December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

this 1 seeking koool..................
by molecul1＠molecule1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peace & tranquil wishes y'all, This 1 seeking koool, artistic, creative, farout webdesign person in S.D. area. Creative 1's can e.................. 2 above email address. Serious, creative, farout, artistic types only please. Gender no prob. Peace & super koool wishes. Keep koool, M1.

1 0

Re: AT&T bans anonymous messages
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Richard Todd said: > Um, you don't read news.admin.net-abuse.misc, do you? The first few spams > from worldnet have already happened, and from the reports I've seen on there, > the response from worldnet's posthamster has been pretty much nonexistent. > It apparently doesn't help that the 'postmaster' mailbox has a quota just > like the other mailboxen on the system, so every time someone does spam > from worldnet, half the complaint mail to postmaster bounces. > You guys wouldn't believe what a mogolian clusterfuck Worldnet is. When is the physical C'punks meeting at SGI? I'll be in the bay in a few hours and around the EFF office and the SAFE conference at Stanford Monday. Worldnet software is invasive as hell. Installations on boxes running Win95 with a PCI bus, plug and play BIOS and the I/O on the motherboard have IRQ's and interupts overwritten to the point the box locks and won't even boot anymore. Speaking of SGI, TCI, (John Malone), just bought $25,000,000.00 worth of their boxes... -- According to John Perry Barlow: *What is EFF?* "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker." *email <info(a)eff.org>* *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** US Out Of Cyberspace!!! Join EFF Today! *email <membership(a)eff.org>*

