February 1993 - cypherpunks-legacy

Test the new remailer
by Anonymous＠cs.Buffalo.EDU 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

I encourage everyone to at least send a test message through the remailer so that I can lay my fears thtat the reamailer is not working down to rest. Not only that... it's really easy. Try it! -- +==== Internet: babani(a)cs.buffalo.edu ===+======== Amateur-Radio: N2LYC ======+ ! Bitnet: V078LNGT(a)ubvms.BITNET | UUCP: rutgers!ub!babani ! ! Alternate: an173(a)cleveland.freenet.edu | Plsure dpnds on the othrs prmison. ! +== PGP key available. (If you don't know what a PGP key is... find out!) ==+

1 0

PGP anonymous remailer
by Anonymous＠cs.Buffalo.EDU 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

Ok, I have finally decided that my remailer is ready for public use. I think I have finally worked all the bugs out of it enough so that it runs very smooth. In case you want to write something to me... Here is my *own* PGP key. Rajesh (Rusty) Babani - babani(a)cs.buffalo.edu -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.1 mQCNAislEwoAAAEEAKpPvevD7zlGmpbB9nYhqJghthanWvfoQlKXPa/sJe6B+Ztt lbCVcLHZ4IpQfmcZ0hZqsKjQRunRFk1pT4woQsDSHJjax80xnrUwaLkPTOADahay FCQ6+NqV/7vWLR/XaJ7wxTGwtoCi/69jOfidKIj1HY6cpnImue7qIk/4gBkDAAUR tC1SYWplc2ggKFJ1c3R5KSBCYWJhbmkgPGJhYmFuaUBjcy5idWZmYWxvLmVkdT4= =wZaf -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- The address where I am running an anonymous remailing server based on Eric Hughes' perl scripts is: <babani(a)cs.buffalo.edu> To use the server, put "Request-Remailing-To: <destination-address>" into the header of the message, and send it to the server address. If your mailer won't let you put things into message headers, instead make the first line of your message body be just the two characters "::", and make the next line be "Request-Remailing-To: <destination-address>", and make the next line be blank. The "::" tells the remailer to take the following lines, up to a blank one, and put them into the header. Also, make sure that you include a subject: line in your message, otherwise, the messge will be sent to a black hole. You will not hear from the message again. To use PGP with the remailer, first compose a message like above then encrypt the message using the remailer's public key. Then, in the message body, make the first line be just the two characters "::", and make the next line be "Encrypted: PGP" and make the next line be balnk. Here is my anonymous remailer's PGP public key: Anonymous Remailer - babani(a)cs.buffalo.edu -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.1 mQCNAitx/vQAAAEEAOUPjAfSeFmMsq7eWN47LzOwdSXmXoArMJOcBZ0bB3NRR3Nc BF7ZIIbY5m/b/rBn6+IimthV/aa39hKOSPPnFZn7kxIAUwoolMmxUUPJRzcRcTDK bsgLMCPfDuE8MWj0R960oaAFEE+yCCoDNiyPl6goN3XluVeie+ehVSuMvgdRAAUR tCpBbm9ueW1vdXMgUmVtYWlsZXIgPGJhYmFuaUBjcy5idWZmYWxvLmVkdT4= =BdRu -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

hopmail.bat for MSDOS
by Karl Barrus 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

