December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Limiting Reuse of Certificates
by JMKELSEY＠delphi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [To: cypherpunks list ## Date: 01/11/96 02:25 pm ## Subject: Limiting reuse of certificates. ] >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 17:31:24 -0500 (EST) >From: Michael Froomkin <froomkin(a)law.miami.edu> >Subject: Certificates: limiting your liability with reuse limitations >Suppose I am a CA. I am worried that by issuing a certificate with >a lifespan of more than 2 milliseconds I am opening myself up to >unlimited liability if for some reason, despite my best efforts, I >issue an erroneous certificate. >I know I can put an expiration date on the certificate, but that's >not enough. I can accumulate a lot of exposure in a few seconds, >much less weeks. >I know I can put a reliance limit in the X.509 ver 3 certificate, >but that's not enough. Even a $1 limit could be used many millions >of times. >Is it feasabile to say: Can only be relied on once per >day/week/month? Is this something the relying parties can reasonably >be expected to monitor? This is a hard problem. The only way I can see to do this is to require interaction with the CA (or its proxy) for each signature. The good news is that if you're doing certificate revokation lists online, then there is probably already some interaction with the server to verify that a certificate is still valid, before it is accepted. The trick here is to flip around who has to check the CRL server. a. Bob forms D = document he wants signed, ID_B = Bob's ID, and sends to Alice M_0 = ID_B, D. b. Alice forms T = timestamp and sends to the Server M_1 = T, hash(ID_B, D), Sign_{SK_A}(T, hash(ID_B, D)). c. The Server verifies the timestamp, the signature, and that Alice is currently allowed to sign things (her certificate is valid and hasn't been overused today). If not, it drops the connection and ends the protocol. If things all check out, however, it forms M_2 = T, Sign{SK_S}(T, hash(ID_B, D), Certificate_A). d. Alice now has (until the timestamp T becomes too stale) an authorization to sign D. She does so, and sends to Bob (who's been waiting all this time) M_3 = T, ID_B, D, Certificate_A, M_2, Sign_{SK_A}(ID_B, D). Now, the trick is to redefine valid signatures as only those that look like M_3. The recipient has to verify the timestamp, and that he hasn't received an identical signature from Alice recently, and has to verify the two signatures. (I make no promises about the soundness of this protocol--it's meant to illustrate the idea, not to be used directly.) Other than that, I can't think of anything that will fit the bill. >A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) >Associate Professor of Law | >U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu >P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin >Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. Note: Please respond via e-mail as well as or instead of posting, as I get CP-LITE instead of the whole list. --John Kelsey, jmkelsey(a)delphi.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMPV110Hx57Ag8goBAQFVggP+P9ilz7cM8BQX+nDgjByG4avAoHxgDpDw cWsx7dw31MQsPCEkzvuvCcwf36e4xEQd3jKMh5rYmWrYRAMQAoB4yGm7ixN4tqXH 1g6Xw9QPCLnW4OJvjfynzFfKb5i8KcvOSBnCXzOd1Z/LYEI23/6phdNd9rRf/YjL mxbKS7gDrHI= =dn6t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: BIG NEWS: PRZ investigation dropped!
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Stanton McCandlish <mech(a)eff.org> >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 11:53:46 -0800 (PST) > >Justice Dept. dropped investigation of Phil Zimmermann, declines to >prosecute. I never expected them to prosecute, unless he forced them to by toilet bombing the court, but I did expect them to keep on "investigating" him forever and a day. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: Certificates: limiting your liability with reuse limitations
by Censored Girls Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In Minnesota, you wouldn't be liable. All you can do IS all you can do. Anything else is a crime! (on their part). Love Always, Carol Anne At 05:07 PM 1/11/96 -0800, you wrote: >You write: >How do notaries public get around this liability problem? It seems to me >that the checking done for a certificate might be similar to the checking >done by a notary - a glance at a driver's license, say. Are they subject >to liability if they are fooled by fake ID? > >Hal > > -- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

