- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Privacy is a hassle. Is it worth it? Which unfortunate situations does privacy prevent? What are the odds that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a typical reader of this list.

2 2

opinions on www.accutrade.com security?
by CaShaky＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Do any of you security knowledgeable people have any information on the security of accutrade? I opened an account with them prior to subscribing <sp? lol> to this list. I am now considering closing said account because of what i have learned from this list. How easy or hard would it be for a hacker to diddle with the accounts? To access the accounts all you need is a 9 digit account number and a 4 digit pin number. But from what I have gleaned from here is that the real leak in security is in attacking the OS directly. If this post is inappropriate to this list I apoligize in advance, but i have come to the conclusion that there are very bright and knowledgeable people on this list (once you filter out the noise) and would appreciate your opinions. Thank you CaShaky

1 0

RFC: A UNIX crypt(3) replacement
by Joshua E. Hill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm trying to think of a function to replace UNIX's crypt(3). My design criteria are as follows: 1) I want it to be secure. 2) I would like to use a cryptographic hash. 3) I would like to use well understood cryptographic primitives. 4) I would like to use a salt, and I would like the salt to be considerably larger than the current salt. 5) I would like the process to be able to be more computationally intensive than crypt(3). 6) The ability to use the algorithm in any setting domestic (US) and abroad is a concern, but not a primary one. #1 is important for the obvious reasons. #2 is important because a one way hash allows for a secure way of checking the original password against the entered password. No password should be able to be recovered by simply reading a file, or finding an internal key. #3 is basicly a result of #1 #4 and 5 makes the password system more resistant to a dictionary- type attack. Several of the more popular password guessers (ie: Crack) get a significant speed increase from the fact that they only have to hash each of the words once per salt. I would like it to be possible for each user to have an independent salt (for any reasonable system size). I would also like this function to be able to be scaled to that it can be slower than crypt(3). This will also hinder a dictionary attack. #6 is a byproduct of silly legal concerns. The algorithm that I developed was heavily influenced by RFCs 1852 [1] and 1828 [2] (IP Authentication using SHA and MD5, respectively), and "Keying Hash Functions for Message Authentication" by Mihir Bellare, Ran Canetti, and Hugo Krawczyk [3] This algorithm borrows several concepts from [3]: The idea of the keyed hash, where the key is used as the hash's IV, or Initial Value. Its security is completely based on the choice of the key, and the strength of the underlying hash function. The concept of the NMAC (Nested MAC), and security analysis of it. The Algorithm: Given that: . = the concatenation operator P = the user pass phrase H(m) = the hash of the message m l = length of the hash returned by H(m) H(k,m) = the keyed hash of message m, using key k (as the IV) N = salt, length l = (n1 . n2) where n1 and n2 are sub-salts i = the iteration number E = a temporary value = (e1 . e2) K = key = (k1,k2), where k1 and k2 are the sub-keys used in the NMAC NMAC(k, m) = H(k1, H(k2, m)) In several cases a value is said to be equal to the concatenation of two other values (we'll take N as an example); ie N = (n1 . n2) This means that N is divided into two equal sized chunks, n1 and n2. (n1 . n2) = N initially: (1) E = H (P) (2) k1 = (e1 . n1), k2 = (e2 . n2) (3) T0 = NMAC(K, n) And then: (4) T(i) = NMAC(K, T(i-1) . n . T(i-1)) (repeat (4) a number of times) In (1) the user pass phrase is hashed using the non keyed hash, and the resulting value is kept in E. In (2) k1 is formed by concatenating the first half of E and the first half of the salt. k2 is formed by concatenating the second half of the key with the second half of the salt. Now each sub-key is of length l. In (3) the NMAC of n is assigned to T0 and then in (4) T(i) is calculated by doing the NMAC of the value of the previous hash concatenated with n concatenated with the value the previous hash. Step (4) is repeated a known number of iterations. "Keying Hash Functions..." [3] seems to imply that the security of this hash would be based on the length of l and the underlying hash function, H. Because of the way that K is used, the security granted is a function of l/2, not l. (For further explanation see [3]) I was thinking of implementing this using SHA-1. This would lead to a 160 bit value for l, hence the security would be based on an 80 bit key. Some modifications that I have considered, and would like feedback on are: I was thinking of making the keys used for the hash come from the previous hashes, and then hash a constant string. ie: T(i) = NMAC(T(i-2) . T(i-1), P . n . P) instead of having a more-or-less constant key, and constantly changing what is being hashed. I also am not sure that the string that I'm hashing is ideal. Would (n . P . n ) be better? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Metzger, P. and Simpson, W. "Request for Comments: 1852, IP Authentication using Keyed SHA" [2] Metzger, P. and Simpson, W. "Request for Comments: 1828, IP Authentication using Keyed MD5" [3] Bellare, Mihir and Canetti, Ran and Krawczyk, Hugo. "Keying Hash Functions for Message Authentication" I very much appreciate comments on any portion of this, or on my general approach. Thanks, Joshua -----------------------------Joshua E. Hill----------------------------- | If you not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate | -------jehill@<gauss.elee|galaxy.csc|w6bhz|tuba.aix>.calpoly.edu--------

