- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: <nettime> Pascal Zachary: Rules for the Digital Panopticon (IEEE)
by Eugen Leitl 16 Oct '13

16 Oct '13

----- Forwarded message from Florian Cramer <flrncrmr(a)gmail.com> ----- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 22:37:17 +0200 From: Florian Cramer <flrncrmr(a)gmail.com> To: nettime-l(a)kein.org Subject: Re: <nettime> Pascal Zachary: Rules for the Digital Panopticon (IEEE) Reply-To: a moderated mailing list for net criticism <nettime-l(a)mail.kein.org> One aspect doesn't seem to have been addressed here yet: that the Panopticon may be an outmoded metaphor because of its sole emphasis on visuality. Twelve years ago, in 2001, the exhibition "ctrl_space" at ZKM Karlsruhe drew deserved criticism after its curators had departed from the notion of the panopticon and narrowed down the show to visual surveillance: primarily, cctv cameras and video installation work. This was at a time when Telepolis and other media had extensively covered Echelon, the NSA communications surveillance program that preceded PRISM [ http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/6/6929/1.html] The ZKM curators apparently couldn't deal with Echelon because it wasn't visual and thus not easily translatable into an exhibition, and because it didn't fit Foucault's and Deleuze's canonical cultural studies theories of surveillance as smoothly. In 2013, we're watching this history repeat itself as a farce. Many people (myself included) are flabbergasted by the lack of mass-scale protest against the government programs disclosed by Snowden. It seems as if two limiting factors are at work simultaneously: Seasoned media activists and critics didn't learn anything fundamentally new from Snowden except that their earlier assumptions are now confirmed and can no longer be dismissed as paranoia. For others, the news simply seemed to be too abstract and intangible, much like the news reporting on financial derivatives schemes and billion dollar bank bailouts in the past. There are no emotionalizing images, no icons, figuratively speaking: no My Lai photographs. Teaching a mixed group of third year Bachelor-level students of informatics, media technology and media design, I learned that even most of them did not know or understand systems like PRISM, commercial mining of personal data and big data operations. Criticism is unlikely to become effective unless (a) it sharpens up its analysis beyond staid cultural studies paradigms and metaphors, and (b), seemingly in contradiction to (a), creates a powerful visual language to raise awareness of the issue. For the time being, I'd seriously recommend people watching the 1998 Will Smith blockbuster "Enemy of the State" (and its Coen brothers parody "Burn after Reading"), for the lack of anything better. A popular activist philosopher like Zizek could be criticized for reinforcing visual fetishisms and resulting blindness through the way his own lecturing is so much based on iconic popular cultural images; on the other hand, this might be the route to go. -F On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Al Matthews <prolepsis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello list. On Tor, > > >The US was slow to realize (or did they know this from the beginning?) > > Surely the latter <...> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Re: clarification re: [20] ii
by brian carroll 16 Oct '13

