- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: support for "crack DES"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:26 PM 10/3/96 +0000, Omegaman wrote: >Considering the situation -- considering that RSA has even signed on >to this scheme -- I'd have to say that I don't give a rat's ass what >Bill Gates claims. If Micro$oft bucks the system, I'll gladly >applaud their stand. > >The situation is not good at all. > >Cracking DES (whether distributed or through a hardware crack, or >both!) seems critical at this point. Just remember that it would be far better to make the crack look easy, than to make it look hard. quantity 9000+, $1,000 Pentiums for a year (plus maybe $500,000 in electricity) looks "hard." 1000 dedicated chips (whether they be FPGA or custom or...) for 1.5 months or so looks "easy." The latter crack looks far more likely to be repeated. The former is OBVIOUSLY a stunt. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Margaret Milner Richardson loses her breakfast...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the Wall Street Journal Wednesday October 2, Page 1: Use of the internet to attract tax-dodgers rings alarm bells at the IRS. The rapidly expanding new worlds of the internet and electronic money are stirring deep concern at the IRS. "We know that some foriegn banks are now using the internet to solicit new customers with promises of complete anonymity and a haven from all taxes," IRS commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson said. She said this issue is being "carefully monitored" by tax administrators around the world. Ms. Richardson, in a recent speech, cited a world-wide-web advertisement offering a "one-of-a-kind book" covering topics such as, "Banking in Silence" and offering information on setting up an offshore trust that "could include protection from a large IRS assessment." Ms. Richardson's reaction: "I almost take that personally." Another ad touts "excellent interest rates, offered in a stable, tax-free environment...Clients communicate with the bank any time from anywhere via the internet." Ms. Richardson said: "How would you like to be responsible for administering tax laws and have to read these ads over breakfast?" Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

4 4

Re: ITAR satellite provision
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote: > The wording was > clearly intended to be an exception to a rule. What the wording doesn't > include is the "exception to the exception," most likely because they > weren't thinking in too great a detail when they wrote the regulations. Yow. The "if we put it in a rocket it's exportable" interpretation made me think twice before posting the text of that definition, because it's seductive and wrong. I posted it because it's amusing to think about and because we all had a good laugh about it at the Mac crypto conference; but I'd feel like a jerk if someone got themselves in a lot of trouble with an enthusiastic misreading of that sentence out of pages and pages of regulations (plus quite a few more pages of opinions interpreting those regulations). > It appears that the government left a loophole so large that you could > drive a truck...er...shoot a rocket through it. If you think you've found an enormous loophole in a regulation which has been around for 15-20 years, you should double-check your research and get a good nights' sleep. Law is like science this way - if you think you have found room-temperature fusion you should stop and check your work. It's much more likely that you're not reading carefully or you've missed something. -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

1 0

Re: Clipper III on the table
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:50 PM 10/3/96 -0400, Anonymous wrote: > >Ernest Hua <hua(a)chromatic.com> wrote: >> I predict, therefore, Netscape and RSA would NOT capitulate to this >> latest bitter carrot. > >Huh? RSA has already gone over to the dark side. According to >http://www.rsa.com/PRESSBOX/releases/keyrecov.htm: > "The recently announced Key Recovery Alliance, of which RSA is a part, ..." I think we should refer to what they are pushing as the "Key Recovery Alliance Program". K.R.A.P. is a good description as to what we are going to get from them. --- | "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 |

5 5

Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:17 AM 10/3/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Remo Pini wrote: >> Date: Thu Oct 03 08:08:42 1996 >> > >* A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching >> > >* of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this >> > >* subchapter. >> > Okay, everybody, call Estes! We've got some crypto to export...er...laun >> > ch! >> If I get the above wording correctly (unicorn, help me!), it is sufficient >> to put the cryptostuff on a disc in a LAUNCHABLE device, it never says that >> the payload has to be delivered by air. So, just put that thing in a bag >> and get it through customs... (or does "by reason of ..." mean that the >> exclusive means of export allowed is launching ?) > >The launching alone will not cause it to be an export. If it is launched >and then ends up outside the U.S., it could be an export. Certainly if it >is launched with the purpose of exporting crypto, it will be an export. Too bad you didn't support this with a logical argument. The wording was clearly intended to be an exception to a rule. What the wording doesn't include is the "exception to the exception," most likely because they weren't thinking in too great a detail when they wrote the regulations. But if the regulation is "wrong," the fault of that is those who wrote the regulation. (and we, the public, are entitled to assume that the regulation is "right" in its literal meaning.) It appears that the government left a loophole so large that you could drive a truck...er...shoot a rocket through it. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 3

