December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: RC2 Source Code - Legal Warning from RSADSI
by Adam philipp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:00 PM 2/1/96 -0600, you wrote: >> WARNING NOTICE > > It has recently come to the attention of RSA Data >> Security, Inc. that certain of its confidential and >> proprietary source code has been misappropriated and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> disclosed. Despite such unauthorized use and disclosure, > Ya know... This is getting old! It seems like RSA Data >Security can't control their own site. It only seems like yesterday >(actually about 2 years ago) that another one of their "RC" algorithms >was published to the Usenet thru anonymous remailers. Can't they >secure their own site against break-ins? I hope that his code was not stolen, if it was actually stolen and then released and we knew that for sure, then trade secret rights would probably still apply. However the code was posted anonymously we do NOT know for certain that it was MISAPPROPRIATED. As such it may have been reverse engineered in manner that does not violate trade secrets and hence it can be used. The burden is with RSA to prove that any one person KNEW it was misappropriated. That is why we are seeing all these messages flying around on the web, RSA attorneys are trying to shut the barn door after the horses have left... a rushed, Adam, Esq. --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\ |PGP key available on my home page|Unauthorized interception violates | | http://XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/adam |federal law (18 USC Section 2700 et| |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|seq.). In any case, PGP encrypted | |SUB ROSA... |communications are preferred for | | (see home page for definition) |sensitive materials. | \-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/

1 0

Re: Domain hijacking, InterNIC loopholes
by Rishab Aiyer Ghosh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Mazieres wrote: > How can you say there are no routers? The verification process is a > confirmation E-mail message. To intercept this you must compromise a > router, a nameserver, or the host on which the domain administrator > reads mail. Since there often are multiple domain administrators > on different networks, I stand my my statement that it would require > multiple active attacks, etc. The confirmation message is sent to the address requesting an update. This could be anyone. To take a real example, my dxm.org domain was modified by hostmaster(a)best.com - neither the existing admins, nor root(a)dxm.org received any confirmation, as the request was sent from another address. The InterNIC does NOT require domain update requests to be sent by admins - that is, in fact, the simplest level of authentication that will be introduced by the InterNIC Guardian Object. Rishab

1 0

Re: Tim's paranoid rant about Declan appearing on "Europe's Most Wanted"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 02:02 AM 2/1/96 -0800, Just Rich wrote: >On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> At 7:27 AM 2/1/96, sameer wrote: >> >> I guess Declan M. won't be visting France or any of the other EU >> >> countries any time soon! >> > >> > That reminds me of a question-- >> > >> > If, for example, Germany decides that my company is in >> >violation of their laws for mirroring the Zundelsite, will they send >> >us a letter saying that, so we know not to go to Germany? >> >> The Nebraska-based neo-Nazi publisher who was picked up in Denmark and >> extradited to Germany pretty much knew his actions were illegal in Germany, >> but I doubt (sheer speculation on my part) he had ever been formally >> notified that an arrest warrant had been issued by Germany and could be >> exercised in Denmark. >> >> The situation with Declan, Sameer, Duncan, and others, is even less clear. > >I disagree. It is clear to me that there is absolutely no cloud hanging >over us. If any German court tried to press charges against me for >posting Zendel's materials, they'd be laughed across the Argonne. Most >mainstream Jewish groups *love* me right now. Actually, I think your argument self-destructs. Tim May is right. If you take solace in the fact that "most mainstream Jewish groups *love* [you] right now," then that strongly implies that this fact (assuming, for the purposes of the argument, that your claim is true: you are loved) indicates that Jewish groups have some sort of strong input into who Germany prosecutes. This implies a political friend/foe system, which is EXACTLY the kind of indeterminacy that Tim May (and many other people) are worried about. Consider the position of a "new" person who isn't on the "mainstream Jewish groups radar" (either positive or negative) the way you claim to be. The implications of your statement is that HE would have to WORRY. YOU would be SAFE! Doesn't this bother you a bit? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRFzmvqHVDBboB2dAQHK3gQAobCDzSMWbGCwN9Iu8rN2Q3v1c/oxm4kh HaskQ1B2PyXVlzBwIZz8uNHWxeHLXr21mPYNTY77ScmfRp6cYF9DS+SqjvAmHI7f xxMn04bHLS5zNovvxt39fASrc5kgta+30pjDmjkjJY3ZImQw1lt68ajuRx02rDf7 Jt09GFypRS4= =hw5S -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: RC2 Source Code - Legal Warning from RSADSI
by SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I hope that his code was not stolen, if it was actually stolen and then > released and we knew that for sure, then trade secret rights would probably > still apply. However the code was posted anonymously we do NOT know for > certain that it was MISAPPROPRIATED. As such it may have been reverse > engineered in manner that does not violate trade secrets and hence it can be > used. The burden is with RSA to prove that any one person KNEW it was > misappropriated. That is why we are seeing all these messages flying around > on the web, RSA attorneys are trying to shut the barn door after the horses > have left... The author claims that the code was disassembled. S/he credits "CodeView" which is Microsoft's debugging/disassembly tool. Of course, this could just be a cunning ruse...

