February 1993 - cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

spread spectrum synchronization
by Phil Karn 05 Feb '93

05 Feb '93

Synchronization is indeed one of the more complex parts of a spread spectrum system. But there are standard, well studied ways to do it, and any of several textbooks have good descriptions. It's more tedious than difficult. A good job for VLSI. The "gold codes" you mention are simply one family of spreading sequences. There are others. You'd search for signals that use them in the same way you'd search for any kind of spreading sequence -- by searching the sequence space until you find a correlation between the incoming signal and your local copy of the spreading sequence. You detect this by the sudden increase in narrowband signal energy seen at the output of the despreader around the nominal carrier frequency when you're within a chip of the correct time. You then lock onto and track the spreading sequence with a circuit very similar to a phase locked loop. Practical spread spectrum systems aid this process either by synchronizing the spreading sequence to a common clock source, or by using a small enough spreading sequence to make searching the entire sequence feasible. In our CDMA cellular system, we use both approaches and several ordinary LSFR PN sequences (not Gold codes). There's a "short PN" code (2^15 chips long) common to all cells that can be found by a mobile within a few seconds of being turned on, and an additional per-user "long code" (2^47-1 chips) that is synchronized with the aid of GPS receivers at the cells. Both operate at the same chip rate (1.2288 Mhz). The gory details can be found by anonymous FTP to lorien.qualcomm.com, in /pub/cdma. Read the "overview" document first. Phil

1 0

[uunet!bigtex.cactus.org!wixer!wixer.cactus.org!jagwire: white house email (fwd)]
by tribble＠xanadu.com 05 Feb '93

05 Feb '93

> From jmedway(a)ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Wed Feb 3 20:24:33 1993 > From: jmedway(a)ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (johnjmedway) > Message-Id: <9302031943.AA23259(a)huey.cc.utexas.edu> > Subject: white house email > To: jagwire(a)wixer.cactus.org (Dan Zappone), > resmith(a)ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Rob Smith) > Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 13:43:54 CST > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] > > One of my coworkers passed this out to all of us @ work. > > Spread el verbum. > > > >> Subject: White House email address > >> > >> I thought you might find this interesting... > >> > >> > >> ================= { Begin included text } ===================== > >> > >> > > >> > How's this for interesting? > >> > We just got wind of it down here... :) Barbie > >> > - -------- > >> > > >> > President Clinton (The White House) = 75300.3115(a)Compuserve.com > >> > > >> > : Here's something you might find useful... President Clinton's email > >> > : address. (Obviously, he has people to screen it for him!) A friend > >> > : just emailed this to me. > >> > : > >> > : >Posted-Date: 27 Jan 93 20:19:51 EST > >> > : >Date: 27 Jan 93 20:19:51 EST > >> > : >From: The White House <75300.3115(a)compuserve.com> > >> > : >Subject: Re: Press Briefing, January 27, 1993 > >> > : > > >> > : > Thank you for your recent electronic mail message to the White > >> > : > House. As soon as practicable it will be sent to the appropriate > >> > : > office for consideration. You should receive a written reply in due > >> > : > course. Unfortunately, we are not yet ready to respond substantively > >> > : > to your message by electronic mail. We appreciate your patience as > >> we > >> > : > implement our new electronic systems. > >> > : > > >> > : > As you know, this is the first time in history that the > >> > : > White House has been connected to the public through electronic > >> > : > mail. We welcome your comments and suggestions for ways to > >> improve > >> > : > your Public Access E-mail program. > >> > : > > >> > : > Regards, > >> > : > Jock Gill > >> > : > Electronic Publishing > >> > : > Public Access E-mail > >> > : > The White House > >> > : > Washington, D.C. > >> > : > > >> > : > 75300.3115(a)Compuserve.com > >> > : > CLINTON PZ on America Online > >> > : > > >> > : > PS: If you did not include your U.S. mail return address in your > >> > : > message and you want a reply, please send your message again and > >> > : > include that information. > >> > > >> > ------- End of Forwarded Message > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > jmedway(a)ccwf.cc.utexas.edu "Be careful what you're doing, > aka john j medway you're messing up my life." > -- John Lydon aka John Rotten > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Re: White House letter
by Marc.Ringuette＠GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU 05 Feb '93