1 0

My testimony at Wednesday's Senate hearing on encryption policy
by Matt Blaze 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Previous message was garbled with several lines truncated; here's the real one. Sorry. -matt] [This file is (will soon be) at ftp://research.att.com/dist/mab/testimony.txt] WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. MATTHEW BLAZE BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE JUNE 26, 1996 Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the technical impact of encryption policy. It is a privilege to be here, and I hope my perspective will be useful to you. Let me begin by describing my own background and biases. I am a Principal Research Scientist in the area of computer security and cryptology at AT&T Research in Murray Hill, New Jersey. I also hold a number of ancillary appointments related to computer security; among others, I teach an occasional graduate course in the subject at Columbia University, and I serve as co-chair of the Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee subcommittee on security and privacy (which advises Federal agencies on computer networking issues). However, the views I am presenting here today are my own, and should not be taken to represent those of any organization with which I happen to be affiliated. I am a computer scientist by training; my Ph.D. is from the Princeton University Computer Science department, and my primary research areas are cryptology, computer security, and large-scale distributed systems. Much of my research focuses on the management of encryption keys in networked computing systems and understanding the risks of using cryptographic techniques to accomplish security objectives. Recent government initiatives in encryption, such as the "Clipper Chip," have naturally been of great interest to me, in no small part because of the policy impact they have on the field in which I work, but also because they present a number of very interesting technical and scientific challenges in their own right. My testimony today focuses on three areas. First, I will discuss the role and risks of cryptographic techniques for securing the current and future electronic world. Next, I will examine in more detail the security implications of the limitations imposed on US-based cryptographic systems through the government's export policies. Finally, I will discuss the technical aspects of the Administration's current approach to cryptography policy, which promotes "key escrow" systems. I THE INCREASING IMPORTANCE OF ENCRYPTION The importance of cryptographic techniques for securing modern computer and communications systems is widely recognized today. Evidence of the scope of this recognition can be found in the increasing number of hardware, software, and system vendors that offer encryption in their products, the increasing demand for high-quality encryption by users in a widening array of applications, and the growing, thriving community of cryptologic researchers of which I am a part. It is vital that those who formulate our nation's policies and official attitude toward encryption understand the nature of the underlying technology and the reasons for its growing importance to our society. The basic function of cryptography is to separate the security of a message's content from the security of the medium over which it is carried. For example, we might encrypt a cellular telephone conversation to guard against eavesdroppers (allowing the call to be transmitted safely over easily-intercepted radio frequencies), or we might use encryption to verify that documents, such as contracts, have not been tampered with (removing the need to safeguard a copy of the original). The idea that this might be possible is not a new one; history suggests that the desire to protect information is almost as old as the written word itself. Perhaps as a consequence of the invention of the digital computer, our understanding of the theory and practice of cryptography has accelerated in recent years, with a number of new techniques developed and many new applications emerging. Among the most important of the recent techniques is "public key cryptography." It allows secure messages to be exchanged without the need for specific advance arrangements between parties. A related notion is the "digital signature," which allows messages to be "signed" in a way that verifiably associates the signer of a message with its content. Modern cryptographic techniques are based on the application of simple, if repetitive, mathematical functions, and as such lend themselves nicely to implementation by computer programs. Any information that can be represented digitally can be protected by encryption, including computer files, electronic mail messages, and even audio and video signals such as telephone calls, radio, and television. Encryption can be performed by means of software on general-purpose computers, through special-purpose hardware, or by special programming of microprocessor-based electronic products such as the next generation of cellular telephones. The basic cost of encryption in terms of computational power required is quite low, and the marginal cost of including encryption in a software-based computer program or a programmable electronic product is essentially zero. Why, then, has encryption recently enjoyed so much attention? The reasons can be found from two perspectives: the technology of modern communication systems, and the new purposes for which we are relying on digital information. First, the technology and economics of modern communications and computing systems strongly favors media that have little inherent security. For example, wireless telephones have great advantages in convenience and functionality compared with their familiar wired counterparts and are comprising an increasing proportion of the telephone network. This also makes eavesdropping much easier for curious neighbors, burglars identifying potential targets, and industrial spies seeking to misappropriate trade secrets. Similarly, decentralized computer networks such as the Internet have lower barriers to entry, are much less expensive, are more robust and can be used to accomplish a far greater variety of tasks than the proprietary networks of the past, but, again, at the expense of intrinsic security. The Internet makes it virtually impossible to restrict, or even predict, the path that a particular message will traverse, and there is no way to be certain where a message really originated or whether its content has been altered along the way. It is possible, even common, for electronic mail messages to route through the computers of competitors. This is not a result of sloppy design or poor planning on the part of the Internet's architects; on the contrary, these properties are a direct consequence of the technological advances that make the Internet efficient and useful in the first place. Second, electronic communication is becoming increasingly critical to the smooth functioning of our society and our economy and even to protect the safety of human life. Communication networks and computer media are rapidly replacing less efficient, traditional modes of interaction whose security properties are far better understood. As teleconferencing replaces face-to-face meetings, electronic mail replaces letters, electronic payment systems replace cash transactions, and on-line information services replace written reference materials, we gain a great deal in efficiency, but our assumptions about the reliability of very ordinary transactions are often dangerously out-of-date. Put another way, the trend in communication and computing networks has been away from closed systems in favor of more open ones and the trend in our society is to rely on these new systems for increasingly serious purposes. There is every reason to