November 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Remail: errors
by HFinney＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have been out of town for the last week, so I missed some CP mail. It looks like some good things are happening with remailers, though. Kudos to Karl, Sameer, and the others for their work! I have received many messages to my remailer in the last week which came from remail(a)tamsun.tamu.edu, which were PGP-encrypted apparently in an effort to get my remailer to send them. They did not work, though, because there was no "Encrypted: PGP" header to trigger the remailer's decryption. This can be arranged by creating the message something like this: ======================================================== :: Request-Remailing-To: hfinney(a)shell.portal.com :: Encrypted: PGP - -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- <rest of message> - -----END PGP MESSAGE------ ======================================================== This would then be sent to remail(a)tamsun.tamu.edu. I don't know whether the multiplicity of such erroneous messages is just due to one person stubbornly re-trying, or whether there is an error in one of the new programs for creating chained remailer messages. Hal Finney hfinney(a)shell.portal.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBLJaNuKgTA69YIUw3AQHrNwQAowMEQwuH6YyHoj6T7AqZFLNdTf+eqJ9L LhAatHS94nmC1smkfVNq0dZmigmkvBdMNEPlBZemmxALz+KJw6OSY/ULSBmuVNEq 5rJANh3XimoJWqLISy2lZiuC5Fw2R7UvRadcdM94pncSVvev92Fyf7CqEOOtrGAK PUzRds7BVNo= =FpLa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

more than spread spectrum
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are alternatives to spread spectrum, if we're threatened with loss of freedom to communicate. We could lay our own wires/fibers. We could set up a mesh network of infrared lasers through the air. Last time I looked, there were no laws against shining lights out your window as long as they didn't bother anyone. An infrared laser could hardly bother anyone. We could produce a line of cheap cards to plug into a PC which would do packet routing, using a variety of physical links -- our own wires, lasers, very low range radio, .... Each card would connect to three or more neighbors and become part of the global mesh. Adaptive routing with no global map would suffice for the card and would keep the whole system peer-to-peer with no need for central control and no chance for central tapping. Of course all of these solutions require a high density of users. A college campus might be the right place to start. We could then branch out to cities. I suspect that a place like Chicago or NYC with high rise apartments might be the place to start -- many options for line-of-sight communications. The benefit isn't just for Cypherpunks. It's a free network for the masses -- like the original USENET (with each user donating routing and store/forward) but with unrestricted, low-range, continuously operating physical links. I'll volunteer to do the software for the node card. Does anyone have hardware design/fab to donate to the effort? - Carl

4 3

Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality
by Tim May 07 Dec '01

07 Dec '01

For many years some of us have argued strongly for "reputation" as a core concept. Someone, perhaps even one of our own, even coined the phrase "reputation capital." Reputation is an easily understandable concept which explains a lot about how imperfect protocols in the real world nevertheless "work." I won't go into what reputation is, even as defined by folks like us. But there are many aspects of reputation which lead to problems: 1. The assumption that an agent or actor possesses a "reputation." A kind of scalar number attached to a person, a bank, an institution, or even a nym. 2. When in fact different people have different assessments of some agent's reputation. Thus suggesting strongly that reputation is not something attached as simply as above. 3. All of the nonsense about how "Alice's reputation has been harmed," deriving from the faulty notion of this scalar property attached to Alice. Aren't we stuck with reputation? No, a broader ontology of objects and beliefs about them is a better way to go. The "reputation of the dollar" is related to my belief, and the belief of billions of others around the planet, that for whatever reason a piece of paper with the right markings on it will in fact be accepted by billions of others, by millions of small banks and moneychangers, and even by the U.S. Government. And the related belief that loans, IOUs, promissory notes, bonds, and numerous other instruments denominated in these "dollars" will very likely be accepted or exchanged, blah blah, by millions or billions of other actors. Such is not the case with Monopoly money or even with E-gold. Thus, what is the "reputation of the dollar"? Is it because of foolproof anti-forgery measures? Is it because of the laws of the U.S.? Etc.? No, it is a kind of collective hallucination. Before James Donald freaks out and cites Objectivist arguments that Some Things Are Real, etc., let me point out that "collective hallucination" is mostly a cute phrase. In actuality, our perception of reality is more than just an opium dream. Empiricism, falsifiability, Popper, all that good stuff. But our monetary system is vastly less provably real than the world of atoms and stars is. Because money is fundamentally about bets on the future: will something be exchanged for something else, will governments support what they print, what will the dollar be worth in 5 years, etc. All crypto is economics. All money is based on belief. All a matter of "betting," of risk/benefit analysis. Related concepts, of course. Even slightly flawed protocols still "work," given the right embeddings in other systems. (For example, a common flaw cited with remailers is that if there is not enough cover traffic, traceability still exists. But exactly the same flaw exists with money: try getting untraceability with coins if only a few coins exist. Ditto for bearer bonds. Ditto for lots of things where the "protocol fails for small N" but works reasonably well--in the "betting" sense--when a lot of actors are trading a lot of coins and currency. The value of a monetary token is NOT something that is determined by precise mathematical protocols. It's a value based on _belief_ or _expectation_ about the behaviors of other actors, and about the future. Currency suspected of being counterfeit may sell for 10 cents on the dollar, to a sophisticated buyer, while currency suspected of being legit may or may not sell for at or near face value. (Even perfectly legit currency would sell at a discount in large quanties, probably, because a buyer would be a money launderer. Hence the discount for risk. That is, a market decision based on the obvious tradeoffs.) Back to reputations. Seen as part of a larger ecology of a "market construction of reality," there are no fixed or absolute values, no fixed or absolute truths. Some assertions are "many nines" likely to be true, and some are even constructed to be true (*) (* As in "2 + 2 = 4," though the streetwise person who says "What's the trick?" is realizing that even "known to be true" assertions may not be true, as in base 3. Magicians and con men have known this for a long time.) Thus, there is no fixed "reputation" of either a person, an idea, or a unit of value. Everything is a matter of belief, of expectation... Instead of an ontology of objects and their attached methods and property lists, including "reputations" and "monetary values," we should be thinking in terms of these objects as just other actors, with each actor maintaining his own internal model of "possible worlds" (how he thinks the other actors will behave, what he thinks may be future outcomes, what his own goals and expectations are). Seen this way, there is no "reputation" or "value" that is universal. Everything is relative. Everything is seen through the light of internal states/possible worlds. This is the market view of reality. There is no "Reality." Just ensembles of actors, various facets, incomplete knowledge...all lubricated by betting. Every street kid knows this. Digital money is just one facet of this worldview. --Tim May "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -- Nietzsche

