not until November 3, 1997, did Plaintiffs mail a copy of said First Set of Request for 3. Upon becoming aware that Plaintiffs had served Requests for Admissions on a number of individuals, on October 23, 1997, Counsel for Defendant filed a Motion and Memorandum To Strike Any And All Of Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests For Admissions To Various Employees Of The National Security Agency And To Various Employees Of Sandia National Laboratory, (hereinafter "Motion and Memorandum.") 4. As grounds for the Motion and Memorandum, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs had blatantly disregarded this Court's Order pertaining to the conduct of discovery and the deadline for discovery in this Freedom of Information Act action. 5. In Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Counsel for Defendant also objected to Plaintiffs' sua sponte decision to modify the Court's June 11 Order to reflect the delay of the Court's October 7 Order and the establishment, without leave of this Court, of new deadlines for discovery, motions practice, and the filing of the PreTrial Order. (Motion and Memorandum ¶ 9, at 4.) 6. In the Motion and Memorandum, Defendant requested that this Court strike any and all "First Set of Request for Admission" propounded by Plaintiffs. (Motion and Memorandum, at 5.) 7. Plaintiffs responded to the Motion and Memorandum on November 5, 1997, specifically seeking that this Court "take no action in this case until Supreme court takes action on writs on ____________________ Admissions to Counsel for Defendant. Counsel for Defendant was not provided with copies of any other Requests for Admissions sent to employees of NSA or employees of the Sandia National Laboratory. 2 mandamus, prohibition, and criminal complaint affidavits filed against judges Svet and Campos and US Attorney Mitchell." (Plaintiffs' Response to Motion And Memorandum To Strike Any And All Of Plaintiffs' First Set Of Request For Admissions To Various Employees Of The National Security Agency And To Various Employees Of Sandia National Laboratories, ¶ 11, at 10.) 8. To date, no order has been issued by this Court on the matters raised in the Motion and Memorandum, nor has any other court issued any orders concerning Plaintiffs' cause of action and various complaints. 9. By their own request, Plaintiffs sought to stay a ruling on the Defendant's Motion and Memorandum. Absent any ruling on either the Motion and Memorandum or Plaintiffs' Response, Defendant Minihan, employees of NSA, and employees of Sandia National Laboratory, were not obligated to respond to the Requests for Admissions as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.3 For Plaintiffs to now assert in their "Motion for Summary Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" that because the individuals have not responded to the Requests for Admissions they are deemed admitted, flies in the face of their own prayer to this Court to stay a ruling on the Defendant's Motion to strike the Requests for Admissions until the Supreme Court takes action. ____________________ 3 Despite the fact that Defendant's employees and other individuals are not required to respond to the Requests for Admissions based upon the outstanding pleadings which have yet to be ruled on by this Court, Plaintiffs characterize that all admissions are admitted and then publish those admissions on the Internet. 3 10. Defendant requests that this Court either rule upon Defendant's Motion and Memorandum granting the request to strike the Requests for Admissions, or grant Plaintiffs' request to stay this action pending the issuance of the order sought by Plaintiffs in another forum. Should this Court deny Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Defendant respectfully requests that the individuals to whom Requests for Admissions are appropriate in this action be given the thirty days to respond to said admissions as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 11. Plaintiffs requested a stay. Absent a ruling from this Court denying their request, they cannot proceed to assert that the Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' "Motion For Summary Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" must be denied. Respectfully submitted, JOHN J. KELLY United States Attorney [Signature] JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL Assistant U.S. Attorney P.O. Box 607 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (505) 766-3341 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to PRO SE PLAINTIFFS, this 5th day of January, 1998. [Signature] JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL Assistant U. S. Attorney 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO William H. Payne ) Arthur R. Morales ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v ) CIV NO 97 0266 ) SC/DJS ) Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF ) Director, National Security Agency ) National Security Agency ) ) Defendant ) REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM ADMISSIONS 1 COMES NOW plaintiffs Payne [Payne] and Morales [Morales] [Plaintiffs], pro se litigants to exercise their rights guaranteed under the Constitution, Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Civil Rules to respond to Defendant's MOTION filed on 98 JAN-5 within the 14 days allowed by local rule 7.3(b)(4). 