- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

MacPGP
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of a manual for the Mac PGP 2.6? I can find the functions that I need in the command line interface manual but then it is unclear how to get excatly that function thru menu selections. The command R function reads commands from a file. It is awkward and keeps warning you that it is buggy. I can imagine writing such a manual but before I know the answers it would be inaccurate and after I know the answers it would seem superflous.

1 0

Ride to CP meeting request
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If anyone is headed to this month's meeting from San Francisco and has a seat they'd like to let me occupy, please email me. -carless in SF

1 0

core dumps with pgp-elm
by shawn leas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Anybody else get this problem?? I've tried all sorts of different things. Compiles fine, runs fine w/out pgp options, but crashes like a stone when I use them. Segmentation violation. That sucks! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLuTgGaZRyOzqm29xAQHIsgP9Hw2Wq84gOZ3sCx0qzVQAYY9JimC1/avD 6YMFEL3cRv0KhVeFV1gNKB7DC1wmypstoVTgcy9xiGZdxXvzQ6/dmrqmpWzt2+Fi GscQMUVHNfi18pX5X+8gjbZpDfD28tc6XW1gPDP5150n1pngTUQ7HXMcqJIxklj3 DmcP3W3+qAo= =YO8U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: GUCAPI (Grand Unified Crypto API)
by L. Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- bshantz(a)spry.com writes: > L.Todd Masco <cactus(a)hks.net> writes: > > >I've been thinking a lot recently about how to implement a generic API for > >crypto such that the interface could be independent of the cipher used. > > So, you just want a generic overlay (wrapper) to any of the existing > encryption algorithms? Is this correct? More or less. It doesn't need to implement everything straight off: the API itself just has to pass all the information that's necessary. > >My goal is to come up with an API that could be integrated once into an > >application and would be flexible enough that new crypto methods, whether > >ciphers or key management, could be supported entirely by upgrading the > >library. This includes being flexible enough to cover as diverse > >methods as OTPs ... > > Well, it sounds good in theory. However, trust me, Todd, writing a generic > API that is multi-platfomr is not necessarily as easy as it sounds. There's > alot of code in this prioject. You would also have to make sure that the API Actually, I'm not talking about implementing the library in a multi-platform way. Once the API is specified, people could be found who would do the implementation for any given platform. I'd do a UNIX version that would straight off translate appropriate calls to RSAREF for RSA calls and implement IDEA. A friend of mine is interested in doing the PC version . > is generic so it could work in ANY program that might use encryption or > digital signatures. (i.e. e-mail, USENET news, possibly even lending itself > to a Secure HTTP implementation.) Encryption is a pretty straightforward process in the abstract: While such an API might not be well suited to hyper-fast stream methods, it would be Good Enough to have something that could be integrated into mail and news easily. News and mail are doing the same thing: a big part of the difficulty in getting integrated support is in the cumbersome interface to PGP and the percieved short horizon on PGP changes. If a unified API promised that a crypto API would stay put, I think more people would be hacking code. I'm not talking about implementing it all at once. In essence, a PGP engine that used these calls would be useful because people could implement MUAs and newsreaders (and perhaps web browsers) that easily integrated PGP encryption by linking with the newest version of the PGP distribution: and then, as newer methods and formats came along, all that would be required would be a relink to support new formats (another function, BTW, would be a guc_parse_format() that would determine the format of the input). > >(key management would be done on the basis of the method specified.) > > Uh, just from a first glance, I'd say that this is going to slip gently into > the ITAR pits. There are very few "methods" other than RSAREF that you > could use to make this "universal". Also, would this act as a wrapper > over PGP, or would it use the same concepts (and or code) to do the same > things? Only the spec itself need be exported, no crypto code or even hooks. RSAREF would have to be part of the RSA methods inside the US: outside, it would probably end up being the old PGP code that the current 2.6ui-style PGPs use. > Agreed, it would be nice to have one API. As a developer though, I > panic when I see "generic" API's. Usually, they are not as > "black-box" as people would like to believe. What I mean is, usually > they are not just as simple as "put in this input, and you will get > this output." Also, are we talking about C code or C++ code? DOS? > Windows? Are we talking multi-platform code that will work on all the > major OS's? For a generic API, that's alot of code...I keep saying > that....must mean something. Certainly, some APIs are much better than others. The C stdlib, for example, is a pretty good API. Stdio does a very good job of abstracting concepts to calls that work across filesystems as different as VMS's RMS and MS-DOS filesystems. I'm talking about C -- not every platform supports C++. The OS isn't important: the API can be implemented independently. > I would be interested in seeing something like this implemented, but I > question whether it will be a hit as an industry standard. Generic API's > really haven't gone over well for things in the past. (Except the class > libraries for major C++ compilers. MFC, OWL, etc.) > The design has to be robust before you start coding. Frankly, I don't give a damn about it becoming an "idustry standard" if that means Microsoft, Lotus, etc. I have no interest in doing their work for them. I'm more interested in generating a "net-standard," something that people hacking code for themselves or for freely-distributable packages can use. It's a necessary step along the road to "crypto for the masses." - -- Todd Masco | "'When _I_ use a word,' Humpty-Dumpty said, in a rather cactus(a)hks.net | scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - cactus(a)bb.com | neither more nor less.'" - Lewis Carroll - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLuTkJioZzwIn1bdtAQFEhwF7Bo0K7ZwWDlYtaB46B4kpwOM/jXY0pLrT Q/y84MBu6Z7nwt75X+r0Y93rpBon1QQh =VWmR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: GUCAPI (Grand Unified Crypto API)
by JEFF LICQUIA (CEI) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > From: "L. Todd Masco" <cactus(a)hks.net> > I've been thinking a lot recently about how to implement a generic API for > crypto such that the interface could be independent of the cipher used. Here's a few random thoughts: Perhaps we could split the functions into groups according to the purpose of the group. Thus, key generation protocols would be in one group, encryption in another, decryption in another, file I/O routines in another, and so on. This would seem to encourage a more modular approach. It would provide an additional level of abstraction as well; you could implement higher-level actions in terms of lower-level ones. For example, you could implement "PGP-encrypt" in terms of calls to RSA-specific and IDEA-specific functions; from the point of view of the application, however, raw RSA and "PGP-style" encryption would look like two separate implementations of the same API. It could also facilitate certain other types of apps; for example, if we had a "key management" API and implementations of the API for PGP keys and PEM keys, we could easily construct an app that could PGP-encrypt with PEM keys and vice versa. Not to be an OO bigot or anything, but I would implement these as object groups, with the parents defining the API and the children implementing it. As an example, consider this "Key" hierarchy: Key / \ PubKey PrivKey - -> / / \ RSAKey DESKey IDEAKey / \ PGPKey PEMKey The arrow indicates the drawing line between definition and implementation classes. Note the common heritage of PGPKey and PEMKey with RSAKey; this could be used as a mechanism for converting between keys if RSAKey were implemented as a "raw" key, while PGPKey and PEMKey could include other key-specific baggage such as userIDs, attached certificates, etc. Supposedly, then, key management and other stuff could be made specific to the key type, but encrypting and decrypting could consist of a simple: Boolean RSAencrypt(char *message, RSAKey &key); (to use C++ language - substitute your own OOL if desired) and could then use either key format for its dirty work. Of course, this is simplistic, as the encryption engine itself would probably be an object also, etc., etc. There's some very rough ideas! They're in bad need of clarification; let 'em have it! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLuTj6DER5KvPRd0NAQE2yAP/dqcaHUXa9UrGpGxWOg+8xs2/AhCh0TS6 0Cca76O6Ztc/vzEpBdz1iAMVa/N7DDybwTHR+wgTPjBEKoy1vqMjSPZpEk2Zwhpy 8EgQvGOHInJrMdlWssEZWn8Av1tSaYJtNrtDV2hTEB9pZSzhIi1T257gqjSrnHks mH3qT0tQTjg= =AXya -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

