- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: NYT on NTT/RSA Chips
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:45 AM 6/5/96 -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote: >The software for both DES and RSA are publically available so it would >not have solved any previously unsolved problem for someone to have >mailed the code--or the algorithms--to NTT. Here's something to think about: At this point, the USG apparently doesn't attempt to restrict the IMPORTATION of crypto software and hardware. Yet, it calls it "munitions" and the government certainly claims the authority under certain circumstances to restrict munitions imports: For example, automatic rifles and Chinese "assault weapons" (sic). Until this new NTT/RSA chip, there has not been much that the USG wanted to keep out that it could keep out. Software is easily copied, so that is futile. Hardware is more practical to restrict, but until substantial quantities are imported it doesn't constitute much of a threat. Wouldn't it be reasonable to suspect that the advent of this NTT chip set might induce the government to start restricting crypto hardware import, under some odd new interpretation of ITAR rules? If so, I think NTT should immediately import into the US the database for the design and testing of this chip, on the offchance that the USG gets uppity and decides to ban its import. At that point, they merely start manufacture domestically, supplying the domestic market. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: MELP: 2400 baud speech coding
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C'punks, At 08:28 PM 6/4/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >Which raises another question: When are Internet ISP's >going to start acting as Internet-phone gateways?...Any >guesses as to when this will be real? After Jim Bell has shot a few recalcitrant ISP operators? S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Java
by minow＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From Tim May's citation of Vladimir Z. Nuri: > >> maybe Java is all about a generation >>gap in computing. hey!! the first language that the "older generation" >>hates. Better try another language, I'm quite a bit older than Tim, and like Java very much. It's one of the best languages I've seen since Algol 60. To learn the language, I'd recommend Java in 21 Days and, as a quick desk reference, Java in a Nutshell. Tim May writes > I think >the security problems are, first of all, no worse vis-a-vis the language >itself than problems with any language. They're better than most, as programmers can't "escape" from memory and variable typing bounds. > >Until Java and >associated programs and tools appeared, I was seriously thinking about >getting a Pentium or Pentium Pro (shudder, even though I admire my former >employer and current stock benefactor, Intel) and putting Linux on it. If you're interested in Linux, you can get Linux for Power PC. Check out http://www.mklinux.apple.com for details. Currently, it runs on the first-generation Power PC's (6100, 7100, 8100). > >Perry has some valid points vis-a-vis the most naive uses of applets. Were >I the security manager of Morgan Stanley, I would certainly not want >traders downloading "kewl" applets and (possibly) causing Big Problems. So >what else is new? The use of signed classes makes this practical as "kewl," but unsigned, applets should be safe unless the user makes a stupid decision regarding default applet permissions (and ignoring the Trojan Horse problem). The attraction to (for example) Morgan Stanley, is that it minimizes their risk when employees must work outside the corporate firewall. For example, an employee making an external sales call can dial into Morgan Stanley and use an appropriately privileged signed applet to access private data on the corporate server as well as files on the employee's portable computer). > >Java as a language and as a platform-independent implementation is an >achievement. It's also not owned by the evil Redmond empire and does not appear to be owned by a hardware vendor (as, when compared with Intel, Motorola, and the Intel clones, Sun is a minor player in the hardware arena). It will be very interesting to see what happens when ANSI/ISO/IEEE decide that they must "standardize" the language. I'm currently reading "The Hubble Wars" and don't hold out mush hope that the official standard dies will actually improve the language. > >And in some ways a more important comparison is to Perl and TCL, along with >more obscure languages like Python and REXX. The welter of Net-oriented >languages shows signs of being much-simplified by the wide adoption of >Java. It will be interesting to watch the next several years of >developments. > Rather than compare Java to Perl/TCL, try comparing it to Visual Basic, C, C++, Fortran, and COBOL. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

