December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PGP
by kyleb＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Does anyone have the latest version of PGP for Windows and/or DOS If so please reply directly, since I am not yet on C'Punks. Thanks, KyleB(a)juno.com

1 0

Re: The Net and Terrorism
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3 Jul 96 at 14:48, jim bell wrote: [..] > But as I've pointed out elsewhere, there's a big difference between "We're > gonna do this!" and "Someday we may have to do this." My impression is > that the government has tried to completely erase the dividing line > between these two concepts. As far as the government is concerned, "gonna do this" and "may have to do this" is the same, since the "this" is illegal. There is no dividing line. I suspect that since they (alegedly) had specific targets planned it leaned closer to the "gonna do this". From the minimal discussion in the media I have read, it appeared to be another 'revenge for waco and ruby ridge' action rather than a 'defense of civil liberties from a potential totalitarian government' action. (I'm rather skeptical as to how blowing up a specific IRS office would be effective were the government to change into a totalitarian regime.) 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

Lack of PGP sigs
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Another minor problem is when PGP-sigs are made using something other than MD5 as a hash algorithm, at least until certain modifications of PGP become 'standardized' until PGPlib is released. Rob. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3b Charset: cp850 Comment: SHA1 is used instead of MD5 for this signature iQEVAwUBMdvzjwTNlSxdPy6ZAQIbRwf8DFyAdkQemj6z8nGb8MAkg9Hi0t9AZgpT /7IaNy7x7+P1ahY5TRm0gZRaRr3A3scz4jCCP2IUbKnP/3SnVsvWH/GuH2EnGzQQ UhZODymDzaeWVhoQH0GNhDsAf3yLVyr6CQPWsP0aMDD4HBCFKDjr5ip9XsZRYCo1 P+7GbT+/oIRtztEFufguecIalfh275rT/FyDioblKxgyK+AX8hQ+3POzJgayPbc8 7AosgiFv9UGD4O4ComQyurZi/eFdn/x6NqrVKUVRK0KOWDVEYqAhDz45oP94//NQ ahE8viIm6irCu6PS+yf62RZvZafXLccHCBG2rUOm6gYEsB3XtuM/Vg== =SQBi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- 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

Computer-Aided Revolution
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've thought of an application for a "revolutionary" program for peaceful protest, but one that requires that a substantial number (1000) of people have access to computer time synchronized to 1 second, ideally 0.1 second. How good would a time sync over the net typically be? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

ecash thoughts
by Simon Spero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1) Current ecash systems require live verification of coins, which will require banks to perform public key operations at around the 100K PKOP/s level, as well as all the headaches caused by the serial number lookup. Would anybody care to price up a system to handle this kind of traffic, assuming that coins can be given relatively short maximum lifetimes to keep the number of serial numbers in use within semi-reasonable limits. I'm wondering what the breakeven point is for only doing statistical sampling when verifying low value coins. 2) If ecash is used to create a new currency- i.e. the value of a unit of the ecash is not tied to any single existing currency, what should the value of one currency unit be set at? (let's call it a Turing) If the currency is run to be as anti inflationary as possible (e.g. backed by index-linked government securities), one Turing should buy the same amount of goods for a long long time, though relative prices may change. What value is likely to give the most convienient prices to the most goods? (e.g. +/- powers of two). 3) Not ecash, but still banking [noise] I'm currently visiting at my parents house in England, which for the past 18 years has had a really nice phone number. Unfortunately, BT split london into two area codes, and have reallocated the exchange number in the other one to citibank. Unfortunately, not many of their customers can quite cope with the concept of area-codes. Even more unfortunately, neither can BT or citibanks telcom group- we've had calls transferred from their switchboard straight through to us. Now, here comes the test for cp ingenuity - can you think of the best way to answer the phone to someone who things they've called a bank? Ones I've used so far, when I've been really pissed off are: Oh, I'm sorry - haven't you heard? They've filed for chapter 11. I'm from the Federal Reserve- I'm working with the recievers - can I possibly help you? [response was a disappointing "Good Heavens! Really?" ] and the simple, yet subtle Lovecraftian terror of: CitiBank, Nick Leeson speaking. [pause, giggle, must have a wrong number, click] Any more suggestions? Simon

