December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The "Secure" version of Netscape for Linux is *NOT*
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:31 PM 8/1/96 -0700, Alan Olsen wrote: >At 05:25 PM 8/1/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote: >>Alan Olsen wrote: >>> >>> I just installed the "secure" version of Netscape off of the "US Only" >>> download site. >>> >>> Seems that it is actualy the international version and not the 128 bit >>> version. >> >>What makes you think you got the export version? >> >>Here's one way to find out. If you look in the Security Preferences >>panel under the Options menu, there are two "Configure" buttons for >>configuring what ciphers are enabled for SSL 2 and SSL 3. The domestic >>version supports a greater variety of options, including triple DES. > >I connected to my site running Stronghold 1.3b1. Only got 40 bit >encryption. I then connected to Netscape's Store site. Only got 40 bit >encryption. I checked the info box (or about box, I don't remember which) >for the connection and it claimed to be running the "exportable" version. >(The Win95 version connects properly to both sites with no tweaking needed.) > >I will double check, but neither site would connect with 128 bits straight >out of the tar file. My apologies to everyone involved! I fucked up! There was a period of time between when I downloaded and when I installed. The version I installed was not the one I installed from the secure site. (I had thought I had not downloaded the 3.0b5 version for Linux, except for the secure version. It seems that I had downloaded it when the first version of 3.0b5 came out, not the 3.0b5a version...) Sorry again! --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

1 0

Re: Internal Passports
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 13:06 8/1/96, David M. Rose wrote: >On 1 Aug 1996 (Timothy C. May) wrote: > >>I'm with Duncan and Lucky on this one. Nations with a "Privacy Ombudsman" >>are almost always nations with extensive files on individuals, their >>habits, and their political activities. >> >>Having a "Privacy Ombudsman" is a bone thrown to the proles. I suspect a >>police state like Singapore has such a person. > >My understanding is that the acceptable term is "ombud", or possibly >"ombuds". Cf.: "chair", "anchor", "milk", "post", "g-", "colored", "fire", >"police", "China", "French", etc. Ombudsman is a Swedish term. I suppose the modern day English deconstruction/reconstruction would be ombudsperson. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Brian quit the feds! [was:Re: Photo IDs]
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:51 8/1/96, Brian Davis wrote: >No longer a federal prosecutor! Congratulations, Brian. Though I will miss having a confessed 'real' Fed on the list. Well, "former federal prosecutor" still sounds pretty good. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: Tolerance
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:46 8/1/96, Chris Adams wrote: >Just a comment to all of the 'true libertarians' out there, especially >the "defend to the death" types: How many of you defended Mr. >Sternlight's recent membership? There was nothing to defend. To the best of my knowledge, nobody suggested that DS be thrown off the list. One joker unsubed Sternlight, but that was hardly something that he couldn't fix himself. Did I want him on the list? Hell no. Do I believe he has a right to join the list? Yes, with one possible exception. The list owner can ban anybody, since the list is using the owner's resources. In this case, from a libertarian standpoint, not even an explanation of such an action would be required. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: Southern Cracker Beer Bombs in Trucks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I work with Hi Performance and Experimental rockets and I am somewhat familiar with explosives and the handling thereof. I have a couple of comments to add to the pipe bomb building thread... Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 23:06:14 -0800 > From: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> > Subject: Re: Southern Cracker Beer Bombs in Trucks > > >Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both > >ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware > >stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a > >good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly > >on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. > >Do not pack > >the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want > >the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder > >sitting loose in a very rigid container. > > For "safety" purposes (at least for the builder!) I would add that the > threads on the pipe should be covered with a generous quantity of vaseline, > grease, wax, or other similar material. Otherwise, the final tighten-up > might cause an explosion if granules of powder get stuck in the threads and > ignite due to friction. Do this and you will get a reaction which can cause a spontaneous explosion. In short keep all greases and other such products away from explosives. If you must use threads on a pipe in such a situation make VERY shure they are clean and dry. I would use water to first wash the water solubles away and then would use alcholol to clean the threads of the remaining debree. Also, always use a cotten rag otherwise you run the risk of building up a static charge sufficient to set it off. > When tightening the pipe/cap, shield the work with a thick layer of > folded-up paper towel or other material, so your Vice-Grips (or other such > wrench, or vice) don't leave "tool marks" on the pipe. (Discard, by burning, such paper after use.) If you must use metal tools in the constructio of your bomb make shure of two things. First, there is another person to call the ambulance. Also be shure to use a non-sparking tool (read that as expensive) do NOT use steel or iron tools. You would just be asking to blow yourself up from sparks. Most tool catalogs will have a small section of Beryllium based tools or something similar. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: Is 1024-bit PGP key enough?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:16 PM 8/1/96 -0400, "Geoffrey C. Grabow" <gcg(a)pb.net> wrote: >Also, remember that although the PGP key is 1024 bits, it generates a much >smaller IDEA key with 56 bits (I think... anyone?). The 56 bit key is >vunerable to that $1 mil mystery machine that the NSA may or may not have. The PGP RSA keysize is user-selectable. The IDEA key is not 56 bits (that's DES) - it's 128 bits, and remember that you currently need to use brute force keysearch on it, unlike RSA keys which have to be much longer because they have special forms and can be cracked by prime-number searching, which is a much faster process that doesn't have to try anything near to every 1024-bit number. As somebody else pointed out, the 128-bit IDEA key is about as strong as a 3000-bit RSA key - though that was before the latest factoring algorithm was demonstrated to work so well, which means that it's probably about as strong as a 4-5000-bit RSA key. > | That which does not kill us, makes us stranger. - Trevor Goodchild | :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # Dispel Authority!

