- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RFC2015 on MIME Security with PGP (fwd)
by P. J. Ponder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 96 14:18:26 PDT From: RFC Editor <rfc-ed(a)ISI.EDU> To: rfc-dist(a)ISI.EDU Cc: rfc-ed(a)ISI.EDU Subject: RFC2015 on MIME Security with PGP A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 2015: Title: MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) Author: M. Elkins Date: October 1996 Mailbox: P.O. Box 92957 - M1/102 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957 Pages: 8 Characters: 14,223 Updates/Obsoletes: None URL: ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2015.txt This document describes how Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) can be used to provide privacy and authentication using the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) security content types described in RFC1847. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST(a)CNRI.RESTON.VA.US. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST(a)ISI.EDU. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info(a)ISI.EDU with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info(a)ISI.EDU Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to admin(a)DS.INTERNIC.NET. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR(a)ISI.EDU. Please consult RFC 1543, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. Joyce K. Reynolds and Mary Kennedy USC/Information Sciences Institute ... Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the RFCs.

1 0

Re: SPA sues C2, other ISPs and users
by Douglas Barnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just wanted to weigh in on a couple of points that have been raised with respect to the SPA lawsuit against C2Net: 1) I don't think this is some sort of evil plot by SPA members because we hadn't joined or because we're competing with some of their members. A lot of their members compete with other members and non-members and nothing like this has happened before. It's pretty clear that they were oblivous to a great many things, including the fact that we're primarily a software company these days. 2) As obnoxious as the lawsuit is, we don't miss the humor in the fact that we've been grumbling (on-line and off) about folks who pirate Stronghold (our commercial, secure version of the Apache web server). We really were looking into joining the SPA, to see if it would do us any good in dealing with this problem. 3) If you run across any mention of this lawsuit in the media, either on-line or in print, it would be great if you could forward it to me at cman(a)c2.net, or fax it to me at: 510 986 8777. I want to be tracking the press coverage very closely, and our clipping services takes about 5-10 days to read and process clippings for us. Thanks for your help, Douglas Barnes VP Sales & Marketing C2Net

2 1

News_dal_Ragno_Italiano.
by Samuele Landi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Questo e' un messaggio informativo automatico per un servizio gratuito di pubblico interesse. Viene spedito una sola volta per lo stesso indirizzo e-mail anche se sono presenti piu' pagine. Il "Ragno Italiano" e' lieto di comunicarle che le pagine da lei pubblicate sul WWW sono state catalogate nel nostro motore di ricerca. Saranno visibili a indicizzazione completata di di tutti i siti italiani prevista per il 30/10/96. Il "Ragno Italiano" e' il motore di ricerca per l'italia con oltre 500.000 pagine catalogate e ricercabili subito all'indirizzo: http://ragno.ats.it -------------------------------------------------------- Sponsor permanente: http://www.webspace.it ====================== 50 mb di spazio WWW con dominio proprietario (www.nome_azienda.it/.com) per 150.000 Lire al mese -------------------------------------------------------- Il "Ragno Italiano" e' motore di ricerca anche per: - Indirizzi e-mail in Italia - Newsgroups Italiani - Meta-Interfaccia per tutti i maggiori motori di ricerca mondiali Cordiali Saluti. Samuele Landi - WebMaster ragno.ats.it

1 0

Anybody live in PA?
by Jon Stevens 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Cyber Promotions Inc (CYBERPROMO-DOM) > 8001 Castor Avenue, Suite 127 > Philadelphia, PA 19152 > USA > Domain Name: CYBERPROMO.COM > > Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact, > Billing Contact: > Wallace, Sanford (SW430) cyberpr(a)ANSWERME.COM (215) 288-9230 a quick look at four11.com produces... http://www.four11.com/cgi-bin/Four11Main?userdetail&FormId=, 201,1E8FCAC,3954100,CA43E71_203,2,3954100,74D46FE0 which then produces... http://www.four11.com/cgi-bin/SledMain?Four11Phone=&Target =Detail&FirstName=SANFORD&LastName=WALLACE&Address=& City=PHILADELPHIA&State=PA&Id=532793131&FormId=203,2,3954100,74D46F E0 which is: Sanford Wallace 1255 Passmore St Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111 (215)288-8110 maybe a home address/phone number? someone in PA wanna check it out???? p.s. looks like cyber-promo.com is on hold... Cyber Promotions (CYBER-PROMO-DOM) 8001 Castor Avenue, Suite 127 Philadelphia, PA 19152 Domain Name: CYBER-PROMO.COM Domain Status: On Hold Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Wallace, Sanford (SW430) cyberpr(a)ANSWERME.COM (215) 288-9230 -jon

