- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

Re: Article from Knight/Ridder Wire
by jthomas＠coconut.mitre.org 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

matt(a)oc.com (Matthew Lyle) writes: > New Scrambler Designed to Protect Privacy, But Allow Police Monitoring By > Christopher Drew, Chicago Tribune Oh, well, if only Chris can do it, I guess it's okay. I trust him with my keys... ;^) Joe

1 0

CLIPPER: Network World article
by jthomas＠coconut.MITRE.ORG 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

>From Network World, April 19, 1993, quoted without permission: --- Clinton security plan hints of Big Brother Clipper Chip would let governemnt eavesdrop on encrypted voice and data communications. By Ellen Messmer Senior Correspondent WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Clinton last week announced a policy review of encryption while endorsing a new encryption technology called Clipper Chip that would give law enforcement agencies a key to unlock users' encrypted communications. [rehash of various press releases deleted] But government officials had a difficult time last week rebutting the question why any criminal would use a Clipper Chip-based product when the person knows the government could listen in, particularly since there are a host of other encryption products available on the market that are, in theory, unbreakable codes. "A criminal probably wouldn't use it," said Mike Agee, marketing manager for secure products at AT&T, adding that the Clipper Chip is for the rest of the world. [familiar Kapor quote deleted] --- Nice quote, that. I like the headline, too. Joe

1 0

Wiretap Chip Questions
by Douglas Barnes 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I am working on articles and article proposals for some local media outlets. I need to get some specific information regarding the Clipper Chip (aka Wiretap Chip) proposal: Questions: 1) What is a rough estimate of how long it would take a brute-force attack on an 80-bit key using a parallel architecture system costing less than, say, $25,000 two to three years from now. 2) How, in your opinion, would this affect the creation of international standards for encryption? Would this help or hinder development of the global economy? 3) I understand that the scheme relies on the secrecy of the encryption algorithm to protect the transmission of keys at the beginning of a session. (It uses a system key to encyrpt the keys for the two devices). If the algorithm is successfully reverse-engineered, does this compromise the entire system? 4) I am assuming that this system would be just as vulnerable to a "known plaintext attack" as other schemes. Is this correct? Please identify yourself and your credentials, and indicate whether or not you wish to be quoted in any articles on this subject. Thanks, Douglas Barnes gumby(a)wixer.bga.com

1 0

Article 2 from Knight/Ridder
by matt＠oc.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

-- Matthew Lyle (214) 888-0474 OpenConnect Systems matt(a)oc.com Dallas, TX "...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you long to return..." Computer Group, Libertarians Question Clinton Phone Privacy Stance By Rory J. O'Connor, San Jose Mercury News, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News SAN JOSE, Calif.--Apr. 17--Civil libertarians and a major computer industry group raised concerns Friday about how much protection a Clinton administration plan would afford private electronic communications, from cellular telephone calls to computer data. The administration Friday said it would begin using technology developed by the government's National Institute of Standards and Technology to balance two competing interests: the desire of citizens to keep their conversations private and the need for law enforcement agencies to monitor those conversations after getting a court order. The technology that enables this is a computer chip called the Clipper Chip that scrambles a telephone call or computer message using a secret algorithm, or formula. But each chip also comes with a pair of electronic "keys" that could be used by law enforcement agencies to decipher the secret messages generated by the chip. The Clinton proposal calls for one key to be held by each of two separate "trusted" third parties, who would release them to law enforcement agencies that obtained legal authority to intercept the communications. Both keys would be needed to decipher a message. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a not-for-profit civil liberties group, praised the administration for considering the issue. But it criticized the lack of public input into the plan. "They've announced a big inquiry with public input, but they've reached a conclusion before they started," said Daniel J. Weitzner, staff counsel for the Washington-based foundation. Although the administration's plan calls only for equipping government telephones with the security devices, some groups are concerned the plan might become a standard for all manner of electronic communication before the public has a chance to debate its merits. "I don't want to sound too stridently opposed to this," said Ken Wasch, executive director of the Software Publishers Association (SPA) in Washington. "But...we feel blindsided." The SPA was discussing data security issues with Clinton administration officials but had not expected any White House action until August, said Ilene Rosenthal, general counsel. Besides the lack of initial hearings, both groups said they had two major concerns about the Clinton plan: - Because the algorithm itself is secret, the groups say it is impossible for the public to discern if it is truly secure. Users can't be certain government spy agencies have not hidden a "back door" in the software that will allow them to read anything they want. "So far there hasn't been a credible explanation about why the algorithm has to be secret," Weitzner said. - The administration hasn't decided who will be the escrow agents, and it seems unlikely any government agency, corporate entity or other organization would be deemed trustworthy by every user. Even assuming all concerned can agree on who will hold them, civil libertarians are concerned that the keys, by giving law enforcement agencies access to individuals' private communications, might pose a threat to constitutional protections against self-incrimination. Washington sources who requested anonymity suggested the White House might have drafted its plan quickly because of concern over sales of an AT&T device that encrypts phone calls using an older standard, Data Encryption Standard. The sources said law enforcement officials feared the device would create an explosion in secured telephone traffic that would severely hamper their efforts to wiretap calls. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. announced Friday it would adapt the $1,200 product, called the Telephone Security Device, to use the Clipper Chip by the end of this fiscal quarter. AT&T makes a related device, which encrypts voice and computer data transmissions, that could be converted to the Clipper technology, said spokesman Bill Jones. Jones said he wasn't aware of any concern by the government over the current model of the Telephone Security Device, which has been sold to government and business customers. At least one company was quite pleased with the plan: San Jose chip maker VLSI Technology, which will manufacture the Clipper chips for a Torrance company that is selling them to the government and to AT&T. VLSI, which invented a manufacturing method the company said makes it difficult to "reverse engineer" the chip or discern the encryption scheme, expects to make $50 million in the next three years selling the device, said Jeff Hendy, director of new product marketing for the company. END!A?SJ-SECURITY Transmitted: 93-04-18 21:06:00 EDT