2 US Attorney Mitchell [Mitchell] writes, Counsel for Defendant was not served with copies of any of said Requests for Admissions until sometime after the individuals had been served.2 Mitchell WAS SERVED PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION TO NSA DIRECTOR KENNETH MINIHAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing request for admissions was mailed to Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, Assistant US Attorney, 525 Silver SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Monday November 3, 1997. Michell was not served with any other admissions since Mitchell is not representing others. Plaintiffs' served Defendant Minihan properly. And Minihan failed to respond to Minihan's admissions within the time allotted by law. 3 US Attorney Mitchell writes, As grounds for the Motion and Memorandum, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs had blatantly disregarded this Court's Order pertaining to the conduct of discovery and the deadline for discovery in this Freedom of Information Act action. Judges Svet and Campos willfully violated Plaintiffs' right to Discovery. And thereby earned criminal complaint affidavits filed with judge Scalia of the Supreme Court. 4 US Attorney Mitchell writes, In Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Counsel for Defendant also objected to Plaintiffs' sua sponte decision to modify the Court's June 11 Order to reflect the delay of the Court's October 7 Order and the establishment, without leave of this Court, of new deadlines for discovery, motions practice, and the filing of the PreTrial Order. (Motion and Memorandum 9, at 4.) Judge Svet and Campos attempt to deny Plaintiffs' right to Discovery, again, earned Svet and Campos criminal complaint affidavits. Plaintiffs exercise their right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Constitution to conduct Discovery WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT! 5 US Attorney Mitchell writes, By their own request, Plaintiffs sought to stay a ruling on the Defendant's Motion and Memorandum. Absent any ruling on either the Motion and Memorandum or Plaintiffs' Response, Defendant Minihan, employees of NSA, and employees of Sandia National Laboratory, were not obligated to respond to the Requests for Admissions as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.3 For Plaintiffs to now assert in their "Motion for Summary Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" that because the individuals have not responded to the Requests for Admissions they are deemed admitted, flies in the face of their own prayer to this Court to stay a ruling on the Defendant's Motion to strike the Requests for Admissions until the Supreme Court takes action. Plaintiffs' have REPEATEDLY asked judge Svet and Campos to disqualify themselves from any rulings on this case because Campos and Svet do NOT obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Replace judges Svet and Campos because these judges have demonstrated, IN WRITING, they do not follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs' pleas are directed a replacement judge[s]. Not Svet and Campos. Therefore, Svet and Campos' failure to remove themselves does not stop the legal process. Mitchell cites NO law to support her claim that time constraints imposed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.3 are inapplicable as a result of Svet's and Campos' failure to remove themselves. 6 US Attorney Mitchell writes, Defendant requests that this Court either rule upon Defendant's Motion and Memorandum granting the request to strike the Requests for Admissions, or grant Plaintiffs' request to stay this action pending the issuance of the order sought by Plaintiffs in another forum. Should this Court deny Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Defendant respectfully requests that the individuals to whom Requests for Admissions are appropriate in this action be given the thirty days to respond to said admissions as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. REPLACEMENT JUDGES of the Court should realize the outcome of the lawsuit has attained international interest as a result of the 1 bungled NSA spy sting on Iran 2 US government agencies NSA, NIST, and the FBI's attempt to control cryptography. Mitchell's DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM ADMISSIONS was posted on Internet at jya.com, click cryptome nsasuit8.htm USA/NSA Responds to Payne/Morales Motion January 16, 1998 Importance of this posting is summed-up in the Toronto Sun, Jan. 11, 1998 US, Iran Need Each Other by Eric Margolis Iran launched