- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Where to ftp ITAR docs
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Matthew.Ghio(a)andrew.cmu.edu: > Is there anywhere I can ftp a copy of the ITAR law? ftp.eff.org /pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/* (includes lots of other relevant stuff, cantwell bill etc.)

1 0

Message pool: alt.anonymous.messages
by Rick Busdiecker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I newgrouped alt.anonymous.messages as a simple implementation of a message pool. I imagine that it will take a while to propagate, but once it's accessible from the mail-to-news gateways, it should serve as a more reasonable place than alt.security.pgp or alt.test for anonymous communication that's less subject to traffic analysis on the recipient side. Rick

1 0

Partition Encrypters for OS/2
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've noticed a couple of TSRs and device drivers for DOS that will encrypt an entire partition. Does anyone know of one that will work for OS/2 2.1? Thanks.

1 0

Re: Faster way to deescrow Clipper
by sidney＠taurus.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Could someone please enlighten me on this: It seems from the descriptions of the hack to fake a LEAF that 1) When two Clipper chips are going to communicate, one of them generates the session key and sends a LEAF to the other chip, 2) The second chip recognizes the LEAF as being valid based on the validity of the checksum, but does not determine the session key from the LEAF. If that's the case, then 1) How does the second chip find out what the session key is? 2) Doesn't the second chip also have to generate and send a LEAF, if for no other reason than to identify itself to the wiretappers, and if so won't that give away the session key if that chip's device is not also hacked? 3) If all that is needed for this hack is a LEAF with a proper checksum, why go through the brute force method of generating random LEAFs? Why not just buy (or steal or whatever) another Clippered device that you never use for real communication so the wiretappers have no record of who has that serial number, and get LEAFs from it? For that matter, why can't you obtain one LEAF from listening to anybody's Clippered transmission and use it over and over again? It can't be *that* simple, can it? -- sidney <sidney(a)taurus.apple.com>

2 1

MacPGP 2.6ui yet?
by ddt＠lsd.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Everyone, Has David Sternlight's worst nightmare made it to a Mac version yet? At 5:42 pm 5/27/94 +0100, mathew(a)mantis.co.uk (mathew) wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >This is to announce an unofficial release of PGP, based on 2.3a, >modified for interoperability with MIT's PGP 2.6. dave

1 0

Matt Blaze & Tessera Linked in NYT Again
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check the first page of the Bussiness Section of this morning's NYT for an article by John Markoff on Matt and Tessera. " 'The point is that the back door has a broken hinge,' said William Ferguson, vice president of Semaphore Corporation" DCF

1 1

Re: HACK - U HAVE NO PRIVACY
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please tell me you posted this as a joke and didn't even contemplate it for a microsecond! Haven't you ever heard of Craig Shergold? Say, you're not the same lefty who's listed in the alt.syntax.tactical FAQ are you? G

1 0

Re: no subject (file transmission)
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

See Tim May's "blacknet" spoof from last year. Anonymous mail pools have been the subject of long discussions. We were talking about it just last week actually - I pointed out that with suitable newsclip software you didn't even need a designated pool group. G PS I got thrown off the machine I was using to run the newsclip stuff on, so no more experiments with that for a long time...

1 0

The Delhi Detweiler
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Graham Toal): > PPS While in paranoid mode, I thought I'd mention that I've noticed > some of Detweiler's mannerisms emanating from email in New Delhi of > all places. Weird. I think I must be cracking up. I've been worried myself, BBSes here have had a number of posts against those who oppose our Government's recent moves to be nasty to BBSes. The style of these posts is very Detweiler; maybe you can now get a degree in Detweilerese? Or did you mean me ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA The National Fairness to Game Animals Association says: Support your right to arm bears! --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: more info from talk at MIT yesterday.
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Sommerfeld says: > They also confirmed Tom Knight's suspicions about what they're going > to do when someone reverse engineers the chip and publishes the > Skipjack algorithm & the family key: they've got a patent applicatio n > filed, under a secrecy order; if the algorithm is published, they'll > lift the secrecy order and have the patent issued, and use that to g o > after anyone making a compatible version. Since when can the government patent its work? I thought that works produced by government agencies could not be copyrighted or patented. The government can patent things, but not copyright them. In any case, they cannot refuse to license a patent, so this isn't real protection anyway. (The hope behind people patenting things they may release in the future is to make it commercially less attractive, not to utterly prevent use.) Why can't they refuse to license a patent?

1 0