December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

LD and reputation
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -> To: hughes(a)ah.com (Eric Hughes) From: plaz(a)netcom.com (Geoff Dale) Subject: Re: Banning any subscriber I said: >>I personally disagree with censorship. It would be impossible to enforce >>anyway. A move of this type would simply drive Detweiler to use the >>Cypherpunk remailers which would be harder to detect. Then what do we do? >>Stop accepting mail from our own remailers? Eric replied: >Basically, yes, except for signed letters from previously >authenticated pseudonyms. This is a simple form of a positive >reputation system. A kill fill is a negative reputation--'not that >person'. A positive reputation rejects all but a particular set of >identities. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you wanted to erect a barrier against anonymous newbies, such as "wonderer" and "Dark Unicorn" were recently. You know, Detweiler might get a new account under a new name, better seal the list to only postings from "previously authenticated" accounts too. Then we'd be all happy and safe from the dreaded Detweiler. <- Why am I always an example? :( What needs to be addressed, is what this list is. Is it private in the sense that we exclude anyone? Are we in a position to regulate disruptive posters? Frankly, LD's posts simply take a lot of space and time. I could care less if LD is a reputable person. Just so long as he is not disruptive. Frankly, he could be a moron (yes yes, I know...) and I still wouldn't mind because correcting his mistakes is part of what this group is all about (to me anyhow). We were all newbies once, even if it was before this list was around. That says to me that if we want to promote cryptographically literate users with this group, we simply cannot exclude. Even a bloody twelve year old might be obnoxious at first, but who knows what we might spur into him/her? Could it not be that we might foster a loyal supporter of cryptography in this twelve year old? At the same time, we must deal with disruptive elements. LD isn't posting for any real constructive purpose. Even he knows it. Perhaps he is having fun, but it is at our expense. Fine. 1> Ignore it (this never works, as we are proving even now) 2> Address it (this just encourages him) 3> Remove it. (ethical questions abound). If the problem is to prevent disruption without excluding it seems to me that you have to use a negative reputation system. A system that gives everyone a chance, without disrupting unduly. Why not a probatory check? Every member of the list is given the chance to contribute constructively, newbie or not. If and when our example newbie user gets out of hand, his/her messages are to be moderated. This cuts down on the man power required to moderate the entire list and still gives newbie user the opportunity to reform. I'm not sure if we can find a willing moderator, but it seems to be a system that would cut down dramatically the LD type problems. Frankly, the traffic on this list is excessively high. (I'm as guilty as anyone I'm afraid.) I can deal with high and valuable traffic, not high and disruptive traffic. Eric -> Authentication, in this context, can take many forms. It could be as simple as sending a key to the mailing list server. It could be developed to require someone to vouch for the pseudonym. It could require a sponsor who would read and repost until a separate reputation develops. The point is to put a bound on the noise from disrupters both inadvertent and intentional, not to completely prevent noise. <- I agree, but prior authentication is a little excessive no? - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLPqJcxibHbaiMfO5AQEyFQP9FEypBg25aPS/RPZTfaChsORrRrApgcKc L0DUoYkaySZFIemI6a/vtNbN6jnSlJ/0MY50Z9PnFNhnTX2MsvPK9eibSkpQdMrt hC53ZnTn9NbW9p6gMrfWEKFuTCPg92KEa3CXDOhZznI4LBBMoj7FCUkes+eT6cyp p//99+WPW1g= =1xby -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Crypto Anarchy, the Government, and the National Information Infrastructure (fwd)
by Brian Beker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 29 Nov 1993, Timothy C. May wrote: > To a "women need not apply" on-line consulting situation? To > a cyberspatial version of the "old boy's network" that Gloria Allred and > her feminista compadres are constantly filing lawsuits against? ^^^^^^^^^ Shouldn't that be commadres? Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLPpp9CJejrfgN5yJAQEx+AP/ZxOvT3O/POw6lrDZDt08HFxa7wD6UUR1 thz8FaP8opsPsg7EC/iv1ZEml26BhpxgzGSnzeG2NzH9qRMxFik7fJ4XzkMECS5l Af5jJxeeV+iJeqk6lSpYFGcA1YqgAqM7c4XNhA3YGYGUqJ9we2mkujJZ0THJyjMA bXBKqGqIz7E= =YFTM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Need a ride to hohocon?
by stig＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm planning to drive from Portland to Austin for HoHo Con...via San Francisco...and I'm looking for people to split the gas. We can all sleep in my van for free, so that saves on expenses in Austin and I have a great stereo to make the miles go by... Takers? Stig ;; __________________________________________________________________________ ;; Stig(a)netcom.com netcom.com:/pub/stig/00-PGP-KEY ;; It's hard to be cutting-edge at your own pace... 32 DF B9 19 AE 28 D1 7A ;; Bullet-proof code cannot stand up to teflon bugs. A3 9D 0B 1A 33 13 4D 7F

