December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Phiber, The MOD, and The LOD.
by lex＠mindvox.phantom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"L. Detweiler" <ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu> writes: > >Anyway, this letter is an attempt to find a topic that someone will not >flame me about, and is relevant to the cypherpunk list as I understand it! > >Phiber Optik >-- > >I have been watching the trial of Mark Abene, aka Phiber Optik, >closely, and I think I even fowarded articles on it to the cypherpunks >once. This is a very fascinating trial. We learn, for example, of the >first use of wiretaps for digital data (modem communications) for a >successful prosecution. Also, we learned about how LOD (Legion of Doom) >-- or was it MOD, Masters of Deception, I get all these criminal >organizations mixed up! -- infiltrated phone systems. I think I even >heard in one news report that some in the group performed illicit wiretaps. Although some people on this list could care less about the details, since you confused the two ex-hacking groups, I feel the need to set the record straight. It was MOD *not* LOD that phiber has been recently affiliated with. MOD was in my opinion a malicious group of hackers who used their knowlege and abilities to relentlessly harass people, wreak havoc on computer systems and networks by shirking the 'hacker ethic' of not causing damage, and allegedly to perpetrate various forms of fraud and theft. Please note that Phiber Optik was probably the most mellow one of the MOD and having spoke with him a number of times, it seems that he is not a malicious type. IMHO his mistake was teaching his 'friends' in the group how to do certain things without regard to what they intended to do with that knowlege. LOD was a whole different type of group. If you want to classify us as a criminal organization due to gaining unauthorized access into various computers and networks over the years, fine. But the LOD maintained a high standard of ethical behavior in the way of not intentionally causing damage to computer system, not violating people's privacy for the sole purpose of harassment or fraud, and the overall mentality of spreading knowlege and information to those who were interested. Obviously those ethics were warped as none of the ex-members that I am in contact with (erik bloodaxe - editor of Phrack, the marauder, Lord Digital and Deal Lord - Mindvox owners, etc.) believe that unauthorized access to computers is/was right nor legal. I am not defending what we did all those years ago, but just clarifying the degree to which we were involved. To make this clear, gaining unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal and wrong under just about any circumstance. Violating a person or company's privacy is wrong also, even if it was done out of curiousity or a thirst for knowlege. One other thing, it was reported in the press a number of times that there was some sort of war between hacker groups. I think this is silly and although I had 'retired' by 1989 which was about the time a lot of the alleged MOD activity took place, my version is that there was no 'war'. There are always personality conflicts between people and arguements between erikb and phiber appears to have been blown way out of proportion as usually happens when things get reported by the press. >I find this *fascinating*. Can anyone elaborate to me the wiretapping >that was going on? who did they wiretap? how did they do it? how did >they avoid detection? more importantly, have the phone systems been >upgraded or modified to be protected from this kind of extremely insidious >crime? One of the things some MOD members allegedly did was gain access to certain key computer systems that controlled various functions of BT's Tymnet packet switching network. There are some systems that allow a privileged user to monitor network traffic (XRAY for example), by gaining access to these systems and knowing the correct commands, one can 'wiretap'. It should be noted, if you read through the old hacker BBS message bases (which you can do if you contact lod communications who is compiling messages from the very first phreak boards such as Modem Over Manhattan and 8BBS circa 1980 up through boards such as the Phoenix Project circa 1989/1990, see the review of the project in Autumn 1993 issue of 2600 or CuD #5.39 for more details or email lodcom(a)mindvox.phantom.com) that the LOD had access to those same systems years before MOD was around, and no one was the wiser simply because it was more of an exploration of the systems as opposed to an exploitation of the systems. I for one operated on the premise that if I didn't know what a certain command did, I did not type it in. That kind of caution allows you to explore and learn as safely as possible by helping to avoid accidental damage. As for tapping phone lines, most any reader of the cypherpunks list can do this physically. What the MOD *may* have done (or use the word allegedly if you like), is to gain access to certain phone company systems, such as LMOS (Loop Maintenance Operating System) which allow a person who has a privileged account and the correct commands and syntax, to REMOTELY monitor phone lines. The phone company does this for repair and maintenance reasons and not to spy on subscribers. As we all know, most technologies can be used for reasons other than for what they were originally intended, this being a classic example. As for avoiding detection, if one had access to the Switching Control systems, they would be able to do a whole host of other things from putting traces on subscribers served by the particular switch to seeing if there were any 'traces' on their lines. In addition, putting call forwarding onto a network access port number and then forwarding calls to their computer, would allow the perpetrator to gain untold amounts of usernames/passwords for systems on whichever network they forwarded the calls from. >I read in `Cyberpunk' by K.Hafner and J.Markoff (the latter my favorite >cyberspatial writer) that K. Mitnick in California also had this >capability of wiretapping, and used it in an extremely sophisticated >way. Apparently he actually tapped the lines of police stations and >knew when they were coming, or knew when they had detected or `sniffed' >his own illegal wiretapping. >Did this happen? or is all of this rumor? Back in 1984 or so, a fellow lod member, The Blue Archer, dealt a lot with Mitnick (using the handle The Condor if I remember correctly). I specifically recall speaking with Blue Archer when he told me to not discuss certain things for fear that Condor was listening to his line remotely. Not only this, but Condor gave Blue Archer a phone number in California that forwarded to his real phone number which was located 1000 miles east. This number lasted for a long time and somehow there was never any billing associated with this long distance forwarding situation. Therefore, I believe the above happened and was not rumor. What is interesting is that he was capable of this type of technology manipulation nearly a decade ago. Condor/Mitnick was one of the 'best' there ever was, but it appears that he used his knowlege and abilities in ways that he probably should not have. >I remember Phiber Optik posting to *this list* on the subject of phone >wiretapping. I think he might have been a bit too knowledgeable for his >own good, eh? What ever happened to K. Mitnick, anyway? He did serve >federal time, I know that. I remember reading that story and thinking >-- here is someone we should keep our eyes on, even after he is out of >prison, *especially* when he is out! > >Conspiracy Charges >-- > >Another question. I understand that Mr. Abene was charged with >`conspiracy' or at least that was one of the charges involved in the >whole affair, perhaps against others. My question: what is the legal >criterion for a `conspiracy'? what are the penalties? did Abene >actually get successfully prosecuted for `conspiring'? what was the >conspiracy? Did it have anything to do with the wiretapping?what are >famous conspiracy cases? I'm sure that some cypherpunks may be >knowledgeable on these subjects. I sincerely hope I haven't offended >anyone in asking. Mr. Finney posted some outstanding analyses of the >ITAR (which I subsequently incorporated into a RISKS article), for >example, so there is definitely some strong legal background here. > >please cc: your replies to me or I may not see them. > Reply was cc'd to you. Lex

