- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Distributed DES crack
by pjn＠nworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I've a few machines around that could be dedicated almost full time to the > task. What are the bandwidth requirements? Specifically, could the > keycracker be run over a 28.8 (with a 486 running linux)? If so, how many > 486's could I get over a single 28.8 (i.e. 28.8 -> multiple 486's daisy > chained with ppp over direct serial connection)? > It's not a factor of the bandwidth, you search offline and send in > your results to a central server. > But first, a little reality check is in order. According to libdes, > the 200Mhz Pentium Pro on my desk will do 1,827,997 ECB bytes/sec, or > 228,499 ECB blocks. A DES crack would have to try, on average, 2^55 > blocks. That would take my machine 43,798,875 hours, or 1,824,953 > days. > OK, so let's be reasonable and say that a week would be a good time to > come up with a DES key. We would need 260,707 200Mhz Pentium Pro's to > achieve this. > Looking at that, 30 days seems not such an unreasonable target. We > would need 60,831 200Mhz Pentium Pro's to achieve this. > It seems obvious to me that DES is still *way* out of reach of > anything other than special purpose hardware. In> - Andy (hoping he got his sums right) (I think you did :) One small thing... You are assuming that we will not get the right equasion/code/whatever untill the very end. There is a good chance that it will only take half that time...and a slim chance that we will get it with the first try... P.J. pjn(a)nworks.com (BTW, I have a 486 DX/4 100MhZ That I will put to the effort...) ... As easy as 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716 ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:38 PM 7/23/96 -0400, hallam(a)Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: >>I don't understand this conclusion. One book people aside, it is generally >>believed that humans evolved in an evolutionary context and they certainly >>frequently use cooperative strategies. Cooperation usually also involves >>the ability to sanction misbehavior. Unilateral disarmament is throwing >>away your sanction. > >That depends on the circumstances. If you are arguing the case for >unilateral disarmament or unilateral reduction. In many cases there was a >deliberated attempt to confuse one with the other. Unilateral >reduction can be the right move to make. No argument. I said disarmament. >In the case of a minor nuclear power such as the UK unilateral >disarmament may be the right move... But still, the UK has available other sanctions. That's why they are still called the Falklands. >... Burglars are not rational actors, and >are more likely to have their behavior determined by drugs or >alcohol than analytical game theory. Burglars are among the most rational of thieves. They try to maximize gain and minimize risk by acting when no one can oppose them. Even muggers, a much less rational activity, try to pick on people smaller than them. >The facts are very clear, if you have a handgun in the house it is >far more likely to kill a member of the familly than stop an >intruder. The NRA know this which is why they have lobbied for the >CDC to stop research in this area - they do not like the facts. Christmas trees make your house far more likely to catch fire. However many people have them because they provide other, hard to quantify, values. (BTW, my mother's retirement home does not allow them in individual units.) Guns have value besides home defense. Just one off-the-wall example: I learned to hold a camera steady by competitive target shooting. Home defense is not the only reason to have a gun. (Besides, I would rather have a shotgun with a short barrel for close-up defense than a handgun. As the California police forces discovered when they (briefly) changed from pump shotguns to "automatics", the sound of chambering a round with a pump shotgun makes people focus very clearly on their situation. Frequently it avoids violence.) IMHO handguns are much more useful when you need a portable defense. Examples: 1. The USGS will allow field geologists to carry handguns in bear country after a rigorous training program. 2. I have a friend who defended himself from a pack of feral dogs after they attacked him and forced him to retreat to the roof of his car. (He killed three of the four. The local rancher treated him to dinner for ridding the neighborhood of a dangerous nuisance.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: E-Cash promotion idea
by Matt Carpenter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Lucky Green wrote: >At 23:19 7/22/96, Anonymous wrote: > >>How about getting the CyberCafes to accept ecash? Just pull out your >>Newton/HP48/PDA and point the IR beam at the cash register. Now that's >>an ecash application I'd like to see!! > >So would I. And one day we will. Though not not on the HP48. Actually I've been doing some more thinking about this recently, and it may be possible even on an HP48, if you're willing to limit your spending flexibility a little in order to gain the advantages provided by ecash. A couple months ago there was a similar thread on using ecash with Newtons, PDA's, palmtops, and so on. I mentioned an idea of having an "ecash ATM" on an online machine, which would allow you to download ecash coins to your portable device. You could then carry the ecash around with you. This way you wouldn't need a full blown ecash client on the portable, just a simple program that would ask you for the payment amount and send off the appropriate coins. The main problem with the idea seemed to be that I suggested getting change from the merchant. Ian Goldberg pointed out that with the current ecash protocol, accepting change not only eliminates your anonymity, but that you also have to go online to make sure you aren't being cheated. Anonymous's post got me to thinking about this again. Since I know many of you are more knowledgeable about ecash than I, let me know if you can add more detailed information or see any problems with the approach below (other than a certain lack of convenience, which may be the major issue with this approach). What if we just forget about change? One of the neat things about ecash is that it allows for coins of (fairly) arbitrary values. We can use this to our advantage, since we can guarantee that we can make a single payment of any value with a small number of coins. (People familiar with ecash know all this already I'm sure, but I'll describe it in some detail for others who may not have thought about it as much). Here's the basic formula: Number of required coins = ceiling( log2( P/L ) ) where P is the maximum payment amount available to spend on a single transaction, and L