December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ALL THE EFFORTS SEEMS FINALLY TO GET THE TENTACLE LD's ATTENTION... KEEP IT UP CYPHERPUNKS!!!... ANARCHY IS WINNING... LOVE MEDUSA P.S. TO LD... THE FOLLOWING SHOULD REALLY TURN YOU ON... finger ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu [longs.lance.colostate.edu] Login name: ld231782 In real life: L. Detweiler Office: Home phone: 498-8278 Directory: /users/UNGRAD/ES/ld231782 Shell: /bin/tcsh Most recent logins: dolores Fri Jan 21 16:16 keller Sat Jan 22 16:09 Never logged in. No Plan. JUST DOING SOME RESEARCH VIA NIC WE FIND THAT THE MACHINE Non-authoritative answer: Name: longs.lance.colostate.edu Address: 129.82.109.16 > set type=mx > longs.lance.colostate.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu preference = 0, mail exchanger = longs.lance.col ostate.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu preference = 10, mail exchanger = yuma.acns.colo state.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu internet address = 129.82.109.16 yuma.acns.colostate.edu internet address = 129.82.100.64 acns.colostate.EDU nameserver = yuma.acns.ColoState.EDU acns.colostate.EDU nameserver = lamar.ColoState.EDU yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.100.64 lamar.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.103.75 lamar.ColoState.EDU preference = 10, mail exchanger = lamar.ColoState.EDU lamar.ColoState.EDU preference = 20, mail exchanger = yuma.ACNS.ColoState.ED U lamar.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.103.75 yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.100.64 and a traceroute to LDs favorite posting machine the return times indicate that my end is a 9.6 ppp connection 2 hops away from 4. Note also I didnt query intervening routers and hosts for information. Upstream hosts and/or routers may also be compromisable... 4 cix-west2.cix.net (149.20.3.3) 310 ms 260 ms 290 ms 5 ans.cix.net (149.20.5.2) 280 ms 280 ms 280 ms 6 en-0.San-Francisco-cnss11.t3.ans.net (192.103.60.5) 270 ms 290 ms 270 ms 7 mf-0.San-Francisco-cnss8.t3.ans.net (140.222.8.222) 280 ms 320 ms 290 ms 8 t3-1.Seattle-cnss88.t3.ans.net (140.222.88.2) 300 ms 290 ms 300 ms 9 t3-0.Denver-cnss96.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.1) 310 ms 300 ms 310 ms 10 mf-0.Denver-cnss97.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.193) 310 ms 290 ms 310 ms 11 t3-0.enss141.t3.ans.net (140.222.141.1) 300 ms 300 ms 310 ms 12 cu-gw.ucar.edu (192.52.106.4) 300 ms 410 ms 310 ms 13 ucb-ncar.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.46) 310 ms 129.19.248.62 (129.19.248.62 ) 320 ms 330 ms 14 csu-ucb.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.102) 340 ms 320 ms 340 ms 15 csu-gw-2.UCC.ColoState.EDU (129.82.103.2) 310 ms 450 ms 310 ms 16 longs.lance.colostate.edu (129.82.109.16) 350 ms 330 ms 320 ms WELL WHAT DOES THIS TELL US TECHNICALLY SO FAR... THERE IS MOST LIKELY NO EFFECTIVE FIREWALL PROTECTION BETWEEN LD'S FAVORITE MACHINE AND THE OUTSIDE WORLD AS TRACEROUTE USES UDP PROBES ON RANDOM PORTS. NO INCOMING UDP BLOCKAGE GENERALLY INDICATES THE SECURITY OF THAT MACHINE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON PROXY/PACKET FILTERING TYPE ROUTERS AND FIREWALLED DOMAINS ADDITIONALLY A ISS LOG RUN VIA iss -p 129.82.109.16 SHOWED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS : --> Inet Sec Scanner Log By Christopher Klaus (C) 1993 <-- Email: cklaus(a)hotsun.nersc.gov coup(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu ================================================================ Host 129.82.109.16, Port 11 opened. systat udp/tcp users Host 129.82.109.16, Port 13 opened. daytime udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 17 opened. qotd tcp quote Host 129.82.109.16, Port 21 opened. ftp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 23 opened. telnet tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 25 opened. smtp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 37 opened. time udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 53 opened. domain udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 79 opened. finger tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 109 opened. pop-2 tcp Post Office Protocol Host 129.82.109.16, Port 110 opened. pop-3 Host 129.82.109.16, Port 111 opened. sunrpc udp/tcp JACKPOT!!!!!! Host 129.82.109.16, Port 119 opened. nntp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 210 opened. THIS ONE IS UNUSUAL? i shows closed by foreign host Host 129.82.109.16, Port 512 opened. biff/exec udp/tcpf Host 129.82.109.16, Port 513 opened. who/login udp/ tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 514 ("shell" service) opened. syslog/shell udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 515 opened. syslog/printer udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 593 opened. refuses telnet(udp connection) research... Host 129.82.109.16, Port 704 opened. accepts telnet connection(tcp) echos... Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1024 opened. accepts telnet connection(tcp) Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1025 opened. listener RFS remote_file_sharing Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1031 opened. Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1032 opened. tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1033 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1034 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1035 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1036 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 5599 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 6667 opened. not checked THE SCAN WAS TERMINATED AT THIS POINT. IN THE ABOVE LIST WE FIND SEVERAL GEMS THE BEST OF WHICH IS SUNRPC :)... so next of course rpcinfo -p longs.lance.colostate.edu program vers proto port 100004 2 udp 1029 ypserv 100004 2 tcp 1024 ypserv 100004 1 udp 1029 ypserv 100004 1 tcp 1024 ypserv 100007 2 tcp 1025 ypbind 100007 2 udp 1038 ypbind 100007 1 tcp 1025 ypbind 100007 1 udp 1038 ypbind 100005 1 udp 1071 mountd 100005 1 tcp 1031 mountd 100003 2 udp 2049 nfs 100024 1 udp 1081 status 100024 1 tcp 1032 status 100008 1 udp 1087 walld 100021 1 tcp 1033 nlockmgr 100021 1 udp 1092 nlockmgr 100021 3 tcp 1034 nlockmgr 100021 3 udp 1096 nlockmgr 100020 1 udp 1099 llockmgr 100020 1 tcp 1035 llockmgr 100021 2 tcp 1036 nlockmgr 150001 1 udp 1127 pcnfsd 300019 1 udp 1022 200002 1 udp 1956 WHETHER RUNNING REGULAR OR SECURE RPC (THE LATTER REQUIRES nfscrack TO CRACK THE SECRET EXPONENT) THIS MACHINE IS MOST LIKELY A SPARC OR COMPATIBLE RUNNING A GIVEN VERSION OF SUNOS 4.1.X(CHECK HINFO IF AVAILABL.) A CHECK SHOULD BE MADE TO SEE WHICH SUN NETWORK SECURITY PATCHES HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THIS HOST. A probe of longs.lance.colostate.edu smtp port : longs.lance.colostate.edu Sendmail 8.6.4/8.6.4 (LANCE 1.00) ready at xxx,xx2 xxx xxxx xx:xx:xx -xxxx 220 ESMTP spoken here VRFY ld231782 250 L. Detweiler <ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu> EXPN ld231782 502 That's none of your business quit 221 longs.lance.colostate.edu closing connection OK SO FAR SO GOOD HIS MACHINE SHOWS A FAIRLY SECURE SMTP DAEMON. EXAMINATION OF THAT REVISION AND SOURCE OF SENDMAIL IS STILL UNDER QUESTION BECAUSE THE CURRENT VERSION 8.65 ADDS EVEN MORE SECURITY PATCHES CHECKING FOR ANONYMOUS FTP WE FIND: Check for anonymous FTP service connected to 129.82.109.16. 220 longs.lance.colostate.edu FTP server (Version 4.1 Sun Mar 25 22:59:11 EST 19 90) ready. Name (129.82.109.16:root): anonymous 530 User anonymous unknown. Login failed. ftp> quit 500 'SYST': command not understood. # ftp 129.82.109.16 Connected to 129.82.109.16. 