December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Krenn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Lucky Green wrote: > I recently took a domestic flight from the Oakland, CA airport. While > waiting for the airplane, I spent some time observing the security measures > at the X-ray machine. > > As most readers probably know, laptops are often subject to manual > scrutiny. From my non-representative sample, about four out of five tote > bags clearly containing laptops will be manually searched. Typically, the > attendant requires that the laptop is powered up. In none of the 20+ manual > searches I witnessed did the security personnel wait past the RAM check > before clearing the passenger. I could not help but contemplate how much of > the insides of the laptop could be replaced while still obtaining an > identical display. I have had the same experience. I am sure that removing all components of the laptop not required for its functioning would yield a significant amount of room inside, especially for larger (non-"notebook") machines. I'm not an expert on explosives, but I would imagine a laptop-full of whatever could be pretty nasty. Someone with determination could even make it look like it had a floppy, a CDROM, etc, just by replacing the devices themselves with facades. Not that the airport security would notice, but anyway. But wait - won't the all-important "did you pack your bags yourself" and "did anyone give you bags to take on the plane" stop them? ;-) It just obviates the fact that airport security is really useless against a determined attacker, but manages to be extremely annoying to everyone else. Krenn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMtyOLknqfwPpt/QVAQF5PAQArUhAYtLjoSwsKspwysZYvwP0kCEs9ncS xN5VaZTi/ow5xOcoVXbRhGQPlu5v1sL+04yLz+1AWnYX2UdtIdSBlZAhtNufOCQg Au0cDp6vKeL/GIGEYX3/HEsDjicpbfXSuq+OZ79hhhButM+5jlsXz972nhLkmEvM aeVSFjB9WHY= =FYTH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Pentium optimizations for DES (BIG)
by i.am.not.a.number＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

here is Mikkelson's macro, with a few cycles shaved. on my machine there is a small but measurable improvement. DesRound macro RoundNo,reg1,reg2 mov eax, DWORD PTR (RoundNo*8) [ebp] xor ebx, ebx mov edx, DWORD PTR (RoundNo*8+4) [ebp] xor eax, reg1 xor edx, reg1 and eax, 0fcfcfcfch mov bl, al and edx, 0cfcfcfcfh mov cl, ah ror edx, 4 xor reg2, DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[ebx] mov bl, dl xor reg2, DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0200h+ecx] mov cl, dh shr eax, 16 xor reg2, DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0100h+ebx] mov bl, ah shr edx, 16 xor reg2, DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0300h+ecx] mov cl, dh and eax, 0FFh and edx, 0FFh xor reg2, DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0600h+ebx];ebx mov ebx,DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0700h+ecx] xor reg2, ebx mov ebx,DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0400h+eax] xor reg2, ebx mov ebx,DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0500h+edx] xor reg2, ebx endm At 10:19 AM 1/14/97 -6, Peter Trei wrote: >I hope you'll look at Svend Olaf Mikkleson's >latest DES round replacement for libdes. He >seems to have gotten the round down to 18 >clock cycles. I have not yet had a chance >to try it myself. > >see: http://inet.uni-c.dk/~svolaf/des.htm > >Peter Trei >trei(a)process.com > >Peter Trei >Senior Software Engineer >Purveyor Development Team >Process Software Corporation >http://www.process.com >trei(a)process.com > >

1 0

Positions open
by overcome＠concentric.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I_Love_SPAM, ATTENTION Fastest growing company expanding. Licensed in 34 counties, publicly held on NASDAQ. Part time up to $500 to $1,500, full time up to $2,000 to $6,000. Need to fill position immediately. Full training provided. Work from Home or Office. Paid vacations plus bonuses. Call this week ONLY for free information. (305)460-8000

1 0

Re: Am I to blame? / "THE INTERNET GOLDRUSH"
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

snow wrote: > > > The "Internet Goldrush" is ON! > > > It's simple! It's quick! It's here! > The funny thing is, most of the "Gold Rushers" wound up broke, or > working for someone else. > Most people are fools. Deliberately so. An interesting observation. The original Gold Rush involved the thronging masses stepping on each other's toes, shooting each other in the back, etc., and the end result was that a few 'lucky' ones got filthy rich, while the people behind the scenes, encouraging this activity, 'all' got filthy rich. If I had a mansion on the hill, with a high wall surrounding it and a guard on the gate, I would be much more inclined to encourage the masses to seek their fortune at my doorstep, and shop at my general store across the street. Toto