05 Feb '93

Dear ld231782, I believe that a good letter to the President has _one_ theme. If it comes out to more than one, write more than one letter. My own emphasis would be on computer security concerns, and the legitimate privacy, anonymity, and electronic-cash interests of Internetters. Aren't these the issues which bring us together as cypherpunks? -- Marc Ringuette (mnr(a)cs.cmu.edu) p.s. Here are two draft letters for your consideration. Dear President Clinton, Bring democracy to the bits! Let's take a vote among all the bits to decide which value, 0 or 1, is most correct. Then we can set all bits to that value and they will all be equal! Best regards, The Cypherpunks (Socialist Subgroup). Dear President Clinton, Freedom for the bits! We will not rest until each bit is free to determine its own natural orientation without outside coercion. The good news is, you don't need to do anything at all; merely get out of the way of the free market, and the bits will free themselves. Best regards, The Cypherpunks (Anarchist Subgroup).

1 0

RE: White House letter
by DrZaphod 05 Feb '93

05 Feb '93

In Message Thu, 04 Feb 93 17:02:44 -0700, longs.lance.colostate.edu!ld231782(a)netcomsv.netcom.com writes: >Hello, I think the official cyberpunk White House (Pres. Bill Clinton) >letter would be a great idea, although my experience is that the more >you want to say, the more people will say "that's not for cypherpunks >to say" or "I don't agree with that as a cypherpunk" and that it will >be hard to build consensus. But, on the other hand, a lot of >cypherpunks are kind of extremists that may even say some things don't >go far enough. I think to start off and get attention and respect from the big white house we should simply send our stance on encryption and why it shouldn't be regulated.. I think this is the common goal among all the cypherpunks on this list [ that is except the NSA folks who are listening in |-] ]. I think, for now, we just want to let people know that there IS a specific group of individuals who are willing to protest for their right to privacy [you are, aren't you?] and follow up with suggestions to specific issues in later messages to the White House. and YES we should definately send all our public keys along with the message.. basically telling the government that we DO enjoy extreme privacy in part of our lives and would like to see it extended to all forms of communication. TTFN! DrZaphod [AC/DC] / [DnA][HP] [drzaphod(a)ncselxsi.uucp] Technicolorized

1 0

`Sunday Times' article on GSM changes
by Jay Prime Positive 05 Feb '93

05 Feb '93

I speculated: > Speculation: The "A5 `scrambling code'" is used as the spreading code > for a spread spectrum radio. But I now belive I was wrong. A reader, who I will allow to remain unnamed, informed me that there is only one SS cellular comunication system -- interestingly enough they were using it at the time! They told me that the GSM system is narrow band. So I now ... Speculate: The "A5 `scrambling code'" is an actual cypher system. But the key is negociated between the phone and the cell, not the phone and the other phone. j'

1 0

Re: `Sunday Times' article on GSM changes
by Tom Libert 05 Feb '93

05 Feb '93

Jay Prime Positive <jpp(a)markv.com> writes: > A fourth is to use an externaly generated sync signal -- for example >a radio transmission that both sender and reciever can hear. (For >this aplication, I don't see how this would be used...) Some spread spectrum systems synchronize using the (very accurate) time signals provide by Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites. > Aditional solutions are possible. (What is this S.A.W. thing I read >about??) I don't know where you read it, but it might stand for "Surface Acoustic Wave".

