Re: NAI pulls out the DMCA stick

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 5:41 PM -0700 on 5/21/02, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote on FoRK:


> So what are they trying to do?
> I've totally not been following PGP,
> so I don't understand what they're doing.

O, I don't kno It looks, to *me* at least, like they're trying
to stamp out "unauthorized" copies of PGP on the net by threatening to send
people to jail. What does it look like to *you*?

:-).

Are we having fun yet, boys and girls? Is there an echo in this room? This
must be a closed universe, or something, 'cause I swear, I really do, I can
see my own backside, wy out there in the distance. I must be imagining
things, though. This couldn't be happening again...

Right?

Right?

Sheesh...

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
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: NAI pulls out the DMCA stick

[jamesd]

--
On 21 May 2002 at 15:03, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
> NAI is now taking steps to remove the remaining copies of PGP
> from the Internet, not long after announcing that the company
> will not release its fully completed Mac OS X and Windows XP
> versions?

Not a problem -- we have too many communication encryption
programs already.  Still a bit weak on disk encryption programs,
and of course, we have no transaction software.

We may suspect that someone is leaning on the big boys not to
provide encryption to the masses, but if so, it is a bit late.


--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 X6j99VDvTvGmFGh1D3CQg9dK9SHeYpD48/ZPZgHz
 4BH3f/B8/u/XrQuUz6UmSd7Vb0Xyl7FKwywwFfFdN

NAI pulls out the DMCA stick

[Meyer Wolfsheim]

NAI is now taking steps to remove the remaining copies of PGP from the
Internet, not long after announcing that the company will not release its
fully completed Mac OS X and Windows XP versions, and will no longer sell
any copies of its PGP software.

Do we still believe this was a pure cost-cutting measure?


From: http://crypto.radiusnet.net/archive/pgp/index.html



Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 13:01:40 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Network Associates, Inc. DMCA Notice

[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

DMCA NOTICE OF INFRINGING MATERIAL

Via Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Re: Digital Millennium Copyright Act Notice
Dear Radiusnet.net
I am writing on behalf of Networks Associates, Inc. and its affiliated
companies (collectively, "Network Associates").  As you may know, Network
Associates is a leading provider of computer software for network security
and management.  Among its business units are such well-known names as
McAfee, PGP Security, Sniffer Technologies, and Magic Solutions.
We have learned that Radiusnet.Net is providing access on its system or
network to material that infringes the copyrighted work of Network
Associates.  In particular, I refer you to the web pages located at
http://crypto.radiusnet.net/archive/pgp which contains links from your site
that provide unauthorized copies of NAI proprietary materials, including
software.  The material on this web site infringes Network Associates'
valuable copyrights.
Accordingly, Network Associates requests that Radiusnet.Net immediately
remove or disable access to this infringing material. You should know that
Network Associates takes its intellectual property rights seriously.  By
bringing this matter to your attention, we hope that Radiusnet.Net will act
promptly to remedy this problem.
We have a good faith belief that use of the material described above is not
authorized by Network Associates, any of its agents, or the law.   To the
best of our knowledge, the information contained in this notification is
accurate.
Under penalty of perjury, I am authorized to act on behalf of Network
Associates.  If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at the
address listed above.  You can also reach me by e-mail at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or by phone at +1 301-947-7150.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,


Peter Beruk
Director, Anti-Piracy Programs

Peter Beruk
Director, Anti-Piracy Programs
Network Associates, Inc.
Phone:  +1.301.947.7150
Fax:  +1.301.527.0482

Re: Regarding maximum period LSFR's

[Mike Rosing]

On Tue, 21 May 2002, gfgs pedo wrote:

> Its regarding maximum period LSFR's (Linear feed back
> shift registers) used for generating
> pseudo random numbers.
> A tap sequence for an LFSR is the xor of certain bits
> in the register.
>
> For eg: I choose a primitive polynomail mod 2
>
> x^32+x^7+x^5+x^3+x^2+x+1 is a primitive polynomial mod
> 2(chosen from a table)
>
> It says for an LSFR to be a maximum  period LSFR,
> the polynomial from a tap sequence plus constant one
> must be a primitive polynomail mod 2

Right so far.

