December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: How to fight GAK by obeying the law
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 04 Oct 1996 08:02:04 -0500, Mike McNally wrote: >> First thing we definitely need is a way to determine with fairly good >> accuracy, whether a host is in the U.S. >I really don't see how that's possible, given the possibility of me >taking my laptop to Ecuador, dialing into a stateside ISP, and being >issued an IP address in the ISP's domain. In other words, anything >that bases a decision on host location by inference on the domain >will inherently be rooted in the notion that hosts in that domain are >stuck to the ground "nearby". Maybe have the option of identifying host mobility? # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Re: Can we kill single DES?
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 4 Oct 1996 09:14:02 -0500 (CDT), Bruce M. wrote: >> A Linux port (Pentium) would be *very* good - lots of Linux people tend to by >> pro-cpunk. Ditto for OS/2. And who knows, if you hyped the business >> aspects enough you might even find IBM or some other large corp willing to >> donate some time on large system. > Maybe Deep Blue gets bored in between its chess matches. :) Or maybe they need something to test that HUGE massively parallel supercomputer they're building for DOE! # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Re: WINDOWS NT ????
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 04 Oct 1996 05:41:42 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >> is Windows NT secured system ? >Windows NT 3.51 is a real operating system. It is not as secure >as I would like, but it is much better than Windows 3.1, which was >totally insecure. It has some good security techniques, >but I don't know how secure the networking is, and networking >is the big technical insecurity on most machines today. >(Well, bad administration is the biggest insecurity on almost all >machines for almost all time. And physical security is also big.) >Windows 4.x moves the graphics/windowing system into Ring 0, >where the "secure" parts of the kernel are. Bad. >This means graphics bugs can make the kernel insecure or crash. I must say I like the way OS/2's Workplace Shell can crash entirely (doesn't happen here anymore; did with some really crappy video drivers for an old Trident 8900) and you can watch while it restarts it (takes about 10 seconds and didn't bother open apps). NT's shell seems to be a *little* harder to screw up, but when it does it goes bigtime. >I don't trust it, especially because Windows 3.1 crashes all the time >for me, and stupid bugs make Windows 3.1 behave badly for me. >So if they put the window system in the kernel, I don't trust it. You lose speed but gain security and stability - the continual operating sytem tradeoff. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Re: Can we kill single DES?
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 4 Oct 1996 06:16:44 -0700 (PDT), Lucky Green wrote: >> >1. Is this a good idea? What will happen if DES becomes perceived >> > as insecure? >> >> That's Declan's department (and other non-clueless journalists - declan is >> just the most visible). If it get's widespread and the target is something >> like Digicash, it'd get picked up by the Crime/Snoozeweek crowd. >Sorry, not a chance. The symmetric cipher used in Ecash is 3DES. Since >DigiCash has the good fortune to be located in The Netherlands, full >strength crypto can be (and is) used in all their products. I guess that was kind of ambigous. What I meant was any protocal/system where money is changing hands protected only by DES. That's what I meant by "like digicash". I don't even know if such a beast exists, but was suggesting that anything involving weakly protected money would be a good target because it highlights the vulnerability and would get media attention. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Why is it "disturbing" that for administrative convenience a regulation >uses a shorthand term (in effect saying "treat crypto as if it was a >munition"), but that the courts say whatever convenient shorthand you use >for regulatory bookkeeping, it has no constitutional effect? > >What would be the advantage of having the government simply re-impose the >ITAR word for word identically for all materials that are not arms in the >constitutional sense? I guess this is the crux of the matter. I believe that most or all of ITAR's munitions should be constitutionally as arms. > >As for your argument that the 2nd Am should be read expansively, rather >than narrowly, personally I doubt strongly that the Framers would have >been unanimous on this. I doubt they were unanimous on most any issue. >Recall that the Articles of Confederation were >abandoned in part due to Shay's rebellion -- and the (majority) >Federalists (of whom the Jefferson you quote WAS NOT a part) managed to >push through a strong centralizing government. Yep, when they saw that some of the principles which help fuel the Revolution could be used to oppose a new order they adopted some of the same tactics and governmental view points of their former oppressors. The original calls for strong states rights and a weak central authority were swept away under Hamilton and early Supreme Court rulings. In some sense, the new government became just different clothing on the same old body. >Recall that the >constitution in its first draft didn't even have a bill of rights! I am >absolutely certain that the Framers recognized that things change over >time, and that they would have intended indeed did intend for us to >interpret the constitution with some degree -- but not too much -- >flexibility. As someone who believes in the importance of fidelity to >legal texts, I think we have a duty to make every word in the Constitution >count. I therefore place weight on the fact that the 2nd amendment is >*unique* in giving the policy reason for the limitation on government >power ("a well-regulated militia" being essential &tc.). This is ample >grounds to read the text as applying only in the context of an organized >militia -- not casual gun ownership -- **whether or not** this complies >with our best (and inevitably fallible) reconstruction of what certain >historical individuals may have thought the text meant, especially if the >historical evidence is mixed. [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. --James Madison The Federalist No. 46, 1787 >[PS. Why do you privilege the authors of the bill of rights over the >people who voted for it?] Many of the framers, their mentors (e.g., Machiavelli) and even dyed-in-the-wool pacificists (e.g., Mahatma Gandhi) feared a central authority which, after making arms unavailable to general population would commence to tyranny. If I did I appologize. It was not intentional. > >I might add that I personally find all discussions of plots to kill >people, or to watch gleefully while others seek to do so, so morally >repulsive that I now killfile everyone who takes part in them. I hope that includes all comuniques from our government's Executive branch (although they almost never discuss these things publitically, with the possible exception of our raid on Kadaffi). How about the popular U.S. consensus that the government aught to have killed Saddam? Seems to me that some of the natural rights the people gave the government need to be taken back (such as the perogative for personal actions affecting those outside the U.S.) Though I doubt that the government would ever allow it. Why should the government call all the foreign policy shots and have all the fun? Especially when you see what a poor track record they have. Seems they should step aside for while and let some direct democracy go to work for a change. Thanks for your informative responses. I don't expect a reply as you've undoubtedly placed me in your kill file (as some other may have already). -- Steve

