December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com said: > > We can be fortunate that their number is small. At least the ones > we know about. Only three more since the last report. But even > one is too many. Well, you can add me to the list. Although there are a couple of problems with the Leahy bill, it still seems to me to be a step in the right direction. > > These people have alot to answer for. Ask them who they work for > and who signs there checks. Ask them why they lie. Ask them why > they are afraid of your right to privacy. (of course we know why) > Show them HOW WE FEEL. Let them serve as examples too others if > they are too cowardly to serve as beacons for truth. I'll answer up front. I work for the University of Minnesota. I don't get a check, I have direct deposit. If you saw how much it is, you'll *know* that I don't speak for them. I haven't lied for a couple of minutes now, and certainly not about my support for the Leahy bill. I'm not afraid of any right to privacy, in fact I insist on it and support it whenever possible. I don't know how you feel, and I wish you wouldn't show me, as I am afraid that you feel squishy and slightly damp. That might cause me to lose my appetite. > > THE LIST OF SHAME: > B. Schneier: bs208(a)newton.cam.ac.uk, schneier(a)counterpane.com > M. Blaze: mab(a)crypto.com, mab(a)research.att.com > J. Bizdos: jim(a)rsa.com > S. Safaddar: shabbir(a)vtw.org > D. Weinstein: djw(a)vplus.com > P.. Peterson: padgett(a)hobbes.orl.mmc.com > B. Stewart: stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com > B. Unicorn: unicorn(a)schloss.li > P. Karn: karn(a)unix.ka9q.ampr.org > D. McCullagh: declan(a)well.com > > BOYCOTT APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY, AT&T, VTW, and RSA!!!! Don't forget grapes! > > THE LEAHY BILL IS 100% PART OF THE PLAN TO KILL FREE CRYPTO. > YOU DON'T NEED EXPERTS TO THINK FOR YOU! REMEMBER RICO AND WORLD GOVERNMENT! I can't remember breakfast, now what was that about RICO and World Government? Did I take over the world again and forget to clean up after myself? Sorry. -- Kevin L. Prigge | "You can always spot a well informed man - University of Minnesota | his views are the same as yours." email: klp(a)tc.umn.edu | - Ilka Chase PGP Key Fingerprint = FC E5 EE E7 8B 2E E9 D5 DA 1C 5D 6B 98 52 F6 24

1 0

MS self-generated X.509 validity?
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've just had a chance to go through the SDK MS is giving away for their ActiveX package. Interestingly, there's a little utility included for generating X.509 certs. The read.me that is included claims that the certs so generated don't have any real validity, as they're not linked to anything in the known universe (paraphrasing :-). My question is, is this an otherwise usable cert? I'll be happy to give anyone interested a copy of the files (shellback.cer and shellback.spc) I generated, if they'd like to examine/validate them. If the certs are, in fact, valid, I'll be glad to make the program available to others for 'testing purposes'. Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMVAn/MVrTvyYOzAZAQERywP+IMBiiAEGkBNI88kuw2WRlYfEOsAD92fl mfNpiJmb0pYTzljE1PVtLNjLtrXkeu71fTYX34rC90aU7zD/nufmZz+Nrp6TR1Ce J39A9C5KR7rkNRxvsjOnpyZ1gEHCsOh6ceGVUZidYa+iEvVs20VrlMleS2nz3t6w 4piJt0Bhwqc= =o+LF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P. J. O'Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> http://www.shellback.com/personal/merriman/index.htm

2 1

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <Deleted to protect the guilty> To: anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com Copies to: cypherpunks(a)toad.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look above, note the "To:" Field, hmmmm, the offending l party mailed a responce to an anon remailer. I have noticed a couple people do this latley. Please people - THINK, you have just proved beond a shadow of a doubt that you are crypto illiterate. The message is not sent back to the origional sender, it is either qued in the remailer's In basket, till the remailer administrator cleans it out, or it is trashed upon reciept since it does not have the required Request-Remailing-To: format. *sigh*, I will spare the offending parties the well deserved "Come back when you get a clue" flame. Regards, Michael Peponis PGP Key Avalible from MIT Key Server

