December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Web Based Encrypted Backup
by foodie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Connected Corporation announced DataSafe, a Mac/Windows web based backup service. $14.95/Month for 50MB, archival CD-ROM for $24.95 each. Offers passwords and DES encryption. Storage is on 2 mirrored sites. Phone # (508) 270-0035, http://www.connected.com/. >From thier site: ------- Security DataSafe uses the federally approved Data Encryption Standard (DES) with a 56-bit key to encrypt all of your data before it leaves your PC. This level of encryption is so powerful, it is not permitted to be exported outside of the United States (we use a different, but similarly powerful encryption scheme for our international customers). You have the option to choose your own encryption password, which is never transferred to us over the modem. In this way, no one but you can read your data - not when it is in transfer to us, nor when it is being stored in encrypted format at our secure operations centers. When this level of encryption is combined with the fact that we only transmit the portions of each file that change every day, not the entire file, the chances that anyone will be able to read or make use of your data as it travels over the network are practically eliminated. DataSafe uses the TCP/IP communications protocol for both its private dial-up network and Internet-based services. -------- I really like the idea of distributed, encrypted backups, but this strikes me as the kind of thing that has the potential to get a lot of gullible people in trouble. Hopefully someone offshore with proven security and a wider choice of algorithms will compete... (I don't know if Connected is good at security, so this shouldn't be construed as a swipe at them. Does anyone know anything about them?) -j -- The signal is the noise. ____________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence mailto:jal@cyborganic.net mailto:foodie@netcom.com

1 0

doubleclick monitoring web browsing habits
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A post on comp.risks described a web adverstising service called "doubleclick". As described in its web pages at <URL: http://ad.doubleclick.net >, this service provides targetted advertising on the web. Participating web sites include links to doubleclick to show graphic images. Advertisers sign up with doubleclick and specify profiles for where and when they want their ads to appear. Doubleclick then selects an ad for each user who visits a participating site. Participating sites get paid for each such hit, and advertisers pay based on how many hits are expected. Apparently this is being used quite a bit. But what I found disturbing was the scope of the information being collected by doubleclick. The various parameters that advertisers can use in setting up their profiles for where their ads should appear are described at <URL: http://ad.doubleclick.net/advertising/adreghelp.htm > and include: TARGET BY WEB PAGE/SITE CATEGORY TARGET BY SERVICE PROVIDER (SP) TARGET BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION We determine a person's geographic location through the physical location of their network or through user registration. We have created an extensive map of both organization and Internet Service Provider (ISP) networks. TARGET BY USER'S OPERATING SYSTEM TARGET BY USER'S BROWSER TYPE TARGET BY HIGH-LEVEL INTERNET DOMAIN TYPE TARGET BY ORGANIZATION TYPE (SIC CODE) TARGET BY ORGANIZATION SIZE OR REVENUE TARGET BY PERSONAL INTERESTS doubleclick.net continues to add to an extensive database of user interests from activity on doubleclick.net member web sites as well as from publicly available sources like netnews. User interests are kept strictly confidential and will not be released to advertisers. We do allow advertisers to target ad banners based on user's interests. The more your ad banner is targeted at specific user interests, the more likely you are to generate a response. Personal interest categories include: Arts and Literature Business, Finance, and Economy Computers, Software and Internet Culture, Religion, and Society Education and InstructionalEntertainment Government, Politics, and Military Health and Medicine News Recreation and LeisureScience and Technology Social Science Sports Travel This last category is the really worrisome one. doubleclick monitors the web browsing habits of users whenever they hit a doubleclick- participating site, and builds up databases about users from that, as well as from usenet posts. This is exactly what people have been talking about as an abuse of privacy on the net. One question is whether enough information to uniquely identify users is routinely provided by widely used browsers like Netscape. I have refrained from telling my Netscape browser my name and email address out of fear that it would reveal this information; as a result, I can't use mailto: links, which is annoying (and also suspicious; lynx allows me to do mailto: without permanently entering an email address). This points out the need for browser providers to be sensitive to the privacy needs of their users and to clearly explain when and under what circumstances private information is revealed. It also suggests that services like www.anonymizer.com will be increasingly important for people to protect their privacy while browsing. Hal

