- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Remailer passphrases
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:16 PM 3/11/96 -0500, "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> wrote: >On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Gary Howland wrote: >> The only disadvantage of this is that the remailer cannot be rebooted >> without a passphrase being entered, but then there are ways around this >> (entering the passphrase remotely over a secure link etc., or more >> sophisticated 'remote authorisation' systems). >> >> The advantage of this is that the password is never on the disk, >> only in memory (which will take serious (read "expensive") to extract). > >I don't know that it would be that expensive. If someone was able to gain >root access to the system, something like "strings /dev/kmem" could narrow >the search for the passphrase down significantly. Except for special multi-level secure operating systems, and maybe some fancy capability-based systems, any operating system is going to let some administrator poke around in memory and on the disk, and if there's information anywhere on the machine, it can be gotten by the presevering privileged person. However, keeping the data off the disk is a very good start, and RAM-grubbers are far tougher to run on good OSs than disk-grubbers. Since the remailer has to decrypt data sent to it, it needs the password. The alternative to keeping the data in RAM or on disk is to keep it on some board or box hanging of a comm port or bus, such as a spare PC on RS232 running just a remailer application, or a decently self-protecting smart card in a PCM-CIA slot. To be really effective, it needs to be running the remailer application as well as just crypto; otherwise it might be possible to trick the card into decrypting arbitrary data for you or letting you snoop the remailer. On the other hand, if you're not that paranoid, and just want to do crypto on a card anyway, Matt Blaze did some interesting protocols for fast decryption with a CPU assisting a slow smartcard; they're on ftp://research.att.com/dist/mab/card_cipher.ps M. Blaze, "High-Bandwidth Encryption with Low-Bandwidth Smartcards." January 18, 1995. PostScript pre-print, to appear. >Of course one could obfuscate the passphrase by XOR'ing it with 0x80, > but that's only security through obscurity. You could be a bit more obscure than that if you wanted :-) #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Re: Cryptographers against cryptography
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:35 AM 3/11/96 -0800, you wrote: >This is the second in a regular series of postings to expose >cryptographers and cypherpunks who are either lying to us or >making a very serious mistake in there judgement. ..... >B. Schneier: bs208(a)newton.cam.ac.uk, schneier(a)counterpane.com >M. Blaze: mab(a)crypto.com, mab(a)research.att.com >J. Bizdos: jim(a)rsa.com >S. Safaddar: shabbir(a)vtw.org >D. Weinstein: djw(a)vplus.com >P.. Peterson: padgett(a)hobbes.orl.mmc.com >B. Stewart: stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com Oh, boy, now I'm a Tentacle Again! But at least I can spell.... #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Re: Mindshare and Java
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:41 PM 4/28/96 -0400, Moltar Ramone wrote: >(I'm not agreeing with this... but you can't prove you're _not_ a Nym. >Jim Bell has claimed (well, implied that he believes, although he hasn't >outright claimed) that I'm L.D. and/or Black Unicorn. I don't recall ever implying this... Could you be more specific? I've noticed a bit of coordination, but is there any more than this? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Do you feel lucky, punk?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:59 PM 3/11/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> At 05:54 PM 3/11/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >> >Not only is your law poor and badly reasoned, >> >> Just what George Will said about this recent Bennis SC decision. > >My issue was with your application of the cite and decisions to the >pending bill. You keep saying this kind of thing, repeatedly, but you don't back it up with a contrary argument. >> > your mastery of the jurisprudence of forfeiture law flawed, >> >> Ditto, and I notice you give no specific examples. Why is that? > >My issue was, again, with regard to your choice of cites, Ah! You simply didn't like me using that particular atrocious SC decision to suggest that we can't trust judges and courts in general! >the way you >chose to apply them to represent a general (and flawed) attitude toward >statuatory construction, "Flawed"? In what way? You keep making claims that you don't back up with facts. > and the manner in which you try to mold all of >the above in a way suggesting it has the least bit to do with the bill in >question. You keep making assertions that I'm wrong, but you don't demonstrate the "correct" interpretation according to your opinion. Why is this? >But, for the sake of equality, let's examine some of your legal assertions. >Or, more accurately, legal conclusions. (BTW, where is your J.D. from?) > >1> In fact, I would argue that a remailer operator will actually be >considered MORE responsible, legally, than Mrs. Bennis: > >2> I argue that a person who runs an anonymous encrypted remailer could be >clearly claimed to be "entrusting" that "property" to someone else, under >the meaning of the above paragraph. > >The "above paragaph," incidently, doesn't even rise to the level of court >dicta, but is a abstract of dicta by a court commentator. Using such >authority to back a legal conclusion (especially when applied to an >entirely seperate legal area) is twisted at best, and dangerous at worst. Let's suppose we agree that "George Will" is a "court commentator." Suppose further that he, more or less, says "this decision sucks." Because it DOES suck. To any normal person, the knowledge that a educated, erudite, intelligent person who has published a newspaper and magazine column for years says "this decision sucks" (although he did it a lot less coarsely than I relate) should be of interest. And most people of ordinary levels of intelligence can recognize that yes, the decision DOES suck. And George Will, who has certainly NOT become successful as a commentator by boring the reader, understands that this decision is of interest to enough people to have it occupy one of his columns for a day. Remember, one of the basic assumptions that any supporter of the Leahy bill could be making is that it will be interpreted INTELLIGENTLY by courts. If it is obvious to most of the rest of us that those lunatics can't even make the correct decision about a woman's half-interest in a common automobile, then their ability to decide whether an anonymous encrypted remailer is somehow breaking the law merely by forwarding unidentified traffic is certainly in question. The fact that you may not _like_ me bringing up a contemporaneous example where the SC stuck their collective heads firmly and completely up their respective asses is irrelevant. If anything, it shows that you feel the law is and should be above the heads of the average individual, or even the UN-average, intelligent individual who regularly reads editorials in their local newspaper. Such elitism is disgusting. >3> At least, that is the position the prosecutors could surely take, >especially given this Supreme Court decision. > >Uh huh. They might also take the position that the defendent is ugly, >and should be convicted. That doesn't make it a legally viable argument. Unfortunately, the only thing that determines whether, in fact, something is a "legally viable argument" is the dishonesty and stupidity and connivance of the person or people making the resulting decision, in this case the Supreme Court. (Or didn't you know that?) It is, given the current make-up on the Supreme Court today. Sad but true. Naturally, this reality embarrasses you. Your Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. >> > and your rhetoric twisted, >> >> Again, you give no specific examples. And what is "twisted rhetoric", at >> least as you've used it here? > >I'm not going to delve into semantics or be distracted by a war of the >dictionaries. But you already did. You called my rhetoric "twisted." "Twisted" implies that there is an "untwisted" version. I await hearing it. I'll probably be waiting a long time at the current rate you're getting to the point. > You proport to be knowledgeable in these areas, and yet >say nothing of value. I say nothing you want to hear. That's precisely why you consider it of no value. > Your appeal (what of it there is) is based >entirely on skewing meanings, using critiques of dicta, and generally >applying inflamatory language taken out of context in a manner which suits >you. I don't think I'm off base calling it "twisted." "Inflammatory language"? The real "inflammatory language" occurs every time a court makes yet another outrageous decision such as the ones you are weakly attempting (and miserably failing) to defend. I notice you don't provide an alternative competing interpretation, either of my conclusions or those of George Will. So how are we to know what "twisted" is if you can't clearly show something which is "untwisted"? >> Maybe you read that item too rapidly to notice that most of it was George >> Will's column, not my wording. > >Again, its application to the bill is what I question. All of which >throws your understanding of law, dicta, holdings, jurisprudence, and >rhetoric into question. What you should have cited was some statuatory >construction and legislative history cases, not forfeiture law. But how >could you be expected to know this? I chose my example to display the foolishness of the Supreme Court, as well as each and every one of the courts below it that did not properly dispose of that Bennis case. You find this disturbing. But it's applicable to ANY law that may someday rely upon a SC decision to overturn or uphold. Anyone considering supporting the Leahy bill had better understand this. Naturally, you want to cover it up. >> What, then, was the point of sending me the note, as well as wasting >> bandwidth on CP to share your unhappiness? > >Distribution of reputation capital (or in this case, negative reputation >capital). I believe I also wanted to make a point (in 1,200 bytes) about >the utility (or lack thereof) of your article (10,500 bytes) on this list. I'd glad to see you distributing YOUR "negative reputation capital." Why not do a better job for yourself and make it look like you are actually more familiar with the legal system than the rest of us are (which shouldn't be hard, if you have the credentials), and challenge us with an alternative explanation of the facts I (and George Will) describe? In other words, stop just saying I'm wrong and start DEMONSTRATING it, if you can. Convince us that you're not just an elitist snob and that we should actually have confidence that the scum on the Supreme Court will be gone soon and replaced with people who know how to make a correct decision reliably. At that point, the Leahy bill (with substantial modifications) will start looking a lot better to all of us. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com Klaatu Burada Nikto

