- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: The Remailer Crisis
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:14 PM 01/20/95, Rhys Kyraden wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Okay. Here's my 2-bits. >I run on the MacOS, but how hard could it be to port this code? If you are talking about remailer code, rather, I think. The mac doesn't have a built in mail system, like unix systems generally do, which you kind of need. First you've got to get a hold of a mail system for the MacOS, ideally not POPMail like Eudora, but actual receiving mail directly to your mac, and then you've got to modify it to do remailing. And that modification isn't going to be nearly as easy as in the world of unix with it's .forward files and /etc configuration files that let you pretty much direct output wherever you want. Basically, the amount of code you are going to have to be writing from scratch is going to outweigh any "porting" you are able to do with salvagable code. On the other hand, you could base a remailer on Eudora. Which means that people would right to your normal mail account with mail-to-be-remailed, and by means of some header lines distinguish the mail to be remailed. Eudora can filter mail according to header lines. And Eudora is applescriptable, and can call an external applescript (or actual binary executable program, if it does apple events. Which isn't trivial), and tell it new mail has arrived to be dealt with. Theoretically the external program could even check the body of the message for a :: Request Remailing-To: So they wouldn't need to put anything special in the header, like they don't need to with current remailers, even ones that run out of people's normal shell accounts. Theoretically, you could do that. But it would be rather unreliable, and slow. And if there was a lot of remailer traffic, it would get in the way of your normal email. I'm not sure it's worth putting in the amount of effort neccesary for what you are going to get. On the other hand, the amount of effort neccesary would be much much less then writing remailer code which worked with a mac mail system instead of POP mail, as discussed above. I dunno.

1 0

Re: Key backup (was: How do I know . ..)
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 19:38:54 -0800 >From: eric(a)remailer.net (Eric Hughes) > > From: "Dr. D.C. Williams" <dcwill(a)ee.unr.edu> > > Safe deposit boxes, by virtue of their accessibility to law enforcement, > are subject to search and seizure under court order and are sealed > in certain cases (probate). This makes them likely to be the first place > to look when the Feds decide that we can't have keys anymore. > >I am not designing systems for the paranoid fantasy of an inspection >of all safety deposit boxes by government agents in search of >contraband. > >I am interested in designing systems which will fit into business as >usual, that are inconspicuous by their prevalance, and which will be a >part of ordinary and usual protection of data by cryptographic means. On the less paranoid side of this, you might check out TIS's Data Recovery Center plans. ftp://ftp.tis.com/pub/crypto/drc/ and below. That location will have some code for interfacing to the prototype DRC in a week or two. Send me e-mail if you want to be on the mailing list for notification of code availability/updates. On the more paranoid side of this, in spite of Steve Walker's relish over the fact that TIS's CKE (Commercial Key Escrow -- his name for the DRC work) keeps keys out of government hands, except in cases of actual search warrant, it looks (according to one privacy-advocate lawyer I discussed this with) as if access can be gained with a mere subpoena -- and, according to Scott Charney (of Justice Dept., if I remember correctly) the currnet view is that if you voluntarily give a copy of your key to your employer, you've abandoned your presumption of privacy and that relieves the gov't of getting a search warrant (and maybe even subpoenna). - Carl

1 0

AA BBS report
by hkhenson＠cup.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been keeping the net up on the AA BBS case since it started last year. Latest news (1/21/95) is that bail during appeal was denied by the Sixth Circuit, and that Robert is to report to federal prison Feb. 8, in Springfield, MO to serve 3 years, one month. I have no doubt that picking a place that far from his home and family was done on purpose as part of the punishment. Question for Mike Godwin: Who pays transport from Springfield back to Utah so Robert can be present for the bogus kiddy porn trial in a few months? Also being in prison will make it nearly impossible for him to prepare the .gif files his lawyer wants to present in his defense. They set the date (July 12) and place (Dublin, CA) for Carleen (Robert's wife). She is to serve 2 years, 2 months. I think the reason they are letting her start later is so she can be present when their oldest son graduates from high school. AA BBS is still up, and may well stay up for the whole time Robert is in prison. He has no other way to support his family or pay for legal defense. Also, outside of western TN, OK, Utah, and other backwards places, what he is selling is legal--even protected under the First Amendment. (Though some of it *is* kinda gross :-) ) AA BBS is up to about 25,000 files. There is a good chance that they will be available through the internet at some point. Trying to control information in the network age is about as sucessful as pissing into the wind. Keith Henson

1 0

Computerworld Article
by moulton＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have recently seen several messages about the article in the 14-Jan-95 issue of The Economist, I do not recall seeing any mention of a similar, but shorter article in the 16-Jan-95 issue of Computerworld, p.20. The Computerworld article covers much of the same ground, however I will quote the last three paragraphs of the story. Tim May and Cypherpunks are mentioned at the end. At one point in 1994, rank-and-file members were angrily posting "EFF sellout" notes on the Internet. The reason was the EFF's decision to negotiate with sponsors of the fast-moving digital wiretapping bill - an anathema to many privacy advocates - rather than oppose the bill. The legislation, which was strongly backed by the Federal Bureau Of Investigation and quickly passed, requires telephone companies to re-engineer their digital networks to enable court-ordered wiretaps. The EFF agreed not to oppose the bill after cutting a deal to include some privacy protections and exclude the Internet and on-line networks. But the Washington maneuvers did not sit well with some EFF members. "I've written them off" said Timothy C. May, co-founder of the Internet's Cypherpunks discussion group encryption. "They don't represent my interests. They're not a member-driven, grassroots organization."

