12 April 1999

Note: Carl Johnson's trial is scheduled to begin today in US District Court, Western District of Washington, Tacoma, WA. Carl Johnson and Jim Bell are incarcerated at SeaTac Federal Facility, SeaTac, WA.

See related files: Carl's at http://jya.com/cejfiles.htm, Jim's at http://jya.com/jdbfiles.htm

See the Cypherpunk archives for other recent statements on the government's targeting of cypherpunks and events leading to the Johnson and Bell arrests and subsequent debate: http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/ 

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Disclosure of law enforcement addresses

On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Tim May wrote:

> I do find it peculiar that Law Enforcement would freak out that the home
> addresses of agents and judges, which are discoverable in _so_ many ways,
> including phone books, voting records, property tax records, etc., are
> published.
> 
> This while they publicize *my* Social Security Number!!!

We seem to be developing a system where there are three privacy castes -

The first, bureacrats and cops and judges, who get special privacy rights,
and whose privacy is jealously guarded; (* modulo the press, who will
selectively invade others' privacy in a limited fashion, but will hold
back enough information to maintain their monopoly)

The second, ordinary people, who get as much privacy as they can keep;

The third, criminals, whose addresses are placed on CD-ROMs and the
Internet along with their pictures, and distributed by the state to
encourage their ostracism and torment at the hands of people whose
aggression/common sense ratio is low. 

I think the torment of CJ and Jim Bell is intended to make examples of
people who treat someone from the first caste as if they were from a lower
caste.

On a somewhat related note, I started reading Daniel Patrick Moynahan's
"Secrecy" last night - I'd avoided it for awhile because I assumed that no
congressperson was capable of generating anything worth reading - but I
was too hasty. So far, it's interesting (if a little over-polished) and
provides interesting insight into the political & social aspects of
government secrecy policies - his argument is that the process of creating
official secrets substantially dimishes the quality of executive and
legislative decisionmaking. That seems like a reasonable assumption, but
it's interesting to read it from the perspective of an insider.

--
Greg Broiles
gbroiles@netbox.com




Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:35:25 -0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: The Second Cypherpunks Show Trial
Cc: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>


Part of the chilling of political speech in fin-de-siecle America is that
I'm going to wake up around 4 a.m. tomorrow morning regretting that I wrote
this and then sent it out where list.narcs like Jeff Gordon will add it to
my dossier.

Oh well. This is a long article, pretty much as I wrote it the first time.
If I agonize too much I'm likely to chicken out and not send it. The
chilling effect of show trials and hearsay evidence.

I pay all of my taxes. I'm not dumb. I don't _like_ paying taxes, and I
think the tax system will ultimately crumble under the onslaught of the
technologies we all understand, but I do still pay my taxes. They can't get
me on tax evasion, because I don't evade my taxes.

Nonetheless, I would not be at all surprised to find that my speaking out
on this despicable IRS/Treasury show trial results in either detailed
audits of my tax returns for the past N years, or, worse, a trumped-up
criminal tax fraud charge.

Like I said, oh well. With guys like Freeh and Reno in the service of a
rapist and perjurer, anything is possible.

Here it goes:

At 6:39 PM -0800 4/11/99, Greg Broiles wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Tim May wrote:
>
>> I do find it peculiar that Law Enforcement would freak out that the home
>> addresses of agents and judges, which are discoverable in _so_ many ways,
>> including phone books, voting records, property tax records, etc., are
>> published.
>>
>> This while they publicize *my* Social Security Number!!!
>
>We seem to be developing a system where there are three privacy castes -
>
>The first, bureacrats and cops and judges, who get special privacy rights,
>and whose privacy is jealously guarded; (* modulo the press, who will
>selectively invade others' privacy in a limited fashion, but will hold
>back enough information to maintain their monopoly)
>
>The second, ordinary people, who get as much privacy as they can keep;
>
>The third, criminals, whose addresses are placed on CD-ROMs and the
>Internet along with their pictures, and distributed by the state to
>encourage their ostracism and torment at the hands of people whose
>aggression/common sense ratio is low.
>
>I think the torment of CJ and Jim Bell is intended to make examples of
>people who treat someone from the first caste as if they were from a lower
>caste.

And the raids on their homes, with the newspapers and televison stations
alerted so they do a ride along and properly convey the images of the Evil
Babykilling Thought Criminals on the nightly news.

Not to mention the lack of prosecutions in the "FileGate" case...the White
House has an Enemies List with 1000 or so FBI files of their political
enemies. Run by a former bouncer, Craig Livingstone. So, clearly an illegal
use of confidential FBI information...and yet no prosecutions. Freeh and
Reno are lap dogs.

Greg's point about their being different castes is clearly shown.

Of course, what should one expect from a country run by a rapist? And a
liar, perjurer, subborner of perjury, tamperer with evidence, and seller of
defense secrets to China and who knows what other countries? One of my
neighbors is a Christian fundamentalist--he says we're clearly living in
the "End Times." Sometimes I think he has a point. (He's the one who told
me a chopper had been hovering over my house a while back; maybe an
innocent explanation, maybe some nervous Feebies checking out my place.)

