- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: RSA is weak link
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > ...the IDEA encryption algorithm used in PGP is actually > MUCH stronger than RSA given the same key length. Even with a 1024 bit > RSA key, it is believed that IDEA encryption is still stronger, and, > since a chain is no stronger than it's weakest link, it is believed that > RSA is actually the weakest part of the RSA - IDEA approach. >Confirmation? True; it is more expensive to do a brute force search over the IDEA keyspace than it is to factor a 1024 bit number using the best known factoring algorithm :) I did some calculations once and I think the crossover point is between 1500 and 1600 bits, at which point factoring becomes more difficult than searching. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLUA1OoOA7OpLWtYzAQGjwwQAwhDqTc6TKZqEjfO1xbC1llasfVfOL3wM 72ofDeWtw7vtdxFb98iLShomdwr12G6I+7qbHwzKyLM5+r/T/DzNRAW2e+MD894Y DNAZazRz2YLuiGpr0LBSC1S6EyFbtcuwoPh1U5LORyUrEo4YCJsYYoFfcnN+Vb8B ddv28VkktBs= =irY2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Knowledgeable people in the Boston area
by Alan (Miburi-san) Wexelblat 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know that some members of this list are in the Boston area; I'm also wondering if any of the "names" in crypto live up here. I'm trying to arrange a talk (elementary level) for a group of human-interface designers I chair and am hunting up speaker ideas. I will be out of the office tomorrow, but will respond to emails Monday. Thanks! --Alan Wexelblat, Reality Hacker, Author, and Cyberspace Bard Media Lab - Advanced Human Interface Group wex(a)media.mit.edu Voice: 617-258-9168 Page: 617-945-1842 an53607(a)anon.penet.fi All the world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed.

1 0

DeTwEiLeR IdIoCy (was Re: SQUISH IDIOCY)
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Leisure Suit" Larry Detweiler writes: > >Do YOU really think that *anything* can be posted without ANYONE being >accountable? YOU cypherpunks, YOU are nothing but drenched, permeated, >rotton, noxious IDIOTS. Even J. Helsingius, operator of the most >reliable anonymous site ever, has apparently censored S.Boxx in >response to YOUR pressure. Doesn't it bother you to realize that your >most treasured beliefs, the most sacred elements of your religion, are >nothing but LIES? YOU have clung to the illusion that no one is >accountable for anything, when in fact YOU VIOLATE and DEBASE YOUR OWN >SACRED RELIGION. Heh. Detweiler as McElwaine. Pull the other one, Larry. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

RSA 'weak link' in PGP?
by fnerd＠smds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just got (what I think is) the alt.security.pgp faq. I quote: ...the IDEA encryption algorithm used in PGP is actually MUCH stronger than RSA given the same key length. Even with a 1024 bit RSA key, it is believed that IDEA encryption is still stronger, and, since a chain is no stronger than it's weakest link, it is believed that RSA is actually the weakest part of the RSA - IDEA approach. Confirmation? -fnerd quote me - - cryptocosmology- sufficiently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise - god is in the least significant bits -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

SQUISH IDIOCY
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Quite a few people have been harassing me and my postmaster over this ridiculous SQUISH idiocy that is bouncing and reverberating around the net. (Unfortunately the `Medusa Meme' is very powerful and I believe many people are imitating me in repropagating some of the `memes' I originated for cheap thrills.) However, I remind YOU, cypherpunks, that I am NOT responsible for anything that comes out of YOUR remailers. If YOU wish to assault ME or MY POSTMASTER (who has far better things to do with his time than deal with YOUR smear campaigns and mailbombs) over anything that I post, YOU must first prove that I posted it. but even if you do, if I posted it through a remailer, I am NOT RESPONSIBLE. I remind you, THAT IS THE POINT OF YOUR REMAILERS. If YOU wish to believe that things that come out of YOUR remailers may be ANONYMOUS DEATH THREATS or LIBEL or HARASSMENT of different mailing lists I encourage YOU to rethink YOUR design. YOU have made YOUR remailers. they are YOUR tool. If YOU blame ME for ANYTHING that comes out of YOUR remailers, if YOU hold ME ACCOUNTABLE, it only proves what drenched, permeated, rotten, noxious HYPOCRITES YOU are. YOU who advocate that no one is responsible for anything on the net, YOU are the ones who are yelling and ranting at ME and MY POSTMASTER, about idiocy that YOU are responsible for. Do YOU really think that *anything* can be posted without ANYONE being accountable? YOU cypherpunks, YOU are nothing but drenched, permeated, rotton, noxious IDIOTS. Even J. Helsingius, operator of the most reliable anonymous site ever, has apparently censored S.Boxx in response to YOUR pressure. Doesn't it bother you to realize that your most treasured beliefs, the most sacred elements of your religion, are nothing but LIES? YOU have clung to the illusion that no one is accountable for anything, when in fact YOU VIOLATE and DEBASE YOUR OWN SACRED RELIGION. YOU are now going to blame ME for ANYTHING that crosses your path, that even mildly displeases YOU. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN BLACK KARMA.

