December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Unix User Password File Encryption
by Erp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok, I realize that you cannot reverse the encryption process for a Unix password.. But -- Explain to me why the following wouldn't work. And if it could work, I am willing to do the algorithms and math for this... I'm no good at coding and such.. But I can do algorithms and a lot of math easily enough *shrug*.... And if anybody uses this idea --- Please give me credit for the idea.. If it has already been tried -- Can someone please refer me to where it was tried, adn if there are any texts on it.. I would like to read them.. Thanks ok here it is: Normal Programs for Cracking a Unix password file, such as CrackerJack take a word, use the salt in the password file for that password, encrypt the word using that salt, and then compare what it comes out as. If it isn't the same, it moves on to the next word. My idea is similar to this, but is a bit different. Basically it would take a beginning word and encrypt it with the same salt as used on the password in the passwd file. So let us say that for an example our salt is aa, our outcome encrypted password is X8mfjs53D ... Ok now let us say that we take this salt of aa and run through the following into it and getting these patterns from it (these aren't the true patterns etc, I'm just making htese things up, but would it be possible?) salt aa -- inputed password 0001 -- outcome encryption Zkdrj234S salt aa -- inputed password 0002 -- outcome encryption Rksjr342s salt aa -- inputed password 0003 -- outcome encryption 25Svj43zY (For the following process we'd obviously use mor ethan three, we would probalby use a thousand at least, nad have them be all sizes of passwords and combiantions.. like aaaab or abababababab and so on...) Compare the outcomed encryptions -- And find a pattern in them.. Now in the above I'm just going to say like it comes out as 8x + 4/y - SQ(2z) + 4a = encrypted password.. Where xyza are each of the characters respectively such as 0000 xyza based on a 255 or however many ascii char system.. I know this is completely wrong for what I've done here, but I'm not doing the math or anything right now, I'm just making it up as I go for an example... Now say that since we have found the pattern... We take the outcome -- Do the algebra to figure out what the xyza would be.. And ther eya go woopity doo there is the password.. Not as simple as I've said here of course.. It would be a lot more complex.. But that is the basic idea... What is wrong with this idea? -- If it is something I have thought of, and havent' mentioned -- I'll inform you when you point it out.. But please do point it out.. Or I'll grasp at straws and say a lot of buts *laugh*... Anyways, What is wrong with this idea? How could it work? Would someone mind explaining for me, is much appreciated... Erp --------------------------- E'gads, ideas can be hell at time..

2 2

Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As stated by Dr. Vulis, he is no longer on the cypherpunks mailing list, and indeed majordomo(a)toad.com HAS been instructed to ignore his requests to resubscribe. I removed him, on my own initiative. I got tired of asking him to stop stirring up flames. When he posted a message saying that we'd have to use technical means to stop him from flaming the list, I said, "OK". Tim May was not involved. I've met Dr. Vulis in person. He seemed like a reasonable guy. I treated him that way for months, despite his inability to control himself on the list. When he ultimately declined to control his outbursts after numerous personal requests, I removed him. The cypherpunks list is for discussions centered around cryptography. I'm sure there are several mailing lists where ethnic cleansing discussions would be welcome. There are probably even mailing lists which encourage people to fire off their best inflammatory messages. If there aren't, Dr Vulis could start one. I don't sponsor any. Cypherpunks, please resist your own temptation to bait him (or anyone else). The best defense a mailing list has against flames is to simply ignore them. When they don't provoke an emotional response, they don't accomplish the poster's goal, and the poster eventually wanders off in search of more naive pastures. John Gilmore

1 0

Thank you, John Gilmore, for protecting freedom of speech against Dr. Dmitri Vulius
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you, John, for being so brave and protecting our freedom of on-topic speech. You are a true cypherpunk. Thank you, Timothy C May, for advancing cryptography by posting 100% crypto-relevant messages about loans to other countries and your collection of assault weapons. John and Timothy just made the cypherpunks list better.