1 0

Cripto FAQ in Hypertext HTML
by Claborne, Chris 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Because I wanted to share the RSA Criptography FAQ on WWW with our local users, I have converted your document, verbatum, to HTML Hypertext. The entire Table of Contents is clickable so that you can zoom to the particular area of interest. I can FTP somewhere public you would like (I don't know where to stash this kind of thing. It could probably use some more links in it where the document suggest that the reader go to another section for more information but... I will leave that up to someone else. -- ... __o .. _`\<,_ Chris.Claborne(a)SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.Com ...(*)/ (*). CI$: 76340.2422 PGP Pub Key fingerprint = A8 FA 55 92 23 20 72 69 52 AB 64 CC C7 D9 4F CA <#include standard disclaimer regarding my opinion an not my company's > <#include some philosophical comment >

1 0

AA + Anonymous ECash = Unhappy Fundies
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hkhenson(a)cup.portal.com writes: > AA BBS is still up, and may well stay up for the whole time > Robert is in prison. He has no other way to support his > family or pay for legal defense. Also, outside of western > TN, OK, Utah, and other backwards places, what he is selling > is legal--even protected under the First Amendment. (Though > some of it *is* kinda gross :-) ) But certainly no worse than the stuff which regularly flows through a.b.p.tasteless and a.b.p.bestiality. > AA BBS is up to about 25,000 files. There is a good chance > that they will be available through the internet at some > point. It strikes me that this would be the perfect way to generate consumer interest in anonymous digital cash protocols. The entire AA collection, hooked up to the net through a T-3, and available for a nominal fee per GIF, could easily make the AA Sysops millionaires by the time their sentences are over. Such a setup would make their pictures available to everyone, not just the limited number of people their BBS has the capacity to handle. Perhaps the server could be placed securely overseas in a neutral country which still respects privacy and free speech. Orders could be encrypted using the server's PGP key and the customer could specify the passphrase to be used to IDEA encrypt the "goods" prior to shipment, ala NetBank. > Trying to control information in the network age is about > as sucessful as pissing into the wind. When the government pisses into the wind, the citizens get wet. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

2 2

Re: Netherlands crypto ban?
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In my opinion, The Netherlands will not adopt a crypto policy on their own, the'll do it if the EC proposes such a "thing". Several months ago at a security SIG meeting at OSF, a sr tech guy from Shell gave a presentation and I went and spoke with him afterwards. (Not being oblique, I just forget his name.) Shell needs public key because they want to use email for legal contracts. They've been waiting for standards to come around, but have given up. They're currently planning on using NIST's DSS, if they can fix a few things: - Add concepts of time and location (it can be important to prove that this was signed last month outside of the U.S.) - Add re-signing with only minor increase in size If there are licensing issues, "just buy them off." They don't like RSA because of the US licensing issues -- it's too hard to prove you only have to pay for a small portion of your use, for example. They like DSS because it explicitly does not support privacy, which is problematic in France, especially. He's reluctantly inventing this setup because the vendors haven't given him a world-wide public key story yet. (DCE 1.2 has/had some plans, and he wanted to push our licensees to support it, at least.) Interestingly, things have inverted and the EC (sorry, EU) is looking for Shell to set a standard. Several other large companies (Philips, etc) are also going to follow whatever Shell does. He thinks it'll be de-facto standard in 18-24 months. FYI. /r$

2 1

Locksmith's Guild wants limit on free speech
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is just an informal pointer, as I don't have the energy right now to track down quotes, official positions, etc. Check out comp.org.eff.talk for discussion of how "professional locksmiths" are angry that "amateur locksmiths" (unlicensed, not real members of the Brotherhood) are using the Net to disseminate and discuss the Secret and Most Arcane Knowledge of the Guild. And alt.locksmithing is carrying the stuff. This is just one of several recent examples where a controversy is developing. I have often likened the end of the medieval guilds to our current situation. In 1300 A.D., the "Blacksmith's Guild" owned and controlled the knowledge of blacksmithing, enforced by the Crown. Apprentices were Initiates, and I have little doubt that attempts to "steal" this knowledge were dealt with harshly, probably fatally. This "intellectual property law" of its time was rendered moot when books became economical. The first books published after Gutenberg were religious in nature--Bibles and hymnals, etc. Then came "How To" books, the destroyers of the Guilds. Crypto and remailers are going to do the same thing to today's versions of guilds, what we call "licensed professions." --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo(a)toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay

2 2

Re: Reordering, not Latency (Was: Re: Remailer)
by pstemari＠erinet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:10 PM 1/25/95, Michael Handler wrote: > ... I have literally hundreds of messages archived from the CP list of >several months back where Eric Hughes repeatedly states that reordering, >not latency, is the key. Reordering of a sufficient magnitude will >introduce latency inherently. Otherwise you are still vulnerable to >traffic analysis (which is an art, not a science, remember). The headache with reordering of that sort is that you can't reply to a message until you've seen the message you're replying to. There's a certain level of ordering that can't be changed. --Paul J. Ste. Marie pstemari(a)well.sf.ca.us, pstemari(a)erinet.com

1 0

Re: An Attempt to Hobble SAFE Crypto Bill
by Peter D. Junger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The more I look at this draft, the more gaping holes I see. I do not think that it was ever intended to be enacted, but was rather drafted simply to give cover to those who voted for the first amendment, since they could then vote against this one. Notice that it says that you will find the definitions in the Export Administration Act, which I am sure, though I have not looked it up, does not contain a definition of ``real time'', which seems to be the key term in the draft. But now that the first amendment lost, I suppose this could have been leaked so that some other committee will vote for a compromise. As I reread the proceeding sentence, I realize that I should have said ``proposed first amendment to the SAFE bill''. We wouldn't want to get it mixed up with the First Amendment, now would we? -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger(a)pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists

1 0