December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: A cypherpunks challenge. Received: from 158.43.192.4 (actually max01-056.enterprise.net) by bath.mail.pipex.net with SMTP (PP); Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:40:32 +0100 Received: from gateway1.ml.org by mail.ml.org (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA02326 for <visit-our-xxx(a)ml.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 14:36:08 -0600 (EST) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 14:36:08 EST From: hucka(a)eecs.umich.edu To: visit-our-xxx(a)ml.org Subject: Shut up. Message-Id: <964dffe172ca4d> Reply-To: postmaster(a)concentric.net X-Pmflags: cum-see-me X-Uidl: 9275163132023367354272390 Comments: Authenticated sender is <root(a)ml.org> Shut up. Do not complain. It's useless. Just shut up you ignorant fools. The great Semyon Varshavchik has spoken. ml.org will *never* shut me down. mrsam(a)concentric.net

3 2

test
by Igor Chudov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test

1 0

More Traffic = More $$$
by webmaster＠xxxstation.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR ADULT WEBMASTERS ONLY. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR PLEASE ACCEPT OUR APOLOGIES. Dear Webmaster, We know that traffic means more money for you so we're releasing the XXX Station consoles. The XXX Station consoles (http://www.xxxStation.com) consoles aren't popping-up in front of your homepage like many other, they appears only when the user exit your page. Each time your web site launches a console you get 15 (yes fifteen) exposures for free. In brief it means about a 16% increase in traffic for your site, e.g. if actually your site attracts 1000 visitors a day you'll get 15,000 exposures for FREE But that's not all ! To support the XXX Station consoles we've some sponsors, (like other consoles) but with the XXX Station consoles, each time a sponsor is visited using one of the console you launched, we offer you 3 FREE EXPOSURES FOR YOUR BANNER (unlike others). And we serve your banner from our server ! If you maintain several sites you can open several accounts ! and of course you can check real time stats when you want ! Instant Signup at : http://www.xxxStation.com Our technical and marketing support is at your service to answer all your questions don't hesitate to contact us ! MORE EXPOSURE means MORE TRAFFIC and MORE TRAFFIC MEANS MORE $$$ TO invest in your website or whatever you want :-) http://www.xxxStation.com Traffic for free !!! Now show your banner for FREE !

1 0

Re: The great GAK crack (making GAK economically impossible) (fwd)
by phelix＠vallnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I believe that any denial-of-service attack will simply drive up the costs of licensing encryption programs and keys to the point that only corporations will be able to afford to release encryption products and purchase keys (in bulk). Remember, we have to pay them for the privelidge (not right) of communicating "securely". PS. By licensing, I mean whatever process you'll have to go through to get your crypto product approved for use domestically; much like what was tried with the rating of video games. Also, I haven't see much talk lately on how GAK will totally destroy anonymity (not to mention the ability of any TLA to destroy your identity simply by revoking your public keys). Once GAK is approved, expect to see encryption/signing pop up everywhere. And since every key must be registered and key sharing/trading/selling will be illegal ("Today, 7 hackers were busted in the internet's largest Key Laundering operation to date. Film at 11."), every single encrypted/signed communication can not only be decrypted, but also traced back to you (Remailers are not secure in a GAK world). GAK is a big step toward an Internet Driver's License. The FBI doesn't want to read encrypted documents; they want to read YOUR encrypted documents. -- Phelix