1 0

Upside's TAMING THE INTERNET: Special Report
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Who says it needs to be tamed?] Page 78 of the April issue: "Stephen Arnold, author of the recent book _Publishing on the Internet: A New Medium for the New Millenium_ [gag], dispels some of the mystery and myth surrounding on-line security, assesses its current state, and looks forward to new technologies." www.upside.com. Interviews with Bill Gates and other "luminaries." -rich

1 0

PC: Using BIOS Wait function as a source of entropy?
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In some older versions of the NOISE.SYS random driver I experimented with calling the BIOS Wait function which uses the CMOS timer to pause, using the "drift" between timing differences. There appears to be some variation here, but I don't have enough documentation (and have yet to hack with the BIOS myself) to figure out what goes on exactly when one calls Int 15h/AH=86h, so I don't know if this is "real" clock drift of if the variation is caused by somehting else unsuitable for an RNG. Still, it seems interesting. Does anyone have decently detailed tech specs for this function? Source is enclosed below for reference. No copyrights on it. ---Rob <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> ----- Attachment begins here ----- {$F-} const timer0 = $40; timercntl = $43; WaitInterval = 977; function SampleTimerWord: Word; assembler; asm mov al, 0c2h out timercntl, al { Latch status and count for timer 0 } in al, timer0 { Get status word } test al, 2 { Remember mode 2 v. mode 3 for later } mov ch, al in al, timer0 { Get count low byte } mov ah, al in al, timer0 { Get count high byte } xchg ah, al jz @GotSample { If mode 2, skip this last bit...} add ch, ch { Top bit of status byte into CF} rcr ax, 1 { Shift data down and accumulate} @GotSample: end; function Sample: Integer; assembler; asm { From Ralph Brown's Interrupt List: --------B-1586------------------------------- INT 15 - BIOS - WAIT (AT,PS) AH = 86h CX:DX = interval in microseconds Return: CF clear if successful (wait interval elapsed) CF set on error or AH=83h wait already in progress AH = status (see #0390) Note: the resolution of the wait period is 977 microseconds on most systems because most BIOSes use the 1/1024 second fast interrupt from the AT real-time clock chip which is available on INT 70 SeeAlso: AH=41h,AH=83h,INT 1A/AX=FF01h,INT 70 } call SampleTimerWord push ax xor cx, cx mov dx, WaitInterval mov ah, 86h int 15h jnc @NoError { does this affect timings much? } xor ax, ax jmp @Abort @NoError: call SampleTimerWord pop bx sub ax, bx @Abort: end; begin { Note: repeated/rapid calls to Sample() crashes the system or causes BOUND interrupts (which triggers the Print Screen function on PCs). } WriteLn(Sample:6); end. Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Read on for more information on the details of the court challenge. I'm very happy to know that Donna Hoffman and Howard Rheingold will be testifying. They and other ACLU/CIEC witnesses and plaintiffs have been deposed by the DoJ over the last two weeks in Washington, DC. During the weeks separating the two sets of hearing dates, we will be deposing witnesses that the DoJ plans to call. I would expect those witnesses to dispute, among other things, the effectiveness of filtering software and other forms of indecency-blocking. -Declan // declan(a)eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan(a)well.com // March 20, 1996 _________________________________________________________________ News from the ACLU National Headquarters ACLU V. RENO: Background Briefing Three-Judge Panel to Hear ACLU Testimony in Landmark Challenge to Internet Censorship Law PHILADELPHIA, PA--Beginning tomorrow, a three-judge panel in federal district court in Philadelphia will hear testimony in the consolidated cases of ACLU et al v. Reno and American Library Association et al v. Reno, the landmark challenge to censorship provisions of the Telecommunications Law of 1996. Free speech in cyberspace is at stake as the first major legal challenge to censorship on the Internet gets underway. The case began when the ACLU filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against indecency provisions of the Telecommunications Bill immediately after it was signed into law by President Clinton on February 8. The suit challenges provisions of the law that criminalize making available to minors "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech. Acting on behalf of 20 individuals and organizations that provide information via the Internet -- including itself -- the ACLU said it was moving quickly because it feared that the telecommunications legislation would have an immediate impact on the Internet. Following this action, a second legal challenge was filed on February 26 by a coalition of more than 20 corporate and trade organizations known as the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC). The CIEC suit, organized by the American Library Association, America Online and the Center for Democracy and Technology, was formally consolidated with ACLU v. Reno. The CIEC lawsuit, which