Mindshare and Java

"Krakatoa--East of Java"

I gather that those interested in software and programming have migrated, a
la "Blood Music," to the so-called coderpunks mailing list, leaving we the
preterite to discuss the Turner Diaries, Zundelsites, the wisdom of nuking
the Japs, racism, banking privacy laws, bets about the meaning of the 5th
Amendment, and so on.

Well, I was not invited to join the elite and secret coderpunks list, but I
still have some thoughts on coding and, especially, on the opportunities
offered by Java. Sorry if this interferes with discussions of Rabbi Heir
and Morris Dees.

Others still on the Cypherpunks list are more expert at Java than I, but
they seem to be saying little (maybe all of their words are on the
coderpunks list?), so I'll say what's on my mind here.

[It is my firm opinion that the creation of a separate mailing list to
discuss only coding or software issues is a mistake. For several reasons,
which I can discuss at lenght in a separate message. Basically, it is
easier to filter-reduce a large group, such as with "[CODE]" prefixes or by
reputations, than it is to filter-expand a moribund group! :-} I've seen
many sub-critical mass list become moribund. And there is another important
point, that the Cypherpunks/Coderpunks split is producing the expected
result: the Cypherpunks are rapidly losing any remaining anchors to
technical/programming issues and are thus becoming almost wholly
politics-driven. While I am of course highly motivated by political issues,
they must be grounded in technical issues (else we are just another
anti-CDA, anti-censorship, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian ranting group).
I can't say what's happening on the coderpunks list, but my suspicion is
that many of the coderpunks-only readers are analogously disconnected from
ideological/political issues and think, perhaps, that the main purpose of
the list (and of Cypherpunks) is to discuss compiler optimizations for PGP
source code. It is sad to see the Cypherpunks lose its grounding. Maybe in
a few months, the coderpunks will simply declare victory, dissolve the
Cypherpunks list, and rename themselves, a la coderpunks = cypherpunks++.)


But I come not to bury Cypherpunks, I come to praise Java.

Some points:

1. Java is of course not a perfect language, nor even the best for specific
applications. Other languages will continue to thrive. Critics of the
language and related items (applet model, JDK, JITs, etc.) may point to
various problems (e.g. security).

2. However, the "big picture" is compelling. Java arrives at a time when a
Babel of languages and platforms threatens interoperability. C++ is
despised by many (though, to be fair, liked by many, too), and developers
are adopting Visual Basic (and the vbx widgets, etc.), PowerBuilder,
Delphi, flavors of Smalltalk (no pun intended), and scripting languages
(Perl, TCL, Python, etc.).

3. The Java/Virtual Machine/applet model is not altogether new (remember
P-Code?), but this implementation arrives at the right time. Sun's support,
the support by Netscape, Microsoft, Novell, etc., further buttresses the
building momentum. The "mindshare" race is essentially over.

Platform-independence is compelling for many apps. Speed is often not
critical, especially when many Pentium- or PowerPC-class machines are
basically idling most of the time. (Peak performance, when a user is
actually _doing_ something at the machine, is still an issue...nobody wants
to wait 10 minutes for a bytecode version of a Java program to run while
its C brother completes in 15 seconds! For these more time-critical apps,
either native code (in C or C++) is likely, or normally compiled Java
(losing some platform-independence), or just-in-time (JIT) compilation of
dowloaded applets will be needed.

4. What is so compelling, to me, is that Java programs have an excellent
chance of running on various flavors of Unix, on Windows-95 and NT systems,
on Macs, and on other systems without changes, and without any special
compilers bought by the users! (Netscape browsers, and even Microsoft
browsers, are able to view applets, or soon will be. And cheap or free
applet viewers are available.)

5. Again, the speed may or may not be up to what C or C++ offers. But, as I
noted, speed is in most cases less important than other factors. (At least
in the very important domain of new apps, or low-volume apps. While "Excel"
has to run at a rapid clip, "NoiseSphere" clearly does not. Nor, I contend,
do most text-oriented crypto programs. The proliferation of 133-MHz Pentia,
for example, means that even a 5x slowdown is probably acceptable (maybe
even 10x?).