Cypherpunks & cypherpunkettes :-) At long last I beleive a working version of hopmail written in the MSDOS scripting is finished. I've tested it and it seems to work (and I even sent messages with DOS CRLF's instead of unix NL and had no problems), but if you find problems let me know. I'm assuming you are like me in that my pc doesn't have a dedicated net connection, so the scripts just prepare file, but don't mail them. You would upload the file to your network account and go from there. Warning: the code is ugly, but I plead innocence, citing the constraints of the language! I've never used so many goto's since my last BASIC program ~11 years ago. I think in the future I'll just write DOS stuff in C/C++, with system calls, and offer source with executables, so you can recompile if you've think I've added secret password catching commands :-) I'd use 4DOS and other enhancements like some people have suggested (thanks!) but I want to be sure as many people as possible can use the script, so using just plain old DOS seems the best way to go. Well, the best way to go in DOS. I'll write a help file and offer it, the script, and anonmail.bat up for ftp. Quickly, because getting input from the user in DOS is a real pain/impossible without resorting to extra programs/assembly hacks , all parameters are just entered on the command line. Type hopmail and a short help screen will appear. Now I'll clean up the digital bank and circulate the source to those interested. ---------8< -- cut here -- >8---------- @echo off rem hopmail.bat - allows routing a message through various remailers rem extropia not supported just yet rem Karl Barrus - elee9sf(a)menudo.uh.edu rem if no parameters, print help file if '%1'=='' goto help rem get file name shift set filename=%0 if not exist %filename% goto errnofile rem check mode shift set mode=0 if '%0'=='1' set mode=1 if '%0'=='2' set mode=2 if '%mode%'=='0' goto errmode rem set up encrypted pgp header echo :: > zzztemp1.txt echo Encrypted: PGP >> zzztemp1.txt echo. >> zzztemp1.txt rem create null message echo. > zzztemp3.txt rem get email address shift set to=%0 if '%to%'=='' goto errmail :repeat shift if '%0'=='' goto finish if '%0'=='1' set rto=hh(a)pmantis.berkeley.edu if '%0'=='2' set rto=hh(a)cicada.berkeley.edu if '%0'=='3' set rto=hh(a)soda.berkeley.edu if '%0'=='4' set rto=hal(a)alumni.caltech.edu if '%0'=='5' set rto=remailer(a)rebma.mn.org if '%0'=='6' set rto=elee7h5(a)rosebud.ee.uh.edu if '%0'=='7' set rto=phantom(a)mead.u.washington.edu if '%0'=='8' set rto=hfinney(a)shell.portal.com rem set up remailing request header echo :: > zzztemp2.txt echo Request-Remailing-To: %to% >> zzztemp2.txt echo. >> zzztemp2.txt rem append previous message copy zzztemp2.txt + zzztemp3.txt zzztemp4.txt > nul del zzztemp2.txt rename zzztemp4.txt zzztemp2.txt if '%0'=='1' goto none if '%0'=='2' goto none if '%0'=='3' goto none pgp -ea zzztemp2.txt %rto% > nul copy zzztemp1.txt + zzztemp2.asc zzztemp3.txt > nul goto next :none copy zzztemp2.txt zzztemp3.txt > nul :next set to=%rto% goto repeat :finish if '%mode%'=='1' goto incmessage rem append, user chose create to receive echo -----cut here---- >> %filename% copy %filename% + zzztemp3.txt zzztemp4.txt > nul echo. >> zzztemp4.txt echo To reply, save everything below the cut here marks >> zzztemp4.txt echo Type your reply below the blank line two lines above >> zzztemp4.txt echo Mail resultant file to %to% >> zzztemp4.txt del %filename% rename zzztemp4.txt %filename% goto done :incmessage rem user chose create header to send copy zzztemp3.txt + %filename% zzztemp4.txt > nul del %filename% rename zzztemp4.txt %filename% echo Remember to mail %filename% to %to% goto done :help echo Usage: hopmail filename mode address remailer# [remailer#]... echo Mode: echo 1: Mail a file via anonymous remailers echo 2: Create a remailing header and append to a file echo. echo Address: echo for mode 1, destination address echo for mode 2, your address echo. echo Remailers: echo 1: hh(a)pmantis.berkeley.edu echo 2: hh(a)cicada.berkeley.edu echo 3: hh(a)soda.berkeley.edu echo 4: hal(a)alumni.caltech.edu echo 5: remailer(a)rebma.mn.org echo 6: elee7h5(a)rosebud.ee.uh.edu echo 7: phantom(a)mead.u.washington.edu echo 8: hfinney(a)shell.portal.com rem echo 9: remail(a)extropia.wimsey.com goto end :errmode echo Error: mode must be 1 or 2 goto end :errmail echo Error: no destination specified goto done :errnofile echo Error: file %filename% does not exist goto end :done del zzz*.* :end

1 0

toad.com mailing list postings from possible virus authors
by gnu 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

