December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is > trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: > > 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. But other than two points they already do. The two points being, 1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. That degree of difference being how much money there is available for the lawyer and their willingness to enforce the concepts of justice in the society based upon their perceived ability to profit by it. 2. The extension of acceptance of reasonable legal representation by lot from not only the defence but also the prosecution. My solutions to these two issues are: 1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case should be pursued. 2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary resources by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal representation of both parties by lot. 3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). 4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. > 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant > level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, > until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. This axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have (ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are NOT created equal. > 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of > corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide > unnecessary. But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. There is nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear that such activities in no way reduced corruption. If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes threats and the carrying out thereof. On another issue, it was asked what purpose there is in suing a poor person. Simple lack of monetary wealth should be no more reason to exempt a party from justice than having large quantities. A citizen should face the consequences of their actions, how rich or poor they are is an irrelevant issue. Concepts required for a true working democracy: Liberty Justice Equality Fraternity Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: [GSM] Hardening mailing lists against spam attacks
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > > __o > _ \<_ > (_)/(_) This guy keeps forgetting to add 'crypto-relevant' to his headings. No wonder they go to 'flames'.

1 0

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. ................................................ Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological makeup? = I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. .......................................... Hm, well, I'm not in the custom of doing either of those things, but thanks for the compliment! = But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. ............................................... Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. = Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. ............................................ Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division of History & Philosophy .... .. Blanc

2 1

PGP 2.1
by lwjohnson＠grill.sk.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? Thanks

1 0

Re: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes.
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: | > What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong | >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken | >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it | >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). | > | | Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal | ball in hand. I wear three around my neck. Its a new age thing. More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, AFAIK. Adam -- Pet peeve of the day: Security companies whose protocols dare not speak their name, because they don't have one. Guilty company of the day is now V-One.

3 2

Keystroke sniffer question
by Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. Is there a file name to look for? Where do people get them? ======================================= Scott Bellavance scott-b(a)ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~scott-b/homepage.html ======================================= -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzAu56UAAAEEAL8pOdPu2pw5E91f99ByJWT+O1smtcOlIr6GL9TdCbdZ6I2U UPLl7RL5cV4e3Wv4nIIZiOIePMAUouM5fQZib4vnGpCKM/WxfGQBRGafsq2mlzvE IKLBrdYhQ5STl/qZIaCKI2+V4hdsvTPaI0PCqGzGoiDv9gbbZ40Gi3F38KqtAAUR tCtTY290dCBSLiBCZWxsYXZhbmNlIDxzY290dC1iQGl4Lm5ldGNvbS5jb20+ =Hfbk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > >> My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > >> my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > >> If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > >> able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > >> new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > >> passphrase? > > Passphrases are MD5-hashed into 128-bit IDEA keys and used to > encrypt the secret key; there's a "pgpcrack" program out there > that does dictionary-style searches to find if you've got > wimpy passphrases. So if your passphrases is "secret", you lose, > but if it's "fjhw;doifvjuc-[09efiu v` 2 4rnhc;ljoipcvjpoiewujfgv;loik" > you're probably pretty safe, unless that's written on the yellow > sticky you left on the side of the PC. > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > they've already gotten you.... If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should > not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a > free and open society must tolerate any action. > > This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY > ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no > means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. > It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open > society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting > individualy or in concert. I have waited, with bated breath, for you to take a position which is short, concise, and well-reasoned. Well, you finally did, but you just couldn't leave it alone, could you? I think that what you have written (above) is a valid and meaningful statement of your position. I see what follows, however, as a train of 'logic' which follows a pre-defined, emotionally-charged justification of a defensive position you have taken, as a result of a real or imagined 'slight'. I have followed your 'libel' thread, as rambling (and sometimes dichotomously incoherent) as it is, and I recognize that you are passionate in your beliefs (for which I salute you), but I think that perhaps your interests might be better served if you let logic lead your emotions. If you did so, I might well hire you as my lawyer (to defend me in your libel suit against me), since you do have a 'bulldog' sense of determination in pursing any position you take. The million-and-one posts you made with the results of your search-engine research on libel only served to accentuate your inability to fully understand the issues underlying libel and defamation. Your own opinions regarding your thoughts and opinions regarding these same issues were much more poignant and enlightening. I would hope that, in the future, you would justify your beliefs and opinions with a revelation of your own points of logic (or illogic) rather than attempting to support them with legalese rulings which often stand on a foundation of sand, especially under close judicial scrutiny. You do, indeed, raise some points that are worthy of valid consideration, and debate, but they tend to get lost in your excessive arguments regarding them. Toto

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that > philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just > government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. I've seen this kind of statement so many times I just have to point it out: "which this moderation policy *clearly* (emph. mine) is not". Why is it so clear to you, but not everyone? Am I missing something? Didn't Reagan, Bush, North et al make it clear enough to Americans that much of what the govt. does has been privatized, as if we didn't know already from the 1970's assassination hearings in the Congress, or from when Carter fired the 900 security guys and they went to work for "private" contractors? I ask you again to look at the motives of the people involved. John Gilmore isn't about to waste a second of his personal time "moderating" this list (who could blame him?), and I can't for the life of me see a reason why Sandy would want to devote so much time to it. Have you or anyone seen a real reason why Sandy would want to do this? Is he so devoted to crypto and personal freedom that he'll do *anything* to eliminate the postings which "threaten" this list, or could there be some other, hidden motivation? My long experience in the real world says that professional people do *not* devote a great deal of their time to things like this unless there is an *awfully* good reason. > On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Toto wrote: > > > 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! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while?

