December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Guerrilla remailers revisited
by skaplin＠skypoint.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This idea was buried in the "Rae" thread and I thought it deserved a life of its own. As we have found out, the freenets use an interface called "FREEPORT." To myself and many others this software is a mystery. I am wondering if it is possible to call procmail via a .forward file under Freeport. If this is possible, why couldn't someone write a .procmailrc file to sanitize the headers. If this was written properly, all you should have to do is drop procmail, the .procmailrc file and the .forward file in place and the remailer is up and running. The key here is will freeport call procmail through a .forward file (or some reasonable facsimile.) The downside is I only have one account which I am able to run procmail on. This account is presently acting as a forwarding mechanism for pgp-public-keys(a)c2.org and my auto-responder. Because of this I can't write and debug the recipe. Happy Holidays, Sam ============================================================================== Lawyer.....One who protects us against robbery by taking away the temptation. --H. L Mencken-- ============================================================================== skaplin(a)skypoint.com | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard | outside a Roman brothel. PGP encrypted mail is accepted and | preferred. | Change is the only constant in the | Universe..."Four quarters, please." E-mail key(a)four11.com for PGP Key or | Finger skaplin(a)mirage.skypoint.com | Smile!! Big brother is watching. ============================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: This message digitally signed to verify the identity of the sender iQEVAwUBLvdDD8lnXxBRSgfNAQGdvwf9FAv+TvZmhEnQvchjpeN8jqm4HFNl3MX8 el/253qggYr+LJf0GaG5POkWv21oU2RU8K1h7ICGasxctNaZwqsZxuOJJAjF77Tg DdxWZ4gEGXJ8g5LkPOLN/HyWyqb2r7JOxbNt8fFRHrTAYtFD1n76QHsrzfQXRkTJ 8FKTuk/BY9hjPmrc67dsx67TdQfePfEYVevtRXLLn6G3rQkC0TuLOAtO3cfhwnaJ 8pxYoOjwSpd1Cc/02QMErBrcalJMlJOvjMih/M7pK8QMckkTYve6uZ1bq3z4vFsT wLLmp+v1jCimp0OMaVF2QHyIt+tIPggh5Q67rmndz3wkOzG7KVOO4A== =j2iT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Anon remailer on new ISP ?
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Recycled PGP sig header above :-) >Great ! Two quick reactions: > [] Would it be possible to run an anon-http server on it ? > [] If you start a remailer-friendly site, I'd be very surprised if > no-one here wanted to get an account there and establish a Windows > NT remailer, written from scratch if necessary.... > I expect it will be a remailer-friendly site - the other two guys are even less computer-literate than I am, so I get to be the IS Manager :-/ If the NT-based tools were available, I'd be agreeable (even enthusiastic) about setting up "independent" remailers on it (ie, Tim's Remailer-in-a-box [my box, but what the heck :-]). We're looking at calling the site genisys.net, so additional remailers could be remailer(a)vogon.com, remailer(a)flatulnt.com, or whatever. Hell, if all folks wanted was a remailer, I might even be convinced to offer remailer-only accounts at a discount :-) I'm still looking into what kind of magic I need to invoke to get it to all happen in the right order (IP address, then register the domain, do them in parallel, or ???. Any rules/restrictions on what we can call our site (we'll be incorporated, but can we call the site ???.net/org/???], etc.). ObQuestion: whyfor isn't toad set up so that the default reply-to address is the CP list, vice the originator? Recycled signature follows for the benefit of the toad (easier to recycle them than do them from scratch on a plain-Windows box) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLvd8tmf7YYibNzjpAQEJGgP+NmDO/UKwXGPC2XcuEJLUQ78T4auvna+l ia5RNXEUVpXVlRrXgARxwN+gnh7AMxBLNNGBZUbawrlwcef8/olb5D7+y5tGp2ja RSbWhwmrOzl2dc/dCJ7fxlsvDc0r0z3/5v0TvYEU+ju3HOP2NoJ5pEl7uVttndqY eyPzdoZTfL8= =KrKW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)fohnix.metronet.com for PGP public key and fingerprint. PGP encrypted Email welcome, encouraged, and preferred. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

1 0

Re: c'punks top 5
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:30 PM 12/20/94, Adam Shostack wrote: [> someone else I've lost wrote:] >| A proxy server for HTTP transport so that one could access the web >| anonymously. I don't think coding is the problem here; one could be >| easily hacked out in perl, or you could use CERN HTTPD as a proxy >| server. I think the problem is finding someone who will offer up their >| machine as a place to run this service. > > It might also be nice to encrypt the connection from client to >proxy. Otherwise, this service only protects you from the server >knowing who you are. If you add encryption, then it begins to offer >anonymity agianst people watching the proxy. (Assuming there are >multiple connections to the proxy.) > >Adam Yeah, and ideally the software would allow "chaining" through several anon-proxy-servers, similar to what you can do with the remailers. I think that would give you just about the most security you could expect from such a set-up.

