December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: credit card conventional wisdom
by wiltship＠iccu6.ipswich.gil.com.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You wrote... >While not as familiar with the US system as the Canadian, I can give as a >simple example, the bank clearing system for paper checks. In Canada, we >can clear a check from one side of the country to the other overnight. We >have 24 hour clearing. While this is far from "perfect", our existing >paper systems allow for a degree of efficiency which I don't believe is >engineered into the US clearing system. Here in Australia most banks take 5 working days to clear a cheque.. even if it's deposited at a bank just up the road from drawer's bank. cheers Peter Flight to Quality Wiltshire Productions Pty Ltd Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Intl Voice 61 7 3376 3535 Intl Fax 61 7 3279 4027 Email wiltship(a)gil.com.au PGP Key ID 3E584C7D PGP Fingerprint 01 03 FB F4 BE F8 2B F3 5D 84 6B 69 37 80 FE 10

1 0

Re: Java & Netscape security [NOISE]
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Dr. Dimitri Vulis wrote: > m5(a)dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) writes: > > Frederick B. Cohen writes: > > > This is baloney. When you work for Netscape or Sun and speak about > > > your company's products, you are representing the company whether you > > > disclaim it or not. > > > > Baloney. > > Fred is right. I used to work for Goldman Sachs & their internet usage > policy stated that when you write to Internet or Usenet from a GS account, > it will reflect on the firm no matter how you disclaim it. I think this is true, and is where we start to get into reputations and trust. If someone from Goldman Sachs posts to a Usenet group discussing abortion or gun-control, and says that: "These opinions are my own and not my employers." Then, we can accept that, no matter how silly their opinions are. But there is a difference in the way we look at it if someone from Goldman Sachs posts to misc.invest.stocks instead and says that the Goldman Sachs Strip Coupon Fund is better than the one from Merrill Lynch -- that it's safer and produces higher returns because Goldman uses cubic spline interpolation methodologies to interpolate the yield curve, while Merrill Lynch doesn't. There is a difference here. In the first case, the poster is not commenting about anything to do with their work, -- it really is just one man's opinion -- while in the second they are actually commenting upon something their employer is selling. If the employee tries to add, "these opinions are my own, and do not reflect the opinion of my employer" then we have a huge credibility problem. You really can't have it both ways. You can't post officially and unofficially at the same time, unless it really does have nothing to do with your work. If you post from Sun Engineering, and you are posting to a group that focuses on Sun, and you are talking about a Sun product, then people are going to take your comments as an official statement from Sun. You are that product's spokesperson, whether you disclaim or not, and should act accordingly. No matter what, that's the way people are going to see it. It's a huge responsibility ... it's not like speaking candidly at an open Member's table at the Rideau Club or anything, like that. Sun and Netscape and AT&T should know this. Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

3 3

Visual Basic 4.0 encryption prog.
by Eric Anderson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just scored a copy of visual basic 4.0 and I was wondering how feasible it would be to write a program for Window$ 95 that would use RSA or IDEA and the Win95 exchange interface. I plan on buying Applied Cryptography probably on Fri. when I get paid. My requirements/goals are: 100% compatibility with M$ Exchange, ease of use (Point & Click/ drag & drop) and last but not least, STRONG public key encryption using "off-the shelf code. So my ??? Is this: Is it possible? Or should I just go out and buy a C++ compiler. I don't really care about ITAR or any of that other BS, I just won't put MY name on it.

3 2

RealAudio website TEMPORARY PASSWORD
by RealAudio Welcome Wagon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is an automatic response to your request for a free user account on the RealAudio site. Welcome to the world of RealAudio. Please do the following: 1. Go to http://www.RealAudio.com/welcome.html 2. Enter the following: Username: cpunks TEMPORARY Password: New.Norfolk 3. Choose your personal, PERMANENT password for the World of RealAudio If you have trouble with the software, please refer to the RealAudio FAQ and Technical Notes available at http://www.RealAudio.com/help.html You can also contact us through http://www.RealAudio.com/comments.html Thanks for using RealAudio! Progressive Networks, Seattle, Washington, USA

1 0

Re: e$: Come aaaannnndddd Get it!
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>jim bell writes: [re: payee anonymity] >> It seems to me that this should be possible, within limits, if the potential >> payee could generate a "blinded" note to be delivered to the payer by >> anonymous means. The payer could get the note certified by the bank, >> possibly given an extra "blind" if necessary (is this possible? Desirable? >> Why not?) and then the resulting still-blinded but certified note is posted >> (in encrypted form, I supposed) to the 'net so that only the payee can >> decrypt and unblind it. > >This sounds like a version of "Hey, I'll pay you $10, if you give me a ten >dollar bill first." As I understand your protocol, Bob gives Alice an enote, >then Alice gives Bob an enote. Alice isn't paying Bob in any meaningful sense, >since Bob ends up with the same amount of e$ with which he started. Perhaps >you could clarify what you meant. It sounds like you understand even less about the details of digital cash than I do. First, read the August 1992 issue of Scientific American, the article by David Chaum. He explains, with a certain amount of detail, how blinded digital cash operates. To become validated and worth money, it first has to be electronically "written," blinded, and then signed by the bank. Then it is unblinded, at which point it can be spent. What I was saying is that the notes would be written by the payee, then blinded by the payee, given to the payer, and then signed by the payer's bank. At this point, they are worth money, and they are then returned to the payee, possibly by encrypting them and publishing them in encrypted form on a publicly-accessible portion of the Internet, so "anyone" could read them. Only the intended payee would be able to decrypt them, however, and only the payee would be able to unblind the notes.