So the Rapist in Chief announces one day he is "reading up on this here
place Kosovo." Good for him. Except that was Wednesday, and he launched the
Wag the Dog war the next day. "Yesterday I couldn't even spell the word
Kosovo, now I'm kicking their ass.")

But, nothing is surprising in this Alice in Wonderland/Matrix reality,
where a double murderer like O.J. Simpson got off and a harmless crank like
Jim Bell has been in jail for most of the past 2 years. Yeah, justice
American-style. Two years in jail for futzing around with stinkbombs and
using phony Social Security numbers, while murderers, rapists, and
subborners of perjury go free.

Meanwhile, the Government uses its powers to try to intimidate and silence.
Court documents show the U.S. Marshals Service spreading *hearsay* about
me, referring to bogus claims that "TIM MAY announced he would be murdering
Jim Bell's judge (known to be U.S. District Judge Franklin BURGESS or
Magistrate J. Kelly ARNOLD) on Friday at 4:00 p.m."

(this from the 11/25/97 report of Lisa Stephenson, Deputy U.S. Marshal.
This report was helpfully sent to other law enforcment agencies and the
judges, from marks made on the report...perhaps explaining some of the
weird things seen at that time, Thanksgiving of 1997.)

"Inspector GORDAN [sic] described MAY as being an anarchist/survivalist who
seems to spend much of his time communicating his beliefs via the Internet."

Fair enough...I can't complain about that characterization of me.

The IRS then helpfully provided my Social Security Number, now blasted
around the world in public record court documents. (So much for my SS
number only being used for Social Security and tax purposes and "NOT FOR
IDENTIFICATION." And so much for information I am compelled to give the IRS
on my tax returns being broadcast into court records. )

Gordon goes on to say:

"...and has repeatedly stated he would shoot any law enforcement officers
who attempted to arrest him."

This tissue of rumors and hearsay, combined with comments taken out of
context (the context generally being about self-defense in a midnight
raider situation, with black-clad ninjas bursting into one's home without
proper  presentation of a search warrant).

(Side note: This is an interesting legal/cyberspace issue. We are now in a
world where the equivalent of "living room conversations" amongst friends
are archived, searchable, essentially permanent, and browsable/searchable
by various parties. Including by law enforcement trying to stitch together
case mosaics. I average something like 5 posts per day. Less to the
Cypherpunks list in the last half year, for various reasons, and a lot more
in the first several years. So, roughly, about 1500-2000 articles of
varying lengths per year. Or about 10,000 or so in the six and a half years
of the Cypherpunks list. (Gulp!) Anyone who wants to search on any
topic--Sarin, guns, Abu Nidal, ATX-34 suitcase nukes, etc.--can find a lot
of stuff which looks "dangerous" when lifted out of context. List.narcs
must be in heaven.)

So, reports sent to various agencies--FBI, Marshals Service, IRS--have me
planning to kill a judge, stockpiling guns, and being opposed to the U.S.
Government. Well, only one of these is illegal. And that's the one that was
a fabrication, a rumor, an invented fantasy.

Where are the statements absolving me of this bogus claim that I planned to
whack a Federal judge? Where are the clarification of these rumors and
hearsay about what I and others plan to do, want to do, or expect to do?

Sure looks to me like they're setting the stage for a "Cypherpunks RICO
trial." Maybe with attention-grabbing raids on houses of the "gun nut
survivalist militia whackos." That will play well on t.v., especially in
time for the vote to ban crypto (which will probably sail through Congress
now that our fighting boys are about to start dying to keep Yugoslavia safe
for the Albania drug-running Muslim-Marxist KLA terrorists).

Show trials needs show criminals.

There's a lot more stuff that is in these documents, and in other places.
It appears that much more than just a trial of an eccentric minstrel
poet/satirist is going on. It looks like a innuendo, political speech,
hearsay, and "interviews" with some "helpful" folks, where they are asked
to speculate on the motivations and plans of others, is all being put
together by government agencies who have turned a blind eye to the FBI
files at the White House, to evidence of high treason by Clinton and Gore,
and of course to the travesties in Waco and Ruby Ridge and other places.

Oh, and it's just beginning. According to the judgment of William Geiger,
another show trial is being planned. This time for those who dared to
examine the "signature" evidence used to allegedly implicate Carl Johnson.

I have not closely followed the math of Adam Back's "signature collision"
work, reported on this list, included in the court documents, and recently
posted again (maybe with newer info--like I said, I haven't followed the
reasoning closely).

If a lawyer examines evidence, a la Dershowitz in the O.J. trial, it's
beyond reproach. But if Adam Back or William Geiger show that the alleged
digital signatures can arise in other ways than C.J. Parker/Johnson being
Toto/Truthmonger/DaveNull/etc., then this is called "obstruction."

