December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

QUERY: S/Keyish PGP?
by cactus＠seabsd.hks.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A quick question: Has anybody considered the possibility of hacking something into PGP's password protection to allow an S/Key like access? IE, I'm sitting here in FL on a 2400 bps modem, telnetted through Netcom's dialup to hks.net, so I'm not bloody likely to be typing my passphrase in and thus am barred from using PGP (without hideous contortions, that is). My questions: - Has anybody done any work on making an S/Key-like mechanism with the assumption that the machine running PGP is (somewhat) secure? This I'm certain is technically possible. More complex: - Has anybody put any thought into a mechanism based upon one-time passwords for regulating PGP private key use on shared, insecure machines (strength == quality of password, of course)? If people could have a widget very much like the Macintosh S/Key widget on their Mac fom which they could cut-n-paste their one time password, it seems like we'd be one step closer to addressing concerns like Tim's. Just a thought... A GUCAPI would make such a mechanism easier, of course (I haven't abandoned the GUCAPI thought: I'm just gestating). - --- [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 iQBFAwUBLvOEUSoZzwIn1bdtAQGRSgF8DAt6/1WjmiU3clMy0E+EU4RDmcF0JaGC Y+pNb8dgOzWXEr9b5EyWM0BS4uqw13mK =Xsa9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: FV & PGP (was Re: First Virtual email security)
by NetSurfer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 17 Dec 1994 nsb(a)nsb.fv.com wrote: > Once more, with feeling: > > It is NOT an either/or. In the First Virtual system, the credit card > number NEVER GOES OVER THE NET AT ALL, which means that it doesn't go > over the net in the clear AND it doesn't go over the net encrypted. > I got your point from your first response. The remaining 5 were not necessary. I do not continue to question this point. But I might point out that companys doing business on the net might not like having the details of their day to day transactions sniffable, as you can build quite a good business intelligence profile from that type of info. As can the IRS, FBI, etc. Nor would they appreciate being spoofed... I strongly suggest you take another serious consideration of implementing encryption *now* rather than later, as your current scheme is not thorughly protecting the privacy of individuals or organizations until you do. - -NetSurfer #include <standard.disclaimer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == = = |James D. Wilson |V.PGP 2.7: 512/E12FCD 1994/03/17 > " " o " |P. O. Box 15432 | finger for full PGP key > " " / \ " |Honolulu, HI 96830 |====================================> \" "/ G \" |Serendipitous Solutions| Also NetSurfer(a)sersol.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - --- [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 iQBFAwUBLvPiKioZzwIn1bdtAQEBVAGAhjULtzChTtOy5zY0L+kjuzzXXNLfeYAL jJqKiETK5l8GqqGPXr/I+yx3z7PSu3zN =bcUC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Automated Witchhunt: I've been slandered by a script.
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On checking my mail early this morning I found this: > Received: from access4.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA24362 > (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Sun, 18 Dec 1994 02:10:05 -0500 > Received: from nfs2.digex.net by access4.digex.net with SMTP id AA23077 > (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Sun, 18 Dec 1994 02:10:03 -0500 > Received: from netcom17.netcom.com by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA06122 > (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Sun, 18 Dec 1994 02:10:02 -0500 > Received: by netcom17.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom) > id XAA04015; Sat, 17 Dec 1994 23:09:54 -0800 > Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 23:09:54 -0800 > Message-Id: <199412180709.XAA04015(a)netcom17.netcom.com> > To: unicorn(a)access.digex.net, cert(a)cert.org, emmanuel(a)well.sf.ca.us, > postmaster(a)access.digex.net, postmaster(a)access.digex.net > Subject: Re: Police & BBS...Sundevil revisited in Florida > From: unicorn (Black Unicorn) > > If you are not aware of the nature of the group alt.2600, I will explain it. > It is a hacker/cracker newsgroup, containing many illegal messages. A great > deal of its posters ask questions about or give advice on compromising > system security, even that of the system they are on. Phone "phreaking" is > freely discussed, and they explain to each other how to cheat the long > distance telephone