4 3

Re: Moneychangers and Shylocks
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jer+(a)andrew.cmu.edu wrote: > "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > > and opportunity for me and my family, Arguing > > that native peoples were better off before the arrival of Europeans is > > fatuous nonsense--you can't go home again. > > Not true. "Society" has passed through Africa many times, the people > revert to their previous ways. I disagree. Only some ways, you don't see them tossing their AK 47s for spears. > > Further, many of the leftist critiques of "moneylending as exploitation" > > are similar to past (and current) demonizations of moneychangers, > > moneylenders, shylocks, and other assorted stereotypes. > > > > I don't favor nationalistic lending and borrowing policies, which, for > > example, involve some central government borrowing money, sending the > > borrowed funds to personal Swiss bank accounts, and then sticking the > > nominal taxpayers with the debt. Nothing I have said here endorses > this. > > But that's the only way it hapens in the third world. The only time > foreign aid is not gutted by corrupt beaurocrats is when the > Westerners go there and manage the projects themselves. This is quite > different from a loan. Wrong, and wrong. Lending to individuals is happening, in $100 or so ammounts, without westerners (or their governments' crooked bureaucrats) present, right now. > > But much lending is useful. It's the way factories get built, the way > > things get done. > > Heh, have you ever *seen* a third world factory 10 years after it was > built. Nice bit of scap, that. Ask of government was involved. > > Much of the criticism of "moneylenders" is closely related, if you > think > > about it, to criticism of "money launderers." Cypherpunks should relish > the > > rise of new mechanisms for money laundering, moneylending, tax evasion, > etc. > > > > I took the "Wired" quote about Walter Wriston "sounding like a > cypherpunk" > > to represent this new view, in explicit contrast to his earlier views > when > > he headed Citibank and they had a more statist approach. > > > > Your mileage may vary, but tired homilies about lending being exploitati > on > > are not very useful in this day and age. > > I dunno, pearls befre swine still applies. It's not that I think > lending is bad, but large economic development loans to thrild world > countries continue to support corruption and oppression, and not much > else. Because of governments more than banks. You are beginning to see the light.

2 1

anonymous oddsman
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ladbroke's (celebrating Halloween, probably) again offers 50:1 odds on Perot! Clinton and Browne are still not being offered. Recalling last Saturday's Dole odds; they were 7:1 at Ladbroke's, and 8:1 at William Hill. The betters at Ladbroke's (who get a somewhat worse deal, it seems) are bullish on Dole, while those at William Hill are now a bit more bearish on the old man, so the numbers diverge in the final stretch of the horserace. Prices @ 09:21 GMT Sat 2nd Nov 96 +---------+----------------+----------------+ | | Ladbroke's | William Hill | +---------+----------------+----------------+ | Clinton | Not currently offered by either | | Dole | 6:1 | 10:1 | | Perot | 50:1 (again) | 500:1 (!) | | Browne | Not currently offered by either | +---------+----------------+----------------+ | Phone | +44-800-524524 | +44-800-444040 | | Numbers:| | | +---------+----------------+----------------+ As for the animal suspected of *really* running the U.S.A, "Socks" appears to be successfully defending his territory against "Leader." Full of confidence, she is now running virtual tours of the White House, kids! http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/kids/html/home.html Meanwhile "Leader" whimpers at http://www.firstdog.com/ (Wow, his own domain!) Perot (obviously) needs no pet, and the oddsman is unaware of any public photos of Libertarian candidate Browne's cats, much less their names. A serious campaign. Our roving reporter in the UK also thinks that there *must* be significance in the fact that our Presidential election is being held on the anniversary of the day that Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up his Houses of Parliament, together with all the politicians within. He, as usual, will celebrate the event with bonfires and fireworks. Mailmasher.com appears to be down, apologies to any of you who wished to correspond personally with the oddsman there. Hopefully, oddsman(a)mailmasher.com will come back soon. anonymous oddsman "Demeaning the integrity of the U.S. Presidential election process for you on a regular basis, at no charge."