believe that these trends will continue, and even accelerate, for the foreseeable future. Cryptography plays an important and clear role in helping to provide security assurances that at least mirror what we have come to expect from the older, more familiar communications methods of the not-so-distant past. II KEY LENGTH AND SECURITY The "strength" of an encryption system depends on a number of variables, including the mathematical properties of the underlying encryption function, the quality of the implementation, and the number of different "keys" from which the user is able to choose. It is very important that a cryptosystem and its implementation be of high quality, since an error or bug in either can expose the data it protects to unexpected vulnerabilities. Although the mathematics of cryptography is not completely understood and cipher design is an exceptionally difficult discipline (there is as yet no general "theory" for designing cipher functions), there are a number of common cipher systems that have been extensively studied and that are widely trusted as building blocks for secure systems. The implementation of practical systems out of these building blocks, too, is a subtle and difficult art, but commercial experience in this area is beginning to lead to good practices for adding high-quality encryption systems to software and hardware. Users and developers of secure systems can protect against weaknesses in these areas by choosing only cipher functions that have been carefully studied and by ensuring that their implementation follows good engineering practices. The most easily quantified variable that contributes to the strength of an encryption system is the size of the pool of potential values from which the cryptographic keys are chosen. Modern ciphers depend on the secrecy of the users' keys, and a system is considered well-designed only if the easiest "attack" involves trying every possible key, one after the other, until the correct one is found. The system is secure only if the number of keys is large enough to make such an attack infeasible. Keys are usually specified as a string of "bits," and adding one bit to the key length doubles the number of possible keys. An important question, then, is the minimum key length sufficient to resist a key search attack in practice. Last November, I participated in a study, organized by the Business Software Alliance, aimed at examining the computer technology that might be used by an "attacker" in order to determine the minimum length keys that should be used in commercial applications. We followed an unusually conservative methodology in that we assumed that the attacker would have only available standard "off-the-shelf" technology and is constrained to purchase in single-unit quantities with no economies of scale. That is, our methodology would tend to produce a recommendation for shorter keys than would an analysis using the more conventional approach of giving the potential attacker every benefit of the doubt in terms of technological advantages he might enjoy. Nonetheless, we concluded that the key lengths recommended in existing U.S. government standards (e.g., the Data Encryption Standard, with a 56-bit key) for domestic use are far too short and will soon render data protected under them vulnerable to attack with only modest resources. We concluded that keys today should be a bare minimum of 75 bits long, and that systems being fielded today to secure data over the next twenty years must employ keys of at least 90 bits. I have included a copy of our report as an appendix to my testimony. Attempting to design systems "at the margins" by using the minimum key length needed is a dubious enterprise at best. Because even a slight miscalculation as to the technology and resources available to the potential attacker can make the difference between a secure system and an insecure one, prudent designers specify keys that are longer than the minimum they estimate is needed to resist attack, to provide a margin for error. Current U.S. policy encourages the designers of encryption systems to take exactly the opposite approach. Encryption systems designed for export from the United States at present generally must use keys no more than 40 bits long. Such systems provide essentially no cryptographic security, except against the most casual "hacker." Examples of 40 bit systems being "broken" through the use of spare computer time on university computer networks are commonplace. Unfortunately, it is not only users outside the U.S. who must make do with the inferior security provided by such short keys. Because of the difficulty of maintaining multiple versions of software, one for domestic sale and one for export, and the need for common interoperability standards, many US-based products are available only with export-length keys. There is no technical, performance, or economic benefit to employing keys shorter than needed. Unlike, for example, the locks used to protect our homes, very secure cryptographic systems with long keys are no more expensive to produce or any harder to design or use than weaker systems with shorter keys. The only reason vendors design systems with short keys is to comply with export requirements. The key length figures and analysis in this section are based on so-called "secret key" cryptosystems. For technical reasons, current public key cryptosystems employ much longer keys than secret key systems to achieve equivalent security (public keys are measured in hundreds or thousands of bits). However, virtually all systems that use public key cryptography also rely on secret key cryptography, and so the overall strength of any system is limited by the weakest encryption function and key length in it. III THE RISKS OF KEY ESCROW A number of recent Administration initiatives have proposed that future cryptosystems include special "key escrow" provisions to facilitate access to encrypted data by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In a such systems, copies of keys are automatically deposited, in advance, with third parties who can use them to arrange for law enforcement access if required in the future. Several key escrow systems have been proposed by the Administration, differing in the details of how keys are escrowed, and who the third party key holders are. In the first proposal, called the "Clipper chip," the system is embedded in a special tamper-resistant hardware-based cryptosystem and copies of keys are held by federal agencies. In the more recent "public key infrastructure" proposal, keys are escrowed at the time a new public key is generated and are held by the organization (public or private) responsible for certification of the public key. Although the various key escrow proposals differ in the details of how they accomplish their objective, there are a number of very serious fundamental problems and risks associated with all of them. There are some appropriate commercial applications of key escrow techniques. A properly designed cryptosystem makes it essentially impossible to recover encrypted data without the correct key. This can be a double-edge sword; the cost of keeping unauthorized parties out is that if keys are lost or unavailable at the time they are needed, the owner of encrypted data will be unable to make use of his own information. This problem, of balancing secrecy with assurances of continued availability, remains an area of active research, and commercial solutions are starting to emerge. The Administration's initiatives do not address this problem especially well, however. The first problem with key escrow is the great increase in engineering complexity that such systems entail. The design and implementation of even the simplest encryption systems is an extraordinarily difficult and delicate process. Very small changes can introduce fatal security