is the "loss limit", or the upper limit of money we are willing to lose on a single transaction. For example, if we want to be able to make a $50 payment to the nearest cent ($.01), we need: ceiling(log2( 50/.01)) = 13 coins So with only 13 coins, we are guaranteed to be able to make any single payment from $.01 - $50 to the nearest cent. Since we are dealing with base 2 logarithms, if we increase the maximum amount to $100, we only need a single additional coin. The algorithm to generate the coin values is simple. Basically you start at P and just keep dividing by two until you reach L. For the above example, we could use 13 coin values of: $25, $12.50, $6.25, $3.13, $1.57, $0.79, $0.40, $0.20, $0.10, $0.05, $0.03, $0.02, and $0.01. This actually gives us a total of $50.05 due to rounding, but we are guaranteed of being able to pay to the nearest cent any amount between $0.01 to $50.00, with multiple possible combinations for certain values. Now, I'm not sure what the average size of an ecash coin is (anybody?), but the few I've seen floating around the net in "ASCII armor" have been around 500-600 bytes (of ASCII text), I think. So guessing (hopefully conservatively) that the average coin size is about 1k or less, then we need about 13k worth of storage space to make any single payment of $50 or under. We can do a little better if we are willing to lose a little money in the transaction. For instance, if L=$0.10, then we only need 9 coins (and we will lose less than $0.10 in the transaction). For L=$0.40, 7 coins. Of course this probably isn't cost effective in most cases, but might potentially be useful, if you are tight on storage space or something. So, with a storage space of approximately 64k (close to 5 x 13k), we are guaranteed of being able to make any 5 payments of $50 dollars of less, to the nearest cent. Of course, we also need some software, but it should be fairly simple and small. Just a little database to keep track of which coins we have, and a simple user interface to prompt for payment amount, select the appropriate coins, and beam them off to the payee (probably also a transaction log, and encryption capabilities). A few points: * This should be doable with current technology. All we need is a fairly small storage space, say 128K or less (more gives us more flexibility), and something like IR, wireless, or even a serial port connection via cable to send the coins to the payee. This seems to allow things like Newtons, HP Palmtops (and perhaps higher end calculators), USR Pilots, etc. to be used as unconnected ecash "wallets". This assumes the payee is online, since they will want to clear the coins to make sure they are good. * This is less expensive than requiring both parties to be online. The payee doesn't need to provide a net connection to the payer; the payer doesn't need to utilize memory space (and possibly additional hardware) for more complicated software to carry out the online transactions and payment generation. All the payee needs (besides the standard ecash software and a net connection) is a method of receiving coins, like IR, and some fairly simple software. * Although one may be carrying around $250 with the above example, it is much safer than carrying cash. Ecash maintains the advantage of cash-like anonymity, but we can keep a back-up of the money on our home machine, and we can encrypt the coins we carry to avoid having them spent by someone else, in case our portable device is lost or stolen. (Of course we do lose a possibly expensive portable device.) * With the proper software and connections to the "ecash ATM" we can have our portable device automatically recharged when we get home (and also update the records of which coins were spent). The ATM also gives us complete control over our spending configurations. There could even be several default set-ups for frequently used cases, each assigned to a single button. Just connect your portable device, click a button, and you're ready to go. For example, if you are going to work, you might generally want to have the capability of several smaller payments for snacks, lunch, and such. For grocery shopping you may want a few larger payments, etc. Also the software could automatically keep track of your purchases (like a credit card statement, or checking account log, but you'd be the only one who has access to it). Plus you don't need to run off to find an ATM; you can get cash from "the comfort and privacy of your own home". * The main problem seems to be the loss of flexibility. After you make your maximum number of guaranteed payments you may have money left over, but it may not be useful for buying what you want. You may only have a $25 coin left to purchase that $1.00 item. Personally, as a possibly paranoid technophilic cypherpunk, I don't see this as a major problem. It means you have to plan ahead a bit, but it gives you the same anonymity as cash, with less chance of having you're money lost or stolen. Those with PDD (Paranoia Deficit Disorder (cypherpunks, are there drugs to treat this? :-)) may not have the same view, and be more likely to use less private, more "convenient" methods of payment. But with the proper software setup and user interface, this approach could probably be made acceptable to many. * I'm not sure how easy this would be with the existing ecash software. Browsing over the ecash API (http://www.digicash.com/api/Home.html) I see there is a EC_pocket_begin_withdrawal() function which looks like it may automatically do something similar to the guaranteed payment thing I described above (I've been salivating over the ecash API for a while, but haven't actually had to time to play with it yet). Things may get tricky if you pick funky values of L, the "loss limit". In any case, it seems like this would be possible, even on an HP48. Probably not all that useful/usable though until you move up to something a little more powerful (how much memory does the HP48 have? I have an old HP28S with 32k, so I'm guessing the '48 has more than that). Once I finish up my thesis, find a job, and find some free time (hopefully all within the next month and a half :-) I plan to play with this idea. Unless someone else beats me to it, or there is something important I'm missing. Comments? - --Matt - -- mcarpent(a)mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMfX32ijtJAMyBnp9AQGD+gf/TOe/ouunmhRz7jL+y65iqU57OaZAK1g0 gLIRDFQDTYMX7387FMBKlQ66RMJx4K80lW59oCAaa3/GyBDZR6Kn9bj2m7aZbYkL 4UDV7HoSJrV8qJv08HXnPibi7kmv+bAztHOAx7M7qo5qUayYCFrMeib65ksrrQYY nnlnCPfLWAPMHeFYUSA3fv9XwQB9NZVSCgr8Z2vhnfCAERqLLukaXHJq9InSPmWw XFIdU1x/cPzOUJx7rxth6qBonz5DD9AMof9Qqk8VY/AzohqHylKirog/IJRTefNl p1xEdI/iBhH3m3azvNhtkEIl0MAzBGU26hBIjB2P9P+08shtMfznow== =vR9P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

