December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

MacPGP Help Needed
by MWayne＠eworld.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Greetings-- I am trying to add a key to my public ring..when I indicate which text file to read, I get an ewrror message...as follows: > No keys found in 'Spectrum:Desktop Folder:Untitled 1'. > Keyring add error. > For a usage summary, type: pgp -h > For more detailed help, consult the PGP User's Guide. I am using MacPGP 2.3 (v1.05), the file is a text file, the key was generated with the ViaCrypt version of PGP Thanks in advance - --Mitch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLcgc1TIAcJ9oIU2VAQF1PwP+MpLtaa/+Qn2FV4UtobQSve4L0Sg+daGK vYxbvzdtBlk83LYH8Lm1zE1xXmet5mqND0uvaJVZvXI9iFKcNOZ8vBmg/GKCdGOe reoACv8cgIdl5uWo/yP5LwWAdVsDawelOl+fnw7/KIl8+IUmL4eJ99QagI0QynHm Kve9LHuJIb4= =RyJ+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3 mQCPAi2eV7AAAAEEAM2RhjhZynZHT7jCXVFTuJLsoq0OIiEgI/bSsPyrkZK8Y4Lt YZRSimv1Z3sX+pswbMuIIzxxUjAtlm3ICEHxXlNDhULphLqYCoMnodtwJNqxYZ9V qmSyndYs8CHuoTjBSjvQjmEgtrgC+RTzRI07p+EXOPSD9Ba3JDIAcJ9oIU2VABEB AAG0H01pdGNoIFdheW5lIDxNV2F5bmVAZVdvcmxkLmNvbT6JAJUCBRAtvgRS/O3L BWk4oUkBAesLA/0bB9RaUb1FWpi2wFZBnT/Ee/mpHPAlEU7KaqXppPYmdt592TN6 J5S95iXKBCz4YXw4mvaBQX6xB9aeFotKNlxDrUOO9EIEnyeLxRHNy7rVT/VPfCVt 8GZo8O3JFdmphqpoBhWdxtatbE1MJxj1AI0DSvd0viZeQqf3Qvbg3cyhMIkAlQIF EC2372oyAHCfaCFNlQEBRGoEAIeL9+jJiVCtMpbS0jXfJdGG9HcFXBnkOklg3XYc cHNwo+z4BbbxmBzRLToztmtfHIfZ9urebu4kbCUG3F3kkXawSbd4fn/bsYpyfBaO sUfaRSeBtK2yPh4LlW0yVdDZhDzAjpX51Lu5SF+vbs9yC0vHlGJ1ArurzRCvowUa xOATtCdNaXRjaCBXYXluZSA8NzEyNDEuMzUzNEBjb21wdXNlcnZlLmNvbT60HU1p dGNoIFdheW5lIDxNSFdheW5lQGFvbC5jb20+ =m2yi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Keyserver service outage
by MWayne＠eworld.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- OK--so what about those of us who use MacPGP 2.3? Is there a new version 2.5 for Mac? If so where do I get it if I can't ftp to a site (sorry folks...don't hate me 'cause I don't have full Net access (yet!!))... - --Mitch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLciSCzIAcJ9oIU2VAQEOGwP/bnX4Y/E2mPkPJdGmE1RXDMrLObrEtS19 XtrPVoAb3cZyqXE2IK9wWpBe65TwuMD8SxSk//hEe6Mw2j+mWoDOfOCwYAII+F86 wpuHdTLnDxThS109H5VyvH++g1/+n6xpAcAZFs4KILnLjXwcJMBabrnGDTjuS/Ld D76Ny9wKPiQ= =VYWy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3 mQCPAi2eV7AAAAEEAM2RhjhZynZHT7jCXVFTuJLsoq0OIiEgI/bSsPyrkZK8Y4Lt YZRSimv1Z3sX+pswbMuIIzxxUjAtlm3ICEHxXlNDhULphLqYCoMnodtwJNqxYZ9V qmSyndYs8CHuoTjBSjvQjmEgtrgC+RTzRI07p+EXOPSD9Ba3JDIAcJ9oIU2VABEB AAG0H01pdGNoIFdheW5lIDxNV2F5bmVAZVdvcmxkLmNvbT6JAJUCBRAtvgRS/O3L