- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: More signs that key escrow is coming
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: >Things seem awfully quiet on the list the past 24 hours.... > >Lucky Green wrote: > >> This RFP contains the final specs for a new multimedia architecture the >> cable companies intend to deploy. >... >> ".c4.11.7.1.1 Security System Objectives: >> The Offeror shall specify [..] whether it is possible to hide information >> in the digital signature number of which the signer would be unaware, which >> could conceal information. " >> >> Such as parts of the key? > >This sounds like it's a concern about subliminal channels in the >DSS/DSA signatures, a la the concerns raised by Gus Simmons last year. >I don't know what the use would be, unless it's concern (by whom?) >that viewing preferences could be back-propagated. > The RFP is not just for a system that sends Multimedia to the subscriber. The specs call for Homeshopping, private financial transactions, encrypted credit card transaction, etc. Just what info do they intend to conceal that the "the signer would be unaware" of? Just wondering, -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger

1 0

Re: Security of PGP private keys
by dmandl＠lehman.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: jrk(a)sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) > > PGP secret keys are protected by a password. Yet people have said that one > should not keep one's secret keyring on an insecure machine. Why? > > -- ____ > Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems > Internet: jrk(a)sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia > uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. 1. Why take chances? Once the evil intruder has the file, she can throw test passwords at it from now till doomsday and might be able to crack it. 2. On shared machines, there are ways for users with the appropriate access to read your keystrokes (like, for example, when you type in your pass phrase). Anyone with that access should also be able to grab your secring.pgp with no problem, and that's that. --Dave.

1 0

Re: a desperate plea
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> No, I wasn't complaining about his personal attacks per se but his long term >behavior on this list and Extropians which is mainly "hit-and-run" >attack posts about once a month which usually generate massive flame wars. >(the last of which ended up with Tim May leaving the extropians list) Let me make sure I understand this: are you claiming that _I_ caused Tim to leave the Extropians list? -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Help writing code
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Let me quickly try to clear up some confusion. I've gotten several replies (real quick response) that are answering a different question. I'm not trying to reimplement TCP/IP. I'm trying to provide a Windows version of NUpop, which is a DOS program that works fine over a simple serial line. Most folks automatically associate SMTP/POP with TCP/IP, but there is no connection. Admittedly they work better with a robust, end to end protocol. But I've been using NUpop for a year over a non-TCP/IP line. I get hundreds of messages a day. It works. But there are no sources available to NUpop, it is a DOS program, and it doesn't support piping messages thru PGP/RIPEM/... I have lots of DOS libraries that do exactly the simple things I need. I don't want to use DOS, I want native Windows code. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)netcom.com Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: Net Regs.
by kwaldman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to my reply to Duncan's *"Net Regulation" Perry wrote: >To: kwaldman <kwaldman(a)BBN.COM> >Subject: Re: Net Requlation >Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 09:53:47 -0400 >From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger(a)lehman.com> >You do realize that cypherpunks is not extropians... >kwaldman says: >> Say the best way to go is to become a perpetual tourist. That is >> you don't have US citzenship and thus are not subject to it's taxes and >> other nosy laws. [Not that other government's don't have nosier laws]. >> Anyway Yes I realize it, and perhaps Perry's right we should move this to extropians. Karl * BTW I spelled Duncan's name wrong twice in 1 paragraph in my last post. Sorry.

1 0

Re: My Views on the Detweiler Matter
by jamie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypheroids and Cypherettes, The eventual recognition that names are symbol strings and not their referents is akin to the realization that the map not being the terrrtory. Yep, sometimes we just keep learning the same old lesson. The Detweiler/Boxx rants have the flavor of a reformed alcoholic distrupting the champagne toast at a wedding, selfishly driven by their world view and utterly unaware of the social dynamics around them. But aside from the rantings, pleas for TrueNameUtopia in CypherSociety, and threats, I sense something else. Take your pick of remark -- "thou doth protesteth too much," or "where there's smoke there's fire," or ... . Seems to me that the essential raison d'etre of L.Detweiler and S.Boxx (and even sometimes The SternLight himself) is purposive to distract c'punks from "writing code" or essays or having fun. This is basic motivated deception used in sports, business and the military ... get the opponent to do something else ... Here's one interpretation: if c'punks weren't pushing the envelope in creating both tools and understanding for things like cryptography, anonymous remailers and digital cash, nor pushing the social bounds through BlackNet, Nyms, Sam Hill, and May's CryptoAnarchy, the Detweiler nonsense wouldn't have emerged. A nerve has been struck; and this seems, in the big picture, to be A Good Thing. I've no doubt that to the true statists, fascists and communists, we are their vision of hell. On the other side of this, they will no longer be the only ones to hide behind anomynity, pull their secret strings, and pronounce agents of change as Evil Incarnate. We stand at the threshold of a new world, in large part to be enabled by cryptography. As "The Net" expands, dark fiber becomes illuminated, online markets flourish and the like, cryptography will be key for economic survival, and it will be in the hands (or machines) of The People, not The State. If such great progress wasn't being made toward providing for personal privacy, the L.Detweiler-Boxxs of the Net would be ranting about something else. So each rant underscores how significant the progress in cryptography is becoming; and it will become more so. In a nutshell, three cheers for c'punks. -- ................................ Jamie Dinkelacker Palo Alto CA Jamie(a)netcom.com 415.941.4782

1 0

subscribe
by jc138696＠longs.lance.colostate.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How do I subscribe? thank you.

