December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Diffie-Hellman Mayonnaise
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim Mayonnaise is just a poor excuse for an unschooled, retarded thug. ___ <*,*> Tim Mayonnaise [`-'] ' - '

1 0

Puzzle Palace 2nd edition (1983) Info
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I remember that there was some confusion as to the second edition of _The Puzzle Palace_ by Bamford. (Sorry if this info has been posted before. I did not see a resolution to it. I may have missed it if it was.) "I found a copy of _The Puzzle Palace_ 2nd edition!", he said crypticly. In the Penguin Press printing of _The Puzzle Palace_, it notes that there is the 1982 edition (published by Houghton Mifflin) and one in 1983 (published by Penguin) with a new afterward. Since the afterward contains a fair amount of new information (it looks like a number of FOIA requests came in after going to press), it is probibly the "Second Edition" of which Schneier speaks... Hope that clears things up... (I am going to see if the dealer I got the book from will give me the info on where he ordered it. It was in stock, whereever he got it...) --- | "Spam is the Devil's toothpaste!" - stuart(a)teleport.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

2 1

Review of the EPP plug-in 0.2 for Eudora
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Note: this is CCed to the developer for two reasons. First, I wanted him to know of the review. Second, I have another two bugs at the bottom that I have not reported.] I have been putting the Eudora PGP plug-in through its paces. My findings have been interesting... The instalation was quick and painless. All of the defaults were pulled from the mail information upon first running the Eudora after installing. It provides some basic functions for using PGP. The functions provided are: -- Clearsign Message -- Decrypt Message -- Encrypt Message -- Verify Signature -- Add Key -- Paste (Insert) Key These appear under the Edit menu in the plug-ins submenu. (It would be nice for these to be in their own seperate menu, but that may be beyond the scope of the plug-in developers kit.) I have not seen any glaring errors (GPFs and the like.) There are some functional problems I have discovered. These should be cleaned up in a future version. (What do you expect for a 0.2 release?) These are the problems/bugs I have found so far: -- If you do not define a default ID in the PGP config.txt, it will take the last ID generated on the secret key ring. (This is a common problem. This is not the only app that has it.) -- The program does not word wrap before sending the message to get signed. This breaks the signature when Eudora word wraps it opon sending the message. (Another common problem. I remember a bunch of apps fixing this one at one time a few months ago...) -- If you decrypt a message, the mail headers are destroyed. (I just discovered this one last night. It makes replying a bit of a challenge...) -- The plug-in does not deal with "personalities". (This is not a bug, but something that would be *REAL* helpful. Now if you could get personalities that connected to nym servers.) All in all, this is a useful plug-in. It has a few rough spots, but that is to be expected. (This is a 0.2 release.) Having this functionality in Eudora makes PGP encrypted lists *MUCH* more usable. (Cut and paste for each message and/or firing up a seperate e-mail app to scan for messages becomes more trouble than it is worth in a real hurry...) BTW, this is the original information as to where to get the plug-in. How much of this is current, i am not certain... (The mailing list was broken according to Lucky Green.) > Eudora/PGP Plug-In > >Download version 0.20 from the Web: > * http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt6525c/eppi/epp16_02.zip > (for 16-bit version of Eudora 3.0 for Windows 3.1) > * http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt6525c/eppi/epp32_02.zip > (for 32-bit version of Eudora 3.0 for Windows NT/95) > >If you don't have Web access, but have FTP access, try the following sites. >Note that if the version you are trying to get was released today or just a few days ago, it may not have shown up at the sites below yet, so give it a few days: > >papa.indstate.edu: /pub/winsock-l/mail/epp16_02.zip > /pub/winsock-l/Windows95/mail/epp32_02.zip > /pub/winsock-l/WindowsNT/mail/epp32_02.zip > >ftp.winsite.com: /pub/pc/win3/winsock/epp16_02.zip > /pub/pc/win95/winsock/epp32_02.zip > >If you want to be automatically notified of new versions, send e-mail to gt6525c(a)prism.gatech.edu with the subject of "eppi news", and the following message body: > >join >stop > > --- | "Spam is the Devil's toothpaste!" - stuart(a)teleport.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

