December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Remailer test, ignore
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This string is to be used for tracing this message.

1 0

WE LOVE IT!! TRAVEL, MONEY, AND...
by sjfi＠msn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FIRE THE BOSS AND BREAK THE ALARM CLOCK! WE DID! Travel for pennies on the dollar AND Enjoy a "complimentary cruise" for two! MAKE $3,000-$5,000 PER WEEK FROM HOME! We're looking for people with a good work ethic and extraordinary desire who want to change their lives! We will give you all the training and support that you will need to insure your success!! IF WE CAN DO THIS.....SO CAN YOU!!!! Not Multi-level Marketing or GPG! "Make Your Vocation a Vacation" Call Now For Information 24 Hr Toll Free Number 1-888-376-1192 Do not reply to this e mail for more information, you must call listen to the message. You will only receive this e mail once. Thank you.

1 0

European Commission proposal on legal framework for e-commerce (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 23:45:00 -0500 > From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> > Subject: European Commission proposal on legal framework for e-commerce > A proposal for a Directive to establish a coherent legal framework for the > development of electronic commerce within the Single Market has been put > forward by the European Commission. That's pretty gutsy, put your goal in plain english in the first sentence. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:06:30 -0500 > From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> > Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory > (RAM) under Windows") (fwd) > >1. Is it OpenSource? > Is this a religious argument? I think he said it was copyrighted freeware, > so use it and leave the copyright notices in and you're ok. Where does he say that Bill? And while it ain't religious, there are some perferences to having it open source versus controlled source. > >2. I assume since it never swaps to disk the memory requirements for the > > computer are large. What is the minimum suggested if one runs say > > 5 apps that each require 16M each, 5*16M & OS overhead? > > Bad Assumption. The memory requirements are whatever you want; Wrong, since the ENTIRE OS is run under this it's not nearly that simple. The OS's internal swap page as well as by extension the contexts they point to are going to be sitting in there. The app should also encrypt the address spaces of the system structures. > if you're storing a few private keys, or intermediate calculation results, > the requirements are very small; if you're storing 16MB databases, > they're much larger. For today, 16MB seems large enough that > I'd think you'd use a crypto-disk or instead of nailing it into RAM, > but the boundaries between huge, routine, and small keep moving > in this business, so maybe you do now, and you will soon enough. Where in that description does it say it allows particular apps to use this product? > Does anybody know if Win95/98 keeps RAMdisks in RAM, or swaps them > out to real disk along with other least-recently-used data? You don't know this but you're willing to try to rake me.... Talk about unprepared. > > And what is the suggested OS overhead with no swap to disk? > > (OK, that last one might be a 3rd question) > > That's a good question. My guess is that it's probably 0-2KB, > plus however big the drivers are, might be as big as 64KB, > but presumably isn't 1MB. In other words, too small to worry about > on recent machines, where an extra 16MB RAM costs $10, > but if you're using that spare 4MB 386 as a remailer, > you've got to be more careful. Your guess is pretty much worthless. What we'd like is an aswer from the person who wrote it. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:00:07 -0500 > From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> > Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd) > The most recent amendment (27th?) sat around for nearly 200 years > before 3/4 of the states ratified it, (preventing Congress from > raising their salaries during their current term.) > The power to specify a time limit doesn't need separate mention; > the time limit is either part of the proposed amendment, or it isn't, > and it's part of the negotiations for getting Congress to pass it. Really? Where do you see that in the Constitution? > The more dangerous problem is that people keep suggesting a > Constitutional Convention, which has basically no limits on its scope And where do you see unlimited power assigned at under Article V? > (especially given the one previous precedent, which substantially > increased Federal power beyond the limits of the Articles, > and didn't require unanimous consent to adopt its product, > though the Articles required it for changing them.) That isn't a precedence. > Even if the states _say_ they're limiting their delegation to > specific tasks, that doesn't mean the ConCon won't exceed them, > and if it gets sufficient media/public support, it can get away with it. Sure it does, then the states remove their support and it isn't a convention anymore. ARTICLE V. [Constitution: how amended; proviso.] The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions of the three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which shall be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

native onani
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:24 AM 11/27/98 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > Obviously >neither homosexual nor homophobic, both groups >prefer the chaste option of onani (onanism) to the perceived compromises of >marital consummation. Worse than that, they use a geijing word for masturbation... --If the spice girls mud-wrestled shonen knife, who would win?