2 1

Re: PBS show
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:40 PM 6/13/96 -0400, Warren wrote: >I enjoyed the show as well...I was a bit young when the Altair was first >published in Radio Elec., Nope. Popular Electronics. January, 1975 issue. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: PBS show
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:26 PM 6/12/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >I caught the show and thought it was pretty good, all in all. I thought so too? When is part II coming on? (I hope it didn't come right after that, I had to run.) Next week? >I personally despise the term "nerd," but I won't get into that here. Ahhh... it makes them happy. What I find most unnapealing is the unabashed, "I don't have a life, I live with a computer" mentality. I was rather taken with that mentality myself for a bit (and I'm sure it contributed to the RSI), but even then I would have found it painfully difficult to only associate with one "culture" and only do one thing all day long. Maybe "nerds" over do it, but they do do other things, like play magic, or assasin, D&D, or whatever. <grin> And the most interesting/brilliant computer people that I run into _have_ other interests beyond computers. >first employee hired by Jobs and Woz. Personally, my first personal >computer was a Processor Technology SOL, as I thought the Apple II looked >too much like a toy. Shows you what I knew.) The thing that startled me, was the contrary temporal perspective. Watching it I felt like, "Hey! I remeber that, I used an Apple II in kindergarden to write LOGO," or though I didn't have an Altair, I had a Bailey Arcade. No one here probably remembers, but it was a kick ass game playing (the best at the time) and programmable machine. I remember belonging to a mailing-list club and getting a thick envolope of type written code that I'd dutifully punch into a calculator like entry pad. (All ~20 keys for quadrupely overloaded!!) The cool thing was it had cool (c-64 like) peeks and pokes and you could call a plethora of the pregenerated graphical things from your own code. Then there was always saving it to the audio tape... <ack> Ok, so that is the nostalgia bit (hey I remember that), the other bit was a, wow that was a long time ago. Looking at PC-history always feels like a contradiction in time. _______________________ Regards, Laziness is no more than the habit of resting before you get tired. -Jules Renard Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

2 1

RSAREF down?
by Howard Melman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know anything about this? tmp> ftp ftp.rsa.com Connected to ftp.rsa.com. 220- 220-Welcome to the RSA Data Security, Inc. FTP Archive. [...] 220-***************** Special Announcement ******************* 220- 220- RSAREF has been taken down until further notice. 220- We will keep you informed for any new announcement. 220- 220-***********************************************************

3 2

Re: Class III InfoWar: TST Article
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

N.B. Joss(a)netcom.com was not acceptable to netcom At 1:13 PM 6/13/96 -0800, Norman Hardy wrote: >EMP (Electro Magnetic Impulse), a side effect of nuclear devices, is >purportedly able to damage electronics over distances of many miles. Some >weapons may be designed to enhance this. I vaguely remember hearing that a nuclear device exploded high over the midwest would have significant EMP effects over half the continental USA. When a USSR pilot flew a "state of the art" fighter out and US intelligence got their hands on it we were surprised that all the electronics were vacuum tubes. However, vacuum tubes are highly resistant to EMP. (They arc between elements, rather than fry like ICs.) >Faraday cages attenuate EMP by the same factor that they attenuate secrets. >I think that if a blast doesn't damage the cage then neither will the EMP. >Of course the cage may survive but fail to protect the interior >(insufficient attenuation). I don't know whether a cage sufficient for >tempest is sufficient for EMP protection. Comm lines and power cables go >thru the cage and cause problems here as well. Perhaps hefty surge >protectors suffice here. Communications equipment outside the cage should >at least be equipped to recover quickly upon transient error and not tear >donw circuits. Normal error control can then hopefully compensate for the >transient. (IP, ATM, Frame relay??) Makes you want fiber optic comm cable. Protection inside the cage probably depends on how powerful the EMP is. However, the need for some degree of stealth in Class III InfoWar will limit the strength of the EMP. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Zimmerman/ViaCrypt?
by Edgar Swank 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bruce Baugh recently posted, *Has there been any news recently about what's going on with commercial versions of PGP? I've been toying with the idea of buying the Windows version from ViaCrypt just to have a PGP that doesn't need to shell out to DOS each time it runs, but I'm curious as to where, if anywhere, things seem to be going. First, unless there's been a new release, the so-called Windows version of ViaCrypt is just a Windows shell that still creates a DOS window to run PGP. It's a pretty good shell, and it's easy to install, but that's about it. There was a big discussion recently on alt.security.pgp about PRZ and ViaCrypt. Apparently Phil now wants to produce his own commercial version of PGP and has "requested" ViaCrypt to sell back the commercial rights under threat of a lawsuit if they don't. Phil disagrees with ViaCrypts new "business" version of PGP which apparently encrypts all messages with an employer-supplied public key in addition to any specified by the employee. ViaCrypt has their side of the argument on their web page. http://www.viacrypt.com/ The basis of the possible lawsuit would be that ViaCrypt violated their agreement not to put any "back door" into any product with the PGP name. Whether the "business version feature" could be defined as a "back door" would be the crux of the argument. -- edgar(a)Garg.Campbell.CA.US (Edgar Swank) The Land of Garg BBS -- +1 408 378-5108