1 0

Re: Tolerance (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi All, Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:35:00 -0700 > From: shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) > Subject: Re: Tolerance > > Hell no. Do I believe he has a right to join the list? Yes, with one > possible exception. The list owner can ban anybody, since the list is using > the owner's resources. In this case, from a libertarian standpoint, not > even an explanation of such an action would be required. If the person joining the public list is warned that the list owner reserves that right I would agree. It would require such a warning to be issued at the time the person received their notification of successful joining. If that warning is not present and the list is advertised as PUBLIC then NO, not even the list operator can ethicaly refuse membership to anyone for any reason other than criminal activity by a member. Otherwise it isn't public. Just because you provide a service does not give you unlimited or even limited control if you make it clear it is public and therefore open to anyone. Libertarian views should be basicaly if it doesn't harm anothers person or property without their prior consent then it should be legal and permissible. A public list means that the owner does not reserve any rights of moderation or cencorship. This is the way public is applied to the government and it is the way it MUST be applied to private individuals. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In short the ethical situation is the same as if a city declares a park to be public and then begins to bar people from sleeping there at night. Jim Choate

2 1

Who the hell is ....
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- OK, I'v been on the list a bit now. I see a lot of the same people posting to it, My question is " Who the Hell is Sternlight" At first I thought it was a pen name ( the light on the end of a boat ?? ) Thanks -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCXAwUBMgHOEeJ+JZd/Y4yVAQEu4gQLB0BjGZB+ezonyMrzCEE4+FWA/l18CeLz tIyRRuLiCKw/IO/sNAJeaCQP0D0IsFcMVnjs6rlQ5hiVX09+P4P8IlNfFjH6TdN0 HezEsU9yupltcNpje9PoxnGI38QgN3yQbjB06+xHf37KPxdIzBr+/7/pRyash5dl z5StfU0SSZIhPg== =cUAP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: Internal Passports (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:53:57 -0700 (MST) > From: drose(a)AZStarNet.com (David M. Rose) > Subject: Re: Internal Passports > > OK. But I sure would like to have an automatic weapon for > self/home/"national" defense w/o going through a tremendous amount of B.S. > (as Israelis are excused from). I believe that you Texans and we Arizonans > have the privilege; in "urban" states, where the need truly is, good luck. We have to go through the same BS that you do to get automatic weapons. > Also, I don't know what your experience in the Middle East is. Me, I worked > in Iran and exited just before the Jan. '79 "revolution". Menace & murder. > You *really* have no idea. Hint: I'm alive. > > If you still (I don't know your age) think that humans are all the same, but > we juss gots diffrunt colors 'n' cultures, I *strongly* recommend an > extended period of travel to the third world. I do and I have. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:13:26 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question > > We require people who have syphilis to divulge who their sex partners > were. I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I haven't heard of any > activist movement against it in the past 80-odd years it's been in effect. Clear and present danger to possibly unknowing persons lives. People have a right to know if their sex partners have communicable diseases. In the case of a 'Typhoid Mary' type disease then everyone has a right to know that person is infected. > We require property owners who don't have city-sewage hookups, to install > their septic tanks and maintain them in certain defined configurations > which estop them from contaminating the neighbor's well. I don't know if > that's a good idea or not - but I haven't seen sentiment against sewage > regulation of property owners. Clear and present danger. Once a well is contaminated that contamination can spread through the whole local water table and infect hundreds if not thousands of people with disease without warning. > So why should we be terribly upset about an ordinance which makes it > illegal to operate a residential kitchen and a residential sewge-disposal > operation in a city park or a city sidewalk? As long as they have a license to operate a food dispencing facility (in other words they are certifying they are aware of the correct processes for such operations) then nobody should have the right to interfere with their operation unless with probable cause (ie proof of danger such as bad weenies in their hot dogs). This would not apply to individuals or families making such food in the same place for their own and NOT public consumption. A person or group has a right to swing their fists all they want, just not in my face. This also applies to the government which is nothing more than our elected representatives. We also can not give them rights we ourselves don't posses. Jim Choate

1 0