December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: sendmail-type thing for Windows
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Hi, > > Does anyone know of a simple program for windows that can, like > sendmail, work as a mail agent ans send mail messages from its stdin? I > am interested in sending email messages from Windoze boxes as part of > some automated process driven by .BAT files. > Yeah, exit to dos and run "loadlin". ;-)

1 0

Re: New US regs ban downloadable data-security software
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 14 Jan 1997, Nelson Minar wrote: > shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) writes: > > Commercial data security software of any kind, regardless if it uses crypto > > or not, is however prohibited from being distributed via the Internet or > > being exported by any other means. > > I can at least vaguely understand the rationale behind restricting the > export of cryptography. But I don't even begin to comprehend > restricting the export of data security software. What is going on > here? Whose idea is this, what is the agenda? > > Is the US government really prepared to take on all the producers of > virus protection software? Symantec and IBM are pretty big players to > upset. And they don't even have the "drug dealers and terrorists" > bugbear to defend this particular export restriction. > > In my more cynical mood I'm afraid that what's going on is the US > government is trying to protect its capability to wage information > warfare. Could they get away with this? > A cynical person might think that this gives the government one more way to strongarm companies which might sell non-GAK encryption products. "Sure, I can ok the export of your new anti-virus software. Say, how's that crypto plug-in your working on?"

1 0

Re: Newt's phone calls
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:48 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Alan Bostick wrote: >(Someone mentioned that they thought cordless phone intercepts weren't >illegal the way cellular phone intercepts are. IANAL, but I recall that >intercepting both was made illegal by the same legislation.) It is illegal to intercept cell phone calls. It is legal under federal law to intercept cordless phones. IANAL, -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

1 0

No Subject
by jovi＠telnor.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I can not undestand why are you using my e mail adress to recibe your mail. >From what i see you are a hacker, and you are using some body space to work with no charge. Please avoid the use of my space. thnks. Lic. Jose Luis Vital V. Telefonos del Noroeste,S.A. de C.V. Ave. Pio Pico 2001, Zona Centro, Tijuana,B.C., México. Tel.: (66) 33.22.91 Fax.: (66) 33.22.44 Internet E-mail: jovi(a)telnor.net

2 1

Airport security [no such thing]
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I recently took a domestic flight from the Oakland, CA airport. While waiting for the airplane, I spent some time observing the security measures at the X-ray machine. As most readers probably know, laptops are often subject to manual scrutiny. From my non-representative sample, about four out of five tote bags clearly containing laptops will be manually searched. Typically, the attendant requires that the laptop is powered up. In none of the 20+ manual searches I witnessed did the security personnel wait past the RAM check before clearing the passenger. I could not help but contemplate how much of the insides of the laptop could be replaced while still obtaining an identical display. Then came the big one: A man wearing a beer truck driver uniform approached the checkpoint. On his hand truck were two kegs of beer. For those unfamiliar with such objects, a keg of beer is a cylindrical stainless steel container, about 1.5 feet tall with about 1 foot diameter. I was wondering what the procedure for handling these rather large steel containers would be. Would they be X-rayed? How much shielding would the steel provide for the contents? Much to my surprise, the man did not approach the X-ray machine. Instead, he went straight for the "exit only" walkway. The guard posted there to make sure that nobody would enter through the exit gave the fellow only a cursory glance as he entered the "secure" area unchallenged. I was flabbergasted. They let a man with two *large steel containers* enter unchecked? No asking for ID, no X-ray? I struck up a conversation with the beer truck driver. I asked him why the kegs did not get X-rayed. He looked at me with an expression of utter lack of understanding and answered: "They are too heavy to be put on the [conveyor] belt." Right... We wouldn't want to have these 50 pound steel barrels jam the X-ray machine. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