1 0

Watch out for carl@com.malamud.t
by carugo o 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

He is a neg!!! e0004353(a)brookes.uk.ac ps i wrote the introductory piece on myself!!

1 0

I'm leaving cypherpunks
by bill＠twwells.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A few things before I go. If you have any replies you want me to see, you'll have to send them via private mail, since I no longer get the list. This includes replies to my recent set of posts. I was asked how to participate in the sexual abuse newsgroup. That newsgroup is a standard Usenet-style newsgroup in the altnet. You may not have it at your server because it has the dreaded s-- infix. Explaining to your admin that the group is not a porno group might get the group. If you want the group but, for one reason or another don't care to ask your admin, you can write me and I'll ask (without mentioning your name). Alternately, I can send it to you via e-mail; it's fairly high volume, though, running perhaps 50-60 messages a day. You can post through one of the anonymous servers. Send to anon-help(a)twwells.com for info on how to use mine. Some of you may wonder why I'm leaving cypherpunks. Rjc seems like a minor provocation, in comparison to Detweiler and some of the lesser lights here. That's true and rjc is not why I'm leaving. I'm a firm believer in the right to privacy. And to the right to possess and appropriately use the tools needed to secure it. That much, I support the cypherpunks goal. However, I also believe that this Brave New World of ours can go in more than one way. It may become a dystopia in which people like rjc, and their more powerful brethren, set the terms and tone, or it may approach a utopia that enables its participants to make the most of what they have. We here at the beginning will make that choice. We'll do it *by* *our* *actions*. Either we will choose to form a true _society_ of privacy or we will permit cyberspace to descend into a war of all against all. *We* choose. We choose with each of our actions. Is this action based on a fundamental respect for others or is it based on a desire for self-aggrandizement? Does it further the end of healthy, human interaction or is it destructive in nature and intent? But as important as these individual contributions are, more important is the attitude that is taken towards them. Are acts such as rjc's considered acceptable behavior, to be tolerated with all other sorts of behavior, or are they to be censured and, where appropriate, censored? In an uncontrolled environment, there is little that can be done to further an appropriate attitude. One can reinforce the good and censure the bad. And hope. In a controlled environment, such as cypherpunks, those who control the list have the final say. The excess of noise on this can be *directly* traced to the list owner's choice to not control its content. Rjc's ability to abuse another *and to continue the abuse* is a direct consequence of the owner's policies. These facts are, by themselves, offensive but would be, barely, tolerable. However, their consequences are not. Their consequences are a furthering of the ends of people like rjc, a society in which might makes right, and in which the potentials of others are stifled by the hostility of those who prefer to rule rather than grow. And this I cannot support. Nor do I care to be associated with a group that, intentionally or not, supports this. *This* is why I'm leaving cypherpunks. Privacy is a *social* phenomenon, not a technical one. There is no sense in creating tools for privacy unless one also works for a society in which the deployment of these tools makes sense. One final thing before I go. I could set up a list on my machine (not on the Internet but I connect fairly frequently because of my server) with policies that address these issues, with the side effect of dramatically improving the signal-to-noise ratio. If this is of potential interest to you, let me know. If there is sufficient interest I'll draw up a formal policy. If enough people then say they'll sign up, I'll create the list.

1 0

my sad observations...
by jdblair＠nextsrv.cas.muohio.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have followed the cypherpunk list for about 9 months now, and I have learned A LOT directly from it. I have rarely posted, just read the material as it appeared, learning from what I was able to without getting lost in equations. There is always a certain amount of noise to useful signal from any information source, although over the past month the signal to noise ratio on Cypherpunks has become almost intolerable. I now read few of the messages, just sifting out what I hope will be useful to me from the subject headings. If any of you are able to read ALL of the posts, and keep up the rest of your work, I commend you. Perhaps the current state is a symptom of growing popularity. Since it has always appeared to me that the point of the list was to disseminate information on cryptography, and provide a discussion point for those interested in spreading the use of cryptography, growing popularity would seem to be a signal of success. However, I miss the state of the list last April, when every time I checked it I felt like I learned something new about cryptography. Perhaps those with little to say, that seem to be posting just to cause trouble or to be heard, would better serve the group if they faded out for a while now, and just watched until they were ready to say something useful. I do not wish to flame anyone in particular, or to start a flame war, just point out (probably for the nth time) what is a growing problem. If any new listeners are interested, I have an archive of the postings which I found interesting, or seemed like they would be useful. I do not pretend that it is the definitive cypherpunk archive, especially since there is a 2.5 month gap for the summer when I was living out of my pack in the Sangre De Christo Mtns. If you want a copy, e-mail me. Please put "archive request" in the subject header. For intro. information, the Cryptography FAQ, posted on sci.crypt was very helpful for me. This posting has now gotten too large, and is perhaps guilty of the problem I am addressing. For this, I apoligize. code on, -john. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Blair |Fertilize your garden with dirt, compost, jdblair(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu |old magazines, Apple II logic boards, obsolete PGP Key available upon request |software, forgotten video images, rusty cans, |canceled stamps, love, hate, and desire. |Wait untill spring, and see what comes up.

1 0