- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Prof Shamir arrested
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Bell wrote: [many things on "fraud"] Excuse me if I don't react on this in detail. We have already explained it, and there it stands: fraud means playing a game without abiding by its rules. It's perfectly legitimate to establish a game and to introduse rules of the game with it. If you want to play the game, play by its rules, otherwise don't play it. If you play it while cheating, though, you must bear the consequences ("go directly to jail" ;-). Bert-Jaap --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bert-Jaap Koops tel +31 13 466 8101 Center for Law, Administration and facs +31 13 466 8149 Informatization, Tilburg University e-mail E.J.Koops(a)kub.nl -------------------------------------------------- Postbus 90153 | This world's just mad enough to have been made | 5000 LE Tilburg | by the Being his beings into being prayed. | The Netherlands | (Howard Nemerov) | --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/bertjaap.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Prof Shamir arrested
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:00 PM 10/22/96 +0300, Jüri Kaljundi wrote: > Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Rabid Wombat wrote: > >> Or is this the Avi Shamir who broke FEAL-8? > >Can you tell more of this? There is an Windows disk encryption utility >called Teamware Crypto that uses FEAL-8. This program is quite popular in >Europe, distributed and made by ICL Data. The attacks on FEAL are pretty lengthy. _Applied Cryptography_ 2nd edition by Bruce Schneier has a list of attacks on page 311. The Shamir attack is not the one to worry about. Matsui and Yamagishi have an attack that breaks it in 2^15 known plaintexts. If you do not have a copy, I can dig up the references on it. (It is too late/early for me to do it clearly at this point...) Hope that helps. --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

2 1

Dimitri goes to California - was Re: [SERDAR ARGIC] Ray Arachelian...
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:08:17 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > So it IS intellectual dishonesty and cowardice. I thought so. > Is there anyone on the list who thinks Dimitri is a man? Not me. Pick another speaker, poll the pledgers for agreement and don't ask Dimitri again. And just when I let him out of my killfile in the hope I'd see him accept the challenge. -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

2 1

Pearls before swine
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Throwing beads before swine is not forbidden. Throwing pearls before swine is what you want to avoid. If you think of cypherpunks as swine and your knowledge as pearls of wisdom, perhaps you should stop throwing your pearls before us swine. James ---------- From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Sent: Monday, October 21, 1996 8:10 PM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: [SERDAR ARGIC] Ray Arachelian's role in massacare of 2,5 I think to talk about cryptography to the San Francisco Cypherpunks is to throw beads before the swine. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

RC4 analysis
by jcard＠st6000.sct.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anybody out there done any significant analysis of the RC4 stream cipher? What I am interested in is the expected cycle length of the standard implementation (256 byte state table)? Working with the reduced sizes, the cycle length appears to grow exponentially, but I am unsure how to verify this. Have there been any other results surfacing besides the reports on weak keys? thx. Justin

1 0

Re: one-body, one-cert
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This is picking up a discussion from the SPKI list on the topic of anonymous credentials. I think cypherpunks is a more appropriate forum.] From: Carl Ellison <cme(a)cybercash.com> > Yes. This protects me from the evil CA. However, the original posting > person wanted to make sure that once he had seen bad behavior on my part > (where "I" am identified by my DNA) that every future use of any key by me > will gain me no access to his service. > > I believe these two desires are fundamentally opposed -- irreconcilable. > If someone does a bad thing with some key I'm supposed to control, then I > want to be able to write that key off and get another one to give me > access. If *I* do the bad thing, then he doesn't want me ever to get > access again. > > This is resolvable only if we have a way to detect the DNA behind the actor > -- but we don't. All we have are keys which a person controls -- until he > doesn't. I think in a system like this, participants would need to understand the limitations and design the protocols with them in mind. Ideally, getting access to someone else's keys would be made very difficult, more so than it is today, since the consequences could be so much more drastic. It would be as though evil spirits roamed the world and could invade the consciousness of careless people, taking over their bodies and forcing them to commit horrendous acts. In such a world we could expect people to take whatever careful precautions are possible to avoid such threats. Furthermore, systems which apply punishments for bad behavior would have to be aware of the possibility of such occurances. It would generally not be appropriate to impose draconian consequences for a single bad act. Rather, the possibility would always have to be considered that such actions were not the fault of the apparent perpetrator. We might expect to see systems in which single instances of misbehavior are forgiven, but patterns of repetitive bad conduct are punished. I believe protocols similar to the ones Jim McCoy mentioned from Chaum can provide very flexible (although possibly inefficient) means for controlling credentials in a variety of ways. In the context of limited-participation credentials, then, a reasonable policy would be not to strictly cut off anyone who broke the contract, but rather to consider extenuating circumstances. For example, if a credential is stolen and the owner is aware of it (say it is locked in a hardened smart card), and he can prove that he made a good faith effort to notify service providers that they should invalidate the credential, then this would excuse misbehavior. Even without this kind of evidence, it may be appropriate to give people a limited number of second chances. True, this allows an unscrupulous person to violate the rules some number of times and get away with it. However this may be tolerable as a generally low level of background noise. No society is perfect. Being able to largely deter contract violations while still maintaining privacy for the participants would in my opinion be superior to the world we seem to be heading towards, one in which dataveillance, profiling, and tracking are the norm. Hal