220 longs.lance.colostate.edu FTP server (Version 4.1 Sun Mar 25 22:59:11 EST 19 90) ready. Name (129.82.109.16:root): ftp 530 User ftp unknown. Login failed. ftp> quit 500 'SYST': command not understood. DETWEILER YOU HAVE BEEN A HYPOCRITE, LIAR AND SCONDREL, HOWEVER TO REMAIN PROPERLY SENSITIVE TO A NON COMPOS MENTIS I WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO APOLGIZE BEFORE I HAVE MY TENTACLES FORM FOR THEIR NEXT ASSAULT. IF YOU DO NOT APOLOGIZE YOU WILL REGRET THE RESULTS OF YOUR ACTIONS. I AM NOT TOYING AROUND WITH YOU ANY FURTHER . WE ARE HAVING TENTACLE WHO ARE INFORMATION BROKERS PASSING EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT YOU TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE AGGRIEVED AND ABUSED PARTIES. CEASE AND DESIST! LOVE MEDUSA P.S. A ANONYMOUS REMAILER BLOCK TO SEND YOUR APOLOGY TO ME FOLLOWS I MUST HAVE THAT APOLOGY IMMEDIATELY OR FURTHER ACTIONS WILL FOLLOW! NO PRISONERS! APOLOGIZE AT ONCE!!!--------8<--cut here-->8-------- :: Encrypted: PGP -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.3a hEwCKlkQ745WINUBAf0Z/wGHrYOMJy7+1M6DSrFtnvVEbEH3Kbi/k04MOgbIhTr+ 8HSWOdI6MCl0qHCbB9B+0NZILAsY06dJL5F3L2d3pgAAAVcg0HAS0/wC6qvGO3DL OzAvOYuUJW0nPLiYYDfotcPYc4ndxLQ/p1FDXc8reECJgrFbjBm2nuMVPNDoI+ba u93u/sWUHwrZdiVphz0RWzmY+qJb0IlKkoTWBX0Bcz8TzUEVbnhnbOSQfyqAP0Tz PmoKND1VC2HlPstrd7/20iY4CAxh1bUs+f/ZlOThiHnLPAOXpIb3CWv6dqiNV3Zc iSaF/AcJr29L/ij27zykuNPRXKvZasNUy2fpPYgtt01/NO3XK9f0E3NyCJJirTa0 rOh0P6j93a1mLaDFXtrMIBA+zOgLetslrgedrpz0qipDS/EHfef635adB8S3UjB6 EgozJG7LSamw2LKZAC6nqzeuGcu5RI61jeLjv4Mf2IkE5WHppCgUyOVLv4/gWyR/ K65K6kyWji+XcBRcQZTe48IthsaR7LJHDabeE6Ha8wqoEPlbOCudIWKd =AZpv -----END PGP MESSAGE----- <To reply, save everything below the "cut here" marks above <into another file. Type your reply here (below the blank <line three lines above!) and mail to hfinney(a)shell.portal.com

1 0

The Digital Barter Economy
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There has been much discussion here and elsewhere about digital cash. Presumably digital cash would be directly linked to "real" money; there would be some way of exchanging digital tokens for cash. This type of digital cash may be an intermediate step, but the final result could be the elimination of money altogether. Money exists because of problems with a barter economy. In order to barter, you have to find someone who wants what you have and has what you want. Some goods are hard to carry around, tend to spoil or go bad, etc. A physical barter economy has high transaction costs. The problems which money solves, particularly that of finding someone who has what you want and wants what you have, are mainly costs of information. Computers and networks can solve information problems. Money has its problems as well. Money can either be based on a standard such as gold, or it can be "fiat money" which has value only because people accept it. Standard-based money is dependent on the standard - if there isn't enough gold, the economy can't grow. The reverse can also happen - Pizarro brought back enough gold to cause inflation throughout Europe. Fiat money is dependent on the honesty and competence of the government which issues it, and governments have a long history of spending too much, getting into debt, printing too much money, and wrecking their currency in the process. Money has been necessary to facilitate the operation of the market, but it also interferes with the "pure" free market. Perhaps money is no longer the best solution. Instead of representing money, a digital certificate could directly represent a product or service. One certificate could be good for a car, or perhaps 1/1000th of a car. The person who wanted to buy a car would buy (trade for) 1000 of these. Another certificate could be good for an hour of a particular person's labor. Everyone would, in effect, print their own money. Its value would be determined by their reputation. If you work for one company, you would be paid in coins representing the products or services of that company. If you are self-employed, you would create your own coins for whatever type of work you do, and spend them directly. Your employers would then buy these coins and present them to you, at which time you would provide them with a service. The buying and selling would be done through a huge, distributed international network, similar to the over-the-counter stock market. The value of all coins would be determined by the market, using reputation banks. If you are a good consultant, your coins would go up in value. If you are a bad consultant, or if you print too many coins, and are unable to deliver the services promised, your reputation would be damaged. The value of your reputation would always be higher than whatever you could gain by "cashing it in" and ripping others off. Reputation insurance could also protect buyers against a dishonest seller. When a company wants to hire you, they would buy your coins in the market. If you wanted to buy a new car, you would use whatever coins you have to buy, at an exchange rate determined in real time by the market, the coins representing the car you wanted. You would then take the car coins to the dealer and drive off in your new car. The negotiation and reputation lookups involved in any purchase would be far too complex for the person to handle in real time. Each person would have a software assistant. During a transaction, the assistants would negotiate with each other, looking up the values of coins and reaching a fair price. The better your assistant, the better value you would get, so writing good assistants would be a very profitable business. For large- value transactions, humans might be involved in the negotiation. Using this system, the first truly free market could be created. The information requirements would be very high, but might become feasible someday. Digital cash could be only the beginning. --- MikeIngle(a)delphi.com Secure Drive. Because It's Nobody's Business But Yours!

1 0

anonymous mail
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ALL THE EFFORTS SEEMS FINALLY TO GET THE TENTACLE LD ATTENTION... KEEP IT UP CYPHERPUNKS!!!... ANARCHY IS WINNING... LOVE MEDUSA P.S. TO LD... THE FOLLOWING SHOULD REALLY TURN YOU ON... finger ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu [longs.lance.colostate.edu] Login name: ld231782 In real life: L. Detweiler Office: Home phone: 498-8278 Directory: /users/UNGRAD/ES/ld231782 Shell: /bin/tcsh Most recent logins: dolores Fri Jan 21 16:16 keller Sat Jan 22 16:09 Never logged in. No Plan. JUST DOING SOME RESEARCH VIA NIC WE FIND THAT THE MACHINE Non-authoritative answer: Name: longs.lance.colostate.edu Address: 129.82.109.16 > set type=mx > longs.lance.colostate.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu preference = 0, mail exchanger = longs.lance.col ostate.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu preference = 10, mail exchanger = yuma.acns.colo state.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu internet address = 129.82.109.16 yuma.acns.colostate.edu internet address = 129.82.100.64 acns.colostate.EDU nameserver = yuma.acns.ColoState.EDU acns.colostate.EDU nameserver = lamar.ColoState.EDU yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.100.64 lamar.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.103.75 lamar.ColoState.EDU preference = 10, mail exchanger = lamar.ColoState.EDU lamar.ColoState.EDU preference = 20, mail exchanger = yuma.ACNS.ColoState.ED U lamar.