December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Secure drive?
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I assume that when you say that "it does", this means that I can access the >encrypted drive from Win95. If so, can you tell me how. I have a 50mb >partition that's encrypted and if I boot to DOS everything works perfectly, >but from Win95, the drive is always encrypted. I've tried entering my >passphrase prior to Win95 loading... no effect. If I try to enter my pp >from a DOS box, it says that the SECTSR isn't loaded, but MEM says that it >is. Any thoughts? Sort of. Open "Control Panel." Open "System." Click the "Performance" tab. Click the <V>irtual Memory radio button. Check/select "Let <m>e specify my own virtual memory settings." Check Di<s>able virtual memory (not recommended). Click the "OK" radio button. Ignore the warning dialog box which appears and click "Yes." Reboot WIN95 and your encrypted partition should be accessible (if you log into it under DOS before loading Windows), and all your drives will be operating at 16-bit speeds. DCF

1 0

Re: DES-Busting Screen Savers?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:28 AM 7/24/96 -0700, Steve Reid wrote: >On the subject of choosing keys randomly, rather than dividing up the >keyspace... > >This seems like a very good idea to me. > >One potential problem is actually choosing the random keys. Have to be >able to get entropy at a fast rate, and/or use a good PRNG. I think you chose your starting place in the key space and then proceed sequentially from there. However, if it turns our that gray code increments of the key can reduce the key setup time, then you would want to use that ordering of the key space for the "next" key to try. Another possibility is to work in randomly chosen blocks of 1000 to 1,000,000 or so keys. This approach would reduce the cost of getting good random numbers to manageable levels. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Parsing JYA; now others?
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Say, Duncan - you can do John Young, but can you make any sense of this? >From: doghead(a)psyclone.com (Blowjob Jesus) Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc Subject: Re: ! Blacklist Spammers and Rogue ISP's !!!!!!!!!! Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 01:08:56 GMT Organization: The Mighty Psyclone - Gonna Blow Yer Mind Lines: 56 Message-ID: <31f6c6d2.439333(a)news.alpha.net> References: <4t59aq$3n0(a)park.interport.net> Reply-To: doghead(a)psyclone.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.104.253 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 On Wed, 24 Jul 96 13:41:28 GMT, tonyb(remove this garbage to email me)(a)interport.net (tony brower) wrote: >Conventional response to spam is completely ineffective. Farflung was the offense, easy is the time spent drinking salad dressing. Christian Dior, well-known parking ticket, adds his pickle fork. >Nothing currently prevents the abuser from getting another account in >another name and continuing the practise. Wendigo spake in gruff pebbles, like unto a Timex! Reginald Denny left the room with scanners on full auto. >Even ISP's spam their adverts across newsgroups. Freedom, paged in 4k chunks, permeates UDP. There never was a governor. The double nickle blowed up good. >Why can't people who spam and otherwise abuse Usenet for commercial purposes >be blacklisted? Approved for your convenience, in sterile jello molds. The Lawnboy nods assent. >e.g. after first warning, no more accounts allowed from that Credit Card or >other payment source. The sun, a gaseous ball of tomato paste and model trains, is lost among clouds of thankfullness. >Why can't providers who refuse to curtail abuse from their customers also be >blacklisted and shut out from the net? >e.g. If ISP's are held responsible for abuse by their customers they'll >enforce nettiquette ("abide by the rules or lose your account here and >anywhere for one year"). Irresponsible ISP's will lose customers to those >ISP's who care. Hell, let them make their own net for cycling and recylcing >commercial, make money fast and sex #'s posts. OJ Simpson skirvined the net and was clarified. When failed and not sanguine, there was no response to the 'sturm und drang.' >Isn't this the fastest way to clean out all the junk that has permeated the >newsgroups posted by inconsiderate, greedy assholes (who have NOTHING to fear >by conventional response)? Response time is minimal. Lost among oceans of billiard balls made of styrofoam - tiny marmots build complicated nests of velveeta. Regroup? --