2 1

WOW-COM News Update
by wowcom＠ctia.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

====================================================== This update is sponsored by Hughes Network Systems http://www.hns.com/2CAREERS/careerMain.html ====================================================== WOW-COM named a "TOP WEBSITE" by Mobile Computing & Communications Magazine (2/98) Dear WOW-COM Reader: WOW-COM(TM) is the wireless industry's online information source, a free service of CTIA. The world of wireless is in constant motion. Stay on top of the news and benefit from CTIA's analysis by reading http://www.wow-com.com everyday. INDEX: ====== 1) LARGEST WIRELESS INDUSTRY SHOW, WIRELESS 98, BEGAN TODAY IN ATLANTA, GA. 2) CTIA AGAIN CALLS ON FCC TO TAKE ACTION ON WIRETAP STANDARDS 3) CTIA ASKS FCC FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN ENHANCED 9-1-1 RULES **WIRELESS JOB OPPORTUNITY OF THE WEEK*********** http://www.hns.com/2CAREERS/careerMain.html Company: Hughes Network Systems Job Title: Senior Digital Design Engineer - Hardware Location: Germantown, MD - US Job Description: Lead digital design engineer for satellite baseband communications hardware. Position requires experience in design of digital communications subsystems such as modulators, demodulators, digital filters, NCOs and FEC encoders/decoders. Requires BSEE (MSEE preferred) and 7-10 years of digital design experience with emphasis on communication circuit design. ********************************************************************** WIRELESS 98 TO BEGIN NEXT WEEK IN ATLANTA ========================================================== http://www.wow-com.com/professional/convention/ CTIA's WIRELESS 98 is breaking all records. Sessions at the largest, global wireless convention feature hot topics and top industry speakers. On February 23-25, join the largest gathering of analysts, CEO's, equipment suppliers, hardware manufacturers, network operators, retailers, regulators, software developers and venture capitalists from around the world for the most comprehensive wireless telecommunications exposition - - WIRELESS 98. It's only 6 days away! Don't miss it! CTIA AGAIN CALLS ON FCC TO TAKE ACTION ON WIRETAP STANDARDS ========================================================= http://www.wow-com.com/professional/WirelessDigest/ The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association has filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission again asking that it take several steps in regard to implementation of the federal Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. CTIA points out that the telecommunications industry has moved forward towards timely implementation of the Act, but that the law enforcement community, represented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has continued to delay the process. Read it here. Simply click above for full text. CTIA ASKS FCC FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN ENHANCED 9-1-1 RULES ========================================================== http://www.wow-com.com/results/professional/news/index.cfm "Enhanced 9-1-1" will provide the next generation of emergency services for wireless phone users. The basic outline for Enhanced 9-1-1 services was developed jointly by the public safety communications community and CTIA. In a petition filed yesterday, CTIA points out that the FCC should improve wireless emergency calls throughout the United States. To learn more about CTIA's petition and other implementation issues regarding 9-1-1 please click above. ============================= MORE WOW-COM(TM) FEATURES ============================= WOW-COM(TM) is current: Routine Updates throughout the business day WOW-COM(TM) is insightful: CTIA's unbiased analysis WOW-COM(TM) is beneficial: Find products and services in WOW-COM(TM)'s Virtual Trade Show. List open positions in the WOW-COM(TM) Career Center, receive resumes via email and hire qualified individuals. ======================================================== This update sponsored by: HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS http://www.hns.com/2CAREERS/careerMain.html Hughes Network Systems is one of the fastest-growing digital communications companies in the world, providing world-class wireless, satellite and broadcast products to customers in over 60 countries. Today, HNS employs over 500 software engineers and 200 hardware engineers dedicated to developing our products, services and systems from our Germantown, Maryland headquarters and San Diego, California facility. To be part of the next HNS breakthrough, visit our Web site: http:// www.hns.com/2CAREERS/careerMain.html to explore the 100+ opportunities currently available.

