December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

New Middleman (reno)
by Janet Reno 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ATTENTION *** ATTENTION *** ATTENTION *** ATTENTION I'm proud to announce the birth of a new middleman remailer! This new remailer uses John Perry's middleman mixmaster code and is located at cyberpass.net thanks to Lance Cottrell. Here are the statistics: NAME: Janet Reno SHORTNAME: reno ADDRESS: middleman(a)cyberpass.net MIXMASTER KEY: reno middleman(a)cyberpass.net b864a69c831f38593d24187122e954f6 2.0.3 -----Begin Mix Key----- b864a69c831f38593d24187122e954f6 258 AASx+Qa23TBIu7MTGZQekob8EJrxyhNPYPBRhzZC 17F5scF1MzFIk1PhY0O78QN29aYMHlo99jE37Hlh MvJpQ7HUrqnklRIaRZJBLxUcuBoTckMltIJEdh1r 9Lbh8e5AIoqPr6c9SAxr7Q3v2cthkwuBYEiWDlui 0vGtsX/EC6lTdwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAB -----End Mix Key----- John Perry, will you please add my remailer to your list when you get a chance? middleman(a)cyberpass.net

1 0

Re: Sternlight on C'punks
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 18:11 7/15/96, David Sternlight wrote: [...] >Nothing like a good personal defamation before even reading my posts, eh? >As those who have paid attention know, I post my policy views, not >flame-bait. The idea that I am deliberately trying to start flame wars is >pure paranoia. LOL. ROTF. While the poster of the message to which you are responding may not have read your posts, I have. Hundreds of them. Your USENET posts routinely lead to some of the longest flame wars I have ever seen. While starting flame wars may not be your intention, it most certainly is often the result of your posts. Consequently, you are one of only two people in my global USENET kill file. Not because I hate you, but because I don't enjoy reading the endless flame fests that seem to be the inevitable result of your posts. Deliberate or incidental, you *are* starting flame wars. No offense, -- 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

"address verification databases"? (was: Netscape download...)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:45 PM 7/17/96, Jeff Weinstein wrote: > Because we have not yet been able to obtain the address verification >databases that we need for Canada. There is someone working on >tracking this down right now. When we get the proper database we >will add access to canada. > > --Jeff Jeff, can you tell us anything more about what these "address verification databases" are? For example, are they derived from government sources? Census data? (Naw, can't be, for at least two obvious reasons). Voting records? (Naw.) Credit card purchases? (??) While I can imagine various commercial firms have indicators that a "T. Christopher May" once lived in Rio Del Mar (the name of a town I lived in, though not an official "Postal Service" address), I really find it odd that, for example, there would be any database that could "parse" the informal information people provide (absent a well-defined set of addresses and precise spellings). In case I'm not making myself clear, there are no "official" addresses of persons in the U.S! Not even the tax system requires registration of all persons and specific addresses. This has come up in several "voter's rights" cases, where persons with no fixed address were nevertheless able to vote. If I, T.C. May, say my address is Moonbeam Trailer Park, who's to say it's not? Maybe it's where I'm staying with a girlfriend, maybe it's where I get my mail, maybe it's my spiritual home. And yet just which "address verification database" could possibly confirm that I live in (or get my mail at the Moonbeam Trailer Park at this exact moment? Absent any laws clearly defining what one's official name is, official phone number is, official zip code is, official address is, etc., just about anything we choose to put down on the Web form is kosher. At least the MIT system was based on ISP domain names, crude as this is, and not on putative names and residential or business addresses. Anyway, I don't know if Netscape is rejecting the information I'm providing them, as I've been unable to get through in roughly 30 connect attempts. But I'm still curious about what these "address verification databases." Sounds ominous to me. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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

Re: Opiated file systems
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:06 PM 7/17/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >1. Confiscate computer (along with physical drive) with duress-capable >encrypted file system; 2. back up the encrypted sectors; 3. reverse-engineer file >system driver to figure out how the duress-key works, if there are >multiple keys, where data is stored; 4. make sure you've rubber-hosed >or subpeoned all passphrases or keys; 4a. if the system destroys data, >you've got backups ("Very funny kiddo; now give us the real key...") >4b. even if there are two filesystems, the attacker will want access >to both, just to make sure... It has long occurred to me, considering the size and low power of the typical 3.5" hard drive compared with the size of the typical house or apartment, that it might be an interesting project to remotely connect such a (hidden) drive to your computer using a reasonably surreptious link that is difficult to trace. Say, an IR optical link, a single bare (unjacketed) optical fiber, a LAN with hidden nodes, or a similar system. Maybe an inductive pickup. In any raid, they'll have to decide what to take, and chances are very good that they won't find every hidden item. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Opiated file systems
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:30 PM 7/16/96 -0700, Jim Gillogly wrote: >"Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> writes: >>A problem with a c'punk-style encrypted fs with source code and wide >>distribution is, of course, that attackers will KNOW that there is a >>duress key. > >Good point. This suggests a design desideratum for any such system should >be that the user may choose not to have a duress key, maintaining >semi-plausible deniability for those who choose to have one. Perhaps a user settable number of duress keys with different behavior for each of them? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Lying Purebred Sovok Tchurkas Write the History of the Net
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:17 AM 7/18/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Knowing KGB habits as pertaining to releasing information to the public, >I would expect 50% of the CDROM to be pure bullshit, 40% -- lies, and >maybe 10% truth that was already publicly available. > >It is like buying a CDROM about the history of the Net from Dr. Grubor. >Maybe it would be interesting and amusing, but not worth $120. NOW you tell me! I just shelled out $42 for "The History of the Net," by Dr. John Grubor and Dr. Dmitri Vulis, 1996. And here I thought it was the real history of the Net, especially the part about how "the dandruff-covered Peter Vorobieff (spit) conspired with the purebred Sovok Valery Fabrikant (spit) to spread the lies of the Jew cripples dying of AIDS in Sovok-controlled clinics." When Grubor and Vulis speak of the Usenet Cabal being a Sovok (spit) plot, I thought this was the actual truth. I guess not. Maybe Spafford is actually Rabbi Ruthenberg. --Tim May (hint: this a satire, based on the writings of Vulis, who speaks of people as "lying purebred Sovok Tchurkas" (whatever _they_ are), and attaches the charming word "(spit)" after nearly every person he references.) Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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."

