- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

The E-Bomb
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dave Emery has pointed to an article, "The E-Bomb - a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction," which describes the work being done on EMP weapons. The piece is at Infowar.com, but we've borrowed a copy to put at: http://jya.com/ebomb.htm (93K + excellent diagrams) It may help explain that unearthly blast in the Aussie Outback discussed here a few weeks ago. Someone suggested HAARP as an explanation, and another hinted at other godawful research being done that similar to what the genius Tesla was doing early in the century to shatter the planet and fry the sky, and now, it seems, coming true.

1 0

Re: Anonymity and cowardice
by The Spectre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed May 14 11:34:45 1997 > The time per year it takes for me to delete all these messages is about > the same as the amount of time it took me to reply to your previous > message plus the amount of time it will now take me to compose this > reply. All back of the envelope, of course. All by choice, which is what we're talking about here.. > I've been on this list for 18 months and have seen plenty of worthwhile > posts from remailers. You're entitled to your opinion, but I strongly > disagree. I guess I'll just never know.. > So you're calling John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton > cowards > (anonymous authors of the Federalist Papers)? Many others have > (also used > anonymity to further the cause of liberty. I doubt your real > name is "The Spectre" yet that is the name under which you are posting. > Are you calling yourself a coward? The difference in all these cases (save mine) is that the people you listed would have been persecuted, if not prosecuted, for their actions. Now people are hiding out of fear and paranoia of something that in most cases doesn't exist. The people you mentioned never had to deal with this level of abuse, either. In my case, it's simply the name i've old my email package to append to my messages. Anyone who really wants to can look me up at any time. - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQENAzM2vJwAAAEH/1uuDgh1udD+DbU9ies8Lst3j7bmlM+m+aN0gVwerfx+uA14 AG6RDZwwCLwCZYxh0/AizW1b25nHs5XDFW7QIVo1/agtbyz3rt7plcp3wi+rXPxo zFPgILegG2k81mHYIYVJ1g9bEExVGsNc7GMthkaOjPL2VYirQPRtAa4ZZc6JuCLH I85xIcwuLppYajUU4WMMf4yz+5w1WtTlHdL9+ec6BHoF+fOhsF/8DMd5nveFl0aM G52t+z6okMw9vFjLbEtj0BbDRsMjRJNM5uFQWzU+nPEaUzVP+MySe/yrjR2P3dZa UKjpG3Er7U4DV7rb8mE20Wet10jJoALjG8yMZrUABRG0HVRoZSBTcGVjdHJlIDxz cGVjdHJlQG5hYy5uZXQ+iQEVAwUQM0qy66AC4xvMjGa1AQGNLAf/QY5SyC/jybOQ asYfNqhPFip0gZwUutOOgPdyrEsXoxFOWJ9OG95dzvNJ3of22zh4RLusUt5NT7lB DFUKiP4aQsNf5XmW+qk/R1nmqyO/XHAAAdIos2SGsYew2d3JatIlFZIQ+vMkEOC0 +oPotz7effhkDKeYl+Qdla9eZ1C47Be2NrA1sH26jKYhCob6VnAK+zAin8ZPEnb0 XEKQTMVdE2ehv2Q8PxygZhDI0L6sM6EgguvDWjJuGN4bIhxh22dAyNRJ7CVQsqwV rj4TtkAuqUb0nyQvD2xUeJcB/O+1LCH7oFBE4EG1qEIl7asVjEURrfej7OwxRrA0 J0Lc5tZToA== =tS4W - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBM3nbmqAC4xvMjGa1AQHjLAf/QDq9v0zAjQhTLkTC773R6pN3a13z54s+ fsx4wYgg5zsTQhiwAsSs/0ROKQukLY660Yk4dZR8dbhoJKJmWpGKpuiOReP/XDPT jTijALMx31FGd8YdcSJORGPinHeU3MEZ8/ZklSUx2hbtS6/84lGzjZC93sT3xVfa ZA5QY/Z2lv9IS75rOQtIyBSublc7Un/AAs72rqjmq6rXzSp8UCtasAhqPgADSEgu 4A+VAzr8Jfq4mtwhx2W1W6amNTu0oKRSy+PNdCmrkD39+87/CsepDZ+OdnRK/Ebu 7bE7wA1ea6rw6mZg9Msje2M4p58vvomE4Q52iSkreD7CK7d325Baug== =SI22 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Videocrypt/Videocrypt2 any cryptanalytic results?
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has any progress been made in cryptanalysing the algorithms used in the european Videocrypt and Videocrypt2 standards used to encrypt satellite broadcasts? Particularly, is there any information I can obtain about the protocols, the data communicated between the decoder and card, and the algorithm itself. I am looking at the possibility of a new version of the "season" card simulator software created some time ago, which is now obselete, which used to be used against videocrypt broadcasts...