2 1

Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate misses the point, as usual: > Wrong, since the ENTIRE OS is run under this it's not nearly that simple. > The OS's internal swap page as well as by extension the contexts they point > to are going to be sitting in there. The app should also encrypt the address > spaces of the system structures. The original message said: > From: "Jim Adler" <jadler(a)soundcode.com> > The SCNSM driver supports allocation of non-swappable memory on Windows > 3.x/95/98. The principal design goal of SCNSM is to provide memory that will > not be swapped to disk, under any circumstances. Typically, security > applications require such memory to store private keys, passwords, and > sensitive intermediate results of cryptographic calculations. What is Choate thinking when he says the ENTIRE OS is run under this? This is a driver which is used by the application to allocate specific memory buffers in non-swappable memory. It allows the app to lock down those buffers so that they won't swap to disk. These buffers can then be used to hold sensitive data. It is neither possible nor desirable to run the ENTIRE OS out of such buffers. It is not possible because the OS is already written. It is Windows 3.x/95/98 (see above). That OS does not make the special driver calls which would be necessary to allocate non-swappable memory. You would have to rewrite Windows to use the special calls, which isn't possible for a luser like Choate. And it's not even desirable. There is no reason to make the ENTIRE OS use non-swappable memory. Most memory is simply not that sensitive. It holds public data, or data which is already on the disk in some form. Putting the ENTIRE OS into non-swappable memory gives up much of the advantage of having virtual memory in the first place. It would be a giant step backwards in OS architecture. Here's what Choate had to say when Bill Stewart tried to politely help him out: > You don't know this but you're willing to try to rake me.... > Talk about unprepared. > Your guess is pretty much worthless. It's bad enough to have to endure more of Choate's idiocy, but it is especially offensive to see him hassling Bill Stewart, one of the most consistently informative and valuable list members. Bill's a thick- skinned guy and it's probably no big deal to him, but it further illustrates what a negative contribution Choate makes here.

1 0

Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 17:41:53 +0100 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd) > What is Choate thinking when he says the ENTIRE OS is run under this? My mistake. Since it really does only handle individual apps it's of limited utility in the Windows world because of the numerous ways to get system level access. > This is a driver which is used by the application to allocate specific > memory buffers in non-swappable memory. It allows the app to lock down > those buffers so that they won't swap to disk. These buffers can then > be used to hold sensitive data. Considering that this doesn't prohibit apps from getting access to that memory, it only prohibits that memory page from being written to disk, it has limited utility. It's only real protection is against disk scans. For example a bogus service could gain system level and initiate a DMA transfer of that non-swappable ram into their own address space. > It is neither possible nor desirable to run the ENTIRE OS out of > such buffers. Sure it is. It's the entire reason to have big online memory pools. Idealy you'd have a computer with nothing but gig's and gig's of ram and no hard drive at all. > It is not possible because the OS is already written. > It is Windows 3.x/95/98 (see above). That OS does not make the special > driver calls which would be necessary to allocate non-swappable memory. > You would have to rewrite Windows to use the special calls, which isn't > possible for a luser like Choate. No, simply provide it enough ram it never has to swap out to disk except in the case of updates to files. If ram's that cheap we could do away with the drive completely. > And it's not even desirable. There is no reason to make the ENTIRE OS > use non-swappable memory. They why do I (and you unless youre using a tty) keep adding ram to my Win/Linux/Solaris/AIX/HP/etc. boxes to reduce the swapping that is taking place? It's slow, we put up with it because we can't afford those hundreds of meg's of ram to hold our app and the entire database file (for example). > Most memory is simply not that sensitive. > It holds public data, or data which is already on the disk in some form. > Putting the ENTIRE OS into non-swappable memory gives up much of the > advantage of having virtual memory in the first place. It would be a > giant step backwards in OS architecture. No, it wouldn't. The question of swap or virtual space is one of economics and not computer architecture. If it were economicaly feasible there would be no drives just fast main ram. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Cheap Travel Service
by za＠fz.ml.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This message complies with the PROPOSED United States Federal requirements for commercial email bill, Section 301. For additional info see: www.senate.gov~murkowski/commercialemail/EMailAmendText.html Required Sender Information:SDCT,6006 Greenbelt Ed, Suite 340, Greenbelt, MD Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further transmissions to you by the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to you by clicking To be taken off our list please hit reply and put delete as the subject. Taking a $3.5 Trillion Industry by Storm >>>The Demand is Outrageous >>>The Profits are Spectular >>>The Clients are happy. >>>Let me show you how to Make $2-3,000 Per week to Start. This is not MLM >>3 Min. Overview 888 220 6954 >>3 Min. Marketing Plan 888 540 0942 >>Testimonial Line 716 720 6951 >>Fax-on-Demand 716 720-2776, Doc. 1 For sign-up information, Send email to: >>mailto:merchantman-info@autoresponder.freeyellow.com

1 0

Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> > Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd) > Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:44:04 -0600 (CST) > > Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 17:41:53 +0100 > > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > > Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd) > > > What is Choate thinking when he says the ENTIRE OS is run under this? > > My mistake. Since it really does only handle individual apps it's of limited > utility in the Windows world because of the numerous ways to get system > level access. I forgot to add that I'd still be interested in knowing if the utility would support the entire OS being run under this and what the memory constraints would be. If I had 2 of the Samsung 4G memory modules w/ battery back-up I could run an entire machine without a hard-drive. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3