3 5

Re: ITAR financial crypto exception?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:25 PM 11/1/96 -0800, Greg Broiles quoted: >According to the "United States Munitions List", 22 CFR 121.1, Category >XIII, "Auxiliary Military Equipment": > >"Information Security Systems and equipment, cryptographic devices, >software, and components specifically designed or modified therefor" are >included in the munitions list; but not if they are > >"[s]pecially designed, developed or modified for use in machines for >banking or money transactions, and restricted to use only in such >transactions. Machines for banking or money transactions include automatic >teller machines, self-service statement printers, point of sale terminals >or equipment for the encryption of interbanking transactions." (22 CFR >121.1, Category XIII (b)(1)(ii)), > >or if they are > >"[l]imited to access control, such as automatic teller machines, >self-service statement printers or point of sale terminals, which protects >password or personal identification numbers (PIN) or similar data to prevent >unauthorized access to facilities but does not allow for encryption of >files or >text, except as directly related to the password of PIN protection." (22 >CFR 121.1, Category XIII (b)(1)(v)). I don't think either of these exclusions would cover the reference implementation of the SET protocol. I don't think it would cover an electronic commerce application running on a personal computer/workstation either. Therefore I conclude that the ITAR is contributing to the vulnerability of our emerging electronic commerce infrastructure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Tired of Dole/Clinton? | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | Vote 3rd party. I'm | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | Voting for Harry Browne | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:13 AM 11/2/96 -0800, John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> wrote: >As stated by Dr. Vulis, he is no longer on the cypherpunks mailing >list, and indeed majordomo(a)toad.com HAS been instructed to ignore his >requests to resubscribe. > >I removed him, on my own initiative. I got tired of asking him to >stop stirring up flames. When he posted a message saying that we'd >have to use technical means to stop him from flaming the list, I said, >"OK". [snip] This all seems really silly to me. Are people on this list not sophisticated enough to be capable of filtering his posts if they don't like to read them? What's to stop him from using reailers or nymservers? Are you going to block them, too? By doing something like this you give him far more attention and encouragement than he deserves. It's a big mistake, IMHO. Rich

4 3

Sorry, nyt
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We were unfair to call news-reading by gatekeeper.nytimes.com of jya.com "snooping." We apologize to gatekeeper for that mischaracterization. And for disclosing here access info which should be private. The site is open to anyone, the more anonymous the better. Use anonymizer.com.

2 1

[NOISE] Re: Thank you, John Gilmore, for protecting freedom of speech against Dr. Dmitri Vulius
by darius＠hotliquid.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:45:54 -0800 John Anonymous MacDonald <nobody(a)cypherpunks.ca> wrote: > Thank you, John, for being so brave and protecting our freedom of > on-topic speech. You are a true cypherpunk. > > Thank you, Timothy C May, for advancing cryptography by posting 100% > crypto-relevant messages about loans to other countries and your > collection of assault weapons. > > John and Timothy just made the cypherpunks list better. ---------------------- Well, here's the wonderful thing about cypherpunks. It's a privately run list. There isn't freedom to flame wantonly, there isn't a 'right to insult' Vulius has plagued this list for quite some time. I'm glad he's been removed. We return you to your regularly scheduled on-topic posts. darius(a)hotliquid.com

1 0

[NOISE] Vulis, Censorship on cypherpunks & all this b.s.
by Tim Scanlon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

After reading about the great moral indignation & general dispeptitude people seem to be finding over Dimitri's removal, I basicly have one response. Get a life. I mean really, the guy was (and is) freakin intolerable. He just caused major noise on the list and that's about all. The bottom line is that his removal just makes the list a more sane, less crap filled place. As for all the upset & indignation, well jesus, like you people can't find better things to get indignant about? How bout spending the same amount of time writing to your congressman about the bletcherous crypto policies being promoted by government facists? Or the same amount of time on sticking an html interface to an anon remailer in your web page... etc. It just comes across as sanctimonious and incredibly irrelivant b.s. for people to be "upset" in any way over some nitwit being jerked off the list after he's been given far, far, more reasonable alternatives than to act the way he had been. Tim

1 0