- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

JUDGMENT PROOFING
by Sandy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert J. Woodhead quoted Nate who wrote, in part: Imagine if all your money . . . was tied up in anonymous accounts and that all your property was owned by digital pseudonyms (from whom you rented the property). To which Robert responded: . . . Do not be so quick to assume that these wonderful and interesting techniques we discuss will solve long-standing problems. . . . No assumption necessary, Robert. Non-digital variations of these techniques have been used successfully for generations. The rich and politically savvy have always seen to it that exposure to litigation and the burden of taxes fell only on the middle class. Computers, the nets and crypto technology just make it easier for the rest of us to get in on the same deal. Once critical mass is reached, governments can't survive. The end, not with a bang, but a whimper. As for all the other nasty things governments can do to you: Remember, they have to see you as a threat or a juicy victim before they can focus in on you. If you use traditional and electronic privacy techniques, there is very little likelihood that you will come to their attention. Low Profile = Minimal Hassle S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Re: Backing
by Matthew J Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The problem with using a concrete anfd finite source to back ypour currency is that it is just that...finite. This causes many economic problems for the social/economic system founded on it. I was barely a pup when the world first discovered this... er...that is when everyone in the mainstream allowed economists to be heard. Remember the Gold Standard? --Matt ______________________________________________________________________________ "This new technology (the printing press) threatened the Crown, which shuddered at the thought of widespread dissemination of works advocating religious heresy and political upheaval. The Crown's solution to the problem was a system of regulation designed to control this "dangerous" art." -From my Copyright Law Text (refrencing the Statute of Anne - the first Copyright Statute) (c)1993 ______________________/___________________________________mjmiski(a)macc.wisc.edu

2 1

ANNONYMOUS BANK ACCOUNTS
by Sandy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Punksters, Robert J. Woodhead suggested: . . . Rather than aspire to join the alleged clique of rich and powerful tax evaders, might it not be better to aspire to develop techniques that both maintain privacy but guarantee that they have to pay their share of the load. . . . Oh Robert, the clique is hardly alleged. Their there whether you like the idea or not. Strong crypto can do far more than merely maintain privacy while we try--in vain--to fairly share the load. It can help us *reduce and ultimately eliminate* the load for rich and poor alike. If you want to submit to taxes to buy piece, go right ahead. I'll put my faith in crypto anarchy. Mr. Woodhead went on in another post: . . . the difference is that today, it's much harder to be discreet -- the encryption is a red flag. "What's he hiding?" And as any intelligence analyst can tell you, even traffic analysis can tell you a _lot_. . . . Nope, where message volume is high, encryption is lost in the noise. When encryption is wide-spread, it's not a read flag. If steganography is used, there is no flag at all. Remailers make traffic analysis extremely difficult or impossible. Finally, the traditional methods are still just as effective as always. I'll say it again: We have already won. S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

(fwd) Re: Error in RFC1 321 (MD5)?
by ferguson＠icm1.icp.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought (perhaps) this may be of interest - Forwarded message: > Newsgroups: sci.crypt > Subject: Re: Error in RFC1 321 (MD5) ? > Date: 18 Oct 93 09:10:29 > Organization: RSA Data Security, Inc. > Lines: 27 > Distribution: world > Message-ID: <BURT.93Oct18091029(a)chirality.rsa.com> > References: <29u8jqINNn0s(a)umbc7.umbc.edu> > NNTP-Posting-Host: chirality.rsa.com > In-reply-to: olson(a)umbc.edu's message of 18 Oct 1993 10:18:34 -0400 > > In article <29u8jqINNn0s(a)umbc7.umbc.edu> olson(a)umbc.edu (Bryan G. Olson) writes: > > I just ftp'd RFC 1321 ( MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm ) from > rsa.com, and I believe there is a minor error in the > specification of the algorithm. > > On page 5, the four operations used in the four rounds are > defined, and the operations for round 3 and 4 seem to have > mis-matched parameter names. Specifically from page 5: > > [...] > >> /* Round 3. */ > >> /* Let [abcd k s t] denote the operation > >> a = b + ((a + H(b,c,d) + X[k] + T[i]) <<< s). */ > >> /* Do the following 16 operations. */ > [...] > >> /* Round 4. */ > >> /* Let [abcd k s t] denote the operation > >> a = b + ((a + I(b,c,d) + X[k] + T[i]) <<< s). */ > >> /* Do the following 16 operations. */ > [...] > > Yes, the 't' should be an 'i'. Not a major source of confusion, but > something that should be noted and corrected. > > -- Burt Kaliski > RSA Laboratories > _____________________________________________________________________________ Paul Ferguson Mindbank Consulting Group fergp(a)sytex.com Fairfax, Virginia USA ferguson(a)icp.net

1 0

Re: crypto technique
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >So, if I could prevent you from finding c, then you couldn't solve it. >How can I do this? By adding another constant. [...] >136.375x^4 + 139.25x^3 + 33.625x^2 + 110.75x + 179 >So what values for A,B,C,D,E,& F did I use? Have fun factoring! :) Sure, I'll give it a whirl as soon as my exams are over. Offhand, it looks like you get five equations in six unknowns, which is under-specified. So possibly one parameter can take on any value (or maybe any odd value), and the rest are then solved in terms of the fixed variable. The variable paramter can only take on values less than P (maybe only odd values under P), the number of unknows is then 2*(nestings) - 1; everything still looks linear. However, I haven't actually tried yet, so we'll see! This isn't meant as a flame (in fact, this method is very interesting), but you've posted two or three methods and declared them all impossible to break. Are you yourself trying to break these schemes? The very first method posted would have fallen under scrutiny. Also, mail any additional info to me directly; I'm behind on list mail. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLMV1CIOA7OpLWtYzAQGQRAP8CT79JpMKxVb/R//GVUfmCJ2ybtf8ASGY BZa8bsL1VG49sxpoe7LsnQH2mJVAv3GloJhnuVN0d/MbTmohN6mgtGXbrQxvTdyn r0eaTYcrXI0hiR5ahPp5SdfAHGuQ9LeQDermiiU+DK8I6lc+K6tzG0ZOUvs4r80n cF4K9aXSaLQ= =wMas -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re:backing
by F_GRIFFITH＠CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: CCSVAX::F_GRIFFITH 19-OCT-1993 16:06:40.42 To: SMTP%"owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com" CC: F_GRIFFITH Subj: Re: backing? peb:if a currency loses reputation (value) people will switch to a better reputation (value) currency (paraphrase) Greshams law: "bad money drives out good" i.e. where people have a choice (e.g. gold vs greenbacks post Civil War), in making payments, they will use the lesser value money and keep the higher value. Thus, the lesser value money will circulate, the higher value money will not.

