1996-10-15 - Re: crypto wish list (was Re: A “RIGHT” to strong crypto?)

Header Data

From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Message Hash: 9f84661d677cf4c05317698bd9b390ed94d8e4c66d79e63dd886fb967570a638
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9610141926.A14825-0100000@netcom14>
Reply To: <199610142041.VAA00167@server.test.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-15 02:24:54 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:24:54 -0700 (PDT)

Raw message

From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: crypto wish list (was Re: A "RIGHT" to strong crypto?)
In-Reply-To: <199610142041.VAA00167@server.test.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9610141926.A14825-0100000@netcom14>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Adam Back wrote:
[Quoting Uni]
> > Where are anonymous and encrypted WWW clients and hosts which permit
> > chaining?
> 
> Folks working on this?

As always when this question comes up, I give this answer:
The only idea that seems to address the issue of chaining of realtime 
connections is Wei Dai's PipeNet. However, Wei doesn't have the time to 
turn it into code. Neither do I. But my offer from years ago still 
stands: I will fully finance the *second* node running PipeNet.

For newcomers, PipeNet is a "remailer" for IP. You use constant bandwidth 
pipes to conceal traffic. To be useful in any way, PipeNet requires at 
least a dedicated T1.


--Lucky

Thread

• Return to October 1996

• Return to “Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>”
• Return to “Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>”
• Return to “Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>”
• Return to “cypher@cyberstation.net”
• Return to “jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>”
• Return to “Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>”

• Return to “Nelson Minar <nelson@media.mit.edu>”

• 1996-10-13 (Sun, 13 Oct 1996 11:49:45 -0700 (PDT)) - RE: RE: Binding cryptography - a fraud-detectible alternative to - jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
  • 1996-10-14 (Sun, 13 Oct 1996 19:41:58 -0700 (PDT)) - RE: Binding cryptography - a fraud-detectible alternative to - cypher@cyberstation.net
    • 1996-10-14 (Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:55:59 -0700 (PDT)) - [A “RIGHT” to strong crypto? Was: RE: Binding cryptography - a fraud-detectible alternative to - Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
      • 1996-10-14 (Mon, 14 Oct 1996 15:56:03 -0700 (PDT)) - crypto wish list (was Re: A “RIGHT” to strong crypto?) - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
        • 1996-10-15 (Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:24:54 -0700 (PDT)) - Re: crypto wish list (was Re: A “RIGHT” to strong crypto?) - Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
        • 1996-10-15 (Tue, 15 Oct 1996 11:47:45 -0700 (PDT)) - Stego via TCP/IP (was Re: crypto wish list) - Nelson Minar <nelson@media.mit.edu>
          • 1996-10-16 (Tue, 15 Oct 1996 18:38:36 -0700 (PDT)) - Re: Stego via TCP/IP (was Re: crypto wish list) - Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>