December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

SRP (from the cutting-room floor)
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JAM> Rather than divert messages, then, I propose that for each input JAM> message there is a 10% chance that a piece of cover traffic is JAM> generated. AB> The way that this kind of attack is frustrated is that dummy messages AB> are created as cover traffic by the remailer, and that at some points AB> messages can be swallowed by a remailer as junk messages. Automatic decoy traffic was in my draft, but was not in the slimmed-down document I posted to CP. This was mainly because Lance Cottrell and I agreed on that bit, and thought it could be passed over. Unlike JAM, I was in favour of decoy traffic being _inversely_ related to genuine traffic. AB> You can still do a spamming attack by recognizing the destination, AB> rather than the message: Diversion was intended to make that harder too. Eve's messages won't all go straight where she wants them. They should turn up after some of them completed the diversion, but I suggested that would sometimes be too late to track it further through the chain. As for "messages can be swallowed by a remailer as junk messages", there's a catch for the unwary in that. See below. TCM> Note that merely fiddling around with probabilities of transmission, such TCM> as described above, will not be enough. This just adds a layer of noise, TCM> which will disappear under a correlation analysis. Kelsey wrote on 28th June about correlating messages at the points of entry & exit from the remailer network. I don't know what an attacker gains by correlating _inside_ the net. Here are the bits I omitted before. DECOY MESSAGES The sending of decoy messages by users is recommended, and serves to hide statistical correlations between your sending a message and somebody receiving one. This practice should continue. It is also desirable that a remailer be able to originate decoy messages itself. Advantages include better traffic load following. The remailer knows when traffic is light and can generate more decoys. This could be important at times of low traffic such as public holidays. It would be especially important during a denial-of-service attack. When an attacker prevents messages from reaching the remailer (in the hope of isolating a small number of target messages) a locally-produced set of decoys, immune from the denial-of-service, could be crucial. DESTINATION Addressing all automatic decoys ultimately to "nobody" would ensure that they circulate in the network and then disappear. Nonconservation of message number should prove annoying to an eavesdropper. (An implementation detail on this will be mentioned later.) Addressing some of them outside the network, to test newsgroups for instance might also be useful - confusing an attacker looking at the point of exit. NUMBER A possible means of matching the traffic would be to use an exponential- along the lines of those in thermodynamics. decoys = max ( D.exp(-kT) , E ) The "max" operator here ensures that every time a batch of messages is sent a minimum number of decoys will be included. Values for the constants can doubtless be suggested by remailer operators familiar with the traffic load. ..... SILENT SPAMMING Re-encryption as discussed here will not do any good if remailers allow "silent spamming". To exploit this feature the attacker addresses his messages to "nobody" (or "null" in Mixmaster jargon). These mails fill the message pool, sweeping out all the target messages, but when they come to be sent they disappear. They do not show on the net, they do not need to be recognised and eliminated from the search. All the attacker sees leaving the spammed host is undiluted target mail. Obviously the remailer should detect messages of this type and process them without storing them in the message pool. Any message that will not be delivered to a remote host comes into this category, including those to most local accounts. I briefly examined the source of 2.0.3 (from ftp://utopia.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/remailer on 11 July 1996) and could not find code to deal with this attack. [Cottrell tells me this is on the to-do list.] -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

