Cryptography-Digest Digest #488, Volume #13 Thu, 18 Jan 01 13:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: NSA and Linux Security (Greggy)
using AES finalists in series? ("Gary Watson")
Re: Why Microsoft's Product Activation Stinks (Greggy)
Re: Why Microsoft's Product Activation Stinks (Greggy)
Re: Why Microsoft's Product Activation Stinks (Gordon Walker)
Re: Why Microsoft's Product Activation Stinks (Greggy)
Re: Why Microsoft's Product Activation Stinks (Jim Haynes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSA and Linux Security
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:35:40 GMT
> > > After the war, the great depression took place and
> > > (if you study history) FDR and the congress technically,
> > > legally declared the citizens of the US enemies of the US
> > This is quite a statement. Can you provide a reference?
> Absolutely. I will look it up later tonight and post it back here for
> you. Additionally, there is MUCH you can read about this that I would
> not try to go into here. Once I get the cites, you can study it all
> you want.
Sorry this took so long - I was tired and went straight to bed last
night. Here is a link:
http://www.padrak.com/alt/WAEP6.html
Here are some quotes [my comments in brackets]:
In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10), the first sentence
reads:
"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of
declared national emergency."
...
In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 11):
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their
lives under emergency rule." [ This was written in 1973. Today, one
would say that nearly every American...]
...
It is important to draw attention again to the fact that citizens of
the United States in October, 1917, were not called enemies.
Consequently the government, under the war powers of this act, did not
have authority over us; we were still protected by the Constitution.
Granted, over enemies of this nation, the government was empowered to
do anything it deemed necessary, but not over us. The distinction made
between enemies of the United States and citizens of the United States
will become crucial later on.
In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17),
"Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat.
L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows;"
So we see that they are now going to amend Section 5 (b). Now let's see
how it reads after it's amended. The amended version of Section 5 (b)
reads (emphasis added):
"During time of war or during any other period of national emergency
declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that
be may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit,
under such rules and regulations as be may prescribe, by means of
licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers
of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the
President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or
silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United
States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
What just happened? At as far as commercial, monetary or business
transactions were concerned, the people of the United States were no
longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had
lost that crucial distinction. Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we
can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly
within the United States has been removed from the amended version of
Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced
with "by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the
jurisdiction thereof'. All monetary transactions, whether domestic or
international in scope, were now placed at the whim of the President of
the United States through the authority given to him by the Trading
with the Enemy Act.
To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at the
beginning of America's involvement in World War 1, Congress passed a
Trading with the Enemy Act empowering the government to take control
over any and all commercial, monetary or business transactions
conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental
borders. That act also defined the term "enemy" and excluded from that
definition citizens of the United States.
In Section 5 (b) of this act, we see that the President was given
unlimited authority to control the commercial transactions of defined
enemies, but we see that credits relating solely to transactions
executed wholly within the United States were excluded from that
controlling authority. As transactions wholly domestic in nature were
excluded from authority, the government had no extraordinary control
over the daily business conducted by the citizens of the United States,
because we were certainly not enemies.
Citizens of the United States were not enemies of their country in
1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country
were not considered to be enemy transactions. But in looking again at
Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, (Exhibit 17), we can see that
the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from
the amended version and replaced with "by any person within the United
States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.
The people of the United States were now subject to the power of the
Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For the
purposes of all commercial, monetary, and, in effect, all business
transactions. "We the People", became the same as the enemy, and were
treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.
It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and
March 9, 1933, it states: "during times of war or during any other
national emergency declared by the President...". So we now see that
the war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period
of "national emergency" as defined by the President of the United
States. When either of these two situations occur, the President may,
(Exhibit 17)
"through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate,
regulate or prohibit under such rules and regulations as he may
prescribe by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in
foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking
institutions as defined by the President and export, boarding, melting
or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any
person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction
thereof."
What can the President do now to the We, the People, under this
Section? He can do anything he wants to do. It's purely at his
discretion, and he can use any agency or any license that he desires to
control it. This is called a constitutional dictatorship.
In Senate Document 93-549 (Exhibit 20), Congress declared that a
serious emergency exists, at:
"48 Stat. 1. The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in
the Act, was deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this time."
_____________________________________________
MY COMMENTS AGAIN:
Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973.
When you get done reading through that stuff, if you are interested, do
a search on the "missing thirteenth amendment". This amendment, I am
convinced after reading through some material lately, was properly
ratified and is the law of the land today. The amendment would strip
every politician in the highest offices of their citizenship and bar
them from ever holding office again. Why? Because they accepted the
titles of honor: The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton. There is a
man by the name of Jol Silversmith who argued that it was not properly
ratified and his arguments convinced me years ago he was right. But
just recently I came across another man's work that disputed his claims
extremely well. His article is called "Demons of Discord".
