December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Spotlight
by dmandl＠lehman.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: wcs(a)anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart(a)pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204) > The Spotlight *used* to be a really revolting rag; some people I was > talking to recently who were selling it said they've tried to get rid > of the anti-Semitism and racist hate stuff that the Carto folks were pushing > and concentrate more on Truth (or whatever the conspiracy-wacko version of > Truth is at any given time :-). I didn't buy their magazine to find out > if it's really improved or if they're just saying it, but it was nice to > hear them say it. Bill-- Far as I know, things haven't really changed. What the Spotlight and other papers/organizations like it have been doing recently is trying to clean up their public image to gain respectability and a wider audience (look at David Duke himself, for example). They've been fairly successful, unfortunately. There's been an increased interest in the last few years in conspiracy theories and the like (an interest I share), and as a result the readership of papers like the Spotlight has been growing. I think that if you flipped through a copy of the Spotlight today, you'd merely get the impression that they're healthy skeptics trying to expose the misdeeds of the government and other evil conspirators. Fair enough. But their real agenda hasn't changed. My analysis: The recent growth of these organizations shows that there's been a real increase in interest in anarchistic ideas and distrust of authority among the general public. Good news. The bad news is that there are various vermin waiting in the wings to take advantage of people's openness to new and "radical" ideas. Caveat emptor. > The other magazine called "Spotlight" I've run into is the New Jersey > Symphony Orchestra's program handout, truly a hotbed of radical > something-or-other-ism :-) Sounds dangerous to me. I'd watch out. --Dave.

2 1

Re: DId you ever think...
by joshua geller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

more paranoid than I like to get.... josh ___ > Did anyone ever think that maybe, just maybe, PGP was developed, and before the > programmer started giving it away for free, that he was paid by the government > to give them the key which can unlock ANY PGP locked document/file/etc??? I > mean, wasn't it kind of surprising that the government would make such a big > deal over this? To make hackers/phreakers in general think that this was the > greatest encryption scheme available today for free (the programmer was paid > to distribute his software for free, seeing that the sum was sizable), they > made an act by (i don't know the specifics) arresting him, telling him to stop > distributing, etc... Makes you wonder huh... It's possible. Maybe he wrote in > the PGP program a loophole in the encryption so that he could decrypt anything > that was encrypted by PGP. Maybe he is big brother. Maybe big brother is > running him... I mean, has anyone ever gone thru the entire source code and > checked if this PGP is a valid encryption scheme, or just the gov't slipping > in their clipper thing without us knowing it. Reply here--no email please... > > The Devils Advocate, and preventing the Government Anarchy, > Farmer Pete >

