December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Lesson 2 in cracking (cryptoanalysis 001)
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-08-21 03:14:57 EDT, you write: > Okay wise guy. I'm going to give you a 14300 character string that > starts out Big deal. >How are you going to tell *what* I was talking about? I guarantee with >any message of practical length (i.e. not " ckosuuy") will have multiple >possibilities, particularly when you take things like mispellings, Mispelling are an acknowledge means of screwing up the algorithms I gave you. However, they are usually close to the original spelling. In addition, once most of the cipher has been dealt with, these fall into place quite nicely anyhow. >software artifacts ("----- BEGIN PGP --------" "X-Received ..." etc.) and So tell me what the difference is between a bunch of messages with th, st, ya da ya da and messages with instances of say 27 27 27 27 27 obviously the dashes from your pgp insert. If anything, you've added more ammunition against your self. Think expanded pattern matching if you can something like pa*tern... >deliberate attempts to throw you off. That's why it's unbreakable - by >anyone! Including the user, after all, you show a transformation by setting all vowels to the front, then a transformation into numbers, a shuffle by number order, then a transformation back into letters. During decryption: How do you place the vowels into the correct position? How do you place the numbers into the previous order before ascending sort them? You are a , lets see a good name I was once placed with, a TROLL. The first pot was not to insult you more so than to inform others of attacks. This post can be considered a personal attack, you TROLL.

1 0

Re: telco's vs x-phones
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:19 AM 8/21/96 -0700, Brian D Williams wrote: > > >In a reply to Vipul Ved Prakash, Jim Bell wrote: > >>Assume 30 cents per meter per fiber for cabled fiber, or about $10 >(US) per meter for 36-fiber cable. > >Siecore plain vanilla 36 fiber singlemode list $ 1.82 a foot, $5.46 >a yard In other words, it's a fact of 5+ cheaper than I thought... >>Each fiber pair should be able to handle approximately 1 million >>conversations at current data rates, or a total of 18 million >>conversations for that 18-pair cable, or 9.5 trillion >>conversation-minutes. > >At current data rates (OC-48 Sonet) 32,256 voice channels per >fiber, 580,608 total for the fiber. Well, I think I blew a decimal point, there. Even so, semi-leading edge systems do about twice as well... > >Off by a factor of roughly 36 at this point. However, the errors partially cancel, so I'm actually off by a factor of 2. > >>Multiply this cost by 10 for right of way, trenching, repeaters, >>and other auxiliary hardware, or $100 per meter. This is probably >>just a ballpark estimate, but... > >Off by a factor of at least 10 not counting switching equipment. In which direction? BTW, keep in mind I'm considering long-haul LD links between cities and states, NOT the kind of trenching that requires digging up city streets most of the way. I don't doubt that some portions of a coast-to-coast link are substantially more expensive than $100 per meter, but as a proportion of the total length they are very small. >In a reply to me Jim bell wrote: > >>The long distance companies are not "using local networks," your >>customers are...to connect to those long distance companies. And >>any payments LD companies make to you are, indeed, a subsidy. >>Tell me, how much is this _subsidy_, exactly? > >Who's using who is a matter of perspective. Which is why you're unwilling to call it a "subsidy." >Q) if you call a dog's tail a "leg" how many legs does a dog have? > >A) four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. > >Point? The LD companies pay to use the RBOC's networks, calling it >a subsidy doesn't make it one, except maybe to you. If they don't >like it, they are free (or soon will be) to build their own, or use >someone elses. > >>As an alternative, the phone company would presumably be entitled >>to be served by phone lines, at say $30 per month or so, through >>which their customers reach them. $30 per month is $1 per day or >>4 cents per hour or about 0.07 cents per minute. 3 cents doesn't >>equal 0.07 cents, now does it?!? > >"Presumably be entitled?" The RBOC's currently charge what >regulations allow, if the regs go away, they will charge what the >market will pay. You're full of inconsistencies. First, you stated that the local/LD subsidies "went away with the breakup" (paraphrased) yet NOW you're saying "RBOC's currently charge what regulations allow." I suggest that if those regulations "allow" RBOC's to charge 3 cents per minute to LD companies, _that_is_the_subsidy_ that you claimed had "gone away." It's obvious that you don't want to use the dirty word "subsidy," but that's exactly what this thing is! You need to remember that unless a price is defined by negotiation in the free market, there remains a possibility that it contains an underlying subsidy. Since the whole purpose of the the payment from the LD company to the local co was as a subsidy, unless that payment disappears there is always a question of whether the subsidy remains. Apparently it does. The most obvious alternative, one that doesn't contain an obvious subsidy is a "per line per month" pricing system, where the number of lines counted is the maximum number of simultaneous calls that can be made through a given LD company at one time. (NOT the total number of customers that the LD company has.) >>How has this remaining SUBSIDY dropped over time, assuming it has? >>When is it scheduled to drop to zero? > >The rate has gone down since the regs are changing and competition >is increasing. I would be interested in hearing why you think it >will ever drop to zero. It's because the locals don't NEED a subsidy. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

