- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

xnoisesph.c
by Rick Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It looks like the original headers got stripped off of this (at toad?). Could the author of xnoisesph.c please contact me directly? I have some questions about the code. Thanks. Rick - ------- Forwarded Message From: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 07:09:16 -0500 Mutatis Mutantdis writes: > >I've got a short program for the PC (w/TPascal source) that plots a > >noise sphere from a file of (pseudo) random data, . . . Here's a version of it for X Windows, translated into plain-old C. . . . xnoisesph.c Compiled on Linux with: cc -o xnoisesph xnoisesph.c -L /usr/X11R6/lib -lX11 -lm - ------- End of Forwarded Message -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMVvlXxj0UvMeUesFAQHQ6gQAxdI8otmXPrHlPtmetv73Hq05dDqZNmgg qDyrrKqVQyURElQ+82uWYpA/5WbhhcwGg0SUNn3hvR5pg4LouqyPQjMTb6C69nQF eEHuSmym2MXE4TqDFhgMvbcv54m3ixHGa3RdhWMUeA4Y2il0+WwQJP+igcybJR95 JF4AAQagMzM= =ePqE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Rick Campbell <campbell(a)c2.org> http://www.c2.org/~campbell/

1 0

Re: Why Americans feel no compulsion to learn foreign languages
by Herb Sutter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:13 03.28.1996 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Yes, this is mostly my point. And it is not just me I'm talking about--I >don't see a compelling need for 95% of Americans to learn a second >language...in fact, I'd rather they learned to speak and read English >properly. > >(All of the America-bashers who were chiming in earlier today with their >anti-American jokes...well, here's one for you: "What do you call someone >who knows how to speak and write English properly? A European.") Hold on, hold on... :-) As the first to post along that line, may I reiterate I'm in no way "anti-American"? It's just that some Americans (and some Canadians, and especially some Englishmen) do have a reputation in the world for going places and expecting the natives to speak their language. It gets interpreted as arrogance, sometimes unjustly. Hence some of the jokes. Funny thing: I rarely hear someone who does know another language argue that it's not desirable and beneficial; only among the unilingual do I regularly find such strong feelings. As a wise man once said (sorry, source unknown): "If you do not know another language, you do not know your own." There's a lot of truth to that... I never knew English as well as I do now before I learned French, and German in particular helped immensely. Fact is, once you know a couple of languages in that group, the others (e.g., Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish) are relatively easy to pick up because now you start seeing the underlying patterns -- that in itself being a big part of knowing your own language better. Or, as a more contemporary souce (I <g>) would put it: "Speaking with only one language is like seeing with only one eye." But try to explain colour to a blind man... :-/ >very few Americans have any _continuing_ way to use the languages we learn. >Which is a major reason they are being dropped by many schools. I agree; I haven't used French practically at all in over 12 years. However, had I never learned it, I would have been diminished (and, worse, never known my ignorance). A language is not just about word-communication; it is about thought, expression, and especially point of view. There are things you can say in English that you could never say the same way in German, and vice versa; which means that there are ideas and viewpoints you could never fully appreciate without another language. If some folks feel this is unnecessary, well, they can get through life quite well with just one tongue... that's their decision. Anyway, apologies for starting this tangent here, since its crypto relevance is zero or less. :-) I only wanted to express why the word "compulsion" in this thread's new title already speaks volumes to me, and to help explain why this sort of thing sounds to outsiders like another form of isolationism (not that many countries haven't been getting accused of that recently, particularly in the East; it's not just a Western thing). --- Herb Sutter "If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?" "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from."

1 0

Controversys in security
by Jason Roissetter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am currently writting a report into the controverys invovled with data encyption and have desided to target the current DES system, I have found pages on the internet explaining the new triple DES system thought i need more information on the current controversys involved with the current DES system i'm aware that the key is no longer long enough for data to be protected for any amount of time, thought i really need more information to draw conclutions, if there is anyone with information could they please forward it to me. jason roissetter

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by Paul_Koning/US/3Com%3COM＠smtp1.isd.3com.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unicorn @ schloss.li (Black Unicorn) wrote: >On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote: >>... >> In fact, I suppose that government operation of the identification system >> (drivers' licenses, passports, etc.) in general is also horribly inefficient >> and should be attacked on efficiency grounds. > >You might not like what you get in response. Streamlined and uniform >identity documents generated at birth and renewed with tax filings would >be the likeliest efficiency improvement. An inefficient government >identification system is to the advantage of the privacy seeker. Indeed. A wise man once said "Thank goodness we don't get all the government we pay for". Government inefficiency is our friend (except at tax time) -- don't wish for it to get more efficient unless it gets a lot smaller FIRST. paul !----------------------------------------------------------------------- ! Paul Koning, NI1D, C-24183 ! 3Com Corporation, 1-3A, 118 Turnpike Road, Southborough MA 01772 USA ! phone: +1 508 229 1695, fax: +1 508 490 5873 ! email: paul_koning(a)isd.3com.com or paul_koning(a)3mail.3com.com ! Pgp: 27 81 A9 73 A6 0B B3 BE 18 A3 BF DD 1A 59 51 75 !----------------------------------------------------------------------- ! "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over ! any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent ! harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not ! a sufficient warrant." -- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" 1859