carriers. Pirate ftp and fsp sites are often traded by > these people, and you should verify that one has not been set up on your > system, and that the user does not have pirated software in his directory. > Such could get your entire site shut down. Other verified topics that people > explain how to do and admit to doing are disrupting irc, spamming, > mailbombing, shoplifting, disrupting public transportation, and similar > dangerous and illegal mischief. > > This automated message is sent for two reasons: > > 1) To alert you of a potential threat to your system's security, in the > cases of users asking about or being told how to attempt to exploit security > vulnerabilities. Also, the poster may be using a stolen account. > > 2) To alert you that there are crackers on your machine. The account used to > post from may not be legitimate, or may be stolen (it is _extremely_ common > with alt.2600 posters to use fraudulently obtained accounts). Or, a post of > its nature may likely be a violation of terms of a membership agreement. > And, the user making this post may be preparing to break into yours or > another system, if they have not done so already. It is suggested that you > keep a close eye on users who have posted to alt.2600, and to inspect their > files and email if the posting warrants such and you can legally do so. > > All headers and complete text of original message follow: > *************************************************************************** > Xref: netcom.com comp.org.eff.talk:42937 alt.cyberpunk:43019 alt.cyberspace:8271 alt.wired:15428 alt.2600:40781 can.infohighway:2284 alt.pagan:82507 alt.bbs:37526 > Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news1.digex.net!access4!unicorn > From: unicorn(a)access4.digex.net (Black Unicorn) > Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.cyberpunk,alt.cyberspace,alt.wired,alt.2600,can.infohighway,alt.pagan,alt.bbs > Subject: Re: Police & BBS...Sundevil revisited in Florida > Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.cyberpunk,alt.cyberspace,alt.wired,alt.2600,can.infohighway,alt.pagan,alt.bbs > Date: 12 Dec 1994 20:56:36 GMT > Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA > Lines: 42 > Distribution: inet > Message-ID: <3cide4$e5n(a)news1.digex.net> > References: <D0FFII.BM4(a)freenet.carleton.ca> <gradyD0G6xu.A13(a)netcom.com> <3c94ll$p9t(a)potogold.rmii.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net > X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] > > Tommy Watt - G.W. Technologies (gwtek(a)rmii.com) wrote: > : Damn.. . all this reminds me of the bust the local police department did > : on my BBS system.. > > : Under alligations of hacking, they took ALL my computer equipment, > : anything that looked like a computer, anything that couldda been turned > : into a computer, and misc. stuff.. > > : The warrant is pretty much invalid, on the blank where it says "things > : that if found may be seized" is "-- SEE ATTACHMENT 'B'" . . I didnt even > : SEE attachment B, and when I asked for it, they said they dont even have > : to show me this. > > > It's typical to seal this document. > > Unfortunately it's also a tool used for harassment, as you have to go to > a hearing to get the document opened, or looked at by a judge who will > make a determination as to the legitimacy of the sealed materials and > their seizure. > > Guess what the result in your case will be. > (Left as an exercise to the reader.) > > > : This bullshit pisses me off. . . And now they are saying that if > : anything is damaged I can't do shit because my computer equipment was > : "laying out unprotected".. > > Also typical of the type of computer seizures I have seen in past. > > The common practice is to keep the equipment long enough that it's > obsolete when you get it back. Easy to do now-a-days. > > > : Andy Goodwin > > -uni- (Dark) > > -- > 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est > 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig! > ** end quotation. ** Obviously, I did not post the portion claiming to be an "automated message" and a warning to whomever will listen. Yet, the post claims to be from me. It seems then that someone is running a process which looks for posts to alt.2600, and then automates the above response, original post attached, to warn off system admins, fight crime, save the day, etc. etc. Either that or Lance is bored again. Does this disturb anyone besides me? Most obviously, the misattributation is concerning. Clearly the threat of misattributed automated posting is merely one more argument for digitally signing each and every message and post. Less obvious, but