December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Announce: c2 and Ecash
by Frank Trotter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark Twain Bank Announces Fees Waived Access For Community ConneXion The World Premier Site for Ecash ****************************************** Ecash - Its Your Money! Mark Twain Bank is pleased to honor Community ConneXion and its customers by providing a special arrangement for new accounts. "Community ConneXion has been a leader in providing the Internet community with innovative solutions through the C2 site, and in developing solutions such as Stronghold: The Apache-SSL-US for secure web traffic," commented Frank Trotter, Director of the International Markets Division at Mark Twain Bank. "We wish to provide Community ConneXion customers with the best deal available for Ecash in recognition of these efforts." "The pricing we have provided Community ConneXion in this promotion, should allow the average participant to utilize Ecash without any charges," noted Trotter. "In addition, merchants can benefit from the special arrangements made available either directly with Mark Twain Bank, or by utilizing the innovative ecash integrated webserver at Community ConneXion." "Ecash is the only private electronic payment system on the Internet today. As the Internet Privacy Provider, we are happy to support the development and deployment of an infrastructure for private electronic commerce," commented Sameer Parekh, President of Community ConneXion, Inc. Community ConneXion customers who sign up for Ecash from Mark Twain Bank using the automated application scripts located on the Community ConneXion site (at https://www.c2.org/ecash/application/) will receive the following benefits: For Schedule 1 Accounts (Basic Consumer): o Waive the set up fee $11.00 until further notice. o Waive the monthly fee of $1.00 for 1996. o Allow monthly withdrawal of $1,000 from Ecash Mint to WorldCurrency Account without withdrawal fee for 1996. o Allow two (2) movements of money from WorldCurrency Access to Ecash Mint without additional charge for 1996. For Merchant Accounts (Schedule 5-8): o Waive One Half of the Listed Set Up Fee until further notice. o Waive the monthly fee for 1996. For either consumer or merchant accounts, Community ConneXion will verify that you are a C2 customer and securely transmit the application directly to Mark Twain Bank. You remain responsible for sending a signed copy of the application to Mark Twain, sending money for deposit, and obtaining and operating the software as usual. Other Schedule 1 charges that apply from time to time will be retained without alteration. Contacts: ******** Mark Twain Bank Frank O. Trotter, III Senior Vice President Director International Markets Division Mark Twain Banks ftrotter(a)marktwain.com www.marktwain.com Fax: +1 314 569-4906 Community ConneXion Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-601-9777x3 Community ConneXion, Inc. FAX: 510-601-9734 --- Ecash is a trademark of DigiCash bv WorldCurrency is a trademark of Mark Twain Bank

1 0

NEW SUBSCRIBER
by Jeffrey Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, In my profession (auditing) I endeavour to keep abreast of the latest vulnerabilities of the systems I audit. I would like to be on mailing lists for Novell, AS/400, NT and UNIX security exposures.

1 0

See sameer run the talk show circuit.
by sameer＠beer.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well not really. I am doing the "Electronic Frontiers Forum" thing by Jon Lebkowsky tomorrow evening though on "Club Wired". see http://www.hotwired.com/club/ -sameer

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 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

1 0

Re: If you can't take the heat... (Was Re: Keep the pressure!)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:54 PM 3/20/96, Jim McCoy wrote: >It seems that cypherpunks can dish it out when other newsgroups and >mailing lists suffer such problems ("well, the remailers do nothing I think that using the language "it seems that cypherpunks..." is too all-inclusive. Not many of us have complained, fortunately, about the anonymous posts, and I know of no votes or other opinion polls. A better wording might be "It seems that some cypherpunks..." Even better, "some members of the list...." There are something like 1000 list subscribers. A handful of vocal folks are critical of uses of anonymity. Not surprising, given our diversity. And since the "traitor list" is so childish, regardless of being written anonymously or not, it is unlikely that many people will jump up and claim to be impressed. Thus, it is unsurprising that the comments that _have_ been heard tend to be about one of the few things that can be immediately recognized: the anonymous (and to some, "cowardly") nature of the charges. And I think the anonymity issue is interesting. In the past, Detweiler railed against the uses of anonymity while himself being the single most prolific user of anonymous insults and the like, so it's an interesting pathology to study. While I personally trash the "traitor list" posts from Mr. Anonymous, I also trash similar rants from non-anonymous persons. >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. "We" fall back on this tired refrain? Again, only a handful (no more than 5) have denounced this use of anonymity, which leaves hundreds of others who have said nothing of the kind. --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."

1 0

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

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