- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Book review from amazon.com: Internet Cryptography
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Internet Cryptography by Richard E. Smith Paperback, 356 pages List: $27.92 ~ Our Price: $27.92 Availability: This title usually ships within 24 hours. (You can always remove it later...) Internet Books Editor's Recommended Book, 11/01/97: For all the talk about the Internet's very real security weaknesses, information safety is not all that difficult to achieve. Yes, most Internet technology does a better job of making information accessible than it does of protecting privacy. Still, modern cryptographic products and techniques have made more than adequate security available to just about anyone who needs it. In Internet Cryptography, network security consultant Richard Smith explains the basics of online security. He avoids getting technical with too much cryptographic theory or the mathematics behind the magic. Instead he focuses on providing just enough information to enable information systems managers and administrators to make wise decisions. In fact, Smith pays close attention to matters of system configuration and operation, showing how even the best encryption methods can be ruined by careless operation. From there, Smith explains how today's techniques can protect information from being forged, altered, or stolen. Smith devotes most of his discussion of various cryptographic options to products that are presently on the market. Therefore, the techniques he describes are generally within the reach of most businesses and organizations. He progresses from the simplest to most complex approach, examining the strengths and weaknesses of each. As a result, readers wind up with a solid understanding of cryptographic security as well as a good feel for the level of security they require. Book Description : "This book provides an excellent overview of how encryption is used, its strengths and weaknesses, and what to look for when building or choosing real-world solutions. This is a must-have book for anyone considering the deployment of an important system relying on modern cryptography." - Marcus J. Ranum, Chief Scientist, V-ONE Corporation. Here, in one comprehensive, soup-to-nuts book, is the solution for Internet security: modern-day cryptography. Written by a security expert with a wealth of practical experience, this book covers network and Internet security in terms that are easy to understand, using proven technology, systems, and solutions. From the client workstation to the Web host to the e-mail server, every aspect of this important topic is examined and explained. The once-daunting subject of cryptography is demystified and applied to today's security challenges. Topics include: essentials of cryptography; networking and Internet fundamentals; encryption building blocks; virtual private networks; legal considerations; setting realistic security objectives; secured electronic mail; World Wide Web transaction security; and Internet Firewalls. This book is written for people who want to move data safely across the Internet and protect corporate resources from unauthorized access. Using real-life case studies, examples, and commercially available software products, cryptography is presented as a practical solution to specific, everyday security challenges.

