November 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

McAfee to introduce FBI back door into their antivirus tools
by Major Variola (ret) 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

"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 ---- Wonder how long it will take a virus writer to spoof the golden signature? I especially like the plot where a good rev engr gets a sample of the FBI's trojan and modifies/deploys it for his own purposes...

1 0

Re: Anonymizing Scam
by Lance M. Cottrell 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

Given how widely know my email address is, I am saddened that people would post this kind of unsubstantiated rumor without any attempt to check on the validity. Anonymizer has always offered its services to all comers. This has always included law enforcement. They have used our services to keep an eye on certain websites for many years, without tipping them off to the focus of their interests. Seeing "fbi.gov" in the log files is a bit of a giveaway. They have no special access to our systems, and no ability to monitor our users. Describing our policy of open access as "sucking up to the TLAs" is absurd. I would have thought my history in this field would have earned me some consideration before jumping to that kind of conclusion. Does government and industry have no rights to, or needs for, privacy? It seems a hypocritical position for Cypherpunks to take. -Lance Cottrell At 5:34 PM -0500 11/23/01, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >--- begin forwarded text > > >Status: U >Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:02:10 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >Subject: Anonymizing Scam >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com > >Below are strange statements coming from Lance Cottrell. >Is there no anonymizer that is not sucking up to the TLAs? >Worse, has there ever been? > >----- > > >http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/privacy.reut/index.html > >One company that is still making money off privacy is >Anonymizer.com, a San Diego-based company that offers >anonymous Web surfing for $50 a year, or $5 a month. The >company has 20,000 active subscribers, said President Lance >Cottrell. > >"We're still seeing very strong growth," Cottrell said. "Most >people are looking to prevent their boss, insurance company, >spouse, ISP (Internet Service Provider) from knowing where >they're going." > >Even so, Anonymizer.com began a push six months ago to >market its service to corporations, including law and investigation >firms, and the U.S. government, he said. > >"Intelligence agencies have been using us for years, especially >since September 11," Cottrell said. "They use us to keep an eye >on bad guy sites" with covert monitoring. > >----- > >The pattern: initial big deal about helping the public protect its >privacy, then boom, a later revelation it was impossible to >continue ... well, the reasons vary, but the cover story is always >the need for money, the Judas rationale. > >Meanwhile, the fabulous surfing data archive allegedly inviolate, or >never retained, or no way to ever know who was using the >service, that is the data all free-gift marketers aim to collect. > >Were any anonymizing archives ever trashed or truly protected >against concurrent snarfing? Is Safeweb laughing like ZKS, >like Lance? First, the US, then EU, then CN, all the way to >MD. > >What does this say about commercial anonymizing services, >and remailers? And crypto, especially free PGP, and the honeypot >AES? > >--- end forwarded text > > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' -- Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell(a)anonymizer.com Anonymizer, Inc. President Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 www.Anonymizer.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)wasabisystems.com

1 0

IP: What are your reac tions to this? (fwd)
by Eugene Leitl 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:09:10 -0500 From: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Reply-To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu To: ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: What are your reac tions to this? > >Young Ben Shapiro discusses the sophomoric thinking of some professors at >UCLA. >http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/articles.asp?ID=17431 > >Effects of campus liberalism far-reaching >LIBERALS: Professors give support to murders of law enforcement, terrorist >acts >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---- >Ben Shapiro > >Universities have a serious problem. The type of liberalism so heavily >favored by the intellectual elite has crossed the line. Professors >throughout the educational world are supporting murderers and terrorists; >they are justifying despicable actions because of the political philosophies >of the actors. Murder, slaughter, and terrorism are OK, they say, as long as >they are directed at law-enforcement officials or civilian Westerners. It's >fine as long as the murderer is anti-capitalist, anti-establishment or >anti-conservative. > >This frightening ideology has not only blurred the line between liberalism >and radicalism it has destroyed it. This ideology cannot truly be called >liberalism it can only be called evil. And this evil must be eradicated >before it spreads and engulfs the aspiring youth of our nation in its dark >and shadowy tentacles. ><snip> For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

2 1

Re: Pricing Mojo, Integrating PGP, TAZ, and D.C. Cypherpunks
by Incognito Innominatus 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

David Molnar wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Anonymous wrote: > > > than using your Visa card because only the seller learns your address > > rather than a centralized agency that knows all of your purchases. > > But it's hardly worth it. > > A friend of mine was considering a business plan for physical remailer+ > "infomediary" for a class project a year or two ago. Precisely to get > around this problem. Sell learns the remailer's address. More than a few > remailers and you can chain them, etc. etc. Unfortunately U.S. postal regulations require identification when you rent a mail box, public or private. See http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/audio/private_mail_box.htm: Recent amendments to postal regulations will make it harder for criminals to victimize innocent consumers by using mail drops. Anyone renting a box from a commercial mail-receiving agency such as Mail Boxers, Etc., Parcel Post, and Postnet will be required to provide two forms of ID, one being a photo ID. It won't do much good to chain them if each one in the chain has your ID on file. Granted you can use fake ID but that would be breaking the law, raising the costs considerably.