16 Oct '13

Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote: > if you cannot pronounce truth, what other ways can you not perceive or > produce it. > apologies for delving deeper, it is a fascinating area to consider the dynamics involved at this threshold or juncture, because interpretation and relations can be defined and changed by the above mentioned criteria. thus how is the information modeled, in what dimensions, concepts, and abstraction... what might the word [истината] mean if the language is not known, and thus cannot be deciphered, decoded, or decrypted. might it operate on a visual level, like a rorschach test, via whatever is recognized, or is it instead ignored as a failed pattern match and thus upholds a boundary or perimeter between known and unknown, like and unlike. could it be possible to utilize these dynamics in other ways, such that graphic elements of dε|cθи-şλวực+相ή could be utilized across conventional boundaries and perhaps unlock other interpretative or structural layers, via ambiguity or alternative readings of the potentials involved with superposition of intrasign characters another way to consider this is that until now the [sign] has functioned as a whole concept, yet what if each letter was considered in its variability in terms of its potential <multiple> meanings. such that |e|a|c|h| letter could have variability, as demonstrated in HIOX dynamics, e.g. |a|e|n|y|. in terms of superposition of a given letter, how this ambiguity could shift meaning: |v|iew -> |c|iew, in phonetic terms (view, cue). in this context of superposition of variables and their n-potential, i like the comparison to juggling, as to what interpretation or pattern exists in a given viewpoint or contingent framework, yet that can be swapped out or evaluated in other patterning, as this relates to numerous available or unknown interpretations. inter-sign, yet also infra- and intra-sign. as these views could be grounded in some conceptual or methodological framework. for instance as cipher systems or whatnot. does the meaning of the word [nest] change with a variable character, such that |n|est could become ήest. perhaps suddenly the out-of-bounds extra information accessed via this new juxtaposition opens meaning, such that jest appears as a partial variable, as if a spread of an orbital cloud of electrons over their domain. another example: hat & hật, beyond pronunciation, graphically that the additional caret symbol (^) could be read as 'top hat' via symbolic processing, in some interpretative, arbitrary framework based on what is referenced and how, in what terms. graphically, outside the conventional language boundary, it could still be functional as graphic language or data in this way the issue then of subsign meaning as this relates to subtext and issues of bounded interpretation, where the lines are drawn- via what parameters of literacy. perhaps in this way 'not knowing' can open up potential readings, as if approaching a rosetta stone of meta-language. and yet keyboards are formatted in a particular way that prohibits and forbids this as a practice. though ascii emoticons and icons (say in instagram or other social media trinket-based visual feedback) are of this same nature, some repurposed for graphical use, to communicate and allow such symbolic communication and processing, relations and exchange in a perhaps similar realm of communication. i was going to be writing about this soon, typography and geometry, so will save the larger evaluation for that conveyance. there are examples of this same interpretative superposition within language that i wanted to share, to clarify the point and its use within culture. one is quite bleak, so the good things first... Olek example https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151655052466759 note: this could be evaluated in terms of a billboard and external armature, outside the frame of the [sign]. yet instead to focus just on the superposition of letters in the text within the boundary of the frame... what is the [word] in the frame? #cool, #bod, #cod, #cool, #God, #feel, #fool, #Bed, #66 eel, #GG ed, #Beef, #ceel, #coed, #Coal? how do each of these potential meanings change the relation between the observer, the self evaluating the event, and the surrounding context within the image. how does the meaning shift as the combined signs tabulate into different frameworks of reference. how does the circuitry transform. also, conceptualization of the situation itself, what if the frame is a magic device that shows someones hidden thoughts, as if a decrypting device, and that this is what the artist is potentially conveying, in terms of deep aesthetic insight and questioning. an attempt at approximating and mapping this superposition: # [c|GG|66|G|f|B] [o|e|e|oa|oo|ee|ed|od] [l|d|f] now you could go a long way with this, into what it potentially means. one interpretation could be 'bod' as it relates to body, where a face is unseen, and how the body of a female may not actually be grounded to an female-born entity, and could be a male in drag for instance. thus questions of [woman] and [man] as this may involve signage, versus grounding of the meaning of these words beyond a partial evaluation. such that superficially [man] could equate with driving a truck and drinking beers and having a dog, the image matching and pattern recognition of this. such that a [person] who is male, on a motorcycle who wears a leather jacket is automatically a man, while perhaps being completely subservient to a machine worldview and submitting to its values, no fight left in the person. yet perhaps costumed as if a rebel or somehow radical, etc, as signs may become props and so on. lots of not-tough-guys taking on the superficial appearance, ungrounded, as if roles. lots of females who in certain dimensions appear female yet are not. just like having ungrounded political analysis, such as ["republicans"] whose ideology actually maps to the far-left in terms of worldview and values. the image of the sign can be grounded in more than one way, given its hidden armature. how much is encrypted in boundaries that are not understood in the depths this way, or how much of knowledge and intelligence exists in being able to evaluate these situations accurately, learn, become literate of the issues and dimensions involved music is especially involved in this variability of language dynamic. listen to some song that you are trying to figure out the lyrics for, only to realize that someone wrote a different word in the lyrics than what you hear in the song- and yet it possibly ~could be misinterpreted or forced into that interpretation, or could be stretch there, yet it may also be mismatched, inauthentic, yet provide other meaning. i would say this variance is occurring in 50% or greater of the lyrics i have referenced, if not a higher percentage. (there are some artists who are adept at exploring these issues with language and meaning, and they are differentiated from others by their extreme aesthetic awareness, that aesthetics are a condition of their life values and consciousness, a higher level of awareness than is ordinary. Olek is certainly one of these rare birds, and others exist across various disciplines likewise, though i think they are actually the exception, it is natural talent born of intuitive understanding versus contrived and born of artifice) Santigold is another wild one... consider the lyrics to this song... Santigold - Rock This http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/06/24/santigold-the-heat-soundtrack/ cf. Rock This [shi-t|p], we [vicious|bitches], [fat|bad] bitches Santigold - The Keepers // aesthetics, boundaries, interpretation... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZoHSce004M Santigold - Disparate Youth // masterful symbolism... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIMMZQJ1H6E In relation to language techniques, in a 60 minutes Eminem discussed his technique... 2010 Eminem 60 Minutes Interview // video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPSRqVXEQ4Y he confirms it involves 'bending the word' via its annunciation (5:04m), which can map into superposition of interpretation- how a subsign unit is ~processed or parsed as data. thus a word like [data] could be reinterpreted if d#ta was the condition, and spoken as [dota], for instance, this being my example. though it could inflect or spin or process and rewire meaning, sending it to different or multiple circuitry, especially in a looping condition of continual evaluation. thus, insight into consciousness, observation, relation itself as experience is tested against an empirical model, refined, error-checked and corrected, expanded beyond given parameters and boundaries, etc. thus the potential that each [l|e|t|t|e|r] in each word or concept or [s|i|g|n] or even their combination or relation, could shift or _recontextualize meaning via variability that leads to parallel structures of interpretation, different mappings and circuitry or co-existing frameworks, latent and hidden, overt and otherwise, perhaps even encrypted, [signs] as sarcophagi, the bones these entombed structures, of past lives revealed. thus what if every [sign] has other potential meaning buried within it as a potential, in that there could be some other dimensionality not accounted for yet accessible, say through a typoraphic error, and how that recontextualized and rewires meaning, say if a missing 'j' is revealed, or double jj, as r and g could structurally relate via a missing puzzle piece, though other evaluations are likewise possible. thus, rabbit holes into labyrinths, this there is a last example that is extremely disturbing and it gets to the subliminal use of these techniques. a local television commercial, likely non-profit, has lyrics to a song or jingle that have a very menacing double meaning. that context is forgotten is not particularly helpful either, though in general the commercial is of a 'helping nature' and about caring, etc. so when it sings, if remembering correctly: "wake the sun" or "wake the son", as this is repeated, it sounds very much like "rape the son, rape the son, rape the son". and this stuff is going on all the time in terms of semiotics and symbology. so what if that is a coded or programmed message that is formatting the behavior of someone via broadcasting an encrypted or encoded message and that their interpretation could find authority-based validation, ideological confirmation this way. well, without empirical truth no one could argue this is happening- it is all subjective and to consider this a person would have to be sick in the mind, etc, as plausible deniability goes. and yet these types of activities are everywhere, violence against women, subversion of principles and values, hatred, discrimination, contempt, anti-[religious] messaging, etc. the binary biasing allows this to proceed apace, as if subconscious, and if it cannot be named or grounded, rationalized in a sane worldview, it is madness to even speak about it or observe it because no one else will likely confirm it and then will say it does not exist, it is just imaginary, etc. this is what [signs] allow, in their surface manipulations. the boundary or limit or threshold of interpretation, the issue of pattern matching, then involves very deep and potentially disturbing correlations that are exploited and hacked and influence interpretations. yet likewise, if relating on this level, observing it, trying to deal with the reality, an enforcer of relativism could 'fix' the interpretation to a given limited boundary if the viewpoint is unfavored, via diagnosing mental illness and proscribing psychiatric treatment and corrective pills that numb the mind so that it receives such information uncritically, comfortably numb, xanaxed or otherwise. so there is danger to 'unshared interpretation' that is ungrounded, because it may be real madness though also 'unshared interpretation' that is grounded though unfavored, which calls for remedial action by those upholding the false perspective and managing rogue state this is why logic is needed to deal with these ambiguities, otherwise it is opinions in pseudo-truth reliant on false assumptions and frameworks by default, cherry-picking data to support views, ignoring others via binary ideology. and thus ungrounded binary evaluation in terms of "beliefs" based within consensus superficial language where signs are equated with truth, as *theorized*, versus grounded (1/N/0) logical evaluation based in empirical modeling of many simultaneous, parallel observers of the same event from its various angles, facets, structures, and dimensions, to error check and correct and improve upon the hypothesis. (i.e. how are claims of truth accounted for, as this relates to interpretation) so one of the structural issues is- what is the unit of measure for the sign itself. especially if it can be recontextualized. is the letter the unit, such that a [w|o|r|d] can be made particulate, atomized. perhaps, in part. though the examples above show that pronunciation or combinations or fusing or ambiguity or overlapping of cursive or script can blur this boundary as well, as if particle clouds and probabilities, or wave functions that can be temporarily established then collapse again into the surrounding ambiguity. so what if this could be expanded or unlocked, and the unit of measure could be intra- or infra- or inter-letter, or likewise -alphanumeric symbol or sign. that could recontextualize and provide different structuring, perhaps even overcoding or transcoding or paracoding texts in some way that allows multiple readings, possibilities, parallel perspectives. thus, a question of what a unit of the subtextual may be. and how this could relate to fonts and typography, functioning of keyboards as dumb peripherals where the existing assumptions and conventions lock-in a particular perspective that instead could be opened up- if someone is really willing to break all the rules, crack the code, etc. then language may not be delineated in the same parameters, as there could be 20 letters 'A' to choose from, etc. and their could be a range of meaning, especially when combined with other letters. and thus a new form of symbolic language could develop that is akin to code, in some sense. though this could go much further than a superficial reading of [signs] as fancified text, as if another font style, and involves access to structures of truth, different awareness, conceptualization, perspective. paradigm shiftkey. ⊺⧢s⟘ ⋋ëst t∈s⨁ (another reference test for wordwrap) - 77 character monospaced Courier New font XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX

1 0

Bitcoin mining efficiency and Botnets
by Bill Stewart 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/zeroaccess-bitcoin-botnet-sinkholed-12… Zeroaccess was a botnet that did a bunch of things, such as fake ad clicks and Bitcoin mining. A DNS sinkhole was created to attack its DNS-based communications, which took out about 1/3 of the botnet. One side issue that I found interesting, besides the usual security stuff, was the assertion that "The botnet's Bitcoin operation was only profitable because it used stolen electricity: it used about $561,000 of electricity a day on its victims' machines, while only generating $2,165 a day." What does this say about the future of Bitcoin mining? I'm guessing that the botnet only mined on CPUs, not on GPUs, because doing GPU calculations requires adapting code to different kinds of hardware and is likely to have visible effects on the screen if you're not careful, but even so, does this mean that Bitcoin miners who want to make a profit are going to need to dump general-purpose machines in favor of specialized hardware such as FPGAs or ASICs? Or is buying a high-end GPU still good enough?

