- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Encryption algorithms used in PrivaSoft (fwd)
by David Van Wie 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Clavadetscher of PrivaSoft writes: > At this time our crypto engine is patented and proprietary. Ian Goldberg writes: > Waitasec... I was under the impression that if you patented it, you had to > reveal it. That's why RC4 isn't patented (it used to be a trade secret). Many technologies have both patented parts and trade secret parts. Often, companies will maintain information that is in patent applications as trade secret until they are granted. I guess I should say _if_ they are granted! After a patent is granted, it is usually a good idea to also maintain some trade secrets in your products -- since trade secrets never "expire," unlike patents. If the patent isn't granted, you still have the option of treating the contents as an intellectual property under trade secret protection. dvw

2 1

Re: The Terrorists are coming! (fwd)
by CatAshleigh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:12:39 -0700 (PDT) From: CatAshleigh <yusuf921(a)raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> To: Subject: Re: The Terrorists are coming! I was originally going to e-mail this to the people who made the comments, and would recognise what they had said, so I didn't preserve the distinction of who said what, but after re-reading I think it's directly related to Big Brother's attempts at limiting our privacy the >> are my comments, the > are responces and the ones without any >> at all are my counter porposals. sorry if there's any confusion > > first of all the only "muslim" (NOT ARAB, NO ARABS HAVE NUKES, the only > > country with nukes in the middle east is Israel) country > > with a nuclear program is pakistan, and they're years away from anything > > that could be stolen. > > True, but only because they haven't gotten their hands on any yet. It is > well known in certain international arms circles that Kadaffi or Hussein > would absolutely *love* to have their own means of producing nuclear > weapons. And they aren't alone. We built Hussein, and I believe that Kadaffi was still struggeling to build chemial when we bombed him in '86, or so, but I believe I could be mistaken. > > some call it pork barrel, I call it consperasy theory to protray muslims > > as terroists. > > I don't think so. Most of the world's terrorists (with the exception of the > IRA and a handful of others) are recruited and trained by folks in the > Middle East. It may be true that they have gotten more than their share of > publicity in the past, but the fact remains - the Middle East is *the* > training ground for that sort of thing, and there isn't a fundamentalist > over there who wouldn't like to shove a suitcase nuke up Bill's ass. Every orginization which exists in the middle east has a purpose, Hezbullah's purpose is the liberation of Palestine, using nukes would be counter produtive, like in the movie "red dawn" USSR invaded, but USA wouldn't use nukes on it's own territory, because that would make it worthless land. think critically, 1) What would be gained by nuking the US? there are more Muslims here then there are Jews 2) the objective of "terror tactics" is to destroy a lot of property with as few injuries as possible, something akin to "counting coup" to demonstrate that "IF their intention had been to kill people, alot more bodies would be found, which (ie more fatalities) is easly accomplised by simply packing the bomb with shrapnal. could you be more specific about which "fundamentalists" you're talking about? > Haven't you heard? America *is* THE ENEMY to a majority of the folks over > in that part of the world. If you don't believe me, travel to that part of > the world carrying an American passport and see what happens. OY! please don't make generalizations. Iran had a popular revolution and overthrew the Shah (it's well documeted that he tortured prisoners in his jails) and replaced it with a democratic parlement, and implemented Islamic law, the USA urged Saddam Hussein to attack them and refused to extridite the Shah to be tried for his crimes. Would you expect any less after that? Who else called the USA a satan? the "ENEMY" is dictators who suppress the people from democratic elections and the countries who back them. therefore keep your eye on Egypt, but they're not very conserned about the USA because there's not much the USA can do to interfere there. > In message <Pine.3.87.9408011942.A12890-0100000(a)raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> > CatAshleigh writes: > > > first of all the only "muslim" (NOT ARAB, NO ARABS HAVE NUKES, the only > > How do you know? > that's common knowlage, when Iraq got close to developing them, Israel bombed them. the only country the usa is throwing a hissyfit about is Pakistan. (and N. Korea) > Ahem. Uzbekistan is Muslim, and is also the third or fourth largest > nuclear power, and also is in a part of the world where there is a > long tradition of ... how do I say it gently ... greasing the palm. > I spent quite a while next door in Afghanistan and am familiar with > the culture. > the 5 largest nuclear powers are 1) USA 2) Russia 3) china 4) India 5) Israel (believed to have about 100 warheads) Uzbek was part of the USSR, and that's where they deposited some of their permanent sites, Uzbek refused to return them when the federation broke apart because they (they're smart) don't trust the russians farther then they can throw a nuke at them, after all they wanted nothing to do with USSR and were forced into the USSR by the soviets invading. Nukes are their insurance, they're not going to be parting with those any time soon. China is who they should be keeping an eye on. Smaller weapons certainly, such as stinger missiles, but that's capitalism :) A large part of the former USSR was Muslim and there were strategic and tactical nuclear weapons scattered all over the place (tactical weapons are used as mines, fired from artillery pieces, carried by short range missiles, and dropped from fighter bombers). If none of these is unaccounted for, it is a genuine miracle. It was my understanding that only the USA was incompetent enough to develop "tactical" nuclear weapons where any grunt can drop them and KABLEWY > Also, there has been quite a lot of press coverage here in the UK of > the defector from Saudi Arabia who claims that (a) the Saudis backed both > the Iraqi and the Pakistani nuclear programs and (b) the Saudis at > least have some nuclear materials. > The "defector" is an idiot, saudies were too busy building infrastructure to waist money backing other people's weapons development. The Saudies backed Iraq because they were fighting Iran and saudies aren't too fond of Shi'a. It might also be noted that the USA is similarly guilty. > > second of all there are more deaths caused by lighting on golf courses, > > ask any insurance agency. > > Also not true. The total number killed directly and indirectly in > Japan alone by atomic bombs is certainly over 100,000. I can't believe > that that many people have been killed by lightning on golf courses! > <BUZ> that's deaths from lightning on golf courses verses "terrorist attacks" I should have made that more clear, sorry. I'm glad that you mentioned that though, lets remember that it was the USA who was the "terroist" who bombed the civilians at Nagasaki and Heroshima (terrorist as defined in the dictionary) > > some call it pork barrel, I call it consperasy theory to protray muslims > > as terroists. > > Pork barrel? by inflating the NSA, and CIA, more people in your department, more job security. > -- > Jim Dixon > ---------- > > > The only other people who are called terroist are the IRA, and I don't see > > the FBI scrambling to protect Great Britian's consulet in DC when a > > car bomb goes off in London > > Here in the UK we read about lots of terrorist groups, not just the IRA: > ETA in Spain ... At least not called terrorist in USA papers, in fact only the British news agencies call the IRA terrorists, american papers seem to take a neutral attitude to the situation. my paragraph was in responce so automaticaly equating "nessisary step-ups in security against terrorists" as a codeword for "spying on arabs and muslims" by the FBI and CIA. > Maybe you should subscribe to a London newspaper. > The internet is better. > --- > Jim Dixon > > Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig

