December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

commercial cryptanalysis software
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.dgsciences.com/codeclas.htm Seems to be commercial TLA tools. honig(a)alum.mit.edu "Speech is not protected simply because it is written in a language" Federal Misjudge Gwin on the Bernstein Case

2 1

Re: Paul Merrill, his eyes uncovered! (or so he claims)
by Rabid Wombat 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Or you could get back on your medication. On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Anonymous wrote: > On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Paul H. Merrill wrote: > > > Never has a single missive opened my eyes so thououghly. > > > > First, I had always thought that libertarians were somewhat equivalent > > to my personal philosophy of Rational Anarchism. Thanks to your pearly > > prose I now know that libertarians are not rational. I attribute my > > failure to notice this in the past to the plethora of > > pseudo-libertarians (like Tim May) that have a brain and can say > > something beyond "What I want is right and you are wrong". > > > > Second, I now recognize fully the signs of masked inferiority. Any > > attempt to allow the unwashed masses access to computer technology is > > met with contempt and belittlement. Personally, I do not fear what > > others may be able to accomplish if they have a tool that they have the > > ability to use. > > Despite your mentality, I resist the urge to hope that you should learn > from practical experience what is apparently eluding you. That would > probably take the general form of you being in an automobile accident and > getting killed because the idiot who stops to "help" you attempts to do > CPR the Hollywood way and tells somebody who actually knows what they're > doing that he can handle it. > > Because I expect people to have basic knowledge above and beyond clicking > a mouse, pushing buttons on a television remote, mixing vinegar and baking > soda, and learning CPR by watching Baywatch, I'm suffering from "masked > inferiority." > > Thank you for opening my eyes, Paul. I will now flush years of higher > education down the drain and become like the "common man" so I'm not > accused of exhibiting signs of "masked inferiority." When I'm trying to > wash mold off my house and make a "jiffy mold remover" by mixing ammonia, > chlorine bleach, and a plethora of other things, thereby releasing toxic > gasses and quite possibly causing the barrel it was in to explode throwing > shrapnel all over the block, I'll claim ignorance. > > Or maybe somebody can practice medicine by asking for "fifteen cc's > anaprovaline" in emergencies because they heard it on Star Trek. > > Or maybe I could use large quantities of butyric acid to scare dogs away > from my home. When the neighbors complain, I can claim ignorance. Of > course, the area might be uninhabitable for a while. Phew! > > After all, ignorance is what is prized in this society. The techies are > just somebody to pay when you need them, and make fun of and assault the > rest of the time. > > > Third, reality has never seemed to be a strong-point with libertarians, > > but now I see that the disregard for reality an asset in your book. > > Because the reality is that most of those poor folk out there can't use > > UNIX. Not won't, can't. Their phobia does not allow it, just as your > > phobia does not allow you to consider any possible way that they might > > gain even a fraction of the power of the Information Age that you > > already have. > > So these people now are "victims" of a "phobia" which prevents them from > reading documentation and bothering to educate themselves. If you don't > want to claim ignorance, claim that you're a victim; it always works these > days. > > They can gain all the power they want. It's when they walk in with an > assault rifle in each hand and start spraying the room randomly with > cluelessness-inducing ammo that people get mad. > > If in doubt, claim you are a victim of this widespread epidemic known as > "phobia of clue." > > > Fourth, while I am a whore and will run or build any system that someone > > is willing to pay me to, I do have my limits. I know longer accept > > contracts or employment related to the military and intelligence > > communities. Neither, do I sell my body. I leave that to the wannabe > > geeks like yourself. > > I think you're suffering from denial, Paul, and that you're lashing out at > anybody who could be a threat to your business because of masked > inferiority. > > > > > Again, Thank you for opening my eyes. > > No problem. Don't mention it. > >