18 50

Monkeywrenching airport security
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 07 Dec '01

07 Dec '01

Walk into an airport in baggy pants with powdered expolosives in a leg bag which can slowly be dispersed as you walk (perhaps controlled by some sort of string control like POWs scattered excavated soil in "The Great Escape"). After walking around in the lobby it should soon be tracked to the security checkpoints and interfere with any current swab or automated detection methods.

7 6

fuel injected firearm
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 05 Dec '01

05 Dec '01

Have any of the shootingpunks on the list heard of constructing a firearm from something akin to a internal combustion chamber?

7 9

Speech May Not Be Free, but It's Refundable
by mikecabot＠fastcircle.com 03 Dec '01

03 Dec '01

>From Drudge: Gun show denies booth for man selling anthrax recipes Wed Nov 28 2001 10:20:07 ET A Phoenix gun show is refusing space to a Nebraska man who sells a book that includes directions for making anthrax! Timothy Tobiason attended gun shows in Salt Lake City where he hawked 'Advanced Biological Weapons Design and Manufacture,' including an anthrax recipe. "We have told him he cannot go, and we have refunded his money," said Bob Templeton, owner of the Crossroads of the West gun shows. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm _______________________________________________________________________________ Want a FREE fast, secure, and permanent email address? Visit http://www.FastCircle.com

4 8

It's just inevitable
by Adam Shostack 03 Dec '01

03 Dec '01

>"One former senior F.B.I. official described the investigation this >way: "When you send a whole lot of agents out after a whole lot of >people, they're going to find some who committed various crimes. It's >just inevitable." > >http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/national/29DETA.html (The article focuses on the fact that only about 1% of the 1200 detainees are suspected of terrorist involvement. It's a crime that they still haven't gotten due process, and we haven't seen their names...) Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