perhaps more ominous is the concept itself of automated postings that amount to censorship chain letters. "System Administrator A didn't pay attention to this message and refused to snoop into his users directories and three weeks later his system was shut down. System Administrator B headed this letter's warning, and saved his access provider from certain doom!" Look carefully at what this letter says, what it urges system operators to do. 1> Because alt.2600 is occasionally used to trade pirate ftp sites, those who post to alt.2600 are probably pirates. ergo, System Admins. should check the directory of any users who post to alt.2600. If you don't snoop, your system will be shut down. 2> alt.2600 is used to promote shoplifting, and irc disruption. (No relevance is even attempted by the message on this point.) And the purpose of the letter? 1> To alert you that this user is probably posting from a stolen account. That the named user is probably a security risk, a troublemaker, a political dissident, or whatever else comes to mind. 2> "To alert you that there are crackers on your machine." Not that there MAY BE crackers, not that crackers are known to be on alt.2600, and therefore may be on your system, but that crackers ARE ON YOUR MACHINE. If the bald misrepresentation of this statement evades anyone who reads this, I simply give up all hope. 3> That the post may be a violation of the access provider's membership agreement. (As if the automated or manual sender of the message has any idea what the membership agreement of my particular provider might be) 4> The user making this post may be preparing to break into [your machine] or another system, if they have not done so already. 5> To suggest that system admins. "...keep a close eye on users who have posted to alt.2600, and to inspect their files and email [if it's legal]." For those recipients of this message that do not know me, I am an attorney, a member of the D.C. bar, and a law abiding person. The allegation that I, by replying to a message crossposted to alt.2600, am a hacker, a cracker, a shoplifter, a vandal, or whatever other villan of the week you might choose to insert is absurd. The above message constitutes slander, defamation of character, and is entirely untrue in any regard to me other than in so far as it indicates my words might have reached alt.2600 at some time or another. The content of my original quoted message alone should indicate to any reader how absurd the "automated posting"'s allegations are, and demonstrate the pure uselessness of such an approach as of means of accomplishing anything more than to annoy, accuse, threaten, and waste bandwidth. The fact that the automated posting proports to be sent from me almost makes whatever hacking I am supposed to have done seem tame. >From a legal standpoint, the automated posting is entirely lacking in any basis whatsoever for increased scrutiny of my, or any other account address which it slanders. Directing scrutiny to accounts posting at one time or another to "questionable" newsgroups should prompt one to ask one's self about the state of free speech in cyberspace, and increasingly, in this country. What has become of our system that discussion forums, be they on "questionable" topics or not, become probable cause for investigating system users, or rummaging through accounts. I hereby inform the system administrators on my provider, as well as others, that I would consider increased attention to my account, or any other based on this sham of an "automated posting," harassment, invasion without cause, a violation of several electronic privacy acts, and simple witch hunting. Should I come by any indication that such attention is directed to my account, I shall immediately terminate my account with Express Access, and pursue what legal action is available to me to the full extent possible. System administrators would do well to inform themselves of the requirements for intrusion into users accounts, the protections provided those accounts both by statute, and constitution. hile anonymous writings, political speech and literary products have a long and sacred history in the United States, baseless accusations leveled by anonymous finger pointers do not. I find the tactic and tone of this automated posting distasteful and offensive in the extreme. I urge system admins at my, and other providers, to discourage the use of such automated witchhunts, and expose the party/parties responsible for the distribution. I, for one, would be very interested in talking to the individual/s responsible. -uni- (Dark) [unicorn(a)access.digex.net] 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!