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.103.75 yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.100.64 and a traceroute to LDs favorite posting machine the return times indicate that my end is a 9.6 ppp connection 2 hops away from 4. Note also I didnt query intervening routers and hosts for information. Upstream hosts and/or routers may also be compromisable... 4 cix-west2.cix.net (149.20.3.3) 310 ms 260 ms 290 ms 5 ans.cix.net (149.20.5.2) 280 ms 280 ms 280 ms 6 en-0.San-Francisco-cnss11.t3.ans.net (192.103.60.5) 270 ms 290 ms 270 ms 7 mf-0.San-Francisco-cnss8.t3.ans.net (140.222.8.222) 280 ms 320 ms 290 ms 8 t3-1.Seattle-cnss88.t3.ans.net (140.222.88.2) 300 ms 290 ms 300 ms 9 t3-0.Denver-cnss96.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.1) 310 ms 300 ms 310 ms 10 mf-0.Denver-cnss97.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.193) 310 ms 290 ms 310 ms 11 t3-0.enss141.t3.ans.net (140.222.141.1) 300 ms 300 ms 310 ms 12 cu-gw.ucar.edu (192.52.106.4) 300 ms 410 ms 310 ms 13 ucb-ncar.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.46) 310 ms 129.19.248.62 (129.19.248.62 ) 320 ms 330 ms 14 csu-ucb.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.102) 340 ms 320 ms 340 ms 15 csu-gw-2.UCC.ColoState.EDU (129.82.103.2) 310 ms 450 ms 310 ms 16 longs.lance.colostate.edu (129.82.109.16) 350 ms 330 ms 320 ms WELL WHAT DOES THIS TELL US TECHNICALLY SO FAR... THERE IS MOST LIKELY NO EFFECTIVE FIREWALL PROTECTION BETWEEN LD'S FAVORITE MACHINE AND THE OUTSIDE WORLD AS TRACEROUTE USES UDP PROBES ON RANDOM PORTS. NO INCOMING UDP BLOCKAGE GENERALLY INDICATES THE SECURITY OF THAT MACHINE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON PROXY/PACKET FILTERING TYPE ROUTERS AND FIREWALLED DOMAINS ADDITIONALLY A ISS LOG RUN VIA iss -p 129.82.109.16 SHOWED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS : --> Inet Sec Scanner Log By Christopher Klaus (C) 1993 <-- Email: cklaus(a)hotsun.nersc.gov coup(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu ================================================================ Host 129.82.109.16, Port 11 opened. systat udp/tcp users Host 129.82.109.16, Port 13 opened. daytime udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 17 opened. qotd tcp quote Host 129.82.109.16, Port 21 opened. ftp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 23 opened. telnet tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 25 opened. smtp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 37 opened. time udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 53 opened. domain udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 79 opened. finger tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 109 opened. pop-2 tcp Post Office Protocol Host 129.82.109.16, Port 110 opened. pop-3 Host 129.82.109.16, Port 111 opened. sunrpc udp/tcp JACKPOT!!!!!! Host 129.82.109.16, Port 119 opened. nntp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 210 opened. THIS ONE IS UNUSUAL? i shows closed by foreign host Host 129.82.109.16, Port 512 opened. biff/exec udp/tcpf Host 129.82.109.16, Port 513 opened. who/login udp/ tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 514 ("shell" service) opened. syslog/shell udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 515 opened. syslog/printer udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 593 opened. refuses telnet(udp connection) research... Host 129.82.109.16, Port 704 opened. accepts telnet connection(tcp) echos... Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1024 opened. accepts telnet connection(tcp) Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1025 opened. listener RFS remote_file_sharing Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1031 opened. Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1032 opened. tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1033 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1034 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1035 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1036 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 5599 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 6667 opened. not checked THE SCAN WAS TERMINATED AT THIS POINT. IN THE ABOVE LIST WE FIND SEVERAL GEMS THE BEST OF WHICH IS SUNRPC :)... so next of course rpcinfo -p longs.lance.colostate.edu program vers proto port 100004 2 udp 1029 ypserv 100004 2 tcp 1024 ypserv 100004 1 udp 1029 ypserv 100004 1 tcp 1024 ypserv 100007 2 tcp 1025 ypbind 100007 2 udp 1038 ypbind 100007 1 tcp 1025 ypbind 100007 1 udp 1038 ypbind 100005 1 udp 1071 mountd 100005 1 tcp 1031 mountd 100003 2 udp 2049 nfs 100024 1 udp 1081 status 100024 1 tcp 1032 status 100008 1 udp 1087 walld 100021 1 tcp 1033 nlockmgr 100021 1 udp 1092 nlockmgr 100021 3 tcp 1034 nlockmgr 100021 3 udp 1096 nlockmgr 100020 1 udp 1099 llockmgr 100020 1 tcp 1035 llockmgr 100021 2 tcp 1036 nlockmgr 150001 1 udp 1127 pcnfsd 300019 1 udp 1022 200002 1 udp 1956 whether running regular or secure RPC(the latter requires nfscrack to crack the secret exponent) this machine is most likely a sparc or compatible running a given version of SUNOS 4.1.X?(check HINFO if available.) a check should be made to see which network security patchs have been applied to this host. A probe of longs.lance.colostate.edu smtp port : longs.lance.colostate.edu Sendmail 8.6.4/8.6.4 (LANCE 1.00) ready at xxx,xx2 xxx xxxx xx:xx:xx -xxxx 220 ESMTP spoken here VRFY ld231782 250 L. Detweiler <ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu> EXPN ld231782 502 That's none of your business quit 221 longs.lance.colostate.edu closing connection OK SO FAR SO GOOD HIS MACHINE SHOWS A FAIRLY SECURE SMTP DAEMON. EXAMINATION OF THAT REVISION AND SOURCE OF SENDMAIL IS STILL UNDER QUESTION BECAUSE THE CURRENT VERSION 8.65 ADDS EVEN MORE SECURITY PATCHES CHECKING FOR ANONYMOUS FTP WE FIND: Check for anonymous FTP service connected to 129.82.109.16. 220 longs.lance.colostate.edu FTP server (Version 4.1 Sun Mar 25 22:59:11 EST 19 90) ready. Name (129.82.109.16:root): anonymous 530 User anonymous unknown. Login failed. ftp> quit 500 'SYST': command not understood. # ftp 129.82.109.16 Connected to 129.82.109.16. 220 longs.lance.colostate.edu FTP server (Version 4.1 Sun Mar 25 22:59:11 EST 19 90) ready. Name (129.82.109.16:root): ftp 530 User ftp unknown. Login failed. ftp> quit 500 'SYST': command not understood. DETWEILER YOU HAVE BEEN A HYPOCRITE, LIAR AND SCONDREL, HOWEVER TO REMAIN PROPERLY SENSITIVE TO A NON COMPOS MENTIS I WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO APOLGIZE BEFORE I HAVE MY TENTACLES FORM FOR THEIR NEXT ASSAULT. IF YOU DO NOT APLOGIZE YOU WILL REGRET THE RESULTS OF YOUR ACTIONS. I AM NOT TOYING AROUND WITH YOU ANY FURTHER . WE ARE HAVING TENTACLE WHO ARE INFORMATION BROKERS PASSING EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT YOU TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE AGGRIEVED AND ABUSED PARTIES. CEASE AND DESIST! LOVE MEDUSA P.S. A ANONYMOUS REMAILER BLOCK TO SEND YOUR APOLGY TO ME FOLLOWS I MUST HAVE THAT APOLOGY IMMEDIATELY OR FURTHER ACTIONS WILL FOLLOW! --------8<--cut here-->8-------- :: Encrypted: PGP -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.3a hEwCKlkQ745WINUBAf0Z/wGHrYOMJy7+1M6DSrFtnvVEbEH3Kbi/k04MOgbIhTr+ 8HSWOdI6MCl0qHCbB9B+0NZILAsY06dJL5F3L2d3pgAAAVcg0HAS0/wC6qvGO3DL OzAvOYuUJW0nPLiYYDfotcPYc4ndxLQ/p1FDXc8reECJgrFbjBm2nuMVPNDoI+ba u93u/sWUHwrZdiVphz0RWzmY+qJb0IlKkoTWBX0Bcz8TzUEVbnhnbOSQfyqAP0Tz PmoKND1VC2HlPstrd7/20iY4CAxh1bUs+f/ZlOThiHnLPAOXpIb3CWv6dqiNV3Zc iSaF/AcJr29L/ij27zykuNPRXKvZasNUy2fpPYgtt01/NO3XK9f0E3NyCJJirTa0 rOh0P6j93a1mLaDFXtrMIBA+zOgLetslrgedrpz0qipDS/EHfef635adB8S3UjB6 EgozJG7LSamw2LKZAC6nqzeuGcu5RI61jeLjv4Mf2IkE5WHppCgUyOVLv4/gWyR/ K65K6kyWji+XcBRcQZTe48IthsaR7LJHDabeE6Ha8wqoEPlbOCudIWKd =AZpv -----END PGP MESSAGE----- <To reply, save everything below the "cut here" marks above <into another file. Type your reply here (below the blank <line three lines above!) and mail to hfinney(a)shell.portal.com

