September 2002 - cypherpunks-legacy

ADULT ADV: REAL WOMEN AND MEN WAITING TO CHAT WITH YOU
by Madison 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~ NO Credit Cards or Checks Ever Needed CHECK IT OUT NOW! http://204.177.92.193/party/affpp/index02.jhtml?pin=503930 ~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LEGAL NUDE TEENS http://links.lifetimebucks.com/legalnudeteens/life.link/mctahoe/091202b SEXXX FARM http://links.lifetimebucks.com/sexxxfarm/life.link/mctahoe/091202c WILD ASIAN BABES http://links.lifetimebucks.com/wildasianbabes/life.link/mctahoe/091202d ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hentai Playground Nasty toons and drawings ~ Uncensored. http://www.hentaiplayground.com/?wm_login=mctahoe ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ This message is being sent to you because you are a member of Xxxtasy Mail. To change your subscription please visit: http://event.xxxtasymail.com/remove.cgi?key=9e7d7c6076777d7b767c78ee&email=… © Copyright Protected - All Rights Reserved Copyrights on exclusive images, video and text within this site strictly enforced. All Models were 18 years old or older when photos were taken.

1 0

labia minor otlbo
by Nicole 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

1 0

Wired article on cypherpunks
by Nomen Nescio 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

Warm Party for a Code Group By Danit Lidor 2:00 a.m. Sep. 13, 2002 PDT The cypherpunks are throwing a PGP (pretty good party) this weekend. The venerable online community is celebrating its 10th anniversary which, in the ephemeral world of the Internet, is remarkable. But don't go unless you RSVP first. These people are admittedly paranoid, contentious and quarrelsome. And they're not afraid to express their ire, either. No wonder. In 1992, the cypherpunks emerged from a small group of people who, because of their interest in cryptography and encryption, recognized that the free-flowing format of the burgeoning Web culture must provide for anonymous interactions. Not surprisingly, they soon came under the uncomfortable scrutiny of the formidable National Security Agency. The situation escalated in early 1993, after a computer programmer named Phil Zimmermann (a patron saint of the community) -- alarmed that the patents for public key encryption were sold to a company called RSA -- wrote an open-source, free program called PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). The resulting debacle, in which Zimmermann was threatened with criminal prosecution for exporting weapons (encryption technology is termed a weapon by the U.S. government), brought the public's right to privacy to the forefront of the now-commonplace tug-of-war between those who favor "crytpo anarchy" and those who don't. Through the active work of many civil libertarians, including the cypherpunks, pressure was brought to bear upon the government to re-think its position. The charges against Zimmermann were dropped. It was a triumph. The geeks fought the law, and the geeks won. "The cypherpunks' paranoia about information exploitation is becoming mainstream," Peter Wayner, author of Translucent Databases, wrote in an e-mail interview. "Everyone is learning that the cypherpunks' insistence on limiting the proliferation of information is a good thing." The cypherpunks' e-mail list forms the nucleus of the community, which has grown to include people of many agendas and interests. No longer the exclusive domain of crypto geeks, cypherpunks are "doctors, lawyers, mathematicians, felons, druggies, anti-druggies, anarchists, libertarians, right-wing fanatics, left-wing fanatics, teachers, housewives, househusbands, students, cops and criminals," cypherpunk J.A. Terranson wrote in a posting. Or maybe not. Cypherpunk Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote in typically obscure cypherpunk fashion, "We're all just voices in Tim May's head." May, one of the original cypherpunks, continues to be an active figurehead of the cypherpunks and has often bridged the chasm between its historically secretive culture and its forays into the public sphere. In 10 years, the list has become an amalgamation of a political watchdog site, a social club and a repository of technical cryptographic discussion. "(It's) where people from all different backgrounds and views can hear from one another," mathematician Nina Fefferman said. "We math people are frequently shocked and confused by what the politicians do with regard to legislating crypto-related issues. Conversely, the policy and society people are frequently interested in issues that have to do with the use and regulation of cryptographic standards and research." Others are disappointed by the list's current tepid political climate. "The atmosphere isn't as electric because the scene has grown so big," Wayner said. "It's not just a few guys talking about the importance of some mathematical equations. It's like debating the importance of indoor plumbing now. No one disputes it, they just want to argue about copper versus PVC." Wayner, Zimmermann, as well as May, John Gilmore and Eric Hughes (the original founders of the list), however, have emerged from their cypherpunk association as key public privacy figures: vocal and passionate defenders of civil liberties on the Web. It's hard to imagine the secretive and fractious cryptocrusaders assembling for a physical meeting. Even May, the party's host, isn't sure who or how many cypherpunks to expect to his soiree at a hideaway in the Santa Cruz (California) mountains. "Some meetings (in the Bay Area) have 40 attendees, some have 15," he said. But he's adamant about who won't be coming. Never one to mince words, he wrote, "Narcs and feds will not be allowed at the meeting. Fuck them dead."