GUCAPI (Grand Unified Crypto API)
by L. Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've been thinking a lot recently about how to implement a generic API for crypto such that the interface could be independent of the cipher used. What I'm thinking of is something like: guc_init_crypto(); guc_encrypt(); guc_decrypt(); guc_assemble(); guc_key_get(); guc_key_put(); guc_key_gen(); So, to encrypt a PGP-style message, you'd: guc_init_cypto("PGP_26", &context, &keys, &message ); Which would initialize whatever random vectors you're likely to need for a PGP session and allocate the appropriate space to the pointers. The types should be totally opaque, implemented in the library. guc_key_gen("PGP_26", &keys); Which would generate a session key for IDEA and grow the keys structure appropriately; guc_get_key("PGP_26", &keys, originator); guc_get_key("PGP_26", &keys, recipient1); guc_get_key("PGP_26", &keys, recipient2); ... Which would grow the keys structure and add in appropriate RSA keys. (Alternatively, it could be done as one vector with all the recipients lists). guc_encrypt("PGP_26", &keys, &input, &message); Which would encrypt the IDEA session key with the appropriate RSA key and the input with the IDEA session key. And, guc_seal("PGP_26", &message, &output); Which would put the messages into the appropriate (Radix-64?) format and put it out to the output, (the output structure would specify whether memory is to be allocated and filled, files written to, whatever). My goal is to come up with an API that could be integrated once into an application and would be flexible enough that new crypto methods, whether ciphers or key management, could be supported entirely by upgrading the library. This includes being flexible enough to cover as diverse methods as OTPs (where the init function would open a file or other pad as its "random vector," key retrieval would be a noop, and encode would just XOR) and PEM (key management would be done on the basis of the method specified. I'm fuzzy on how to generalize key management into a model that would include both web-of-trust and PEM-style certificates, so conversation on this would be greatly appreciated). It seems to me that the benefits are pretty clear: Set up such an API as a spec that can be implemented both inside and outside of the US and it allows everybody to implement to one API. There's no good reason to have a bazillion different crypto APIs if a generalized one can be achieved. I've posted about this before and received no response: since I'd like to solidify the API soon so I can firm up the coding I'm doing, I ask that folks take the time to comment. The code I end up producing will be publicly available, possibly as a "non-commercial use" copyright, perhaps PD. Thoughts? - -- Todd Masco | "'When _I_ use a word,' Humpty-Dumpty said, in a rather cactus(a)hks.net | scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - cactus(a)bb.com | neither more nor less.'" - Lewis Carroll - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLuTVNCoZzwIn1bdtAQFK1AGA16g1wgKMc4qg3SVxDMW3y+1IGeWDbVvj Q6uqlRmyaFNm1NjNfV0gCxZgAZ9oM338 =br4C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: GUCAPI (Grand Unified Crypto API)
by bshantz＠spry.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