1 0

Re: crypto wish list (was Re: A "RIGHT" to strong crypto?)
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Where is a fully functional and secure "stealth PGP"? > >PGP stealth 2.01 beta is at: http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/stealth/ > >It is not release quality. > >I've been meaning to fix that for a while now, a release version will >be out RSN. > >Do you, or anyone else who is interested see any advantage in having >stealth functionality integrated into PGP, say as a patch for PGP263i >/ mit PGP262? Not that hard to do, if there's any interest for it to >be integrated. > >Zbigniew Fiedorowicz <fiedorow(a)math.mps.ohio-state.edu> added stealth >and SHA1 support directly to a MAC version of PGP. The key words `fat >mac pgp' in a www search engine would probably find it. Or `Zbigniew >pgp'? Best to use <http://128.146.111.31/~fiedorow/PGP/#sha1> > >> Where are anonymous and encrypted WWW clients and hosts which permit >> chaining? > >Folks working on this? The only person I know of to announce such a project was Ray Cromwell. His Decense project was discussed on this list briefly in February. I believe the source is still posted at <http://www.clark.net/pub/rjc/decense.html>. I've tried to contact Ray to get an up date on progress, but without results. The shortcoming of Ray's approach is that it requires intermediate servers to re-route all client-server packets and therefore someone must provide that, considerable, bandwidth for free or fee. If someone were to set up a real-time BlackNet it could provide a superset of Decense and also offer considerably improved anonymity. I've heard some months ago that such a project is under consideration. PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Sacred Cow Meat Co. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Counter-cultural technology development our specialty. Vote Libertarian. Just say NO to prescription DRUGS. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis "Surveillence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential entertainment." -- G. Beato

2 1

Re: Fuck Cyberpromo
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:26 PM 10/14/96 -0400, Ray Arachelian wrote: >On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > >I'd like to join you on this. I have sent email to >wallace@asswipespamnet already as well as left them voice mail for every >message they sent, they will be charged $500 per message and the next one >I receive constitutes acceptance. I've since then recieved about 4-5 >more, which means they owe me $2000 or thereabouts. :) > >So what steps do we need in putting some teeth into this? "You rang, Sir?" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

6 5

WOW!
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, I just totaled up the "Bring Dimitri to San Francisco" pledges. The pledges add up to an amazing US$681 and some guava pastries. Airfair should be around US$300. That, plus hotel should come in under the amount pledged so far. I'd still like additional pledges, however, I want to be certain we're covered and as an expression of the mood of the list. I intend to front the entire amount myself and then ask the "pledge partners" for a pro rated payment based on the actual cost and their proportionate pledge amount. It's interesting to me that several pledges have come from list members who are far removed from San Francisco. One or two of them plan to attend Dimitri's meeting, but most just want to have it happen. I've only had one request for anonymity, but I have kept names confidential without a clear go-ahead from them. (If you have already pledged or pledge in the future, please let me know if you mind if I post your name/nym.) Now there's only one thing missing--Dimitri's response. My open letter to him contained an explicit and unambiguous invitation to address a Cypherpunk meeting on any topic he wanted. I asked him for a clear yes or no, but have received nothing. Perhaps Dimitri prefers shooting from ambush. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 6

