December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re:US calls for measures against Internet porn
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Jan 03, 1996 14:47:35, 'anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com' wrote: >My original post, "US calls for measures against Internet porn" was a >satire. The entire point was that, by changing a few words in the >"China calls for measures against Internet porn" story, a statement by >a totalitarian communist regime could be made to look like official US >policy. Obviously, the project was a success, as people are taking it >seriously in spite of the fact that it had telltale clues, and that >the original source was revealed. > I was going to post on this topic, especially on a paraphrase of the (ostensible) original. I still want to, but let me play either the skeptical or responsible journalist (reader's choice of adjectives). Anonymous has *not* revealled the original source as he/it/she claimed. They have asserted it came from Xinhua news agency. Will Anonymous post a pointer to where we can access on the internet the original? News feed, date, and time of posting, as well as message ID should suffice. -- tallpaul -- Any political analysis that fits on a bumper sticker is wrong.

2 1

Re:US calls for measures against Internet porn
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Jan 03, 1996 20:54:01, '"Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+(a)CMU.EDU>' wrote: >Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 3-Jan-96 Re:US calls for measures >ag.. by tallpaul(a)pipeline.com >> Anonymous has *not* revealled the original source as he/it/she claimed. >> They have asserted it came from Xinhua news agency. Will Anonymous post a >> pointer to where we can access on the internet the original? News feed, >> date, and time of posting, as well as message ID should suffice. > >It's been on the AP and Reuters wires, as well as on the CNN web site. > >-Declan > > "newswires" and "web sites" are not pointers to exact quotations. my question remains unanswered. -- tallpaul -- Any political analysis that fits on a bumper sticker is wrong.

1 0

Re: Windows Eudora and PGP
by Douglas F. Elznic 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:27 PM 1/3/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 10:24 AM 1/3/96 -0800, you wrote: >>At 09:43 AM 1/3/96 -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >> >>>(BTW, I use Eudora, and I have PGP. Could somebody explain how to PGP-sign >>>messages, ideally EASILY?) >> >>I use Eudora as well. It is not as easy as I would like. You have a couple >>of options: >> >>1) Use cut-and-paste into Private Idaho. Private Idaho will allow you to >>paste back into Eudora. (Or you can send out from Private Idaho directly.) >>This option is useful becuase it supports nyms and chaining of remailers. >> >>2) Get one of the standard Windows PGP shells and paste into that. After >>signing, you will have to repaste into Eudora again. >> >>These seem to be the only options. I am not certain if there is a standard >>DDE or OLE interface that could be used to feed message information back and >>forth between Eudora and some other app. There have been a number of >>promises of Eudora/PGP integration, but nothing has materialized yet. > >[sigh] Just what I thought, no easy solutions. Well, for now I'll just >skip signing; I haven't had any problem (that I know of...knock on silicon) >with forged messages, and my normal posts are so enthusiastically anarchical >and inflammatory that the only way anybody could really embarrass me is to >forge a message, ostensibly from me, saying I agreed with some governmental >activity somewhere. > > >>There are no easy answers I know of... >> >>If you need a copy of Private Idaho, I can point you to a web site or bring >>a copy along to the meeting on the 20th. > >Please do... > > > I have heard that their are alpha releases currentky geing worked on at quest/qualcomm. But i would have to say before they come out your best bet to pgp and eudora is either pidaho or just use it in dos. pidaho is a great front end. A lot better than any others out their. I have also heard that ViaCrypt is a good alternative. But I am not sure. Has anyone else out there heard anything good/bad about ViaCrypt? -- ==================Douglas Elznic=================== delznic(a)storm.net http://www.vcomm.net/~delznic/ (315)682-5489 (315)682-1647 4877 Firethorn Circle Manlius, NY 13104 "Challenge the system, question the rules." =================================================== PGP key available: http://www.vcomm.net/~delznic/pgpkey.asc PGP Fingerprint: 68 6F 89 F6 F0 58 AE 22 14 8A 31 2A E5 5C FD A5 ===================================================

