December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Realtime Keyserver update
by Osborne, Rick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

First off, let me say thank you to all of those who responded to my first message, I gained alot of useful information. Mark Rogaski <wendigo(a)pobox.com> and I have decided to write up a RFC on it and are going through the initial stages of deciding on its functionality. We would appreciate any and all useful input on the subject. All ideas are welcome. You can email my autoresponder (at this same address) to get the latest information on what we've decided. Just make the subject GET KEYSERVER INFO for the response. Thank you for your interest and help. Rick Osborne

1 0

List owner named in law suit (fwd)
by Damien Lucifer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:52:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Clay Irving <clay(a)panix.com> Subject: List owner named in law suit I can't believe this one! Peter Laws, a recent graduate of the University of Arkansas, maintains an electronic mailing list called "SCAN-L". The list is provided for radio scanning enthusiasts. There are a few hundred subscribers to the list. Recently, in a thread about scanning publications, an employee of publication "A" apparently wrote something to offend someone at publication "B". Lo and behold, next thing you know, Peter is named in a lawsuit because he is the maintainer of the list. Something seems very, very wrong with this. I've never heard of anything like this before. Can a Email list maintainer be held liable for something someone else writes? Peter *just* graduated, and he needs all the help he can get. Thanks, in advance. -- Clay Irving N2VKG clay(a)panix.com http://www.panix.com/~clay/

1 0

Small German bank claims first with online service
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> FRANKFURT, Aug 28 (Reuter) - German private bank Gries & >Heissel Bankiers on Wednesday launched an Internet banking >service -- the first comprehensive service of its kind in a >country where online bank options are gradually taking off. > The small Berlin-based bank linked up with U.S. computer >firm Hewlett Packard Co to develop the system, which Internet >users can access using a high-security personal code. > Clients will be able to view detailed balances on their >deposit, current and securities accounts and transact all normal >banking business on the World Wide Web. > Although online banking is a developing trend on the German >financial services market, larger banks with far broader >customer bases are working on more selective Internet packages. > Thomas Gries, one of Gries & Heissel's personally-liable >directors, said he regarded Internet banking as a logical >supplement to the bank's existing services. > ``We have had an Internet home page since October 1995. This >move from a pure information medium to an interactive one was a >logical one,'' Gries said. > Banking officials attending the CEBIT electronics conference >in Hanover this week said German online banking business was >poised to grow dramatically. > ``In the next six months, five to ten German banks will be on >the Internet,'' said Stefan Schoeller, board member at Bayerische >Vereinsbank AG unit Vereins- und West Bank. > Vereinsbank plans to launch Internet services within about >six months via its Advance Bank direct unit, pending a review of >security options. > Rival discount broker Direkt Anlage Bank, a unit of >Bayerische Hypotheken- und Wechsel Bank AG, on Tuesday launched >an Internet service for its securities account holders at half >the cost of its telephone banking service. > Meanwhile market leader Deutsche Bank AG is to test >electronic cash on the Internet this autumn in a joint >initiative with Dutch electronic payments group Digicash NV. > Vereinsbank officials at CEBIT said they planned a steady >expansion of the bank's online options over the coming years, >predicting 10 to 15 percent of its current account clients would >be online by the year 2000. Around 12 million Germans would rely >on home banking by that date, the bank predicted. > At the moment, around 3.7 percent of the bank's clients, or >45,000 individuals, handle their banking via PC alone, Stefan >Schoeller said. > Hewlett-Packard's German sales manager Michael Lindner said >his company, which last year helped set up the world's first >Internet bank, Security First Network Bank, had spoken to >several other German banks about some kind of Internet venture. > ``We certainly do not plan to limit our involvement to a >small exclusive bank,'' he said. > Lindner said there were about two million Internet users in >Germany and 35 million worldwide. He admitted that the amount of >bank business transacted on the Net -- about $200 million -- was >``very limited'' but predicted a dramatic rise in volume. > Vereinsbank's Schoeller said the cost advantage alone made >it worthwhile for customers to go online. A normal current >account incurred charges of 8.40 marks a month, while the same >account online would cost just 5.40 marks, he said. > All banks are stressing the security of the Internet. > > > _______________________ Regards, Boredom is the feeling that everything is a waste of time; serenity, that nothing is. -Thomas Szasz Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Cypherpunks Lite
by youssefy＠ucla.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was a posting by someone about three weeks ago that gave the address for a person who ran a filtered version of the cypherpunks list, can someone please repost that information?