L.Todd Masco <cactus(a)hks.net> writes: >I've been thinking a lot recently about how to implement a generic API for >crypto such that the interface could be independent of the cipher used. So, you just want a generic overlay (wrapper) to any of the existing encryption algorithms? Is this correct? >My goal is to come up with an API that could be integrated once into an >application and would be flexible enough that new crypto methods, whether >ciphers or key management, could be supported entirely by upgrading the >library. This includes being flexible enough to cover as diverse >methods as OTPs ... Well, it sounds good in theory. However, trust me, Todd, writing a generic API that is multi-platfomr is not necessarily as easy as it sounds. There's alot of code in this prioject. You would also have to make sure that the API is generic so it could work in ANY program that might use encryption or digital signatures. (i.e. e-mail, USENET news, possibly even lending itself to a Secure HTTP implementation.) >(key management would be done on the basis of the method specified.) Uh, just from a first glance, I'd say that this is going to slip gently into the ITAR pits. There are very few "methods" other than RSAREF that you could use to make this "universal". Also, would this act as a wrapper over PGP, or would it use the same concepts (and or code) to do the same things? >It seems to me that the benefits are pretty clear: Set up such an API >as a spec that can be implemented both inside and outside of the US and >it allows everybody to implement to one API. There's no good reason to >have a bazillion different crypto APIs if a generalized one can be >achieved. Agreed, it would be nice to have one API. As a developer though, I panic when I see "generic" API's. Usually, they are not as "black-box" as people would like to believe. What I mean is, usually they are not just as simple as "put in this input, and you will get this output." Also, are we talking about C code or C++ code? DOS? Windows? Are we talking multi-platform code that will work on all the major OS's? For a generic API, that's alot of code...I keep saying that....must mean something. I would be interested in seeing something like this implemented, but I question whether it will be a hit as an industry standard. Generic API's really haven't gone over well for things in the past. (Except the class libraries for major C++ compilers. MFC, OWL, etc.) The design has to be robust before you start coding. Anyone else have any comments? Brad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>INTERNETWORKING THE DESKTOP<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Brad Shantz bshantz(a)spry.com Software Engineer SPRY Inc. Direct #: (206)-442-8251 316 Occidental Ave. S. Main #: (206)-447-0300 Suite 316 Fax #: (206)-447-9008 Seattle, WA 98104 WWW URL: http://WWW.SPRY.COM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP Public Key at: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html Or email: pgp-public-keys(a)pgp.ai.mit.edu Subj: GET bshantz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

