From: Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 03:31:51 +0800
To: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Subject: Re: Denning backs away from GAK
In-Reply-To: <199707311824.LAA25935@slack.lne.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970731150114.14495H-100000@beast.brainlink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Eric Murray wrote:

> Her support for GAK was also on 'utilitarian' grounds- she beleived 
> law enforcement's claims that crypto prevented them from catching criminals.
> 
> This new study sounds like it pokes large holes in Freeh etc's main
> justification of GAK.   That's just fine with me.  Ms Denning may change
> her mind again later, but this is useful right now.  Especially since
> Denning was the only respected cryptographer who sided with GAK.

It serves only to prove two points:

	a. She's a government mouthpiece interested only in what will
	   serve big brother.  She will support whatever they are willing
 	   to.  Her backing off only shows their admittance that GAK
	   isn't going to bring any ROI.

	b. GAK is stupid and they're admiting it. (Placing back doors
	   is doubly stupid because someone other than the TLA's might
	   find their way and break open the whole thing if it's done
	   as a back door, or someone will be bribed to release the
	   escrowed keys.)

I offer the above as points because of all the recent exports of 128 bit
cyphers being allowed.  (It is possible they've other limitations they're
not allowed to tell us about such as the same string being encrypted in
all communications, or limits on PRNG's, but we don't know yet.)

The side note that Freeh supports GAK, but she doesn't only shows that
they speak for different agencies.  We know which one Freeh speaks for, we
believe we know who she speaks for.

If the whole point of GAK is to catch stupid criminals anyway, it will
lose.  The only criminals that aren't going to be caught are the smart
ones.   We've argued this with her for years, but she's stuck to her party
line, and all of a sudden she changes the party line.  People don't change
their minds without reason, and an NSA mouth piece isn't likely to defect
and live to talk about it or reverse their position publically.

This might add some weight to the recent "leak" about the NSA being able
to break 128 bit cyphers in 30 minutes, then again who really knows? Could
be conspiracy theories, or FUD.  IMHO this is bullshit unless they've a
working quantum computer... (Still, maybe it's time to push the envelope
again just to be sure.  Anyone have a 256 bit version of IDEA? or shall we
go the 3DES way and produce 3IDEA? :)

> Yea, it'd be great if she suddenly got religion and started upholding
> the constitution, but this is still better than I would have hoped for.

Ha!  As likely as Dr. Vulis having tea and crumpets with Tim in a London
tea house and talking about how lovely the weather is. :)

I saw her speak a while back on these issues here in NYC... I've got a
tape of it, but haven't had a chance to transcribe it yet.  Believe me,
she doesn't have "religion," she doesn't give a rats ass about the
Constitution.  IMHO, she's wearing sheep's clothing and bleeting, but them
fangs are still there, and sharp as ever.

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    |Prying open my 3rd eye.  So good to see |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were      |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run  |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were....            |.....
======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================