3 2

Detweiler, Schmetweiler....
by schulz＠omcron.uleth.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I joined this list about two weeks ago, and there's a hell of a lot of traffic regarding this detweiler goof. Get detweiler, who's detweiler, let's not remail anymore cuz of detweiler, detweiler's bugging me so I'm unsubscribing. Blah Blah Blah Blah fucking blah. Check this out: 1. This guy is a goof. 2. By punching 'n' or 'd' you can filter him out. Ta-dah. Solution to detweiler. Let's get on with the revolution, brothers and sisters rather than engaging in geeky net.gossip . Detwhiner comes to my house to harass me I'll send him packing northside style, but until that comes to pass I think I can deal with it. Isn't it about time we begin to work in earnest towards our true goals, that of freeing ourselves from these government monstrosities through application of cryptography ? Why don't you guys start a new detweiler list ? Then everybody who wants to talk about detweiler, reply to detweiler, blah blah blah can carry on and then I only have to filter out detweiler's own rantings.. No ! Wait ! Better yet ! Sci.cryptography.detweiler.piss.off !! Ya, that'd be cool. < insert appropriately sarcastic smiley here.....>

2 1

RSA IS the weak link in PGP
by mpjohnso＠nyx10.cs.du.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> ...the IDEA encryption algorithm used in PGP is actually > MUCH stronger than RSA given the same key length. Even with a 1024 bit > RSA key, it is believed that IDEA encryption is still stronger, and, > since a chain is no stronger than it's weakest link, it is believed that > RSA is actually the weakest part of the RSA - IDEA approach. > >Confirmation? This is true. To equal the strength of a 128 bit IDEA key, the RSA key would have to be about 3,000 bits long. This is because EVERY 128 bit number (except maybe a small number of weak keys) is a good IDEA key, but only specially selected large numbers work well for RSA keys. Of course, I'm not really concerned that you will factor my 1024 bit RSA modulus by tomorrow morning :).

1 0

LD fiascol
by crunch＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>1. This guy is a goof. >2. By punching 'n' or 'd' you can filter him out. > Ta-dah. Solution to detweiler. Let's get on with the revolution, brothers >and sisters rather than engaging in geeky net.gossip . Detwhiner comes to >my house to harass me I'll send him packing northside style, but until that >comes to pass I think I can deal with it. Yea Yea!! Well said... I was just about to un-subscribe from this group, although I plan on sticking around. And I hope that we all have learned about this double-edged sword (remailers), and their implications. So, lets all get back to the job at hand, and fucus our energy towards promoting encryption, freedom of speech, and privacy!!! And whats with all these empty mail headers with long "Apparently-To:" lines? Is something broken somewhere in the mailing list? Cap'n Crunch

1 0

RSA weak link II
by fnerd＠smds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to the folks who answered my first question about the relative strengths of RSA and IDEA. Okay, 1024-bit RSA keys are easier to brute-force than 128-bit IDEA keys. Currently. We think. That's what I should have stressed in the first place. Aren't people more sure of what they think about the toughness of RSA, than they are of what they think about IDEA? (Less important question: how many RSA keys are there, as a function of size? I'm getting ln(2^(number of bits))^2, which can't be right.) -fnerd quote me - - cryptocosmology- sufficiently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise - god is in the least significant bits -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Remailers: The Next Generation
by jim＠bilbo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> (This is a simplistic equation, which does not take into > account the practical limitations of there being only so > many total messages flowing in the system, a point > addressed briefly below. If only 10 messages "enter the > system" and 10 messages "leave the system," the attacker > has an easier problem than than a D = 3125, for example, > might otherwise suggest.) > Since the remailer system works better (harder to track messages) as message traffic increases, then perhaps the remailers should circulate bogus messages around the mix in order to sustain a minimum level of traffic. As more real messages enter the system, the remailers would decrease the number of bogus messages they issue. How would a remailer tell the difference between a real message and a bogus message from another remailer? It wouldn't, but that's ok. All a given remailer cares about is the number of messages coming in versus the number messages that constitute a "good" level of traffic. If a remailer isn't seeing enough traffic, it would issue some bogus messages that would pass through a random set of remailers and eventually come back to itself. If all remailers did this, then I think the system, as a whole, would always have enough messages flowing though it. Real messages would not have to be delayed to defeat traffic analysis, they could be tossed into the mix as soon as they arrived at a remailer. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

2 1