December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Netscrape download
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[From Phil Karn] Netscape's use of a CGI interface to download the US version (128-bit key) of Netscape Navigator raises the possibility that they are "serializing" or "personalizing" each copy they send out, perhaps in response to a DoS request that they do so in order to trace unauthorized redistribution. One way to test this theory without redistributing the actual code is to compare MD5 hashes of the distributions. After two days of unsuccessful attempts at obtaining the code from their overloaded server, I've just successfully downloaded the SunOS, BSDI and Windows 95 versions of Netscape Navigator. Here are the MD5 hashes of the files I received: BSDI version: 4ec4a705e2e4c6560475852fae807c8c SunOS version: e72ff352ca7c619cb31b8f8ef3651b28 Windows 95 version: 8e936813f12a1b3b77ed03d9239ebd5d Anybody care to compare these to the copies they obtain, assuming the logjam on the server breaks sometime soon? Phil -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433

5 4

Re: Responding to Pre-daw
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > Except that getting killed in a traffic accident IS an accident (mostly :) > > > while having black clad Fed's storming into your house was _consciously_ > > > decided by them, because THEY have a problem with YOUR guns (?!)... > > > > I think the original point was that they MIGHT storm into your house > > by mistake (say, because they incorrectly accepted a informant's > > story). Therefore, it is truly a mistake. > > Well, not really. It would be severe case of neglegence which is not the > same as a mistake. When you drive, you have to prove that you know what > you are doing by getting a driver's licence. Uh ... I think you missed the point of my mail. I think I explained it later on, but here it is in different words. It may be clearer this time. > If you are a SWAT guy and some informer would come along and say "This > and that person is a terrorist, I know for sure" and you go into that > house and shoot everything that moves, well, doesn't sound much like an > accident to me... I think it would be unfortunate if you think that SWAT team members are trained to storm in and shoot anything that moves. They are trained to provide protection to themselves while attempting to apprehend the target. That, to you, may be a subtle difference, but it make a big difference to me: 1. In your interpretation, they literally rampage through the target site without much regard for the destruction they may cause. 2. In my interpretation, they are trying their best to balance the need to quickly apprehend the target, with the serious potential of being harmed in the process. In circumstances where there is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the target is criminal, then I would support their actions fully. But it is clear that mistakes have been made in the past. The tragic consequences of those mistakes are unforgivable. Therefore, the mistakes MUST be prevented. That said, I think, in most cases (and I believe most LE believe this too), there does not need to be a violent conflict. I believe they can choose a different scenario. They do not have to choose a scenario where they have to be in immediate danger. The recent Montana standoff is an example where government agents did NOT choose to storm in (good or bad decision is another debate). It is not unreasonable to be scared into doing irrational things if someone storms into your house at 4am. However, if you get a phone call saying your house is surrounded, you might have more time to think straight and realize that there is some horrible mistake. And, as far as I know, it is perfectly legal to be a little paranoid. Ern

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:21 PM 7/19/96, Arun Mehta wrote: >I must admit all this talk about what kinds of bullet best >penetrates Kevlar makes me >shake my head and wonder what's happening to the world -- >particularly since you are >far more likely to use this weaponry in a rage against a loved one than >against >someone breaking down your door. The "good" guys arming By "you," I have to presume you mean "me." No, I am not at likely to use this weapon in a rage against a loved one. Trust me. In any case, by far the most common weapon used for family killings is the ordinary knife. Easily available, in multiple forms, it kills efficiently (if not always quickly). >themselves so that the "bad" >don't invade reminds me of the stupid arms race between the US >and the Soviets: I >wonder how many burglars in Western Europe carry guns -- in the US, you'd >be real stupid if you didn't carry the latest weaponry. It may sound "stupid" to you...I suggest you read up on evolutionary game theory. Sometimes one has no choice but to respond to an arms buildup. Unilateral disarmament rarely works. By the way, many burglars consciously and carefully choose to be unarmed, as confrontation is _not_ what they want, and they know that possession of a firearm during a robbery significantly worsens their situation if they are apprehended. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: NSA response to key length report
by vacuo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199607192110.RAA07548(a)crypto.com> Matt Blaze <mab(a)crypto.com> writes: > Particularly impressive is that our key length report was hardly > above criticism from several angles, but their rebuttal managed > somehow to avoid them. > > What I find most disturbing about this is that their report was > provided secretly to policymakers in the administration and in > Congress, without independent technical review that would have > quickly exposed the fallacy of the arguments. I never would have > seen it had several of the recipients not faxed it to me. This is > the first hard evidence I've seen of NSA providing anything less > than the highest quality technical analysis to other parts of the > government. A non-specialist reader would be easily misled by the > technically dense, but completely irrelevant, "rebuttal". It smacks > of either ill-informed sloppiness, or, perhaps worse, self-serving > disingenuous cynicism. Either conclusion is scary, and, to me in > fact, quite surprising. It is only surprising because you are a naive fool. The NSA will stop at nothing to control us and you are just helping by allowing yourself to be playing by their own rules and will set yourself up for them to use as an example to the rest of us when they get your ass. Don't be an idiot - wake up and LOOK. Read puzzle palace. We can't win on there terms. They aren't playing fair and we shouldn't either.

