December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PGP reveals the key ID of the recipient of encrypted msg
by savron＠world-net.sct.fr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I began testing PGP a few days ago ( I'm a PGP newbie ) and I found that it gives out the key ID of an encrypted message . From this you can get the identification of the recipient of the message , if it's someone who has publicaly distributed his key (keyserver , homepage ...) . So even if you are unable to decode the message you can find who is the recipient of a given message . I think this is a big privacy problem . The problem is carried along when you encrypt a message for multiple recipients , you get the key IDs of all the recipients and same problem as above . I think something like 'blind email copy' should be used , because the recipients don't have to know the identity of each other . Comments from long time PGPer will be welcome

3 2

Re: Petty Civil Disobedience
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 10 Mar 1996 jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: > > I have added a pornographic image to my web site as an act of > > real civil disobedience. I urge others to do the same. > > > > In the course of doing this, I discovered that on windows, Netscape > > makes jpegs of naked pretty girls look like crap. At 11:40 AM 3/10/96 +0000, Ed Carp wrote: > Check your screen resolution, and make sure it is displaying 256 colors It is not my screen, nor the image, but rather a very common defect in the way they have implemented Floyd Steinberg dithering. They dither to the color cube, as does the Central Point Software file viewer, whose dithering program I wrote, but the Central point software file viewer does a vastly better job. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

[govt] artist coercion
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: >I'll agree with that, except in cases where the corporate client is >being coerced by government (or other Mafia) into not buying >some forms of controversial art. We'd see more controversial >movies/plays/performance art on TV, for instance, if the government >weren't helping us. The coercion occurs at the govt/businessman interface and it does not concern the artist/businessman interface. If the artist refused to com promise, the businessman activities would be so lame that nobody would get interested in it. And it is about time that the business world regain power. I do not mean the big govt-sucking business but the millions of small business that get fleeced by the govt/big business affiliation. > > >>JFA >>Accepting a grant is accepting stolen money. >Only a government grant, or a grant from other thieves... > >>Restore an objective monetary standard such as gold! > >I can see why you don't want the government telling us we have >to use government-printed soft money, but why should they tell us >we have to use "objective" money, whether gold, silver, or > hempscript? >Why should they be making those decisions for us at all? >The free market can do a fine job of picking between competing >hard, mushy, soft, and totally vaporous currencies, and >encouraging or discouraging people from issueing them. Of >course, if you believe >in using government-funded courts to enforce your contracts, >you're stuck with whatever subjective standards the government >feels like using. I think that you are taking things out of context a bit. A govt is a tool that *we* create in order to help run certains things. Among others, are the defence dept, the courts applying as objective as possibles laws and the issuing of money. But today's govt is a living blood thirsty entity that went loose on it's own... JFA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQEVAwUBMULKtciycyXFit0NAQF47gf9GTIlhde47TbZ3YRqKvCuQPiFZJvXsrgZ TZxuLQBP2HxW2vFnBQZiPdW2tWVmUMl2ZX6dblKX2S2yHK54+JhGSLIdSGRdsTyW iLnbu0b5LUT+bAcXOat7cR7JtoqoycbIbATsxLYi0W7U+9HImKWUhJmqsn8mD+Uo 6KmN4Z5TtWGdJ8MMXGncdAX9nhMZosilBfaAOUcm5vzLK2k0ehxNFvRusetuYGGW i+KXkIV9csnWgZ5qfbT1VluPb/v5LIjP6BRxNTTm3PlqIPW7qFyqKHF+eu7PhPK9 vBrMj+hBVpPCE/oJ0xAI79MpJyTvDCfIcwrQrNMEnPoCTpGgGogc/w== =nfLr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Public Key at http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> 2048 bits key ID:C58ADD0D 1996/03/01 fingerprint=52 96 45 E8 20 5A 8A 5E F8 7C C8 6F AE FE F8 91

1 0

Offshore Online
by Anonymous User 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yet another Offshore/Privacy provider is online. Try http://194.157.210.14. If you're running First Class Cleint set the network address to 194.157.210.14 port 3004 and create your own userid when you're online. Cypherpunks/cypherpunks is a valid login, but has a daily time limit of 30 minutes, so you might want to create a new identity.