2 1

KILL ALL RUSSIAN IMIGRANTS
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Kill all "libertarians" From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:48:31 EDT Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From nobody(a)REPLAY.COM Mon Sep 2 12:26:36 1996 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:42:57 EDT for dlv Received: from basement.replay.com by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA18013 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 2 Sep 96 12:26:36 -0400 Received: (from replay@localhost) by basement.replay.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA11752 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199609021626.SAA11752(a)basement.replay.com> To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited Xcomm: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting Xcomm: Report misuse of this automated service to <abuse(a)REPLAY.COM> Subject: All russians are scum. No exceptions. Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials" From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: Dole/Kemp '96! Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 01:19:37 EDT Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> writes: > On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, James A. Donald wrote: > > > > I agree with what you are saying but not all polititions are that bad. > > > You make it sound as if their are no politisions are for freedom of the > > > net. > > So who is the exception? > > Harry Browne Libertarian Party Candidate. Harry Browne is a fucking statist. All politicians are scum. No exceptions. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Blissful? Ignorance (was SCO giving free licenses to UNIX OpenServer)
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** Reply to note from Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> 09/02/96 5:15pm -0400 --or another Hallum-Baker ignorant rant v. unix, bsd, etc. = Eric Murray wrote: = > = > Scottauge(a)aol.com writes: = = > > Read, Understand, and Delight... Microsoft maybe in trouble at last. = > = > I doubt it. People don't use Microsoft products because = > of their quality or functionality. = = Errmm.. hate to disappoint but SCO UNIX started life as Xenix which = was written by Microsoft in the dark ages. = = the **original** SCO product and versions up to 3.something **were** xenix --not written by MS, but simple unix V7 which was capable of 64K program and 64K data and would run on a 286. MS had a substantial investment in SCO when the old man was screwing things up (before the old man was forced out for sexual harassment --his brother had long since raped Convergent and was gated). MS had made the V7 deal with Western Electric with Billy thinking he had an exclusive on **the** way to go --better than sliced bread; V7 was not commercially available --only to universities because of a WE consent decree with the government. Billy was in seventh heaven --sure he had the deal of a lifetime! not so: Bell Labs shortly announced the breakup and decided to commercially ship System III --it was available in source code only, but the price was only about $25K in the first go around, and you could produce binaries for sublicensing for $250 or some such --it was not a great price, but it was doable. System III was not restricted to 64K plus 64K. One of my major conract customers at the time was WE --System V R2 was already available internally, including a decent VAX port (unlike the really piss-poor V32 Berkeley rewrote into BSD 4.2 --offering it back to Bell Labs for free, which was spurned from the Ivory Tower at Murrey Hill...) With the WE and AT&T breakup, and the multiple licensing activity, Gates hit the roof --threw several well known major temper tantrums, including at least one at WE/Labs that I am directly aware of. Gates vowed to bury UNIX in all flavours and has had that intention ever since --non-stop. Billy-boy does not carry a grudge lightly --he not only gets very mad and comes off the wall (or handle), but he has every intention of getting even. I've always figured Billy suffers from Tourette's for his mannerisms, his uncontrollable rage, &c. --just has not learned to manage it, and figured his Daddy could solve it all --and now there is an item of $10billion give or take a few --buys a lot of hate. part of Billy's vindictive plan against AT&T involved hiring Dave Cutler from DEC --Cutler was the self-styled leader of the VMS team, also with a bad case of temper-tantrums I saw dave literally shatter an impossible to break WE 500 series telephone simply by "hanging" it up.... (...time to clear the decks!) and that was for NT --great job! Cutler took the deal thinking he had a free hand --at Billy's place? --naive. and Dave had to put up with the Windows legacy... the crap that goes on inside NT is not all Cutler's direct fault. and that is Billy Boy and the SCO club... and death lurking in the alley for unix --but I doubt he will be able to kill it --there is just too large a crowd of professionals who refuse to use MS --not just because the product is crap, but because of Billy. = > > This is for single user home based UNIX systems. = > = > Single-user UNIX isn't all that useful. = matter of opinion --works fine, just like the big guys, on a workstation. so it limits you to one login -??? runs full multi-tasking re-entrant just like multi-user. somewhere along the line, you were standing behind the door and forgot to listen when single user limitations were defined. = Listen to the guys who built it. UNIX = is a program development environment. = that's so ludicrous, it's funny. you figure everyone just sat around playing with themselves? I wouldn't tell that to