1 0

Re: The problem of playing politics with our constitutional rights
by phelix＠vallnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 23 Sep 1997 09:58:20 -0500, Jonathan Wienke <JonWienk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: >At 11:28 AM 9/22/97 GMT, phelix(a)vallnet.com wrote: >>remailers handle the increased load? Are there enough remailers? >>People will not tolerate more than a 24 hour delay for getting their >>messages delivers. What about spamming? >> >>Another Question: Since such a plugin uses (has the hooks for) encryption, >>would it be covered by ITAR? (i'm asking because I'm seriously considering >>making the eudora plugin) > >The Eudora plugin should support remailer chaining and PGP encryption for >personal messages, as well as give the user the opportunity to BE a >remailing service. Would people want to use eudora (their main email program) as a remailer, and have to wait for it to process all those messages each time they read their mail? Is there a demand for users with dial-up accounts to be remailers? (I'm not being critical, I'm just asking. I never thought about using eudora as a remailer server) >>Anyway, the remailer 'network' needs to be strengthened. Right now, >>Raph's pinging service (or whatever private idaho uses) is the only way >>private idaho can tell which servers are up. Attack this point, and >>reliability when chaining remailers becomes uncertain. Imagine a TLA >>co-opting this service and altering the list to favor government friendly >>remailers. >> >>It also needs to be easier to set up a remailer. I'd like to see the >>software distributed in .deb and .rpm packages for Linux. Once set up, the >>remailer could automatically announce itself to the world (perhaps via a >>newsgroup post). The various listing services would pick up on this. The >>more automated it is, the better. > >How about posting availability notices alt.remailer-availability.announce >(create it if necessary) or alt.anonymous.messages? Yes, I was thinking along these lines, though right now I'm concentrating on the client end of things. > >>>I am sure that people can think of all sorts of other ideas for needed >>>apps. But to make them usable for the "general public", the apps will be >>>needed to be written for Windows. (As much as I hate to think about it...) >> >>Private idaho needs to be rewritten (in Java possibly) to be simpler to >>operate. There should be one button to press to send a message without >>messing with what type and which remailers to use; the program could choose >>these things randomly (ok, it's not the best thing to do, but at least it's >>easy to use). It also should be updated to use pgp 5.0 (not exclusively, >>of course). If possible, also add support for the Eternity Service. > >The remailer plugin should be able to: >1. Scan all available sources of remailer availability / reliability. >2. Allow the user to select a pool of trusted remailers. >3. Allow the user to select the number of remailers in the chain. >4. Randomly select remailers from the pool. >5. Encrypt / add headers to the outgoing message to match the selected >remailers. Good Idea. Are people comfortable with not choosing the exact order of the remailers used? > >>Stenography Plugin for mail/news readers. It's our one (and possibly only) >>defense against GAK. You can't decrypt what you can't see. (watch for >>Stenography to be classified as encryption and be similarly restricted.) > >Look for AOL and other ISP's to automatically run a "noise reduction" >filter (as in CoolEdit 96) on .wav / .jpg files if GAK becomes mandatory. >CoolEdit's noise reduction filter is great for removing tape hiss and other >constant background noise from sound files, (it can make a cheap tape deck >sound like a cheap CD player) but it would obviously destroy any stegoed >data. The noise reduction algorithm is very processor intensive--it takes >my 586/133 about an hour to NR a 3 minute stereo 44 KHz recording, but I'm >sure you could set up a "light" version of the filter that would destroy >stego data without taking as long. > And how does one tell the difference between a JPEG image and a executable program after they're uuencoded (assuming one does not follow MIME conventions)? Will we be required by law to identify, in clear plaintext, the nature and contents of all our messages? One more thing: I can't seem to find any reference to an API for pgp 5.0. Anyone have any pointers?

3 2

Bernstein: Stay issued; expedited appeal granted
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:36:03 -0700 From: Cindy Cohn <Cindy(a)mcglashan.com> I just received the following fax from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The government's emergency motion for a stay of the district court's injunction pending appeal is granted. This appeal is expedited. Appellants' opening brief is due on October 16, 1997. Appellee's answering brief is due on November 10, 1997. Appellants' opinional reply brief is due on November 17, 1997. All briefs shall be filed and served by hand or overnight mail. No extensions of time for filing the briefs will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary and compelling circumstances. The Clerk shall calendar this appeal in San Francisco for the week of December 8, 1997. Judges Hall, Brunetti and Thomas Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