a surprise charm offensive last week, throwing Washington into serious confusion. In a lengthy interview on CNN, Iran's new president, Mohammad Khatami, skillfully analyzed the bitter relations between the two nations and cautiously extended an olive branch to Washington, calling for an end to their 19-year cold war. Khatami's diplomatic ju-jitsu flummoxed the Clinton administration, which was busy trying to rally international support against Tehran - and to overthrow Iran's elected government. Both capitals are split over the question of relations. In Washington, the military establishment and conservative Republicans have inflated Iran into a bogeyman to justify military budgets and keep U.S. forces in the Mideast. ... America incited Iraq to invade Iran in 1980. They did this to crush the Islamic revolution, then provided massive war aid to Saddam Hussein. Half a million Iranians died. The US got caught involved in genocide. Using high tech. This is one subject of this lawsuit. Albuquerque Journal Tuesday 1/13/98 carried the editorial. Khatami Move Is Profile in Courage Richard Reeves Syndicated Columnist LOS ANGELES - If an American leader had done what Iranian President Mohammed Khatami did last Wednesday, it would have been hailed as a profile in courage. ... Miscalculation! We armed and pampered Saddam Hussein in the hope that Iraq would destroy Iran. Now that's policy and behavior to think about. Here is something to think about: If Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had pursued any kind of sensible policy toward Cuba and Fidel Castro - opposed to the policy of trying to assassinate him - there never would have been a Cuban missile crisis. I think Iranians have financed and encouraged terrorism against the interests of the United States and Israel. I would not be surprised at all if something like proof emerges soon, perhaps anonymously, from the CIA and other government agencies, where many officials have built their careers on sanctioning and isolating Iran, to try to straighten the backbones of the president and people of the United States. If they succeed, America fails. What would be more effective in closing down Iranian terrorism? More hostility, sanctions and charges? Or beginning the process toward more normal relations with a country positioned and born to be great? ... Clearly genocide fits into Now that's policy and behavior to think about. The wired world is watching what this Court, hopefully minus judges Svet and Campos, will do. What is there to be? A series of possibly unfortunate events? Or does this Court order release the lawfully requested documents to help settle this American tragedy? WHEREFORE. 7 Have replacement judges of this Court DENY Mitchell's Plaintiffs requested a stay. Absent a ruling from this Court denying their request, they cannot proceed to assert that the Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' "Motion For Summary Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" must be denied. for reason that Mitchell's request to subvert both the Discovery processes and its time limits have no basis in law. And appears to plead to judges who do not obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 IMMEDIATELY ORDER Defendant to release the requested documents in the interest of national safety so that this matter can be settled. Aggrieved victims of US genocide are reading these pleadings. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 _________________________ Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 Pro se litigants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing memorandum was mailed to Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director, National Security Agency, National Security Agency, 9800 Savage Road, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000 and hand delivered to John J. Kelly, US Attorney, 525 Silver SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Tuesday January 20, 1997. 5 Title: Model 7200 HCLT High Capacity Lumber Tester The Metriguard Model 7200 High Capacity Lumber Tester was introduced in 1993. This machine is now certified by grading agencies in the United States, Canada and UK. Also in use in Japan and Austria. Speed capacity is unknown. We have run tests in excess of 2,000 ft/min, and have not seen any limitations or indications that it would not run faster. We expect this machine to keep up with planer developments and run in the neighborhood of 3,000 ft/min sometime within the next ten years. The machine is available with a number of options, including the recently introduced PC Data System, which adds new capability in marking options, shift reports, and internal error checking. Yet to come in Metriguard's program of continuous improvement are automatic wood temperature compensation, automatic zero tracking, scanner inputs. Please contact Metriguard Sales office for further information about how this machine can improve your lumber grading and mill profits. Return to home page