1 0

anonymous mail
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ALL THE EFFORTS SEEMS FINALLY TO GET THE TENTACLE LD ATTENTION... KEEP IT UP CYPHERPUNKS!!!... ANARCHY IS WINNING... LOVE MEDUSA P.S. TO LD... THE FOLLOWING SHOULD REALLY TURN YOU ON... finger ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu [longs.lance.colostate.edu] Login name: ld231782 In real life: L. Detweiler Office: Home phone: 498-8278 Directory: /users/UNGRAD/ES/ld231782 Shell: /bin/tcsh Most recent logins: dolores Fri Jan 21 16:16 keller Sat Jan 22 16:09 Never logged in. No Plan. JUST DOING SOME RESEARCH VIA NIC WE FIND THAT THE MACHINE Non-authoritative answer: Name: longs.lance.colostate.edu Address: 129.82.109.16 > set type=mx > longs.lance.colostate.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu preference = 0, mail exchanger = longs.lance.col ostate.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu preference = 10, mail exchanger = yuma.acns.colo state.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu internet address = 129.82.109.16 yuma.acns.colostate.edu internet address = 129.82.100.64 acns.colostate.EDU nameserver = yuma.acns.ColoState.EDU acns.colostate.EDU nameserver = lamar.ColoState.EDU yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.100.64 lamar.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.103.75 lamar.ColoState.EDU preference = 10, mail exchanger = lamar.ColoState.EDU lamar.ColoState.EDU preference = 20, mail exchanger = yuma.ACNS.ColoState.ED U lamar.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.103.75 yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.100.64 and a traceroute to LDs favorite posting machine the return times indicate that my end is a 9.6 ppp connection 2 hops away from 4. Note also I didnt query intervening routers and hosts for information. Upstream hosts and/or routers may also be compromisable... 4 cix-west2.cix.net (149.20.3.3) 310 ms 260 ms 290 ms 5 ans.cix.net (149.20.5.2) 280 ms 280 ms 280 ms 6 en-0.San-Francisco-cnss11.t3.ans.net (192.103.60.5) 270 ms 290 ms 270 ms 7 mf-0.San-Francisco-cnss8.t3.ans.net (140.222.8.222) 280 ms 320 ms 290 ms 8 t3-1.Seattle-cnss88.t3.ans.net (140.222.88.2) 300 ms 290 ms 300 ms 9 t3-0.Denver-cnss96.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.1) 310 ms 300 ms 310 ms 10 mf-0.Denver-cnss97.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.193) 310 ms 290 ms 310 ms 11 t3-0.enss141.t3.ans.net (140.222.141.1) 300 ms 300 ms 310 ms 12 cu-gw.ucar.edu (192.52.106.4) 300 ms 410 ms 310 ms 13 ucb-ncar.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.46) 310 ms 129.19.248.62 (129.19.248.62 ) 320 ms 330 ms 14 csu-ucb.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.102) 340 ms 320 ms 340 ms 15 csu-gw-2.UCC.ColoState.EDU (129.82.103.2) 310 ms 450 ms 310 ms 16 longs.lance.colostate.edu (129.82.109.16) 350 ms 330 ms 320 ms WELL WHAT DOES THIS TELL US TECHNICALLY SO FAR... THERE IS MOST LIKELY NO EFFECTIVE FIREWALL PROTECTION BETWEEN LD'S FAVORITE MACHINE AND THE OUTSIDE WORLD AS TRACEROUTE USES UDP PROBES ON RANDOM PORTS. NO INCOMING UDP BLOCKAGE GENERALLY INDICATES THE SECURITY OF THAT MACHINE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON PROXY/PACKET FILTERING TYPE ROUTERS AND FIREWALLED DOMAINS ADDITIONALLY A ISS LOG RUN VIA iss -p 129.82.109.16 SHOWED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS : --> Inet Sec Scanner Log By Christopher Klaus (C) 1993 <-- Email: cklaus(a)hotsun.nersc.gov coup(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu ================================================================ Host 129.82.109.16, Port 11 opened. systat udp/tcp users Host 129.82.109.16, Port 13 opened. daytime udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 17 opened. qotd tcp quote Host 129.82.109.16, Port 21 opened. ftp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 23 opened. telnet tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 25 opened. smtp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 37 opened. time udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 53 opened. domain udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 79 opened. finger tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 109 opened. pop-2 tcp Post Office Protocol Host 129.82.109.16, Port 110 opened. pop-3 Host 129.82.109.16, Port 111 opened. sunrpc udp/tcp JACKPOT!!!!!! Host 129.82.109.16, Port 119 opened. nntp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 210 opened. THIS ONE IS UNUSUAL? i shows closed by foreign host Host 129.82.109.16, Port 512 opened. biff/exec udp/tcpf Host 129.82.109.16, Port 513 opened. who/login udp/ tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 514 ("shell" service) opened. syslog/shell udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 515 opened. syslog/printer udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 593 opened. refuses telnet(udp connection) research... Host 129.82.109.16, Port 704 opened. accepts telnet connection(tcp) echos... Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1024 opened. accepts telnet connection(tcp) Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1025 opened. listener RFS remote_file_sharing Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1031 opened. Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1032 opened. tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1033 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1034 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1035 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1036 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 5599 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 6667 opened. not checked THE SCAN WAS TERMINATED AT THIS POINT. IN THE ABOVE LIST WE FIND SEVERAL GEMS THE BEST OF WHICH IS SUNRPC :)... so next of course rpcinfo -p longs.lance.colostate.edu program vers proto port 100004 2 udp 1029 ypserv 100004 2 tcp 1024 ypserv 100004 1 udp 1029 ypserv 100004 1 tcp 1024 ypserv 100007 2 tcp 1025 ypbind 100007 2 udp 1038 ypbind 100007 1 tcp 1025 ypbind 100007 1 udp 1038 ypbind 100005 1 udp 1071 mountd 100005 1 tcp 1031 mountd 100003 2 udp 2049 nfs 100024 1 udp 1081 status 100024 1 tcp 1032 status 100008 1 udp 1087 walld 100021 1 tcp 1033 nlockmgr 100021 1 udp 1092 nlockmgr 100021 3 tcp 1034 nlockmgr 100021 3 udp 1096 nlockmgr 100020 1 udp 1099 llockmgr 100020 1 tcp 1035 llockmgr 100021 2 tcp 1036 nlockmgr 150001 1 udp 1127 pcnfsd 300019 1 udp 1022 200002 1 udp 1956 whether running regular or secure RPC(the latter requires nfscrack to crack the secret exponent) this machine is most likely a sparc or compatible running a given version of SUNOS 4.1.X?(check HINFO if available.) a check should be made to see which network security patchs have been applied to this host. A probe of longs.lance.colostate.edu smtp port : longs.lance.colostate.edu Sendmail 8.6.4/8.6.4 (LANCE 1.00) ready at xxx,xx2 xxx xxxx xx:xx:xx -xxxx 220 ESMTP spoken here VRFY ld231782 250 L. Detweiler <ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu> EXPN ld231782 502 That's none of your business quit 221 longs.lance.colostate.edu closing connection OK SO FAR SO GOOD HIS MACHINE SHOWS A FAIRLY SECURE SMTP DAEMON. EXAMINATION OF THAT REVISION AND SOURCE OF SENDMAIL IS STILL UNDER QUESTION BECAUSE THE CURRENT VERSION 8.65 ADDS EVEN MORE SECURITY PATCHES CHECKING FOR ANONYMOUS FTP WE FIND: Check for anonymous FTP service connected to 129.82.109.16. 