1 0

Seen Your Post!
by Garry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I Seen Your Post! I found your post in one of my favorite news groups. You might find my views are exactly the same. In fact my entire WebSite is right up that alley. Every business Opportunity listed at my sight is FREE! In fact one of the businesses I joined (again free) has an excellent earning potential of over $600 profit per YEAR, per CUSTOMER! The best part is don't do anything except promote the business. The company does everything for me!!! Although I do not have anything against MLM, this is not! In order to even notice this biz you have to look up in the top window frame of my site as its loading the image (read the text). Enough about me! If you can contribute to my sight or have any ideas, I would appreciate it. I'll keep an eye out for more of your contributions to the "Newsgroups"! http://www.angelfire.com/biz/PC2CASH Tons of Excellent FREE Stuff for Entrepreneurs too... PS. If you like what you see or have any questions, or ideas about my site, please drop me an e-mail. But, if you don't mind use "pcplus" as the subject. It helps me weed through my junk! Thanks, Garry pccash(a)sprintmail.com If you should get this message more than twice please forgive me. I may have mis-configured this new e-mailer! Day 3 in use #00377782 ******************************************************************* Garry sent you this message using WorldMerge, the fastest and easiest way to send personalized email messages to your customers, subscribers, leads or friends. For more information, visit http://www.coloradosoft.com *******************************************************************