1 0

Re: PICS is not censorship
by jbaber＠mi.leeds.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Tim May <tcmay(a)mail.got.net> writes: > If it's only a contract, and forever only a contract, then I am less > worried. But my point is that I fear the purely contractual status will not > last. This point is something that we can agree on completely. But the question is should be approach it from a 'compromising' point of view encouraging completely volentary contracts or wait for the government to attempt to mandate a system. Although ideal we should fight against any form of censorship I think that the public are generally ignorant enough to say 'well it works with films so why not with web pages' when faced with the four horsemen. > (And, as I think it was Lucky Green who pointed out, what is to stop people > who have _not_ entered into any contract with one of the (several?) PICS > agencies from simply claiming a rating? If the PICS folks want to set up a > system for digital signatures, compliance testing, etc., fine...so long as > non-customers don't have to pay for it. Let the Hallelujah Brigade and the > Dervishes subsidize their systems.) Again I was thinking more along the lines of having the PICS system similar to british standards where claiming to have something that you do not is illegal. However I think that your idea, although put forward facetiously, is actually ideal. People currently pay for web-blockers so why should they not buy web browsers that allow restricting (for their own children of course) which web sites etc they can reach from digitally signed ratings on pages. Initially browser sales could pay for web ratings (much as they currently pay for researching which sites should and should not be allowed into things like surfwatch), once the browsers themselves become widespread, and view per page (or even site) automatic charging comes into use then such an organisation could even charge to review your web pages - if you do not like their evaluation then just do not use them. > >> If I believe pictures of people having sex should be marked "Suitable for > >> all ages" (or whatever the Official PICS Status Code is) will I be > >> criminally or civilly in danger? If so, then PICS is a ratings system which > >> individuals are likely to be unable to interpret themselves. > > > >What if the PICS classifications were worded so as to describe the factual > >content of a page rather than the writers opinion of its suitability? This, > >if correctly implemented, could remove the problem of interpretation. > > Doubful. I contend that any such approach is bound to fail. > > Suppose I describe a picture of adults having sex as "A joyful experience," > or "Children need to look at this!"? > > There simply is no "factual" description of a page. Every person will have > their own descriptions. Mandating that words be "true" is the end of free > speech as we know it. I was starting from the point that there were a number of officially (by the PICS organisation) recognised PICS labels each of which had specific definations in a similar manner to existing HTML tage.. Nothing would stop anyone from making up their own new tags but browsers could only assume that the official ones would be strictly defined. > (For starters, religions--all of them--will have to be shut down.) This is a bad thing? (;->) > >> (This takes the element of intent to deliberately defeat PICS out of the > >> equation, and asks if "innocent mislabeling" or "philosophical disagreement > >> alternate labeling" will expose the mislabeller to charges. > > > >Factual classifications should completely remove the problems of innocent > >mislabeling and philosophical disagreement (if you disagree don't label but > >if you use our labels follow our rules). I would never claim to be a lawyer > >but from my naive point of view I would say that putting false labels on a > >page would be misrepresenting it and could possibly constitute fraud? > > Fraud? What happened to free speech? The assumption that there even exist > "factual descriptions" (and presumably "false descriptions") is an > incredibly pernicious idea, at least as regards free speech. Not having a detailed knowledge of the American right to free speach I can only go on my opinions, but lieing with the intent to defraud would almost certainly be illegal over here. The solution for this of course goes right back to reputations and digital signatures. > If I wish to describe two people having sex as "Two happy persons engaged > in a happy pursuit," this is not "fraud." True, many parents will dislike > it, as will many Mennonites, etc. So? But these would not be 'Officially Recognised tags' so would essentially mean nothing. How to inforce the Official Recognition is another matter and I believe that your sugestion of digital signatures would fit the bill (although it does introduce the problem of another person rating your work - you must either accept their 'Official' rating or do without (or find another company that rates your work in the way that you wish)). > >> What I see with any such enforcement of PICS standards is yet another Full > >> Employment Act for Lawyers, and the Lawyer's Guild will be oh so happy to > >> see PICS essentially made part of the bureacratic morass: > >> > >> "Due to the complexities of the PICS ratings system, and varying community > >> interpretations of the elements of PICS, we advise that no person post > >> anything to the Net with a PICS rating without seeking competent legal > >> advice from a PICS-licensed legal professional." > > > >Unfortunately this may be the case, however I would suspect that this may go > >the other way with people thinking that if they can be sued for mislabeling > >their pages they just will not label them at all. > > Of course, the most correct and consistent view is to just leave it for a > market solution: some label, some don't, some label carelessly, some label > anally [no content is implied! :-}), some label deceptively, some label > clearly, and so on. A market solution with a number of different labeling organisations, and labels validated by digital signatures would be idea.... if you want what your child sees to be decided by ratings assigned by the "good mothers of america' or the 'porn hunters of the UK' then it is up to you. > Again, my concern is not that some bunch of folks initiate a PICS or SICS > or LIKS system, but that it the legal system gets involved...I surmise that > many lawmakers are already talking about this--this came up in connection > with the CDA case, that a labelling system such as PICS could resolve some > of the issues....I hardly expect that a fully voluntary system would meet > the demands of the censors. I agree, the censors will at an absolute minimum want everything labeled in such a way that they can get rid of anything that they deam 'inappropriate'. This means a centralised authority and everyone getting all of their pages labeled. Thankfully, given the size, complexity and multi-jurisdictional nature of the web (and internet in general) this is simply not practical, and I believe that it should be possible to persuade them so. The only way for them to achieve anything near their ends would be a widely deployed rating system backed by digital signatures and browsers capable of recognising these signatures and labels and descrimingating based on them. The only disadvantage that I can see to such a system would be that it would make it easier for goverments, corporations and other organisation from passing through their servers and routers allowing wide scale sensorship. This should be prevented by having a number of rating organisations slowly gaining popularity (overall they must be popular or parents blocking unrated would be unacceptably restrictive). There would be nothing to stop a page having ratings from a number of organisations or infact from none at all. Jon Baber jbaber(a)mi.leeds.ac.uk http://chem.leeds.ac.uk/ICAMS/people/jon