3 2

Re: BofA+Netscape
by JEFF LICQUIA (CEI) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > It my personal feeling that Netscape doesn't have the right >talent mix to develop secure software. For example, they may well get >the RSA parts right, and then store the passphrase in a text file, >'for ease of use.' The RSA is secure, but the system is not secure if >usnauthorized people using your machine is a possibility. > > Writing secure software is a difficult and tricky buisness >that requires a lot of effort; early versions of Mosaic had problems. > > Netscape really needs to develop a threat model that allows >them to assess the severity of potential problems. It is my guess >that they have not done so, although, I'd be pleased to hear I'm >wrong. > > Everyone's favorite company, First Virtual, seems to have >developed a threat model that allows them to offload allmost all risk >and security problems to their customers. It may not be a good >solution, but at least they have considered how the security of their >system intersects the real world. Just integrating RSA does not do >that. This intrigued me, so I checked it out. I didn't see anything about a threat model, but they did have some extensive discussion about their security, including things I found interesting... They call their system "Secure Sockets Layer" (SSL), which appears to be a kind of link-level encryption which they layer below HTTP. This is opposed to SHTTP, which is more MIME-like. They don't seem to think much of SHTTP; their FAQ answers the question "Are there other secure browsers available?" with "Nope; no one else uses SSL at this time." (paraphrased) What's interesting is that they're planning to put NNTP, FTP, etc. on top of SSL as well, allowing for "secure FTP" and "secure news", etc. SSL is supposedly an open standard, and Netscape is pressing for it to become a true standard. Apparently, they've even issued an RFC for it. The full text of the SSL protocol is on their Web site. As for technical issues, they aren't very satisfactory concerning the kind of questions Adam raised; it's mostly about RC4 layered on top of RSA and MD5 hashes sent at this time, etc... The SSL spec contains a section on attacks which seems elementary even to my novice mind. Is there interest in posting the spec? It's in RFC format, but hasn't even been assigned a number yet, so it doesn't appear to be uncopyable, as it were. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLuiwnjER5KvPRd0NAQGBNAP+PpTRHhzVq+ogPkCUP4vBSYG9ooOnSVOi tOaG+4zQYJa7iPBP11/aODYM9JjlNr8zGBDfKr1SzOI7ntg59C8/aGscc5XvJh5I wE2TxHOqA+OE+AtSy4jDE09yVG/TUZuO69Ig5+v/xJy+XU1nspUoJ02mi5EQo/59 Qq1nDoeKpoE= =vBg6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

CIAC Notes 94-04
by Karyn Pichnarczyk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