2 1

Question: RC5 assembly code?
by Juriaan Massenza 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have the source code for RC5 encryption algorithm, but it is in C, well it is still cool since it is "portable" but I am actually looking for a PowerPC assembly code for the same, or at least for the Key Expansion, Encryption and Decryption routines. I am not a PowerPC coder at all, I barely know 8086 assembly. Somebody have it already written? The "formula" for RC5 is pretty interesting and looks like is made to be implemented in Assembler. Cia0, Juriaan

1 0

Re: Public Key Break Paper
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >As a meta-point any securirty person knows that employees and >ex-employees are the most serious security risks. Its not exactly >unknown for someone to go nuts and then come out with loony >paranoid theories. > >This may not be the case in this instance but its a good idea not >to start seeing black helicopters around every corner... "All cryptologists are rightly paranoid, they break the rules of the game and lie to hide how it's done." -- Anonymous. For what it's worth, it was Sandia who disclosed Payne's public key break paper, not him. He's suing SNL for privacy violations. His suit of DoE and NSA is about being fired for refusing to carry out illegal work which craven colleagues jumped to do. William Payne could be the Bellwether of spilling the dark national lab secrets unless, ahem, he gets his million dollar settlement. I say good luck to him and the others fighting the secret-hoaders. Payne's dispute with Sandia and NSA shows once again how the gatekeepers of top secrets manipulate those who work on classified projects: Lure the best and brightest with flattering invitations to join prestigous secret work. Require high-penalty NDAs for participation. Invite to work on repugnant projects, and if refused, fire for insubordination or other pretext ("displeasing the customer" or "to protect national security"). Then, destroy careers by precluding ever again working on classified projects. Finally, stigmatize the victim and publicize to frighten other workers into subservience. This entrapment into fearful servitude happens repeatedly in high affairs of state: Oppenheimer, Snepp, McGee, Halperin, and so on. There are dozens of current pending cases at DoE, CIA, NSA and the like in the US, and many more in other countries. To be sure, wisely obedient government workers will never have to cry "help me, my former colleagues are attacking, I did nothing wrong." Still, it seems that there must be ritual sacrifices of the innocent, as Shirley Jackson wrote in "The Lottery," to expatiate collective guilt, any innocent will do -- "for all are equally guilty," so the gods and secret-keepers hyper- guiltily smirk. Who's next to exaptiate the guilt of the mega death national and university labs? Surely not Hallam-Baker or Crisp? Or, as Tim suggests, how about sacrificing the secret labs (and black-chip fabs)? There's a bill before Congress to redo the NLs, but why dawdle when there's a surefire crypto-lottery.