9 18

Re: clarification re: [20]
by brian carroll 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote: More important question is: can you pronounce ... all [signs of truth]? And > if you cannot pronounce truth, what other ways can you not perceive or > produce it. > interesting considerations. interpretation slightly varying on multiple meanings for pronounce, saying vs. declaring. instead of copying the examples again, an ironic or emblematic representation of "truth" as a sign of truth ["truth"], self-conscious in its structural connection to all other signs as a concept, then could evaluate any sign, though also all signage standing-in for this concept, in terms of the larger integrated evaluation and its accounting... (unbelievable perhaps though am not trying to be abstract). such that: ["truth"] ---> A=A (1) in this way, any language with a sign representing truth could likewise be grounded in 1=1 evaluation (this perhaps more universal as number though as language (A) more insightful in terms of signage). e.g: [αλήθεια] ---> 1 (T) [真実] ---> 1 (T) [ความจริง] ---> 1 (T) that is, all various 'signage of truth' would be grounded in an empirical evaluation of truth (such as A=A) whereby the absolute truth (1) would be referenced as a basis for determining truth (T), noting that my notation here is arbitrary and shifting, trying to describe it. thus if 'observation of truth' is grounded, it would tend towards 1, whereas if based on pseudo-truth and errored relativistic beliefs, where truth is minor and set within prevailing uncorrected falsity, this ungrounded observation could tend towards falsity instead (0), even while it references the same 'sign of truth', the sign believed to automatically verify an inaccurate 'absolute condition' via reading/writing its sign. in other words, the reference to the word ["truth"] is deemed the totality of accounting for truth of an observation, via 'true belief' that is not accounted for beyond the sign and binary onesided evaluations that assume the error-reliant observer is infallible; corrupt POV. [αλήθεια] ---> pT (0) [真実] ---> pT (0) [ความจริง] ---> pT (0) in this way -ungrounded observations- which simply reference the 'sign of truth' could, in their reliance on relativistic frameworks not checked against other empirical observations beyond their given protected boundary or parameters, then have their viewpoint carry only a minor truth (say 1% grounded truth amidst reliance on much larger falsity) yet in binary terms be assumed 'absolutely true' (1) which is what ideology affords- a protected boundary that edits truth to fit a given model, yet the more this occurs, the less real it becomes as a viewpoint of the world outside this bubble condition. in other words, grounded error-corrected observation of empirical truth tends towards 1, ungrounded error-reliant and uncorrected observation of relativistic pseudo-truth tends towards 0 (though can assume to equate with 1 via binary ideology) -- such that both these observers could reference the same sign of truth ["truth"] and yet one observer could be situated in an accurate and realistic empirical model and the other in a virtual, warped, twisted and surreal model that is largely a false perspective, false consciousness, etc. relativistic pT (0) <--- ["truth"] ---> (1) empirical truth and that everyday language in linear exchanges, not referencing a common model of truth and verifying accuracy of observations, of claims and statements and beliefs, actually by default tends towards falsity (0) and nothingness, in terms of empirical awareness. instead >nothingness< is that is shared as the common viewpoint. truth having been removed from the center of cultural knowledge and awareness via relativism and binary ideology. so basically everything exists in this far-left scenario (above) by default, to even include mathematics (psychology of mathematicians, the basis for their analyses in terms of logical reasoning, errors of observers), coding, programming, communication, language, economics, and onward to everything. it is all ungrounded belief, to greater/lesser extents, unless subsets of empirical truth have been achieved otherwise - yet not at the scale of existing government, the state, else people would be able to deal with the situations that exist instead of silence, passivity, and incapacity to question and work-through what is going on, though there is also active hostility to exactly such _behavior, so the animal trainers make sure humans remain the apes so grounded and ungrounded observations influence and effect whether a sign maps into structures of empirical truth or relativistic falsity, and this relates to parameters, boundaries, dimensions evaluated, and the internal processing of the observer, externalized, as a decision-making entity that then interacts with others and various tools, using this operating system or ruleset for guidance, navigation i keep thinking of the Voyager spacecraft gold-record in this regard, the challenges of interpretation this situation involves, especially the further it gets outside of a shared framework- which is how the universality of numbers seem to establish the basic for language outside the variability of signs, assumably recognizable beyond a given threshold of development, say for space-venturing civilizations THE GOLDEN RECORD http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html it would be pretty hilarious if the aliens could not figure out what the various symbolic language was meant to equate with due to some hidden relativistic bias and get future feedback on such an inherent limit in existing approaches to communication. such that a gap may exist between what is communicated and what is believed communicated. the larger issue involved in the grounding of truth within signs, including the 'signs of truth' that seek to represent it as a concept, is that it is a general condition of linear language that repeats itself endlessly, [such] [that] [every] [word] [and] [idea] [exist] [in] [this] [shared] [existential] [condition] and rely on particular interpretation, to ~account for the truth, however perceived and subsequently evaluated. thus your question of the limits to seeing, saying, conveying this truth, what if there is a boundary and it seems the default condition, that such a boundary exists, perhaps even an extreme limit upon observation of the truth as it exists, versus as it is perceived and-or believed to exist in contingent modeling used in day-to-day existence, trapped within a style of language, styles of knowing, ways of being that could be established via these same parameters and boundaries as a structure, the basis for given observations, specific contexts that make each observer unique (the relativistic context) which can be an asset if grounded and integrated into other views of the same events, versus blocking them out, censoring reality to fit a given parameter that itself may only be partially accurate, etc. in this way the reference to ["truth"] is not only how this concept is referenced by each individual observer (or ignored by computers via their modeling of signs instead as if truth), it is also how this conceptualization exists as an infrastructure within all other signs and symbols and events, as these are calculated, processed, accounted for within observational frameworks. in other words a substructure of this truth, within each and every sign and their combination and permutations resulting in various arrangements of meaning, this in a perspectival (relative->empirical) framework akin to geometric modeling (Plato: Timaeus), such as the nesting of platonic solids or The Architecture of Molecules, though "forms" are ideas, commonly referenced via various viewpoints (facets) and ~dimensions, to model and accurately account for, if not determine, things-in-themselves as concepts map into the world and are repeated and transformed in this way, the [sign] is like the facade of a billboard, a large outdoor wood and metal canvas used for graphic advertisement, mainly for automobile transportation- getting eyeballs to track to the available marketable space between the world of civilization and the empty sky. what is relevant about this [signage] is that the sign itself is held up by a hidden armature that is in the background, while the message is in the foreground. and yet this hidden armature is its physicality, its basis for how it is positioned in space-time and also literally its grounding in the material world, such that a lightning strike on the armature would be sent back into earth via ground wire if atop a building otherwise constructed in the ground as a self-contained billboard, i.e. the various typology of how buildings can exist in this context of the [billboard], as with any sign, its [truth] may be equated with the signage itself, as a surface-level evaluation and thus interpretation not extended beyond this parameter to account for its existence. thus the image or sign may equate with its truth. yet to understand the billboard signage in depth would require understanding something about advertising and real estate, marketing, semiotics perhaps, psychology, economics, whatever themes or industries or business models may be referenced, icons, as these relate to how someone perceives this signage, pattern-matches their dimensional awareness into or onto that framework of the [sign], and thus how 'truth' is determined or grounded, in what context, how much it relies on assumptions in pT or goes beyond these, as this relates to boundaries and parameters and thresholds of observers and knowledge and beliefs. the larger truth, in other words, may exist outside the literal frame of the [sign], its "truth" may go into the hidden armature, here an analogy and-or metaphor, that structures and creates the informational model that is being mediated, evaluated, parsed, ~computed and processed via observers in such a sign-based relation, that as a medium may actually involve connecting two remote observers in a hidden or delayed mode of exchange, symbolic or otherwise (economic, political, social, cultural, informational), including demographic, statistical, ideological, biased, to the point that pavlovian or skinnerian techniques of salivation may be the basis for processing, more than deep intellectual consideration so if it is possible to withstand further investigation into this, it would then be to consider [signs] of language in these terms, whereby their "truth" may exist as this hidden armature that connects into these other hidden yet interconnected dimensions, a substructure or infrastructure of signage or a substructural level of language and-or patterning, and that this is essentially the scaffolding of structure that relates to 'logical reasoning' that connects various ideas and concepts in their 'shared truth' beyond given boundaries that may or may not be accounted for within a given observation. the truth of the [sign] could be interpreted just as its image, yet its "truth" as a ["sign"] involves more than a pattern-match with a preconceived notion that is unaccounted for in its empirical existence, by default. that would require getting into its armature, its meaning yet also its modeling and *conceptualization*, which is necessarily empirical in that the nature of perspective allows an N-dimensional observation, via shared observation, panoptic seemingly, to evaluate every facet and angle and vertex in its accuracy (A=A) and thus get to the thing-in-itself versus remaining trapped in a false perspective of things as they are perceived as [signs], never going beyond the boundary to get at the truth that validates them as ["signs"] in terms of ideas, and this is proposed to be requiring nonlinear modeling, stopping this linear feed of endless unique perspective, to reference the same event or situation (x) via various grounded perspectives, than create new unconnected perspectives, 'reinventing the sign' each time it is observed or referenced (x..n) (else perhaps x^n) (unsure how to denote this at the moment) so there is a correlation between this condition, where [signs] are not similarly referenced, and existing technology: HTML or hypertext markup language. the Project Xanadu approach Ted Nelson invented was not followed. [0] if understanding correctly, it was a common reference for each sign, such that each word would be referenced to a centralized model, a single concept, such that typing this would involve an invisible armature that would map back towards a central model of the same information, as if a weaving of data outward from the core. each [sign] would reference an original, as with Plato and original forms, versus copies and copies of copies (ideology). thus the inherent structure of language would be part of the information modeling, online. the entire internet would be organizable as content this way, if these concepts could then be the basis for modeling and categorizing and relating to ideas, and communicating. or so that is the potential for such an approach. instead, every [sign] remains as a [sign], yet does not reference a common, accountable ["sign"] that can be used to account for its truth, as an idea and concept. friction-free and free-floating, language untethered from its accounting in truth, as if the [word] in and of itself is truth, versus referencing it, a representation that provides a pathway that grounds with reality in this way, the programming conventions themselves can become limits to observation and perception and relation to information and data modeling that becomes surface-based, shallow or hollowed out in terms of issues of representation, what is accounted for and what exists and can be exploited in terms of belief. and by default, it is proposed, due to this lack of accounting for the scaffolding and hidden armature that empirical truth involves, the relativistic approach instead takes over and exists in an ungrounded condition at this superficial level of bounded, limited, finite interpretation trapped within dynamics mostly defined by psychology of observers who, most, are reliant on biased and onesided binary evaluations by default, and entire populations are trained this way, in terms of what they see and how they convey this, what is sayable versus requiring self or other censorship-- and at the core is fear of ideas, fear of truth, the fear that losing these protective parameters will result in loss of self, loss of ego (yes), loss of infallibility (yes), loss of certitude (yes), and thus it is a different worldview, like Copernican and Galilean, though it involves fundamental gains: grounding, neutralizing bias, clarity of observation, access to truth beyond arbitrary boundaries, the capacity to reason, realization of service to truth as beneficent, etc. though instead, as if brainwashed by the ideological nanny-state, the fear of unfettered truth: we cannot handle the truth, therefore... the false perspective and its bliss. draw within the lines. everything will be ok. just take your pills. pre-order your casket... [0] Project Xanadu - Ted Nelson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu (reference test for wordwrap) - 78 character monospaced Courier New font XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX izod-lacoste, vans, sexwax ∄ ‱ ∃