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > At 08:02 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Toto wrote: > > I also think that the other list members involved in this thread are > >'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. > > It's odd that you would say this. I get that impression ("nobodies") about > practically EVERY subject discussed here. Why name this particular one, as > if it were somehow special? Jim, "You're 'nobody', till 'somebody' loves you..." Everybody has their own prediliction as to what interests them, and what is 'frivilous' on the list. Someone, in private email, mentioned that they felt that 60% of the posts were 'uninteresting'. I replied that this seemed to be a close approximation of many list members' beliefs, but that, if we all moderated/censored out 'our' 60% of 'uninteresting' posts before the list was sent out, that there would be precious little left. I don't know if you recognized my comment as humor, since I have an aversion to using 'happy faces' (the result of a childhood trauma), but I just love to poke fun at the plethora of personas on the list who seem to believe that anything outside of their immediate scope of interest is somehow 'unworthy' of being posted the list. By the way, in order to prevent this post from going to the 'flames' list, I will NOT say that you are a low-life, scum-sucking Nazi piece of shit. I will likewise refrain from suggesting that your mother wears army boots, you are a child-pornographer, an imbecile, and a pervert, or that you beat your wife and children regularly. By golly, I think I'm 'getting the hang of' this new, improved, Politically Correct, nicey-nice list format. Toto

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. -Declan On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Toto wrote: > > 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! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while? > > >

2 1

Re: GSM technology
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:37:38 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >At 09:43 AM 1/20/97 -0500, Nurdane Oksas wrote: >> Does anyone use ADSL lines? or are they still very expensive? > >I just had a very interesting talk with somebody from Northern Telecom (Canada's Phone Company). NorTel has apparently skipped ISDN and is now deploying ADSL. Some areas already have access to ADSL at, can you believe this, $60/month. > I'm not sure about Nortel but ADSL is availible in Calgary from CadVision. http://www.cadvision.ca It's not cheap. BCTel is yapping about offering it by the end of the year.

1 0

NOISE.SYS Home Page
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I now have an under-construction home page for NOISE.SYS, in case you're interested: http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/software.htm#noise (NOISE.SYS is a crypto-RNG device for DOS boxes.) Rob ----- "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: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Greg Broiles Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) .................................................................. Heh - Jim B. and Jim C.: the Yin & Yang of Society At Large. What could a discussion between them produce. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Lesher <wb8foz(a)nrk.com> writes: > USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. > Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 > 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. Don't let the old-fashioned look deceive you. Most mail storage boxes use lever tumbler locks (similar to what's used in safe deposit vaults, though obviously the mailbox locks have a flimsier plug). Lever tumbler locks are in general much harder to pick than pin tumbler locks (the kind on most doors).

2 1

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, rex wrote: > Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> wrote: > > >If you want to look at it a different way, if you are involved with a drug > >offense and are not using a weapon, you'll get a lower sentence than a > >full fledged drug crime. It's a step in the right direction - i.e. away > >from manadatory sentencing of a flat time period for a crime regardless of > >circumstances. > > But Putra got the same sentence she would have gotten had she been > convicted on both charges. The fact that she was acquitted meant nothing. That this is true once, does not make it so in all cases. You also lose sight of the general scheme of things. That the sentence imposed may have the same maximum sentence with sentencing enhancements and a lesser included offense as with conviction of a "great offense" means nothing with regard to the validity of sentencing enhancements. That theft and low level bank fraud have the same penality when theft is enhanced with a "victim was infirm or helpless" or a "firearm was used in furtherance of the crime" could as easily reflect a lack of vigor and spite in the prosecution of bank fraud as it could reflect severe vigor and spite in the prosecution of theft. Please note that the difference between: "But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." and "But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." is subtle at best. Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate allegedly said: > > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should [...] > > This is not my case at all. I hold that [...] > means do I hold [...] > I hold [...] > worthless. I DO hold [...] > all speech. I further hold [...] > I further hold [...] > I further hold [...] Whew! That's a lot of holding, my friend. I've heard that prunes help. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

Re: How I Would Ban Strong Crypto in the U.S.
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:58 AM 7/15/96 -0400, about six months ago, when Clipper III was new, Raph Levien wrote: >1. The battle over whether applications can contain strong encryption >algorithms has basically been lost. For example, SSL-enabled >applications are widely available over the world, thanks in large part >to the work of Eric Young. The same will happen for any other encryption >protocol that catches on. Unfortunately, the Government hasn't given up on this one; Peter Gutman's recent articles on export policy in New Zealand and Australia suggest that Our Public Servants are trying an end-run by getting those countries to stop export and development by productive crypto authors, targeting the toolkits that are being widely used inside and outside the US. >2. The battle for key management has not yet been fought. Yeah. I haven't heard much from Clipper III recently, since they've been trumpeting Clipper IV "Key Recovery" recently, but that doesn't mean it's not going on. Unlike politican efforts such as Key Recovery, infrastructure attacks such as PKI may require long-term technical development - the Cooperative Research and Development Alliances (CRADAs) are not just to bribe otherwise-valuable companies to stay out of the way, they're to do things that may be sprung on us later; I'd predict this coming summer. For instance, back in July, John Young quoted a Business Wire article about = Toronto -- Certicom Corp. a leading information security = company, today announced that it will participate in an = initiative by the U.S. Commerce Department's National = Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which will = lead to the development of the elements of a public key = infrastructure (PKI). Certicom are the folks who do Elliptic Curve Cryptosystems, which haven't been used much due to patent questions and RSA's dominance, but which allow much shorter public keys and may have some speed advantages, both of which are quite important for smartcard use. >3. Anybody can write an application that supports strong encryption >algorithms. Witness SSH, a very impressive and useful program, which was >basically done by one person, Tatu Ylonen. However, building a key >management infrastructure will take lots of money, hard work, and >cooperation. .... >4. Thus, the best leverage for the TLAs to win is to guide the >development of a key management infrastructure with the following >property: if you don't register your key, you can't play. I believe that >this is the true meaning of the word "voluntary:" you're free to make >the choice not to participate. .. >6. Export is a two player game. The other country has to allow import of >the stuff, too. If the Burns bill passes, the "administration" would >strong-arm other countries to prohibit import of strong crypto, still >leaving US developers with no market. It failed, and they've now got an Ambassador strong-arming other countries to prohibit export. >7. Building this stuff is too much of a task for the TLAs. They tried it >with Clipper, and it failed. They hoped that building the Tessera card >would be enough - that once they threw it over the wall, it would be >eagerly snapped up by industry. >8. Thus, they're going to cajole, bribe, and coerce software companies >to play along. This fact is quite nakedly exposed in the document (good >thing the injunction against the CDA is still in force :-). Yeah. Clipper IV is getting a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon to get export permission for their 56-bit software. Many of the people who are most vocal about it are the usual suspects anyway, but it's closer to commercial usability that industry's more cooperative this round, especially with more Internet money fever. >> Don't be fooled. >Who? Us cypherpunks? >Raph :-) # 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: Key Security Question
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > they've already gotten you.... > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? - Igor.