1 0

Need Help with IRS Problems
by David C. Treibs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David C. Treibs Fredericksburg, TX 78624 sirdavid(a)ktc.com Hi. We are in trouble with the IRS, and we need help. For religious reasons (explained below), we do not have Social Security numbers for our children, the oldest of 4 being 5 years old. Last year we sent in our return, as we have always done, without SSNs for our children. My wife and I do have social security numbers, and we sent those. IRS sent us a letter saying they were disallowing our exemptions since we had no SSNs for them. They gave us the opportunity to contest their disallowance, which we did by sending them our children's birth certificates; and letters from our parents, and a letter from our pediatrician, stating the children we claimed were indeed our children and our dependents. We don't have a problem proving that we are claiming legitimate dependents. IRS accepted the information we sent them, and accepted our exemptions. This year we again sent IRS our return without numbers for our children, but this time we included the letter of acceptance for last year's return, and again they said they are disallowing our exemptions, and they want $1,175.79. I called the telephone number on the letter and spoke with the lady who answered, explaining what we did last year and how the IRS accepted our tax return. The lady said "now we have new rules." She asked, "What religion are you," as if it mattered. When I told her we were Christians, she paused as though to consult some paperwork, and then she said, "those children need social security numbers or you cannot claim them." She mentioned the Tax Reform Act of 1996 and Publication 553 as being the enabling documents that brought on this change. That same day I called U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith's office and explained the situation. The nice lady in the San Antonio office said she would pass the information to the Kerrville office, and they would do what they could. The lady in the Kerrville office made several inquiries. She repeatedly said we had the right to appeal, and she sent us a copy of: --Internal Revenue Code: Income, Estate, Gift, Employment and Excise Taxes ss 1001-End As of Sept 15, 1996, Volume 2. Subtitle F, Ch. 61B, Sec 6109(a)-6109(h). Sec. 6109(e)--Repealed Is the rather odd heading for the only part I could find in the portion of the Code they sent me that says you must have a SSN or you will not be allowed an exemption. I wonder if that means the section is repealed? But then, the probably have it in some other section that the SSN is required. See IRC Sec. 151 (97) below. --What appears to be a news release titled: Valid Taxpayer Identification Numbers Needed For Returns 1996 IRB LEXIS 344; IR-96-50 --Internal Revenue Code...This section is current through 105-15, approved 5/15/97. Subtitle A. Income Taxes Chapter 1. Normal Taxes and Surtaxes Subchapter B. Computation of Taxable Income Part V. Deductions for Personal Exemptions IRC Sec. 151 (1997) (e) says no exemption will be allowed unless the Taxpayer Identification Number is included on the return. At present we are awaiting a letter from IRS, which we assume will state that we must either provide SSNs for our children or pay up, and they will probably give us 60 days or less to do either. Having received the above distressing information, we called a San Antonio, Texas, CPA, Ken Flint, a former IRS agent who now specializes in helping people in trouble with the IRS. He said it would cost us more to fight them than to simply pay the extra money. He sounded sympathetic, if somewhat busy, and told us we could do the appeal if we knew the law and IRS procedures. Unfortunately, I know neither. Perhaps at this stage you could help us. I need to hear from someone who has successfully appealed this sort of thing and won. What are the applicable laws? What is the case law in this matter? What are the IRS procedures in these matters? Are there any laws that might give us an out, such as the Religious Rights Restoration Act, and other such high sounding laws? Is there an attorney out there who wants to make a precedent out of this for us and all the other like-minded folks? If you have no direct knowledge of IRS laws and procedures, perhaps you could pass this to a forum or organization or individual who could. While we are aware of the various movements such as the sovereign citizen, the patriots, tax protesters, and so on, we prefer to work within the system to win our case. This is simply our preference. We don't have a problem with proving that we are not making bogus claims on our tax returns. We'd be happy to give them whatever reasonable proof they want. We do have a big problem with giving our children a government number. The Bible gives the responsibility of raising children to parents, not to the government or any other entity. Forcing Social Security Numbers on children represents a major violation of parents' God-given responsibility. The SSN's powers can be divided into two basic categories: monitoring and control; neither of which is within government's purview in dealing with children. These are entirely the parents' job, Hillary Clinton's postulations that "It Takes a Village" notwithstanding. Once a child has a SSN, they are forever a blip on the government radar, to be tracked, and to be the recipient of whatever government decides it must foist upon children and their families. SSN's are already used in our public school district to track students. Much of their test scores and who knows what personal data is in the district's computers, including a SSN. The district told us it probably won't be long before all this data is sent to the state, and how long will it be before this information ends up with the federal government? The Clintons are working to push us into nationalized health care, including government health care for children. Did you ever wonder how they plan to track all these children, to ensure they are receiving all the "benefits" of their plans? Very likely, the SSN. The "benefits" might include "inoculations" against pregnancy, which amounts to powerful birth control/abortifacient drugs, parental consent not needed or desired. Then, of course, there is the "education," accompanying this government intrusion into child health, which is irreconcilably opposed to my beliefs. The Clintons are also working to push us into the UN Rights of the Child Treaty, which shifts many parental rights and responsibilities to the government. The Clintons want to bypass parents and directly access children. How do you think they plan to monitor and enforce compliance with this horrible treaty? The SSN, in my opinion. Once every child has a SSN, it will also be easier for the state to nose in on the parent's job. With the recent birth of our fourth child, we were told that a state social worker from the welfare department would be visiting our home, and the home of everyone who has a child. If our child had a SSN, they could easily computerize all her data and then link it to any other data from us, our other children, and so on. It could be done without SSNs, but it would be more difficult and time consuming, and on a large scale, next to impossible. The state of Texas provides a good example of what a state will do when given access to the power of the SSN. Starting this year Texas requires SSNs to issue a driver's license. Now that they have linked the driver's license with a SSN, they can easily access a person's records, including court records, and anyone not paying child support may be denied a driver's license. This is just one example of the power of the SSN, and how government can use it to force its agenda on the populace. Whatever government grants or allows, it can withhold or restrict based on whatever is politically correct at the time, if they have the tools to do so. When people who disagree with you hold power over you, and when they want to extend that power to your children, you better be ready for trouble. The SSN enables anyone with access to the right data bases to know every address you ever had; details about your job, income, and taxes; school records; all financial transactions not made with greenbacks; probably all your telephone and utility details, including all your phone calls; doctor, hospital, and other medical details; all court and police records; and on and on and endlessly on. This is all your personal information, available to government at the snap of a finger, and this information is power. Now imagine if every child has a SSN, that power will extend down to the womb even more than it does now. We are not willing to give the government power over our children. Why should we, when children are none of government's business until they reach adulthood? Why tempt government with all that power, when they have already proven they will abuse it? For Liberty, David C. Treibs (sirdavid(a)ktc.com)