Thompson, Ritchie, Kerrigan and friends... unix was a **tool**. = In the early years it was = interesting because there was source available, that ceased to be = the case years ago. = and AT&T source has always been available at some price. BSD source from 4.2 through the current (and last) 4.4 is freely available, give Walnut Creek $29,00 and you have it all and pay the shipping from Free Software Foundation (GNU) and you have all that too (most of which is on the freeBsd and Linux CDROMs anyway. = Multi-user ain't much better. Listen to the guys who built it. apparently you never figured out there was anything after SCO's initial releases --they were junk as was their first several passes at System III and V -they tried to live with their Xenix Heritage --including trying to make System III run on a 286 --an abysmal product. today SCO is shipping SysV R4+ --the last Labs and Unix International version which also contains all BSD calls which were added by SUN under contract --it's a good solid product. however, despite years of kernal hacking for WE, I still prefer straight BSD flavours. Commercially, SUN leads that pack, followed by DEC with Ultrix which is BSD by another name... HP is sort of System V R4+ Even IBM is Unix --they just call it AIX and it is BSD based --also very solid and thoroughly supported --you can not even get IBM heavy iron without AIX --MVS &c. run as processes. Ken Olsen, founder of DEC, called unix "snake oil." DEC's VMS is good, but was originally a DCL platform. security is excellent by comparison to early unix, but it is not open (or was not, to be correct) --and source is virtually out of the question. FYI, both unix and VMS are derived from Multix... Today DEC ships Ultrix on everything, and VMS basically only on the mainframes. Ken Olsen was forced out when the sales staff blew Ford Motor Co out of the water on an immense deal, along with an even larger Fed contract --essentially the salesmen refused to sell unix (required in both bid specs) on the hardware.... DEC started sliding, and Ken was "retired." = Today Linux probably represents the future of the UNIX family, it = allows people who want to hack at the OS level access to the sources = of a fully functioning OS. This allows people to add in new kernel = features, schedulers and other exotica without having to write a = whole new O/S. = the only reasons NT will end up in big business is a) politics, b) freebies, and c) intimidation. MIS staffs will not choose it, MSNBC just canned NT 4.0 as worthless junk. Linux has a large base, but it is a warmed over version of Bell System V --rewritten supposedly from scratch by a husband/wife team (I might have believed it had it been the husband/wife team of Peter Conklin who was also on the DEC VMS gig from the gate --I gave him his first job out of Harvard in 1962 --arrogant, but 100%. = Just don't confuse it with "home computing", this is geek computing = and you better have a lot of interest in computing to use it. = that's pure bullshit, again. actually, FreeBSD is easier to handle than Linux and more professionally supported --including ongoing active development, It qualifies as home computing in my book --you take the CD, copy two disks out to kick it off, and say GO. comes up in X windows... geek code? get off your MicroSlop mentality limitation. = Home = computing is the market for users who need a system that's simpler = than a VCR or they can't use it. = that's total nonsense, your British class system is showing its ignorant face again -you are insulting what little intelligence the American middle class does have... unless you really wish to limit the users to TV set-top boxes which can "surf" a few canned sites from assholes-on-line, etc. the children of the household will never settle for that! = At one time that meant Apple, today = it means Microsoft, it will never mean Linux - not unless someone = can make Linux much much simpler than it is at present and provide = decent WISIWIG tools such as editors etc. designed for use by aunt = Ethel. = give me a break! your igonance is showing --it's plain and simple an MS advertising jugernaut! both linux and freebsd have X built in --FreeBSD actually goes directly to X at bootup --and there are plenty of tools,editors, etc in X --and freeBSD runs Linux binaries. and there are a number of high grade packages which are fully supported. Secondly, SUN binaries for X86 are no more expensive than MS is heading for with NT which they will use to "replace" W95 (W95 was just another MicroSlop holding pattern). just a simple fact: MicroSlop advertising buries anything and everything. and, if that does not work: Intimidation is just another form of Communication and Billy's real good at, witness the DOJ and FTC round 2 unfolding now. apparently your schooling is limited to MS courses.... MS is a pure virus on its own, if not the software, than certainly the company. why does MS have 85% of the desktop? --the power of money and lies --and a loud noisy parade with a bandwagon, free beer, and all that good stuff that goes with predatory market practices. fair competition? why should MS be fair when its stated goal is to take a fraction of **every** transaction on any network. Billy has no tolerance for the existence of anything other than Billy's creations and control --total control. It does not matter if W95 crashes more often than 3.1 --upgrade it for more money! Money is the name of the game at MS, not decent product for a reasonable price. Always has been, always will.... --attila -- Now, with a black jack mule you wish to harness, you walk up, look him in the eye, and hit him with a 2X4 over the left eye. If he blinks, hit him over the right eye! He'll cooperate --so will politicians.

