October 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

bunkerbuster: not just for nukes
by citizenQ 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

>cpaul writes: > >> THE US 'ANNOUNCED' THEIR INTENTION TO USE B61-11 BUNKER BUSTERS ON LAST >> NIGHT'S NEWS BULLETINS (BUT SOMEHOW FORGOT TO REFER TO THE FACT THAT THEY >> ARE CLASSIFIED AS TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS) > Confirmation? >Yes, I noticed this as well. I wonder how many euphemisms we will now >hear for the word "nuclear" until the American public is informed after >the fact how wonderfully the weapons have worked. > Possibly confused with this bunker buster: Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) is a special weapon developed for penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. The GBU-28 is a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead. The bombs are modified Army artillery tubes, weigh 4,637 pounds, and contain 630 pounds of high explosives. They are fitted with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet long. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target. Much more likely. Hard to imagine a scenario where tacnukes would be deployed. >These things are TOUGH MOTHER FUCKER that go big boom. > >-Max > >http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/n19980326_980417.html > >EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska (AFNS) -- A B-2 Spirit bomber dropped two >B61-11 bomb shells to test their improved ground penetration capability >March 17 at the Stuart Creek Impact Area, 35 miles southeast of Fairbanks.

2 1

House update on anti-terror bills: Look out
by Declan McCullagh 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

From a House staffer: >Friends, less than 20 minutes ago the House leadership announced we would >be considering the Senate bill which has none of the privacy protections >that Bob Barr and others worked to put in the House bill an contains >language attacking financial privacy and even allowing the government >expanded access to educational records. Votes on the rule are expected >soon and killing the rule is the best way to kill this bill.

1 0

Absolute anonymity breeds absolute irresponsibility?
by mikecabot＠fastcircle.com 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

Quote: "Absolute anonymity breeds absolute irresponsibility," [SUN CEO Scott Mcnealy] said. "We need a thumbprint Java card in the hand of everybody in the country." Unquote. Yeech. Here's the text and URL of the whole Reuters story: Sun's McNealy touts Java-based ID system By Reuters October 11, 2001, 12:05 p.m. PT McNealy defends Liberty Alliance project Scott McNealy, CEO, Sun Microsystems ORLANDO, Fla.--Scott McNealy, chairman and CEO of Sun Microsystems, said Thursday his long-held belief the United States needs a national identity system has gained a lot of traction since the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "This is more than a sea change," McNealy said to reporters at an industry conference in Orlando, Fla. "I have not spoken to one person who hasn't flipped a switch to say, 'You're darn right, I want to know who's getting on a plane with me.'" Sun developed the Java programming language, which someday could provide the language needed for a smart-card identification system to deal with computers at airports, shopping malls, research facilities and other locations where McNealy said anonymity could prove dangerous. "Absolute anonymity breeds absolute irresponsibility," he said. "We need a thumbprint Java card in the hand of everybody in the country." Civil libertarians have heaped scorn on McNealy, but he dismissed their concerns. "I'm tired of the outrage. If you get on a plane, I want to know who you are. If you rent a crop duster, I want to know who you are," he said. McNealy said it would be the job of Congress to decide when people can be anonymous and when they cannot. He warned that the United States faces "a huge efficiency tax" for security if it does not adopt a simple system of identification. "Hiring 50 humans isn't going to solve that problem," he said. McNealy appeared at a symposium sponsored by Gartner, the high-tech consulting company. McNealy also responded to remarks made at the conference the previous day by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Ballmer said Sun's Liberty Alliance project, an identity authentication and authorization service meant to speed online transactions, "has absolutely no probability of mattering to the world." Microsoft will compete with a similar service called Passport. Microsoft will go it alone on its service, while Sun is working with dozens of companies from eBay to General Motors. McNealy said the number of partners could grow into the thousands. He said the strength of his system was that each partner would maintain its own customer list and could arrange data sharing with one another on their own terms. "Hertz and United Airlines can work out their own deal instead of going to Microsoft and saying, 'How much do we have to pay you?'" McNealy said. Microsoft believes its customer base of 120 million will make it dominant in the field. Sun is betting the flexibility of its system will make it more appealing to merchants. Story Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. URL: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7491959.html?tag=mn_hd _______________________________________________________________________________ WANT YOUR OWN FREE AND SECURE WEB EMAIL ADDRESS? Visit http://www.fastcircle.com