4 9

Re: Members of Parliament Problem
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin(a)law.miami.edu> > [Discussion of blind signatures] > > Brands has a better scheme that I don't understand exactly. He recently > attempted to explain it to me thusly: > > [Brands quote elided] > > Can anyone tell me more? We had quite a bit of discussion of Brands' technology on the list a couple of years ago. Take a look at <URL: http://chaos.taylored.com:1000/0Z/Digital-Cash/Protocols/Brands/Brands-Cash… > which has several pages discussing discrete logs and some of the ideas behind Brands' protocols. Unfortunately I am getting cut-off versions of these pages tonight, along with occasional failures to find a route to this server, so hopefully it is just the net acting up again. Hal

1 0

testing new Home Web site
by Phiberelic Phreaker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

try this site and tell me how you like it if you dont like it then message Mr.Angry on that page PhReAkInG iS a ViOlEnT pOiSoN. iT cAnNoT Be ApPlIeD eXtErNaLlY tO aNiMaL oR hUmAn TiSsUe WiThOuT sErIoUs InJuRiOuS rEsUlTs. It CaNnOt Be TaKeN iNtErNaLlY wItHoUt InDuCiNg VoMiTtInG, bLiNdNeSs, AnD GeNeRaL pHySiCaLlY uLtImAtElLy ReSuLtInG iN dEaTh. PhReAk ThE pLaNeT--http://www.angelfire.com/ne/PhreakThePlanet/index.html PhIbErDeLiC PhReAkEr

1 0

Crypto Bounties: Another Thought that crossed my mind.
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here we go again: There are is a lot of software that we would all like to see developed and deployed right? There are a lot of people out there who write code, sometimes even freely redistributable code, but they have to eat, and get their net access right? Well, I was thinking, what if a "Crypto Software Bounty Server" were set up, so that someone could propose a tool that they would like to see, along with an initial bounty. Others could contribute toward that bounty (anonymously if they wish) until either the tool was delivered. The original issuer sets standards for the software (i.e. "easy to use interface to mixmaster remailers for Macintosh", then must define easy to use; Software considered delivered when in [alpha beta late-beta &etc.]). The first to present software meeting these qualifications gets the bounty, with the caviate that the software must be either gnu-copylefted, or some similar "free use" copyright, after all, "The Net" paid for it... Some of the problems (and potential solutions) I can think of in this: 1) Refusing to honor the contract--Maybe when a project is proposed, some other people (for a small percentage of the total) sign on as judges. When they feel that it reached the stated goal, then it is done. -Or- Money put up is non-refundable, and the bounty stays in the "bank" until claimed. 2) If the money stays in the bank until claimed, people might not put up that much (or enough) to make a specific project worthwile-- This could be solved by allowing the "bounty" to lapse in one of 3 ways: A) <x> length of time after the initial proposal (bad because i) someone could already be working on it; ii) bad because other people might add to the bounty, so a potential programmer might not start until the "pot" has grown to a certain level. B) <x> length of time after the last addition to the bounty, bad for both i & ii above. These can both be gotten around (and other problems) by allowing programmers to "register" with the service that they are working on a project (either anonymous registery, so that people will still contribute to the project, or list those registered so that people know [if who] someone is working on it) 3) Funding: The server (in both the machine and the organizational sense) could be funded by: A) Interest on the money accumulated. B) A percentage of the bounty (say 10%) C) Both A & B. Has anything like this been proposed before? I know that the FSF (IIRC) accepts contributions, but I am thinking of something more targeted, more "market driven" if you will. This could be expanded to non-crypto software as well, just think, if half the X Window users ponied up $5 a peice for a "good, easy to use non-motif word processor", how long do you think it would take for someone to start coding a MS Word killer? Comments? Petro, Christopher C. petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow(a)smoke.suba.com

