December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

18th Century Hacking [scienceagogo]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980914030842data_trunc_sys.shtml > Subject: 19980914030842data_trunc_sys.shtml > Richard Taylor > richard(a)jujumedia.com Apple UK Old Post Bags: The Story of the > Sending of a Letter in Ancient and Modern Times, brought to our > attention by the Dead Media Project. > > In those days, "franking" was the name of the game, meaning the > transmission of information by way of sophisticated encryptions on the > outside of an envelope. The trick was to take advantage of the > pre-Penny Black system of cash-on-delivery, where postmen demanded > exorbitant fees from recipients. Outwitting the Post Office involved > gleaning important information from, say, the way the address was > written, then refusing the letter on the grounds that it was too > expensive. > > The poet Coleridge tells the story of the most rudimentary sort of > frank, witnessed at an inn in the north of England. A postman offered > a letter to the barmaid and demanded a shilling. Sighing > melodramatically, she gave back the letter, protesting that she was > too poor to pay for it. Coleridge, ever the gentleman, insisted on > forking out the shilling, only to be shown afterwards that the > envelope was empty. The letter's message was in fact contained in a > number of subtle hieroglyphics alongside the address. [text deleted] > The Post Office cottoned on to such shenanigans, but proof of > fraudulent activity was next to impossible. They did, however, crack a > number of basic codes, and administered fines accordingly. Secret > messages embedded within apparent instructions to the postman, such as > "With speed" or "Postman, be you honest and true" were well known, as > was the practice of highlighting certain words on a newspaper > (newspapers were delivered free of charge) to convey a simple idea. > Underlining the name of a Whig politician commonly meant "I am well", > while doing the same thing with a Tory meant the opposite. [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: ATTN: BlackNet, sog's keys 4 sale
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back writes: > Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID > pub 384/5A5AD16B 1994/02/11 *** KEY REVOKED *** > BlackNet<nowhere(a)cyberspace.nil> > > A revoked key, and a rather small key size, this rings a bell, some of > you may recall that some time ago Paul Leyland factored that key. For the record, that key was factored by a team consisting of Paul Leyland, Arjen Lenstra, Alec Muffett, and Jim Gillogly. -- Jim Gillogly 23 Winterfilth S.R. 1998, 15:10 12.19.5.10.16, 7 Cib 9 Yax, Ninth Lord of Night

3 2

Re: IRS wants cypherpunks archives
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > > Jeff, and fellow agents seem to be interested in cypherpunks archives > (as evidenced by asking Jim Choate who operates one of the mailing > list nodes, but who does _not_ offer archived list traffic). Jeff is > Cc'd on this post to be helpful (who says cypherpunks aren't helpful > -- you only have to ask). > > This archive seems to be operational: > > http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/ And less than 100 lines of client-side programming (I use 'expect') will retrieve the entire archive. ---guy Watch them make a grunt retrieve it all manually.

