December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: File System Encryption
by Wayne Clerke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Drifter[SMTP:drifter@c2.net] wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 02:55:20 +0400, Wayne Clerke <wclerke(a)emirates.net.ae> wrote: >Tried secdev? Edgar Swank (author of secdrv) recently posted >that secdev (note, not secdrv) does, in fact, uses 32 bit disk >access with win95. Win95 reports that the secure device is in >compatibility mode, but the host disk (and therefore the secure >volume file) is being accessed in 32 bit (disk) mode. Not sure >what issues there are with '32 bit FILE access' mode here. > >Sounds worth a try though. Please post the results if >you try this. > I have actually had Secure File System, Secure Drive, and Secure Device all installed with mounted volumes at the same time under Win95. However, 32bit file access is not the problem. When you load a TSR in Win95, the operating system forces you into 16bit DOS compatability mode. I'm not a kernal guru so I can't explain all the specifics, but it basically makes 95 act as Win-3.11 and looses multithreading (as it were) and creates serious memory paging problems if you have >32mb installed. You've got this all wrong. Only certain types of TSRs cause this. I'll leave it to an expert and just quote the author of secdrv: Edgar Swank wrote: >For those users of Win95 and SecureDrive who are concerned about loss >of 32-bit disk access, I've recently learned that use of Secure Device > > ftp.demon.co.uk:/pub/ibmpc/secdev/secdev14.arj > >instead avoids this requirement. Although the Secure Device virtual >drive is listed as in compatibility mode, the real drives are not so >affected. And since the virtual drive is mapped to a dos file on one >of the real drives, I believe you get 32-bit phyical drive access >there as well, although access is still slowed by CPU time necessary >to encrypt and decrypt. Thanks for the reply though .. and if you need assitance with getting SECDEV working under 95, just drop me a note. Thanks for the offer ... Drifter Regards, EMail: wclerke(a)emirates.net.ae PGP key ID: AEB2546D FP: D663D11E DA19D74F 5032DC7E E001B702 PGP mail welcome. Voice: +971 506 43 48 53 <a href=mailto:wclerke@emirates.net.ae>Wayne Clerke</a> If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.

1 0

Re: libelous action
by James C. Sewell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:57 AM 8/27/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >I would remind you that each and every sale you make of this product, when >based on material misrepresentation, constitutes a fraud. If made by >wire, as these sales seem they may, they represent wire fraud. That's one >count of fraud and one count of wire fraud. If a check is sent to you via >mail, that's a count of mail fraud to boot. > Wow, imagine what would happen if a bunch of "in-the-know" folks bought a product like this under the claims to strong crypto and then found out they were fooled! With charges like these a guy could get into real trouble. I sure hope Mr. Holt isn't personally accountable. He sounds like a real swell guy. It would be a shame for him to go to prison for what is obviously his misunderstanding of what is cryptographically strong and what is a pitiful excuse for a product. Of course I've never seen his product so I don't know which category it falls into, but it would be a shame. Disclaimer: I may or may not be serious. I have made no direct claims so whose to say what my intentions are in posting this ;\) Jim Sewell - Programmer Tantalus Inc. jims(a)tansoft.com Key West, FL 33040 Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ 801 Eisenhower Drive Compu$erve: 71061,1027 Multi-player computer games

3 2

Cypherpunks Lite
by youssefy＠ucla.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was a posting by someone about three weeks ago that gave the address for a person who ran a filtered version of the cypherpunks list, can someone please repost that information?

