December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Recovery of Windows NT administrator password
by Garrard, David 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An inherited Windows NT system that I am involved with has a lost administrator password ( no one no longer knows what it is ). Can anyone point me to software products/companies that can help in the recovery. Given Microsoft's dismal record on security I am sure there must be solutions to this dilemma. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Best Regards David L. Garrard

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:32 PM 1/28/97 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: >This is really exagerating. You do not need a 4.0, 1600, etc. to be >admitted to MIT. Sure, you need good grades, but a 3.6 average and >1350-1400 SAT scores is perfectly adequate to be admitted to MIT. I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in Drama, and played Tennis. The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the Russian front!" >For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >school, too Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess. MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:12:36 -0500 > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote in article <5cg99p$7a(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > The network is largely an intellectual creation. The hardware is > relatively unimportant, it can always be replaced. Try doing it without the hardware and software. There is a distinction, you apparently don't make, between the content and the methodology of distribution. Without the methodology there is no content. Ideas are cheap, distributing and trying them out (ie great social experiments) is expensive. This is why it is absolutely critical in a democratic society that those who own the means of distribution be left to their own means with minimal regulation based on the ideal 'if their actions do not harm another or their property without their prior consent' it isn't anyones business what they are doing with their distribution mechanisms. Whether you like it or not, each and every one of us have a responsibility to every other person on the planet. That responsibility is to ensure that our goals and desires don't infringe their goals and desires without their prior consent, this is a fundamenal responsibility of government. As hard as it is for many social scientist to accept privacy is a fundamental requirement for a equitable government. I express this simply by, "Democracy works not because of compromise but rather the refusal to compromise." > If you start from such a state and property centered ideology perhaps. > I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have > "rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of > property you do. The 'state' is its subjects and the rules that are enacted to regulate their behaviour. In case it hasn't occured to you, even the regulators are subjects, and in the case of clearly oppressive societies victims as much as those they subjugate. It isn't some etherial entity. Only you, and those that proscribe to your views, are claiming that states are some homogenous (or should be) set of rules and actions. The way you speak of 'state' and 'citizen' implies some clearly observable demarcation, it don't exist. This is the problem with EVERY form of government except a democracy, it assumes that people are cogs in a machine. If it satisfies one it will satisfy all. A democracy recognizes this difference in what people value and the goals they desire as a fundamental distinction (ie. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) worth protecting. I would suggest you read the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the US and consider long and hard the ramifications of the (currently unenforced) limitations of government authority. Even European governments might learn something. > Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the > controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property" > from the previous rulers. Malarky. The origin of property is at least 300,000 years old, potentialy over a Million, and much older than China could ever hope to claim and most definitely NOT based on any concept of government. Property comes from small family clans of people who chose to move from a hunter-gather society to one of agriculture. To do that means that you have to lay out fields or other areas for cultivation. Initialy these groups moved around because the fields would go fallow. At some point some bright folks, either by accident or intentional experimentation (probably both), found that rotating crops would allow them to stay in one place. This allowed families to grow. In very fertile areas this caused population explosions as individual clans grew and began to interact with other local clans. At some critical size, undetermined as best as I can determine, this allows specialization of effort. This specialization of effort is what leads to governments as we recognize them. When property was 'invented' there were no rulers because there was no larger human organization than a familial tribe. I personaly believe that the concept of 'property' is a fundamental aspect of human psychology and not any structures they might impliment to express that need. I am as certain as it is possible to be that a Cro-magnon cave man felt that his throwing stick was 'his'. If not why did they bury their dead with flowers and other objects that apparently belonged to the person in life? It sounds like, by extrapolation, that your assertion is that they had government in the modern sense because of this. An assertion I find laughable at best. > I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is > a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model > you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every > philosopher since Locke. But I don't propose a slavish subject model, you keep trying to make it seem like that is what I am proposing. Let me make it clear, I utterly reject ANY model that makes distinctions between those who rule and those who are ruled. > It is true that there is the convenience of the state as agency but > the question is on whose behalf that agency is exercised. Nobodies. The state is a means to regulate resources and commerce, anything else is a misunderstanding of what a state is. > I see no reason why I should not meddle in the affairs of states > I'm not a 'subject" of. Then don't bitch when they meddle in your affairs. I am shure Saddam Hussein (who I personaly believe is a piece of shit) will find it reassuring that you won't raise a complaint next time he decides some place in Europe would be a nice place to hang out with his armies. > They are allowed Allowed, hell. They pay for the privilege just like everyone else. Despite what you might believe the Internet is not a right or something anyone has a right to. > to connect their machinery to the Internet so long > as they are prepared to accept the Internet's ethic. There is no Internet ethic just as there is no community standard. It is a convenient concept for intellectuals to pass off utterly senseless theories and explanations, and in many cases justify subjugation and regulation for no other reason than their own emotional and economic comfort. > As a citizen of Europe I disagree. I believe that the narrow and > parochial attitude of the French province breaches undertakings in the > Treaty of Rome and under the European declaration of human rights. Absolutely. The difference in our approaches is that you feel that you have found a solution that satisfies you and therefore it should satisfy everyone. With this I disagree completely. People are simply too diverse to lump into the categories that you would like. If the French have a model that won't work, let them figure it out on their own. > France is not a sovereign state and does not have the right to > pass laws that infringe on the rights granted to European citizens > as a whole. I suspect most French people would have something contrary to say about that. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Crypto verification needed for Pretty Safe Mail
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There have been questions raised on the newsgroups regarding Pretty Safe Mail, arguably the best implementation of a PGP product for the Macintosh. In response, the product manager at Highware has requested that a trusted third party verify the security of Pretty Safe Mail. However, a NON-U.S. cryptologer is needed. I'm including the post below. Please forward to any people you know who may qualify. Pretty Safe Mail is a GREAT product. If it can be shown to be safe and effective, it will do wonders to spread the use of strong crypto. ===== From: axel(a)highware.com (Axel de Landtsheer) Newsgroups: comp.security.pgp.discuss Subject: Re: Concerned about Pretty Safe Mail for Mac > I'm concerned about the product "Pretty Safe Mail" for the Macintosh, >by a company called Highware. I was wondering whether anyone here had >tried evaluating it at all. > > It is a complete PGP implementation (not a front-end). They claim >to have licensed some of PRZ's code from PGP. However, as far as I >can tell, they are not making any of the source code available. The source code for PSM is indeed not available. We are however eager to have the code checked by any trusted source. These sources cannot be US companies because of the new US regulations which state that US companies must not give such support to overseas companies. Us being a Belgian company, this makes things a little more difficult. Does anybody have a suggestion for such a trusted source outside the US? > As someone on the comp.security.pgp newsgroups pointed out, writing >a wonderful user interface on a PGP trojan horse that either crippled >the session key generator or used the session key to leak random >portions of secret key primes would be a perfect tactic for a >government wishing to penetrate PGP security. With such a great >interface, compared to the original PGP, it can't help but become >widely used. PSM is not a Trojan Horse. Does any trusted source want to check that? > I realize that without the source code, it's a major hassle, but >has anyone looked at Pretty Safe Mail (previously called Safemail) >at all for suspicious behavior? For example: > > 1) non-random session key generation? > 2) non-random key pair generation? > 3) unnecessary disk access to secret keys? > 4) anything else? Many people are worried about the random-key generation because they do not need to bang away on the keyboard for five minutes when they create a key pair. Apparently, this seems to loosen their nerves (I heard some people created about 10 key pairs a day - just a joke). In short, we use all events that happen on the Mac (clicks, typing, opening of windows, display of icons, ...) together with the time they happen, and encrypt these to fill a table which is the starting point for the random-number generator. Why make people type away on the keyboard if you have enough random events to start from? Again, we want to have this checked by a trusted source asap... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Axel de Landtsheer | Highware, Inc. | 109 av. H. Jaspar, 1060 Brussels, Belgium Product Manager | voice: +32 2 537-6810 fax: +32 2 537-5155 axel(a)highware.com | http://www.highware.com, ftp://ftp.highware.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To obtain my PGP key, send me a message with subject "Send PGP key"