2 1

Re: Fate of Ecash if RSA is cracked?
by Bodo_Moeller＠public.uni-hamburg.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com>: >Igor Chudov @ home: >> Actually factoring is not exponential even now. [... est.:] >> N ~= exp(((1.923+O(1)) * (ln n)^(1/3) * ln ln n)^(2/3)) > The distinction between that and exponential is rather difficult for > most ordinary people to see, and in any case subexponential and > exponential are "practically the same" for purposes of this > discussion. When discussing the estimated time needed for factoring integers, it is usually assumed that an "algorithm" is something that is deterministic or probabilistic. Quantum computing should also be mentioned. Efficient algorithms for logarithms (the Diffie-Hellmann- problem) and factoring (the RSA-problem) on a quantum computer were found by Peter Shor [1]. Of course, no quantum computing device that you could run those "programs" on does exist. But as Gilles Brassard puts it, "In my opinion, the theoretical notion of feasible computation should be modelled on our understanding of the physical world, not on our technological abilities. After all, the classical Turing machine itself is an idealization that cannot be built in practice even not taking account of the unbounded tape: any real implmentation of a Turing machine would have nonzero probability of making a mistake. Does this discredit the model? I think not." [2] An other article by Brassard might still be availabe at <URL:http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/cryptobytes/spring95/brassard.htm>. There, he writes quite optimistically: "I like to think that I shall see a special-purpose quantum factorization device in my lifetime." [1] Peter W. Shor, Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring (in: Proceedings of the 35th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1994, pp. 116-134) [2] Gilles Brassard, A Quantum Jump in Computer Science (in: Computer Science Today (Springer-Verlag LNCS 1000), 1995, pp. 1-14)

2 1

re: Fight-Censorship Dispatch #12: CDA deathwatch, copyright update
by minow＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In "Fight-Censorship Dispatch #12", Declan McCullagh writes about "everybody's favorite net.loon," Fred Cherry: >Whatever you think of Cherry's antics, you gotta grant him one thing > not many people have the balls to demand that a Federal court uphold > their right to flame. I suspect that Tom Payne would -- Cherry seems from your description to be a prize example of "the lonely pamphleteer." It would be interesting to know what Nat Hentoff thinks of Fred. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

2 1

is the list active??
by Syl Miniter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I recently re-subscribed --several days ago and have not received any traffic??? I am wondering if the list is still active as I checked and I am subscribednso I am sending this note to this list to test if anyone is out there

1 0

Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:41 PM 6/4/96 -0700, Bruce Baugh wrote: >I think there's a non-trivial chance that this list could be shut down and >anyone who's made interested sounds in the idea brought in to assist the >police in their inquiries. Yeah and they busted Jack London for publishing "The Assassination Bureau, Ltd". (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0140186778/1663-9102790-622063) Advocating the general practice of killing one's opponents is as legal as church on a Sunday. The War College (or is it the NDU these days) does it all the time. DCF

1 0

Re: Markoff in NYT on NTT/RSA chip
by rodger＠interramp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>David Lesher writes: > > > So Motorboatarola puts chips in the domestic MTSO's. > > For the international ones, they leave the chips out. > and Russ Nelson responded: >Crypto hooks, or more properly, crypto pads. Lends new meaning to the >term "one time pads". > For what it's worth, Motorola can do neither. US companies can't produce anything prohibited for export unless its in the US, for the US market. And "crypto with a hole," or hooks for crypto generally, can't be exported, either, unless for 40-bit stuff only. Thus, Microsoft's proposals to produce "crypto with a hole" depend on "holes" tailored to the requirements of specific countries. Will Rodger Washington Bureau Chief Interactive Week

