Write Congress what to do about Social Security
This week both sides of the Social Security controversy hit the airwaves. Some are trying to persuade you that there is a crisis that requires privitization of the system now. Others point out that analysts agree the system will remain solvent for 30 years and beyond just maintaining the current system. What do you think Congress should do? Here is a one click form that sends your personal message to both your senators and house representative at one time. http://www.usalone.org/socialsecurity.htm And remember we will set up a custom action page for any issue of your own you like for no charge, and you get a snazzy drop-in dynamic menu for your own web page to help promote it too at http://www.usalone.org/action_center.html Please forward this message and post this link everywhere you can to everyone you know. Or if you want to get off the list, just email back and indicate the same. NEVER SEND SPAM. IT IS BAD.
cadastros de emails por classe social
listas de e-mails divididas por estados, Cadastros para mala direta livre de spam, E-mails segmentados para divulgação - Cadastros de e-mail. Visite agora: http://www.gueb.de/segmails Cadastros de emails mala direta, emails para mala direta segmentada por profissão, cadastros de emails por classe social, Cadastros para mala direta livre de spam: http://www.gueb.de/segmails
Re: SHA1 broken?
Joseph Ashwood wrote: I believe you substantially misunderstood my statements, 2^69 work is doable _now_. 2^55 work was performed in 72 hours in 1998, scaling forward the 7 years to the present (and hence through known data) leads to a situation where the 2^69 work is achievable today in a reasonable timeframe (3 days), assuming reasonable quantities of available money ($500,000US). There is no guessing about what the future holds for this, the 2^69 work is NOW. I wasn't aware that FPGA technology had improved that much if any - feel free to correct my misapprehension in that area though :)
Re: SHA1 broken?
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:53:53PM +, Dave Howe wrote: I wasn't aware that FPGA technology had improved that much if any - feel free to correct my misapprehension in that area though :) FPGAs are too slow (and too expensive), if you want lots of SHA-1 performance, use a crypto processor (or lots of forthcoming C5J mini-ITX boards), or an ASIC. Assuming, fast SHA-1 computation is the basis for the attack -- we do not know that. While looking, came across http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02jul/slides/saag-1.pdf We really DO NOT need SHA-256 for Message Authentication, mid-2002. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net pgpZRzeFp36Q6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Ink helps drive democracy in Asia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/4276125.stm The BBC Saturday, 19 February, 2005, 08:34 GMT Ink helps drive democracy in Asia By Dr David Mikosz In Kyrgyzstan The Kyrgyz Republic, a small, mountainous state of the former Soviet republic, is using invisible ink and ultraviolet readers in the country's elections as part of a drive to prevent multiple voting. This new technology is causing both worries and guarded optimism among different sectors of the population. In an effort to live up to its reputation in the 1990s as an island of democracy, the Kyrgyz President, Askar Akaev, pushed through the law requiring the use of ink during the upcoming Parliamentary and Presidential elections. The US government agreed to fund all expenses associated with this decision. The use of ink and readers by itself is not a panacea for election ills The Kyrgyz Republic is seen by many experts as backsliding from the high point it reached in the mid-1990s with a hastily pushed through referendum in 2003, reducing the legislative branch to one chamber with 75 deputies. The use of ink is only one part of a general effort to show commitment towards more open elections - the German Embassy, the Soros Foundation and the Kyrgyz government have all contributed to purchase transparent ballot boxes. Not complicated The actual technology behind the ink is not that complicated. The ink is sprayed on a person's left thumb. It dries and is not visible under normal light. However, the presence of ultraviolet light (of the kind used to verify money) causes the ink to glow with a neon yellow light. At the entrance to each polling station, one election official will scan voter's fingers with UV lamp before allowing them to enter, and every voter will have his/her left thumb sprayed with ink before receiving the ballot. If the ink shows under the UV light the voter will not be allowed to enter the polling station. Likewise, any voter who refuses to be inked will not receive the ballot. These elections are assuming even greater significance because of two large factors - the upcoming parliamentary elections are a prelude to a potentially regime changing presidential election in the Autumn as well as the echo of recent elections in other former Soviet Republics, notably Ukraine and