[Before people note that some Java programs are running at 3-5% of their C
brethren, think of where things will be in a year, not just today. JIT
compilers should narrow the gap, and even full-blown compilers are likely.]

6. One can imagine several applets of interest to Cypherpunks. The ability
to fairly transparently run them on multiple platforms, effectively
bypassing the platform dependencies, is very important. Check out Hal
Finney's site for some "crytographic primitive" applets he's written.

7. The Web-centric orientation also fits in closely with Cypherpunk-type
plans. Who will do the first remailer in Java? Remailers operating on Web
sites? (For example, where a browser connects to a site, picks up messages
marked as being for him, or perhaps picks up (copies) all messages, and
then runs an applet to PGP-decrypt, then deposits the outgoing messages at
another Web site....just a possible approach.)

8. Personal note. I've had a version of Smalltalk called "Smalltalk
Agents," running on my PowerMac. Lots of problems, with support and with
the limited number of other users...essentially, no other users to talk to,
no books, little documentation, sub-critical mass. And, worst of all, I
know that anything I write will not be usable by others, unless they have
Smalltalk and can successfully port over to their version of Smalltalk my
program. Not likely, of course. (Where some of these big packages fit
nicely is in large apps, such as air traffic control systems, reengineering
of legacy code, etc.)

So, I was faced with a heart-rending choice: get an Intel box, put Linux on
it, and try to "get in the mainstream" by writing something in Perl, or
TCL, etc. (Though I note that the early success with writing remailers in
Perl has not been followed by any other stunning applications of a
similarly revolutionary nature...and I don't know of anybody doing anything
Cypherpunkly-interesting in TCL, for example.)

However, it now appears that the definition of "in the mainstream" is
changing, so that Cypherpunkly-interesting applications need not be
confined to C or Perl programs running on Unix or Linux boxes! Rather, it
looks like Java applets running on various platforms will be able to lever
most of the same advantages. (Modulo some other issues; I'm not, for
example, claiming that my opportunistically-connected PowerMac, connecting
at 28.8, will be the equivalent of a SPARCstation running the usual
complement of tools.)

9. I won't comment here on the various other claims about Java, about
safety and security features. Improvements will be made, either in
forthcoming fixes and releases, or in extensions such as "E" (Electric
Communities, having several Cypherpunks as members, including Doug Barnes,
Jim McCoy, others.). I don't know if these "extensions" will hurt the
language, as it sort of depends on how the extensions are handled, how
widespread the extensions become, etc. (Not being versed in "E," I can't
see why the extensions aren't handled as a another class library, or
automatically downloaded with any applet that needs the extensions....if E
must be a separate package, then of course it must be in the various users'
systems, and getting this kind of "buy-in" by the browser makers may be
problematic.).

10. "Mindshare" is the real story. Java arrives at the right time.
Cypherpunks needs--those needs that go beyond just the "sealed envelopes
and signatures" level which PGP provides so well--are likely to fit in with
this Net-centric communications model. (I'm already thinking in terms of
Java applets for building blocks for Cypherpunk sorts of things.)

11. I was in the Homebrew Computer Club, the _legendary_ Homebrew Computer
Club, in the mid-70s. (I several times handed out free samples of Intel
8080s, which I was working with at the time...)

Not since then have I seen the same level of opportunity. I've seen a lot
of hyped fads come and go. This one may be hyped, but it looks very real to
me.

The Web was obviously of incredible importance as a self-publishing medium,
and its importance can scarcely be overstated. But in terms of Cypherpunks
sorts of goals, which require more than just self-publishing and expanded
channels of communication, the Web was lacking in terms of active objects,
programs, etc. that could be deployed by programmers.

Java and the things related to it appear to be the tools necessary to
really spice things up on the Web. (And by "spiced up" I don't mean dancing
logos on Web pages!)

12. So, there you have it. I see great opportunities for us. A set of class
libraries for Java, and a set of Java applets, could be important. (Wei
Dei's crypto library is extremely well-regarded here, but the pieces are
not being integrated into new, higher-level building blocks....lots of
issues here.)

13. In any case, I have no real interest in the Zundelsite vs. Southern
Poverty Legal Whatever, nor the other such rants, so I am immersing myself
in this area.