Mitnick: Markoff responds to Platt's CuD "Takedown" critique
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Topic 1119 [media]: Media Appearances of WELLperns VI, S.F.Bay Area Division #160 of 296: john markoff (johnm) Wed Dec 20 '95 (14:49) 557 lines Charles is certainly entitled to his opinion about our book, but I thought I would take this opportunity to correct his inaccuracies. REVIEW OF TAKEDOWN ON THE COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST The Mad-Scientist Myth Figure A circumlocuitous review of_Takedown_ by Tsutomu Shimomura and John Markoff (Hyperion, $24.95) by Charles Platt > Perhaps it seems strange that a journalist should defend herself by pleading ignorance of the subject that she chose to write about. Still, we should give Katie Hafner credit where it is due: she now seems genuinely repentant. Just for the record, Katie says that her remarks were taken out of context here by Charles. For her actual views you might want to look at her Esquire article on the subject, which is reprinted in a new paperback version of Cyberpunk. > The same can hardly be said for her ex-husband and ex- collaborator John Markoff, who must have made well over half a millions dollars by now, portraying Kevin Mitnick as an arch-enemy of techno-society. If Markoff regrets the "darkside hacker" label, he hasn't said much about it. * * * > Unlike many hackers, Kevin Mitnick never looked for publicity. He felt he should be paid for giving interviews, and when Hafner and Markoff refused to come up with any money, he refused to talk to them. He became famous--or infamous--while doing his best to remain obscure. The darkside hacker label was created during the late 1980s by the Southern California press. It is a label that I noted, but I didn't create. However, he's right I don't regret using it. And also for the record, Kevin Mitnick used to drive around in Las Vegas with a stack of copies of Cyberpunk in the trunk of his car to give away to admirers. He is on record as saying the book is "20 percent inaccurate." > The key event that catalyzed this strange ascent to notoriety occurred on July 4th, 1994, when a story by John Markoff appeared on the front page of _The New York Times._ Headlined "Cyberspace's Most Wanted: Hacker Eludes F.B.I. Pursuit," the text described Mitnick as "one of the nation's most wanted computer criminals" and was accompanied with a suitably menacing mug shot. The story was liberally spiced with tidbits recycled from _Cyberpunk,_ but if you looked more closely, there wasn't any actual news. Mitnick had violated parole a year or so previously, had disappeared at that time, and hadn't been seen since. That was all. This is really inaccurate. Kevin Mitnick had become notorious nationally in the late 1980s as a result of his being arrested for attacks on Digital Equipment Computers. A menacing mug shot? It was the only photo available. No actual news? Not the way I remember it. The news was that he was being pursued by the FBI (three agents full time), the California DMV, US Marshalls, telco security, local police, etc. The further news was that the FBI had told cellular telephone companies that they believed the fugitive had stolen software from at least six cellular phone manufacturers. I thought then, and still think, this merited a story. I also think the story was a good yarn. Mitnick had succeeded in evading law enforcement for more than a year - again. Why was this on the front page of a highly respected newspaper? Maybe because of the scary implications: that a weirdo who could paralyze vast computer networks was on the loose, and law enforcement had been too stupid to catch him. In reality, though, Mitnick has never been accused of willfully damaging any hardware or data, and has never been Wrong again. He was accused of doing more than $100,000 damage at US Leasing, a SF time sharing company in 1980. Their system was trashed by a group that Mitnick was a member of. After that, at various other times he cost companies tens of thousands of dollars trying to close the door on his attacks. A further point is that I have no control over placement of my stories in the paper. In _Cyberpunk,_ he was described as an omnipotent, obsessive-compulsive, egotistical, vindictive sociopath who used his computer to take revenge on the world that had spurned him. He later claimed (in _2600_ magazine) that this This is a totally misreading of Cyberpunk. I invite anyone to read that section of the book and see if that is the way he was portrayed. was "twenty percent fabricated and libelous." Maybe so, but I guess Kevin acknowledged 80 percent of what we wrote as accurate... 