December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

alpha.c2.org problem?
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For the past two days, all mail to my alias at alpha.c2.org has arrived with the message stripped out. All I'm getting is the end remailer's disclaimer statement. ?????

1 0

Re: [Off-topic] Re: Insults (was: PBS show)
by Blake Wehlage 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:06 PM 6/14/96 +0100, Derek Bell wrote: >In message <Pine.3.89.9606140305.A10802-0100000@netcom19>, jonathon writes: >> Note in passing that both "Baptist" and "Mormon" were >> originally terms of insult heaped on members of those >> respective faiths. > > I think "Quaker" had a similar history.. > > Derek Bell > > > I think "hacker, cyberpunk, and phone phreak" are want people think are insults but me and my friends take them a unthought out complaments. P.s. who ever sent me mail calling me pokey should stop hiding behind a remailer, and show yourself, you coward. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

Hackerpunks and C2
by Anonymous User 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ecafe Mixmaster Remailer wrote: > The proposal for a Hackerpunks nym based mailing list is interesting, > however, there are some concerns regarding the susceptibility of the list > to traffic analysis. I think that the belief of the owner of hackerpunks that s/he won't be discovered is somewhat naive. Even though your traffic analysis ideas are right (see below), the most likely way to discover the owner is his/her unintentional screwup. I just feel like monitoring traffic of all internet is too expensive. Still, the secrecy of the location of the hackerpunks-owner is not such an important thing (as long as the list is not located in some police state not honoring free speech). The knowledge of said localtion is not even really important since the contents of this list may be montored anyway by simply subscribing to the list. > The solution to the two dilemmas seems to be to ask that the C2 re-mailing > code be modified so as ensure that each messages is padded to a fixed size > before encrypting and being sent through the reply block. On the other > hand, this would give away information that anyone receiving messages of > this fixed length was likely the owner of some C2 nym. [maybe I saw it on this list] How about this: that every remailer adds a cookie of size X where S == size( message ) X == 20KB - S + rand( 40KB ) if S < 20KB X == 40KB - S + rand( 80KB ) if 20KB <= S < 40KB X == 80KB - S + rand( 160KB ) if 40KB <= S < 80KB and so on. This way, only 2-3 bits of information about size will be available to traffic analyzers, instead of about 10-12. For the most typical situation of messages being about 5KB in size, there is no information leaking. Of course, if an incoming message contained a cookie, it should be dropped by the remailer to be replaced by the new one on the next hop. Same cookie feature could be added to premail. Have fun.

1 0

Re: PBS show
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-06-15 00:22:48 EDT, jwilk(a)iglou.com (Blake Wehlage) writes: << Well I am now using a PC, I use a MAc for programming and both for networking& the internet. So as usual I am plastered as a 13 year old "computer illiterate" thanks real big confidence booster. I love my pc & my mac, I also love my Apple II it showed me the way of programming (first with basic), now I program in C and C++. Oh yea I guess I'm still computer illiterate. >> Id hate to say it.... But i KNOWW you read the part in my letter about it being a GENERAL statement.. i seem to recall I put general in all caps too. Or do those apple 2's only work in all caps... Didnt use those. I used my old atari 800xl to learn basic back in OOooooo 3rd grade. Damn.. Long time ago.......... Back to some encryption things.............I have something I need to look up a little. more..... but Im interested on starting a decryption of a string. It was encrypted using a password, and a randomly seeded number thats reseeded for every character in the string i beliveve... let me research it again... and Ill post some more....

1 0

Re: PBS show
by Blake Wehlage 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:29 PM 6/13/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: > >I only watched a few minutes of the show. Did they mention that Microsoft >actually bought the MSDOS operating system from Seattle Computer products? > They mentioned it, also to be correct the original name was QDOS (quick & dirty Operating System). > >Literally! > > >Jim Bell >jimbell(a)pacifier.com > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 Blake Wehlage 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I used my old >atari 800xl to learn basic back in OOooooo 3rd grade. Damn.. Long time >ago.......... Well I learned BASIC in 3rd grade also but that was only 5 years ago for me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 Blake Wehlage 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>WELllllll Id hate to say.... but after coming across A LOT of different users >from both systems.. It has seemed to me that... IN GENERAL, Mac users are >more computer 'illiterate' seeing as the mac's ease of use. Fine for the >everyday person... but not for me. >Secondly.....as far os the computers software are concerned...... Not much >beats winNT => windows=> PC >THe chips arent 'too' much different. and that leaves me to say..... There's >more PC's out there... which seeing as whats presented..... Leads me to >thinks PC's are 'better' in my eyes. >So... how baout those mets? > > Well I am now using a PC, I use a MAc for programming and both for networking& the internet. So as usual I am plastered as a 13 year old "computer illiterate" thanks real big confidence booster. I love my pc & my mac, I also love my Apple II it showed me the way of programming (first with basic), now I program in C and C++. Oh yea I guess I'm still computer illiterate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

The Louisville Desktop Publishing Conference
by Blake Wehlage 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey are any of you guys (& ladies) going to the Louisville (KY) Desktop Publishing Conference? Well if you are I hope to see you there and mybee we could have lunch and talk about crypto & any other hot topics. The conference is July 30th, 1996. At the Hyatt Regency. Topics include Beginners & experts look on DTP, Graphic software, Internet, Publishing on the net, and many more topics. E-mail : INFO(a)natsem.com for more information. And you ask how does a 13 year old come up with the 195 dollers to go? I didn't my mother, Debby Wilkerson, is one of the Presentors. Hope to see one or more of you there. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