1 0

Re: Borders *are* transparent
by David Murray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:24 AM 7/18/96 -0700, TCM wrote: > ... Borders _are_ transparent. There are >so _many_ degrees of freedom for getting stuff across borders. The hope >that a bunch of *bits* can be stopped in ludicrous. > >_This_ is why I expect the Netscape beta to arrive overseas pretty soon. Undoubtedly. Interestingly (to me, anyway), I noticed on my last trip to Hong Kong that the Netscape products for sale in the legitimate shops had "US/Canada only - not for export" (or similar) printed on the packaging. (Also of note, the hot Pirate CD of that time "Internet Xpress", with such goodies as Symantec Java Cafe, Spry Internet Office Pro, Netscape Fast Track Server v2.0, Commerce Builder v1.5, also featured ViaCrypt PGP v2.71 for Windows. Nice to see encryption as a must have net tool...) dm

1 0

Kellstrom Calls for DT Funding
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a "briefing" on TWA 800 when one of the reporters tossed Big Jim Kellstrom (Deputy Director in Charge of the New York Office) of the FBI a softball question about what he needed to fight terrorism; he took the opportunity to call for full funding of the Digital Telephony Bill. He said the usual about how bad guys conspire and we need to tap. DCF

2 1

Borders *are* transparent
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:51 AM 7/18/96, snow wrote: >On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote: >> At 3:36 AM -0700 7/16/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >> >At 04:18 PM 7/15/96 -0700, sameer wrote: >> >> Not like that's tough to figure out. Congrats. It's cool to >> >>actually be able to connect to my webserver using real encryption. >> >>Glad the lawyers don't think Barksdale is going to jail anymore. >> >I'm glad too. So how many minutes did it take to leak overseas? >> It doesn't "leak overseas" as if there were some regrettable lapse in the >> plumbing. Someone has to commit a felony violation of Federal law. > > No they don't. If they are French, Russian, English, Greek, etc. They > _may_ be violating their countries laws, but they are not necessarily >violating ours. This is a terribly important point: if a citizen of Foobaria succeeds in connecting to the Netscape site--perhaps by experimenting with various combinations of domain names and submitted address/zipcode combinations--and Netscape sends him the file, he has not committed a crime in his own country. (Unless they have their own laws....) Ironically, under the ITARs, as I understand them, a citizen of Foobaria who "exports" (= retrieves from Netscape's site) such materials actually *has* violated our ITARs. (It is possible for persons outside the U.S. to violate U.S. laws, of course. You can all imagine examples.) Prosecuting a person in Foobaria for violating U.S. ITAR regs would of course be problematic, and unlikely. Likewise, much "export-controlled" software is freely purchasable without any form of identification or proof of citizenship/residency in any of thousands of U.S. software stores. (I don't know if the copies of Netscape Navigator on the shelves in U.S. stores are now the "U.S." version, as opposed to be a somwhat-crippled version, but I sure do know that a *lot* of nominally-export-controlled software _is_ freely purchasable.) Much of this software goes out of the country in luggage. In my various flights out of the U.S. over the years, never have my bags been so much as glanced at, except presumably for bombs with sniffers, scanners, etc. Further, I have mailed optical disks out of the country--a single one of these can store a whole lot of stuff. (As I said in a 1992 interview, a DAT is like a shoulder-fired Stinger missile.) On a trip to France and Monaco last year, I deliberately carried several optical cartridges and couple of DATs, all crammed with software, PGP, RSADSI's MailSafe, Mathematica, etc. To make a point, and as props for my talk on crypto anarchy. Certainly there was no checking on the way out at SFO, and no checking whatsoever at Charles de Gaulle in Paris. (On my return trip, the bored inspector in San Francisco asked what my purpose in being overseas has been. Had I said "tourism" I would've been waved through. Instead, for interest, I said "Meeting with Russian cryptographers in Monte Carlo," just to see what would happen. He asked me what "cryptographers" are or do... "They make secret codes." He then waved me through. Sigh.) None of this is surprising, of course. Borders _are_ transparent. There are so _many_ degrees of freedom for getting stuff across borders. The hope that a bunch of *bits* can be stopped in ludicrous. _This_ is why I expect the Netscape beta to arrive overseas pretty soon. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage >being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific >American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the >sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and >"peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing >about. Choosing what you read and choosing what other people (including your children) read is the difference between filtering and censoring. I didn't say filtering was wrong, I said censorship was wrong. >If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away >from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where >there views are already basically set. I am sorry to hear. I think we underestimate childrens' ability to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and I think the seemingly inate desire for parents to want children that are all but clones of themselves is especially dangerous and certainly harmful. I think that restricting access to "negative memes" from anyone (including children) actually does more harm than good. I didn't particularly want to get into this, so I will leave it up to you to read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" for very strong arguements in my support. >I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to >set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the filtering programs we were discussing allow a user very little, if any, ability to "set his filters differently". >And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can >and can't do. Again, I agree, and thought I had made that clear. However, that doesn't mean we can't object on a social (opposed to governmental) level. I repeat: just because a government doesn't have the right to oppose private censorship doesn't make it OK. >Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic" >notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from >filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex." I was under the impression that most on the list were avowed libertarians, and would rather the State didn't intervene in any part of your (or your son's) life. However, I would still argue that restricting your son's access is more of a detriment to your son than allowing it, then discussing why it is Wrong (or whatever) and why he feels it is necessary to read such things. I would also argue that you are right in that the State has no right to force you to raise your child in any way. But, as I stated in another post, the problem is not just the government. >Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo >the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two >Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in >religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for >schools their own children are no longer using). I fail to see how trying to breed attitudes that you allegedly avow is "propaganda". The book you cited is intended as a means of teaching acceptance, not necessarily approval. You say you tolerate homosexuals, but that is not a wide-spread practice yet. Violence and ridicule is the more common response to openly homosexual behaviour, and that book is meant to stop such bigoted reactions. You'll note that nowhere in the book does it say anyone *should* be homosexual, it merely says that it's okay if you are and you should accept others who are. >Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their >AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but >I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid >their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which >I don't). Please show me an instance where you or your children (if you had any) would have been forced into practicing homosexuality by anything taught in a public school or shown on a web page. Exposure to a lifestyle and having that life- style's practices forced on you are not the same. Would you allow your children to learn about Nazi Germany? I find the lifestyle of the Nazi positively disgusting, but wouldn't think to prevent my child from learning about it. Same thing with other cultures, religions, political principles, etc. The simple fact that this particular issue is regarding sexuality bears no significance to the arguement. A child (or any other person) should not be restricted access to any sort of information available about any topic, unless she is restricting her own access (filtering). <garbage regarding AIDS/etc ignored> //cerridwyn//

3 2

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >Nope, not true. Say what you will about California, but the one >thing it did right was pass a law that said anyone found in your >house at night is presumptively a threat to which you may respond >with deadly force. Shoot on sight, in other words. I find it hard to believe "anyone". If "anyone" happens to be law enforcement, as has been proven again and again: yer screwed no matter what (either dead or in jail forever). //cerridwyn//

2 1

Re: Reverse Engineer
by elfgard＠pooh-corner.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What do you mean by "reverse engineer?" I have heard this word several times especially in the world of hacking, but... can someone tell me what it really meant? Interesting question. Hmmm... I would answer this question for you but then I would have to kill you. That is basically like asking a car thief to tell yuo about how he breaks into cars and what cars hes broken into lately. My suggestion to you is to pick up one of those MEGA lame books like "What is a Cyberpunk!" and read that. It may not tell you shit, but it will give you a broad understanding about what you want to know. Elfgard *The One and Only* elfgard(a)netlite.com http://www.netlite.com

2 1