1 0

Re: OpenSSL worm in the wild
by Eric Rescorla 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

Eric Rescorla <ekr(a)rtfm.com> writes: > especially > since one could easily modify the worm to attack all servers > or, perhaps, those which only display Product ID :) ... or maybe not. I hadn't seen a copy of the worm yet, so I guessed from your description that it was using the Server: value to detect who is running downrev versions of OpenSSL. Not so. Upon examination, it looks like the worm uses the server version to decide what section of memory to overwrite (based on the target OS) and server version. So, if people reconfiged their servers to not give you this information, a worm author would either have to have the worm try all possible exploits (not a big deal with only 20 architectures to search) or have some other evidence as to what OS/Apache version people were runnning. Note that for this to be a 100% countermeasure you'd have to reconfigure your server not to advertise Apache at all. Otherwise, it looks to me like the worm assumes that you're running Red Hat/Apache 1.3.23, in which case there's a real chance that the worm will crash your server by using the wrong overwrite offset. -Ekr -- [Eric Rescorla ekr(a)rtfm.com] http://www.rtfm.com/

1 0

Re: OpenSSL worm in the wild
by Eric Rescorla 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

Dave Ahmad <da(a)securityfocus.com> writes: > The incident analysis team over here is examining this thing. At first > glance it looks reasonably sophisticated. Looks to me like it exploits > the issue described as BID 5363, http://online.securityfocus.com/bid/5363. > It seems to pick targets based on the "Server:" HTTP response field. > Mario Van Velzen proposed a quick workaround of disabling ServerTokens or > setting it to ProductOnly to turn away at least this version of the exploit > until fixes can be applied. Since this workaround requires changing the configuration file, it's equally easy to disable SSLv2 entirely--especially since one could easily modify the worm to attack all servers or, perhaps, those which only display Product ID :) -Ekr -- [Eric Rescorla ekr(a)rtfm.com] http://www.rtfm.com/

1 0

Ͷ��Ϻ��ߡ��г��ϼ��
by post＠shanghaiinvest.com 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

1 0

VIRUS ALERT! - Language
by virus_alert＠nucleus.com 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

THE FOLLOWING IS AN AUTOMATED SECURITY ALERT FROM NUCLEUS INC. A message or attachment that was sent to you was tested prior to delivery and found to contain a virus. As a result, it was NOT delivered to you. A message sent to you by e.taylor(a)nucleus.com The suspicious attachment has been removed from the original message. Scan report: File 'GWWEB[9].pif' has a forbidden name Specific details regarding a virus can be found at the following links: http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/ http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/vinfodb.html http://www.avp.ch/avpve/ http://csrc.ncsl.nist.gov/virus/ NOTE: This message is being sent from an automated, unattended account. Please read the information links supplied in this email to find out more about the particular virus you have received. If you have further questions, please email support(a)nucleus.com. Nucleus, Inc. http://www.nucleus.com/

1 0

Direct Contact 6536 Shoes Factories in China
by moxiuling＠hotmail.com 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

As soon as you have 6536 website addresses of shoes factories in China you will have a tremendous space of supply of goods, and how illustrious will your business be? I specialize in trade resource services. Now, I collected 6536 usable website addresses of shoes factories in Chinaup up to now, you will can visit these websites and view their products catalogues and direct contact the manufacturers by email, tel or fax as soon as you have this data. Only pay $70 USD for all. Don't Hesitate contact us if you need this data. Yours sincerely Ms. Mo Xiulin China ============================================================= žÃÓÊŒþÊ¹ÓÃ ¿ÆÌØÓÊŒþÈº·¢ÈíŒþ ·¢ËÍ,ÓÊŒþÄÚÈÝÓë¿ÆÌØÈíŒþÎÞ¹Ø ¿ÆÌØÈíŒþ http://www.caretop.com =============================================================

1 0

企业增效之路必备的宣传手段
by serve＠advertise2.com 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

1 0

re: State's medical marijuana proposition doesn't trump federal regulations (was Re: !!! Nov-L: Calif. City Plans Marijuana Giveaway (fwd))
by Steve Schear 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