4 3

alt.2600 spam
by dfloyd＠io.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [Post deleted about auto-reply to one's system adminstrator if (s)he posts on alt.2600 by Black Unicorn] FWIW, the person doing that crud on Netcom has had his/her account yanked permanently. (note new PGP key...) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBLvQTJ1LUeLjqSiixAQFJugf+L3Ri8JGMYJ9Mwn1O+mVbR4Hwz4l1grpV KfhBg46jjlypQ4/9SGn+OsEq9JVb2nF4VySzbsS2hV4RW42WIMkv4F23AqDVbusT 1L7dxZIGC8MZB+XdYMHTxf7AaNmSfyTzSHxGPWhVyvaC8D6+DKmrpZS0Md/lqdiF zG/MQgOkwfln0MDk1D3UN6ExUz+HkSFHvd4jGtNQtP4ufps404MTEuCbFPc36bqY V+btOmzDJs4gwGaXk0Bmal59xYaygn3CWlbNM5zOhS1IjShLEo3Re9/Yb7U25Fr+ /Qxg5kd084CE5svclXKxG/963UKQHY1ovv7kfATMIMF37M0mT1lpBw== =pDsV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Kibo recommends PGP to Bob Rae (fwd)
by L. McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- For those who don't know, Kibo is a fairly famous Usenet personality. I've no idea whether he uses PGP, but it's encouraging to see him recommending it to Bob Rae.... - - -L. Futplex McCarthy Forwarded article: > Newsgroups: ont.general,alt.religion.kibology > From: kibo(a)world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) > Subject: Re: Thanks > Message-ID: <D0t4Aq.LE9(a)world.std.com> > References: <1994Dec9.222452.21478(a)govonca.gov.on.ca> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:28:02 GMT > > [ont.general] > In <1994Dec9.222452.21478(a)govonca.gov.on.ca> premier(a)govonca.gov.on.ca (Premier of Ontario) writes: > > Many thanks to those of you who flamed the PC pranksters. I knew > > when I went online that I would have to deal with fake posts and related > > chaff. > > Might I suggest looking into using a PGP signature to prevent this from > happening again? [...] - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLvQZVGf7YYibNzjpAQEsUgQA1Nm6MZtxFub2lvx3QE70sht2dQyvR9iC 1PXdNhImVm5/Wlu6+xJbEQBIBB229+F4NOrs8E4T9f5/ZjEyZQnW9AsRQ4KQwThz ShUAf//6RIOcOWj9qc5YZWjAXxFaaq9nud7bAbZ+sTwiw+2/5y1lZSWhcF8nfeXw UesP86rCjKw= =oNiJ - -----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 iQBFAwUBLvQahyoZzwIn1bdtAQGuugGAmrWYvSpkE9IGBm9+DrxU4Mn0XKPT5ovm D+3A6cSINGhiEY2EAg/YV0RUxXYMz2yY =30UW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by bryce＠cybernet.co.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Well thats 2 replys, Man it`s going to be packed! :) > >When a meeting happens what do we discuss?/do? > - an obvious one would be NZ crypto! > - New crypto ideas? > - NZ Anon remailers & Repositorys > - Patents??? (maybe not) > - Cryptanalasis (Hopefully, oh please-oh please) We haven't heard from Peter Gutmann yet (probably because he is so busy), but if he turns up it would be interesting to hear about any future plans for SFS. I don't mind explaining a little bit about some areas of cryptanalysis, maybe the various sieves. Chris might want to talk about some hardware ideas. >PS: Why do we need a workstation? (probably a dumb question) To try stuff out, play with programs, broadcast the nonsense worldwide over the net <grin> ... We don't need one, we just need people who have a common interest and something to say about it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: Please note my current address is bryce(a)cybernet.co.nz iQCVAwUBLvJtYtXxuu4HpwwBAQF9PgP/ZLORHZjtNqchFHZSuhHfqQIFqrfdJIyI C7J7jCSnpt8cEqdZKJf2xSU6oeITg8oL388KwqY+O0em2O0QyiWqNZZcv4oJItFs 4R/lECvtrO9a5YbNyT4tgzFXWM2muULoYbSog2FhUlFOkNAfwRaJCqIghQceOrzF apRh15/AH1I= =3/2q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bryce Boland <bryce(a)cybernet.co.nz> Finger for PGP Public Key

1 0

NYT on Pentium
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Markoff writes today on Intel's mishandling of the Pentium flaw. Mr. T May quoted. For email copy send blank message with subject: 585_999 Here are few excerpts: In recent weeks, evoking memories of Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate crisis, Mr. Grove has retreated to his "war room" inside the company's corporate headquarters in Santa Clara. *** 'Righteousness' How did a sporadic arithmetic error that was not detected for months, in the chip that Intel insists is its most heavily tested microprocessor in history, become the heart of such a debacle? The answer is rooted in Intel's distinctive corporate culture, and suggests that Intel went wrong in much the same way as other big and unresponsive companies before it. Intel has traditionally valued engineering over product marketing. Inward-looking and wary of competitors (from experience with the Japanese), it developed a bunker mentality, a go-for-the-jugular attitude and a reputation for arrogance. "There are certain elements in Intel's culture, and one is righteousness," said Federico Faggin, a former Intel engineer and co-inventor of its first microprocessor. "The attitude at Intel is, 'We're better than everyone else and what we do is right and we never make mistakes.' " *** But the technologist's mind-set did little to prepare Intel for the consumer marketplace. Although it spent hundreds of millions of dollars on its "Intel Inside" and Pentium ad campaigns, the consumer-oriented strategy unraveled last month when Mr. Grove dismissed customers' requests for chips to replace the Pentium. *** "What Intel clearly should have done is issued a bug report as soon as they found out it was a reproducible problem," said Timothy May, a former Intel semiconductor engineer. "Instead, by keeping it mum, they backed themselves into a corner." But although he has issued a public apology for the flaw, Mr. Grove has been unwilling to personally come forward in an effort to restore customer confidence. "The test of a great company is in how they handle disasters," said James F. Moore, head of Geopartners, a high-tech consulting firm. "This is one where you can't behave like a paranoid. This is one where only the compassionate survive."