2 1

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I find it funny that I'm considered Conservative by most people who know me. Your opinion may vary. ;-) tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their >paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when >people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on. One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much". I know the social psychology explanation that people who view the world as ordered attach these types of judgements to situations which violate their ordered view of the world. "She was just asking for it dressed like that..." However, now I'm puzzled. From what I've read of Tim May, he does not hold such an orderly view of the world. The "rules" of existence may prove to be deterministic, but the results are chaotic. So Tim, where are these moral judgments coming from? >The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or >who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being poor or indigent a crime. Curfews being a recently discussed example. If the equation is one of economics, then "who takes care of" people does indeed enter the equation. I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall behind. Think: Soylent Green. Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say. James

4 4

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sure, we'll just set up our own [i/I]nternet...(We need a letter between upper and lower case...) It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't include any of the networking equipment or cost of the machines....is this a troll or what? Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: From: Scottauge @ aol.com @ smtp Date: 07/28/96 04:39:39 PM Subject: Just some comments on what I've read here 1) Seems to be some excitment about banning information on the internet here... Setting up a set of computers for a private net is not that big a deal (just some money involved and with the availability of Linux - a UNIX variant - for free make it hardware and telephone costs.) Do it for companies all over (hence the aol address - just a local phone call from anywhere!) and it works just fine. So if people want to play by different rules.. it's possible. Think of it as a members only social club. (I can make computers real hard to get into, but social engineering kicks my butt all the time.) 2) Whats wrong with America? I've been leaning towards Libertarian for some time now. Voted for Ross last time as a message I ain't happy with how things are going over there. Likely gonna vote Harry Brown - my first vote for a Libertarian. (He is seems to have it together versus the others) - but hey, gettin off the subject here.... Seems we are no longer United in these United States... A stranger is not a potential friend or ally but a potential robber, baby raper... you fill in the blank. We're all scared of each other! Something has been happening where rich are pitted against the poor, the working against the non-working, races vs other races. Is it a conspiracy as some of my friends who look for black helicopters say, or a natural reaction of politicians and "leaders" seeing a formula that works and then implementing it. To much Hard Copy and Extra reporting out there too. I don't give a rat's a*s about most of the sh*t their putting out (censorship mine for those with delicate eyes). But US culture has become very valuable and ya gotta get them foreign markets ya know. There was a time when a famil could have a picnic on the white house lawn. Then it got gated, now the street is closed. Our leaders seem to be no longer among us. But it doesn't matter. Some beuracrat (sp) gets a bug up their butt to give you trouble, your f*cked. With a seconds thought and a signature on a peice of paper ya can have your land gone or your bank account cleared or you name it. One second and on to the next thing as far as they are concerned. Can we impeach them? Can we vote for someone else next time? They're a buffer between the ones we can give trouble too. Plus Laws are so damn big these days. It takes a ream of paper (sometimes a whole 3000 page box of paper) to print these things out. You can bet the leg. not reading these things! They got advisors to read over sections and say this is good, this is bad. The real representatives and senators are out looking for campaign money. So damn, I now speculate these guys and gals are letting the advisors put the laws together - again someone not answerable (or even known) to the public. So now, you got legislators not reading the bills they are working on and there is a whole army of serfs ready to make some regulations that are in effect the same as law and ready to start looking for people to bother so they can look busy - and these serfs are not answerable to the public. Sorry, but congress is a part time job as far as I'm concerned. These laws are the result of people with nothing to do. I listen to the TV set and I hear "Oh we gotta law comin to fix this". Bullsh*t. There are plenty of other laws out there to hassle trouble makers with. They didn't nab Capone on murder, but on tax evasion. People fix stuff, not laws. Somebody is measuring their prouctivity by the amount of paper they can spew out of their office. 3) I'm a keen believer in Social Evolution A quick definition: If your a drug addict and your stupid enough to OD, you deserve to die. Another example: Your a drug dealer and ya get shot - oh well. Goes with the choice , dude. We keep protecting people from their choices. We think we are doing a favor for ourselves but I POSTULATE we are not. We keep on fightin nature and it just ain't possible. There just might be a reason for this weedin out process. But I'll admit it - I have a prejudice against stupid people - not mentally hadicapped, but stupid people. Well, thanks for reading my ranting and raving....