1 0

[NOISE] The Doors
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Doors was not only about freedom and love, but about crypto too! Notice these lines from the song "Five to One" Old [cipher] gets old and young get stronger May take a week baby, may take longer [to crack] they've [clinton] got the guns and we've got the numbers gonna win we will take 'em over, com'on. :) - Vipul -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Internet & Intranets 91 11 2247802 | - Web Development & PERL 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - (Networked) Multimedia

1 0

Re: The Esther Dyson Flap
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:11 PM 9/2/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Esther Dyson says that anonymity on the Net can do more damage than >anonymity in other forums, and thus may need to be regulated and restricted >in various ways. I disagree, as "the Net of a Million Lies" (to use Vinge's >term) has grown up with anonymity, and few people take the anonymous (or >not) rants and charges made in the millions per day with the same degree of >certainty they take print comments. Put another way, there is no clear and >present danger. Indeed, I support the elimination of concepts such as "slander" and "libel" precisely because they cause more harm than good. Currently, there is an illusion among ordinary citizens that "if that was untrue, you could sue him for libel!" despite the fact that this is rarely practical. In that way, the law actually adds credibility to what should be an incredible claim. Eliminate libel suits, and you've eliminated any presumption that because it's been spoken or is in print, it's likely to be correct. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 3

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

agree with all of BS's points... >Anonymous remailers support several things I want to do, >and that I want other people be able to do: >1) Let people have private conversations without being identified >by third parties. >2) Let people have private conversations without being identified >by each other, voluntarily and respecting each others' rights. >3) Let people broadcast things to the public that they might >be afraid to do otherwise. >4) Let people broadcast things to the public without their >reputations, good or bad, affecting readers' reactions. >5) Let people experiment with different personality and >conversation styles, though this doesn't strictly require anonymity. >6) Let people communicate with government officials without risk. I suspect all these items can be accomplished using means other than anonymous remailers. anonymous remailers are a good start, but possibly there is still technology waiting to be invented to support some of these features. one possibility that I'm very interested in: consider that Usenet was not built from the ground-up to support anonymity, nor was the sendmail system. when anonymity was introduced to Usenet, everyone went crazy, and it was only marginally supported. I think I may work on some technical proposals along these lines for future posting here, because much of this dialogue has me thinking. what cpunks might consider doing is creating an alternative message distribution system like Usenet that starts from the premise that anonymous communication is allowed and trying to grow it. btw, McCullagh's and other's claims about "ghettoization" of anonymity strike me as very specious. as long as people can use anonymity in some forum they want, I think that's acceptable. what's the equivalent of a "ghetto" in cyberspace? you can't go into a meeting of professionals wearing a ski mask, although you might be able to create such a forum yourself. does that mean you are in some kind of a "ghetto"? oh, brother.

2 1

rc2 export limits..
by Surya Koneru 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Does anyone know the export limit for RC2 Key size ? --Surya

3 2

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:06 PM 9/2/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >At 06:52 AM 9/3/96 -0500, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >> "Uncompromising" is not an "element of legislative influence," at least not >> on this planet. >Therefore the correct strategy is simply to attack any politician who shows >any interest in legislating on our issues. > >We have no friends on Capitol hill, and if we did have friends, it would >still be necessary to denounce them as enemies. As I said, on *this* planet. -- Jon Lebkowsky http://www.well.com/~jonl jonl(a)hotwired.com

1 0

PKS RFC Project
by Mark Rogaski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- For anyone who is interested in contributing to our experimental RFC for public key servers, I set up a little mailing list for discussion. pks-rfc(a)charon.gti.net To subscribe, send a message to pks-rfc-request(a)charon.gti.net with "subscribe" in the subject field. mark - -- Mark Rogaski | Why read when you can just sit and | Member GTI System Admin | stare at things? | Programmers Local wendigo(a)gti.net | Any expressed opinions are my own | # 0xfffe wendigo(a)pobox.com | unless they can get me in trouble. | APL-CPIO -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMiyToBz4pZwIaHjdAQGxTQf+Pvz6tFzbncPkbj2QX6awMjVZiYcAknQx /n6JWGFpImCs+/WZJOqesUMWUXA2/Iwg1un2djZ5n8xsQKvcRzHrKwo3C8ZV9ECn KuDJe/y2ZeU5sOSvqyyDATUxSUstj4CwhTES5/OD2NcuIKkVPW/h4Gtoo5ZuPp3D wWdHjsuZ2tAZACvICpNvq3wHu2bW4Skv4p/BQeJFfRtGst/blmHrprFjjnlIXIUs yF2S60DilGjIkcAtljGbI0VgH3O8Ra2HM4pTx/bDh86YTx8SKuOiZ6KbJwZl81yt uEwkhdKrfQkp5M3FgfS1k1sIWjIm3K5u1osIqcTrTem5a1eivXqx/w== =EvkN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by hack5＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

their is a new mailing list for all you hackers just email your name or handle and e-mail address and youll be subscribed send information to hack5(a)juno.com

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This post may be fwd'd to the CP list if it does not show up there from my sending it.] Bill Stewart typed: > While nobody's called Esther Dyson a Communist here yet, there are > people on the board I disagree with - Mitch Kapor, in particular, has shown who is no longer on the board > signs of being a (gasp!) Democrat! My initial reaction to the EFF's first Democrat v. Republican is largely irrelevant here, though more relevant when you get into infrastructure, universal access, and intellectual property issues - stuff that EFF has touched on here and there, but which is not at the heart of our mission. There are other democrats on our board and staff, as well as Republicans. Even Kapor, however, is very strongly for competition, for entrepreneurs, for markets, and ergo differs from a lot of Democrats in that regard. And no one at EFF that I know of is an extreme liberal or conservative on social issues (both extremes are very censorious - the right of "ungodly" things, and the left of "un-p.c." things). So, again, I'd like to suggest that political party affiliation is approaching meaninglessness. The political axis that counts isn't l. vs. r., but civil libertarian v. authoritarian. No one at EFF is an authoritarian. > year or two was that they were doing some very good things > (the Steve Jackson defense), That was quite a bit more than a year or two ago. :) > and also had people making speeches about > the need to provide everybody with access to the Information SuperHighway. > Getting the S.266 anti-crypto-pro-wiretapping bill killed a few years > ago was what convinced me to join them, though their compromise positions > on some of the other anti-freedom bills since then have not helped > my mixed views of the organization. There were no compromise positions. We have 100% opposed implementation of such legislation. In the case of the Digital Telephony Bill (the later version of S.266, drafted by the FBI), we were simply unable to stop it, and instead had to try to strip as much FBI wish list out of it as possible and insert privacy protections. That's not a compromise, that's emergency action. We did everything we could. We are too, for numerous reasons. > Maybe. If it's a good position, it will recognize that anonymity > is a mixed blessing; there are people who use it creatively and > responsibly, like Black Unicorn and Lucky Green, and there are > spammers who abuse it to the detriment of society, like the slimeball > who used my remailer to post hatemail to the gay newsgroups with > somebody else's name attached to the bottom. On the other hand, > free speech is also a mixed blessing; there _are_ things I wish people Such a position is likely to be the one EFF takes if it takes one, which is probable. EFF in generally does not issue extremist position statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. > had the good taste not to say, but I'm not going to get in Voltaire's > way while he defends to the death their right to say them... Just as an aside, in case anyone's interested, what Voltaire actually said was, "I never approved either the errors of his book, or the trivial truths he so vigorously laid down. I have, however, stoutly taken his side when absurd men have condemned him for these same truths." The "defend to the death his right to say it" paraphrase is an embellishment. :) -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech(a)eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>