2 1

Re: MSIE cryptography
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Hemming - CEO MarketNet" <johnhemming(a)mkn.co.uk> writes: > Just downloaded the most recent English Version 2.1 for Windows 3.1. > This does appear to do the same in terms of no encryption at all after > the server hello. > > To be fair to Microsoft the number of cycles performed for the private key > echange is quite high. Therefore, not having any key and not doing the > RSA calculations makes the access quite a bit faster. > > The older versions (and some Win95 versions) that we have found around > seem to just crash our server. I am not really feeling like debugging that. I understand that some versions of MSIE support SSL level 3. SSL3 includes a capability to switch 'cipher suites' in mid-session, or pick one at the start of the session. One of the standard cipher suites performs authentication, but not encryption. This is consistant with your description. Please ensure that the server you are connecting to is not configured for authenticate-only. It would be a pity to raise a big ruckus over what may be just a mis-configured server. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

2 1

Re: In reference to comments made to me and to the Group
by Institute for Security and Intelligence 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. Geiger: I do not have interest in nor time for a flame war. But I do appreciate your perspective, whether or not I agree. Rather than flaming, I propose that all interested readers post their *CONSTRUCTIVE* ideas on the CyberTerrorism issue. If you feel it is not an issue, then don't respond. I'm not looking for opinions on politicians, the government, etc., nor do I care what you think of me or my views. However, if you can put some _solid_ thoughts into bullet items, or any other format you deem useful, perhaps we can move forward. Ideas. Actions. No commentary, raves, rants, flames, or other bandwidth wasters. Let's see what we come up with. Barry C. Collin Institute for Security and Intelligence

3 2

What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Stanton McCandlish wrote: > > > What is or is not your personal or EFF's official position is meaningless. > > > It is clear that the personal beliefs of those involved in EFF are > > > those of compromise, present day politics, and a general lack of moral > > > fiber. > > But that's not clear at all, since none of you have access to internal > discussion on this or any other topic here. Esther's position is one of > guarded caution. Our former board member David Johnson's was one of > almost complete anti-anonymity (a fact that probably had a lot to do with > his leaving the board), while other board and staff members are 100% > pro-anonymity, and yet others are middleground or entirely silent on the > topic. Why am I any more mistaken for pointing out that a single influential member of EFF's staff or board is anti-anonymity and yet remains with the organization than you are for pointing out that a single influential member who happened to be anti-anonymity has left? If my position, as you represent, is misguided, surely your point about Mr. Johnson is equally so. If the board is almost 100% pro-anonymity, where's the official position? In so far as an organization is much defined by those involved, I think it entirely right to wonder aloud about the personal motives of the staff and board. I think this PARTICULARLY prudent given EFF's reputation and prior conduct. I would be most happy to be proven wrong and see EFF suddenly, in a burst of impressive moral fiber, speak out publically and take some political action to assure anonymous communication. > > Things simply are not as black and white as they might seem. > Well, let's have a clear official position issued then to end all dispute. > > I agree with you whole-heartedly. I am stunned by the EFF's position on > > this matter and they no longer have my support. Here are some more > > of Dyson's statements on this subject. > > You've not been reading very carefully. There is no "EFF's position on > this matter". There is just Esther Dyson's position on this matter, > and quoted out of context. Maybe there should be an EFF position on the matter. What is EFF doing if not supporting anonyminity? I'm hardly going to support an organization that proports to be pro-internet freedom and yet has no official position on anonyminity. Of course you should expect people to wonder about EFF when you have no official position and yet some staff and board members seem to have a statist bent. > -- > <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish > </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech(a)eff.org > </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation > </A><P> Online Activist </HTML> -- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn(a)schloss.li

