December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Who's Censoring Who?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson. Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own pure-blackhearts. Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out Sandy, it was just a drill. It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war gaming.

1 0

sandy who??
by anand abhyankar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hi guys, i am a new addition on the mailing list. i am amazed to find that half the mails talk about "sandy (god knows who he is) and he censoring mails" rather than crypto stuff. somebody please let me know who sandy is and what exactly is this censoring issue. anand....

1 0

RE: remailer-operators DEA agents?
by Butler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Again, I am only on the Flames list. So why was this message sent to the >Flames list? Because someone responded to a Vulis post? Is a response to a >Banned Message now grounds for rejection? > After whinghing about Dimitri and about people sending flames to the list, you only subscribe to the flames-list.... you just don't make sense Timmy. Scott

1 0

Ann: Encrypted disks for Windows NT (fwd)
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone seen this here? I wasn't sure if it had been posted, so I thought I'd pass it on. I have not looked at the software yet... Rich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:18:03 +0200 (IST) From: softwinter(a)post1.com To: richieb(a)teleport.com Subject: Ann: Encrypted disks for Windows NT Soft Winter Corporation, February 10, 1997 released: Shade - strong encryption software for Windows NT. Shade allows you to create encrypted disk device inside a file. Such a device can then be formatted using any file system (like NTFS or FAT) and used as a regular disk. The only difference is that Shade will encrypt the data on every write operation and decrypt it on every read operation. To download go to: http://softwinter.bitbucket.co.il Soft Winter Corporation, softwinter(a)post1.com

1 0

Re: Passphrase generation
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Internaut <unde0275(a)frank.mtsu.edu> writes: > Hi, > I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as > strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the > web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that > didn't add up (no pun intended :). Chech out the cannonical passphrase FAQ: http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/passphrase-faq.html This one has some quick reminders of what to do and not to do http://www.encryption.com/pphrase.htm Bottom line, totally random ASCII will have lots of bits per character, but english has about 1.2 bits per character. Misspellings can add to that, depending on the extent of mutillation . Combining certain words can make your passphrase weaker (such as "To be or not to be," "This is my passphrase," etc.). HTH, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMv48Bskz/YzIV3P5AQGSaQMAjrTuhDUZ4THFFN9wgV8DhODJtHSGnmBM EPmo02rXsN4gslmVpV9+k7sRTOvuZ+vCYvNQL+knaMz4QiNsz8FUleUqo3v5Nx1w 7pJjcWK1wvKe9Y6ky6PXnAECRZ73gVuj =P1Zh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

Re: question on setting up for ipsec/linux
by John Ioannidis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm away from Greece until the end of february. Some questions I may be able to answer, but I don't have the ipsec code with me, nor do I have a setup where I can test things. Here are some tips that may help you though. * The code has been tested under 2.0.27 and 2.0.28. It will probably run on kernels down to 2.0.24. It will not even load with 2.1.x. * Only "tunnel mode" works. I'm waiting for a few more chances to occur to the 2.1.x routing code before I move the IPSEC code to 2.1.x and implement transport mode. * While not reflectedected in the (excuse for) documentation, I *have* tested all the modes for all the transforms. Of course, I may have interpreted the I-Ds in the wrong way, but I don't think so. The following transforms are supported: ah md5 esp des (with 32 and 64 bit IVs) ah hmac-md5 ah hmac-sha-1 esp des-md5 esp 3des-md5 Please not that the des-md5 and 3des-md5 have this weird concept of the Initiator and Responder. Since we're still doing manual keying anyway, it doesn't matter much wich side is which, and it doesn't even matter which if both sides are Is or Rs. The information is onlyl used to derive the encryption and authentication keys, the IV and the counter, from the (hopefully) negotiated shared secret. If all else fails, set both sides to be Initiators, and this way you won't have to think about which "setsa" lines get an r and which get an i. I'll try to write up som e more docs when I'm back in Athens, but if someone else from Europe could do it, it would be good. /ji