4 3

Re: You can now subscr. to the moderated/unmoderated/flames lists
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alec wrote: > :John, > : Will you be making a "Last Chance To Call Me A Cocksucker" > :announcement? (:>) > : > :Toto > Geez, Toto, settle down! (:>) Gotta laugh! Alec, I guess that the money I spent for my lobotomy was just wasted. Toto

1 0

Re: Newt's phone calls
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Bill Stewart writes: > >>Tapping cellphones is more trouble than tapping wired phones - >>they move around, and to tap them from the phone company end >>requires taps everywhere that you activate when you know where >>somebody is. > >Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record BOTH sides >of the conversation without interruption? This seems pretty suspicious to >me. I think Old Newt was targeted by someone inside the phone company, who >was eavesdropping on all of his cell calls. Both sides of a conversation are audible on a single channel due to its use for sidetone. PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Lamarr Labs | Voice: 1-702-658-2654 7075 West Gowan Road | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet and Wireless Development 1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future! --Adolf Hitler

1 0

Re: Newt's phone calls
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>If the person with the cell phone doesn't move, then they don't >get handed off to a different cell. That means that they >stay on the same frquency. No need to scan channels if they don't switch. Wrong Eric, cells are constantly expanding and contracting as subscribers in motion are transferred in and out. Thus you can be stationary, holding a conversation, and assigned to cell A when all of a sudden subscribers enter from adjacent cells B and C threatening to fill cell A beyond capacity. To keep from dropping calls in cell A the MTS will determine which calls can safely, due to signal strength and adjacent cell capacity, be transferred to another cell. If your conversation is selected then off you go to another, geographically overlapping, cell. The MTS can't be sure which subscribers are stationary and which are in motion (it really doesn't care). We saw this unexpected phenomenon frequently during development of Cylink's SecureCell and finally had to recommend our users be stationary during use, because our modems did not tolerate handoffs well without retraining, in order to offer the best chance of uninterupted communication. > >What Bill's saying is that it is difficult to tap the cell phone of >a _particular_ person with just a scanner. However the people >who taped Newt were just scanning for whatever they could get. That's easy. Yes, you need a device which can simultaneously listen to the paging/controll channels and determine, when a handoff to a monitored conversation occurs,to which new channel pair they have been assigned. I seem to recall such a device was for sale a few years back using a ISA/EISA card and some DOS compatible software. It connected to the ubiquitous and well characterized Oki 900 cell phone. >-- >Eric Murray ericm(a)lne.com ericm(a)motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm >PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

2 1

Re: Newt's phone calls
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> >Tapping cellphones is more trouble than tapping wired phones - >> >they move around, and to tap them from the phone company end >> >requires taps everywhere that you activate when you know where >> >somebody is. >> >> Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record BOTH sides >> of the conversation without interruption? This seems pretty suspicious to >> me. I think Old Newt was targeted by someone inside the phone company, who >> was eavesdropping on all of his cell calls. >> > >It is also possible that somewhere in the chain of information between >mom&pop, the media, and us, the distinction between "cordless phone" >and cellular phone. I gather it was a conference call that was >intercepted. All it takes is one participant using a cordless phone in >range of one scanner, and the whole conversation is compromised. > >(Someone mentioned that they thought cordless phone intercepts weren't >illegal the way cellular phone intercepts are. IANAL, but I recall that >intercepting both was made illegal by the same legislation.) Sorry Alan, they were right. The Supreme Court ruled that unlike cell phones, cordless phone users could presume privacy. PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Lamarr Labs | Voice: 1-702-658-2654 7075 West Gowan Road | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet and Wireless Development 1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future! --Adolf Hitler

1 0

Re: New US regs ban downloadable data-security software
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) writes: >> > Commercial data security software of any kind, regardless if it uses crypto >> > or not, is however prohibited from being distributed via the Internet or >> > being exported by any other means. >> But does it ban commercial companies from benefiting from their software if it is illegally exported (e.g., via the Net). Should, for example, PGP find users of its new software (who might be outside the U.S.) paying via ecash, should they accept the payment? -- Steve

1 0