December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

"Who the hell are CNET?"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:04:16 -0700 From: Rose Aguilar <rosea(a)cnet.com> To: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> Cc: chris_barr(a)cnet.com, fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: "Who the hell are CNET?" For the company explanation go to: http://www.cnet.com/Community/Welcome/About/profile.html Here's my explanation: CNET doesn't compare itself to Microsoft, IBM, or MCI. Do you categorize a "significant industry player" based on its household name and revenue status? CNET has a variety of services...we have 10 Web sites and 4 TV shows...each one has a different goal. CNET doesn't "speak" for the whole Net community. That's not our goal. Our goal is to _provide_ the Net community with various services whether it be reviews, news, TV shows, or commentaries, all of which focus on technology and the Net. That might not be significant to you Phil, but it is to the million+ who use our services. Netizens may not always agree with CNET's stories, reviews, or commentaries...and we welcome opinions. You know the saying: "Negative feedback is better than no feedback." Hope this answers your question. --Rose At 01:29 PM 7/24/97 -0400, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > I've been wondering for some time. Who the hell are CNET? > >I've never heard of them doing anything significant and I have not heard >of them in relation to any significant industry player. They are not >Microsoft, not IBM, not MCI. > >There is a problem, too many people the idea that they are speaking for >the whole net community. Too many people think that because they have >made a paper fortune from the chumps who invest in the stock market that >they are somehow important. > > Phill > > > > > > > *************************** Rose Aguilar CNET Radio Reporter/Producer 150 Chestnut St. San Francisco, CA 94111 415/395-7800 X 1227 Fax: 415/395-7815 http://www.radio.com/ ***************************

1 0

OMNI CARD
by ME 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just got this from last night's edition of "BEYOND 2000" on the discovery channel.... A Eurpoean banking system is experimenting and using a new card they call the OMNI CARD. What this does is provides some form of authentication aside from the PIN number. The procedure: 1) You place your phone call to the bank and make your request. 2) You type in your PIN number into the OMNI card (sort of a hacked calculator card, I suppose) 3) The OMNI card generates a number from this which you verbally read to the bank. 4) The bank clerk responds with a "Challenge Number" which you type into the OMNI card. 5) The OMNI card generates a result from this number which you verbally read to the bank clerk. If all is in check, this is proper authentication of who you are. The purpose is to avoid having to read your actual PIN number aloud, or type it in where someone can see you. The OMNI card uses a random formula to calculate its numbers in conjunction with the challenge number; supposedly this is different for each transaction. A sample number which was displayed was: Challenge Number: 28385180 Result : 572738 The technology was sold to "two major US computer companies" recently. I suppose this is some metamorphicly generated checksum. Until someone gets ahold of one of these OMNI cards and takes it apart... Just FYI...

1 0

Re: modem taps/caller id
by Martin.Greifer＠f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From kumr!toad.com!owner-cypherpunks > Practical Peripherals sells a modem that also captures Caller ID info > and makes it available to your comm program. I've also seen devices > that do this for sale in the back of BBS magazines. The question is, how does a caller block this feature? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 -- Martin Greifer - via FidoNet node 1:125/1 UUCP: ...!uunet!kumr!shelter!28!Martin.Greifer INTERNET: Martin.Greifer(a)f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG

3 2

cypherplonks mailing list
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A couple of weeks ago someone jokingly proposed creating a parallel mailing list for flames, rants, and other non-crypto posts. If that ever happens, I propose calling it the "cypherplonks" mailing list. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199311092038.MAA06532(a)mail.netcom.com> tcmay(a)netcom.com 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). There is absolutely nothing wrong with a local redistribution of a mailing list. It probably isn't bidirectional, but even if it is, so what? What you're really saying is you don't want too many people reading who you can't keep tabs on, isn't it? Or are you really just rankled that *Sternlight* can read cypherpunks and you won't know about it? I guess that must be it because we've *lots* of local redistributions signed up for this list. (Anyone who wants to see the complete direct membership list merely has to telnet to toad.com's smtp port and EXPN the real list name) I have a great deal of sympathy about 'private space', but if you want to make this list in some way semi-private, then you *must* issue a policy notice when anyone signs on the list, saying what the conditions are, eg that it is not to be quoted in other forums or reposted to local lists etc. Otherwise people (unethical people, I mean) can do what they like with our posts whether we approve or not. I could show you some of the warnings I've seen elsewhere, except I'd be in breach of those lists rules by reposting them :) [no, really, I just don't have one handy...] In fact, the truly paranoid would make list membership a two-stage process where you first sent out the rules, then waited for a mail accepting them... I *don't* advicate this course by the way. I'm happy with things as they are, until DS turns up :-) Graham

1 0

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