1 0

(fwd) Netcom adds access in Denver area
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cyphertentacles and Extropiates, Here's a convenient list of the latest Netcom sites, which span the U.S. I've been happily using it (well, they changed to a new emacs yesterday and now my autowrap doesn't work....I hate having to spend a couple of hours on such a trivial matter) for a year and a half and I conservatively estimate I've influenced at least 30 people to sign up for it....too bad I don't get any usage credits for it. The best things about it: flat monthly fee ($17.50), unlimited connect time, full range of services (much better than most universities have, folks tell me), and--best of all--your Netcom account won't change when you change jobs! And posting with Netcom presumably won't run the risk of angering your employer. I'm thrilled that Netcom is expanding so rapidly. --Tim Newsgroups: netcom.general,co.general,ba.internet,alt.internet.access.wanted From: glee(a)netcom.com (Glee Harrah Cady) Subject: Netcom adds access in Denver area Distribution: netcom,usa Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 17:22:36 GMT NETCOM On-line Communication Services, Incorporated is pleased to announce the expansion of the NETCOM backbone into the Denver, CO metropolitan area. To reach the service, using a VT100 terminal emulator dial 303-758-0101 with your modem set to 8,1,N, and hardware flow control. Denver's new Point of Presence (POP) joins our nationwide backbone in supporting a full range of network services including: o Internet Connections (T1 & 56kb, dedicated and dialup) o News/Mail feeds with Domain service o Business Dial-up access (news / mail / ftp / telnet / shell) o Host dial access (International and National News, news / mail / ftp / telnet / shell) o Personal Network (SLIP or PPP) Connections (PNC) o FrameConnect Internet Services NETCOM can be your gateway to economical global communications. A connection to the NETCOM state-of-the-art network will deliver connectivity at very affordable prices. NETCOM offers Internet connections, news feeds, electronic mail, local access points throughout the United States, source archives, telecommunications consulting, discounts on purchases of communication equipment, and other services. NETCOM offers a guest account to provide more information about its services. To access the guest account via your modem and personal computer, dial a local access number from the list below. After you connect, at the Login: prompt, type "guest". You need not type in a password. Remember, you must use lower case letters. If you prefer, you can also log in via telnet to netcom.netcom.com or to the IP address of 192.100.81.100. Here are a few of the local access 1200/2400/9600 V.32/V.42 numbers: 206-547-5992 Seattle 214-753-0044 Dallas 310-842-8835 Los Angeles 303-758-0101 Denver 404-303-9765 Atlanta 408-241-9760 San Jose 408-459-9851 Santa Cruz 415-328-9940 Palo Alto 415-985-5650 San Francisco 503-626-6833 Portland 510-426-6610 Pleasanton 510-865-9004 Alameda 617-237-8600 Boston 619-234-0524 San Diego 703-255-5951 Washington DC 714-708-3800 Irvine 818-585-3400 Pasadena 916-965-1371 Sacramento VOICE: (408) 554-8649 FAX: (408) 241-9145 Local Access Numbers: (800) 488-2558 _____________________________________________________________________________ - info(a)netcom.com (408) 554-8649 NETCOM On-line Communication Services, Inc.