8) So far as I can discover, the FBI didn't classify Mitnick as one of America's most wanted; it was John Markoff who chose to apply that label. Markoff went far beyond the traditional function of a journalist who merely reports news; he helped to create a character, and the character himself became the news. Sorry, but I didn't create the character, Kevin did. He has now been arrested six times in fifteen years. Each time, except for this last time, he was given a second chance to get his act together. He chose not too. It seems to me that he is an adult and makes choices. He chose to keep breaking in to computers. He knew what the penalty was. So what's the problem? Unfortunately for Mitnick, this made him the target of a hacker witch hunt. A few years ago, here in CuD, Jim Thomas A witch hunt? Give me a break. It was an article describing a law enforcement hunt for a fugitive, who had been arrested five times previously, convicted at least three times, and was known to be attacking the computers of the nation's cellular telephone companies. * * * This information probably wasn't worth much; Markoff told the feds that Mitnick could probably be found stuffing himself with junk food at the nearest Fatburger, whereas in fact Mitnick was working out regularly, had slimmed down to normal weight, and had become a vegetarian. Oh please. I was called by Kent Walker, the AUSA on the case during a meeting at the Well. He asked me if I thought Mitnick was dangerous. I responded that everything I knew about Mitnick had either been in Cyberpunk or my July 4 1994 article, ie. in the public. I repeated the story of one arrest in which Kevin ended up handcuffed in tears over the hood of the detective's car. I gave no other information, nor got any. John Markoff's precise motives remain a mystery. We can, however, learn something by examining his writing. In his _Times_ article describing Mitnick's capture, he stated that the hacker had been on a "long crime spree" during which he had managed to "vandalize government, corporate and university computer systems." These are interesting phrases. "Crime spree" suggests a wild cross-country caper involving robberies and maybe even a shoot-out. In reality, Mitnick seems to have spent most of his time hiding in an apartment, typing on a keyboard. The word "vandalize" implies that he wantonly wrecked some property; in reality, Mitnick caused no intentional damage to anyone or anything. This is just not true. Kevin Mitnick was actively sharing system vulnerabilities with other people on the net. That is about the most damaging thing that could be done to the Internet community. When it came down to it, Markoff's journalism was long on opinion and short on facts. Sort of like this review, I guess..... 8) * * * I have a fantasy. In my fantasy, John Markoff bursts into a room where Tsutomu Shimomura sits as solemn as a zen master, peering impassively at a computer screen while he types a Perl script. "Tsutomu, I have good news and bad news!" Markoff exclaims. "The good news is, we sold the book rights for three-quarters of a million. The bad news is, I haven't got a clue what Mitnick was doing for the past two years. What the hell are we going to write about?" Shimomura doesn't even bother to look up. He gives a barely perceptible shrug and says, "Me, of course." This is weird... Mitnick grew up in a lower-class single-parent household and taught himself almost everything he knew about computers. Nice try. Kevin took lots of computer classes at various schools. * * * Presumably because Markoff felt that some romantic interest would help to sell the story, this book contains revelations of a type normally reserved for Hollywood celebrities or British royalty. While he was pursuing Mitnick, Shimomura was also pursuing "Julia," the long-term girlfriend of John Gilmore, one of the first employees at Sun Microsystems in 1982 who subsequently co-founded the software corporation Cygnus. The reason we described what happened at Toad Hall on Xmas was that the attacks first came from toad.com while Tsutomu and Julia were there. If we hadn't have been complete in our description someone would have charged us with a cover up. Please remember that David Bank, a San Jose Mercury reporter, spent several weeks pursuing the hypothesis that Tsutomu had attack his own computers. Kevin Mitnick begins to seem likable by comparison. At least he shows some irreverence, taunting Shimomura and trying to puncture his pomposity. At one point, Mitnick bundles up all the data he copied from Shimomura's computer and saves it onto the system at Netcom where he knows that Shimomura will find it. He names the file "japboy." At Yea, That Kevin is a real likeable guy. another point, in a private online communication (intercepted by Shimomura without any lawful authorization) Mitnick Wrong. At the Well, Netcom and in Raleigh, Tsutomu, at all times was operating under the exemptions granted Internet Service Providers by the ECPA. Well, maybe so, but unlike Shimomura, Mitnick never claimed to be heroic. Nor did he cause any intentional "damage." Nor did he "attack," "pilfer," and "vandalize" computer systems, even though these words are used repeatedly throughout the book--in the same pejorative style that John Markoff previously perfected in _The New York Times._ Perjorative?? Yikes! I mean we could go to the dictionary..... * * * All the charges except one have been dropped against Kevin Mitnick. He may even be out of jail in time for the Markoff/Shimomura book tour. In other words, the man Wrong. Kevin Mitnick is in jail in Los Angeles facing charges from more than six United States Federal Districts. He may go on trial or he may plea bargain. described in advance publicity for _Takedown_ as a threat to global civilization will befree to go about his business-- because, in the end, he wasn't much of a threat at all. Will this create an embarrassing schism between _Takedown_ and reality? Probably not. Reality has been at odds with the Mitnick myth for quite a while, but the myth is stronger than ever. Myth and reality? I have been writing about Kevin Mitnick for a long time, since 1981 to be precise, but I didn't create a myth, he created his own story.