1 0

RE: MODERATION
by Butler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy writes: > >C'punks, > >I'm ending my participation in the moderation of the list. Well that was short and ..... errr bitter! > It would have been an interesting experiment if list members had >been open minded enough to give it a good faith effort. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There's a difference between being open minded and gullible Sandy. Nothing like ducking and running away when your little game didn't turn out the way that you wanted it to! This is not a flame, it is my opinion but none the less I'm sure that it will end up in the flames list or be conveniently lost in the masses of mail that John's majordomo receives every day. Scott. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're going to have to fine a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

What's next?
by Thomas Koenig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now that we appear to be at a sustainable 300 MK/sec (which I could hardly believe at first :-), is there any chance we could be attacking the 56-bit DES key next? DES is rumoured to be faster than RC5; also, there are likely to be optimized assembler versions out there already. We could also make better use of 64-bit architectures, since DES uses 64-bit blocks. However (and this is a very big however), that's still a keyspace of 7.2*10^16 keys to search. Assuming 10^9 keys/second (three times our current speed, which may be attainable with a good DES implementation) that's still a bit over two years; too long by a factor of 10 or so. Soo.... How fast are current DES implementations? People could try des.c from the ssh distribution as a starting point. How much more computing power could we bring online? Do people have optimized DES for Alpha, UltraSparc, HP 8000 and all the other nifty 64-bit architectures? Does it make sense to use MMX or equivalent for DES? -- Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig(a)ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25(a)dkauni2.bitnet. The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram.

1 0

Re: lead remailer is shut down
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970207:0339 zinc <zinc(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> said: +i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the +plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet +using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. +so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one +year. that is the universal problem. we make the remailer chains so they guarantee privacy, but we cannot filter for spam... unless it is the last mixmaster in the chain. it sounds like we need a postprocessor which can 1) contain addresses and domain numbers of known spammers; 2) log senders to obtain a usage profile (over a very short time, and that is itself encrypted) which can spot enormous expansion headers. for instance, linda thompson is accusing a cypherpunk [more like a cypherpunk hater] of faking her address on threatening material to all 100 senators plus Al Bore; interestingly, the perpetrator left enough information in the header, which was returned for addressing Al Bore incorrectly, to be able to narrow the field; and, 3) most spamming seems to follow a pattern which it should be possible to scan for. the problem, of course, being that "innocent" messages will potentially be trashed. whatever it takes, there are a finite number of sites which can host remailer traffic. for instance, I have been debating whether or not we can afford the load on our single T1 which is currently supporting 200 simultaneous ppp connections plus some high-volume commerical web pages. We are at least a year away from T3 due to lack of circuit facilities. let's figure a way to stop at least some of the abuse; you can not stop the individual abuse, but does a spammer have any rights? --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMv4nxb04kQrCC2kFAQHAngP+J+JRSKLXsLcug00moPK78brGzzmSTRVI BQmHM9845OWXazbQVj6Q9+HiV5I+7wGY2INm7i6PI9ebNRptORfCTlHkmMzrwfmj Ji/WzhDkJ0eRvmDwHxBuq5unqYLe9ACtMrOCGQo+EYywNcscsXKKuMvFKAPC/Bp8 M46FHO9AphM= =NEYd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: My messages not appearing on either of the lists?
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:36 AM 2/7/97 -0800, Mike Duvos wrote: ... >Now that a few weeks have passed, I have decided that moderation delays >are the most annoying feature of the new experiment. I am subscribed to >the unedited list under another account, and its almost instantaneous >traffic is in great contrast to the time required for posts to trickle >through the Sandfort-Bot. ... >Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in which they >are received. Some messages take a very long time, as other later >messages pass them by and are posted to the list. Again, I have no >explanation for this unusual behavior. Actually, I noticed that often times the posts were out of order when they got to me over about two months ago. This was probably due to my location on the mailing list heirachy, (another reason for a distributed list). I also remember there being a rather lengthy delay between my posting something to the list and it getting sent to me by toad. (I stayed at the computer reading other messages, erasing them and checking if any more had been sent. This was, is, my primary way of keeping my eudora disk from getting clogged to the point where it won't compress.) The problems that you describe aren't new to the list, mostly they are the product of a long list of subscribers. Although, manual moderation certainly adds time between posting and turnaround.