1 0

Article from Knight/Ridder Wire
by matt＠oc.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I hadn't seen this article fly by yet, so... ----- New Scrambler Designed to Protect Privacy, But Allow Police Monitoring By Christopher Drew, Chicago Tribune Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News WASHINGTON--Apr. 19--As a step toward the development of vast new data "superhighways," the federal government has designed a powerful device that would protect the privacy of electronic communications by encoding them but still allow police to eavesdrop. Critics say the project, announced Friday by the Clinton administration, raises serious questions about the protection of civil liberties as more people use cellular and cordless phones and computer-based communications. They also warned that the device is not likely to help law-enforcement agents foil high-tech criminals unless it becomes the most widely used commercial encryption system - and drives private competitors out of the business. "'A.k.a. Big Brother,' that's what I call it," said Stephen Bryen, a former Pentagon official who runs a company developing a rival encryption system. Bryen said it was "very disturbing" that the government has gone so far with the previously classified project "without consulting with experts in the industry" whose investments could be wiped out. One high-ranking federal official, Raymond Kammer, acknowledged that such concerns are part of an "appropriate debate" that needs to be held over the project. "Maybe it turns out that society, as it debates this, finds it unacceptable," said Kammer, acting director of the National Institute for Standards and Technology. "I'm not sure. This is the start of that debate." Millions of people who exchange information via computers and make calls from cordless and cellular phones, which are especially vulnerable to interception, could be affected. Experts say an era is dawning in which traveling executives exchange electronic memos and negotiate sensitive deals via hand-held communicators using vulnerable wireless transmitters. In endorsing the plan, the White House described it Friday as an outgrowth of federal efforts to capitalize on advances in telephone and computer technology while preventing drug dealers and terrorists from finding new ways to mask their misdeeds. In last year's campaign, President Clinton pledged to invest billions of dollars in faster and more secure data links to enhance the standing of U.S. firms in the global economy. But as the computer industry has developed systems to enable businesses to scramble data transfers and telephone conversations as a safeguard against industrial espionage, a growing number of criminals also have begun using them to foil court-authorized wiretaps. Under the new plan, engineers at the National Security Agency invented a new coding device, called the "Clipper Chip," which is said to be much harder to crack than encoding systems now on the market. The government licensed two California companies - Mykotronx and VLSI Technology - to make the computer chips. The chips will form the "brains" inside small scrambling devices that can be attached to individual telephones. To spur the venture, the Justice Department will soon purchase several thousand of the devices. Military and spy agencies also are expected to use them. Private businesses would not be required to use the technology. But federal officials hope their sponsorship will establish the Clipper chips as the new industry standard and crowd out competing systems. Indeed, AT&T announced Friday that it will use the new chips in a desktop device for encrypting telephone conversations that it expects to sell for $1,195. But in return for gaining the extra encoding power built into the new system, users would have to accept the fact that government code-breakers would always hold the keys to tap into the information. In an effort to prevent abuses of civil liberties, federal officials said, they will set up a system in which they would have to match two coding keys held by different officials to unscramble any communications. National-security and law-enforcement officials could bring the keys together only under court- authorized operations. But Bryen said it is hard to see how the Clipper chips project will provide much help to the FBI. Even if the new coding devices drove others off the U.S. market, Bryen said, sophisticated criminals would simply buy encoding devices overseas, as many already do. Multinational and foreign-based companies also could prove leery of a system that has a built-in point of entry for U.S. authorities. The FBI separately is seeking legislation that would force telephone companies to modify their equipment to keep other advances in technology from hampering its ability to perform wiretaps. AT&T and other phone companies have opposed this idea. END!B&?TB-SCRAMBLER Transmitted: 93-04-18 23:12:00 EDT