1 0

defeating traffic analysis
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 22:43:46 PDT >From: hfinney(a)shell.portal.com (Hal Finney) >Message-Id: <9310200543.AA22959(a)jobe.shell.portal.com.shell.portal.com> >Subject: Re: JUDGMENT PROOFING >This is exactly what anonymous remailers are for - to defeat traffic >analysis. The goal is a situation where you, and everyone else, receives >and sends out a bunch of encrypted traffic every day. There will be >no way a snooper can find out exactly what you are reading, what you >are writing, or whom you are communicating with. That's what I call >private. To really defeat traffic analysis you also have to remove any information from volume of traffic. If I don't know any message routing but I do know that cme sent 10 MB of traffic and you received 10 MB of traffic and the other 30 people on the anon subnet dealt with only 100B each, .... So: have everyone send and receive exactly the same size message to/from the same sites at the same time every day. - Carl

2 1

Re: why anon bank acct?
by owen＠autodesk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: "Robert J. Woodhead" <trebor(a)foretune.co.jp> > Not at all. I recognise that, however inefficient, taxes pay to maintain > the legal and physical environment that makes my life more comfortable. > There are many oppressive things about governments, but _by_and_large_ > the US government is one of the least oppressive, and the vast majority > of the people who work in it are honest and well-intentioned. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that myself. But the reality is that no matter how much some of us would like to replace the current government with a more libertarian one, or how much we would like to see the current government back off from its current course, its not gonna happen. > What I hope comes out of groups like cypherpunks are ways to make the > government better and more responsive to the needs of the citizenry > (in other words, some good checks and balances), rather than petty > ways to avoid a few bucks in taxes. Rather than aspire to join the > alleged clique of rich and powerful tax evaders, might it not be better > to aspire to develop techniques that both maintain privacy but guaran- > tee that they have to pay their share of the load. Hint: develop > something that makes it worth their while. exactly, this is exactly what I have been getting at. LUX ./. owen

1 0

US Privacy Council Seminar
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

US Privacy Council Seminar 10/22 *********************************************************** [please post] US Privacy Council Brown Bag Lunch Seminar Series "Privacy and the National Informational Infrastructure" Patricia Faley US Office of Consumer Affairs CPSR Washington Office Friday, October 22, 1993 12:00 - 2:00 pm Pat Faley is Acting Director of the United States Office of Consumer Affairs and Chair of the Working Group on Privacy, Information Policy Committee, Information Infrastructure Task Force. She will discuss the Clinton Administration's privacy proposals for the NII for the NII and for the health care reform program. Following Ms. Faley's talk, there will be a general meeting of the US Privacy Council to discuss the agenda for the Clinton administration on privacy issues such as health care, the SSN, the Clipper Chip, and amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. CPSR Washington Office 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 303 Washington, DC 202/544-9240 (one block from the Eastern Market metro) In cooperation with Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. For more information on the US Privacy Council, please contact Evan Hendricks at 202-829-3660. [if you would like to be notified of future USPC Seminars, please send a note with e-mail address to banisar(a)washofc.cpsr.org] ***********************************************************

1 0

Re: crypto technique
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- One question before I work on this more at a later date. Can you still decode properly if you take the modulus of each coefficient? I ask since if you can't, the modulus makes is harder to find the constants, but as a side effect it also destroys the message. Say I use f = 29/2 x + 40 g = 135/2 f^2 + 135/2 f + 75 I get g = 110775 + 317155/4 x + 113535/8 x^2 This is easy to solve, so Matt takes the modulus of each coefficient (some power of 2, I pick 32 here to keep it simple). results in g' = 23 + 99/4 x + 127/8 x^2 Say I encode my message x = 5 g(5) = 6895725/8 mod 32 = 109/8 g'(5) = 4349/8 mod 32 = 253/8 Notice that these two results aren't equal at all! Am I misunderstanding the encoding (and decoding) process? Aren't these two results supposed to be equal? I'm not getting the expected result when each coefficient is reduced mod 32. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLMWsI4OA7OpLWtYzAQHdMQP+Jy7gdjgyhg9vrwi8K+KkrVSDbciOy6Sb BJQ1/zMg8inqmILbahO9SG3yTTh7+/k+OdUhiyxHYaaC5Jhv5n+QIvFTizHDA3VY /M5uXpt883bBLBaCp3ICDsPJEtgzMePxySP3n+qKG+nZ9MUDQ7msLq7SDCqM6eUU BXHHmjNjr+A= =kjVG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Karl L. Barrus: klbarrus(a)owlnet.rice.edu keyID: 5AD633 hash: D1 59 9D 48 72 E9 19 D5 3D F3 93 7E 81 B5 CC 32 "One man's mnemonic is another man's cryptography" - my compilers prof discussing file naming in public directories

1 0