- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

SSL bruting progress (was: Crypto-relevant flame interruption)
by aba＠dcs.exeter.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fred <admin(a)dcwill.com> wrote on cpunks: > Would someone be so kind as to provide a status report on the > planned SSL attack? Last word was that codework was still underway, > but I might have missed something relevant to this project amidst > all of the noise about excessive list noise. There has been no public announce. This is due to a desire to make real sure it's going to work before announcing. So, we're working on it. Software is basically all there, but we're experiencing difficulties, like during a trial run no key for Hal's challenge seems to be being found, even though the same software finds test keys. We've not managed to isolate the cause of it, as (two people) have nearly swept the entire keyspace (heh they had a bit of spare compute) and no key has been forthcoming so far. Give it a few more days - until monday - and if no key is found we've got problems, 3 possible outcomes looming: a) we find the key to Hal's challenge and go whoopee! Request a 2nd challenge from Hal? and announce a public sweep to see how fast it can be done. b) something is wrong with the interpretation or the gathering of the SSL session data Hal based his challenge on (difficult to see as there are numerous fixed fields which tally with the SSL spec.) c) software problems (also difficult to see, the software in all cases (3 separate versions) finds the keys of examples provided by Andrew Roos (ie he generated a key manually, so we know where to start for testing purposes)). The likelihood of a) happening is receding, as the last key space gets ticked off. More news next week. Adam

2 1

Clinton to resign?
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Associated Press reported on August 10, 1995: President Won't Resign But... (WASHINGTON) President Clinton wasn't about to give a serious answer when he was asked Thursday if he might resign. The question came from veteran columnist Sarah McClendon, who asserted that some legislators from the left and right were trying to push him out of office. [...] "Well, if you promise to run off with me I might," Clinton responded, ... "But otherwise, I can't think of any reason." - - - - - - - - - - Repeat after me: There's nothing to those crazy conspiracy theories. There's nothing to those crazy conspiracy theories.....

2 1

TIM MAY IS A CYPHERWEENIE
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think we ought to just throw TIM MAY out of the list. let's EXCOMMUNICATE HIM. its becoming increasingly clear that he is the source of all our problems. I mean, isn't it obvious that our progress has stalled? who has written any code within the last 3 days? if we got rid of him, it would be EVOLUTION IN ACTION. this is ERIC HUGHES' mailing list, and eric hughes knows how to write some decent code. I mean, TCM's signature doesn't even have any geek code, and he hasn't changed it in 4 years or so, at least since my last grandparent died (and she was considerably more skillful at programming than TCM by knowing how to make toast). get rid of all the pricks who continually spout and spew conspiracy theories. let TCM go and find himself a new mailing list. that would be a fair comeuppance if he found that he couldn't learn to do squish because he doesn't have the slightest clue. he's a leech, a parasite, sucking on the work of others, pretending that he is at the forefront of our cause when he is only at the forefront of maniacal egomania. what has he contributed to the cause? SQUAT. just a lot of ranting about conspiracy theories and his Stock Pick of the Week crap. "the web is really growing. people should focus on it". well, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BRILLIANT COMMENTATOR AND VISIONARY, T.C.MAY, I would have never have THOUGHT of that in a zillion years, but now that you point it out, I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT.

1 0

Re: EU Data Protection
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 7:13 PM 8/11/95, Derek Bell wrote: >> I think you miss an important point; your opinion is subjective, but >>data can relate to objective facts (e.g. credit records). Would you take the >>same stance if a credit bureau claimed that you couldn't pay back half the >>loans you took out? There's a difference between what information you maintain for internal purposes and what information you give to other people. I don't really _care_ what nonsense a credit bureau may have in their internal records, only what they tell other people about me. If they somehow think I'm a bankrupt Communist space alien, but tell their credit-rating customers that my credit looks ok, it's not my business. If they use their own internal records to decide that _they_ don't want to lend me money, well, somebody else will get my business; it's in their interest to be accurate. A more interesting question is whether reporting credit transactions in private communications with their data customers constitutes libel if they inaccurately say bad things about me, and do I have a right to force them to tell me. Tim May thinks this kind of forced speech violates the US Constitution; I'm less bothered by laws telling corporations what to do (since corporations are fictional creations of the state) than by laws telling human-owned businesses or individual humans what to do. Tim May replies: >Think about it: the name "data privacy" sounds good, at first blush, but >what it really means is that my records are not private, that my records >are inspectable by government agents to see if I have stored any illegal >facts or correlations. Yeah. If you register your computer and its data with the Data Police, they have the right to inspect it. If you _don't register, that gives them reasonable suspicion to believe that you might have "illegally unregistered data" on the machine, so they have the power to inspect it. Kind of like proving you're not a witch.... #--- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0664 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281 #--- Storyteller makes no choice - soon you will not hear his voice. His job was to shed light, and not to master. RIP, Jerry