2 1

The Register - Pain in the RSA
by Jim Choate 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/22188.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

CNN.com - Senate passes anti-terrorism legislation - October 12, 2001
by Jim Choate 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/ret.senate.antiterror/index.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Slashdot | NAI to Sell Off PGP Product Line
by Jim Choate 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/10/12/0129228.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: RIAA Safeweb Ping
by mikecabot＠fastcircle.com 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

> main1colo45-core2-oc48.lga2.above.net (216.200.127.174) (New York, NY) This last one above (216.200.127.174) is a colocated server at above.net in NYC. >From there, using a small piece of IP redirector software that they call "Triangle Boy", Safeweb just bounces packets around their network. > > About half the pings timed out before the last hop at: > > 208.184.48.173.safeweb.com (San Jose, CA) > > A few hit a "private" address after 208.184.48.173: > > 10.100.0.2 (no location) Likely just an internal Proxy-less netblock.... this is done often for private, non-routable IP addresses within a network. In other words, packets route ONLY in the internal network, routers are programmed to ignore any packets within such netblocks. > > before ending at: > > 64.124.150.130.safeweb.com (San Jose, CA) > > Interpretation is needed for: > > 1. How much about the Safeweb stations is true and how much cloaking. It's all true until you hit the colocated box. Then it's all cloaking. > 2. Why some pings timed out and others didn't. ICMP squelching is why.... you can selectively top ICMP return packets from being sent.... often done to protect the "topography" of a network. If you can't hear the pings, you can count the servers or hops in a network path. > 3. Phantom station 10.100.0.2 See above... not a phantom, just can't route. > 4. Whether the San Jose hops actually go to San Jose or are spoofed. It doesn't really matter..... even if the server is physically in San Jose, which I doubt, so what? The end user connecting to that specific server could have been anywhere -- in the Hindu Kush mountains, for instance :) > 5. Why go to New York then hop across the continent unless the > last hops are just administrative not physical. They are probably not administrative... they exist to basically make the lives of anyone tracking a lone packet miserable :) Basically, it's just inserted path to hide the origin of the packet. > 6. How is cloaking done on addresses and physical locations Email me offline.... I can answer some questions on this, but to really understand it you basically have to understand how TCP works. But this kind of "cloaking" isn't really cloaking, it's just one simple technique partnered with a network that has enough depth to make it look like you're bouncing around from one place to another. I forget the specifics, but there's an old physics problem involving a black box and inputs and outputs. That's what you have here..... the black box isn't really so big, but because you can't see in it, you don't know EXACTLY how big, or more to the point, exactly what is in it. That's the idea behind ICMP squelching. btw, this is really a simple defense; it is somewhat easy to overcome, although that doesn't mean that you could actually learn anything useful by overcoming it. > > Is cloaking done by a Safeweb program, say by address spoofer or by > phantom proxies, or is there a way to do this by special agreement > with Network Central (whatever that is), say, as Intel Web and other > classified systems covertly use the Web. :) Nothing special at all..... any well-designed network implements this right off the bat, to stop the little scripties from following a trail of bread crumbs. Safeweb DOES do some (simplistic) IP spoofing and "cloaking", but what you see is NOT it.... Mike _______________________________________________________________________________ WANT YOUR OWN FREE AND SECURE WEB EMAIL ADDRESS? Visit http://www.fastcircle.com

1 0

Osama is Jesus
by Nomen Nescio 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

It is truly remarkable how much Osama resembles all the pictures of Jesus. Not just his facial features, but his eyes, his presence. Could it be that this is really the Millenium, the Second Coming is here and now, and we are just on the wrong side? Why else are so many thousands of devout people praying for his safety, why else do so many call the US the Great Satan? Is anyone trying to do an objective comparison of recent events with the Book of Revelations? Who knows who really caused those planes to crash into the WTC? If the Great Satan controls all the news media who knows what lies we are being told? Why don't they want us to hear Osama?