This is the message I received which complained about "inappropriate use of the Internet". He also phoned me to complain. I know the cyperpunks already know this, but Dave Farber's audience might not have thought about the implications for free speech of having the government build a multi billion dollar Internet replacement. Bureaucrats and random complaints from third parties on such a network *will* cause you grief about what you are allowed to say and do. The company I buy networking from is Alternet, and because they exist, I can protect myself from this sort of meddling. They will not be able to compete with the taxpayer funded "national information infrastructure", and my only option, if I want to be on the net, will be to hook up under the government's rules. If after seeing this this exchange you still don't believe me, talk to someone at a controversial broadcast radio station. Radio is living under that yoke *now*, and they have some real stories to tell. John Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:53:14 -0500 (EST) To: gnu(a)cygnus.com (John Gilmore) Cc: CMcDonald(a)WSMR-SIMTEL20.Army.Mil (Chris McDonald), krvw(a)cert.org ("Kenneth R. van Wyk") Subject: toad.com mailing list postings from possible virus authors From: w8sdz(a)TACOM-EMH1.Army.Mil (Keith Petersen - MACA WSMR) Message-Id: <9302161253.16494.w8sdz(a)TACOM-EMH1.Army.Mil> John, below is the posting I called about. In my opinion this is inappropriate use of the Internet. This person appears to be a virus author, one who knows virus authors, and/or one who encourages such activity. What is the policy of toad.com concerning such postings? Keith -- Keith Petersen Maintainer of the MS-DOS archive at WSMR-SIMTEL20.Army.Mil [192.88.110.20] Internet: w8sdz(a)TACOM-EMH1.Army.Mil or w8sdz(a)Vela.ACS.Oakland.Edu Uucp: uunet!umich!vela!w8sdz BITNET: w8sdz@OAKLAND > From: thug(a)phantom.com (Murdering Thug) > Subject: Re: Viral encryption > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 11:47:43 EST > > As Mr. Ferguson pointed out, polymorphic viruses are making their way into the > DOS world. This is a problem in the short term, but not in the long term > because people will be changing to memory-protected & file-permission based > operating systems like NT, OS/2 and Unix, where it is very difficult for > most kinds of virus to spread. > > I myself am very familiar with the virus underground, so for those who are > not, let me explain the two newest and most deadly virus techniques which > are being seen in the DOS world. > > The first is something called "Stealth" viruses. Stealth viruses imbed > themselves into DOS and intercept disk read calls from applications. If > those read system calls are reading non .EXE or .COM files, then they are > processed normally. However when an application such as virus scanning > program is reading in .COM and .EXE files (in order to scan them for virus > code), the stealth code in DOS intercepts this and returns to the application > what the .EXE or .COM file would look like if it wasn't infected by the > stealth virus. Thus, all virus checking programs can be decieved in this > manner. There are steps to get around this, like booting off of a > write-protected floppy disk (with a clean copy of DOS on it) and running > the virus checking program directly from that floppy. But people seldom > do that, so the stealth technology is a worthwhile one for virus creators > to pursue. > > The second is called "Polymorphic" viruses. These are viruses which > contain a tiny encryption/decryption engine. The great thing about > polymorphic viruses is that they encrypt themselves with a different key > each time they replicate (make a new copy of themselves). The small > amount of virus bootstrap code which is not encrypted is changed in each > replication by dispursing random NOP's throughout the virus boostrap code. > Thus each sample of polymorphic virus looks completely different to > virus checking programs. The virus checking programs cannot use > "signature" byte strings to detect polymorphic viruses. > > I have seen something called D.A.M.E., also known as Dark Avenger > Mutation Engine. This is a freeware polymorphic library/kernel/toolkit > which allows anyone to take an ordinary virus and wrap it in a polymorphic > shell. Thus each new copy of the virus will look completely different > as it replicates. D.A.M.E. is a great toolkit for those who want to > release new viruses but don't have the skills to write a virus from > scratch. DAME works very well with Turbo Assembler and MASM. > I believe that DAME II will be coming out sometime this spring. At > least that is what the author has promised. Among the new features > will be more powerful encryption, stealth capabilities, and compatibility > with Stacker and DR DOS compressed file systems. I have read that the > author of DAME and DAME II will be coming out with a Virus Construction > Set, which will allow point-n-click building of new viruses using > object oriented techniques. It works sort of like a Mr. Potatohead, > you point and click on the parts/modules you want and it builds it for > you. You select the replication method, stealth capability, > polymorphism, and payload module (there are several payloads, varying > from playing music and showing graphics, to printing a text message on > screan, to complete wipe out of the HD). The really wonderful thing > is that you will be able to build your own modules and link them into > the virus. I am sure a flourishing of third-party modules will occur. > > With the VCS, a 9 year old can build a competely new virus just by > pointing, clicking, and dragging, popping up windows and choosing options. > > My oh my, aren't we in for fun times ahead... > > Thug

3 2

LIST RULES
by ssandfort＠attmail.com 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

_________________________________________________________________ FROM THE VIRTUAL DESK OF SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In a recent post, John Gilmore wrote: "Keith, Kenneth . . . I am uninterested in censorship of discussion of *any* topic on mailing lists through my machine . . . the machine is attached via a worldwide network that explicitly promises not to censor any traffic UNLESS AND UNTIL a court of law --not you -- has decided that that traffic is actually illegal." Because I agree COMPLETELY with what John wrote, I'm somewhat miffed at him for his seeming lack of constituency. Recently, I posted a notice on this list about a software business contact I have in South East Asia. John sent me a terse note asking me not to "advertise" on the list. I was a bit surprised at his response for several reasons. First, a founding Cypherpunk regular, Tim May, suggested I post my question the list when I asked him if he knew anyone working on recreational software. Second, I have had several polite enquiries from list members who where interested in what I posted. Finally, nobody else was offended enough to complain. I sent a respectful note to John asking him, among other things, if I had violated some prohibition of which I was unaware. John's response was: "Please consider this message a prohibition against advertising. Apparently nobody else on the list needed to hear it, except you, since you are the first person to abuse the list in this way." Now I fully agree that it's John's ball, and I will play by his rules, but I find it hard to reconcile John's public tolerance with his private prohibition. Does ANYONE else feel abused? I hope not. What do others on this list think about "commercial" postings? I will not "advertise" on the list as long as John prohibits it. But I sincerely hope his prohibition does not discourage others from discussing the issues it raises. I would like to hear what the rest of you think. S a n d y ssandfort(a)attmail.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Trapdoors
by dmandl＠shearson.com 18 Feb '93