1 0

~~~ F.Y.I. ~~~
by ReplyOnly＠ByMail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend, The Only Internet Book you will ever Need.... So you're on the Internet, but don't know what to do, where to go, or how to do it. This EXCITING 175 page, 14 chapter, E-Book will cover everything from the World Wide Web, Veronica, IRC Clients, Gopher, Telnet, Advanced Email, and how to set up your own electronic store front. Whether you're a veteran on the net or have just begun, there is something to LEARN from "Your Personal Guide to the Internet". The Internet is growing daily and it is quickly becoming the wave of the future. Have you ever wondered what people are talking about when they mention FTP or client-server protocol? Has it made you feel left out when you didn't understand their lingo? Everyone knows that KNOWLEDGE is POWER, so why not learn more and take advantage of it? Picture this. You buy a beautiful boat, and you go to take it out on the lake. You get there, you can start the boat, but can't get it to go anywhere. That is how many people are on the Internet. They have the software and the ability to go online, but don't know what to do with it. This is where "Your Personal Guide to the Internet" comes in. Just as a boat manual would have been useful to allow you to go on your trip, this guide will allow you to do just about ANYTHING that you can imagine on the Internet. So, how much will this knowledge cost you? Simply, $4.00! That's right, FOUR DOLLARS. Why are we selling it for a such a LOW PRICE? We feel that everyone who is online should be able to use the Internet to their full capabilities. Why go to the bookstore and spend $50 to $100 on Internet books, when you can get everything you need for $4.00? This is a MUST HAVE! Do not pass up this OPPORTUNITY! This is a LIMITED OFFER. **** If you order within 10 days, As a SPECIAL BONUS, you will also receive "1000 Places to Advertise for Free"! **** ORDER FORM (print this out and mail it along with your cash, check or money order): Name ______________________________ Address ____________________________ City _______________________________ State_______________________________ Zip Code ____________________________ Phone Number (if sending check) ______________________ Email Address ________________________@_______________________ Would you like this on diskette ($7.00 includes S & H) or emailed to you for only $4.00? (circle one) Make All Checks Payable To: Creative Financial Alternatives Send check or money order to: Creative Financial Alternatives 14837 Detroit Ave. Suite 135 Cleveland, OH 44107 ***Orders will be shipped within 48 hours upon receipt.*** ***Please Note: All checks are held for 5 business days.. ***Due to the Overwhelming demand Please Don't Reply Back By E-Mail.

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 ìì 16/11/1996 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> ...I would gladly write articles on Dimitri's expulsion and the >> facade of Free Speech in mailing lists etc.,...But since I have >> no time, it's likely someone else will report this. > >What was that from Thomas Paine about summer soldiers and >sunshine patriots? Three cheers for George and his commitment >to "Free Speech." I know I'm impressed. You mean that if I launched an entire publicity campaign against the censorship of Dimitri Vulis and similar evils, I would not thoroughly enjoy it, or not get paid the newspapers here, for it? (the standard rates per column)? Poor soul! :-) What you see as 'voluntarism' or 'sacrifice' is in reality quite the opposite. Which is why... NOT writing about it is an act of generosity, NOT the other way round. (Which is why I'll make sure SOMEBODY writes about it). Tsk, tsk, tsk George

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 ìì 16/11/1996 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >C'punks, > >On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, George A. Stathis wrote: > >> What worries me is that people still subscribe to the >> cypherpunks list after this assault on free speech takes place. > >So I guess we won't be seeing George around here any more (or >did he just me OTHER people should unsubscribe?). Rest assured that... I am not subscribed to your list anyway. Maybe I allowed 5 or 6 messages to reach you, since the 'recipients' contained your list in the first place. It's part of *your* attempt (AFTER Dimitri's expulsion) to "have the last word". :-) - NOT mine! :-) Perhapds I'd subscribe to your list if serious discussions on... crypography take place, which would enable me to better... protect my own software by some kind of encryption. But I decided to lower my prices and publish (my dictionaries) unprotected anyway! :-) As regards 'PGP'... I don't give a damn