1 0

AOL security letter
by Corey Bridges 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Looks like AOL is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the world of security. This is a note that AOL subscribers are receiving today: >>>> bj: ALERT: Password Security Date: 95-12-31 07:27:13 EST From: Steve Case Sent on: America Online (using Stratus) Dear Friend of America Online, I want to raise your awareness about an issue that affects us all: the importance of never revealing your password. Recently there have been a few incidents where computer hackers have tried to gain access to passwords by soliciting individuals online. These hackers have increased their level of sophistication so much that they have begun to correspond in a style to make you believe they are representing America Online. Here's an edited excerpt from a recent e-mail attempt: "Dear AOL Community Member: AOL is experiencing major problems...Due to a virus that was recently loaded...onto our main user database, containing most of our member registration information, we are currently experiencing widespread system failure. The problem originated...when our system was illegally breached by a former AOL employee. We believe the employee, who is currently being questioned by authorities, loaded a virus into our database. Because we identified the problem quickly, we were able to stop the problem before the entire database was deleted. The files that were deleted, however, happened to be the database link files...that link a user's password and screen name to the rest of their account. We are currently...working with McAfee Associates (Anti-Virus), to replace the lost files... ...Some of the effects as a result of not having the database link files include: random log-off's, AOLnet runs slower, and Email may accidentally be deleted. These problems are MAJOR inconveniences to our users, so we need your help to fix the problem." The letter continues, outlining the steps you must take to keep your account active, and awarding you free online hours for your troubles. Sending e-mail is just one tactic. Another approach is by using IMs (Instant Messages), where a hacker will notice you are online and try to pass himself off as an employee. Hackers sometimes scan chat areas and the member directory for screen names. Simply put, your passwords are like items in your safety deposit box. They're confidential. YOU are the only person who should know your password. Giving someone (even unintentionally) your password -- especially online -- is like handing over your wallet, keys, and other valuables to complete strangers. There is absolutely no reason why America Online would ever ask you for your password! Be aware: NO EMPLOYEE OR REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICA ONLINE WILL EVER ASK YOU FOR YOUR PASSWORD, YOUR CREDIT CARD NUMBER, OR TO VERIFY YOUR BILLING INFORMATION ONLINE. IF THEY DO, BE SUSPICIOUS AND TAKE ACTION--REPORT IT IMMEDIATELY. Here are some quick steps to keep your passwords secure: 1) Immediately change your passwords (at keyword PASSWORD) to at least 6 alphanumeric characters -- combination of letters and numbers -- for all of your sub-accounts. Delete unused sub-accounts. 2) NEVER use your screen name, first or last name, town, street, etc. as a password. Do not use a common word. Add a few digits to a word, or misspell it. Hackers use all kinds of programs that search for common words. 3) Inform spouses, children, and others who have access to your account to take the same safety measures, and to NEVER give out passwords. 4) Report suspicious behavior at keyword STAFFPAGER immediately. Computer hacking on America Online is not widespread. But it's an activity -- and an illegal act -- which hinders our ability to conduct business and ensure a safe online community. AOL will pursue all legal action and law enforcement protection within our right to protect the security of our service. We also rely on our members, partners, remote community leaders, and others with overhead accounts much like a neighborhood watch program -- to help crush hacking, to maintain confidentiality of the simplest personal belonging (your password), and to report activity of this kind to AOL immediately. If you have any questions, please discuss them with your contact at AOL. Thank you, and have a Happy New Year. Regards, Steve Case Corey Bridges Security Documentation Netscape Communications Corporation home.netscape.com/people/corey 415-528-2978

1 0

Will the real Anonynous please stand up
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Herewith is where my confusion developed by Anonymous #1, posted as Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 18:34:56 -0600, Message-Id: <199601010034.SAA07422(a)tjava.com>: The story as presented by Anon #1, while supposedly from Reuters quotes the Associated Press, something that rarely if even happens. Another story, posted by Anonymous #2 (presumably the same entity as Anonymous #1), posted as Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 01:25:12 +0100, Message-Id: <199601010025.BAA04537(a)utopia.hacktic.nl> is slugged "BEIJING (AP)_ " and quotes Xinhua News Agency; A reference by Anonymous #3 (presumably the same entity as Anon #1 & #2), posted as Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:47:35 -0800, Message-Id: <199601032247.OAA00603(a)jobe.shell.portal.com> states that the faked story changed the words "Xinhua news agency" to "the Associated Press." Looking down the list of posts to the cp list for past posts by "Anonymous" the first one I came to was titled "first germany, now china" and not "US calls for measures... " as Anonymous #3 wrote in the referencing post. There were at least two wire service stories: Reuters: China calls for measures against Internet porn Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 9:20:13 PST Message-ID: <Rchina-internetURelN_5DV(a)clari.net> clari.news.censorship Associated Press: China to Block Internet Porn Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 15:10:29 PST Message-ID: <Ainternet-pornURTH5_5DV(a)clari.net> clari.news.censorship Add to this is the confusion that several entities are posting to the cp list using the same name -- "Anonymous" -- without differentiating their posts from any of the other posts by (inferentially) other entities with the same name. I have no problem with people (dolphins, whales, or space creatures, etc.) posting anonymously. I do have *significant* problems with their lack of seriousness that we see in their willingness to be confused by others of the same name. I have even more significant problems with their seeming willingness to expect me to straighten out this confusion that they are either too lazy or too chaotically-oriented to do themselves. Even English monarchs, in centuries past when monarchs like Anonymous only had one name, were given some additional signifier to keep them separate (e.g. "Donald the Fat" vs. "Donald the Terribly Ugly" vs. "Donald the Wonderful With A Really Good Ad Agency"). Scientific discussions to which people wish to contribute anonymously are OK with me; the same discussions that are starting to resemble the confusion of a Month Python skit are not. -- -- tallpaul -- Any political analysis that fits on a bumper sticker is wrong.