4 4

meetings at Cygnus
by Brendan Kehoe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On behalf of a bunch of people at Cygnus, I've a small request to make of the Cypherpunks. When you bring chairs into the conference room for your meeting, *please* remember where you got them. That way, at the end of the meeting, they can go back where they came from, and we don't have to spend Monday morning trying to find our chairs around the office. Thanks, Brendan -- Brendan Kehoe brendan(a)cygnus.com Cygnus Support, Mountain View, CA +1 415 903 1400

1 0

Re: OMNI CARD
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I suppose this is some metamorphicly generated checksum. Until someone >gets ahold of one of these OMNI cards and takes it apart... We use SecurID cards, which sound very similar, as a security measure on some of our remote access connections. BTW, you can't take the cards apart. They fry themselves if you try. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

3 3

Re: Should we oppose the
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com M >Just so. If you really believe that merely stopping regulation, M >*without anything else*, would restore competition to a market that's M >been dominated by a government-supported monopoly or duopoly, then we M >simply must agree to disagree. You mean to tell me that if the Feds just said -- the Local Loop monopoly no longer exists, we'll auction all the frequencies and get out of the business of regulating telecoms, no market would spring up. Right now, there are 6 count them 6 possible suppliers for the Local Loop: 1) TPC 2) Cable 3) The Electric Company (yes the Electric Company) 4) Cellular 5) PCS 6) Digital Mobile Radio (you all saw the stories about Nextel?) There are probably others I haven't heard of. Looks like tons of suppliers to me. M >Untrue. The cable providers often are putting up obstacles of their M >own, as are telco providers. The impossibility of Tim May's X-rated M >cable channel illustrates this point. The market can't function It seems to me that many of the alt.sex.whatever subscribers are using the PSTN to satisfy their desires. As long as we have a switched network to the home or office, we can switch whatever we like over it. How can a provider stop a porno enterprise network from supplying encrypted signal to subscribers. It won't even be able to tell it's going on. M >Telling every would-be X-rated cable viewer to build his own cable M >system is not a solution. That's just what we do every day on the PSTN or Internet. DCF --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

3 4

ANNOUNCE: Boston Area Cypherpunks Meeting
by Derek Atkins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is to inform you about the November Boston Area Cypherpunks Meeting. This meeting will be held in MIT room 1-115 on Saturday, November 13, from 12 - 6PM. Topics will range from PGP tutorial and informatioon, key signing, mathematical explanations, digital cash, and other topics from the attendees. If you have any questions, please mail me personally. All further information will be sent to "cypherpunks-east(a)MIT.EDU". To get on this list, send mail to "cypherpunks-east-request(a)MIT.EDU" See you Saturday. -derek PS: It has been suggested that we attempt an audio feed to California. My response is that if we can obtain the hardware here we can attempt it, but I'm not sure how well it will help the meeting move along. Directions: T: Red line to Kendall Sq. Walk away from the Marriott (across the street). Walk down the road until the next road, Amhurst, and take a right. There keep walking. You will cross Ames St. Keep walking forward until you pass the "Great Sail", then bear right. Walk up the steps and then keep walking straight. Follow the signs for 1-115 Bus: #1 to 77 Mass Ave. Walk up the stairs and follow the signs. Car: Get to Cambridge. Find somewhere to park around Mass Ave between Memorial Drive and Vassar St. You may want to try an MIT parking lot. Enter MIT at 77 Mass Ave and follow the signs.