> How ever what is the polynomial formed the tap
> sequence & how is it found,I dont understand.

the tap sequence is just the bits from the polynomial:
x^32 + x^7 is the xor of 2 bits.  + x^5 is the xor of
a 3rd bit, and so on.  So you just do what the polynomial
says, add up the bits!

Then you shift them one place (multiply or divide by x basicly).
The new bit you computed is rotated in, and the ms or ls bit
is lost (depending on which way you shift).

> It further says the degree of the polynomail is the
> length of the shift register.

Yup.

> Here 32 is the degree,hence is a 32 bit shift
> register.
>
> It says a primitive polynomial  of degree n is
> irreducable  polynomial that divides
> (x^2)^(n-1)  +1 but not (x^d)+1 for any d that divides
>  (2^n-1)

Where did you find that?  It's irreducible if it
is a member of x^(2^n) + 1.  I didn't know there was that
simple a test for primitive.

> Now what is the polynomial of degree n?

Your tap sequence.

> I thought I already had  one with degree 32.

Yup, you do.

> which is the primitive polynomial of degree n that
> divides
> (x^2)^(n-1)  +1 but not (x^d)+1 for any d that divides
>  (2^n-1)
> and where did it come from?

It comes from cyclotomic polynomials and finding out that all the
irreducible polynomials combine to form a really simple expression.
Quite amazing really - that's one of those "beautiful" things in math.

I would like to know where you got it too.  Usually you have to test by
brute force if a polynomial is primitive or not.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Regarding maximum period LSFR's

[gfgs pedo]

hi,


Its regarding maximum period LSFR's (Linear feed back
shift registers) used for generating
pseudo random numbers.
A tap sequence for an LFSR is the xor of certain bits
in the register.

For eg: I choose a primitive polynomail mod 2

x^32+x^7+x^5+x^3+x^2+x+1 is a primitive polynomial mod
2(chosen from a table)

It says for an LSFR to be a maximum  period LSFR,
the polynomial from a tap sequence plus constant one
must be a primitive polynomail mod 2

so

polynomail from a top sequence+1=  
x^32+x^7+x^5+x^3+x^2+x+1  (as chosen earlier)

How ever what is the polynomial formed the tap
sequence & how is it found,I dont understand.

It further says the degree of the polynomail is the
length of the shift register.

Here 32 is the degree,hence is a 32 bit shift
register.

It says a primitive polynomial  of degree n is
irreducable  polynomial that divides
(x^2)^(n-1)  +1 but not (x^d)+1 for any d that divides
 (2^n-1)

Now what is the polynomial of degree n?

I thought I already had  one with degree 32.

which is the primitive polynomial of degree n that
divides
(x^2)^(n-1)  +1 but not (x^d)+1 for any d that divides
 (2^n-1)
and where did it come from?

Regards Data.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

"Justice is more powerful than therapy" -ex Scientologist

[Optimizzin Al-gorithym]

Lawrence Wollersheim was awarded millions of dollars, but he plans to
keep living as a nomad in a solar-powered RV, connected to the world by
a cellular phone with a secret number.

The ex-Scientologist came by his money in a unique fashion too: He won a
grueling 22-year court battle against the Church of Scientology of
California that went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wollersheim said the church pushed him to the brink of suicide, brought
on bipolar disorder and drove his business into bankruptcy. A Los
Angeles jury agreed. On May 9, the church deposited $8.67 million with
the Los Angeles Superior Court, marking the only time in two decades,
church officials say, that Scientology has lost a lawsuit and been
forced to pay a former member, or as church officials call him, an
apostate.

Now, Wollersheim said, he won't "have to worry about having a job ever
again."

But the 53-year-old, who has spent his entire adult life in Scientology
or fighting it, said he is not going to relax in his newfound security.

He'd like nothing better, he said. It's just that his quest for justice
may compel him to wage more battles and file more lawsuits. He is
encouraging other ex-members to file their own suits and plans to stay
involved in Factnet, the anti-Scientology, anti-cult Web site he
co-founded.

"Justice is more powerful than therapy," Wollersheim said. "If it takes
another 22 years, I'll stay with it. I'm standing up straight and tall
and looking them in the eye, and they're not pushing me anymore."


http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-35921may21.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange


(access using joecypherpunk2/writecode if necessary)