Georgia. The use of ink has been controversial - especially among groups perceived to be pro-government. Common metaphor Widely circulated articles compared the use of ink to the rural practice of marking sheep - a still common metaphor in this primarily agricultural society. The author of one such article began a petition drive against the use of the ink. The greatest part of the opposition to ink has often been sheer ignorance. Local newspapers have carried stories that the ink is harmful, radioactive or even that the ultraviolet readers may cause health problems. Others, such as the aggressively middle of the road, Coalition of Non-governmental Organizations, have lauded the move as an important step forward. This type of ink has been used in many elections in the world, in countries as varied as Serbia, South Africa, Indonesia and Turkey. The other common type of ink in elections is indelible visible ink - but as the elections in Afghanistan showed, improper use of this type of ink can cause additional problems. The use of invisible ink is not without its own problems. In most elections, numerous rumors have spread about it. Clear step In Serbia, for example, both Christian and Islamic leaders assured their populations that its use was not contrary to religion. Other rumours are associated with how to remove the ink - various soft drinks, solvents and cleaning products are put forward. However, in reality, the ink is very effective at getting under the cuticle of the thumb and difficult to wash off. The ink stays on the finger for at least 72 hours and for up to a week. The use of ink and readers by itself is not a panacea for election ills. The passage of the inking law is, nevertheless, a clear step forward towards free and fair elections. The country's widely watched parliamentary elections are scheduled for 27 February. David Mikosz works for the IFES, an international, non-profit organisation that supports the building of democratic societies. -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: SHA1 broken?
Eugen Leitl wrote: On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:53:53PM +, Dave Howe wrote: I wasn't aware that FPGA technology had improved that much if any - feel free to correct my misapprehension in that area though :) FPGAs are too slow (and too expensive), if you want lots of SHA-1 performance, use a crypto processor (or lots of forthcoming C5J mini-ITX boards), or an ASIC. Assuming, fast SHA-1 computation is the basis for the attack -- we do not know that. Indeed so. however, the argument in 1998, a FPGA machine broke a DES key in 72 hours, therefore TODAY... assumes that (a) the problems are comparable, and (b) that moores law has been applied to FPGAs as well as CPUs. I am unaware of any massive improvement (certainly to the scale of the comparable improvement in CPUs) in FPGAs, and the ones I looked at a a few days ago while researching this question seemed to have pretty much the same spec sheet as the ones I looked at back then. However, I am not a gate array techie, and most of my experience with them has been small (two-three chip) devices at very long intervals, purely for my own interest. It is possible there has been a quantum leap foward in FPGA tech or some substitute tech that can perform massively parallel calculations, on larger block sizes and hence more operations, at a noticably faster rate than the DES cracker could back then. Schneier apparently believes there has been - but is simply applying moore's law to the machine from back then, and that may not be true unless he knows something I don't (I assume he knows lots of things I don't, but of course he may not have thought this one though :)
RE: Code name Killer Rabbit: New Sub Can Tap Undersea Cables
When I was in Telecom we audited pieces of an undersea NSA network that was based on OC-3 ATM. It had some odd components, however, including reflective-mode LiNBO3 modulators and even acousto-optic modulators. (Actually, one of the components started dying which put them into a near-frenzy...it turned out we had someone who happened to know the designer of that very piece and so understood the failure mode completely.) My theory is that they were multiplexing their OC-3-collected information back over the same set of fibers the intelligence came from, or else re-routed it to another friendly cable nearby. These days, however, a la Variola I don't think that a single OC-3 will do even for specially-selected traffic, so they must do something different now (unless, of course, that OC-3 was just their OAMP/control network, which is entirely possible). -TD From: R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: osint@yahoogroups.