December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last night when I entered the newsgroups of my system (Netcom) I was given the choice of subscribing to a new newsgroup, "cypherpunks.list". I did with alacrity, to discover what was going on. Here's a sample of what's appeared so far (a screen in "tin"): ... 21 1 PC random number hardware Jon Boede 22 Need Info Christopher M. Wis 23 Wired 1.6 is not yet publically available Timothy C.Ma y 24 Caller ID Wabasha-Kellogg Hi 25 Tropez phones Wabasha-Kellogg Hi 26 1 TEMPEST, Van Eyck Radiation, and Eavesdroppin Timothy C. May 27 (fwd) Clipper and Tipper on Route 666 Timothy C. May 28 [alt.security.pgp] pgp.iastate.edu service di warlord(a)MIT.EDU 29 Mark Abene (Phiber Optik) sentenced Doug Merritt 30 TEMPEST Defenses and average Van Eck Gear... nobody(a)shell.porta 31 Nymalizer, politics on the list Greg Broiles 32 Test of this list... Timothy C. May I believe someone has gatewayed the list onto Netcom, which is available to many thousands of subscribers, including local POPs (points of presence) in Washington, D.C., Boston, Atlanta, Austin, and of course all up and down the West Coast. Is this such a good idea? And should it be unilaterally done? If there was discussion of this, I must've missed it somehow (which I doubt). It does look like it may've been a one-shot affair, as the recent messages to the List proper have not appeared in the newsgroup. Also, I posted a test message to the group, which appears above as item #32, but which appeared only in the newsgroup and not on the List proper (two hours have passed, so it may eventually appear). Certainly our List is not a deep, dark secret, and certainly we know the list is gatewayed into some local networks, but I really worry about everything we say hear being readable by anyone with a newsfeed. It also opens us up to more disruptive flaming and puerile argumentation. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

3 2

Re: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by ljenkins＠mv.us.adobe.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Is this such a good idea? And should it be unilaterally done? If there > was discussion of this, I must've missed it somehow (which I doubt). I think it is an spectacularly bad idea... Luis

1 0

unsubscribe
by cdmorgan＠mosaic.uncc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubscribe me please Thank you

1 0

Re: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by Joe Thomas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > I believe someone has gatewayed the list onto > Netcom, which is available to many thousands of > subscribers, including local POPs (points of > presence) in Washington, D.C., Boston, Atlanta, > Austin, and of course all up and down the West > Coast. > > . . . > > It also opens us up to more disruptive flaming > and puerile argumentation. Chilling thought: strnlght(a)netcom.com A subscriber to Washington-based Digital Express recently asked on the digex.general group that the cypherpunks list be gatewayed to a newsgroup there, too. It hasn't shown up there, and I hope it doesn't. Mailing lists just "feel" a little more private, and their central administration makes possible some control over abusers. Has anyone sent mail to postmaster or news@netcom to ask them what they're doing? I'd feel a little funny doing so myself, since I'm not a subscriber. I have asked Digex not to gateway the list, though. Joe

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by jon＠balder.us.dell.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike writes: > Doug writes: >> Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)eff.org> said: >> >First of all, EFF's Open Platform says outright that the government is not >> >going to build the data superhighway. Check again if you don't believe me. >> >> Ah...do you mean "should not build", or do you really mean that it contains >> a discussion outlining the logic behind predicting that they *won't* >> build? > > Nobody seriously thinks the government's going to build a Data > Superhighway. EFF's interested in seeing the private sector do it. I thought we already had a data superhighway and what congress (et Al) is really talking about is a national system of on-ramps and off-ramps? Jon -- ,,, (o o) Jon Boede ----ooO-(_)-Ooo---- jon(a)dell.com +1 512 728-4802 Engineering, Dell Computer Corp. Server OS Development Austin, TX "When I was 10, mean old man Miller's house burned down. We put home plate where his toilet once stood -- his garden became our center field... and in these ways, the laws of karma were revealed."