2 1

Mitnick #4: Platt's final response to Markoff
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Topic 1119 [media]: Media Appearances of WELLperns VI, S.F.Bay Area Division #217 of 296: Aaron L Dickey (kieran) Wed Jan 3 '96 (20:19) 7 lines Charles Platt responds: "John Markoff's reply to my replies is much more factual and convincing than his original response to my review of his book. I thank him for his time and trouble. I still find it hard to agree with his overall perspective, but I am now convinced that he does have a sincere point of view, and I value the instances where he has corrected me on details." Topic 1119 [media]: Media Appearances of WELLperns VI, S.F.Bay Area Division #223 of 296: Declan McCullagh (declan) Thu Jan 4 '96 (07:33) 23 lines And one final response from Charles Platt: "Someone suggested that by criticizing TAKEDOWN I attempted to further my own career. "My primary career has nothing to do with computer journalism. Under a different name I write a series of prehistory novels, the first of which now has 200,000 copies in print. This is my main source of income; I pursue computer journalism as a sideline, because it pleases me. "I do have a computer-related book coming out under my own name later this year, but it was written more for pleasure than profit and is aimed at a small audience: people who are more concerned about really dangerous criminals such as James Exon or Ralph Reed than about hackers such as Kevin Mitnick. Frankly, this book will not sell a lot of copies no matter what I do, because decency legislation and first-amendment issues are a noncommercial topic compared with so-called computer crime. "Bearing all this in mind, it is misleading to suggest that I wrote my review for motives of self-promotion. I wrote it because I had just finished reading TAKEDOWN, it had irritated me greatly, and I believed (perhaps wrongly) that I possessed background information that might not be mentioned by other reviewers elsewhere."

