December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [PGP] Passphrase security
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dolt Vulis K[ancer] Of The Moment has been fired for stealing office supplies. ,/ \, ((__,-"""-,__)) `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, Dolt Vulis K[ancer] Of The Moment `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---`

1 0

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jan 1997 15:26:16 -0500, Jim Ray wrote: >from http://www.herald.com/dade/digdocs/021949.htm >Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something >By ARNOLD MARKOWITZ Herald Staff Writer > U.S. mail carriers carry more than just the U.S. mail. >They carry something else so secret that nobody outside the >Postal Service knows about it -- except four crooks who steal >them from letter carriers on the streets of Miami. There's a >$25,000 reward for tips producing capture and conviction. - Nicaraguan cocaine shipments bound for Los Angeles - Coded messages from the grays - L.Ron Hoover's posthumous writings on appliantology

1 0

It can be disabled (was Re: PGPMail Log File)
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 31 Jan 1997 09:27:45 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:22 AM 1/31/97 +0000, "Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl'" >< WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.comwrote: >> Is there a way to disable the \WINDOWS\PGPW_32.LOG? >> In subtle ways it's a security hole if left to accumulate over time, >> since it keeps records of which keys you encrypted messages to. >This is a damn good question. I do NOT have the "write to a log file" > option slected in the misc. tab and it STILL writes a log file. How DO >we disable this? It's disabled, with the exception of keeping when it was last run. Technically a 'security hole' but so minor I can live with it. Maybe your version (I'm using beta 11) has a problem, but mine's fine. I was just careless and didn't look closely (not something one should do with crypto...) Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvLTBQTNlSxdPy6ZAQEe4Qf7B1tIyBSZvdtg48lSZAnr4IOh9NbbrgvK RSoGF8UVGnfQWgItsiYIkA82WAqxBBMQaJuHBolkm8PTh7eb/Q3dd4Wz9BZdMp/g +aCRIM2MzfX2+SagyTw4r7L98XozfcUkhnSKcmJQDtrrq04Rlglt5Muf96jrW++p ltp4gXh4nawx75GZlGIS2XB223g5Rd9RSXAGER0gV1BtZKYt8uGkzeGL0OnsZnr+ VUgNVmXX2jeCn0essUX5WcKlSK2vATkoqv3UR1deEbP0Xdt/PTwjS/GZHrvnP5B1 zfOn7iV0CGZYXWpQAGO58HtW16vqC8wZ6lb5N7tdbBRcGX0B/cHc8A== =49OA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Re: Intelligence Update (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 PM 1/30/97 -0800, you wrote: >>Note: According to a recently obtained DOJ surveillance training manual: >>"The typical range for the 28 ghz devices is six miles, the typical >>range of the 2.4 ghz is thirty miles, and the typical range for the >>1.7ghz is 44 miles." How sure are you about the quality of your sources here? I'd expect 1.7ghz and above equipment to require line of sight, and even a range of six miles seems really high for a very low power device - getting that as "typical" seems pretty unlikely. Could all of these figures have been 6, 30, and 44 _meters_ instead? :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: UNSCRIBE
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > XaViUs(a)pe.net wrote: > > > > UNSCRIBE > > Your message has been received by the CypherPunks list, and we will > shortly be sending a rabbi and a surgeon to UNSCRIBE you. > In the meantime, please try to keep your foreskin cleansed and > hygenic, in order to prevent infection. Toto, The guy who actually cuts off the foreskin is called "mohel", not rabbi. Once there was a very old mohel whose hands were shaky. He wanted to buy an insurance policy in case he cut off too much. His insurance broker shopped around and said: "I found this great insurance policy, but there's good news and bad news. Good news is, you get a million dollar policy for only 20 bucks a year. Bad news is, there's a two inch deductible." ObModeratorComment: please don't buy Stronghold or any other product from C2. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: David E. Smith / Known Flamer
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto wrote: > David E. Smith wrote: > > My understanding was that the moderator is supposed to ONLY > > filter out ads and utterly-content-free messages. > That seems to be a very common misunderstanding--one which will > remain without question on the censored list, since they have > chosen to remain behind the ElectroMagnetic Curtain. You'll recall that Sandfort (as Logos) ranted without letup about decorum, decorum, ... ad nauseam, which, now that I look back on it, is a *very* handy tool for controlling the list. Logic does not interfere with decorum, despite the implication of the nym Logos. > > (Mind you, I took the smart out and subbed to cp-unedited, > > so I'm in no place to judge.) > You're in a far better place to judge than those who have > chosen to remain spoon-fed their world-view. I just hope your judgement isn't skewed when you don't get some of the mail, i.e., when the pony breaks down and can't run for awhile. > > Aha, a good point to be brought up: Sandy, are you autofiltering > > anyone based on user name, or on certain keywords? Seems to > > defeat the purpose of having a _human_ moderator. > You realize, of course, that your question is moot, since this > post of yours was already thrown in the crapper/flame-list. > It seems that questioning the process is a 'flame'. The List Lord made it clear "In The Beginning" that some posts would probably be irretrievably lost due to unavoidable "mistakes". Think "FBI Crime Lab". You get the picture.

