- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

unsub
by vanam＠phazer.ksu.ksu.edu 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

unsubscribe me please thanx.... Stephen

1 0

Followup message from Hellman
by karn＠qualcomm.com 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

2 1

Amiga programmers.
by Haywood J. Blowme 19 Apr '93

19 Apr '93

A curious thought occurred to me several months ago, and it was recently brought up again when someone mentioned doing it on IBM's with soundblasters. This idea has been sitting basically on the back burner for a while now. But now with the current climate (Wiretap chip proposed) I think it is relevant. This idea basically applies to Commodore Amiga computers. So if you are a programmer and would like to help me with this please E-Mail me about it. The basic idea I think would need the following: - A sound digitizer - High speed modem - 68020 or above processor (for speed purposes) - Good encryption algorithm (IDEA for example) Implementing the system would involve using the digitizer to digitize the voice. Then processing the sample (in real time) through the encryption algorithm and sending the output to the modem for transmission. The process would be repeated on the other end. The problems I see occurring are the following - Speed of the computer affecting real time encryption - Synchronizing the data packets for accurate decryption on the other side. - simultaneous I/O on the serial and parallel ports(for modem and digitizer) - outputing to speakers on receiving end. - having the whole process operate in a full duplex mode (ie. both people can talk at the same time). I think the majority of functions can be handled by the system libraries and outside sources (such as xpkidea.library for encryption). Does this sound feasible?? ============================================================================= /// | psionic(a)wam.umd.edu | Q: How did the govt. decide to use an 80 __ /// C= | Craig H. Rowland | bit key for the new clipper chip? \\\/// Amiga| PGP Key Available | A: They combined Bill and Hillary \/// 1200 | by finger. | Clintons' IQ's. =============================================================================

2 1

Figuring out ZyXEL's CELP specs
by wbe＠bbn.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

After various people expressed interest in the ZyXEL modem CELP specs... Tyrone.Horton(a)p101.f701.n202.z1.fidonet.org replied: > As far as CELP, ZyXEL will not be releasing the specs. OK. In that case, it's up to us to figure it out. :-) I saw the following post about 4800 CELP on another newsgroup and thought it might help someone here get closer to figuring out how ZyXEL's 9600 CELP works. PLEASE: the following message mentions a source of CELP source code that's free. Rather than everyone calling all at once, I suggest: (1) If you live in the D.C. area, maybe go ahead and call anyway and then post the results in this newsgroup. Otherwise (2) If you have a high interest and it's likely you'll actually do something with the information, POST A NOTE TO THIS NEWSGROUP saying so and wait a couple of days so we can all see who else is interested. (3) When the dust settles, the most interested, and/or those nearest Washington, D.C., call to get the source code and then post it to the newsgroup (if permitted). (Unfortunately, you may have to consider U.S. export restrictions, but since the author says the code "is available for worldwide distribution", I don't expect this to be a problem.) -WBE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jpcampb(a)afterlife.ncsc.mil (Joe Campbell) Newsgroups: comp.compression.research Subject: Re: CELP vocoder refs Date: 17 Jan 93 21:38:07 GMT Organization: The Great Beyond Hi, I hope that the following information answers your questions. Joe The U.S. DoD's Federal-Standard-1016 based 4800 bps code excited linear prediction voice coder version 3.2 (CELP 3.2) Fortran and C simulation source codes are available for worldwide distribution at no charge (on DOS diskettes, but configured to compile on Sun SPARC stations) from: Bob Fenichel National Communications System Washington, D.C. 20305 1-703-692-2124 1-703-746-4960 (fax) Example input and processed speech files, a technical information bulletin, and the official standard "Federal Standard 1016, Telecommunications: Analog to Digital Conversion of Radio Voice by 4,800 bit/second Code Excited Linear Prediction (CELP)" are included at no charge. The following articles describe the Federal-Standard-1016 4.8-kbps CELP coder (it's unnecessary to read more than one): Campbell, Joseph P. Jr., Thomas E. Tremain and Vanoy C. Welch, "The Federal Standard 1016 4800 bps CELP Voice Coder," Digital Signal Processing, Academic Press, 1991, Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 145-155. Campbell, Joseph P. Jr., Thomas E. Tremain and Vanoy C. Welch, "The DoD 4.8 kbps Standard (Proposed Federal Standard 1016)," in Advances in Speech Coding, ed. Atal, Cuperman and Gersho, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991, Chapter 12, p. 121-133. Campbell, Joseph P. Jr., Thomas E. Tremain and Vanoy C. Welch, "The Proposed Federal Standard 1016 4800 bps Voice Coder: CELP," Speech Technology Magazine, April/May 1990, p. 58-64. The U.S. DoD's Federal-Standard-1015/NATO-STANAG-4198 based 2400 bps linear prediction coder version 53 (LPC-10e v53) Fortran or C simulation source codes are available on a limited basis upon written request to: Tom Tremain Department of Defense Ft. Meade, MD 20755-6000 USA The U.S. Federal Standard 1015 (NATO STANAG 4198) is described in: Thomas E. Tremain, "The Government Standard Linear Predictive Coding Algorithm: LPC-10," Speech Technology Magazine, April 1982, p. 40-49. There is also a section about FS-1015 in the book: Panos E. Papamichalis, Practical Approaches to Speech Coding, Prentice-Hall, 1987. The voicing classifier used in the enhanced LPC-10 (LPC-10e) is described in: Campbell, Joseph P., Jr. and T. E. Tremain, "Voiced/Unvoiced Classification of Speech with Applications to the U.S. Government LPC-10E Algorithm," Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1986, p. 473-6. Copies of the official standards "Federal Standard 1015, ...", and "Federal Standard 1016, Telecommunications: Analog to Digital Conversion of Radio Voice by 4,800 bit/second Code Excited Linear Prediction (CELP)" are available for US$ 2.50 each from: GSA Rm 6654 7th & D St SW Washington, D.C. 20407 1-202-708-9205 Realtime DSP code for FS-1015 and FS-1016 is sold by: John DellaMorte DSP Software Engineering 165 Middlesex Tpk, Suite 206 Bedford, MA 01730 1-617-275-3733 1-617-275-4323 (fax) dspse.bedford(a)channel1.com DSP Software Engineering's FS-1016 code can run on a DSP Research's Tiger 30 (a PC board with a TMS320C3x and analog interface suited to development work) or on Intellibit's AE2000 TMS320C31 based 3" by 2.5" card. DSP Research Intellibit 1095 E. Duane Ave. P.O. Box 9785 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 McLean, VA 22102-0785 (408)773-1042 (703)442-4781 (408)736-3451 (fax) (703)442-4784 (fax) -- ............................................................................. ; Dr. Campbell N3JBC jpcampb(a)afterlife.ncsc.mil 74040.305(a)compuserve.com ; ; My opinions are mine! Happiness = Reality - Expectations, Click & Clack ; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