1 0

Newbie Crypto question: MOD?
by Childers James 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok folks, I recently received "Applied Cryptography" as a gift, and just have one question: How does the MOD function work in crypto functions? It seems to work differently than what I've seen before, i.e.: C/C++ MOD. I also didn't see anything in TCM's FAQ... If this is considered noise, I apologize in advance. "Freedom is meaningless unless | ic58(a)jove.acs.unt.edu - James Childers you can give to those with whom| No man's freedom is safe you disagree." - Jefferson | while Congress is in session EA 73 53 12 4E 08 27 6C 21 64 28 51 92 0E 7C F7

1 0

Re: SecureDrive News - Win95 yes, Iomega zip drive no
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:33 AM 9/16/95 PDT, you wrote: >I'm sorry to report that SecureDrive does not support the Iomega ZIP >drive. I believe that's because the TSR driver supplied with the >hardware does not support a DiskBIOS interface. > >I had thought that Secure Device, another real-time encryption system, >would support this drive, since it works through a device driver >mapped to a dos file. But an actual trial proved otherwise. The >problem is that the DOS file must be present when the CONFIG.SYS >DEVICE= statement for the SECDEV.SYS is processed. But the zip drive >driver is a TSR that doesn't get loaded until after all DEVICE >statements have been processed. There's no particular reason that >Iomega couldn't have written their driver as an MSDOS device driver >rather than a TSR, in which case SecureDevice would probably work, but >they didn't, so it doesn't. There is a Win95 driver for the Zip drive that does not a TSR. It is a parallel to SCSI driver that is added through the "add hardware" control panel. I am not certain as to the order that the drivers load. I will have to test it. (The driver was released on the 9th of this month with little or no instructions.) Having encrypted Zip drives would be VERY useful. I will see if Borland's latest update for the C++ compiler has any additional information as to some of the driver interface issues (I doubt it, but it is worth a try). It is supposed to arrive "any day now", but it is backordered so who knows when I will get it. I may have to spend the bucks and get the Microsoft development disc subscription again. It will most likely have the information needed to convert the drivers to something Win95 will understand. | Visualize whirled keys | alano(a)teleport.com | |"It's only half a keyserver. I had to split the | Disclaimer: | |other half with the government man." - Black Art | Ignore the man | | -- PGP 2.6.2 key available on request -- | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano | <fnord> |

2 1

Rosing's Elliptic curve documentation question
by dan＠milliways.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was reading Mike Rosing's documentation for his elliptic curve system from the Cypherpunks FTP site. In it, he uses the notation: sum a_i*b^2^i Now, like a good little Calculus 2 student, I assumed this must be a regular summation. But if so, which is the index of summation, and what are the bounds of summation? Someone want to give me a clue as to what this notation means? Dan Bailey *************************************************************** #define private public dan(a)milliways.org Worcester Polytechnic Institute and The Restaurant at the End of the Universe ***************************************************************

1 0