1 0

`Sunday Times' article on GSM changes
by pmetzger＠shearson.com 05 Feb '93

05 Feb '93

Thought I'd forward this. ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From libernet-request(a)dartmouth.edu Wed Feb 3 18:51:12 1993 Resent-Message-Id: <4fQ2vaH0BwxI41u9ED(a)transarc.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:45:26 -0500 (EST) Resent-From: Lyle_Seaman(a)transarc.com Resent-To: libernet(a)dartmouth.edu X-Andrew-Widereply: netnews.sci.crypt Newsgroups: sci.crypt Path: andrew.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!rhbnc!andy From: andy(a)csqx.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk Subject: `Sunday Times' article on GSM changes Organization: RHBNC Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 16:07:01 GMT Lines: 94 Sender: libernet-request(a)dartmouth.edu X-Mailing-List: libernet(a)Dartmouth.EDU Content-Length: 4387 Having finally managed to track down a copy of last Sunday's `Sunday Times', here is the text of the article describing changes to the GSM mobile communications standard. The A5 `scrambling code' refered to in the article is the stream cipher between the mobile and base stations, which uses a 64-bit key derived from an initial authentication exchange. Whilst it's not exactly secret, as many people involved with developing GSM need to know the details, it is covered by non-disclosure agreements. `New Scientist' also have an article on GSM in this week's issue. andy -- `The Sunday Times', 31 January 1993. Main section, p. 12. (Home News) SPYMASTERS ORDER REDESIGN OF `TOO SECURE' MOBILE PHONES by Christopher Lloyd [Cartoon of a ridiculous mobile handset with various antennaea and dishes protruding. It is being held by a dismayed, purple-suited, man whilst a sign reads: "New! GCHQ-approved mobile phone".] The next generation of mobile telephones has proved so secure against tapping that it is to be made less safe on the advice of the intelligence services. The phones, based on coded digital technology, will have their technology modified so that spies can continue to eavesdrop on private conversations. The changes, ordered by a European Community (EC) telecommunications committee in Brussels, are being made at the insistance of European governments, including Britain's. They fear that surveillance operations against drug barons, the criminal underworld and foreign powers could be undermined. Digital mobiles phones, based on a system called GSM, are already replacing standard analogue networks across the world. They are equipped with a sophisticated scrambling code called A5, offering protection from interception equivelant to many military systems. It is this code that is to be replaced by one called A5X, to allow undercover eavesdropping to continue. Last week a Department of Trade and Industry spokesman confirmed changes were being introduced to make it easier for security agencies - ranging from GCHQ, the British government's listening post near Cheltenham, to the FBI in America - to eavesdrop. "Alternatice coding is being developed for the reasons you have outlined," he said. "There is a general desire for this among the governments of Europe." The department, which issues export licenses for the phones, is particularly concerned that the original A5 technology should not be sold to countries that may adapt it for military applications. In America, the FBI has voiced similar concern. Nestor Michnyak, spokesman for the FBI headquarters in Washington, said that digital technology was advancing so fast that counter-surveillance was in danger of being undermined. "We are trying to get companies and manufacturers to work with us to allow us to maintain the surveillance operations we have undertaken since the late 1960s," he said. "All we are asking is to be able to continue to do what we are currently doing and we want the same access we are having now." Manufacturers of GSM mobile phones will be forced to adapt products to work with the new codes. Motorola, one of the leading makers of the digital mobile handsets, complained that costs may rise as a result. "We are flying blind here," said Larry Conlee, the assistant general manager of Motorola's European cellular division. "The GSM system has ended up more secure than it should have been for the commercial market and now we're trying to recover from it." Vodafone, Britain's largest analogue mobile phone company, which has already installed 250 GSM base stations covering 50% of the UK population, said its network will need to be adapted to accept the new codes. "Government authorities have made it known that they don't want this high level of encoding," said Mike Caldwell, the spokesman for Vodafone. Caldwell said the problem with the original system was that it would take security services weeks rather than minutes to decode the conversations they wanted to bug. Despite the changes, it will be still virtually impossible for any amateur eavesdropper to intercept calls made on the digital mobile phones. -- Andy Thomas Information Security Group, Department of Computer Science Royal Holloway, University of London TW20 0EX, England Internet: andy(a)dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk phone: + 44 784 443696 ----- End Included Message -----