CLIP: Sample/Draft letter to the editor
by zane＠genesis.mcs.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

I wrote up a letter to the editor on the issue, which I will send to the local newspapers and the major newspapers. I'd like comments, and criticisms so that I may make the letter more effective. I also plan on writing an article in my newsletter _The Free Journal_ on this big brother plan. (I plan on including excerpts from _From Crossbows to Cryptography_ in this "Crypto" issue as well.) Editor: The Clinton administration on Friday unveiled their plan for establishing a standard data encryption system for voice communications. This plan is abhorrent and reeks of Big Brother. President Clinton says that he wants to bring the United States into the twenty-first century. This proposal is bringing us to 1984. First I will mention technical reasons why the system is inadequate. The encryption algorithim is classified. Only a select group of people will be allowed to examine the algorithim for flaws. The members of the cryptographic community emphasize that the only way to make sure that a cryptographic system is secure is to have as many people as possible analyze and try to break it for as long as possible. A system which has been examined by a small segment of the population will not be trusted to be secure. The key used in this algorithim is very small-- it is easily attacked by brute-force. The encryption key is only eighty bits long. Such a small key lends itself to easy decryption by an unauthorized party. It would lend a false sense of security to laypersons in the field who do not realize that a key of such simplicity could be cracked easily by any talented criminal. Apart from the technical flaws in the system, there are many political problems with the recent big brother proposal. First, there is the assumption that the government has a right to spy on its own citizens. The proposal for this wiretap chip includes the registration of keys with two escrow agencies. This is purported to allow law enforcement to keep track of "terrorists" and "drug-dealers." The first flaw in this key-escrow system is that no self-respecting criminal will use a cryptography system which can be easily tapped by law enforcement officials-- they will use strong cryptography. Thus the only people who may end up using the wiretap encryption system will be law-abiding laypeople who don't fully understand cryptography. (Law-abiding citizens who do understand cryptography will use strong cryptography to preserve their privacy from a talented criminal.) The proposal says that in order to obtain the key of a wiretap chip user a law enforcement agency must first establish that they have a valid interest in the key. Translated out of legalese, that means that all a government agency will have to do to get access to all of the private communications between, for example, a lawyer and her client will be to fill out the necessary forms. Registering cryptographic keys with the government is similar to giving the IRS the keys to your house and filing cabinet. The chip is being manufactured exclusively by one company. The release stated that the Attorney shall request (i.e. coerce) telecommunication product manufacturers to use this product. This aspect of the system is a government-mandated monopoly. Such monopolies result in high prices and the elimination of market forces which drive the improvement of technology. (One needs only look at the state of the Soviet Union to see how the lack of market forces affects consumer technology.) What is feared the most from the proposal is that if the wiretap chip becomes the standard, strong cryptography will be declared illegal. If such is the case, then only criminals will have access to strong cryptography. As I have stated above-- the wiretap chip will not be used by criminals because of the obvious flaws in the crypto-system-- criminals will use strong crypto, while law-abiding citizens will have to use a system which can be easily defeated by any criminal. Strong cryptography already exists for data communications, for -free-. Strong cryptography for voice communications for -free- is only a few months away for people who own a personal computer. There is no way that making strong cryptography illegal will stop it-- it will only turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. Sincerely, Sameer Parekh -- | Sameer Parekh-zane(a)genesis.MCS.COM-PFA related mail to pfa(a)genesis.MCS.COM | | Apprentice Philosopher, Writer, Physicist, Healer, Programmer, Lover, more | | "Be God" - Me __ "Specialization is for Insects" - Robert A. Heinlein ____/ \_____________/ \____________________________________________________/