1 0

Re: Ecash account
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 17 Nov 1995 don(a)cs.byu.edu wrote: > So who here is going to use their ecash account to set up a money > lau^H^H^Hexchange service? Oh boy. Not this argument again. The one that says that if someone makes "change" that its money laundering. *Sigh* I suppose it is, if that's the way you're going to look at it. On that basis, every time I go to the corner grocery, I'm "laundering" my money. So be it. And I suppose if I put aside a small "nestegg", that then I've got something to hide as well?? > Ob Cyphernoise: Would Dr Fred, Alice, and any other names LD has set up > for himself lately please keep the noise limited to email? Please? I too am tired of LD spoofing me. But I am not going to actively "deny" every one of his posts. It's just not worth it. Hopefully the people on this list can tell the difference between what I stand for, and what certain people would like to paint me as standing for. As I've said, and repeated, my only interests lie in E-cash, and in removing code from the Internet which opens up security holes. Software, like Netscape Navigator and Java. The rest ... or anything else that someone tries to paint me as "standing for" is simply juvenile antics. Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

1 0

Re: ALERT: On Monday, call Congress to stop Big Brother amendment!
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:09 PM 9/18/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >The answer: "I don't think compromise is the right word. But we need to >give something to law enforcement." Oh, I agree. I *definitely* think we need to give something to law enforcement... THE TOP TEN THINGS WE NEED TO GIVE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT By Lizard 10)A clue 9)A good kick in the pants. 8)A copy of the US Constitution, and I don't mean the aircraft carrier. 7)Footage of Mussolini hanging upside down with his intestines draped over this face, as a reminder of the fact that sooner or later, even the most downtrodden people will say 'enough is enough'. 6)A picture of Aldrich Ames labelled "Would you give YOUR keys to this man?" 5)A pile of "This T-shirt is a munition" T-Shirts. 4)Another clue. (Take two! They're small!) 3)A copy of '1984', along with a note reading "This was a warning, not a blueprint." 2)An English-Navajo dictionary. And, lastly... 1)A boot to the head. (Nah-nah)

1 0

Re: protecting against impersonation (was: CANADIAN PRESS REPORTS)
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>anonymous writes: >> I still feel such a sense of violation with what LD did, such an >> utter sense of helplessness at the character assassination I've >> suffered at his hands, > >So use PGP, sign your messages. Simple solution. Absolutely! Anybody who uses anonymous remailers to post to public areas, and does not use digital signatures to prevent spoofing when it is obviously needed, is a fool or worse.

1 0

Re: Crypto-law etc
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)FreeGate.net> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Crypto-law etc > Date: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 2:35 PM > The longer I follow the crypto "debate" the more I begin to > understand what must have been the real intent behind the > 2nd amendment of the constitution. > > If the White House can get crypto code defined in the true > legal sense (that is backed up by case law) as a munition, > do US citizens then have a constitutional right to "bear" it? Sure. We get the same right to bear it as we have to own rocket launchers, machine guns, or flame throwers--none. The second amendment hasn't protected our right to possess those things, which pretty clearly fall into the realm of its direct intentions--why would it protect our right to use crypto, which isn't even that clear cut? > Just curious, > --Chuck --John Kelsey, kelsey(a)counterpane.com

2 1

Recompiling PGP 2.6.2i under microsoft.
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am trying to recompile PGP 2.6.2i under Microsofts VC 1.5. Unfortunately the makefile pgp.mak is configured for borlands C compiler and linker, and the makefile pgppwb.mak gives me a bunch of link time errors. Is there someone around who has been there and done that. Is this just a trivial edit or a serious rewrite? C:\PGP\PGP.SRC\SRC> nmake -f pgppwb.mak [....] Libraries [.lib]: Definitions File [nul.def]: /NOI /STACK:12288 /BATCH /ONERROR:NOEXE /EXE /FAR / PACKC; RSAGEN.obj(rsagen.c) : error L2029: '_rsa_public_decrypt' : unresolved external CRYPTO.obj(crypto.c) : error L2029: '_rsa_public_decrypt' : unresolved external RANDOM.obj(random.c) : error L2029: '_randPoolGetByte' : unresolved external RANDOM.obj(random.c) : error L2029: '_randPoolStir' : unresolved external CRYPTO.obj(crypto.c) : error L2029: '_rsa_public_encrypt' : unresolved external IDEA.obj(idea.c) : error L2029: '_randPoolGetBytes' : unresolved external RANDOM.obj(random.c) : error L2029: '_randPoolAddBytes' : unresolved external RSAGEN.obj(rsagen.c) : error L2029: '_rsa_private_encrypt' : unresolved external CRYPTO.obj(crypto.c) : error L2029: '_rsa_private_encrypt' : unresolved external RANDOM.obj(random.c) : error L2029: '_sleep' : unresolved external RANDOM.obj(random.c) : error L2029: '_noise' : unresolved external PGP.obj(pgp.c) : error L2029: '_noise' : unresolved external CRYPTO.obj(crypto.c) : error L2029: '_rsa_private_decrypt' : unresolved external NMAKE : fatal error U1077: 'LINK' : return code '0x2' Stop. --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0