Re: Palm security
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:58:16 -0400, Adam Shostack [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I find myself storing a pile of vaugely sensitive information on my palm. Where do I find the competent analysis of this? Perhaps this will help.. http://www.atstake.com/research/reports/index.html#pdd_palm_forensics -- contrary [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://fastmail.fm - No WWW (Wait-Wait-Wait) required
(Fwd) Re: Palm security
I've been using Cryptopad 3 (Memo pad replacement) and like it (uses Eric Young's Blowfish). v4 is available (freeware) http://www.freewarepalm.com/utilities/cryptopad.shtml http://www.palmblvd.com/software/pc/CryptoPad-2000-10-12-palm-pc.html jay On 4 Jun 2002 at 16:58, Adam Shostack wrote: I find myself storing a pile of vaugely sensitive information on my palm. Where do I find the competent analysis of this? Ideally, I'd like to be able to protect things that I move into a sensitive area (passwords), and maybe select items in other places that I want to encrypt. I don't really want to have to enter a password each time I look at my schedule and todo lists. Someone suggested YAPS (http://www.palmblvd.com/software/pc/Yaps-2000-11-7-palm-pc.html) are there others I should look at? Adam -- -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume --- End of forwarded message ---
Re: Palm security
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:58:16PM -0400, Adam Shostack wrote: I find myself storing a pile of vaugely sensitive information on my palm. Where do I find the competent analysis of this? Ideally, I'd like to be able to protect things that I move into a sensitive area (passwords), and maybe select items in other places that I want to encrypt. I don't really want to have to enter a password each time I look at my schedule and todo lists. Someone suggested YAPS (http://www.palmblvd.com/software/pc/Yaps-2000-11-7-palm-pc.html) are there others I should look at? I prefer the Keyring for PalmOS (http://gnukeyring.sourceforge.net). Comes with source code, uses 3DES for encryption (the passphrase is MD5 hashed as far as i remember). Have a look at it. Cheers, Ralf -- Ralf-P. Weinmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 2048/46C772078ACB58DEF6EBF8030CBF1724
Re: CDR: Missing pieces?
We're not missing anything, except more users... http://open-forge.org On Tue, 28 May 2002, Mister Heex wrote: What are the fundamental building blocks that we're missing for a bright 'n' shiny crypto-future? -- When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
RSA SSL-C benchmark on Itanium 2 (vs. Ultrasparc multiproc)
from Intel sources, quoted by eweek 3 jun 02: Itanium 2 does 1,440 secure transactions/sec, nearly three times the performance of an 8-CPU Ultrasparc III server FWIW; there was a thread on SSL performance here some time ago.
Re: Palm security
Adam Shostack wrote: I find myself storing a pile of vaugely sensitive information on my palm. Where do I find the competent analysis of this? Ideally, I'd like to be able to protect things that I move into a sensitive area (passwords), and maybe select items in other places that I want to encrypt. I don't really want to have to enter a password each time I look at my schedule and todo lists. Someone suggested YAPS (http://www.palmblvd.com/software/pc/Yaps-2000-11-7-palm-pc.html) are there others I should look at? I use Keyring (http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnukeyring/), though it seems to have moved on some since I last looked... Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit. - Robert Woodruff
RE: Degrees of Freedom vs. Hollywood Control Freaks
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Trei, Peter wrote: Well, I'm convinced - I guess that's why every single album today is released on both CD *and* vinyl - can't piss off the tens of millions of turntable owners, after all. That's not correct. There are lots of albums (aimed at DJ's for example) that are -NEVER- available except on vinyl. Also, if you'll actually check the 'yellow book' at your record store you'll find that over the last 4-5 years a growing number of albums are available on CD only; no LP, no cassette. Start in the techno and related genre. Hint, they are -not- hit records. HDTV will come. That you can take to the bank. BUT, that doesn't equate to the end of NTSC by about 10 to 15 years. -- When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
RE: Degrees of Freedom vs. Hollywood Control Freaks
Jim Choate[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Trei, Peter wrote: Well, I'm convinced - I guess that's why every single album today is released on both CD *and* vinyl - can't piss off the tens of millions of turntable owners, after all. That's not correct. There are lots of albums (aimed at DJ's for example) that are -NEVER- available except on vinyl. Also, if you'll actually check the 'yellow book' at your record store you'll find that over the last 4-5 years a growing number of albums are available on CD only; no LP, no cassette. Start in the techno and related genre. Hint, they are -not- hit records. Jimbo wouldn't recognize irony if it came up and bit him in the ass. Peter
Laurie's blinding w/cut and choose?
In his paper on Lucre (2nd defence against marking): http://anoncvs.aldigital.co.uk/lucre/ Ben Laurie gives this as a (possibly patent-free) blinding technique, where h is the message, and g is the public generator: r = blind(h) = h^y * g^b (mod p) To sign, s = sign(r) = m^h To unblind, (s/g^k^b)^(1/y) (mod p) (where k is the signer's secret exponent. Of course, nobody but the signer can verify the signature). Unfortunately, this doesn't work with cut and choose where the signer signs the product of unrevealed documents, since the 1/y exponent above would distribute to all the internal terms: ((r * r * r ...)^k)^(1/y ) 123 1 -- != (h * r * r ...)^k (mod p) (g^k)^b 123 1 Can anyone see how to get this to work? It doesn't matter for Ben's money system since he doesn't need cut and choose, but I'm working on a patent-free credential system where the issuer needs to cut and choose to keep the user from cheating. Alternatively, is there another way to get some sort of blind mark (that foils the issuer from adding subliminal information that would compromise the blinding) without stepping on Chaum's patent? I hear Chaum mentioned one himself at PET 2002, but I can't find anything about it online. -J
RE: Degrees of Freedom vs. Hollywood Control Freaks
At 05:06 PM 6/3/2002 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: Tim, I think you're missing the point here. Valenti and his ilk would like nothing more than to force you to to rebuy your visual media *again*, but they don't have to. I'll bet dollars to donuts that you've rebought some of your VCR tapes as DVDs. Whey wouldn't the MPAA think they can make you do it over? Tim may be willing or able to repurchase his movie collection but many are not. I've backed up all of the movies I have on VHS onto CDs (2-3 per movie average) from DVD in a high quality format called SVCD. As soon as my budget allows I'll be a DVD burn'in fool. Communicate in total privacy. Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 Looking for a good deal on a domain name? http://www.hush.com/partners/offers.cgi?id=domainpeople
Re: Laurie's blinding w/cut and choose?