Deductive logic concludes that it would have been impossible to
overlook the misprinting of the thirteenth amendment in the 1820-1860s
by powerful figures, some of whom would have been targeted, yet no such
protests were lodged and some of these were deeply involved with the
printing - because they knew it was properly ratified. This is too
compelling to argue against. These men knew the law and they knew
politics. I am convinced that LEGALLY those in power today are
foreigners without the right to hold any office in America.
Some would argue So what? How is it going to ever change? But America
cannot continue to exist on lies. The truth must prevail. And I am
going to do what I can (along with many others who you will never hear
about on CNN) to reestablish the truth.
Finally, after reading through all that, you may want to go to
www.devvy.com in which Devvy Kidd asserts and backs up that several of
our constitutional amendments were never properly ratified, including
the one that changed how the US Senate was seated - that the senators
were to be elected by the people rather than the state legislatures.
This is critical for issues involving the UN. All treaties ratified by
the US Senate since the early 1910's when the Senate unlawfully seated
are null and void and can be thrown out in their entirety.
You can see what the power of the press can do for those who want to
subvert our government. Devvy's contacts are currently involved with a
suit in another state that has big implications for this country as a
whole. They are asserting that the sixteenth amendment was never
properly ratified. See
http://www.devvy.com/now10k_20000131.html
Also her site will lead you to understand the greatest fraud over
America today. I heard her speaking in Livermore, CA one night and she
said something that nearly made me fall off my chair - she said:
"It is mathematically impossible for the national debt to decrease.
Any politician who claims they want your vote to go to washington to
work to reduce the national debt is either ignorant or a liar. Either
way, they do not deserve your vote."
And after thinking about it for a while, I realized she was right and I
can explain to you why she was right.
Put yourself in the shoes of Mr Greenspan. You print money on a press
and loan it out. You NEVER give it away for free. Now let's say you
loan it out at 1% interest. Let's say that the nation as a whole has
borrowed $100,000,000,000. Now what is in circulation is principle
only. Yet, you intend to charge $1,000,000,000 interest at the end of
the first year, and you only take FED notes that you print yourself as
the form of payment. Now where is America going to get this money if
all they have is the principle in hand? That's right! They have to
borrow more. Then that becomes new principle they no longer have in
hand. Next year they have to borrow more to cover that as well, and
all they can do is make interest payments now. The loan can never be
paid back. This is fraud. It is also why people are working harder
than ever before and getting further behind than before.
The Federal Reserve is a monopolistic, private corporation that has
conspiried with powerful figures in our government to drain us of our
wealth. What happens when we cannot service the debt? It is already
happening - American land is being set aside as territories reserved
for UN control. The UN is just one branch of this international
oligarchy. The FED is the American branch of the international
bankers. (and if you care to accept this, the IRS services more than
150 countries and is also not part of the federal government.) And one
day we Americans will no longer have our land. Land is where true
wealth is derived. It is within the land that the precious metals are
found, that precious resources are discovered.
Just look around you in the news and you will see what I mean.
And if you care to accept it, JFK signed an executive order for the
government to go into competition with the FED and coin money - three
weeks later he died. He was the only president willing to say, "I
don't ever want Kissinger to enter the White House again - he is a mad
man." This is historical truth here. What conclusions you draw are
merely your own.
--
I prefer my fourth amendment rights over a dope free
society, even if the latter could actually be achieved.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Gary Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: using AES finalists in series?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:13:17 -0000
If one had sufficient CPU power or minimal throughput requirements, is there
any reason why one couldn't use all five AES round two finalists in series?
This would guard against a weakness being found in one of them, or if one or
two of the candidates were deliberately weak systems promulgated by sinister
government forces. (Is it necessarily true that security must improve at
least a little each time you run the ciphertext through a new crypto
algorithm? Don't know, this isn't my line of work...)
As a side note, if a government or large company implements its crypto in an
FPGA, why not distribute the entire FPGA design as the keying material? It
fits in a $5 serial prom the size of your fingernail; it's loaded once and
then the keying material is removed and possibly destroyed. You could have
a room full of semi-trained people generating variants of the chosen cipher
and re-running the synthesis tools, or maybe automate the process using a
bit of clever VHDL such as multiple architectures per entity in each major
functional block, and the architectures would be selected randomly before
synthesis.
