December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Remailers, Feb
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:07 PM 2/22/96 -0500, Bryan Strawser <bstrawse(a)copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: >The differences here are because gondolin.org had serious DNS problems >in January that caused alot of mail to be bounced. Those problems were >rectified.. hence our traffic flows now... Thank you, Bryan! This is _precisely_ the kind of info I'm interested in. >The latency differences are normal for gondolin because we are not on the >net, we get our mail via UUCP one hop away from the internet itself. >Since our polling is fairly irregular, our latency will move up and down >from month to month. Makes sense. And I don't particularly care about variability as long as I have a sense of the boundaries. Which my tests define for me. :-) -- Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

Re: url
by Mutant Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bill Frantz wrote: > > At 2:52 PM 2/22/96 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > >Mike McNally writes: > >> At <URL:http://www.osf.org/~loverso/javascript/track-me.html> find > >> some interesting "surveillance" applications of Javascript.[..] > >When is the patch to let you disable JavaScript inside Netscape going > >to go out? Its more than time. > > Why Perry, it's called Netscape 1.1N. :-) I think the Options menu in Netscape allows you to disable it already. I only have the 16-bit version running, which doesn't allow it to be enabled anyway. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMS1dZioZzwIn1bdtAQEYcwGAvQEDB1b3YqAiiMFaKzDRzprnfLtTnkHp 7rlxQtd4VtToqDNb4aiDwgTKlgs0tP4+ =dUzI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

IPG Sales <ipgsales(a)cyberstation.net> wrote: Suggestion: wait a week until the flames on the c'punks list die down. Have the techie folks there read all of them, think about them, and come up with a coherent and well written reply that addresses all of those issues. Much easier to deal with than attacks from several dozen directions all of the time. > Your point is well > taken and greatly appreciated; in make a hasty reply to but has nothing > to do with anything because at the time I > composed that, I was trying to be vague in a deliberate of > obscrurantism,because Derek, alone amoung you seem to understand what was > going on - and I made a stupid bluder - I can do nothing about > that except to apologize, admit it freely and take my medicne from > Perry and the others - > > I can assure you that the quoted three > lines are not a part of the algorithms, and have never been. I > hope that you will forgive me for such a stupid blunder. I hope that > such stupidity on my part does not close your mind to even looking at > actual algorithms - the question is to determine justice being > vague, and trying to decide to what to do about releasing the algorithms - > 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.

2 1

Expect A Wave of Killings of Journalists....
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:36 PM 2/22/96, John Young wrote: > 2-22-96. TWP: > > "CIA Can Waive Prohibition Against Using U.S. Clergy Abroad > for Covert Work." > > A controversial loophole permitting the CIA to recruit > American journalists as agents also allows the agency to > waive a similar 19-year-old ban on employing clerics or > missionaries. An official also disclosed that CIA > regulations prohibit recruiting employees of members of > Congress or congressional committees "without the > approval of the member" for whom they work. I watched CIA Director John Deutch (or is it Deutsch?) explain today just how the rules are being relaxed on having journalists as CIA operatives, and I could practically hear a collective "Oh, Shit!" echo from the journalistic capitals of the Second and Third Worlds. Even when journalists were reporting to the intelligence agencies, they like the convenient fiction that such practices were forbidden. Even so, a couple of journalists were tagged by the governments they were spying on and disposed of. Expect this to increase. Except now it will likely be Russian Mafiosos garrotting the "Washington Post" economics reporter in the back alleys off the Arbat. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: "consent of the governed"
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> wrote: >I tend to define government more liberally in that it does not >merely exist to protect rights-- Since it is a man-made, created entity, on what vision of reality would you justify the existing principles of our collectivistic-oriented govt? >the 20th century saw a rise in >government that tried to be a social force. The govt consists of a few individuals. >this may have failed, >but it does point out that people want a government to do more >than merely protect their rights. By 'peoples', do you mean productive population at large or a small bunch peoples who want their wishes to come true, no matter how many .38 special bullets it costs? > in other words, the 1776 definition >of government is reasonably slightly modified. ^^^^^^^^^^ ?!?!!! Would another adjective be more appropriate? >government in its >essence is a form of organized human collaboration/cooperation imho. Yeah! With, ultimately, a *gun* under every pile of red tape, just to make you "cooperate" more easily.... >it is a nervous system for a society. Yes! And it has epilepsy! JFA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQCVAwUBMSzkYAOWptJXIUrtAQHdbwP+Kh7tCFRExtvWxxdkVG5nyuRDr8/PgAj6 jle8Rvh2ysGMwPyZguoBb8Hz0N9xp3pPEspAUcrvB6JsDo0mQUQ8Rf/zM420Yfvk 8xP5I/+H7PhZF8MbmjoFN3pIjywBi9YFykuLSlsg5snqBBSTi9EjcCiL79WfSpng oM4XVYmTgpc= =IQZn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- **** NEW PGP 2.6.2 KEY ********* This key is actually suspended, as of Feb, 16 1996, was never distributed, and might be subject to deletion. Sorry for the trouble my mis-management might have caused. 2048 bits Key ID:24201BA1 1996/02/13 Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> Key fingerprint = 23 B6 24 31 86 67 FB 35 C7 A7 AF 12 A1 61 E9 3D **** OLD KEY: DO NOT USE ANYMORE UNLESS FOR VERIFYING SIGNATURES **** 1024 bits Key ID:57214AED 1995/10/04 Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> Key fingerprint = 84 96 76 AE EB 7C AB 15 88 47 87 B0 18 31 74 9F