1 0

ANON: anonymizer.com thru proxy server is bad news
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: jmccorm(a)galstar.com (Josh McCormick) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.misc,alt.anonymous,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.misc,alt.2600,ok.general Subject: NOT ALWAYS ANONYMOUS: "www.anonymizer.com" Date: 9 Feb 1997 19:25:46 GMT Lines: 43 Message-ID: <5dl8bq$6h3(a)mercury.galstar.com> THE CLAIM: > Our "anonymizer" service allows you to surf the web without > revealing any personal information. THE PROBLEM: > If you access The Anonymizer through a proxy server, it may add a > variable, such as "HTTP_FORWARDED", that The Anonymizer does not filter > out, revealing your true identity. THE DATA: > Below is a printout of the variables from an "anonymous" session done > through The Anonymizer when accessed through the Squid proxy server. REMOTE_HOST=darkmatter.infonex.com REMOTE_ADDR=206.170.114.24 HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/3.01 (via THE ANONYMIZER!) HTTP_HOST=sol.infonex.com:8080 HTTP_FORWARDED=by http://galaxy.galstar.com:3128/ (Squid/1.0.20) for 204.251.83.41 HTTP_PRAGMA=no-cache HTTP_PROXY_CONNECTION=Keep-Alive THE RESULT: > A CGI script could see that you were using The Anonymizer to hide > yourself, but your true IP address is revealed in the "HTTP_FORWARDED" > string. THE SUMMARY: > Beware using an anonymous browsing service if you are going through a > proxy server. Until they remove the information provided by proxy > servers, using their service isn't as anonymous as they say. THE QUOTE: > (from The Anonymizer home page) "Many people surf the web under the > illusion that their actions are private and anonymous. Unfortunately, it > isn't so." ===================================================================== == Josh McCormick Galaxy Star Systems == == jmccorm(a)galstar.com Providing Quality Internet Access == == Systems Administrator WWW: http://www.galstar.com/~jmccorm == ===================================================================== -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm/ ...for the best in unapproved information "Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken." - inscribed on Egyptian tomb

1 0

ComLaw> URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm forwarding this from the commonlaw list because of the usage of the name, "cypherpunks." >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:50:48 +0100 (NFT) >From: Slater <slater(a)ts.umu.se> >To: commonlaw(a)teleport.com >Subject: ComLaw> URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! (fwd) >Sender: owner-commonlaw(a)teleport.com > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:46:40 GMT >From: Linda Thompson <lindat(a)iquest.net> >To: aen-news(a)aen.org >Cc: robert(a)iquest.net >Subject: URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! > >This morning near 3:00 a.m., somebody sent messages to ALL the Senate and >House members, putting *MY* email name and address on them, and another set, >putting *AL'S* email name and address on them, threatening to delete all the >House and Senate files (whatever THAT means), saying: > >"All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems." > >[The one to the House members was the same, except the word "Senate" was >"House."] > >Some of the messages had bad addresses, though, so they bounced to us, since >whoever the real sender was had put our names as the "sender," which is how >we found out about it. > >This looks like someone could be really intending to do something to the >House/Senate computers and they are obviously trying to lay it at our feet. > >Is there legislation pending somewhere that somebody needed a so-called >"terrorist threat" to get it passed ??!! > >I have a 1 meg file of the messages we got and the messages we sent out to >our service provider and to the Secret Service I would appreciate if people >would be willing to store for safe keeping. > >Can anyone make the file available for FTP? We don't have an FTP site. > >We are definitely being set up. > > > > >Kind regards, > >Linda Thompson > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER >*************************************************** >Dr. Linda Thompson >Attorney at Law >Chairman, American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat(a)iquest.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free. >**************************************************** >Have you seen this yet? > > http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum > > > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Who's Censoring Who?
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young wrote: > Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's > ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack > on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. Now you've admitted that Sandy, ever more desperate, is grasping for allies for some future attack. And you've accused Dr. Vulis of plotting against Sandy. Tsk tsk. > What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others > -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, > attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson. This is not the healthy kind of paranoia. > Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, > Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe > by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting > Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... Tim May in the same breath as Dr. Vulis? I underestimated the level of desperation here. > But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and > outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own > pure-blackhearts. Neither I nor (I'm certain) Dr. Vulis are surprised by any of this. Who were you referring to? > Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single > person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, > each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not > easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out > Sandy, it was just a drill. Well, he claims he's not censoring anymore. If you believe that, you're probably waiting for the Easter bunny. > It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, > after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war > gaming. Blah blah blah blah. Bottom line is this: "Moderation" is really censorship. You can go on with this "plausible denial" all you want to, but the jig is up, so to speak. They've been caught being sneaky and deceptive with people's mail. Naughty naughty.