1 0

Stego 1.0a2 and where to get it
by Romana Machado 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Announcing Stego 1.0a2 The First Steganography Tool For The Macintosh by Romana Machado of Paradigm Shift Research 11/28/93 What is steganography? Steganography is a method by which a message can be disguised by making it appear to be something else. It derives from two Greek roots. "Stego-" means "roof", or "cover". It is the same root used in "stegosaur", called a "roof lizard" because of the large bony plates that decorate its back. "-graphy" means writing. "Steganography" means covert writing. What is Stego? Stego is a tool that enables you to embed data in, and retrieve data from, Macintosh PICT format files, without changing the appearance or size of the PICT file. Though its effect is visually undetectable, do not expect cryptographic security from Stego. Be aware that anyone with a copy of Stego can retrieve your data from your PICT file. Stego can be used as an "envelope" to hide a _previously encrypted_ data file in a PICT file, making it much less likely to be detected. Stego is available _now_ via anonymous ftp from ghost.dsi.unimi.it, in the /pub/crypt directory. If for some reason you can't find it in this location, mail me $15.00 and your physical or email address. I will send it to you. Don't Forget! Stego is shareware. You can help to support further development by sending $15.00 or any stegosaur to: Romana Machado 19672 Stevens Creek Blvd. Box 127 Cupertino, CA 95014 Bugs? Questions? EMail: romana(a)apple.com

1 0

Dead Man's Stick
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -> From: "Alan (Miburi-san) Wexelblat" <wex(a)media.mit.edu> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Give me your password- OR ELSE! It seems like it would be relatively simple to program in a sort of dead-man switch at the time of creation of the secret key. [...] As you can imagine, there are increasing levels of personal security you might employ. For example, using the duress phrase might be set up to change the pass-phrase to something *you* don't know but which is known by a trusted other party (wife, mother, agent/lawyer, etc.). Knowing this phrase doesn't help them since that phrase can't access your secret until *after* you've given the duress phrase and the software has disabled your normal access phrase. <- The problem with the duress phrase seems to be this: One would use such a phrase when physical site security had been compromised no? Let's assume government types (which seems to be the hint I get when you suggest the alternate pass phrase being held by your lawyer. It's fairly easy to duplicate the key and stick it somewhere on a floppy and try the passwords extracted from you via rubber hose method on the copy rather than the original. In fact, if people being to use duress codes, it seems that this would become standard practice, if it's not already. In as far as the idea behind a duress code is to keep you from being beaten repeatedly by making it impossible for you to decode the information alone, copying the encrypted key defeats this method. :( - -> - --Alan Wexelblat, Reality Hacker, Author, and Cyberspace Bard Media Lab - Advanced Human Interface Group wex(a)media.mit.edu Voice: 617-258-9168, Pager: 617-945-1842 PUBLIC KEY available by request "To pleasure!" "To passion!" "To paradise!" "To pain!" "Tonight!" <- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLPmWBhibHbaiMfO5AQEQuQQApDtaIxVjjZvdUYD9Jl6FZGdq62SpPM+y KMqsIvSOhPOK2kOsoAyLuIN4+bXVUyTHiAkYX/ye2q2gqj9yrOLvkGyH6yak5YFi xoOCYx6qGScHeoqwpJKoRTTwUjAo79ZmXupA+ylX527eQDILwZJa+W+wSln/rXhG zajsBTeG/mw= =B4y+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Book Info Needed
by an4914＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Could anyone who has specific information (ISBN, Publisher, [US] Price) on either or both of these books *please* e-mail or post to cypherpunks? Applied Cryptography, Schneier(sp?) Virtual Light, Gibson Thanks in advance... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