1 0

[Cryptography] my comment to NIST about reducing capacity in SHA-3
by Eugen Leitl 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

----- Forwarded message from Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <zooko(a)leastauthority.com> ----- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:42:51 +0000 From: Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <zooko(a)leastauthority.com> To: cryptography(a)metzdowd.com Subject: [Cryptography] my comment to NIST about reducing capacity in SHA-3 Message-ID: <CAM_a8JzazjxXq5Y8GiFbjK6nNHQf1fHFfJ+A6r1O6tF2yfHwCg(a)mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 15:45:27 -0400 From: zooko <zooko(a)zooko.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <hash-forum(a)nist.gov> Subject: Re: On 128-bit security Folks: Here are my personal opinions about these issues. I'm not expert at cryptanalysis. Disclosure: I'm one of the authors of BLAKE2 (but not one of the authors of BLAKE). I personally do not believe that there is any secret agenda behind this proposal, even though I believe that there was a secret agenda behind Dual EC DRBG. One reason that I believe that the motivation behind this proposal is the stated motivation of improving performance, is that Joan Daemen told me in person in January of 2013 that the Keccak team had considered defining a reduced Keccak to compete with BLAKE2, but had decided against it because they didn't want to disrupt the SHA-3 standardization process. Apparently they changed their minds, and apparently their fears of disruption turned out to be prescient! I also do not think that a "security level" of 2^256 is necessarily better than a "security level" of 2^128. *Maybe* it is better, but I'm not aware of any examples where that sort of distinction has turned out to matter in practice, and I can't really judge if it is likely to matter in the future (except, of course, if you forget to take into account multi-target issues…). I suspect nobody else can, either. However, even though I *personally* would have confidence that a Keccak with a 256-bit capacity would be safe and would be free of maliciously induced weakness, I want a standard to be widely accepted in addition to being safe. This is the "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" argument. It isn't enough to make a secure standard, but also we need other people to have confidence in it. And, I don't know if we can persuade people that "no it isn't actually backdoored/weakened". It may be the kind of thing where if that's the conversation we're having then we've already lost. Would it make sense to go ahead and standardize SHA3-as-a-replacement-for-SHA2 by standardizing the form of Keccak which is most widely accepted by cryptographers and which is closest to what was studied during the contest, and then separately offer SHAKE and reduced-for-speed-Keccak as additional new things? A lot of uses of secure hash functions don't need to be particularly efficient. In my slides about BLAKE2 (https://blake2.net/acns/slides.html) I argue that there are use-cases where efficiency is critical, but it is equally true that there are common and important use cases where a 576-bit capacity Keccak would be fine, e.g. public key certificates. ------- Joan Daemen, one of inventors of AES and one of the inventors of Keccak (SHA-3), replied to my mailing list post as follows: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 05:08:07 -0400 From: Joan DAEMEN <joan.daemen(a)st.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <hash-forum(a)nist.gov> Subject: RE: On 128-bit security Hello all, Zooko wrote: > I personally do not believe that there is any secret > agenda behind this proposal, even though I believe that > there was a secret agenda behind Dual EC DRBG. > > One reason that I believe that the motivation behind > this proposal is the stated motivation of improving > performance, is that Joan Daemen told me in person in > January of 2013 that the Keccak team had considered > defining a reduced Keccak to compete with BLAKE2, but > had decided against it because they didn't want to > disrupt the SHA-3 standardization process. > > Apparently they changed their minds, and apparently > their fears of disruption turned out to be prescient! Yes, Zooko and I met at the end-of-Ecrypt II event on Tenerife early 2013 (24° C in January!). I don't remember our conversation in detail, but I I'm sure Zooko is citing me correctly because that is what we were thinking about at the time. Actually, what we had in mind was to propose something like "Keccak2" to compete with BLAKE2 by drastically cutting the number of rounds, e.g., down to 12 rounds for Keccak-f[1600], but otherwise keeping the algorithm as it is. That might have sent the wrong message indeed, but we just didn't do it. In contrast, the capacity is an integral parameter of the Keccak family that we even proposed as user-tunable in our SHA-3 submission. Matching the capacity to the security strength levels of [NIST SP 800-57] is simply exploiting that flexibility. Kind regards, Joan, also on behalf of my Keccak companions ------- Regards, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn Founder, CEO, and Customer Support Rep https://LeastAuthority.com Freedom matters. _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Lessons from Silk Road: don't host your virtual illegal drug bazaar in Iceland
by Eugen Leitl 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/14/4836994/dont-host-your-virtual-illegal-d… Lessons from Silk Road: don't host your virtual illegal drug bazaar in Iceland By Adrianne Jeffries on October 14, 2013 11:47 am Email When it comes to protecting your virtual black market from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), some countries are better than others. As it turns out, Iceland is probably not where you want to be. While the country may have protected WikiLeaks from the Americans, it's not harboring the recently busted illegal drug bazaar Silk Road. The Reykjavik Metropolitan Police have confirmed that they handed over data on the Silk Road at the request of American authorities. It's unclear how much information Iceland turned over, but the FBI claims two Silk Road servers were based there. Icelandic police say the site was actually hosted there. Since Iceland does not have a formal Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) with the US, it appears that the FBI negotiated a special one-time agreement in order to get the data. It still looks like the bulk of the information that broke open the case did not come from Iceland, however. The complaint says "an image of the Silk Road Web Server was made on or about July 23rd, 2013, and produced thereafter to the FBI" as a result of a request made to a foreign country under a formal MLAT. "AN IMAGE OF THE SILK ROAD WEB SERVER WAS MADE ON OR ABOUT JULY 23RD, 2013." That image, or bit-for-bit copy, of the Silk Road server gave authorities access to private messages between the Silk Road's owner and other members of the site. It was instrumental in seizing the site and arresting Ross Ulbricht, the man police allege was behind the Silk Road. Runa Sandvik, who works on the anonymizing network Tor, has been trying to figure out which country handed over that server image. She initially ruled out Iceland because it does not have an MLAT with the US. Various Silk Road content was also hosted in the US, Latvia, and Malaysia. Latvia and Malaysia are both MLAT signatories. If the request was indeed made under an MLAT, it looks like the image either came from one of those countries or another that has not been revealed yet by the FBI. Another possibility is that the FBI's complaint erroneously claimed the request was made under an MLAT, when the reality was less formal. Either way, future virtual drug kingpins now know that Iceland is no safe haven. Correction: An earlier version of this story said that Malaysia is not an MLAT signatory; that is incorrect. Malaysia and the US signed an MLAT in 2009.