(The archives should reveal my articles about "the ontology of money," a
topic Bob Hettinga and others have also talked about, and this is one of
the places I would like to go with this Java business.)

14. There are a _lot_ of resources on Java. Many Web sites, many papers,
many FAQs, many, many things. Search engines will reveal vast numbers of
hits. This is the first major introduction of a language since the
explosion of the Web, so it may be that many or most people rely on the Web
almost exclusively for documentation.

There are also several implementations of Java. The JDK (Java Development
Kit) is bundled with several available books on Java. Consult your
bookstore. I'm using a slightly-crippled version of "Roaster," a Mac
development package from Natural Inteligence. (The development tools will
differ from platform to platform, naturally enough.) Other Mac versions,
from both Metrowerks and Symantec, are coming (or are imminent). I'll say
what my experiences are with the more-final versions.

I believe usable development packages for Windows are cheap or free, and
even Symantec's "Cafe Lite" is in the $100 range. Thus, it's easy to get
started.

My wager is that more students and others will learn Java over the next few
years than have learned C++ in the past ten years.

15. Your mileage may vary.

Enough for now. I now return control of your monitor to your regularly
scheduled political debate.


--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May writes:
> Well, I was not invited to join the elite and secret coderpunks
> list,

It is neither elite nor secret. It is fairly high signal to noise. I
think only about one in every fifty or so cypherpunks messages has any
content at all worth mentioning.

> but I still have some thoughts on coding and, especially, on the
> opportunities offered by Java. Sorry if this interferes with
> discussions of Rabbi Heir and Morris Dees.

You have no right to grumble about the situation here. It is exactly
what you wanted. Here you were, a person of some personal gravitas and
moral authority, and you put your stamp on the "post whatever you
like; don't let the grumbling censors stop you". Well, as you sow, so
shall you reap. Its your fault, more than anyone else's.

> [It is my firm opinion that the creation of a separate mailing list to
> discuss only coding or software issues is a mistake.

Unfortunately, most of the smart coders had been driven out of this
cesspit by the noise levels, so it was the only choice left.

> Basically, it is easier to filter-reduce a large group, such as with
> "[CODE]" prefixes or by reputations,

Actually, it isn't easier. I've tried filtering cypherpunks and its
damn hard. Doing it right would require much more AI than we have
access to.

> And there is another important point, that the
> Cypherpunks/Coderpunks split is producing the expected result: the
> Cypherpunks are rapidly losing any remaining anchors to
> technical/programming issues and are thus becoming almost wholly
> politics-driven. While I am of course highly motivated by political
> issues, they must be grounded in technical issues

As I recall, Mr. May, you were arguing against my continued attempts
to keep some semblance of technical discussion continuing on
Cypherpunks. The occassional attempt by me to turn things in a
technical direction was met by posts from you to the effect of "this
isn't coderpunks, get that technical stuff out of here". In jest or
no, I got sick of dealing with it.

I didn't want to see the split, but at least now there is a place I
can have discussions with smart crypto software coders. None of them
could tolerate Cypherpunks any longer. If Cypherpunks has become a
cesspit, well, its YOUR cesspit, Tim. Its the list you always strove
to create, but it appears that you now don't like the smell of your
own wallow. Well, sorry. Deal with it.

> I can't say what's happening on the coderpunks list, but my suspicion is
> that many of the coderpunks-only readers are analogously disconnected from
> ideological/political issues and think, perhaps, that the main purpose of
> the list (and of Cypherpunks) is to discuss compiler optimizations for PGP
> source code.

No, most of them are highly political. They just don't see any reason
to blather on about the same stuff over and over and over and over
when there is work to be done. Those that never do work may not
understand this principle, of course.

Perry

TCM:
>
>Well, I was not invited to join the elite and secret coderpunks list, but I
>still have some thoughts on coding and, especially, on the opportunities
>offered by Java. Sorry if this interferes with discussions of Rabbi Heir
>and Morris Dees.

hey, that's horrible. well, consider this an invitation. "we" would
love to see you post there. but you've written disparagely about
people that like to code in the past here, so "we're" not sure how
much you will like the list.

