December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Phillip Elmer Dewitt: "I screwed up"
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

there's an interesting debate going on over in alt.internet.media-coverage. Phillip Elmer Dewitt has been posting a bit on his role in the "Rimm job". Up until about now he has been very evasive, in denial, and seemingly deflecting criticism and playing "spin doctor" with his article. however, IMHO a breakthrough just happened where below he apologizes, although not for anything specific. some on the newsgroup are pressuring him to (1) run a new time story (2) issue some kind of retraction or advice to other journalists based on what he learned from the affair. I would suggest emailing him and trying to be conciliatory (don't flame his eyebrows off), but at the same time asking him to write something substantial about his experience that can either be circulated on the internet or in some other magazine. his experience in the affair, given in simple bullet-list form, would be immensely valuable to other reporters and could help "head off at the pass" (press?) many future internet-trashing articles. this is a very invaluable opportunity for cpunks to not merely whine and rant, but to try to influence the future in a positive way through your input. also in the newsgroup is an article in which he describes how 1) he had several indications the article made "suspicious" claims from people, including Mike Godwin of EFF, who he talked to on the phone about twice or so. he also noticed that it made unsupportable claims, even the one on the cover that tried to generalize the BBS info to the Internet realm. 2) he was suspicious of Rimm at a point, particularly after Rimm refused to elaborate on his background, and called his advisor and Rimm personally, and Rimm assured him that "nothing in his background would embarrass him or Time." apparently DeWitt also had heard about the "casino study". ------- Forwarded Message From: ped(a)panix.com (Philip Elmer-DeWitt) Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage,alt.culture.internet,alt.culture.usenet Subject: Re: More PEDagogy (was Re: TIME Cover on Cyberporn) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 19:04:56 -0500 > Yes, the damage is done. Even an honest retraction at this > point won't alter the public perception that the net is awash in > pornography. But I could honestly tell my students PED deserves > respect rather than scorn IF HE'D SWALLOW HIS PRIDE and urge his > colleagues to learn from his mistakes. > He probably won't. I'm not sure I could take my own advice > were the roles reversed. But PED, if you can't do what you should, > at least spare us any more embarrassing rationalizations. Good advice. I don't know how else to say it, so I'll just repeat what I've said before. I screwed up. The cover story was my idea, I pushed for it, and it ran pretty much the way I wrote it. It was my mistake, and my mistake alone. I do hope other reporters will learn from it. I know I have. I've also tried to explain how it happened, not to rationalize my mistakes, but to answer specific questions. I didn't want to seem unresponsive, and I generally don't mind a little embarassment. But I think you are right; answering those questions in this forum is only creating more bad will. If people are genuinely curious about how the Cyberporn debacle came to be, I will reply to queries in e-mail. - -- Philip Elmer-DeWitt ped(a)well.com TIME Magazine http://www.pathfinder.com

1 0

cost of attacking cards (fwd)
by fc＠all.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From fc Thu Jul 27 19:16:26 1995 Subject: cost of attacking cards To: pgf(a)tyrell.net (Phil Fraering) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 19:16:26 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199507272242.AA05163(a)tyrell.net> from "Phil Fraering" at Jul 27, 95 05:42:57 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 608 > Just wondering, but do you have a cost breakdown for the > figure of $ 500.00 for a "cash card?" I published this stuf about 4 years ago and calculated $5,000, but a few months ago I spent some time with one of the top people in this field and he claimed that $500 was the right figure and backed it up with some experiments. > Would this be a single-unit manufactured-in-one-piece card > or something else? This is based on a volume business where we are breaking cards full time. -- -> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236 -- -> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236

