- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Mondex
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C. Maypole's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Timmy C. Maypole

1 0

British export restrictions?
by John Lehmann 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know how the British govt. falls on crypto export legislation? -- John Lehmann

1 0

Now where am I gonna get a good horseburger?
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In CA it is now a felony to eat a horse. I don't remember asking to be transported to Walt Disney World...wait 'til someone other than Gary Larson anthropomorphises the chicken, cow and pig! On a lighter, more technical note - Avoiding carefully, for the moment, Harvey Rook's statement that weaknesses in cipher systems often lie in key generation and management and not in the crypto algorithms, I'll ask a few -naive- questions: If we construct a CSPRNG with a ?sufficiently? large state and then use the output of that PRNG to generate a new key for each block encrypted by a standard block cipher have we gained anything? Large files vs. small? When used with triple encryption like 3DES? The ROI for finding a single key is certainly much lower if the PRNG is "good". I've never seen a PR keystream for a conventional block cipher discussed so I thought I'd lob it out there. Mike

1 0

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