BWk4oUkBAesLA/0bB9RaUb1FWpi2wFZBnT/Ee/mpHPAlEU7KaqXppPYmdt592TN6 J5S95iXKBCz4YXw4mvaBQX6xB9aeFotKNlxDrUOO9EIEnyeLxRHNy7rVT/VPfCVt 8GZo8O3JFdmphqpoBhWdxtatbE1MJxj1AI0DSvd0viZeQqf3Qvbg3cyhMIkAlQIF EC2372oyAHCfaCFNlQEBRGoEAIeL9+jJiVCtMpbS0jXfJdGG9HcFXBnkOklg3XYc cHNwo+z4BbbxmBzRLToztmtfHIfZ9urebu4kbCUG3F3kkXawSbd4fn/bsYpyfBaO sUfaRSeBtK2yPh4LlW0yVdDZhDzAjpX51Lu5SF+vbs9yC0vHlGJ1ArurzRCvowUa xOATtCdNaXRjaCBXYXluZSA8NzEyNDEuMzUzNEBjb21wdXNlcnZlLmNvbT60HU1p dGNoIFdheW5lIDxNSFdheW5lQGFvbC5jb20+ =m2yi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Keyserver service outRAGE
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)access.digex.net> : This is silly. : Why a server would want to use licensed code is understandable. : Why a server would try to restrict keys generated by versions other : than 2.4 & the mysterious 2.5 is moronic. They were told to as part of the deal to get the license. : I will not use this server regardless of which version I have and use, : and I urge others to resist the use of this server as well. : This policy only serves to create suspicion and drain confidence in : versions of PGP over 2.3a. No no, you missed the point! 2.5 will be made *public*! It's not another private viacrypt job. : I ask the following questions: : Will source code be available for PGP2.5? Of course. : Who was responsible for the modifications that make PGP2.5, version 2.5? : I ask the operators of the remaining servers to remove the MIT server : from their automatic mirror update list and to avoid a policy of excluding : keys generated by any "non-conforming" software in their own operations. I don't think they'll listen. They understand the politics better than you do. : I ask users of PGP not to add future keys to the offending server. Why? Add it to any one and it'll end up there. : I call on cypherpunks to estlablish less formal key servers and develop : more stealthy and secure methods of key distribution. Now you're just talking crap. Uni, hush now, shut up, and listen. You've entirely missed the point here. This is a major tactical strike for pgp. We finally have an entirely legal pgp, thanks to some excellent net.politics from the guys at MIT. The restriction on what new keys they accept was part of the deal, but stop and think what it really means - is it going to affect *anybody*? And what's to stop you fetching 2.5 and loading/re-dumping your old key from that version? This is *good news*, and we don't need any half-cocked wallies spreading FUD over what is the best thing to happen to pgp ever. G