3 2

Re: Newt's phone calls
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:37 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >At 02:48 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Alan Bostick wrote: >>(Someone mentioned that they thought cordless phone intercepts weren't >>illegal the way cellular phone intercepts are. IANAL, but I recall that >>intercepting both was made illegal by the same legislation.) > >It is illegal to intercept cell phone calls. It is legal under federal law >to intercept cordless phones. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 <ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c103/h4922.enr.txt> amended the federal wiretap statutes (18 USC 2510 et seq) to make interception of cordless calls illegal. Also, pursuant to the CALEA, the FBI reported yesterday (1/14) that they anticipate the potential need to conduct almost 60,000 wiretaps "simultaneously" (they define "simultaneous" to mean on the same day) by 10/25/98. (They do some handwaving to explain that while they're saying they might need to do 60K simultaneous wiretaps, they're not really saying they *would* do 60K wiretaps, but they're not promising not to, and really, who are we to question, anyway?) There's a discussion of their methodology and other bureaucratic poetry in the Federal Register (62 FR 1902, 1/14/97, try <http://w3.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html> and search volume 62 of the Federal Register for "calea") but the actual estimates (which are apparently broken down county-by-county) are only available from the FBI's Reading Room in Washington DC. Arrgh. (I got the 60K figure from the Murky News' wire service-to-Email gateway.) And Jamie Gorelick is resigning. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Re: RSA challenge: is it legal to try?
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:35 PM 1/14/97 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >Patents only apply to commercial use. Got a cite for this? I can't seem to find any authority for it. It sounds to me like a simple economic calculation (it's not worthwhile to sue noncommercial users for infringement because they usually don't have enough $ to even pay for the litigation, and "IBM sues 70-year old grandmother" makes for poor public relations) that got turned into "law" by the machinery of urban legend. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Re: How to Deal with a Homo Superior Who is on the Make with You
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is clear from reading this that all equal employment laws should be eliminated. On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Path: perun!news2.panix.com!panix!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mailmasher.com!non-tell > From: Anonymous <non-tell(a)mailmasher.com> > Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.sex,alt.psychology,alt.renewing.american.civilization,alt.sci.sociology,misc.jobs.misc > Subject: How to Deal with a Homo Superior Who is on the Make with You > Message-ID: <199701131555.HAA14303(a)mailmasher.com> > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 07:55:23 -0800 > Organization: http://www.mailmasher.com pseudonymous service > Lines: 68 > Comments: Please report abuse to abuse(a)mailmasher.com > Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster(a)nym.alias.net > > How to Deal with a Homo Superior Who is on the Make with You > > The answer is very simple: lobby for a return to employment > "at will" by repealing ALL equal employment opportunity laws > including the provisions of the Americans with Disability Act > which pertain to employment. Filing complaints or lawsuits > is definitely not recommended as this would be the worst kind > of career suicide. > > Years ago when homosexuality was stigmatized and there was > employment at will, the homos kept a very low profile because > if they let loose with their true nature, then they would be > out on their ear, pronto! > > However, pass equality laws in a small minority of jurisdictions, > and the homos get the impression that they can get away with > just about anything even if they are not covered by one of those > laws in their own jurisdiction. > > The behavior at major corporations on the part of homos ranges > from "the look" to outright propositions, to outright vigorous > harassment and even extortion. I thought that the emergence of > the AIDS epidemic would have a drastic dampening effect on this > type of behavior, but boy, oh, boy, was I ever wrong!! It seems > that if you groom yourself to any degree, the elements get the > impression that you are germ-free and highly desirable, and you > will attract their attention like a lightening rod. > > To be fair, the worst perpetrators of this adverse behavior are not > those guys perceived to be homosexuals but bisexuals - you know, > the guys with the wives or girlfriends. Boy, are these guys ever > confused, and boy, are they ever motivated, sex hungry, and on the > prowl! > > Homosexual managers and executives share a trait with females, that > is, they will not tolerate capable male subordinates for long (unless, > of course, the subordinate is extra special friendly - if you get > my drift.) These managers and executives are paranoid about their > job security just as females are, and they cannot stand any competitive > threat. By the way, female managers and executives have an affinity > for gay subordinates. It just goes to demonstrate how sociological > alliances are forming under government enforced equality. > Yes, and this points out how homosexuals and females (who are usually always also homosexual) are the WORST thing that any viable Corporation can ask for. An ALL male heterosexual entity is the ONLY way to survive the business world today. A woman's place is in the home, and a faggots place is NEVER to be superior to any heterosexual person. > Now that the job market is quite tight and very much a buyers' market, > prospective employers get the impression that they can reduce job > candidates and subordinates to sexual slavery since workers have > few, if any, alternatives, and the saddest part of the situation is > that many workers are going along with the extortionate demands thereby > making matters much worse for the workers who refuse to do likewise! > > Now, I know that some detractors in the reading audience will say, > "If you re-stigmatize homosexuality, you will drive it underground," > but what the h-ll is wrong with driving it underground??? This > statement is sophistry at its worse because it doesn't even make > any sense on its surface. > > On a related front: > The Treatise on the Downward Wage Equalizing Effects > of Equal Employment Opportunity is available at: > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3982/ > > "Government enforced wage equalization will work only in the > downward direction" - despite any initial appearance to the > contrary! And the most shocking thing of all is that the > least preferred worker does not even have to be awarded a > job for many phenomena to occur. > >

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

US airport security is a joke compared to other places in the world. Contrast Lucky's account with my last trip through Germany. Carry-ons x-rayed. Pat down search by white gloved personnel. Asked to take photo with my camera (to demonstrate it was real). Full power-on of laptop. Laptop weighed and checked against book containing manufacturer's specs. And this is standard, not because I was flagged as an evil Cypherpunk or fit some profile. Everything done very efficiently, with few delays. Your mileage may vary. I've been in other places, where US airport security looks like Fort Knox. The main reason (no matter where you go) is unmotivated, minimum-wage, rent-a-cops placed in a tedious work environment. Joel Ob-Crypto: During some real serious globe-trotting over the past couple of years, no one has ever looked at the contents of my hard drive. Even when I've been detained by customs (non-US), doing a pretty detailed search of my luggage.