WinSock Remailer Available at Obscura
by Joey Grasty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Y'all: The WinSock Remailer is now available for download from Lance Cottrell's homepage at: http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ Go to the export controlled section. After you traverse the export control form and get to the ftp site, you will find the remailer in the DOS directory. The filename is WSA12.ZIP. Inside you will find a README.TXT file (that contains information on how to setup the remailer), a PGP signature file WSRMA12.SIG, and the remailer binaries WSRMA12.ZIP. The signature file is used with PGP to check that the the WSRMA12.ZIP file has not been altered. Send me a note if you have any difficulty. A special thanks to Lance for his help and his disk space. Regards, -- Joey Grasty jgrasty(a)gate.net [home -- encryption, privacy, RKBA and other hopeless causes] jgrasty(a)pts.mot.com [work -- designing pagers] "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann PGP = A7 CC 31 E4 7E A3 36 13 93 F4 C9 06 89 51 F5 A7

1 0

Re: PreRFD: comp.org.cypherpunks
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:10 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Skip wrote: >The Subject: line says it all. > >My suggestion number #1: > >No moderation. I'd vote "no" to converting this list into a newsgroup. I think universal access to e-mail is more guaranteed than access to a news-server, especially for those of us hidden away behind our Gestapo-run firewalls. The mailing list flies quite nicely through them. Plus, we have the added benefit of only getting crypto-related spam thrown at us occasionally, instead of the nearly ubiquitous "Call 1-900-HOT-4U" postings that seem to flood every Usenet group. ('Course, I seem to recall a www.slut.com letter from someone a few days ago...) Plus, sci.crypt exists for those who can't get enough here. As an aside, if an RFD should be called, to whom should we forward our discussion? (It's been many years since I really cared about Usenet.) John -- J. Deters "Captain's log, stardate 25970-point-5. I am nailed to the hull." +-------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: jad(a)dsddhc.com (work) jad(a)pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | PGP Key ID: 768 / 15FFA875 | +-------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:55 PM 8/21/96, Asgaard wrote: >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> There are technological fixes which I would favor over attempts to ban >> unwanted messages. > >In the meantime, before these technological fixes are easily implemented, >what is the proper way to handle unwanted commercial mail? > >1) delete immediately > >2) reply with 'Fuck off, morons!' > >3) as in 2) plus an attachment of some 1Mb file > >4) as in 3) plus a CC to the postmaster of the sending site Well, this actually just happened to me. I got a long message from the "Computer Currents" folks, for Yet Another Net Newsletter, "Inside Currents," saying they had added my name to their list and that if I wished to be removed I should a) paste a certain reply form into a section at the end of the message, b) readdress the reply to a person handling unsubscribes, c) blah blah blah. Instead, I just hit "Reply" and sent the message back to them. I wasn't sure if the message would go out to the original list or not, nor did I care. I didn't ask to be subscribed to their list, I wasn't interested in learning their indiosyncratic procedure for removing one's name, and they should have set up their distribution list so as not to allow recipients to post to the entire list (it is, after all, not a mailing list intended for postings by recipients). Well, my message and dozens of similar reply messages from others went out to the "Inside Currents" list, provoking an avalanche of even more replies, bounces, etc. "Computer Currents" is now feeling intense heat over this episode. (My latest message, sent two days ago, was entitled "Fuck "Computer Currents,"" and included my "How to Make a Pipe Bomb" sig. It hasn't come back to me, so maybe CC figured out how to turn off their spammish features.) (Hey, "spammish" is a nice word. Hackers can say, "Yeah, I took Spammish in high school.") --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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