1 0

Re: Anonymous phone calls.
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Is there any way to make a phone call anonymously? Caller ID can be >> blocked somewhat with one of those *## numbers dialed before the call >> is made. Is there a way to route a call through a series of phone-type >> remailer systems? This would allow one to make a call that would be as >> hard to trace as anonymous mail. > There's a 1-900 number that is supposed to do this. > Which I could remember what it was. I think it's 1-900-STOPPER. Not sure, use it at your own risk. Routing calls through many locations is possible if you aren't wound up about toll fraud; once upon a time it was SOP, back when MCI and the rest all had 7-digit local dialups which gave you another dialtone; folks who wanted to make tracing a call tougher could call a local dialup, use a "k0de" and call a dialup across the country, use a "k0de" to call a third dialup, and so forth; finally use another "k0de" to call the real target. Signal quality decreases with each hop. I imagine that folks still do this with PBX's and the like, though my impression is that there isn't much left for a phreak to do these days. Don't forget our friend Mister Payphone. Not stylish, but still relatively anonymous. Also useful may be the pre-paid calling cards; Pat Townson (sp?), the Telecom Digest moderator, was selling them for awhile. I understand they're also available in truck stops and on college campuses, but can't remember seeing them. (Haven't gone looking, though). I've got a few of the ones that Pat was selling left, if anyone wants to pony up some Tacky Tokens. The ones I've seen involve an 800 number, so somebody knows you made the call - but if it's a peculiar little reseller connected to an aggregator who buys time from whoever's got it cheapest, it may be hard to track them down to make them talk. And, of course, there are any number of ways to "borrow" a phone with varying degrees of legality/morality - lots of places around town here have "courtesy phones" where you can make a local call; just ask a salesperson in a department store, or look around at a university. If you've got a lineman's set - or a cheap $10 phone with alligator clips instead of an RJ-11, any phone line can be yours, for a few minutes. I guess the short answer is that the really anonymous ways aren't convenient or legal, if it's a long-distance call. Remember, blocking caller ID means that the called party doesn't know who called, but the phone company still does. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLcjbqX3YhjZY3fMNAQHszQP/VFbx/H7wIHTgo0q1cs7KtWL7BDaaNCMH TF5xjGCYnnvJiCblw4uPjiMsHMwq01fO8duqD6H5+9KtBtAG8dEAD9IMUTITS+/3 mE2mGNRYI9xpIyzCLevTC5llTRIMhHhx/XweWtuJyf3vJzlwkRH7s8VHAdSeoO08 73Vj8XCcszU= =YjOb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Anonymous phone calls.
by daily%cbpi.UUCP＠DMC.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Is there any way to make a phone call anonymously? Caller ID can be >blocked somewhat with one of those *## numbers dialed before the call >is made. Is there a way to route a call through a series of phone-type >remailer systems? This would allow one to make a call that would be as >hard to trace as anonymous mail. > Any ideas? < G.C.G. The best way to make a truly anonymous call is to hack a pbx. Most of them have a feature(This feature is turned off by default on AT&T pbx) that allows you to call into the pbx from any phone and get a second dial tone. Sometimes there is a code(4-8 digits on AT&T) you must enter to get the second dial tone. Also, you might have to dial the trunk access code (usually 8 or 9) to get an outside dial tone. The first dialtone lets you enter an extension # in the pbx. The reason that this is the best way is because if you are using a 900 service to make the anon call, you get billed at the number you are calling from, so if there were a trap on the line you were calling, they'd have the 900 service provider's number, the 900 service provider would have your number, and you'd no longer be anonymous. With the pbx hack, the likely hood of a trap being on this line is next to nothing. If there were a trap on the number you were making the anon call to, they would only get the number of the trunk that your call left the pbx on, not the number you were calling from. jim(a)cbpi.com

