December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

FW: Hoax: the "Deeyenda" virus (was ... VIRUS ALERT ...)
by Morbid Angel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

found in a Usenet posting: ----------------------------------- >From Melvin Klassen <KLASSEN(a)UVVM.UVIC.CA> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:00:00 PST Newsgroups: bit.listserv.help-net MIKE R BLAKE <> writes: >>> FYI... >>> **********VIRUS ALERT********** >>> There is a computer virus that is being sent across the Internet. If >>> you receive an email message with the subject line "Deeyenda", DO NOT >>> read the message, DELETE it immediately! Nonsense. Your message is a **HOAX** ! Instead, check the "Computer Virus Myths Home Page", and the specific page describing "Deeyenda", at: http://www.kumite.com/myths/myth027.htm >>> FCC WARNING!!!!! -----DEEYENDA PLAGUES INTERNET The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) does not issue such messages. It's not part of their mandate to do such. -- returning to lurk mode...

1 0

Virus?
by Aaron Burnett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anybody heard of the Monkey_B virus? If so what does it do exactly? Also does anybody know where I could find a downloadable Win95 upgrade upgrading Windows 3.x to Win95?

1 0

Are accountants smart or stupid?
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

xx

1 0

Re: Redlining
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: (snip) >I, personally, find racial discrimination to be a problem in the USA. > >Not only do I find it a moral problem, but it has adverse effects on >markets and the efficiency of these same markets. > >It is costly not only in personal measures, but in economical terms as well. > >As a way to address these concerns, holistically, moral concerns as well as >economic concerns, I do support limited regulation specifically tailored to >address this problem. > >One of the means of addressing only one specific aspect of this problem is >to legislatively restrict the practice of redlining. (snip) Many people of good will find racial discrimination to be abhorrent. OTOH, I'm sure that as an attorney you are cognizant of the fact that financial institutions have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. In any case, have you given any consideration to taking your well-meaning but off-topic thoughts to any one of a number of perhaps more appropriate fora?

1 0

Deeyenda, is a fucking hoax...
by Vincent M. Padua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deeyenda is not a virus, it's a hoax (like "Good Times" and "Irina") A warning about a virus called Deeyenda is being distributed around the internet. However, the virus does not exist and this is yet another example of a growing trend: hoax virus alerts being mistakenly sent all around the internet. If you receive the warning about Deeyenda (which has many similarities to another hoax, "Good Times") be sure to tell the person who sent the warning to you that it is in fact a hoax, and they should take care not to pass the hoax warning on to anyone else. Please quit propogating this bullshit. //Vince

1 0

verysign
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.verisign.com/cgi-bin/authdb/search.cgi Click defense industries, enter a site url of www. I suppose #2 can be seen as a vital part of the defense establishment.. ;) This really should be listed as 'under test.' Enjoy yourselves. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: [OFF-TOPIC]Re: PICS is not censorship
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> and I don't agree there are universally valid truths. I defy you to >> explain how you know that to be so. > Simple. Let us consider all religions: Your argument has grown tiresome. Now is the time on cypherpunks when we dance.

