December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Spiderspace
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>... I was under the impression that the only documents that most web crawlers >will search are documents that are link-accessible. Are you saying that this >isn't true? Are you saying that Alta-Vista will search EVERYTHING that's >publicly accessible, whether by anonymous FTP or web? Don't archie servers already pick up the anonymous ftp fairly well? Also, aside from no-robots conventions, you can build a cgi program for access to files that might be more effective at blocking searches while still preserving access. Also, it wouldn't be hard for a web-crawler to follow ftp links, as long as the root of an anon-ftp site is pointed to by a URL somewhere. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281 # # "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" used to mean us watching # the government, not the other way around....

3 2

Re: Spiderspace
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:22 PM 1/16/96, Mike McNally wrote: >Ed Carp writes: > > ... I was under the impression that the only documents that most web >crawlers > > will search are documents that are link-accessible. Are you saying >that this > > isn't true? Are you saying that Alta-Vista will search EVERYTHING that's > > publicly accessible, whether by anonymous FTP or web? > >Ah, but if it hits a site that's set up with a top-level directory >which *does* contain an "index" page but whose server *doesn't* >recognize the index page name, then when you hit the site you >(probably) get one of those server-generated indices. Those things >generally have *everything* in the directory visible (except those >files blocked by the server configuration, usually stuff like emacs >temp files), and so there you go... What I've found are a lot of files which are sitting in directories. I'm not sure I have the terminology down perfectly, but the Alta Vista search reveals a link, I click on it, and I'm in the fairly common "Web access to a file system" situation, where I can click on files, directories, move up and down the directory structure, etc. The files are not "Web documents" in the sense of having been prepared for the Web (with fancy fonts, pictures, etc.), but they are certainly fully accessible via the Web. --Tim We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

[NOISE] Re: Eggs at Customs
by Brad Shantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > Me: "Yes, I have green eggs, and ham, too. The eggs in Paris are especially > fresh this time of year." I would like to announce that from all of the mail I've received about the egg question, Tim receives the special award for the best answer. I would like to say though that at the time I was in Ottawa, it was right during the Quebec Referendum vote. Making a joke about the French (i.e. Parisian eggs) could have stuck me in a little room with a customs officer for much, much longer. Who knows, maybe I was a French Canadian spy!!! hmmmm.... Brad

1 0

Re: Crypto anarchist getting through customs
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:27 AM 1/16/96, Alan Horowitz wrote: >My bullshit detector is starting to pin the needle. > >US Customs doesn't care about your political status or leanings. >They want to collect the proper excise and catch contraband. > >There are INS people at passport control. I am skeptical that they >would detain a US passport holder for 36 hours. I would like to see some >evidence that this actually happened. > >US citizens can't be excluded from the country, nor have their >citizenship taken away from them. Since you're addressing this to me, what exactly did I say--be specific--that you think I was bullshitting about? They can, and do, detain entering citizens, as the Zimmermann case showed. And our own Fred Cohen confirms that he was detained upon re-entering the U.S. from Canada. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: The Last Mitnick Post/Thread
by Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Markoff, and Tsutomo acted reprehensibly by quoting sniffer sessions with Kevin >and jsz in which my site was mentioned. Not only were the facts wrong At the time everyone knew Kevin was getting very warm, the simple social contacts people had with him were becoming insidious due to the increased attention being put on him. He was becoming rather infatuated with some people too which some of his antics show. It was in this climate that a process of alientation began where lies were fed him and procrastination was offered as a reason for avoiding his spheres and requests. Noone wants to hold the hot potato. I'm actually observing similar activities today as someone who has a court date approaching is becoming alienated by his own actions and the attitudes of others. Preparing to go to jail was my first thought. Some people never learn. >who/what netsys.com/Len Rose is, they only bothered to mention the past and not What do you expect? They are out for emotive impact, bugger the facts. You being an internet service provider doesnt sell, but a couple of events in the past can be made to give everything a dark and dangerous flavour. Pique interest and generate another percent of sales. >perhaps someone could clear jsz's name which seems to be pretty muddied by the >somewhat irresponsible literary excesses which seem to fill the Tsutomo/Markoff Him and all the others I've heard bandied about. It's a case of tall poppy syndrome where anyone who has a brain is pushed into a higher status than they want or deserve. I've seen a number of people recently who have been spoken of in vaulted tones or thought of as bleeding edge merely because they have had exposure to a lot of systems and their skill set is more than passable. I think jsz's name was mentioned because it was the only intelligent converstion Shimomura actually got. Mitnik was always warezing and trading around and doing the 3133+ $p34K crap so prevalent today. I found him boorish and didn't pay much attention to him. It was only when this Shimomura crap started anyone cared who he spoke to. I regard the whole sordid deal as a hollywood driven sales and marketing machine, most likely coached to the two players by their media backers. When they stop trying to make things into something they aren't is when I'll bother to pay any attention to their ravings. nuff said. Mark