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're giong to have to find a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:44 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >This time I have opted for a point by point. >At 07:59 PM 2/5/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into >>useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. >>(Those people who still think military spending is really necessary >>obviously haven't read AP.) >This point I can not argue with, at least not directly. I do believe that >the military way is wasteful of resources. Notice, however, that "pre-AP-theory," there was never any "good" way to theorize getting rid of the military: It always appeared that OUR military was needed to protect us against THEIR military. AP fixes that problem. > However, this is one area that >has actually benefitted the lower-income bracket in that it gives them >"inexpensive" (off-chance of death) access to good training. "War is good business...Invest your son!" There's no doubt that militaries look like a good deal to at least some fraction of the population. However, as is usually true, the amount of money that could be saved if we didn't have to buy military junk would do just as well applied to other products or services. >>2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes >>to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the >>non-government private sector. >Three things that promote technological growth, expansion, war, threat of war. >As for expansion. we really have no where else to go. As for war and threat >of war, the computer was invented during a war, atomic energy was harnessed >during war, the internet was created during threat of war. Many >advancements, though not all, come to benefit society later. For that >matter, steel was probably invented during a war as well, but I can't prove it. I think that's a somewhat distorted way to look at it. War drastically changes the economics associated with technical developments: In WWII, millions of dollars became available for development of computers due to their ability to decrypt codes. It is by no means surprising that suddenly making it 10x more affordable to buy computers (not by reducing their costs, but by raising the amount of money provided) would make computers appear to be the product of war. You may recall estimates (which are frequently re-quoted, BTW)that proposed that there would only be a market for (say) 5-10 computers in the world. That estimate is frequently cited as an example of how wrong they were, but in reality that estimate assumed pricing based on then-current costs, and they were probably accurate! It is the _subsequent_ development of transistors which made those original estimates "wrong." Nuclear power, similarly, was born in a flood of money for the same war. Expensive government installations, such as Los Alamos, NM, Hanford Washington, and Oak Ridge Tennessee were built for that purpose. Activities which would have been highly uneconomical during peacetime were suddenly worth doing. If war makes technical development happen, it is only because of how supremely wasteful it is. Useful things still get done, but they get done in a highly uneconomical fashion and _before_ they would normally be done in a non-war world. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Who's ahead: NSA or the private sector?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That's not really a meaningful question. We can write codes they can't crack. They can write codes we can't crack. The cats are out of the bag, and David Aaron can't herd them back in. In some sense, the NSA is ahead of academia, because academia publishes, so they can read everything the Good Guys have done (less six months waiting to get published in journals :-), while the NSA seldom publishes. (There are also corporations doing non-published crypto work, but not much - they also see the value of open system review. And the KGB may have been good as well, but they're not in our face, and we can write codes the Russians and French can't crack either.) The NSA has almost certainly done more work on analyzing obscure Russian cryptosystems, but who knows how much of that is just brute force. But the real problems these days are engineering, not science*, so it's probably worth spotting them a few bits of keyspace just in case. The NSA is better able to come up with a few million dollars to build custom key-cracking hardware than industry is, so we have to presume they can do at least as well as a Wiener machine for cracking DES; they're certainly better at eavesdropping on calls than we are. I don't know if we can coordinate more workstations for a distributed crack, but they _could_ issue the FedCast Secure Screen Saver for all federal PCs; the only question is how much time would it spend cracking keys and how much grepping for suspicious files :-) There may still be radical changes in factoring technology, especially as computers get faster, but I doubt they'll do more in practice than force us to use longer keys, unless someone proves P=NP in the far mythical future or proves that factoring is in or near P. The interesting questions are at the boundaries of strong crypto and weak crypto - 40 bits is a nasty joke, DES is still interesting for things that don't have too much money riding on them, Skipjack is probably strong enough for a few years unless there's a second back door next to the one with the big "Cops Only" neon sign. How strong can we make something and still get export permission? Do we care? What are the threat models for different "Key Recovery" scams, and are we willing to write deliberatlely weak code to collaborate? Are the non-RSA public key systems good enough until the patent expires? There are some boundary problems that are interesting for non-political reasons - now that every toaster and digital wristwatch has an IP address and a few KB of RAM, what kind of useful crypto will fit in them? Key distribution is still interesting - how do you make a system that's convenient enough to use and secure enough to work? And distributed cracking systems are interesting, though the main uses for them are for cracking known-weak cryptosystems. Then there's the field of secure databases, which I think has both practical potential and scientific merit - how do you mix data together without leaking the secure stuff to unauthorized users, either directly or through combining lots of non-privileged data. [*Borrowing from Matt Blaze gratefully acknowledged.]

