- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

More on Cellular Encryption Docs
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: Sharon Vargish of TIA (1-703-907-7702) sent the documents after=20 I signed and returned the NDA: TR45.0.A Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) TR45.0.A Interface Specification for Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B, August 6, 1996, 15 pp. (No ITAR notice, but=20 "sensitive information should be protected from general=20 distribution.") TR45 Appendix A to PN-3474 (IS-36) October 16, 1995, 10 pp. (ITAR notice on every page.) TR45 Appendix-A to TIA/EIA 627 December 23, 1996, 7 pp. (No ITAR, but "sensitive"notice) "Common Cryptographic Algorithms" (CCA) supercedes the 1992=20 CAVE document, but is considerbly longer -- 72 pp. for the latest compared to 25 pp. for the 1992 version. Here're the CCA's TOC and Introduction: Table of Contents 1. Introduction=20 =A01.1. Notations=20 =A0 =A01.2. Definitions=20 2. Procedures=20 =A0 =A02.1. Authentication Key (A-Key) Procedures =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2.1.1. A-Key Checksum calculation =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.1.2. A-Key Verification =A0 =A02.2. SSD Generation and Update =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2.2.1. SSD Generation Procedure =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.2.2. SSD Update Procedure =A0 =A02.3. Authentication Signature Calculation Procedure =A0 =A02.4. Encryption Key and VPM Generation Procedure =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2.4.1. CMEA key Generation =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.4.2. Voice Privacy Mask Generation =A0 =A02.5. CMEA Encryption/Decryption Procedure =A0 =A02.6. Wireless Residential Extension Procedures =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2.6.1. WIKEY Generation =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.6.2. WIKEY Update Procedure =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.6.3. Wireline Interface Authentication Signature=20 Calculation Procedure =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.6.4. Wireless Residential Extension Authentication=20 Signature Calculation Procedure =A0 =A02.7. Cellular Data Encryption=20 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2.7.1. Data Encryption Key Generation Procedure =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.7.2. Data Encryption Mask Generation Procedure 3. TEST VECTORS =A0 =A03.1. CAVE Test Vectors =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3.1.1. Vector 1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.1.2. Vector 2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.1.3. Test Program =A0 =A03.2. Wireless Residential Extension Test Vectors =A0 =A0 =A0 3.2.1. Input data =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.2.2. Test program =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.2.3. Test Program Output =A0 =A03.3. Data Encryption Test Vector =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3.3.1. Input data =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.3.2. Test Program =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.3.3. Test Program Output =20 1. Introduction This document describes detailed cryptographic procedures for=20 cellular system applications. These procedures are used to=20 perform the security services of mobile station authentication,=20 subscriber message encryption, and encryption key and subscriber=20 voice privacy key generation within cellular equipment. This document is organized as follows: =A72 describes the Cellular Authentication, Voice Privacy and=20 Encryption (CAVE) algorithm used for authentication for mobile=20 subscriber equipment and for generation of cryptovariables to=20 be used in other procedures. =A72.1 describes the procedure to verify the manual entry of the=20 subscriber authentication key (A-key). =A72.2 describes the generation of intermediate subscriber=20 cryptovariablcs, Shared Secret Data (SSD), from the unique and=20 private subscriber A-key. =A72.3 describes the procedure to calculate an authentication=20 signature used by cellular base station equipment for verifying=20 the authenticity of a mobile station. =A72.4 describes the procedures used for generating cryptographic=20 keys. These keys include the Voice Privacy Mask (VPM) and the=20 Cellular Message Encryption Algorithm (CMEA) key. Thc VPM is used=20 to provide forward link and reverse link voice confidentiality=20 over the air interface. Thc CMEA key is used with the CMEA=20 algorithm for protection of digital data exchanged between the=20 mobile station and the base station. =A72.5 describes the Cellular Message Encryption Algorithm (CMEA)=20 used for enciphering and deciphering subscriber data exchanged=20 between the mobile station and the base station. =A72.6 describes the procedures for key and authentication=20 signature generation for wireless residential extension=20 applications. =A72.7 describes the ORYX algorithm and procedures for key and mask=20 generation for encryption and decryption in cellular data services. =A73 provides test data (vectors) that may be employed to verify=20 the correct operation of the cryptographic algorithms described=20 in this document. ... [End CCA Introduction] The related CCA Interface Specification "describes the interfaces to cryptographic procedures for cellular system applications" described in the CCA. Its purpose "is to describe the cryptographic functions without revealing the technical details that are subject to" ITAR. The two Appendices A to IS-136 and 627 "contain requirements for=20 message encryption and voice privacy for cellular systems"=20 supplemental to those described in the main documents, the CCA and=20 the CCA Interface Specs. ----- This note will be put with other CAVE info at: http://jya.com/cave.htm Thanks to TIA/EIA for prompt and courteous reply to our requests. Maybe they welcome help persuading USG/NSA to allow stronger crypto and boost the market for cellular systems.