1 0

Phiber Optik, and miscellaneous ramblings
by Clark Reynard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lex(a)mindvox.com (Lex Luthor) writes: >Please note that >Phiber Optik was probably the most mellow one of the MOD and having spoke with >him a number of times, it seems that he is not a malicious type. IMHO his >mistake was teaching his 'friends' in the group how to do certain things >without regard to what they intended to do with that knowlege. True; after reading a number of the charges against him, it appears they just threw whatever they could at him, in the hopes that something would stick. I find it oddly revolting that if a gang of teenage hoodlums were to enter a school and vandalize it, physically destroying the computers with hammers and spray paint, they would be considered harmless 'wild boys' and probably get a fine. Reform school at most. This is fine by me, however; if a fucking _smart_ kid just _accesses_ the piece of shit PCs that schools use, and alters his grade, then, in most states, that is considered a hideous crime worthy of federal crime. Granted, Phiber did a good deal more than that, but was he a _serious_ criminal? Did he make huge wads of cash? Is he living in some kind of fucking mansion from his vast profits? In my case, I'm disgusted by the data cops making more-or-less harmless rich kids with high-tech and inventive curiosity; perhaps a streak of malice; and too much time, into some kind of demonic threat to the nation. No wonder our smart kids are practically last in the civilized world, when we punish kids for being too smart and throw them in jail for being too dumb, while slashing education budgets. [As the astute reader may have gathered, the Author of this article has, himself, been busted for thoughtcrime; however, he's doing fine now, so don't worry.] Thanks for clearing the issue up, Lex; and consider me in wholehearted agreement. ---- Robert W. F. Clark PGP Key Available Upon Request rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu clark(a)metal.psu.edu

1 0

Clipper and the "Christian Right"
by Jim Huggins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Grendel Grettisson <mimir(a)u.washington.edu> writes: > On Tue, 9 Nov 1993, Clark Reynard wrote: > > I think it would be very important if we could attempt to > > sway the Christian right into this; it is certain we > > probably don't agree on many issues, and the "700 Club" > > anti-Clipper piece was very effective, good video. > For those that watch the 700 Club. Personally, I'm opposed to anything > that gives the Christian Right more power or puts them in the public eye > more given their past track record. You mean "their past track record that I don't agree with." Sure, many excesses have been committed in the name of the "Christian Right" (whatever that is ... I'm supposedly a part of it and I've never seen a coherent definition of what it is). But the "Agnostic Left" has probably committed a few excesses in its day, too. Frankly, a coalition with people from a wide variety of political backgrounds can only help to make the anti-Clipper cause seem more respectible. Otherwise, the anti-Clipper folks might end up sounding like just another liberal protest group, and be treated just like any other lobbying group. > > If you don't believe me, watch it. They almost seem > > to agree with us entirely on the issue of cryptography. > > Perhaps it's time for a _new_ group; the cyphermonks. > > I nominate St. John the Divine as a patron saint. > I thought the Christian Right didn't like Catholics or Saints either. It > is a Protestant movement. Not really. From my experience, the "Christian Right" is composed of conservative Christians -- both Protestant and Catholic. It's only in certain parts of the country where conservative Protestants and Catholics are unfriendly ... --Jim Huggins

1 0

Clipper and the "Christian Right"
by Jim Huggins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Owen Rowley <owen(a)autodesk.com) writes: > > From: Clark Reynard <clark(a)metal.psu.edu> > > I think it would be very important if we could attempt to > > sway the Christian right into this; it is certain we > > probably don't agree on many issues, and the "700 Club" > > anti-Clipper piece was very effective, good video. > meanwhile, don't forget for a second that the christian right > *will* toss your anarchic ass on the pyre where they *will* roast > pagan faggots like myself after they've squeezed you for your > support. > Religion has it's protection clearly enumerated in the constitution, > and a clear agenda to keep everyone elses freedom from being similary > enumerated. > Caveat emptor, and carry a loaded flamethrower, because the first > chance they get to cut you out of the deal you will need it. Oh, come on now. You give the "Christian Right" (and I still don't know what that means) far more power than they have. There is this popular notion that the "Christian Right" has some master agenda that all conservative Christians buy into blindly. That simply ain't so ... just as there isn't a single master cypherpunks agenda agreed on in this list (complaints by Mr. Detweiler notwithstanding). Clark Reynard has rightly pointed out that some in the Christian Right agree with the cypherpunks on the need for legal cryptography and that they might be able to help in the fight against things like Clipper. Why that should bring out deep-seeded hatred against the Christian Right for unrelated offenses or differences of opinion is beyond me. Isn't it enough that we could agree on this one issue? Let's try to make this issue non-partisan, OK? --Jim Huggins

2 1

Fractal cryptography?
by GRABOW_GEOFFREY＠tandem.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greetings all, I've come up with an idea that uses the chaotic nature of fractals to perform some very secure encryption. Does anybody know if this has already been done? The programs I've already written seem to be very secure. Any info is appreciated, G.C.G.

1 0