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote: > > Escrowing encrypted keys makes them useless to subpoena, and in > > fact it helps the key owner because the escrow agent can (and, in fact, > > must!) be obligated to inform the key owner if his key is requested. At 05:49 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: > I thought I would take the time to let everyone know that this is > baseless as well. Most jurisdictions forbid third parties to reveal > prosecution inquries to the principal for which they are holding > documents or other information. A VERY few have laws on the books that > require this disclosure. Switzerland is no longer one of them. If you had actually read the article that you criticize you would have noticed that the "must" was enforced by cryptographic protocols, not by the blunt sword of the law. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Let's *NOT* "Raise their Awareness"
by rollo＠artvark.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, David K. Merriman wrote: >>Yes, and some years ago a State legislature (I forget which) passed a >>resolution setting the value of pi at exactly 3. Well, this one has a grain of truth in it, but has drifted a bit in the telling. >From <alt.folklore.urban>'s FAQ: T. *Indiana House Bill #246 of 1897 would've set pi=3.2. Killed in state Senate. Fb. Some state (e.g., KS, OK, etc.) once considered a bill setting pi = 3 (or some other arbitrary, non-transcendental number). Key to Listed FAQs: T = 100% scientific truth Tb = believed true, but not conclusively proven F = 100% falsehood Ft = A legend, mostly untrue, but with a true occurrence or known origin. Fb = believed false, but not conclusively proven There is a comment, "*", on certain lines in the FAQ. This indicates that there is further information on this point available via anonymous ftp. See the AFU anonymous ftp sites noted in Part I of the FAQ for more information. The four part FAQ for alt.folklore.urban is also available via anonymous ftp at rtfm.mit.edu. You can retrieve them by grabbing the following files: /pub/usenet/news.answers/folklore-faq/part1 /pub/usenet/news.answers/folklore-faq/part2 /pub/usenet/news.answers/folklore-faq/part3 /pub/usenet/news.answers/folklore-faq/part4 /pub/usenet/news.answers/folklore-faq/part5 Or heck, just do: /pub/usenet/news.answers/folklore-faq/part* Rollo Silver | e-mail: rollo(a)artvark.com | Artvark | Home page: http://www.artvark.com/artvark/ | PO Box 219 | Voice: 505-586-0197 | San Cristobal, NM 87564 USA | Compuserve 71174,1453 | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