2 1

Duplicate messages
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has everyone else been getting two messages for the price of one? (Maybe Tim May is getting back at me for the semi-plagerized sig quote...) Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "Governments are potholes on the Information Superhighway." - Not TCMay

2 1

Re: Guerilla ISPs
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:07 PM 1/3/96 -0800, you wrote: >Thomas Edwards writes: > >> [ microcellular nets ] >> >> But how can these things compete with @Home, which is promising 10 Mbps >> in and 128 kbps out of homes with cable modems? > >I'm skeptical about cable modems---few cable providers have adequate >return paths, and everyone competes for the downlink bandwidth. >Broadcast is not the right architecture. > Even admittedly with no evidence, I tend to disagree. I think the world needs cable-driven "mostly-one-way" Internet access for the same reason we need both: 1. Magazines/books (few to many) vs. snail-mail (1-to-1 communication). 2. Television/radio (few to many) vs. telephones (1-to-1 communication). If, as I've heard, you could broadcast 28 mbits per second down a 6-megahertz cable line, that's a lot of "news, weather, and sports" to be broadcast to EVERYONE, similar to newspapers. Imagine the entire contents of USENET, plus a goodly supply of (encrypted) individual mail, etc. The contents of every newspaper in the country, transmitted a few times every day, etc. >Any systems in actual operation? How many users do they support? No idea. Wish I knew.

1 0

Re: 2047 bit keys in PGP
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:17 AM 1/4/96 +0000, you wrote: > >> Why is there a limit to the size of the key anyway? It's too bad PGP >> doesn't support any size key (within reason). > >Within reason is the Key Phrase. Even with a Pentium 90, I notice a >considerable lag in decrypting messages that have been encrypted with >a key larger than 2047/8. > >Even if you have a fast machine, if the person recieving the message >could wait a long time to decrypt you 4096 byte encrypted message. It seems to me that the best argument AGAINST supporting (and using) keys greater than 2048 bits is the false sense of security created. Even 1024-bit keys will probably be safe for decades if just the algorithm is concerned. Far more threatening are various other attacks, including RF snooping in combination with specialized viruses, as well as black-bag jobs on hardware. Why build a castle with a front wall a mile high when the back wall is a 5-foot chain-link fence?!?

2 1

Re: Why Net Censorship Doesn't Work
by dmandl＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Ed Carp wrote: Duncan Frissell wrote: > > It used to be said that no country would be allowed to move from Communism > > to Capitalism. It can now be said that it is inconceivable that a modern > > country will move from a Market to a Command Economy. Market discipline is > > strong. > > Tell that to folks in the contries of used-to-be-Russia. Lots of old > Communist leaders getting back into power - some folks are even saying > that the old days under the Communists were better than living in a free > market economy. > > Never underestimate the value of human stupidity and shortsightedness. In other words: If people dump communism for capitalism, it shows how the free market will always triumph, and if people dump capitalism for communism, it shows how stupid and shortsighted humans are. Hmmmm... --Dave. -- Dave Mandl dmandl(a)panix.com http://www.wfmu.org/~davem

1 0

Re: Why Net Censorship Doesn't Work
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:29 AM 1/2/96 -0600, Ed Carp [khijol SysAdmin] wrote: >Tell that to folks in the contries of used-to-be-Russia. Lots of old >Communist leaders getting back into power - some folks are even saying >that the old days under the Communists were better than living in a free >market economy. I said "modern" country. Even so, Russia and the rest are much more market dominated than they used to be. Transition will not be easy but I doubt if they'll go back. As for an eternity of slavery being superior to too rambunctious freedom -- we won't let them be that stupid. The "cancer of Anglo-Saxon values" is pretty powerful. >> Where are the pressure points where regulation can be applied? > >How about on the backbone itself? Since everyone goes through the htree >major backbones, all one would have to do is control access at those >points. Of course, that would lead to clandestine use of >store-and-forward LEOsats, s&f UUCP sites, etc. UUCP might even make a >comeback ;) That would require outlawry of crypto over the backbone and some way of convincing the backbone to run government approved code. Quite a bit of resistance would ensue. Have the Feds ever successfully mandated that large numbers of people run government code? DCF

1 0