1 0

Re: Voting Monarchist?
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri, err, Dr. Vulis, or is that Dr. Nuri?, Relax! The modern cure for hydrophobia is a great deal less painful than what it was in the past >Harry Brone is a fucking statist. If he weren't, he wouldn't be running >for president. Anyone who doesn't advocate killing all kings, presidents, >and prime ministers is a fucking statist and should be beaten to a pulp >with a rattan stick.

1 0

Re: The Esther Dyson Flap
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:42 AM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >However, as I said, if the top spokesman at EFF gives indication of having >views pretty much 180 degrees out of phase with our views, it's likely >we'll speak up and oppose her (or him), and perhaps even suggest that other >EFF board members look into the matter. "Free speech" is not even an issue. Everyone please take a deep breath. Slow down. Reread Esther's comments. Count to 10. Notice that nowhere does she call for state action to outlaw anonymity. She explicitly predicted a place for anonymity in her CFP'95 talk (is it on the Net anywhere?). We may disagree with her predictions of the future scope of anonymity or with her concerns about the risks of the practice but she has never called for State action. She is discussing the problems she perceives with it. That's all. Poor Esther, Forbes swatted her last week for her prediction that the Net kills copyright and now some of us are swatting her for her prediction that many of the future Net transactions will be non-anonymous. She may be wrong in this prediction but so what. Remember she is from the soft left. She is not a macho-flash radical libertarian like many of us. Save the 155 MM howitzers for the armed opposition not for our allies. DCF

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:04 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >> I, unlike EFF, have never compromised my efforts to make strong crypto, >> unescrowed strong crypto, and digitial communications, free from the FUD >> spouted by government and media alike. I, unlike EFF, have never >> compromised my efforts to resist the expansion of a wiretap state. I, >> unlike EFF, have never proported to be a political represenative for these >> positions and folded under the weakest of pressures like a reed. > >EFF has done none of that either. > >Compromise: 1. a settlement in which each side gives up some demands or >makes concessions. 2. a) an adjustment of opposing principles, systems, >etc., by modifying some aspects of each b) the result of such an >adjustment. 3. something midway between two other things 4. a) exposure, >as of one's reputation, to danger, suspicion, or disrepute b) a >weakening, as of one's principles, ideals, etc.) as for reasons of >expediency. > >1 did not occur. EFF yielded nothing on any of the issues you mention. >On Digital Telephony, which you clearly allude to, EFF opposed >implementation of the wiretapping provisions of the CALEA bill from start >to finish, and was instrumental in stripping most of them out, replacing >them with new privacy protections. 2 did not occur. Our mission remains >unedited from the day it was adopted, and EFF is just as committed to those >principles now as ever. We don't have a system, in the relevant sense, >as such. There was no such adjustment, ergo no result of one. 3 does >not apply in any relevant sense (our steadfast assault against the CDA is >a "compromise" under such a definition because it was neither a total >victory, nor a total loss - yet I'm certain this is not the definition of >"compromise" that you intend). 4a is not relevant (that's the >security/secrecy-related definition, a nonsequitur in this context). 4b >is simply a restatement of 2a - simply didn't happen. Our results speak >for themselves on this. Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; without some give and take, we sorta run right over each other. OTOH, I do agree that a strong position is necessary at this juncture. -- Jon Lebkowsky http://www.well.com/~jonl jonl(a)hotwired.com