RISKS: Microsoft Explorer security hole
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:12:59 -0400 From: felten(a)CS.Princeton.EDU (Ed Felten) Subject: Internet Explorer Security Problem We have discovered a security flaw in the current version (3.0) of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser running under Windows 95. An attacker could exploit the flaw to run any DOS command on the machine of an Explorer user who visits the attacker's page. For example, the attacker could read, modify, or delete the victim's files, or insert a virus or backdoor entrance into the victim's machine. We have verified our discovery by creating a Web page that deletes a file on the machine of any Explorer user who visits the page. The core of the attack is a technique for delivering a document to the victim's browser while bypassing the security checks that would normally be applied to the document. If the document is, for example, a Microsoft Word template, it could contain a macro that executes any DOS command. Normally, before Explorer downloads a dangerous file like a Word document, it displays a dialog box warning that the file might contain a virus or other dangerous content, and asking the user whether to abort the download or to proceed with the download anyway. This gives the user a chance to avoid the risk of a malicious document. However, our technique allows an attacker to deliver a document without triggering the dialog box. Microsoft has been notified and they are working on fixing the problem. Until a remedy is widely available, we will not disclose further details about the flaw. For more information, contact Ed Felten at felten(a)cs.princeton.edu or 609-258-5906. Dirk Balfanz and Ed Felten Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/ ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Technology (n): | | A substitute for adulthood. stevenw(a)best.com | Popular with middle-aged men.

1 0

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by William Knowles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, jim bell wrote: > Frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't feel the need to be > protected by thugs. Makes it easier to implement 'Assassination Politics' if you have to. :) William Knowles erehwon(a)c2.net -- William Knowles <erehwon(a)c2.net> PGP mail welcome & prefered / KeyID 1024/2C34BCF9 PGP Fingerprint 55 0C 78 3C C9 C4 44 DE 5A 3C B4 60 9C 00 FB BD Finger for public key -- Vote for Harry Browne in November -- http://www.HarryBrowne96.org

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Postal service is working on a new postage method, 2 key signature, which will be unique to each "postal unit" ( stamp ) the signature will be logged when you buy the stamps....No more anon. snail mail...... Just thought you'd like to know !

4 3

Re: Republican and Democratic party platforms on technology
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:59 PM 8/21/96, Declan McCullagh wrote: >While the Republicans certainly are no fast friends of online liberties -- >recall Dole cosponsored an "anti-cyberporn" bill worse than the CDA -- >they've been moving in the right direction on crypto. This plank shows that >as a party, they're starting to take online privacy seriously. I think we all know just how long such a taking online privacy seriously committment would last...about two or three briefings from the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DIA. Maybe Dole would get the infamous "If you only knew what we know" briefing, maybe he already has had it (and is just cynically supporting "online privacy" because it's a way to contrast himself with Clinton). Sure, the rhetoric might be slightly different under a Dole presidency. The focus would be on "halting the spread of abortion information on the Net" and "plotting by Communists using unbreakable cryptography." >(Contrast both parties with the Libertarians, which have a sterling >commitment to online civil liberties, reflected in the platform approved at >their convention last month.) I certainly plan to vote for Harry Browne, their candidate, even if voting only encourages the process. I first read Browne's stuff back in 1973, and, a few years later, his wonderful and "Zen Calvinist" (my term) book, "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World," which I still recommend to people. As far as I'm concerned, Browne is the strongest candidate ever fielded by the Libertarian Party. Not that it will matter. Ralph Nader will probably get more votes than Browne. The answer lies in technology, not the ballot box. --Tim May -- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

www.usdoj.gov http://156.46.199.41/
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

a mirror of the hack is at http://156.46.199.41/

2 1