1 0

Re: FCC & Internet phones
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Shostack wrote: > Gary Howland wrote: > | Are you saying UDP protocols don't retransmit un-acked packets? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | If not, then you can't be sure the duplicates are TCP. > > Err, yes. Thats the point of UDP; its unreliable and has no > acknowweldgement. Sorry, I meant protocols using UDP, not UDP itself. Gary

1 0

Your "switchboard" listing
by Paul Kedrosky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ha! Very funny that you have yourself listed as Mssr Thomas Pynchon in Switchboard's listings. I especially like the mailing address. P.

1 0

Electronic Frontiers Wyoming (fwd)
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: eagle(a)nyx.net (eagle) > Message-Id: <9603121000.AA25993(a)nyx.net> > Subject: Electronic Frontiers Wyoming > To: kellee(a)uwyo.edu > Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 03:00:23 -0700 (MST) > Cc: barlow(a)eff.org (John Perry Barlow), mnemonic(a)eff.org, > brown(a)eff.org (Dan Brown), mech(a)eff.org (Stanton McCandlish), > ssteele(a)eff.org, aburt(a)nyx.net (Andrew Burt), > mbarry(a)stout.entertain.com (Bruce Dane), rcarter(a)nyx.net (Ron Carter), > eagle(a)armory.com > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > It was nice talking to you at the Information Center in the Union earlier. > You might like to know that Information Technology in conjunction with > Administration and Records has seen fit in a convulsion of gross idiocy to > publish your entire UW transcript on the World Wide Web. Anyone with your > social security number and your registration PIN can dowload your entire > transcript and post it to Usenet News if they so desire, where your grades > would be replicated in computers, and circling the planet in a few minutes. > By gross malfecence, the University of Wyoming has seen fit to *PUBLISH* *ALL* > the Non Degree seeking Graduate Students PIN in the Summer Bulletin; 4723. > > Patrick, who is a non degree seeking grad student, went ballistic when I gave > him *his* PIN to access his transcript. The web browser also writes your > social security number to the screen, so anyone watching over your shoulder > has all the information they need to violate your right to privacy. It's > really stupid to create an HTTP link directly into the cgi-bin as well. > > You can check this out for yourself at Whistle: > > http://siswww.uwyo.edu/cgi-win/homepage.exe > > Or wait until the Program Analyst I in charge of computer security at the > Water Resources Center, (they paid him more money that Math CoSci), writes > a *scathing* letter to the Branding Iron. It will be signed Patrick Malone. > > This bit of better living via Electronic Revolution has been brought to you > by your friendly neighborhood Cypherpunk. > > Jeff > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.1 > > iQCVAwUBMUVKIF4aVg6iEWoBAQETKgQAoL4xnCzIPvccRuJZTxslDXb36qC0Zhhj > DAK100FlTyAmgc8oxIJjcQ3C1f4qzKVSOj63hBXBrhdpIoIkvE0x8notQuRsl/ua > sKf6XwVWfl0vAZ2lMUn0/f/GtUU4579NMhsChXnwGADzrHnmzfB3belxVMZzxsyJ > Xc6wHukVRNU= > =wVEh > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- According to John Perry Barlow: *What is EFF?* "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker." *email <info(a)eff.org>* *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** US Out Of Cyberspace!!! Join EFF Today! *email <membership(a)eff.org>*