>[It is my firm opinion that the creation of a separate mailing list to
>discuss only coding or software issues is a mistake. For several reasons,
>which I can discuss at lenght in a separate message. Basically, it is
>easier to filter-reduce a large group, such as with "[CODE]" prefixes or by
>reputations, than it is to filter-expand a moribund group! :-}

that's pretty amusing. I thought I saw a long msg from you about how these
prefixes were mostly a waste of time based on your experience on the
Extroprian list.

 I've seen
>many sub-critical mass list become moribund. And there is another important
>point, that the Cypherpunks/Coderpunks split is producing the expected
>result: the Cypherpunks are rapidly losing any remaining anchors to
>technical/programming issues and are thus becoming almost wholly
>politics-driven.

whoa, you don't know that. a little bit of a leap of faith there. the
cpunk list has always been awash in froth almost from its beginning.
people are always whining about its loss of S/N but it has always been
an awful lot of flotsam and jetsam.

 While I am of course highly motivated by political issues,
>they must be grounded in technical issues (else we are just another
>anti-CDA, anti-censorship, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian ranting group).

hee, hee. the pendulum swings back. first message I have seen in which
you get out of the defensive, "anti-CDA, anti-censorship, anarcho-capitalist,
libertarian rants are right on target here on the cpunk list and don't
let boneheads like PM argue with you about it."

>I can't say what's happening on the coderpunks list, but my suspicion is
>that many of the coderpunks-only readers are analogously disconnected from
>ideological/political issues and think, perhaps, that the main purpose of
>the list (and of Cypherpunks) is to discuss compiler optimizations for PGP
>source code.

suspicion is a funny thing. people who are paranoid can be manipulated
to channel their fears into useful effects. in a place where a lot
of people are paranoid, you can even get a sort of chain reaction of
paranoia. (as in the recent message, "YAAAAH!! we're being DETWEILED!!!")

 It is sad to see the Cypherpunks lose its grounding. Maybe in
>a few months, the coderpunks will simply declare victory, dissolve the
>Cypherpunks list, and rename themselves, a la coderpunks = cypherpunks++.)

cypherpunks, a barely "grounded" thing to begin with, "lose its
grounding"? what about you, the premiere advocate of free choice and
letting a thousand mailing lists bloom? oh, when one becomes SUCCESSFUL,
then its a problem. I see. I thought there was "no such thing as the 
cypherpunks"? there is no "group" to begin with? I never thought I would see 
you cheerleeding for "cypherpunk unity."

>But I come not to bury Cypherpunks, I come to praise Java.

the rest of your post was not interesting to me so I'll refrain from
commenting. <g>

On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> So, I was faced with a heart-rending choice: get an Intel box, put Linux on
> it, and try to "get in the mainstream" by writing something in Perl, or
> TCL, etc. (Though I note that the early success with writing remailers in
> Perl has not been followed by any other stunning applications of a
> similarly revolutionary nature...and I don't know of anybody doing anything
> Cypherpunkly-interesting in TCL, for example.)

Actually, I'm just starting such a project in TCL...

The first phase is as a shell for Matt Blaze's Crypto File System, so it 
can be run, and changes made, without opening up a shell or dealing with 
command-line options.

The next phase will be to write (what I beleive to be) the first graphical
PGP shell for X.

While this isn't a seriously cypherpunks-relevant app, as most people 
running X are capable of dealing with the command line (I am, too, but I 
don't want to open up a shell every time I load up my encrypted 
partition), but I'm using it as a jumping-off point.

I don't think TCL is suited to heavy-duty crypto applications, except as 
an interface. Mostly because it is interpreted, though I'm not sure how 
"everything is a string" would affect bignums. (And I wouldn't want to 
write a TCL bignum library...)

It might be possible to write a remailer front-end in TCL, and that might 
be a near-future project, if the frontend project proves successful. 
(Which it has, in a sense, because the first phase (though it isn't where 
I'd want to distribute it far and wide) is done to the point where I can 
load my CFS partition and disconnect it without opening a shell...

(early Alpha code is available upon request, and suggestions/help/co-writing
 is most certainly welcome...)