5 5

Bunker Buster
by Max Inux 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

These things are TOUGH MOTHER FUCKER that go big boom. -Max http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/n19980326_980417.html EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska (AFNS) -- A B-2 Spirit bomber dropped two B61-11 bomb shells to test their improved ground penetration capability March 17 at the Stuart Creek Impact Area, 35 miles southeast of Fairbanks. The tests here were designed to measure the nuclear bomb casing's penetration into frozen soil and the survivability of the weapon's internal components. These were the final two tests needed to certify the weapon system as operational. A team excavated the two unexploded dummy bombs and took careful measurements of their angles and depth of penetration into the soil, which were 6 and 10 feet, according to Ellsworth Rolfs, a B61-11 program test manager. The shells were sent back to Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico for full analysis of how the simulated internal components fared in the impact. ... "The test unit casing didn't rupture in any of our tests, including drops through concrete from 40,000 feet," he said. "We fully recovered all test units 100 percent intact."

3 2

RIAA Safeweb Ping
by John Young 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

Based some three dozen pings of Safeweb IP address 64.124.150.130 from locations in the US and overseas, all pings conclude with these 5 or 6 hops: lga1-lhr3-stm64.lga1.above.net (64.125.31.182) (New York, NY) core2-lga1-oc192.lga2.above.net (208.184.232.198) (New York, NY) main1colo45-core2-oc48.lga2.above.net (216.200.127.174) (New York, NY) About half the pings timed out before the last hop at: 208.184.48.173.safeweb.com (San Jose, CA) A few hit a "private" address after 208.184.48.173: 10.100.0.2 (no location) before ending at: 64.124.150.130.safeweb.com (San Jose, CA) The station locations were provided by trace route program VisualRoute. Interpretation is needed for: 1. How much about the Safeweb stations is true and how much cloaking. 2. Why some pings timed out and others didn't. 3. Phantom station 10.100.0.2 4. Whether the San Jose hops actually go to San Jose or are spoofed. 5. Why go to New York then hop across the continent unless the last hops are just administrative not physical. 6. How is cloaking done on addresses and physical locations Is cloaking done by a Safeweb program, say by address spoofer or by phantom proxies, or is there a way to do this by special agreement with Network Central (whatever that is), say, as Intel Web and other classified systems covertly use the Web. Recall that Safeweb was selected for financial support by the CIA so intel officers could use it to cloak their Net use. And other programs such as Onion make use of sub-Net features not easily available to the surface user. Now, onto news of the RIAA leaker (not yet a proven hoaxer despite Declan, RIAA and friends hoaxing that). We received a third message yesterday from the alleged source of the RIAA allegations who was pissed at our attempts to trace the source. Use of Safeweb was admitted. Angry words were hurled at us. Allegations were made that parties have been punished for the leak though not the leaker who fears that information about the traces could be used for that. Here's our response: ----- October 11, 2001 I very much appreciate your concern. I have stated publicly that I do not yet believe there has been a hoax and that the source of the messages will not be disclosed if the messages can be shown to be legitimate. Not that I have any hard information on who you are. And don't need to know who you are so long as your information is reliable. Hell, it doesn't have to be reliable just provocative and unsettling. Right now there is a push on by a host of people to promote that the messages are a hoax, and if they prevail RIAA will be the main beneficiary. And a great story becomes a bore. It is to head off that win by RIAA, to avoid giving them improved protection against future abuses as a result of the alleged hoax, that I wish to get from you information that will demonstrate there was no hoax. Again without putting you in jeopardy. In a tough fight like this RIAA and its supporters will do whatever they can to smear and deny your revelations. That's the way it is, so fighting back is the only answer to prevent an RIAA win by default as result of your valiant effort. Listen, this very thing happens every time we put up a controversial document, and your protection is paramount, but opponents of publication will fight like hell to deny the truth. But you surely know that. Now is when the going gets tough. You need to decide how to avoid losing this battle, losing your reputation and the whole shebang. I say come forth with proof of the meeting and comments made, provide it through a secure channel to protect your identity. But don't let this story die a useless death. Tony Smith ducked and ran. Not here, the story stays on Cryptome, along with the story of what happened after your account was published. Disinformation is as good as information, maybe better. But if you want to abandon what you started, I'll understand and wait for the next opportunity to buck the fuckers. -----

1 0