6 6

Antivirus software will ignore FBI spyware: solutions
by Tim May 02 Dec '01

02 Dec '01

Some interesting tips (bottome of this message) for detecting FBI/SS snoopware that NAI/McAfee is now assisting the FBI in installing. I especially like the idea of "type hundreds of random key strokes and see which files increase in size." (Or just look for any file size changes, as most of us type tens of thousands of keystrokes per day.) The mathematical side of most encryption is vastly stronger than the "crypto hygiene" side. There's a reason "code rooms" and "crypto shacks" on military ships and bases have lots of hoops to jump through, with locked boxes, double-keyed switches, controlled access, etc. Most users of PGP take no steps to secure key materials. (I plead guilty, too.) Most of us are used to immediate access, and we want crypto integrated with our mail. The notion of going to a locked safe, taking out the laptop or removable hard drive, ensuring an "air gap" between the decoding system and the Net, and checking for keyloggers and hostile code, and so on, is foreign to most of us. The "dongle" idea (e.g., Dallas Semiconductor buttons, etc.) has been around for a long time. Here's a new twist: the Apple iPod music player. I just got one. A 4.6 GB hard disk (Toshiba 1.8"). Hooks up via Firewire/IEEE 1394, with the link recharging the battery and auto-linking. The disk can also be mounted as a standard Firewire disk. Meaning, it could be used to store key material and even be used for PGP scratch operations. The increased security comes from its small size (easy to lock up) and because I usually have it with me when I am away from home. This makes "sneak and peek" searches and plants of malicious code less useful. Not a complete solution. Crypto hygiene and all. Here's the article: > Path: sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com!e420r-sjo4.usenetserver.com!sjcppf01!usenetserver.com!hub1.nntpserver.com!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail > From: Rastus P. Riley <an11211(a)hushmaildot.com> > Newsgroups: misc.survivalism > Subject: Re: Antivirus software will ignore FBI spyware: solutions > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:37:27 -0800 > Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com > Message-ID: <1m950usq1saskrs1g0ajmdi5h3e49fcd8b(a)4ax.com> > > On 25 Nov 2001 21:48:28 GMT, phatmike(a)isomorphic.net (phatmike) wrote: > > >> According to the Washington Post, "At least one antivirus software company, > >> McAfee Corp., contacted the FBI on Wednesday to ensure its software wouldn't > >> inadvertently detect the bureau's snooping software and alert a criminal > >> suspect." > >> > >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1436-2001Nov22.html > > 1. Use a secure type of OS with login screen for every session > a. Log out after every use > b. If house invaded, Feds need to have initial login > password to insert trojan. > > 2. Use In/Out firewall > a. Zone Alarm Pro > b. Monitors in/out traffic > 1. If trojan tries to send data, then firewall will > highlight it. > > 3. Always check for small programs by last accessed date. > a. Uncheck hidden files > b. Look for files that increase in size by testing with 300 > random keystrokes. > > 4. Use Proxies, don't run attatchments, don't use > Outbreak Express. > > Hope this helps, > > -Rastus

5 4

Re: in praise of gold
by Faustine 01 Dec '01

01 Dec '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, November 26, 2001, at 07:58 PM, measl(a)mfn.org wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Jim Choate wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Faustine wrote: >>> Not all women are golddiggers. >> They're called 'old maids'. ALL women who are interested in a >> 'relationship' are 'golddiggers' in the sense they want to 'change' the >> other party. > > Nothing like a good across the board generalization, huh Jim? > Well, I hate to be in the position of defending Jimbo, but he's >right--in a sense, but not just about women. > I'd be willing to bet (should there be a way of proving it to my >satisfaction) that in every relationship, one party would like to change >AT LEAST 2 things about the other party. Bah! Anyone who goes around trying to force the other person into becoming what they're not probably deserves whatever grief they give themselves over it. I don't change for anyone, nor do I expect anyone to change for me. Integrity and self-respect count for a lot in my book. And if we can enjoy each other for what we are, excellent. If not, time to move on to something more rewarding. Not all women go around with silly notions about "perfect soulmates" and all that nauseating weakminded crap. I find nothing in least bit attractive about a spineless simp telling me what he thinks I want to hear. What's so interesting about being around a personality-deficient jellyfish, man or woman. Pride isn't a sin, it's a virtue! Any relationship based on desperation or one partner's dysfunctional clingy need is a complete waste of time. So if you seem to be spending a lot of time around women who want to mash you down into a mold of some cartoonish happy- ever-after "ideal", perhaps it's time to look at why you keep choosing and ending up with them. If you were drawn to strong-willed independent women instead, I can assure you that you'd be facing an entirely different spectrum of dysfunctionality. ;) ~Faustine. I was going to look for an especially relevant sig quote, but on second thought, think the one I have now will do just fine... *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPAfjCfg5Tuca7bfvEQJWjACg0BMIcZxHbll9XZFj2UodGSDcVZEAoNcb oPV1KVxwrmuG6wtNXv9kFrb/ =v+6/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

RE: fuel injected firearm
by Trei, Peter 01 Dec '01

01 Dec '01

> Steven Furlong[SMTP:sfurlong@acmenet.net] > > > I did see a GyroJet pistol once. A rocket pistol, firing little > > rockets. Early 60s. Very expensive. And suffered from the fact that > > each little rocket had to accelerate up to speed. Lots of chance for the > > target to move. > > Gyrojet rounds burned out in, IIRC, 20 feet, and they covered that first > 20 feet in a small fraction of a second. I don't think target dodging is > any more of an issue than with conventional bullets. > Another problem with the Gyrojet was accuracy. Since it left the barrel much more slowly than a traditional round, gyroscopic stabilization was at a minimum at the start of the shell's path. A slight wobble at this point would translate into a large deviation at the target. Peter

2 1