December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:47 PM 8/21/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Rush Limbaugh reports: >> >> That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck". >> >> The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of us) >> were mentioned that they deemed threatening. > > >"I hope you die." Doesn't sound much like a "threat" to me. > And the couple was arrestd for disorderly conduct by >Chicago police. It sounds to me like the Chicops were just showing their "loyalty" by sitting on somebody, not that they believed any real crime had been committed. > Any possible federal charges for threatening a president >in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 871 await a determination of the >seriousness of the statement, in context with the wife's conduct, by >prosecutors. I predict no action. But it isn't even a "threat", regardless of how "serious" it was. The "I hope you die" part is, presumably, a statement of fact: She did, indeed, hope he dies. But I don't see how hoping this can be considered a threat, or even SAYING she's hoping this is, likewise. Makes me wonder whether visiting one of these appearances with a "Clinton Doll" and a bunch of pins, and visibly inserting those pins into the doll (while uttering various strange incantations), would constitute a "threat." Frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't feel the need to be protected by thugs. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:47 PM 8/21/96, Brian Davis wrote: >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Rush Limbaugh reports: >> >> That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck". >> >> The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of us) >> were mentioned that they deemed threatening. > > >"I hope you die." And the couple was arrestd for disorderly conduct by >Chicago police. Any possible federal charges for threatening a president >in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 871 await a determination of the >seriousness of the statement, in context with the wife's conduct, by >prosecutors. I predict no action. Well, I agree that saying "I hope you die" is a tad bit more serious than "You suck, and those boys died." If these additional words were spoken, why didn't the SS reveal them early on? (Or, if they did, why did the news reports not mention them?) Personally, I would never utter such words, even to Clinton. Or Dole. Tacky, even if one dislikes the Prez. But I agree that "no action" is pretty likely. "I hope you die" has been a time-honored insult at least since I was a kindergartner, and presumably for many decades prior to this. Hardly an active threat. --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."

4 3

Re: Spamming
by Alex F 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 06:09 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: > >On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: > > > >> I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming > >> here? Is spamming free speech? > > > >Yes. > > No. [snip] Freedom of Speech includes freedom FROM speech. IOW, if it starts infringing on your rights, then it stops. Spam is unsolicited, commercial email, and it could possibly be argued that just as the spammer has the right to say whatever it is that he wants, we also have the right not to get his email. This can also get very convoluted. Besides that, it's just impolite. Alex F =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Alex F alexf(a)iss.net Marketing Specialist Internet Security Systems =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

2 1

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:55 PM 8/21/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >> >> Makes me wonder whether visiting one of these appearances with a "Clinton >> Doll" and a bunch of pins, and visibly inserting those pins into the doll >> (while uttering various strange incantations), would constitute a "threat." >> >> Frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't feel the need to be >> protected by thugs. > >That's because you like dead Presidents. > $50's and $100's are great! (I also like old fat dead philosophers, as well.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Real-time key server
by Osborne, Rick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Okay, I was told to not post to the list until I'd: 1. Lurked for a month, 2. Figured out who Detweiler was, 3. Found out about BlackNet and DC Nets, 4. Learned of at least three of David Chaum's innovations. And at that point "[I] may be ready to post [my] first comments." Well, dammit, I can't wait that long. I need help now. I've only been on for 2 weeks, I have no clue who Detweiler is (other than the welcome message I haven't heard two words about him/her/it), and I know enough to sound stupid about the other stuff. But if you still think I'm worthy of listeneing to, then read on. I work for Northrop Grumman Corp (SBMS division) when I have been tasked to create a program for reciept of online forms. The entire division is wanting to go paperless, and I am the sole person doing it. (Yes, I'm going for pity here.) I am writing my own CGI remailer for insecure forms, but some of them have to be secure. I think the best way to go about this is a public-key system with both keys stored locally and the public keys stored on a networked database (for routing purposes; ie, it has to go through managers and admin and will be verified and digitally signed with each hop). Now, of course, acces to the public keys will be through a key server. This is where I come into my problem. In my research into keyservers, I find that none of them are realtime. Sure, there are CGI interfaces to them, but that's not what I mean. I was hoping for something along the line of a Finger or SMTP protocol, such that a client connects to a host (say, keyserv.northgrum.com) on a certain port (say, 5397) and goes through a realtime version of what is accomplished via email. Something like: [connect] client>GET osborri server>200 OK server>-----Begin . . . and so forth. Now. Yes, I am intelligent enough to implement something like this. (Actually, that's debatable, but it's also besides the point.) What I want to know is this: Is there a realtime implementation out there already? Why? Because: 1. I do not want to reinvent the wheel. 2. I would like to conform to existing standards. Now, if the answer is a 'no', then who wants to draft a quickie RFC? -oz