1 0

Resources on how to track spammers
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These are two address I thought might be useful. This is a guide on tracking down real addresses in usenet faked posts. Once you find the real addresses or at least have a couple good guesses on what provider they use reply to their message and cc: it to the postmaster and technicle contact of all the ISP's you think it might be. They can use message ID's and logs to check where the message originated from. http://newdata.box.sk/neworder/harmless/GTMHH1-4.TXT this is the same for forged e-mail. http://newdata.box.sk/neworder/harmless/GTMHH1-5.TXT The reason I'm sending this is because of the fact that I almost never get spam. When I do I respond quickly and appropriately and the spam dies out. When I joined and then posted to this list I was flooded with mail. Personally I this has to be one of the stupided lists to spam. How many technical peopl that are interested in crypto are really gaing to respond to some of these stupid ads

3 3

Re: Anonymous phone calls
by Richard Storey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Trei, Peter wrote: > > Bill Stewart [SMTP:bill.stewart@pobox.com] wrote: > > >At 05:49 PM 8/2/98 -0700, scoops wrote: > >>Would some one be kind enough to suggest anonymous phone > >>call services? > >>I know about some supposedly untraceable 900# at $3.95 per > >>minute. What about an anonymous prepaid service 800# or a > >>calling card. > > >Sure - there's a much cheaper, easier approach. Go buy a > >phone card. There are some phone cards that insist on being > >recharged by credit card, but there are lots that you can > >buy at your local convenience store that don't insist on it, > >and the ones at ethnic grocery stores which let you call > >Mexico or China at moderately outrageous rates are more > >likely to be cash-only. Or you can go to your airport (if > >you're not too paranoid about Them watching you :-) and buy > >phone cards like The Official San Francisco Phone Card, in > >return for US$20 bills. > > At about the same effort, you can be even more secure. Use > cash. Change your $20 bill for a couple rolls of quarters > and walk up to any pay phone that takes coins. Put in a > quarter, and dial your number. You'll hear something like > 'Please insert $3.50 for the first three minutes.' Shove in > the coins, and talk. Works fine for long distance as well as > local calls. Much cheaper than the 900#. > > If you use a calling card for more than a single call, those > calls can be linked to each other. It may also be possible > to trace where the card was sold. > > Peter Trei > ptrei(a)securitydynamics.com Also, even the private-switch operations selling cash-paid calling cards have records of the calls made on their systems, though those records might not be in a form that makes them readily linkable to the orginator of a given call--it all depends on how much it's worth to the pursuer to pursue you. Richard Storey

1 0

CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM - August 3, 1998
by CTIA Daily News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================================== Welcome to today's edition of the CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM. Please click on the icon / attachment for the most important news in wireless communications today. A new multi-billion dollar industry is here! Be at CTIA's WIRELESS I.T. '98 where personal computing and communications converge! Don't Miss Your Chance -- October 12-14, 1998 Bally's Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV For more information, visit http://www.wirelessit.com ===========================================

1 0

Mitchell 8/3/98 14:18 phone conversation
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Monday 8/3/98 3:41 PM FAX Jan Elizabeth Mitchell Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney District of New Mexico Post Office Box 607 Albuquerque, NM 87103 505/346-7274 505/766-2868 FAX 505/346-7205 Dear Ms Mitchell: Purpose of the fax is to 1 review points covered in our 8/3/98 14:18 phone conversation 2 suggest settlement. You phoned me today. You told me that you planned to file a motion or response to the Tenth circuits request Morales and my response to the jurisdictional issue on the 21st of August. I told you that this was premature on your part since we had moved for a second time for an extension of time. I told you also that this matter was now before congress. You appeared to indicate to me that you were in the process of adding both Morales and Minihan as named parties in this appeal. You asked me if it would be agreeable to us if you filed a response to the Tenth circuit 21 days AFTER Morales and I filed our response to the Tenth circuit on the jurisdictional issue. I AGREED. I spoke to Morales on the phone shortly after our phone conversation. Arguing points of law before court clerks and judges who have outstanding criminal complaint affidavits for crimes COMMITTED IN WRITING againtst them would be unproductive on Morales and my part. Therefore, we will proceed to resolve the criminal conduct on the part of judges and court clerks before we proceed further in this matter. We will do this at the Congressional level. Senate Judiciary Committe chairman Orrin Hatch, unfortunately, failed to properly process a valid complaint on New Mexico district court chief judge John Conway in 1995. http://www.jya.com/whp071598.htm Hatchs failure to properly respond in 1995, in large part, caused our current legal conflict with DIR NSA Minihan. We foresee an unfortunate escalation of hostilities if this matter proceeds as it is. We do not wish this. We seek settlement of the UNFORTUNATE matter at the earliest time. We ask your and Congressional help to settle this UNFORTUNATE matter before it gets WORSE. If I have made any essential material errors in reporting my impression of the contents of our conversation, then I would appreciate you giving your impression of possible errors. You can do this in the letter you said you would write to us. Sincerely, bill payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Distribution Senate Judiciary Committee e-mail Arthur R Morales e-mail