2 1

Re: IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10.
by Faustine 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 gep2 wrote: >There's a huge difference between a book that blows the whistle on government >misdoings and abuses versus a book that gives a detailed recipe on how some >disgruntled lunatic with $10 in their pocket can kill tens of thousands, >maybe even millions, of other people "from your basement, in your spare time". Oh, you mean like the volumes of research on the future of domestic terrorism and information warfare scenarios gamed and developed by analysts at the RAND Corporation, the Institute for Defense Analyses and other government FFRDC think tanks? But since the research was paid for by the DoD and RAND analysts aren't generally in the habit of selling their books to "suspicious types" at gun shows, it's somehow different, right? And if a researcher happens to wants to have a look at the $10 CD for his work or out of intellectual curiosity, you're going to have him stalked down by some cro-magnon donuteater like everyone else, or is he somehow "special status" for being a "good guy" working in a "privileged position"? And do you really think that anyone curious enough to put out ten bucks to learn about what they're up against is automatically going to trot out and do it? You equate possessing a fermentation vat full of anthrax with possessing a book about anthrax? "Ordinary folks read as they're told?" Absolutely bankrupt. >>How about posts on the cypherpunks list or other fora that include >>more scientific or technical information than you feel comfortable with?) >Depends on the nature of the information. Ultimately, it will probably >require a judge or jury or some such to make the call. But analysts inventing and debating all sorts of fiendish scenarios on an internal DoD mailing list covering potential terrorist threats and infrastructure vulnerabilities are somehow exempt and have "special status", right. Your entire plan revolves around an arbitrary decision which divides people into categories of who you like and who you don't. "If you don't believe in rights for people you despise, you don't believe in the idea of rights at all." >try to uncover if they're just "curious" as an academically interesting >subject, or to see if they have a more sinister purpose.) You're going to see whatever you want. And therefore, you'll never know. >Meanwhile, it's bastards like this guy selling these terrorism training >manuals who are ultimately more part of the problem than they >are part of the solution. Banning information becuase "ordinary folks read as they're told" is a colossal problem, as big as any I can think of. People like you risk being responsible for bringing on the Dark Ages again. But then, it sure sounds like a lot of you are already there. ~Faustine. *** 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/AwUBO/7VXfg5Tuca7bfvEQIzUQCg4yeT17ExJWb8yGpSZfY67UiWW4kAoJUA X407T11qXOjgowtad5/h2Yjk =V8AC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 5

Re: Anonymizing Scam
by Lance M. Cottrell 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

Given how widely know my email address is, I am saddened that people would post this kind of unsubstantiated rumor without any attempt to check on the validity. Anonymizer has always offered its services to all comers. This has always included law enforcement. They have used our services to keep an eye on certain websites for many years, without tipping them off to the focus of their interests. Seeing "fbi.gov" in the log files is a bit of a giveaway. They have no special access to our systems, and no ability to monitor our users. Describing our policy of open access as "sucking up to the TLAs" is absurd. I would have thought my history in this field would have earned me some consideration before jumping to that kind of conclusion. Does government and industry have no rights to, or needs for, privacy? It seems a hypocritical position for Cypherpunks to take. -Lance Cottrell At 5:34 PM -0500 11/23/01, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >--- begin forwarded text > > >Status: U >Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:02:10 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >Subject: Anonymizing Scam >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com > >Below are strange statements coming from Lance Cottrell. >Is there no anonymizer that is not sucking up to the TLAs? >Worse, has there ever been? > >----- > > >http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/privacy.reut/index.html > >One company that is still making money off privacy is >Anonymizer.com, a San Diego-based company that offers >anonymous Web surfing for $50 a year, or $5 a month. The >company has 20,000 active subscribers, said President Lance >Cottrell. > >"We're still seeing very strong growth," Cottrell said. "Most >people are looking to prevent their boss, insurance company, >spouse, ISP (Internet Service Provider) from knowing where >they're going." > >Even so, Anonymizer.com began a push six months ago to >market its service to corporations, including law and investigation >firms, and the U.S. government, he said. > >"Intelligence agencies have been using us for years, especially >since September 11," Cottrell said. "They use us to keep an eye >on bad guy sites" with covert monitoring. > >----- > >The pattern: initial big deal about helping the public protect its >privacy, then boom, a later revelation it was impossible to >continue ... well, the reasons vary, but the cover story is always >the need for money, the Judas rationale. > >Meanwhile, the fabulous surfing data archive allegedly inviolate, or >never retained, or no way to ever know who was using the >service, that is the data all free-gift marketers aim to collect. > >Were any anonymizing archives ever trashed or truly protected >against concurrent snarfing? Is Safeweb laughing like ZKS, >like Lance? First, the US, then EU, then CN, all the way to >MD. > >What does this say about commercial anonymizing services, >and remailers? And crypto, especially free PGP, and the honeypot >AES? > >--- end forwarded text > > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' -- Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell(a)anonymizer.com Anonymizer, Inc. President Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 www.Anonymizer.com