6 8

Re: Intelligence Update (fwd)
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 11:11 PM 1/30/97 -0800, you wrote: >>>Note: According to a recently obtained DOJ surveillance training manual: >>>"The typical range for the 28 ghz devices is six miles, the typical >>>range of the 2.4 ghz is thirty miles, and the typical range for the >>>1.7ghz is 44 miles." > >How sure are you about the quality of your sources here? >I'd expect 1.7ghz and above equipment to require line of sight, >and even a range of six miles seems really high for a very low power >device - getting that as "typical" seems pretty unlikely. >Could all of these figures have been 6, 30, and 44 _meters_ instead? :-) While these claims may be for links under near ideal conditions, Hams routinely make very long distace links at 900, 2400 and 5700 MHz during contests using less than 1 Watt. Also, our deep space probes operate many links to earth in this spectral region using low power transmitters. Of course they have 200 ft. antennas (e.g., Goldstone) at the receiveing end with cryogenic reciever front-ends. Links do become increasingly line-of-sight above 1 GHz this is radio not visual (i.e., shots through trees. etc.) and there is increasingly the ability to utilize reflection ("billboard" shots) advantageously. As frequency increases path loss also increases. Fortunately, as frequencies increase antenna gain also increases. In fact, by holding antenna dimensions constant (for an arbitrary antenna design, e.g., parabolic) gain increases with frequency in direct proportion to increasing path loss, thus cancelling it out. There are other factors, such as required S/N or bit error rate for the particular application, reciever sensitivity and noise floor, and background noise levels, which directly affect link margins (transmit power - path loss - reciever sensitivity; all in dB) and thus viability of a link. Above 1 GHz terrestrial noise, including that produced by man, declines rapidly at the moment. However, as more UHF communication devices and microprocessors operating at 100s of MHz proliferate that noise floor is sure to rise. --Steve

1 0

[ADMINISTRATIVIUM] Secure checksums
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a jerk-off competition Tim May finishes second, third and fifth. ,/ \, ((__,-,,,-,__)), `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---`

1 0

Re: 40-bit encryption keys
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dickhead L>ily< Vulis K>ondom< Of The Minute studied yoga back-stretching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will). /o)\ Dr.Dickhead L>ily< Vulis K>ondom< Of The Minute \(o/

1 0

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jan 1997 15:26:16 -0500, Jim Ray wrote: >from http://www.herald.com/dade/digdocs/021949.htm >Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something >By ARNOLD MARKOWITZ Herald Staff Writer > U.S. mail carriers carry more than just the U.S. mail. >They carry something else so secret that nobody outside the >Postal Service knows about it -- except four crooks who steal >them from letter carriers on the streets of Miami. There's a >$25,000 reward for tips producing capture and conviction. - Nicaraguan cocaine shipments bound for Los Angeles - Coded messages from the grays - L.Ron Hoover's posthumous writings on appliantology