1 0

AT & T Contact Point
by dstalder＠gmuvax2.gmu.edu 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I talked to Herb Linnen at AT & T. He talked to me some but kept harping on the point of how ATT is devoted to customer privacy and that the ATT Vice-President of Information Systems (I forget his name) is an expert on cryptography and he obviously can't be wrong when he says that the wiretap chip is robust. He asked that I call David Arneke or Bill Jones at 919-279-7680 to discuss this since his department wasn't involved in the wiretap chip. The ATT operators dealing with calling cards and residential phone service have had other people cancelling their accounts because of this... Think free, -- Defeat the Torin/Darren Stalder/Wolf __ Big Brother Internet: dstalder(a)gmuvax2.gmu.edu \/ PGP2.x key available. Proposal! Bitnet: dstalder@gmuvax Finger me. Write me for Sprintnet: 1-703-845-1000 details. Snail: 10310 Main St., Suite 110/Fairfax, VA/22030/USA DISCLAIMER: A society where such disclaimers are needed is saddening.

1 0

Subscription request
by ERIC "Thin 'n Crispy" SPAULDING 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I wish to subscribe to the mailing list. Thank you.

1 0

Do it yourself voice encryption CELP
by grady＠netcom.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

For those interested in off-the-shelf vocoders that implement the high-compression CELP algorithms, you might be interested in the ZyXEL model U1496E+ modem (about $400) that offers 19.8(and maybe v.fast when specified)/14.4 kbps fax/ CELP (subscribe to comp.dcom.modems for more info). For those interested in the CELP algorithm directly here is some specific directions on getting your own copy:

1 0

more specific address for 'agrep'
by grady＠netcom.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I've been asked to supply more specific directions for automated fetching of the source and documentation for "agrep," the powerful similarity pattern matching tool. It is at cs.arizona.edu 192.12.69.5 in directory /agrep/README /agrep/agrep-2.04.tar.Z /agrep/agrep.ps.1.Z /agrep/agrep.ps.2.Z (The .ps suffixed files are the optional postscript docs; a reasonably good research report with benchmarks is included.) Note for Macintosh MPW users: after a few hours of drudgery, I ported the tool to MPW 3.2.3 running under System 7.1. If you would like me to e-mail a binhexed copy of the tool suitable for dropping in to your MPW/tools folder, please write... I've been having lots of fun picking up the "lost" references to things I'm interested in. For example, starting a search like: agrep -1 -i 'Burning Chrome' cyberpunkspool immediately finds references like 'burning crome' that I have always missed before. See how many times John Gilmore's name is mentioned in the CUD archives (and how often misspelled). How about _your_ name? As usual, I will e-mail the uuencoded tar.Z upon request if you cannot do anonymous FTP.

1 0

Hellman's Hints
by norm＠netcom.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

I presume that Hellman meant to say "K1 and K2, and thence UK" in place of "K1 and K2, and thence K" at least it makes sense that way. A later posting from Hellman (I think) emmended the description of the transmitted message from E{ E[M; K], E[K; UK], serial number; SK} to E[M; K], E{ E[K; UK], serial number; SK} If you know SK then you can compute (E[K; UK], serial number) Then knowing UK (= K1+K2) you can compute K from which you get M via E[M; K].

3 2