December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: THAT is what makes ---Snipshit---------
by dshipman＠ewol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> time for ------Snipshit--------- >> An excellent --------Snipshit------------- > >In that case ---------------Snipshit------------ >Jai Maharaj >%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:% Om Shanti %:%:% Splash!! Another one falls from filter to Crap Bucket. Damn, a week ago I didn't even know how to *use* a filter! DLS --------------- A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:37 AM 11/16/96 -0800, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: [snip] >I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of >nonsense. Please do us all a favor and try to sue John. I'm sure >that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they >can come up with a viable cause of action. And John has deep >pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue >"freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists. Such a case would obviously fail. John has the right to ban anyone he wants from a list that he is hosting. I do question, though, whether or not it was the best way to handle the situation. As I have argued, the availability of end-user filtering made banning Dimitri from the list unnecessary, IMHO. And the list owner giving people the boot sure doesn't fit with the picture I have had of what cypherpunks was about. YMMV. I think that John is doing a lot of great things for crypto (his participation in the Bernstein case, S/WAN, etc.) and I agree with at least 90% of the things I see him doing. I think he made the wrong call with Dimitri, though. >You >could be heroes (or look ten times as foolish as you already do). Actually, if John was trying to cut down on the noise by banning the Kook, I think it's backfired. It seems like there is even more irrational chatter now... Rich -- Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/

3 2

Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What a week! What is this? "Net Loon pig-pile on Cypherpunks day?" So far i have killfiled three people in the past two days. (That is the total number I filtered to trash before that date.) For those of you who are sick of wading through this mess, I am willing to show you what it will take to filter those of your choice to /dev/null or its local equivelent. (procmail can be your friend!) Maybe after some creative filtering, the list will settle back to the usual noise, instead of the net-loon noise. --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

3 2

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:52 ìì 16/11/1996 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >> Thank you in advance for your filtering instructions (yawn). >> >> BTW, why would anyone give a shit whether you killfiled anyone or not? > >But, Dale, that's the whole point of censorship: people like Alan Olsen >and John Gilmore and Jim Ray aren't satisfied when they've killfiles a >source of noise they consider annoying so it doesn't bother them anymore. >They feel compelled to silence it altogether. They claim altruistically >that they don't want the noise to bother anyone else, such as the clueless >newbies who keep subscribing to this mailing list and don't know how to >use mail filters. (Sandy Sanford's concern for them was soooo touching...) Rather infuriating, too, that newbies are PATRONISED. It's well known among my own circle that forcible expulsions from mailing lists serve the purpose of controlling the information-flow to _newbies_ mostly; since hard-liners and experts know how to killfile anyone anyway... But sometimes, in other mailing lists, "killfile-terrorism" appears, meaning an attempt to influence EVERY newbie into killfiling someone whose messages are no longer read, but the messages of his critics are read. It's a return to the MIDDLE AGES, because it means that the words of the prosecutor are heard, but the defense of the accused is deleted. Greek friends and I have been studying this Mechanism of Repression for rather a long time. It's probably encouraged by the EFF, too, in the sense that (the goal is): Turn the Internet into cows and sheep flocked together by pimp-cowboy list-owners. It nearly turned me into a Yankee-hater till I realized there are quite a few open-minded Americans similarly infuriated and concerned. One Net-friend of mine (an American lady) has a doctorate in History and Law and remarked that FEW PEOPLE IN THE STATES REALIZE WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, and how EASY it is for the freedom-bashers to succeed. Lastly, I have now read nearly ALL of Dimitri Vulis' postings (in the F-K list), and consider it CRIMINAL censorship if anyone tries to stop him from speaking out. His talent at exposing fallacies is magnificient. This is the beginning of the END of pimping-on-the-net in the name of "privacy". George

1 0

NT insecurity
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Given the recent comments about insecure machines, I thought it was interesting to note that you can clear *every* password on an NT box by using a diskeditor to corrupt the password file (Boot off of a floppy and use NTFSDOS if you have to). It'll reboot several times and then you'll be allowed to login. # 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)