When books are outlawed
by sparks＠bah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Only outlaws will have books... Just watching the news here in Fl. and they are trying to hold a publisher responsible for a murder because they published a fictional account of a hitman and a guy says he used the book to kill some people. Would you give your 6 year old a book ? This is really getting out of hand.. Anyone have any property for sale in Idaho ? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCXAwUBMfTGneJ+JZd/Y4yVAQHLuQQMDQglhj5/SWlstlnGTnky47xkqIrm5gUK umCeV7tdlKlYjy/KprUx/UChy2GQ/fHd6rh14CIrnqIzV8I1WUOIbcLWYsOZxTmU sOa2vwISXuLvV7wDy50GgLq3kjGUh+BvhvAfxD/vrbyjOWYMCJB9KNRqE2TMpSn5 O6J/Pb0OYkQB6A== =A8SX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Charles E. Sparks http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/index.htm In God we trust, All Others we encrypt Public Key at: http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/cp_1.htm

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:38 PM 7/23/96 -0400, hallam(a)Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: >The facts are very clear, if you have a handgun in the house it is >far more likely to kill a member of the familly than stop an >intruder. The NRA know this which is why they have lobbied for the >CDC to stop research in this area - they do not like the facts. And most people who die after jumping out of airplanes have (defective) parachutes. Therefore it is safer to jump out of airplanes without parachutes. The CDC sucked suicides into the mix to cook the books and suicide by firearms is a *legitimate* use of same. Surely you believe in the "right to die," don't you? DCF

2 1

RE: No more stupid gun thread ...
by Bill Olson (EDP) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alan Horowitz writes: > >How _can_ anyone say that "stupid guns" is ready for the trash-heap of >history? No one has called anyone a Nazi yet! I agree. >

2 1

WinSock Remailer Going On-Line Tonight
by Joey Grasty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Y'all: I'm pleased to announce that the WinSock Remailer is going into operation tonight at 11:00 PM. Please feel free to test it. You can get the key by sending a message to winsock(a)c2.org with the "Subject: remailer-key". After about a week of further testing, I will be releasing the executables to everyone who sent me a note asking to participate in the alpha test. If you want to be included, please send me a note. Here's the info for the remailer-list: $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)c2.org> cpunk pgp hash cut ksub reord"; I'll be adding "post" to this list after I get a more thorough testing of the NNTP code that I added for authentication. "latent" is also pending. The remailer will run every 60 seconds from 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM every day and whenever I am online. c2.org automatically spools the messages when I am not connected. Note: alt.religion.scientology and alt.clearing.technology are blocked. I'm not interested in run-ins with either supporters or detractors of the Church of Scientology. Binary and picture groups are also blocked, but only because I don't have the bandwidth to support them. Anyone who has blocking lists that they want to share, please send them to me. Regards, -- Joey Grasty jgrasty(a)gate.net [home -- encryption, privacy, RKBA and other hopeless causes] jgrasty(a)pts.mot.com [work -- designing pagers] "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann PGP = A7 CC 31 E4 7E A3 36 13 93 F4 C9 06 89 51 F5 A7