1 0

Re: Quoting Portions of a Signed Document
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>It would be neat if you could quote people and prove that they signed the >>particular paragraph quoted without supplying the entire text. Is there >>a way to do this? (It seems impossible, but so does mental poker.) > >>A crude approach would be to sign every paragraph or line >>separately, but that's obviously inelegant. > >Well this could be done by creating a document signature and then a >collection of sub signatures but it can get ugly real quick. Ugly's the word for it, alright. ;-) >What level of granularity does one use for the sub signature? It would be nifty if there was a way to show that any continuous set of bits were signed given only one signature on a whole document. Intuitively, it seems to me that this might be provably inconsistent with a secure hash. Still, crypto results are full of surprises, so I could imagine there is a way to do this. >Then what does the sub signature really tell you? Yes you can verify >that the quote was written by someone but it may be taken completely >out of context. Good point. It is nice that people who quote out of context now in a misleading way are convicted when you demand proof. Still, my sense is that this would be a pretty useful thing to be able to do and it would be technically interesting. For example, you might want to reveal parts of a message signed by somebody else without revealing the entire message. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHtvB5aWtjSmRH/5AQEFvgf8C2gv6G9XZjAjfYy6+wtNY0n/3k8TZXj7 Yr0x9jidiJvfRXOi6cjKskmQ8WL98EbVkjHZkPN2t7rlLtLfQVQyQhBtW0jeXlav dC9tSbNO9ThpIAlztO4Wfpx75xNHgEyvMAMB0CnGj1ZcmgParL6F/WM9nkhaI+ZT R8Uu53BZXsCz408/YI4yu4t6E3SXhOJQYFjQ/JxaI8G9mTBpXXbNV9PoN4i2PjHe 0VfOeU0IAJNvWazFqbwcnTuDpcFvQRY70FhgR1exb7MzPYqJMm7D5kdUtZqFWLAH RkwjusDo01rE6+1YxPtq8dP4/8I1wEUsNLOtLyG9gQ2CT+xBhXfrDw== =FT0Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Re: Further costs of war
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim Choate wrote: > ARTICLE XVI. > > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on >incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the >several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. >[25 February 1913.] > >Notice the date of implimentation, considerably before WWII, it is in fact >the year before the US became involved in WWI. Perhaps you meant WWI instead >of WWII? Citizens of the US have been paying taxes since 1914. True, but a lot less citizens were paying income taxes in 1914 than in 1941. Following are some figures that I extracted from the "Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970", published in 1975 by the US Dep't of Commerce's Bureau of the Census: [Note: in a previous post I had said that the initial income tax was 1% on any person earning more than $4,000 per year. This is incorrect. It was 1% on any person earning more than $20,000 per year, or roughly $400,000 in today's money. Hardly the makings for a public outcry to the new "constitutional amendment." Let's face it: the American public was just as complacent toward unconstitutional legislation then as it is now.] In 1916, this figure was increased to 2%. The total US gov't income tax revenue for that year was $68 million. By 1940, the first income tax bracket had reached 4.4% on any person earning more than $4,000 per year for total yearly income tax revenue of $982 million. The numbers increased dramatically during World War II: Year % Income Total Individual Income Tax Revenue - ---- -- ------ ----------------------------------- 1941 10 2,000 $1.4 billion 1942 19 2,000 $3.2 billion 1943 19 2,000 $6.6 billion 1944 23 2,000 $18.2 billion 1945 23 2,000 $19 billion That's an increase of roughly 2000% in a very short span of time (1940-45). Who says war is not a lucrative business for gov't? >Monty Cantsin wrote: >> I doubt very much that income tax withholding would have been accepted >> if the War were not used to justify it. ("You don't want to pay >> taxes? What are you, a traitor?") > >What war? The taxes came about because of issues other than fighting a war >which hadn't even happened yet. Withholding was not implemented until 1943, smack in the middle of WWII. In 1943, $686 million of the $6.6 billion was collected by withholding, or just over 10%. By 1945, $10 billion of the $19 billion was collected by withholding, more than 50%. In 1970, $103 billion was collected in individual income tax, $77 billion by witholding (75%). In summary, WWII was a convenient way for the US gov't to tighten the screws on its citizens, and it continues to do so to this day. But I've discussed this already in a previous post. "Check the archives." :-) Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNHtaqRa1d3zm4nqOEQIQKgCeN48fnrn5pDzUe/LZhvjJxzU3DKMAn2lT ZTERt+yWGwZTI6xV3qbQ/MsL =DpCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Freemen and Serfs
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- There is a widely held belief that cryptoanarchy is an all or nothing proposition; that is, the future can be a glorious cryptoanarchy or a dismal police state. (I think this is Tim May's analysis, but perhaps others also contributed.) It isn't clear to me that these two environments cannot co-exist in a stable equilibrium. Historically, in many societies which practiced slavery, large numbers of people were neither slaves nor slave owners. Given the naivete of large portions of the population and certain alarming technologies such as implants which are emerging, it seems clear that large numbers of people will become little more than cattle in the near future. (Incidentally, I do not know that this will be "Joe Sixpack" and his friends. Many of those who are "success" oriented are also most willing to be drug tested, the most reluctant to question authority, and the least reluctant to be little more than a cog in the machine.) In any event, those who perceive their environment and respond correctly may continue to be free while others will take the other path. It's tragic, of course, but perhaps not our problem. Monty Cantsin is willing to spend only so much time and effort encouraging people to protect their privacy. There's no reason why cypherpunks can't do business with the slavers. That is, in exchange for various products requiring actual work, cypherpunks (a.k.a. knowledge workers) can provide technical expertise and other services. Once it is clear that enslaving a cypherpunk is expensive, it may be that the slavers of the world discover they can live with it and that it may even be a good deal for them. There might be some turmoil getting to that point, of course. Many U.S. citizens have been told they were free, although the ruling elite tends to see them as chattle. This difference of opinion will have to be resolved one way or another. Hopefully it will be done peacefully. Perhaps instead of seeing ourselves as "The Sons of Liberty" we should see ourselves as "The Sons of Tleilax". Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHt1oJaWtjSmRH/5AQElrAf+Pabkko9LIMO+9cZ7oxgk2xWPIOA5p3rg 8IceSAIutsqF08Erg+Fz/vj7IUE928rpFBOUkndljJjiIe0iqdpdu+Fm+NASy9TX 8TFcXqIKq0BK2daBTSIg3/+A4f/RDvZrZTzzaI0NMd5M3pB2/AiB8InSoGTJTbqk 694L5+sqIc1BV5UBDNEbKulnyr21/nSZHIqz+pJGAZk5XAF21Sk0XYgNqfkKeVlP /eXP6wq5JFbZHhCRU3AT0SfNSdxmCl22+i6WWKCWMdHIV41zMSd9j2HFn83x6ehf u33/yw6MWuCMlm/RcjzXghWRWQPnq/iA1gGgxlUJFfSaRL8Gezs46w== =k6oZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 5