1 0

Re: PRZ encrypted voice software release imminent
by sbryan＠maroon.tc.umn.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:59 am 8/11/95, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: [snip] >>I can't violate my NDA, but PGPFone will be a *major* revolution for >>communication security. I would not be surprised to see several hundred >>thousands of users. PGP will plale in comparison. > >I sincerely doubt this. if someone could find a way of doing >voice encryption through simple idiotproof hardware adapters >(I am thinking of cups that you could attach to any standard phone) [snip] Am I the one of the few who thinks that PGPFone is the biggest CypherPunk event for years? I think it will be even more significant if we get strong encryption built into the low level infrastructure of Internet as Perry and others are pursuing but that isn't an event that will be big news next week. A lot of people who don't usually think or talk about fundamental issues of privacy and technology will be doing so next week. I hope that some of the people here who have contacts in the press are ready to say useful and clarifying things to reporters who would be just as happy to concentrate on usual suspects (drug dealers, et al). On the speculation of attaching cups to a standard phone I think this has an air of unreality. To apply strong encryption you need a digital signal. That doesn't necessarily imply a computer but sufficiently powerful computers are going into people's homes at an astonishing rate already. I use MegaPhone on my Quadra 660av at home and I can't wait to try out PGPFone. Even without PGPFone I have thought for a while that computer based telephony is getting ready to take off. Combining CallerID, customized call handling, high quality speakerphone capability and a truly useful personal directory (TouchBase Pro is too sluggish, but getting there) there were already the ingredients of substantive usefulness. If you can add in street maps fetched with an AppleEvent or even a QTVR enhanced map then you get something that might make even an AT&T ad envious. Adding complete privacy (relative to previous levels available) and possibly authentication makes this a very big event. +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |Steve Bryan Internet: sbryan(a)maroon.tc.umn.edu |Sexton Software CompuServe: 76545,527 |Minneapolis, MN Fax: (612) 929-1799 |PGP key fingerprint: B4 C6 E2 A6 5F 87 57 7D E1 8C A6 9B A9 BE 96 CB +----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

No Subject
by Ford Prefect 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think we ought to just throw TIM MAY out of the list. let's EXCOMMUNICATE HIM. its becoming increasingly clear that he is the source of all our problems. I mean, isn't it obvious that our progress has stalled? who has written any code within the last 3 days? if we got rid of him, it would be EVOLUTION IN ACTION. this is ERIC HUGHES' mailing list, and eric hughes knows how to write some decent code. I mean, TCM's signature doesn't even have any geek code, and he hasn't changed it in 4 years or so, at least since my last grandparent died (and she was considerably more skillful at programming than TCM by knowing how to make toast). get rid of all the pricks who continually spout and spew conspiracy theories. let TCM go and find himself a new mailing list. that would be a fair comeuppance if he found that he couldn't learn to do squish because he doesn't have the slightest clue. he's a leech, a parasite, sucking on the work of others, pretending that he is at the forefront of our cause when he is only at the forefront of maniacal egomania. what has he contributed to the cause? SQUAT. just a lot of ranting about conspiracy theories and his Stock Pick of the Week crap. "the web is really growing. people should focus on it". well, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BRILLIANT COMMENTATOR AND VISIONARY, T.C.MAY, I would have never have THOUGHT of that in a zillion years, but now that you point it out, I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT.