1 0

The Konformist Takes Care Of The Stray Dogs
by Robalini＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini(a)aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. I figure this is a good time to pass info and thanks. >From Evan Soule: O.K. Here is is. I recently discovered the location of this site(s). I do not explicitly know who created it, and in this regard it is a rather mysterious site as you may also find: The Sites: http://www.freedom-server.co.uk/Essays.html http://www.freedom-server.co.uk/Contents.html http://www.freedom-server.co.uk/Glossary.html http://www.freedom-server.co.uk/index.html Robalini's Note: for a good collection of Libertarian essays, this is a good place to go. From: pentiumpower(a)internetx.net (pentiumpower) SURF ANONYMOUSLY --> http://www.anonymizer.com WACO-THE TRUTH-DON'T PASS THIS UP! --> http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum TWA 800-THE TRUTH --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm OKC/WTC-THE TRUTH --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm GWS & LOTS MORE-THE TRUTH --> http://www.cco.net/~trufax My page --> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3101/ Robalini's Note: All of these, are, in my book, A++ sites. >From my wacky Uncle Markie (who was a Deadhead before all the Starbuck-quaffing trendies jumped on the bandwagon), proving interest in this stuff is genetically linked: http://www.alienmap.com/ Here are two sites I haven't checked yet, but come highly recommended: haigt asbury http://www.webcom.com/haight ? http://www.mk.net/~mcf Then there is Parascope, at http://www.parascope.com. I didn't mention it before, since, on AOL, I don't access it by the web. I was a little skeptical when it started (would AOL really have a good site that bucks the waves), but they've shown they are their own bosses. For general conspiracy info and the like, it is right up there with Jonathon Vankin's and John Whalen's 50 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time site. And, last but not least: Lisa Pease www.webcom.com/lpease Yeah, I've mentioned it before, but I've gotten a few emails thanking me for mentioning her site. No surprise: I found out about it from her postings on the Alt.conspiracy.JFK newsgroup, where she shows herself to be one of the few really good writers on the web. And now, some special other thanks. First, to Claire Gilbert, Publisher of "Blazing Tattles", which originated as an investigation on the burning oil and Gulf War Syndrome. It now specializes in investigations of health related matters. She sent me a free copy, and it was good enough for me to subscribe, with articles on the benefits of the Zone Diet, the dangers of margarine, and more GWS news. You can reach "Blazing Tattles" for more info at: Claire W. Gilbert, Ph.D., Publisher, Blazing Tattles P.O. Box 1073, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019, USA Phone: 415-712-0772 Email: <blazing(a)crl.com> FAX: 415-712-8547 (call first) To Kenn Thomas at Steamshovel Press, which is a great model for any underground magazine. Issue 15 came out recently, with, among other things, a great article on the Nation