1 0

FAQ's
by uni＠acs.bu.edu 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

Perhaps someone should cook up a frequently asked questions sheet with regard to our position on the Wiretap chip proposal? Something bent a little more in the direction of consequences and not promises? Q: What will the Clipper Chip really mean for Privacy? A: The Clipper chip bills itself as the answer to a nations right for privacy, when indeed it is less secure than many of the algorithms in circulation today. Buying a Clipper Chip device is the same as handing the government your login password and accepting the promise, "We'll only use it with proper authorization..." Admittedly my example is less than eloquent, perhaps someone can come up with better? Given this format, and if the questions and answers are kept in layman's terms, it could reasonably be distrubuted to some of the less technical news groups and things like comp.mac.comm and such.... uni (Dark)

1 0

voice privacy for the masses
by Phil Karn 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

I think Hal Finney's analysis is not far from the mark. Saner elements in the government probably do realize the utter impossibility of a complete ban on uncrackable crypto given the existence of talented, knowledgeable and highly motivated (especially now!) "cypherpunks". But the government has also found that with very little effort, they can still have an enormous practical effect on the non-cypherpunk masses. Heck, look at what the NSA did to the digital cellular standards by standing in the shadows and quietly threatening to withhold export approval to phones with meaningful technology. The NSA barely had to whisper its objections, because the industry simply doesn't care very much about customer privacy. Certainly not enough to risk not only their non-US markets, but also the ability to have phones manufactured overseas for the US market. And then NSA rubs salt in the wound by brazenly claiming that they're only concerned about encryption getting into the hands of unfriendly foreign governments. As far as they're concerned, they say with a perfectly straight face, Americans are free to use any encryption scheme they want. I wonder how people like that can sleep at night. Well, the implications are obvious. If the public is ever to benefit on a large scale from strong encryption technology, it cannot depend on a normal market to sell it to them in turnkey packages. As soon as you go into business overtly selling such packages, the government pressure will begin. They will make sure that you do not become too successful, either by banning exports or by flooding the market with inferior technology that they can break (like Clipper). So we need to create a rather nonconventional "market". More specifically, we need to find a way to bring the efforts of the cypherpunks to the public with minimal cost and in a way that the government cannot control. By far the best way to do this is to write and distribute free crypto software that requires only readily available general purpose hardware to run. As we know, duplicating and distributing software is so trivial that controlling it is virtually impossible. And while it's theoretically somewhat easier for the government to ban or regulate, say, modems faster than 2400 bps or CPUs faster than 10 MHz 286s, general purpose computer hardware like this has so many other "legitimate" uses that in practice a ban would again be impossible. I've contributed a little to this effort myself with my public domain DES code, but it's the PGP effort that has really made this a reality. PGP is now unstoppable, and it's well on the way toward providing large scale privacy for email and other textual information. But voice is still a problem. What we really need now is "PGVP" ("Pretty Good Voice Privacy"), i.e., a package of public domain software that, when again combined with readily available general purpose computer hardware, produces a highly secure telephone. We already have two of the three hardware components of a digital secure telephone well in hand: CPUs capable of encrypting digital voice in real time, and reasonably fast telephone modems. The one remaining piece to the puzzle is the vocoder, as conventional waveform sampling of speech produces a data rate too high for telephone modems. (Faster modems might alleviate the need for a low bit rate vocoder, but current generation modems are already running very close to theoretical limits, and there won't be too many more improvements.) Ready-made vocoders are available. In fact, my company (Qualcomm) just announced one (the Q4400) as a spinoff of our CDMA digital cellular system. It's a mask-programmed AT&T DSP-16A DSP chip. Unfortunately, like many leading-edge products, it's not cheap: $69/ea in quantity 1000, and reportedly nearly $200 in small quantities. A second alternative is to run your own vocoder software. But vocoders are notoriously compute-intensive, and they're traditionally run on DSPs. And DSPs do not yet qualify as "widely available general purpose computer hardware". That leaves a third possibility: tuning vocoder software to run in real time on a fast general purpose processor like a 486. John Gilmore has already obtained and distributed public domain code that implements the Federal standard CELP vocoder algorithm (used in government secure telephones, a nice twist) but my understanding is that it's too slow to run in real time on popular computers. Van Jacobson at LBL has reportedly tuned it to run in better than real time on a Sparc 1+, but he hasn't released it yet and he's a notoriously hard guy to get ahold of. So the request of the day is this: who's willing to take that CELP code, bum enough instructions out of it so it will run in real time on a 486, and place his or her work back out into the public domain? Phil