1 0

Re: Hi again, and an invitation to kibitz
by amanda＠intercon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > (b) Client sends Microsoft NT authentication response to the server > > (take the password in Unicode form, do an MD4 hash, pad with 0s to 21 > > bytes, split into 3 7-byte groups, use these as DES keys to encrypt > > the challenge three times, send the 24-byte result as the response). > > I think this can be strengthened in a few ways. The third DES key generated > using this technique has an effective keylength of 16 bits. Correct. This is the reason I've been thinking of switching to SHA-1, which gives a 20-byte hash (leaving only one byte of zeros, which can be filled in with some function of the other 20 bytes to arrive at 21 bytes). I haven't found any hole opened by exposing the last two bytes of the MD4 hash, but it's the piece I'm most worried about just on general principles (never expose more than you have to :)). I'm currently using the NT algorithm simply because I had it around and needed to get a demo working for the show. We're not tied to using it, although it would be useful if we end up doing an NT version of the server (since NT stores the MD4 hashes of passwords, not the plaintext). > I believe the D-H patent expires sometime in September or October this year. Yup. April was wishful thinking on my part; we won't adopt D-H until the patent expires. > Any unbroken cipher with a keyspace larger than that of DES would be better. Yup. I started with vanilla DES because I was worried about speed, but as it turns out the cipher step has a negligible impact on performance. I'm considering DES-EDE (the easy option), Blowfish (also pretty easy), or the DES variant Bruce Schneier describes in Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed. (the one with independent subkeys). So far, DES-EDE and Blowfish are the front runners, since they're the ones that have been poked at the most. DES-EDE has the advantage that more people know what DES is (the "buzzword compliance" factor). I'm not inclined to make the cipher a user-configurable option unless customers demand it, just to keep the user interface as simple as humanly possible. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation

1 0

Re: s/n problems on this list
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:52 AM 1/14/97 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >I've posted on this subject many times in the past, and its >something I like to brainstorm on. signal to noise problems >on this list. > >generally, the moderator-specific approaches I find less >palatable than techniques that can be automated. here >are some more ideas for automated moderation techniques. > >1. software called "grouplens" I've talked about here (search >yahoo) has been used to rate articles. they found that there >was a very high correlation between how long people spent reading >articles and the "interesting" rating that they gave that article. > >hence, a proposal: cpunks have long advocated and hacked mailer >programs to stick in crypto. how about sticking in a hack that >tracks how long mail messages are being read, and send that >info back to an auxilliary mailing list address. the list >software keeps track of time spent reading articles and >can allow people to screen the list based on the "most interesting >articles". "send me only those articles that go over a threshhold >of 500 combined human attention minutes". I for one would be weary of reading mail if I knew that just which ones I paid the most attention to were known by some computer somewhere. By doing this, cypherpunks would risk becoming big brother. Much as the supermarkets are trying to do now. All they are interested in is demographics also.

1 0

Re: Newt's phone calls
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 07:59:24 -0800 (PST) > From: Brian Lane <nexus(a)eskimo.com> > To: Eric Murray <ericm(a)lne.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Newt's phone calls > On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Eric Murray wrote: > > > Clay Olbon II writes: > > > > > > The congressman (Boehner? from Ohio) whose cellphone was "eavesdropped" > > > stated today that he was parked in the lot of a Waffle House in Lake City > > > FL. The couple said that they just happened to be driving by when they > > > overheard and began taping the conversation. > > > > Interesting. In California, operating a scanner while driving is illegal. > > Of course it was probably the passenger running the scanner. > > Actually in Florida its illegal to even have a scanner in your car! > These folks have broken several state and federal laws, as well as the > congressman who leaked it to the newspapers instead of turning it over to > the head of the Ethics committe as he should have. Everyone involved here > is, or should be, in deep yogurt. > > I don't like the laws they passed, but since they passed them I want to > see them enforce them to the full extent posible. Then maybe people will > start to wonder why the transmission wasn't encrypted. Which also leads to > another question. How much information is in the clear from congressmen > and government employees who are clueless about the security of their > cellphones, cordless phones, etc? > Brian I don't know about Florida, but in most states with anti-scanner-in-car bans, there's an exception for FCC licensed Amateur Radio Operators (aka 'hams'). Peter Trei N1MNV trei(a)process.com