3 3

RE: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message Tue, 9 Nov 93 12:38:52 PST, tcmay (Timothy C. May) writes: > I believe someone has gatewayed the list onto Netcom, which is > available to many thousands of subscribers, including local POPs > (points of presence) in Washington, D.C., Boston, Atlanta, Austin, and > of course all up and down the West Coast. > > Is this such a good idea? And should it be unilaterally done? If there > was discussion of this, I must've missed it somehow (which I doubt). I think this is a terrible idea. Yes, the list is not secret, and I expect that half the nyms on it are TLA employees, but converting the list to a feed on a commercial service such as netcom, delphi, or digex, is not what I want to see. IMHO, of course, but a bad idea. Since I'm a netcom user too, i'll fire up rn from the east coast. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)netcom.com Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Ever buy encryption software? YOU WILL!
by paul＠poboy.b17c.ingr.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I found this on comp.dcom.telecom and have elided some marketing material. My editorial comments are enclosed in brackets. Amazing. _AT&T_, the same folks that were trying to bring us Clipper, are going to sell DES over-the-counter. I'd be happier with triple-DES, but this blows my tiny little mind. I have a call in to Dave Arneke, who's listed as the contact person for this release. When I can extract some details from him, I'll post them. Some key points: - products include DES (single or triple?) and SHA, an encrypting version of ZMODEM, and unnamed RSA-based products - the products have been available in the gov't market for > 1 year - AT&T is marketing them; they were developed by another company. X-Submissions-To: telecom(a)eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request(a)eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 745, Message 1 of 10 ... We'll be demonstrating these and other data security products at COMDEX next week (we're in the NCR booth). We have a variety of secure communications products in our line, hardware and software, voice, data, fax, video and wireless. I'll keep the information coming as we put it out. Thanks again. Sincerely, David Arneke Media Relations Manager, AT&T Secure Communications Systems 919 279-7680 david.arneke(a)att.com AT&T INTRODUCES SECURITY SOFTWARE TO PROTECT PC, WORKSTATION DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS GREENSBORO, North Carolina -- AT&T is introducing software programs that protect a variety of laptop, PC and workstation applications. The shrink-wrapped programs, announced today, provide data privacy, digital signatures and secure data transmission. They are the first in a series that will provide end-users with public key cryptography capabilities. AT&T Secure Communications Systems has previously developed a multilevel secure UNIX software package. The products announced today are its first security-related offerings in the DOS/Windows and Macintosh markets. [ ... marketing talk from Bill Franklin, business development manager for AT&T Secure Communications Systems, deleted ] The first programs in the series are: -- AT&T SecretAgent (R), which implements the Digital Encryption Standard for privacy and the Digital Signature Algorithm and Secure Hash Standard to protect the integrity of files stored on or transmitted from personal computers. It operates transparently to e-mail systems. -- AT&T dsaSIGN (TM), which provides authentication and data integrity assurance for electronic documents through use of the Digital Signature Algorithm and Secure Hash Standard. -- AT&T SecureZMODEM (TM), which encrypts data on the fly as it is transmitted using the ZMODEM communications protocol. Additional software products based on RSA public-key technology are also available. "We will also introduce access control products, com- patible with the products we're announcing today, for PCs, workstations and networks in the coming months," Franklin said. All three programs were developed for AT&T by Information Security Corporation of Deerfield, Illinois. They are available exclusively from AT&T and its distributors. ISC will be AT&T's primary representative in the government market for these and related products. The programs use proven technology that has been available in the government market for more than a year. "All three have gained strong acceptance among government computer users," said Tom Venn, president of Information Security Corporation. The single-copy price for AT&T SecretAgent is $329.95; for AT&T dsaSIGN, $149.95; and for AT&T SecureZMODEM, $99.95. Site and enterprise licenses and volume discounts are available. All programs are available now directly from AT&T Secure Communications Systems and its distributors. Customers can get more information on AT&T software security programs by calling 1 800 203-5563. For media inquiries, call David Arneke at AT&T Secure Communications Systems, 919 279-7680. - -Paul - -- Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG | Caution: cutting edge is sharp. Avoid contact. Intergraph Federal Systems | Be a cryptography user - ask me how. ** Of course I don't speak for Intergraph. ** -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLOERoyA78To+806NAQHlLQQArzWzEqpqO+EoYEqShkQJmqAI3y1O9sBD yBbBElXylpmJ+yf6WofUWXCci2sEDw0JSE8RSYoTSe0HGtx16pAjh1fkK6UA+8XW 2ZsyzHiuPm1OYMM63iFDRMHTnIYLowmc5GPIXRGnweyCuiWgVNTkHxClnbNo2vGb uaDI2O5X9dI= =FTwT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Blair (I think) writes: > I'm not sure what you mean by "various groups," but I do think that a very > basic net connection, with minimal services (access to government records, > public domain postings, and similar information) should be provided either free > or at a very minimal cost. It is not difficult for me to envision a day when > paper based sources of info (newspapers, magazines, etc.) may be impossible > to recieve in paper format, and when participation in our political system > will depend on having access just as much as it depends, for all practical > purposes, on having a stable residence. Groups which cannot afford net > connection in the future may very likely become a politically excluded group. > Its important that we set the precedent now that these basic services not be > dependant on a certain minimum economic standing. This is what I understand > "fair access" to mean. But how is this any different from providing subsidized or free newspapers or news channels to the population? How is a Net connection any more usable than a free CNN channel? Or C-SPAN, which is in fact subsidized by the cable companies? If we decide that the government needs a subsidized channel or network to make avaiable its laws, its debate, its position, then we have just created a publically-funded propaganda channel for them. (Earlier, I took a position that making government docs available by ftp, gopher, WWW, etc., would be a good thing. I still do, but I worry that the channels would just be platforms for government bureaucrats to pitch their policies and plans. I have no doubt that when the commercial networks are reluctant to carry speeches and press conferences by Clinton, that he'd really like to have subsidized channels that _had_ to carry him. Of course, few would watch, but that's another topic.) So, if we need a National Information Infractructure, why not the same thing for newspapers, television, radio, etc.? Why not guarantee everyone a daily newspaper? After all, they need to be informed. (I don't want to drift into sarcasm about this, as I think Mike Godwin and others are making serious points. But bear in mind that the purported needs for communicating with the public are often the justification for "State Radio" and for the UNESCO-sponsored proposals to restrict the "private press" in many countries. Put it this way, do you really want President Robertson or President Perot to have his won subsidized channels of communication? Perot can of course _buy_ a couple of networks, but that's not the same as an official network.) CNN, the Clinton News Network. --Tim May P.S. I cancelled my entire cable t.v. subscription several weeks back. Too much shit, too little quality, too confusing a monthly bill. I have a sneaking feeling we're going to have about 500 channels soon, with a couple of hundred of them available cheaply enough. -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