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Actually, Hamre said that US companies have no Gawd-Given Right to > _export_ strong crypto. See: > http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/14098.html Oh, it's sick anyhow... A couple excerpts from jya's transcript: On the EFF DES cracker: Now, I need to explain first of all, that the government is currently permitting the export of 56 bit encryption algorithms. Now, I know that there's some huffing and puffing about whether that's strong encryption or not. But again, I say let's put this in context. There was a flap here the other day when, ta-da, somebody invented a computer that could break 56 bit encryption in 30 hours or 40 hours or whatever the time was, right. You took 40 hours to decrypt a two-second message. And it was good only for that one message. You've got to start all over again on the next two-second message. Tell me that that isn't strong encryption. [Secretary Hamre, that isn't strong encryption. Weak enough that cracking DES keys for two grand each -- reasonable price considering some of the applications using DES -- can be a viable business for the shady hacker type, in fact. Pays for your parts in ten months, pocket most everything else until the machine breaks.] On export controls: "...I'd also ask American business not to make a campaign out of just trying to bust through export controls as though somehow there was a God-given, inherent right to send the strongest encryption to anybody in the world, no matter who they are. I don't agree with that. I will never agree with that." ["I will never agree with that" -- I'd say we're talking to an open-minded individual who's really trying to work things out, eh?] > > Which, despite all the damage control and spin waves that followed > the initial report in WiRed, does not mean that the NSA and DoD believe > that anyone has been granted some privilege to speak in confidence that > they, being reverent and religious fellows, should and must respect. > > Much ado about nothing, here! > > The first (perhaps literally erroneous) WiRed News report -- that > senior DoD officials do not believe that any two people anywhere in the > world have a perfect and unassailable right to speak in confidence and > secrecy -- was spot on accurate and true. > > > ----- > "Cryptography is like literacy in the Dark Ages. Infinitely potent, for > good and ill... yet basically an intellectual construct, an idea, which by > its nature will resist efforts to restrict it to bureaucrats and others who > deem only themselves worthy of such Privilege." > _ A Thinking man's Creed for Crypto _vbm. > > * Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin(a)shore.net> * > 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

1 0

Thanks for the visit
by VideAll USA 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a note to thank you for your past visit to our old aol based website, which presents the VideAll for video-taping everyone. Please visit our new site at http://www.videall.com.

1 0

Angry stripper pees on punter/Girlz Toyz/Topless teens
by STUFFED/EUREKA! 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome to today's issue of Stuffed. To read it you should click on the URL below. If it is not made clickable by your email program you will need to use your mouse to highlight the line, copy it and then paste it into your browser (then press Return). http://stuffed.net/98/8/3/ If you have an email program that can display web pages you will find today's front cover should have already been disp- layed and can be clicked on to take you straight to Stuffed. This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka!

1 0

Re: Question....
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---"Bernardo B. Terrado" <bbt(a)mudspring.uplb.edu.ph> wrote: > > How does a hardware encryption device work? > If the Encryption is done on a device attached to your computer instead of in software on your computer. > > Does it need human intervention to convert a plaintext to ciphertext > or do we still give the instructions? Depends on the device. But most require some effort. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, the key escrow is a hardware encryption device. > Key Escrow is an action taken by the government to collect or gain access to private keys. There was some controversy as to the clipper chip which is hardware falling prey to key escrow however. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

3 3