220 longs.lance.colostate.edu FTP server (Version 4.1 Sun Mar 25 22:59:11 EST 19 90) ready. Name (129.82.109.16:root): anonymous 530 User anonymous unknown. Login failed. ftp> quit 500 'SYST': command not understood. # ftp 129.82.109.16 Connected to 129.82.109.16. 220 longs.lance.colostate.edu FTP server (Version 4.1 Sun Mar 25 22:59:11 EST 19 90) ready. Name (129.82.109.16:root): ftp 530 User ftp unknown. Login failed. ftp> quit 500 'SYST': command not understood. DETWEILER YOU HAVE BEEN A HYPOCRITE, LIAR AND SCONDREL, HOWEVER TO REMAIN PROPERLY SENSITIVE TO A NON COMPOS MENTIS I WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO APOLGIZE BEFORE I HAVE MY TENTACLES FORM FOR THEIR NEXT ASSAULT. IF YOU DO NOT APLOGIZE YOU WILL REGRET THE RESULTS OF YOUR ACTIONS. I AM NOT TOYING AROUND WITH YOU ANY FURTHER . WE ARE HAVING TENTACLE WHO ARE INFORMATION BROKERS PASSING EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT YOU TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE AGGRIEVED AND ABUSED PARTIES. CEASE AND DESIST! LOVE MEDUSA P.S. A ANONYMOUS REMAILER BLOCK TO SEND YOUR APOLGY TO ME FOLLOWS I MUST HAVE THAT APOLOGY IMMEDIATELY OR FURTHER ACTIONS WILL FOLLOW! --------8<--cut here-->8-------- :: Encrypted: PGP -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.3a hEwCKlkQ745WINUBAf0Z/wGHrYOMJy7+1M6DSrFtnvVEbEH3Kbi/k04MOgbIhTr+ 8HSWOdI6MCl0qHCbB9B+0NZILAsY06dJL5F3L2d3pgAAAVcg0HAS0/wC6qvGO3DL OzAvOYuUJW0nPLiYYDfotcPYc4ndxLQ/p1FDXc8reECJgrFbjBm2nuMVPNDoI+ba u93u/sWUHwrZdiVphz0RWzmY+qJb0IlKkoTWBX0Bcz8TzUEVbnhnbOSQfyqAP0Tz PmoKND1VC2HlPstrd7/20iY4CAxh1bUs+f/ZlOThiHnLPAOXpIb3CWv6dqiNV3Zc iSaF/AcJr29L/ij27zykuNPRXKvZasNUy2fpPYgtt01/NO3XK9f0E3NyCJJirTa0 rOh0P6j93a1mLaDFXtrMIBA+zOgLetslrgedrpz0qipDS/EHfef635adB8S3UjB6 EgozJG7LSamw2LKZAC6nqzeuGcu5RI61jeLjv4Mf2IkE5WHppCgUyOVLv4/gWyR/ K65K6kyWji+XcBRcQZTe48IthsaR7LJHDabeE6Ha8wqoEPlbOCudIWKd =AZpv -----END PGP MESSAGE----- <To reply, save everything below the "cut here" marks above <into another file. Type your reply here (below the blank <line three lines above!) and mail to hfinney(a)shell.portal.com

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BY THE WAY I AM STUPID AND I CAN ONLY SHOUT IN MONOTONE AND THAT IS WHY I TYPE IN ALL CAPS OK YEAH YEAH YEAH THIS IS GREAT I LOVE PORT 25 -MEDUSA

1 0

Archiving mail-lists...
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim choate <uunet!wixer.bga.com!ravage> writes: > [Mentions doing Usenet-on-CDROM, and potentially including mailing > lists like C-punks in the archive copies.] 1. I believe someone in Canada is already doing Usenet-on-CDROM, minus alt.binaries.pictures.erotica (and perhaps some others). 2. If the cost for your net connection is usage based instead of flat-fee, a feed from PageSat might be cheaper. They've recently come out with new hardware that's a little cheaper than the old stuff. (The net connection would still be nice for mail, IP connectivity, blah blah.) 3. You should at least think about how you will deal with copyright issues. I believe that the folks in Canada avoid redistributing a.b.p.e to as to avoid legal hassles from the copyright holders for the pictures posted there. Also, people posting original works have a copyright in them; and they may not want their works included in your archive. (There's a thread about this in misc.legal.moderated.) 4. Morally, I'm divided between thinking you should ask the owner of every message (its author) for permission to reprint; and thinking that doing so is too heavy a burden, and that the utility of the CD-ROM is more important than the harm done to the IP rights of the authors. I don't think you need the permission of people on the list who don't write messages. I also don't think you need the permission of the "list owner", particularly where no creative control is exercised. - -- Greg Broiles "Sometimes you're the windshield, greg(a)goldenbear.com sometimes you're the bug." -- Mark Knopfler -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.4 iQCVAgUBLUJlEH3YhjZY3fMNAQEixAP/c0edPyhWgHWkupEG9iPBsxZoedkAiwOz RU2hOcYvKt0oL97WLBPFdUWilijhQYMKucVYrHJ7jT5vvgKbdJHvBF6UWnjy/tjs C5TpWTFofZBLI1v+CMrpbKxf0BPPfB5tSA7A4GI4gh2PqxMc8odxNy/S6aa19SjX Ebvei/OVUC8= =2vbx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

The Hunt for the wild "detweiler"||"detweiller"||larry"||"ad nauseam" accounts (Remailer account source filtering
by an6244＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Source filtering of detweiler remail and anonymous posting requests from various NIS based accounts in the domain lance.colostate.edu and ntu,edu at Fort collins colorado as well as sending evidence of account/remailer/anonymous forwarder/posting requests to postmaster(a)lance.colostate.edu will be facilated by the following accounts list. It was derived from netfind, it is by no means exhaustive but it is the start of a source denial database. Further possible hosts in the BIND database be found via nslookup and dig as usual. traceroutes may detect detweilers attempt to use a connection laundry. As previous postings from MEDUSA have shown detweiler accounts and hosts he hides behind can be researched and filtered. Time analysis of the login patterns I beileve will show that the "Jeff Detweiler" is yet another smokescreen. I also suggest contacting the Internetc NIC listed POC and informing him of NSFNET AUP's that have been violated. The POC's of interest would be for the domains ntu.edu lance.colostate.edu Regards Sam Hill - blacknet researcher our key and remailer block follows as usual... -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3 mQCNAixuGUUAAAEEAKgvNgIEvrw0viU+DvIHscCvLCnr5f0yK2UGyRBkfcTysixj fRSDHX5x8vWLZcX/dZMk28+EmyBJLZZNZuxzeIbh3XgaFaLoEJDGuy0bPm5xHy9N xHgNpVL35W5l9P+nnoANaK0wQVphB+JGh4t7+5QkiMB7umG2Aa4bK8+Z4K3VAAUR tCBCbGFja05ldDxub3doZXJlQGN5YmVyc3BhY2UubmlsPg== =Xg2v -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.3a hEwClqx1g6tk6KcBAf9J+R/sa7868WzvHKkjIWQezKHniv1WYm1Iv1oi35ZjUjQE /GFC8oZch1XG9PXjfWZBUuq6ExIg19oXNiBonJPTpgAAA4DSH82tS+RSAW9X5DTl DcC32wo7ZIPThYkeOTYBqo6JthKFcu8v4RK2jXlMRF7dFah1BhpOF3QQQssDSSow e/iYx8fGEHGzji5D5xFDpKQjvKeiDtqpbPZIvA9OllCyr5mIq6aVO+I5T+Cb/1++ /TP01EG3XN9/K+J07L0zhkkkFQHsqoQdKCrSNXhhwuA53JRIdcaG9VO5y2Yu/7dc TZrdULy7UzUZXIrEtpoSHibdPT/AyOAj/493nvHD95oM1a62dsQark4r/YPdo/JW ugWj5G3l4iJcOVRL2S0Lm0Ar16Fcdt7YP8uEsVu2CR3QlI4orwhE6bY99M9vGusg FG1DAIvko0lTM67Xr9+/JhqjoiJvwjO3gd6E8D0vNAQ7+8KC6KcATjksOq5DjkbA iNlhewbrGngFiyC15ryzflWTtZtEI6RNMttWXOiuq7kTvstGVDO+vG5fqLsbJ4IN CxFlsA76wQdjpkLOYMe1c0xF7zdMVS4FBUcXcAIbSgcKXtyEjIH/ewtiotlGAaCH hDG5qZVoZHRKgE/E1v5j1fR6P75oa7iblZ5uxRDG0HEpYzzAYBQQubq84USdUiSI pVSMCxP8cVB0R4WZJonJ4gK4SMfS0fd/kAW7BdVaAUZqGtlU9AKqfdEaklmYF4AP lmoepDLaQ3Z8PgCOQwKUI9vE95x+MnVFE5sWHbIl8/e5JbNuJDYfvZFcD5yt47yq GaZmndcRKzExgaaB1zp5fz75swgWsv0j+BSaKyb9keg2OlIm8KuzgW7r9HNkO3wY Sb5T3Q8aITfxNPkyPFrn0E0DwoB+PVc9Qf9uu5BMknUeMvb7pouHbwKiCfR5kKVi WpoUgL4uCzQ/SVhm+go/r7khNXWV0cc0OWimSP95jK4jE1cHt2RGFb+qy67rzu/w 6NesFfTEeiQY+3oeH5i6SXv4YngbmORi/VJLqfIrEmmiT71UYFb/2uo09If+Trxp hGGfYUiD6Zs55RHKvuFQiS8+jUUgD9KzTtIYvSB5G1S//E4VrzZj+tRFNO0CtuHc e30qXsAIBE4kI5mtBJQo2a1f0YSwxrPH71nJL+wxsTv6lR3iE4m0fryAzfRQAZxE c96vmTC7UCxCHyCYlL9bHEyumADtUaOgiT8ezQFW1YAE7s3/bnuGEFb6HQkzoM9C GQGOI7+Wr0hfsFn3DdDYr6HD9w== =osZo -----END PGP MESSAGE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To the WORM Detweiller THE FOLLOWING SHOULD REALLY TURN YOU ON... Escape character is '^]'. 