December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: ideal secure personal computer system
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:10 PM 11/15/96 -0500, Adam Gulkis wrote: >a locked startup disk is not a good idea, if it is even possible. A system file and boot blocks you know can't be written to is a wonderful aid to a comfortable sleep. For a number of things, I would like to boot off CDROM. (E.g. the program which checks the cryptographic hash of all the executables on my hard drive and delivers me a report.) >Most applications setup scratch space on the startup volume. It would be better if they set up scratch space on the writable volume with the most available space. VM/CMS provided a system call to to this in the late 1960s/early 1970s. "Modern" systems should provide a similar service. >It would >be a better idea to setup a partition for applications and lock it, if >you feel that is necessary. Norton DiskLock is a nice tool that >provides a startup password protection as well as screensaver >password. It will request a password if the machine sleeps or to >reboot after a crash. Protection against strangers walking up to your machine and using it is nice, and easy to do. Protection against viruses which install Trojan horses in your system would also be nice, but is very hard to do in systems where programs run with all the privileges of their users. Examples include (in alpha order): DOS, MacOS, Unix, and Windows (including NT). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The lottery is a tax on | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | those who can't do math. | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | - Who 1st said this? | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Reminder -- DCCP Meeting on Saturday, November 16
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- WHAT: DC Cypherpunks Meeting WHEN: Saturday, November 16, 1996 @ 3 pm WHERE: 1050 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC (Between K and L streets) WHO: From phone on eighth floor, call to be let in WHY: A description of the crypto protocols used in the SET (Secure Electronic Transaction) standard A PGP key signing HOW: Take the orange/blue line to Farragut West, walk two blocks north (past the park), 1050 Conn. Ave will be on left Take the red line to Farragut North, exit on L street at base of 1050 Conn. Ave From Baltimore, take BaltWashExpy south. It turns into New York Avenue, which turns into Massachusetts Avenue. Take Mass. Ave westbound to Dupont Circle. Then take Connecticut Avenue southbound. 1050 Conn. Ave will be about four blocks away on your right. MORE INFO: http://www.isse.gmu.edu/~pfarrell/dccp/

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Terry Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>It just "looks" that way on the net. I do live-fucking, newsgroup >flooding, mailbombing, vote-tampering and defamation all legally, >and OPENLY on the InterNet. > >The more you PGP, the worse you look. Nobody reads your e-mail, >so stop being so paranoid. > >-aga > > Who is this idiot?

1 0

Key Escrow
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For my Professional Ethics class I was charged to do an essay on something topical and analyze it using the three main systems of ethics (Utilitarianism, Kantian Rights, and Justice as fairness.) I have pretty much wrapped up the essay and was hoping I could get some feedback from you guys (and gals, to be PC) about it. It is supposed to stay under 5 pages, and is intended for Joe non-crypto-user, so I wasn't allowed to ramble on about crypto, but I would still like some feedback. Anyone who is interested can obtain the document at: http://www.spacey.net/oringer/rickoz/Ethics.htm and the original Word 7.0 version at: http://www.spacey.net/oringer/rickoz/Ethics.doc Thanks, Rick Rick Osborne / C++ VB Pascal HTML VRML Java / osborne(a)gateway.grumman.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Women like a guy who looks trim, neat. You got to be sharp. I look like I'm wearing a circus tent. Any minute now a little tiny car, with sixteen clowns in it is gonna come flying out my butt."

1 0

National Emergency
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Froomkin posted to the cyberia list a pointer to the Clinton administration's new export policy. He has a copy on his web site at: <URL: http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/nov96-regs.htm >. The thing I found interesting is that it refers to the fact that we are currently living under a state of national emergency! I searched on the whitehouse web site and couldn't find the executive order referred to (maybe it was classified) but did find this one: For Immediate Release June 30, 1994 Executive Order #12923 - - - - - - - Continuation Of Export Control Regulations By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including but not limited to section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1702), I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, findthat the unrestricted access of foreign parties to U.S. goods, technology, and technical data and the existence of certain boycott practices of foreign nations, in light of the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.), constitute an unusual and extraordinarythreat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and hereby declare a national emergency with respect to that threat. Apparently this state of emergency is still in effect. This is what gives the President the power to unilaterally make changes in the export policy. It would be nice if our congresspeople would take some responsibility in this matter. Hal