Jason Holt writes: In his paper on Lucre (2nd defence against marking): http://anoncvs.aldigital.co.uk/lucre/ Ben Laurie gives this as a (possibly patent-free) blinding technique, where h is the message, and g is the public generator: r = blind(h) = h^y * g^b (mod p) To sign, s = sign(r) = m^h To unblind, (s/g^k^b)^(1/y) (mod p) (where k is the signer's secret exponent. Of course, nobody but the signer can verify the signature). Unfortunately, this doesn't work with cut and choose where the signer signs the product of unrevealed documents, since the 1/y exponent above would distribute to all the internal terms: Boy, you've got a lot of faith asking this question on cypherpunks. It's not exactly the intellectual center of the crypto freedom movement these days, you know. The average IQ is rapidly descending into double digits, even not counting Choate. But let's see what we can do for you. First, let's fix your notation. r = blind(h) = h^y * g^b OK s = sign(r) = r^k, not m^h. unblind(s) = (s/g^k^b)^(1/y) = h^k = sign(h). That's what you want to end up with, h^k, as the pseudo-signature on h. Now for a credential system, you apparently want to create a bunch of values which have some structure, and get a signature on a product of them. Using cut and choose, the client will prepare blinded forms of all of the values, then the server will ask for half of the blinding factors to be revealed. This exposes the raw values to be signed and the server can make sure they are in the right form. If so, it then signs the product of the remaining values, which the client unblinds to get back a good signature on the product of the unblinded values. The fundamental problem with this is that the blinding factors have to be different for each of the values. If they are all the same, then when they are revealed for some of the values during cut and choose, that will reveal them for all of them, and so none of them will be effectively blinded any more. But if the blinding factors are all different, we can't unblind since we don't have a unique power 1/y to raise to. That's your problem, right? Here are a couple of possible solutions. First, you could do a cut and choose in which all but one of the blinded values are revealed, and only the remaining (unrevealed) one is signed. This has the problem that it has only a 1/n security factor with n values. That is, the client can just guess which one the server won't ask to check, and if it sent say 100 values, it has a 1/100 chance of getting lucky, which might seem too high. However since credential issuing usually occurs in a non-anonymous context, you can afford to penalize people very heavily if they are caught in this manner. (Cutting the connection and refusing to resume with the previous values has to count as cheating.) Another approach is as follows. Go back to the 50-50 cut and choose with signature on the product. However, use the same y blinding factor for all of the values. Now when the client has to reveal during cut and choose, it keeps the y value secret but reveals all of the h and b values. It then proves in zero knowledge that there exists a y such that the h^y equals the required value. This is a standard ZK proof of knowledge of a discrete logarithm. It is similar to the example Ben's paper gives of how the bank can prove it is raising to the right power. Since you don't have to reveal y, you can use the same y for all of them and successfully perform the unblind operation, getting back the signature on the product of the h's as required. But actually another solution is much simpler, which is to do blinding as just h * g^b, without a y factor. That works fine as long as the bank is known not to be misbehaving. Ben's paper shows how the bank can use a ZK proof to show that it is raising to the same power k every time, basically again that same ZK proof regarding discrete logarithms. If the bank uses such a proof then you can use simpler blinding without a y factor, and you can recover the signature on the product of your h values by dividing by g^k^(sum of b's). So there you go. A little technical for cypherpunks, but unfortunately coderpunks, like the little old lady, has fallen and it can't get up.
Re: CDR: RE: Degrees of Freedom vs. Hollywood Control Freaks
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Jim Choate wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Trei, Peter wrote: Well, I'm convinced - I guess that's why every single album today is released on both CD *and* vinyl - can't piss off the tens of millions of turntable owners, after all. That's not correct. There are lots of albums (aimed at DJ's for example) that are -NEVER- available except on vinyl. Ok, somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't they officially cease production of vinyl pressings several years ago? As in *all* vinyl pressings??? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: CDR: RE: Degrees of Freedom vs. Hollywood Control Freaks
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CDR: RE: Degrees of Freedom vs. Hollywood Control Freaks Ok, somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't they officially cease production of vinyl pressings several years ago? As in *all* vinyl pressings??? They stopped selling them to the general public, but you only have to stop by a DJ record shop (as opposed to the consumer shops) to see a wide selection of vinyl albums. DJs prefer vinyl primarily because it allows beat matching by hand, scratching, etc. The only disadvantage I know of for vinyl is that it degrades as it is played, for a DJ this isn't much of a problem since tracks have a lifespan that's measured in days or weeks the vinyl becomes useless after a few weeks, which is how long it lasts at good quality. Joe