220 ntupub.ntu.edu Sendmail 5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3 ready at Sun, 23 Jan 1994 02:01: 06 -0700 vrfy ld231782 550 ld231782... User Unknown vrfy detweiler 550 detweiler... User Unknown verify larry 500 Command unrecognized vrfy larry 252 <larry> is an alias expn larry 250 <larry(a)ntuvax.ntu.edu> quit 221 ntupub.ntu.edu closing connection THIS SENDMAIL 5.65 IS POSSIBLY VUNERABLE TO THE SENDMAIL HOLE RECENTLY FOUND AND A SCRIPT OF WHICH TO PENETRATE WITH CAN BE FOUND IN THE bugtraq ARCHIVE. Connection closed by foreign host. # finger larry(a)ntuvax.ntu.edu [ntuvax.ntu.edu] connect: Connection refused this is a somewhat paranoid host so we we look at it BUT netfind SEEKS ROTWEILER OUT SYSTEM: ntupub.ntu.edu Login name: larry In real life: LArry Detweiller Directory: /users/NTU/larry Shell: /bin/csh Last login Fri Jan 21 16:14 on tty02 from LARRY Project: What am I working on? No Plan. checking one of the upstream ips from this we find Trying 192.52.106.4... Connected to 192.52.106.4. Escape character is '^]'. This is the cisco gateway at NCAR for Westnet. Configuration loaded from windom.UCAR.EDU:/tftpboot/ncar-gw-confg. User Access Verification Password: Traceroute logs follow 4 cix-west2.cix.net (149.20.3.3) 290 ms 300 ms 330 ms 5 ans.cix.net (149.20.5.2) 320 ms 320 ms 310 ms 6 en-0.San-Francisco-cnss11.t3.ans.net (192.103.60.5) 310 ms 320 ms 330 ms 7 mf-0.San-Francisco-cnss8.t3.ans.net (140.222.8.222) 310 ms 310 ms 320 ms 8 t3-1.Seattle-cnss88.t3.ans.net (140.222.88.2) 330 ms 290 ms 320 ms 9 t3-0.Denver-cnss96.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.1) 340 ms 320 ms 330 ms 10 mf-0.Denver-cnss97.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.193) 330 ms 300 ms 320 ms 11 t3-0.enss141.t3.ans.net (140.222.141.1) 330 ms 330 ms 320 ms 12 cu-gw.ucar.edu (192.52.106.4) 320 ms 310 ms 330 ms 13 ucb-ncar.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.46) 320 ms 310 ms cu2-ncar2.CO.westnet.net (129.19.248.62) 370 ms 14 csu-ucb.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.102) 320 ms 310 ms 330 ms 15 csu-gw-2.UCC.ColoState.EDU (129.82.103.2) 320 ms 310 ms 330 ms 16 middle.lance.colostate.edu (129.82.109.2) 320 ms 330 ms 330 ms 17 dolores.lance.colostate.edu (129.82.112.18) 330 ms 330 ms 300 ms 4 cix-west2.cix.net (149.20.3.3) 310 ms 310 ms 310 ms 5 ans.cix.net (149.20.5.2) 310 ms 300 ms 300 ms 6 en-0.San-Francisco-cnss11.t3.ans.net (192.103.60.5) 310 ms 320 ms 390 ms 7 mf-0.San-Francisco-cnss8.t3.ans.net (140.222.8.222) 300 ms 300 ms 310 ms 8 t3-1.Seattle-cnss88.t3.ans.net (140.222.88.2) 320 ms 310 ms 310 ms 9 t3-0.Denver-cnss96.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.1) 320 ms 340 ms 330 ms 10 mf-0.Denver-cnss97.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.193) 350 ms 300 ms 310 ms 11 t3-0.enss141.t3.ans.net (140.222.141.1) 320 ms 320 ms 310 ms 12 cu-gw.ucar.edu (192.52.106.4) 330 ms 310 ms 310 ms 13 cu2-ncar2.CO.westnet.net (129.19.248.62) 340 ms ucb-ncar.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.46) 320 ms 300 ms 14 csu-ucb.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.102) 320 ms 330 ms 320 ms 15 csu-gw-2.UCC.ColoState.EDU (129.82.103.2) 320 ms 330 ms 330 ms 16 middle.lance.colostate.edu (129.82.109.2) 340 ms 310 ms 420 ms 17 keller.lance.colostate.edu (129.82.112.41) 320 ms 330 ms 330 ms 4 cix-west2.cix.net (149.20.3.3) 310 ms 330 ms 350 ms 5 ans.cix.net (149.20.5.2) 340 ms 340 ms 330 ms 6 en-0.San-Francisco-cnss11.t3.ans.net (192.103.60.5) 330 ms 300 ms 280 ms 7 mf-0.San-Francisco-cnss8.t3.ans.net (140.222.8.222) 340 ms 300 ms 280 ms 8 t3-1.Seattle-cnss88.t3.ans.net (140.222.88.2) 340 ms 290 ms 350 ms 9 t3-0.Denver-cnss96.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.1) 330 ms 320 ms 310 ms 10 mf-0.Denver-cnss97.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.193) 350 ms 320 ms 330 ms 11 t3-0.enss141.t3.ans.net (140.222.141.1) 340 ms 340 ms 310 ms 12 cu-gw.ucar.edu (192.52.106.4) 330 ms 320 ms 300 ms 13 cu2-ncar2.CO.westnet.net (129.19.248.62) 350 ms 320 ms 320 ms 14 csu-ucb.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.102) 330 ms 320 ms 320 ms 15 ntu-csu.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.82) 360 ms 330 ms 330 ms 16 192.65.141.15 (192.65.141.15) 350 ms 340 ms 350 ms JUST DOING SOME RESEARCH VIA NIC WE FIND THAT THE MACHINE Non-authoritative answer: Name: longs.lance.colostate.edu Address: 129.82.109.16 > set type=mx > longs.lance.colostate.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu preference = 0, mail exchanger = longs.lance.col ostate.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu preference = 10, mail exchanger = yuma.acns.colo state.edu longs.lance.colostate.edu internet address = 129.82.109.16 yuma.acns.colostate.edu internet address = 129.82.100.64 acns.colostate.EDU nameserver = yuma.acns.ColoState.EDU acns.colostate.EDU nameserver = lamar.ColoState.EDU yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.100.64 lamar.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.103.75 lamar.ColoState.EDU preference = 10, mail exchanger = lamar.ColoState.EDU lamar.ColoState.EDU preference = 20, mail exchanger = yuma.ACNS.ColoState.ED U lamar.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.103.75 yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU internet address = 129.82.100.64 and a traceroute to LDs favorite posting machine dolores.lance.colostate.edu ;; flags: qr rd ra ; Ques: 1, Ans: 1, Auth: 2, Addit: 2 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; dolores.lance.colostate.edu, type = A, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: dolores.lance.colostate.edu. 86298 A 129.82.112.18 ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: lance.colostate.EDU. 44453 NS yuma.acns.ColoState.EDU. lance.colostate.EDU. 44453 NS lamar.ColoState.EDU. ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS: yuma.acns.ColoState.EDU. 160860 A 129.82.100.64 lamar.ColoState.EDU. 160860 A 129.82.103.75 ;; Sent 1 pkts, answer found in time: 10 msec ;; MSG SIZE sent: 45 rcvd: 166 dig type=mx keller.lance.colostate.edu ; <<>> DiG 2.0 <<>> type=mx keller.lance.colostate.edu ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY , status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra ; Ques: 1, Ans: 1, Auth: 0, Addit: 0 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; keller.lance.colostate.edu, type = A, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: keller.lance.colostate.edu. 86400 A 129.82.112.41 ;; Sent 1 pkts, answer found in time: 470 msec ;; MSG SIZE sent: 44 rcvd: 60 from 4. Note also I didnt query intervening routers and hosts for information. Upstream hosts and/or routers may also be compromisable... 4 cix-west2.cix.net (149.20.3.3) 310 ms 260 ms 290 ms 5 ans.cix.net (149.20.5.2) 280 ms 280 ms 280 ms 6 en-0.San-Francisco-cnss11.t3.ans.net (192.103.60.5) 270 ms 290 ms 270 ms 7 mf-0.San-Francisco-cnss8.t3.ans.net (140.222.8.222) 280 ms 320 ms 290 ms 8 t3-1.Seattle-cnss88.t3.ans.net (140.222.88.2) 300 ms 290 ms 300 ms 9 t3-0.Denver-cnss96.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.1) 310 ms 300 ms 310 ms 10 mf-0.Denver-cnss97.t3.ans.net (140.222.96.193) 310 ms 290 ms 310 ms 11 t3-0.enss141.t3.ans.net (140.222.141.1) 300 ms 300 ms 310 ms 12 cu-gw.ucar.edu (192.52.106.4) 300 ms 410 ms 310 ms 13 ucb-ncar.