1 0

more Toto keys... so what's it all mean
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone asked me in email what the meaning of the last 3 posts I made, the plethora of public and private keys, discrete log attacked, deadbeefed, forged, factored, decrypted etc. getting confusing. The 3 messages I wrote this morning go together, -- they are all on the same post by anonymous/Toto, just me realising more things about it. Here's what happened (play along if you like): a) I tried fetching the key the message was encrypted to (try to decrypt it -- it will tell you what keyid you need) from a keyserver b) I noticed that the public key I fetched is the 384 bit blacknet key which Paul Leyland broke (clue was the key on the keyservers is revoked, and only 384 bits, which made me remember Leyland's factoring attack), c) used altavista to find Leyland's announce to sci.crypt a few years back which included the private key he obtained by factoring the 384 bit blacknet public key d) decrypted the message with the blacknet private key, e) inside the message was a public and private key, at this point whoopee yet another Toto key (post 1), f) wondered if this key was the one which signed the messages the IRS has incarcerated CJ over, checked the signature, yes! (post 2), g) tried to sign a message with the key -- oops it has a password because the private key is encrypted, h) tried the passwords that John Young forwarded to the list a few weeks back from some anonymous source, yup one of them decrypts the private key, and we are able to make signatures! (post 3). As to what it means -- it means that one or more others could have been the author of the message the IRS claim Carl Johnson wrote. Heck anyone could sign posts with that key now. The allegations that CJ was sharing the "carljohn" account at sympatico with hackers may also be interesting especially if anyone is still able to verify that the account details are correct (who knows -- maybe the account is still active! -- anyone want to try?), because it throws even further into doubt (aside from the doubt arising from the numerous forgeries surrounding Toto) the IRS presumption that all things apparently sent from sympatico were written by CJ ... Perhaps Jeff and fellow IRS agents could ask sympatico if they are able to verify the validity of the account details. 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: Aaron Debunks Crypto Myths
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> > > Crypto emissary David Aaron gave a speech today in > Germany boosting US encryption policy for privacy and > commerce. Says it's an insult to claim US intelligence > agencies want backdoor access and other untrue myths: > > http://jya.com/aaron101398.htm A prime example of DoubleThink, since Key Recovery == backdoor access. # http://jya.com/aaron101398.htm # # Clearly, a balance must be struck between the needs of businesses and # consumers and the protection of society as a whole. What is the # answer? We believe the answer lies in cryptographic systems that # provide trustworthy security services along with lawful access. By # lawful access, I refer to a range of technologies designed to permit # the plain text recovery of encrypted data and communications under a ^^^^^^^^ # court order or other lawful means that safeguards civil liberties. In other words, they believe in cryptographic systems with backdoor access. The NSA testified to Congress concerning lawful access: : The Puzzle Palace : Inside the National Security Agency, : America's most secret intelligence organization : Author James Bamford, 1983 revision, ISBN 0-14-00.6748-5 : : P381-382: NSA Director General Allen testified to Congress that there is no : statute that prevents the NSA from interception of domestic communications. : Asked whether he was concerned about the legality of expanding greatly its : targeting of American citizens, the NSA replied: "Legality? That particular : aspect didn't enter into the discussions." The government's idea of "lawful access" is "anywhere, anytime". # http://jya.com/aaron101398.htm # # We are not wedded to any single technology approach. Key management # infrastructures, key recovery and other recoverable products that # provide lawful access are some of the ways to achieve a reasonable # balance. We believe that seeking industry-led, market-based solutions # is the best approach to helping law enforcement. Oh dey do do dey? : From owner-firewalls-outgoing(a)GreatCircle.COM Wed May 14 18:54:15 1997 : Received: from osiris (osiris.nso.org [207.30.58.40]) by ra.nso.org : (post.office MTA v1.9.3 ID# 0-13592) with SMTP id AAA322 : for <firewalls(a)GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 14 May 1997 12:56:13 -0400 : Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 12:58:46 -0400 : To: firewalls(a)GreatCircle.COM : From: research(a)isr.net (Research Unit I) : Subject: Re: Encryption Outside US : : I was part of that OECD Expert Group, and believe I may shine at least : some light on what exactly was said and happened at the meetings. : : The main conflict during all sessions was the demand of the US to be : able to decrypt anything, anywhere at any time versus the European : focus: we want to have the choice - with an open end - to maintain : own surveillance. The US demand would have caused an immediate : ability to tap into what the European intelligence community believes to : be its sole and exclusive territory. In fact the Europeans were not at all : pleased with the US view points of controlling ALL crypto. Germany and : France vigorously refused to work with the US on this issue. : : ... the Australian and UK views that felt some obligation : from the 1947 UKUSA treaty (dealing with interchange of intelligence). : : Bertil Fortrie : Internet Security Review The US Government insists on the capability "to decrypt anything, anywhere at any time" he said. Gosh, that doesn't sound like they believe "market-based solutions" are the best approach, does it? * http://epic.org/crypto/ban/fbi_dox/impact_text.gif * * SECRET FBI report * * NEED FOR A NATIONAL POLICY * * A national policy embodied in legislation is needed which insures * that cryptography use in the United States should be forced to be * crackable by law enforcement, so such communications can be monitored * with real-time decryption. * * All cryptography that cannot meet this standard should be prohibited. No it don't, do it? : * "Above the Law" : * ISBN 0-684-80699-1, 1996 : * by David Burnham : * : * The suspicion that the government might one day try to outlaw any : * encryption device which did not provide easy government access was : * reinforced by comments made by FBI Director Freeh at a 1994 Washington : * conference on cryptography. "The objective for us is to get those : * conversations...wherever they are, whatever they are", he said in : * response to a question. : * : * Freeh indicated that if five years from now the FBI had solved the : * access problem but was only hearing encrypted messages, further : * legislation might be required. Anywhere, anytime. ---guy "Easy access".