Here's Geiger's assessment of why he was testifying before _another_ grand
jury:

At 1:55 PM -0800 4/8/99, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Well, you all have been eagerly awaiting my report on my testimony before
>the Grand Jury in Seattle.
>
>What is the Grand Jury Looking into:
>====================================
>
>This is a new Grand Jury looking into the activities of CP List
>subscribers *after* CJ was arrested. It seems the MIB consider the
>following to be obstruction of their investigation/prosecution of CJ:
>
>- -- Series of posts concerning Toto's PGP Private Keys and passphrases.
>
>- -- Series of posts concerning Toto's ISP/E-Mail Accounts & passwords.
>

>- -- Posts made after CJ's arrest using using e-mail addresses & aliases
>allegedly used by CJ (TOTO, TRUTHMONGER, BUBA ROM DOS).
>

This is the equvalent of "looking into the activities of" O.J.'s chief
lawyer, Johnny Cochrane for his "if it does not fit, you must acquit" work
on the glove.

Except, of course, Cochrane is a lawyer. But let an expert witness examine
the evidence and come up with alternative explanations...ah, then it
becomes "obstruction."

(And make no mistake about it, folks on this list are every bit as much
world class experts on PGP and signature-spoofing as any glove or medical
experts called in the O.J. trial were. For which they should be compensated
as expert witnesses at their negotiated professional rate if they are asked
to give professional opinions, as opposed to testimony about their direct
observations.)

If Adam Back didn't have to fear his being arrested (see Adam's comments
about what Geiger told him), he would make a good witness for C.J.'s
lawyer(s) to call to impeach the testimony of the government's expert
witnesses. He could presumably demonstrate directly the methods.

Odd that all of the Cypherpunks are being called by the Feds. Does CJ have
no lawyer?

Even odder that so many Cypherpunks have freely given interviews with
various investigators, even offering their opinions as to the motivations
of others.

A show trial. With too many Cypherpunks helping to hang the accused...and
perhaps ultimately many others.

Did CJ do what he is accused of doing? I don't know. I am not even familiar
with what all the precise charges are...something about death threats to
judges, to Bill Gates, and something about some shotgun shells and a book
of matches with the word "Bomb" scrawled on the outside of a bag of some
kind. Sounds bizarre, if true. But it has to be proved based on evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt, not based on hearsay about what "Tim May" was
alleged to have promised, about the gun collections of list members, and
all this other hearsay and innuendo.

I am not making any claims about whether C.J is Toto is Human Gus-Peter is
Dave Null is Bubba Rom Dos, etc. I never met the guy. I don't recall even
replying to him, though I may have replied tersely to some of his rants,
before I started deleting them all. I deleted nearly all of his "Circle of
Eunuchs" (and later series, like "Space Aliens Ate My Drugs") stuff unread,
especially after it got so repetitive. Most of what I now know about his
alleged activities and his associates, his travels, his medications, etc.,
I know from reading recent items on the list. Oh, and the court documents,
which I just spent a couple of hours reading in more detail than the
initial glance I took a few weeks ago. The court documents are eye opening.

But Adam and William and probably others have much to fear. A second show
trial, this one on "conspiracy to obstruct," or somesuch. No wonder Jeff
Gordon was asking William Geiger if Adam Back is ever in the U.S. Customs
could nab him at the port of entry.

(I guess Marsha Clark and Chris Darden wish they could have gotten
Cochrane, Dershowitz, Bailey, and that Santa Clara law professor on this
kind of conspiracy charge. Hey, bring in the RICO laws! "By challenging our
evidence, even though there is no gag order on the trial, you have
obstructed justice. Bailiff, take them away.")

And if I wasn't already on their list to be called, for whatever reason,
then probably speaking out here, on the eve of their first show trial, will
probably get me added to the list of conspirators.

Meanwhile, the Rapist in Chief has his stacks of FBI dossiers on his
political opponents, he has his slush fund from selling ICBM guidance
secrets to the Red Chinese, and he's got himself a Merrye Little War in the
Balkans so he can rebuild his legacy on the burned-out villages and
scorched bodies of Yugoslavia.

So they go after a weird guy who may or may not have exhibited a form of
"literary Tourette's" but who basically did no damage to anyone. Some
system, eh?

Time to reformat America's hard drive and start over, I say.


--Tim May (I'd PGP sign my post, except my Eudora-PGP plug-in stopped
working a while back, and, besides, they'd probably cite the use of PGP as
part of the conspiracy charge)




Y2K: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, enjoy the ride.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.




From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@openpgp.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 04:42:21 -0500
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: The Second Cypherpunks Show Trial

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <v0313030ab3373be949ce@[209.66.100.203]>, on 04/12/99 

   at 02:35 AM, Tim May <tcmay@got.net> said:

First let me say nice post.

>But Adam and William and probably others have much to fear. A second show
>trial, this one on "conspiracy to obstruct," or somesuch. No wonder Jeff
>Gordon was asking William Geiger if Adam Back is ever in the U.S. Customs
>could nab him at the port of entry.