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.46) 310 ms 129.19.248.62 (129.19.248.62 ) 320 ms 330 ms 14 csu-ucb.CO.westnet.net (129.19.254.102) 340 ms 320 ms 340 ms 15 csu-gw-2.UCC.ColoState.EDU (129.82.103.2) 310 ms 450 ms 310 ms 16 longs.lance.colostate.edu (129.82.109.16) 350 ms 330 ms 320 ms WELL WHAT DOES THIS TELL US TECHNICALLY SO FAR... THERE IS MOST LIKELY NO EFFECTIVE FIREWALL PROTECTION BETWEEN LD'S FAVORITE MACHINE AND THE OUTSIDE WORLD AS TRACEROUTE USES UDP PROBES ON RANDOM PORTS. NO INCOMING UDP BLOCKAGE GENERALLY INDICATES THE SECURITY OF THAT MACHINE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON PROXY/PACKET FILTERING TYPE ROUTERS AND FIREWALLED DOMAINS ADDITIONALLY A ISS LOG RUN VIA iss -p 129.82.109.16 SHOWED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS : --> Inet Sec Scanner Log By Christopher Klaus (C) 1993 <-- Email: cklaus(a)hotsun.nersc.gov coup(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu ================================================================ Host 129.82.109.16, Port 11 opened. systat udp/tcp users Host 129.82.109.16, Port 13 opened. daytime udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 17 opened. qotd tcp quote Host 129.82.109.16, Port 21 opened. ftp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 23 opened. telnet tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 25 opened. smtp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 37 opened. time udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 53 opened. domain udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 79 opened. finger tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 109 opened. pop-2 tcp Post Office Protocol Host 129.82.109.16, Port 110 opened. pop-3 Host 129.82.109.16, Port 111 opened. sunrpc udp/tcp JACKPOT!!!!!! Host 129.82.109.16, Port 119 opened. nntp tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 210 opened. THIS ONE IS UNUSUAL? i shows closed by foreign host Host 129.82.109.16, Port 512 opened. biff/exec udp/tcpf Host 129.82.109.16, Port 513 opened. who/login udp/ tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 514 ("shell" service) opened. syslog/shell udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 515 opened. syslog/printer udp/tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 593 opened. refuses telnet(udp connection) research... Host 129.82.109.16, Port 704 opened. accepts telnet connection(tcp) echos... Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1024 opened. accepts telnet connection(tcp) Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1025 opened. listener RFS remote_file_sharing Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1031 opened. Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1032 opened. tcp Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1033 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1034 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1035 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 1036 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 5599 opened. not checked Host 129.82.109.16, Port 6667 opened. not checked THE SCAN WAS TERMINATED AT THIS POINT. IN THE ABOVE LIST WE FIND SEVERAL GEMS THE BEST OF WHICH IS SUNRPC :)... so next of course rpcinfo -p longs.lance.colostate.edu program vers proto port 100004 2 udp 1029 ypserv 100004 2 tcp 1024 ypserv 100004 1 udp 1029 ypserv 100004 1 tcp 1024 ypserv 100007 2 tcp 1025 ypbind 100007 2 udp 1038 ypbind 100007 1 tcp 1025 ypbind 100007 1 udp 1038 ypbind 100005 1 udp 1071 mountd 100005 1 tcp 1031 mountd 100003 2 udp 2049 nfs 100024 1 udp 1081 status 100024 1 tcp 1032 status 100008 1 udp 1087 walld 100021 1 tcp 1033 nlockmgr 100021 1 udp 1092 nlockmgr 100021 3 tcp 1034 nlockmgr 100021 3 udp 1096 nlockmgr 100020 1 udp 1099 llockmgr 100020 1 tcp 1035 llockmgr 100021 2 tcp 1036 nlockmgr 150001 1 udp 1127 pcnfsd 300019 1 udp 1022 200002 1 udp 1956 whether running regular or secure RPC(the latter requires nfscrack to crack the secret exponent) this machine is most likely a sparc or compatible running a given version of SUNOS 4.1.X?(check HINFO if available.) a check should be made to see which network security patchs have been applied to this host. A probe of longs.lance.colostate.edu smtp port : longs.lance.colostate.edu Sendmail 8.6.4/8.6.4 (LANCE 1.00) ready at xxx,xx2 xxx xxxx xx:xx:xx -xxxx 220 ESMTP spoken here VRFY ld231782 250 L. Detweiler <ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu> EXPN ld231782 502 That's none of your business quit 221 longs.lance.colostate.edu closing connection OK SO FAR SO GOOD HIS MACHINE SHOWS A FAIRLY SECURE SMTP DAEMON. EXAMINATION OF THAT REVISION AND SOURCE OF SENDMAIL IS STILL UNDER QUESTION BECAUSE THE CURRENT VERSION 8.65 ADDS EVEN MORE SECURITY PATCHES CHECKING FOR ANONYMOUS FTP WE FIND: Check for anonymous FTP service connected to 129.82.109.16. 220 longs.lance.colostate.edu FTP server (Version 4.1 Sun Mar 25 22:59:11 EST 19 90) ready. Name (129.82.109.16:root): anonymous 530 User anonymous unknown. Login failed. ftp> quit 500 'SYST': command not understood. # ftp 129.82.109.16 Connected to 129.82.109.16. 220 longs.lance.colostate.edu FTP server (Version 4.1 Sun Mar 25 22:59:11 EST 19 90) ready. Name (129.82.109.16:root): ftp 530 User ftp unknown. Login failed. ftp> quit --> Inet Sec Scanner Log By Christopher Klaus (C) 1993 <-- Email: cklaus(a)hotsun.nersc.gov coup(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu ================================================================ Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 11 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 13 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 17 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 21 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 23 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 79 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 111 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 119 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 512 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 513 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 514 ("shell" service) opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 515 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 593 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 704 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1041 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1045 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1046 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1047 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1048 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1049 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1999 opened. Host dolores.lance.colostate.edu, Port 6000 opened. Ooohhh this is a bad one Xwindows is in ALL likelihood an OPEN DOOR...WE FIND THE SAME FOR keller.lance.colostate.edu Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 11 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 13 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 17 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 21 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 23 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 79 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 111 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 119 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 512 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 513 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 514 ("shell" service) opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 515 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 593 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 704 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1024 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1025 