2 1

Re: FCC & Internet phones
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Shostack wrote: > Loren James Rittle wrote: > | >Most > | >presumably use a mix of a UDP data connection and tcp for control > | >functions. > | > | OK, everything after the IP header is encrypted. I don't even know > | which protocol is in use. > > Are you willing to play Mallet? Drop IP packets, and look for > duplicates. Those are TCP. (IPSEC might handle this, but I bet there > will be broken implementations that save time by resending.) Are you saying UDP protocols don't retransmit un-acked packets? If not, then you can't be sure the duplicates are TCP. Gary - -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)kampai.euronet.nl> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06 - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMUVWwioZzwIn1bdtAQHQaAGA1EjYZpEKrie9t/eIohlrHCC4rUY8Dzu1 HgB+1ZbAS8X7hIRb3eSHLlBB13LZtkDH =4Tgg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

German minister predicts collapse of governments
by um＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

German Minister of Justice: Governments' attempts to regulate the internet on their own are nonsensical, technically and economically. National states are obsolete. A crypto ban cannot be enforced. The German news magazine DER SPIEGEL features a story about the internet, with 33 pages of the usual hype. However, there is a remarkable interview with the German Minister of Justice, Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig: The minister says that he is not glad about always having to talk about control when concerned with the internet. According to him, the internet has been getting on without any special laws. The discussion about pornography and blocking programs reminds him of the discussion about the "dangerous device TV" in his youth. The state has legitimate interests in regulations, he says, but it is "nonsensical, when those attempts are restricted to one country. The internet has no borders. What is illegal in one state will simply be served to the net elsewhere." He admits that in a way he is happy about that: "This whole discussion still is at its very beginning." Conceivably, providers could be obliged to block pages with illegal contents to their customers, Schmidt-Jortzig says. However, such a step, performed by the government on its own, would hardly make sense technically and economically: Instead of going through the exteme effort of controlling the contents, providers would simply move to countries such as Andorra, Liechtenstein or Luxemburg. That would only increase telephone bills for the customers, but Germany would lose many innovative businesses and jobs. Propaganda from overseas could only be avoided by a world-wide convention or UN treaty, but he does not expect any such things for the next 10 years. Facing the development of technology, "our thinking in national categories is no longer adequate. That way, we will not be able to control the net. I rather think that we will have to say good-bye to the idea of enforcing German law on the internet." Of course, Nazi propaganda or child pornography would remain illegal in Germany, but the question were if it can be enforced. "I can already imagine those users sending their paroles and pamphletes to the net from Luxemburg, deriding the helpless German authorities. I don't really think that is great, but I don't see any solution." "I think the internet with its unlimited possibilites of communication and its anarchistic structure is one of the most amazing challenges the state currently has to face. Faster than we would have thought, the traditional national state will prove obsolete. A legislation ending at the borders of a certain territory will be increasingly hard to defend." He knows that many will find it difficult to bear, says Schmidt-Jortzig, "but we cannot outlaw the internet only because it does not fit with the conception of life of some [people living in yesterday's world]. Not even the Chinese can." The idea of the global citizen in the internet, who no loger has to cope with national ideas, is a nice vision, he says, but still very unrealistic. For some time, national states would remain authoritative and defend their function. "But I am afraid that this stuggle will eventually fail." Schmidt-Jortzig says that the Bavarian prosecutors' proceed against CompuServe has been absolutely legitimate, but if they will be sentenced were a totally different question, because the accused had no way of verifying every internet resource. In a global community, there could be something like a net police. German controls however, would be totally senseless today: "If I really were to regulate the internet with laws and prohibition in spite of all argumentation, then I would certainly need such control, a new federal Data Police. But I think nobody would have such absurd an idea, as everyone knows that would also mean the death of this innovative business field in Germany." The state could not care for fully effective privacy on the net, but may have to inform about the threads towards privacy. Schmidt-Jortzig does not see any reason for banning encryption software the police cannot break: "Why should I outlaw that on this still rather insecure media, people encrypt their private mail, and be it only the results of the federal league." - "Even if I wanted to, I could hardly enforce that ban. You can download encryption programs for free on the internet. Meanwhile, there even is software that allows you to undetectibly hide a message in normal e-mail. The state is participating in a persuit race that it cannot win at all. Of course that does not exempt us from having to try to persue in the beginning." Asked about criminals using encryption, he says that he knows there will be large scepticism if the state gives up that quickly. "Only, I am afraid that those who work against this development will eventually have to lay down arms. Any attempt to find a national solution will fail."

1 0