1 0

Re: Sat phone permit "wire"taps
by johnl＠radix.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> "Officials said government police authorities have expressed concern >that satellite telephone systems may enable people to conduct >conversations that are out of the earshot of government investigators. >This would be particularly true in an area where, for example, there >were no gateway through which government investigators could tap into >calls. Is there a technical reason why communications through these future satellite systems couldn't be encrypted? I thought that all of these systems were based on vocoders and digital transmission, just like a secure telephone. If the future telecommunications infrastructure is digital end to end, the carriers are going to be transporting streams of bits at some predetermined rate, not analog voice. Whether the bits are mu law encoded audio or PGP encrypted pictures of Senator Exon and his favorite gerbil should be irrelevant to the network. I wouldn't conduct a sensitive conversation over a wireless or cellular phone system. Why would the prospective customers of a satellite based system be satisfied with a system that allows anyone with the proper equipment to secretly monitor their conversations? I assume the market for this type of system is going to be lawyers, business executives and others who are willing to pay the high rates. Just the sort of people who should be concerned about the confidentiality of their conversations. -- John A. Limpert johnl(a)Radix.Net

1 0

Re: Banks and Crypto
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:03 7/27/95, Robert Hettinga wrote: >At 11:29 PM 7/26/95, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: >>At 13:25 7/26/95, KDAGUIO(a)aba.com wrote: >>>See attached file: F:\OFFILES\KODMAIL.MSG > >>Is there ANY reason why you did not just paste the text of this file into >>your message? > >Cluelessness? Carelessness? Some version of "-lessness", I'm sure... > >>Also, if you are going to attach files in lieu of writing >>messages, it might be useful to mention what Wordprocessor was used to >>create the file so it can be read. In this case, what format is your file >>in? > >I just used a special feature on my Mac to deal with it. It's called a >"trash can". > >Please remember that almost all such attachments, unless identified (even >if identified, actually) usually get deleted. > I too am a Mac User. I usually pass files like this through MacLink+ first since it can usually spot what flavor of PC Wordprocessor was used. In this case, it was unable to accept it as any flavor of WordPerfect PC (which I assume was the correct designation for the WP Office WP which I assume was used since the MUA was shown in the Header as WP Office.

1 0

Re: Sat phone permit "wire"taps
by tcmay＠sensemedia.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:34 AM 7/28/95, John A. Limpert wrote: >Is there a technical reason why communications through these future >satellite systems couldn't be encrypted? I thought that all of these >systems were based on vocoders and digital transmission, just like >a secure telephone. There should be no technical reason why voice encryption, or even end-to-end digital packet encryption, cannot be used. The various satellite systems (Iridium, Teledesic, Globalstar, etc.) also are targetting laptops, personal communicators (a la Newton, Envoy, etc.), and thus cannot afford to screw with the signal in any significant way. (And error correction codes could easily deal with even fairly massive screwing around with, should the satcom companies be foolish enough to try to "dither" the signals....which I doubt they'll ever do.) The risk is not technical, but legislative. The government of the U.S. could, for example, mandate to the satcom companies that only GAK/escrow encryption is permissable...how enforceable this is echoes the debate we've had for almost three years on such things. But the McCaw/Microsoft/Motorola/Qualcomm sorts of companies may have to make token efforts to comply. I don't expect the crypto banners to win, long run, but I would guess that right now they are jawboning with the main satellite companies to make things harder. The faster systems like "Nautilus" are deployed, the better. --Tim May .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)sensemedia.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."

1 0

The Value of "Attachments" on this List
by tcmay＠sensemedia.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

See attached file: F:\MYFILES\MAY.MSG The attached file: "MAY.MSG" has been attached in HyperMIME format. It may be read by any Exidy Sorcerer computer, using Electric Pencil 1.2 (release date 7-81).