1 0

[RISKS] Risks Digest 27.53
by RISKS List Owner 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Tuesday 15 October 2013 Volume 27 : Issue 53 ACM FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) Peter G. Neumann, moderator, chmn ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy ***** See last item for further information, disclaimers, caveats, etc. ***** This issue is archived at <http://www.risks.org> as <http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/27.53.html> The current issue can be found at <http://www.csl.sri.com/users/risko/risks.txt> Contents: Azerbaijan releases election results -- before the election started (PGN) Computer Failure Cuts off Access to Food Benefits (PGN) Another botched Black Tuesday for MS (Woody Leonhard via Gene Wirchenko) D-Link SOHO Routers reported to contain backdoor (Bob Gezelter) Russian government's political comment trolling operation exposed (Lauren Weinstein) EFF Resigns from Global Network Initiative (EFF) Re: "Let's build a more secure Internet" (Peter Houppermans, Bob Frankston, Fred Cohen) Re: Why the NSA's attacks on the Internet must be made public (Fred Cohen) Re: NSA data center 'meltdowns' force year-long delay (Paul Saffo) Correction re: Cyber Schools Fleece Taxpayers (Gene Wirchenko) Re: Our Founding Fathers ... (Thor Lancelot Simon) Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:39:07 PDT From: "Peter G. Neumann" <neumann(a)csl.sri.com> Subject: Azerbaijan releases election results -- before the election started http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/09/oops-azerbaija… Azerbaijan's big presidential election, held on Wednesday, was anticipated to be neither free nor fair. President Ilham Aliyev, who took over from his father 10 years ago, has stepped up intimidation of activists and journalists. Rights groups are complaining about free speech restrictions and one-sided state media coverage. The BBC's headline for its story on the election reads `The Pre-Determined President'. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24450227> So expectations were pretty low. Even still, one expects a certain ritual in these sorts of authoritarian elections, a fealty to at least the appearance of democracy, if not democracy itself. So it was a bit awkward when Azerbaijan's election authorities released vote results -- a full day before voting had even started. <http://www.eurasianet.org/node/67607?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter> The vote counts -- spoiler alert: Aliyev was shown as winning by a landslide -- were pushed out on an official smartphone app run by the Central Election Commission. It showed Aliyev as "winning" with 72.76 percent of the vote. That's on track with his official vote counts in previous elections: he won ("won"?) 76.84 percent of the vote in 2003 and 87 percent in 2008. [...] [PGN-ed. The rest of this story is interesting as well. [Also noted by Dan Swinehart, who said, ``This is a variant on the punch line to a joke that I've told for decades. Reality trumps fiction again.'' http://politics.slashdot.org/story/13/10/10/0043217/azerbaijan-election-res… PGN] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:26:37 PDT From: "Peter G. Neumann" <neumann(a)csl.sri.com> Subject: Computer Failure Cuts off Access to Food Benefits AP item in *The New York Times*, PGN-ed, 13 Oct 2013: People in 17 states (including NJ and CA) were unable to use their food stamp debit cards for several hours on 12 Oct 2013, because a routine test of backup systems by Xerox failed. (Yes, RISKS readers know nothing is always "routine".) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:30:10 -0700 From: Gene Wirchenko <genew(a)telus.net> Subject: Another botched Black Tuesday for MS (Woody Leonhard) Woody Leonhard, InfoWorld, 10 Oct 2013 Another botched Black Tuesday: KB 2878890 patch brings back two-year-old KB 951847 -- repeatedly Microsoft's four-month body count: 23 bad patches. It's past time for Microsoft to improve the quality of its Automatic Updates http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/another-botched-black-tuesday-… [It's a (Bach -> Batch -> BOTCH) FUGUE, which recapitulates the same themes repeatedly, although sometimes in a slightly different form. PGN] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 03:48:44 -0700 From: "Bob Gezelter" <gezelter(a)rlgsc.com> Subject: D-Link SOHO Routers reported to contain backdoor Apparently, D-Link SOHO routers sold under their own and some private labels have been reported to contain a "backdoor" which can allow anyone Administrator without the device password. This "feature" is implemented by the codebase using a pre-defined username, which does not need a password. Users are cautioned to act appropriately. When will firm's learn that backdoors are generically dangerous and should not be created? The original article is at: http://www.devttys0.com/2013/10/reverse-engineering-a-d-link-backdoor/ Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:12:27 -0700 From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren(a)vortex.com> Subject: Russian government's political comment trolling operation exposed http://j.mp/GI5Ro3 (*St. Petersburg Times* via NNSquad) "Local reporters have infiltrated a covert organization that hired young people as "Internet operators" near St. Petersburg and discovered that the employees are being paid to write pro-Kremlin postings and comments on the Internet, smearing opposition leader Alexei Navalny and U.S. politics and culture." ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, October 10, 2013 From: *EFF Press* Subject: EFF Resigns from Global Network Initiative Citing Concerns Over NSA's Impact on Corporate Members, EFF Leaves Industry Group San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today withdrew from the Global Network Initiative (GNI), citing a fundamental breakdown in confidence that the group's corporate members are able to speak freely about their own internal privacy and security systems in the wake of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance revelations. EFF has been a civil society member of the multi-stakeholder human rights group since GNI was founded in 2008 to advance freedom of expression and privacy in the global information and communication technologies sector. While much has been accomplished in these five years, EFF can no longer sign its name on joint statements knowing now that GNI's corporate members have been blocked from sharing crucial information about how the US government has meddled with these companies' security practices through programs such as PRISM and BULLRUN. "We know that many within the industry do not like or approve of such government interference, and GNI has, in statements, made it clear that member companies want permission from the US government to engage in greater transparency," EFF's International Director Danny O'Brien and Director for International Freedom of Expression Jillian C. York write in a letter to GNI leadership. "However, until serious reforms of the US surveillance programs are in place, we no longer feel comfortable participating in the GNI process when we are not privy to the serious compromises GNI corporate members may be forced to make. Nor do we currently believe that audits of corporate practice, no matter how independent, will uncover the insecurities produced by the US government's--and potentially other governments'--behavior when operating clandestinely in the name of national security." EFF's involvement with GNI included helping to define its founding principles over two years of negotiations; coordinating opposition to the United Kingdom's Communications Data Bill in 2011; releasing a paper addressing free-speech issues surrounding account deactivation and content removal; and collaborating with fellow members in internal international technical and policy analysis. However, EFF can no longer stand behind the credibility of what had been one of GNI's most significant achievements--third-party privacy and freedom of expression assessments of service providers, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. Moving forward, EFF plans to continue to provide guidance to the GNI and engage companies directly, but as an external organization. EFF supports the other organizations and individuals that continue to work within the GNI for the free speech and privacy rights of users worldwide. "Although EFF is taking a step back, GNI can still serve an important role as a collaborative project between human rights groups, companies, investors and academics," York said. "If the United States government truly supports international 'Internet freedom,' it would recognize the damage its policies are doing to weaken such efforts and the world's confidence in American companies." For the text of the letter: https://www.eff.org/document/gni-resignation-letter-0 For this release: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-resigns-global-network-initiative About EFF The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading organization protecting civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, we defend free speech online, fight illegal surveillance, promote the rights of digital innovators, and work to ensure that the rights and freedoms we enjoy are enhanced, rather than eroded, as our use of technology grows. EFF is a member-supported organization. Find out more at https://www.eff.org. Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release For Immediate Release: Thursday, October 10, 2013 Jillian C. York Director for International Freedom of Expression Electronic Frontier Foundation jillian(a)eff.org <javascript:;> +1 415 436-9333 x118 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0200 From: Peter Houppermans <peter(a)houppermans.net> Subject: Re: "Let's build a more secure Internet" (Dourado, RISKS-27.52) With all due respect to the respective people involved, in my opinion you have the problem backwards. By attempting to create a trustworthy Internet, you are ignoring the fact that practically any platform carrying data over the Internet only survives by exactly NOT doing that. The nice thing about not trusting the network layer is that it then becomes irrelevant what the carrier is: a comfy "hard shell, soft centre" insider threat corporate LAN, or a shaky "I have only 1 bar and my battery is dying" EDGE connection somewhere out in the field. Well, irrelevant from a security perspective :). Only when we ensure that everything that travels over the Internet has at least a basic level of security attached can we progress, and there is much to fix. Why do websites still default to FTP uploads? Why is encrypted SMTP not the default for inter-party email exchange? You improve security by adjusting the equation effort & risk vs. reward, and use tools you control yourself: content, framing and encryption. What is out of your control is by default untrusted, and doing it right also means that it's no longer worth doing the lower level intercept. Finally, in context I appreciate the irony of sending that submission from a Google account :) ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, October 10, 2013 From: *Bob Frankston* Subject: Re: Let's Build a More Secure Internet (Dourado, RISKS-27.51) [via Dave Farber's IP distribution. PGN] This assumes that the Internet is a layer on top of a physical infrastructure -- a notion which misses the revolutionary idea of the Internet. The Internet is not the switches. It is a way we use the physical infrastructure as a resource rather than a dependency. For that matter the very wording assumes there is an Internet that is apart from everything else when many of the issues are in the practices both in the way we exchange bits and the service we create using connectivity. As long as we require that operators and service providers make a profit we force the creation of the meta data that can then be used to analyze our usage of the network. If we have funding model that doesn't require every wire be a profit center than we wouldn't need to disclose (as much) metadata and the network operators wouldn't obliged to monetize it. There is a risk in seeking the social and business problems in technology rather than in understanding. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:44:50 -0700 From: Fred Cohen <fc(a)all.net> Subject: Let's Build a More Secure Internet - hardly... (Re: RISKS-27.51) > Eli Dourado, *The New York Times*, 8 Oct 2013 > Can we ever trust the Internet again? As usual, the press gets it wrong soup to nuts. Starting with the premise that the Internet was ever worthy of trust in the first place, which leads to the question - trust for what? If you trusted the Internet for integrity, confidentiality, availability, use control, or accountability, you were making a mistake, and this is nothing new. I refer you to the series of articles I wrote in the mid-1990s called Internet Holes and the continuation of that series through the present day (http://all.net/Analyst/index.html) Not that the problems began then... > In the wake of the disclosures about the National Security Agency's > surveillance programs, considerable attention has been focused on the > agency's collaboration with companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google, > which according to leaked documents appear to have programmed "back door" > encryption weaknesses into popular consumer products and services like > Hotmail, iPhones and Android phones. The difference being that they used legal process or money to get willing cooperation? Does anybody really believe that this wasn't being done earlier by planted insiders? And why worry about the NSA when they are only one of more than 100 countries likely undertaking the same sort of thing (many known to be doing so) since the beginning of the Internet. > But while such vulnerabilities are worrisome, equally important - and > because of their technical nature, far less widely understood - are the > weaknesses that the N.S.A. seems to have built into the very > infrastructure of the Internet. We didn't need them to build weaknesses in. The commercial companies are perfectly capable of doing it intentionally and by accident. Weaknesses were always there. In terms of understanding, while I believe the press widely ignored these issues for much of the last 30+ years, the information protection field has been pointing them out since the technology was put into use. > The concern is that even if consumer software companies like Microsoft and > telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon stop cooperating with > the N.S.A., your online security will remain compromised as long as the > agency can still take advantage of weaknesses in the Internet itself. As they always have and always likely will. > Fortunately, there is something we can do: encourage the development of an > "open hardware" movement - an extension of the open-source movement that > has led to software products like the Mozilla browser and the Linux > operating system. Open software has nothing on closed software in terms of protection, In fact, arguably, closed source has produced fewer vulnerabilities per line of code over time than open source. I say "arguably" because, as a field, we have few and poorly collected metrics of such things. But those metrics seem to indicate that open source is not more secure as a rule. > The open-source movement champions an approach to product development in > which there is universal access to a blueprint, as well as universal ability > to modify and redistribute the blueprint. Wikipedia is perhaps the > best-known example of a product inspired by the movement. Open-source > advocates typically emphasize two kinds of freedom that their products > afford: they are available free of charge, and they can be used and > manipulated free of restrictions. Open source is not the same as free, not the same as anybody can (legally) modify it, or any such thing. It just means you can see the "blueprint". > But there is a third kind of freedom inherent in open-source systems: the > freedom to audit. With open-source software, independent security experts > can scrutinize the code for vulnerabilities - whether accidentally or > intentionally introduced. The more auditing by the programming masses, the > better the security. As the open-source software advocate Eric S. Raymond > has put it, "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." This is a fallacy. It is simply not true that more eyes makes better security or that "all bugs are shallow" as a side effect. Experiments have historically shown that even if we point out the location of an intentional Trojan horse to within a few hundred lines of code, experts don;t find it. And automated software doesn't even look for the sorts of intentional subversion that is used in many Trojan horses. > Perhaps the greatest open-source success story is the Internet itself - at > least its "soft" parts. The Internet's communications protocols and the > software that implements them are collaboratively engineered by loose > networks of programmers working outside the control of any single person, > company or government. The Internet Engineering Task Force, which develops > core Internet protocols, does not even have formal membership and seeks > contributions from developers all over the world. And the Internet is full of holes. It is the best example of how open source does not provide protection. And its success is largely because it (the process) doesn't seek to provide protection. The Internet is designed for functionality - widespread, general, rapidly deployed, easily developed, flexible, changeable, etc. functionality. As such, it is designed to support rapid change, not stability. It is designed to be redundant, recoverable, etc. NOT private, unalterable, etc. "Security" is afforded by this approach, but not secrecy, integrity, use control, or accountability. Availability is somewhat questionable. The security provided is the ability to change, learn, adapt, create, do your own thing, etc. > But the problem is that the physical layer of the Internet's infrastructure > - the hardware that transmits, directs and relays traffic online, as well as > its closely knit software (or "firmware") - is not open-source. It is made > by commercial computing companies like Cisco, Hewlett-Packard and Juniper > Networks according to proprietary designs, and then sold to governments, > universities, private companies and anyone else who wants to set up a > network. Making it "open source" will not help the situation. It will likely reveal far more vulnerabilities, but not fix them, and not reveal the tricky ones. But it will certainly cause these companies financial problems as their technical advantages over competitors will collapse, and their investment in new technology be reduced, thus reducing innovation and rate of progress. > There is reason to be skeptical about the security of these networking > products. The hardware firms that make them often compete for contracts > with the United States military and presumably face considerable pressure > to maintain good relations with the government. It stands to reason that > such pressure might lead companies to collaborate with the government on > surveillance-related requests. And those made in China have Chinese Trojan horses. > Because these hardware designs are closed to public scrutiny, it is > relatively easy for surveillance at the Internet's infrastructural level > to go undetected. To make the Internet less susceptible to mass > surveillance, we need