1 0

Infosecurity News blurb on Notes
by Weld Pond 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the March/April 1996 issue. Lotus accepts escrow In a compromise to obtain export permission, Lotus Development Copr. has agreed to escrow 24 bits of the 64-bit encryption keys used in the new release of Lotus Notes. The U.S. government allows export of unescrowed 40-bit key strings. Under the Lotus plan, U.S. agents will be able to access the escrowed portion of the key but would still have to decrypt the rest to obtain a clear-text message. Althought the NSA has not said it can decrypt 40-bit DES encryption, many postuylate that it can. [end excerpt] Postulate??? And I thought Notes used RC4? Pretty bad for a security journal. Weld Pond - weld(a)l0pht.com - http://www.l0pht.com/~weld L 0 p h t H e a v y I n d u s t r i e s Technical archives for the people - Bio/Electro/Crypto/Radio

1 0

ANTI-CRYPTO CYPHERPUNKS
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is the first in a regular series of postings of cypherpunks who have joined big brothers fight to deprive you from Unescrowed Crypto. Some of these pigs have come out in favor of the new anticrypto bill which makes it a crime to use crypto if big bro can't read it and also sets up key escrow but others have just said that they don't care if the government can read YOUR mail as long as they get what they want. A few megabytes an hour of email from real cypherpunks/patriots should help these guys see the errors of their way when they give away your rights. B. Schneier: bs208(a)newton.cam.ac.uk, schneier(a)counterpane.com M. Blaze: mab(a)crypto.com, mab(a)research.att.com J. Bizdos: jim(a)rsa.com S. Safaddar: shabbir(a)vtw.org D. Weinstein: djw(a)vplus.com P.. Peterson: padgett(a)hobbes.orl.mmc.com

1 0

SWI_tch
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Science, 1 March 1996: "Isotope Switch Toughens Transistors." Semiconductor researchers are reaching for superlatives to describe the discovery that a simple isotope switch deuterium for hydrogen can improve transistor lifetimes by factors of 10 to 50, according to a paper just accepted at APL. The finding "has huge implications worldwide," says Dan DiMaria of IBM. "Mixing Nanotube Structures To Make a Tiny Switch." Two research teams have developed a way to make an all-carbon nanotube that behaves like a semiconductor at one end and a metal at the other. The intersection in the middle forms a gatelike junction that controls the flow of electrons. In the macroworld, such gates, known as heterojunctions, form the basis for transistors and a host of other electronic devices. (PRL, 5 February.) SWI_tch

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Gov't run anon servers
by Rick Tait 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:38 AM 3/5/96 +0100, Gary Howland wrote: >The passphrase could be kept in memory and entered >every time the system is started. > >Gary Right. Couldn't you insert some kind of var into the kernel, rebuild and upon each reboot have the remailer process (which would have to be root owned) check for the value of this? I am of course assuming that the owner of the remailer has admin control over the box, which is kind of unscalable. If someone does gain entry to the machine, he'd need root to skim through the kernel memory, and since he wouldn't have access to the remailer src (you don't have it online, right?) he'd have a hard time looking for what he needed... /rickt _____________________________________________________________________ Rick Tait rickt(a)psa.pencom.com Unix cowboy, Technofuturist, Extropian, Crypto-anarchist, Brit Hacker