6 12

Re: FLT 800: From the Rumor Mill...But It Makes Sense.. (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:15 PM 9/1/96 -0400, Simon Spero wrote: >On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote: > >> The Aegis ship in the Gulf wzs not in an exercise. It was in a war zone. >> >> If my memory serves, the Iranian jetliner had its squawker turned off, or >> broken. The officer in charge in the CIC had about ten seconds to decide >> if he was about to be locked-on by a missle. And no real information to > >I think it was actually a combination of a design flaw in the user >interface for the control system combined with a human error that led to >the radar officer confusing the airbus with an (F4?) a hundred miles away >that he'd previously clicked on. Isn't there just the tiniest bit of a double-standard here? If the ship was supposedly "justified" in firing on an airplane just because it _could_become_ a threat, and _could_ fire a missile at any moment, then why can't we turn this logic around and claim that an Iranian aircraft could view an Aegis as a ship which "could become a threat" and "could fire a missile at any moment." Generally, I'm not sympathetic to the Iranians; far from it. But I can smell hypocrisy a mile away and the US military's "logic" in this area is unbelievable. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Your password for BARRON'S Online
by webmaster＠online.barrons.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for registering with BARRON'S Online! THE USER NAME YOU HAVE CHOSEN IS cypherpunks THE PASSWORD YOU HAVE CHOSEN IS cypherpunk Please remember that your user name and password are case-sensitive (i.e. Bsmith is different than bsmith) and you should enter them as shown above. Your user name is required in its exact form each time you want to use registered areas on our site (including the exact upper/lowercase combination). The same restriction applies to your password. Your user name and password will allow you to access all of the features of BARRON'S Online. The rest of this message contains information about using your password and user name on BARRON'S Online. You may find it helpful to save this message for future reference. WHAT HAPPENS NOW? 1. Return to BARRON'S Online (www.barrons.com) You can use your password and user name to log in to any part of the site that requires registration (such as the Table of Contents, this week's stories, Dossiers and Market Day, and so on). The first time you go to one of these parts of BARRON'S Online, you will be prompted to enter your user name and password. 2. If you ever forget your password, or need any registration-related information, just click on the REGISTER button from the BARRON'S Online gateway page to find the help you need. Welcome to BARRON'S Online... we look forward to seeing you again and again! BARRON'S Online Customer Service barrons-support(a)www.barrons.com

1 0

Silenced Machine Guns Are Safer Than TWA
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

! "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com>, writes: ! >I heard on talk.politics.guns somebody say that in Sweden they ! >had banned knives with a sharp point at the end, and were going ! >to ban sharp knives altogether. I think he was just engaging in ! >hyperbole, that he really meant that gun control in Sweden was ! >unreasonably strict, but on reflection I am not sure. ! > ! ! In a survey conducted in Sweden a few years ago, 50% of Swedish ! households had access to guns (generally military service weapons ! and sporting shotguns). Guns are, however, licensed and regulated, ! and seldom used in crimes. Licenses for "personal protection" are ! almost unobtainable. At least one military officer was court martialed ! when his service revolver was stolen from his automobile. ! ! The most significant "mass murderer" crimes in Sweden (one last ! year and one in the 1970's) were caused by people who used their ! legally-obtained military weapons. Hundreds of thousands of private American citizens legally own machine guns, silencers, live hand grenades, .75 caliber machine guns, etc. Perhaps 40% or so of the populace lives in an area without significantly higher regulations concerning such than the federal, which is not that bad. There is no federal law making silenced machine guns substantially more difficult to purchase and shoot than ordinary handguns. The feds certainly don't require training or any other similar requirement. Contrary to popular fiction, ALL firearms have been permanently registered since the 1968 Gun Control Act. The media monopoly lies when they say the contrary. How many firearm crimes were committed by these hundreds of thousands of ordinary untrained destructive weapon owners with their destructive weapons in the entire span of 1980-1996? *NONE*! THEREFORE, everyone in Sweden and America should be allowed to own silenced machine guns without any greater than the usual restrictions. BTW, I muse that the issue of guns, drugs and censorship make an excellent litmus test for libertarians: either you support the legalization of, all of, or your a fake.

1 0