Well fear was my first reaction. I am not accustom to being awakened by
process servers 1st thing in the morning let alone being given less than
48hr to travel cross-country to appear before a Federal Grand Jury that,
at the time, I could not understand why it was still going on (until I was
actually before them I thought it was still investigating CJ) much less
why I was being called.

This turned to shock when I found out it was *me* and my activities (along
with other CP list subscribers) that they were interested in.

After finishing with my testimony the fear returned, the fear of the
unknown. How far had things been compromised? I know that my dial-up ISP
was monitoring my activities, but how far had things gone? Were they
tapping my phones? Bugs placed in my office? Was my openpgp.net server
compromised? Would my equipment & files even be there when I got back or
would there just be a note from the MIB's?? Hell would I even make it back
or would they decide to keep me (the prosecutor did not look happy at the
end of my testimony). It is one thing to theoretically know that the NSA
or some other TLA may be watching because of the field that I work in, it
is quite another thing to be presented with proof that they are!!

Now it has turned to anger. I am hopping mad over this whole thing.

AFAIKT my involvement started with the "Dead Lucky" post in which the
author(s) mention me by name as a contributor to the Dead Lucky AP Bot.
Now this post was made last year (June 23, 1997 according to Jeff's
report). So for close to a year now they have been monitoring my on-line
activities. In this time I have not had any communications with CJ or
anyone else with regards to the post or any alleged AP Bot yet as of
3-9-99 they were still monitoring my account!!

An alternative theory is that they have not been monitoring my account but
after the Web World posts were made they contacted my dialup ISP and
requested logs on the basis that they were published through the
openpgp.net node. This brings up implications as troubling or more than if
they have been monitoring me for the past year. IMHO I do not think this
is the case. Those posts were made ~8:30pm CDT on the 9th and my subpoenas
were issued on the 10th. Turn around time was just too quick for anything
other than active monitoring of my account.

Now what really gets me is this: I have strong suspicions that there was
no warrant issued to monitor my account! As I mentioned in my earlier post
the prosecutor was very carefull not to admit that a warrant was issued
when directly asked by a member of the Grand Jury: "you may *assume* that
a warrant or warrants were obtained." Remember now were are talking about
lawyers here, they are trained on how to craft their words. IMHO if no

warrant was obtained the monitoring of my account and subsequent releasing
of data was *illegal* and in violation of my civil rights. My dial-up ISP,
by following the requests of the government, was acting as an agent of the
state and thereby bound by the same constitutional restrictions.


- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.openpgp.net
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
Talk About PGP on IRC EFNet Channel: #pgp Nick: whgiii

Hi Jeff!! :)
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i OS/2 for non-commercial use
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000
Charset: cp850

wm0DBQE3EcH0OgSW65d+5GUBAbEOAsCFUMs8W1Et7QtTml0Ai+JLIcBA4zoZfo2T
sQk0fZpIsyTLLN8sBM+5QhKxBBoNyQ1Rs88AoKVhedBh77HK3ZBWODq90aqtbAjw
pJErX4aDQck2j5/S4Xmj
=in4o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 23:42:11 +0100
Message-Id: <199904102242.XAA12688@server.eternity.org>
From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Subject: CDR: oh goody, more key games


The message that was posted by anonymous just now, as you can see from
the armor header lines, is a secret key block:

> -----BEGIN PGP SECRET KEY BLOCK-----
> Version: 2.6.3a
> Comment: Hi Jeff!!!
> Comment: plausible deniability
> Comment: PASS: TOTOCUS

Note the comment fields refer to William Geigers recent post, where he

said that he created this key, and that he was asked during his
testimony as to why, he said that it was (amongst other things) for
plausible deniability.

The key block contains the following two keys:

Type Bits/KeyID    Date       User ID
sec   704/977EE465 1997/06/08 Adam Back <spoofed fingerprint DO NOT USE>
sec   768/21999D35 1998/09/10 TOTOCUS

The first one is a key I generated back in 1997 to demonstrate the
fingerprint spoofing attack which results from the design mistake that
the key component lengths are not included in the md5 hash whch forms
the fingerprint in pgp2.x.  The fingerprint attack details below [1]
(btw. DO NOT USE THE KEY, the fingerprint attack makes it readable by
anyone because of the small factors of the replacement N used).

The second key, seems to be a repost of the TOTOCUS key which William
(?) posted anonymously some months ago.

What the purpose of anonymous's post is, I don't know.  Perhaps to
encourage use of the TOTOCUS key?  

(My spoofed fingerprint private key does not function with PGP because
the weird key parameters cause the CRT algorithm implementation PGP
uses for signing to fail).

(btw. if anyone is interested in tinkering with and examining keys and
messages, pgpacket by Mark Shoulson is really handy.  It is a perl
program and can be obtained from:

	http://ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp/utils/
)

Adam

[1]
======================================================================
PGP fingerprints are computed: fingerprint = md5( n || e ).