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc wrote: > From: Toto > What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, > but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal > of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in > general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). > ........................................................................ > Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, > anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their > leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly > works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can > unsubscribe (sp?). I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. I told Attila the Hun, in private email, that when I opened his messages, that I never knew whether to "pucker-up or duck", because he was just as likely to chastise me as agree with me, depending on his personal opinion of an individual post of mine. I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. > I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to > fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. >plus the fact that > many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political > issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long > treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read > yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. > plus a lack > of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it > difficult to think in a straight line. I, too, agree that you can lead a horse to water, but a stitch in time saves nine. > Sometimes the posts on the list > come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions > among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine > points of difference. Some of the more rambling threads are indeed the result of not understanding that some of the clueless aren't seeking a clue, but merely to hold on to their ignorance. But I would rather err on the side of believing that the person I am replying to is sincere in wanting to discuss an issue in order to gain a broader understanding of it. Toto

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jan 1997 15:37:01 -0500, you wrote: >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >passphrase? Depends how paranoid you are, how good your passphrase is, how much you trust the repairman not to snoop, etc. For the hell of it I'd revoke my key and issue a new one though. It's not a minor inconvenience, and when people use your old key you can still decrypt the message... just send 'em a note that you prefer they use you're current (unrevoked) key. --Rob

1 0

Flaming Moderators
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attila T. Hun wrote: > "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack > upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our > doom.' > --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771 Looks like Sam needs to be autobotted to the 'flames' list. Toto

1 0

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). ........................................................................ Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can unsubscribe (sp?). They *don't* have to take it, or identify with the cpunks any longer. I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, plus the fact that many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), plus a lack of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it difficult to think in a straight line. Sometimes the posts on the list come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine points of difference. Whom can one blame for what does not exist (on the list) - there is no mechanism for its production; only the attractions of the subject and the aim, are what bring in the participants who could provide substance and depth. Perhaps waxing lyrical on the features of Eudora and regular reminders on the benefits of mail filtering would be encouraging to "the timid"? .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970201:1452, Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> said: +Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and +open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim +Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot +tolerate anything which might be defamatory, ... for what it is worth, anti-defamation, Germany's anti-Holocaust denial, and anti- just about anything legislation dealing with free speech is of and by its very nature an abridgement of your personal freedoms. If you deny one form of speech, it is easy to deny another, and then another... do you wish to march foolishly to Fahrenheit 451? Before the current generation of government vipers and revisionists remove or rewrite even more of the immortal words of history: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." --Abraham Lincoln let's look at one more famous speech on "nibbling" your rights: "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771 and: "The more difficult it is to interact with the government, the more the government wants gun control." --attila in other words, the more they deny our inaliable right to free speech, the more they need gun control before we rise against the usurpers of our rights. Now, if there ever was a liberal do-gooder, Eleanor certainly was: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt now, does she mean what she says literally? in other words, is she saying to say what you want, and she will not be harmed or "feel inferior" in this case? I can presume Eleanor could be offended, but is that sufficient to abridge your rights? Nietzsche expresses a defiant tone on first glance -no, the general interpretation is absolute freedom --speech included. "I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite - the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say No." --Friedrich Nietzsche Is not the right to bear arms the same basic freedom as free speech, with one limitation: improper use carries criminal penalties --basically, because the act denies another his freedom. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature ...and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." --St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries did not the Magna Carta guarantee the right of free speech? Of course, there was not full suffrage at that time, but the Magna Carta is the basis of our common law. Then, let's look at another concept of freedom and a "democracy" Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on someone else's money. Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too insecure to handle the concept of people as individuals. which gets down to just what the hell did my forefathers, and maybe yours, fight for in 1776 if it was not for freedom of speech and assembly, the right to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and enjoy the protection of law? if we do not pick up that fight and stop corrupt governments from usurping the power of the people, we will lose all freedom. If we give in on _any_ of the first 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights, we are surrendering our deserved personal franchise to a usurping government. and it starts with society and government trying to tell us what we can freely say. I may not like what you have to say, or that you insult my sensibilities or my rectitude, but I will defend your right to my death so that you may do so. Therefore: "With heart and hand I pledge you while I load my gun again, you will never be forgotten or the enemy forgiven, my good comrade..." --Anton Szandor LaVay -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvRHa704kQrCC2kFAQE9dgP8D+q2ZFytBzdgWDh+QdtunUa8nqhopHrS OVc5yWkG+UJzcVhtRFyu5O4nhSkgzhjbiGxYUWM1ZNZwaIDehFmieCv8GG/c+Cal 0BHWha5cHqL0pEiFs/NTWAVoVGfPZl2jcikViXMRAqt8mmXmbC3bxPjBtlfnTzmB yTZ51fvB3tU= =aTWw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

PGP 2.1
by Larry Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? Thanks

2 1

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. ................................................ Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological makeup? = I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. .......................................... Hm, well, I'm not in the custom of doing either of those things, but thanks for the compliment! = But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. ............................................... Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. = Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. ............................................ Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division of History & Philosophy .... .. Blanc