1 0

Re: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> And how come Paul didn't use the word "fuck" in every paragraph, the way > he usually does? I suppose you want a special censored list where everyone who uses the word "fuck" in relation to your good self or any other member of this list you agree with has their posting cut? 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

auto-reply to your request...
by usteam1＠tech-center.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Recently this E-mail address was provided to one of our sites >autoresponders and activated this auto reply. In order to >accurately provide you with the correct information we need you >to help us by specifying what information you were interested in. >Below you will find seven(7) items to select from. Please select >which choice(s) match your needs and type its keyword in either > the subject area or the message area of your reply to us at: >>>> usteam(a)tech-center.com (***Note: If you need to >choose more than one(1) keyword, please use a separate line >for each keyword you choose). Thank You for your request! >........................................................................................................... > > (1) Keyword: INFO-ALL >*Obtain Information on ALL selections/software/ services > offered below (on choices #2 thru #6). > > (2) Keyword: FREE-EMAIL >*How To get this FREE software,for your home or business, > No Internet access needed. It's 100% FREE! > > (3) Keyword: FREE-PAGER >*How you can obtain one or more Pagers FREE for > your personal or business use. > > (4) Keyword: PAGER-BIZ >*How You Can Get PAID To Give Away FREE PAGERS. > 10% of the monthly paging service fees for the life of the customers. > > (5) Keyword: LONG-DISTANCE >*How you can SAVE $$$ on your home or business Long Distance > with a FLAT RATE per minute plan (Average Savings $120 Annually > for residential customers). Also info on Unlimited Internet Access for > (home & business) for One Low FLAT RATE. (Business Internet has > FREE 5 MB file space for your Web Site, 150 word classified ad, > listing in all major search engines & more); cellular; Pre-paid calling > cards & other telecommunication products & services. > > (6) Keyword: TELECOM-BIZ >*How To Get PAID To 10% of EACH Customers Long Distance bill, > Internet services & All Telecom products/services, you refer & they > refer (NO Limits!) (FREE to become a marketer and/ or a customer). > > (7) Keyword: REMOVE >*If we've responded to an Incorrect E-mail address, due to a typing > error, which occurs by the requesting party; or you've changed your > mind & do not want our FREE Information, we will Remove & > unsubscribe you from our database; Nothing further is sent to you. > >End message<

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Krenn wrote: > >> But wait - won't the all-important "did you pack your bags yourself" and >> "did anyone give you bags to take on the plane" stop them? ;-) > > If your friends or family are a little late catching the same plane as >yourself, then just answer, "No, my son packed them." > This, on the average, gives your companions an extra 10-15 minutes >to catch the plane, since regulations require them to do a complete >check of your baggage (and they are 'supposed' to take them to a >secure area to do so). > Since you are ready to board the plane they cannot legally detain >you and let the plane go on, in order to process you and your >baggage according to proper regulatory procedure. They must, >instead, detain the plane. > They may jump up and down and tell you this is not so, but I have >never missed a plane, and neither have most of my tardy companions. I don't know which airlines you fly, but the ones I am familiar with ask these questions at the baggage counter (checked luggage) and gate (carry-on items). Since you are supposed to be at the airport one hour before departure, in most instances if you get to the counter or gate less than 10 minutes before take-off your reservations lapse (by Fed rules) and are no longer requred to board you. If they are forced to search you luggage they will, legally, allow the plane to depart w/o you. -- Steve

2 1

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:42 AM 1/15/97 -0800, Alan Bostick wrote: >Was he wearing a ID badge with a photo? Was he known to the security >staff? I would assume the staff knew the person. But that's not the point. The beer delivery man could hardly know what was in the kegs. The kegs might have been switched beforehand. In the warehouse, at a previous stop, etc. An attacker might have to replace several kegs, to make sure that at least one altered keg makes it inside the "secure" area. This can be done quite easily. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by ed.falk＠Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> As most readers probably know, laptops are often subject to manual > scrutiny. From my non-representative sample, about four out of five tote > bags clearly containing laptops will be manually searched. Typically, the > attendant requires that the laptop is powered up. In none of the 20+ manual > searches I witnessed did the security personnel wait past the RAM check > before clearing the passenger. I could not help but contemplate how much of > the insides of the laptop could be replaced while still obtaining an > identical display. Almost all of them. I saw the keyboard of an IBM thinkpad flipped up at a party the other day and was flabbergasted. It's all empty space! You can add & remove innards all you want. Disk drives, batteries, etc. are all removable. The actual computer itself is so tiny I couldn't believe it. You could pull out the CD-rom, floppy disk, spare battery, etc. and have a nearly empty box that still runs windows and unix.