1 0

Re: Another fascist
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"david(a)sternlight.com" "David Sternlight" 23-JUL-1996 08:30:51.02 >One of the great friends of free speech on this list sent a forged cancel >message to the listbot to try to cancel my subscription. >The listbot, being reasonably well designed, ignored him and told me about >it, though I have no doubt less of a dunce could bring it off. >What a piece of slime! What do others think of this practice? You have my sympathies. Either I got logged off the list accidentally a bit back, or someone did this successfully to me. I didn't notice due to being gone for a bit, but I finally did and got back onto the list. I'd meant to email the list maintainer (Eric Hughes, as I recall), but haven't gotten around to it - lack of time. Any signs of who did it from the message? I would guess not. -Allen

1 0

Re: Brute-forcing DES
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Specialized DES-cracker chips have of course been considered. Diffie and > Hellman's nearly 20-year-old paper on cracking DES considered this. > Wiener's calculation of a few years ago did more that this: he also > architected a basic system. And the "how many bits is enough?" (sorry I > don't have the official name on the tip of my tongue) panel considered such > designs last year. Yep, I'm familiar with the issue. Bottom line is, it'll take thousands of times the CPU power of the RC4-40 crack. Probably not 2^16 times more; I think RC4 has a longer initialization. > But actually building a DES cracker entails a level of commitment very > difficult to achieve in an informal, volunteer effort. Not exactly > something that 10 or 20 people can work on usefully. > The advantage of the cracks done last year, the French and Australian > cracks, and the MIT cracks, were that the "entry costs" for joining the > project were low. I'm not talking about one individual or organization building one big DES cracker. I'm thinking that DES chips _could_ be used to supliment the PCs in a distributed crack. People with PCs would feed keyspace through their PCs and people with DES chips could feed keyspace through their DES chips. DES chips just happen to have a _lot_ more cracking power than PCs, so they could make a big difference. Adding one DES chip would be like adding hundreds of PCs to the effort. PCs will probably still be the main factor simply because they're ubiquitous. Even with a bunch of DES chips and a massive legion of PCs, this is going to take a long time. Perhaps we should be looking at the thousands of computers and many months, more like the RSA-129 crack than the RC4-40 crack. >From "The Magic Words Are Squeamish Ossifrage": > We believe that we could acquire 100 thousand machines without > superhuman or unethical efforts. If Lenstra et al know what they're talking about, then WE CAN DO THIS!!! ===================================================================== | Steve Reid - SysAdmin & Pres, EDM Web (http://www.edmweb.com/) | | Email: steve(a)edmweb.com Home Page: http://www.edmweb.com/steve/ | | PGP (2048/9F317269) Fingerprint: 11C89D1CD67287E68C09EC52443F8830 | | -- Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV, TANSTAAFL, IANAL. -- | ===================================================================:)

2 1

Re: Distributed DES crack
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"mab(a)crypto.com" "Matt Blaze" 23-JUL-1996 09:38:21.11 >Personally, I'd rather someone finish up the Wiener ASIC to the point where >it could go out to fab, get some prototype chips made, design a board around >it, and publish the design, from board layout on down. This would be a >great Master's project, and some of us (maybe me, but I'll have to check) >might even be able to scrape up enough funds to buy enough chips/boards/etc >to build a modest size machine (say, that could exhaust a DES key in 1-6 >months). Initial engineering costs aside, the marginal cost of each >such machine could be well within the budgets of, say, a medium size crypto >research lab, and would make a scary enough demo to convince even the >most trusting management types of the risks of 56 bit keys. How about generalized FPGA boards? Some applications in computational biology (searching for similar genes or proteins using FASTA, etcetera) use those quite a bit - and they're available for only about 20,000 or so for quite a few high-level FPGA chips on a board. We've been looking into getting one such and renting its use out on the Web, but the initial investment costs are beyond what available grants will cover; maybe later. Given that at Rutgers is one of the people doing whole bunches of stuff on Web security - namely Simon Cooper - it should't be too difficult. But that will be at least a year or so. -Allen > - matt >(Please cc me on replies, as I'm not reading the list except when someone >alerts me to an interesting topic. Thanks.)

1 0