1 0

Address of major telecom decision makers (AT&T, etc.)
by zane＠genesis.mcs.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

If someone has the addresses of these people it would be a very good idea to post these addresses (addresses of the NIST, Denning, etc. folk would be good as well.. I don't know those but those are probably more well-known than head-AT&T folk) here so that we can inundate them with mail and use these addresses in the full-page ads we buy in the newspapers. -- | Sameer Parekh-zane(a)genesis.MCS.COM-PFA related mail to pfa(a)genesis.MCS.COM | | Apprentice Philosopher, Writer, Physicist, Healer, Programmer, Lover, more | | "Be God" - Me __ "Specialization is for Insects" - Robert A. Heinlein ____/ \_____________/ \____________________________________________________/

1 0

Cypherpunks--Mission Statement Needed
by Clark Reynard 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

CP is for Crypto Privacy, because we feel that privacy and cryptography are now more inextricably linked than ever. We shall likely have to use crypto to hide our crypto. CP is for Changing Policy, both CP policy and existing government policy. CP is for Conscious Paranoia. We know and understand the issues involved, both the political and the scientific. We _are_ paranoid, but we know _why_ we're paranoid, and justify it as a _rational_ response. [The use of 'paranoia' is loose, of course, since the strict meaning and popular meaning differ widely.] CP is for Cypher Punks. Cypher because not only do we use cyphers, but in a certain sense we _are_ cyphers. Punks? A contemptuous term created by those contemptuous of those who fail to pay allegiance to the Almighty Government. Should it be a badge of pride, or a shameful term used for a shameful purpose? I believe that if we are to be effective, we ought to decide on a number of tenets which just aren't in the FAQ now. Tim May's .signature seems as good a place to start as any. Methods of implentation, boat-rocking and some form of plan will likely be necessary. Send mail to me or to the list, preferably to my mail address at nyx.cs.du.edu; and I will summarize and post, stripping headers if requested and eliminating redundant entries. The FAQ needs to be revised, I believe, to reflect the current crisis, and I am more than willing to help re-write it if anyone finds it agreeable. Thank you. [Aside: I appear to be getting two copies of many letters-- if anyone makes a snide comment about multiple postings of articles, I'll, I'll, I'll, uh, grin and look sheepish-- and I wonder if others have this problem; it's not a double sub, per se, as some letters _aren't_ doubled. Ah, well, it's probably nothing, just the side effects of the surveillance software.] ---- Robert W. Clark rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu PGP signature available by mail or finger

1 0

Putting out a paper-magazine
by zane＠genesis.mcs.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

I HIGHLY suggest that publishing-inclined cypherpunks start publishing cypherpunk-oriented PAPER newsletters to: A) Get out the word about how Clipper sucks B) Educate people about strong crypto, in layman's terms (tough one) C) Raise public support for strong crypto. There are probably other reasons why we want to do this as well. (When the discussion here was about technical details, I was greatly interested, but I had nothing to say-- now that the time has come for activism.. I feel that I can help..) The idea for full-page ads is nice. I'd advertise for raising funds for such a venture in my libertarian-leaning newsletter. -- | Sameer Parekh-zane(a)genesis.MCS.COM-PFA related mail to pfa(a)genesis.MCS.COM | | Apprentice Philosopher, Writer, Physicist, Healer, Programmer, Lover, more | | "Be God" - Me __ "Specialization is for Insects" - Robert A. Heinlein ____/ \_____________/ \____________________________________________________/

1 0