Some legal trouble with TOR in France

[Ringo Kamens]

I'm not saying the AES is weak. I'm saying that Microsoft might have
implemented a back-door for governments. They could store the private keys
and passwords in videocard memory or in the boot sector or something like
that.

On 5/14/06, Tony <Tony at tdrmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>   2. The restrictions on encryption were removed some years ago. The best
> encryption software comes from outside the USA anyway so it was always a
> pointless exercise in futility.
>
>
>
> Unless a vulnerability is found in 256 bit AES it would take them longer
> than the ages of the universe to crack a key by brute force no matter how
> many terraflops of power they have to task on your key (not to mention the
> many others they might want to crack)
>
>
>
> 3. Filtering content is not quite the same as signing code and pretending
> it comes from Microsoft. Such a piece of code would have a changed checksum
> would likely be spotted and then analysed. I can't see Microsoft doing that
> unless required by law.
>
>
>
> 4. TPM is part of the trusted computing concept. It just makes it much
> harder. Not impossible.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-or-talk at freehaven.net [mailto:owner-or-talk at freehaven.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Ringo Kamens
> *Sent:* 14 May 2006 18:31
>
> *To:* or-talk at freehaven.net
> *Subject:* Re: Some legal trouble with TOR in France
>
>
>
> There are a few key points that you are overlooking.
>
>
>
> 1. In support of the photocopying money scandal, most printers have yellow
> dots imprinted on them that track date printed, serial number, etc.
>
>
>
> 2. By US export law, US companies are not allowed to export encryption
> larger than 56 bit (although it might have jumped to 128 a few years ago),
> unless it has been *certified by the government.  *That means unless it
> has a backdoor. Plus, governments have thousands of teraflops of idle
> computer cycles waiting to crack your keys.
>
>
>
> 3. How can you honestly think Microsoft wouldn't bend over for the US
> government. They bent over for China. Look at PGP. They moved to closed
> source after version 6.0 with no valid reason. The reason is probably the
> government.
>
>
>
> 4. In terms of using checksums to ensure your system hasn't been tampered
> with, the computer hardware could have a defense system against that such as
> trusted computing.
>
>
>
> Ringo Kamens
>
>
>
> On 5/14/06, *Mike Zanker* <mike at zanker.org> wrote:
>
> On 14/5/06 15:10, Tony wrote:
>
> > Nb- failure to disclose keys is up to two years in prison. Not 10.
> >
> > (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable-
> >
> >   (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not
> > exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both;
> >   (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
> > six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
>
> Furthermore, that's part III of RIPA which hasn't been enacted yet.
>
> Mike.
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController -
> www.MailController.altohiway.com<http://www.mailcontroller.altohiway.com/>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20060514/507fc144/attachment.htm>