December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PGPCrack for DOS
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- There is now a DOS version of pgpcrack. It's available at http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/pgpcrack.html. - -- Mark PGP encrypted mail prefered. Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMipT5yzIPc7jvyFpAQE8Ewf+J7x0km0xcGZM32c4clmFJ5I9z/bAj6bL ryXS1BNDBbC72HuJWQPUeqDc0xEc6uyjCc0iytfBL0VqwjlLKCb7KZtxgP7gOlf6 T12/ZNQZwGy3PeClLthQRqQ0fjUtVs4mXWp+sDnAAClI6J+xEL/cBdHDD5tREngM ufDwueSAwFPQQE/adpS0E3alHj1XqdHMam5s60SGpsZyknnUhnUiAIc2w2CdmjJU 5jywEOosiMcbvYqhBaSuy3S53Pfjh07wEFfXp0t9CvvsJY13ipIW6jvgQgVYQL6u 0f1ob7CkwxiD/z598aXmmCc4Nmn0pFg9Zvqw9xLcs88s4GaGsH15gw== =zGl8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: hackers texts
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 01 Sep 1996 08:51:36 EDT, patrick b cummings wrote: >If any of you hackers out their have wrote any texts for beginning >hackers or know of any please send them to me at patrickc(a)juno.com You know, I think his mail server has a 36 hour delay on incoming messages. Either that or he's Roadkill on the Information Superhighway // \\ // \\ ______________ // \\ | | // \\ | Information | // \\ | Superhighway | // ____ \\ | 56MB/s | // /____\ \\ |______________| // |==__==| \\ | | // ~||~~||~ \\ | | // ' \\ | | // // \\ | | // \\ | | // / / \\ | | // \\ | | // /// \\ | | // \\ | | // . ,& \\ | | // . `;//* IS HERE \\ // . `|/^\@'< ' . | \\ // `_/x@=%$P/,', <---/ \\ // >@#)*?o$%( , \\ // \.X#j~\===B \\ / \\ : The Clue truck got him... [In case you haven't noticed yet, this looks best with a non-proportional font] - "'Anonymity is bad,' says a source who wishes to remain anonymous." - Nuff' said. * 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: Moscowchannel.com hack
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 1 Sep 1996 10:09:32 -0500 (CDT), Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >> > Not really crypto, but related to the DOJ hack in a way. >> > >> > Moscow Channel is a pretty slick, Russian news/commentary >>page. Their Web >> > site was hacked and altered by someone who didn't seem to >>like Russians all >> > Just a matter of time before some builds a dedicated Satan >>type tool that >> > scans for HTTP server holes or messed up file permissions >>to make locating >> > potential victims easy. >> Write your web site to a CD-ROM and hard-code the base >>directory into the >> webserver. > >A hacker who has root can forcibly unmount the cdrom and mount >another >directory on that node. Not a good solution. Hack your system kernel to only allow mounting read-only media to that point. Most hackers wouldn't try "hot-patching" the system kernel. The ones that can probably have better things to do than hack your page. - "'Anonymity is bad,' says a source who wishes to remain anonymous." - Nuff' said. * 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: Bob Dole on Drugs
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 1 Sep 1996 11:33:02 -0500 (CDT), Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >http://allpolitics.com/news/9608/31/radio.addresses/ > >... snip ... > > Dole, who returned to Washington for Labor Day > weekend, also pledged to use the White House as a > bully pulpit to promote the "moral message" > against drugs and to criticize what he called the > entertainment industry's glamorization of drug use. > > On Sunday, he is to address the convention of the > National Guard Association of the United States > during which he's expected to propose that the > military be enlisted to assist in a renewed war on > drugs. This actually makes a lot of sense; if you've decided on an all-out war on drugs, doing it right is *much* better than some sort of weenie effort like we've got. I liked Robert Heinlein on immigration "If we're going to stop immigration build a Berlin style wall complete with alligators in the moat. Otherwise give up the pretense; nothing is more expensive or less useful than a wall that isn't." (very loosely paraphrased) - "'Anonymity is bad,' says a source who wishes to remain anonymous." - Nuff' said. * 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: Silenced Machine Guns Are Safer Than TWA
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:33 AM 9/2/96, Skippy wrote: >Contrary to popular fiction, ALL firearms have been permanently >registered since the 1968 Gun Control Act. The media monopoly lies when >they say the contrary. Nope. Gun sales between individuals without any paperwork were fully legal in some places until recently (and may still be fully legal...I can only speak of California). >From 1974 until a couple of years ago, I bought and sold a dozen or more rifles, handguns, and even Evil Assault Weapons, mostly through fully legal gun shows. I even sold a .357 Smith to some guy, made a joke about how great these gun shows were and how great it was to be able to just take cash and hand over a gun without any paperwork...the guy laughed and said he was a San Jose cop. I felt nervous for a few seconds, but quickly realized there was no law *I* was breaking, so I laughed too. Most of these guns I kept no records on, nor did any laws say I had to. (A few years ago it became necessary for even private citizen-units to obtain the proper firearms transfer papers from the gubment. I wanted to sell a laser-equipped Heckler & Koch SP-89 without creating a paper trail (as I'd not had one when I acquired the piece a few years earlier), so a friend of mine used his friendly neighborhood libertarian FFL dealer, who has a policy that the stack of transfer forms he is required to keep on file will mysteriously burn up if the Feds ever seek out his records. (Who knows if he'll abide by this policy, but the point is that there are literally tens of thousands of these "kitchen table FFL dealers," and no computerized filing of records. This is one reason I quit the NRA: they are advocating the "instant check." Such an instant check would mean massive computerization of all files, and of course cross-referencing to files on citizens. This would be much worse than the "paper chaos" of stacks of firearms paperwork sitting in dusty filing cabinets. I'll take a 10-day ineffectual waiting period to a Big Brother database of all purchasers.) >BTW, I muse that the issue of guns, drugs and censorship make an >excellent litmus test for libertarians: either you support the >legalization of, all of, or your a fake. I'm not sure what the "legalization of censorship" would mean, though I support the right of anyone to screen out what they choose not to read or view. And I support the right of companies to decide what materials to buy, have viewed by employees, etc. (So if the "Valley Lesbigays" want to show a tape at Hewlett-Packard, H-P can just say "Nope--we're not interested.) I fully support legalization of all drugs, all guns, and am unalterably opposed to any form of government censorship. Does this mean I pass or flunk the litmus test? (He said acidly.) --Tim May 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