1 0

Re: Gary Burnore vs. Earth (Was: Value of Annon. Remailers)
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Missouri FreeNet Administration <sysadmin(a)mfn.org> > > Obviously, as defenders of this man's right to post material offensive > to Burnore, we too came under attack. One man's attack is another's defense. > The point here is that what little survives about this lunatic child > molester (he has even successfully had his North Carolina Sex Offender record > removed!),... Gee, why don't you ask North Carolina why, in writing? > Yes, I know, at least half of you are sitting here going "now why did they > bother us with that?". The answer is we feel VERY strongly that if not for > what [little] we were able to find as a result of A/R's, we would never have > been able to figure this clown out at all. And loco though he may be, he is > also a *prodigious* pain in the ass,... Again, ying/yang. Let us know when you have an original thought. ---guy

1 0

RE: DNA
by Richard.Bragg＠ssa.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok so the genotype is the same (same DNA) but the phenotype is different (what you see). It's more complex than this but there are all sorts of ways that genes express themselves and how this can be changed. A good dose of phenol or benzene can do wonders to your genetic material. A trip to Windscale (sorry Selafield) to inspect the inside of the reactor vessel etc all has an effect. DNA testing would probably never look at the entire sequence anyway. It would look at enough to give near unique markers. Using a "drill down" technique to gradually exclude until only one remains. ie normal number of gene pairs (not many people live with duff code in here but there are some) male vs female (50%) blood group etc Why use actual matching until you need to, it's expensive. You get down to a handful and test those on a wider range of codes. You hope the samples are good and the genes haven't been damaged or contaminated. Don't rely on the science. The science is our tool NOT us of the science. We already rely too much on the technology, science, methods etc. This is not a scientific way of working. Anyway have fun!! Hwyl

1 0

RE: DNA
by Walter Burton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: X [mailto:xasper8d@lobo.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 10:00 AM > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: RE: DNA > [snip] > so explain why my brother has smooth > hands and fingers with almost no > prints (lucky bastard!) and mine look > like mother teresa's face... Wear-and-tear? > (probably more now than before, eh?) Yecch! \\/alter