1 0

Need confirmation of Win95 password encryption back door
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A Major Media Outlet requires confirmation that Windows 95, to facilitate its automatic reconnect feature for sleeping laptops and temporary network outages, caches all network passwords (NetWare, NT, UNIX running Samba, SLIP/PPP dialup) in unprotected memory in clear text, whether you've disabled persistent "password caching" to disk and applied the December 14th 128-bit RC4 .PWL patch, or not. There seems to be no way to turn this off. The idea, of course, is that a simple trojan horse could do whatever it wanted with this information. We know that this vulnerability exists in Windows for Workgroups, and Peter wrote a little demo (on hackmsoft page below, without source), but the APIs appear to have changed in Win95. So, anyone have Win95 and some time to kill, or can anyone recommend a good DOS/Windows RAM grepper? - -rich(a)c2.org http://www.c2.org/hacknmsoft/ $ Mon Jan 15 22:17:10 PST 1996 $ $ From llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu to cypherpunks(a)toad.com $ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMPtDLo3DXUbM57SdAQEN7QP+J6Gmk6m8dv3X96SKZciI/L7DM04bDSoi HZa+dIoajAiRrfG9oSNcIYbVDDs67qwCSKGFg9hc5K3x99nhbq3Aw2mio62YQj+2 K62pBT9hQLe4dv8AMhLtIqyG4ZztYy+dDjGzsaUIkBUZKo5//Eh8c81xXLQrqXtk RFV+xkXBgww= =12rk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Spiderspace
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:38 AM 1/16/96 -0800, you wrote: > >I've been thinking a lot about the problems and opportunities that are >coming up as more and more "spiders" (Web searchers, crawlers) are indexing >directories and files on systems they can find. <a snip of agreement> I haven't checked my logs for Alta Vista but many of the spiders do follow the robot exclusion standard. A simple text file that should be retrieved first by any spider that explains where one may not go. The standard is fully explained at: http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/projects/robots/norobots.html But this does nothing for those items sitting in more traditional public space. Obscurity is no longer security.

