December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Erasing Disks
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

N.B. Your disagreement is with Peter's paper, not me unless I have inadvertently misrepresented what he wrote. At 2:15 AM 9/14/96 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >I disagree. The methods for declassification in the Army and >Defense Department security manuals included several approaches: >1) Physical destruction - acid, sandblasters, etc. >2) NSA-Approved Whopping Big Magnets I think Peter was looking for non-destructive methods which would allow continued use of the hard disk >3) NSA-Approved Hopefully-Bugfree computer programs for some computers. > >The most secure methods were the unclassified ones - after we >sandblasted our RM05 disk packs, the NSA and KGB can't read anything. >The less secure methods are the ones that require NSA approval - >how strong is a Whopping Big Magnet this year? (Too strong to put >near MY computer lab, thank you! :-) Peter thinks this strength is to strong for practical application. He describes someone who had a strong enough research magnet which bent the platters. Since erasing the clocking tracks requires them to be rewritten at the factory, magnets do not allow reuse of hard disks. >But shredding the floppy? No need to classify that, no secrets leaked Burn after shredding, or you have a puzzle fan reassembling the shredded disk. Hastily, but with regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | "Cave softly, cave safely, | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | and cave with duct tape." | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | - Marianne Russo | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Hallam-Baker writes: > > Pity you guys missed out on the idea of trades unions and think that > > employment is some kind of serfdom in which you loose all your > > rights the day you sign up. If you hadn't sold your government to > > the cooprorations a while back you might have got out of the middle > > ages. > > Yes, we could be a workers paradise like one of those lovely European > countries with double digit unemployment and all. Too bad we didn't go > in for democratic socialism while we could have, eh? Perry, hate to burst your bubble but unemployment in the UK _trippled_ in the first eighteen months of rule by that great socialist Margret Thatcher. One third of UK manufaturing industry went bankrupt in the only large scale application of Freedman's ideas. The UK only began to recover after the monetarist policies were consigned to the dustbin. Unemployment remained high despite a sustained attack on workers rights. The scenario you described is an unjust one but it would be equally unjust if the company was bought out and the new owner decided to sack all black people and people called "Perry". You were the one who brought up the issue of fairness. Phill

2 1

No Subject
by gregburk＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well, this looks like a chance to quickly correct some mistakes without spending a lot of time framing the issue. tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: > But this latest episode illustrates the role of reputations. Namely, my own > reputation is not being harmed by bizarre commentaries from the Vulis-bot. ..among people who directly know you. You seem to see this as an example of reputations in action. But there isn't any "repute" in there at all. Surely this grand theoretical "reputation" framework isn't needed to describe simple direct experience. And it seems to me that your usage of "reputation" has at different times meant both direct and indirect exposure. This clearly discards important information, often to the detriment of your analysis. Perhaps you can explain why the two separate things are the same in some important way, aside from merely that they both involve esteem. > As its reputation is (apparently) pretty low, and associated with Serdar > Ardic-style rants about "sovoks," "the cabal," and "spit," such an entity > can hardly "assassinate" my character. > A few years ago Larry Detweiler, aka "vznuri" ("visionary"), aka "S.Boxx," > aka "Pablo Escobar," aka several other alternate personalities, wrote > dozens of screeds denouncing me, Eric Hughes, Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, etc. > Did this have an effect on our reputations? Not to people I respected, of > course. And if Detweiler's rants affected my reputation with his peers, > including Dimitri Vulis, Ludwig Plutonium, Doctress Neutopia, Serdar Argic, > well, this is to the good. > In the mathematics of reputations, a negative reputation held by one whose > own reputation is negative is a positive. I don't think this is an example of any such thing. I would not respect a person even a tiny bit more just because a kook disrespects them. In fact, since the kooks frequently hold each other in very low esteem, the suggested polarity-math is self-contradictory. Rather, I think this is an example of how direct exposure supercedes reputation. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQBVAwUBMjs9GLMyVAabpHidAQE4PQH/dfVepFTivql8LtygN8BBoE/l03K7NOIH HVvH4QbHBY2MyVNviRN9R6MF2LsJRYp5SzFfdC+1vm/ohnhWEYZ4aA== =LdoS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- t}t}t}t}t}t}t}t}.