Say we have a 1024 bit key, say e is small ( < 256).  That means
n || e is 129 bytes long.

The e value must be represented by a whole byte.  n can't be smaller
than 384 bits (or PGP will reject it as too small to hold the required
idea message key and padding), so that will give us 80 possible values
for e and n.  Lets use my 1024 bit key for an example.

n = 0x99d61071378ee2c0c8c9c4b7786b203dedf2d6e526f24f7e83f3e0f960fb66b9
      cb81c04e89d70689a4866f21ad1bb5ba6aee51469e5b59b121ba6f3f8d776b62
      7253ba5dc9fca8155a565b9893f695d83a0496eb977ee4659ee20e0f2eb49b25
      93c11487b377cc5d767c79fb985b464d4ae94a5f45e42e3b29c8b89d556a4a67
e = 0x13

So we could try:

e = 0x6713
e = 0x4a6713
e = 0x6a4a6713
...
n = 0x99d61071378ee2c0c8c9c4b7786b203dedf2d6e526f24f7e83f3e0f960fb66b9
      cb81c04e89d70689a4866f21ad1bb5ba
      
e = 0x6aee51469e5b59b121ba6f3f8d776b627253ba5dc9fca8155a565b9893f695d8
      3a0496eb977ee4659ee20e0f2eb49b2593c11487b377cc5d767c79fb985b464d
      4ae94a5f45e42e3b29c8b89d556a4a6713

Here's the first candidate I found with only two factors starting from
the smallest n value (384 bit n) so that it would be quicker to
factorize (anything that took a long time to factor I moved on to next
value).

n = 0x99D61071378EE2C0C8C9C4B7786B203DEDF2D6E526F24F7E83F3E0F960FB66B9
      CB81C04E89D70689A4866F21AD1BB5BA6AEE51469E5B59B121BA6F3F8D776B62

      7253BA5DC9FCA8155A565B9893F695D83A0496EB977EE465
e = 0x9EE20E0F2EB49B2593C11487B377CC5D767C79FB985B464D4AE94A5F45E42E3B
      29C8B89D556A4A6713

p = 0x6D

q = 0x1694DA7CA7DC9B69CD9ECAAC8BCDF6A41988A31132573CFD6EF72CC44FFF5330
      69074D8CB3F0974586892A25D2F3A08C19173D406266A82CCA3C3F4D705CAF78
      23922972C20D99D8DBF07E2DE20CB5B3B3F747797B3A8D9

n = 0x99D61071378EE2C0C8C9C4B7786B203DEDF2D6E526F24F7E83F3E0F960FB66B9
      CB81C04E89D70689A4866F21AD1BB5BA6AEE51469E5B59B121BA6F3F8D776B62
      7253BA5DC9FCA8155A565B9893F695D83A0496EB977EE465

d = 0x0455419C3B8CCE54710EC04F9FA61F83A5E2363BE0D2E361886080716E7B8886
      EA62B748F20B9E9E7F93F768616D3AF5F8785D514A82EE41CB1FF251FFB053FA
      173D0B239D7BD1995B4F7DE3B2B112F911BE1304453EAC53

u = 0x0162AC862E1D88F2ACC3230A4AED13AEC3EA4A978387684ADA099644FF9FAA3D
      D51F6BA831347C5D12AD1CDC72F5FE40F66228E54573373C4A0F255A091879BC
      F2EA9509D46B673CB7C4EB8EDA0D6754DC373EA911653504

(Factorization courtesy of pollard rho / trial division code in the
factorization code which comes in ssh-1.2.20, which includes a
modified gmp-2.0.2 which has the code in the demos directory.)

I checked RSA operation (with my .sig rsa program which works with hex
numbers rather than formatted pgp keys) -- it works!!

% echo hello world | rsa -k=9EE20E0F2EB49B2593C11487B377CC5D767C79FB985B464D4AE94A5F45E42E3B29C8B89D556A4A6713 -n=99D61071378EE2C0C8C9C4B7786B203DEDF2D6E526F24F7E83F3E0F960FB66B9CB81C04E89D70689A4866F21AD1BB5BA6AEE51469E5B59B121BA6F3F8D776B627253BA5DC9FCA8155A565B9893F695D83A0496EB977EE465 > out
%
% rsa -k=0455419C3B8CCE54710EC04F9FA61F83A5E2363BE0D2E361886080716E7B8886EA62B748F20B9E9E7F93F768616D3AF5F8785D514A82EE41CB1FF251FFB053FA173D0B239D7BD1995B4F7DE3B2B112F911BE1304453EAC53 -n=99D61071378EE2C0C8C9C4B7786B203DEDF2D6E526F24F7E83F3E0F960FB66B9CB81C04E89D70689A4866F21AD1BB5BA6AEE51469E5B59B121BA6F3F8D776B627253BA5DC9FCA8155A565B9893F695D83A0496EB977EE465 < out
hello world
%

I'm off to pack this up as a PGP key, to see if PGP likes it!