addresses essentially the same issues as the ACLU challenge, further illustrates the broad spectrum of individuals and organizations that would be affected by the censorship provisions, and strengthens the case for a finding that the law is unconstitutional. The Court Case According to procedures laid out by the judges, direct testimony in ACLU v. Reno is to be submitted via affidavit. During the three days of testimony allowed, which will take place over March 21 and 22 and April 1, lawyers for the Department of Justice will cross-examine coalition witnesses, after which lawyers for the ACLU and ALA coalitions will have an opportunity to redirect, i.e., question their witnesses in response to the government's cross-examination. In preparation for the case, lawyers for the Department of Justice have been deposing all the ACLU and CIEC witnesses it may choose to cross-examine. So far, government lawyers have declined to cross- examine only two witnesses: Christine Soto and Hunter Allen, teenagers whose affidavits attest to the importance of uncensored access to the Internet by minors. The government is scheduled to present its witnesses for cross- examination on April 11 and 12, 1996. A fourth day of testimony has been scheduled for April 26, to allow the ACLU and ALA coalitions to present witnesses rebutting the government's testimony. Following these six days of trial, the judges will issue a ruling. Depending on the outcome, either side may seek an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Witnesses Thursday, March 21: --Scott O. Bradner, senior technical consultant, Information Technology Services, Harvard University (ALA) --Ann W. Duvall, president, SurfWatch Inc. (ALA) --Patricia Nell Warren, author and publisher, WildCat Press (ACLU) Friday, March 22 --Donna Hoffman, associate professor of management, Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University (ACLU) --William Stayton, psychologist and Baptist minister (ACLU) --Robert B. Cronenberger, director, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh Professor (ALA) --Kiyoshi Kuromiya, director, Critical Path AIDS Project (ACLU) Monday, April 1 --Howard Rheingold, author and cyberspace expert --Barry Steinhardt, associate director, ACLU --Stephen Donaldson, Stop Prisoner Rape (*Note: schedule is subject to change) Chronology February 7 -- At a news conference in Washington, D.C., the ACLU announces plans to seek a temporary restraining order against indecency provisions of the Telecommunications Bill immediately after it is signed into law by President Clinton on February 8. --The ACLU announces the launch of its new "Freedom Network" World Wide Web site, <http://www.aclu.org>, with a home page declaring, "Keep Cyberspace Free." Over 200,000 hits are recorded in the first 48 hours of the launch. February 8 --The ACLU files its legal challenge in federal district court in Philadelphia before Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter. -- In the first court action over the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act , Judge Buckwalter directs the government to refrain from prosecuting for so-called indecent or patently offensive material online until the motion for a TRO is decided. -- The judge instructs the government to file a reply brief to the ACLU's request for a TRO within one week. --Government lawyers conceded that the abortion speech restrictions of the CDA are unconstitutional. February 15 -- Judge Buckwalter grants a temporary restraining order on the indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act, and denies the TRO motions on prosecution for "patently offensive material" and on the "Comstock Law" abortion speech provisions of the CDA. --A three-judge panel is convened to hear the case: Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter, Judge Stuart Dalzell, and Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter. February 21 --More than 5,000 visitors to the ACLU website use the "instant action" feature to e-mail or fax Attorney General Janet Reno, urging her not to prosecute under the new law. February 23 -- ACLU announces that government lawyers have agreed not to initiate investigations or prosecute Internet "indecency" until three-judge court rules on the case. --Hearing dates set for the case; the ACLU will present its evidence on March 21 and 22, with April 1 reserved. The government's dates are April 11 and 12, 1996. The total trial is scheduled to last five days. February 26 --More than 20 corporate and trade organizations, known as the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC), initiate a second legal challenge to the Communications Decency Act. February 27 --The CIEC suit, organized by the American Library Association, America Online and the Center for Democracy and Technology, is formally consolidated with ACLU v. Reno. March 21 --Trial opens at 9:30 a.m. in the ceremonial courtroom in federal district court in Philadelphia. ### Contact: Emily Whitfield, (212) 944-9800 ext.426 _________________________________________________________________ Media Relations Office 132 W 43rd Street, NYC 10036 (212) 944-9800 ext. 414

