No Subject
Explain what this site is please! cos' i'm very confused
Re:
At 6:10 PM +1000 9/3/00, Rob Henry wrote: >Explain what this site is please! > >cos' i'm very confused You're much more than confused. You're stupid. For starters, this is not "a site." Some people are too stupid to be allowed to live. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Whipped Europenas
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, No User wrote: >> Nuh. I think they should be happy about biology education - might one day >> give them a nice young crackpot with the talent to create a drug user >> killing flu... > >Or better yet, a flu that killed everybody without sufficient THC residue >in their body. Or a modified influenza (which I think is a retrovirus - anybody?) which actually splices your THC gene into the subject's own genes for good, perhaps with a promoter area borrowed from some suitably chosen selectively activated gene (say, the gene controlling lactic acid metabolism which could make for a high every time the person engages in anything physical). Whatever. Of course there are lots of variations. Actually I think that the post about THC producing oranges is a bit far flung. From what I know about THC, it's pretty far from a protein, which are the only things produced under the control of a single gene. I also think that oranges are not very close relatives of hemp, so it is unlikely that close enough precursors to THC would be present to enable us to produce THC with the addition of a single enzymatic cleavage stage or some such simple step. And from what I know about genetic technology, it isn't quite on the level of enabling complicated (i.e. considerably more than a single gene) biochemical syntheses to be transferred from species to species. In a word, I think the magic oranges might be legend. Of course, there might be shortcuts - instead of using recombinant DNA techniques, we could perhaps try to get cells with both orange and hemp cellular nuclei to divide. I don't think either of these particular plants is prone to accepting such a treatment (unlike, I think, rye). Sampo Syreeni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Re: Is kerberos broken?
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, petro wrote: > Of course, a *simple* substitution of one word (or even >spaces) would make this *much* harder. As I said, people on this list hardly have a problem with dictionary attacks. > "Friends, Romulans, fellow countrymen, lend me your beers..." > > (I probably buthered the hell out of that, never having heard >or read the original, but I think it gets the point across) Wasn't that your whole point? ;) Sampo Syreeni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
auditable gaming PRNGs (Re: PRNG server)
Seems to me you can do better with a gaming server. If the gaming
server servers RNGs in a sequence such that each sample in the
sequence can be verified, they don't need to trust the server; or at
least there is an audit function.
Eg. say that the server publishes subsequent pre-images in a
hashchain.
h_0
h_{i+1} = h_i
and the server computes h_i values up to i = 10^8 and then publishes
them starting with h_{10^8}, h_{10^8-1}, ...
Then anyone can verify that the random number is the preimage of the
previous random number.
You do something similar with a more efficient (log(n)) auditing
function with merkle authentication trees.
If they aren't doing this someone should clue them in.
Adam
Re: export reg timewarp? (Re: RC4 source as a literate program)
Adam Back wrote: >The US export regulations no longer prevent export of crypto. PGP >exported binary copies of PGP from US websites, as now do many other >companies. Crypto source is exported also from numerous web sites. > >I don't follow why all the discussion talking as if ITAR and EARs were >still in effect in unmodified form. Good point, except that PGP.com and Freeware still have export restrictions on downloads, as do most other US crypto export sites. This is probably due to the fact that nobody understands the export regs and better safe than lose out on fat government contracts, and corollary contracts with other corporations who dare not offend the authorities. Even some private sites which rushed to offer crypto on the Internet have withdrawn their offerings. And, according to Matt Blaze's tabulation of such offerings, they have nearly petered out. Don't forget that there is till a review required by BXA for strongest products. What happens in those reviews has not been disclosed as far as I know. Whether the NDA is voluntary to hide trade secrets, compulsary to hide dirty dealing, or worse to hide really nasty access requirements -- probably some of all these in the great American tradition of promising much and delivering not so much unless you play ball under the umpires clubhouse rules. Nicky Hager (of Secret Power fame) co-wrote another book on a PR war in NZ in which he covered at length the practice of governments and corporations hiding their filthy deals from freedom of information access through the loophole of protecting proprietary information from the public. Another commentator pointed out recently that the vast majority of FOIA requests are indeed made by people seeking commercial intelligence which is not intended to be made public , and relatively few seeking information to release to the public. So there is a bind on getting info on what actually happens at BXA and its co-agencies during crypto export review. However, in contrast to a few years back, I don't see many corporations or individuals calling for greater access to closed information about crypto export procedures. Could be all the crypto folks are doing just fine under the system, so why bitch about making it into the comfort zone. And, oh yeah, fuck the public interest now that the crypto public outreach PR campaigns did their job to get inside the sweetheart PR loophole. Doug Porter has written an interesting update about all this crypto flim-flam in the "Pocket Guide to NSA Sabotage:" http://cryptome.org/nsa-sabotage.htm And what the fuck is Schneier doing trashing crypto to build his security consulting business? That sounds like priests preaching Our Church Alone salvation to keep the flock frightened, dependent and shelling out for long term protection contracts. You know, like the one-world feds and all-world spooks.