1 0

Re: The Value of "Attachments" on this List
by carolann＠censored.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TCMay carefully encrypted on July 28th, 1995: >See attached file: F:\MYFILES\MAY.MSG > >The attached file: "MAY.MSG" has been attached in HyperMIME format. It may >be read by any Exidy Sorcerer computer, using Electric Pencil 1.2 (release >date 7-81). > Not having access to Electric Pencil 1.2, Sharpener 2.7.1 was able to "point ot the correct keypoint", and Leadflow 1.6.5 traced the stream of bits to determine this vital message: Have a nice day today! And, A nicer tomorrow! Why thanks Tim! Love Always, Carol Anne ps FV reports others had same problems. Yet 3 days have passed. Shawmut bank only took 9 hours to fix the big 'double charge' problem they encountered last weekend. -- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

Re: copyrighting algorithms
by Wolfgang Roeckelein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, From: Bill Trost <trost(a)cloud.rain.com> > >Wolfgang Roeckelein writes: > >I wasn't aware that you could copyright an algorithm. Patent, > >yes, but not copyright. Intellectual property meens secret, > >right? Aren't there any precendence cases involving propriety > >schemes that are reverse engineered? > > Game cartridges (I think sega was involved) > >You might be referring to Nintendo vs. Galoob, which was used as a >sample case in an January 1994 article in the Communications of the >ACM titled "Copyright's Fair use Doctrine and Digital Data". The >article states No, I was referring to a case, where a third party game cartridges manufacturer reverse engineered the specifications of the game cartridges slot for producing his own cartridges for this game. Unfortunatly, I have lost the reference and the names of the companies, but this is the main case cited when it comes to reverse engineering propriety schemes. Maybe I can dig this out, or another member of the list has details available. Wolfgang --- Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Inf. Voice: +49 261 6509 173 Wolfgang Roeckelein Fax: +49 261 6509 179 WHU Koblenz E-Mail: roeckelein(a)wi.whu-koblenz.de Burgplatz 2 (NeXTmail ok) D-56179 Vallendar WWW: http://www.whu-koblenz.de/~wolfgang/ Germany --rsa--------------------------------8<------------------------------------- #!/usr/local/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-in-3-lines-PERL ($k,$n)=(a)ARGV;$m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2% Sa2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print pack('H*' ,$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length($n||die"$0 [-d] k n\n")&~1)/2) -------------------------------------8<------------------------------------- TRY: echo squeamish ossifrage | rsa -e 3 7537d365 | rsa -d 4e243e33 7537d365 Residents of the USA & France *MUST NOT* include this .sig if following up! *** Residents of France & Russia *MUST NOT* make any use of this -sig ! ***

1 0

Re: Java, Netscape, OpenDoc, and Babel
by merriman＠arn.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Just a quick note to chime in. The OSF just did a deal with Sun >to port Java to several platforms. The OSF is opening a "web mall" >where you can grab software objects and run them. Still tentative, or is there a Web address? Dave Merriman This is a test (3 UUE lines) of the unconstitutional ITAR - 1/713th of the PGP executable. See below for getting YOUR chunk! ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [015/713] ------------------- M=$<(&L`#*IPP",(G6(,,S,`P](<2RWU96XCW86/JBYV8A\D8@X'HB_9H#&\X MX'PCUB.,13B"X8`R?^J-:UB.M_`U\>[#)BS&5$0C,Y#^1CS>1`\T1QTXX6!3 M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

Re: copyrighting algorithms
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Wolfgang Roeckelein writes: > No, I was referring to a case, where a third party game cartridges > manufacturer reverse engineered the specifications of the game > cartridges slot for producing his own cartridges for this game. Sounds like _Sega v. Accolade_, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir., 1993). I don't have it in front of me, but Terry Carroll's Copyright FAQ (ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/law/copyright/faq/part2) cites it for the proposition that dissasembly of a copyrighted work can be fair use if there is no other way to reach noncopyrightable (functional, not expressive) elements of an existing work. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMBicgX3YhjZY3fMNAQFULwQAgvWmS1+p5BbN/C3wnVl21jqVjTL/tQIN SMITIXhXTLaNmdGtlnPANC6brOYXb/17d2zHBwR0BcUWiH/AFjBsTLIxwroOx5np kRSOk7dmw4jifrw4tMJw6Pe/pi7zs+IwT94ToEIKxcXRMs1lPruGdu2HM+kS+4ds mCF+FKmP89E= =UDoU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0