desubscribe
by Cyber Thrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

desubscribe

1 0

Re: Moscowchannel.com hack
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 1 Sep 1996 12:22:40 -0500 (CDT), Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >> > > Write your web site to a CD-ROM and hard-code the base directory into the >> > > webserver. >> > >> > A hacker who has root can forcibly unmount the cdrom and mount another >> > directory on that node. Not a good solution. >> >> Real hard disks such as RL02's & RK07's have WRITE DISABLE >> switches.... >> > >You can't mount the whole Unix read-only, so there will always be a place >to put the hacked web page, and then mount that place over DocumentRoot. If you had enough RAM in the machine, you could disable swapping, send all log files to /dev/nul (or /dev/lp0), run *only* a web server or anything else that can avoid writing to disk (probably no CGI, etc). It wouldn't be too interesting, but then you probably don't want much happening on your web server anyway. You could even wire that write-disable switch or jumper into a keyswitch on the main console. - "'Anonymity is bad,' says a source who wishes to remain anonymous." - Nuff' said. * 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: Free Speech and List Topics
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:17 AM 9/2/96, qut wrote: >About the need for limits for anonymity, guess what brought that on? >Crime? Yes! The crime of the media monopoly violating the anti-trust >acts, because people are ignorant enough to trust the mass media for >their news. No self-respecting Cypherpunk thinks the Antitrust Act and related acts are worthy of enforcement. (Think of how the technology we support will tend to allow new avenues for price collusion, interlocking directorates, new forms of business combines, unreadable secure communications with foreign competitors, and so on, all things the Antitrust regulators are already growing worried about.) --Tim May 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."