Jon Lasser
----------
Jon Lasser (410)494-3072                         - Obscenity  is a crutch  for
jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu                            inarticulate motherfuckers.
http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D)               - Fuck the CDA.

> The next phase will be to write (what I beleive to be) the first graphical
> PGP shell for X.

	Depends on what you mean by graphical PGP shell, but no.  Exmh
(Tk front end for the MH mail reader) has had PGP support for ages.

> I don't think TCL is suited to heavy-duty crypto applications, except as 
> an interface. Mostly because it is interpreted, though I'm not sure how 
> "everything is a string" would affect bignums. (And I wouldn't want to 
> write a TCL bignum library...)

	IF you really wanted to do such a thing, the best aproach would
be to do it as a C extension (so it could be dynamically loaded with
the new dl support) or if you're a real massochist do it in [incr tcl]
so that the bignums are objects (of a sort).

---
Fletch                                                     __`'/|
fletch@ain.bls.com  "Lisa, in this house we obey the       \ o.O'    ______
404 713-0414(w)      Laws of Thermodynamics!" H. Simpson   =(___)= -| Ack. |
404 315-7264(h) PGP Print: 8D8736A8FC59B2E6 8E675B341E378E43  U      ------

[Tim, didn't you once tell me that long opera were bad?]

I agree that the major innovation, and cypherpunk opportunity, of Java is
in its cross-platform nature, not its vaunted ability to run untrusted
code safely. I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in running untrusted code. 
Give me digitally signed code that I can trust, or for which the author 
can at least be held accountable, and I'll be happy. 

As cool as many of the people on the Java team are, though, I am dubious
that Java is going to live up to the hype. It is still not clear to me
that Microsoft is going to support it seriously in their browser, which by
mid-1997 will be so tightly integrated with the lowest-common-denominator
operating system that there will be no room for Netscape.

NT scares me, too. Even major universities with huge investments in UNIX,
kerberos, and AFS are flirting with NT. I believe they're fucking nuts,
but they're doing it. 

I think it's prudent to hold your nose and accept that Visual Basic is
here to stay. Microsoft isn't going to let Java fulfill its promises.

If you're talking *mind*share, it's all Java. All the best minds are
working on it. But if you're talking *market* share, like what people
spend money on, and get money for, it's VB.

I'm not saying that Microsoft is going to take over the world. We're going
to have a balkanized computing world for some time. But Microsoft can and
will prevent Java from subverting their share of the world.

Has Microsoft even licensed Java, or are they still at the vague December
7th "letter of intent" stage? You know that the early press reports that
Microsoft had licensed Java were wrong, didn't you? You know that the
Internet Explorer 3.0 beta supports VB and not Java, don't you?

[Gee, was that *Tim* complaining about a proponderance of off-topic posts? 
I wholly agree, so I've been *trying* to ignore all the trolls. I invite
people to alt.revisionism and other appropriate forums for the Nazi stuff.
Unfortunately, alt.censorship is a Grubor cesspool, and the
fight-censorship list is subject to content-based moderation. But I
digress...]

-rich
 http://www.c2.org/~rich/

One thing I don't understand, why do you trust signed code? 

So you know the code is signed by Jack the Ripper.  so what?  How do 
decide what you want the code to be allowed to do?   I think there's 
nothing for it but a kind of limited capabilities model built on top
of the authentication mechanism. 

Marianne

Rich Graves wrote:
> 
> Some of the things a valid signature from Jack the Ripper means:
> 
> 1. If it breaks something, I can send Jack the Ripper a bug report, or
>    a flame, as appropriate.
> 2. If I like it, I can send Jack the Ripper money or other form of
>    good vibes.
> 6. I have a way of knowing if Alice or Bob stuck a virus or trojan
>    into Jack's code.

Yep, these are true.

> 3. If I am Jack the Ripper, I have a way of proving that the code is
>    my intellectual property.

How do you prove that?  If I strip off your signature and sign it
myself, how do you know it's yours?

> 4. If I'm not Jack the Ripper, I can say "That wasn't me."

No you can't.  How do I know that Jack isn't a nym of yours?

> 5. If I am GNU, I can advertise and "enforce" my copyleft policy.

How?