1 0

Re: Silly NetScape RND tricks...
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:05 PM 9/20/95 -0400, Deranged Mutant wrote: > >I've only been skimming the NetScape-related posts lately, but I've yet >to see anyone mention using a keyboard-timing sampler as a source for >some random bits Under windows, you get a lot more entropy from mouse timing and position than keyboard hits. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

article for cypherpunks (fwd)
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Irony of ironies! Keith Henson, who I was just minutes ago writing about, just asked me to forward an article to the CP list. --Tim Forwarded message:

1 0

Attempted Compromise of anon.penet.fi Server?
by nobody＠kaiwan.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A number of postings to the alt.test Usenet newsgroup from pseudonymous accounts at anon.penet.fi have recently been reported. Correspondingly, a number of people have received email from that server indicating that an unsolicited pseudonymous account and ID and have been established for them at that server. Assuming no actual compromise of the anon.penet.fi database itself, this attack could serve a number of purposes. Let's assume that an attacker had obtained the Cypherpunks mailing list, perhaps merged with a listing of all posters to sci.crypt, alt.security.pgp, alt.politics.org.nsa, etc. and, forging a message from each member, attempted to create a new pseudonymous account at the anon.penet.fi server for each one. Likely motives for, and outcomes from this attack are: SCENARIO #1: Attempting to assign a new anon account to a person by posting to alt.test. Each failure would indicate that the address owner already possessed a password-protected anon ID there. This information could prove potentially "useful", I suppose. For example, a list of names of anon forwarder users could be collected for "special treatment" later, possibly a "sting" operation of some sort, it would also net a few people whose only use of anon.penet.fi was merely REPLYING to another's pseudonymous address, which also results in the allocation of a new ID. See Scenario #4 for further speculation. SCENARIO #2: Attempting to create such an account and SUCCEEDING would now match up the user ID with the new account number. Any future posts via this account could then be easily cross-referenced back to the source. Any account thus created, as evidenced by a "welcome" message from anon.penet.fi, should probably NOT be used, at least where anonymity was needed. SCENARIO #3: If the new accounts were password-protected by the forger, and the passwords NOT revealed to the putative "owners", the result would be a "denial of service". Has anyone received a message that an unsolicited new account has also been password "protected"? (Scenarios #2 and #3 are mutually exclusive, BTW.) SCENARIO #4: The most serious of all is the possibility of a "barium attack". A special "coded", but seemingly innocuous, message could be sent to each email address identified in Scenario #1. If the person replies, he/she has just blown his/her anonymous cover, and any previous (or future) postings/correspondence using that ID are then traceable back to the source. Needless to say, anyone who has a pseudonymous ID at anon.penet.fi that he/she would like to keep secret should be EXTREMELY careful in responding to any messages coming through that server. The most likely means of accomplishing this attack is through the Subject: header, since many people reply to messages and keep the original subject, prefixing it with "RE: ". If I send messages to Alice, Bob, and Charlie via anon.penet.fi, using a slightly different Subject: line for each, then a reply containing that Subject: line will link the pseudonymous return address on the reply with the recipient of the original message. The source of this attack could be either a TLA (three-letter agency, such as NSA, FBI, CIA, etc.), some hacker, or even the infamous Larry Detweiler. I cite the "TLA" option since a number of messages have been posted to various newsgroups via anon.penet.fi that seemingly violate Federal law. At first glance the attack would seem to have been executed in a somewhat clumsy fashion, particularly the posting of public messages with the text "I am John Doe", or whatever. OTOH, given the inevitable "welcome" message from anon.penet.fi to the "holders" of the newly assigned IDs, such "clumsiness" could also be designed to make a sophisticated attack look amateurish to disguise the motives and capabilities of the attacker(s). Or, this whole thing could be an attempt to achieve "Death to Blacknet" by undermining user confidence in the anon servers by spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". QUESTION: Has anyone with a previously existing, password-protected identity at anon.penet.fi received an "invalid password" message recently, even though no attempts to send mail through the server had been made? If not, then that's a bad sign because it might indicate that password protection has somehow been curcumvented by the attacker. -- Diogenes - a registered pseudonym. PGP key (ID# D1150D49) available through PGP Public Key Servers -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLjmja+Rsd2rRFQ1JAQExTAP6A4kTUwufW05Bx5Mznz3AkjDKuP18K5/P FhZT3LEed2j8x1fxFbwmNdkUnHVsxf+pvA0cfmQQV68CY9R0BIkPEUmf59wMAlZ4 vr6kei5nNw6WFb8W3ihk7GhqynTuIZjGCHdPXP/IaZKcxGx0tdTB2A1A74eVYBB3 yRWrSTbSEbc= =7yi1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: L&J: Libertarians
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 23 Jun 96 at 22:21, s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote: > David Friedman (<http://www.best.com/~ddfr> Thanks for the reference > > Anybody who discuss it openly on the net and plan to implement it will > > get killed by governments (pick your favorite one). I find it very > You don't see death > squads going after old anti-government Milton Friedman, do you? I guess I made myself misunderstood. I meant to reply to Jim Bell mentionning that he would like to see some peoples interested in discussing the implementation of AP. It is very different than just talking about (against) govt. > No offense meant, but have a couple of Valiums, J-F. No. No offense meant, but you are wrong here. Did you read Assasination Politics? By the nature of it, govt employees will get killed and *this* warrant trying to kill everybody they would suspect of setting up an AP server. > > And communicating with each other with PGP without remailers would > > probably put us instantly on a hit list. To quote a famous french > Use a nym. I do. No offense, but please, re-read the paragraph. That is exactly what I meant... > They already have such a thing. <snip> After all, Cypress Hill, > Hyperreal.com, High Times and The Economist are still in business. Did you read the AP essay? I don't think so otherwise you wouldn't have commented in that sense. What you say is true but IMO, AP is absolutely different from The Economist. Remember, it entails asassination of govt employees... > > C'Punks has a total cumulative > > subscription of, say, 10000 (out of the blue number), which represent > Closer to 1000. Send a "who cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)toad.com I did not say "subscription", but "cumulative subscription". I think that C'Punks is having around 1500 subscribers theses days. > ;-) In the past little while <snip> Interesting and good luck for the future! > I really do think it's necessary for people to read a good book <snip> wholehartedly agreed > The subject of "anarchy vs. statism" doesn't really have much to do with > politics, really. It's all economics. <snip> Somehow agreed. Regards JFA

