December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: CIA Fears UmpTeen InfoNukes
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike M Nally wrote: >By the way, there was a thing in the Yahoo/Reuters feed about "attacks" >on DoD computers; apparently British police arrested a "hacker" the >other day. Anyway, the article included a claim that there have been >250,000 attempted break-ins on DoD computers over the past year. > >Does anybody know how they count that? > >______c____________________________________________________________________ _ >Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * pain is inevitable > m5(a)tivoli.com * m101(a)io.com * > <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * suffering is optional > Probably the same way other things are counted when used to make a political point (# of homeless people, # of date rape victims, etc.). Make a wild-ass guess based on a very small sample, then multiply by a factor of 10 or 100. I think lying with statistics has become a national pastime recently. I tend to not trust numbers issued by folks who stand to gain from the use of the numbers. Clay *************************************************************************** Clay Olbon II * Clay.Olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer * PGP262 public key on web page Dynetics, Inc. * http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html ***************************************************************** TANSTAAFL

2 1

Re: CIA Fears UmpTeen InfoNukes
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:32 AM 6/26/96 Mike McNally wrote: >By the way, there was a thing in the Yahoo/Reuters feed about "attacks" >on DoD computers; apparently British police arrested a "hacker" the >other day. Anyway, the article included a claim that there have been >250,000 attempted break-ins on DoD computers over the past year. >Does anybody know how they count that? Nope, especially since they claimed a large percentage of those attacks went "unnoticed". I fail to see how they can know they happened if they went unnoticed. They also neglected to mention exactly what consitutes an "attack" or breakin attempt. Some people far more cynical than the average sheep would claim that report was used as a tool to justify new massive expenditures to congress and the public. //cerridwyn//

1 0

Re: Alternic.net (was domain zapping)
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:39 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >An entity claiming to be William Knowles wrote: >: >: With all the talk about InterNIC zapping domains, there should be >: some talk about other registries, Alternic.net : http://www.alternic.net >: is offering an alpha test for registering new TLD's and the prices >: are considerably less expensive than the Internic. >: > >ALTERNIC.NIC is a couple of kids with a few Linux boxes. It's rather amusing, >but they did go through a lot of trouble to make it look good. Sure, >the new TLD's work if you use their name server. > >I thought about actually registering NSA.TEL and MCI.ATT with them for >shits and giggles. I love the TLD's they have ... BSA, XXX, CAT, DOG ... >it was a good laugh, but it's way past April 1st. > Well, Karl's IETF draft is certainly serious. A Karl is a bit more than a kid with a linux box having started one of the largest ISPs in Chicago and being a component in the anti CIX fiasco. I still fail to see why decentralizing control of namespace is a bad idea.

1 0

Re: Bruce Taylor at HotWired
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is going to be an interesting chat. It will be the first time in my recollection that a supporter of the CDA has ventured onto the Net to defend it. Taylor, of course, is the principal author of the CDA as the president of the National Law Center for Children and Families. A former Justice Department porn-prosecutor with a record number of convictions ("Comstock was an amateur"), he'll be talking about what the DoJ is thinking and what their plans are. (He's argued obscenity cases before the Supreme Court.) But for such a net-basher, he's pretty cyberclueless. Since Taylor doesn't even have email, let alone a live net-connection, he's coming over to my office tomorrow evening and we'll connect to HotWired from my Macintosh. "Hide your porn," he reminded me. I plan to. -Declan Info on Taylor's CDA amicus brief supporting the Justice Department: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2388 The text of Taylor's amicus brief: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2736 >Attorney Lance Rose, originally scheduled for the HotWired Electronic >Frontiers Forum this Thursday night, June 27 (probably TODAY as you read >this...), could not make it, however in his place we've extended an >11th-hour invitation to Bruce Taylor of the National Law Center for Children >and Families, and he's accepted. Please join us! > >(Requires that you join HotWired) > >javachat at http://talk.wired.com >or >telnet to talk.wired.com > > >-- >Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> http://www.well.com/~jonl >Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff>