8 8

Patriots should use PGP
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: PICS is not censorship
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are you people trying to bait us Mormons again? :) Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: jbaber From: jbaber @ mi.leeds.ac.uk @ smtp Date: 12/10/96 03:29:34 PM Subject: Re: PICS is not censorship Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> writes: > jbaber(a)mi.leeds.ac.uk wrote: > > > > Not having a detailed knowledge of the American right to free > > speach I can only go on my opinions, but lieing with the intent > > to defraud would almost certainly be illegal over here. > > So where lies intent to defraud in the act of deliberately > mislabeling a web page? Why is that any different from me > standing on the street corner (or at Hyde Park Corner) announcing > that I'm the Messiah? I seem to have edited the previous message badly and left out the context which was false labeling on pages for which there was a charge to view. More along the lines of false advertising to be sure but still fraud in my opinion. Also, of course, it would be very hard to show that you were not, in fact, the Messiah (;->). Jon Baber jbaber(a)mi.leeds.ac.uk http://chem.leeds.ac.uk/ICAMS/people/jon

1 0

[CRYPTO] E-Cash
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C[reep] May uses an Adolf Hitler action figure as a dildo. ____ \ _/__ Tim C[reep] May \\ / \/

1 0

A new memetic message
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've never seen this one before: >Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:28:10 +0100 (MET) >From: Ahsan Yousaf Durrani <c948148(a)student.dtu.dk> >To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com >Subject: *splat* (fwd) >Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.95.961210082806.19729V-100000(a)lorenz.gbar.dtu.dk> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:02:10 +0100 (MET) >From: Ahsan Yousaf Durrani <c948148(a)student.dtu.dk> >To: c948148(a)student.dtu.dk >Subject: *splat* > > > > > salaaaam, you've been hit! > > > **** * * *** * * > * * ** * * * * * > * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * > **** * ** *** * * > > *** * * * > * * * * * * > * * * * * * > * * * * * * > ***** ******* * * > * * * * * * > * * * * * * > * * * * * * > ***** * * ****** ****** > > > Consider yourself hit by a snowball !! > >Send this message to as many people as possible, in the first > *E-MAIL SNOWBALL FIGHT!* > >Send it back or to people already listed above. Send it to your >parents, siblings, politicians, teachers, bullies or anyone else >you've wanted to hit with a snowball. have fun. but don't blame me if >you're hit back !! > >Remember: e-mail snowballs don't hurt, don't get you soaked and >don't melt away. Throw one today ! > > > >

1 0

Re: Codebreakers on the shelves!
by Xenu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Subject: Re: Codebreakers on the shelves! > Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 02:36:11 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> [snip] > I took a look at it a few days ago, and am disappointed. [snip] > However, the public key cryptography revolution is covered in about two or > three pages (or at least this is my recollection). Brief mention is made of > Diffie, Hellman, etc., but nothing surprising or new. 2 or 3 pages for public key crypto? That's disgusting! > So, it seems a better deal is to get one of the many used copies of the > original, for $20 or less, and then read any of the many good articles on > modern cryptography. I was considering getting a copy of the new edition, but now I think I'll look for a used 1st edition. > I'm hoping the new edition of Bamford is handled better. Let's hope... > --Tim May Xenu <Xenu(a)nym.alias.net> 1024/0C436F8D 1996/07/14 PGP KEY Fingerprint 06 94 31 1F 96 EF C9 ED E9 86 6A AF 6E 10 E2 86 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: cp850 iQCVAgUBMq3wDV4LyFQMQ2+NAQEbcAP9FIj8LxwQB2Jq5MivyRp0Nj1Lo25BnSqk 6phIL7jSNiwZGDa735zD8cIJz+Rh8Fq42MEBX3NczCae3nBr8BBPXLR6k4XKH7wR u1eWMaqM2Dl5h9w7XwA/Edd1miw/f85gxKIiF7tYE/whkD/bMK8+Ry9Sh9bMDGKm DowxFvOMwAU= =wTVs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: PICS is not censorship
by jbaber＠mi.leeds.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> writes: > jbaber(a)mi.leeds.ac.uk wrote: > > > > Not having a detailed knowledge of the American right to free > > speach I can only go on my opinions, but lieing with the intent > > to defraud would almost certainly be illegal over here. > > So where lies intent to defraud in the act of deliberately > mislabeling a web page? Why is that any different from me > standing on the street corner (or at Hyde Park Corner) announcing > that I'm the Messiah? I seem to have edited the previous message badly and left out the context which was false labeling on pages for which there was a charge to view. More along the lines of false advertising to be sure but still fraud in my opinion. Also, of course, it would be very hard to show that you were not, in fact, the Messiah (;->). Jon Baber jbaber(a)mi.leeds.ac.uk http://chem.leeds.ac.uk/ICAMS/people/jon

2 1