2 1

Re: Crypto '95: Robert Morris
by John A. Limpert 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:50 AM 9/3/95 +0200, you wrote: >So Robert Morris worked for NSA. >Does that mean that the infamous 1988 Internet Worm >was part of a NSA-sponsored intelligence-gathering mission? Robert Morris Jr. wrote the worm. His father, Robert Morris Sr. worked for the NSA. -- John A. Limpert johnl(a)Radix.Net

1 0

Bandwidth limitations
by Clark Reynard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

pmetzger(a)lehman.com (Perry Metzger) writes: >Doug Merritt says: >> I hate to disagree, considering that I prefer to agree with the philosophy >> here, but it *can't* work that way, regardless of what we wish. >> >> The problem is that bandwidth is a highly limited resource, just like >> real estate is a limited resource. Eventually we will complete saturate >> network bandwidth no matter what technology is used. >I don't know about you, but I personally can't produce more than 750 >simultaneous videos at once for network distribution, so I suppose I'm >uninteresting, but even the people who can do more than that are >likely going to be fine. If they aren't, well, I suppose they could >get TWO fibers coming into their home, or maybe even TEN or ONE >HUNDRED if necessary. >I suspect that we have a wee bit longer to go than that. When people >start faxing themselves regularly we may have to go to slightly more >exotic technologies. Apparently, information-theoretically, there is a limit to the bandwidth available in any given area of space before overlapping of signal occurs. While I don't agree that it is likely to occur soon, eventually we will hit an information bottleneck; probably somewhere after we manage to use subquantal particles as signal-carriers. Our current system would, indeed, allow people to fax themselves regularly; in fact, I occasionally fax things to myself already. However, when people start doing genuinely exotic things, such as emailing their entire genome to their doctor; or emailing vast files on self-administered MRI tests to the hospital; or transmitting graphical images of components for something as simple as factory work; then we'll seriously have to think about theoretical bandwidth limitations. However, with any luck we'll be off the planet, and will have the infinite bandwidth we need by the time we need it. ---- Robert W. F. Clark PGP Key Available Upon Request rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu clark(a)metal.psu.edu

2 1

ip: Freeh: Kiddie Porn was Encrypted (fwd)
by Rev. Ben 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: sobel(a)epic.org (David L. Sobel) In an address at the International Cryptography Institute conference in Washington today, FBI Director Louis Freeh revealed that the Bureau encountered encrypted material during the course of its "Innocent Images" investigation. That operation recently led to dozens of nationwide arrests for alleged trafficking in child pornography via America Online. Freeh also disclosed that encrypted files were found during the course of a terrorism investigation in the Philippines involving an alleged plot to bomb a U.S. airliner and assassinate Pope John Paul II. The FBI Director characterized encryption as a "public safety" issue and stated that the FBI and law enforcement agencies around the world "will not tolerate" a situation in which the wide availability of encryption may impede those agencies' "public safety functions." While noting that the current U.S. government policy is to encourage the "voluntary" adoption of key-escrowed encryption techniques, Freeh raised the specter of a mandated "solution." Freeh stressed that the FBI "prefers" a "voluntary approach," but likened the encryption issue to last year's Digital Telephony debate, where the FBI first attempted to achieve voluntary compliance but eventually sought and obtained a legislative mandate to assure law enforcement access to digital communications. Freeh indicated that "if consensus is impossible" on the encryption issue, the FBI "may consider other approaches." Following his prepared address, Freeh was asked why the FBI needs key-escrow when it has apparently been successful in decrypting information encountered in the cited investigations. His response to this question was somewhat vague, leaving unanswered the question of whether or not the Bureau was, in fact, able to decrypt the encrypted files seized in the "Innocent Images" investigation. More information on this point is likely to emerge as these cases come to trial. Davis Sobel Legal Counsel Electronic Privacy Information Center http://www.epic.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Auto-signed with Bryce's Auto-PGP v1.0beta3 iQB1AwUBMGMxs75ALmeTVXAJAQE+8gL/SYfKkwRCROh5jPW/WmhHfpjze4u1W32H iA7jwFUilD1kawEzngqtmQoTwjYnpD8ShwDIIgmYnCNMwf4wYdm8FNZGvzenj/jx 8a20Xhw/aqLRL/qum/gMHTnhlEMTMlha =4U03 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Netscape to end Linux support?
by bret＠bjohns.win.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What? Who can i call at Netscape? I have not gotten a recent version to work with 1.2.8.. >> >> And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are >> dropping their unofficial Linux support, I really want to hurt >> Netscape badly. >> >> Sigh. >> >Anyone got a pointer to this announcement? > >Damn! Just when I was starting to like them ... > >-- >Jeff Simmons jsimmons(a)goblin.punk.net >

1 0