- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

Data battles amongst the "Big Three"
by fergp＠sytex.com 26 Aug '93

26 Aug '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 25 Aug 93 22:36:33 -0600, "L. Detweiler" <uunet!longs.lance.colostate.edu!ld231782> wrote - > Two announcements on products that will bring internet to large > audiences. One by Continental Cablevision Inc. The cable line one > apparently uses special coaxial cable modems, and apparently is > full-duplex (?). On front page of today's Wall St. Journal. > Following that, AT&T announces the Interspan `Frame Relay Services and > Information Access Services' to the internet. In the former, one gets > `cost-effective' internet capabilities, in the later Forgive me for furthering this slightly off-topic thread, but Sprint has been offerring Frame Relay data sevices for quite some time, both for private wide-area networks and for interconnectivity to the global internet via SprintLink. Now, Sprint will beat everyone else to the punch offerring up ATM - excerpted from: Communications Week August 23, 1993 pages 1, 144 Sprint Takes Lead in ATM Service Race by Robin Gareiss San Francisco -- Four months ahead of schedule, Sprint will announce this week that its asynchronous transfer mode transmission service is available immediately, according to industry analysts. The service, to be introduced at the INTEROP 93 August show here, will be the first ATM service from a major long distance carrier. [....] Sprint plans to announce flexible, user-specific pricing, according to Jeffrey Held, partner with Ernst & Young's Network Strategies practice, Vienna, Va. Sprint briefed Held on its announcement last week. Sprint originally had planned to make its ATM service available in first-quarter 1994. According to sources, the carrier has been able to step up its plans because trials have gone more smoothly than anticipated. [....] Sprint will let users access its ATM-based service via local switched multimegabit data service or dedicated -T-3 lines, sources said. As specifications evolve, Sprint also will develop interfaces between its ATM and frame-relay and SprintLink TCP/IP services, Held said. [....] 8<-------- End excerpt ------ ferguson(a)icp.net ,-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBLHyJbpRLcZSdHMBNAQHeOgP/Q/sY8kOcjsCF41+GNUl325TX00R0TtJw sxqxGw++lSsRWeA+T+fAU5at9oPaiE7zVgAgNBGoQjGy4Bz+paiyIjK+Mi9YHqa4 ufTKq2bV3ZutruznR1Nk9j3zYi/zGIkdrNg05y4pvEUcLeEgRTfnzo2EhXIu6M5l t6cUjP1XhlY= =exLc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Paul Ferguson | "Government, even in its best state, Network Integrator | is but a necessary evil; in its worst Centreville, Virginia USA | state, an intolerable one." fergp(a)sytex.com | - Thomas Paine, Common Sense Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 1024/1CC04D 1993/03/15 Paul Ferguson <fergp(a)sytex.com> Key fingerprint = EE D2 93 7D 04 6D C6 05 AC 36 AD 9D 8E 4F 41 58

1 0

Re: "more money than brai
by M..Stirner＠f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG 26 Aug '93

26 Aug '93

Uu> From: szabo(a)netcom.com (Nick Szabo) > M. Stirner: > Only one question: WHY? If PGP is freeware for noncommercial single > users, why on earth would anyone wish to drop $100 +/- for single-user > rights to a virtually identical program? Uu> There are several business proposals floating around the cypherpunks Uu> community that would require commercial licenses. Note that I was not speaking of commercial, but single-user licenses. Uu> I encourage the Uu> various crypto-entrepreneurs elaborate if they wish. Uu> Some of the proposals are quite interesting and illuminating. Uu> There's a strong habit of keeping business ideas "trade secret", Uu> which can be a bad idea, since (a) many of the ideas Uu> are obvious; trade secrets only work for subtle but important Uu> technological bottlenecks known to a small group of mutually Uu> trustworthy people, and (b) many of the ideas need to Uu> debugged by a wide variety of crackers and experts before they will Uu> provid good privacy. Trade secrets also inhibit the progress Uu> of the cypherpunks agenda, but that's a judgement call; I myself Uu> dont' feel morally bound to Reveal All for the sake of the Uu> Movement. But, "I'll post mine if you post yours". I feel rather in the dark. If you are going to say something, please say it. I had my circumlocution buffer filled by noon today by others who beat you to the punch. However, the mere mention of money makes my cute little ears stand right up, assuming it's not in non-negotiable digital gold coins, which niether my landlady nor the Arab bodega where I buy my menudo will accept... . ~ . M. ... "The good & the possible never seemed to coincide."Orwell ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 -- M. Stirner - via FidoNet node 1:125/1 UUCP: ...!uunet!kumr!shelter!28!M..Stirner INTERNET: M..Stirner(a)f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG

1 0

Re: "more money than brai
by M..Stirner＠f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG 26 Aug '93

26 Aug '93

Uu> From: bei(a)dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) # Only one question: WHY? If PGP is freeware for noncommercial single # users, why on earth would anyone wish to drop $100 +/- for single-user # rights to a virtually identical program? Uu> Dumb as it may sound, at work the people from Finance want to see that Uu> we've paid for all the software on our machines. Yes, I've received several replies like yours, but note that company use was not the question - I understand the "why" there, complete with all the corporate shareware/freeware phobia - but the question was why a _private single user_ would pay $100 for the honor of a licensed private single-user release of a freeware program. THAT doesn't make sense, thus my question. . Conceivably, someone with assets (certainly not me, but I suppose such people exist somewhere) might be worried about the sound & fury emanating from PKP concerning lawsuits against all freeware PGP users, but $100 is mighty high insurance against an event with that low of a probability. ********************************************************************* * <m..stirner(a)f28.n125.z1.fidonet.org> - PGP Key D30909 via servers * * > What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not <* * > warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit <* * > of resistance? Let them take arms!" - Thomas Jefferson, 1787 <* ********************************************************************* ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 -- M. Stirner - via FidoNet node 1:125/1 UUCP: ...!uunet!kumr!shelter!28!M..Stirner INTERNET: M..Stirner(a)f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG

1 0

E-trade opinions (fwd)
by remail＠tamsun.tamu.edu 26 Aug '93

26 Aug '93

Forwarded from misc.invest: In article <476(a)complex.complex.is> frisk(a)complex.is (Fridrik Skulason) writes: >Do you ever thing we will see something like E-trade on the Internet ? They tell me that the Internet is not secure, so you would risk having your password compromised. But, yes, I assume that this will come eventually. >I would really like to see a service I could connect to using Telnet...as the >services that are currently available are impractical for me - AOL is totally >out of the question, as connecting to them would involve an international >phone call, and CompuServe would require going through the X.25 network, >which is not cheap either....I already pay around $7000/year for decent >Internet access, and don't want to double that by using X.25 I have been told that one can telnet to compuserve.com, but when I tried it I got Unknown host. ....

1 0

Re: Coming Soon: Commercial version of PGP!
by George A. Gleason 26 Aug '93

26 Aug '93

How soon before a Mac compatible version is available? Or will the current version run under Soft PC on the Mac, which is essentially a PC-emulator...? If yes to either, sign me up...! -gg(a)well.sf.ca.us

1 0

Re: Visa, HNC Inc. develop neural network as a weapon to fight fraud
by jon barber 26 Aug '93

26 Aug '93

> Visa, HNC Inc. develop neural network as a weapon to fight fraud About time too. I recently had a run in with a local bike mechanic and had to stop a cheque for 650 pounds. However, my cheque guarantee card is also a Visa card, and so the scumbag filled out a Visa slip using the details on my cheque - without my permission of course. This was successfully paid to him by Visa. However, I told my bank what had happened and they freaked. It seems I'm definitely going to get the money back after about 3 months (!!). The bank were very embarrassed and want me to tell the police as it's a criminal offence. It's always struck me how people could easily fill out Visa slips from discarded receipts, get the money and split. Jon.

