- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: What ever happened to... Cray Comp/NSA co-development
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) >First, half a million chips is not that big a deal...the Connection Machine had up to 64,000. Very few cryptographic problems of interest to us will be affected by a mere factor of a million or so. -------------------- While the cryptographic stuff isn't much of a problem, how about text analysis of multiple sources, possibly via a neural net simulation (which IIRC a massively parallel machine is nice for)? -Allen

1 0

Re: What ever happened to... Cray Comp/NSA co-development
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:15 PM 12/17/95 -0500, Thaddeus J. Beier wrote: > ---------- > ... about the fate and capabilities of the CCC PIM > (processor-in-memory) machine. A friend of mine was > working on it, and it would have been a screaming machine, > no doubt about it. He said that the Cray mostly acted like > a really fast network for the processor chips. I had thought that it may have been similar to an Active Memory design, but had no real clues to go by. Wasn't sure about the chip array path width either, but thought that 1 bit was probably the way to go given the array size. > ... the PIM chips were made by a dedicated NSA company, > Supercomputer Research Center, in Bowie MD. Hmm... is that the name? > But, it was nowhere near finished when the company finally went > down, and the team was completely disbanded. My friend was talking > about going to the auction when the parts of the various machines > were going to be sold, I don't know if he did so. He suspected that > the various pieces would end up going back east to the Fort > Meade area. Still, it is such an odd machine that you would > probably have to transfer the staff to finish it, and that didn't > happen. Sorry Thad... but NOTHING 'just disappears' at the NSA... > In any case, while it was fast (1/2 million 1-bit processors, > perhaps as low as 1 nanosecond (1 GHz) cycle time), it was not fast > enough to brute force reasonably strong ciphers. It's really no joke > that it would take a computer with picosecond clocks the size of the > earth more than the age of the universe to brute force IDEA, for > instance. Hahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!! A cryptographer's most POWERFUL weapon, is A False Sense of Security... If you've read Kocher's abstract, you would NO DOUBT realize that there are ALWAYS options to be explored and exploited. I'm sorry, don't take it personal, but I think that this 'til the end o' time' argument leaks like a "sieve"... it's the classic linear thinking thing. > It would have made a great DES cracker, though; my > back-of-the-envelope calculation has it cracking one key every > .75 days on the average. This sounds pretty pessimistic too... > thad > -- Thaddeus Beier email: thad(a)hammerhead.com > Technology Development vox: 408) 286-3376 > Hammerhead Productions fax: 408) 292-2244 > > ---------- Well... maybe the timing wasn't right for the system's completion. After all, designing a computer with <1 nanosecond cycle time is not child's play. And in quantity it is even more difficult. A few more years of development with Transphaser logic and Holographic storage could work some wonders in computational capailities. Anitro - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMNXt+SoZzwIn1bdtAQEQAQF/YKCYcSiH4BRswP7+4Sv1VIYynpH738vF LFa/31pQBJiEkmkpiykmOcL3YySghGsf =3nUQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: (fwd) Economics of Digital Money.
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> But electronic checking it is a substitute for > conventional checking, it would just increase the > speed of the transaction. From the economic standpoint, > there is no difference in the dynamics of the checking > process from normal checks And email is no different from mail, right? Wrong: When computer programs start spending money and receiving money on behalf of their masters, we will see vast economic changes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