to recreate the physical layer of its infrastructure > on the basis of open-source principles. This won't work. It will just make it more expensive to run the government surveillance programs, costing the taxpayers more money and forcing the NSA back into the darker corners. > At the moment, the open hardware movement is limited mostly to hobbyists - > engineers who use the Internet to collaboratively build "open" devices > like the RepRap 3D printer. Which uses what open source processor chips? None! They all depend on proprietary chips. > But the Internet community, through a concerted effort like the one that > currently sustains the Internet's software architecture, could also > develop open-source, Internet-grade hardware. Governments like Brazil's > that have forsworn further involvement with American Internet companies > could adopt such nonproprietary equipment designs and have them > manufactured locally, free from any N.S.A. interference. As if this would free them. It won't. > The result would be Internet infrastructure, both hardware and software, > that was 100 percent open and auditable. Again, a fantasy. Even if realized, it would not accomplish the stated goal. The "open source" version of the Internet would not be an improvement. It is already largely open source, and has all of the problems that the Information age portends. It is an inherent property of the information age that in order to have effective protection, we need to restrain ourselves from doing the wrong thing in high volume and an effective government has to restrain itself or be restrained by its people. But this is nothing new. Perhaps we need well armed Internet militias. Draft of the Xth amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Internet Arms, shall not be infringed. Fred Cohen - 925-454-0171 - All.Net & Affiliated Companies http://all.net/ PO Box 811 Pebble Beach, CA 93953 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:01:57 -0700 From: Fred Cohen <fc(a)all.net> Subject: Re: Why the NSA's attacks on the Internet must be made public (Schneier, RISKS-27.51) > Among IT security professionals, it has been long understood that the > public disclosure of vulnerabilities is the only consistent way to improve > security. That's why researchers publish information about vulnerabilities > in computer software and operating systems, cryptographic algorithms, and > consumer products like implantable medical devices, cars, and CCTV > cameras. This is a fallacy. There is no substantial science behind the asserted claim (that disclosure improves protection) and no statistics behind the actual claim (that IT security professionals have long understood that or even agree to the asserted claim). The rest of the article repeats this mistake. It asserts cause and effect without a substantial basis. > It's folly to believe that any NSA hacking technique will remain secret > for very long. Really! You may rest assured that they have plenty of methods that, while published long ago in some form, remain largely a secret to anyone who is affected by them. That's because, as a community, we don't bother to review the literature before proclaiming ourselves experts. Nothing I have seen published about what the NSA is asserted to have done is a big secret in terms of the ability to do it. The secret (if there is one) is that they did do it, with whom, etc. The techniques I have heard about are hardly a secret. Bribe a company, extort a company, plant an insider, plant a Trojan, not new, not secret methods. In terms of longevity, I would bet that there are lots of things still secret from the 1950s, some of which died with those who held them. > The NSA has two conflicting missions. Its eavesdropping mission has been > getting all the headlines, but it also has a mission to protect US > military and critical infrastructure communications from foreign attack. > Historically, these two missions have not come into conflict. During the > cold war, for example, we would defend our systems and attack Soviet > systems. The equities issue has always been present, and the equities have historically always favored attack over defense. The question that needs to be addressed is how this balance should be as opposed to how it has been. My personal view is that the defense should be favored far more than it is at present or has been in the past, but then I am a defender. The reason for my view? Because the US and our allies are asymmetrically dependent on information and technology. So successful attack can hurt us a lot more than it hurts them. Meanwhile, successful defense depends on knowledge, skills, effort, etc. which we presumably have more of then our enemies. So if we build strong defenses that require ongoing effort, we will win as long as we are willing to spend the effort and they are not. Of course if it takes too much effort, it will sap our strength... and somewhere in there is an equation to be produced and solved. Fred Cohen - 925-454-0171 - All.Net & Affiliated Companies http://all.net/ PO Box 811 Pebble Beach, CA 93953 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:05:33 -0700 From: Paul Saffo <psaffo(a)me.com> Subject: Re: NSA data center 'meltdowns' force year-long delay (RISKS-27.52) ... it appears the problem isn't with the grid supplying the power, but with the electrical system on the NSA site. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:54:01 -0700 From: Gene Wirchenko <genew(a)telus.net> Subject: Correction re: Cyber Schools Fleece Taxpayers (RISKS-27.51) The link for the first item ("Cyber Schools Fleece Taxpayers for Phantom Students and Failing Grades") is actually: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/10/12257/junk-bonds-junk-schools-cyber-sch… (The item's link was missing "cyber-schools-".) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 01:28:48 +0000 (UTC) From: tls(a)panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Our Founding Fathers ... (Robinson, RISKS-27.51) > A couple thousand years ago, the way you moved from Slave or peon to > Citizen in Imperial Rome was you raised enough money to afford a sword and > shield ... This is empirically false, and it's a shame to see made-up "facts" given credibility by appearing in RISKS. Without this and the several other similar assertions of "fact" in the piece I quote above, I'm not sure there is any support for its argument at all. If you'd like to know how changes in status really took place in Imperial (or pre-Imperial) Rome, I can recommend Crook, J.A., _Law and Life Of Rome_, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212 (Ithaca: Cornell, 1967). Thor Lancelot Simon, : Public Access Networks Corp., tls(a)panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 20:20:16 -0900 From: RISKS-request(a)csl.sri.com Subject: Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks) The ACM RISKS Forum is a MODERATED digest. Its Usenet manifestation is comp.risks, the feed for which is donated by panix.com as of June 2011. => SUBSCRIPTIONS: PLEASE read RISKS as a newsgroup (comp.risks or equivalent) if possible and convenient for you. The mailman Web interface can be used directly to subscribe and unsubscribe: http://lists.csl.sri.com/mailman/listinfo/risks Alternatively, to subscribe or unsubscribe via e-mail to mailman your FROM: address, send a message to risks-request(a)csl.sri.com containing only the one-word text subscribe or unsubscribe. You may also specify a different receiving address: subscribe address= ... . You may short-circuit that process by sending directly to either risks-subscribe(a)csl.sri.com or risks-unsubscribe(a)csl.sri.com depending on which action is to be taken. Subscription and unsubscription requests require that you reply to a confirmation message sent to the subscribing mail address. Instructions are included in the confirmation message. Each issue of RISKS that you receive contains information on how to post, unsubscribe, etc. => The complete INFO file (submissions, default disclaimers, archive sites, copyright policy, etc.) is online. <http://www.CSL.sri.com/risksinfo.html> *** Contributors are assumed to have read the full info file for guidelines. => .UK users may contact <Lindsay.Marshall(a)newcastle.ac.uk>. => SPAM challenge-responses will not be honored. Instead, use an alternative address from which you NEVER send mail! => SUBMISSIONS: to risks(a)CSL.sri.com with meaningful SUBJECT: line. *** NOTE: Including the string "notsp" at the beginning or end of the subject *** line will be very helpful in separating real contributions from spam. *** This attention-string may change, so watch this space now and then. => ARCHIVES: ftp://ftp.sri.com/risks for current volume or ftp://ftp.sri.com/VL/risks for previous VoLume http://www.risks.org takes you to Lindsay Marshall's searchable archive at newcastle: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/VL.IS.html gets you VoLume, ISsue. Lindsay has also added to the Newcastle catless site a palmtop version of the most recent RISKS issue and a WAP version that works for many but not all telephones: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/w/r <http://the.wiretapped.net/security/info/textfiles/risks-digest/> . ==> PGN's comprehensive historical Illustrative Risks summary of one liners: <http://www.csl.sri.com/illustrative.html> for browsing, <http://www.csl.sri.com/illustrative.pdf> or .ps for printing is no longer maintained up-to-date except for recent election problems. *** NOTE: If a cited URL fails, we do not try to update them. Try browsing on the keywords in the subject line or cited article leads. ==> Special Offer to Join ACM for readers of the ACM RISKS Forum: <http://www.acm.org/joinacm1> ------------------------------ End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 27.53 ************************

