December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Mykotronx
by Dave Hart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI -- According to _The Puzzle Palace_, the Maryland Procurement Office is an old, old cover name for NSA. I'm surprised they're still using it. (Yes, I'm replying ot mail that's several days old.) | Maryland Procurement Office | 7318 Parkway Drive South | Hanover, MD 21076 | Maryland Procurement Office | Attn: N22144(CEB)(MDA 904-92-G-0354/J.0.5001) | 9800 Savage Road | Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000 --- davehart(a)eskimo.com

1 0

To anon remailer operators...
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: Karl Lui Barrus <klbarrus(a)owlnet.rice.edu> : Subject: Message Haven explanation : Background: I've noticed that about the only opposition voiced to : anonymous mail is the fact somebody can harrass another user (however, : they can also be used to forward Clarinet posts, for example). Which reminds me, the remailer operators had better act now to decide what they want to do about the almost inevitable forthcoming net.war where Canter & Siegal take on the world. Chances are the remailers will be abused *heavily* to mailbomb these <people>, and I think it's *very* likely C&S will retaliate by taking them (and anyone else they can identify) to court. (I wouldn't *dare* suggest that this was *why* C&S are taking on the net so aggressively) Perhaps you might block their many addresses, or put general size and number of post limits on the remailers. G PS Someone has already used some sort of anon remailer at anon.spies. wiretap.com to forge an article apparently *from* C&S to one of the porn groups. Anyone know anything about that remailer?

3 2

[ANON] War in rec.guns
by anonymous＠extropia.wimsey.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<<Cross-posted because rec.guns moderator is killing pro-anon posts>> ||To: gun-control(a)cs.umd.edu -=> Quoting Stan Young to All <=- SY> This is a public forum. It is a place for standing up and being SY> counted. If you haven't posted here before, and you don't wish to be SY> "known" as someone with interests in this area, don't post - period. Ah, "The John Wayne Syndrome" again! Re-check my posts for my comments. In any case, you are imposing your value judgment on someone else's purely personal decision, which of course is out of line. In any case, how do you know a "real" account is indeed "real"? You don't, and you can't. SY> Those who think that an "anonymous" posting site provides any SY> protection at all are, sadly, seriously in error. Note that your name SY> is still available "before" the post gets to the "anonymous" site - SY> and anyone sufficiently motivated to collect the data will be able to SY> trace it back to you. Completely and totally untrue! My "technical ignorance" point again... Before embarrassing yourself by making such statements, you should educate yourself about current anon remailer tech. What you say is only true for the first-generation trivial remailers such as Penet's, used for trivial anonymity. The current chained, encrypted Cypherpunks remailers are, as far as can be determined, absolutely unbreakable except _possibly_ (and only theoretically) by a high intensity, highly expensive attack by the NSA or by an internal physical security breach. These are complicated and sophisticated programs. If you think you can defeat them, there are lots of folks who would love for you to try. There is no evidence that anyone has, and there have been notable cases where Law Enforcement has tried to break the tech and failed (Followup to cypherpunks(a)toad.com) SY> If you have secrets you want to keep, the best way to do it is to keep SY> your mouth shut, your profile low, and your fingers off the keyboard. Frankly, if anyone should shut up, it'd be the people who don't know what they're talking about...but that would cut down the traffic in rec.guns to about six posts a day, I suppose. |%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%| | <john.nieder(a)tigerteam.org> * CP2A * PGP Key # E27937 on all servers | |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=| |"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude | | better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in | | peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the | | hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may | |posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams, 1776| |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| |BOYCOTT: Pepsico <KFC - Taco Bell - Frito-Lay - Pepsi-Cola> & Gillette| |%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%| <Later in the day, I received a message from "Magnum" and replied:> -=> Quoting Magnum(a)cs.umd.edu to John Nieder <=- Ma> You are responding to Stan Young, and so I'm forwarding your post to Ma> him since I have chosen to reject your post for the whole group. You also, I note, have not been passing on numerous other dissenting messages of which I have received Cc:s. This is an excellent way to engineer the illusion of common consent, however dishonestly. I congratulate you. Unfortunately, you do not have control of the other lists and newsgroups on which I plan to discuss this issue and your personal handling of it. Ma> The issue has been aired and closed, however, and Ma> therefore I see no basis for sending your contempt *for* the group *to* Ma> the group. I think we all pretty much figured this out how you feel Ma> from the last posts anyway. How do you expect me to feel? No one - including you - has answered a single goddam point I made, refuted a claim, or otherwise gave anything faintly resembling an intelligent response. All I have received is a bunch of Cc:s supporting my position, which do not show up on the group, and a few snitty and illiterate pokes from folks who don't like to have their ignorance and prejudice pointed out, and who can't deal with the actual issues. If I'm wrong on this position, show me _why_, don't play chickenshit games with incoming posts to fake a consensus and pretend like I never said anything serious to begin with. That's just contemptable, especially coming from someone so heavily invested in "open" discussion. "Sunlight" or something, wasn't it? Think about it. In the meantime check the following post. The original respondent had the intellectual integrity to admit that my points were valid, but was shook up because I had dared rock the boat by being angry: ======================================================================= Msg#: 2 Pvt Date: 13 May 94 00:11:15 From: John Nieder To: Rt(a)hpbs2852.boi.hp.com Subj: Re: [ANON]: Yes or Goodby -=> Quoting Rt(a)hpbs2852.boi.hp.com to John Nieder <=- Rt> Anyway, when I'm as angry about something as you obviously were Rt> when you wrote this, I have difficulty realizing how I sound. I'm just Rt> letting you know the taste your post left in other people's mouths, in Rt> case you were interested. The only things that matter are the points I made. If you can refute them - if what I asserted is inaccurate - you have a case, otherwise save the bandwidth, no offense intended. I meant for the post to sound exactly the way it did. I edited it three times and a fourth for cross-posting. My netmail on this is running about 85% toward enthusiastic agreement, by the way. Of the detractors posting the remaining, dissenting notes, you are the _only_ one who could post two consecutive grammatical sentences. NONE, however, disputed a single point I made in my post. Not _one_, thus nicely proving my hypothesis about anti-anon posters being more interested in personality and conflict than the issues they are obviously unequipped to discuss. Let's face it, there are some prime idiots on these lists and newsgroups who exhibit exactly the same irrational, uninformed, buttheaded bigotry in their attitudes toward the privacy movement (and God knows what else) that Diane Feinstein shows toward guns. These days I'm getting fed up with being steamrollered by small people with little piss-pots of authority who don't know what the hell they're talking about. I'm sick of being expected to _like it_ and respond politely as though I'm dealing with decent, thinking human beings. I've _had_ it, Bro. My take is that if the shoe fits, they can fucking well wear it. JN ... Truth exists independently of ideological imperatives.