RE: Political Cleanup program [NOISE]
by Kurt Buff (Volt Comp) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- From: hallam@w3.org[SMTP:hallam@w3.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 1995 8:22 To: Bill Stewart; cypherpunks(a)toad.com Cc: hallam(a)w3.org Subject: Re: Political Cleanup program [NOISE] >I happen to believe in freedom of speech, especially political speech, >and if you're not allowed to spend money broadcasting your speech or >printing your messages, you don't have much freedom of press or speech. It is very strange the way that "Libertarians" are so able to turn all rights into property rights. Thus freedom of speech become freedom to have influence on the politicial process in direct proportion to wealth. Not so strange really. All rights, correctly understood, *are* property rights. What most don't understand is that rights are protections from the initiation of force by others. What this means is that you (anyone) don't have the right to the property of others. You have the right to offer mutually satisfactory exchanges, or even solicit outright gifts, but what is yours is yours, and it shouldn't be subject to extortion or theft by others. This includes your time, cash, and any other tangible assets you may own. I began work on the web in '92 because I saw its potential as a political tool which did not have the bias of wealth. It has the potential to create a new kind of political dialogue. When the Web becomes as ubiquitous as the telephone we will still see inequalities of power, the homeless and the poor will still be underrepresented. But that situation must be judged against our own where the political process can be bought and traded as if it were any other form of comodity. The problem with the political process now is that the government and its beneficiaries (which includes both the large corporation and the welfare class) have over time arrogated to themselves the power to steal (via taxes and regulation) our lives and our livelihood from us. The poor and the rich will always be with us, but they shouldn't be special clients of the state at the expense of everyone else. It is not simply an issue of money, it is an issue of national security. If a foreigner were to control the majority of the media there would be a significant threat to the national interest. This threat has been realised in the UK with the comming to power of Rupert Murdoch. Fortunately his influence on the US political scene has thus far been minor. In his own country he has brought down the government more than once. The only reason foreign money might be a threat to us is again that the government arrogated to itself the power to regulate our lives. The reason and interest for lobbying the government, whether through the press or through other, more direct, efforts is that the government *can do something* about whatever happens to be at issue. Take away the ability of the government to act, and there won't be any money spent lobbying it. I submit we'd all be better off. >And as far as "prevent the political process from being owned by the rich" >goes, there have been brief exceptions over the last 5000 years in which >the less-rich have overthrown the rich, but campaign finance laws have almost >never kept the rich or the politicians from helping each other out. In UK politicis the influence of an individual's money is limited to influencing one party. Even that is done behind closed doors. The other major parties both limit the size of individual contributions to a constituency party to a relatively nominal sum. $5000 is a huge sum in UK politics. >I also don't believe freedom of speech should be limited by national >boundaries. Nor do I. But I only vote in one country. If we take the question outside the US it would not on the whole be a good thing if the Prime Minister of Tobago (say) were provided with a campaign contribution of $1M by a foreign company with an interest in strip mining the entire island. similarly it would be a bad thing if Columbian drug lords were to make massive contributions to politicians committed to continuing the prohibition on drugs. See my above comments. Only if the PM of Tobago could steal the land from its owners could he permit the island to be strip-mined. And only if the government has the power to prohibit drug possession would the Cali cartel be interested in making campaign contributions. No power to do something, no money offered to do it. Kurt [speaking only for myself, of course] Phill

1 0

Lets check this out
by sphantom 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here is something for us to check out. Was just emailed to me today. I am curious how this person does it. Dear Friends, If someone named SandMan asks you to check out his page on the WEB DO NOT!!! It is at www.geocities.com/vienna/6318 This page hacks into your C:/ drive. DO NOT GO THERE HE WILL REQUEST A CHAT WITH YOU....don't do it. FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE...

4 3

revised time quantization package (Unix & WIN32) available
by Matt Blaze 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A revised version of my simple CPU time quantization package is now available for most Unix and, thanks to the efforts of Frank O'Dwyer (Rainbow Diamond Ltd), WIN32 platforms. The package provides a simple interface to encapsulate code blocks that must run in a multiple of a coarse-grained "quantized" amount of CPU time. It is useful in building various on-line cryptographic protocols in which an attacker could otherwise learn key information by observing the time the target takes to perform calculations that use the secret (c.f., Paul Kocher's recent attacks). The basic idea is that you can specify a "quantum" such that at the end of an encapsulated block the CPU will busy-wait until the next quantum multiple. Fine-grained (below the quantum) timing information is thereby denied to the observer (including unprivileged processes on the same machine). The code is quick-and-dirty and only runs on Unix-centric and WIN32-based platforms. Test and use at your own risk. There are (basically) no restrictions on the use or distribution of the (very simple) code. Get it from: ftp://research.att.com/dist/mab/quantize.shar The quantize package is also part of Jack Lacy's cryptolib package (watch this space for details). -matt

1 0

Re: Java and timing info - second attempt
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Jim Miller (jim_miller(a)bilbo.suite.com) writes: >Of course it would be a lot easier for the applet to just try to read the >secret key file, encrypt it with an embedded public key, and post it to >alt.anonymous.messages. If I understand Java security correctly, the applet can just send data back to the server it was loaded from, but can't read random files on the machine it runs on (even if the user running it can read them). Java is beginning to become cluefull about the idea that a program is not the same as the person running it, and should not have the same privileges. In this area, most OSs (inluding Unix) are totally clueless, which is why the Orange Book has mandatory security requirements at the "B" and above levels. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

DES modem
by SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I recently aquired a DES modem. It's a MESA432 made by Western Datacom. The writing on the front proclaims "9600 bps NBS DES ENCRYPTION MODEM". It has all of the usual front lights, plus one labled 'encrypt'. On the back it has jacks for leased-line and dial-up, an RS232 connector and an external speaker connector. Has anyone ever used one of these? Can anyone give me any information on it? I realize that without a second modem it's not much use.