The Cure
by an32951＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Amount of e-mail from the Cypherpunks list at 11am, Mon/29: 22 Number of pieces concerning one cretin: 14. The best filter would be a filter of no response. By feeding a puny little ego simple enough to need nothing more than acknowledgement to rejoice in its lost sense of self, its incentive is continually renewed. Remember, this is some wretch who has clearly been shunted aside by all the humans it has ever encountered, probably for the same reasons it haunts us here. All it wants is to be the center of attention, and having succeeded, it will not go away. And so, a suggestion: How about an undetermined period of time during which everyone simply agrees not to answer anything it says? Undetermined because it'll just show up again once it knows people will talk about it again. It craves fame. It resents what it perceives to be the fame of the better-known members of this list to be. It is jealous of that fame, and wants some for itself. It is sick and ugly, small and unintelligent, resentful of its underdeveloped brain and the fact that everyone he looks up to instantly recognizes his stupidity. And now it has found a way to get those very people to acknowledge it, discuss it, feel threatened by it. It is used to rejection, so the endless repeats of it mean nothing. And then even less in the face of the warm glow at the center of the Cypherpunks collective attention. It's techniques are working, and only because the members of this list are obliging it. This is the first and the last word I'll ever write about about it. If we all did that, it would go away. Coerr ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

re: META: Filter Detweiler
by davet＠wv.MENTORG.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Time to de-lurk... >sender: hfinney(a)shell.portal.com > >I would favor adding a filter preventing Detweiler's messages from >appearing on the list. I disagree. I think the correct response is to just completely ignore him. This apparently worked on rec.pets.cats, when people posted truly nasty stories about cats; they kept it up until the list learned to just completely ignore them, and then they went away. Detweiler will eventually(!) do likewise. I urge that the spirit exemplified by CPunks not be sullied by censorship, in spite of the threat posed by LD. It is indeed an ugly precedent, antithetical to what I believe the list believes in. It might help newbies if a discussion of the LD issue be mentioned in a FAQ list (is there one?), or otherwise maybe a message indicating the known hazard of LD should be sent to the list every two weeks saying that the consensus is to just ignore posts from either L. Detweiler or an12070(a)anon.penet.fi. -- O_O 01234567 dave_taffs(a)mentorg.com "Carpe carp!" | . . ^ I don't necessarily share MGC's views. | (_:_) Indent-o-Meter Better living thru tab damage... |

1 0

Re: Disruptive members
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I have seen a man arrested ostensibly for "disturbing the peace", who was >actually just giving a speech. The charges were thrown out. If you don't >like free speech, don't log in. The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration >of Independence state very clearly that our form of government is based on >the recognition of human rights, not responsibilities. You might be able >to find a system more to your liking in China or North Korea for a little >while longer. There is little I less enjoy seeing than the spectacle of someone who has never actually bothered to find out what the Bill of Rights says and what it means blathering about "free speech". Mr. Wilson: does my right to free speech entitle me to come into your living room and demand that you provide me with a podium and a megaphone in furtherance of my expressing my opinion? If you think it doesn't, then you have no cause for complaint. If, on the other hand, you think it _does_, then I've done you a grave misservice by mistaking you for nothing more than an uninformed chowderhead. You would constitute, at the very least, a full-blown loon. >After all the speech criminals are rounded up, what next? Got any ethnic >groups in mind? That's low. Or, to be more precise, on a par with the rest of your little screed. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

really hiding encrypted data
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Let's imaging that the government has made it illegal to encrypt data unless you use an "approved" crypto-system. In a world like this, a person who wanted to encrypt data would have to find a way to hide the encrypted data. Many people have suggested placing the encrypted data in the least significant bit of a binary picture file. However, I suspect it is easy to distinguish between the collection of least significant bits of a normal picture file and the collection of least significant bits of a picture file used to hold some encrypted data. In other words, your picture file envelope could trigger an alarm in some government traffic sniffer. This is probably a stupid question, but...is there anyway to take a chuck of encrypted data (presumably with a high degree of randomness) and securely munge it so it looks less random, while retaining the ability to reverse the munge and decrypt the data. Ideally, the munge process should not be based on obscurity. The munge process should be a keyed algorithm so the government filters can't systematically "unmunge" to check for highly random (and suspect) data. Unfortunately, I have a hard time imagining an algorithm that is secure AND produces an output that isn't highly random. Any ideas? How about something fractal? <arg! I can't believe I said the "f" word> The "munge key" could be the initial state of the fractal engine. <shrug> I really don't have a clue about the randomness of the output of a fractal engine. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

4 3