1 0

HTTP redirectors
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I posted some experiments on this a few weeks ago. Some existing web proxies, at least the one at CERN, will accept connections from anyone. Set your proxy server to one of those and you have a bit of anonymity already. There is a problem with trying to get much more anonymity than this - most connections are for a very short period. So there is not as much possibility for batching and mixing as with remailers. Only those connections which are actually active at the same moment could have their in/out mapping confused from the perspective of someone watching the redirector site. So generally our goals have to be somewhat more limited than with remailers. The way proxies work, as I understand it, is that normally when you connect to, say, http://site.org/dir/file.html, it connects to the special port number for http at site.org, then sends it the remainder of the URL, dir/file.html. When you use a proxy, it always connects to the proxy machine, then sends the whole URL (possibly not including the http:, I forget), e.g. site.org/dir/file.html. This way the proxy knows where you want to connect and does that for you. The nice thing about this is that it is already built in to most clients. The bad thing is that it does not lend itself to chaining. Ideally, the purpose of chaining is so that no single link in the chain knows both ends. That way no one person can betray your trust. But with the current client software the very first proxy server sees both your address and your destination, so even if it went on to set up a chain you would have to trust it. One idea that was suggested here would be to have a local proxy process, a very simple one which your fancy client connected to for all your net accesses. This would be where you would implement encryption, or new protocols for chaining, etc. This way we don't have to try to persuade client writers to incorporate our improvements; the existing proxy support provides the loophole we need. One nice feature, for example, would be a full 128 bit IDEA or RC4 encryption engine so that overseas Netscape users (or domestic ones who are stuck with crippled versions) can get good security. However, running this kind of local proxy or a general chaining proxy does require root access. Most systems will not let you create a low-numbered socket unless you are root. So this is not something which people will be able to do from their user accounts. Hal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBVAwUBLvdN/RnMLJtOy9MBAQG4RAIAk6ngvAJvwagoMMyejrvUOJCLQ7Z1CSfm AatsyVIim9++Ehs8wMEXRRyAKp+7/tcOxC0B4f4jk2dqamsZl0YJew== =OQsA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

NYT on Sonofusion
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Malcolm Browne writes today on sonoluminescence to produce cold fusion. Nix crypto, no excuso. For email copy send blank message with subject: SON_fuz Some tidbits: New Shot at Cold Fusion By Pumping Sound Waves Into Tiny Bubbles [Drawing caption] New Fusion Recipe: Sound Plus Bubbles Fusion creates great energy but requires tremendous temperatures. In a new approach that scientists hope might reach such temperatures, they are using minuscule bubbles as the focus for sound waves. In this figure, a tiny heating element boils just enough water to create a single micron-sized bubble. A sound field makes the bubble pulsate. As it expands, it absorbs sound energy. Then it violently collapses, launching a spherical, inward-moving supersonic shock wave, which produces enormous temperatures and a flash of light. By Malcolm W. Browne Ever since the first hydrogen bomb was detonated in 1952, scientists have sought to harness thermonuclear fusion as a peaceful power source, but that goal has proved tantalizingly elusive. Now, however, there seems to be an outside chance that a wholly new technique could achieve it. Bombarding microscopic bubbles with intense sound waves could convert the bubbles into minuscule fusion furnaces. Recent experiments by a half-dozen laboratories suggest that a mysterious phenomenon called sonoluminescence may be capable of raising the temperature of gas trapped in a tiny bubble to 1.8 million degrees Fahrenheit or more -- enough, in principle, to ignite fusion. If fusion were achieved, a microbubble could be expected to radiate neutrons, nuclear particles produced by thermonuclear reactions. So far, the laboratories experimenting with sonoluminescence have failed to detected any neutrons, but there are other signs that the project is far from hopeless. *** Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California, the nation's preeminent hydrogen bomb laboratory, has conducted some small experiments on "sonofusion," the name that would be bestowed on any fusion technique powered by sonoluminescent bubbles. As part of its nuclear weapons research programs during the 1980's, Livermore built the Nova laser, which focuses multiple beams of ultrapowerful lasers from all directions on a small target. Among the targets Livermore has tested are tiny, hollow glass spheres filled with hydrogen isotopes. In a typical experiment, the laser beams are turned on, the glass instantly vaporizes and the resulting shock wave of glass vapor is driven inward to compress the hydrogen. The idea is to get the hydrogen hot enough to initiate fusion. *** Still, the nation's thermonuclear bomb designers eventually solved similar problems for full-scale hydrogen bombs, and Livermore's scientists believe that inertial confinement fusion as a means of generating comparatively cheap electric power will eventually prove to be practical. The tiny bubbles used in sonoluminescence experiments are similar in terms of their fusion physics to their big brothers, hydrogen bombs and on a smaller scale, to the glass spheres used in inertial confinement fusion. ------------------- End tids Note: The NYT advertises an email address for "comments from readers about published articles and suggested areas of coverage": <scitimes(a)nytimes.com>