1 0

cypherpunks mentioned in Z Magazine
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was an article in Z Magazine about the RC4 disclosure, and IP and information in general on the internet, in which the cypherpunks were mentioned. They got a lot of information confused about cypherpunks, but over all it was an interesting article. Here's the first portion of the article, in which cypherpunks were given prominence. If anyone wants to write them and clear up their confusion between anonymous remailers and mailing lists, or other errors about the 'punks (which generally cast us in a worse light then we should be), their address is: Z Magazine 18 Millfield St Woods Hole, MA 02543 ******** Pandora's Mailbox; RC4 a secret no longer by Mark Chen On September 9 there appeared on the Cypherpunk's Internet mailing list a short piece of computer code purporting to be RSA Data Security's secret RC4 cipher algorithm. RC4 is one of the most widely used commercial ciphers, but its internals have for years been a guarded trade secret--a status that changes within hours, as the program fragment, which simple tests revealed to be the genuine article, traversed the the farthest corners of the Net via e-mail, bulletin boards, and file transfer. State Department export regulations, as well as intellectual property laws, were smoothly rendered moot. As Cypherpunks founder Tim May says, "National Borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway." Soon after RC4 hit the Net, RSA Data Security (RSADSI) issued a statement that read in part: "It has come to RSA Data Security's attention that certain RSA trade secrets, in the form of confidential and propietary source code, have been misappropriated and disclosed..." "...Not only is this act a violation of law, but it's publication is a gross abuse of the Internet. RSA has begun an investigation and will proceed with legal action against anyone found to have violated its intellectual property rights." Setting aside the questionable legal basis of these threats, why doesn't RSADSI bring charges against the person who originally released the code? The answer is that they don't know who did it. The code was distributed through a mechanism called a "mailing list," a system that distributes e-mail to people who have signed up to receive messages on a given topic. For example, if you were interested in fish, you might sign up for an aquarium hobbyists' list. People could then send email to the list server, and the e-mail would be forwarded to everyone on the list. RC4 was posted to the Cyperpunks "anonymous remailers" list. When an anonymous remailer receives a message, it strips off all of the sender information and remails the message under an anonymous pseudonym. Thsi effectively breaks the link between sender and recipients, and makes tracing impossible. The intended purpose of these remailers is to allow free distribution of various intellectual "commodities" whose distribution is ordinarily discouraged by law or custom. A Cypherpunk faction called the Information Liberation Front has long used anonymous remailing to distribute inaccessible, expensive, copyrighted literature. Moreover, the remailers serve as technological guarantee of the right to free speech. They allow unpopular opinions to be voiced, while protecting the authors of those opinions from retribution. Far from being a "gross abuse of the Internet," as RSADSI maintains, the distribution of RC4 was a case of the Internet doing what it does best--propogating ideas. While this act may or may not have been a violation of human-made laws, it was a faithful exercise of the natural laws of information flow... [etc etc]

2 1

No Subject
by pgut01＠cs.aukuni.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>We haven't heard from Peter Gutmann yet (probably because he is so busy), but >if he turns up it would be interesting to hear about any future plans for SFS. >I don't mind explaining a little bit about some areas of cryptanalysis, maybe >the various sieves. Chris might want to talk about some hardware ideas. I seem to have been dropped in at the tail end of the discussion, so if you can let me know what it's about I'll be able to disagree with you about it. Peter.

1 0

PGP-Pine Scripts?
by Jason Burrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Are there any scripts out there to set Pine 3.91 up to use PGP for message encryption and signing? I would prefer to stay away from installing a 1MB+ executable, since I have neither the root privlidges on this machine or the disk space for such an endevour. Thanks. - -- Jason Burrell | PGP 2.6 public key available by finger. Geek Code (V2.1): | GCS/CM/S/M d++ H s:+ !g !p+ !au !a w+++ v+\(---)>!v San Antonio, TX | C++ UC+ P+>++++ L+ 3 E+ N+++ K--- W--- M-- !V -po+ | Y++ t++++ 5+++ jx R+ G tv++ b++ D- B-- e u++>+++ h* f+ | r* n---->+++ y? - --- [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 iQBFAwUBLvSZaCoZzwIn1bdtAQHYvgF9GlGCfkFh9I/RMyRdXyuR55ELZQ6kHkiP MKf5XzOXt3S+bMs7uF12S/O3xaHCTVWf =jqpA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0