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1026 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1027 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1028 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1029 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 1034 opened. Host keller.lance.colostate.edu, Port 6000 opened. k rpcinfo -p keller.lance.colostate.edu program vers proto port 100007 2 tcp 1024 ypbind 100007 2 udp 1031 ypbind 100007 1 tcp 1024 ypbind 100007 1 udp 1031 ypbind 100008 1 udp 1041 walld 100024 1 udp 1045 status 100024 1 tcp 1025 status 100021 1 tcp 1026 nlockmgr 100021 1 udp 1050 nlockmgr 100021 3 tcp 1027 nlockmgr 100021 3 udp 1054 nlockmgr 100020 1 udp 1057 llockmgr 100020 1 tcp 1028 llockmgr 100021 2 tcp 1029 nlockmgr 300019 1 udp 1023 rpcinfo -p dolores.lance.colostate.edu program vers proto port 100007 2 tcp 1041 ypbind 100007 2 udp 1050 ypbind 100007 1 tcp 1041 ypbind 100007 1 udp 1050 ypbind 100008 1 udp 1067 walld 100024 1 udp 1071 status 100024 1 tcp 1045 status 100021 1 tcp 1046 nlockmgr 100021 1 udp 1076 nlockmgr 100021 3 tcp 1047 nlockmgr 100021 3 udp 1080 nlockmgr 100020 1 udp 1083 llockmgr 100020 1 tcp 1048 llockmgr 100021 2 tcp 1049 nlockmgr 300019 1 udp 1104

1 0

REMAILER WARS:
by remailer＠merde.dis.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NEXT DETWEILER I WILL BE PUBLISHING PERL NNTP CLIENT CODE WHICH ANYONE WILL BE ABLE TO USE ON AN UNGUARDED NNTP SERVER TO PRODUCE FORGED CANCEL, REDIRECTS AND ARMM(AUTOMATIC RETROACTIVE MINIMAL MODERATION) FUNCTIONS OF RICHARD DEPEW FAME... ANY ONE WILL BE ABLE TO SILENCE YOU COMPLETELY ON THE WORLD WIDE BACKBONE... THE TOOLS PUBLISHED IN alt.hackers TO SILENCE THE BABBLE OF THE HOLOCAUST REVISTIONISTS WILL BE DRAGGED OUT AND REPOSTED CUSTOMIZED FOR ALL OF YOUR ACCOUNTS... CROSSPOSTED TO HELL ANONYMOUSLY THE INFORMATION BROKER TENTACLES ADVERTISING ON THE INTERNET ARE RESEARCHING EVERY PUBLIC AND MANY PRIVATE RECORDS THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON... BET YOU CANT GUESS WHERE IT WILL BE POSTED OR TO WHOM... AND HOW MANY DIMES ARE DROPPING INTO HOW MANY HOTLINE NUMBERS TO REPORT YOUR INFRACTIONS OF THE LAW...:) REMEMBER YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTED TO PLAY 'JOAN OF ARC' REMEMBER THAT AS I SINGE YOU IN TO TOAST!!! LOVE MEDUSA P.S. ASSHOLE APOLOGISE IMMEDIATELY REMAILER BLOCK FOLLOWS STOP POSTING UNSOLCITED MAIL TO cypherpunks OR THE LIST OR I WILL START BEING EXPLICIT WITH THE INFO PULLED BY THE INFORMATION BROKERS AND FURTHER POINTERS TO YOUR ACCOUNTS AND EXPOSURE WILL OCCUR IN THE NEXT ASSULT WAVE OF MY TENTACLES(MILLIONSS REALLY LD TRUST ME :) APLOGIZE AT ONCE!!! I MUST HAVE THAT APOLOGY IMMEDIATELY OR FURTHER ACTIONS WILL FOLLOW! --------8<--cut here-->8-------- :: Encrypted: PGP -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.3a hEwCKlkQ745WINUBAf0Z/wGHrYOMJy7+1M6DSrFtnvVEbEH3Kbi/k04MOgbIhTr+ 8HSWOdI6MCl0qHCbB9B+0NZILAsY06dJL5F3L2d3pgAAAVcg0HAS0/wC6qvGO3DL OzAvOYuUJW0nPLiYYDfotcPYc4ndxLQ/p1FDXc8reECJgrFbjBm2nuMVPNDoI+ba u93u/sWUHwrZdiVphz0RWzmY+qJb0IlKkoTWBX0Bcz8TzUEVbnhnbOSQfyqAP0Tz PmoKND1VC2HlPstrd7/20iY4CAxh1bUs+f/ZlOThiHnLPAOXpIb3CWv6dqiNV3Zc iSaF/AcJr29L/ij27zykuNPRXKvZasNUy2fpPYgtt01/NO3XK9f0E3NyCJJirTa0 rOh0P6j93a1mLaDFXtrMIBA+zOgLetslrgedrpz0qipDS/EHfef635adB8S3UjB6 EgozJG7LSamw2LKZAC6nqzeuGcu5RI61jeLjv4Mf2IkE5WHppCgUyOVLv4/gWyR/ K65K6kyWji+XcBRcQZTe48IthsaR7LJHDabeE6Ha8wqoEPlbOCudIWKd =AZpv -----END PGP MESSAGE----- <To reply, save everything below the "cut here" marks above <into another file. Type your reply here (below the blank <line three lines above!) and mail to hfinney(a)shell.portal.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

DIGITAL BARTER
by Sandy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primates (think about it), Mike Ingle has been discussing the issues of barter, digital cash and "real" money. He has proposed a variant of commodity money to serve as a basis for digital exchange. He asserts that this could perhaps lead to the elimination of money, altogether. While interesting, I think his argument is muddled and ultimately not logical. It appears this is because his basic premises are erroneous. Mike wrote: . . . Money can either be based on a standard such as gold, or it can be "fiat money" which has value only because people accept it. Actually, Mike has this somewhat backwards. Fiat money has value mostly because the government says it does. Legal tender laws and the elimination of, or interference with, competing moneys artificially supports government's fiat money. Gold or any other form of non-governmental money has its value precisely because people--not the state--subjectively give it such. Standard-based money is dependent on the standard - if there isn't enough gold, the economy can't grow. This is nonsense. Theoretically, all the world's economy could be based on a single ounce of gold. When the economy grows or shrinks, all that happens is that the relative value of a given amount of gold changes. You have deflation in an expanding economy; inflation in a contracting economy. An economy does not need more gold (or whatever) to expand. . . . Money has been necessary to facilitate the operation of the market, but it also interferes with the "pure" free market. Perhaps money is no longer the best solution. Instead of representing money, a digital certificate could directly represent a product or service. I think these last two paragraphs represent the crux of Mike's misunderstanding about the nature of money. A certificate (digital or otherwise) that represents a product or a service *is* money, if people accept it as such. It is, in fact, just another form of commodity (or "standard") money. It is not some new critter. As former Secretary of the Treasury, William Simon, answered when asked to define money: "If the dog eats it, it's dog food." There is certainly nothing wrong with this form of digital money. Mike, however, took it one step too far, in my opinion: . . . Everyone would, in effect, print their own money. Its value would be determined by their reputation. If you work for one company, you would be paid in coins representing the products or services of that company. If you are self-employed, you would create your own coins for whatever type of work you do, and spend them directly. . . . The buying and selling would be done through a huge, distributed international network, similar to the over-the-counter stock market. The value of all coins would be determined by the market, using reputation banks. . . . The negotiation and reputation lookups involved in any purchase would be far too complex for the person to handle in real time. . . . Never happen in a million years. As Mike correctly pointed out in his post, money was created to eliminate the inefficiencies of barter. What Mike proposes is nothing more than the elevation of barter's inefficiencies to a computational nightmare of truly epic proportions. Even fiat money would be better than this. By all means, let's have commodity or even serviced based (digital) money. But we don't smelt our own metal ores nor butcher our own livestock. Why, then, should we each issue our own money? Let's leave this banking function to the "bankers" and other specialists in the money business. S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLUK8GE5ULTXct1IzAQHwQAQAnLZaAuoPoRf8g3sd4HgIMC7r/QT3e3kW qE1DnN9Tu5G07PcyFX9YyyHLVtFLXlb9w4bGC1FUZwXRk1c7k9aXVES4CxFNhtBZ KS1Sh+7HR1SZm6m/Q8+eOw98jIElZ7oL7LduT66flct2ZfT6m7kZP7tv6PG2PqXg a4zQWLImjcc= =BnyQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0