2 1

It can be disabled (was Re: PGPMail Log File)
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 31 Jan 1997 09:27:45 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:22 AM 1/31/97 +0000, "Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl'" >< WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.comwrote: >> Is there a way to disable the \WINDOWS\PGPW_32.LOG? >> In subtle ways it's a security hole if left to accumulate over time, >> since it keeps records of which keys you encrypted messages to. >This is a damn good question. I do NOT have the "write to a log file" > option slected in the misc. tab and it STILL writes a log file. How DO >we disable this? It's disabled, with the exception of keeping when it was last run. Technically a 'security hole' but so minor I can live with it. Maybe your version (I'm using beta 11) has a problem, but mine's fine. I was just careless and didn't look closely (not something one should do with crypto...) Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvLTBQTNlSxdPy6ZAQEe4Qf7B1tIyBSZvdtg48lSZAnr4IOh9NbbrgvK RSoGF8UVGnfQWgItsiYIkA82WAqxBBMQaJuHBolkm8PTh7eb/Q3dd4Wz9BZdMp/g +aCRIM2MzfX2+SagyTw4r7L98XozfcUkhnSKcmJQDtrrq04Rlglt5Muf96jrW++p ltp4gXh4nawx75GZlGIS2XB223g5Rd9RSXAGER0gV1BtZKYt8uGkzeGL0OnsZnr+ VUgNVmXX2jeCn0essUX5WcKlSK2vATkoqv3UR1deEbP0Xdt/PTwjS/GZHrvnP5B1 zfOn7iV0CGZYXWpQAGO58HtW16vqC8wZ6lb5N7tdbBRcGX0B/cHc8A== =49OA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > At 09:05 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: > >I dare say that the downside of this is much less pleasant than the > >virtual anarchy (in the bad sense) we suffer now. If the police get > >out of control, A.P. will arrive just in time to plug a few of those > >holes, so to speak. Ideally, future robotics should be able to provide > >something like Gort (sp?) to take the place of human officers, given > >advances in the kind of pattern matching needed to deter aggression and > >the like. Those who don't make it past the robots, well, the rest of > >us can learn to behave, and we'll be much better off when we do. > Your comparison with the fictional Gort, in the movie "The day the earth > stood still" is of course apt. It was only after I'd written most of the > essay that I realized that an AP-type system would function much as Gort did. There are some things that just go off in my mind like a light bulb coming on, and the realization that the system would take care of itself was one of those things. > Occasionally we (CP) see a spoof where somebody claims to have developed a > software program to "replace the judicial system" or something like that. > Well, the problem with such a claim (aside from the obvious and enormous > AI-type difficulties) is that the current system contains numerous biases. > Writing a program to replace the legal system would presumably require that > these biases be measured (and admitted-to!) and implemented into a > well-defined system. There is also a great deal of disinformation in the system, which leads to a misperception on the public's part about just what those biases might be. Examples that come to mind are the OKC bombing and the OJ murders. In both cases, grand juries composed of middle class people (all or almost all White in the Simpson case) would not indict based on the evidence they were given, and so they were dissolved and an excuse was made up to cover someone's butt. Now some of the fallout is blowing in in the form of revelations about the FBI crime lab. > What we'd discover is that the current system only barely resembles the > guarantees in the US Constitution. At that point, there would be an argument > between those who will insist that the Constitution be followed, and those > who believe that the current de-facto system, however biased, be maintained > as-is. I don't see any reason why we can't develop programs to do certain levels of preliminary analysis in these cases, much like the programs which have been around for years on PC's, i.e., Mind Prober, Decision Analyst, and so on. I gotta believe that teams of people who prepare these cases are using this stuff anyway, albeit discretely. If it's brought out into the open, and the public can look at case facts that have been processed thru multiple software sites, it would have to be a helluva lot better than Joe Schmucko's byline in the L.A. Times, for example.