2 1

The Vincennes shootdown
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FACT #1 The U.S.S. Vincennes was under attack by gunboats of Iraq's Republican guard at the time of the unfortunate incident. (All bets are off) FACT #2 Intelligence believed the Republicican guard had it's own version of the "Kamikazi." Fact #3 If I was still a sneaky-ass airwarrior given the mission to take out a vastly superior vehicle like an Aegis class cruiser I would do one of the following: a) set my transponder to the I.D. of a commercial jet, and do my best to fly like it's profile. b) turn my transponder off and "ride tail" (stay directly under and behind the commercial jet, hiding in it's radar sig) till I was within range. Brian

1 0

Forwarded Mail
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From nobody(a)REPLAY.COM Tue Sep 3 12:58:21 1996 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Tue, 03 Sep 96 13:17:51 EDT for dlv Received: from [194.109.9.44] by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA23053 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Tue, 3 Sep 96 12:58:21 -0400 Received: (from replay@localhost) by basement.replay.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA01776 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:58:19 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:58:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199609031658.SAA01776(a)basement.replay.com> To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited Xcomm: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting Xcomm: Report misuse of this automated service to <abuse(a)REPLAY.COM> Subject: KILL ALL RUSSIAN IMIGRANTS Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Kill all "libertarians" From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:48:31 EDT Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From nobody(a)REPLAY.COM Mon Sep 2 12:26:36 1996 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:42:57 EDT for dlv Received: from basement.replay.com by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA18013 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 2 Sep 96 12:26:36 -0400 Received: (from replay@localhost) by basement.replay.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA11752 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199609021626.SAA11752(a)basement.replay.com> To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited Xcomm: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting Xcomm: Report misuse of this automated service to <abuse(a)REPLAY.COM> Subject: All russians are scum. No exceptions. Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials" From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: Dole/Kemp '96! Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 01:19:37 EDT Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> writes: > On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, James A. Donald wrote: > > > > I agree with what you are saying but not all polititions are that bad. > > > You make it sound as if their are no politisions are for freedom of the > > > net. > > So who is the exception? > > Harry Browne Libertarian Party Candidate. Harry Browne is a fucking statist. All politicians are scum. No exceptions. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

[Noise] Hardware encryption devices?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone used any LAN encryption devices (ethernet or fast ethernet speed?) Something that could do IP AH off the back of an Ultrasparc would be ideal. Proprietary packet formats are ok, if they tunnel in IP. Needs to use DES, IDEA, or some other well known cipher. Manual key exchange is ok for this app. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: The Esther Dyson Flap
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:40 PM 9/3/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Everyone please take a deep breath. Slow down. Reread Esther's comments. >Count to 10. Notice that nowhere does she call for state action to outlaw >anonymity. She explicitly predicted a place for anonymity in her CFP'95 >talk (is it on the Net anywhere?). We may disagree with her predictions of >the future scope of anonymity or with her concerns about the risks of the >practice but she has never called for State action. She is discussing the >problems she perceives with it. That's all. I certainly read her words, and don't need to be told to reread them just because I take them to mean she supports anonymity less than many of us would like. As I said in my message to Chuck Thompson, I held off in criticizing her "L.A. Times" words until I could get a better clarification of what she said, precisely, what was taken out of context, and what she really meant to say. When she spoke up and the result was just as ambivalent about anonymity rights, this is when I wrote my first criticism of her views. And I saw her CFP '95 talk. I've also read various of her other comments on the Net, freedom, responsibility, and anonymity. Some of her comments: * "Esther Dyson, President EDventure Holdings, Inc. said her work with the Electronic Frontier Foundation was based on the assumptions that the Internet will have a beneficial effect on society. "The longer I have been at this, the more questions I have about these assumptions," she said." (Perhaps Esther is finding the goals of the EFF--or at least the views of the other board members--are not her goals.) * "The second way to create friction is to create accountability, identity and personality. "I would like to see a world where anonymity is not illegal, but is discouraged," Dyson said. "It has its place in life, but people should have persistent identities."" (Couple with other comments about possibly requiring traceability (albeit with some legal protections), it sure does sound like her form of "discouraged" would imply a role for government.) * "This raises the issue of privacy. "I am looking at a notion of privacy for the consumer, but less privacy for companies and public office holders and others in positions of responsibility," she said." (Is this the direction the EFF is being taken in? Granted, these are her comments, but surely the views of the Chairman of the EFF affect the personality and direction of the organization.) These quotes from: http://seicenter.wharton.upenn.edu/SEIcenter/panel3.html. By the way, the Scientologists have also noted her views: "Esther Dyson, member of the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and member of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council, spoke on the anonymity issue at the fifth Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP) conference in San Francisco. "I have a concern about the spread of bad behavior on the Net," said Dyson. "Anonymity figures into this, and I feel that it has proven to not be a positive factor. It breaks down the community which we are seeking to build, and could turn the 'big cities' of the information infrastructure into a big cesspool." "Remailers who facilitate anonymous postings are part of the problem. They can act as conduits for those who seek anonymity as a way to act illegally without getting caught; yet remailers are able to shield themselves from responsibility or liability. "Computer experts stress that anonymous users should at least be trackable by the remailers -- and that ones who act unlawfully can easily put the remailers at risk. Dyson noted that in self-regulatory schemes for almost any part of the Internet, "visibility, not anonymity, would have a strong place."" (end quote, from "Freedom," at http://www.theta.com/goodman/hijack.htm) >Remember she is from the soft left. She is not a macho-flash radical >libertarian like many of us. Save the 155 MM howitzers for the armed >opposition not for our allies. I don't know what "macho-flash" means, but I reject the label. And please spare us the "save the howitzers" comment. We talk about what concerns us. As it happens, our political opponents don't read our words, whereas a bunch of EFF board members apparently do, and so our criticisms here may cause EFF to actually confront the issue of anonymity and decide where they actually stand. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: > EFF in generally does not issue extremist position > statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, > and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty. It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, Iran, or China. It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people in the street. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: [NOISE] The Doors
by Medea 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vipul wrote: > >The Doors was not only about freedom and love, but about crypto too! >Notice these lines from the song "Five to One" > >Old [cipher] gets old and young get stronger >May take a week baby, may take longer [to crack] >they've [clinton] got the guns and we've got the numbers >gonna win we will take 'em over, com'on. What?! I think you need to stop ingesting those controlled substances.... Medea ======================================== I wonder whatever happened to Jason....

