December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Microsoft's CryptoAPI - thoughts?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 AM 2/3/96 TZ, Wasser wrote: > I have "standardized" the PS files on the MS website, so there should > be no more problems. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you, but it would be even better to webify them. I have webified them (http://www.jim.com/jamesd/mscryptoapi.html) but I am sure most people would prefer an official copy: --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

Re: C2 and the Worst Case
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sameer <sameer(a)c2.org> wrote: > > The question is, how much would they get? How much information about c2 > > users would fall into the wrong hands? > > The only information we have is the information you give > us. If you don't give us your name, we don't have your name. If you > don't give us the site you're coming from, we don't have the sit eyour > coming from. They can't get information out of us that we don't > have. That's our guiding principle, in terms of the privacy against > government-level attack. Are you saying that when someone with an anonymous mailbox on c2.org retrieves his/her mail via a POP3 connection, no log is made of the originating IP address?

1 0

Re: Sometines ya just gotta nuke em-and nuke em again
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:39 PM 2/3/96 -0800, paralax(a)alpha.c2.org wrote: >Mr. Hayes MAY have used a condescending tone but you have exposed your >racist roots again. First you embarass yourself with you lack of knowledge, Paralax does not know shit from beans. He presumably imagines that Tim is "embarrassed" because Tim's knowledge of the historical facts differs from those facts dreamed up by the usual crew of apologists for totalitarian terror. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

Re: THE JEWS (ALL of them!) Try to kick Ernst Zundel off Usenet!!
by joseph＠genome.wi.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

what the hell was that? Surley you can't expect us to belive people wrote that? --Joseph

1 0

Re: Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted
by Jim McCoy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> One thing that I'm worried about is InterNIC. As I understand it, it >is a central company that is in the business of receiving domain name >registrations, including the info on what that domain is connected to, and >sending it out to various nameservers. The nameservers then use this to route >some (not all, I do believe) traffic. Close, but not quite. The role that the InterNIC serves is to register domains and to maintain the top-level mappings. It is from InterNIC that the root-level nameservers load info regarding which domains are served by which nameservers. The way this process works from any particular users point of view is as follows: 1) You request that the host name www.foo.bar be resolved to an IP address. 2) Your TCP/IP software checks its local cache (if any) to see if it already has the requested information and if so it returns it without doing a lookup [there are timeouts and other bits involved but this is the simple version] 3) If a lookup is necessary your TCP/IP software digs up a pre-defined name/number for who is should ask. This is the info that you enter into a resolv.conf file in unix, a MacTCP DNS setting, etc. It is usually the nameserver for your internet service provider or a local nameserver for your network. Once the resolver knows who to ask it formats a query and sends it off. 4) This nameserver checks its cache to see if it already has the info and if not it forwards the request to another nameserver. Eventually the request hits a root server; the root servers then check the domain name against their tables (the ones it loaded up from the NIC) and forward the request to the appropriate nameserver. 5) Eventually the request is forwarded to a nameserver which is able to give an authortative answer for this domain and the result is sent back to the original requester. At any point in this chain it is possible for someone to decide who will give the authoratative answer for this domain. It is possible for you, the requester, to decide for yourself who will be asked. All you need to do is to add whatever nameserver you trust early into the query chain and that server will be asked first and only if it does not answer authoratatively will the regular nameservers be asked to resolve the request. The DNS system represents to oldest digital reputation system I know ot. It is _all_ about trust; if you think that someone is giving out bogus information or you want your answers to come from someone else it is trivial to change the way your nameservice is configured so that lookups happen in the manner that you want. No one can control how names are resolved into numbers unless someone else grants them that power. There was a minor rebellion among the internet service providers this fall when the NIC announced that they would begin charging for their services and it flares up every now and then when some of the larger independant ISPs begin to feel that the NIC is favoring the major players like MCI, Sprint, et al. when it comes to address and routing blocks and other name/IP number issues. The point that is frequently raised to keep the NIC in line is that there is nothing preventing these providers from going out and doing whatever they want, whether it be establishing new root servers, allocating whatever numbers they want, or just plain ignoring that the NIC exists. And there would be absolutely nothing that InterNIC could do about it, because that is how DNS works. The biggest problems that would occur would be when there was a conflict in the namespaces served (e.g. your lookup for www.foo.com returns one number when a InterNIC served root nameserver responds and another when a different set of root nameservers respond) and the number that would be returned would depend entirely on which nameservers your query asked to get the answer. In short, it would depend on who you decided to trust... On a more cypherpunk-related note, it is actually quite trivial for you to create your own shadow domains which are completely private to whatever group you want. If you want to create the foo.cypherpunk domain you can do it just by downloading the BIND nameserver code and settting up a nameserver which answers queries for the top-level .cypherpunk domain. All that is required for someone else to resolve names in this set of domains is for them to know that a .cypherpunk address needs to be resolved by the nameserver you created (which involves adding only a single line in every DNS config system that I know of.) It is also difficult for any authority to mandate that certain nameservers be used because the entire system is already so distributed as to make such a mandate useless (it would also cause such a performance hit for net connections that it would be about as effective as the old 55mph federal speed limits :) jim -- Jim McCoy mccoy(a)communities.com

