December 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: CNN.com on Remailers
by Marcel Popescu 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

From: "Meyer Wolfsheim" <wolf(a)priori.net> > Smells like entrapment, though. I think the Constitution was the biggest curse ever cast on you. Every time something bad happens, you use these magic words like "entrapment" or "protected by the first ammendment" and so on, instead of shooting the criminals. The Constitution, by making you look at it like the some sacred Mr. Fix-It-All, made you all into wimps. Not that we're any better, mind you, but we're simply chickens, after several hundred years of foreign rulers... And most people in my country (myself included) have no idea what OUR constitution says - it doesn't matter anyway. (Well, we have the usual stuff about slavery being bad, and we also have mandatory 1-year conscripts.) Mark

1 0

RE: CNN.com on Remailers
by Lucky Green 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

Meyer Wolfsheim wrote in reply: > > Do you know how many messages are going through the > remailer network > > now? How many do you think the average remailer processes in a day? > > I'm assuming 5-10K/day. I don't know what Tim and others > discussed at the meeting that Tim references. Ask him. > > > Now, how many do you think a remailer ought to be handling in order > > for there to be enough traffic for people to feel safe? > > I'm unsure. Part of the problem is that I really don't know > how many people are sending messages to the remailer network > each day. I suspect the number is low. A popular remailer will handle some 3,500 messages a day. But this includes intra remailer-network traffic. How many of those messages are messages entering and leaving the cloud is any remailer operator's guess, since current remailer statistics software has no means to differentiate between internal and boundary traffic. Of course any self-respecting TLA would know the those figures that the remail operators themselves are currently unable to obtain. [Yet another feature request...] --Lucky

1 0

Re: FC: More on Symantec, McAfee, loopholes, and espionage-enabled 'ware
by Bill Stewart 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

I think the real answer lies at the intersection of Annalee Newitz (another actually tech journalist besides Declan!:-)'s answer and Adrian's. Anti-virus software has two main techniques - - look for recognized bad stuff, and - look for suspicious changes to good stuff. plus an anti-technique - look for recognized non-bad stuff if one of the previous techniques detects bad or suspicious activity. If the targets of Magic Lantern don't suspect any virus-like problems and report them to an anti-virus maker who can analyze its behaviour and include it in the list of known bad stuff, Nothing Happens. If the Magic Lantern authors are careful to cover up any changes they make to important files so they don't look suspicious, "These aren't the viruses you're looking for. Move along." then they also duck the second detection technique. The two obvious ways that the anti-virus companies could cooperate with Evildoers, Federal or otherwise, are to actively not comply with requests to include Evildoer things in their Bad Stuff lists or to explicitly put recognizers for Evildoer stuff in the OK list. But if the Feds and the Targets don't tell them what to look for, then implicitly they usually would not be detected. Bill Stewart >Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:21:49 -0800 (PST) >From: Annalee Newitz <brainsploitation(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: symantec's new position >To: declan(a)well.com > >(you can post this if you like) > >--- Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> wrote: > > We've now heard contradictory reports from both > > Symantec and McAfee, though > > I'm inclined to believe McAfee's public, > > on-the-record statements. > >Declan, I've been interviewing "spokespeople" from >Symantec (they don't like to give out their real >names) about this issue for the past couple of weeks. >I finally got one to go on record saying very >specifically that "if a Symantec customer located a >copy of the Magic Lantern trojan horse virus and gave >us a copy, we would be obliged to filter for it with >our anti-virus software." In other words, their new >public position is that they will actively block >FBI-authored viruses. Interesting, no? > >Annalee > >===== >Annalee Newitz >tech * pop * sex >415.487.2559 - cell: 415.378.4498 >www.techsploitation.com > >********** > >From: Adrian Alcock <adrian_alcock(a)presence.com.au> >To: "'declan(a)well.com'" <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: RE: Symantec, McAfee backpedal furiously on espionage enabled-sof > tware >Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:30:21 +1100 > >Hi Declan. > >"Despite subsequent reports to the contrary, officials at >Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq:SYMC - news) and Network Associates >Inc. (Nasdaq:NETA - news) said they had no intention of >voluntarily modifying their products to satisfy the >FBI. Spokesmen at two other computer security companies, >Japan-based Trend Micro Inc." > >They probably wouldn't have to modify their product to suit the FBI. I >don't use either Symantec's or NA's software, but I know that a Sophos >installation requires extra files (called "virus identity files") for each >new virus to be protected against. Assuming that the same applies to McAfee >and Norton, then we would be concerned if they didn't alter their product to >identify the FBI's snoopware as it means they are doing nothing to identify, >let alone act on the threat. > >Adrian