1 0

Mitnick #2: Platt responds to Markoff's rebuttal
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Topic 1119 [media]: Media Appearances of WELLperns VI, S.F.Bay Area Division #190 of 296: Declan McCullagh (declan) Tue Jan 2 '96 (09:38) 212 lines <hidden> From cp(a)panix.com Tue Jan 2 09:26:11 1996 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 03:11:10 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <cp(a)panix.com> To: Declan McCullagh Cc: Charles Platt <cp(a)panix.com> Subject: John Markoff's "rebuttal" In Computer Underground Digest I wrote a critical review of the recent book _Takedown_ by Shimomura and Markoff, in which I suggested that John Markoff had profited handsomely by mythologizing Kevin Mitnick as one of "America's most wanted computer criminals." My review was copied to The Well, where JM wrote a rebuttal. I am amused to fiund that this rebuttal not only fails to answer my rather serious allegations, but commits exactly the same journalistic sins of vagueness and hyperbole that I complained about originally. JM writes: "Just for the record, Katie [Hafner] says that her remarks were taken out of context here by Charles." This statement is perhaps intentionally vague, because if I don't know exactly what I'm being accused of, I can't answer it. *What,* precisely, was taken out of context? JM doesn't say. All I know is that when Katie Hafner contacted me directly, she complained that she never branded Kevin Mitnick a "darkside hacker" in the book _Cyberpunk;_ she merely used the phrase as the title of the first section of the book. But in fact, the "darkside hacker" term *is* applied to Mitnick within the text of the book; and in any case, a section heading obviously sets the tone for everything that follows. Therefore, I do not believe that I quoted Katie Hafner out of context--unless JM is talking about something else entirely, in which case he should say so, instead of attempting to devalue my review by a generalized accusation. JM Writes: "The darkside hacker label was created during the late 1980s by the Southern California press. It is a label that I noted, but I didn't create. However, he's right I don't regret using it. And also for the record, Kevin Mitnick used to drive around in Las Vegas with a stack of copies of Cyberpunk in the trunk of his car to give away to admirers. He is on record as saying the book is '20 percent inaccurate.'" JM is confusing the issue. I never suggested he invented the "darkside hacker" term. This is totally irrelevant. I said, very specifically, that he was the first to *apply* this label to Mitnick. JM does not actually deny this, and I believe it is true. Re my description of his initial article about Mitnick for the NY Times, JM writes: "This is really inaccurate. Kevin Mitnick had become notorious nationally in the late 1980s as a result of his being arrested for attacks on Digital Equipment Computers. A menacing mug shot? It was the only photo available. No actual news? Not the way I remember it. The news was that he was being pursued by the FBI (three agents full time), the California DMV, US Marshalls, telco security, local police, etc. The further news was that the FBI had told cellular telephone companies that they believed the fugitive had stolen software from at least six cellular phone manufacturers. I thought then, and still think, this merited a story. I also think the story was a good yarn. Mitnick had succeeded in evading law enforcement for more than a year - again." "Notorious" in what sense? This is another of those vague terms that JM throws around without limiting or defining it. Mitnick may have been "notorious" in hacker circles, but not in the eyes of the general public. My point was, and is, that JM converted Mitnick from a relatively obscure hacker into a public figure. JM tries to evade this point but cannot specifically deny it. As for Mitnick being "actively pursued," I believe this is a vast overstatement. As I understand it, law enforcement had largely lost interest until JM's news item embarrassed them. Even after that, according to JM's own book _Takedown,_ law enforcement had to be prodded into taking action. They seemed not to share JM's perception of Mitnick as a severe threat. They certainly didn't characterize him as one of "America's most wanted." In response to my statement that Kevin Mitnick has never been accused of intentionally damaging a computer, JM writes: "Wrong again. He was accused of doing more than $100,000 damage at US Leasing, a SF time sharing company in 1980. Their system was trashed by a group that Mitnick was a member of. After that, at various other times he cost companies tens of thousands of dollars trying to close the door on his attacks. A further point is that I have no control over placement of my stories in the paper." With all due respect, this is not fair or accurate journalism. Was Mitnick *active* in the group that caused the alleged damage? Did he play a personal role? Does JM know? If not, he's just slinging mud. This is a smear and should not be presented as if it is a fact. On the other hand, if there is evidence that Mitnick was indeed actively responsible, I will gladly admit that I didn't know of this. As for the money that companies spent fixing the security weaknesses that allowed Mitnick to gain access, it is grossly unfair and misleading for JM to throw this into a paragraph discussing "intentional damage." This is exactly the kind of deliberate blurring of different kinds of computer misuse that I complained about in my review. Regarding Mitnick's "most wanted" status, JM writes: "Sorry, but I didn't create the character, Kevin did. He has now been arrested six times in fifteen years. Each time, except for this last time, he was given a second chance to get his act together. He