flaws that often can be exploited by an attacker. Ordinary (non-escrowed) encryption systems have conceptually rather simple requirements (for example, the secure transmission of data between two parties) and yet, because there is no general theory for designing them, we still often discover exploitable flaws in fielded systems. Key escrow renders even the specification of the problem itself far more complex, making it virtually impossible to assure that such systems work as they are intended to. It is possible, even likely, that lurking in any key escrow system are one or more design weaknesses that allow recovery of data by unauthorized parties. The commercial and academic world simply does not have the tools to analyze or design the complex systems that arise from escrow. Key escrow is so difficult that even systems designed by the classified world can have subtle problems that are only discovered later. In 1994 I discovered a new type of "protocol failure" in the Escrowed Encryption Standard, the system on which the Clipper chip is based. The failure allows, contrary to the design objectives of the system, a rogue user to circumvent the escrow system in a way that makes the data unrecoverable by the government. Others weaknesses have been discovered since then that make it possible, for example, to create incriminating messages that appear to have originated from a particular user. It should be noted that these weaknesses have been discovered in spite of the fact that most of the details of the standard are classified and were not included in the analysis that led to the discovery of the flaws. But these problems did not come about because of incompetence on the part of the system's designers. Indeed, the U.S. National Security Agency is likely the most advanced cryptographic enterprise in the world, and is justifiably entrusted with developing the cryptographic systems that safeguard the government's most important military and state secrets. The reason the Escrowed Encryption Standard has flaws that are still being discovered is that key escrow is an extremely difficult technical problem, with requirements unlike anything previously encountered. A second problem with key escrow arises from the difficulty of operating a key escrow center in a secure manner. According to the Administration (for example, see the May 20, 1996 White House draft report "Enabling Privacy, Commerce, Security and Public Safety in the Global Information Infrastructure"), key escrow centers must be prepared to respond to law enforcement requests for escrowed data 24 hours a day, completing transactions within two hours of receiving each request. There are thousands of law enforcement agencies in the United States authorized to perform electronic surveillance, and the escrow center must be prepared to identify and respond to any of them within this time frame. If the escrow center is also a commercial operation providing data recovery services, it may also have tens of thousands of additional private sector customers that it must be prepared to serve and respond to. There are few, if any, secure systems that operate effectively on such a scale and under such tightly-constrained response time. The argument, advanced by the Administration, that escrow centers can use the same procedures that protect classified data is a curious one, since classified information is by its nature available to a far smaller and more carefully-controlled potential audience than are escrowed keys. It is simply inevitable that escrow centers that meet the government's requirements will make mistakes in giving out the wrong keys from time to time or will be vulnerable to fraudulent key requests. Key escrow, by its nature, makes encrypted data less secure because the escrow center introduces a new target for attack. A third problem with the Administration's key escrow proposals is that they fail to distinguish between cryptographic keys for which recovery might be required and those for which recoverability is never needed. There are many different kinds of encryption keys, but for the purposes of discussing key escrow it is sufficient to divide keys into three categories. The first includes keys used to encrypt stored information, which must be available throughout the lifetime of the data. The owner of the data has an obvious interest in ensuring the continued availability of such keys, and might choose to rely on a commercial service to store "backup" copies of such keys. A second category of key includes those used to encrypt real-time communications such as telephone calls. Here, the key has no value to its owner once the transaction for which it was used has completed. If a key is lost or destroyed in the middle of a conversation, a new one can be established in its place without permanent loss of information. For these keys, the owner has no use for recoverability; it is of value only to law enforcement and others who wish to obtain access to a conversation without the knowledge or cooperation of the parties. Finally, there are the keys used not for secrecy but for signature and authentication, to insure that messages indeed originated from a particular party. There is never a need for anyone, law enforcement or the key owner, to recover such keys, since their purpose is not to obscure content but rather to establish authorship. If the owner looses a signature key, a new one can be generated easily at any time. Unfortunately, however, the current Administration proposal exposes all three types of keys equally to the risks introduced by the escrow system, even though recoverability is not required for all of them. Partly this is because there is no intrinsic difference in the structure of the different types of keys; they are usually indistinguishable from one another outside of the application in which they are used. Finally, there is the problem that criminals can circumvent almost any escrow system to avoid exposure to law enforcement monitoring. All key escrow systems are vulnerable to so-called "superencryption," in which a user first encrypts data with an unescrowed key prior to processing it with the escrowed system. Most escrow systems are also vulnerable to still other techniques that make it especially easy to render escrowed keys useless to law enforcement. The ease of avoiding law enforcement when convenient raises an obvious question as to whether the reduced security and high cost of setting up an escrow system will yield any appreciable public safety benefit in practice. IV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The wide availability of encryption is vitally important to the future growth of our global information infrastructure. In many cases, encryption offers the only viable option for securing the rapidly increasing range of human, economic and social activities taking place over emerging communication networks. It is no exaggeration to say that the availability of encryption in the commercial marketplace is and will continue to be necessary to protect national security. Unfortunately, current policy, through export controls and ambiguous standards, discourages, rather than promotes, the use of encryption. Current encryption policy is enormously frustrating to almost everyone working in the field. Export controls make it difficult to deploy effective cryptography even domestically, and we can do little more than watch as our foreign colleagues and competitors, not constrained by these rules, are matching our expertise and obtaining an ever-increasing share of the market. A large part of the problem is that the current regulations were written as if to cover hardware but are applied to software, including software in the public domain or aimed at the mass market. The PRO-CODE bill goes a long way toward moving the regulations in line with the realities of the technology.