1 0

Re: [NOISE] The Doors
by Jay Quinby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:36 PM 9/3/96 +0000, you wrote: > >The Doors was not only about freedom and love, but about crypto too! >Notice these lines from the song "Five to One" > >Old [cipher] gets old and young get stronger >May take a week baby, may take longer [to crack] Actually, I think the line reads "They take our week, and make it longer." (There's a line a little later that goes "Trading your hours for a handful of dimes.") >they've [clinton] got the guns and we've got the numbers >gonna win we will take 'em over, com'on. Slightly left of topic, but it is a great song! :) Someone ought to compile a "Best of Crypto-references in pop culture" file. |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| |James R. Quinby, Atlanta, GA | PADI/153KHz-999MHz/HTML/EADBGE/Phl4:8-13 | |jquinby(a)fivepaces.com (work) | Own a 45 MPH couch potato: Adopt a | |jquinby(a)bellsouth.net (home) | greyhound today. Write for details. | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Standard disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine alone, not my employers. | |PGP Public Key fingerprint: 9ACC4C28478018E1372DC06A9452A477/MIT Keyserver| |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:22 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >> EFF in generally does not issue extremist position >> statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, >> and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. > >If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes >of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty. > >It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, >Iran, or China. > >It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, >but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people >in the street. Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and should be addressed, not evaded. -- Jon Lebkowsky http://www.well.com/~jonl jonl(a)hotwired.com

