December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Netscape to copyright URLs?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Today's surf of Netscape's home page yielded an interesting question. Is Netscape trying to licence links to their products? To me http://home.netscape.com/comprod/mirror/netscape_now_program.html seems to suggest tha you can only display certain logos and info if you are licensed by Netscape. You could for example not put up a link to their "Download Netscape NOW" page without prior approval by Netscape. This seems to be a new development on the web. Since when does one need a license to include certain URLs in one's home page? Comments? - -- - -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMDbYcCoZzwIn1bdtAQHE1gF/WoY8jEAv16lL1pGylJKp4MZnVsKYRfMe SzgQcpGouFnT6Ij+zwlS7dkuudQIJyvX =b88z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Would it be legal for a foreign site to carry Netscape?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- If someone would export the full 128 bit version of Netscape, would it be legal to make it available on a foreign site? After all, Netscape is a copyrighted product. TIA, - -- - -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMDbaNioZzwIn1bdtAQEb/gF+JJ9e3FqwEwIboLX7ISW6X4QWjcO6QCkt gMuEghppSrv2G2sPmzyDzOoweTlglfi/ =Y7nR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Netscape to copyright URLs?
by harveyrj＠vt.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:39 AM 8/20/95 -0400, Lucky Green wrote: >Today's surf of Netscape's home page yielded an interesting question. Is >Netscape trying to licence links to their products? To me >http://home.netscape.com/comprod/mirror/netscape_now_program.html seems to >suggest tha you can only display certain logos and info if you are >licensed by Netscape. You could for example not put up a link to their >"Download Netscape NOW" page without prior approval by Netscape. > >This seems to be a new development on the web. Since when does one need a >license to include certain URLs in one's home page? > >Comments? > My reading of that page suggests a somewhat different motive and interpretation: what they seem to be doing is copying the Microsoft approach with respect to setting criteria that must be met before you can use their logo on your page/product. It doesn't prohibit putting links to their download page; it just prohibits using their "Netscape Now!" logo without their permission. Note the criteria for being allowed to use their logo: you have to design your server to break with the current "standards" (e.g., CGI) and embrace Netscape's extensions (e.g., backgrounds; client pull/server push, SSL encrypted transactions), which they would like to foist on us as the new "standard." Essentially, they want us to help them create the perception that if you don't show the "Netscape Now!" flag (didn't Nixon have a similar slogan?) on your page, that you're just not a high- quality operation. Or maybe they're trying to change the subject from the unfortunate publicity from the success of SSL Challenge... rj ------------------------------------------------------------ R. J. Harvey email: harveyrj(a)vt.edu WWW for job analysis/personality: http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/ PGP key at http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/RJsPGPkey.txt

1 0

MSN hackers heaven (fwd)
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: The MSN is Hacker Heavan As most of us are aware, the commercial online services, such as AOL, Compuserve and Prodigy, represent certain risk to the unsophisticated user. Unfortunately, the Microsoft Network (MSN) raises the vulnerability of such users to unprecedented heights. Key to this vulnerability is the richness and complexity of the MSN/Windows 95 environment. What is most dangerous is the ability for the author of an e-mail or (certain) BBS documents to embed "objects" in that document. These objects can be readily disquised to appear totally benign to the casual user and be nothing more than MSN navigational aids. Once double-clicked by the recipient, these objects can readily infect the recipient's PC with a virus. Worse, what this object could do is only limited by one's imagination. It is worthwhile noting that MSN appears to be migrating to an open architecture, with the MSN user connecting through the Internet. If this is true, there is nothing which prevents an object, once activated, from transmitting information stored on the user's PC to any other location on the Internet. In theory, embedded objects can be interrogated to ensure their validity. Unfortunately, this interrogation process is not likely to be carried out by the average user. Even if it is, the user is not likely to understand what they are looking at. It is like warning automobile drivers to look under the hood of their car before starting it to make sure there is not a bomb inside. Most drivers would assume that the odds were with them. Those that did check would have no idea what they were looking at. (At least that's my feeling when I look under the hood of my car :-). Microsoft's position appears to be that the MSN user is no more vulnerable than one who uses a competing system. I would maintain that this position is just not true. With system complexity comes excessive vulnerability. MSN rates a 9 in complexity. The other services a 4. The bottom line: Users of MSN are placing themselves at significant risk. If one must use MSN, avoid at all cost activating (double-clicking) objects in e-mail messages and BBS posts. Sophisticated users may think they know what they are doing, but it probably won't be long before they are outwitted by someone who figures out how to totally disguise an object's true purpose.