3 2

Re: How I Would Ban Strong Crypto in the U.S.
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:29 PM 7/16/96 -0500, Declan wrote: >The emerging consensus is, in fact, nonexistant. ... >Michael writes: >>On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >>> So, who is in this "emerging consensus"? >>> >>Foreign governments? >>(Process of elimination, not inside info...) A consensus means that everybody more or less agrees. If I were looking for a group of people that more or less all agreed that governments needed access to all encrypted material within their grasp, I'd probably look for heads of governments, and counter-intelligence and internal-security organs of government, and assume that the spying-on-other-government organs of government won't mind because they can take care of their own crypto... As far as businesses go, the closest to a consensus I've seen is that some vendors think they can make money selling GAK tools, and some others don't really care governments can read the data their customers transmit as long as the government doesn't scare customers away. And then there are the folks whose current encryption is so wimpy that 40-bit-RC4 is a big step up, and they don't mind much either. As y'all have said, it's bogus, and for government to claim otherwise is really shoddy and dishonest, but hey, that's government for you.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Confuse Authority!

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Michael Myers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:48 PM 7/17/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >a lot of trouble for calling for "head shots" on rampaging BATFags. >Frankly, I'm not a good enough shot--especially in high-stress >situations--to make head shots with my H & K .45, so I can only hope to >make torso shots.) Gotta spend more time at the range...*grin* >Personally, I think all folks should be armed at all times in their homes. >Those who aren't are taking their chances. My personal choice is a Heckler >& Koch USP .45. loaded with Federal Golden Sabres, a hollowpoint round that >has a 92% one-shot stop rate, with adequate penetration through Kevlar >vests (typically worn by BATF raiders). I may die, but I hope I can take at Just as a technical aside, the "entry" vests are becoming much more common, and can often stop up to 7.62 NATO, sometimes even .30-06 AP rounds. The handgun rounds don't even faze wearers of this vest. They'd be likely to go through the Lexan face shields, though (hint hint...Mozambique drill). >least two of them with me. (Interestingly, the same class of folks who want >to ban "military-grade crypto" are also seeking to ban Kevlar vest-piercing >rounds. Same bunch are also working to ban civilian ownership of bullet-resistant vests...seems like a pattern developing here, doesn't it? -- /^^^^^^^^^Instead of being born again, why not just GROW UP?^^^^^^^^^^^\ Michael Myers Vote Libertarian....you'll sleep better! Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't like guns? Don't buy one. blackavr(a)aa.net E-mail for PGPv2.6.2 public key \____________ http://www.aa.net/~blackavr/homepage.htm ________________/

1 0

Re: Government: Home-Business
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>Dear Friend, >>Thank you for your interest. Please take a minute to read this >>important information or simply print it out. > >>All the information here is 100% accurate and can be verified >>with the Department of HUD in Washington D.C. Bwa-hah-hah fnord.... >I'm getting more and more of this kind of crap sent to me. I have >a procmail script which greps a file of undesirable addresses I've >compiled, but that hasn't proven very useful as there aren't many >repeat offenders. (the procmail script is available at >http://www.universe.digex.net/~mbr/unix/junkmail.html) >How are other people dealing with this? So far, I've been sending them my offer for SPAM PREVENTION CONSULTING! at my usual rates of $250/hour, minimum 2 hours, plus any legal and collection fees required. One of them has a human reading the responses (the CHAG folks), who's not highly impressed (:-), while the folks with the hundreds-of-thousands-of-spam-victims-email-addresses lists have only robo-replied, though they've both sent a second set of spam and are thus billable :-) I assume, since the robo-spammers are posting from a new email address this time, that either their previous ISPs have dumped them, or perhaps that they're using the same ISP and multiple domain names to hide it, probably the former. CHAG is more blockable, since they're trying to portray an image of stability and trustworthiness, as opposed to hit-and-run. Meanwhile, large numbers of replies can always get their attention; I haven't tried forging the address of the robo-spammers' robo-reply-bot on a message to them to see if it knows not to spam itself, but if a thousand people were to do it, they might start to think it was a movement or something..... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Confuse Authority!

1 0

Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE?
by stig＠hackvan.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 22:48:23 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Alex de Joode <usura(a)replay.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE? > Newsgroups: list.cypherpunks > > [..] > : "Ecash" is a registered trademark of DigiCash. It is registered > : with the Benelux trademark office and the United States > : trademark office. I believe that it is considered unwise to use > : minor variations on trademarked names, but I'm not an > : intellectual property rights lawyer. > > The Benelux (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) trademark laws > don't allow for slight variations, certainly not if there is a > change that people get confused, it is very very likey that the > judges of the benelux trademark court will decide that > ecash and e-cash are just to simular, and will thus confuse the > public. (art 5 lid 1 BMW) > > btw: I'm surprised DigiCash didn't file for a European Trademark, > but opted for Benelux and US protection. Perhaps this has already been voiced on the main list (I get a filtered helping or two of cypherpunks), but *I'm* surprised that such a generic name as 'Ecash' was granted trademark status anywhere. It's like giving Microsoft a trademark on the term 'Email'... It's nuts! Was the term ecash not in use before DigiCash showed up on the scene? Stig

1 0