Re: binding cryptography
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:53 PM 10/14/96 +0200, Ulf Moeller wrote: > So governments can wiretap > law-abiding citizens, but not criminals. What use is a system like > that? For the government, very useful indeed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Cynthia Dwork talk: Non-Malleable Cryptography
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry for the late post. I'm way behind in reading my mail. Bill --------------Begin forwarded message--------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 09:27:14 -0700 From: "Francois V. Guimbretiere" <francois(a)cs.stanford.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.3.48 i586) To: secure(a)lists.Stanford.EDU, colloq(a)cs.stanford.edu Subject: Cynthia Dwork talk: Non-Malleable Cryptography Sender: owner-secure(a)lists.Stanford.EDU Precedence: bulk Title: Non-Malleable Cryptography Speaker: Cynthia Dwork, IBM Almaden Research Center Time: Tuesday 15 Oct 1996, 4:15pm, Gates 104 ABSTRACT: The notion of {\it non-malleable} cryptography, an extension of semantically secure cryptography, will be defined. Informally, in the context of encryption the additional requirement is that given the ciphertext it is impossible to generate a {\it different} ciphertext so that the respective plaintexts are related. Common public key cryptosystems are quite malleable: for example, in RSA it is trivial to compute $E(2x)$ given only $E(x)$. Although defined with public key cryptography in mind, non-malleability issues also arise in private-key cryptography. Indeed, the security of many common protocols, such as Kerberos, relies implicitly on the inability of an adversary to compute $E(f(N))$ given only $E(N)$, for simple functions $f$. The talk will focus on non-malleable public key cryptosystems. with a few remarks on non-malleable schemes for private-key cryptography, string commitment, and proofs of possession of knowledge. This is joint work with Danny Dolev and Moni Naor. ========================================================================== This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list server. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message body of "unsubscribe secure" to majordomo(a)lists.stanford.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Tired of Dole/Clinton? | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | Vote 3rd party. I'm | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | Voting for Harry Browne | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

[Repost] PipeNet
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Below is a repost of the original PipeNet article from February, 1995. The author is Wei Dai. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A week ago I made a suggestion for a new protocol for untracibility, but only got one response. I'll try again, this time more forcefully. I'm not trying to convince anyone to implement this (though of course you're welcome to!), but just to think about it and give me feedback. Why is another protocol needed? Right now we have only two, each of which has its own set of tradeoffs. To summarize: Mix-Net (i.e., remailer-net): high latency, moderate bandwidth costs, and low complexity DC-Net: moderate latency, high bandwidth costs, and high complexity While the DC-Net will probably never be widely used, the remailer-net has a fair chance of one day providing a way for many people to send e-mail that not even governments can trace. However, I don't think this is enough. Efficient social and business relationships require that people be able to converse to each other in real time. Cryptoanarchy will not come about if people cannot do this anonymously. How well can two pseudonymous agents negotiate a contract if each message they send must be delayed several hours? The protocol I sugguested would have low latency, moderate bandwidth costs, and moderate complexity. It would be well suited for people to interact anonymously in a textual environment. This is what I wrote: > Imagine a server that allows you to open a > low bandwidth (let's say around 100 cps, in order to reduce costs) > link-encrypted telnet session with it, and provides you with a number > of services, for example a link-encrypted talk session with another > user. You'll need to maintain the link 24 hours a day to defend > against statistical analysis, and of course you can chain a number of > these servers together in a way similiar to chaining remailers. Lance pointed out the chain cannot be built quickly. This is not a problem if servers connect to each other with relatively wide link-encrypted pipes and multiplex your connection into these pipes. In this system, latency would never be more than a few seconds, bandwidth cost is N*100 cps (point to point), N being the number of links in your chain. Implementation would probably be harder than remailers, but much easier than DC-Nets. The protocol would also provide both sender and receiver untracibility without any need for broadcasting. Wei Dai P.S. I never gave a name for the protocol... let's call it Pipe-net. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLzgewDl0sXKgdnV5AQGzvAQAgFaOxOzFPgS031z4jZRYUJp/+3BS5Con Kza7WsvZPvxzaNLh9ecD3aCx5dtf4muaiUKjC2HIItaLKEdZZPdzUGFd4wg1cY8G k8mvYNzDImr3ZtQ0HiqQ59PWhznad0GuhjQajB7RtpI+K/Z4uBaUEZGVoZZT+LHN MSjOl/k/yfg= =jgq6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0