1 0

Re: MSN hackers heaven (fwd)
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The bottom line: Users of MSN are placing themselves at significant risk. >If one must use MSN, avoid at all cost activating (double-clicking) objects >in e-mail messages and BBS posts. Sophisticated users may think they know >what they are doing, but it probably won't be long before they are outwitted >by someone who figures out how to totally disguise an object's true purpose. It it just Microsoft's way of guaranteeing "good times" for all. ];> (Its a cheap shot, but someone has to take it.) | What mime type is Marcell Marceu? | alano(a)teleport.com | |"Would you rather be tortured by the government | Disclaimer: | |forces or the people's liberation army?" -mklprc | Ignore the man | | -- PGP 2.6.2 key available on request -- | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano | <fnord> |

1 0

A glance at the future of missing child identification
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- We all read the stories. "Infant stolen from crib in Hospital", "Thousands of children abducted every year". Many parents would jump at the anything that might increase the chance of recovering their children should they be abducted. Just take a look at lines during "Child Fingerprint Days" at you local mall. The solution? Transponder implants at birth. Modern transponders can be injected into an infant where they grow into the tissue, unable to be removed without major surgery. If schools make implants a requirenment, such as vaccinations are today, children can be routinely scanned when entering kindergarden. Later in life, the same transponders can be used to verify legal age for obtaining a driver license or purchasing alcohol. The transpoders also provide ID for the ATMs and credit card termials of the future. No criminal can loot your account. You can leave the ATM card at home. How convenient! How do you prevent the dead from voting? Simple. One transponder, one vote. Even better, childmolesters, individuals out on bail or parole, and other "security risks" can be similarily tagged to prevent escape from US jurisdiction. A combination metal detector/scanner for airport and border use is just one of the obvious ideas to increase the value of this technology. For an example of such a transponder see http://www.dfw.net/~tqg/eid/tx1400l.html I predict that you will see the first such implants in children within five years. An enterprising Cypherpunk who has become disillusiond that the statists can be stopped could make a fortune by offering a "Children's Safety Identification Service." Any idea if offering such a service would require an M.D. or only a R.N.? Perhaps even a cosmetology licesnse would suffice, since "body piercers" do similar insertions every day. - -- - -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMDeIayoZzwIn1bdtAQFo3QGAzU13qIy4qIeKQ7F13JtmnRE4Oo4AsXpt RktLZfE/8K8EauRuisl/MxU23oMkTgD0 =Vm+o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: NSA into antigravity?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(No, I see no relevance for "coding in C," but even critics of "off-topic" posts have commented on this, so I will too, especially as how physics was my old career and in 1974 I interviewed with a Santa Barbara company doing ICBM geogravitic trajectory work.) At 5:50 PM 8/20/95, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >I can see why the folks at Ft. Meade would be hinkie about such >measurements being made around them. No need to hypothisize >micro-singularities or anti-gravity experiments. Occam's Razor >in action. I can't. At least not with regard to microgravity measurements. If you mean missile trajectory stuff, this is extremely implausible. A missile targetted at Fort Meade is not going to be deflected by more than a few centimeters (if that much) by nearby variations...the missile is moving very fast and there's little "integration time" for slight errors in trajectory to build up. (Also, but related to this, the closing trajectory is near vertical, so it's doubly hard to imagine local g-field anomalies affecting the point of impact.) As to what the folks were doing with their equipment, I have no idea. Maybe measuring water tables in and around the Chesapeake Bay (only a few miles from the Fort). The NSA people probably were upset with the equipment itself, not the idea that Meade was being more precisely targetted for ICBMs. --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net (Got net?) | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-728-0152 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Corralitos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