1 0

clarification re: [20]
by brian carroll 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

quoth me-self: so what if everyone exists in 'some truth' or partial truth, and this is a > pseudo- condition, in that it is ambiguous and variant in terms of how it > can be and is accounted for. [truth] is not 100% absolute, instead it is > embedded in frameworks and contexts that carry it and these can be in error > in terms of viewpoint or beliefs or perspective or facts and even subverted > or twisted, such that truth is aligned within a warped worldview that then > becomes normalized and the basis for relations and exchange, as with today > abstract point requiring clarification: "truth in itself" is proposed true when removed of any known errors, contingently absolute (100%) yet when represented in frameworks of signs, there can be variability due to this embedded or nested condition where truth is being referenced or carried within or by the signage- thus a [sign] for truth, meant to represent it is not this actual truth, it is a conduit or circuit to it, yet may have other characteristics or boundaries as a sign- there may be relativistic aspects involved whereby the word [truth] does not equate with truth universally, given perspective and limits and literacy or its variability in a context of language- whatever is true about truth would be represented in other sign-based translations of this concept of truth, only the specific english-version... (perhaps this is not enough to clarify the many issues involved though they have been addressed elsewhere, where this condition of partial truth is refined into empirical truth, though it occurs conceptually, not just as a sign that represents the concept- and thus, the sign of truth given the observation could be a binary observation of only some part of it, yet equated with it, via its [word] for instance)... [truth] [لجنة تقصي الحقائق] [истината] [veritat] [真相] [αλήθεια] [האמת] [真実] [진실] [حقیقت] [pravda] [ความจริง] [Gerçek şu ki] [Істина] [سچائی] [sự thật] ...it is thus proposed that the fidelity with absolute truth is not a default condition of reading/writing such signs, and instead is minimal with regard to actual grounded truth, bound by the observer and shared observation, in whatever dimensions may exist, which can be arbitrary and minimal in comparison to what the situation actually involves, and that to get at that depth and breadth requires N-dimensional panoptic modeling of various perspectives of pseudo-truth, methodologically evaluated and removed of known errors and running as a working hypothesis of reality, versus a default belief that observations in and of themselves are accurate simply by processing reality in particular frameworks and sharing experience... this can be empirically ungrounded, reliant on limits or errors, relativistic and must be accounted for to validate the modeling, yet linear language itself does not allow this, which is why modeling and diagrams are necessary, to stop the flow of time to delve into the concepts and evaluate their accuracy in terms of structures and frameworks and dimensions and dynamics, versus assuming a non-existent common understanding validates 'beliefs' when they are shared yet these observations do not inherently ground into the same structures, such that a [concept] could be interpreted multiple ways via its superposition, thus the issue of representation in terms of its variability, the instability of language, perhaps best noted by the error or typo which breaks the illusion of perfect transmission of theorized truth that does not actually exist beyond the observer in a limited framework, beyond external accounting. language itself is rigged, a game. it does not map to truth by default. it is corrupted, an image-based pattern-matching exercise that covers truth and replaces it by hollowing it out. it is surface-level evaluation, allows and requires this, unless logic cracks it open and demands truth be accounted for in these statements. otherwise it is friction-free ideology, believe what you will, find others, create your own perspective, etc. truth is underneath or accessed by this insofar as it is accurately referenced, yet it is almost tangential to the language, to the description needed to recreate the world through a constant requirement of story telling and context in order to say anything beyond the shared limited boundary, which is inherently tedious and inefficient and ineffective. in this way also, millions of lines of code and issues of how 'truth' of data is parsed, based on how it is represented in terms of signs, concepts, patterns, relational dynamics. --- not sure unicode-8 will render various signage, thus attachment included...

2 1

Re: [liberationtech] NSA collects millions of e-mail address books globally
by Eugen Leitl 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

----- Forwarded message from Nick <liberationtech(a)njw.me.uk> ----- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:36:30 +0100 From: Nick <liberationtech(a)njw.me.uk> To: liberationtech <liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu> Subject: Re: [liberationtech] NSA collects millions of e-mail address books globally Message-ID: <20131015103630.GA3319@starfish> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Reply-To: liberationtech <liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:49:46AM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote: > A self-hosted mail provider will obviously *not* help much against NSAs > mass collection of emails and email addresses. Don't sell it as a > "solution" in this context. Well the article seems to be talking about "address books", as opposed to just harvesting email addresses without context. The same thing could be (and is being) done through metadata capture too, but if I read the article correctly, the direct address book pillaging (which may have extra useful metadata on contact networks compared to collecting email headers over time) is something that using any (secure) self-hosted provider (or local client) would defeat. But as to your general point, I agree that hijacking every thread with adverts for a project is certainly not an activity that is OK, and is not the sort of behaviour that fills me with confidence about said project. -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys(a)stanford.edu. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Re: [cryptography] /dev/random is not robust
by Eugen Leitl 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

----- Forwarded message from coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com> ----- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:07:57 -0700 From: coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com> To: David Johnston <dj(a)deadhat.com> Cc: Cryptography List <cryptography(a)metzdowd.com>, Discussion of cryptography and related <cryptography(a)randombit.net> Subject: Re: [cryptography] /dev/random is not robust Message-ID: <CAJVRA1SEmBgfr46BuGbjpj=+ZjKHKz7dLUcTkYCKA4ikaHY1_Q(a)mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:35 PM, <dj(a)deadhat.com> wrote: > http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/338.pdf "...it remains unclear if these attacks lead to actual exploitable vulnerabilities in practice." in my mtrngd for XSTORE i not only fed /dev/random when it became write-able (entropy less than full) but also fed it at regular intervals, specifically to keep the pool fresh. in the standard rng-tools rngd, you specify this parameter with the timeout parameter, "Interval written to random-device when the entropy pool is full, in seconds (default: 60)" i am pleased to see this made it into the stock rngd source! best regards, _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0