1 0

Re: Explosives, Criminality, and Preemptive Action
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:03 AM 3/10/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >My personal belief, from the news reports I've read (which may be >incorrect, of course), is that the ingredients were for use in a bomb, >whether or not they'd ever have gone through with it or not. The ancillary >items found (dozens of assault rifles, weapons manuals, patriot literature, >crank, meth, etc.), and the stockpiling of ANFO precursors, suggests an >Oklahoma City-type scenario. Justa sec, Tim, the second amendment says, "keep and bear _arms_", not merely "guns." My dictionary defines arms as "objects used as weapons." Explosives can be used as weapons, both offensively and defensively. Are you assuming that the possession of ANFO must be offensive? >This is what I think was objective reality. >Now, before certain readers go ballistic, start foaming about how TCMay and >his Tentacles of Medusa are pawns of Bill and Hillary, not to mention spawn >of Satan, etc., I'm not saying that what they did is criminal. Having the >potential to build a bomb or other deadly gadget is not the same as >actually building and using one. But again, it appears that you are assuming that "building a bomb" is not covered in the 2nd amendment. I believe, to the contrary, that it very much is covered, even if this interpretation isn't very much respected. >But should law enforcement have waited until the bomb "the bomb"? Again, you're assuming a lot... What would you say to a person who buys 1000 pounds of AN, who claims to do it because he believes that some day, it might be outlawed or restricted severely by an even-more oppressive government? Is there anything illegitimate in anticipating and preparing for the advent of tyranny? >The argument that because farmers can use these products that the use must >have been an innocent use is a weak one. Anyone with any common sense can >see what they were up to. Who's kidding whom? Again, I disagree. I broadly interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that I should be entitled to possess ANY "objects used as weapons," including chemical (both explosives and poisons), biological, and yes, nuclear. Thus, the possession of bomb-making materials cannot be interpreted as a by-definition-offensive position, and it isn't even clear to be that the 2nd amendment isn't supposed to cover weapons whose "only" use is offensive. Remember, the people who wrote the 2nd had just fought and won a revolution, and they were well aware that people needed the tools to do this if they were to stay free. >Certainly the folks in Oregon will not face much prosecution, as near as I >can figure. The weapons charges may affect their parole (some of them are >ex-cons). The drug amounts are small. And the ANFO precursors....not clear >to me at all that having these is a violation of the laws about explosives, >but maybe it is. Not in Oregon! AN can be bought, without ID, in most places that stock fertilizer. >>This whole situation is nothing more than jackbooted thugs getting a rush by >>stomping on people. FTJBT > >Overly simplistic. Don't misunderstand me: I share your anger at Waco, Ruby >Ridge, gun confiscation, tens of thousands of laws, high taxes, etc. But I >doubt the Oregon bust was a bunch of Waco Warriors assaulting the compound >with tanks and helicopters. True, it wasn't, but that was simply because those people in Oregon didn't choose to defend themselves. Tiny amounts of drugs were found, all of which could have been planted by the cops to justify post-facto the raid. (I'm not saying they WERE planted, merely that police are usually fully prepared for such eventualities. Drugs are usually chosen because they are illegal per-se, and it's easier to sneak in an ounce of pot than 200 pounds of AN. If they don't find anything suspicious, they usually come prepared to make their own evidence. I know, because one of my best friends is an ex-cop who tells me all about this kind of stuff.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Leahy's guillotine.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:11 AM 3/10/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >Leahy et al.: >> Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, >> impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance >> to a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, >> to an investigative or law enforcement officer shall... > ><Exonive deleted>! > >Let's look at the word "willfully". Among other things, it implies >knowledge; under US law, to be guilty you have to know you did something >that you at least reasonably believe is an activity that you're not supposed >to do. And if the government should take the position that the mere existence of an anonymous encrypted remail allows for illegal use, without detection by the operator, then a person could easily argue that the mere willful OPERATION of that remailer violates the section. >Yes, cops can send you email threatening to use your remailer for >felonious purposes, but if you don't know they've actually done it, >and you haven't agreed with them to provide your encryption services >in support of their felonious action, you're not a willing participant. I disagree. At least, I disagree that this interpretation will be automatically adopted by the government thugs. >Especially if you've got the welcome banner on your remailer page >saying "You may not use this email encryption service for thoughtcrime, >violations of the verbal morality act, idea laundering, anti-abortion activism, >or other felonious or Un-American activities." You're no more a willful >participant than the guy who receives an unordered package of child pornography >mailed by a postal inspector. Which brings up a case from the midwest which (fortunately) was overturned by the SC a few years ago. Seems a person was repeatedly sent ads (in reality, the ads came from the government!) offering some kind of pornographic material. A "long time" later, he eventually "bit" and ordered something. Needless to say, this was enough to get a search warrant, and a prosecution. Question: Despite the fact that this conviction was eventually overturned, don't you think the prospect of a multi-year all-out battle with the prosecutors would be enough to deter people from doing things that they believed might really be legal, but would be looked on with disfavor by equally-sleazy prosecutors? Why is it that I get the impression that the people who don't see this provision as being so bad have no sense of reality? Are they not aware of the various ways prosecutors abuse their positions? >Now, if they make this a felony, surely conspiracy to participate in >such activities could eventually be made illegal, and if the DemoPublicrats >get re-elected, it probably will be some day. But this law doesn't do that yet. In other words, they're aiming the gun at you, but they don't quite yet have their finger on the trigger. When, exactly, do you start worrying? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com Klaatu Burada Nikto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMUMma/qHVDBboB2dAQGcTQP9E18kw/tyelFbXNRqqEsjwvK9gsig6npR c+aC/B15zgDShJlcPEZXqJboAtE5w0osoEm8wC3uPVhQZNTam1lk0pgQCzCCTjVs KMBDLOBTtzRovxNnq/YmTf01cCLGfFVSFXWa3MNUf0uJtRxgIiN3T7f5NjjlzCLW 4vWenZVpzi8= =530O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0