1 0

IRS Can't Compete
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Note proof that government agencies are running up against serious problems competing with market actors even though they have the guns. - From today's NYT: February 1, 1997 Leaders of I.R.S. Panel Urge Sweeping Overhaul of Agency By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON The IRS had publicly defended its management of computer modernization until Thursday, when Arthur A. Gross, who was hired last year as an assistant commissioner of the agency to rescue the effort, told the restructuring commission that the new systems being developed "do not work in the real world." Gross also said the IRS lacked the "intellectual capital" to modernize. ["intellectual capital" = brains] Kerrey said that although the modernization project was bigger than any corporate computer system the government would have a hard time hiring the necessary talent to manage the project. "The market is bidding up the price for people who have these skills, and we just can't dole out big salaries," he said. Executives who oversee information systems make as much as $378,000 in salary and bonuses, according to William M. Mercer, the nation's largest pay consulting firm. That is more than twice the highest federal salary and bonus, and corporate information executives typically also get options and other incentive payments. ****************** Translation - since the Feds can't afford to pay CIOs what they're worth, and governments don't offer stock options, they can't get the talent they need to keep up with the market. We are talking about senior management here. If they try and respond by contracting senior management out, eventually the institution disappears as a government institution. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMvSCgYVO4r4sgSPhAQHhYAP+N80RhT0efc2seO+P99WLVYMJ8/1Q1R7e CkLY8guJw2PnuQlaGG3lj14mYvTPMitZFsQ4pFnkSzzyF57QN4nXPbXajkNeWao+ Kcr2T3TJa5gZcGv309/I7FbZp2MfaugEjyNoielY12q9qsyuJyCv1l4Uh1L/tq9c wEKoLyMoh5U= =orfk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Attila T. Hun, member of the Early Bird Consortium of Stray Cats, quoting from the Pages of History: did not the Magna Carta guarantee the right of free speech? Of course, there was not full suffrage at that time, but the Magna Carta is the basis of our common law. [and...] which gets down to just what the hell did my forefathers, and maybe yours, fight for in 1776 if it was not for freedom of speech and assembly, the right to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and enjoy the protection of law? ................................................ Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our own defense. My contribution to this thread from the Cpunk History & Philosophy Division: a Jewish saying from a book I glanced through of couple of weeks ago, something like: "What good is it to a man who has lost his sight that his ancestors had perfect vision." .. Blanc

2 1

IRS Can't Compete
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Note proof that government agencies are running up against serious problems competing with market actors even though they have the guns. - From today's NYT: February 1, 1997 Leaders of I.R.S. Panel Urge Sweeping Overhaul of Agency By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON The IRS had publicly defended its management of computer modernization until Thursday, when Arthur A. Gross, who was hired last year as an assistant commissioner of the agency to rescue the effort, told the restructuring commission that the new systems being developed "do not work in the real world." Gross also said the IRS lacked the "intellectual capital" to modernize. ["intellectual capital" = brains] Kerrey said that although the modernization project was bigger than any corporate computer system the government would have a hard time hiring the necessary talent to manage the project. "The market is bidding up the price for people who have these skills, and we just can't dole out big salaries," he said. Executives who oversee information systems make as much as $378,000 in salary and bonuses, according to William M. Mercer, the nation's largest pay consulting firm. That is more than twice the highest federal salary and bonus, and corporate information executives typically also get options and other incentive payments. ****************** Translation - since the Feds can't afford to pay CIOs what they're worth, and governments don't offer stock options, they can't get the talent they need to keep up with the market. We are talking about senior management here. If they try and respond by contracting senior management out, eventually the institution disappears as a government institution. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMvSCgYVO4r4sgSPhAQHhYAP+N80RhT0efc2seO+P99WLVYMJ8/1Q1R7e CkLY8guJw2PnuQlaGG3lj14mYvTPMitZFsQ4pFnkSzzyF57QN4nXPbXajkNeWao+ Kcr2T3TJa5gZcGv309/I7FbZp2MfaugEjyNoielY12q9qsyuJyCv1l4Uh1L/tq9c wEKoLyMoh5U= =orfk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Attila T. Hun, member of the Early Bird Consortium of Stray Cats, quoting from the Pages of History: did not the Magna Carta guarantee the right of free speech? Of course, there was not full suffrage at that time, but the Magna Carta is the basis of our common law. [and...] which gets down to just what the hell did my forefathers, and maybe yours, fight for in 1776 if it was not for freedom of speech and assembly, the right to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and enjoy the protection of law? ................................................ Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our own defense. My contribution to this thread from the Cpunk History & Philosophy Division: a Jewish saying from a book I glanced through of couple of weeks ago, something like: "What good is it to a man who has lost his sight that his ancestors had perfect vision." .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc wrote: > From: Toto > Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological > makeup? Hold up a mirror. > Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame > anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you > know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I > could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An > opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly > polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. What constitutes a 'flame' seems to depend heavily on whose mouth it comes out of. Jim Choate called me a schizophrenic, and it seemed to be acceptable enough to make the censored list. He tends to call people "Bessie", basically saying they are a Cow, and that also seems acceptable. Personally, I could care less when people want to play footsie-games with flaming, but I think it points out the ludicrousness of having a moderator limiting people to 'childish' insults. I prefer someone screaming at me what a cocksucker I am. Ray Hettinga forwards these long, literate missives advertising this-or-that million dollar a plate conferences, but when he chose to insult me with his own words, the result was an immature blathering which showed questionable literary skills. > Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's > commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for > the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. > But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to > re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so > to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into > unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. There are some good socio/politico posts by a variety of list members who are highly knowlegeable about a range of topics surrounding crypto, but they tend to come sporadically. I suppose that this is because they actually have real lives. > You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division > of History & Philosophy .... I suppose that Sandy might nominate me, just for the pleasure of sitting back and enjoying the flood of, "A Vote of FUCK OFF for Toto" postings. It would be nice, however, to try to twist the rest of the list around to my own world-view. It gets lonely here in the 'rubber room' at the Home, and I could use some company. Toto