1 0

CNN: Court ok's College control of Internet access
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Heavily edited. Forwarded message: > COURT SAYS COLLEGES CAN RESTRICT INTERNET ACCESS > > > January 28, 1997 > Web posted at: 1:35 p.m. EST > > NORMAN, Oklahoma (CNN) -- A U.S. District Court in Oklahoma has > ruled universities have the right to limit access to explicit > material on the Internet. > > A federal judge ruled University of Oklahoma president David Boren, > a former U.S. senator, has every right to determine what sites > students and faculty can view while on the campus Internet system. > > Boren was sued by University professor, Bill Loving, who claimed his > First Amendment rights were being infringed upon. > > The court ruled against Loving, also an attorney, saying his > constitutional rights were not violated and that he is not entitled > to injunctive relief. > > "I am certainly pleased by the judge's decision," Boren said. "The > university did its best to strike a careful balance in order to > protect legitimate academic and intellectual freedom while at the > same time assuring that the university not act as a distributor of > obscene material, which is not protected by the First Amendment." > rule

1 0

Physical meet, Sat. Feb. 15 - not 18. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From owner-austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com Tue Jan 28 20:10:19 1997 From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> Message-Id: <199701290209.UAA06585@einstein> Subject: Physical meet, Sat. Feb. 15 - not 18. To: austin-cpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com (Austin Cypherpunks) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:09:55 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 784 Sender: owner-austin-cpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: austin-cpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com Hi all, I apparently didn't pay much attention to what month I was looking at when I made the initial meeting. Turns out the 18th is a Tuesday obviously a day that few of us can make. As a result I looked at the 'real' Feb. calendar and the meeting date is as follows: Saturday, Feb. 15, 1997 6pm. HEB Central Market Restaurant Look for the red 2nd. ed. Applied Cryptography book For more info email 'austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com' Also invited to this meet are members of the mailing lists: Experimental Science Instrumentation Advanced Computer Experimentation Sorry for the confusion. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 2

Re: c2 internet accounts
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > does c2net still offer internet accounts? I liked their > offer for internet accounts with a 5 mb web site via > telnet. does anyone else know of a place for cheap > telnet only accounts? C2Net no longer offers new shell accounts and we are phasing out pre-existing accounts. We still offer virtual web hosting. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: can Sun Tzu be a cypherpunks?
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody(a)nowhere.com wrote: > Question: Can cypherpunks use these methods to defeat those > who would take our freedom? WARNING! "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" Is A Very Dangerous Document ------------------------------------------------------------------- It is reputed among many of the top minds in the Computer Industry to be a very real, and revealing, documentary of some of the horrors of the Industry which are sometimes rumored, but seldom exposed. But be warned-they say it in private, not in public. Though management at the major Corporations in the Industry brush aside the document as the mad ramblings of an unstable, failed business executive, the fact remains that there are more and more people coming forward who claim to have suffered demotions or loss of employment after deliberately or inadvertently revealing their support of the document's claims and it's authenticity. If you choose to read this manuscript, do not speak of it in casual conversation at your place of employment, or around strangers in any business or social environment. Though it is almost impossible to document cases of reprisal of this nature, the increasing numbers of ex-employees of major Corporations in the Computer Industry making these claims, and the devastating consequences they allege to their professional and private lives, make it wise to be discreet in expressing any opinion, or even knowledge, of this document. If you choose to share this document with others, it would be wise to do so discreetly, even anonymously, should you be unsure of the reliability and discretion of whomever you choose to share this knowledge with. Though I personally lean toward viewing the manuscript as authentic, my exhaustive research into it's origin has always come to a dead-end, even among the principals involved. C.J. Parker, former President of Pearl Harbor Computers, Inc., denied emphatically, in a face-to-face encounter with anything whatsoever to do with the document. When I pressed him with questions regarding the hasty demise of his business and the unraveling of his personal life after the public circulation of "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" began, he became very agitated and distraught, bordering on violence, and the interview was abruptly terminated. Dr. William M. Denney, one of the few principals in the manuscript referred to directly, was reluctant to be interviewed, but eventually made a few comments which I found to be very revealing. Dr. Denney, Vice-President of Basis, Inc. in Emmeryville, Ca., consistently rated as one of the top ten Unix Open Systems vendors in the world, said, "I deny any knowledge of or participation, in any way whatsoever, with anything connected to 'The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre', and it would be wise for others to do the same." I find this statement to be very cryptic and, at the same time, very revealing; very much in line with what would expect from one associated with the alleged underground computer society described in the manuscript. As for Mr. Torry Basford, a former employee of Bell Labs who was Mr. Parker's first mentor in the world of Unix and is rumored to be laboring in obscurity in a small community college somewhere in the southwestern U.S., Mr. Parker would only say, "The man has suffered enough, please leave him alone." Regardless of the origins or authenticity of the document, it is considered by many to be extremely unsettling, perhaps even dangerous, and one might be better served to avoid reading the manuscript, if for no other reason than simple peace of mind. ___________________________________ If you would like a copy of the manuscript, send me a private email indicating a desire to receive it. Toto

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > > jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote in article <5ch9f2$cuu(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > > any recognition of this fact. > > Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility > or consistency. > > If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out > on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be > dead as a doornail in a week. But, if Jim writes the bot well, puts it in an unknown place (remember, all communications are done through remailers), he could die, but the assassination bot would still work. It may be an interesting problem: what steps are necessary to take to provide for the bot maintainers' sudden death in such a way that the bot would survive for a long time (at least 10 years) w/o any maintenance? Several things need to be done, such as running several versions of the bot so that they could all communicate and work as hot standbys in case one of the instances stops communicating; change their anonymous address from time to time to deal with shut down remailers; probably slowly propagate as virii, so that killing them all would be hard; what else? It could be done akin to Thompson's famous backdoor in /bin/login, as a perpetual trojan horse. How to prevent the bot's detection by sysadmins? - Igor.

1 0

Recovery of Windows NT administrator password
by Garrard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An inherited Windows NT system that I am involved with has a lost administrator password ( no one no longer knows what it is ). Can anyone point me to software products/companies that can help in the recovery. Given Microsoft's dismal record on security I am sure there must be solutions to this dilemma. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Best Regards David L. Garrard

1 0