>Though the council passed a resolution denouncing the raid, there is no >official city sponsorship of the event - council members and medical >marijuana advocates are simply acting on their own in a public space, >said >City Attorney John Barisone. > >DEA spokesman Richard Meyer was surprised at the plan. > >``Are you serious? That's illegal. It's like they're flouting federal >law,'' >he said. ``I'm shocked that city leaders would promote the use of >marijuana >that way. What is that saying to our youth?'' [The following is my response to a related article (unfortunately not on-line) from the Opinion section of the San Jose Mercury News by Larry N. Gerston, a professor of political science at SJSU and political analyst at NBC3, wherein the question is asked whether we should have obey laws we don't like. Larry, Your September 11 SJMN op-ed piece, "State's medical marijuana proposition doesn't trump federal regulations," made some good points regarding the current balance of power between the states and federal government and the importance of obeying laws. And in a perfect world I'd agree, but this is not that world. Sometimes civil disobedience or even criminal action is needed to pressure legislators or the courts to doing what's right. Governmental systems have an inherent mandate to increase power and rarely give it up. When those in authority encounter impediments they will often seek a means, occasionally illegal, to achieve their ends. Our system of checks and balances (including the states) was created to thwart the most dangerous form of anarchy, anarchy from within. Whenever this system fails all our liberties are at stake. Such is the case with the apparently illegal enactment of the 14th Amendment upon which is based much of current federal authority. At the close of the Civil War the Republican controlled Congress sought to legally "lock in" the expansion of federal authority it had gained as a result of battlefield victories with Joint Resolution No. 127 proposing a 14th Amendment. But once again the Southern States stood in their way. Although President Jackson (who succeeded Lincoln) and Congress had acknowledged the legitimacy of the these duly elected governments, in their frustration the 39th Congress voted, on December 5, 1865, to deny seats in both Houses to anyone elected from the 11 southern States. They also ejected New Jersey Senator Stockton who opposed the bill and would have cast the deciding ballot, and refused to count the denied southern representative's numbers when computing the two-thirds majority Constitutionally required for passage. Whether it requires two thirds of the full membership of both Houses to propose an Amendment to the Constitution or only two thirds of those seated or two thirds of those voting is a question which it would seem could only be determined by the Supreme Court. Congress cared little about these "minor irregularities" in the proposal and voting process, they proceeded to submit the amendment to the States for ratification. But, surprise, things did not go well. After some legislatures first ratified and then recanted, in the end 16 of the 37 states rejected the measure. When the State of Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867 [making the 10th State to have rejected the same or more than one-fourth of the total number of 36 States of the Union (as of that date) leaving less than three-fourths of the States to possibly ratify the same] the Amendment failed. It could not have been revived except by a new Joint Resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives in accordance with Constitutional requirement. Congress decided that states legislatures were not free to change their minds on ratification and ignored all those who did so. On the 20th of July 1868 Secretary of State Seward issued his proclamation of ratification of the fourteenth amendment, in which, after reciting the law of 1818 requiring him to publish the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution in the newspapers. However his language in the proclamation shows very clearly that Mr Seward had his doubts about the Constitutionality of the ratification process, and he takes pains to relieve himself of any responsibility by declaring that - "Neither the act just quoted from, nor any other law, expressly or by conclusive implication, authorizes the Secretary of State to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification of any amendment proposed to the Constitution". The Senate brushed aside Secretary Steward's concerns and on the next day Senator Sherman offered a Joint Resolution declaring that three fourths and more of the States had ratified the proposed Amendment, and therefore that it was a part of the Constitution. Secretary Steward was pressured into certifying the Amendment as passed. In a Message to the Senate (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 57 of the 39th Congress, 1st Session); President Andrew Johnson commented on the "Concurrent Resolution" of July 21, 1868 "In this matter nothing has happened to change the mind or solve the doubts of the Secretary, but as an executive officer, he was compelled to obey a joint resolution of Congress whatever his own opinion might be of the power of Congress to pass it, that being, as I have said above, a judicial question." Finally, there are no records showing that the Resolution was ever submitted to the President of the United States for his approbation. According to Article V of the Constitution for the United States; the Resolution is governed by the procedures of U.S. Const., I:7:3 - "Every order, RESOLUTION, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary, (except on a question of adjournment) SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND BEFORE THE SAME SHALL TAKE EFFECT, SHALL BE APPROVED BY HIM, or being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill." We can conclude from the above Message that the President would have "Vetoed" the Resolution. If the Resolution was "Vetoed" [and as there are no Records showing that either House of Congress voted to repass the Resolution over the Veto], we can conclude that the Concurrent Resolution of July 21, 1868 failed. To all the issues the courts have been mute, however, declaring in Unpublished Opinions that all questions involving the 14th Amendment are "Political Questions" to the Courts. Its this sort of dereliction of duty by the courts that does mortally would our Constitution. So, in response to you question whether one is free to ignore certain laws, I bow to a basic doctrine adopted by our courts: 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2d, Section 256: "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." steve

1 0