1 0

National Bank Brings Internet CyberCash To Canada 06/05/96
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:18:39 -0400 >From: reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu (Joseph M. Reagle Jr.) >To: reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu >Subject: National Bank Brings Internet CyberCash To Canada 06/05/96 > > > >MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA, 1996 JUN 5 (NB) -- The National Bank of >Canada, one of Canada's smaller chartered banks, has signed an >agreement with CyberCash Inc. (NASDAQ:CYCH) to bring the Reston, >Virginia-based company's Internet payment service to Canada. > >CyberCash touts its payment service -- also called CyberCash -- as a >secure method of making payments over the Internet using a credit >card. > >To use the system, a consumer first downloads software called the >CyberCash wallet from CyberCash's site on the World Wide Web >(http://www.cybercash.com ) or from a participating merchant's >site, said Melissa Walia, a spokeswoman for CyberCash. The free >software, installed on the user's PC, allows the customer to make >purchases via the Internet and have them charged to a credit card. > >CyberCash supports major credit cards such as Visa, MasterCard, >American Express, and Discover, company officials said. Walia told >Newsbytes that Canadians who wish to use the service will not have >to be customers of the National Bank. The bank will work with >participating Canadian merchants to provide the CyberCash service. > >The CyberCash Cash Register is the merchant piece of the >CyberCash system. It works on a merchant's server and receives >information necessary to process a credit card transaction. The >system is designed to work with an existing financial institution >infrastructure, officials said. > >CyberCash said it is committed to supporting the Secure Electronic >Transaction (SET) standard for Internet credit-card transactions, >announced recently by Visa and MasterCard. The company claimed it >plans to be one of the first SET-compliant Internet payment services >available. > >Neither Walia nor Bridget Limoges, a spokeswoman for the National >Bank, would say how many Canadian merchants have signed up to >use CyberCash at this point. However, Limoges told Newsbytes that >interest in the technology has been strong. > >The CyberCash credit-card payment service, launched in the United >States in April, 1995, is expected to be available to Canadians >this summer, Limoges said. CyberCash also said it is working on >electronic check and coin services, expected to be released in >the second half of this year. > >(Grant Buckler/19960605/Press Contact: Melissa Walia, Niehaus >Ryan Group for CyberCash, tel 415-615-7911, fax 415-615-7901, >Internet e-mail melissa(a)nrgpr.com; Bridget Limoges, National Bank >of Canada, 514-394-6494; Public Contact: CyberCash, Internet >e-mail info(a)cybercash.com) > > > _______________________ Regards, Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present. - Albert Camus Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: whitehouse web incident, viva la web revolution
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hallam(a)Etna.ai.mit.edu writes: > As you know very well it's Dr. My apologies. From now on I will refer to you solely as Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD. > and as you also know, signing a futures, options or any other type > of contract is an open ended risk. One doesn't "sign a futures" contract. The risk is also not always open ended by any means. If I purchase 50 unleaded gasoline contracts, my risk is strictly limited -- I cannot lose more than the value of the gasoline, and that would only be if it became totally worthless (an unlikely event). If I sell an uncovered contract, things are different, of course. With options, if I buy puts or calls, again, my risk is totally limited -- I cannot lose more than the cost of the contracts. > That is how the person purchasing the contract has the theoretcial > possibility of unlimited reward. Er, no. You have potentially unlimited reward in ANY purchase, and limited risk. If I buy a box of cornflakes and next week cornflakes suddenly become worth $1,000,000 a box, well, I've experienced reward, but my risk was at most the cost of the cornflakes. > >Of course they know. There just isn't anything that can be done. There > >is no proof. Its more or less as though one finds a man with gunpowder > >stains on his hands, and a bullet embedded in the wall of his office > >and human blood soaking the carpet. You can't prove that he killed > >anyone. You can never get a conviction. But you can know. > > Its called circumstantial evidence and it leads to a conviction provided the > name of the defendant isn't O.J. Simpson. No, it isn't. If there is no body and no one knows who you have shot, the rules of Corpus Delecti pretty much dictate that you aren't going to jail. You cannot be charged with the murder of unknown persons when there isn't even any evidence of what happened (it could very well have been someone being accidently injured while you were showing off your gun collection and they might have done just fine). You don't even have to say what happened -- you are under no obligation to testify, you know. Now, your neighbors will probably talk badly of you forever, but you won't be convicted of