2 1

Re: [NOISY] Deutsche Telekom <--> webcom.com "routing troubles"
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While it fortunately seems that the German government is getting some sense, I've had one idea for future such anti-censorship efforts. It's that, despite Alta Vista and other spiders, sometimes things on the web don't get spotted by search engines very soon. Having information out there doesn't do much good if people who haven't been following newsgroups, etcetera don't know about it. Rich and Declan may have thought of this already, but I haven't seen it on cypherpunks. There is a web page for multiple search-engine submissions at http://www.submit-it.com/. I don't know how well it works, since I haven't used it (yet). But it might be something to try. -Allen

1 0

Telecom Bill may makes abortion talke illegal on the net...
by Thomas Grant Edwards 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sec. 507 of the Telecom Bill Ammends Section 1462 of title 18 of the U.S. Code (Chapter 71), in ways which may make sending the following over the Internet illegal: o any text, graphic, or sound that is lewd, lascivious, or filthy o any information telling about how to obtain or make abortions and drugs, or obtaining or making anything that is for indecent or immoral use Here is Section 1462 as Ammended: (Telecom bill chnages in "<" and ">"): Section 1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier <or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934)>, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce - (a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or (b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or (c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made; or Whoever knowingly takes <or receives>, from such express company or other common carrier <or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934)> any matter or thing the carriage <or importation> of which is herein made unlawful - Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter. ----------- Here is the text which addes the interactive computer service part in the Telecom Bill: SEC. 507. CLARIFICATION OF CURRENT LAWS REGARDING COMMUNICATION OF OBSCENE MATERIALS THROUGH THE USE OF COMPUTERS. (a) Importation or Transportation.--Section 1462 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the first undesignated paragraph, by inserting ``or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934)'' after ``carrier''; and (2) in the second undesignated paragraph-- (A) by inserting ``or receives,'' after ``takes''; (B) by inserting ``or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934)'' after ``common carrier''; and (C) by inserting ``or importation'' after ``carriage''. ----------- Media Notes: USAToday 02/01/96 - 07:37 PM ET http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncs16.htm Telecommunications deregulation breaks down electronic walls "At one point, the debate veered off on abortion. Seeing a ''high-tech gag rule,'' Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., joined by Pat Schroeder, D-Colo., and several other women lawmakers, asserted the anti-pornography provisions would outlaw discussions about abortion over the Internet, the global computer network. Rep Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a leading abortion foe, assured members that nothing in the bill suggested any restrictions on discussions about abortion." Well, Henry Hyde was right - nothing in the bill suggests restrictions on abortion discussion - the restrictions are in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which now includes computer networks. ----------- Thanks to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/) and the Alliance for Competitive Communications (http://www.bell.com/) for source text. -Thomas Edwards

1 0

Re: RC2 Source Code - Legal Warning from RSADSI
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 1 Feb 1996 20:00:50 -0600, you wrote: > Ya know... This is getting old! It seems like RSA Data >Security can't control their own site. It only seems like yesterday That has nothing to do with it. What they (or anyone else) can't control is disassembling the code.... which is apparently where it comes from. >(actually about 2 years ago) that another one of their "RC" algorithms Actually, about a year and a half ago...