1 0

THE FREEDOM DAEMON
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

THIS ARTICLE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. I WILL NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE USE OR MISUSE OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE. I would like to introduce new terms & a new concept. The terms are "RECHATTERER", "RECHAT", & "CHATTERBOX" (with a new meaning). The idea i analogous to the remailer concept. Remailers are series of mailing software machines that hide the location & identity of the sender of a file. This is a very good idea for privacy & freedom on the Internet. An overlooked necessity for the Internet are retransmitters for both CHAT MODE & for the sending of commands. Note: Latter in this text, I'll introduce the term "FREEDOM DAEMON". File transfers cannot replace the need for the interactive chat mode & for command transmits. Hence, the need for CHATTERBOXES. The need for chat mode security is obvious. The need for command retransmitters is less obvious & has great possibilities. With command retransmitters much internet activity could be done without disclosing the location of the worker. Consider the possibility of telnets assisted with CHATTERBOXES. With CHATTERBOXES almost no Internet activity need give away the location of the worker. This of course would raise the safety level of hackers/crackers by at least a magnitude. This would of course raise concerns for computing safety on the Internet. On the other hand, hacking/cracking may be necessary for the future freedom of the Internet. The Feds are currently trying to hijack the Internet with their Information Highway fraud. The Feds will try to regulate the Internet traffic. I find it difficult to believe that they would tolerate the existence of remailers. How secure are remailers? Are they easy to find? With CHATTERBOXES, much of the danger of establishing remailers in the future could be avoided. Could the establishment of remailers be auto- mated with programmed CHATTERBOXES doing the work? I suggest the possi- bility of mainframe hacking as a method of secretly making outlaw re- mailers. I got this idea from a book carried by Loompanics. The excerpt follows. "One way to get around this problem - & to simultaneously overcome many of the problems that arise when one sets up a BBS - is to use your hacking skills to break into a mainframe far away from your house, & use IT for the site of your electronic bulletin board." From the book, SECRETS OF A SUPERHACKER by The Knightmare. Published & distributed by Loompanics Unlimited. Loompanics Unlimited PO Box 1197 Port Townsend, Wa 98368 Current(April 22, 1994) price of their main catalog is $5.00. Loompanics is a great book distributor & publisher that I have used for many years. It carries books on many unusual topics. For instance if you wanted a textbook on murder, terrorism, homemade explosives, writ- ing computer viruses, hacking computers, making recreational drugs, life extension, weird science, conspiracies, torture, or brain & mind improvement then I perceive you have a need for the Loompanics catalog. They also have other exciting categories as well. But back to the subject. I thought it was a fantastic idea to hijack the resources of a foreign computer & use them for a pirate BBS. The same thing should be able to be done with remailers & CHATTERBOXES. Another idea I have for fighting off the possibility of technological capture of the Internet by the Feds is the idea of the "FREEDOM DAEMON". A FREEDOM DAEMON could be thought of as a CHATTERBOX with the following capabilities added: 1. A remailer 2. Virus capabilities. It reproduces itself. 3. Worm capabilities. It is self contained in its code. 4. Trojan horse capabilities. It plants itself in foreign computers like a daemon or software service machine. 5. Ability to take orders from its parent or another ancestor FREEDOM DAEMON, or its original human programmer or by certified users. Order taking would be authorized by an RSA encryption scheme. 6. Ability to be interrogated by its parent or another ancestor FREEDOM DAEMON or its human programmer, or by certified users through an RSA scheme. Note: It may carry several keys for different levels of security access. 7. It may contain histories of its ancestors or progeny or both. The histories would require access by RSA keys. 8. It may contain genetic algorithms as it may meet with a lot of state hostility in the form of destruction by human & programmed hunters. The genetic algorithms could create more worthy FREEDOM DAEMONS. I have suggested that the use of FREEDOM DAEMONS would be to per- petuate remailers, CHATTERBOXES, & themselves. I think that the thought- ful Cypherpunk could think up a number of other uses. In the near future the Internet could lose much of its freedom & could become a more dan- gerous place for freedom lovers. CHATTERBOXES & FREEDOM DAEMONS with their ability to enable the Cypherpunk to send commands, do telnets, & perform other functions without disclosing his location could enable the Cypherpunk to manufacture other freedom software machines with at least a magnitude of safety greater than he had before. Who would program the CHATTERBOXES & FREEDOM DAEMONS? My first idea is to the guys who are programming remailers. Those unsung, unpaid heroes who are much like Dr. Frankenstein, working away on his big guy. Hackers & Crackers should have a certain taste & experience with the activities needed. It should provide a field day for computer science types & cryptographers. Creative "wild idea" people could help. OTHER THOUGHTS How do hackers & crackers get caught? Could Cypherpunk technology keep them safe? Imagine hackers/crackers with CHATTERBOXES & FREEDOM DAEMONS & digital reputations who don't know each other's true names & have no idea of each other's true locations. - hence unable to betray each other. Weak hacker/crackers would not endanger their strong asso- ciates. A chain only as strong as it's strongest link? Could they be as safe as their strongest technology? Right now, captured hacker/crackers roll over on their associates, their mothers, & their pet dogs. We as Cypherpunks can help to stop this carnage. Note that we Cypherpunks are politicos & made of sterner stuff. I also don't want to characterize ALL hacker/crackers as weak. By now, many Cypherpunks are asking themselves just what the fuck I am doing concerning myself with the welfare of hacker/crackers & implying that Cypherpunks should do the same. Cypherpunks are saying aren't these people sort of well - UNSAVORY? - I have never tasted them. But on a more serious note: in a future Internet ravaged by state power grabs, many Cypherpunks may be in the position of today's hacker/crackers & may have their security concerns. Today, Cypherpunks write code, tomorrow they hack/crack? Wouldn't this proposed technology turn the Internet into the Wild West? Yes, it would. On Internet chat, there is a channel called #freedom. On this channel for years the people have chatted to each other in code. They talk quickly & seem to be unimpeded by the code. Well, I guess "we've" already gotten coded on the fly Iinternet chat. Well, Cypherpunks, I've been up to enough today. Maybe tomorrow I'll discuss my BLACK NET PEACE CORE plans. In the meantime- PUSH EM BACK! PUSH EM BACK! WWWAAAYYY BBBAAACCCKKKK! BBBEEEAAATTTT STATE! Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers

2 1

Re: cryptophone ideas
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:09 AM 04/22/94 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Let me be blunt. You aren't going to deploy a complete new cellular Do we have to? >phone system on your own. If you do think you are, you have lost your Obviously. >mind. You can't just hack a CDMA or similar phone to make it secure -- >the other end has to be speaking the same protocol. The other end is a >very expensive station built and paid for by your local cellular >provider which is unlikely to be easily modified by you the customer. Obviously. >You aren't going to be able to run your own cellphone system, either. Depends on how rich I get soon ;) >Perry I am not sure if I am not explaining myself clearly or if you are being intentionally dense. The point is that if we know our stuff, have way too much liesure time and are dedicated to difficult solutions, my cellular and your cellular could be hacked to make use of the DSP as a co/dec for what ever we wish it to. The rebroadaster, central switcher, etc have nothing to do with it- they don't particularly care if they are transmitting ramblings from your mother or your voice reversed in half second snips or a Madonna song. Obviously, analog transmission techniques make, say, a PGPPhone unworkable (even is someone was bored enough to port it to a DSP :), but scrambling and reassempling an analogue stream has nothing to do with the relay and could theoretically be performed by the telephones themselves. Note that I am making no case for this being in the least bit practical- I can think of much better thigns to do with my time. -j