chose not too. It seems to me that he is an adult and makes choices. He chose to keep breaking in to computers. He knew what the penalty was. So what's the problem?" Here again, JM avoids my direct point--that he was the first to categorize Mitnick as "one of America's most wanted." Of course Mitnick is responsible for his actions. I never disputed this, and never suggested he was innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted. I merely suggested that the crimes were relatively trivial and were exaggerated out of all proportion by JM's extravagant prose. Exaggeration, imprecision, and innuendo: *that's* the problem, JM. JM writes: "A witch hunt? Give me a break. It was an article describing a law enforcement hunt for a fugitive, who had been arrested five times previously, convicted at least three times, and was known to be attacking the computers of the nation's cellular telephone companies." My review complained that JM throws around words such as "attack" without ever defining them in computer terms. He's still doing it here in his rebuttal. Kevin Mitnick never attacked any computer, by my understanding of the word. Re providing advice to the police, JM writes: "I was called by Kent Walker, the AUSA on the case during a meeting at the Well. He asked me if I thought Mitnick was dangerous. I responded that everything I knew about Mitnick had either been in Cyberpunk or my July 4 1994 article, ie. in the public. I repeated the story of one arrest in which Kevin ended up handcuffed in tears over the hood of the detective's car. I gave no other information, nor got any." Since we will never know the extent to which JM tried to help the FBI, I guess we'll just have to take his word for this. Re Mitnick's dangerousness, JM writes: "This is just not true. Kevin Mitnick was actively sharing system vulnerabilities with other people on the net. That is about the most damaging thing that could be done to the Internet community." Is JM aware that some highly respected security experts believe that sharing news of vulnerabilities is the best way to encourage better security? True, this is a controversial subject; but certainly the sharing of vulnerabilities is NOT "the most damaging thing that could be done to the Internet community." That's just another of those wildly exaggerated phrases that JM throws out for emotional effect. I can think of many politicians--and even a few journalists--who pose a far greater danger to the future of the net than Kevin Mitnick ever did. Re the petty gossip in _Takedown,_ JM writes: "The reason we described what happened at Toad Hall on Xmas was that the attacks first came from toad.com while Tsutomu and Julia were there. If we hadn't have been complete in our description someone would have charged us with a cover up. Please remember that David Bank, a San Jose Mercury reporter, spent several weeks pursuing the hypothesis that Tsutomu had attack his own computers." Uh-huh. And I suppose the rest of the sordid, relentlessly personal thread in _Takedown,_ describing every little nuance of Shimomura's campaign to steal someone's long-term girlfriend, was merely included so that no one could complain that the account was incomplete? Really! In my review, I complained about pejorative terms (such as "attack") that JM uses repeatedly. His response: "Perjorative?? Yikes! I mean we could go to the dictionary....." Well, I guess JM *should* go to the dictionary. If he does, he will find that pejorative is a perfectly good word which I spelled correctly. It's ironic that he seems unaware of it, since it so aptly describes his own journalistic technique. Re my assertion that all charges but one against Mitnick have been dropped, JM replies: "Wrong. Kevin Mitnick is in jail in Los Angeles facing charges from more than six United States Federal Districts. He may go on trial or he may plea bargain." I tried to contact Mitnick's attorney before I wrote my review. He did not return my calls. I based my statement on information from three other sources. If it's incorrect, obviously I stand corrected. As I understand it, though, those charges from other federal districts may not have been actually filed. Is "facing charges" another of those slightly misleading terms that makes the situation sound worse than it really is? Are the charges actual, or potential? Finally JM writes: "Myth and reality? I have been writing about Kevin Mitnick for a long time, since 1981 to be precise, but I didn't create a myth, he created his own story." In his own rebuttal, JM has already referred to the Mitnick story as a "good yarn." A yarn, of course, is a richly embroidered, sometimes fictionalized version of the truth. This is precisely what I believe he concocted, and it isn't my idea of decent journalism. ---- Lastly, a question which occurred to me after I wrote my original review. Around the same time that Kevin Mitnick broke into Tsutomo Shimomura's computer, he also broke into the system of Dan Farmer, another extremely well known security expert. What did Farmer do? He didn't get self-righteous about the "invasion of privacy." He didn't start ranting about the "extreme danger" posed by Mitnick. He certainly didn't take several weeks from his normal schedule and pursue a personal vendetta. Nor did he coauthor a book portraying Mitnick as a danger to the net. He presumably fixed the flaw that had allowed Mitnick to get in, and went on with his life. Would JM like to explain how Dan Farmer's perception of "the Mitnick threat" can be so different from Shimomura's? To the outside observer, it almost looks as if there wasn't a significant security threat, and Shimomura must have been motivated by wounded vanity, while John Markoff was motivated by his desire to tell a "good yarn" and make a lot of money. Am I wrong?