1 0

Re: Fwd:[Yet another -onics..] [NOISE][POTENTIAL HUMOR]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have to stop this tragic corruption of the English language, to protect our childen's delicate ears and aesthetic sensibilities. Why, a mere few months ago, I encountered a child of no more than 10 singing along to "You Can Build A Mainframe From The Things You Find At Home" - corrupted by the adults in his environment into praising equipment that should never have been built by mankind and should be allowed to lie still, undiscovered for the rest of history. And this poor child knew all the words. Shocking. Our public schools have clearly failed to educate him correctly. >> ***************************** >> "GEEKONICS" IS JUST A BEGINNING >> by John Woestendiek >> Philadelphia Inquirer >> Wed., January 8, 1997 >> ***************************** ..... >> Controversial and widely misunderstood, the Geekonics movement was >> spawned in California's Silicon Valley, where many children have grown >> up in households headed by computer technicians, programmers, engineers >> and scientists who have lost ability to speak plain English and have >> inadvertently passed on their high-tech vernacular to their children. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Cats Out of Bags
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sure, it's available. For most governments, though, even DES is enough to threaten their dominance, though 40-bit is pretty much a joke. The main impact of US 56-bit products would be that they make it easier to get crypto built in to unavoidable Microsoft applications*, [*If the Borg had any sense....] as opposed to the totally useless crypto in MS Word, etc.; users can obviously also use free-world crypto software also, but you usually have to explicitly go obtain and install that. With Netscape, even wimpy 40-bit crypto is a threat, since almost no country will block you from using it, and since 128-bit products are readily available overseas, though you also have to do nonzero work to get them. Since the two products are interoperable (at the wimpy level), it's easy to upgrade, and the 40-bit version also works with SafePassage. At 11:50 AM 1/31/97 -0800, sameer wrote: >> > "Other governments were upset with the 56-bit export allowance. >> > They said it was going to undermine their national security." >> >> On this point, the other governments are correct. >> It really _is_ tougher to maintain a nation-state when your >> former subjects can have private conversations with each other >> and with other governments' former subjects...... >> And even 56 bits is a start. > > Full strength crypto is already available worldwide. It makes >not one iota of difference. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Intelligence Update (fwd)
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 11:11 PM 1/30/97 -0800, you wrote: >>>Note: According to a recently obtained DOJ surveillance training manual: >>>"The typical range for the 28 ghz devices is six miles, the typical >>>range of the 2.4 ghz is thirty miles, and the typical range for the >>>1.7ghz is 44 miles." > >How sure are you about the quality of your sources here? >I'd expect 1.7ghz and above equipment to require line of sight, >and even a range of six miles seems really high for a very low power >device - getting that as "typical" seems pretty unlikely. >Could all of these figures have been 6, 30, and 44 _meters_ instead? :-) While these claims may be for links under near ideal conditions, Hams routinely make very long distace links at 900, 2400 and 5700 MHz during contests using less than 1 Watt. Also, our deep space probes operate many links to earth in this spectral region using low power transmitters. Of course they have 200 ft. antennas (e.g., Goldstone) at the receiveing end with cryogenic reciever front-ends. Links do become increasingly line-of-sight above 1 GHz this is radio not visual (i.e., shots through trees. etc.) and there is increasingly the ability to utilize reflection ("billboard" shots) advantageously. As frequency increases path loss also increases. Fortunately, as frequencies increase antenna gain also increases. In fact, by holding antenna dimensions constant (for an arbitrary antenna design, e.g., parabolic) gain increases with frequency in direct proportion to increasing path loss, thus cancelling it out. There are other factors, such as required S/N or bit error rate for the particular application, reciever sensitivity and noise floor, and background noise levels, which directly affect link margins (transmit power - path loss - reciever sensitivity; all in dB) and thus viability of a link. Above 1 GHz terrestrial noise, including that produced by man, declines rapidly at the moment. However, as more UHF communication devices and microprocessors operating at 100s of MHz proliferate that noise floor is sure to rise. --Steve

1 0

Re: Cats Out of Bags
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Interestingly, the saying, "to let the cat out of the bag" is > related to the saying, "to buy a pig in a poke." A poke is a > sack or bag. In times past, street peddlers would sell a mark a > young pig. The pig was supposedly put into a poke, but in fact, > a bag with a cat in it was substituted. By the time the mark > figured out his mistake by "letting the cat out of the bag," the > peddler was long gone. The lesson the mark learned was "Don't > buy a pig in a poke." Thankyou Sandy for this highly crypto-relevant commentary presumably posted to the censored list so anyone with an interest in cryptography, cats and pigs can be suitably enlightened. Even if it wasn`t this would still be unworthy of the flames list. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksu > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercockscocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksucker > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercoc > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksucke > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercoc > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksucksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksu > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckershit Sandy, Why was this sent to the flames list? - surely it wasn`t directed at any specific person and was therefore a comment on "wooly thinking" ??? Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

2 1

Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This would be the end of freedom!