1 0

Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials"
by raffetto＠podesta.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Josh Crockett is exactly right here... > It would seem >that we need to hunt down our issues and support them, seeing as that >politicians are notoriously unreliable on supporting every single issue >we would like them to support. And that's why Declan's message about Leahy is foolish. When you find a champion on the Hill for one issue, you rally around him/her. And when they won't support you on another issue, you find another champion. If your policy is to disown Hill allies (in this case, Leahy) who break ranks with you from time to time, you'll quickly run out of allies. And when you have no allies on the Hill, you're really screwed. John Raffetto

1 0

Re: Microsoft Explorer security hole (fwd) MSoft's reply...
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Displaying warning dialogs in browsers and using default settings so as not to auto run macros are only bandages to this problem. Consider the following: By using API routines to access the Win95 registry, someone writes a macro virus (or even just a garden variety trojan) that turns off the warning levels for MSIE which are stored in the registry (I haven't had time to look, but I'm assuming they're there). The user has no idea the setting has been changed, and is never warned when evil, malicious, unsigned code is executed. Until too late. The registry, or whatever file you're saving state values to, should have some form of write authorization associated with it. Encryption would also be extremely nice for privacy's sake (check out a Windows .INI file or registry entry some time, and see what little tidbits of information are being stored there). In my experience, one of Microsoft's main problems when it comes to security has been its developers and program/product managers don't think like "bad guys" when it comes to design and subsequent exploits and holes. Unfortunately, the user is the ultimate loser. Joel BTW - The paranoid side of me wouldn't be surprised to see PC "espionage-enabled" viruses and trojans within the next few years. Their main purpose would be to either disable or patch various security features for later attacks, or directly snatch information off of hard drives and send it out over the Net. I know of a few lab projects of a similar nature, that were very easy to implement. >Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 15:49:33 -0700 >From: Thomas Reardon <thomasre(a)MICROSOFT.com> >Subject: Re: Internet Explorer security problem (Felten, RISKS-18.36) > > >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. > >We now post the virus warning dialog on local files (file: urls). We have >always posted it on remote files (http: urls). Note that the root of the >problem is not Java or the browser, but in macro-enabled applications. IE3 >has a mechanism to warn users about safety of documents when used with >common macro-enabled applications. We are have updated Microsoft Word such >that by default it will not run macros embedded in documents. > >-Thomas