1 0

Careful with subkeys - Re: Hi again, and an invitation to kibitz
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Amanda Walker wrote: > I'm considering DES-EDE (the easy option), Blowfish (also pretty easy), > or the DES variant Bruce Schneier describes in Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed. > (the one with independent subkeys). This might be a bad idea. Rumor has it that independent subkeys are eaten alive by related-key attacks (not very practical usually). I think I saw this in a post by Matt Blaze about last November on coderpunks. That post suggested 2 key schedule strategies: 1) planned, like DES, by people who know how a particular schedule affects related-key attacks 2) scrambled, like Turtle & Blowfish, so that key bits all depend on each other in a messy way I mark the margin of my AC book with snippets like this. I don't seem to have kept the post in question. -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Re: Seen Your Post!
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:17 AM 1/15/97 -0800, Garry wrote: >I Seen Your Post! > >I found your post in one of my favorite news groups. You might find my views >are exactly the same. In fact my entire WebSite is right up that alley. >Every business Opportunity listed at my sight is FREE! In fact one of the >businesses I joined (again free) has an excellent earning potential of >over $600 profit per YEAR, per CUSTOMER! The best part is don't do anything >except promote the business. The company does everything for me!!! Although >I do not have anything against MLM, this is not! Anyone else ever listen to Paul Harvey? Anyone else know what it is like to realize that you are listening to an ad halfway through the ad? I hope that our moderator will judge posts on the total content, otherwise insidious little posts like this one may slip through.

3 2

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:42 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 10:23 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >>As most readers probably know, laptops are often subject to manual >>scrutiny. From my non-representative sample, about four out of five tote >>bags clearly containing laptops will be manually searched. > >It's extremely airport, guard, and moon-phase dependent. >Some places are real picky, some aren't. I've started following >someone's advice about having the laptop go through vertically; >it doesn't look like a big opaque block to them, and they can see >the rest of the stuff. When I tried it in Orlando, they said >"It has to go through lying down", ran it back through lying down, >said "Computer", I said "Yup", and they handed it to me :-) So, to successfully place a "package" on an international flight, take a connecting flight that hooks up at the same terminal. Go to your local "has no x-ray, doing well to have a metal detector" airstrip and take a flight on one of the commuter flights such as Eagle, (this way you might be lucky enough to enter the next, probably major airport, in the same terminal as some international flights.) Now, its presumed that you have already been searched at your last stop because you're already in the secured area. Such a plan would require multiple stops and homework into the layout of the airports (to know which airlines share the same terminals). Also, the bag would have to be a carry-on, otherwise the dogs would get it. BTW, the package could be just about anything, including chemicals, sarin, TNT, artifacts, human tissue, or anything else with export controls and being a physical substance. This post is not meant to suggest ways of breaking state, federal, or international laws. Merely to point out the weaknesses of the system as it stands. If the airport network was a computer network, it would be compromized inside of 48 hours. All because the level of trust between airports defaults to full. Correct me if I'm wrong.