1 0

Re: THE JEWS (ALL of them!) Try to kick Ernst Zundel off Usenet!!
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:46 PM 2/3/96 -0500, ErnstZundl(a)aol.com wrote: >If you are a *true* Patriot, and a *true* Aryan, then you *MUST* >make the journey to Antarctica and into the volcano!! We owe it to >the world, we owe it to the great Adolph Hitler, and we owe it to >the White Race. "But what about Hitler's Brain?" | Remember: Life is not always champagne. Sometimes it is REAL pain. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Futplex makes the news!
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:01 PM 2/3/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >presence by Lewis. (From what I've seen at California universities, the >folks with the long knives will still be trying to "get him." >Unfortunately, with search tools like Alta Vista they can keep tabs on him >semi-automatically and report any further evidence of his racist, >mysogynistic, and anti-democratic views to the Dean of Students.) > >(I could add a smiley here, but it's really not very funny.) But it's a state school. All you have to do is sue. Since academics are gutless, they aren't that hard to face down. So far, no one's really wanted to face my mouth so they've left me alone once I made it clear that I was a libertarian anarchist nut. I feel sorry for Lewis though and wouldn't want him to do anything he wasn't comfortable with. DCF "Then there was the time that my RA (Resident Assistant) in my dorm in a small (private) liberal arts college in the Northwest found out I had a gun in my room..."

1 0

Re: THE JEWS (ALL of them!) Try to kick Ernst Zundel off Usenet!!
by ErnstZundl＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Surley you can't expect us to belive people wrote that? Who do you propose wrote it then? Aryan Space Nazis?

1 0

RE: Don't type your yes/fraud response into your computer
by A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Nice try - but the virtual machine model used by intel supports interception >of I/O operations. (something educating prior generations how to apply a near vacuum to shelled embryos). Sure it does - why it is essential for protective activity to begin while the system is still in REAL mode following boot. Might also need to write a .VXD (horrors) >I still think the basic 'if the machine is not secure all bets are off' >premis stands. Oh I agree, just believe that software can make a machine secure (or at least detect when security cannot be assured which is almost as good). Might I suggest you take a look at the "safe PC" discussions on Virus-L c.a 1989-1990. We were talking about virus protection then but is the same thing. Believe it or not, we even had real and protected mode discussions back in those days while we were waiting for Noah (only guy who ever took out a cattle boat and wound up half-way up a mountain...). Warmly, Padgett

1 0

Aegis PGP Shell
by paralax＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gordon Campbell wrote: GRC> After doing a total reinstall of my system (don't ask) I discovered that I GRC> don't have a copy of the Aegis PGP Shell distribution archive anywhere. I GRC> attempted to grab it from http://iquest.com/~aegisrc as listed in the docs, GRC> but the site doesn't exist. GRC> Doesn anybody know what gives and where I can get a new copy of the archive? GRC> I really like this shell and haven't figured out how to otherwise integrate GRC> PGP with EudoraPro. GRC> Gordon R. Campbell, Owner - Mowat Woods Graphics >From alt.security.pgp another reader writes: > It seems that iquest.com has dropped off the net today so the > normal url: http://iquest.com/~aegisrc/beta2.htm is > unavailable. With the weather around here right now, I doubt > it will be up any time soon. > I've created a very quick mirror site at: > http://fly.hiwaay.net/~lyman/pgpwsbeta.htm > Please use it only if you cannot connect to the first url. A. Paralax View

1 0