2 1

stego virus
by Moroni 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If a virus is embedded into a giff ,is it executed when the giff is or does it require the usual overwriting etc methods to execute it? TIA

2 1

There is no Agent Toby Tyler at the FBI [UK Observer Story]
by Richard Charles Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

...two different sources, both of whom are anonymous because they work for competing newspapers, tell me. Could someone else with contacts/time to kill/attributability please confirm this? Kinda puts a dent in the whole story, don't you think. -rich

1 0

Re: DoJ is poking around
by Corey Minter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > >looks like the DoJ have been looking around at the mirrors.. maybe to > >legally hassle people about them.... > > Or, just maybe, some DoJ employees wanted to see what folks on the outside > were doing to tweek their bosses:-)? Reminds me of the *thousands* of hits > the "Intel Secrets Page"(http://www.x86.org/) has gotten from users at > intel.com exactly. watch out, some DoJ revisionist might get into your mirror site and get you back for trying to keep a history of the incident :). well... maybe not. -- ______________________________________________________________________ Corey Minter | cminter(a)mipos2.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I wish I had a dollar for every time I spent a dollar, because then, Yahoo!, I'd have all my money back. --Jack Handy

1 0

Mimic Function Stego Programs?
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anybody have a stego program along the lines of Peter Wayner's Mimic Functions? I'm looking for something that you can hand a grammar and a set of bits that will produce sentences in the grammar, plus a decoder that can take the sentences and reconstruct the bits. I have a friend who lives in a kleptocratic country where the local bureaucrats have made it clear they'll confiscate the main email node in his town if they catch traffic they recognize as encrypted, and text in some non-popular language may be less obvious than, say, Mandelbrot sets with stego-bits or other artwork. ----- PHB would work ok... http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert960821-9577.gif ----- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Reassign Authority!

3 2

Re: Edited Edupage, 18 Aug 1996 [SATELLITES]
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:46:13 -0500 (CDT), Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >> >I'd worry far more about the stresses of launch bothering >> >the drives. >> >> That's not a problem at all. Most modern drives are rated for 10's >> of G's, non-operating. Satellite launches are probably a breeze >> compared to this. >I remember reading that Russian satellite launches with people aboard >had acceleration of about 9-10G. Since when do satellites have people on board? (Or was this some new way of silencing politcal prisoners?) / If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. / Home: Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp / Autoresponder: send email w/subject of "send resume" or "send PGPKEY" / Work: cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 | (619)689-6579 / Member in good standing of the GNU whirled hors d'oeuvre

1 0

Re: Real or Not ?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:09 PM 8/28/96, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Eric Murray wrote: > >> Heh. They forgot the Black Heliocopters manned by agents of >> the UN/New World Order, and the Greys from Zeta Reticuli.. >> >> It's a hoax, with several clues that it is a hoax in it. >> >> Of course you're welcome to prove me wrong by disassembling >> a PGP binary. Examination of the random numnber generator, IDEA >> key setup, or RSA key setup vs what's in the source code >> should show if something fishy is going on. > >Unless of course the program you're using to view the disassembled >instructions has also been altered by the TriLats. And make sure you use >any pre-1992 compiler on a pre-1992 operating system on a computer that's >not hooked up to the Net or even located where NSA agents can get to it. Ha! You think a pre-1992 compiler and OS wil fix this? What about the processor? I can assure you, as a longterm Intel employee during these formative years, that Intel was pressured into including the famous "NSA instructions" into the 8080, in 1974. These instructions are well-known, and the Cray had them as well. Inasmuch as the 8080 instructions live on in every x86 processor--like the reptilian brain inside all of us--this gives the NSA instant access to all contents of the processor. This is why I use a Mac, of course. --Perry Noyd We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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."

1 0

Re: (flatulence): Reply-to loops
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rah(a)shipwright.com" "Robert Hettinga" 28-AUG-1996 02:44:31.09 >We don't do it because of reply-to loops. >Only idiots, or charitably, those with very low traffic, run their mail >lists any other way. >Accidentally sending private e-mail to the list is bad enough without >bringing the listserver to its knees... Umm... only one other list I'm on does reply-to to something other than the list, and some of those lists are running majordomo. Reply-to to the list doesn't have to cause problems; only a few domains (compuserve.com, wow.com, and one other that I can't remember offhand) cause error problems to reply-to addresses. The point about low volume mailing lists vs high volume ones is, however, a good point; the other list with reply-to to other than the list that I'm on is one designed for low traffic. -Allen

1 0