2 1

Re: THE FREEDOM DAEMON
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gary Jeffers proposes a system to perform remailing and chat-session relay which, among other proposed features, propagates itself by virus and worm approaches; the important issue is not the precise semantics of the differences, but that the thing tries to spread itself and run without the help or even permission of the owners of the machines it tries to run on. This is bad. It's offensive to try and run your stuff on people's machines without asking them or informing them. It can break stuff, it can hog their resources for your application (which is no more pro-freedom than having them hog your resources wihtout permission), and it's *so bloody unnecessary*! If you make a system that's easy to install and propagates information about how to get a copy of it (e.g. by sending header or signature lines in any mail it remails), then you can still propagate your software, but you can do it as a good guy rather than a bad guy. I have no more desire to have a "FREEDOM VIRUS" appear on my systems than a "BIG BROTHER VIRUS". Bill

2 1

RE: DId you ever think...
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jeff Davis No I didn't. I'll see Phil Zimmerman tomorrow in Boulder. I'm sure he'll find your conjecture ludicrous. ................................................... What is PZ doing in Boulder tomorrow? Besides that ludicrous conjecture, what others will you be discussing with him? Blanc

1 0

Secure Hash Standard (SHS/SHA) Broken by NSA
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just received a NIST Media Advisory (April 22, 1994, contact Anne Enright Shepherd). I'll pick out some sample sentences: NIST ANNOUNCES TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO SECURE HASH STANDARD ----------------------------------------------------------- The National Institute of Standards and Technology today announced it will initiate a technical modification to a computer security standard used to support the authentication of electronic messages. The revision will correct a minor flaw that government mathematicians discovered in a formula that underlies the standard. ... remains a highly secure way to ensure integrity of ... NIST expects that products implementing the current standard can be used until the technical correction becomes effective. Researchers at the National Security Agency, who developed the formula and discovered the flaw in a continuing evaluation process, now believe that although the forumla in FIPS 180 is less secure than originally thought, it is still extremely reliable as a technical computer security mechanism. The discovery of this flaw indicates the value of continued research on existing and new standards. ... It goes on to describe the standard in general terms and NIST's role. There's no quantification about how badly it's broken in terms of (say) effective number of bits of protection; seems logical that it's pretty severe (i.e. well under 160) if it's bad enough for them to go public with the fix. Know any other existing or new standards that could use continued research? Jim Gillogly 1 Thrimidge S.R. 1994, 23:07

1 0

Did you ever think...
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Did anyone ever think that maybe, just maybe, PGP was developed, and > before the programmer started giving it away for free, that he was > paid by the government to give them the key which can unlock ANY PGP > locked document/file/etc??? No.

1 0

Liberty net?
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Did anyone on this group give my email address to some pyramid-subscription scheme called 'Liberty net'? I'd quite like to know which of my 'friends' (as it says in the advert) was responsible... Thanks G

1 0

ViaCrypt PGP and Linux
by markh＠wimsey.bc.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Subject: ViaCrypt PGP and Linux A short note to say that the SCO version of ViaCrypt PGP for Unix works under the latest version of the ibcs emulator for Linux. If you have ViaCrypt PGP for Unix and want to give this a try, you need a recent Linux kernel (1.0+), and the following file available by anon ftp tsx-11.mit.edu:/pub/linux/ALPHA/ibcs-940422.tar.gz Be sure to get this version, and not one of the earlier versions. Disclaimers 1. My only connection with ViaCrypt is as a customer. 2. This message is provided _AS IS_. In particular, this may not work for you. I assume no responsibility for actions you may take partially or wholly based on this message, even if I have been negligent in some way by posting this message or not correctly verifying the content of this message. In other words, if you buy ViaCrypt PGP for Unix based on the fact that you believe you'll be able to run the SCO binary, and you can't make it work, don't come crying to me saying that you spent money based on my message. Fact is, it works for me, but that is all I'm saying. Sorry to be so pedantic, but given the way the world of Linux is, I'd be a fool not to say it. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.4 iQBVAgUBLbidJGrJdmD9QWqxAQE1TAH/YwraTeBpVr9D9GWzzO9z4cBBOdmSrQOJ Ts5UpeuOqj4qKNKg4SCE6WJ0SmXrAulOjAYaXEKwxjb6Ljn941U0vg== =VJ9t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Mark Henderson markh(a)wimsey.bc.ca - RIPEM MD5: F1F5F0C3984CBEAF3889ADAFA2437433 ViaCrypt PGP key fingerprint: 21 F6 AF 2B 6A 8A 0B E1 A1 2A 2A 06 4A D5 92 46 low security key fingerprint: EC E7 C3 A9 2C 30 25 C6 F9 E1 25 F3 F5 AF 92 E3 cryptography archive maintainer -- anon ftp to ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:/pub/crypto

1 0