1 0

Re: Keep the pressure! Cryptographers Against Cryptography EXPOSED!
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:16 AM 3/20/96 -0800, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: > I am proud to report that > the majority of us have the good sense to see [the Leahy bill] for > what it is but > a few cypherpunks continue to lie to us and have > not recanted. I do not like the Leahy Bill, but it is not so plainly and flagrantly bad that good people cannot have different opinions of it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

PGP and Human Rights, continued
by Philip Zimmermann 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A few days ago, I posted a note to the cypherpunks list from a human rights group in Central Europe, regarding their use of PGP. Here is a followup note from the same guy. I have edited it to preserve his and his group's anonymity. This version may be freely circulated. -Philip Zimmermann Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:35:00 +0000 (GMT) >From: [name and email address deleted] Subject: New Message from Europe To: prz(a)ACM.ORG I hope our story helps. Here is a little tale of pre-PGP days. In the bad old days before we had PGP and before the revolution in Romania, we used to send couriers to Romania to meet with dissidents and help collate information about their troubles. Organisings such trips was a nightmare because briefing couriers to be able to find people, and then bring out accurate reports was quite difficult. Any document was liable to be confiscated, and any notebook with names and addresses would be taken if found by the Police and every Romanian in the book would be visited by the security Police. Yet sometimes we would be given large files of documents to take to the Human Rights Agencies in the West, and couriers would have to visit several dissidents. As Foreigner's you were required to stay in designated hotels, it was illegal to stay in a private home. You were followed, and meetings with dissidents were a stressful experience for everyone. We eventually started to use handheld psion computers to carry information about travel directions, name and addresses, and to input files etc. No sensitive information was carried in the memory of the psion but in a separate memory cartridge. The cartridge resembled a battery, and the psion looked like a sophisticated calculator, so we relied on the Romanians ignorance of that technology, and on keeping the two items separate when travelling. This worked very well until the late eighties when a courier was arrested at the Romanian\Hungarian border, during the initial search the memory cartridge was overlooked, and as such the courier was able to keep the memory cartridge. Later in the day, he was being walked between two buildings when he had opportunity to throw the memory cartridge into a fast moving river ! All very heady stuff, but everyone back in the office was off the wall for several days until the courier was eventually released and able to confirm the destruction of the memory cartridge. Since PGP, we have been able sleep better at nights. The following story is not for publication as we could easily be identified... [story deleted] ... So as you can see the issue of Privacy here is not about tax evasion or child pornography, but the on-going determination by various groups including parts of the media, and Government Agencies, to know everything and to then to profit by such knowledge financially or by the destruction of those opposed to them. In this part of the world PGP is a common sense idea that protects ordinary people from those who have power that they are prepared to abuse. There is no Constitution, enforced by capable courts in this part of the world able to protect us from such abuses, so we must have the right to protect ourselves from abuse. If the NSC considers PGP a restricted weapon system that can't be legally exported, why can't at least Americans who have the right to bear arms have an ongoing guaranteed right to keep uncompromised encryption\PGP under their pillow at night along with their magnum. If you are allowed fatal force to protect your physical person, why can't you have equally powerful protection for your personal thoughts. Now I am no fan of the Gun Lobby, but if Americans can ensure their right to uncompromised encryption, the rest of us can argue for the same more effectively. Anyway I must get back to work... Do keep in touch sometimes.. Best regards [name deleted] ---