1 0

Digital Telephones in Europe (at least)
by Michael＠lawprof.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I happened to be talking to a friend who works for a Very Large International Corporation. He has just been put in charge of managing their new products division. First on the list is whether and how to become a value added reseller of digital telephones and/or digital telephone services in Europe and evetually worldwide. They would probably include some financial/transactional services as part of the package. He is pro-encryption, but not well informed. What should he insist the telephones have in the way of features? What should he read? He is not an engineer (he used to be a salesman...) but he's smart. I will summarize emailed replies to the list. Please note that this ID expires on Dec. 27. -- Michael Froomkin until Dec. 27: michael(a)lawprof.demon.co.uk U.Miami School of Law Didsbury, Manchester, England PO Box 248087 Coral Gables, FL 33124-8087 It is NOT warm here

1 0

Re: GUI: PGP vs novices
by bshantz＠spry.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thomas Grant Edwards writes: >On the issue of signing, there is another question. Do I really want >to sign every message? I don't like signing my written name anywhere I >don't have to. And whenever I do, I am careful to look at all the >potential consequences. Signatures imply I am agreeing to some kind of >contract. Perhaps I prefer my email unsigned, to give me a level of >disputability. If my email was a business contract, then I'd be >enthusiastic about signing it. But for a post to a political newsgroup, >for instance, perhaps I don't want to make sure everybody can >cryptographically assure themselves it comes from me. This leaves me >open to potential forgery, but email forgery is well known and understood. Good point. However, the digital signature issue is still outside of what my topic was. I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's one of the reasons I don't sign everything. That particular "argument" about digisigs has been pounded into the ground by the Cypherpunks for the last year and probably longer. I just think (boy I feel repetitive) that there should be something inside the software so the user has the option to sign, or sign on the fly. If I type up a message and think, "hey, I really want people to know this is from me", It would be really cool to just hit a button on the toolbar, or grab a menu option to sign automatically before sending. You don't have to sign everything. But, you don't have to go out to another application (of any sort) in order to sign. It's right there in front of you. That was my point. >Finally is physical security of keys. If I am going to sign anything, I >want that key to be under control of only me. On a personal machine, say at home, that's not really a problem. On a computer at the office where everything is password protected, isn't really a problem either. Since the situations I work with deal mainly with the home user, key management isn't as much a worry as if you're using workstations. >It is difficult for someone like me who uses workstations to keep a key >only on floppy, especially as I find myself on different workstations, >many diskless, all the time. This issue has also been pounded into the ground. Carrying a disk around with you is really the only way to guarantee security. (Or memorizing your private key and typing it in every time. EEEEERRRGGHHHH) But, you are right. It is a pain in the ass. -- Brad

1 0

Re: HTTP redirectors
by Andrew Lowenstern 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> However, running this kind of local proxy or a general chaining > proxy does require root access. Most systems will not let you > create a low-numbered socket unless you are root. So this is not > something which people will be able to do from their user > accounts. Normally a URL can specify an alternate port as well (of course). A common one is http://site.org:8080/dir/file.html... This gets around setting up the proxy without a privileged account. The only web browser I'm familiar with (OmniWeb for NeXTSTEP) also allows you to specify the port number for the proxy. I was under the impression that all browsers supported alternate port numbers for proxies since they are commonly used for URLs... Do Mosiac and Netscape allow specifying the port for proxy servers? andrew

2 1

Win NT crypto?
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know if any of the 'standard' CP tools (remailers, etc) would run on a Windows NT machine (server edition 3.5)? A couple friends and I are under serious contemplation of setting up an ISP in a town of 100K+, and if it's possible, I'd like to put an anon remailer on it. Thanks... Dave Merriman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)fohnix.metronet.com for PGP public key and fingerprint. PGP encrypted Email welcome, encouraged, and preferred. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

1 0

Re: anon-HTTP server w/o root access
by L. McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- someone writes: $ an anon-http proxy server would probably consume much more in $ the way of network resources than a remailer, which will $ likely lead to many being shutdown once discovered by the sysadmins That might be somewhat less true on a commercial provider than on an educational or corporate provider, but in any case a WWW anon-server would be seen as a much larger potential security hole than a remailer. A couple of months ago a "friendly" outsider gained unauthorized access to user files here via our Web server, and reported it to the sysadmins. I would have been mighty nervous if I'd been offering anon WWW access to the world. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLvd5y2f7YYibNzjpAQFBlwP/dp2gm/Ek3HOZ89SR0x/XpEXVTeHiHTzy 8QddAR35OrONJBUfZO81NyNXfthSmQEN6+d2GfQ7pm2ZupEpHlunWhokYrd6dnmo 1Cbkzi3/eCt0MsH5cTYKZ/JQ0kPRjEUpJdRaRjAfQf18VMRPpXM8D9SzVp/bwRVs iBiZKFfGkqI= =7jHV - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLvd7ACoZzwIn1bdtAQHAiAF6AsXil0bJAgMJpyTJgo7cYW51+Ywz2uIR /bIM2Vew7GoE/yUXoiJkjUzLh35/hRtk =2jos -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1