December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Mac Crypto Conference
by vinnie＠webstuff.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hey all; I setup a mac-crypto mailing list at majordomo(a)thumper.vmeng.com the ususal: to: majordomo(a)thumper.vmeng.com subscribe mac-crypto will get you on board. I't purpose is to discuss the specifics of macintosh based cryptography, save the politics for cyhperpunks. my first topic of discussion is the idea of a mac crypto conference, here at apple, cupertino. I wsa thinking of a one day afair, a few sessions, mostly tech, open to the developer public. ------------- Vinnie Moscaritolo Apple DTS Sniper "One Shot..One Kill" http://webstuff.apple.com/~vinnie/ Fingerprint = 4F A3 29 81 50 E4 04 F2 78 25 01 87 6E A2 14 6A --------------

1 0

Re: Judge blocks French ISPs from connecting to revisionist sites
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:07 PM 3/18/96 +0100, Anonymous wrote: > >So that y'all can see what the fuss is about, try the following sites : A far better site that is not being censored is: http://members.aol.com/ironfrog/ubootwaffe/brown.html > Institute for Holocaust Revisionism > <a href="http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg"> This site is not blocked. Greg Raven is a serious Neo-Nazi wacko who took over the IHR by force. The police were called in to break up the fight, and the Nazis spent some time suing each other for control. See the Willis Carto/IHR FAQ for alt.revisionism. > Committee for Open Debate On the Holocaust > <a href="http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/"> This site is not blocked. The "censorship" page is full of events that never happened. Brian acknowledges that the errors I pointed out are errors, but complains that he "doesn't have time" to go back and correct them. He has had time, though, to add more events that never happened. See the URL below [sic]. See also http://www.stormfront.org/, which has widely been reported to have been "censored." It's not. That front page is just Don Black's idea of a joke. See http://www.stormfront.org/stormfront/, http://www2.stormfront.org/default.htm, and http://www3.stormfront.org/. The Nazis are quite well-connected. IHR uses AOL because they *want* to be censored so that they can play victim, and get more support from the otherwise reasonable people here. Even Steve Case knows this, which is why, uncharacteristically, he isn't booting them off. -rich http://www.c2.org/~rich/Press/Swedish/

1 0

FORTUNE666 - AOL postings blamed for Iomega stock troubles (fwd)
by Bruce Zambini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An interesting question of reputations, plus a kneejerk reaction against anonymity... "It must be true; I read it on AOL..." Jon ---------- Jon Lasser (410)494-3072 - Obscenity is a crutch for jlasser(a)rwd.goucher.edu inarticulate motherfuckers. http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D) - Fuck the CDA. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 17 Mar 96 23:42:34 From: FringeWare Daily <email(a)fringeware.com> Subject: FORTUNE666 - AOL postings blamed for Iomega stock troubles Sent from: sentry(a)utxvms.cc.utexas.edu () This may be of interest to lovers and haters of chaos, alike- >From Edupage: IOMEGA STOCK VOLATILITY BLAMED ON AOL POSTINGS Iomega, maker of high-capacity removable disk drives, is the focus of controversy on America Online's Motley Fool bulletin board. Company officials have complained to the SEC that postings on Motley Fool and other BBSs have contained false information and may be contributing to the volatility of its stock. Online exposure has "raised the visibility of some stocks as well as the interest in those stocks," says an outside spokesman for Iomega. "At the same time, we're very concerned about how online services can be used to attempt to drive stock prices higher or lower through misinformation." Postings about Iomega escalated to flaming and physical threats last month, causing Motley Fool to pull some of the more offensive ones, but critics of online BBSs note Iomega's problems are a result of the practice of using "screen names" and the lack of verification of information that's posted. "You don't know if the person is a Ph.D. or in Sing Sing," says one critic. (Wall Street Journal 15 Mar 96 A5C)

1 0

Re: The Leahy Crypto Bill is Rancid Sausage
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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 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 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. [...]

2 1

If you can't take the heat... (Was Re: Keep the pressure!)
by mccoy＠communities.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...

3 2

ANNOUNCE: Donut: Web Basic Interpreter. (fwd)
by Rich Graves 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

Re: A MODEST PROPOSAL
by Brad Shantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy SandFort wrote: > A CYPHERPUNK CALL TO ARMS!!! > > (Did I get the style right?) C'punks, if you feels as I do, > please take a few moments to sign up for the LIST OF SHAME? > Let's show Bill, Bruce, Matt and all the others what most > Cypherpunks really think about them and Mr/Ms Anonymous. This effectively gets the right point across, but might turn Cypherpunks into a USENET newsgroup mass posting of "me too" sentiments. As I agree with Sandy on every point, I reluctantly choose to start.... "Please add me to your list of shame, Mr. Anonymous." Brad Shantz

1 0

IPG and "Free Samples"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:42 PM 3/20/96, Michael Froomkin wrote: >correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the federal direct mail marketing laws >say that any unsolicited merchandise sent to a person becomes their >property, regardless of any disclaimers to the contrary included in the >package? The _physical_ item, e.g., a box of soap or a free copy of "Newsweek," but presumably not the _intellectual property_, e.g, the contents of "Newsweek." (Just because I get free samples of magazines does not mean I now can do with the contents whatever I wish, such as post them on the Net; copyright law is presumably involved.) This may be more analogous to what IDG has done. Disclaimers: IANAL, I am not defending IDG or their "broken in less than one day" tub of snake oil, nor am I defending copyright and direct mail marketing laws. And I might be wrong about the intellectual property issue, though I doubt it. Copyright laws are such that rights are not waived even if free samples are given out, and so forth. IDG can hardly claim their algorithm has trade secret status when they've distributed it to many people. Which leaves them with only trying to enforce copyright protections, a la the Church of Scientology. Maybe IDG will now seek to collect the only bucks they'll ever get by suing various Cypherpunks who are distributing their so-called system? Helena Kobrin can become their lawyer. --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

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