2 1

Encourage Singapore To Come Out Of the Stone Age
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:06 AM 9/2/96 +0800, James Seng <jseng(a)pobox.org.sg> wrote: >Just let to add my comment in regard to this unforuntate discusssion. >To understand the sitution better, you should not impose America >idealogy and perspection on how things to be done to Singapore. >Singapore maybe young but there are certain culture too. While Tim's article title was clearly intended to be provocative, I think the most unfortunate thing about this discussion is that we need to have it at all. Any government, or any individual thug, that would impose violence on people for saying things that would bring it into disrespect deserves no respect at all. Any government that claims to have the god-like wisdom to dictate what's best for its subjects to hear or what religious ideas to believe doesn't deserve to be listened to, much less obeyed. If Singapore's government and religious leaders want to say "Our ideas are better than American ideas", and you or I or your neighbor want to listen to them, fine; maybe some of their ideas are better than some of the many ideas floating around North America. But if you or I or your neighbor want to listen to competing ideas, and even to believe and talk about competing ideas, neither you nor the government have the right to stop them - only to refute them with better ideas. People like Tim and I aren't upset only because we believe that we know better than you and Lee Kwan Yew how to run Singapore; free speech is often threatened here in the US and especially Canada. You mentioned movie ratings - they were invented here partly to avoid the threat of government censorship. A few years ago a prominent right-wing religious/political leader, Jerry Falwell, put out a "Bill Of Rights For American Families" that included the right not to hear offensive foreign ideas like Communism. I agree that Singapore and America have different cultures; in an environment of free speech, if Singaporeans don't like American TV and movies, they won't watch them, and advertisers will quickly figure this out and try to find TV programs they like. On the other hand, if a power-hungry government decides that it doesn't like American TV, forbids business licenses to anyone who broadcasts it, and jails anyone who broadcasts TV without a business license, they're more corrupt than a government that forbids business licenses to anyone who doesn't pay a bribe. (At least in a kleptocracy, you can usually print or say what you want if you pay the bribes, though my father-in-law's newspaper was once shut down for printing that the mayor was taking bribes, and who they were from, and how much.) >In addition, you need to see the method of censorship deployed in >Singapore. For press media like papers and magazine, it is done in a >passive manner. They _do not_ read every issue of every magazine available >in Singapore. They only do so when there is enough complains. This also means you don't know what is safe to print and what isn't. You have to restrict yourself very strongly, because otherwise some politically influential person will complain to the government, and you go to jail. At least if the government tells you what the rules are, you know it's safe to say things that don't violate them. >One more point. They know it is impossible to censor everything. [....] >his reasoning is "how many people can do it? 10%? 5%? That's fine with us. >If the people really wans it, they can get it". Interesting. I don't know if this is good or bad, but at least they're realistic. It also means that if enough people want information badly enough, the government may know not to censor it. On the other hand, a government that can keep the leader of an opposition political party in jail for years just because he opposes them is pretty corrupt. >if you wish to rebuke the points which i mention above, please feel >free to do so but do so in the context wrt Singapore culture. >Do not impose the general idealogy and culture within >your country into your argument. The right to speak freely without government thugs shutting you down and throwing you in jail or killing you is a universal one. The ability to get anybody to listen to what you have to say, on the other hand, is highly dependent both on general culture and on the interests of the individuals you hope will listen, as well as on what you have to say and your ability to say it well. >Now, what makes you think that citizen of Country A has the power or >rights to tell politicians of Country B what to do and what they cannot do? >Just wondering. Because I have a mouth and a conscience, and they have ears and consciences. I certainly have more right to tell a politician in Country B not to stop his subjects from speaking than he does to order them not to speak. And if the politicians over here are wrong, which they often are, you've got the right to tell them that too. Of course, the politicians over here usually won't listen to you, and the politicians over there either won't listen to me or they'll add my name to the firewall killfile :-) But it's also safer for me to tell your politicians to behave well than for you to tell them, since you have to live with them. >ps: Sorry for the off-topic discussion. It's not off-topic. Building tools to prevent censorship is distinctly on-topic for cypherpunks, and an occasional digression into whether it's a good idea is worthwhile. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Reassign Authority!

2 1

free speech online
by patrickbc＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I agree that their should be free speech on the net. Someone should start a petition and get as many people to sign it as possible.

1 0