of Islam's connections to neo-Nazi group, a book excerpt of Thomas and Jim Keith's book "The Octopus", a look in on other theories of the cause of AIDS, and a wonderful interview with the late great Timothy Leary. Mr. Thomas has been a great supporter of mine, and I really appreciate it. For info, email him at: skthoma(a)umslvma.umsl.edu Deep River Books in Santa Monica is the best little book store you will ever find. It has books the corporate store, with their gazillion book titles, won't dare touch. The owner is a real cool dude. You can reach them at (310) 451-1224, or by email or web at: dpriver(a)leonardo.net http://www.leonardo,net/deepriver/index.html Also, my pal (and business partner), Scott Rose. You can reach him at his vanity-plate named site at: Scott(a)ScottWorld.Com In the L.A. area, Scott is the premier Filemaker Database maker, bar none (though I often help him out.) Email him, or call him at (213) 954-1978 for details. (Scott, you owe me a dinner for this.) And, as many of the readers of the Konformist are libertarians, I mention the best libertarian commentator on the web, bar none: L. Neil Smith. He wrote the Lando Calrissian Star Wars book trilogy (which I'm currently reading), and his fiction is even better than his non-fiction. You can reach the guy at: boardman(a)blackhole.dimensional.com Special thanks to Alex Constantine and Adam Parfrey for continued correspondance and support. Feral House Press has an incredible collection of books. You can reach Adam at Feral Press at: feralhouse(a)aol.com Other thanks to: FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Media) fair(a)igc.apc.org The Church of the Subgenius and Grand Master Ivan Stang: i.stang(a)metronet.com MindNet Journal for its positive feedback and reporting on mind control and brainwashing experiments: MindNet(a)c2.org James Pinkerton, who proves that not all L.A. Time commentators are mindless robots: pinkerto(a)ix.netcom.com Robert Parry at the Consortium. I bet he's embarrassed to discover this, but his investigations into dirty deeds of the Reagan-Bush years has been quite an influence on this magazine: rparry(a)ix.netcom.com Douglas Rushkoff, for taking it in stride when I called him an asshole: rushkoff(a)interport.net Rodney Stitch, author of the top-notch expose "Defrauding America" which did all the busy work on the intelligence-mafia link to drugs and banking scandals, links which don't end in the good old USA. stitch(a)defraudingamerica.com And finally, though they have no product, Paul Watson and Howlin' Blue of Texas for giving me info a commie-leftist Clinton supporter like myself would never find. Thanks, dudes. I probably have forgotten a billion people. If so, sorry, I'll be doing this every now and then. Thanks, and good luck. Robert Sterling, Editor, The Konformist ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini(a)aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I Came Closest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're going to have to find a way to make this junk, piss juvenile crap stop coming into my e-mail box. Period. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