-- 
Sure we spend a lot of money, but that doesn't mean | Tom Weinstein
we *do* anything.  --  Washington DC motto          | tomw@netscape.com

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> Rich Graves wrote:
> >
> > Some of the things a valid signature from Jack the Ripper means:

[True statements deleted]

> > 3. If I am Jack the Ripper, I have a way of proving that the code is
> >    my intellectual property.
> 
> How do you prove that?  If I strip off your signature and sign it
> myself, how do you know it's yours?

Hmm. Very interesting point. You would need to make the signature
technology at least tamper-evident by embedding it "somehow," and
recursing infinitely. Yup, sounds pretty impossible, so I'm sure
somebody's going to come up with an answer. Maybe the one-time signature,
or signatures authenticated by location.

> > 4. If I'm not Jack the Ripper, I can say "That wasn't me."
> 
> No you can't.  How do I know that Jack isn't a nym of yours?

Answered elsewhere. Trusted third party swears you're different. Also,
signatures from different nyms are useful even if the identity
relationship among nyms are known.  Compare the nym "Tom Weinstein,
Cypherpunk" with "Tom Weinstein, speaking for Netscape" and "Tom
Weinstein, can't talk during the IPO." 

> > 5. If I am GNU, I can advertise and "enforce" my copyleft policy.
> 
> How?

OK, you probably can't. This is a special case of #3.

-rich

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> > Rich Graves wrote:
> > >
> > > Some of the things a valid signature from Jack the Ripper means:
> 
> [True statements deleted]
> 
> > > 3. If I am Jack the Ripper, I have a way of proving that the code is
> > >    my intellectual property.
> > 
> > How do you prove that?  If I strip off your signature and sign it
> > myself, how do you know it's yours?
> 
> Hmm. Very interesting point. You would need to make the signature
> technology at least tamper-evident by embedding it "somehow," and
> recursing infinitely. Yup, sounds pretty impossible, so I'm sure
> somebody's going to come up with an answer. Maybe the one-time signature,
> or signatures authenticated by location.

I have put my 'secret' signature on work product by stegoing little things
into the text.  (A simple example would be if the first letter of each
sentence on each paragraph spelled your name).  I'm sure members of the
list can come up with any number of creative alternatives.

If this is done discretely enough and embedded "deep" enough into the
property, it is pretty reliable.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Marianne Mueller wrote:

> One thing I don't understand, why do you trust signed code? 
> 
> So you know the code is signed by Jack the Ripper.  so what?  How do 
> decide what you want the code to be allowed to do?   I think there's 
> nothing for it but a kind of limited capabilities model built on top
> of the authentication mechanism. 

I explained/retracted/fudged this in a later message.

Some of the things a valid signature from Jack the Ripper means: 

1. If it breaks something, I can send Jack the Ripper a bug report, or
   a flame, as appropriate.
2. If I like it, I can send Jack the Ripper money or other form of good
   vibes.
3. If I am Jack the Ripper, I have a way of proving that the code is my
   intellectual property.
4. If I'm not Jack the Ripper, I can say "That wasn't me."
5. If I am GNU, I can advertise and "enforce" my copyleft policy.
6. I have a way of knowing if Alice or Bob stuck a virus or trojan into
   Jack's code.

"Trust" really isn't the right word for what I'm getting at. Microsoft's
digital signature initiative is basically FUD with the spin "Only stuff
signed or endorsed by Microsoft is going to work," but I don't think that
this spin is inherent in signed code initiatives generally.

I think it would be a waste of time to build a multitiered security model
where applets with certain classes of signatures would be allowed to do
more. But signatures are still useful in a flat security model.

I think this is already all being done for Java, though, so never mind,
probably. I was just responding in a generally applicable way.

-rich

On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> Some of the things a valid signature from Jack the Ripper means: 
[ ... ]
> 4. If I'm not Jack the Ripper, I can say "That wasn't me."

Aaaah... you can say it, but there's no way to prove it...

anyone can still be anyone without persistent ID of some sort.

some people would want this to be your True Name.

(I'm not agreeing with this... but you can't prove you're _not_ a Nym.  
Jim Bell has claimed (well, implied that he believes, although he hasn't 
outright claimed) that I'm L.D. and/or Black Unicorn.