U.S. DOE's Computer Incident Advisory Capability ___ __ __ _ ___ __ __ __ __ __ / | /_\ / |\ | / \ | |_ /_ \___ __|__ / \ \___ | \| \__/ | |__ __/ Number 94-04 December 6, 1994 ------------------- A - T - T - E - N - T - I - O - N ------------------- | CIAC is available 24-hours a day via its two skypage numbers. To use | | this service, dial 1-800-759-7243. The PIN numbers are: 8550070 (for | | the CIAC duty person) and 8550074 (for the CIAC manager). Please keep | | these numbers handy. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome to the fourth issue of CIAC Notes! This is a special edition to clear up recent reports of a "good times" virus-hoax. Let us know if you have topics you would like addressed or have feedback on what is useful and what is not. Please contact the editor, Allan L. Van Lehn, CIAC, 510-422-8193 or send E-mail to ciac(a)llnl.gov. $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ Reference to any specific commercial product does not necessarily $ $ constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by $ $ CIAC, the University of California, or the United States Government.$ $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ THE "Good Times" VIRUS IS AN URBAN LEGEND In the early part of December, CIAC started to receive information requests about a supposed "virus" which could be contracted via America OnLine, simply by reading a message. The following is the message that CIAC received: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Here is some important information. Beware of a file called Goodtimes. | | | | Happy Chanukah everyone, and be careful out there. There is a virus on | | America Online being sent by E-Mail. If you get anything called "Good | | Times", DON'T read it or download it. It is a virus that will erase your | | hard drive. Forward this to all your friends. It may help them a lot. | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- THIS IS A HOAX. Upon investigation, CIAC has determined that this message originated from both a user of America Online and a student at a university at approximately the same time, and it was meant to be a hoax. CIAC has also seen other variations of this hoax, the main one is that any electronic mail message with the subject line of "xxx-1" will infect your computer. This rumor has been spreading very widely. This spread is due mainly to the fact that many people have seen a message with "Good Times" in the header. They delete the message without reading it, thus believing that they have saved themselves from being attacked. These first-hand reports give a false sense of credibility to the alert message. There has been one confirmation of a person who received a message with "xxx-1" in the header, but an empty message body. Then, (in a panic, because he had heard the alert), he checked his PC for viruses (the first time he checked his machine in months) and found a pre-existing virus on his machine. He incorrectly came to the conclusion that the E-mail message gave him the virus (this particular virus could NOT POSSIBLY have spread via an E-mail message). This person then spread his alert. As of this date, there are no known viruses which can infect merely through reading a mail message. For a virus to spread some program must be executed. Reading a mail message does not execute the mail message. Yes, Trojans have been found as executable attachments to mail messages, the most notorious being the IBM VM Christmas Card Trojan of 1987, also the TERM MODULE Worm (reference CIAC Bulletin B-7) and the GAME2 MODULE Worm (CIAC Bulletin B-12). But this is not the case for this particular "virus" alert. If you encounter this message being distributed on any mailing lists, simply ignore it or send a follow-up message stating that this is a false rumor. Karyn Pichnarczyk CIAC Team ciac(a)llnl.gov ------------------------------ Contacting CIAC If you require additional assistance or wish to report a vulnerability, call CIAC at 510-422-8193, fax messages to 510-423-8002 or send E-mail to ciac(a)llnl.gov. For emergencies and off-hour assistance, call 1-800-SKY-PAGE (759-7243) and enter PIN number 8550070 (primary) or 8550074 (secondary). The CIAC Duty Officer, a rotating responsibility, carries the primary skypager. The Project Leader carries the secondary skypager. If you are unable to contact CIAC via phone, please use the skypage system. ------------------------------ This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by the United States Government or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the University of California, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. ------------------------------ End of CIAC Notes Number 94-04 94_12_06 ****************************************

1 0

Re: GUCAPI (Grand Unified Crypto API)
by maschino＠phx.sectel.mot.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(This is my first attempt at posting, please excuse any errors, and I do not yet have PGP on my employer-owned machine) > I've been thinking a lot recently about how to implement a generic API for > crypto such that the interface could be independent of the cipher used. > What I'm thinking of is something like: There are numerous industry groups working on a "security" API, including Microsoft, Novell, Motorola, Intel, etc. Major focus is transparent (to the user) security (encryption, KCA, signatures, etc) for email, local and remote file access, generalized and integrated telephony, and so forth. Of course, there are many approaches, generation by committee, personal and corporate biases, and other garbage to get in their way. What may be interesting is to look at their proposed security APIs and glean interesting ideas to be incorporated into your API. Some ideas on effective APIs: - the process of encryption/decryption, signaturing, etc should be independent of the destination/source of the data. The same API should be able to process a file, an e-mail message, an inter-process control message, etc. The API does not care what the data is from or for, it just operates on it. Of course, the API should be able to process in the various encryption modes, and may have to discriminate between a continuous flow of data and a finite size of data. - API's at this level must NEVER directly utilize the User Interface (regardless of whether the UI is graphical or textual). It should be completely irrelevant to the API whether it was invoked by an actual user, a local system process, or a remote system process. Return and error conditions are returned to the caller, which then decides what to do with the erroneous result. Error traps are acceptable too, though the trap should allow the "trapper" to decide what to do about notification or handling of the error. Of course, you recognize the hardest API is key management. Use some data and/or object modeling techniques to handle the two basic senarios and see if you can generalize it sufficiently. I have no idea about how to get the group's proposed API's. There has been several mentions in the networking trade papers about them though. Windows 95 and NT WILL have a security API based in part on the existing one worked out with Novell. Of course, security is a local issues as well as a networking or messaging issue, so I doubt their implementation will be thorough. Hope this is of some help. - Mike ***************************************************************************** Mike Maschino Email: Mike_Maschino-P17960(a)email.mot.com Motorola | "I am not speaking for my employer, Government and Systems Technology Group | and they do not speak for me" Scottsdale, AZ, USA | "Neuro-encrypto-psycho-telco-photo-proto-nympho-lego <g>-maniacs wanted by same; applications available; god-like entities always welcome" *****************************************************************************

1 0