3 2

Dick Graves continues his DOS attack
by varange＠crl.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Dick Graves continues his DOS attack > The appended messages from Howard Goldstein > <hgoldste(a)bbs.mpcs.com>, Stan Kalisch III <sjkiii(a)crl.com>, > Chris Lewis <clewis(a)ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, Eric Bohlman > <ebohlman(a)netcom.com>, trebor(a)sirius.com, Dave the > Resurrector, and myself below show why Dave Harman, > formerly qut(a)netcom.com and an572010(a)anon.penet.fi, now > varange(a)crl.com, has targeted us. While the deranged varange > may occasionally sound superficially plausible, his record > is quite clear. Apologies for the length, but I figure it's > better to have this all in one place. This article is also > saved at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/skipsummary This article will be saved to http://www.crl.com/~varange/netabuse/ or the NET ABUSE - FALSE COMPLAINTS category of my index.html. > Since abuse(a)crl.com just goes to /dev/null, I'd appreciate it if > some CRL user could confirm, as three different CRL users did > a month ago in response to a rash of forged usenet postings > in October (I'm appending two posts on that topic below), > that the only account logged on to the given machines at the > time of every incident of forged net abuse was varange(a)crl.com. Six weeks or so is all the public access there is to the wtmp file; ask Sandy or Stan if you don't know how to read it from your own CRL account. (How conveniant of you to accuse me of the repulsive "Mark Wehal(sp?)" forgery past the date it can be easily verified; why should the CRL admins drag out their backup tapes on the account of your spurious allegations? Anyone who checked up Dejanews on "Mark Wehal" could have seen that some user had forged his name as revenge spam against "Mark Wehal's" offensive under 18 style sex spam in a few exceedingly odd choice of newgroups, alas, "Mark Wehal" never complained about the forgery and an unknown user may have been the instigator of a business prank against a ligitimate electronics firm whose street address was listed in the original sex spam.) > crl6 Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:14:26 -0800 > crl6 Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:07:02 -0800 > crl11 Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:22:59 -0800 > crl6 Tue, 24 Dec 1996 17:10:58 -0800 Or check the Here: line of my posts for better readability than the additional standard Date: line. > Forged email headers follow. The full 750K text of the > unwanted harassing email, of which I received several copies, > is at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/skipbomb2 > and skipbomb3. I'm sure more people besides Gord McFee > and I received copies; maybe everyone on his targets list, > ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/qu/qut/misc/address > > Personally, I think nine months of this bullshit is more than > enough. If CRL sees no problem with this, then I don't believe > CRL should be allowed access to our network. "Our?" Are you allowed to abuse the Stanford network because you are a user, employee, or the actual admin? If Graves is the actual admin, or is allowed to act like one, then bona fide complaints about users conduct on the Stanford network can't be sent directly via e-mail; send a registered letter/return receipt to whomever is responsible (who?) I read his post as a threat to the Stanford network. Bogus complaints and forged posts from everyone under the sun: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] Full article referred by myself to my web page: http://www.crl.com/~varange/netabuse/ -- Cheers!

1 0

(fwd) MISC> ISPs to be hit with fees
by frogfarm＠yakko.cs.wmich.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: wmich-news!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!ncar!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!mr.net!news.mid.net!news.mid.net!not-for-mail From: Gleason Sackman <gleason(a)rrnet.com> Newsgroups: comp.internet.net-happenings Subject: MISC> ISPs to be hit with fees Date: 13 Jan 1997 09:29:05 -0600 Organization: Global Internet, Peace of Mind is finally Online! Lines: 80 Sender: infoserv(a)news.mid.net Approved: ralphie Message-ID: <5bdkc1$bie(a)shocker.gi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: shocker.gi.net Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:49:16 -0600 From: The CyberTracker <JAX(a)CyberTracker.com> Subject: ISPs to be hit with fees To: NETTRAIN(a)LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU ISPs to be hit with fees By CNET STAFF January 10, 1997, 6:45 p.m. PT The cost of getting online looks like it's going up again. Network Solutions, the InterNIC subcontractor that assigns Internet domain names for a fee, has proposed tacking on more fees to the numeric addresses behind those names, addresses that are now free. For example, the domain name "cnet.com" masks a numeric Internet Protocol address. The domain name system makes it simpler to send email or locate a Web site by name, rather than by a number up to 12 digits long, such as 198.41.0.52. Under Network Solutions' plan, a new nonprofit organization called the American Registry for Internet Numbers would replace the government-subsidized InterNIC IP group. North American ISPs would be hit with fees ranging from $2,500 up to $20,000 for blocks of IP numbers that they now receive for free and parcel out to their users. The plan would not affect individual users unless the ISPs chose to pass along the additional costs. But nonprofits, free community networks, and others that do not charge for Internet access would have to pay. "They all have operational fees today," said Jon Postel, head of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which oversees all three of the world's Internet number assigning authorities, including the InterNIC IP group. "It's just another operational expense." It is the IANA as well as the National Science Foundation that would have to approve Network Solutions' plan before it would go into effect. The proposal is not clear about how the registry would spend the thousands and possibly millions of dollars it would take in each year if the plan goes through. The proposal did say that the executive director, chosen by the board of trustees, would receive a salary determined by the board. Network Solutions' representatives could not be reached for comment. But IANA's Postel says that Net addresses must be treated like the airwaves. "Address space is a kind of a public resource like the airwaves," he said. "There are certain bands set aside for CB radio, but if you want to be a powerful radio station, you have to go through a much more complicated licensing procedure." But unlike the airwaves, Internet address space is public resource that is parceled out without any governmental oversight, whereas the Federal Communications Commission oversees spectrum allocation. Postel thinks the lack of such oversight is a good thing. "You think about the FCC procedures and how long it takes to get a decision out of them on anything," Postel said. "I'm not sure you'd want them involved." Only companies and individuals capable of paying a $1,000 per year in fees will be allowed to participate in forming American Registry's policies. By contrast, any U.S. citizen has the right to file comments with the FCC about communications policies. The American Registry's five-member board of trustees would be initially selected by Network Solutions. Future boards would in their turn be selected by the board that Network Solutions had picked, giving the private company an unprecedented influence over the assignment of increasingly scarce IP numbers. The IP numbering system is reaching its limits and plans are currently being considered to extend it. ********************************************************************** * Jackson K. Windham * CyberTracker Consulting Services * * JAX(a)CyberTracker.com * Internet Consultant / Trainer * * ACE INTERNET CLUB - President * Http://www.CyberTracker.com * ********************************************************************** *** Member of HTML Instructors Association and HTML Writer's Guild *** ******* May the Best of your Past, Be the Worst of your Future ******* ********************************************************************** -- frogfarm(a)yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) is officially declared Unmutual s..O).... The smurf wields a hypodermic! -- More -- I like women who @.../.".. You destroy the smurf! -- More -- are *strong*, in .$*...].. You feel self-righteous! <B>every</B> sense of the word.