1 0

Phil Z getting through customs
by Brad Shantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Koontz wrote: > The question is, can Phil get through U.S. Customs at a point of entry > in a reasonable time, now? No. Just because he's off the hook as such doesn't mean that Customs will know about it. Customs officials often appear to me to be in their own little world...(personal opinion only.) I wasn't aware that Phil would have problems at customs anyway. If you answer the questions truthfully and are a US citizen, they really can't hold you back. Brad

2 1

Re: Zimmermann case is dropped.
by Brad Shantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Well, so far the feds haven't prosecuted "Jim Bidzos" for posting Crypto++ > to usenet. Anyway, both versions have been on utopia.hacktic.nl for months. I thought that it was determined to be a hoax. Someone "disguised" as Jim Bidzos posted it to USENET. Anyone have confirmation? Brad

2 1

SPO_oks
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1-12-96. WashP: "Agencies Debate Value of Being Out in the Cold. Spies Under 'Nonofficial Cover' Are Among Most Sensitive Operations." Today, as the roles and missions of American spying are being reviewed, one of the most sensitive debates in the U.S. intelligence community is whether to step up the overseas use of NOCs, not only by the CIA but also by the Pentagon's Defense Humint Service and the FBI, both of which also can work abroad under cover. Because they operate alone and outside embassies, NOCs need their own secure communications and a safe way to keep their highly classified files. 1-11-96. WashP: "Israeli Media Break Censorship Rules to Name New Security Service Head." The man who will take the reins of Israel's Shin Bet security service, Rear Adm. Ami Ayalon, was named today in Israeli news accounts for the first time in the history of the secretive organization. Israeli media have yet to name Ayalon's predecessor, Karmi Gilon, who was still referred to today as "Kaf." 1-11-96. FinTim: "Yeltsin's New Spy Master to Play by the Rules." Mr Trubnikov will be the first spymaster to work under new legislation which says the intelligence services must use "a combination of open and secret methods and tactics and in accordance with the principle of legality and respect for human rights and freedoms". Separately, Mr Yeltsin signed a decree limiting phone taps and the unauthorised collection of information on firms and individuals. But Tass, which reported the decree, gave no details of how it would work. SPO_oks

1 0

Next on "Geraldo": "Darkside Hackers in Love with their Trackers"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:48 PM 1/12/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >PS I'm really not interested in reading large chunks of information on >John Gilmore's or Tsutomu Shimomura's sex lives anywhere at all, but >I'm sure there is SOME mailing list where it is relevant. Why don't >you go and post the garbage there, eh? On this one I have to agree with Perry. As I started to read the item someone posted (I have mercifully forgotten the poster) about TS in the upstairs-hot-tub-with-waterfalls and the Nepal-returned-starstruck lovers and their "committed" relationship, I felt I'd opened a manhole above a sewer. Or tuned in to "Sally Jesse Raphael." "Takedown" is one book I don't plan to even flip through at the bookstore. No offense intended to John, Tsutomo, Kevin, Julia, Kent, Katie, or John. --Tim May 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