1 0

Re: Trigger-Words...
by Cynthia H. Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, harka(a)nycmetro.com queried: > Actually, I might not have chosen the correct words for what I > wanted... > I am looking for sniffer-programs, that analyze e-mail traffic on > the Net and filtering out all e-mails potentially interesting for > _intelligence services_. For example, I've heard, that if an e-mail > contains the words: "assassinate President" (DISCLAIMER: I hope, our > President lives a long and happy life, even after his > impeachment...:)), it will automatically get filtered and checked > out by the Secret Service. > Different intelligence agencies might have similar things in place. > Where could I get some more information about that? Many Un*xes (SunOS, Solaris, IRIX, Linux, and probably others) have included their own versions of sniffers, supposedly for network debugging. These are typically called something like "tcpdump", "etherfind", "snoop", etc. You would need to run a sniffer at a "choke point" of an organisation, for example the external router to the Internet, to capture all of the packets to / from that organisation. Putting a sniffer on some arbitrary router out there in cloud-land would probably not be all that productive, since there's no guarantee that all of the IP packets carrying a given TCP connection would take the same route. Cynthia -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMvSyq5Og7xGCJGQtAQFJPwQAiXbxtfdfVEDL5ZHdktdy6bfH/Wmio3oU J1bYKpfwY4H4NnIoXipGF+oo48Pe4j8x46UneVZ8d4ZsSy93/JsvmQw38TxSj/8o cPbtIaagBw9eofsdimzlwx9Y0VvaTRWt+2Cjd8aQKmG5nwUBSF9BlFoX2/TU3QZY IP+hiecLaag= =rHlB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown Ottawa, Ontario, Canada E-mail: cynthb(a)sonetis.com Home Page: http://www.sonetis.com/~cynthb/ PGP Key: See Home Page Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it. - Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons"

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > > they've already gotten you.... > > > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. > > And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? On some computers it's possible to add executable code to the boot sequence without replacing the actual ROM chip because they're rewritiable. Examples: most Sun boxes; intel motherboards with 'flash bios'. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 2

Re: Trigger-Words...
by Cynthia H. Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, harka(a)nycmetro.com queried: > Actually, I might not have chosen the correct words for what I > wanted... > I am looking for sniffer-programs, that analyze e-mail traffic on > the Net and filtering out all e-mails potentially interesting for > _intelligence services_. For example, I've heard, that if an e-mail > contains the words: "assassinate President" (DISCLAIMER: I hope, our > President lives a long and happy life, even after his > impeachment...:)), it will automatically get filtered and checked > out by the Secret Service. > Different intelligence agencies might have similar things in place. > Where could I get some more information about that? Many Un*xes (SunOS, Solaris, IRIX, Linux, and probably others) have included their own versions of sniffers, supposedly for network debugging. These are typically called something like "tcpdump", "etherfind", "snoop", etc. You would need to run a sniffer at a "choke point" of an organisation, for example the external router to the Internet, to capture all of the packets to / from that organisation. Putting a sniffer on some arbitrary router out there in cloud-land would probably not be all that productive, since there's no guarantee that all of the IP packets carrying a given TCP connection would take the same route. Cynthia -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMvSyq5Og7xGCJGQtAQFJPwQAiXbxtfdfVEDL5ZHdktdy6bfH/Wmio3oU J1bYKpfwY4H4NnIoXipGF+oo48Pe4j8x46UneVZ8d4ZsSy93/JsvmQw38TxSj/8o cPbtIaagBw9eofsdimzlwx9Y0VvaTRWt+2Cjd8aQKmG5nwUBSF9BlFoX2/TU3QZY IP+hiecLaag= =rHlB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown Ottawa, Ontario, Canada E-mail: cynthb(a)sonetis.com Home Page: http://www.sonetis.com/~cynthb/ PGP Key: See Home Page Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it. - Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons"

3 3

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone using the Huge Cajones mailer wrote: David Lesher <wb8foz(a)nrk.com> writes: > USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. > Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 > 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. Still did last I checked. Don't let the old-fashioned look deceive you. Most mail storage boxes use lever tumbler locks (similar to what's used in safe deposit vaults, though obviously the mailbox locks have a flimsier plug). How is that obvious? Safe deposit locks generally aren't designed to be hard to open, just hard to open without damage. There's always either a guard or a locked vault door protecting the locks. Mailboxes, on the other hand, generally aren't kept under guard or in vaults.

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Asgaard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: >That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that TC May hasn't posted in a month or so. I miss his posts. Without any official role he was the de facto moderator, mostly by example but also by pointing out the core of the issues when things went astray, for all those years. Did he mention going away for so long in any of his latest posts? I remember 'for the holiday season' but that is long gone. I hope he hasn't left the list for good, being pissed off by Gilmore's choice of moderator(s) or some such reason. Asgaard

1 0

Re: Keystroke sniffer question
by Z.B. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Scott wrote: > How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. > All sniffers have to write to disk at some point. You can detect one by checking to see how much disk space you have (DIR on MSDOS), typing a few lines of random characters, and check your disk space again. If it's gone down a little, then you probably have one. > Is there a file name to look for? Try checking in your TEMP directory...the few ones that I've seen default to creating an invisible file in that directory. > Where do people get them? They either buy them or write them. Zach Babayco zachb(a)netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available.