Re: mail2news at mit hasn't worked in a week...
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lcs Remailer Administrator <Use-Author-Address-Header(a)[127.1]> wrote: > > Is anyone else noticing that the m2n at anon.lcs.mit.edu hasn't > > worked in the past week? It used to be extremely fast and > > reliable... now m2n posts to alt.test just don't make it at > > all...even when posting directly (with telnet). > > As far as I know things are working well. If you can read this > message, then the problem is probably with the way you are trying to > post (possibly a remailer you are using went bad). If you can't read > this message, then your ISP may have started blocking messages through > this news server. Do you have any idea which ISPs may be doing that? What's their rationale? This is the first I'd heard of such a practice. Are they blocking all posts from all mail2news gateways or just yours? To all NGs, or just to alt.test? Also, there seems to be one censorious nutcase out there who seems to think he's on a mission from God to "despam" alt.test! I don't know who the heck thinks a *TEST* NG needs his brand of "ethnic" cleansing, but just look at all the cancel messages in the "control" NG for posts to alt.test. --

1 0

mccain remailer backlog
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Owing to a huge pile of mail messages on Monday (and perhaps my effort to process them faster by running smap without smapd) some messages to mccain have had the following destinations: ordinary inbox, bypassing procmail procmail to the wrong recipe, (you may have received an info message) For both of the above I still have the mail in a backlog of about 200 messages that will be getting sent RSN. I am unable to determine whether any mail was lost. Sorry about the possibility of this, and the delay some messages are experiencing. I have increased the POOLSIZE of mccain from 3 to 4, and reduced the RATE from 100 to 90. The tea remailer does not seem to have hit the same problem, perhaps attracting less traffic by lower performance stats. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAgUBNHtuGUrZ5ZQH9XIxAQEaqQP9GUptYlg4j5gO7pBdijia+S+EDmqcvsli kuiisTaDVMxhW93v0rIGv92bUcI/Mx16DuZH+1o7VJ3LpounHwV8yXbfpiD8yHOz fzepEayfj+egwa0ldmg8jHjtbSrupPMYVSKmqotdMJetwjsu0AlLnHzjBnd8QELb 8CaT7eHwAyM= =dvxO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################

1 0

Re: Anonymity at any cost, from The Netly News
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:47 PM 11/25/97 -0500, Mark Rogaski wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 >An entity claiming to be Mikhael Frieden wrote: >: Making the cookie read only and erasing previous additions does the >: same thing for free. Cottrell is PT Barnum speaking. >Considering that the bulk of the online population doesn't even know how to >use the 'attrib' command, that's a useless argument. Anyway, that's only one >aspect of the Anonimizer service. If he is charging $60, I will do it for them for $50. For $40 I will sell detailed instructions. For $30 I well tell them about attrib /h. For free it tell how not to be individually tracked. I do not think my prices are out of line. If people are worried about more than individual tracking, they are doing things that they should not be doing with a browser in the first place. -=-=- The 2nd guarantees all the rest.

