July 2002 - cypherpunks-legacy

Get Instant Term Life Quotes for FREE... U
by Lauren 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

1 0

Delivery failure
by MAILER-DAEMON＠yahoo.com 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

Message from yahoo.com. Unable to deliver message to the following address(es). <elschaef(a)yahoo.com>: Sorry your message to elschaef(a)yahoo.com cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. <jdavid1066(a)yahoo.com>: Sorry your message to jdavid1066(a)yahoo.com cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. --- Original message follows.

1 0

Re: Diffie-Hellman and MITM
by Marcel Popescu 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

From: "Mike Rosing" <eresrch(a)eskimo.com> > > Is there a defense against MITM for Diffie-Hellman? Is there another > > protocol with equivalent properties, with such a defense? (Secure > > communications between two parties, with no shared secret and no out-of-band > > abilities, on an insecure network.) > > What do you mean by no shared secret? The point of DH is that you > get a shared secret. I guess I should have said "no *previously* shared secret". > Check out MQV protocol for MITM defense and forward secrecy. It > uses permenent public keys and ephemeral public keys for each > session. In any protocol, the out-of-band check of the public > keys is still a "good thing". Well... I assume an active MITM (like my ISP). He's able to intercept my public key request and change it. Plus, I now realize I should have put an even harder condition - no previously shared *information*, even if it's public. I need to know if two complete strangers can communicate securely over an insecure network, even if they communicate through an untrusted party. Wasn't there a protocol for two prisoners communicating through an untrusted guard? Thanks, Mark

3 5

biometric containment (privacy, fingerprints, dead utah blondes)
by Optimizzin Al-gorithym 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

So the neighbors of that dead blonde Utah jailbait volunteered their fingerprints, presumably for discounting them, though possibly not. In any case: how could a neighbor-friendly cypherpunk give prints which were *not* entered into the Fed Oracle? Only way I can think of is to physically control your deadtree print sheet and require the Feebs to manually enter the dozen topo-feature-locations of your print from a memoryless measuring device, (eg, a glass lens and reticle) in front of you, then take the print sheet with you. How you verify that the imaging system is memoryless is up to you. Comments?

2 1

Cable
by Jon22＠applewired.com 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

Hi. I appreciate your interest in Cable Descramblers and Cable equipment. If you are interested in a brand new DIGITAL CABLE DESCRAMBLER that decodes and receives ALL CHANNELS and is compatible with ALL "DIGITAL" and "ANALOG" CABLE SYSTEMS then please get back to me. Thats right. This Descrambler works with DIGITAL cable. Let me know. John 8894bvKA6-144nZWr243l19

1 0

Re: on 'evil' as an abbreviation
by Nomen Nescio 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

> Evil = bad = counter to our goals. One of our goals is to have > general-purpose computers widely available. A DRM layer between us > and the hardware is counter to that goal, ergo, undesirable from this > perspective. > > Its like a governor in a car. Do you want one in yours? Are you willing > to pay for the decreased driving flexibility and decreased reliability > (extra parts, after all) of your car? Sure, I might put a governor in my car if it would lower my insurance rates. And I might use a DRM system if it let me download music and video that I wanted, while remaining compliant with the creators' wishes. > What makes you think you can require one in mine? We're talking about voluntary systems here. Ryan said that DRM was evil even if voluntary.

2 1

CIBLEZ ET DEMARCHEZ GRATUITEMENT VOS PROSPECTS PAR CENTAINES DE MILLIERS
by VOS PROSPECTS 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

1 0

CONGRATULATIONS: FINAL NOTICE!
by wbdl_interpromo＠worldmail.ac 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