1 0

Finally -- A crypto question from me...HD encryption
by h2＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are there any good programs out there that can encrypt my HD?? Since there probably are, please mention some and where I can get them. Also, no one mention PGP.

4 3

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:37 AM 11/16/96 -0800, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: [snip] >I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of >nonsense. Please do us all a favor and try to sue John. I'm sure >that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they >can come up with a viable cause of action. And John has deep >pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue >"freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists. Such a case would obviously fail. John has the right to ban anyone he wants from a list that he is hosting. I do question, though, whether or not it was the best way to handle the situation. As I have argued, the availability of end-user filtering made banning Dimitri from the list unnecessary, IMHO. And the list owner giving people the boot sure doesn't fit with the picture I have had of what cypherpunks was about. YMMV. I think that John is doing a lot of great things for crypto (his participation in the Bernstein case, S/WAN, etc.) and I agree with at least 90% of the things I see him doing. I think he made the wrong call with Dimitri, though. >You >could be heroes (or look ten times as foolish as you already do). Actually, if John was trying to cut down on the noise by banning the Kook, I think it's backfired. It seems like there is even more irrational chatter now... Rich -- Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/

3 2

-=/HaCk, InC.\=-
by L0rD gEcK0 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

join #hackinc or #hackteach on efnet and join the group, run by: L0rD gEcK0 HaRdC0Re ^TWiSTeR^ Painter Catgrrl larsk One Day... The world will be overcome by gEcK0's, and if you havent been kind to me, you WILL be sorry!!! ;) ***£Ø®ÐgË©KØ***

1 0

Re: THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aga <aga(a)dhp.com> writes: > > > > If you send mail to "cypherpunks(a)toad.com", either directly, OR > > in a "Cc:" which is a 'carbon copy', it will goto the the cypherpunks > > mailing list WETHER YOU ARE SUBSCRIBED OR NOT. It still goes. > > > > Well, that is really a fuck-up by John Gilmore, is it not? > Just when is the asshole going to learn how to run a mailing list? Never, but he might get some Cygnus support employee to do it for him. :-) John has the right to configure his private mailing list to reject submissions from non-subscribers or even sepecific people - but not the balls. > > In any case trying to reason with you is like trying to talk > > to a tree stump. It's giving me a headache. So I'm not going > > to accept any mail from you any more. Anything you send that > > get's to me via the cypherpunks mailing list, or via direct > > mail from yourself will be returned unread, to you. I'm not > > under any obligation to accept any traffic from you, so I won't. > > Good, just tell Gilmore what an asshole he is for letting > mail go to his mailing list that is not intended to go there. > And stop sending me your stupid e-mail. Send this shit to > usenet like Mr. Boursy told you to do. Again John Gilmore/EFF demonstrate their true agenda: they can filter out the e-mail they don't like, but they want to prevent others from reading it as well. Clearly their concern for free speech extends only to their corporate sponsors, such as net.pronography peddlers. > > You may have a right to a voice, but I have a right not to listen > > I'm not going to infringe on your right to rant, but damned if > > I have to listen to a single packet of it. The saw cuts both ways. > > time for the alt.asshole.john-gilmore newsgroup An excellent idea, Dr. Grubor! Shall we newgroup alt.flame.john-gilmore or alt.bonehead.john-gilmore or both? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0