2 1

Re: Key Security Question
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Foley wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:51:47 -0800, Toto wrote: >> If the repairman has your pubring and secring files, you can now >> consider them in the same light as a 'busted flush'. > > The secret key is encrypted using the same IDEA algorithm that PGP > uses to encrypt your files. If you trust IDEA, your key is as safe as > your passphrase (not at all if you have no passphrase, not much if > it's easily guessable, etc.) Send me your secring file. I have a new password-buster I'd like to try out on it. > If your computer repairman has the capability to crack strong 128-bit > ciphers, I'd be rather worried :-) He doesn't have to crack the cipher, he only needs to find the password. > On the other hand, there's always the possibility of your passphrase > being on the disk, say in a swap file, somewhere. Same goes for > plaintext of any encrypted files/messages. I doubt anyone's gonna go > hunting through your swap file, "empty" sectors, etc., looking for it, > though, unless you've done something to really piss him off lately :-) Or if he's a member of the CypherPunks list, read the message, and now considers it to be a personal challenge. Toto

1 0

List
by Talbert Newhart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please put me on the Cypherpunk list.

2 1

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark M. wrote: > If the legal concept of libel is abandoned, this presumption will largely > disappear. People will have to rely on the credibility of the source, instead > of whether or not the victim of libel has sued. God forbid that people should have to use their judgement and their brains, rather than their overly charged emotions. Toto

1 0

Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This would be the end of freedom!

1 0

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:18 AM 2/1/97 GMT, Rob wrote: >On 31 Jan 1997 15:26:16 -0500, Jim Ray wrote: > >>from http://www.herald.com/dade/digdocs/021949.htm >>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something > Mail Storage Box keys? DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMvNVkoVO4r4sgSPhAQG18AQA2g//lN1jUva1emDq/uQMNRy+1mIA/+Ug 5+0INso7kvCflVbterNDpWo0XoWR9tLrZ013vtcygaWUb07m/AWYBu/K322Tp7Zl nGDaGXFvUHLdJM+hgXyxQZoK/kfWqBiHw0zxczqr3LuwyDUQgFjrHcJb+/TKphBY JwdTTPZJNC0= =uGDj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: Key Security Question
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Foley wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:51:47 -0800, Toto wrote: >> If the repairman has your pubring and secring files, you can now >> consider them in the same light as a 'busted flush'. > > The secret key is encrypted using the same IDEA algorithm that PGP > uses to encrypt your files. If you trust IDEA, your key is as safe as > your passphrase (not at all if you have no passphrase, not much if > it's easily guessable, etc.) Send me your secring file. I have a new password-buster I'd like to try out on it. > If your computer repairman has the capability to crack strong 128-bit > ciphers, I'd be rather worried :-) He doesn't have to crack the cipher, he only needs to find the password. > On the other hand, there's always the possibility of your passphrase > being on the disk, say in a swap file, somewhere. Same goes for > plaintext of any encrypted files/messages. I doubt anyone's gonna go > hunting through your swap file, "empty" sectors, etc., looking for it, > though, unless you've done something to really piss him off lately :-) Or if he's a member of the CypherPunks list, read the message, and now considers it to be a personal challenge. Toto

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by Peter J. Capelli 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark M. wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. > > > It is, they say, a rich man's game > > > > Exactly, instead of equal protection under the law we have a specieocracy. > > Anyone can afford a contingency-free attorney as long as the plaintiff has a > good chance of being awarded damages. This has the benefit that the legal > system doesn't get overcrowded with frivolous cases. You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to control a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. -- Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli(a)ub.com ****** Finger pete(a)idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key! ****** They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

1 0