3 2

Re: Members of Parliament Problem
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk > You could also have an arbitrated blind signature protocol whereby > trent shares a keypair with all users. bob encrypts his comment, M > with the key he shares with trent. On recieving it trent carries out > a blind signature on it and publishes it, as trent knows only bob has > the shared key, K he knows bob said M but as it is a blind sigature > and he is likely to be signing a lot of messages (trent is of course > a computer program) he doesn`t know which message came from bob. I don't quite follow how this would work. If Trent issues a blind signature, then that means (doesn't it?) that he doesn't see what he is signing. So how can he confirm that the message is actually from a member of the group when he doesn't see it? > Also Chaums group signatures could be used but unfortunately the > arbitrator can find out who said what, but does not normally know. > Also trent can forge digital signatures with this protocol. > Chaum further mentions protocols for this sort of thing that do not > even need an arbitrator but I don`t have the papers on this. Not all of Chaum's proposals in the original paper from Eurocrypt 91 have this property. Here is what he has, somewhat simplified. Z is the trusted party for those protocols which use one. 1) Each group member makes up a key which he will use for one signature. Z signs each key to certify that it is a member of the group. People don't re-use keys so that messages are unlinkable. Z can tell who sent which message since he knows the keys. 2) Z publishes an RSA modulus N, gives each group member a secret exponent si, and publishes v = the product of all the si. Members sign message m by producing m**si mod N. Then to confirm the signature they engage in a zero knowledge protocol to prove that the signature is of the proper form and that si divides v (without revealing si). Chaum gives a protocol for this. 3) Z again publishes an RSA modulus N, and each group member chooses his own RSA modulus Ni = pi * qi. To sign message m he produces m**pi mod N. He then proves in zero knowledge that the signature is of the proper form and that pi divides the product of all the Ni (without revealing pi). This is the same zero knowledge protocol as in (2) above. 4) Members agree on a large public prime p with generator g. Each member chooses a secret exponent si with public key ki = g**si mod p. (This is a standard discrete log cryptosystem setup.) To sign message m he produces m**si mod p. He must then prove in zero knowledge that the signature is of the proper form and that si is the private exponent corresponding to the public key of some group member, without revealing exactly which group member it is for. The protocol for this is not very efficient. It uses a cut and choose concept and has to be iterated multiple times. In methods 1, 2, and 3, Z can tell who made a signature. In method 2, Z can forge signatures for other members. Method 4 doesn't use a trusted party. Method number 4 is very similar to Chaum's original proposal for undeniable signatures, although the zero knowledge proof is very different since he doesn't want to reveal which particular key his exponent corresponds to. In the Eurocrypt 94 paper by Chen and Pederson they show a very nice protocol for proving that you know the exponent corresponding to one of a set of Diffie Hellman public keys. This is similar to the problem in (4) above. Given k1=g**s1, k2=g**s2, ..., you can prove that you know one of the si without revealing which one. The protocol is pretty simple and just requires one challenge and response, although the amount of data sent is proportional to the number of ki in the set. This could be used to prove group membership anonymously. If there were a list published of public keys of people on the cypherpunks list, you could prove you were on that list without revealing your identity. I think it could be made a signature protocol by having the challenge c depend on a hash of the message. But the authors don't do it that way, they do a more complicated protocol because they are seeking to achieve unconditional rather than cryptographic anonymity. Hal

2 1

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by Dr. Jai Maharaj 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 02:24:11 -0200 UTC, in message <199611170424.CAA09647(a)prometheus.hol.gr>, "George A. Stathis" <hyperlex(a)hol.gr> wrote: > [...] > Rather infuriating, too, that newbies are PATRONISED. [...] The practice is widespread in the newsgroups, of course. Years ago when I first started participating in the security and crypto groups I received many messages from vigilantes who instructed me to pay no attention to certain posters. It became quite obvious after only a few days that the persons to be avoided and censored were the creative ones with new ideas and the promise for a better Net. On the other hand, the self-appointed cops were the unimaginative pipsqueaks who were, quite frankly, involved in promoting only their mediocrity. They felt threatened by the wiser and brighter. > Lastly, I have now read nearly ALL of Dimitri Vulis' > postings (in the F-K list), and consider it CRIMINAL > censorship if anyone tries to stop him from speaking out. > His talent at exposing fallacies is magnificient. This is > the beginning of the END of pimping-on-the-net in the name > of "privacy". George His work in exposing the thugs of lava.net aka lava(tory).net is really appreciated here in Hawaii [*] by freedom-loving netters. Thanks to Dr. Vulis and others, the Cabal (spit) and the Lynch Mob (vomit) are nearly dead. Hawaii Footnote [*] A member of the international press who is traveling with President Clinton during his vacation here asked me earlier today, "How's the Internet doing, got a story for me?" I think I may suggest the issues being discussed here. Perhaps non- governmental-censorship matters have not received enough attention in the mass-media yet. Jai Maharaj Aloha! %:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:% Om Shanti %:%:%