LInteger Version 0.2: A C++ MPILIB
by janke＠unixg.ubc.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- LInteger is a set of C++ libraries supporting multiple precision integers. Also included are libraries supporting chain hash functions and pseudo-random number generators. The core multiple precision methods are coded in i386+ assembly language for high speed. The libraries will only compile under GNU's g++ compiler, and have only been tested under the Linux and Windows NT operating systems. It is anticipated that there should not be any problems compiling under Windows '95, however, and that compiling for OS/2 will only require minor hacking, if any. Included as a sample chain hash function is an i386+ assembly implementation of the Secure Hash Algorithm (FIPS 180-1). Included as a sample pseudo-random number generator is an implementation of a pseudo-random number generator described in Section 3.1 of FIPS 186 (the Digital Signature Standard). Complete HTML documentation is provided for all public and protected methods. The package is free for both commercial and non-commercial use. Some of the improvements of this release over version 0.1 include: - Pseudo-random number generation. - Probable prime generation. - Easier constructors. - MontyRep and ResidueClass classes. - ASCII I/O in bases 1 to 36. - Overloading of fstreams operators for storage on persistent media. - Easier exponentiation. - Pentium optimizations for multiplication and squaring. - A square root function (by special request). - 8+3 filenames (by special request). - Various bug fixes and speed improvements (and some slowdowns! :) ) The package is available for download at http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/janke/linteger.html The hashes for version 0.2 are MD5: 61f027957065b88a690def3557956d34 RIPE-MD128: a0e85d5f3429f074b4a4dd4303f829e0 SHA0: b8e65d49ae0ae3ab26741030c8ca03137e16b493 SHA1: c46317ad7e3a9ff38092269b21513dbf68c0e3ef RIPE-MD160: 2ef0f020d1312033af6e6f4aa72466878ef3abe1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMv65lDjQF257xHLhAQG+TwQAhLaBP6z3nLKbBKcmSomPPE9G+r1z/tpD 5rA1p9ImwjJZnLAARiywdzH0bXS2n4Yf6jfPOUBZ0FMonNXLfkRJcXIgf0c16+mQ GeX2YYYxRQ+BWcUpzgZBe9y1Y7BJ/I4f0Qbu7jWHn6sOdv+qejxS6+Wos/6vVDoF 3LOfYCyG8Xs= =jnym -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Return-Path: <autoresponder(a)WhiteHouse.gov> Received: from WhiteHouse.gov (whitehouse.gov [198.137.241.30]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA05593 for <scndsun(a)inetnebr.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 19:25:39 -0600 (CST) From: autoresponder(a)WhiteHouse.gov Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id UAA01520; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:24:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:24:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702100124.UAA01520(a)WhiteHouse.gov> X-AutoReplying-To: scndsun(a)inetnebr.com Subject: Re: message to USSA House of Representatives To: scndsun(a)inetnebr.com X-UIDL: f16144392bbe54c5667860b9458f5526 Thank you for writing to President Clinton via electronic mail. Since June, 1993, whitehouse.gov has received over one million messages from people across the country and around the world. Because so many of you write, the President cannot personally review each message. The mail is first read by White House Correspondence staff. Your concerns, ideas, and suggestions are carefully recorded and communicated to the President weekly with a representative sampling of the mail. We are excited about the progress of online communication as a tool to bring government and the people closer together. Your continued interest and participation are very important to that goal. Sincerely, Stephen K. Horn Director, Presidential Email The Office of Correspondence P.S. Please read on - you may find the following information useful. -- This is the only electronic message you will receive from whitehouse.gov. No other message purporting to be from the President or his staff with an address at whitehouse.gov is authentic. If you have received such a message, you have been spoofed. -- You will receive only one autoresponder message per day. -- The only personal addresses at whitehouse.gov are the following: President(a)whitehouse.gov Vice.President(a)whitehouse.gov First.Lady(a)whitehouse.gov Please write to Mrs. Gore and other White House staff by regular mail. The address is: The White House, Washington, D.C. 20500. -- On October 20, 1994, President Clinton and Vice President Gore opened a World Wide Web home page called "Welcome to the White House: An Interactive Citizens' Handbook" and it remains one of the more popular spots on the Web. The White House home page provides, among other things, a single point of access to all government information available electronically on the Internet. "Welcome to the White House" can be accessed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov -- White House documents and publications are available on the World Wide Web (see above) and by email. To receive instructions on retrieving documents by email, please send a message to the following address: publications(a)whitehouse.gov In the body of your message, type "Send Info" (without quotes); do not include other text (such as message headers or signature lines (.sig files)). The instructions will be sent to you automatically. **************************************************************** List of Clinton Administration Accomplishments (three documents compose the whole): To: publications(a)whitehouse.gov Message body: send file 317571 send file 317573 send file 317575 **************************************************************** -- The White House Public Access Email FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) document is available at the following address. The FAQ, among other things, lists alternate sources of government information, i.e., the Congressional email projects. Send an email message (no text necessary) to: faq(a)whitehouse.gov (This FAQ address is an autoresponder only; any comment sent to this address will not be acknowledged.) ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0