1 0

Re: TIS--Building in Big Brother for a Better Tommorrow
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:19 AM 2/23/96, P.J. Ponder wrote: >The first paragraph here bothered me. If a user (or an organization) >needs to have access to data that was encrypted by an associate ( or one >of its employees) wouldn't sound practice require that the key not be >entrusted to just one person? I don't see the need for any fancy >"key-recovery" protocol with any outside entities. We can handle this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >internally in my shop. Some keys I give a copy to Alice, and down the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is my perception, too, though I haven't been in Corporate America for almost a decade. Still, I would encourage people to take this position, that "we don't need no steenking key escrow!" (to borrow again the B. Traven phrase I used yesterday) >hall Bob has some, too. If I get hit by the bus, they can get my company >related data back. We don't need any "service" or "licensee" or "trusted >third party" or any of that, thank you very much. And we don't need any >one developing OTPs for us either, and we don't need government agencies >keeping copies of any of our keys. Bravo! And we should all remember, again, that basic observation: even if "key escrow" is needed to recover *stored* files, it sure ain't needed for *communications*!! The only entity that really has a compelling need for "key escrow" for _communications_ is Big Bro himself, nto companies or individuals. Think about it. TIS is just playing the shill role for Big Brother and the Holding Company. --Tim May THE X-ON CONGRESS: INDECENT COMMENT ON AN INDECENT SUBJECT, by Steve Russell, American Reporter Correspondent....You motherfuckers in Congress have dropped over the edge of the earth this time... "the sorriest bunch of cocksuckers ever to sell out the First Amendment" or suggesting that "the only reason to run for Congress these days is to suck the lobbyists' dicks and fuck the people who sent you there," ....any more than I care for the language you shitheads have forced me to use in this essay...Let's talk about this fucking indecent language bullshit.

1 0

Re: TIS--Building in Big Brother for a Better Tommorrow
by P.J. Ponder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Walker wrote to John Young: (large piece snipped; good stuff though.) + Suppose the U.S. government had never thought of placing export controls on cryptography... We would now have widespread use of encryption, both domestically and worldwide; we would be in a state of "Utopia," with widespread availability of cryptography with unlimited key lengths. But, once in this state, we will face situations where we need a file that had been encrypted by an associate who is unavailable (illness, traffic jam, or change of jobs). We will then realize that we must have some systematic way to recover our encrypted information when the keys are unavailable. When we add a user-controlled key recovery capability to our Utopia, we find ourselves in an "Ultimate Utopia," with unlimited key length cryptography, widely available through mass market applications, and user-controlled key recovery. The first paragraph here bothered me. If a user (or an organization) needs to have access to data that was encrypted by an associate ( or one of its employees) wouldn't sound practice require that the key not be entrusted to just one person? I don't see the need for any fancy "key-recovery" protocol with any outside entities. We can handle this internally in my shop. Some keys I give a copy to Alice, and down the hall Bob has some, too. If I get hit by the bus, they can get my company related data back. We don't need any "service" or "licensee" or "trusted third party" or any of that, thank you very much. And we don't need any one developing OTPs for us either, and we don't need government agencies keeping copies of any of our keys. Am I in the state of utopia already, is this what "user controlled key recovery" means? I think it's just common sense and sound management practice. If you know that your co-worker/colleague/summer intern, etc is encrypting your business related data, you should make sure you can get it back if she doesn't come back from lunch. Let her keep her own PGP passphrase, though. That's her business. -- I am now going to push a button and cause this to quantumly re-assemble in California. Really two buttons (Ctrl-X). One observes, one measures. -- send message body: "unsubscribe cypherpunks yourmailbox@domain" to: majordomo(a)toad.com to drop off the list. Don't put it in quotes, tho.