1 0

Re: Anonymizing Scam
by Lance M. Cottrell 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

Given how widely know my email address is, I am saddened that people would post this kind of unsubstantiated rumor without any attempt to check on the validity. Anonymizer has always offered its services to all comers. This has always included law enforcement. They have used our services to keep an eye on certain websites for many years, without tipping them off to the focus of their interests. Seeing "fbi.gov" in the log files is a bit of a giveaway. They have no special access to our systems, and no ability to monitor our users. Describing our policy of open access as "sucking up to the TLAs" is absurd. I would have thought my history in this field would have earned me some consideration before jumping to that kind of conclusion. Does government and industry have no rights to, or needs for, privacy? It seems a hypocritical position for Cypherpunks to take. -Lance Cottrell At 5:34 PM -0500 11/23/01, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >--- begin forwarded text > > >Status: U >Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:02:10 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >Subject: Anonymizing Scam >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com > >Below are strange statements coming from Lance Cottrell. >Is there no anonymizer that is not sucking up to the TLAs? >Worse, has there ever been? > >----- > > >http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/privacy.reut/index.html > >One company that is still making money off privacy is >Anonymizer.com, a San Diego-based company that offers >anonymous Web surfing for $50 a year, or $5 a month. The >company has 20,000 active subscribers, said President Lance >Cottrell. > >"We're still seeing very strong growth," Cottrell said. "Most >people are looking to prevent their boss, insurance company, >spouse, ISP (Internet Service Provider) from knowing where >they're going." > >Even so, Anonymizer.com began a push six months ago to >market its service to corporations, including law and investigation >firms, and the U.S. government, he said. > >"Intelligence agencies have been using us for years, especially >since September 11," Cottrell said. "They use us to keep an eye >on bad guy sites" with covert monitoring. > >----- > >The pattern: initial big deal about helping the public protect its >privacy, then boom, a later revelation it was impossible to >continue ... well, the reasons vary, but the cover story is always >the need for money, the Judas rationale. > >Meanwhile, the fabulous surfing data archive allegedly inviolate, or >never retained, or no way to ever know who was using the >service, that is the data all free-gift marketers aim to collect. > >Were any anonymizing archives ever trashed or truly protected >against concurrent snarfing? Is Safeweb laughing like ZKS, >like Lance? First, the US, then EU, then CN, all the way to >MD. > >What does this say about commercial anonymizing services, >and remailers? And crypto, especially free PGP, and the honeypot >AES? > >--- end forwarded text > > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' -- Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell(a)anonymizer.com Anonymizer, Inc. President Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 www.Anonymizer.com

1 0

Add you adult site to Sexy-Portal by Samantha Page
by sampage＠sexy-portal.com 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

To be removed from future mailings send a blank email to mailto:remove@sexy-portal.com?subject=REMOVE Hello, My name is Samantha Page, performer in Horny Sluts, Amazing Boobs, Samantha Page and Friends, Inside Samantha, Hardcore Boobs, Meeting Samantha any many more porn movies. As an old and retired star of the adult industry (after marriage, I am only 31, not too old) I created an adult portal which I myself review all the sites and keep it as a quality sex portal, adult links and search engine. Now you may take your minute and add your adult site with a proper description at http://www.sexy-portal.com/index.html and share our traffic immediately. Don't miss this brand new opportunity to become a part of this new Sexy-Portal and reserve your link at the top. I mostly add new sites within a few hours. Love and kisses, Samantha Page To be removed from future mailings send a blank email to mailto:remove@sexy-portal.com?subject=REMOVE

1 0

Do Not Open - Bills Bills Bill
by sonofgomez709 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

Microsoft Internal Error [31773246] Do Not Open CJ Parker <sonofgomez709(a)yahoo.com> http://profiles.yahoo.com/sonofgomez709 http://members.w-link.net/~sog/INDEX.HTM ICQ 138724628 "The True Story Of The InterNet" The Xenix ChainSaw Massacre http://www.technopagan.org/politics/xenix/ WebWorld & The Mythical Circle Of Eunuchs http://www.technopagan.org/politics/webworld/ InfoWar: Final Frontier Of The Digital rEvolution http://www.technopagan.org/politics/infowarriors/ Space Aliens Hide My Drugs http://www.technopagan.org/politics/sahmd/

1 0

remove
by Sarayut Winuthayanon 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

1 0