2 1

*** OFF-SHORE INVESTMENTS ***
by ForInformationVisitUs＠OurWebSite.Now 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

********************************************************************* - Remove from list information is after this important message - ********************************************************************* ******* *** OFF-SHORE INVESTMENTS *** Get A Higher Rate of Return on Your Investments Projects Audited by *** Coopers & Lybrand and Price Waterhouse *** Ever wished you could earn a rate of return on your investments that have traditionally been enjoyed only by the very wealthy? Welcome to Cyber Ventures Ltd. - Your gateway to outstanding and private off-shore investment opportunities. Cyber Ventures Ltd. is an on-line venture capital and financing company incorporated under the laws of the Isle of Man. Its primary function is to raise equity capital for profitable venture capital projects. Each project promoted by Cyber Ventures Ltd. complies to established investment criteria and is fully audited to increase the security of your investments. Cyber Ventures Ltd. takes an equity stake in each project right along with you the investor and is a part of the management team of all target investments. Cyber Ventures Ltd. is designed for the relatively small investor so investments are as little as $30 and a maximum of $30,000 for any single transaction. Investors profit through: - Project profit share - Capital appreciation - Interest on capital - Referral commission on sales For more information regarding Cyber Ventures Ltd., its Policies, Project Selection Criteria, Investment Criteria, Current Projects, the Investment Structure, Auditors, and how you can participate in this outstanding and private investment vehicle, you may contact us at: Cyber Ventures Web Site: http://www.cvltd.com E-mail: Info(a)cvltd.com Fax-On-Demand: +1(703) 834-8990 Doc #110 (Please call from a fax) Direct FAX : +27(21) 948-3188 Toll Free USA FAX : +1(888) 218-7034 Message Center: +1(888) 218-7034 Cyber Venture Orders: +27(21) 948-3183 ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** TO BE REMOVED FROM OUR MAILING LIST, TYPE: Bergston(a)ix.netcom.com in the (TO:) area and (REMOVE) in the subject area of a new E-mail and send. ****************************************************************** ******************************************************************