1 0

Re: CIA Fears UmpTeen InfoNukes
by vin＠shore.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> queried the List: >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? I don't know if they go so far as to count pings, but it seems they do try to count ISS/Satan/Pingware scans -- and then they project off what numbers they have to come up with the estimates. But no one is particularly careful about these numbers... certainly not the politicians nor the press. The estimates come from the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and refer to "attacks" on the 2.1 million computers, 10,000 LANs, and 100 long-distance networks. (It is unclear whether DISA also includes the defense contractors' machine and networks -- another 2 million, as I recall -- but, by US law, those are also considered Defense systems.) According the May 22 GAO report: "DISA estimates indicate that Defense may have been attacked as many as 250,000 times last year. However, the exact number is not known because, according to DISA, only about 1 in 150 attacks is actually detected and reported. In addition, in testing its systems, DISA attacks and successfully penetrates Defense systems 65 percent of the time." (It is unclear whether this estimate process is circular, with DISA -- all and all, a generally capable crew, which normally doesn't bother with this sound-bite silliness -- "projecting" the total number of attacks by taking the number of reported attacks and then enhancing that number by multiplying it by the percentage of their own attacks on DoD systems which go unremarked.) Jack Brooks, the director of the GAO's Defense Information and Financial Management Systems, who presented the GAO's formal report ("Computer Attacks at Department of Defense Pose Increasing Risks") gave some further explication: "Not all hacker attacks result in actual intrusions into computer systems; some are attempts to obtain information on systems in preparation for future attacks, while others are made by the curious or those who wish to challenge the Department's computer defenses." Some numbers seems slightly less puffy: officials at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base reported that, on average, they receive 3,000 to 4,000 "attempts to access information each month from counties all around the world." There are real problems effectively securing DoD's unclassified computers -- both the military's own systems and the defense contractors -- but its sad how completely the real problems are being overlooked (or, at least, overshadowed) but the obsession with the InfoWar threat and teen cyberdemons being manipulation by Iraqi secret agents. Historically and at this moment, the vulnerability of the DoD computers -- as illustrated by hacker attacks and (almost certainly) by DISA itself -- lies in untrained and poorly managed system administrators who simply do not bother to apply even the CERT-labelled patches to their systems. There are brilliant hackers about (some in DISA; maybe even a few on this list) but they would but rarely need that brilliance to penetrate the typical DoD system. I'd bet cold cash that DISA's own tiger-team attacks on DoD systems are almost always successful with nothing more innovative than an ISS or SATAN scans and/or a list of CERT-announced security problems from the previous six months. The real threat is incompetent, poor-trained DoD system administrators -- and a class of computer-illiterate senior managers who define "system security" and routine administration as a marginal expenses and scorn readily available options like one-time passwords as too complex for the military mind. Much, much, easier to rail at the terrorist threat exemplified by the 16 year-old Brit who called himself "Datastream Cowboy" and to hint darkly that his unidentified cohort "Kuji" may have been a Russian or an Iraqi. The hell with security, let's wiretap the phones of all 16 year-olds! Cliff Stoll and Peter Neuman of SRI are supposed to testify, and they might bring some common sense to bear -- but I for one desperately wish to hear the like of acid-tongued Bob Courtney, IBM's former director of Info Security, chew this fluff up. The Datastream attack, btw, didn't occur "the other day," as Mike McNally suggested -- this whole media flurry is built around a retelling of Datastream's 1994 attack and arrest. It's just that the Air Force CERT did a nice job of documenting the good guys' effort to identify and track him down -- although Lord! the kid was dumb, no Morris Jr. there! -- and writing up a report. Makes you realize how desperate some folks are for cyberterror stories, doesn't it? Wonder why????? Suerte, _Vin Vin McLellan +The Privacy Guild+ <vin(a)shore.net> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, Ma. 02150 USA Tel: (617) 884-5548 <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>