1 0

Reputations
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something closely related to anonymity issues is _reputation_. As I keep saying, there have been dozens of articles on this and similar topics. Mostly in the early days, when we were exploring such things (well, some of us has started exploring them some years earlier...). Regrettably, the archive system is not very functional, especially not for older articles (there are rumors that L. Todd Masco took down the archive site due to pressure from the "Wall Street Journal" over their copyrighted articles in the archives...those Web spiders find all such copyright violations!). Here's another fragment of my Cyphernomicon, making some points about positive reputations. Briefly, think of "restaurants" when thinking about reputations. If one arrives in a new city, most restaurants may have the same baseline reputation, e.g. "none." A few may be known by name, for their "reputation," either good ("You have to eat at Louie's--the laser chicken is incredible") or bad ("Blecch!). Positive reputations and negative reputations are self-explanatory. And the reputations of others may affect the reputations of restaurants ("John Gilmore says he likes the Burma Burger on Castro Street."). Bad recommendations may affect the "reputation capital" of John, for example. (We speak of "reputation capital" because it can in some sense be "spent.") And so on. Many of the debates about anonymity seem to ignore reputations, filters, kill files. It is almost as if the critics of anonymous speech are saying "If there is not accountability for restaurant recommendations, we'll all be buried in garbage food." This ignores the _emergent order_ or _evolutionary_ nature of actors in the restaurant and restaurant evaluator market. Free speech is often messy. 98% of everything I read or hear is crap, to do Sturgeon one better. But I use judgement to decide what to read, who to listen to, and what to mostly ignore. I use _reputation_ to choose restaurants, books, movies, speakers to listen to, etc. Sometimes I listen to anonymous speech, but mostly I don't. Pseudonyms take a while to gather a "positive reputation," and some never do. This is the way speech works. "Accountability" is a red herring. Anyway, here's the promised excerpt: 15.5.5. reputations are what keep CA systems from degenerating into flamefests - digital pseudonyms mean a trail is left, kill files can be used, and people will take care about what they say - and the systems will not be truly anonymous: some people will see the same other people, allowing the development of histories and continued interactions (recall that in cases where no future interaction is exected, rudeness and flaming creeps in) + "Rumormonger" at Apple (and elsewhere) always degenerates into flames and crudities, says Johann Strandberg - but this is what reputations will partly offset 15.5.6. "brilliant pennies" scam 15.5.7. "reputation float" is how money can be pulled out of the future value of a reputation 15.5.8. Reputation-based systems and repeat business + reputations matter...this is the main basis of our economic system - repeat business....people stop doing business with those they don't trust, or who mistreat them, or those who just don't seem to be reputable - and even in centrally-controlled systems, reputations matter (can't force people to undertake some relations) - credit ratings (even for pseudonyms) matter - escrow agents, bonding, etc. - criminal systems still rely on reputations and even on honor - ironically, it is often in cases where there are restrictions on choice that the advantages of reputations are lost, as when the government bans discrimination, limits choice, or insists on determining who can do business with who + Repeat business is the most important aspect - granularity of transactions, cash flow, game-theoretic analysis of advantages of "defecting" - anytime a transaction has a value that is very large (compared to expected future profits from transactions, or on absolute basis), watch out - ideally, a series of smaller transactions are more conducive to fair trading...for example, if one gets a bad meal at a restaurant, one avoids that restaurant in the future, rather than suing (even though one can claim to have been "damaged") - issues of contract as well We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Secure anonymouse server protocol: comments please
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:24 PM 9/2/96 +0000, paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: >The following is a very sketchy plan for a secure protocol for an >anonymous server which allows replies without storing a recipient >database in the clear. Several people have talked about this sort of thing recently, inluding William Geiger, Doug Floyd, and myself. Lutz Donnerhacke's Jenaer Anonymous Service <anon(a)as-node.jena.thur.de> actually implements it (send it mail saying "help".) Rather than using a human-selected userid, it uses the PGP keyid to make IDs like anon-1a2b3c4d(a)as-node.jena.thur.de. >This system has 1 huge fault, we can encrypt a uses ID with the >servers public key to see what his ID in the encrypted database is >and therefore identify him, maybe we need two seperate server public >keys, and when IDs come in encrypted with key1 (the one it releases) >it decrypts with secretkey1 then encrypts with publickey2 (the one it >keeps secret) If you encrypt the id using raw RSA and constant padding, this is a risk. If you encrypt it using PGP, which uses a random session key, it's not. If you encrypt it using raw RSA and pad the id with a random nonce, it's also no risk. In the latter two cases, the encrypted material is different every time, so you can't compare with previous messages. The Jenaer nymserver avoids this by using a remailer approach - you send an encrypted message with a Reply-To: header telling where to send the accumulated mail (which may, of course, be another nymserver), and it delivers it using mixmaster. This frees you to send your pickup requests by anonymous remailer as well. It's still not risk-free, since if Bad Guys crack the remailer or force the operator to operate it while they monitor it, they can see pickup requests, but it's far more difficult to do that than to just steal the box, and there's no database on the box that's useful to steal. Lutz does recommend chaining your Reply-To: to another nymserver, but it's already very secure. I don't remember if he gets fancy and requires the pickup requests to be signed by the key of the owner or not; the only difficulty with this is the syntax of PGP, which is "fixed in 3.0". Hal Finney has also suggested a system that, instead of delivering anonymous email to the recipient, sends a message saying "You have anonymous mail, receipt #123456. Send back this ticket to pick it up." and you can extend the syntax to handle automatic blocking requests and automatic deliver-everything requests. This is fairly easy to extend for anonymous mailboxes and datahaven code. I've wavered between the delete-on-retrieval model, which is fine for email and not very useful for samizdat, or the delete-after-some-time-period-or-request model, which is useful for both but makes it easy for users to turn you into the local pirate-warez-and-child-pornography server. If you extend the model and charge digicash for storage, it becomes a much cleaner solution. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

Re: their is a new mailing list
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: hack5(a)juno.com (patrick b cummings) > Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 16:14:40 EDT > their is a new mailing list for all you hackers just email your name or > handle and e-mail address and youll be subscribed > send information to hack5(a)juno.com > > Am I missing something here? Is this guy fucking crazy? =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1