1 0

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:56 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >Please note that the difference between: > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >and > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >is subtle at best. > >Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem is solved. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

National Cryptologic School
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DAW provided this URL: http://csrc.nist.gov/training/in170.zip 1996-04-29 Introduction to Computer Security National Cryptologic School Interactive Courseware Trainee Guide (formerly, CP-133) (37 zipped files, DOS program) We've had a look at this course, a primer on CompSec and a required course for all DoD employees. It takes some fiddling to get past the sign-on block. Hint: after unzipping execute "student.exe" and enter "CP" as the lesson. Repeat for other listed files, CPxxx - CPxxx. It's basic stuff but worthwhile for its claims, these among others: 1. Most hackers are employees of the target. 2. Negligence, accidents and sloppy sys-administration are prime causes of disruptions, perhaps more than deliberate attacks. 3. Environmental weaknesses are often overlooked by security experts too focussed on computer systems. It lists these security documents as references: EO 12356 [superceded by EO 12958] DCID 1/16 [Director of Central Intelligence Directive] DoDDir 5200.28 DoD 5200.28 STD Public Law 100-235 NSA/CSS Dir 10-27 NSA/CSS Manual 130-1 (NSAM 130-1) NSA/CSS Manual 130-2 (NSAM 130-2) NSA/CSS Reg 130-2 NTISSAM COMPSEC 1-87 The Rainbow Series OMB A-130 Does anyone know of a source for the DCID series and the NSA/CSS series? Some of the others are available on the Web -- see AltaVista. While looking for these we ran across an informative implementation of infosec and compsec: Information Systems Accreditation Document, 4 Volumes System Security Requirements for the Department of Defense Intelligence Information System Automated Message Handling System (AMHS) V2.x By: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace For: Electronic Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command Which we've put at: http://jya.com/amhs.htm

1 0

Re: Geiger and long, unreadable lines
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vulis <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> writes on cpunks-flames: > Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes on cpunks-flames: > > > > Mr William H. Geiger III "Author of E-Secure" writes on cpunks: > > > <sigh> for the benifit of those misfortunate enough to be still working on > > > dumb terminals I have disabled my PGP script until I have time to add a > > > word wrap routine to it. > > > > <sigh> it is you who were demonstrating your ineptitude by spewing > > 120+ line length postings. Why is it so difficult for you to keep > > under 80 chars? Would you like some technical assistance? Notice how > > near every one else apart from yourself is managing to keep under 80 > > chars? > > Notice how near every one else apart from yourself bends over for the NSA, > and is willing to use a 40-bit key "escrowed" with the feds? Why is it so > difficult for you to keep under 40 bits? Would you like some technical > assistance? Why are you setting yourself apart from the Internet community > that so happily embraces GAK? Why do you desire "privacy" for your traffic > when everyone else does not? What have you got to hide? Are you looking to > transmit child pornography, bomb-making instructions, and/or cannabis > legalization propaganda? We better have a look at your hard disk soon. btw Dimitri, a crypto question: Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1: p = 2q+1 where q is a prime also. And method 2: p = r.2q+1 where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number. With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or size of q, as they are related). With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size of p in bits. Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate trial prime q as you have to do in method 1. However is the security weaker in method 2? What size of p and q do you have to use to get the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1? What should be the relationship between the size of p and q? (this isn't cpunks, this is cpunks-flames, so your non-crypto pledge shouldn't hold, besides Sandy has a stated policy of killing the whole thread, so I thought it amusing to continue your crypto relevance in moving on to technical topics rather than political) Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

2 1

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:56 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >Please note that the difference between: > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >and > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >is subtle at best. > >Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem is solved. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

5 6

Re: PGP 2.1
by Mark Henderson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Larry Johnson writes: > Hello, > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > Thanks > If you are a U.S./Canadian person in the U.S. or Canada you can get 2.1 and most of the release versions of PGP from ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto Easiest thing is to point your web browser to ftp://ftp.wimsey.bc.ca/pub/crypto/software/README.html Then after reading and agreeing to the conditions, click in the appropriate place and descend into the PGP directory. But, why do you want version 2.1? -- Mark Henderson -- mch(a)squirrel.com, henderso(a)netcom.com, markh(a)wimsey.bc.ca PGP key 1024/B2667EFF - 5A 93 7D 29 EB 63 84 09 EA A2 AA 6C FA C5 A6 21 unstrip for Solaris, Wimsey crypto archive, TECO, computer security links, change-sun-hostid, Sun NVRAM/hostid FAQ - http://www.squirrel.com/squirrel/ --w=NZbzo6Zc1UmsEa Content-Type: APPLICATION/PGP-SIGNATURE Content-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970202142321.627G(a)crl7.crl.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 iQCVAwUBMvT7LaWYCYyyZn7/AQGJmAP/dQs4nQi07UaNGSdx5pJcwppCnq9Uo77B rIuwJppnWPsvlcN32GF88lf6TupIoIVsReZbYJdu2WPluXsUTQ+oTOwEHNOD831t TXsqDd8QNpwZGGfbhv3tQ5T79jQIVim3jOesWbN9Ix3/qJyKgJnwRR1u0hZKriC3 lQAiUFl/hkg= =VPrH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --w=NZbzo6Zc1UmsEa--

2 3

National Cryptologic School
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DAW provided this URL: http://csrc.nist.gov/training/in170.zip 1996-04-29 Introduction to Computer Security National Cryptologic School Interactive Courseware Trainee Guide (formerly, CP-133) (37 zipped files, DOS program) We've had a look at this course, a primer on CompSec and a required course for all DoD employees. It takes some fiddling to get past the sign-on block. Hint: after unzipping execute "student.exe" and enter "CP" as the lesson. Repeat for other listed files, CPxxx - CPxxx. It's basic stuff but worthwhile for its claims, these among others: 1. Most hackers are employees of the target. 2. Negligence, accidents and sloppy sys-administration are prime causes of disruptions, perhaps more than deliberate attacks. 3. Environmental weaknesses are often overlooked by security experts too focussed on computer systems. It lists these security documents as references: EO 12356 [superceded by EO 12958] DCID 1/16 [Director of Central Intelligence Directive] DoDDir 5200.28 DoD 5200.28 STD Public Law 100-235 NSA/CSS Dir 10-27 NSA/CSS Manual 130-1 (NSAM 130-1) NSA/CSS Manual 130-2 (NSAM 130-2) NSA/CSS Reg 130-2 NTISSAM COMPSEC 1-87 The Rainbow Series OMB A-130 Does anyone know of a source for the DCID series and the NSA/CSS series? Some of the others are available on the Web -- see AltaVista. While looking for these we ran across an informative implementation of infosec and compsec: Information Systems Accreditation Document, 4 Volumes System Security Requirements for the Department of Defense Intelligence Information System Automated Message Handling System (AMHS) V2.x By: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace For: Electronic Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command Which we've put at: http://jya.com/amhs.htm