1 0

Re: Attacks on remailers
by J_G_Thomas%CAASD1＠mwmgate1.mitre.org 26 Aug '93

26 Aug '93

Samuel Pigg <b44729(a)achilles.ctd.anl.gov> wrote: > Actually what I was proposing was the direct usage of SMTP itself rather > than going through the host machine's mail system. As anyone can do it, > it would help with the usage of student accounts as remailers. > And with direct SMTP (socket connections to port 25 of the receiving machine) > you have some control over the header information that is generated. > The protocol is outlined in RFC821 if anyone wants to look at it. The trouble is, one side (the receiver) is still keeping logs, since only sendmail (or some other root process doing the same job) can bind to port 25. On most machines, that means logs. There are plenty of ports over 1000 that user processes can bind to, and that cypherpunk remailers can support, if we want to go that way. I think it's worth thinking about. (This is in addition to receiving mail delivered normally to their e-mail adresses, probably either by port-25/sendmail or uucp). We could start by having cypherpunk remailers talk to _each_other_ on an agreed- upon, unlogged port, using RFC 821 protocol. Final hops to non-remailer addresses will have to be handled on port 25, of course, but within the remailer web we can avoid sendmail logs entirely. After that's implemented, we could talk about using a different protocol. A new protocol is probably the cleanest way to solve the problem of traffic analysis of messages addressed with encrypted address blocks. The best way to get security in a remailer chain is to nest your encryption, so only one layer gets peeled off in each remailer hop. That isn't possible with encrypted address blocks, since the sender will only know the address (and public key) of the first remailer in the chain. All hops after the first one must send the same message out as they got in, with just a layer off the encrypted address block. But if remailers talked to each other by first doing RSA-signed Diffie- Hellman key exchange, then encrypting the traffic, a packet snooper wouldn't be able to correlate incoming and outgoing messages. The latter is one of the "expensive" attacks, I think, and should be thought about after we make sure the logs aren't being kept. Thoughts? Joe (they're trying to pry me away from my NeXT, so don't reply directly to the From: line; use jthomas(a)mitre.org)

2 1

Re: Bank misbehavior (was: Re: No digital coins?)
by mbriceno＠aol.com 26 Aug '93

26 Aug '93

Greg Broiles writes: > How easy IS it to start a credit union? Perhaps what we need is the > People's Sekrit Privacy Credit Union! 1/2 :) I would be ideal to start our own credit union. We could make it a haven of privacy and it would give us a base from which to implement digital cash. So all you law wizards out there: How much starting capital do we legaly need? What are the requirements? --Marc

1 0

"more money than brains?"
by M..Stirner＠f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG 26 Aug '93

26 Aug '93

Uu> From: cdodhner(a)indirect.com ("Christian D. Odhner") > ViaCrypt PGP will be available in the USA and Canada, for an introductory > price of $100...for a single user ^^^^^^ Uu> Ok, I just spoke with Dave somebody at viacrypt, and he told me that Uu> the ViaCrypt PGP would be based on PGP 2.3a, and the only code changed Uu> would be the lines implementing rsa itself. ... Uu> improvements were made to ViaCrypt PGP, the same improvements would be Uu> made to the freeware version. I was thinking that if a bunch of us Uu> cypherpunks wanted copys we could order them... Only one question: WHY? If PGP is freeware for noncommercial single users, why on earth would anyone wish to drop $100 +/- for single-user rights to a virtually identical program? The mind boggles. I know that the principal Cypherpunks are rich, but I'm sure they could find more worthy charities than ViaCrypt...like getting me a new modem, for example... ********************************************************************* * <m..stirner(a)f28.n125.z1.fidonet.org> - PGP Key D30909 via servers * * > What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not <* * > warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit <* * > of resistance? Let them take arms!" - Thomas Jefferson, 1787 <* ********************************************************************* ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 -- M. Stirner - via FidoNet node 1:125/1 UUCP: ...!uunet!kumr!shelter!28!M..Stirner INTERNET: M..Stirner(a)f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG

3 2

Re: Viacrypt PGP source code unavailable
by uri＠watson.ibm.com 26 Aug '93

26 Aug '93

Chris Leonard says: > >I talked once again with Dave Barnheart at ViaCrypt, and he told me: > > A) No source code will be available, due to the nature of the > >agreement between PKP and ViaCrypt. > Isn't there some way to black box it the way engineers do with circuits? > If you control the inputs, randseed, message, keys etc. that goes into each > copy of the program aren't you going to be able to compare the outputs > directly. Or are they going to be different everytime because of some > randomization I am unaware of? remember the naive part :-) Frankly, I see no real problems so far. But several good things: 1) PKP is going to get some royalties, so they're happy. Does it mean they're going to leave freeware PGP alone? 2) Business users, who didn't dare to use PGP fearing lawsuits, can now buy it officially and use legally. A big step forward. 3) As long as ViaCrypt will release patches, so that freeware PGP can stay in sync with their product, compatibility isn't an issue... 4) It's not too hard to build a test-suite for PGP to ensure it's implementation of IDEA is correct, and it's possible to check it's key generation/session key generation things. Of course key management isn't too big a deal either... Thus I don't think it requires too great an effort to trust ViaCrypt. And if not - buy their copy to stay legal and use the Source to be safe (:-). The only thing unclear to me yet is - what exactly is PKP going to do (if anything) about freeware PGP in USA? -- Regards, Uri uri(a)watson.ibm.com scifi!angmar!uri N2RIU ----------- <Disclamer>

1 0