Well here's that key as a pgp key.  Under no circumstances use it to
encrypt a message you care about.  Here's the public key.

Type Bits/KeyID    Date       User ID
pub   704/977EE465 1997/06/08 Adam Back <spoofed fingerprint DO NOT USE>

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3i

mQCNAzObE60AAAECwJnWEHE3juLAyMnEt3hrID3t8tblJvJPfoPz4Plg+2a5y4HA
TonXBomkhm8hrRu1umruUUaeW1mxIbpvP413a2JyU7pdyfyoFVpWW5iT9pXYOgSW
65d+5GUBSJ7iDg8utJslk8EUh7N3zF12fHn7mFtGTUrpSl9F5C47Kci4nVVqSmcT
tCpBZGFtIEJhY2sgPHNwb29mZWQgZmluZ2VycHJpbnQgRE8gTk9UIFVTRT6JAG0D
BRAzmxOtOgSW65d+5GUBAQ27ArwOTveQTs0kjzBEMa09yWFs5+jNjv5tzSCngzXO
bRzvwhTwWz4voR3ov2o0bGTYZF1biKRKeKqZzHb4Oq4XhD4TADdlmsxA5gQgbYFN
5K+tbgWEDQD53KFv
=rlth
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Here's the secret half:

-----BEGIN PGP SECRET KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3i

lQGhAzObE60AAAECwJnWEHE3juLAyMnEt3hrID3t8tblJvJPfoPz4Plg+2a5y4HA
TonXBomkhm8hrRu1umruUUaeW1mxIbpvP413a2JyU7pdyfyoFVpWW5iT9pXYOgSW
65d+5GUBSJ7iDg8utJslk8EUh7N3zF12fHn7mFtGTUrpSl9F5C47Kci4nVVqSmcT
AAK7BFVBnDuMzlRxDsBPn6Yfg6XiNjvg0uNhiGCAcW57iIbqYrdI8guenn+T92hh
bTr1+HhdUUqC7kHLH/JR/7BT+hc9CyOde9GZW09947KxEvkRvhMERT6sUwAHbQK5

AWlNp8p9ybac2eyqyLzfakGYijETJXPP1u9yzET/9TMGkHTYyz8JdFhokqJdLzoI
wZFz1AYmaoLMo8P01wXK94I5IpcsINmdjb8H4t4gy1s7P3R3l7Oo2QK5AWKshi4d
iPKswyMKSu0TrsPqSpeDh2hK2gmWRP+fqj3VH2uoMTR8XRKtHNxy9f5A9mIo5UVz
NzxKDyVaCRh5vPLqlQnUa2c8t8TrjtoNZ1TcNz6pEWU1BIRbtCpBZGFtIEJhY2sg
PHNwb29mZWQgZmluZ2VycHJpbnQgRE8gTk9UIFVTRT4=
=lE9S
-----END PGP SECRET KEY BLOCK-----

Here are the fingerprints of spoofed key as compared to real key.

Type Bits/KeyID    Date       User ID

pub   704/977EE465 1997/06/08 Adam Back <spoofed fingerprint DO NOT USE>
            Key fingerprint = 18 B8 A0 65 9D 38 14 83  61 5A E6 AC 91 8B 9E 57

pub  1024/556A4A67 1993/06/08 Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
            Key fingerprint = 18 B8 A0 65 9D 38 14 83  61 5A E6 AC 91 8B 9E 57

Note the identical fingerprints!  (Awesome).

Key id of course is different.

Also note that you can't decrypt directly with PGP, as I suspected,
because the chinese remainder theorem used in decrypt to speed up the
works barfs on small p.  You can hack around that if you're bothered.
It might be possible to find a spoofed fingerprint key with large p
and q, so that this was not a problem.

Below this post is my real key.

This is a major security flaw, and I take my hat off to the guy who
discovered it.

As others noted (who were aware of this flaw) the solution is to
consider the keyid as part of the fingerprint.  That reduces by a
factor of 2^25 the likelihood of the attack succeeding.  I suspect
that rules out the attack working for most keys.  Also be suspicous of
odd sized keys.  Now if someones 2048 bit key has a 1024 bit spoof,
you're in trouble.  I think this should be possible for most/many
keys, if you allow composite p & q.

You could construct a key where the keyid matched, and the fingerprint
matched for two different keys, using a combination of dead beef
attack, and brute force to find a key with the keyid appearing two
places in the key, and then trying to factor the n value at that
point.  Shouldn't take long.

As far as PGP format goes, adding the length field into the digest
would go along way towards fixing it.  (Length fields for pgp big int
representation is big endian 16 bit word representing length of
following big int in bits).

Peter Gutmann suggested using the ASN.1 representation for an RSA key,
as a more portable way of doing it (compatible with x509).

