- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Passphrase generation
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Internaut <unde0275(a)frank.mtsu.edu> writes: > Hi, > I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as > strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the > web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that > didn't add up (no pun intended :). Chech out the cannonical passphrase FAQ: http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/passphrase-faq.html This one has some quick reminders of what to do and not to do http://www.encryption.com/pphrase.htm Bottom line, totally random ASCII will have lots of bits per character, but english has about 1.2 bits per character. Misspellings can add to that, depending on the extent of mutillation . Combining certain words can make your passphrase weaker (such as "To be or not to be," "This is my passphrase," etc.). HTH, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMv48Bskz/YzIV3P5AQGSaQMAjrTuhDUZ4THFFN9wgV8DhODJtHSGnmBM EPmo02rXsN4gslmVpV9+k7sRTOvuZ+vCYvNQL+knaMz4QiNsz8FUleUqo3v5Nx1w 7pJjcWK1wvKe9Y6ky6PXnAECRZ73gVuj =P1Zh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

Re: question on setting up for ipsec/linux
by John Ioannidis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm away from Greece until the end of february. Some questions I may be able to answer, but I don't have the ipsec code with me, nor do I have a setup where I can test things. Here are some tips that may help you though. * The code has been tested under 2.0.27 and 2.0.28. It will probably run on kernels down to 2.0.24. It will not even load with 2.1.x. * Only "tunnel mode" works. I'm waiting for a few more chances to occur to the 2.1.x routing code before I move the IPSEC code to 2.1.x and implement transport mode. * While not reflectedected in the (excuse for) documentation, I *have* tested all the modes for all the transforms. Of course, I may have interpreted the I-Ds in the wrong way, but I don't think so. The following transforms are supported: ah md5 esp des (with 32 and 64 bit IVs) ah hmac-md5 ah hmac-sha-1 esp des-md5 esp 3des-md5 Please not that the des-md5 and 3des-md5 have this weird concept of the Initiator and Responder. Since we're still doing manual keying anyway, it doesn't matter much wich side is which, and it doesn't even matter which if both sides are Is or Rs. The information is onlyl used to derive the encryption and authentication keys, the IV and the counter, from the (hopefully) negotiated shared secret. If all else fails, set both sides to be Initiators, and this way you won't have to think about which "setsa" lines get an r and which get an i. I'll try to write up som e more docs when I'm back in Athens, but if someone else from Europe could do it, it would be good. /ji

1 0

RE: MODERATION
by Butler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy writes: > >C'punks, > >I'm ending my participation in the moderation of the list. Well that was short and ..... errr bitter! > It would have been an interesting experiment if list members had >been open minded enough to give it a good faith effort. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There's a difference between being open minded and gullible Sandy. Nothing like ducking and running away when your little game didn't turn out the way that you wanted it to! This is not a flame, it is my opinion but none the less I'm sure that it will end up in the flames list or be conveniently lost in the masses of mail that John's majordomo receives every day. Scott. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're going to have to fine a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

What's next?
by Thomas Koenig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now that we appear to be at a sustainable 300 MK/sec (which I could hardly believe at first :-), is there any chance we could be attacking the 56-bit DES key next? DES is rumoured to be faster than RC5; also, there are likely to be optimized assembler versions out there already. We could also make better use of 64-bit architectures, since DES uses 64-bit blocks. However (and this is a very big however), that's still a keyspace of 7.2*10^16 keys to search. Assuming 10^9 keys/second (three times our current speed, which may be attainable with a good DES implementation) that's still a bit over two years; too long by a factor of 10 or so. Soo.... How fast are current DES implementations? People could try des.c from the ssh distribution as a starting point. How much more computing power could we bring online? Do people have optimized DES for Alpha, UltraSparc, HP 8000 and all the other nifty 64-bit architectures? Does it make sense to use MMX or equivalent for DES? -- Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig(a)ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25(a)dkauni2.bitnet. The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram.

1 0

Re: lead remailer is shut down
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970207:0339 zinc <zinc(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> said: +i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the +plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet +using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. +so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one +year. that is the universal problem. we make the remailer chains so they guarantee privacy, but we cannot filter for spam... unless it is the last mixmaster in the chain. it sounds like we need a postprocessor which can 1) contain addresses and domain numbers of known spammers; 2) log senders to obtain a usage profile (over a very short time, and that is itself encrypted) which can spot enormous expansion headers. for instance, linda thompson is accusing a cypherpunk [more like a cypherpunk hater] of faking her address on threatening material to all 100 senators plus Al Bore; interestingly, the perpetrator left enough information in the header, which was returned for addressing Al Bore incorrectly, to be able to narrow the field; and, 3) most spamming seems to follow a pattern which it should be possible to scan for. the problem, of course, being that "innocent" messages will potentially be trashed. whatever it takes, there are a finite number of sites which can host remailer traffic. for instance, I have been debating whether or not we can afford the load on our single T1 which is currently supporting 200 simultaneous ppp connections plus some high-volume commerical web pages. We are at least a year away from T3 due to lack of circuit facilities. let's figure a way to stop at least some of the abuse; you can not stop the individual abuse, but does a spammer have any rights? --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMv4nxb04kQrCC2kFAQHAngP+J+JRSKLXsLcug00moPK78brGzzmSTRVI BQmHM9845OWXazbQVj6Q9+HiV5I+7wGY2INm7i6PI9ebNRptORfCTlHkmMzrwfmj Ji/WzhDkJ0eRvmDwHxBuq5unqYLe9ACtMrOCGQo+EYywNcscsXKKuMvFKAPC/Bp8 M46FHO9AphM= =NEYd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: My messages not appearing on either of the lists?
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:36 AM 2/7/97 -0800, Mike Duvos wrote: ... >Now that a few weeks have passed, I have decided that moderation delays >are the most annoying feature of the new experiment. I am subscribed to >the unedited list under another account, and its almost instantaneous >traffic is in great contrast to the time required for posts to trickle >through the Sandfort-Bot. ... >Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in which they >are received. Some messages take a very long time, as other later >messages pass them by and are posted to the list. Again, I have no >explanation for this unusual behavior. Actually, I noticed that often times the posts were out of order when they got to me over about two months ago. This was probably due to my location on the mailing list heirachy, (another reason for a distributed list). I also remember there being a rather lengthy delay between my posting something to the list and it getting sent to me by toad. (I stayed at the computer reading other messages, erasing them and checking if any more had been sent. This was, is, my primary way of keeping my eudora disk from getting clogged to the point where it won't compress.) The problems that you describe aren't new to the list, mostly they are the product of a long list of subscribers. Although, manual moderation certainly adds time between posting and turnaround.

1 0