3 4

White house letter
by crunch＠netcom.com 05 Feb '93

05 Feb '93

>4. Fiber optics will be penetrating into a lot of homes over the next >few years. What about adding the issue of government grants for R&D on new technology in Data Networking, Virtual reality, and other new technologies. Or at least generious tax breaks to encourage R&D. JD

1 0

White House letter
by ld231782＠longs.lance.colostate.edu 05 Feb '93

05 Feb '93

Hello, I think the official cyberpunk White House (Pres. Bill Clinton) letter would be a great idea, although my experience is that the more you want to say, the more people will say "that's not for cypherpunks to say" or "I don't agree with that as a cypherpunk" and that it will be hard to build consensus. But, on the other hand, a lot of cypherpunks are kind of extremists that may even say some things don't go far enough. Anyway, here are some possible topics, as bland as I can make them (but are all actually highly controverial): 1. Off the tip of the mailing list's tongue, phone encryption particularly in cellular and hand-held phones. The recent article from the Sunday Times posted here stated that > Despite the changes, it will be still >virtually impossible for any amateur eavesdropper to intercept calls made >on the digital mobile phones. Hm, that's pretty questionable. Maybe we shouldn't make it a black and white issue, but codes seem to me to be either broken or unbroken, and the former is insecure and unusable whereas the latter is not. There are already examples of situations where lack of encryption led to outrageous breaches of privacy--both Princess Diana and her previous husband can attest to that! Clinton could put pressure on intelligence agencies in the U.S. to allow strong encryption for cellular phones, pass laws, or whatever, and eventually commit to security in phone calls. What do you think, cypherpunks? Should the government be allowed to wiretap "at all"? Is it a "right" of the government? (prepare for the flames) Should we insist on completely unlimited use of cryptography? Is any other scenario practical? Is anything but this inevitable? (uh oh, some opinion creeping in there) Introduction of strong cryptography in hand-held phones could be *the* stepping stone for widespread introduction of cryptography, if the battle is won and becomes publicized enough. I think if this was painted in the right way, we could really get a lot of public support for ideas like "I should be able to know when someone is listening to my calls" or "I should be able to protect from that" or "I know when somebody opens my mail, why not my phone calls?" or "that's not something I want my government to be doing anyway". 2. The new national network NREN supported by the NSF will have massive data communications capabilities, many times the bandwidth of the current internet. There are plenty of "guidelines" that could be established on its use. For example, how about commercial traffic? Are there restrictions on traffic? I think the "new world highways" analogy works here. While we can get and go on a highway whenever we want, and carry loads up to certain reasonable restrictions, we have to get licensed. Also, commercial companies rely on them heavily and our economy is immensely dependent on them (they benefit it immensely). Should we oppose all taxes and licensing? Limitations on total traffic permitted? Believe it or not, these will become *hot* issues soon. Bigger than the time the FCC was thinking of taxing modem use. Keep in mind, we might be able to make arguments that the ideas like "volume" are somewhat obsolete in terms of networks, in which in many cases sending very large amounts of data is as costly (or even less so, because of overhead) than sending smaller amounts. Even if someone was charged based on quantity of use, the actual money involved would have to be something like $.0001/meg (I hope). 3. There are lot of restrictions and regulations on networks right now. For example, there are rules that prevent telephone companies from providing "information services" over telephone lines, apparently originating by rather bold but successful cable company lobbyists. Should these be removed? 4. Fiber optics will be penetrating into a lot of homes over the next few years. This will be related to the network expansion mentioned above. Should these be maintained and installed by private companies? Should there be limitations on the size of the companies running the networks? 