1 0

Signed document - a thought...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I was pondering the security issues regarding signed documents and key security. It occured to me that in all the discussion it is assumed that the document is transmitted after the key is transmitted. It seems to be that a higher level of security could be obtained by submitting the signed document first and then submit the signing key. This way when the document goes out Mallet has no idea what key to replace and any fudging of the document will destroy the sign. Then when the key goes out if it is replaced the document won't pass testing either since the server already has a unmod'ed copy. In short, instead of having each author have a signing key, have each document have a signature key and always submit the signed document prior to the signing key. After all it's the document and not the author (who we assume is already using an anonymous submission mechanism) we wish to verify from the end users perspective. The mechanims provides a means for the data haven server to verify the authenticity of the document and this allows them to pass that trust on to the end user in the same sort of way. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Eternity - an alternative approach
by Ryan Lackey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Kay Ping) writes: > It occured to me that the equivalent on the net would be to receive > packets with invalid source addresses. They are just there, coming dowm > the phone line to your modem. It takes significant resources and snooping > on a massive scale to locate where they are coming from.. All this is > assuming you can find some way to send a request with your address to the > server. I've looked at this idea for a while. It's great right now once you get away from the first couple of subnets, though. However, I've recently become aware of "IDIP", or "Intruder Detection and Isolation Protocol" through potentially questionable sources (my source is mostly NDA-wary). He assumes it will be implemented by having each router cache IP address, received interface tuples. Then, after the fact, one could go back and track someone router by router. The technical solution to this is to flood a router with forged packets while using it to transfer your own data, overflowing the cache. This presents the problem of being tracked by leaving a cloud of flooded routers in your wake. But it's possible. I get the impression the system is far from deployment, but that it is being worked on is a sign that potentially someone sees the rise in forged source address attacks and wants to curtail it. -- Ryan Lackey rdl(a)mit.edu http://mit.edu/rdl/

1 0

Signed document - a thought... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> > Subject: Signed document - a thought... > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:31:36 -0600 (CST) > document have a signature key and always submit the signed document prior > to the signing key. After all it's the document and not the author (who we > assume is already using an anonymous submission mechanism) we wish to verify > from the end users perspective. One other assumption that I left out after I sent it was that the data haven and the key server are not the same machine. Sorry, I hope it makes a tad more sense with that proviso included. Sorry for sending an incomplete suggestion. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd)
by Ryan Lackey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Jim Choate) writes: > Ryan Lackey writes: > > Once your DBC escrow > > "account" runs out, the data is worthless > > That's a jump of logic. The data may infact be quite popular even though you > don't offer it anymore (might even do this in order to increase its worth, > say some sort of insider trader newsletter). It's probably not in the best > interest of the data haven model to speculate on exactly why a particular > source decides to quit sourcing. True. But in an Eternity model without copyright, someone could be one of the first customers to download the data, then upload it again under a different name. The only thing the original uploader would have as an advantage would be indexing information, potentially -- it's easier for me to download ms word by going to the eternity equivalent of http://www.microsoft.com/ than to go to http://www3.pop3-167.adhoc.warez.location.ai/edf3/filez1.zip. There's no real way to put the genie back into the bottle unless you can send people with guns to beat people up who store your data as a third party. Data disappears from Eternity once no one cares enough about it to pay to have it stored. That could mean someone doesn't pay in advance for the data, or no one is willing to invest disk space in the hope that it will in the future be downloaded. Providing eternity service costs money. Anything which lets users circumvent this opens up the potential for denial of service through consumption of resources attacks. Even if billing is fundamental, you still have the potential for the NSA to spend $100m to buy all the eternity space available at any point. This is why you also need market mechanisms -- if the NSA is willing to pay a premium for eternity service just to keep it out of the hands of the populace, then running eternity servers is a great investment, so capacity will increase until the NSA can no longer afford to buy all of it. A difficult part of designing a working Eternity service is to keep people from "stealing service", in terms of consumption of resources, during set up, indexing, etc. Basically, you need to make sure that to the greatest extent possible, anything which is a potentially scarce resource is sold, not given away. > > > remain in Eternity forever if no one cares enough about it to pay to > > have it stored. > > Then again, if it was really important I might intentionaly want to attack > the ability to provide long-term income. A better model might be to charge > for the access and let the actual submission be no charge. A portion of the > retrieval charge could then be piped back to the source. Consider the case > of say nuclear or biological information for a weapon. That sort of data > would be accessed only infrequently (unless you're giving something this > expensive to obtain and verify away - a d-h operator error, no.) but should > be quite expensive to retrieve. You then are vulnerable to someone spamming the system, unless you give the server operator some way of knowing if this encrypted data is likely to be valuable. I think both payment models should coexist. But there's no reason that the server operators are the only people able to speculate -- it could be just another random user. You can have arbitrarily complex payment models, since the enforcement agents can exist (must exist?) as eternity objects in their own right. > > > If the data is still relevant and worth breaking in 50 years, they could > > just intercept the encrypted email, store it in a government vault for > > 50 years, > > More realisticaly they would have somebody just add it to a batch job and > let the spare cycles of the machines crank away at it. Or perhaps set up a > key challenge and get people all over the world to work on it in their spare > cycles. Who knows, perhaps the source of the data woudl be intriqued enough > to provide spare cycles unknowingly. No, the most feasible attacks for a resourced attacker are custom ASICs optimized for key testing, as were recently described. Distributed workstation cracking is a parlor trick if you have a billion dollar budget for key cracking. The NSA has general purpose HPC resources for purposes like signal processing, AI, etc., not for brute forcing people's keys routinely (although perhaps for a weak and nonstandard cipher, it would make sense to use general purpose machines). Even a corporation would be better off using FPGAs or ASICs for key cracking once you get past 56 bits. > > > If you do not postulate that level of signals collection capability on the > > It's not just their sig-int capability but their complete processing > resource capability that must be considered as well as their psychological > motivation. Granted, all of these are extremely difficult to measure let > alone verify. Perhaps a little paranoia might be a good thing. I assume the attacker is evil and rational. I also assume that the entire legal system has been subverted, and that extralegal operations of any size too small to make the new york times front page are possible. And, any entity which deals with the government (just about any) can be subverted. Thinking that the major internet gateways between providers are bugged by the NSA isn't really too unreasonable if you accept those assumptions. > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > | | > | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | > | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | > | | > | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | > | | > | _____ The Armadillo Group | > | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | > | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | > | .', |||| `/( e\ | > | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | > | ravage(a)ssz.com | > | 512-451-7087 | > |____________________________________________________________________| -- Ryan Lackey rdl(a)mit.edu http://mit.edu/rdl/