1 0

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970202:0457 blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> said: +Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought +to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our +own defense. seems to me Jefferson said it took a rebellion every 20 years or so to keep democracy awake... other than presuming your answer is tongue in cheek (not elsewhere), complacency == welfare. +My contribution to this thread from the Cpunk History & Philosophy +Division: a Jewish saying from a book I glanced through of couple of +weeks ago, something like: + + "What good is it to a man who has lost his sight + that his ancestors had perfect vision." not a lot, but that does not mean he should scorn those who have managed to retain their sight. your saying is rather characteristic of the genre --best glamourized in Mad magazine. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvTfKL04kQrCC2kFAQG48gQA3LCObnHCe09r1jtV/0HbeilmKqSuP7ue lf6yScJiBHCwgm8aGT+NqjmSdvKUlTEfjV4H2zVCfoYyQEh5tMs4LnnDpd4zPL0M EBUrCdu2KBgLQpgbzP9g64cUCsq6LMGsfe7mqKaYYFIUmYJMBLsrYrLtPLPGlJ0S +LRYfJexD1s= =y085 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A couple of people have sent me pinging messages, asking about my status on the Cypherpunks list....apparently it has taken several weeks for folks to notice my absence! :-} This may speak volumes about why I have left the list, and what the list has become..... I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated list, by the way--as I saw little benefit. I was also fed up with things, and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. It's my nature to just say "Fuck it" and leave when I feel I have overstayed my time, or things are no longer fun, or I am made to feel unwelcome. But since several people have pinged me, asking about my status, I'll take some time to say a few things. I've had access to the hks.net archive site, and/or the Singapore site, to occasionally see what was being said on the list (old habits die slowly, so I sometimes drop in to see what you people are flaming each other about...not surprisingly--in fact utterly predictably--I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer substantive essays. With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities...which would probably not be approved for reading by Sandy, so why bother anyway?) Rather than compose a traditional essay, I'll take the easy way out and list some bulleted points. * First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as he wishes with his machine, toad, which has been the major machine host for the Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we have to write in Pig Latin if he wishes. Much of the debate I saw in the archives was debate that missed the point about what John could and couldn't do. No one can seriously question the right of the owner of a machine, or the owner of a restaurant, etc., to set the policies he wishes. The owner of a restaurant is perfectly free--or used to be, and still is to anyone with even slightly libertarian or freedom tendencies--to set the rules of his "house." He may insist that shirts and shoes be worn, or that smoking is not allowed (or even is required, in theory), etc. He may say "All those eating in my restaurant must wear funny hats and have their costumes approved by Sandy Sandfort." This is unexceptionable. * However, anyone who disputes these rules (disputes in the sense of disliking or disagreeing with them, not legally challenging them) is free to leave. Those who don't like crowded, noisy, smoke-filled sports bars are encourgaged to leave. And so on. Again, unexceptionable. (The more complicated case of contracts, verbal or written, and "changing the rules," does not apply here. No one had a contract with John, or Sandy, or Hugh, etc., so this is not germane.) * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group? Would we think that a corporate host, say, would have the authority to direct what we could say on the list? (Again, not disputing their corporate property rights...as a libertarian, I cannot. Other issues are what I'm getting at.) * If a Boy Scout troop meets at a local church, and has for several years, continuously, would we consider the church to be the owner of the troop? Could the church insist on avoidance of certain "cuss words" and demand that prayers be said before each gathering? Certainly the church could tell the troop what policies were to be followed if the the facilities were to be used, etc., and the troop could leave if it didn't like the terms (or, in parallel with my situation, any troop member could choose to leave....). This is what we mean by "property rights": the legal right of a property owner to do with his property as he wishes, modulo prior contractual relationships, criminal laws, etc. * How did the mailing list for the group, now called Cypherpunks, get started, and how did it end up being run off of John's hardare? Hugh Daniel got the actual mailing list rolling, based on a discussion Eric Hughes, Hugh, and I had the day after the first physical meeting, in September 1992. We thought the group we had just spent the day with ought to be able to stay in touch, and that a mailing list was the right way to go. There was talk of siting it on the UC Berkeley computers (actually, the Undergraduate Association computers, a la the Cypherpunks archive site at "csua"), but Hugh thought he might be able to use "toad," and this is what happened. (I have not heard from Hugh on his views of this New and Moderated Non-Anarchic List.) * I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing to let it run on his hardware, but not let our gratitude turn into some sort of subservience and blather about how John "owns" the Cypherpunks group. * Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing list? And is the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of John Gilmore? * In my view, neither John nor Sandy in any sense "own" our group. It is a virtual community which sometimes has physical meetings at various places (including corporations, restaurants, and bookstores, none of which are even partial "owners" of the group) and which has had several instantiations on the Net, including sub-lists not connected to toad.com in any way. While John is of course free at any time to suspend his hosting of the list, I think it a serious misapprehension of the basic nature of virtual communities to accept the claim that John should decide on what is appropriate to bear the "Cypherpunks" list imprimatur and what is to be consigned to the flame list. * The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list. I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the list, as some good ideas may have been generated. I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled. Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways." (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." A delicious irony.) * In the archives, I did see a bunch of "I support Sandy" and "John is our leader" comments from reasonable people. The obvious noise of Vulis and his cohorts like Aga made a "Do something!" attitude somewhat understandable. I don't think the decision made was a wise one, and I strongly doubt it will work to make the list a better one. * The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of "speech anarchy" happy--it affirms their basic belief that censors are needed. * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1": "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." (Other dictionaries of course give similar definitions. The notion that censors are confined to being government employees is a misconception.) * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? I've known Sandy for several years (I was the one who invited him to the second Cypherpunks meeting), but he's a poor choice as a censor, moderator, whatever. First, because he has so often gotten involved in protracted flame wars, such as with Vulis (remember the dozens of messages about the "bet" to bring Vulis out? I stayed out of the charade completely.), with Hallam-Baker, and with others. Second, because he has not been actively composing essays for a while, perhaps because of his job with Community Connexion. Other reasons, too. (I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list). * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. * As expected, those who only want to talk about cryptography (but who rarely do, themselves, also as expected) waste bandwidth saying the "anarchist" and "libertarian" stuff ought to go in to the "rejected" list. More bandwidth wasted, as each group lobbies to have its ideological opponents censored by Sandy. * I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff. After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such lists, and more would not hurt. But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things considerably. * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by Sandy for whatever reasons....maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, or was "too flamish." Whatever. I realized that life is too short to have Sandy Sandfort deciding whether my essays should go out to the main list (which is really just a list like Eric Blossom's best-of list, except it is be edict now the main list) or be dumped into the flames list, to be read by a handful of people.) * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the "Cypherpunks-Unedited) (or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger with the issues raised above. The imperiousness of the decision, the notion of favoring Sandy's tastes in a more "first class" way than, say, the tastes of Eric Blossom, Ray Arachelian, or, for that matter, me. "Some censors are more equal than others." * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they can't say. * It also sends a message that people are incapable of filtering out bad speech, that they need a censor to do it for them. (Again, I have no problem with competing "screeners," a la having Ray, Eric, or David Sternlight filtering what they think is OK and what is not. Let a thousand filtering services bloom.) But the clear message by having Sandy censor the main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the list we all know about, etc.) is that Cypherpunks need Big Brother to shelter them from Bad Thoughts, from Naughty Words, from Evil Flames, and from Impure Desires. Foo on that. * Psychologists might point to random reinforcement, even to the effects of terror. How many of us are likely to write controversial posts knowing that Sandy might wake up having a "bad hair day" and thus reject our posts? How many will begin to skew their opinions to match those of Sandy? (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to get a leftist rant past him.) * Those who want "less noise" should subcontract with the filter services of their own choosing. This is the "Cypherpunk Way." Having Sandy as the censor is the easy way out. * By the way, the moderated list "RISKS" works pretty well. But it is not a _discussion_ group. It is, rather, a digest of news items related to computer and technology risks, with some discussion by various contributors, and with a long turnaround time of a few issues per week, tops. Peter Neumann also devotes a lot of time to making it run smoothly and bases part of his professional career on running it. I surmise that Sandy is not prepared to do the same. Nor would this be a good idea, as this would kill the spirit of the debate. * Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of several approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John made it clear that there would be no debate (and, perhaps as part of the "problem," John has not really been a active member of the mailing list, in terms of participating in the debates), this is all moot. In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to other things. * To summarize: - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a semantically debatable point) - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group. - there is some talk of creating another Cypherpunks list, on other machines; I don't know whether or not this will fly, or if I'll devote any time to such lists. - the effect of censorship, such as I have seen it so far, is not producing a better list. In fact, as I would have expected, it is producing a more boring and sheltered list. And so there you have it. I had no plans to set down my views, feeling it was a waste of my time and your time. Rather than foam and rant the way some did (and Vulis must have posted 100 messages on the subject), I chose to simply make my exit, quickly. But as I have recently seen several mentions of my absence (including a particularly complimentary comment from Asgaard--thanks), I do feel I owe it to you all to explain my views. Which I have done. Have a nice year, and a nice millenium in a couple of years. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 5

Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Rachel Willmer <rachel(a)intertrader.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:03:25 +0000 From: Rachel Willmer <rachel(a)intertrader.com> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN --- From RISKS digest --- Date: 1 Feb 1997 05:12:02 GMT From: weberwu(a)tfh-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN The Berlin newspaper "Tagespiegel" reports on 29 Jan 97 about a television show broadcast the previous evening on which hackers from the Chaos Computer Club demonstrated how to electronically transfer funds without needing a PIN (Personal Identification Number) or TAN (Transaction Number). Apparently it suffices for the victim to visit a site which downloads an ActiveX application, which automatically starts and checks to see if Quicken, a popular financial software package that also offers electronic funds transfer, is on the machine. If so, Quicken is given a transfer order which is saved by Quicken in its pile of pending transfer orders. The next time the victim sends off the pending transfer orders to the bank (and enters in a valid PIN and TAN for that!) all the orders (= 1 transaction) are executed -> money is transferred without the victim noticing! The newspaper quotes various officials at Microsoft et al expressing disbelief/outrage/"we're working on it". We discussed this briefly in class looking for a way to avoid the problem. Demanding a TAN for each transfer is not a solution, for one, the banks only send you 50 at a time, and many small companies pay their bills in bunches. Having to enter a TAN for each transaction would be quite time-consuming. Our only solution would be to forbid browsers from executing any ActiveX component without express authorization, but that rather circumvents part of what ActiveX is intended for. A small consolation: the transfer is trackable, that is, it can be determined at the bank to which account the money went. Some banks even include this information on the statement, but who checks every entry on their statements... Debora Weber-Wulff, Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, Luxemburger Str. 10, 13353 Berlin GERMANY weberwu(a)tfh-berlin.de <http://www.tfh-berlin.de/~weberwu/> -- Rachel Willmer, Intertrader Ltd, Cova House, 4 John's Place, Edinburgh Email: rachel(a)intertrader.com Tel: +44 131 555 8450 Fax: +44 131 555 8451 Sun Internet Associate and winner of 1996 SMART Award for Innovation "We develop Java Commerce Solutions" --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Re: Lucifer
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deflated Vermin K`adaver'OTM has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. o o --/-- <~\ Deflated Vermin K`adaver'OTM __\ _/\

1 0

None [ANNOUNCEMENT] Secure envelopes
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C[rook] May's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. ,,, -ooO(o o)Ooo- Tim C[rook] May (_)

1 0

Re: [OFF-TOPIC] Newt's phone calls
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dipshit Viscera K<rap> Of The Month will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Dipshit Viscera K<rap> Of The Month

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.24

2 1