December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Fuckhead
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Congradulations dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com!!!! You have won an one way trip into my TWIT filter for your repeated FUCKHEAD post. Goodbye and good riddance, -- ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!! Merlin Beta Test Site - WarpServer SMP Test Site Author of PGPMR2 - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice Look for MR/2 Tips & Rexx Scripts Get Work Place Shell for Windows!! PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii(a)amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info ----------------------------------------------------------- MR/2 Tag->The best way to accelerate Windows is at escape velocity.

2 1

Anonymous Oddsman 2
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Current English U.S. Presidential betting odds are now offered on 2 services, but there's no Perot bet at Ladbroke House, and no Harry Browne on either. Ladbrokes customer service @ +44 181 8621820 is still at Clinton 1:7, Dole 4:1 As promised, this time our roving reporter inquired about Harry Browne. The Libertarian candidate, once offered at 50:1 by Ladbroke House earlier this year, is not now offered. H. Ross Perot, perhaps reflecting the decision of the debate commission not to invite him, is also not offered at Ladbroke House. The wonderful thing about a free gambling marketplace, though, is that you can always go elsewhere if you want to take a gamble on Ross. The William Hill customer helpline @ +44 990 181715 said Clinton 1:8, Dole 9:2 and for Perot they can give you a whopping 250:1! Also, no odds given on Browne at William Hill, so in summary: Ladbroke House William Hill ------------------------------------------------------------ Clinton 1:7 (no change) 1:8 Dole 4:1 (no change) 9:2 Perot (was 50:1 now 0) 250:1 Browne * * ------------------------------------------------------------ *Not currently offered. Next posting when we get around to it, or when the situation seems to have changed substantially. Many thanks to our roving reporter for these numbers. anonymous oddsman.

1 0

? for everyone!!!!
by PETER JAMES HRABINSKY 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have a simple password.cgi script for HTML authorization/access? If so, please send it to me... Thank you for your time... Peter

1 0

FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To the FCC's Reed Hundt, the Internet community is "governmentally challenged." But then, the commission's chairman honestly believes that FCC stands for "Friendly to Computer Communications." Yeah, right. That's what he said in a speech this week. The FCC faxed it to me today after I returned from a Cato Institute conference -- where, ironically enough, we spent a day talking about private ordering of the Net. The concept makes a kind of intrinsic sense to me: who needs government subsidies for Net connections when an account is just $10/month? The first half of the fax was mangled, thanks to the FCC's anything-but-high-tech communications technology, so I shoved it in my pocket and went for pizza with folks from the conference -- Eugene Volokh, Charles Platt, Duncan Frissel, Alan Lewine, Solveig Bernstein, and Brian LaMacchia. We chatted -- surprise! -- about the Feds' future Net-regulation attempts. When I got home and unfolded the fax, I found I could read the second half. It was horrific. While Hundt did say he'd keep the FCC's hands off of Net-telephony, he called for universal service for the Net. Universal service is bad, from an economic perspective, for the same reason that any subsidy scheme is bad: you're taking money out of one part of the economy and pushing it into another. It's also vulnerable to DC lobbyists in tasseled cordovan loafers descending on Capitol Hill calling for more cash. Hundt's scheme is more damming than it looks at first. In his speech, Hundt calls for reconsidering how the FCC will "vote next year on a new universal service funding mechanism." This slush fund isn't funded from general taxpayer revenues. The 1996 Telecom dereg act directs the FCC to rework the payment mechanism that feeds the universal service fund that all phone service providers must pay into. It does things like make urban customers pay more to subsidize rural telephone service. Companies that are eligible for subsidies suck cash from the fund -- and of course lobby for more along the way. Now Hundt seems to want to wire schools from this fund. (And what else? He doesn't quite say.) To replace the money from the account, the FCC has to grab more from phone companies, which means higher phone bills. Does this make sense or what? -Declan (PS: Note Hundt's email address is rhundt(a)fcc.gov.) ********* (Keystroked by declan(a)well.com) Reed Hundt speech excerpts: "My hope is that the power of the Internet will forcedrive our two-point FCC agenda -- competition in communications and public benefits from communications. That's why we've resisted all efforts to bring Internet communication within the out of date regulatory scheme we have inherited at the FCC. "The challenge now is for the govenmentally challenged Internet community to figure out how to talk to the FCC on this subject and what to say? After all, FCC stands for Friendly to Computer Communications. After all I'm the first FCC chairman ever to be on the Net -- so let me know -- rhundt(a)fcc.gov. What should our policies for bandwidth growth look like? "Now I'd like to move on to the second aspect of Hundt's Law, which is that everyone needs access to the Internet, either at home, at school, or in a library. Metcalfe's Law only applies when people can access the network, and if they know how to take advantage of the network access that is available to them... So even if we are successful in meeting the bandwidth challenge, we must still ensure that there is access. [...] "The investment to network our schools and libraries is so small and the payoff so large. Look at the math... Can it be that we have a 700 billion-dollar-a-year information technology industry and yet we can't afford to give every teacher the tools we give every shipping clerk at Wal Mart? Or that we could afford to network every classroom by the beginning of the next century, but somehow we just neglected to do it? At the FCC we will vote next year on a new universal service funding mechanism... The challenge I'm talking about is to provide bandwidth and access to all Americans, but especially in kids in classrooms... [Note that the 'we" paying for the shipping clerk's network is a private corporation spending its own money. But the second "we" is the government spending netizens' money. Guess the FCC can't tell the difference. --Declan] ###