1 0

Re: Reputation in action
by gregburk＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well, this looks like a chance to quickly correct some mistakes without spending a lot of time framing the issue. tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: > But this latest episode illustrates the role of reputations. Namely, my own > reputation is not being harmed by bizarre commentaries from the Vulis-bot. ..among people who directly know you. You seem to see this as an example of reputations in action. But there isn't any "repute" in there at all. Surely this grand theoretical "reputation" framework isn't needed to describe simple direct experience. And it seems to me that your usage of "reputation" has at different times meant both direct and indirect exposure. This clearly discards important information, often to the detriment of your analysis. Perhaps you can explain why the two separate things are the same in some important way, aside from merely that they both involve esteem. > As its reputation is (apparently) pretty low, and associated with Serdar > Ardic-style rants about "sovoks," "the cabal," and "spit," such an entity > can hardly "assassinate" my character. > A few years ago Larry Detweiler, aka "vznuri" ("visionary"), aka "S.Boxx," > aka "Pablo Escobar," aka several other alternate personalities, wrote > dozens of screeds denouncing me, Eric Hughes, Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, etc. > Did this have an effect on our reputations? Not to people I respected, of > course. And if Detweiler's rants affected my reputation with his peers, > including Dimitri Vulis, Ludwig Plutonium, Doctress Neutopia, Serdar Argic, > well, this is to the good. > In the mathematics of reputations, a negative reputation held by one whose > own reputation is negative is a positive. I don't think this is an example of any such thing. I would not respect a person even a tiny bit more just because a kook disrespects them. In fact, since the kooks frequently hold each other in very low esteem, the suggested polarity-math is self-contradictory. Rather, I think this is an example of how direct exposure supercedes reputation. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQBVAwUBMjs9GLMyVAabpHidAQE4PQH/dfVepFTivql8LtygN8BBoE/l03K7NOIH HVvH4QbHBY2MyVNviRN9R6MF2LsJRYp5SzFfdC+1vm/ohnhWEYZ4aA== =LdoS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: forward secrecy in mixmaster
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> This has been discussed extensively for Internet security reasons, and the > Photuris folks decided to use a common modulus (actually, several with different > lengths.) I think they chose a strong prime (form p = 2q+1, q prime), > specifically to avoid small-prime attacks, though they may have decided > that that was no longer necessary. I assume from the last sentence that you know that the use of strong primes is no longer advantageous but I will just reiterate it here for the good of those writing code which implements strong primes: Strong primes are no longer of any benefit for cryptographic applications. The elliptic curve method of factoring takes no longer to factor a "strong" prime than it does for any other general number. You may *SLIGHTLY* hinder progress if an attacker sieves first, but as you should have done so when you created the primes in the first place it won`t be a problem because there wont be any small factors. Implementing strong primes won`t make your code any less secure, it will just take longer to create the keys and won`t gain you any security, all te big boys are using elliptic curve factoring methods now so you really have nothing to gain. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Http://www.fatmans.demon.co.uk/crypt/ "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQCNAjH9j+cAAAEEAMBvREiQR0ot9dFCO0TiSCSunAYLv2g1Bc6I3bz8FzKXNH53 6mieJf/W4rD+CxJpT0q9RQaaoRtkHJLwbjfK2il3D7mEahMAyqvF/xRJNqkXfhM3 sRJM0Jh43l+W0M5vwokbEbk25/bxWWGspTsLD3YHbzKnG6pOcL5OPIRbv66xAAUR tCdQYXVsIEJyYWRsZXkgPHBhdWxAZmF0bWFucy5kZW1vbi5jby51az6JAJUDBRAy NwfvNkCBjDT0xHEBATQPA/9TORmN/UjNecj03q4anpvdyCLiez5sKuNbnYK50RiP Jj4QpWWvST3smyQ0A86DrZY/re056MXwQmARESx0rFZxdnD0oORICl5r8dJLIy3b j8rbA5olXwZwKz73/X5s13v/pvHYX4cIsbVK8NHXqh5llSKt6TBAuGgkIGF29z5k C4kAlQMFEDI3B9mdtf/umVkv7QEBcRYD/1FBteLqsUmr81euxqqnnrpLlyHb58B/ 9sdATuua4uSjX46hXDZ264YozspNrzSB4NEdrmXOWVX3fiE0ga6XkSSkIeF23V90 En37Z0BdbFzgF00FRYTFyTq8eezQrdg/+rBPUsZUmG5wpq3e12FKHQsX01i+1mB2 YmqqwCV5e95eiQCVAgUQMh8uSb5OPIRbv66xAQEqJwP/fxQyiCasjFcbDpsFfsYp put5cCC/9pOx6X3DlbKShPMpUOS+A9HsTEmJQN8Iawv1nSwPdtc2cR/GhW6ilVjW LSloGdMVLabm9pGpZZMkRaZlXFUkOv7VhfgsUiL+vIDryBCAwUZCzQiWycjt/cPi mUqFH41Z7NkyO8ZFdi5GGX0= =CMZA -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

?
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In <517ia2$dmn(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> llurch(a)stanford.edu (Skippy) writes: ! Too long. A few hours ago, the blocking ended, so Ingrid's wacky analysis ! of how this is all a ZOG plot is moot. Your consistent defence of censorship noted. The mere fact that censorship is evadable, never justifies the evil. Would you make the claim that there are no drug laws merely because it's easy to evade the laws against possession?

