December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NT's C2 rating
by Brad Shantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been working for some time on a project that involves doing proactive file authorization/authentication under Windows NT. In the process, I've been working on an extension to the Kernel layer of the operating system because we need to be able to catch read/writes to the disk. (All perfectly legal according to the DDK, just ot documented worth a damn.) All of this is designed to work directly with the functionality given to us by the NT-Security layer. 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. So, what makes it secure? What gives it the C2 Rating? How would one go about getting a C2 rating? Brad

2 1

What's wrong with this picture??
by Michael Peponis 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

Re: The return of the IPG Unbreakable System (fwd)
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:24 AM 03/20/96, IPG Sales wrote: >Perhaps a battle has been lost, maybe even probably? But the war is not >over, not by a long shot - with minor modifications this system is >absolutely secure as events will prove. However, be assured that we >will not sell our product to anyone until that can be definitively >established. We greatly appreciate the contribution of some of those on You used to claim "our system is absolutely safe, we're sure of it, but we can't tell you the algorithm cause it's secret." People said that was stupid, so you finally agreed to show people the algorithm (apparently sending it to them unsolicited, and then expecting them to be bound to some sort of non-disclosure agreement? You might want to hire a lawyer to familiarize you with how trade secrets work legally, cause they don't work like you think they work). The people you showed the algorithm to pointed out flaws in it. Now you say "Yeah, okay so there were flaws, but we'll fix them and then it will be perfect, except you can't see the code or algorithm cause it's secret." Sounds like we're back where we started, eh? No one was willing to trust the algorithm before without it being reviewed publically. No one will be willing to trust it now either, _especially_ after the previous concerns that the algorithm wasn't secure were _confirmed_. The cypherpunks list doesn't have to provide free cryptanalysis to you. I doubt anyone will want to waste their time looking at future iterations of your algorithm, if you deign to show it to them. The fact that people on the cypherpunks list don't want to waste their time doing free cryptanalysis for you doesn't mean that your code is secure, or endorsed by anyone. It means that even those who may have thought it possible that your algorithm was secure after all have given up on that thought, or at least decided that it's unlikely enough not to be worth much further consideration, at least until you start behaving reasonably.

1 0

CDA court challenge begins tomorrow
by Declan McCullagh 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

If I were the NSA...
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If I were the NSA, I would start threads such as the one on the IPG system. They are very valuable to them in assessing and mapping the cryptanalysis capabilities of the CPunks lurkers and regulars members. Just a thought... JFA Public Key at http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> 2048 bits key ID:C58ADD0D 1996/03/01 fingerprint=52 96 45 E8 20 5A 8A 5E F8 7C C8 6F AE FE F8 91

1 0

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = "<remail(a)extropia.wimsey.com> cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"portal"} = "<hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> cpunk pgp hash"; $remailer{"alumni"} = "<hal(a)alumni.caltech.edu> cpunk pgp hash"; $remailer{"bsu-cs"} = "<nowhere(a)bsu-cs.bsu.edu> cpunk hash ksub"; $remailer{"c2"} = "<remail(a)c2.org> eric pgp hash reord"; $remailer{"penet"} = "<anon(a)anon.penet.fi> penet post"; $remailer{"hacktic"} = "<remailer(a)utopia.hacktic.nl> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{"flame"} = "<remailer(a)flame.alias.net> cpunk mix pgp. hash latent cut post reord"; $remailer{"rahul"} = "<homer(a)rahul.net> cpunk pgp hash filter"; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"ford"} = "<remailer(a)bi-node.zerberus.de> cpunk pgp hash ksub ek"; $remailer{"vishnu"} = "<mixmaster(a)vishnu.alias.net> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord"; $remailer{"robo"} = "<robo(a)c2.org> cpunk hash mix"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{"spook"} = "<remailer(a)spook.alias.net> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek reord"; $remailer{"rmadillo"} = "<remailer(a)armadillo.com> mix cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"ecafe"} = "<cpunk(a)remail.ecafe.org> cpunk mix"; $remailer{"wmono"} = "<wmono(a)valhalla.phoenix.net> cpunk mix pgp. hash latent cut"; $remailer{"shinobi"} = "<remailer(a)shinobi.alias.net> cpunk mix hash latent cut ek reord"; $remailer{"amnesia"} = "<amnesia(a)chardos.connix.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ksub"; $remailer{"gondolin"} = "<mix(a)remail.gondolin.org> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek reord"; $remailer{"tjava"} = "<remailer(a)tjava.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut"; $remailer{"pamphlet"} = "<pamphlet(a)idiom.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ?"; $remailer{'alpha'} = '<alias(a)alpha.c2.org> alpha pgp'; $remailer{'gondonym'} = '<alias(a)nym.gondolin.org> alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = '<nymrod(a)nym.alias.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = "<mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"treehole"} = "<remailer(a)mockingbird.alias.net> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"nemesis"} = "<remailer(a)meaning.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut"; $remailer{"exon"} = "<remailer(a)remailer.nl.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"vegas"} = "<remailer(a)vegas.gateway.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut"; $remailer{"haystack"} = "<haystack(a)holy.cow.net> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"ncognito"} = "<ncognito(a)gate.net> mix cpunk latent"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (c2 robo alpha) (gondolin gondonym) (flame hacktic replay) (alumni portal) (vishnu spook wmono nymrod) Use "premail -getkeys pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu" to get PGP keys for the remailers. Fingering this address works too. Note: The remailer list now includes information for the alpha nymserver. Last update: Mon 18 Mar 96 6:46:10 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ecafe cpunk(a)remail.ecafe.org ##-++####### 3:40 100.00% alpha alias(a)alpha.c2.org ++++++++++++ 50:30 99.99% exon remailer(a)remailer.nl.com *-*++--++*** 18:54 99.99% portal hfinney(a)shell.portal.com ##-**#*#-**# 11:12 99.99% haystack haystack(a)holy.cow.net +#-+-**##**# 6:30 99.99% pamphlet pamphlet(a)idiom.com --+-------++ 5:49:56 99.98% nymrod nymrod(a)nym.alias.net **-++*****+* 8:47 99.98% flame remailer(a)flame.alias.net -----------+ 4:03:33 99.97% hacktic remailer(a)utopia.hacktic.nl **-++******* 13:46 99.97% replay remailer(a)replay.com **-++***+*** 10:42 99.97% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com . - *--...+- 21:59:57 99.97% c2 remail(a)c2.org -+*++++-++++ 44:35 99.96% tjava remailer(a)tjava.com ###++####### 1:08 99.96% vishnu mixmaster(a)vishnu.alias.net **--+*+*--++ 53:01 99.94% nemesis remailer(a)meaning.com -+-+ **+**** 36:11 99.86% gondolin mix(a)remail.gondolin.org .__.-----.- 9:38:20 99.66% gondonym alias(a)nym.gondolin.org .__.-----.. 9:42:41 99.63% extropia remail(a)extropia.wimsey.com .-.-+-+---- 11:49:50 99.57% shinobi remailer(a)shinobi.alias.net **#++##-+#++ 6:52 99.53% lead mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu ++ ++ +*+++ 35:26 99.39% vegas remailer(a)vegas.gateway.com ** +-- * *** 15:07 99.36% alumni hal(a)alumni.caltech.edu ** ++# *-+## 1:34:05 98.76% amnesia amnesia(a)chardos.connix.com +--- 2:30:51 97.82% treehole remailer(a)mockingbird.alias.net ---- -++-+ 2:50:06 96.47% penet anon(a)anon.penet.fi _-._.. _.. 38:20:41 95.24% spook remailer(a)spook.alias.net **-+-**- + 46:36 93.05% ncognito ncognito(a)gate.net ##* 1:21 87.38% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien

1 0

No Subject
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

No Subject
by mixmaster＠vishnu.alias.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ipgsales(a)cyberstation.net wrote: >Those of you who have had all of the materials will understand the >foregoing. With the information provided heretofore, you can determine >the effect on the other two systems. Also, those people will know my >expressed fear of a premature announcement, such as that which has >now been made, would have. This was the reason, that I resisted >so strongly the release of the materials to the C'punks list >though a few of you recommended that I do so. Perhaps we should have >released everything? Who knows. However, in any case, that is water >over the dam and IPG must go on from here. It is only another of the many >mistakes that we will undoubtedly make along the way. > >Having said that though, we must go back to our prior >evaluation method, a strict confidential mode. However, I believe that we >have added several very good additional people who can help to analyze >the system. English translation: We didn't want to release our algorithm because we were afraid somebody might find a weakness. Sure enough, somebody did. So I guess we're going to keep it a secret after all. Hey, kids, security through obscurity just doesn't work.

1 0

Re: Would the FTC crack down on snake oil someday?
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 19 Mar 96 at 19:10, Bill Stewart wrote: > Sure, they'll be happy to, if we really want. The NSA will advise them > on what's good crypto, and what's snake-oil. Certainly any system that > didn't provide for back-up key access doesn't rate...... > > No, I didn't think you wanted that either.... Maybe the NSA will advise them, maybe not... since there is a conflict of interest (not unusual in regulatory circumstances, though). Then again, it would be awkward if the NSA hypothetically said product A is crap and product B is secure but non-NSA people said differently, esp. if the NSA wouldn't let product A be exported. They're a governmental organization, with all the flaws of any organization/bureaucracy, let alone the government. So yes, I've pondered them asking the NSA for advice... but keep in mind it puts the NSA in a double-bind, because they aren't the only experts, and because they'll look bad if they contradict themselves. They (FTC) might go by something different, though. If a company claims their product uses an "unbreakable cipher" when there are cracking programs (commercial or free) available, then obviously its false advertising. Indeed anything that advertises itself as "unbreakable" is a lie. There's also other consumer groups that are non-governmental, like Consumer Reports, PIRGs, and even various state and county consumer advoctates who won't tow the federal line (look at bovine growth hormone for one example... hm, maybe a bad parallel.) Part of it is a public learning curve. After a while more people (though not enough to eliminate snake oil's market) will recognize "PGP", "RSA", 'IDEA", "3DES" and other strong algorithms. (Ascom Tech could do themselves a nice turn by pushing for products with "IDEA Inside" type of messages...) 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

Spare CFP '96 student reservation
by SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A friend of mine registered as a student for the CFP '96 conference next week, but is unable to go. Registration is transferable, so he can send another student in his place. If anyone is interested, please mail him (not me) at tew2(a)cornell.edu.

1 0