anymore who reads my mail, since I got used to infringements of privacy anyway (since my childhood days in a dictatorship). In any case, It is not my style to 'hinder other people's discussions'. And if a list contains more than 1000 people INDIFFERENT to Freedom of Speech, it's not AT ALL 'my' kind of list anyway... :-) >> ...I would gladly write articles on Dimitri's expulsion and the >> facade of Free Speech in mailing lists etc.,...But since I have >> no time, it's likely someone else will report this. > >What was that from Thomas Paine about summer soldiers and >sunshine patriots? Three cheers for George and his commitment >to "Free Speech." I know I'm impressed. Aha! aha! aha! :-) You are on the verge on "taking the piss out of" (even) Thomas Paine! How has it happened that you are so determined in your anti-Vulistic zeal, so as to sacrifice even what the rest of the World admires in your country? I always liked Americans for their support of Individual Rights, their Constitution, Jefferson and Thomas Paine, things like that... Well, if you want all these reasons to vanish in thin air, good luck in your next... forcible unsubscriptions! :-) <shrug> George P.S. I have heard cynical Americans before, being 'sarcastic' against selfless supporters of Free Speech. A lot of you people can't even imagine a selfless cause without financial gain. Such is the... Mafia world of... pimping and prostitution, I suppose... :-) (-joke!) ROTFL

2 1

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:07 ðì 17/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: >> Stephen Boursy wrote, along with a horde of others with no lives: >> [lots of worthless crap snipped out] >> > None of that analogy is applicable to the cyberpunks list. >> > When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered >> > a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum. The whole problem >> > here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore. > > Boursy is a twit who has lost more accounts that Vulis. In this case, I'd quote a poet who said "I am not sorry for the poets who were left without an audience, I am sorry for the audiences who were left without any poets". I would suggest that it is not at all a "safe" indication of personal or intellectual _worth_, (of Mr. Boursy or of anyone) "how many accounts he has lost". For two reasons: (1) As I read Mr. Boursy's postings, I see no indication that he is either deranged, or evil, or lacking sanity or maturity. If he had these qualities, they'd sooner or later show up inside the F-K list, to which I subscribe for several months (nearly a year?). (2) The situation inside the "less official" side of thje Internet, at the moment (aka mailing lists) is so notoriously repressive that perhaps a _minority_ of mailing lists do not indulge in so-called "forcible unsubscriptions". E.g. what about the "Orgonomy mailing list" kicked out an eloquent critic of its owner (Dr. Demeo) (can find all names and details if you like) just because he opposed Dr. Demeo's "experiments" in an Israeli desert which (allegedly, according to the critic) resulted in people's deaths. I mention this case, because I was present there, and because (just like the "Cypherpunks" list) it was directly or indirectly related to issues of Freedom ("Orgonomy" being the "Alternative Psychology" of a rather unconventional thinker called Wilhelm Reich who died in an American jail after the McCarthian State framed him). > Ignore him. It is not ethical to send such strong negative _injunctions_ to masses of people and also to strangers (the 1900-strong members of the cyberphunks list for instance). Because, you may or may not have strong reasons for believing you are justified in such invalidation, but more than a 1000 people are now _told_ by (self-appointed) "experts" such as yourself what and whom to ignore or to believe. (Like sheep led to the slaughter)... This was my objection also inside the F-K list, for _some_ of the postings in the past, but none of these postings was connected with acts of censorship, or with "sweeping generalisations" without evidence. On several occasions that I searched and found who or what they were talking about, I discovered they were talking about people whose activities were indeed horrifying (forged cancellations etc) and who also fought back. But what you are doing now, extending the "1-person-blacklist" to your number-two-entry (Mr. Boursy) is exactly the thing that I hoped you might avoid. First they kicked out Dimitri Vulis. Then they slandered and kept out Steve Boursy. Then... When they came after me, there was nobody left to support me. (You can perhaps realize what this paraphrase is about)... :-( Sincerily, and with... Sanity of Mind :-) George Stathis

3 2