Re: Clipper III on the table
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:34:23 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >As for IBM's involvement, they've played around with the NSA for decades. >Nothing new there. Fortunately, today they're just a marginal player. This is a very dangerous statement to make. IBM is nowhere near as powerful as they were, but they're still very solidly entrenched in the business world*. Money is what will ultimately decide this issue - if Bill Clinton's VISA was abused after a hacker sniffed a network transaction ITAR would be dead within seconds! * - people have said that OS/2 is dead. Well it turns out that IBM is making several *BILLION* in sales every year on it from their business deals. According to figures I've seen, they have a high percentage of the F500 market. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Re: How might new GAK be enforced?
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:55:40 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >And just what would you call PGP? >Long before the MIT deal, people in the U.S. were using their "OK in >America" (not counting RSADSI's issues) software to communicate with >"illegally exported" copies in foreign lands. Just informally, how many of the people on this list do you think have bypassed any cooperation with the USG on general principles and are using International PGP? ("Well this one uses non-banned math") Unfortunately, we've already demonstrated that hackers (real ones) and/or cpunks will use Underground Crypto. What's missing is evidence that business (and thus Joe Sixpack - either directly or indirectly) will. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Jon Katz retracts...thanx Jon
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"And a final note, on another topic entirely. In Threads and in my recent columns, I've tried repeatedly to make the distinction between the original Cypherpunk mailing list - designed to ensure anonymous access to information on the Web and, in other contexts, a techno-anarchist movement - and the adolescent pinheads using the name Cypherpunk to successfully block open and free speech on The Netizen's public forums. They are not the same thing. The movement to protect anonymity is an important part of the Web and the Net. The use of the name to anonymously attack people is not an embodiment of that movement, but a perversion of it. I didn't make this distinction clear in my columns this week. Many thanks to the people who pointed it out." -------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send a message with the text "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key. --------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: DESCrack keyspace partitioning
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Re: DESCrack keyspace partitioning geeman(a)best.com wrote: > > What about the heuristics of partitioning the keyspace? > > Seems to me that a _subset_ of all possible keys is much more likely > to appear than a random selection from an equidistributed population 0..2^56. > > (P)RNG's just aren't that likely to produce a key of 010101010..... > nor 001100110011... Why? They seem just as likely as any other sequence. I left out a piece: again heuristically speaking, most DES keys are derived from pasword hash, or similar technique. In such a case the statistics of the generated keys are (it looks like) _highly_ skewed. etc etc and I have been thinking about how one might formalize > and exploit this randomness property to increase the probability of finding the key sooner. Again, which randomness property? The property that essentially _no_ predictability is found in a hash-derived key. Gary -- "Of course the US Constitution isn't perfect; but it's a lot better than what we have now." -- Unknown. pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

1 0

Re: boycott GAKkers (was Re: NYT on IBM GAK)
by Scott J. Schryvers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:39 PM 10/3/96 -0400, you wrote: GAKked DES! Talk about redundant. >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Adam Back wrote: > >> (I've seen HP, Sun, RSADSI, TIS, Apple, Atalla, DEC, Groupe Bull, IBM, >> NCR Corp., and UPS mentioned). Any confirmations? Denials? > >IBM and TIS are definitely pro-GAK. TIS is selling a firewall that uses >GAKked DES. IBM has been working on developing the "key recovery" technology. >The article posted here a while ago that told of IBM's plans to support GAK >also said that they were planning to license the technology to Sun and >Netscape. I don't know about the accuracy of that last statement. > >Mark >- -- >PGP encrypted mail prefered. >Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 >http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.3 >Charset: noconv > >iQEVAwUBMlRcsCzIPc7jvyFpAQEiIwf/btvAiIVHF3alGh+Vivr3MoHnSSciFjGX >qhqdS+SEsM4cTxE+y8vvfpHFs/faQPmWLgT70lyf1pJ+Avei7brieb/qWoC5q9MJ >gBlSa1f2yVMY7ax+KPTwU+Yk63A7oi964d+ebCp51BLOtzKammRlIw/nBFuDMq/5 >ss2a4w4PuOEOP35WQIy0i8NBoJxEi5gHx5J/+gGzWK9iw/yZa0xyoT25ci6uh7mJ >sPgNmedr/Pq+D5gk5GduGgGni/jrDeADH0K7R0M8Jqlh0Xc82NPkau8xwZAXDMJV >947PF56souwrx3BHmj7fXPXIVBJEjWy/Ymv2N8LBm+BHS09CN0ns5Q== >=URZJ >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMlUoaf+hzPlzwZAdAQGopQgAvlREZb8S6SPQs/WQvZzkoR9ETJy1byEK xGO/ymOpkivpGCZBXGcdOLnnDJbH26x8eh7iHi+Mzv6iVrbt11YkbZ9h7z7UTkdq jtUMVN9MvOaKPxcLqTvcYgTOyKgLPYpIa27xKlP5Y7NqovacTHHA6TgSz5HjC8fQ Jg+xCPDYsJTLEDmmdJVykJx/SU4ovIFP2o/8eF+LMIW7M3L7w5bHUO14HYkuMrUy hpNp4NCycGbwia1GYkwfOYnx5YuQFSjBeubIm8sqC2Zs3A7B9OoTyOmec12JyvGz G4kJe5vKhF+q8MktOSzazqMvdJ8PgQX0ecrhrurLVdVnwu1H1QB1ZQ== =HViK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0