2 1

Re: [noise] (was Re: PBS show)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:38 AM 6/14/96 -0700, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: >at Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:30:44 -0800 jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> may have written... > >>Brain-dead segmented architecture, 64k per segment limitation >code segments, ever hear of code segments? Data segments maybe? There is nothing wrong, conceptually, with _software_ segments... In fact, even hardware segmentation is okay _IF_ the maximum size of those segments will NEVER (in the computer architecture's entire lifetime, and that includes later compatible CPU's) be challenged by the largest program and data to be run on that machine. But a 64K byte segment size is truly and astoundingly bad design, even for 1976. Even a 2**24 byte (16 megabytes) segment size would have turned into a wall a few years ago. A 2**32 byte (4 gigabyte) limit would not be a problem for at least 10 more years. > Ever actually do any 8086 assembler? A minimal amount, fortunately. Liked 8080 and Z-80 far better. (Not that I think their limited address space is "better," merely that their design matched their intended uses far better.) > You would have liked them. In fact, >even the MAC's O/S had them built in as I recall, just not a hardware >limitation with the 68000. A good programmer was not limited by these. > >>1-megabyte memory limitation. The only thing that made it >OK, I concede here... But if you actually write code instead >of pasting code together, 1MB is plenty of RAM with this >processor. It's still a problem. I just ran Microsoft Windows Anti-virus a few days ago, on a 1.6 gigabyte hard drive, and it said I was "out of conventional RAM." (Not because of "too much code," but because of too much data.) With 16 megabytes of DRAM, total, that's a laugh! Try explaining this problem to a person who doesn't understand the distinction between "conventional" and extended memory. They will have no idea that a stupid design decision made in 1976 caused a problem in 1996. Most people don't understand the WHY behind that idiotic 1 megabyte limitation, and how it could so easily have been fixed. As I understand it, when they were designing the 8086 the maximum-size package that Intel dealt with was a 40-pin ceramic package. Well, look at the pinout of an 8086 and you'll see the problem: Even with address/data multiplexing, you simply can't get more than 20 address bits out of a 40-pin package and keep the necessary control and power lines. That's a limitation, and that's bad, but it turns out they made a bad design worse. The best fix would have been to get a 44 or 48 pin package,(as, for example, the Z-8000 did) and dedicate at least 4 more bits to the address, which would have been a limitation of 16 megabytes, or 8 more, which would have been 256 megabytes. But the Intel packaging people were apparently given a veto on the whole thing, and they stayed with a 40-pin package. But here's how they made it worse: In the 8086 architecture, there are two 16-bit registers added together (with a 4-bit offset) to form a 20-bit address. Even if the designers were forced to accept that the initial implementation of the 8086 would only have a 40-pin package, at the very least they could have changed the segment offset to 8 bits or even 12 bits, which would have formed a 24 or 28-bit address internal to the 8086, of which only the lower 20 bits could be available. Any computers built with this specific chip would be limited to a physical 1-megabyte memory space, HOWEVER future implementations of this architecture (for instance, the equivalent of the 80286) would have more address lines. More RAM could be installed in them. So far, that sounds just like the 80286, right? Wrong. (The '286 can only access memory space above 1 megabyte by shifting to "protected mode," which is incompatible with DOS.) Unlike the way it actually was with the 8086 vs. the 80286, the software would be compatible, because the segment addressing would have been identical, and their would no longer be any sort of physical 1-meg limitation remaining. In other words, there would be no residual conventional memory limitation, and "we'd all live happily ever after." (True, programmers would eventually write programs which exceed the memory capacity of the 8086, but that would not have affected newer computers.) Somehow, I think if you could corner one of the 8086 designers, ideally with a 12-gauge shotgun, he'd say, "Doh! We didn't think of that!" That's right, they didn't think of that, because they _JUST_DIDN'T_THINK!_ And over 200 _BILLION_ dollars of money has been spent on computers limited by a brain-damaged architecture, when they could just as easily have avoided the problem back in 1976 with a trivial fix. The one conceivable defense that Intel could muster would be, "We didn't anticipate this. We didn't intend for the 8086 to be used as a general-purpose computer." True or not in 1976, that defense was not available to IBM in 1980: They were fully aware of the problem, and they knew about the 68000, and yet they chose the 8088 anyway. The same short-sighted pig-headedness that would later be demonstrated by Bill Gates when he said something like "Nobody will ever need more than 640 kilobytes of RAM" was shown by Intel people in the middle 1970's. > What was brain dead was the fact that IBM in it's >infinite wisdom "stole" near half of that for it's poor hardware >designs (640k-1MB range). IBM did add to the problem, true, but they "only" cut down the address space to 640 from 1 megabyte. Even 1 megabytes would have been an intolerable limitation. Had Intel allowed a logical address space of 256 megabytes or even 16 megabytes, the loss of 380 kilobytes would not have been particularly limiting. Believe me, I'm not defending IBM, they're both guilty of gross stupidity. >Joseph L. (Joe) Moll, Greenville, SC USA mailto:oolid@acqic.org Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Remailer Operator Liability?
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 14 Jun 96 at 8:34, John A. Perry wrote: > Now that the CDA decision has been made, I was wondering how this > would affect the liability status of the various remailer operators? In > the past several remailers have opted to discontinue service due to > legal/political pressure. Will this CDA decision help to decrease remailer > operator liability? Only if a remailer operator intends to fight legal pressure in the courts, which requires time, patience, hope and of course, lots of money and good lawyers. Whether the CDA decision would give one more hope etc. is debatable. Wait for a Supreme Ruling from the Court of Elders of the Constitution... Rob. --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0