1 0

Electronic locksmiths are watching you (Belgium's ban on PGP)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This seems like an interesting glimpse into the future of crypto banning around the world. France's ban on unapproved crypto has been well-publicized, but I hadn't heard until this message that Belgium has joined in. The reference to Belgium's wiretap law and "But little-known sections of the law state that all cryptograhic systems aimed at protecting privacy must not block these wiretaps" suggests that we ought to look _very_ closely at our own Wiretap Act (aka Digital Telephony) for similar language. (Many of us thought at the time DT was being debated--both weeks of the public debate--and then when it was passed that things would get real interesting when the "central office wiretappability" vanished with end-to-end encryption. Louis Freeh even said as much, that the issue of end-to-end encryption would have to be addressed once the Digital Telephony Act was passed.) With Internet phone systems (various) and easy integration of PGP, a la PGPhone, even the Little Italy businessmen may start to use encryption. Likewise, there are currently no laws (that I am aware of) forbidding encrypted telephones--indeed, the Clipper phones were just this, and they were available for general purchase. Granted, the gubment knew the algorithm and there _may_ (emphasis on the "may") have been backdoors allowing easy wiretapping. But there was no key escrow per se. So, when the $500 M to make digital switches "compliant" with DT is spent (and bear in mind it hasn't been allocated yet by Congress, to the best of my knowledge), and yet some future John Gotti is untappable because he's using Eric Blossom's crypto phone, what then? Anyway, here's the item about Belgium's law: > From: Jerome Thorel <thorel(a)imaginet.fr> > Newsgroups: talk.politics.crypto,alt.privacy,alt.security.pgp > Subject: Electronic locksmiths are watching you (Belgium's ban on PGP) > Date: 26 Mar 1996 00:08:44 GMT ... > > Some hot news about Belgium: > > After reports in two Belgian newspapers (De Standaart and Le Soir), it > turns out that Belgium had passed a law in late 1994 that formerly bans > "non approved" encryption systems. This means that France is not alone > to block domestic use and distribution of strong encryption systems, > since a December 1990 law which came into effect in France in early > 1993. > > In its March 13 edition, French-speaking newspaper Le Soir ran a whole > page survey about the fact that a 21 December, 1994 law oblige the > telecom state-own company Belgacom to make any wiretap possible for law > enforcement purposes. But little-known sections of the law state that > all cryptograhic systems aimed at protecting privacy must not block > these wiretaps. Crypto systems have to be "agreed" by the government's > Institut Belge des postes et telecommunications (IBPT). The author of Le > Soir's article, Alain Guillaume, speculates that this "agreement" means > that encryption keys must be kept by IBPT. > > "The idea is neither new nor surprising," Guillaume writes. "To stop > criminals from hiding. (...) But does anyone believe that mafia gangs, > crooks or terrorists will let their keys to IBPT's hands?" > > =+= France enthrone key escrow =+= > > At the same time, France is keen to give up his isolationist position. > French telecom Minister François Fillon has prepared a kind of Telco Act > "à la francaise" -- new regulations to prepare the end of France Telecom > monopoly in 1998 -- in which encryption would be freed to allow the > emergence of "efficient electronic commerce". Under the new rules, > special "authorization" will no more be needed to use PGP-like tools, > but every user would be obliged to let their keys in custody in > so-called "trusted third parties" (TTPs) agencies, a kind of "electronic > locksmith", or notary, alternative. The option smells quite the same as > Sen. Leahy bill (Encrypted Communications Privacy Act of 1996, archived > at http://www.epic.org/crypto/legislation/s1587.html) in which escrow > agents would hold keys to help the police, with a court order, to > intercept communications. > > In France no one knows who will play the role of "key escrow agent", but > sources said it may be some independent agencies. Independent? The > governement will anyway have to approve them, and Mr Fillon said France > will enthrone its first TTP "before the end of this year". > > This bulletin and the British weekly Nature discovered last November > that a group of 18 European nations were soon to adopt this alternative > (http://www.freenix.fr/netizen/chiffre /nature-eurottp.html). The UK and > Germany have declared themselves ready for such an alternative (see > lambda bulletin 1.06). Belgium, with its new iron bullet, would be keen > to follow. > ------------------------------ > Jerome Thorel. Free-lance reporter, Paris > netizen's lambda bulletin (issue 2.05) > http://www.freenix.fr/netizen/

1 0

Re: Random Number Testing
by cme＠cybercash.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:34 3/29/96, Deranged Mutant wrote: >> - Is this apparent entropy really *unpredictable* (the most useful >> definition of "random" for cryptographic purposes)? > >Good question. You'd need to look for patterns. Barring none, you'd >have to guess the factors that lead to the entropy, and then see if >there's a way to reverse-engineer it. (Perhaps use a stripped down >system and build it up, or disable some of the hardware and OS >features etc.) There's more to unpredictability than patterns or their absense. In addition, you have to look at the ability of anyone else on the same machine to learn things about the data you're gathering and subtract the entropy of that commonly available data. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | |CyberCash, Inc., Suite 430 http://www.cybercash.com/ | |2100 Reston Parkway PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | |Reston, VA 22091 Tel: (703) 620-4200 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: Edited Edupage, 24 March 1996
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry E. Metzger wrote: > 2) I strongly hope that Netscape tries to move the product towards > standards based mechanisms like the IETF's RTP protocol, which are > in widespread use, Unfortunately RTP is not a crypto protocol, and does not have a standardized encrypted form. Therefore any encrypted protocol is necessarily proprietary and non standard, unless Phill Zimmerman has published a standard. If Netscape creates a standard for encrypting RTP, and publishes it, that will be a move towards a standard, not a move away from a standard. One mechanism for encrypting RTP would be to construct a shared secret key by DH exchange, or Rabin if one wished to dodge patents, construct a cryptographically strong pseudo random data stream from the key, using Ron's code, and for each RTP packet, encrypt using a block from that data stream as the packet key. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

java security
by rollo＠artvark.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Based on recent events, as soon as you implement anything in Java you are >making the creation of a secure ANYTHING a highly uncertain venture. You >have just made it MUCH MORE difficult to ensure security, not less, >given the current state of the Java art. I will be spending a fair part of my time over the next few months investigating java security, especially from the point of view of trying to break it. I'd like to hear from coderpunks/cypherpunks having ideas about how to break it, especially if you don't have the time/energy to pursue the idea to fruition yourself. Rollo Silver | e-mail: rollo(a)artvark.com | Artvark | Home page: http://www.artvark.com/artvark/ | PO Box 219 | Voice: 505-586-0197 | San Cristobal, NM 87564 USA | Compuserve 71174,1453 | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

1 0