1 0

Re: Gary Burnore vs. Earth (Was: Value of Annon. Remailers)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Missouri FreeNet Administration <sysadmin(a)mfn.org> wrote: > First off, let us state up front that this is an aside to the previous > poster, and not totally on-point: feel free to hit the delete key, and > accept our apologies if this is a problem. > > About two months ago, we met the infamous Burnore & Company while > defending a semi-annonymous UseNet poster calling himself "Outlaw-Frog-Raper". > It seems that in classical Burnore style "OFR" found himself the sudden > victim of [literally] daily TOS/SPAM complaints by Burnore and Co. for making > use of UseNet to air his decidedly anti-police positions (it's odd how "pro > police" Burnore is, isn't it?). Given Gary Burnore's criminal record, he needs all the sucking up to the police he can get. In addition to his arrest and conviction for molesting his girlfriend's daughter in Santa Clara, CA, he was also arrested for unlawful assembly for his participation in Critical Mass' bicycle blockade of the streets of San Francisco during rush hour. (See: http://www.e-media.com/cm/sac.html ) And this criminal has the chutzpah to try and be a net Nazi as well. This same self-righteous individual once lectured another netizen about how it's wrong to "fight abuse with abuse". > Obviously, as defenders of this man's right to post material offensive > to Burnore, we too came under attack. Fortunately, we have been with > our upstream provider for a long time, and are on *very* good terms: they told > Burnore to keep his complaints to himself. But I digress... The best defense against censorious cretins like Gary Burnore is education. That's what the victims of the infamous "Rev." Steve Winter (who also lives in Raleigh, NC, BTW) had to do to counteract his abusive tactics. A "Steve Winter FAQ" was compiled and posted to Usenet as well as being published on the web. People who are the subject of his harassment tactics have something to show to their ISPs, employers, etc. when Winter makes his bogus threats. > As this "war" intensified, we attempted to determine just who in the hell > this lunatic *was*, as nobody here is a regular Usenet follower (just when > we have our slow periods, we'll check in with the loons to kill a couple of > hours...). To our surprise, we discovered that while Burnore/Databasix/etc. > are known far and wide, the actual traffic that passes between them and the rest > of the Earthly population is pretty well eradicated. Here's a guy who has actually > sat down and deleted (according to DejaNews) *tens of thousands* of his -own- posts! > Not to mention the unknown number of posts which he has "thoughtfully taken care of > for those others who forgot to do so themselves"... This is the same Gary Burnore who cajoled an anonymous whistleblower for "hiding behind a remailer" and boasted "I have nothing to hide", although he himself attempts to gain plausible deniability for his own posts by preventing an impartial third party from archiving them, then claiming they were "forged" if he inserted his foot too far into his mouth. Not only does Gary hide his own posts behind an X-No-Archive header, but posts critical of him have a tendency to be cancelled through forgery. He screwed up once and cancelled a post critical of him that was cross-posted to one of the news.admin.net-abuse.* NGs. Unfortunately for him, an anti-cancel-bot on that NG reposted the cancelled message along with a copy of the forged cancellation message sent by ... guess who ... Gary Burnore! Oops, Gary, can you say "busted"? > The point here is that what little survives about this lunatic child > molester (he has even successfully had his North Carolina Sex Offender record > removed!), has almost all come through *some* annonymizer. Whether a MixMaster, > or Cajones (RIP) "intentional annonymizer", or an "unintentional annonymizer" > such as a large [cypherpunks] listserv with "bad headers". By his own account, Gary Burnore spent nearly $30K getting the child molestation charge plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor. My guess is that he has no money left to carry through on his idle threats of frivolous legal action against those on his lengthy enemies list. For example, when Jeff Burchell demanded a letter from Gary's lawyer when he was demanding that Jeff turn over his remailer logs to DataBasix, what Jeff received was a letter from Gary's girlfriend Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)databasix.com> impersonating a lawyer. For Jeff's account of that episode, visit: http://calvo.teleco.ulpgc.es/listas/cypherpunks@infonex.com/HTML-1997-11/ms… > We submit that it only takes one successful argument, even though there be > a million such arguments available, to "proof" the value of an annoymous remailer. > we then extend the original Burnore story (presented in part below) in further > support. It proves that censorship need not originate with a governmental body. All it takes is a determined individual with more time available to harass than his victims do to defend against it. > Yes, I know, at least half of you are sitting here going "now why did they > bother us with that?". The answer is we feel VERY strongly that if not for > what [little] we were able to find as a result of A/R's, we would never have > been able to figure this clown out at all. And loco though he may be, he is > also a *prodigious* pain in the ass, who represents a real, true threat to > what little freedoms we still have in the US. Burnore isn't a loner in the > political sense: he's actually becoming pretty mainstream. If A/R's can help > to keep scum like him in the light, where he can't hide his hypocrises [sp?] > through a cancel or "DejaNuke", then they are one of our most important national > resources, and should be defended (and *funded*) as such! The problem is that most dissidents have a weak point somewhere where they are vulnerable, whether it be a censorious hate mail campaign to his/her ISP or employer, mail bombing, spam baiting, forged mailing list subscriptions, or one of countless other denial-of-service attacks that Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan, Billy McClatchie (aka "Wotan"), or otther members of the DataBasix abuse factory can conjure up. > Just our [very biased] $.02 worth... > > The full-time [yet totally volunteer] staff of Missouri FreeNet: > > J.A. Terranson, sysadmin(a)mfn.org > John Blau, jb214(a)mfn.org > Beatrice Hynes, beatrice(a)mfn.org > Frescenne "M", support(a)mfn.org > A. Pates, support(a)mfn.org > > </LURK ON> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > <huge brevity snippage> > > Consider the episode last year with Gary Burnore and DataBasix vs. > Jeff Burchell and his Mailmasher and Huge Cajones machines. > Made-to-order abuse appeared right on cue to reinforce the claims > that Burnore and his girlfriend Belinda Bryan had made. And now > we've learned the real truth behind the whole episode. While Gary > Burnore was living with another girlfriend in Santa Clara, CA, he > was also molesting her teenaged daughter. An anonymous > whistleblower attempted to warn the girl's mother as well as her > school officials by anonymous e-mail. Burnore went ballistic and > falsely claimed "harassment". But the whistleblower was ultimately > vindicated when Burnore pled guilty to the molestation charge, was > placed on probation, and was required to register as a sex offender. > Unable to silence the whistleblower, Burnore began a campaign of > harassment against the operators of the remailers that were being > used to expose him. IOW, if you can't refute the message, shoot the > messenger. And if you can't shoot the messenger, attempt to disable > his means of communication (the remailers net). > > I recounted this case history, which can be researched in various > usenet archives by anyone interested, just to demonstrate that one > man's "harassment" can well be another man's investigative > journalism, even if the journalist or whistleblower is not in a > position to expose him/herself to retaliation by the wrongdoer, > which has been (coincidentally?) reported by virtually anyone who > has dared to challenge Gary Burnore publicly.

1 0

EVEN MORE FREE PORN: STUFFED HAS 10 LINKS TO 100S OF FREE PICS, NEW EVERY DAY
by STUFFED THU OCT 15 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + PUSSY LICKIN' LESBIANS + ODD INSERTION + TAAASTY TAMERS + FREE XXX SMUT + TAAASTY TAMERS + SEXY SITES + ANTIQUE PORNOGRAPHY + VIRGIN PUSSIES + EUROPEAN WOMEN + LAND O LEZ + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/23807.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/30298.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/25946.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/24676.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/7112.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- If you haven't visited STUFFED in the last few days, you're in for a real treat. It's faster than ever before and now, as a subscriber, you get 35 FREE new pics every day, plus over 100 more at carefully selected FREE sites we link to. This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0