MSN hackers heaven (fwd)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a variation on Brad's forward of the MSN security hole: Information Week, August 28, 1995, p. 24. Risk Looms On Microsoft Network. E-mail icons can hide viruses. A feature designed to make electronic mail easy to use on the Microsoft Network online service may also make it easier for hackers to trick users into running destructive software programs on their PCs. When a Microsoft Network user sends a binary file embedded in an E-mail message, the file appears as an icon on the recipient's screen. The recipient can double-click on the icon to automatically download the embedded file and execute it. To download the file without executing it, the recipient must use the mouse's right button, which has been rarely needed until now. Though other online services offer automatic downloading of files, Microsoft's goes one step further in allowing the file's automatic execution. That file could be a virus or other malicious program that could erase files or reformat a hard disk, according to Mike Wyman, VP and chief technical offficer of Interactive Data Corp., an investment information firm in Lexington, Mass., and a Microsoft Network beta user. "On the Microsoft Network, I can disguise an icon so that it looks innocuous," says Wyman. "The analogy I like to use is the Unabomber. If you get a package in the mail that's wrapped in duct tape and brown paper, you'd regard it as suspicious. But if it's a plain white envelope with Ed McMahon's picture on it, you wouldn't think twice about opening it." Microsoft says the feature is a convenience, not a security hole. "There are risks of getting [data] off the network in any form," says George Meng, group product manager for the Microsoft Network in Redmond, Wash. "People have to be aware of what the source of information is." Winn Schwartau, president of Interpact Inc., a computer security consulting firm in Seminole, Fla., disagrees. "If the ability to execute programs bypasses conventional filtering and virus controls, then you certainly have a security hole," he says "Potential 'Trojan horse' programs could be sent by anyone." By Mitch Wagner and Clinton Wilder [End]

1 0

Re: Netscape to copyright URLs?
by Lindsay Haisley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:39 AM 8/20/95 -0400, you wrote: >Today's surf of Netscape's home page yielded an interesting question. Is >Netscape trying to licence links to their products? To me >http://home.netscape.com/comprod/mirror/netscape_now_program.html seems to >suggest tha you can only display certain logos and info if you are >licensed by Netscape. You could for example not put up a link to their >"Download Netscape NOW" page without prior approval by Netscape. > >This seems to be a new development on the web. Since when does one need a >license to include certain URLs in one's home page? The Netscape general info document specifically states .... >Aside from the ftp mirrors we list on our home page, we do not allow >redistribution of our software. This means that it is not legal to put >our software on your ftp server, nor to include it on disks you are >distributing, although you're more than welcome to include a pointer to >our home pages so that people can download the latest version for >themselves. They have specifically given permission here for links, at least to their home pages, possibly even to other items such as a downloadable netscape. (______) Lindsay Haisley (oo) "The bull FMP Computer Services /------\/ stops here!" fmouse(a)fmp.com / | || Austin, Texas, USA * ||---|| (512) 259-1190 ~~ ~~

1 0

Re: A glance at the future of missing child identification
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These transponders are already used for many year. They inject them in pigs and cows to identify them. And some car manufacturers put the into the ignition keys as theft protections. Technology is not new. Perhaps it is already used for criminals? Somewhere I heard that in America criminals are sentenced to stay at home because the jails are overfilled. A sender is attached to their leg and the police is informed if he leaves his home. Perhaps a drug dealer may be more usefull if he moves free and has a transponder inside which he doesn't know about, that having him in jail. Here in Germany most department stores have big antennas at the doors which are normally used to detect thefts. Perhaps these antennas also recognize certain people. You can be sure even criminals go to department stores, undergrounds, or bus stations. Some hidden antennas and it's easy to be on their track. But it might be difficult to hide them on x-ray images... Brrr, disgusting idea... :-{ Hadmut

1 0