1 0

Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:27 AM 1/15/96 -0800, Rich Graves wrote: >On Sun, 14 Jan 1996, jim bell wrote: Richard Graves wrote: >However, you won't consider looking at a dissenting FAQ. Aha! Now you identify it as a "dissenting FAQ"! Let's play a little game. Let's say, for purposes of the argument, that there are people who are "pro-libertarian," "neutral", and "anti-libertarian." I know plenty of people who hardly even know what libertarianism is about, but in fact are more-or-less libertarian in philosophy. Let's call these people "neutral." But in general, people who identify themselves as "dissenters" from libertarianism (claiming they know what it is, and assuming for the purposes of the argument that they are correct about this knowledge) are fucking statists. Somehow, I think I've got you pegged correctly. >> "Proposition 187"? Isn't that from CALIFORNIA, not Pennsylvania? Your >> commentary is very confusing. > >Sorry, an old irrelevant battle. Then don't confuse people with things like that! >There was quite a row between Californian "libertarians" and >non-Californian "libertarians" about Prop 187, with those in California >saying that the illegal people were STEALING MONEY, and those outside the >state, including Reason Magazine, saying it was hypocritical at best to >use government force to deny freedom of movement, especially when neutral >studies showed that the illegal people were a net plus for society. In >effect, Reason Magazine was calling them selfish. You miss the point. (this is probably congenital.) There is a generic problem with "asking a libertarian his position on an issue." See, the question assumes how much of an opinion you want, and what assumptions you're making. I'll try to formulate a relevant analogy: Suppose you're building a new house, you have your plans, I'm your friend, and you ask me over for an opinion on how it ought to be done. On the one hand, my advice might simply be to "change the color of the paint." Or, I could say something more detailed, like, "you should add another floor." Or, finally, I could say, "I don't think you should be building a house THERE, in that low area subject to flooding, you should build it 10 feet higher, 100 yards away." Finally, I could say, "No, I don't think you should build that house AT ALL." Each of these is a form of advice. The difference is the scope of the advice. __YOU__ may only have wanted me to advise you on the color of the paint. My advice was to change EVERYTHING. Both may be quite valid and correct opinions. A third party, observing the discussion, would think that there was some sort of contradiction going on, when in reality (remember reality?!?) it is simply a matter of scope being determined. Now, proposition 187, as I _vaguely_ recall, deals with immigrants, primarily illegal immigrants, and the services a community provides them. So if you ask a libertarian, "what should we do," there are a number of separate and distinct types of advise he could give you, depending on the scope of the question. On the one hand, the natural response of an unrestrained libertarian is to say, "There should be no borders, no governments, no taxes, and no welfare, as well as no public schools, etc." And that would be correct, as far as it went. If you responded to that libertarian, "Uh, sorry, we're not interested in changing EVERYTHING; we're just asking you to decide whether or not we should get public services (paid for by tax dollars stolen from citizens by government) to people who got into the country in violation of the law," then he might provide a more limited form of advice based on this restrictive set of parameters. The important thing to remember, however, is that exactly which kind of advice he gives may be entirely dependent on how restrictive the set of parameters you've insisted that he follow. An intelligent libertarian could give a good and valid piece of advise, with the proviso that since he's being restricted in the scope of his advice, it will not necessarily be a "completely libertarian" position. This should be ASSUMED. Which means that you could ask essentially the same question of two different libertarians, and by subtle manipulation of the parameters, get what might otherwise appear to be two contradictory opinions, depending on how much latitude each is given in his advice. >Obviously, I was on the right side. Obviously, you always THINK you are on the right side. > >> >Where, exactly, do you get off disparaging my political philosophy, with >> >which you are completely unfamiliar? >> > >> >> >See the non-libertarian >> >> >FAQ, at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html >> >> >> >> Sounds like it would be extraordinarily un-interesting. >> > >> >Good to see you're as open-minded as I thought. >> >> Well, you called it, and I quote, a "non-libertarian FAQ." Well, I know >> what a "libertarian FAQ" would generally contain, information to teach the >> uninformed about libertarianism. These FAQs are generally prepared by >> libertarians, and are often (usually?) intended to convince people to >> support the libertarian cause. >> >> But what, pray tell, is a "non-libertarian FAQ"? > >Information to teach the uninformed about libertarianism. Then you should have called it a "FAQ _for_ pre-libertarians." Or a "FAQ for those not yet informed about libertarianism." But in fact, since above you called it a "dissenting FAQ," more likely, "a FAQ intended to dissuade people from being (or thinking) in a libertarian manner." Far more informative. Which is why I said that I would consider it to be extraordinarily UN-interesting. >> And thus, as I said, I think that would be extraordinarily un-interesting. >> I've heard PLENTY of idiots try to debunk libertarian philosophy, the vast >> majority of which know so little about it as to make their attempt not only >> totally ineffective, but also counter-productive to their intention. > >How many is plenty? In 4 years on FIDOnet? Dozens. >> >I see no sequitur here. Where have I excused anyone's actions? I was >> >talking about ethics, justifiable force, >> >> Libertarians have a principle called "Non-initiation of Force/Fraud." (or >> "Non-Agression principle.") Anyone who collects taxes has AUTOMATICALLY >> initated agression. Violence against him is not a violation of any >> libertarian principle. > >Libertarians have a practice of USING CAPITAL LETTERS and RIDICULOUS JESSE >JACKSON-ESQUE RHETORIC to define anything they DISAGREE WITH as VIOLENCE >AND FRAUD, a non-falsifiable approach that leads to ludicrous conclusions. And you appear to be a fucking statist. >> > and probable cause. If you have >> >probable cause that Watergate or Whitewater has occurred, then further >> >investigation is justified. If you don't, then the customary financial >> >disclosure statements should do. >> >> You're hiding behind the rules of the GOVERNMENT. Rules written for the >> benefit of GOVERNMENT people. Violations of law by GOVERNMENT people are >> hardly ever prosecuted; Rodney King's assaulters were prosecuted only >> because somebody JUST HAPPENED to have a camcorder on at "just the right >> time." > >> >Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but that doesn't mean you need >> >to spy on everybody. >> >> When my system is in place, we won't have to worry about that ever again. >... >> >No matter what rhetoric you use, it is not nice to respond to a tax >> ----------------------------------------^^^^^^^^ >> >> >collector COMING TO STEAL YOUR MONEY by invading his privacy. >> >> Huh? You're crazier than I thought! You would deny even the principle of >> self-defense! You're truly crazy; you're just about as far as you can >> possibly get from being a libertarian. No wonder you had so many questions >> above! "Nice" has NOTHING to do with it! > >A restaurant denying you a free lunch is the initiation of violence. Do you really believe this, or were you merely trying to misuse this as a contrary (though extremely weak) example? > If >you try to skip a debt What kind of "debt"? One that you agree to?!? > and your creditor finds you, are you then >justified by the principle of self-defense to kill him? After all, if he >pulls a gun on you first, he's the one initiating violence. Your misunderstanding of libertarianism exceeds only your misunderstanding of simple logic. >Measured response and justifiable force. Contracts and justice. When your >kid misbehaves, you spank them. When someone cuts you off on the freeway, >you flip them off. When you disagree with someone, you are supposed to >construct a logical counterargument. When someone insults you, you insult >them back. When someone pulls a gun on you, you blow their head off. > >Nobody's "stealing" "your" money. The IRS is enforcing a contract. I've signed no such "contract." I agreed to no such contract. I'm AWARE of no such contract. The "contract" or "social contract" argument is debunked repeatedly in the various libertarian-oriented political echoes. Actually, it's debunked in non- (not to be confused with "anti-") libertarian echoes too, because even if you ignore all the people who don't yet claim themselves to be libertarians, the rest of the public can't agree on exactly what this "contract" really says. The "social contract" of a liberal contradicts the "social contract" of the conservative. The "social contract" of a Republican contradicts the "social contract" of a Democrat. Even if you take a generous position and say that we owe taxes, it has been repeatedly demonstrated by media/reporter types (by visiting a number of IRS offices, presenting them with the same identical numbers, and asking them how much taxes are owed, and each office gives a DIFFERENT amount. In other words, even if we ASSUME the existence of some sort of "contract," nobody seems to be able to agree on what the terms of that "contract" are. Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, but one thing that I do know about law is that for there to be a "contract" there is necessary to be a "meeting of the minds" about what that contract is actually for. Both (all?) parties to the contract must have the same UNDERSTANDING of the terms of the contract in order for it to be valid. Clearly that is not the case about the "social contract" statist lunatics speak of. Furthermore, in order for there to be a valid "contract" there must be CONSENT. One party cannot threaten or extort from the other, getting the other party to agree to terms that are coercive. Both parties must have the option of NOT entering into that "contract." Yet, practically the whole reason for the existence of governments is "coercion," meaning that absent some clear evidence of arms-length negotiation, it is impossible to come to a valid "contract" with the government. Like I said before, you're a fucking statist. >> Remember the following words: >> "Klaatu Burada Nikto." I'm working on a similar system. You'll >> eventually hear of it. > >You're building a giant robot? Oh my. I thought this was starting to read >like bad science fiction. Just wait. I've decided to post this to Cypherpunks. Forgive me, it's only marginally on-topic, but I think it's vital for the public to know how Richard Graves thinks.