2 1

Re: The Net and Terrorism
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:43 PM 7/4/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >On 3 Jul 96 at 14:48, jim bell wrote: >[..] >> But as I've pointed out elsewhere, there's a big difference between "We're >> gonna do this!" and "Someday we may have to do this." My impression is >> that the government has tried to completely erase the dividing line >> between these two concepts. > >As far as the government is concerned, "gonna do this" and "may have >to do this" is the same, since the "this" is illegal. There is no >dividing line. A couple of decades ago, a relative of mine was in the Army Reserve. Every summer, they went on exercises, and in one particular exercise (this is probably true of all of them, as well), they invented some sort of fictional scenario in which America was bordered by two fictional countries, the one to the south was called "Taco Land" and the one to the north was called "Big Tree Land." I complimented him on the Army's ability to hide the meanings of these fictions so well! B^) Naturally, the Reserve went out and set up camp, etc, and did everything an army was supposed to do under such exercises. So why were they allowed to do this, while ordinary citizens weren't? Now, you may respond, "Hey, they're the Army, that's their job and they're allowed!" Maybe. But then again, as "ordinary citizens" we have a job to do as well. And part of that job may involve ensuring that if the government stops being limited to the strictures of the Constitution, they can take it down and replace it with something better. (See Declaration of Independence, for example.) Frankly, nothing of what I've heard that this Arizona group did ought to be illegal. I interpret the 2nd amendment ("arms") to include the dictionary meaning, "objects used as weapons," so I don't see any legitimate restriction of explosives. As for scouting, practicing, and making possible-but-not-certain plans, I see nothing wrong with this either. (Remember, the Army has plenty of plans, too... few of which ever are carried out.) >I suspect that since they (alegedly) had specific targets >planned it leaned closer to the "gonna do this". Then, unfortunately, your "logic" is atrocious. If you see a likely enemy, it makes sense to identify his assets well in advance of any actual hostilities, even if those hostilities are not certain. (to fail to do so would be completely irresponsible.) That's what these people appear to have done. > From the minimal discussion in the media I have read, ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's a CLUE. The reason there's been "minimal discussion" is because the lap-dog media wants to avoid the entire "we're gonna do this/someday we may have to do this" issue. It's not that they want to put the dividing line in a slightly different location, they want to deny that there is ANY SORT of a dividing line at all! For the media to acknowledge that the people have a RIGHT to simply collect weapons of all kinds, including explosives, for a potential future confrontation with the government would, then, require debate as to how far this could go. I think that would lead to the logical conclusion is that no action is illegal short of actually engaging in an attack. > it appeared to be another >'revenge for waco and ruby ridge' action rather than a 'defense of >civil liberties from a potential totalitarian government' action. I don't really see any valid distinction, here, except in _time_. > (I'm rather skeptical as to how blowing up a specific IRS office would >be effective were the government to change into a totalitarian regime.) > >Rob. Local people can be expected to act locally. They'll take care of their part of town, you take care of yours, right? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: ecash thoughts
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> But probabilistic payment should be used to allow the minimum average > payment to go way below this, perhaps to an unlimited extent. I just thought of an obvious problem with "probabilistic payments". Suppose someone is surfing the web or whatever, and various sites are charging, say, 0.1 cents per web page, via probabilistic payments. Suppose there is a 1 in 10 chance that the person will pay 1 cent. The person wanders around the web, acting as though he's perfectly willing to pay, and participating in the fair coin tosses. Except, he really has no intention of paying. He will gain free access to 9 out of 10 sites, and on the ones that he loses the 1/10 gamble, he just backs out of the deal and doesn't pay anything. The end result is that instead of seeing all of the web at 0.1 cents per page, he sees 90% of the web completely for free. If everyone does this, the sites will go broke. It's the equivalent of welshing on a bet. The obvious solution would be to require that the person pay the 1 cent, then if he wins the 9/10 bet, he gets the 1 cent back. But that will just move the problem from the user to the server- the site can welsh on the bet and refuse to pay back the one cent. They will get ten times the payment that they are supposed to get. ===================================================================== | Steve Reid - SysAdmin & Pres, EDM Web (http://www.edmweb.com/) | | Email: steve(a)edmweb.com Home Page: http://www.edmweb.com/steve/ | | PGP (2048/9F317269) Fingerprint: 11C89D1CD67287E68C09EC52443F8830 | | -- Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV, TANSTAAFL, IANAL. -- | ===================================================================:)

1 0

Announce: Private Idaho 2.7b
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since I'm in an especially patriotic mood today, I've just uploaded the 2.7b beta release of Private Idaho (which started out life as a Windows PGP shell, but is turning into the "mother of all privacy tools" shell). Significant new additions include: Automated install application - no more installing and updating new releases of PI by hand (many thanks to Colin Tan for writing the Setup application). The install application comes bundled with PGP QuickStart, a utility for helping new users download and install PGP. Expert and user modes - for new users, user mode provides a limited set of commonly used commands. Expert mode gives you access to all of the commands. Steps - again, another feature for new users. Step-by-step information on how to perform common tasks. Change nym account reply blocks - easy way to change nym reply blocks. Anonymizer support - support for C2's new anonymous Web browsing server. Select a URL from any text within Private Idaho and your browser will anonymously access that Web page. Mixmaster support - support for Mixmaster type 2 remailers. Variable word-wrap length - select window size, 65, 70, or 75 character line length. Revised online help HTML version of help Get it at: http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/pi.html And while you're there, as an added 4th of July bonus, check out: http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/cryptbk.html For the extremely tacky, and offensive to some, "Building a CryptoBook" page. Comments, questions, etc. as usual to: Joel McNamara joelm(a)eskimo.com

1 0

premail-0.44, WHERE DO I GET IT.
by Anonymous User 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cpunks: I tried to find the perl script premail (v. 0.44) that is described at the Raph Levien's page. Unfortunately, EVERY place where it is purported to be is screwed up: ftp.csua.berkeley.edu does not respond to FTP commands, Levien's download page returns premail 0.43 instead of 0.44, and ftp.hacktic.nl does not have premail-0.44. WHAT TO DO??? WHAT TO DO??? WHAT TO DO???

1 0

Re: Lack of PGP signatures
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:07 PM 7/3/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 12:15 PM 7/3/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >>On my Mac I just entered this answer, cut it to the clipboard, launched >>PGP, clearsigned it, and pasted the result back into the Eudora window for >>the new mail. > >But of course the signature doesn't check. (I suspect Eudora line wrapping.) Yep. Been there, done that. Line wrap problems are the bain of PGP sigs. This is the reason that most PGP shells will force a line wrap before generating the signature. The only way around it is to turn off all line wrapping or have a utility do it for you before signing it. I am wondering why there is not a signing option that ignores all non-printing characters. Might fix some of these problems... (Can anyone think of a reason this would be a "Bad Thing(tm)"?) --- |"Computers are Voodoo -- You just have to know where to stick the pins."| |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

4 3