(btw for people playing with this stuff, a useful program is
pgpacket.pl by Mark Shoulsen, which displays pgp packets as hex
numbers, see ftp.ox.ac.uk/pgp somewhere under utils).

Adam

My real key, so you can compare fingerprints.

Type Bits/KeyID    Date       User ID
pub  1024/556A4A67 1993/06/08 Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3i

mQCNAiwUXUEAAAEEAJnWEHE3juLAyMnEt3hrID3t8tblJvJPfoPz4Plg+2a5y4HA
TonXBomkhm8hrRu1umruUUaeW1mxIbpvP413a2JyU7pdyfyoFVpWW5iT9pXYOgSW
65d+5GWe4g4PLrSbJZPBFIezd8xddnx5+5hbRk1K6UpfReQuOynIuJ1VakpnAAUT
tBxBZGFtIEJhY2sgPGFiYUBkY3MuZXguYWMudWs+iQCVAwUQMiDfwUZRiTErSPb1
AQF/yAP8D1X2eAhXSc0P/X7lCHyBhWCl3pxa6oyGxFBOmUeOGfYna8CpJeMiTmZm
akRWDYmJUiXscQUfd9qRv8eAeOtbvM87olSjm56Dlh4gYJFZRxZ6IhHlFJx3mPmp
q9PnL+pSC41IIheRBJFzpKGD3LW9+VQwRAx9bXFJYyOFpx7vGJqJAJUCBRAwLhaV
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==
=xN9o
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----




Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 23:14:38 +0100
From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
To: ravage@einstein.ssz.com
CC: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Subject: CDR: Re: Carl Johnson


Jim Choate wrote:
> Scoops wrote:
> > innoncent.  Many perons who get ground up are "more or less" innocent.  If
> 
> What do you believe he's guilty of?
> 
> [completely non-functioning AP bot, etc]

Well said Jim.

> The fact that the IRS has continued this witch hunt because of the
> discovery of a weakness in PGP based digital signatures as
> obstruction is also laughable.  

The class of signature attacks that anonymous demonstrated a method
for after my challenge was not a new discovery.  I think this class of
attack, or something very much like it, has been previously
discovered.  Perhaps I can find a reference to the literature.

> CJ and any and every other citizen has a constitutional right to try
> to demonstrate the case as presented by the IRS is faulty and
> therefore should be dropped. The discussion and demonstrations that
> took place on this mailing list fall under the 1st Amendment
> protections of speech and press.

I am not sure I understand what the obstruction business is about.

People discussed their views of the merits of the IRS case, and I and
a few others, and a few anonymous contributors had our own stab at
analysing the collection of nyms and keys which have been posted to
the list in the last couple of years by various nyms.

If the result of this is that some of the IRS's arguments about keys
being on CJ's laptop proving authorship evaporate, well that's tough
luck.  If the facts aren't convenient, who's fault is that.  If they
lack proof that CJ in fact did anything, doesn't this suggest that
they ought to let him go, rather than that they should be annoyed
about the inconvenience of the facts.

> In this country one is innocent until proven guilty. You don't deny
> innocent people their medication, contact with their associates
> (whomever they might be), contact with the lawyer, access to the
> evidence being presented against him, strap them to tables, etc.

Crap like this is a travesty of justice.  That the `system' knowingly
tolerates it is despicable.  The kinds of bullying and violence that
is reputedly allowed in prisons, and used in an underhand indirect
fashion by the system to `punish' people the prison officers, or the
system has it in for is also dispicable.  This kind of crap belongs in
the dark ages.

> No, those are signs of governments which are anything but democratic.

Right.

Adam




Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:33:59 +0100
From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: more Scoops on CJ


[Scoops accidentally hit reply rather than reply all and sent this to
me rather than to the list.  Forwarded with permisssion -- Adam].