3 2

Usenet: 'Resistance Is Futile'
by Philippe Nave 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Regarding the recent question of whether the cypherpunks list is being gatewayed to Usenet: 1) So what? I have always assumed that anything distributed to a group of _any_ kind may wind up scattered all over the globe and may turn up in unusual places. If the data is sensitive, encrypt it! 2) [Disclaimer: I know just enough Unix to get in trouble..] From what I understand so far, all it takes is one cypherpunk and some magic mail routing code to bounce cypherpunks list postings anywhere else on the planet. If this cypherpunk bounced the traffic off an anonymous remailer, you would never even be able to tell who was feeding the other system. Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be no defense possible against this activity. 3) I agree with the concern expressed by Tim May that we may be opened up to 'disruptive flaming and puerile argumentation.' The only way to avoid this problem [as far as I can tell] is to limit postings to members of the mailing list. That's a tough one. Let us hope that our coffee shop is not overrun by screaming children... ........................................................................ Philippe D. Nave, Jr. | The person who does not use message encryption pdn(a)dwroll.dw.att.com | will soon be at the mercy of those who DO... Denver, Colorado USA | PGP public key: by arrangement.

2 2

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jdblair(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu says: > I'm not sure what you mean by "various groups," but I do think that > a very basic net connection, with minimal services (access to > government records, public domain postings, and similar information) > should be provided either free or at a very minimal cost. In New York City, the effective variable cost of an internet mail/news connection is $27 a month -- less than you can panhandle in about threen hours during rush hour, and I'm assuming you never use the phone for anything else and call a couple times a day. The cost is still dropping, and will doubtless be nearly invisible even without any government intervention within a few years. My poorest unemployed friend living in Hell's Kitchen in a fifth floor walkup apartment in roach-infested tenement (no joke) has an internet connection via Panix. I therefore see no reason for government guarantees of net access -- it is obvious that anyone with even minimal initiative can get one already, or will be able to within a few years. The cost of a net connection is far less than the cost of, say, smoking, and there are homeless people who still manage to smoke. Perry

1 1