1 0

Is the IRS a paper tiger?
by Gary Lee Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From STRATEGIC INVESTMENT March 20, 1996 Strategic Investment 1217 St. Paul St. Baltimore, MD 21202 It is published monthly for US$159 per year for U.S. residents (C$190 for Canadian residents and US$200 for other non-U.S. residents). behind the lines - by Jack Wheeler Is the IRS a paper tiger? One definition of a pioneer is a guy with an arrow in his back. So notice the above headline is a question, not an assertion. But it is nonetheless a question being asked by a lot of folks these days, from Bill Archer, Chairman of House Ways & Means, to a number of smart tax attorneys. The federal tax code has mutated into this gigantically in- comprehensible Rube Goldberg monstrosity that day by day gets closer to collapsing under its own weight. Couple that with the fact that the IRS computer system is about to go belly up. The IRS originally computerized itself AD HOC, with the regional centers getting various platforms and software that can't communicate with each other very well. The agency has now spent over $8 billion on the TSM project to re-computerize, which an independent review recently concluded is a colossal failure. As the IRS teeters on the brink, a fellow named Eddie Kahn has stepped forward and may be about to push the whole creaking mess over the edge. He hasn't got an arrow in his back yet, so he might just succeed. Dis- dainful of "tax protests" such as 5th Amendment or legal tender arguments that quickly get their advocates behind bars, Eddie looked into the stru- ture of federal law. When Congress passes a law, codified as a statute, it then delegates to a regulatory agency the authority to issue the im- plementing regulations specifiying to whom and under what circumstances the statute applies. These regulations must, by law, be published in the Federal Register. Lacking these implementing regulations, the law cannot be applied and has no force. Well, it turns out that the implementing re- gulations for IRS' enforcement statutes-things like the requirement to file a tax return and the authority to place a lien-cannot be found in the Federal Register. When queried on this, the General Counsel for the Office of the Federal Register, Michael White, replied in writing, "Our records indicate that the Internal Revenue Service has not incorporated by reference in the Federal Register a requirement to make an income tax return." This is starting to get interesting, isn't it? And yes, I see that big smile on your face. If Eddie is right, the IRS has no assessment autho- rity, no collection athority to enforce a lien or seize property, no au- thority to pursue criminal penalties for failure to file a return or make a false/fraudulent return. I am not at all suggesting you be a pioneer. But if you should have any difficulty with the lovable folks at the IRS, you might consider making an appointment to see them in person at their nearest office, and tell them face to face that you need to see a copy of the implementing regs published in the Federal Register that show they have the authority to require you to do what they want. Not one of the close to a thousand people who, following Eddie's advice, have done so received a copy-and not one has been further harassed. Better to let these folks drop out of the system quietly than risk a negative decision in court, which would be for them an ultimate catastrophe. You can get more info from Eddie at: 1-800-419-7512. --------------------------------------------------------------------- PUSH EM BACK! PUSH EM BACK! WWWAAAYYY BBBAAACCCK! BBBEEEAAATTTT STATE! Gary Jeffers P.S. This reminds me of something else that I read a few months ago. There is a book with the title The Law that Never Was - the 16th Amendment (this was the title or close) that had a similar affect on the IRS. I believe it was the SPOTLIGHT that said that when the then Commissioner of the IRS found that the book was published, he gave gave instructions that people citing the book in arguments with the IRS be left alone. The 16th Amendment created the IRS.

1 0

Re: Dorothy Denning attacks Leahy's crypto bill
by Erik E. Fair 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I feel a bit stupid right now. I read Leahy's bill from top to bottom shortly after it was submitted, and aside from the provision which separately criminalizes the use of encryption in a the comission of a crime or to obstruct justice, I fail to see the flaws that you see. Could you spend a little time enumerating the flaws in this bill as you see them, with reference to the particular wording in Leahy's bill? thanks for your time & trouble, Erik Fair

1 0