5. In the letter, we should look at trying to explain our interests and backgrounds. Who ARE we to ask these things? A bunch of teenage computer geeks and hackers? Computer professionals with a serious interest in privacy, with important tax-paying jobs? I don't really know the answer to this one! I'd be willing to hammer up some rough drafts, if no one objects, but we need to hash this out, and decide about some kind of voting procedure, I would say (majority passing? line-item veto?) I suppose the one really major consensus of the cypherpunks is the commitment to cryptography and the believe that it should be unregulated and freely used. So, if all this sounds too involved, we could go the simple route and just fix up Eric Hugh's group charter to send to Pres. Clinton. ltr. P.S. Here's a product that would *really* bring the issue of cryptography to the forefront, making the public aware of it and partial to it, and is just waiting to be invented by somebody with a flair for electronics, packaging, and marketing. Encryption technology is becoming pretty inexpensive, and even some simple techniques are better than nothing and not trivial to get around for the big bureacracies that do wiretapping. Imagine a single little plastic cup that could be placed over a phone reciever with all the cheap encryption electronics built in (maybe even analog based). Market it in every drugstore and discount store in existence in real flashy ways. Protect your calls! Just slip it on your phone! Use it to talk to your friends! etc. introducing the CRYPTOCUP only $9.99. The thing could be adaptive, like pick one of 10 or 100 preprogrammed codes when it finds another of the same at the other end of the line. Or, maybe some one-time PADs could be used by the users using touch-tones. You could even market it as a child's toy: imagine that the kid could slip it over his mouth and yell through it. Another kid with a receiving speaker could decrypt this into earphones or something. Now, to other kids on the playground, all they hear is goofyspeak that sounds like pig latin from the pair, but the two kids are able to talk about throwing snowballs at Suzy or whatever (endless laughs and hilarity). You could have all kinds of spiffy TV commercials with little kids pretending to be spies, with the costumes and everything. Wow! You could sell a LOT of these if it was done right. This would be like the 20th century equivalent of the cups-and-string thing. (Just make sure I get plenty of royalties :) Or how about this? For us cypherpunks, the "kids toy" thing could be little cover for the use that it was *designed* for: use over phones. The "kid toy" thing would just be a way to get it to be widespread so that everybody had one and knew what it did. Then, the rumors would start. Wow! They fit on phones! Drug dealer's use em! People having affairs use 'em! Businessmen use 'em! EVERYBODY uses em! Coach to team player: did you remember your CUP? Yes Sir! Coach starts yelling plays at quarterback. Girlfriends would ask their boyfriends to slip 'em on before they started (do you have the PROTECTION with you?). Then, we take over the world. HAHAHAHA <- evil laugh If this was cheap enough, people might buy it just for the novelty of it. Especially if you don't have to choose the code, just slip it on and it works (maybe with the better versions, you could pick the code). The point is, infiltrate the economy to the point where any kind of silly regulation of "cryptography" would be perceived as completely ridiculous by the general population. "What are we going to do?" They'd say, "register every kid's CRYPTOCUP? HAHAHAHAHA!" <- side splitting laugh at the sheer stupidity of government. (Yeah, we have a great one---once they even tried to regulate CRYPTOCUPS! HAHAHAHA! <- now sides starting to hurt) OK (regaining my composure and sanity), so if we're really boring, I suppose we could go the route of just pressing for encryption in cellular phones. Or maybe just the middleaged employed people on the group could go that route, and all the teenage hackers work on the toy. P.S. how big is cypherpunks now anyway? I'm interested in embarrassing myself in front of as many people as possible. :)

1 0

Group note
by crunch＠netcom.com 04 Feb '93

04 Feb '93

> Excellent Idea! What better way to secure our position on cryptography >and privacy then to write a little note to Bill. go for it.. and we can all >read it, make suggestions, and add bits.. incidentally, I've already sent my >PGP key down to the White House.. |-] >TTFN! I didn't go that far, but if we decide to send a letter to the White House this way, we all should collaborate on what to say, in relation to our concerns, etc. Then each of us can "Sign" the letter using our PGP Signatures. I also thought about sending my PGP key, but still deciding on what I want to say relating to my personal concerns. JD

1 0