3 2

Re: Eternity - an alternative approach
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ryan Lackey wrote: >However, I've recently become aware of "IDIP", or "Intruder Detection >and Isolation Protocol" through potentially questionable sources (my >source is mostly NDA-wary). Ryan, Any chance you could get more info on this and pass it along? Or maybe your source could spec it through a remailer if you can persuade that the cutout is truly inviolable. Thanks, John

1 0

Fastest & Easiest way to make money
by 97565462＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a one time mailing and your address has already been deleted from our database. Please take time to read this before you erase it! I would like to let you in on a good idea... I NEVER THOUGHT I'D BE THE ONE TELLING YOU THIS.... I ACTUALLY READ & ACTED ON A PIECE OF E-MAIL, AND NOW I'M GOING TO EUROPE FOR THE VACATION! My name is Jason ; I'm a 34-year-old father, husband, and full time office manager. As a rule, I delete all unsolicited "junk" e-mail and use my account primarily for business. I received what I assumed was this same e-mail countless times and deleted it each time. About two months ago I received it again and, because of the catchy subject line, I finally read it. Afterwards, I thought, "OK, I give in, I'm going to try this. I can certainly afford to invest $20 and, on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with creating a little excess cash." I promptly mailed four $5 bills and, after receiving the reports paid a friend of mine a small fee to send out some e-mail advertisements for me. After reading the reports, I also learned how easy it is to bulk e-mail for free! I was not prepared for the results. Everyday for the last six weeks, my P.O. box has been overflowing with $5 bills; many days the excess fills up an extra mail bin and I've had to upgrade to the corporate-size box! I am stunned by all the cash that keeps rolling in! I promise you, if you follow the directions in this e-mail and be prepared to eventually set aside about an hour each day to follow up (and count your money!), you will make at least as much money as we did. You don't need to be a wiz at the computer, but I'll bet you already are. If you can open an envelope,remove the money, and send an e-mail message, then you're on your way to the bank. Take the time to read this so you'll understand how easy it is. Believe me, it works! GO FOR IT NOW! Sincerely, Jason The following is a copy of the e-mail I read: This is a LEGAL, LOW-COST, MONEY-MAKING PHENOMENON. PRINT this letter, read the directions, THEN GET STARTED TODAY! You are about to embark on the most profitable and unique program you may ever see. Many times over, it has demonstrated and proven its ability to generate large amounts of cash. This program is showing fantastic appeal with a huge and ever-growing on-line population desirous of additional income. This is a legitimate, LEGAL, money-making opportunity. It does not require you to come in contact with people, do any hard work, and best of all, you never have to leave the house, except to get the mail and go to the bank! This truly is that lucky break you've been waiting for! Simply follow the easy instructions in this letter, and your financial dreams will come true! When followed correctly, this electronic, multi-level marketing program works perfectly... 100% OF THE TIME! Thousands of people have used this program to: - Raise capital to start their own business - Pay off debts - Buy homes, cars, etc., - Even retire! This is your chance, so read on and get started today! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ OVERVIEW OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY ELECTRONIC MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING PROGRAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Basically, this is what we do: We send thousands of people a product for $5.00 that costs next to nothing to produce and e-mail. As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the U.S.allows you to recruit new multi- level business online (via your computer). The products in this program are a series of four business and financial reports costing $5.00 each. Each order you receive via "snail mail" will include: * $5.00 cash * The name and number of the report they are ordering * The e-mail address where you will e-mail them the report they ordered. To fill each order, you simply e-mail the product to the buyer. THAT'S IT! The $5.00 is yours! This is the EASIEST electronic multi-level marketing business anywhere! FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER AND BE PREPARED TO REAP THE STAGGERING BENEFITS! ******* I N S T R U C T I O N S ******* This is what you MUST do: 1. Order all 4 reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). * For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! * When you place your order, make sure you order each of the four reports. You will need all four reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. * Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the four reports. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. 2. IMPORTANT-- DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than is instructed below in steps "a" through "f" or you will lose out on the majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you'll also see how it doesn't work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter it, it will not work. ( I talked to a friend last month who has also done this program. He said he had tried "playing" with it to change the results. Bad idea.... he never got as much money as he did with the un-altered version. Remember, it's a proven method! a. Look below for the listing of available reports. b. After you've ordered the four reports, take this advertisement and remove the name and address under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their 50 grand! c. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. f. Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you copy every name and address ACCURATELY! 3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to the instruction portion of this letter. 4. Now you're ready to start an advertising campaign on the INTERNET! Advertising on the 'Net is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Another avenue which you could use for advertising is e-mail lists. You can buy these lists for under $20/2,000 addresses or you can pay someone a minimal charge to take care of it for you. BE SURE TO START YOUR AD CAMPAIGN IMMEDIATELY! 5. For every $5.00 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the report they ordered. THAT'S IT! ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out, with YOUR name and address on it, will be prompt because they can't advertise until they receive the report! ------------------------------------------ AVAILABLE REPORTS ------------------------------------------ *** Order Each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME *** Notes: - ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT CHECKS NOT ACCEPTED - ALWAYS SEND YOUR ORDER VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL - Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least two sheets of paper - On one of those sheets of paper, include: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering, (b) your e-mail address, and (c) your name & postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: ______________________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "HOW TO MAKE $250,000 THROUGH MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: Jason Baek 15507 S. Normandie Ave. # 167. Gardena, Ca 90247-4028 ______________________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: Brain 150 Main St N # 74075 Brampton, Ont., Canada L6V 4J7 ______________________________________________________________ REPORT #3 "SOURCES FOR THE BEST MAILING LISTS" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: AMF Investments 2319 South Kirkwood # 144 Houston, TX 77077 ______________________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "EVALUATING MULTI-LEVEL SALES PLANS" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Fusion Marketing Ltd. 8895 Towne Centre Drive Suite 105-303A La Jolla, Ca 92122-5542 ______________________________________________________________ HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PLAN WILL MAKE YOU $MONEY$ Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 10 downline members. Follow this example to achieve the STAGGERING results below. 1st level--your 10 members with $5............................................$50 2nd level--10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100).....................$500 3rd level--10 members from those 100 ($5 x 1,000)............$5,000 4th level--10 members from those 1,000 ($5 x 10,000)...$50,000 THIS TOTALS ----------->$55,550 Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 10 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Most people get 100's of participants! THINK ABOUT IT! Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you can afford $20). You obviously already have an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! REPORT#3 shows you the most productive methods for bulk e-mailing and purchasing e-mail lists. Some list & bulk e-mail vendors even work on trade! About 50,000 new people get online every month! ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* * TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. * Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report to comply with the U.S. Postal & Lottery Laws, Title 18,Sections 1302 and 1341 or Title 18, Section 3005 in the U.S. Code, also Code of Federal Regs. vol. 16, Sections 255 and 436, which state that "a product or service must be exchanged for money received." * ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. * Be patient and persistent with this program. If you follow the instructions exactly, your results WILL be SUCCESSFUL! * ABOVE ALL, HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF AND KNOW YOU WILL SUCCEED! ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don't receive 10 to 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT #2. If you don't, continue advertising until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. If you want to generate more income, send another batch of e-mails and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! ******* T E S T I M O N I A L S ******* This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rule of not trying to place your name in a different position, it won't work and you'll lose a lot of potential income. I'm living proof that it works. It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money, with little cost to you. If you do choose to participate, follow the program exactly, and you'll be on your way to financial security. Sean McLaughlin, Jackson, MS My name is Frank. My wife, Doris, and I live in Bel-Air, MD. I am a cost accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received the program I grumbled to Doris about receiving "junk mail." I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I "knew" it wouldn't work. Doris totally ignored my supposed intelligence and jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old "I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work... well, the laugh was on me! Within two weeks she had received over 50 responses. Within 45 days she had received over $147,200 in $5 bills! I was shocked! I was sure that I had it all figured and that it wouldn't work. I AM a believer now. I have joined Doris in her "hobby." I did have seven more years until retirement, but I think of the "rat race" and it's not for me. We owe it all to MLM. Frank T., Bel-Air, MD I just want to pass along my best wishes and encouragement to you. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. I even checked with the U.S. Post Office to verify that the plan was legal. It definitely is! IT WORKS!!! Paul Johnson, Raleigh, NC The main reason for this letter is to convince you that this system is honest, lawful, extremely profitable, and is a way to get a large amount of money in a short time. I was approached several times before I checked this out. I joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received $36,470.00 in the first 14 weeks, with money still coming in. Sincerely yours, Phillip A. Brown, Esq. Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. Boy, was I surprised when I found my medium-size post office box crammed with orders! For awhile, it got so overloaded that I had to start picking up my mail at the window. I'll make more money this year than any 10 years of my life before. The nice thing about this deal is that it doesn't matter where in the U.S. the people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return. Mary Rockland, Lansing, MI I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I shouldn't have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed another program...11 months passed then it came...I didn't delete this one!...I made more than $41,000 on the first try!! D. Wilburn, Muncie, IN This is my third time to participate in this plan. We have quit our jobs, and will soon buy a home on the beach and live off the interest on our money. The only way on earth that this plan will work for you is if you do it. For your sake, and for your family's sake don't pass up this golden opportunity. Good luck and happy spending! Charles Fairchild, Spokane, WA ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO GETTING EXTRA CASH DAILY! NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOUR TURN DECISIVE ACTION YIELDS POWERFUL RESULTS