3 2

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by Bryondp＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

take me off this fucking list

2 1

Executive order on crypto
by Peter D. Junger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok, stop squabbling. Here is something important. The President has issued a couple of Executive Orders today that transfer crypto to Commerce (eventually) and that make things worse, not better, as far as I can tell at a quick reading. An important portion of the Executive Orders is a rehash of arguments that the government has made unsuccessfully in the Bernstein case and has also made in my case. I found out about the order from a posting by Michael Froomkin on Cyberia-L. The URL of the Executive Order, for today at least, is: http://library.whitehouse.gov/PressReleases.cgi?date=0&briefing=4 Michael Froomkin has also put up a mirror at: http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/nov96-regs.htm I will have a copy up on my web server (http://samsara.law.cwru.edu) before the evening is over. It seems (again just at a quick reading) that the government is now limiting, or pretending to limit, its regulations on the ``export'' of cryptographic software to communications over the internet or on bulletin boards. As I read the Executive Orders they require that the final regulations shall contain the same sort of restrictions on crypto information that the Computer Decency Act applies to indecency--if the CDA cases are upheld by the Supreme Court, I think that these provisions will be struck down on the authority of that decision. The Executive Orders are not yet in effect. That awaits the proclamation of final regulations, which may be hard to draft--or may be issued on Monday for all I know. And argument in Junger v. Christopher is scheduled for Wednesday. Law is fun! Peter -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger(a)pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu

1 0

Re: National Emergency
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal Finney wrote: >I found interesting is that it refers to the fact that we are currently >living under a state of national emergency! [Snip] The same emergency was invoked for the same purpose in December, 1995, with citation of the elusive EO 12924 identical to the latest EO. See: http://jya.com/exporeg1.htm

2 1

opinions on www.accutrade.com security?
by CaShaky＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Do any of you security knowledgeable people have any information on the security of accutrade? I opened an account with them prior to subscribing <sp? lol> to this list. I am now considering closing said account because of what i have learned from this list. How easy or hard would it be for a hacker to diddle with the accounts? To access the accounts all you need is a 9 digit account number and a 4 digit pin number. But from what I have gleaned from here is that the real leak in security is in attacking the OS directly. If this post is inappropriate to this list I apoligize in advance, but i have come to the conclusion that there are very bright and knowledgeable people on this list (once you filter out the noise) and would appreciate your opinions. Thank you CaShaky

1 0

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:43 AM 11/15/96 -0500, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: > >Jim appears to be arguing that the "common law" courts heis refering >to had judges appointed by the King. If so the right to appoint >judges to those posts passed to the US government under the treaty >of Paris. WRONG! One of the main principles of the US Constitution is that the government has no "rights," per se: It merely has specific authority granted to it by the people and the states of America. A treaty with a defeated monarch did not and could not grant authority to the Federal governemnt that it did not already have. Also, you've screwed up on the timeline: The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, and the US Constitution was finalized in 1787, four years later. Quite simply, the Federal government of the US didn't exist when the Treaty was made. No "rights" could be transferred to a non-existent branch of government. I suppose you'll now claim that the "rights" were transferred to the states, right? Well, the states did not have their own Constitutions, either. And unless those Constitutions mentioned commonlaw courts, it's pretty obvious that the public did not anticipate including those powers in those state governments. It is obvious that King George relinquished that power; what you'll be unable to show is that this power flowed to any entity other than the people of America, every one of them. >The Common Law in the UK was the kings law since the Norman conquest. >It is as any schoolboy knows judge made law. The doctrine of precedent >has become more and more prominent since the renaisance though, effectively >preventing judicial lawmaking except in areas where no law is believed >to exist. > >As a system of government I don't think very much of the idea of a >bunch of klansmen getting together to decide who they dislike. Sounds >much more like a lynch mob than a system of government to me. For every "bunch of klansmen" getting together, you'll have a few hundred bunches of far more reasonable people. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0