That's my read on the posted plea bargain: sentence = time served and
superceding indictiments dropped.  That cuts the funding on this whole mess
instantly.  There is no way that his federal public defender (which are
usually better than a private attorney if you're paying less than $250,000
for a private one) hasn't gone over the plea bargain with CJ.  But here's
the problem with an innocent man.  If the defendant does not freely admit
to the defense attorney that he is guilty, then the defense attorney MUST
take the matter to trial.  That's the unwritten and ethical rule.  You do
not plea bargain anyone who says he's innocent.  That's where the greening
process starts with CJ.  He's got to tell the defense lawyer that he admits
he guilty and will take the plea bargain.  Some friend has to get to him to
tell him that's a reasonable move.  He's not letting the cause down.  In
fact, at the rate you boys are getting subpoenaed, duces tecum (with all
the evidence you have), he'd do the cause a whole lot more good he he
pleaded out.  Christ, at the very least he should be able to admit that
he's guilty of poor judgment.  I don't care how constitutional his behavior
was.  He was doing just fine with SPACE ALIENS HIDE MY DRUGS.  The
Preakness betting pool apparently is what pushed the feds over the edge.
CJ may not be in a mental place to listen carefully to his defense lawyer.
The lawyer has to speak very codedly that if CJ says he's innocent, there
can be no guilty plea, no matter how lenient it is.  It's CJ that has to
tell the lawyer, yeah, I've read the indictment carefully, and I'm guilty
of "x".  I have known many a defendant who was looking at a 10 month plea
bargain versus a 20 year sentence at trial who was innocent as hell and cut
his losses and swore under oath that he was guilty as sin, took the 10
months at a camp and lived to fight another day.  I've also met many an
"innocent" man serving 5 to 10 years who was offered a "by" at plea
bargain.  Taking on the big boys is an expensive proposition and, in my
professional judgment, only should be taken on if you don't have a choice
-- such as a life sentence for money laundering and you're 50 years old and
the prosecution is offering you twenty years if you plead.    In that
instance, there's no downside.  If you've got the funds or the balls, you
go for it.  But, hell, they're offering CJ a walk if he pleads.  Yeah, life
with a felony conviction is nasty.  But CJ wasn't going to be getting any
white collar jobs anyway.  (The feds aren't entirely stupid.  If they let
CJ go, with a felony conviction, they know he won't be able to have a gun
for a least five years nor by certain chemicals.)  Even if he was a white
collar career man, the indictiment alone has doomed a "straight" career.
He's fucked.  The only question is whether he'll do time.  And to save
valuable bandwidth, I concede Jim Choate's point that all it takes is one
juror to dead lock it.  And then the feds get to retry it if they want and
CJ'll do more time even if he's found not guilty the second time than if he
took the plea bargain and went home tomorrow.

At 12:02 AM 4/11/99 +0100, Adam Back wrote:
>
>Scoops wrote:
>> Jim -- there is every possibility that everything you say is correct and CJ
>> is innocent.  Actually, that is what I believe.  I nonetheless maintain
>> that CJ's best course of action is to take the plea bargain since the plea
>> carries no time in prison.  It also stops all the superceding indictments.
>
>Oh, I didn't catch that aspect of the plea -- if he took it they would
>let him out right now, plus I presume some onerous stipulations
>restricting his rights and activities for a few years.
>
>CJ has more guts than most to see through what he feels is right on
>principle, and deserves respect for that.  Pity he hasn't got any real
>defense -- I presume it is pretty much accepted that a public defender
>isn't going to do a very good job.  Presume you, scoops, wouldn't be
>interested?
>
>I am curious about the Frisselian take on this -- wonder if the
>Dancing Elephant Troupe would be suggested to be called in?  Or if the
>Scoops play it safe tatic would be recommened there also?
>
>Adam




http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.99.04.05-99.04.11/msg00345.html


Re: CDR: Carl Johnson (fwd)







----- Forwarded message from scoops -----

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:13:06 -0700
From: scoops <scoops@quiknet.com>
Subject: Re: CDR: Carl Johnson

Dear Mr. Young -- as you know, I am a "supporter" of CJ.  He may well be
innoncent.  Many perons who get ground up are "more or less" innocent.  If

----- End of forwarded message from scoops -----

What do you believe he's guilty of?

A political webpage that discussed and demonstrated AP in a theoretical
sense? When the LEA's tried the page, or anyone else for that matter, was
any money required? When the 'bet' was placed was a CC or other form of EFT
asked for? Has it been demonstrated that CJ's account or an account traceable
to him was increased by some percentage of that bet (assuming he deducted
operating costs)? If not it's hardly reasonable to call it a threat in and of
itself. If CJ did put a bomb in a Canadian courthouse, from the perspective
of US criminal law, so what? It's a crime in Canada and not here. The fact
that the IRS offered to let him go for 'assault' and time served would
indicate they feel their case is very weak, as well as the Canadians claim
that he was the creator of the bomb. If there were credible proof that a bomb
was placed in a Canadian courthouse why are the IRS wasting our money and time 
when they should ship him off to Canada per the extradition treaties we have 
with them? It would solve everyones problem and be the most cost effective for 
the US citizen. Now if CJ was taken into custody simply because the IRS didn't 
like the tone of the webpage and his politics then he was fully justified in 
self-defence. In fact the IRS, and by extension every tax payer, is at fault
and owes CJ restitution for the abuses he suffered.

The fact that the IRS has continued this witch hunt because of the discovery 
of a weakness in PGP based digital signatures as obstruction is also laughable.
CJ and any and every other citizen has a constitutional right to try to
demonstrate the case as presented by the IRS is faulty and therefore should
be dropped. The discussion and demonstrations that took place on this
mailing list fall under the 1st Amendment protections of speech and press.

The approach and attitude of the IRS strikes me as akin to the neighborhood
bully who had their noses bloodied for a change.

In this country one is innocent until proven guilty. You don't deny innocent
people their medication, contact with their associates (whomever they might
be), contact with the lawyer, access to the evidence being presented against
him, strap them to tables, etc.

No, those are signs of governments which are anything but democratic.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
                        Vice is nurtured by secrecy.

                                          Virgilius

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------