1 0

Bruce Taylor at HotWired
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attorney Lance Rose, originally scheduled for the HotWired Electronic Frontiers Forum this Thursday night, June 27 (probably TODAY as you read this...), could not make it, however in his place we've extended an 11th-hour invitation to Bruce Taylor of the National Law Center for Children and Families, and he's accepted. Please join us! (Requires that you join HotWired) javachat at http://talk.wired.com or telnet to talk.wired.com -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff>

2 1

Re: CIA Fears UmpTeen InfoNukes
by Lile Elam 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When I saw this article in the paper early this morning (like 1am) on nando.net, I just couldn't beleave it.... When did hackers become a threat? I thought that hackers were a national resource! It sounds like these gov folks are concerned about how much hackers know how things work... which is probably more than they do. Didn't hackers build the Internet? :) I just blew the article off as noise. I just can't waist energy on such rubbish. -lile

1 0

Fortezza now comes on an ISA card
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.rnbo.com/PROD/FORTEZZA_ISA.HTM This may be old news, but it was new to me. Note the "extra" features, including a new approach to "secure timestamping". 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 hot here. And humid.

1 0

HotWired: Crypto Switch in DC
by declan＠hotwired.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/ Crypto Switch? By Brock N. Meeks Washington, DC, 26 June 1996 Advocates for the use of encryption free of government mandates packed a Senate hearing room to overflowing today in support of a pro-encryption bill. But as no detractors were asked to testify at the hearing, this was all preaching to the crypto choir. What even the preachers and choir are unaware of, however, is that a senior White House official is quietly trying to turn the administration away from its lock-step allegiance to the FBI and National Security Agency rhetoric of "strong crypto bad; key escrow good." This official told Dispatch: "I'm hoping to develop a [consensus movement] inside the administration that will stand up to some of the [law enforcement and intelligence agency] interests" on encryption. "We haven't found the right encryption policy yet," the official noted. Here, for the first time, there's real hope that the administration can be swayed from its wholesale support for the key-escrow encryption scheme. "The government moves on its own," the White House source said. There are "shifting sands on things ... policies change," and there's the "potential that the administration's position will change over time." So what we have, of course, is the classic Washington public-private squeeze play: Push an issue in public, and push even harder in private. Today, the Senate's newest wired member and the chairman of the Senate Science Subcommittee hearing, Conrad Burns (R-Montana), welcomed testimony from crypto experts in support of his previously introduced pro-encryption bill, the Commerce Online in the Digital Era Act of 1996, dubbed "Pro-CODE." Burns called the hearing a historic event in that it was the first time a Senate hearing had been wired to the Net. Several senators knocked the White House for supporting encryption policies that essentially hogtie US businesses, locking them out of a lucrative international market. Others made reference to potential dangers of empowering government agencies, such as the FBI, with the ready ability to snoop on the private speech of citizens. Senator John Ashcroft (R-Missouri) noted how the "events of the this last week or two" - namely, the political flap resulting from the White House inspection of FBI background files - "brings into sharp focus" the need to assure Americans that their private speech won't be compromised. "I want to be sure we don't forfeit what it means to be an American citizen," Ashcroft said. Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, put a finer point on the issue: "We don't want the Internet to become the ultimate FBI background file on everyone." Although the panelists admitted that law enforcement has a legitimate concern about criminals being able to use encryption techniques to subvert investigations, they also noted that such concerns had to be balanced with constitutional rights. Marc Rotenberg, executive director for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, responding to a question about whether "secret speech" should be given the same protection as public speech, said that there's no doubt that encrypted speech should be awarded the same protection as public speech. However, Rotenburg cautioned, "the courts have to be educated first," as they were during the recent case in which the Communications Decency Act was deemed unconstitutional. And so went the show. No fireworks; then again, none were expected. And while the hearing finally allowed the pro-crypto camp a chance to spout off to Congress, it was really only a steppingstone to future efforts. The reason? Even the hard-core crypto advocates privately admit that this legislation doesn't have a prayer of passing, given a cramped legislative calendar and election-year rhetoric. ###