1 0

RE: RSA, PGP IN LEGAL FLAP OVER ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGY
by Chris DiBona 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't pretend to be patent law knowledgeable, but I'll try to address this. While pure mathematics is unpatentable, the inventions based on it are not. Remembering you can't get patents on ideas, only inventions, I decided to go and check out the RSA patent and see why it has held up and been allowed renewal (no kidding. Think of all the trouble that could have been saved if renewal had been denied!) This first thing I noticed is that not only is RSA patented, but so is Stego, under patent 5613004. The RSA patent is abstracted and here it is: ABSTRACT: A cryptographic communications system and method. The system includes a communications channel coupled to at least one terminal having an encoding device and to at least one terminal having a decoding device. A message-to-be-transferred is enciphered to ciphertext at the encoding terminal by first encoding the message as a number M in a predetermined set, and then raising that number to a first predetermined power (associated with the intended receiver) and finally computing the remainder, or residue, C, when the exponentiated number is divided by the product of two predetermined prime numbers (associated with the intended receiver). The residue C is the ciphertext. The ciphertext is deciphered to the original message at the decoding terminal in a similar manner by raising the ciphertext to a second predetermined power (associated with the intended receiver), and then computing the residue, M', when the exponentiated ciphertext is divided by the product of the two predetermined prime numbers associated with the intended receiver. The residue M' corresponds to the original encoded message M. For the actual details of the patent go to IBM's patent server: http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4405829 Notice how careful they were to title it a "System" and a "Method". It is that they are patenting. I think if someone had good enough lawyers, they could probably challenge this patent using prior art claims, but what the hell do I know. I'm thinking however that the Secure Telephone Units had a dual key system, and were introduced by AT&T long before the RSA patent was granted, but I'm not sure. So indeed they are patenting the method of using the mathmatics. Which is thier invention, which is why (IMO) they were granted the patent. I wish that they hadn't been able to get it renewed. It would have been nice to see how RSA would do competing thier software libraries against alternative competitors. Ah well, guess we'll have to wait another 17 years. Too bad. Chris DiBona -----Original Message----- At 19:47 5/13/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 07:11:48PM -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >> However, I've been waiting many years for some patent-law-knowledgeable >> person to explain why mathematics, which was widely seen as being absolutely >> unpatentable prior to the invention of public-key cryptography, suddenly >> became patentable just in time for RSA, etc. >> >> Until I hear such an explanation, I _DO_ begrudge RSA and others that "right." > >Wow! I agree with you! Sit down until the feeling goes away. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Public Key Break Paper
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >I just took a brief look at it, (thanks for forwarding, Lucky), > >and it's pure crap-ola. > > As a meta-point any securirty person knows that employees and > ex-employees are the most serious security risks. Its not exactly > unknown for someone to go nuts and then come out with loony > paranoid theories. Whenever I see the dying embers of the spam debate being blown to life (along with similar non-issues), I wonder what the disinfo artists are trying to distract me from. I don't have to wonder too hard, however, since I can always count on the usual suspects to step forward and pooh-paah whatever they don't want anyone to look at too closely. Anything Phill casts aspersions on has to be worth checking out: http://jya.com/snlhit.htm TrafficMonger

2 1

FW: Anonymous Remailers
by Roger J. Jones 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----Original Message----- From: Tim May [SMTP:tcmay@got.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 11:52 AM To: Roger J. Jones; 'cypherpunks(a)toad.com' Subject: Re: Anonymous Remailers At 5:17 AM -0800 5/14/97, Roger J. Jones wrote: >Why is it that some who are very concerned about their personal privacy >utilize anonymous remailers that: > >1) Log all of their mail messages? With chained, multiply-encrypted messages, logs are ineffective unless all of the links in the chain collude to trace messages. While this is certainly possible, it seems unlikely. >2) Are in many cases reputed to be run by foreign intelligence services? This allegation was made by some clueless Washington think tank authors. They provided no evidence, only innuendo, and they were unwilling or unable to provide any further comments when queried by several Cypherpunks. I suggest that just because you chose to characterize the sources as "clueless Washington think tank authors" does not (as they say in Star Trek - The Next Generation) "make it so". The "allegation" that foreign governments actively participate in actions to violate personal privacy ("borrowing" laptops from traveling businesspeople, taping phones, etc.) are all documented in various places. Of course, they could all the result of a single psyop with excellent results. But I doubt it. And given that many or even most of the remailer operators are members of the various related Cypherpunks or Remailers Operators lists, and are known to various of us, the notion that most (or even many) remailers are run by intelligence agencies is absurd. >Do they really trust the owner of the remailer? (Unless of course, it is >their remailer?) I seem to be missing something. I don't recognize your name on this list. Fine, as we always like to see new subscribers. But I surmise you just haven't spent enough time yet reading and thinking about these issues. You may surmise what you choose. In fact, that is the essence of free discourse. Of course, knowing is far better than surmising. If you care to suggest a reading list please feel free to mail it to me direct. And yes, I am new to this most charming and entertaining list. Thank you for the welcome Welcome to the Cypherpunks list. * Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