1 0

Could Declan or some libertarian explain this?
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the so-called fight-censorship list. I would ask there, but the list owner won't let me, and I won't stoop to Vulis's level. | PLEASE MARK MY WORDS: IF MY BOOK IS NOT RE-PUBLISHED AND AVAILABLE |IN BOOKSTORES, THE CAUSE OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN THE WEST WILL BE IN A SORRY |STATE. FEW ACADEMICS WOULD BE PREPARED TO SUFFER THE MANY BLOWS AND |THREATS THAT I HAVE NOW ENDURED FOR SIX MONTHS. IF 'The 'g' Factor' |DISAPPEARS, SO WILL OTHER SERIOUS PRODUCTS OF RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP -- |ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE DEEMED "CONTROVERSIAL" BY THE LIBERAL-LEFT. His complaint is that his publisher stopped distribution of his book arguing that blacks are mentally inferior to whites. Could someone please explain to me how Chris Brand is different from Vulis? I mean in form; in practice, Declan is bashing Vulis for not recognizing rights of private editorial control, but uncritically passing on Mr. Brand's message alleging that private editorial control is censorship. Far be it from me to criticize Declan's right to exercise editorial control over substantive dissent and factual correction, but I was just wondering. -rich

3 2

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:52 ìì 16/11/1996 -1000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote: >A member of the international press who is traveling with >President Clinton during his vacation here asked me earlier >today, "How's the Internet doing, got a story for me?" I think >I may suggest the issues being discussed here. Perhaps non- >governmental-censorship matters have not received enough >attention in the mass-media yet. Quite true, and the same thing I was told by the Chief-Editor of "Info" (the weekly Internet-supplement of a prominent Greek journal -Eleftherotypia). One last comment is important here: ****************************************************************** If the 'neo-liberal' ideology of EVERYTHING becoming 'privatised' succeeds, then non-governmental censorship is MUCH more important the governmental censorship. ****************************************************************** The Internet is a threat to the 'traditional' role of the media, and 'list-owners' try tp behave like patronising conventional newspaper-editors. All the filth that was hidden in the closet of the journalistic profession comes out, as a result, in the Net. These people want to _model_ mailing lists after journals -ironically at a time when many journalists are free to write what they like sometimes against the opinions of the journal-owners. Perhaps our only hope is that... Freedom sells. George

1 0

Re: National Emergency
by attila＠primenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In <v03007800aeb2dc721dbf(a)[207.167.93.63]>, on 11/15/96 at 06:59 PM, "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> said: :[snip...] :One of the things that most people don't appreciate is that these emergency :orders are essentially never repealed. (Not too surprising--if I was in :government, I wouldn't voluntarily give back any additional powers, either. :And the only consituency for rolling them back is the membership of the :evil militias, so nothing happens.) : yes, you are absolutely right. absolute power corrupts absolutely and a government given (or taking) extra powers is not likely to surrender same --they hope everyone forgets? maybe there is an analogy: militias: the only way they'll take my weapon is from my cooling, smoking hand.... prez: the only way they'll take my executive privileges is to vote me out of office --IF I consent to leave. -- without arms they do not resist; without communication they know not what to resist. -attila [snip...] :Basically, this was one of the alphabet soup of Emergency Orders, National :Security Decision Directives, and Executive Decisions passed or enacted :(sometimes in secrecy) during the last 30 years of the Continuing Emergency. :(Nixon's wage-price freezes, the oil embargo actions, the strategic :reserves, the anti-inflation measures, various Carter emergencies, and :various Reagan emergency orders, including NSDD-145, which directly affects :control of communicaitons, cryptography, etc.) :FEMA, the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency, took over several of these :emergency orders (the running of them) in the late 70s. :Standard stuff for we conspiracy buffs. One doesn't need to invoke :historical groups like the Illuminati to see that the levers of power are :pulled by strange folks.

1 0