December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

FRIDAY THE 13TH PICTURES
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Well, better late than never. Photos from my last costume party or now on the Web. Check them out at: http://www.c2.net/~sandy/web.htm (My eyebrows and most of my hair have grown back in the ensuing two and a half months.) Mark 15 February on your calendars. I'll be having another gala masquerade ball on that date. The venue will be Pacifica, CA. A formal invitation will be posted to the list a month or so before the party. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: IP address
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-02 20:11:05 EST, you write: << try ping -l 65510 host.name.edu >> from what ive heard, the sytem going down from a ping command is only when you ping with a wrong size packet

1 0

Programming Errors
by Weissman, Gregg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Programming Errors Author: Alan Arndt <aga(a)intertrust.com> at internet Date: 11/19/96 1:50 PM >From New Scientist, 28 August 93, Feedback column: "The National Westminster Bank admitted last month that it keeps personal information about its customers, such as their political affiliation on computer. But now Computer Weekly reveals that a financial institution, sadly unnamed, has gone one better and moved into the realm of personal abuse. The institution decided to mailshot 2000 of its richest customers, inviting them to buy extra services. One of its computer programmers wrote a program to search through its databases and select its customers automatically. He tested the program with an imaginary customer called Rich Bastard. Unfortunately, an error resulted in all 2000 letters being addressed "Dear Rich Bastard". The luckless programmer was subsequently sacked."

2 1

Re: Ignoramus Chewed-Off on IPG algorithm
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Let's go on, to the description of the "scrambling tables" and > actual encryption. > > He uses three tables, DIFF, DISP, DETR, each containing 4096 elements. > DISP is randomly generated (or so I understand his term "prescrambled"), > DIFF is a random transposition of DISP (same values as in DISP, but in > another order), and DETR, again, is filled with some random data. > Correction: by "scrambling" Don means transposing elements of the table containing 4096 numbers 1-4096. - Igor.

4 17

Re: IP address
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:23:30 -0600, Internaut wrote: >What is the risk of publishing your dynamic IP address to a web page while you are on line? How vulnerable is someone just connected to the internet, w/o any server running? What attacks are feasable? --Internaut Well, if you are running Win95 (all) or 3.1 (w/certain TCP/IP stacks) your machine can be locked up or rebooted at *any* time using just PING! # 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)

4 3

Re: denial of service and government rights
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote: > ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- > <Tired.Fighter(a)dhp.com> (unrecoverable error) > 550 <Tired.Fighter(a)dhp.com>... User unknown > ----- Original message follows ----- > Tired.Fighter(a)dhp.com wrote: > > On 30 Nov 96 at 13:10, Black Unicorn wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Greg Broiles wrote: > > > > I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be true for a > > > > computer. Fed.Rul.Crim.Pro. 41(b)(1) allows the seizure > > > > (but seizure is not forfeiture) of "property that > > > > constitutes evidence of the commission of a > > > > criminal offense". > > [snip] > > > Please forgive my naivete, but are there no legal > > weapons available to the 'victims' in such cases? > > I'm passingly familiar with the Operation Sundevil > > fiasco -- i.e., with the outcome re the principal > > 'charges'. I'm appalled, however, at the apparent > > lack of remedies for return of such seized property. > > Are individuals who find themselves in such a > > predicament simply at the government's mercy (there's > > an oxymoron for ya)?? > > Just in case someone replies saying "It's not all that bad", or "It can't > happen here", etc., you should know this: > > The United States government has not been responsive to the people for > a long time, but what's become evident in recent years is that they're > also no longer responsive to basic law and order. > > They do respond to extreme pressure, as was applied in the Weaver, Waco, > and other similar cases, but, as a general rule, they do whatever they > want all the way to the top of the Justice dept. with impunity. > > Example: George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the > niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full > view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing > babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes > in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War. > > When it was discovered (after the "war") that the Incubator Baby Scandal > was a lie, nobody was prosecuted. Further, in blatant violation of the > U.S. Constitution, Bush and Schwartzkopf were knighted by Queen Elizabeth > II of England. > > There are also numerous examples of the Justice dept. being caught red- > handed forging documents to frame people for whom they had no evidence or > insufficient evidence to prosecute, and what happens in those cases? > Nothing.

5 12

No Subject
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Cross-posted to cyberia & cypherpunks] Links, albeit rather thin ones, to background info on the Technical Advisory Committee to Develop a Federal Information Processing Standard for the Federal Key Management Infrastructure appear at: http://csrc.nist.gov/tacdfipsfkmi/ The first (public) meeting will be Dec. 5-6 at the Sheraton Grand Hotel at Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport [Highway 114 & Esters Boulevard], 4440 W. John Carpenter Freeway, Irving, Texas. Alas, I won't be able to make it. On-the-spot reports most welcome... The committee is also asking for written submissions (35 copies!!). A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

2 1

No Subject
by vitamin＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I apologize if this is off topic. I received free one month trial in July from Netcom and in mid July I canceled my account with Netcom due to lousy customer service. When I called I was treated rudely because of canceling netcom. I called again the next day and the person who answered the phone apologized me for the behaviour of the previous employee and I was told my account will be canceled. Low and behold come July I got my credit card statement and netcom had billed me. I promtly called them and was assured that my account would be cancelled. Come September I was billed again for August and September. Once again I called and she assured me it would be cancelled. Again, it was not. Come October they still billed me. In my November statement they are still billing me. I prefer L.A. Better Business Bureau and District Attorney emails and physical addresses. Someone please help me!!!!! Thank You

2 1

ANNOUNCEMENT: New low-noise cryptography mailing list
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Sorry that this is several weeks late, folks.] "Cryptography" is a low-noise mailing list devoted to cryptographic technology and its political impact. WHAT TOPICS ARE APPROPRIATE: "On topic" discussion includes technical aspects of cryptosystems, social repercussions of cryptosystems, and the politics of cryptography such as export controls or laws restricting cryptography. Discussions unrelated to cryptography are considered "off topic". If you subscribe, please try to keep your postings "on topic". In order to assure that the quality of postings to the mailing list remains high, repeated postings "off topic" may result in action being taken by the list moderators. MODERATION POLICY: In order to keep the signal to noise ratio high, the mailing list will be moderated during its initial weeks of operation. This will be changed if it appears that the list will remain on topic without moderation. TO SUBSCRIBE: send mail to majordomo(a)c2.net with the line subscribe cryptography in the body of your mail. If you wish to subscribe a mailing address other than the one you are sending from, send a message with the line subscribe cryptography [address]

3 3

Another problem with IPG algorithm
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Don and others, At the heart of IPG algorithm there is a pseudo-random number generator which generates values of A(JV). (see http://www.netprivacy.com/algo.html) DO JV=JV+1 IF JV=53 THEN JV=0 A(JV)=(A(JV)+B(JV)) MOD C(JV) UNTIL A(JV)<16384 Note that if B(JV) and C(JV) in a triplet (A(JV), B(JV), C(JV)) are not mutually prime, they will generate very few numbers and not a whole set 0-16383. For example, if C(JV) is 20000, and B(JV) is 10000, and initial A is (for example) 57, the only two numbers that this triplet will generate will be 57 and 10057. This refutes Don Wood's claim that the distribution of results approaches even. Even if only ONE triplet is such as I described (and it is VERY likely to happen statistically), the distribution will be skewed. Don, what do you think about it? igor

2 2