2 1

Re: Reach out! Update 01 (CypherPurists trash this)
by Jeremy Mineweaser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:10 AM 1/13/96 EST, Dan Bailey wrote: >Regarding the *67 feature to disable Caller ID: >This does not stop your ANI information from travelling >with your call. >A *much* better way to do this is the following: >Dial the Operator. >Ask him/her to dial the 800 number for you. > >This will result in your ANI being (000) 000-5555 >I tested this a couple months >ago using AT&T's 1-800-MY-ANI-IS service. I directly dialed >1-800-MY-ANI-IS and it read back my phone number. Then I had >the operator dial it for me and got (000) 000-5555. This >service doesn't work anymore, YMMV.

1 0

RE: Crypto anarchist getting through customs
by Kurt Buff (Volt Comp) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To expand a bit: I don't remember if it was a lieutenant, captain, or whatever, but he passed out the questionnaire in futherance of his master's degree in something or other. One question dealt with shooting civilians who disobeyed orders to turn over their arms, even if they were owned under what would now be considered legal circumstances. Shockingly, upwards of 25% of the soldiers (Marines, actually, as I remember it, I'll check my references if anyone wants) would have no problem doing so! This in spite of the fact that officers in the armed forces (not sure about enlisted men, but I believe it's true of them as well) swear an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic - and I think that under the Constitution as it is now, forcibly depriving people of their arms would probably be a reasonable basis for considering them in contravention of the Constitution, and therefore enemies of it. Kurt ---------- From: Alan Horowitz[SMTP:alanh@infi.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 1996 15:20 To: attila Cc: Timothy C. May; cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Crypto anarchist getting through customs The notorious questionaire to the SEALS wasn't an official action. It was one lieutenient doing an assignment for a night class. I never said that the federal government was good, or nice, or useful. Alan Horowitz alanh(a)norfolk.infi.net

1 0