1 0

Grubor remailer? (Was Re: Lucifer remailer)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hm, is that Dr. John Grubor's domain (aga(a)dhp.com)? That will make a nice anonymous remailer... NOT! Thank you. By the way: is there a way in premail to disable a certain remailer altogether so that it will never be used in chains? There is one candidate now... <chuckle> lucifer wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > I have just finished setting up a Mixmaster and cpunk remailer at > lucifer(a)dhp.com. The PGP key and Mixmaster key are below. > > lucifer lucifer(a)dhp.com 6e57353149a1175f11aba72cedee02fd 2.0.3 > > - -----Begin Mix Key----- > 6e57353149a1175f11aba72cedee02fd > 258 > AATvJVbP8R9tUF6R9zjSbRdDaz2j1INJvkVI6L6I > 5F65Q7lRCoOl8+TCi+HgUo1AErYsLPpHpI1l4F9I > RUqvH/fvR7GuqgIJc+RsGyQPPG0dpL5lHt2ppdmW > wcTX85ZKRK242SW1hTih43IaCmXr+i1zX6+QZsr1 > MtAqwDlyDgoU0QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAB > - -----End Mix Key----- > > > - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- > Version: 2.6.2 > > mQCNAzHPdZkAAAEEAK3rI5oq3dwDV5inleitjy03JvhBD/GtbRRDO1noLUnRf4FV > CmCfGJrqitHtIBqhA+hIRBcNRo7J48Yiu6ctda29xe/rEy3QdSKHpZhstsV+hzw3 > 42Lhogm1cW2QPrvjJQUgU5mpKR9qKn7KQLBcVz/Mx1EvX4aMGJ2oJ1gRbIg5AAUR > tCRBbm9ueW1vdXMgcmVtYWlsZXIgPGx1Y2lmZXJAZGhwLmNvbT6JAJUDBRAxz3vx > nagnWBFsiDkBAfUAA/9ufh0GPUo6uR4/5/tbbFKyQs8fW0NmDkrU+xni7QNmKKUj > qC7lJ/MHPxRGzuXaYE+k9I8NmI1DxyzdWlRX/X6uwcwYPOxa/+CI9HUAkcB/Q/N8 > GZJckumcU7hlMim08lFJQjsEWxNyqKefAeOAKQ5v5xt3rmpPDmHrXbOuJ104Ng== > =dFZY > - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > > iQCVAwUBMdFhcZ2oJ1gRbIg5AQGqSwP9HzVjkvkN4oBIHh5AzvsKZoZG+zMvId7Z > +LlvpSOSyXm+Vaxga28jBL03JIN8j6+yJtZy1h07VlYYwnhhBrhnIufeq+mO+ea6 > k/ymFcUFsfM4jnf5jvaHKJTMULnmL3wspWzBKl3CRkQ2e238ozx8IWdhTxxdD9vj > aO3vQZHHFTI= > =/ICd > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >

1 0

Re: CIA Fears UmpTeen InfoNukes
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You should believe it. Take it seriously. Your elected Congressperns do. In a nice twist, the threat of darkside hackers has emerged as one of the best arguments for Sen. Burns' Pro-CODE legislation. At today's hearing, it was clear that we needed the legislation to encrypt the net-infrastructure and prevent it from being ripped apart by terrorists. Security through strong crypto, I say, and paint Janet Reno as a friend of and apologist for those evil hackers. -Declan >When I saw this article in the paper early this morning (like 1am) >on nando.net, I just couldn't beleave it.... > >When did hackers become a threat? I thought that hackers were a >national resource! > >It sounds like these gov folks are concerned about how much >hackers know how things work... which is probably more than >they do. Didn't hackers build the Internet? :) > >I just blew the article off as noise. I just can't waist >energy on such rubbish. > >-lile

1 0