1 0

Re: Redlining
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Red, I will not re-quote and rehash the argument thus far. You do have a knack to ignore strong points (although admittedly not all) of your opponent in an argument. Additionally, I am not trying to show anyone that you are a "bad person". I was trying to carry-on civil discourse. I know you really feel that you had no part in disrupting the discourse we started out in, I disagree. My original point, in fact, was taken out of context and so: At 10:50 AM 12/3/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: >(snip) >>(Just for the record, what the hypothetical insurance companies and >>employers are doing by using data they have obtained should not, in >>a free society, be illegal in any way. All information contributes >>to decision-making, about loans, credit, insurance, employment, etc. >>In a free society, it is up to people to not disclose that which >>they do not wish remembered.) > >While the libertarians on the list have affected my way of looking at >regulation I, and others, do not subscribe (suscribe ;)) to Tim's >absolute theory. Unless, of course, by free society Tim is refering >to one where corporations hold themselves to a level of "personal" >responsibility, which in many realms is part of any definition of >"free". > >Take, for example, the practice of redlining. How are people who live in >"bad" neighborhoods supposed to not reveal that information. My question was a real one. The basis of it comes from my work with the homeless in which they have a difficult time getting a job because they have no "home address" to put on the forms, some do not have or remember their SSNs, etc. This causes a cyclic problem for the homeless. My question to Tim was, in the real world, how is the protection of this data feasible. As I discuss briefly at the end of this post, I also was pointing out my differing opinion on the meaning of "free society". You responded in your last post thus: >While you did not state it explicitly, in the context above I >interpreted this to mean that you supported laws which restricted the >use banks make of information they obtain from their clients. This is a factual summary of my opinion but has absolutely nothing to do with my post (I *never* mentioned support or opposition of such laws. It also has nothing to do with my opinions on cryptography or privacy (which you also criticized in your last post). I do have responses to each of your "points" in your last post, but have found the process of responding point-by-point tedious and non-productive (maybe less productive than the time I have to give to the exercise, I was not intending on placing a value judgement on it). So that you can understand my position (in case your sarcasm was not really turned up that high) I will outline it more succinctly below. You are quite right. We disagree. As the topic quickly wandered from the original post on privacy concerns to racial discrimination, I will address that. I apologize to the list (for those that find it irrelevant), but I can not reply directly to Red. - ----- I, personally, find racial discrimination to be a problem in the USA. Not only do I find it a moral problem, but it has adverse effects on markets and the efficiency of these same markets. It is costly not only in personal measures, but in economical terms as well. As a way to address these concerns, holistically, moral concerns as well as economic concerns, I do support limited regulation specifically tailored to address this problem. One of the means of addressing only one specific aspect of this problem is to legislatively restrict the practice of redlining. - ----- I do expect many on the list to disagree with me. They will disagree that racism exists (some). They will disagree that it is morally wrong. They will disagree that it affects markets in any way. They will assert that legislative restrictions are far worse than industry self-policing. More will disagree that the government has any business regulating the area. As I had stated simply before, I disagree. Personally, because of the life I have led, I draw my line here. Others draw it elsewhere. Some dont draw it. (at one time in my life, i fought for not drawing the line. Thru painful learning experiences and reality checks - long arguments over several months and too much coffee - I decided that I would not want to live in a libertarian's ideal society. This decision was based on my perception that it just wouldnt work in reality. I am well aware others will differ. Maybe we can pursue that thread.) Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMq5T/7pijqL8wiT1AQEycgP/bo6zV8B+DySD62zLMz6jYHiJeiW2XYkH UVO+Ixyl8ogRuZOTo09pF1+6X8olT5mCY2SxYb6z43UUDZDHhwT+A/8qc8WdF3la HCiJ2scterzYdh113Jn3M4TQomakuU1wY36nZzldMN5B2iIyRmAvRynPRYA+0I51 q06tPm36eq8= =q3zf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Secure Erase for PCs?
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > Dale Thorn sez: > >Jamie Lawrence wrote: [snip] > >But nobody answered my question: Is there a shortcut way to do the > >wipe, say, thirty times? Ordinarily, I'd run the program thirty > >times, which would consist of a data write followed by a flush, > >which would take 30x amount of time. > Buffered writes won't work for obvious reasons. You must make raw > writes to the sectors you seek to scramble after you gather information > about what sectors you want to write. That much I've known for 15 years or so.... > The innovation you are looking for is > called "the loop". You can implement "the loop" many ways including > taping the end of your program to the beginning. Be careful not to > accidentally twist the paper as this will cause your writes to become reads. > If you are using punch cards you are SOL. sheesh. > Remind me not to use any of Dale's "utilities". You would not likely ever have the opportunity to use such utilities, since you obviously lack certain basic ingredients of intelligence. I don't do "user-friendly" GUI programs, but I suppose this list is full of MAC users for reasons known only to themselves (I don't want to know).

1 0

RE: Are accountants smart or stupid?
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yes

1 0