I Treat All My Enemies Equally
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There have been so many posts on which I could make remarks, and I haven't enough time to prepare a really good treatment on the subject. The title of the subject line is from something LD once said to me as a joke to rile me, something like, "I'm all for Democracy - I treat all my enemies equally." (he probably stole that line from someone). Anyway, I was thinking about those who have expressed a lack of concern for the unfortunate mixture of the guilty & innocent in a close encounter with a destructive device. I was thinking that people who aren't careful about such differences make of themselves an enemy to all, because who can tell what they're supporting and whose lives they really value, since anyone at all could become their victim. In times of declared (or undeclared) wars, when it is governments which conduct the battles, one of the things which make wars hell is that anyone & everyone is potentially in harms way; everyone has to run for their lives, you never from who/where you might get hit, whether from enemy or from friendly fire. There is so much confusion, propaganda, and lies about who is in the right, who is in the wrong, whose fault it was/is and who are the real heroes, that all of those in the middle seem like ping-pong balls bouncing from side to side. Nevertheless, whichever side they think they are on or even if they don't give a flip, everyone has to to run, hide, take cover. Only when all supplies and manpower have been exhausted, does the war end; in the meantime both sides have made many smoldering enemies, which later some opportunists use as reason to attempt to sway the remaining survivors into further alliances against the latest "enemy of the people". In truth, it becomes a difficult task to determine who is the un-fairest of them all. The fact of the matter is that those in the middle must find a way to protect themselves from whatever weapon or vehicle of destruction comes around, whatever its source. Likewise, anyone who creates an atmosphere of uncertainty, where it makes no difference whether one is a friend or a foe of any particular values or ideals - one could end up dead regardless, just from being in the wrong place at the wrong time - is making of themselves an enemy to all. Like that stolen phrase, I myself would have to "treat all my enemies equally"; that is, anyone who would put me or anyone I valued, in danger. So, for instance, if Whitfield Diffie and PhilZ were walking into a Federal building in OK City, and I saw some cypherpunk not too far away getting ready to blow it up, well, I guess I'd have to kill him. (Dirty Harry saying: "feel lucky today, cpunk?"). .. Blanc

1 0

Kill a Fag, Go to Congress / Was--Re: Disinformation in L.A.
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tom Allard wrote: > > Didn't her boss's murderer walk on the charge by using the defence > > that he ate too many Twinkies? > > No political intrigue here... > > That was the defense, yes. Dan White was a former cop and treated like a > hero by fellow cops. The prosecution never really challenged the Twinkie > defense, nor did they bring up politics or homophobia as motives. With a > prosecution like that, who needs a defense? I remember that it was seen as being a message to the gay community that they were getting too "uppity" for their own good. (I wonder how they got that idea? <former cop kills a queer, gets treated like a hero, prosecuters play with Little Peter while he gets off for eating too many Twinkies, and Swinestein is waiting in the wings to do an "LBJ">.) The government is a lot like the Mob--other politicians can't really trust you until you've whacked somebody and they have it to hold over your head so that you'll play along. SwineMonger

1 0