1 0

Re: BOYCOTT AT&T
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: The single oddest thing about the announcement, was that they were talking : about spending the equivalent of $25K for each new phone subscriber in Saudi : Arabia, and still only doubling the number of phone subscribers. Where the : heck does all that money go? Into the monitoring equipment. This will be a field-trial for the stuff that the FBI want for the phonetap bill. G

1 0

PGP 2.5 & Remailers
by David Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was just wondering if there was going to be any hacking done to the anon remailers to allow PGP 2.5 usage, as well as PGP 2.3. If so, how would the headers change (if any), other than the obvious version numbers? Can we expect to see anouncements by various remailers advising as to whether they'll be supporting v2.5? Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3a mQCNAi12VeYAAAEEAOqndSk+w1iAtW1nJDtdajTZEZEOuMjeKoFbXWuMK8H93Ckx Ba6c0Z8+STXtscP2WWKwRUVcrM0iZa2X4/7Z/Brl31aaA4DT6AVoxet3CLY0JUfi FciusBFCfPB6wfDdwABLZAzTd49YDyWI/Fq0MlNJ3JAeTFwhPeJ9eOnzcfP1AAUR tCVEYXZlIE1lcnJpbWFuIDxtZXJyaW1hbkBtZXRyb25ldC5jb20+iQCVAgUQLZxj 0Jmg14VGv4TFAQFNsQP+JdRjafESlDYmLvgmQqxZUE90lct/EIy5C8sIDT7vFt1f FI5PLtFg1xlxl8thrBjfff9GYKOt2WSw6Uw144OCNnIw5l93QR3ueSXWmHqowJ6c Hp8batrO/X3InNj6IDx6bolZzv6+lBz2XimE2SvYXCdU+7OA4CYxMQ6nfPwErdWJ AJUCBRAtdkQq4n146fNx8/UBAaN9BACQu9ILO57cRojTLc22LdDkFeOcmzQ/mvBm oJJaTRRXXm6t7G3a48uNVDuI36d2dcARTE1hYnu+6JFCqUsfLElQu/3NjFeVdHsu ygziv9pYb9vifzcyBuW6IUxiEkHnixIuTxNtOajscw6eJ29hv/o211gjRd3gAb2d RrmWxWkJtg== =8RGj -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