1 0

Re: (NOISE) Re: Free Pronto Secure Offer
by Michael T. Babcock 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: unicorn(a)schloss.li, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Tue Aug 27 17:33:42 1996 > So would I, however, the assumption that "cypherpunk crypto review > services" are to be had for nothing is the height of arrogance. They've already got a lot of us reviewing it... sorry, it's not arrogance - -- they were right. > If you were sincere, you'd thank them with cash. Afterall, you seem > to suggest that you have a good deal of liquidity eh? Actually, they lose $99 each time they give us a free copy of the software ... in case you're not as good in accounting as you think you are in crypto. I have no idea what your rep. is ... but I know one thing, they're offering an exchange of valuable software (market value: $99) for valuable services (crypto-rebel review) > Uh, the kiss ass paragraphs were the reviewers comments, not your code. I aggreed with the reviewers comments, they're mine too ... I've sent many long E-mails to people I do computer service for endorsing Pronto Secure. I have lined up 6 people who wish to purchase it. This is for real pal. If you don't like it, get out of the ring. Some of us want our PGP to be nice and easy like E-mail used to be. Message Copyright 1996, Michael T. Babcock http://www.cyberbeach.net/~mbabcock Send a message with the subject "Send public key" to receive an automatic reply with my public key. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: ascii Comment: http://www.cyberbeach.net/~mbabcock/PGP/ iQC1AgUBMiNpvNtTCwP6TF2xAQGKSwT+Lg+uEKBX9yUfZvkZ6tO32fhilvb65sgJ lpH2MPIArTKIYw/nD4UGQbQPTtx/9+1ASx5V+uqmquy7t/yfbuajrmsuLjnGBc/D tYxAxRl31+sU3N8X2ie54X1VWcLzgqfXCByuTYIHPPkeHjk7kWJfwTqXZsLV/ZZp NYGaL6OWq+DXWN3IYxd43fVdfi6qzCxDjseIdAdoV4J7TCjOUCNXbg== =WqpJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: (NOISE) Re: Free Pronto Secure Offer
by Michael T. Babcock 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: geoff(a)commtouch.co.il, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Tue Aug 27 17:29:43 1996 > To: unicorn(a)schloss.li, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Date: Fri Aug 16 02:41:34 1996 > Unicorn, > > > No, I was merely pointing out that if the review revealed that it > > had problems (one assumed that the intent of peer review is to reveal > > such problems in the first place, but perhaps you just like giving > > software away?) then the offered reward was valueless. No, actually, after having pointed out one (and found another) bug in Pronto Secure, I find it to be an amazing piece of software! It does everything with PGP and although it's slow at adding new keys (I presume it always checks the signatures down a few levels every time it adds one, and thus justifiably slower then straight adding a key) it's fast, efficient, and fairly easy to use. I must admit that of the "View/Save/Inspect" options, only "Save" is very clear and the rest are (excuse the pun in advance) cryptic at best. However, the methods used for the cryptography seem to be sound and after monitoring my COM transmissions, I haven't had it sending my secret key ring out ... ;) ... (unless they're hiding it in tiny packets ;) > Peer review seems to have voted that their risk paid off. My vote's in. Thanks for the software! > > Cypherpunks is always getting the cash poor developer who thinks he > > very clever because he has to pay testers no money if he offers his > > new product free to the person who discovers a flaw, or writes a > > review. I actually think that Commtouch will not be cash poor in a few months ... > > From your home page, I would guess that you request that reviewers > > allow you to make their comments public. That's called an > > endorsement, and, by the way, people are usually paid for them. > > Sometimes in the millions. Think Michael Jordan is getting a deal > > when you use his name to promote your product and then give him a > > $99.00 piece of software (which is effectively worth the amount of > > time it takes to write a few kiss ass paragraphs on the software, not > > $99.00)? That's because they're famous and their opinion is considered to be very good. I could see them paying Phil Zimmerman to endorse it publicly, but it wouldn't matter much because the mainstream people (the ones they're targetting with Pronto Secure) don't know who Zimmerman is ... so it's not worth they're money ...! > I venture that most c'punks would agree that moving strong e-mail > security into mainstream is a good thing. This is not going to happen > without people making money from it. Definately... Message Copyright 1996, Michael T. Babcock http://www.cyberbeach.net/~mbabcock Send a message with the subject "Send public key" to receive an automatic reply with my public key. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: ascii Comment: http://www.cyberbeach.net/~mbabcock/PGP/ iQC1AgUBMiNo19tTCwP6TF2xAQHwUgUAlJGE5ZU0xV7Hx3u7+/MRv+n83Kn9ZxsE 8igHrEjLwVbfBC9ivoZ7aonm/misAdy2jr77oowPcvuE3t750oCMCfb+AdhUPQGx Knu29L4XNbgpUH+t5rCCqUiSM7EHIYtmURBjrmDSAADIH3vcd8b9Cc6T5soNIQK+ Nsy9hve+ly+4nVwujNKqAhOCvIMBn+wK/K+ifbAvGbXP65YQFktp4Q== =AF5P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: File System Encryption
by Wayne Clerke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- From: Drifter[SMTP:drifter@c2.net] Sent: Monday, 26 August 1996 16:19 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: File System Encryption I'm aware of the three main disk encryption programs SFS, SECDRV, and SECDEV, but I need to find a solution that works with Windows 95 32bit or Windows NT 4.0. I'm currently using SFS 1.17 and Secure Drive under Win-95, but am unable to continue to work in dos compatability mode due to severe performance hits. I am open to commercial products that have passed peer review, but know of none. If anyone could suggest a solution (outside of switching OS's), I would be *most* gratefull. Please respond to the list, as I am a subscriber under another account. Tried secdev? Edgar Swank (author of secdrv) recently posted that secdev (note, not secdrv) does, in fact, uses 32 bit disk access with win95. Win95 reports that the secure device is in compatibility mode, but the host disk (and therefore the secure volume file) is being accessed in 32 bit (disk) mode. Not sure what issues there are with '32 bit FILE access' mode here. Sounds worth a try though. Please post the results if you try this. The Drifter EMail: wclerke(a)emirates.net.ae PGP key ID: AEB2546D FP: D663D11E DA19D74F 5032DC7E E001B702 PGP mail welcome. Voice: +971 506 43 48 53 <a href=mailto:wclerke@emirates.net.ae>Wayne Clerke</a> If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.

1 0