1 0

MFC, was [Visual Basic (yes, Basic!), and "VBX" tools
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message Wed, 4 May 94 13:36:38 -0700, hughes(a)ah.com (Eric Hughes) writes: >> fortuitous decision to incoporate Windows "foundation classes" (a C++ >> notion, of course) into Visual Basic > > Classes are C++. Foundation classes are Microsoft Foundation Classes, > are just a large library that Microsoft wrote which is also included > in the C++ compiler products. It is correct that MFC is simply a set of C++ classes, which are included (and their source) in the Microsoft Visual C++ environments for Windows and Windows NT. But there are significances to MFC that should be mentioned. (They are also included in the Samatec [sic] compiler products. Probably others RSN) First, MFC (and related parts of MSVC) makes writing Windows applications orders of magnitude easier than using the old SDK approach. Just as with the Borland class suite, no one who has used MFC will ever go back to hand-coding SDK calls, except for the occasional wild hack. Secondly, and IMHO more importantly, MFC 2.5 makes it easy to write OLE 2.0 compliant applications. OLE is the foundation of Microsoft's "component software development" approach (see last month's Byte for a good overview). OLE is how Microsoft expects folks to hook applications together in a seemless way. OLE is used currently in Office to make Word, Excel and Powerpoint interoperate transparently, and its use will grow when Chicago is released (RSN, I know) With little work, a programmer should be able to make an OLE server that allows users to drop Word, Excel, or other documents into an "encryption server" or write an OLE client that uses the server. Most of this can also be done with Visual Basic, which is a cool tool. But Visual C++ is still C, so it makes grabing parts of PGP or PGPTools and building them into the servers and clients is much more "native" Thirdly, MFC effectively isolates the programmer from the OS. As a long time assembly hacker, I wasn't too keen on this. But MFC makes porting trivial for most Windows and Windows for Workstations (aka NT) apps, and RSN we are supposed to get MFC for the Macintosh. This will cover some huge portion of the desktop computing universe. Once you are above 95% of the market, I don't care about arguing the last percent or two. For those on this list that like to "write code" and speak some C or C++ I strongly recommend looking at Visual C++ and MFC. At $129 for the "competitive upgrade" it is even pretty cheap. Please followup off list if you need more info, like recommended configurations, etc. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)cs.gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: The Value of Money
by werner＠mc.ab.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 17:24:13 -0400 (EDT) >From: Llywelyn <samman(a)CS.YALE.EDU> > >Unless of course you have a $ bill that is a specie note. I have a few ten >dollar bills that state that they are redeemable for specie. I have some funny money, myself. I have several of the original federal reserve notes, that came out after the U.S. went off the silver standard. They look just like a silver certificate, except they say they are redeemable in "lawful money" instead of "silver". A couple of years later, once the fuss had died down, they changed them to say that they ARE "lawful money". Of course, if you took one of the original federal reserve notes to a federal reserve bank to redeem it, they just gave you another one, but the impression they gave the public was that you COULD get silver (i.e., what the public considered to be "lawful money") if you really wanted it. I had an interesting experience in the late '70s with a torn $50 bill. A friend's pit bull had chewed it, but it was mostly still there. Neither of us had a bank account, as we were trying to pretend we were bigshots (no paper trails, etc.). Since I was travelling occasionally to Wash, DC, I told him I could take it to the treasury department and get a good one. They took the bill away from me, and gave me a check for $50! I had to get my girlfriend to cash it. tw

1 0

Re: EFF Summary of May 3 1994 Clipper and Digital Telephony Hearings
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr. Farber suggested that at >the very least Congress weld into law a guarantee that Clipper remain >voluntary, that the Judiciary be an escrow holder. He cautioned, in the >words of Benjamin Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to >obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin also said, "Three can keep a secret if two are dead."

1 0

Re: Clipper and Congress
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

><In mail Stanton McCandlish said:> > >> Unlike the Senate panel, there seemed to be some support for the Clipper >> proposal on the House Subcommittee. Rep. Dan Glickman (D-KS), > > I wonder if these Representatives (and Senators for that matter) would be > so supportive of Clipper if they were reminded that for it to be effective > even THEY would have to have the chip on THEIR HOME PHONES, THEIR OFFICE > PHONES, THEIR CELLULAR PHONES... > > I doubt many Congressional members are "clean" enough to support a chip > with such a threat over their lives. > > "Hey, Rep. Joe Smith, did you know that if someone wanted to make a few > dollars they could get the key from escrow and blackmail you about that > affair you've been having!?" > > Just a thought > Jim > At one of the earlier CSSPAB board meetings, a bunch of law enforcement officers came to speak about Clipper. They pointed out that 13 states do not allow their state and local police to use wiretaps. Some officers surmised that this was because wiretaps are really valuable in cases of bribery and corruption. I.e. where crimes can be committed through talking. >-- > Tantalus Inc. Jim Sewell Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ > P.O. Box 2310 Programmer Internet: jims(a)mpgn.com > Key West, FL 33045 C-Unix-PC Compu$erve: 71061,1027 > (305)293-8100 PGP via email on request. > 1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3 C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73

1 0

Re: The Value of Money
by joshua geller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The idea is to create a unit of currency whose value is convenient for > typical transactions. Some amount that is easily grasped by the average > person. Originally the US dollar was 1/20th of an ounce of gold. That > amount of gold, today, has the buying power of US$18, or so. A bag of > groceries more or less. The amount of gold determines the total value of > the money supply, but the number of people and transactions in which it > must take part determines the number and denomination of bills and coins > to be printed and minted. in 1875 you could get a colt .45 for a $20 gold piece. you still can. I am sort of confused by all these folks talking about precious metals as if they still have something directly to do with currency. I thought they hadn't for some decades. josh

1 0