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Code name Killer Rabbit: New Sub Can Tap Undersea Cables Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:47:02 -0500 http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topstories_story_049165912.html/resources_storyPrintableView WCBS 880 | wcbs880.com Experts: New Sub Can Tap Undersea Cables * USS Jimmy Carter Will Be Based In Washington State Feb 18, 2005 4:55 pm US/Eastern The USS Jimmy Carter, set to join the nation's submarine fleet on Saturday, will have some special capabilities, intelligence experts say: It will be able to tap undersea cables and eavesdrop on the communications passing through them. The Navy does not acknowledge the $3.2 billion submarine, the third and last of the Seawolf class of attack subs, has this capability. That's going to be classified in nature, said Kevin Sykes, a Navy spokesman. You're not going to get anybody to talk to you about that. But intelligence community watchdogs have little doubt: The previous submarine that performed the mission, the USS Parche, was retired last fall. That would only happen if a new one was on the way. Like the Parche, the Carter was extensively modified from its basic design, given a $923 million hull extension that allows it to house technicians and gear to perform the cable-tapping and other secret missions, experts say. The Carter's hull, at 453 feet, is 100 feet longer than the other two subs in the Seawolf class. The submarine is basically going to have as its major function intelligence gathering, said James Bamford, author of two books on the National Security Agency. Navy public information touts some of the Carter's special abilities: In the extended hull section, the boat can provide berths for up to 50 special operations troops, like Navy SEALs. It has an ocean interface that serves as a sort of hangar bay for smaller vehicles and drones to launch and return. It has the usual complement of torpedo tubes and Tomahawk cruise missiles, and it will also serve as a platform for researching new technologies useful on submarines. The Carter, like other submarines, will also have the ability to eavesdrop on communications-what the military calls signals intelligence-passed through the airwaves, experts say. But its ability to tap undersea fiber-optic cables may be unique in the fleet. Communications worldwide are increasingly transmitted solely through fiber-optic lines, rather than through satellites and radios. The capacity of fiber optics is so much greater than other communications media or technologies, and it's also immune to the stick-up-an-attenna type of eavesdropping, said Jeffrey Richelson, an expert on intelligence technologies. To listen to fiber-optic transmissions, intelligence operatives must physically place a tap somewhere along the route. If the stations that receive and transmit the communications along the lines are on foreign soil or otherwise inaccessible, tapping the line is the only way to eavesdrop on it. The intelligence experts admit there is much that is open to speculation, such as how the information recorded at a fiber-optic tap would get to analysts at the National Security Agency for review. During the 1970s, a U.S. submarine placed a tap on an undersea cable along the Soviet Pacific coast, and subs had to return every few months to pick up the tapes. The mission was ultimately betrayed by a spy, and the recording device is now at the KGB museum in Moscow. If U.S. subs still must return every so often to collect the communications, the taps won't provide speedy warnings, particularly against imminent terrorist attacks. It does continue to be something of a puzzle as to how they get this stuff back to home base, said John Pike, a military expert at GlobalSecurity.org. Some experts suggest the taps may somehow transmit their information, using an antenna or buoy-but those modifications are easier to discover and disable than a tap attached to the cable on the ocean floor. Unless they have some new method of relaying the information, it doesn't serve
Yahoo!: Please Verify Your Email Address
Title: Yahoo! Email Verification Help Do not reply to this message. If this account doesn't belong to you, please follow the instructions at the end of this email. Verify Your Email Address Please confirm that this is your email address. Click on the link below and then enter your Yahoo! password into the form. Important! Please click here to verify this email address for your account. Your Yahoo! ID: ahmet_tural Your Email Address: cypherpunks@minder.net Email verification helps make Yahoo! safer and more enjoyable for everyone. If you can't click on the sentence labeled "Important!" above, you can also verify your email address by cutting and pasting (or typing) the following address into your browser:http://edit.yahoo.com/v/recv?aefbebFor your records, your verification code is: aefbeb Policies: Please remember that your use of Yahoo! products and services is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Maintaining Your Account: Please update your email address whenever it changes so we can help with any account access issues. (You will be asked to sign in first.) Or, sign in to Yahoo!, go to Account Information, click the Edit button next to Member Information, and you will be able to change your alternate email address(es)." Not Your Account?: If this email is in reference to a Yahoo! account not created or used by you, please click here.