4 3

Re: More "S-1" foolishness
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 20:53:58 -0700 >From: Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> > >The other thing I noticed that really makes me question this is that G1 >only uses 4 of its 8 input bits. As I wrote, it is equivalent to >parity(i&0x17). A bit is a terrible thing to waste, and it is hard to >imagine why it would do this intentionally. G1 may not be that important >an element of the cipher but why throw away four bits? Not that I say this is real, but... I can maybe understand throwing out 4 of the bits if G0 picks them up. G1 is never used alone. However, has anyone already noted that fullkey[INTEGRITY][i][j] = 0x08 ; for all i and j? For that matter, fullkey will be a constant for any key with all the bytes the same. This might constitute a class of weak keys. - Carl

2 1

Re: PRZ encrypted voice software release imminent
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199508110254.TAA02204(a)netcom14.netcom.com>, vznuri(a)netcom.com ("Vladimir Z. Nuri") wrote: >as if PRZ is not already enough of a folk hero.... >BTW, he has been beat by Nautilus, right? Nautilus >is public domain, right? (I'm thinking of that public >domain voice encryption released a few mos ago). >I wonder if he is going to try to put a "spin" on this >one to differentiate it from the other one. on the >other hand, just having his name on it is plenty of >"spin"... I can't violate my NDA, but PGPFone will be a *major* revolution for communication security. I would not be surprised to see several hundred thousands of users. PGP will plale in comparison. - -- - -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMCr8YioZzwIn1bdtAQH+qQF/bA4povjtixKhIxak+M7aCYmbdMjj9U3r azryqeapO4A2vYc4qEnP1zLmp83ceMUV =W9y9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

8 8

hard hymns
by Vicki Penny 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Ok, I guess I'll jump in here, too. Since I am an organist, I will list a few hymns I've noticed the congregation having difficulty singing: #56 O Come, O Come, Immanuel - in the new hymnal, it has been changed to be more authentic, but since people are used to the 1940 timing, they stumble every time. #688 A Mighty Fortress - Same reason as above. #208 The Strife is O'er - they do great on the verse, but really, I have never figured out what they do on the Antiphon!!! They certainly aren't with me! In our congregation - any hymn not previously in the 1940 hymn book! They always groan afterwards - "we don't know that one." Also, "we can't do a new hymn at the beginning, the choir would stumble coming in", "we can't do a new hymn at the Gospel - too important a place", we can't do a new hymn post communion - it would interfere with devotion and thanksgiving after Eucharist and we don't want to irritate people" and "we can't do a new hymn at the end because the choir would stumble and we need to end on a familiar uplifting note." If anyone else has experienced this sort of thing, I would welcome suggestions. I am hoping that our new rector, when he arrives in October, will also be able to help! Vicki Penny St. Peter's - Kansas City

1 0

Re: PRZ encrypted voice software release imminent
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:59 8/11/95, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >the real holy grail for voice communication encryption is >when this stuff starts to get integrated into the real >phone system, or people start making hardware that is >cheap and self contained and idiot proof. "but it's difficult >to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious" <g> [...] >when someone invents cheap hardware that you can just plug >on top of any existing phone, i.e. "the phone adaptor", TPA?, >*that's* when the world is going to go crazy with crypto. >all this stuff that requires lots of hardware can be used, >but the thing that will cause *everyone* to use it is when >someone invents a TPA. I'm very, very surprised that no >one has tried to do this yet. As some of you know, I work for a LAN-Telephony company. One of our products is a hardware based computer telephony product that we will be able to provide at less than $100 per node. The product contains a CPU as well as a DSP and is ideally suited for voice transmission with encryption over networks. We inted to make this product fully interoperate with software based PGPFone implementations and also lending our computer telephony experience to the PGPFone development team. This cooperation will provide hundreds of thousands of corporate users with PGPFone compatible, rock solid, call security at a fraction of the cost of today's "secure" phones. Our expertise will also help improve the performance of the software based freeware PGPFone implementations. Sorry, I am unable to provide more details at this point. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0