anything. > It would certainly be enough to arrange congressional hearings, subpoena half > the Whitehouse staff and demand every document in sight. What documents can they subpoena? All of Hillary Clintons documents are available. It is known what she traded and when. Without a witness who will say who did the bribing, or broker records showing the counterparty who was doing the bribing, nothing can be done. You seem to assume that every crime in existance can be prosecuted. They can't. Hillary Clinton can claim to be the victim of a very odd set of circumstances, which is effectively what she has done, and we have no way to put her in jail. That doesn't mean, however, that we have to believe her. > Speculating in derivatives is not something I am particularly > interested in, having seen the losses of some people in this > building who got caught in the Netscape short squeeze I'm not > particularly inclined to rush into that market. Netscape options were not available at the time that the shorts got hurt. Selling short is not a derivatives investment. You don't seem to have much of a deep knowledge of these markets -- at the very least you speak of them in a manner guaranteed to produce derision from professionals. > >Switching the tickets was the fraud. Taking bribes was also a crime. > > Perry, Perry, you are off at it again. You are making allegations you cannot > back up. You are right. The human blood might have been from the blood bank, and the bullet might have been an accident. Its fucking unlikely, though. > You have hypothesised that there were multiple tickets but have no > proof, Correct. That is why Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton aren't in jail. However, court proof and proof good enough for me aren't the same thing. > All you can point to > is that a person with a net worth of several million They had a considerably smaller net worth at the time. Most of the Clinton's net worth appears to have come from dirty political dealings over the years -- things like the Cattle Futures bribe laundry, Rose Law Firm overbillings or dealings with the Arkansas state government, etc. Not a shred of it can be proven in court, of course. > made a tidy profit speculating in cattle futures with the aid of > some astute financial advice. No one out there that I know of who does this for a living has ever seen anyone make that much money in short term speculation that way. George Soros, Paul Jones and all the rest would be envious of the performance she had in the markets. I don't know anyone who can articulate a theory of why the trades were made when they were that comes from "astute thinking". They are seemingly random. Thats probably because they WERE random. > If you are to make such serious allegations against anyone you should be > prepared to back them up with something more than heresay and name > calling. As I've said, the evidence is compelling. It just isn't proof. Its just like the bullet, the blood, and the powder burns on your hands. No body and no missing person means no jail, but it doesn't mean that one has to go about thinking what one is looking at is perfectly innocent. > Just because it might have been possible to conceal a bribe does not > mean that you have evidence that a bribe was given. If this was Richard Nixon no one would be questioning what the money was. I see no other explanation for what the money would have been. The fact that her supposed advisor on these trades was the attorney for Arkansas's most important company, Tyson Chicken, is a bit on the suggestive side. Again, it is not proof, but proof isn't needed. > It is not unusual for lawyers to dabble in speculation. It is also > not unusual for clever lawyers to have friends who can give good > advice. If you can find anyone on earth who can give that good a bunch of advice, please let me know. Several hedge fund managers I work with would probably pay me for their name. I don't know anyone who has EVER performed that well in the markets. Its nearly impossible. > Consider that anyone on cypherpunks might have made a tidy profit by > realising that certain network ventures were likely to realize > substantial profits for those dealing in the market. It dosen't take > a genius to look at the rise Sun's stock price Could you have made 100 to one on that in a couple of months, though? Sure, its easy to make 20% or 30% on your money a year. Its hard, but many people do it. Making 10,000% in a few weeks is impossible. > Oh come off it Perry, the Washington media do not need proof or even > evidence to have a feeding fest. They did for a while, but when it became obvious that the evidence was not going to lead to the court room, it ended. Besides, most of the media in Washington are registered Democrats. 89% of the Washington press corps voted for Clinton from what I've read. Your attitude seems to be "you can't prove anything so you must assume that they are innocent." My attitude is "I can't prove anything so they can't go to jail, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that they are innocent -- in fact, I'm an idiot if I believe that." > I think that given Perry's ad-hominem attacks and the fact that this > has nothing to do with cryptography that its about time someone sent > Perry a Perry-gram. Cypherpunks no longer is a cryptography mailing list. Its a sewer. Perry

1 0