1 0

RE: soc.culture.belarus
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From belarus(a)solar.rtd.utk.edu Thu Jan 16 04:36:38 1997 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 16 Jan 97 06:36:05 EST for dlv Received: from [198.78.213.165] by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA10669 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Thu, 16 Jan 97 04:36:38 -0500 Message-Id: <9701160936.AA10669(a)uu.psi.com> Received: from (LOCALHOST.rtd.utk.edu) by solar.rtd.utk.edu; Thu, 16 Jan 97 04:33:28 EST Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 04:33:28 EST Errors-To: kasaty(a)seanet.com Reply-To: belarus(a)solar.rtd.utk.edu Originator: belarus(a)solar.rtd.utk.edu Sender: belarus(a)solar.rtd.utk.edu Precedence: bulk From: "GWDVMS::IFEDCHE" <ifedche(a)gwdvms.dnet.gwdg.de> To: Multiple recipients of list <belarus(a)solar.rtd.utk.edu> Subject: RE: soc.culture.belarus X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: BELARUS issues and communication :Can anyone tell me if soc.culture.belarus is still active? I have not been able to access this newsgroup for a while now and my service provider hasn't answered my question about this. I originally had to make a request to the ISP to carry the newsgroup but after that, it was ok. I hope it's only coincidental that I lost contact only about one day after I placed a posting on the newsgroup. Barry J Hilchey, <bhilchey(a)sympatico.ca> PO Box 668, St Marys, Ontario, N4X 1B6, Canada: I donn't know exactly what happend to that group, but some time ago I had e-mail exchange with one of the moderators. He complained that they (5 persons or so) are sweating day and night moderating incoming postings. It might be, therefore, that this honorable job of censorship starved this people to death. Igor Fedchenia

2 1

Re: Erols again...
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Afterburner wrote: > In other news, abuse(a)erols.com is no longer pulling this list, so > you're safe from further canned responses from that address. Sadly, it > wasn't an autoresponder. It was a real-live human being sending out > canned responses that had been written by the PREVIOUS abuse(a)erols.com > person. It has finally happened--the machines have taken over. Now, the machines will lie on the beach in Hawaii while the humans do all of the mindless grunt-work. Toto

1 0

Stanford now has an excellent document on privacy and electronic records...
by Richard Charles Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

...but it's not available in electronic form. The mind reels. Folks near campus might pick up a copy of Stanford Today, which has the 240-column-inch president's report on privacy issues as an insert. If anyone has an electronic copy, let me know. I figure I'd be the last to know. -rich

1 0