1 0

Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd) > From: Ryan Lackey <rdl(a)mit.edu> > Date: 18 Jan 1998 12:45:02 -0500 > True. But in an Eternity model without copyright, someone could be one of > the first customers to download the data, then upload it again under a > different name. So in your model there isn't any form of check on the data for redundency? > The only thing the original uploader would have as > an advantage would be indexing information, potentially -- it's easier > for me to download ms word by going to the eternity equivalent of > http://www.microsoft.com/ than to go to > http://www3.pop3-167.adhoc.warez.location.ai/edf3/filez1.zip. Not if it's: http://ww.microsoft.com/software/commercial/wordprocessing/msword/x.y/ \ msword.zip This is a specious point. The fact is that from the users perspective the index would automagicaly provide the actual resting place for the server to find it, even if it were on a different server. The whole point is to make the software do the druggery. The length of the pathname or URL is irrelevant at that point. > There's no real way to put the genie back into the bottle unless you can > send people with guns to beat people up who store your data as a third party. The point being that if we take the average user of a data haven model they don't have the resources (money, technical skill, bandwidth, etc.) to set up a data haven of their own. Further, the storing of the data by other parties isn't the issue, it isn't the data havens data. This is one of the primary reasons that really important data should be expensive to get initialy. It goes back to what I was saying in a previous post about Grace Hoppers worth-v-time model. > Data disappears from Eternity once no one cares enough about it to pay to > have it stored. What this over-looks is the potential for that data to become relevant to some currently unknown situation in the future. While I agree that the data should not necessarily be in a fast medium storage after a certain time period it should not simply be thrown away. If nothing else at some point it will have historical (inexpensive, it's still money) relevance. > Providing eternity service costs money. Life costs money, that is one of the reasons that you don't want to throw stuff away that may bring in income down the road. > Anything which lets users circumvent > this opens up the potential for denial of service through consumption of > resources attacks. There simply isn't a way around that except to out bandwidth the attacker. > Even if billing is fundamental, you still have the > potential for the NSA to spend $100m to buy all the eternity space available > at any point. > This is why you also need market mechanisms > -- if the NSA > is willing to pay a premium for eternity service just to keep it out of > the hands of the populace, then running eternity servers is a great > investment, so capacity will increase until the NSA can no longer afford > to buy all of it. I like it when you write my own rebuttal for me...:) The bottem line is that the market mechanism *is* the willingness of some party to buy that space. Nothing more, nothing less. Further, Mallet ain't stupid or he'd have starved a long time ago. > A difficult part of designing a working Eternity service is to keep people > from "stealing service", in terms of consumption of resources, during > set up, indexing, etc. Basically, you need to make sure that to the > greatest extent possible, anything which is a potentially scarce resource > is sold, not given away. The point is that *nothing* is given away for free, though you might want to let people *give* you resources for free. Which is the point I was making. > You then are vulnerable to someone spamming the system, unless you give > the server operator some way of knowing if this encrypted data is likely > to be valuable. The point is that the system can *always* be spammed. You *don't* charge the source of data a million dollars to put it on your server. It's gotta be source cheap or else it isn't worth their time to bother with it. If you *really* want to promote such servers what you need is a model that allows submitters free access *and* a share in the subscribers fees. Then everyone wins. If the source has something they know is worth god awful sums of money they aren't going to submit it to the data haven anyway, they'll set their own haven up and reap the benefits directly. There is an economic issue here that is at parity with the technical issues. > You can have arbitrarily complex payment models, since the enforcement > agents can exist (must exist?) as eternity objects in their own right. Not really, at some point the complexity works against itself - you should study a little chaos theory. The final point is to make the system (ie the logical linking of black box operations that themselves may be quite technical or complex) dirt simple. > No, the most feasible attacks for a resourced attacker are custom ASICs > optimized for key testing, as were recently described. Distributed > workstation cracking is a parlor trick if you have a billion dollar budget > for key cracking. Tell that to the NSA and their Cray-acres. The point is that even if you have customer ASIC's or FPGA's or whatever these are still computers and you can't seriously be suggesting that the resources to create customer hardware for specific goals is any less complicated or more inexpensive than using general purpose hardware when looked at from a global scale. If that model were so generaly applicable then we should move all our processing jobs to ASIC's and reap the benefits. There is also the issue that even if you use customer chips to develop customer key cracking hardware (which I agree is being done as we speak) there is still the inescapable fact that you will need lots(!) of them. So the result is that whether they are custom or general purpose devices the sheer quantity becomes a hinderance. > The NSA has general purpose HPC resources for purposes like signal processing, > AI, etc., not for brute forcing people's keys routinely (although perhaps for > a weak and nonstandard cipher, it would make sense to use general purpose > machines). Even a corporation would be better off using FPGAs or ASICs for > key cracking once you get past 56 bits. That would depend on the economics of startup and what kind of footprint that would leave in the industry. This is one of the reasons that the NSA builds their own chips. > I assume the attacker is evil and rational. My, my. Moral stipulations are probably no more relevant than psychological classifications. The issue is one of emotion. Mallet wants it because it benefits Mallet and hinders Mallets enemies. This is an emotional reason and most definitely outside the bounds of simple rational/irrational action classification. When I was speaking of psychology earlier in my submissions I was not the least bit implying any comment on rationality, goodness, or other relative classifications. I was refering to greed, pride, honor, self-respect, etc. as motivations. The interactions of those in individuals and organizations doesn't depend on classifications. > I also assume that the > entire legal system has been subverted, and that extralegal operations of > any size too small to make the new york times front page are possible. And, > any entity which deals with the government (just about any) can be subverted. Any government can be subverted as well, happens on a regular basis. The legal system may not need to be subverted for the simple reason that more than one legal system may be involved. The front page example you are so fond of is a instance that would take, my guess, probably in the neighborhood of $10k to have a full page for a single day. To make the participants investment in that sum worth it, what is their pay off in your system? Just having their name in the paper probably isn't worth it. The wide public advertisment, and hence notoriety is probably not a big plus either. Especialy considering that it would guarantee the participant a nice bug-for-life experience. > Thinking that the major internet gateways between providers are bugged by > the NSA isn't really too unreasonable if you accept those assumptions. Whether the providers themselves are bugged are not is really irrelevant, its the backbone infrastructure providers who are providing the access points. You tap the satellite transfer point, for example, not the 300 organizations sending data down it. You tap the telephone switch in each neighborhood, not the individual lines on their subscriber end trunks. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

to Anonymous
by Young iVillian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Right on, man. E-Mail me... I'd like to have a conversation w/ you. Technological takeover... we bring it on ourselves. We have no one to blame.

1 0