1 0

Re: RC2 Source Code - Legal Warning from RSADSI
by Adam philipp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:51 PM 2/1/96 -0500, you wrote: >The author claims that the code was disassembled. S/he credits "CodeView" >which is Microsoft's debugging/disassembly tool. Of course, this could >just be a cunning ruse... Although it has not been completely settled that disassembly is a legitimate form of reverse engineering, the trend has been to consider the two equivalent. So, whoever posted RC2 had at least a good idea of how to present it. I don't think it would be be a good idea for them to come out and sue RSA for libel for the accusation that it was misappropriated however. Adam, Esq. --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\ |PGP key available on my home page|Unauthorized interception violates | | http://XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/adam |federal law (18 USC Section 2700 et| |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|seq.). In any case, PGP encrypted | |SUB ROSA... |communications are preferred for | | (see home page for definition) |sensitive materials. | \-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/

1 0

Nu?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May, 2/1/96, 10:39: > * I believe that much of "Jewish culture" is, for historical reasons, > closely related to German culture. It is understandable that so many Jews > hate Germans and German culture, but also sad. (I don't mean the newer > Israeli/Hebrew culture, but the Yiddish/German culture, which was so shaken > by the Holocaust that, sadly in my opinion, it cannot acknowledte its > essential Germanness.) We have an old saying, Tim, "Nisht geshtoygen, nisht gefloygen," which more or less means "You're making no sense" - literally, "You're not standing, you're not flying." I'll bow to you on CP-related matters any day, but on the subject of Yiddish culture you're clearly pretty clueless. No great loss, I assure you. ObCrypto: Reputations are subject-specific, not global. Your reputation on the Holocaust is nill, about the same as my relatives' (the ones with the funny striped suits and tattoos on their forearms) reputations are on the subject of encryption. Stick to crypto, folks - this isn't Shoah-punks.

1 0

Re: RC2 Source Code - Legal Warning from RSADSI
by Patrick Lamb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:06 2/1/96 PST, you wrote: > >WARNING NOTICE > > It has recently come to the attention of RSA Data >Security, Inc. that certain of its confidential and >proprietary source code has been misappropriated and >disclosed. Despite such unauthorized use and disclosure, >RSA Data Security reserves all intellectual property rights >in such source code under applicable law, including without >limitation trade secret and copyright protection. (Remainder of warning elided.) Does this mean RSADSI is claiming copyright infringement on the RC2 source code? Pat -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQENAzACleQAAAEH/2+41W3bZPuWU1gv6A0bq3a57bgCiCAbU1QY41f+NI1I8i/+ a/L314RIpCR0iCZhsNMHNI9rVovsbmOQE4Cf9YYL3cClUoE2VAsLOi9LAjlN8qYc kmAqpsGQ39eaKrnlC/0lxJtFZgypT4m9UIsTU986y3gyy+ZTWwxtbDaLBEdsTiH/ e+zosoBiXmwWYY1n+5yvaKLGMUwa20AKdoRCUgqhJQpkW0nAvItU6WhaqxwH6JXp KCNsuP6k8FBmcKZfSSvUphSOIJnARAq9K9UPhj5BeAy1vKZ416jfgeYQUTxHQOMT rTiQOYR/oAR35gBpGYg6p1lu6Ma5eDPtpBPadUUABRG0IFBhdHJpY2sgTGFtYiA8 cGRsYW1iQGlxdWVzdC5jb20+ =DZzp -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0