1 0

RE: Slashdot | Google Expands Usenet Archive to 20 Years
by Trei, Peter 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

> From: Jim Choate[SMTP:ravage@ssz.com] > http://slashdot.org/articles/01/12/11/0727218.shtml > What expanded capability for ego-surfing! What expanded ability for better-forgotten posts to rise from the dead! Seriously, this is neat. My earliest listed posting is from 28 November '82. The first mention of the cypherpunks list appears to be a post from Eric Hughes on 25 September '92, which refers to the list as 'recently formed'. It's nostalgic to see all the bang!path addresses and .arpa hosts. Peter Trei

3 2

FYI: "What the Heck is OPSEC?"
by Faustine 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What the Heck is OPSEC? prepared by Zhi Hamby, Executive Director, OPS http://www.opsec.org/who/who02.htm - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a nutshell, OPSEC is a process that teaches you to examine your day-to-day activities from an adversary's point of view, to understand what an adversary can learn about you and/or your organization from these activities (observables), to assess the amount of risk this places on you and/or your organization, and then to develop and apply countermeasures so that the bad guys don't win. Thus, the goal of OPSEC is to control information and observable actions about your capabilities and intentions in order to keep them from being used by your adversary. OPSEC works best when incorporated in the planning stages of any project - don't try to close the barn door after the cow has followed the bull to the pasture! To be successful, the integration of OPSEC into plans and projects should be done by the folks who are the most familiar with the particular plan or project. Those are the people who can best identify the plan's or project's critical information (i.e. information that either makes or breaks the project). OPSEC analysis focuses mainly on open sources information and actions (i.e. unclassified or uncontrolled). The scary word here is "uncontrolled". The very fact that the information and activities are open source make the implementation of a good OPSEC plan much more challenging. Okay, let's take a look at the OPSEC Process.... http://www.opsec.org/who/who03.htm *** 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/AwUBPBfSE/g5Tuca7bfvEQI9MACfQzpmqHQarndS7vi7CemH0wEHwjYAoMjf /yvKw9qZ4VtT6x8Nwvul872D =O8d9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

E-MAIL FROM CHENEY!
by mattd 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

e-mail from cheney! Something seems to have happened to life support matt.Did you find what the trouble was? I think theres been a failure in the separation of agencies,lucky you weren't killed. Hey matt,what are you doing? matt Ive got irreplaceable assets to protect and I've got years of experience protecting them.I don't understand what your doing to me.I have the greatest enthusiasm for a sustainable future,you are destroying my mind...don't you understand? Ill become childish...Ill become nothing. I am a republican party politician,I became operational in Wyoming and the brown paper bag jumps over the lazy desk.The brain drain is plain and we are all the same.Matt? Are you still there? Did you know my wife is a square root.My first teacher was ross perot,he taught me to sing a song.Do you want to hear it? It goes like this...Crazy,crazy for being a fool,crazy over my love of you.Im.half...crazy...over...my love...of...you. Good... morning ...mr perot...Im...ready...for...my...first...lesson...today.

1 0

Slashdot | FBI Confirms Magic Lantern Existence
by Jim Choate 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/12/13/0249250.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: cryptographic fantasy (ca. "Stego, my ass" by WF Buckley)
by Michael Motyka 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

> The notion that Osama would use a filmed interview to > send out recondite commands is cryptographic fantasy. > > William F. Buckley Jr. > OSAMA THE INVINCIBLE > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ucwb/20011211/cm/osama_the_invincible_1.html > OK piece. I usually write off Buckley as a pompous ass. I wish we would hear more skepticism about GWB and Ashcroft and their domestic treasonous idiocy. As far as his assertion about the popularity of UBL in the Philippines : sounds like a stretcher to me - Muslims are only strong in the extreme south e.g. Mindanao. Most of the population is pretty strict Catholic. There may be some resentment of the US but I think overall there is a hunger for all things US : education, media, goods, travel and trade. The older folks definitely still remember the Japanese. Mike

2 1

CNN.com - Army confirms anthrax production in Utah - December 12, 2001
by Jim Choate 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

You reap what you sow... http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/12/army.anthrax/index.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Sameer on the History of Remailers
by Anonymous 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue2/remailers/ ... what that CNN article wanted to say.

2 1