18 Feb '93

> _________________________________________________________________ > FROM THE VIRTUAL DESK OF SANDY SANDFORT > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [...] > Isn't it possible that the Feds have already compromised > Intel or MicroSoft? Is there some way to be sure that the new > 486 chip running your computer isn't recording each PGP or RSA > private key you generate? > > S a n d y ssandfort(a)attmail.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You may be right. For example, I know for a fact that all 386/486 chips trap files with the string "Liz" in them--this is so that the NSA can capture and read love letters from me to my girlfriend. I have been getting around this by changing my pet names for her constantly, and placing the string "Liz" at random points in massive junk files to waste the spooks' disk space. Inconvenient, but it works. Ciao. --Dave.

1 0

Re: Trapdoors
by pmetzger＠shearson.com 18 Feb '93

18 Feb '93

> From: ssandfort(a)attmail.com > > How do we know the proposed legislation wasn't just a smoke > screen? Isn't it possible that the Feds have already compromised > Intel or MicroSoft? Is there some way to be sure that the new > 486 chip running your computer isn't recording each PGP or RSA > private key you generate? If you could actually build a 486 such that it was capable of this task, you are a far better chip designer than any I know of. Not merely are we to expect that the 486 is capable of recording anything, but we are also to expect that its capable of solving a computationally undecidable problem as well. Perry

1 0

Trapdoors
by ssandfort＠attmail.com 18 Feb '93

18 Feb '93

_________________________________________________________________ FROM THE VIRTUAL DESK OF SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm relatively new to the list, so this may be an idea that's already been dealt with. If so, please let me know off-line. PGP was created as an end-run to legislation that would have mandated trapdoors in all encryption hardware/software sold in the U.S. Fortunately, such legislation has been defeated to date. How do we know the proposed legislation wasn't just a smoke screen? Isn't it possible that the Feds have already compromised Intel or MicroSoft? Is there some way to be sure that the new 486 chip running your computer isn't recording each PGP or RSA private key you generate? S a n d y ssandfort(a)attmail.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Trapdoors (Not Very Likely)
by root＠rmsdell.ftl.fl.us 18 Feb '93

18 Feb '93

> Intel or MicroSoft? Is there some way to be sure that the new > 486 chip running your computer isn't recording each PGP or RSA > private key you generate? This is not very likely. There would be several problems for anyone attempting this. First, where do you store it? On-chip non-volatile memory? Second, how would the chip know that it was generating a private key? This would almost require artificial intelligence. You can't just scan for a sequence of instructions currently used by PGP, for they change with each version released. Or would it store ALL data that passes through it? Third, how useful would that be? What if you generate your keys on a sub-notebook computer which you carry with you or store in a secure place at all times. So, no, this is not something you need to worry about. -- Yanek Martinson yanek(a)novavax.nova.edu

1 0

Re: Trapdoors
by tcmay＠netcom.com 18 Feb '93

18 Feb '93

>How do we know the proposed legislation wasn't just a smoke >screen? Isn't it possible that the Feds have already compromised >Intel or MicroSoft? Is there some way to be sure that the new >486 chip running your computer isn't recording each PGP or RSA >private key you generate? > S a n d y ssandfort(a)attmail.com Sandy has discovered the deep dark secret of crypto! I worked for Intel from 1974 to 1986 and can confirm this to be the case. Every crypto key is secretly recorded by Intel microprocessors. Motorola processors do not yet record keys, which I why use a Macintosh. The specific instruction is the so-called "NSA instruction" which John Gilmore identified some time ago. Sun Microsystems was ordered by the NSA to redesign their chips to capture keys, which is why the SPARC processor was introduced. SPARC stands for "Sun Processor Allowing Remote Capture." Once the keys have been captured and stored on the user's hard disk (notice how the drives occasionally turn on a night?), they are forwarded to the NSA and National Surveillance Organization by "screen saver" programs, like "After Dark," which were actually written by the Berkeley Microsystems cut-out operation of the NSO. Real hackers don't use cutesy screen saver programs. This new automated system is much more convenient than the previous system, where the FBI and NSO had to break into homes and offices in order to retrieve the keys the Intel processors had recorded. -Klaus! von Future Prime, Cypherpunk and Extropian

1 0