1 0

Re: FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: (in quoting Reed Hundt) >"The investment to network our schools and libraries is so small and >the payoff so large. Look at the math... Can it be that we have a 700 >billion-dollar-a-year information technology industry and yet we can't >afford to give every teacher the tools we give every shipping clerk at >Wal Mart? Or that we could afford to network every classroom by the >beginning of the next century, but somehow we just neglected to do it? >At the FCC we will vote next year on a new universal service funding >mechanism... The challenge I'm talking about is to provide bandwidth >and access to all Americans, but especially in kids in classrooms... > >[Note that the 'we" paying for the shipping clerk's network is a >private corporation spending its own money. But the second "we" is the >government spending netizens' money. Guess the FCC can't tell the >difference. --Declan] Correct. And if "we" fund universal service, then "we" don't want to see anything on the Net about non-GAK crypto, the right to bear arms, freedom of association, chemistry, non-clothed persons, taxes, etc. etc. "We" feel that many if not "all American, but especially kids in classrooms" would be injured by these thoughts.

1 0

G48_bul
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CIAC has issued Bulletin G-48 on the denial-of-service attacks by TCP SYN flooding and IP spoofing. Two "underground magazines" for intruders have recently published code to conduct denial-of-service attacks by creating TCP "half open" connections. Any system connected to the Internet and providing TCP-based network services such as a Web server, FTP server, or mail server is potentially subject to this attack. Systems providing TCP-based services to the Internet community may be unable to provide those services while under attack and for some time after the attack ceases. See the bulletin below for information on how to protect your site from these attacks. ----- http://jya.com/g48bul.txt (15 kb) G48_bul

1 0

Re: FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:04 AM 9/21/96, David M. Rose wrote: >On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>[Note that the 'we" paying for the shipping clerk's network is a >>private corporation spending its own money. But the second "we" is the >>government spending netizens' money. Guess the FCC can't tell the >>difference. --Declan] > >Correct. And if "we" fund universal service, then "we" don't want to see >anything on the Net about non-GAK crypto, the right to bear arms, freedom of >association, chemistry, non-clothed persons, taxes, etc. etc. "We" feel >that many if not "all American, but especially kids in classrooms" would be >injured by these thoughts. This is a terribly important point. If the "universal access" scheme is approved and deployed, it gets the government back into the regulation of the Net business. (I'm speaking of the "regulation of the Net" of the sort that existed some years back, when "appropriate use" (scientific, technical, educational, etc.) was the watchword, and casual chatter, GIFs, etc. were called "inappropriate" by some. The Constitutional issues of free speech would remain mostly unchanged even if "universal access" happens, but the government would definitely get more of a foot in the door than it has now. --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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Private Idaho 2.8b beta release
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The beta release of Private Idaho 2.8b is now available at http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/pi.html. (Previous beta testers can get an updated version of just the executable at http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/pi_list.html) Private Idaho is a freeware PGP, anonymous remailer, and nym server front-end for Windows (all versions). Some of the new features in the latest release include: ------------------ Automatic encrypt/decrypt of PIDAHO.INI, NYMS.TXT, PUBKEYS.OUT Automatic encrypt/decrypt of SECRING.PGP and PUBRING.PGP nym.alias.net support Generate key pair command Load passphrase at startup Submit key to MIT server command Get key from MIT server command (must have Net connection) Update remailer info command (must have Net connection) Get remailer keys command (must be have Net connection) Remailer newsgroup header command Delete nym command Attachment support Bug reports, comments, and questions, as always to: joelm(a)eskimo.com

1 0

Re: Free RSA chip
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:04 PM 9/16/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >I secured a 30 page data sheet for the new NTT (actually NLC, a subsidiary >of NTT) RSA accelerator chips. The NLC0048 LSI chip can handle keys up to >1024 bits. The secret key can be stored on-chip. If you want a copy of the >data sheet, email me your fax number. > >Furthermore, I have *one* sample chip that I am willing to loan to >somebody in the SF Bay Area with sufficient hardware knowledge to put the >chip to good use. If you think you qualify, let me know who you are and >why you think that you should get the chip. I apologize in advance to the >qualified candidates that do not get the chip. There is only one (that I >can loan out). I don't want the chip, but I'd like to know a few things. 1. How much of a secure telephone does it contain? a. voice A/D/A? b. modem A/D/A DSP? c. Keyboard multiplex? d. control microprocessor? e. Encryption section? 2. Is there any indication that NT+T has worked with any other manufacturers to design some sort of inter-telephone negotiation standard, one that would allow the kind of inter-compatibility that modems have today? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: IBM_gak
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:17 AM 9/16/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, John Young wrote: >> 9-15-96. PcWe: >> "IBM Boosts Encryption Initiative " >> >> IBM security initiatives next month will include a >> new way to build encryption into software and >> technology that could enable U.S. companies to export >> products with strong encryption algorithms. IBM also >> will introduce several "key-recovery" technologies >> that could enable businesses to satisfy the >> requirement imposed by the U.S. government that it be >> able to access encrypted data on demand. > >Aparently, Al Gore's recent phone calls to everybody who is anybody in the >industry have paid off. After HP, TIS, and other unnamed parties, now IBM >is supporting GAK. Folks, this battle is lost. Domestic GAK is coming to >a PKI near you. So, the "Little Tramp" and the "Great Dictator" turn out to be one and the same... Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0