1 0

Re: Quoting Portions of a Signed Document
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Monty Cantsin writes: 01> It would be neat if you could quote people and prove that they signed 02> the particular paragraph quoted without supplying the entire text. Is 03> there a way to do this? (It seems impossible, but so does mental 04> poker.) 05> 06> A crude approach would be to sign every paragraph or line separately, 07> but that's obviously inelegant. 08> 09> Monty Cantsin 10> Editor in Chief 11> Smile Magazine 12> http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html 13> http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm An easy way to do this works only if the quoted paragraph comes from the very end of the text. You can supply the cumulative hash of all the material before the quoted part, then the quotation itself, which goes all the way to the end of the document. From this the hash of the whole document can be calculated, and the signature checked. A more general approach calculates the document hash in a line oriented way. Normally we start at the top and work down through the document to get the hash, which is signed. Instead, we would calculate a hash for each line of the document separately, and then combine them using a tree. In the example above hashes would be calculated for lines 1-13. Call these H1A - H13A. Then second level hashes could be calculated by taking H1A through H13A in pairs: H1B = hash(H1A,H2A) H2B = hash(H3A,H4A) H3B = hash(H5A,H6A) ... H6B = hash(H11A,H12A) H7B = H13A We repeat this until we have one hash for the whole document: H1C = hash(H1B,H2B) H2C = hash(H3B,H4B) H3C = hash(H5B,H6B) H4C = H7B H1D = hash(H1C,H2C) H2D = hash(H3C,H4C) H1E = hash(H1D,H2D) We sign the final hash, H1E. Now you can extract a paragraph, say lines 6 and 7 above. The hashes H6A and H7A can be calculated from this. Supply the other hashes needed to calculate the final hash: H5A, H8A, H1C, H2D, will be enough. This will allow calculating H1E and the signature can be verified. The required number of hashes will generally be logarithmic in the size of the missing part of the document.

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:Internet Casinos
by Sal Denaro 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Steve Schear wrote: > FilterBot V2.11: Originally from cypherpunks/coderpunks/elsewhere > --------------------------------------------------------------- > From : Steve Schear <schear(a)lvdi.net> > Subj : Internet Casinos > Date : Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:09:16 -0800 > Forward? : No > Return : schear(a)lvdi.net > MsgID : <v03102804b091551631d5(a)[208.129.55.202]> > FromList : owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Thu Nov 13 20:21:47 1997 > --------------------------------------------------------------- > <bold>Internet Casinos Find a Haven in the Caribbean > </bold>Los Angeles Times > ST. JOHN'S, Antigua and Barbuda-None of the 64,000 residents of this > small, three-island Caribbean nation have complained about the latest > international gambling boom to sweep their secretive little piece of > paradise. > > In the past few months alone, more than a dozen casinos have opened > here. But most Antiguans don't even know they exist. > > That's because you can't see them. If you can't see the tables, how do you know the games aren't rigged? And do they offer Wayne Newton over streaming Video? What about free drinks?

1 0

Re: DaBORG
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Panhead <Knucklehead(a)webspan.net> wrote: > Certainly, there must be more than these?: > > I am James T. Kirk of Borg you will be assimil..... ated. > I am John-Boy of Borg. G'night, Hugh! G'night, Lore! G'night, Data! > I am Kira of Borg. Wanna make something out of it??!!!! > I am Kojak of Borg: Who loves to assimilate ya, baby. > I am Ginsu of Borg. You WILL be ASSIMILATED, but wait! That's not all! > I am Hamlet, prince of Borg! Prepare to be. . . or not to be > I am Haskell of Borg. You resist well, Mrs. Cleaver. > I am Lancelot of Borg. Resistance is feudal. > I am Lennon of Borg. Imagine there's no assimilation . . . > I am Madonna of Borg. Resistance turns me on. > I am Mr. Rogers of Borg. Won't you be assimilated with me? > I am Obi Wan of Borg. Killing me is futile. > I am Odo of Borg. No, now I'm a Cylon. No, now I'm a... > I am Opie of Borg. Can I assimilate 'em, Pa? > I am Oprah of Borg. So, why did you assimilate your husband? > I am Quayle of Borg. Speling is irelevante. > I am Ronald Reagan of Borg. Prepare to be ... uh, I don't recall. > I am Rush Limbaugh of Borg. That's a scary thought, eh? > I am Scooby of Borg. Reware roo re arrimirated, Raggy! > I am Skywalker of Borg. So, Ben, what do I do now ? > I am Smiley Face of Borg. Nice days are irrelevant. > I am Smorgas of Borg. You will be marinated. I am Gary Burnore of Borg. Rational debate is futile. Prepare to be assimilated, f*ckhead! *PLONK* --

1 0