December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

Declan B. McCullagh typed: > > Excerpted from a message to fight-censorship. For the full thread, check out: > > http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?thread > =The+Leahy+Crypto+Bill+is+Rancid+Sausage&after=1795&type=short > > (On one line, of course.) > > -Declan > > > ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- > > From: Stanton McCandlish <mech(a)eff.org> > Message-Id: <199603190315.TAA05777(a)eff.org> > To: declan+(a)CMU.EDU (Declan B. McCullagh) > Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:15:09 -0800 (PST) > Cc: fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu, junger(a)pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu, > tcmay(a)got.net > > > [...] > > As our statement on the bill made clear, *EFF does not support the Leahy > bill*, nor do we endorse it, like it, find it useful or any other synonym. > We're happy to see the issues raise again, a la Cantwell, but we raised > specifically recommended simple and complete deregulation. As our > co-founder John Gilmore points out, the Leahy bill as written > pre-supposes Congressional authority to legislate in this are, and area > Executive authority to regulate under that legislation. These are notions > that we, and Phil Karn, are challenging in court with Constitutional > tests we are throwing at the ITAR export regs. > > [...] > > -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech(a)eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 12:05 PM 3/20/96, Perry E. Metzger is rumored to have typed: > anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com writes: > > Some people have wondered why I am anonymous and attack me. > > I am not ashamed of my views. > > Well, then you should be. > > > I write this thread anonymous as a form of protest. > > Why is it a form of protest? If you aren't ashamed, post it under your > name. What amuses me most about this series of rantings by whomever, other than the paranoid and baseless claims made by the anonymous poster, is the number of people who have been complaining about the author doing so anonymously through a remailer. The irony of such a situation is too rich to pass up. It seems that cypherpunks can dish it out when other newsgroups and mailing lists suffer such problems ("well, the remailers do nothing that telneting to port 25 cannot do..." or "internet identity is such a fiction anyway, get used to it" seem to be common responses), but when the cypherpunks lists is the victim of unpleasant anonymous messages we fall back to the tired refrain of "if you have nothing to hide why are you posting anonymously." How sad. So, why the hypocrisy here? If you don't want to be bothered by these messages there is a simple solution, use a mail agent that can filter out remailer postings and trash them. Of course this would also kill interesting messages from others who use remailers, but that's the price we pay for having remailers that do not support anonymous identity upon which reputation can be built. Oh yeah, I forgot...cypherpunks write code (snicker). So why not stop bitching and write a bit of code that provides for useful anonymous reputations and/or fix the glaringly obvious problems with current remailers. jim, who is sorry that he is not the one posting such trolls to the list just to make the puppets dance...

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

I just received this as the moderator for comp.os.ms-windows.announce. Would that be "Donut" as in "big hole"? -rich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 19:56:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Burford <mj_burford(a)pnl.gov> To: comp-os-ms-windows-announce(a)cs.washington.edu Newgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.announce Subject: ANNOUNCE: Donut: Web Basic Interpreter. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richland, WA. March 20, 1996. Battelle Memorial Institute today released Donut (1.00 Alpha 1), a Visual Basic form Interpreter for the Web. Donut is a program that allows a Visual Basic form file to be transmitted over the internet and viewed on a user's computer as a form. This form will then interact with the user and their web browser to send or request information just like a normal Visual Basic program. Donut does not require any Visual Basic files or DLLs in order to work. This will allow creation of web forms that give the author more control over exactly what the form will look like, allows interaction between the Donut applet and the user's browser, and allows processing of form information on the user's computer instead of on the server. And it allows you to use existing expertise with the very popular and common Visual Basic programming language to do so. Currently Donut is available for the Microsoft Windows operating system (Windows 3.x, Windows 95 or NT). It works with any Windows web browser that supports the standard interprocess (DDE) communication for web browsers. It has been tested and works with Netscape Navigator, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and several variations of Mosaic. Donut should be able to run most simple Visual Basic programs with few if any modifications. (Unlike VBScript where you must now cut and paste the source code into a HTML page.) Donut is available without charge to end users. For more information or to obtain Donut and development information: http://apc.pnl.gov:2080/donut/ Microsoft, Windows and Visual Basic are trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

ASN.1 Tools/Compilers
by frederick_zarndt＠novell.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of reliable ASN.1 tools/compilers suitable for use on a wide range platforms? I already know about the following tools/compilers, but I would appreciate comments anyone cares to make: ISODE (who to contact for the DE?) Snacc Thanks. Frederick Zarndt Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc 122 East 1700 South Provo UT 84606 USA Tel 801 429-3348 Fax. 801 429-3500