2 1

Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:09 PM 10/4/96 +0000, The Deviant wrote: >So.. if I were to take PGP, put it on a floppy disk, tape it to a model >rocket, and launch it across the mexican border, that's not exporting it >(although the FAA might complain)? As I read the regs, it's not an export at the moment it's launched, but it's almost certainly an export when it reaches Mexican airspace or when it touches Mexican soil. The "rocket exception" is not useful vis-a-vis crypto. Period. I'm very sorry I ever had anything to do with this thread and I'm not posting about it again. -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

2 1

Re: Can we kill single DES?
by ratak 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: shamrock(a)netcom.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sat Oct 05 10:00:15 1996 > Sorry, not a chance. The symmetric cipher used in Ecash is 3DES. Since > DigiCash has the good fortune to be located in The Netherlands, full > strength crypto can be (and is) used in all their products. > > I would advise any company suffering from a loss of competitiveness due > to > US export regulations to do the logical thing and move their operation > to a more suitable location. > > --Lucky > > And which Countries would that be? I haven't seen list of what Crypto is allowed in which countries... Does anyone know for sure... And companies will be hurt by this whole situation, and I can imagine the crap that will sneak into Firewall-1's code when Sun brings it up to GAK standards.... ___________________________________________________________________ GarGoyle Securities - -Intrusion Assessment Systems - -Security Consultation/Education/Curriculum Development - -Project Management/Research/Analysis World Wide... - -Member of CITDC (Canadian International Trade Development Council) - -Email 1: <ratak(a)escape.ca> Jason E.J. Manaigre - -Email 2: <ratak(a)GargSec.mb.ca> - -Email for PGP key with phrase 'Get Public Key' as Subject - -2048 PGPKey iD E2 FA 30 E5 F5 AD EC F3 00 9A 9D 33 59 FC DF AD ___________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMlZ4BvqtmO8M92GRAQFRDwgA1zWSKNo9wNLI7AMguNWWC/QzDkRKJpx6 a2qZZ/AwbKCh1xClg0ZOVO0PlpRm4uH7A/fJEjh+Yp+S3YkYSge7kdOOwmUhWTYG cJYf580dNWcIBPAUkMEljXRXdVlFpTX9N0ktnvzirNLd4+KtcqU4tuluoH2a9dDq 6SV42v9P3v9P57UqxrSz7GlEoYI4NJtVmArhI486p8D4yhqVBwIGcxWGw48VArzc JT20uLZU8abqYEDR4siRBUKbey95NTuRK8GgnFTK6K5LFKpTsjcRs+Ye4NtR1+xF CzHUelzPB57FXkN8fXkVwwLnFGDF6nHlhdpULytLY70z8coq9sTLpQ== =mAmF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>No. And No. This argument will never fly in any court. > >If you want to see why, go to my homepage > >http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin > Thanks, the material was indeed informative. Some great work! However, I found much disturbing. The inference that the Exec branch could on the one hand classify crypto as a munition ('arms' by any other name), while for constitutional purposes the Courts may not exposes a deep-seated legal duplicity. Constitutional interpretations over the past century not withstanding, it is clear (to me) that a substantial number of the Framers would abhor what has become of the Second Amendment's ... right to keep and bear arms. One of the primary reasons put forth by the Framers for such a right was in order to resist the an oppressive state. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. --Thomas Jefferson When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour. --George Washington It is ludacrous to expect citizens armed with no more than side arms, bolt-actions and shot guns to resist the actions of a modern military or law enforcement which citizens may find in violation of their inaliable natural rights (whether mistaken or not). In my opinion, all citizens should be be able to keep and bear any arms (without registration) which the state might use against them. To do so now is a criminal action. So be it. Unfortunately, it is common for groups especially governmental to be come statist, mean spirited and eventually malevolent. I hope jim bell or his ilk are soon successful at putting up functional, anonymous and active AP sites. I can't wait to wager! -- Steve

6 5

RE: WINDOWS NT ????
by John Fricker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Adamsc (Adamsc(a)io-online.com) said something about Re: WINDOWS NT ???? on or about 10/5/96 1:00 AM > >Microsoft claims C2 or higher for NT and deserves any ragging they get if >it's not. Ditto for any other vendor who claims one thing and sells >another. You ought to read about C2. DIdn't Steve Martin say something like "criticize things you don't know about". >BTW: Bizarre NT Quirk #15413 - The Administrator account does not have >access to the entire disk. You got it - if you're the administrator you >still cannot look into certain directories belonging to another user - even >if you've given all access privileges to the Admin account. Got a few >chuckles at work. > It's not rocket science to defeat this. The administrator is prevented from casually peering into user owned directories but any administrator worth a nickle can tap tap click and have access to any directory.

1 0

Re: Who the heck is "CYBERPROMO" and why are they spamming me?
by travel23＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ernest Hua wrote: > >I keep getting mail from an "abusebot(a)savetrees.com" ... > >This is getting very very annoying. They're a company involved in mass emailing ads on behalf of their clients. They have also sued AOL because of the latter's trying to protect their subscribers by blocking Cyberpromo's ads. Cyberpromo obtained a TRO stopping AOL's block, but the TRO was set aside on appeal. Dale Thorn posted the following on this list in response to ads he was receiving from Cyberpromo, specifically: > If you would like to send a complaint about any account @cyberpromo.com > @answerme.com or @omni.cyberpromo.com that has not been terminated, >please send email to: wallace(a)cyberpromo.com I believe Cyberpromo is run by Sanford Wallace. Think he was also on 60 Minutes raising First Amendment rights along with Free Enterprise concepts. So, is it a spam or someone legitimately using the net in the ordinary course of business? T.T. ................................................................................. Just consider me an acorn who is trying to deal with the rest of the nuts .................................................................................

1 0