Re: Message Havens, Pools, and Usenet
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I agree with Tim May that Usenet newsgroups can do the job of a global message pool. However, it takes too damn long to get a reply. It typically takes 3 to 4 days before I see replies to messages I post to Usenet. I wouldn't want to use Usenet for one-on-one communication. I'd prefer a network of indexed message pools like I described in an earlier post. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Re: Message Havens, Pools, and Usenet
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* Posting to a newsgroups allows piggy-backing on two things: 1. The world-wide distribution (in most cases) of newsgroups. The newsgroups are distributed to zillions of local sites, making attempted analysis of who is checking for messages all the more difficult. I think this is the way to go, and I don't think we need special groups for it either. Tim, just as an experiment, post a message to any group you like (except netcom ones!) with 'gtoal' in it somewhere (innocuously, like in a .sig), and I'll show you how easy it is to find stuff that's addressed to you. Of course, anyone else can find it too - you can't hide that the message was posted, but you certainly can't track who read it. G

2 1

Re: Message Havens, Pools, and Usenet
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:> I think this is the way to go, and I don't think we need special :> groups for it either. Tim, just as an experiment, post a message :> to any group you like (except netcom ones!) with 'gtoal' in it :> somewhere (innocuously, like in a .sig), and I'll show you how easy :> it is to find stuff that's addressed to you. :Mass kibozing is certainly an option for the receiver, but I think :this scheme is going to provoke loud complaints from most sysadmins :if it ever gets off the ground. I agree with Karl's comments re Heh. I'd never contemplate such a thing. In practice if I were using such a scheme I'd probably stick to *.test - I was just pointing out that Tim doesn't need to create an alt.w.a.s.t.e group specifically for the traffic. In fact, we *can't* create any such group specifically for the traffic because it wouldn't be carried, and you could trace recipients easily because all the people who talked to each other this way would have to arrange for their own feeds to take the group and get it from each other. (Actually I *had* been giving serious thought to such a scheme for an anonymous fax service I've been thinking about, but thought better of it, because, as you say, the net would want my head for posting 100's of K's of encrypted binaries in alt.test :-) ) G

1 0

AT&T and Saudi Arabia
by koontzd＠lrcs.loral.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> in alt.news-media: >From: Publications-Admin(a)Whitehouse.Gov (The White House) >Subject: CLINTON: 1994-05-11 President Names Mabus as Ambassador to Saudi Arab >Date: 14 May 1994 08:29:23 -0400 > THE WHITE HOUSE > > Office of the Press Secretary >________________________________________________________________________ >For Immediate Release May 11, 1994 > > PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES INTENT TO NOMINATE RAYMOND EDWIN MABUS > AS AMBASSADOR TO THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA > The President today announced his intent to nominate Raymond >Edwin Mabus, Jr., of Mississippi, as Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi >Arabia. > "Ray is a good friend who I had the honor of serving with as a >fellow governor. As Governor of Mississippi, he represented the people >of that state with distinction," the President said. "He brings the >leadership and vision he has demonstrated throughout his years of public >service to this critical assignment. I am pleased to nominate him as my >personal representative to Saudi Arabia. " > > Mr. Mabus served as Mississippi's Governor from 1988 to 1992. He >also served as State Auditor of Mississippi and on the staff of a >previous governor. For the past two years, he has managed his own timber >business, worked as a consultant on job training and telecommunications, ---------------------------------------------------------<bingo!> >and was the Chairman of the Commission of the Future of the South. ... Someone want to bet how much money is in whose pocket?

1 0

Dr Dobbs "CD ROM"
by mgream＠acacia.itd.uts.edu.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Curiously; thumbing through the last issue of Dr Dobbs (April 94 -- it just made it into the newsagents here), I notice their CD ROM for sale (well, I've seen it in previous issues, but just thought about the point I'm going to make now). Considering that previous issues of Dr Dobbs have contained cryptographic algorithms (ie. Nov '93 -- scheiner & IDEA), and this CD ROM makes the code available, then how did they get an export license -- if indeed they did ? The order form for the CD ROM states "add $x.xx if outside US or Canada", so their market is clearly international. Does anyone have this CD ROM, is the code in "ready to compile" form, is it all there ? Matthew. -- Matthew Gream Consent Technologies Sydney, (02) 821-2043 M.Gream(a)uts.edu.au

3 2