1 0

Re: Bank transactions on Internet
by Dave Emery 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >>>>> "Dave Emery" <die(a)pig.die.com> pessimised: > > > [... the tools are too expensive...] > > [... and the skills required are too high...] > > [... for anyone on cypherpunks...] > > Come on, Dave, this isn't alt.2600! > I want to immediately applogize to the list readership if anything in my posting seems to imply that I doubted that some of the list members possess the skills or brainpower to build a key cracker. I am sure a considerable number (at least by comparison with most other net communities) do, and many more certainly have the raw brainpower to learn the required technology if not currently up on it. Motivation and available time are another matter however. My only disparaging comment (at least as intended by me) was that the task was probably beyond some of the alt.2600 type crackers who primarily use canned programs and scripts to perpetrate their attacks. That comment was actually intended as a left handed warning about the advisablity of releasing a readily reproduced hardware key cracker design to the world at large. This seems especially true if entire FPGA array PC plugin boards are becoming a commodity item and readily available and the cracker recipe is buy one of those and install this canned software on it. > Most of the subscribers to this list are professionals -- engineers, > programmers, mathematicians, lawyers -- not phone phreaks. I'm sure > that there are more than a few of us with the knowledge, experience, > and free access to the resources needed to handle most relatively > small-scale designs like this. > > (It's like saying that no one on cypherpunks has access to the > distributed computing resources necessary to perform other sorts of > brute-force cracking -- which is patently ludicrous.) > I'm sorry, but rereading my post I simply don't find the statement that cypherpunks readers couldn't carry out the task, My comments were directed at the original cost and effort estimates that I thought were a little low - I'm certainly aware that many cypherpunks list members are working professionals or grad students/researchers with very considerable "free" resources at their beck and call. And even the pessimistic resource estimate I posted is not beyond motivated people. particularly if they see a large profit or advantage in it. But most importantly I may be making a very nieve assumption about the list readership - that it is mostly good guys and not thieves preparing to rip off hundreds or thousands of credit card numbers/ bank access codes from the Internet for gain. It is the implication that for this thief group it would be an easy $400 project to *design* and build a useful key cracker that I was challenging. (I might add that there certainly are other easier ways of obtaining large numbers of credit card numbers and access codes by such means as tapping unencrypted non-Internet data or voice communications and/or altering existing credit card terminal firmware to make it save up and deliver credit card numbers via a backdoor or bugging device. Gaining illegal access to the phone cables or credit terminals at a mall is certainly easier for most crackers and more typical of their experiance base than designing efficient pipelined key schedulers that fit into an FPGA). Presumably most of the competant, talented cypherpunks who could easily design a cracker are already far too well paid for these design skills to have much of any motivation to build such hardware for criminal purposes. And I might add that to my knowlage (admitedly rather limited) I know of no hardware crackers having been built with this technology (at least outside of the classified world). If it really is a simple trivial project that can be carried out with $400 worth of resources why aren't there NYT front page articles about someone having built a useful one and cracked something ? There certainly are lots of ambitious young grad students with lots of resources available to them and time to do this who would love to make their reputation by being the first to crack DES in under a week ... > For instance, from where I'm sitting in my *home* office, I can see > the full development packages for Xilinx and AT&T FPGAs, Viewlogic > VHDL, schematic, and simulation tools, an HP 1660A logic analyser, and > a Tek THS 720 500 MHz digital scope. > You have better tools than I do (I have a 16500B for example rather than a 1660A (which I'd love), but not hugely so, and I've been mostly semi-retired, taking a sabbatical to care for my newborn son and haven't wanted to spend the money to update resources I'd be largely using occasionally for very casual playing. > And I doubt if I'm the only one here who does this for a living. > Judging from other posts I've seen I have little doubt. Certainly I have done related stuff in the past... > The problem isn't resources, but time and motivation -- what sort of > situation would it take to get me (for instance), and one of > cypherpunk's cryptography wizards, to take the time to collaborate on > something like this. I completely agree. But I'd be surprised if it took much of a crypto wizard to do a brute force cracker as a just a simple brute force cracker. The task would demand much more of the skills of a good clever parallel logic designer to figure out how to effectively pipeline the well known and well defined crypto algorithms within the constraints of a still limited FPGA. What a crypto wizard might add might lie more in the direction of optimized strategies for key generation and scheduling to reduce the number of clock ticks and or gates devoted to this. The game of course is how many keys per second per dollar... anyone can build something that will eventually try a key, it is building something that will try keys at a maximum rate on cheap hardware that is interesting. (Sorry to take so much list bandwidth on this).. Dave Emery die(a)die.com

3 2

cyphernomicon FTP site?
by Vinod Valloppillil 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know where I can FTP a full copy of the cyphernomicon? ------------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Vinod Valloppillil | LibertarianismTelecommunicationsFreeMarketEnvi Engineering/Wharton | ronmentalismTechnologyCryptographyElectronicCa University of Pennsylvania | shInteractiveTelevisionEconomicsPhilosophyDigi vvallopp(a)eniac.seas.upenn.edu | talPrivacyAnarchoCapitalismRuggedIndividualism ------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------

1 0