1 0

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-29 18:28:06 EDT, you write: > It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 > people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US > per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't > include any of the networking equipment or cost of the > machines....is this a troll or what? > I dunno, are you a nob? As I recall I said the expenses where going to be in the switches (or public networks). Plus I'm thinking the most basic services of telnet, ftp, smtp, and some nnp... Plug two network boards (whether ethernet or X.25 or ATM) into a UNIX computer and you have a router. You cannot tell me that hardware (minus the hardcore ATM/X.25 stuff) is not inexpensive enough to put something together. At least for a few thousand users all sophisticated enough to know how to install a UNIX or Linux system... I'm talking about a club here - not a replacement for the internet. Open up your mind, dude....

1 0

Denning vs. Gilmore
by rod＠wired.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today, Monday, July 29, Dorothy Denning begins her debate vs. John Gilmore over The Absolute Right to Privacy on Wired Online's Brain Tennis site. Do citizens of the world have an "unalienable right" to privacy - or are there reasons why governments ought to have access to our communications? This debate will run daily through August 7. Follow along at http://www.wired.com/braintennis/. To get into the debate yourself, go to: http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.21655 An excerpt of Dorothy's first post today: "I'm not ready to accept 'the cat is out of the bag.' Let's look for a way of enjoying the benefits of encryption without unnecessarily hindering the ability of law enforcement to perform its mission. Let's use encryption for privacy, but also give law enforcement access to communications and computer files when there is probable cause and a judge has issued a court order. In some cases, that access must be surreptitious. Imagine the FBI calling a family boss and saying 'Give me your keys so I can wiretap your phone!'" John Gilmore's first post follows tomorrow. See you there. Best, Roderick Simpson rod(a)wired.com Wired Online

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> wrote: >Uhh, "fail to save" isn't a moral judgement; it's an observable >phenomenon. Either somebody does save money or they don't. I >don't see in Tim's wording any judgement being made. It's a >numerical thing. >If you replace "drink too much," with "drink enough that they", you >get another observable phenomenon. As is the observable phenomenon that some people focus on the details and miss the point. You may also consider this to be a moral judgement. To argue that the cited examples - out of the universe of possible examples - did not imply a moral judgement is an argument useful only for its humour. James

2 1

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

And my point is that you obviously have no clue about running a sizeable net. It looks like you are trying to propose Fidonet. Go ask one of them how much it costs for them to run a node. Any sort of dialup service is pretty much going to limit you to store-and-forward items. Any full-time links attempting to mesh "a few thousand" users is going to quickly exceed my paltry $400K. You might want consider using the main Internet, and looking into encryption... Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: Ryan.Russell, cypherpunks cc: From: Scottauge @ aol.com @ smtp Date: 07/29/96 06:49:45 PM Subject: Re: Just some comments on what I've read here In a message dated 96-07-29 18:28:06 EDT, you write: > It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 > people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US > per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't > include any of the networking equipment or cost of the > machines....is this a troll or what? > I dunno, are you a nob? As I recall I said the expenses where going to be in the switches (or public networks). Plus I'm thinking the most basic services of telnet, ftp, smtp, and some nnp... Plug two network boards (whether ethernet or X.25 or ATM) into a UNIX computer and you have a router. You cannot tell me that hardware (minus the hardcore ATM/X.25 stuff) is not inexpensive enough to put something together. At least for a few thousand users all sophisticated enough to know how to install a UNIX or Linux system... I'm talking about a club here - not a replacement for the internet. Open up your mind, dude....

1 0

New Internet
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-29 19:16:30 EDT, you write: > Any sort of dialup service is pretty much going to > limit you to store-and-forward items. Any full-time > links attempting to mesh "a few thousand" > users is going to quickly exceed my paltry $400K. I agree... but I am also thinking that not one person is picking up the tab. Undoubtedly some systems are going to go up and down also... so - at the beginning - it could be like fidonet. But hopefully it would be more than a bunch of machines calling each other up an bursting information, some may backbone for a while.

1 0