2 1

Minneapolis Star Tribune this morning
by Charles Gimon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mpls. Strib did a piece this morning, front page, about AltaVista, Dejanews, etc. Well-worn territory to readers of this list. Your words can come back to haunt you, all that stuff. One paragraph that deserves rebuttal from those of you who are better-informed: "Of course, technology is working on solutions to itself, but mechanisms that would hide the name of a message's author, such as cryptography and anonymous remailers, are convoluted and incomplete." Author was Jonathan Gaw; no e-mail address given. Star Tribune Online is at http://www.startribune.com. *********************************************************************** --The Interview-- | gimonca(a)skypoint.com George Clinton: "Suck on my soul, | Minneapolis MN USA and I will lick your funky emotions!"| http://www.skypoint.com/~gimonca Dave Letterman: "Yuck!!" | A lean, mean meme machine. ***********************************************************************

2 1

Cypherpunk Enquirer Request
by Andrew Loewenstern 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would some kind soul please forward to me a copy of the latest Cypherpunk Enquirer? My filter mistakenly tossed the last copy and the archive at hks.net is still down. thanks, andrew (who should probably rewire his filter to toss messages into a temporary 'holding tank')

1 0

Re: NT's C2 rating
by David Loysen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:53 AM 3/21/96 -0800, you wrote: >> Basically, I'm now questioning the C2 rating of Windows NT. The >> entire security layer is modular to the Kernel. As a modular >> driver, it can be removed, rewritten, and replaced. > >Good questioning. > >> So, what makes it secure? What gives it the C2 Rating? How would >> one go about getting a C2 rating? > >The fine print says its insecure as soon as its connected to a network. Ain't nothing fine about that print. An operating system or piece of hardware may be C2 certifiable. But only a complete system in a specific configuration can be certified as C2 compliant. The way I read the orange book, no system with a network connection can ever be C2. For that matter a system can't get C2 unless it is in an area where you can control and monitor physical access to the system. So if you can't hack it over the wire, and you can't remove, rewrite and replace the kernel because you can't get near the keyboard what's the problem? dwl(a)hnc.com David Loysen 619-546-8877 x245

3 2

New FBI Spy
by nobody＠tjava.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wall Street Journal, 21 March 1996 New FBI Access To Credit Files Raises Concern By Vanessa O'Connell Consumer-rights advocates are sounding alarms about a new law giving the Federal Bureau of Investigation easier access to credit-report information. The little-noticed law enacted in January as part of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1996, allows FBI officials to obtain key information from a person's credit file without seeking a judge's permission. Investigators still need a court order or a federal grand jury subpoena to view someone's full credit report. But they can get basic information with only written authorization from the head of the FBI or his designee if there's reason to suspect a person is a spy or terrorist or has had contact with one. The basic information available under the new law includes a person's employment history, addresses, and a list of lenders and other financial institutions with which the person has or had relationships. To avoid tipping off suspects to an investigation, the new law also requires credit bureaus to keep secret any FBI request to review a credit report. Privacy and civil-rights experts say the law raises numerous privacy concerns and leaves individuals vulnerable. "The court-order warrant procedure is a major protection of individual rights and it ought not be suspended," said Alan F. Westin, professor of public law and government at Columbia University. Gregory Nojeim, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, complained that "all the FBI would have to do is make a secret letter request to a credit bureau based on secret FBI determinations." "It's appalling," said David Banisar, a policy analyst at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington nonprofit public-interest group promoting better privacy laws. In the past, the FBI sometimes pulled credit reports in criminal cases, but rarely looked at the credit files of individuals it was secretly investigating as suspected spies or terrorists. Before the new law, an FBI request for credit information had to be listed in an individual's file along with the names of lenders or potential employers that asked to review the report. Because FBI officials can now peek at credit reports in secret, they're more likely to use the files to nab suspected spies and terrorists, a Justice Department official said. At the same time, the official said, it is less likely that FBI agents will go to the trouble of obtaining a person's full credit record, including the status of any current accounts. -----

1 0

Re: IPG and "Free Samples"
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:44 PM 3/20/96 -0800, Tim May wrote: >This may be more analogous to what IDG has done. That's I_P_G, of course; I_D_G are the publishers of the fine Internet Dummies' Guides, who have not yet released "Snake Oil For Dummies" or "Cryptography For Dummies". On the latter title, hmmmmm..... #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissible." - US government statement on China...

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Alan Bostick writes: > Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> wrote: > > > I may have to adjust my position on Leahy's bill. Any legislation that > > Dorothy Denning attacks so virulently must be worth passing. > > That could be exactly what They want you to think! Oh, God. This is really a bit too much, don't you think? I mean, its obvious that, whatever its flaws, passage of the Leahy bill would be very bad for the export control droids. Has it occurred to you that the whole thing might not be a conspiracy and that the flaws in the bill might just be that -- flaws? Perry

1 0