Some legal trouble with TOR in France

[Ringo Kamens]

While i would eventually be spotted, it could probably be blamed on a
programming errror, worm, virus,  etc. Who is to say that something
like the wmf exploit wasn't a government backdoor? History has shown
us that the government has good experience in creating backdoors, why
should we give them the benefit of the doubt on windows?
Ringo

On 5/14/06, Tony <Tony at tdrmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Again it is very unlikely. There are many options to get the keys - like
> forcing you to divulge them or wire tapping your keyboard.
>
>
>
> If such a backdoor was included than it would likely be spotted. Here
> are some comments on a similar accusation a few years ago:
> http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/13/backdoor.idg/
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-or-talk at freehaven.net [mailto:owner-or-talk at freehaven.net]
> On Behalf Of Ringo Kamens
> Sent: 14 May 2006 18:43
> To: or-talk at freehaven.net
> Subject: Re: Some legal trouble with TOR in France
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>