1 0

Diffie-Hellman parameters
by Eric Murray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perhaps this is the wrong list to ask this question on, but does anyone have any pointers to where I could find good Diffie-Hellman parameters? Or source code that will generate some? -- Eric Murray ericm(a)lne.com ericm(a)motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

1 0

Cluelessness V.S. Lack of Knowledge
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In the snake oil controversy, I see a couple of issues... There are some people/companies out there who have the attitude that they have some sort of "remarkable achievement in the field of cryptography". In fact, it is SO remarkable that they do not have to submit to any sort of peer review or examination by people with more skill in the field than themselves. Some of this can be explained by being too close to the problem to see any of the flaws. Most of it can be attributed to ego. These people are pretty much hopeless. They can be a great source of entertainment and/or flame fest practice, but rarely do they ever learn by their mistakes. Their ego gets in the way far to often. (IPG Sales (any relation to "Soupy"?) is a prime example of this.) There are companies out there that are trying to build good products. These people can be instructed on the ways of implementing good crypto. Unfortunately, I have seen a number of them pushed up against the "Wall of Attitude" when they do ask for help. Cypherpunks, for good or for bad, have a reputation for being experts in the field. People come here to ask questions because "Cypherpunks know what Good Crypto tastes like". What is happening though is that they are also getting a reputation as people who flame first and give answers later, if ever. This is not a "good thing". If you want strong crypto to exist, you have to make the people who are trying to put it into place able to understand what it is in the first place. Giving them grief when they try to find out the flaws in the ideas (and are willing to learn) is not helpful to the community as a whole. I know of one developer who is trying to implement a strong cryptosystem in his app. He is unwilling to post his questions/concerns here because he is afraid of getting his ass shot off on the first query. Judging by some of the responses I have seen, I do not blame him! I can understand intolerance of the sales droids who push crap. I do not have much tolerance for them either. It bothers me when I see people who are not experts in the field AND ARE TRYING TO LEARN getting "blowed up real good" because they are not experts. Cypherpunks not only need to teach, they need to be willing to teach. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMS4xFOQCP3v30CeZAQEUlwf/SpOqOAnhk/8jZcQrH0IgDHtMgyUtjdIh b3URbqcIpfff6qQm8dT8/bbmEsGxavoYKC8xO6H5fiLtw2TRqaFYLsQX+JyYBurd lW7k+llMtGqRdthOPBjhVthTEnncVMhqqlT4E0axhhZMWPYNvW3h+NRjiDJSBFEl CFXe1MgiYt3wMlwJLu7Xqwem1zDT4Jmx3h2mx4ULeyvbKyM1ZkZZPe6vBuTgrgBN DaVw8204nc5vIO1LjTr2eY2zfwQToEVOlXlg3IgXtzmTz0eA0mFGoG/klapWKXcQ PSGFrWBhf0fmA488z2DlboiA6Q/HaxAQ4SR9sZ05CUKT1CKgGYX+Lg== =FY3m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- 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/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

2 1

Re: NSA agent arrested
by Eric Thompson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I just heard a very short blurb on CBC radio about a KGB mole within the NSA > from the 60's (?) getting arrested by the FBI. Pretty much no details > were given. Any info? See http://www.cnn.com/US/9602/spy_charges/index.html Eric

1 0