WERKEN BIJ DE LOTTO, 41132, NL-1007 DB AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS. TEL/ FAX: 31 205241696 FROM: THE DESK OF THE DIRECTOR PROMOTIONS, INTERNATIONAL PROMOTIONS/PRIZE AWARD DEPARTMENT, REF: WBL/67-A075328127 ATTN: INTERNATIONAL PROMOTIONS; WINNING NOTICE CONGRATULATIONS! It is our pleasure to inform you, this day 2nd July 2002, that you have emerged one out of fifteen winners of the WERKEN BIJ DE LOTTO/ INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, category C. Therefore you have been approved a lump pay sum pay of US$1,500,000.00 credited to file with reference number REF: WBL/67-A075328127. Your file, attached to ticket number 013-2316-2002-477, with serial number A025-09 drew the lucky numbers 37-13-34-85-56-42, won in the category C. All participants were drawn from the Euro Lotto International Programs, which produced 30,000 names from Australia, America, Asia, Africa and Europe. Winners emerged by computer ballot system, and draws were held on 17th and 18th JUNE 2002. All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from 30,000 names from Australia, America, Asia and Europe as part our International Promotions Program, which is conducted annually. Be informed that your funds, like funds of other winners in your category have been insured and deposited with our financial handlers EUROLITE BV, in your name. You are to immediately contact your claims officer to claim your funds. Find relevant contact details below: JANSEN DAVIS FOREIGN SERVICE MANAGER, EUROLITE BV, FAX: 31205241417 EMAIL: eurolitebvfsm01(a)europe.com The above personnel is to supervise due remittance of your prize of US$1,500,000.00 to an account of your choice, on or before 12TH JULY, 2002. Failure to comply is, by our policies, tantamount to declining all claims and such funds will be duly returned to our accounts as unclaimed. You will be required to provide your reference and ticket numbers for verification purposes. Please note that we will not entertain any case of multiple claims in whatever manner it is presented. You are therefore instructed, in your own interest, to strictly hold all information in this mail privy and from public knowledge, pending a successful claims processing and remittance. We hereby also officially invite you to participate in our biennial high stakes. Tickets will cost a token sum of US$120.00. You will be informed of the date of draw soonest. CONGRATULATIONS again and thank you for being part of our international promotions. Yours truly, THE DIRECTOR PROMOTIONS, WERKEN BIJ DE LOTTO. N.B. Any breach of confidentiality or any other conditions stated above, on the part of the winners will result to immediate disqualification. Please do not reply this mail.

1 0

Times Online - Congress unites in fear of world 'government'
by Jim Choate 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-344149,00.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.org www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: maximize best case, worst case, or average case? (TCPA
by Anonymous 01 Jul '02

01 Jul '02

This is from http://mondediplo.com/2000/06/15publicgood: "What is a public good? This question can best be answered by looking at the counterpart, a private good. Private goods are typically traded in markets. Buyers and sellers meet through the price mechanism. If they agree on a price, the ownership or use of the good (or service) can be transferred. Thus private goods tend to be excludable. They have clearly identified owners; and they tend to be rival. For example, others cannot enjoy a piece of cake, once consumed. "Public goods have just the opposite qualities. They are non-excludable and non-rival in consumption. An example is a street sign. It will not wear out, even if large numbers of people are looking at it; and it would be extremely difficult, costly and highly inefficient to limit its use to only one or a few persons and try to prevent others from looking at it, too. A traffic light or clean air is a further example. " Robert Hettinga writes: > A signed, much less encrypted, copy of a piece of digital information, or > even a digital service, for that matter, (teleoperated machine commands, > or a live video feed answering a question, and, of course, computation > and bandwidth) is, in fact, an "ordinary, private" good. How can a signed piece of digital information be a private good, by the definitions above? It is non-rival: if someone enjoys the good, he can give it to others and he will still be able to enjoy it. And it is non-excludable: if you give it to some people, they can share it with others and you can't prevent that, as Napster proved. Even encrypting the information won't help (unless to a key embedded in some DRM related hardware). The recipient can still decrypt it and share it. It is still non-rival and non-excludable. Digital services, on the other hand, may well be rival and excludable, and so do qualify as private goods. Hence there is no need for DRM mechanisms to control services. Most observers believe this is a big reason for the software industry's interest in "web services", that they will not be vulnerable to software piracy. Since such services are excludable they are not relevant to our debate over DRM and TCPA. But you claimed that signed pieces of digital information were private goods. Please explain. Are you using standard economic definitions, or are you inventing your own terminology?

2 1