2 1

Re: Insults (was: PBS show)
by Blake Wehlage 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Geek Pride! Yes! Time to start Hacked-Up! > >"We're Freaks! We're Geeks! We've got RSA, Get Used To It" > >--- >Cause maybe (maybe) | In my mind I'm going to Carolina >you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th. >And after all | Email address remains unchanged >You're my firewall - | ........First in Usenet......... > > Speak for yourself, man! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Blake "Pokey" Wehlage Age-13 Gaa- 3.69 (for ice hockey goalie) <jwilk(a)iglou.com> My page- http://www.iglou.com/members/jwilk.html Quote- Does whiskey count as beer? -Homer Simpson

1 0

Re: PBS show
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:26 PM 6/12/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Most of the portrayals of Silicon Valley history was pretty accurate, >especially the 1975-78 "Homebrew Computer Club" days. (I used to go to >about every other one of these, mainly in '77-78, where I sometimes passed >out free samples of the 8080 and stuff like that. A friend of mine at the >time was one of the Apple II motherboard designers, and another was the >first employee hired by Jobs and Woz. Personally, my first personal >computer was a Processor Technology SOL, as I thought the Apple II looked >too much like a toy. Shows you what I knew.) But the Apple II WAS a toy! Non-detached keyboard, poor placement of reset key, upper-case only, 40-character wide display, odd microprocessor, VERY SMALL capacity floppies (which were very slow as well), as well as a hostile legal situation regarding the building of clones. Hell, they even objected to other companies building boards which plugged into the bus! Personally, I soured on the Apple II when I followed EDN magazine's attempt to build an engineering system with it, called "Project Indecomp." They ran into a boneheaded design problem with the Apple, due to improper clock synchronization and bus timing. They gave up the project, concluding that the Apple II was brain-dead. BTW, Intel shares a substantial proportion of the blame for Apple's choice of the 6502. The decision was made, I've heard, because Intel was still trying to get $200 for a slow 8080, while Western Design Center (?) wanted only about $20 for a 6502. And by refusing to build Masatoshi (?) Shima's design for the Z-80, they totally lost the race for the 8-bit PC world. The Z-80 turned into the highest-volume 8-bit microprocessor by far, leaving both the 8080 and the 8085 in the dust, and even the 6502. I have other, even harsher word for the design of the IBM PC. Oh yes, the Mac sucks bigtime as well, although primarily for legal reasons. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: PBS show
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:30 PM 6/13/96, jim bell wrote: >At 10:31 AM 6/13/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: ... >>The comments about the floppies (" VERY SMALL capacity floppies (which were >>very slow as well") is even more off-base. > >The original Apple II floppy held ONLY 90 kilobytes on a 5" floppy. How did >they do such a bad job? And the cost of these floppies was very low--I seem to recall $150 or $175. In those days, when 8" externals weighed 50-70 pounds and cost a few thousand dollars, this was a notable achievement. Remember, the standards of 1978 are not the standards of today. The "standard" then, for personal computers that were affordable, was an external cassette recorder ("TARBELL" standard). Go back and look at issues of "Byte" or "Interface Age" or "Dr. Dobbs" to see what was really available. Given the low cost of the Apple unit, it's a marvel they could do it at all. The "IWM" was the key. Just plain good design. And "only 90 KB" is also misleading in implying Apple was behind the times. The IBM PC launched 3 years later had a built-in cassette port and only offered 180K diskette drives (later upgraded to 360K). Really, blasting Apple for poor design and for not providing higher-capacity floppies, when the competition was doing far worse, is laughable. >The design for the Z-80 was completed and in Intel's hands. Intel didn't >want to build the Z-80, they wanted to focus on peripheral chips, so they >let Shima go and start Zilog. Your history is flawed. Faggin and Shima did not have a completed Z-80 design when they left; if they did, Intel would hardly have let them take it with them when they left! As the Gen Xers would say, "Duh." Read up on some of the histories of the time. Intel never chose to focus on "peripherals," they chose to build both. (If anything, EPROMs were the profit center in the mid- to late-70s, not either processors or peripherals.) At the time you are apparently referring to, the mid-70s, Intel had a huge effort started to develop the "8800." While this was ultimately a failure, it is supremely stupid to use 20-20 hindsight without looking at more issues. All development efforts and companies involve lots of decisions, lots of tradeoffs, lots of hurt feelings, and lots of apparent mistakes. Arguing that Apple could have introduced a high-capacity floppy in 1978, or that Intel should have developed the Z-8000, is just plain pointless nonsense. We could all speculate about how some company should have done things differently, knowing what we know now. The rest of Bell's points are just typical PC-microprocessor flame material. Use what you want to use, just don't rewrite history to fit your theories. I won't comment further on this thread. --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1