2 1

Re: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:52 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between >defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan >Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of >interest. The decision itself is online at ><http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=376&invol >=254> - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not >correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of >the underlying facts. > >Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open >society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate >arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate >anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from >this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings. All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered. Not surprising. (If anything, I'd be surprised if they ever DON'T recieve at least two such letters which could be misused in this way...) So before you "wander away," perhaps you ought to explain why we NEED defamation laws? The sun would still rise tomorrow morning absent them. A few feelings might be hurt, that's true, but on the other hand the implied endorsement of The State ("If that statement wasn't true, he couldn't print it!") has a, cumulatively, far greater impact on all of us. A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present. Explain, for example, that while it is now universally recognized by the truth is a defense for libel accusations, it was NOT true when William Penn went on trial for libel in the late 1600's. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May was born when his mother was on the toilet. O |'| /\ | | Timmy May /\ \-------| / / |-------|

1 0

Free & Open Society & toleration
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert. I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a 'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government' and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state'). I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation under the law. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

4 3

NSA Material at the National Archives
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For access to the 5,000 items declassified under NSA's OPENDOOR program (http://www.nsa.gov:8080/programs/opendoor) we got this answer from the National Archives: Dear Mr. Young: This is in response to your electronic mail inquiry of December 20, 1996, concerning National Security Agency records transferred to the National Archives. The material described on the NSA web site was transferred to the National Archives and made available in April 1996. We can supply you with electrostatic (paper) copies of select files for $0.25 per page. Please let us know which files you would like copied, and we will send you a reproduction price quote (please include your mailing address with all such requests). We ask that you limit each request to five files. Should you choose to come to Washington to do research, our records and microfilm publications are available for consultation without charge in our research room. The National Archives at College Park (Archives II), is located at 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland. If you do not have a research card, you must apply for one in the reception area. Research room hours (except legal holidays) are 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday and Wednesday; and 8:45 a.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Our subject matter specialists are not on duty after 5:15 p.m. The research rooms also are open on Saturday from 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., with a small research room staff present. Requests for records must be made before 3:30 p.m. Monday-Friday; no requests can be made on Saturday. The telephone number for the Archives II Reference Branch is 301-713-7250. Ken Schlessinger Archives II Textual Reference Branch National Archives at College Park 8601 Adelphi Rd College Park, MD 20740-6001 kenneth.schlessinger(a)ARCH2.NARA.GOV

1 0

Free & Open Society & toleration
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert. I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a 'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government' and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state'). I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation under the law. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:51 PM 2/1/97 -0800, you wrote: > Is anyone on the list willing to 'knock off' a couple of mail >carriers and get back to us with a definitive answer on this? We were joking about this last night - this is just encouraging people to hold up mail carriers and say "Hand it over!" "Hand over what?" "You, know, the thingie" "What thingie?" "The one they steal from mailmen in Miami" "You mean this?" "No, it wouldn't be one of them, not worth enough" "How about one of these?" "Maybe, but that's probably not it" "My mailbag?" "No, that's too obvious." "ID card?" "No, you don't look enough like me" "Dog repellent?" "No, that's kind of smelly*" Of course, as Toto suggested, it could be just that the carriers are delivering dope on the side, or maybe they're stealing the mail carriers' shirts to complete their disgruntled postal workers' costumes. [*"Cheshire perhaps?" "No, we're all out of that"...] # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto wrote: > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > repercussions). > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > would be the end of freedom! Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while?

3 3

Re: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes.
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). > Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal ball in hand. --Steve

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:02 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Toto wrote: >Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote: >> The problem is that you are a crushing bore. You peddle your crackpot >> scheme long after it has been made plain nobody is interested. > > I also thing that the other list members involved in this thread are >'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. It's odd that you would say this. I get that impression ("nobodies") about practically EVERY subject discussed here. Why name this particular one, as if it were somehow special? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1