1 0

Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> >> Hallam-Baker writes: >> > Pity you guys missed out on the idea of trades unions and think that >> > employment is some kind of serfdom in which you loose all your >> > rights the day you sign up. If you hadn't sold your government to >> > the cooprorations a while back you might have got out of the middle >> > ages. >> >> Yes, we could be a workers paradise like one of those lovely European >> countries with double digit unemployment and all. Too bad we didn't go >> in for democratic socialism while we could have, eh? > >Perry, hate to burst your bubble but unemployment in the UK _trippled_ >in the first eighteen months of rule by that great socialist Margret ^^^^^^^^^ >Thatcher. One third of UK manufaturing industry went bankrupt in the >only large scale application of Freedman's ideas. Ummm. We're being Hallam-Baker PhD'ed again. I think she was a little bit Tory. Conservative, maybe? Right wing? Funded by industry? On kissing terms with Reagan? Socialist, no. Or was this an attempt by Doctor Sarcasm at wit? Actually the UK is now way ahead of the rest of Europe in terms of deregulation, low labor costs, efficient manufacturing, etc. Germany and France are now up the familiar creek because of their too-socialist policies. But there are those who say that Thatcher's slash and burn approach was appalling. You get the government you deserve, but not necessarily when you deserve it. That's what causes all the fuss. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Technology (n): | | A substitute for adulthood. stevenw(a)best.com | Popular with middle-aged men.

1 0

FLO_odd
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2600, Summer, 1996 Flood Warning by Jason Fairlane This program scans a host to determine which ports are open, or listening for connections. Once a list of receiving ports has been compiled, the program then floods each of them with the specified number of SYN packets. Don't use this software without permission. I'm serious. It's very very very bad. This is probably one of the worst forms of Denial-Of-Service attacks there is. No one will be able to connect to your target's machine. It's bad. [Code follows.] ----- http://jya.com/floodd.txt (12 kb) FLO_odd Thanks to XX.

2 1

Re: Alien and Sedition Acts [WAS xs4all.nl] then Terrorists
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Look for something along these lines from Congress in the not too distant future. All in our best interest, of course. (from 'In Pursuit of Reason: The Life of Thomas Jefferson, Nobel E. Cunningham, Jr.) "The first alien act (June 25, 1798) empowered the president to order the deportation of any alien he judged "dangerous to the peace and saftey of the united State" or had reasonable grounds to suspect was involved in any trasonable intrigue against the government. It was up to the president to determine what constituted a danger." "Even more sweeping and more objectionable to Republican opponents of the administration was the sedition act (July 14, 1798). Passed in the final days of of the session, after Jefferson had left for Virginia, the act made it unlawful for any person to combine or conspire together to oppose any lawful measure of the government, to prevent any officer of the united States from performing his duties, or to aid or attempt to procure 'any insurrection, roit, unlawful assembly, or combination.' Furthermore, it provided for the punishment of any person writing, uttering, or publishing 'any false, scandalous and malicious writing' against the president, the Congress of the government of the united States, made with the intent to defame them or exite against them 'the hatred of the good people of the united States.'" >At Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:54:29 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> Then again, the only reason I am not a terrorist is that the government >>hasn't YET defined hate speach directed against the government to be >>terrorism. > >Don't be so hasty in saying this. > >A couple of months ago Clinton signed some sort of bill having to do with >terrorism, terrorist organizations, funding of same, and deportation of >alien-units suspected of being allied with terrorist organizations. (I seem >to recall another such act being passed in early 1995, so there may be more >than one of these things...) > >Given the mounting hysteria about terrorism (by the government, at least), >and given the various laws on the books, I would not be surprised to see >some Web sites prosecuted as "harboring" terrorists terrorist-symps. > >If any of you are not citizens of the U.S., and are here on visas, I would >give this some real serious thought. Of course, maybe deportation is a >blessing in disguise. > >--Tim May

1 0

Re: FLO_odd
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sep 14, 1996 22:03:28, '"Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com>' wrote: >The software in question should come with a warning attached: use it and go to >jail. Its a felony to maliciously disrupt someone's machines. ---------- Heed Perry: here's the author's warning at the commencement of code: /* !!THIS PROGRAM IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS!! NO GUIDELINES * ARE PROVIDED FOR THE CODE CONTAINED HEREIN. IT IS MERELY * A DEMONSTRATION OF THE POSSIBLE DESTRUCTIVE USE OF IP * SPOOFING TECHNIQUES. THE AUTHOR CLAIMS NO RESPONSIBILITY * FOR ITS USE OR MISUSE. - JF (3/8/96) */

1 0