--
Gary Watson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (you should leave off the digit two for email)
Nexsan Technologies Ltd.
Derby DE21 7BF ENGLAND
UK-based Engineers: See our job postings at
http://www.nexsan.com/pages/careers.htm
------------------------------
From: Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Why Microsoft's Product Activation Stinks
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:12:36 GMT
In article <944nvc$9t9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
zapzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upcoming versions of windows may have, I
> read, something called "product activation".
> This means that you must call up microsoft
> so that the OS can have permission to run.
> I have a few questions about this. First of
> all, under what conditions will MS
> *refuse* to activate the product. It seems
> to me that if they never refuse activation,
> then putting in product activation code is
> pretty useless. And if they do, they may
> deny legitimate users who reconfigure their
> systems frequently.
My first thought would be to get the product serial number and ensure
it is not a pirate copy.
> Also, what about the possibility of a major
> computer virus that requires many machines
> to restore. This would of course require
> that the OS be reactivated, but in that case
> the product reactivation lines could be
> jammed. This would make me think about it
> very carefully before I bought an OS that
> included product reactivation code.
It would seem that under that circumstance, contacting the MS server
would merely restore the OS, but what if you had to reinstall and when
you did the hardware changed? Would the server then say that it was an
illegal copy and not allow it to run? That is a bad idea!!!! What if
you want to take the OS off one machine, because you are going to throw
the obsolete hardware away and upgrade to the fastest stuff in town?
Would you be able to activate the OS on new hardware?
Didn't they learn from Intel's folly of the serial number in the chip?
> I understand MS's desire to protect their
> intellectual property, but please try to think
> of something that will not cause the collapse
> of civilization.
How about, just say no to Microsoft. That works wonders. I guess
Linux can expect a boost in deployment soon...
--
I prefer my fourth amendment rights over a dope free
society, even if the latter could actually be achieved.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Why Microsoft's Product Activation Stinks
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:14:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is yet another reason to stop using
> MS products.
The operative word being ANOTHER...
>
> zapzing wrote:
>
> > Upcoming versions of windows may have, I
> > read, something called "product activation".
> > This means that you must call up microsoft
> > so that the OS can have permission to run.
> > I have a few questions about this. First of
> > all, under what conditions will MS
> > *refuse* to activate the product. It seems
> > to me that if they never refuse activation,
> > then putting in product activation code is
> > pretty useless. And if they do, they may
> > deny legitimate users who reconfigure their
> > systems frequently.
> >
> > Also, what about the possibility of a major
> > computer virus that requires many machines
> > to restore. This would of course require
> > that the OS be reactivated, but in that case
> > the product reactivation lines could be
> > jammed. This would make me think about it
> > very carefully before I bought an OS that
> > included product reactivation code.
> >
> > I understand MS's desire to protect their
> > intellectual property, but please try to think
> > of something that will not cause the collapse
> > of civilization.
> >
> > --
> > Void where prohibited by law.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
>
--
I prefer my fourth amendment rights over a dope free
society, even if the latter could actually be achieved.
Al Gore and the Florida Robes - More than just another rock group;
a clear and present danger to America's national security.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Gordon Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Why Microsoft's Product Activation Stinks
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:12:40 +0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:32:36 -0800, David Schwartz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That I have a problem with. If, on the other hand, they only refused to
>permit installation if they knew a key was being abused, that would be a
>totally different story.
Which begs the question of how they could tell it was being abused.
--
Gordon
------------------------------
From: Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Why Microsoft's Product Activation Stinks
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:18:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Richard John Cavell wrote:
>
> > I bought Word 2000, then had to reformat my hard disk because
Windows
> > crashed. They refused to give me a registration key for six months
> > because 'it has already been installed'. I got cranky with them
all that
> > time, and they couldn't have cared less.
> >
> > I lodged papers with the VCAT (Small claims court) and Wacko! A
> > registration key was available literally within an hour.
>
> That I have a problem with. If, on the other hand, they only
refused to
> permit installation if they knew a key was being abused, that would
be a
> totally different story.
>
> DS
>
The problem I have is using software like that. Doesn't there exist a
good free Office clone for Linux by Sun?
--
I prefer my fourth amendment rights over a dope free
society, even if the latter could actually be achieved.
Al Gore and the Florida Robes - More than just another rock group;
a clear and present danger to America's national security.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Why Microsoft's Product Activation Stinks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:35:41 GMT
In article <3Hl96.51$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mysterion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sounds like Microsoft is determined to shoot themselves in the foot.
>
When you're a monopoly you can shoot yourself in the foot as often as
you like.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