There's no way I can prove I'm not one of them without demonstrating who 
they are. Which I can't do just by signing Java code...

Jon
----------
Jon Lasser (410)494-3072                         - Obscenity  is a crutch  for
jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu                            inarticulate motherfuckers.
http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D)               - Fuck the CDA.

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Moltar Ramone wrote:

> > 4. If I'm not Jack the Ripper, I can say "That wasn't me."
> 
> Aaaah... you can say it, but there's no way to prove it...
> 
> anyone can still be anyone without persistent ID of some sort.
> 
> some people would want this to be your True Name.
> 
> (I'm not agreeing with this... but you can't prove you're _not_ a Nym.
> Jim Bell has claimed (well, implied that he believes, although he hasn't
> outright claimed) that I'm L.D. and/or Black Unicorn.
> 
> There's no way I can prove I'm not one of them without demonstrating who
> they are. Which I can't do just by signing Java code...

Yes, of course there's the caveat "without demonstrating who they are."
I am stupid, but not THAT stupid.

Though on second thought... you can, through the web of trust. If a
mutually trusted signator who has signed keys for both A and B solemnly
swears that they are different people, then that should be sufficent proof
for me. I am under no illusion that PGP signatures are exclusive as to
identity, but if a mutually trusted signator made such a statement in
addition to signing the keys, I would accept it.

In this specific case, no, there is nothing you can do to prove that
you're not the Unicorn of Color, because there are no signatures on his or
her key.

In addition, in some sense, the different nyms of one person ARE different
people. They can certainly have different reputations. A signature from
0xCCE7B49D, rich@c2.org, means something different than a signature from
0x189D1595, win-request@metrics.com, the moderator of
comp.os.ms-windows.announce, which at the moment is me.

If I get code signed by "Bill Gates, speaking for Microsoft," I may treat
it differently than code signed by "Bill Gates, not speaking for his
employer."

-rich

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> In this specific case, no, there is nothing you can do to prove that
> you're not the Unicorn of Color, because there are no signatures on his or
> her key.
> 

Would you PLEASE, get your facts straight?

Try checking it yourself maybe, instead of assuming this to be true
because someone else said so?

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Rich Graves wrote:
> 
> > In this specific case, no, there is nothing you can do to prove that
> > you're not the Unicorn of Color, because there are no signatures on his
> > or her key.
> 
> Would you PLEASE, get your facts straight?
> 
> Try checking it yourself maybe, instead of assuming this to be true
> because someone else said so?

All right, all right. We surrender!

Call this a problem with the web of reputation capital, I guess. You can
be led to believe all sorts of silly things when someone you trust makes a
mistake. 

-rich

On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> I think it would be a waste of time to build a multitiered security model
> where applets with certain classes of signatures would be allowed to do
> more. But signatures are still useful in a flat security model.

Can you explain a bit more about why you think a multitiered model is not 
useful? I thought the general rule of thumb was to execute code with the 
minimum privileges necessary- are you advocating a single all-or-nothing 
approach?

Simon

---
They say in  online country             So which side are you on boys
There is no middle way                  Which side are you on
You'll either be a Usenet man           Which side are you on boys
Or a thug for the CDA                   Which side are you on?
  National Union of Computer Operatives; Hackers, local 37   APL-CPIO

On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Simon Spero wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Rich Graves wrote:
> 
> > I think it would be a waste of time to build a multitiered security model
> > where applets with certain classes of signatures would be allowed to do
> > more. But signatures are still useful in a flat security model.
> 
> Can you explain a bit more about why you think a multitiered model is not 
> useful? I thought the general rule of thumb was to execute code with the 
> minimum privileges necessary- are you advocating a single all-or-nothing 
> approach?

Er, yes, I see I misspoke again. (Speaking well outside my areas of
technical expertise tends towards the manifestation of such gaffes, so I'd
be perfectly happy just to shut up if y'all would stop asking me direct
questions.) 

To the extent I have any clue what I mean myself, my position is that the
privileges accorded to a particular bit of untrusted code should not be
derived automatically from the signature on said code.

-rich