1 0

New type2.list/pubring.mix combination
by John A. Perry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Everyone, I have just updated the type2.list/pubring.mix combination on jpunix.com. Of note, I have dropped ecafe-mix as it has not responded in a LONG time and it doesn't look like it's going to get fixed any time soon. There are two new type II remailers on the list, Ad and lucifer. Welcome aboard! The lists are available by WWW from www.jpunix.com and by anonymous FTP fro ftp.jpunix.com. If you have any questions about the lists, please send email to perry(a)alpha.jpunix.com. John Perry - perry(a)alpha.jpunix.com - PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry(a)jpunix.com is on the keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMdJl3VOTpEThrthvAQGjEgP+N+DqShSfaWdqdxzlp9wCI+m1H3RXxKaz JPr2WLKXjmYImH72X3CvNuEQY19fV1N/n0iVoKFY0xwz814dMf6MMM4Wt5D1gxfk HjYvMFWuRVFMR5cN3DJIN/lAIV7zY4Pga77gVu3eo0Q3hN8SCP2ZIiMAStkA+6e/ v6FXGIeijUo= =AbdV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

MS-Mail Security
by Leo WONG Wing-yan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I would like to gather informations of whether the MS-Mail server is secure or not, is anyone heard of somebody, say, disguise as other user or read other user e-mail? Thanks a lot Best regards Leo Wong

3 2

Ga Law/No False Identity
by nowhere＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mailing from Electronic Frontiers Georgia 6/27/96: ----------snip---------- :Subject: [EFG] GA law criminalizing Spam cancels?? ----------snip---------- :Electronic Frontiers Georgia has engaged the law firm of Bondurant, Mixson, :& Elmore (specifically Scott McClain) to look into a court challenge of :HB1630 "The Internet Police Law" which goes into effect on July 1st. We see :this as an unecessary and badly framed law. : :This law would appear to make it a Georgia criminal act to remove spam & :spews from newsgroups. This is law OCGA 16-9-93.1 : :Some information can be found at : : http://ninja.techwood.org/~efg/ : :under the "Day the sites went out in Georgia" section. : :My understanding, and the perception of spammers seems to be that in order :to cancel a message, you must forge headers to become that person, thereby :falsely identifying yourself. This seems to be in direct violation of the law : : It shall be unlawful for any person, ... to transmit any data : through a computer network ... if such data uses any individual : name, ... to falsely identify the person, ... : ----------snip---------- : -- Robert Costner : Electronic Frontiers Georgia : rcostner(a)intergate.net Spamming aside, this strikes at my privacy and choice of anonymity.

1 0

Re: CIA Fears UmpTeen InfoNukes
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:57 AM 6/27/96 -0400, Vin McLellan wrote: >... The real threat is incompetent, poor-trained DoD >system administrators -- and a class of computer-illiterate senior managers >who define "system security" and routine administration as a marginal >expenses and scorn readily available options like one-time passwords as too >complex for the military mind. Public key authentication could go a long way toward solving the military and contractor's security problems. However, they won't use public key authentication for unclassified systems until it is available in "COTS" (Commercial, Off The Shelf) software. And it won't be available there until it can be exported as well as sold domestically. Catch-22 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

2 1