December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

More on Van Eck
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear has provided a 1988 follow-up article on Van Eck's 1985 study of EMR snooping. It includes a letter by Van Eck explaining why he omitted certain information in the original article, and why his employer "classified" more sophisticated studies of "compromising emanation." We've put up HTML and PDF versions: http://jya.com/bits.htm (12 kb plus 2 images) http://jya.com/bits.pdf (85 kb)

1 0

RE: The virus I got...
by Internaut 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Mark Rosen[SMTP:mrosen@peganet.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 1996 04.37 PM >Oh, and as far as I know, no virus was installed, >though you should check for one just for good measure. There was one, though I don't remember what it's name was. Maby it was Monkey. I already deleted it. --Internaut

1 0

Re: The virus I got...
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> There was an e-mail sent to the list that had attached to it a virus. Well > lucky me I got. It was a .com file that apparently turns your files into > directories. I can't boot into Win95 since it turned my HIMEM.SYS into a > directory. So, I seem to have fixed that, but now it says "access denied" > and then prompts me with C:\>. Did anyone else get it? Has anyone heard > or fixed this virus? Yes. FIrst of all, NEVER run any executable you recieve that is just attached to an e-mail message like that. Unfortunately, my stupid trackpad on my laptop slipped and I too ran the file. Your registry has been deleted and it looks like every file that was not hidden in the Windows directory (or at least a lot of them) have been renamed and made directories. I suspect the file information still exists but is messed up. You probably won't ever be able to get it back. First you need to remove all of the rogue directories (type dir /w/o/p at c:\windows\ and then rmdir everything in brackets that looks like it was a file - it'll have a '.' in its name). You can then reinstall Windows 95. All of your configuration will be lost, but at least you're up again. I'm posting this to the list if anyone else has also run this program, but if anyone has any more questions, please e-mail mrosen(a)peganet.com. Did anyone find out a real e-mail address from this guy. I'd like to uhhh... cyberbeat him. Oh, and as far as I know, no virus was installed, though you should check for one just for good measure. Mark Rosen FireSoft - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 Mark Eats AOL - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

3 2

Earl Edwin Pitts, $224,000
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/18/fbi.spy/index.html FBI agent spied for Soviet Union, Russia. "He also provided a stolen FBI handset to a telecommunications device used to transmit classified information," Too bad he didn't have access to the Clipper database. That would have helped us find its free market price. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

6 8

EFF: Bernstein court declares crypto restrictions unconstitutional
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

COURT DECLARES CRYPTO RESTRICTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Free Speech Trumps Clinton Wiretap Plan December 18, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Attorney 301/375-8856, ssteele(a)eff.org John Gilmore, Founding Board Member 415/221-6524, gnu(a)toad.com Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail 415/341-2585, cindy(a)mcglashan.com San Francisco - On Monday, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel struck down Cold War export restrictions on the privacy technology called cryptography. Her decision knocks out a major part of the Clinton Administration's effort to force companies to build "wiretap-ready" computers, set-top boxes, telephones, and consumer electronics. The decision is a victory for free speech, academic freedom, and the prevention of crime. American scientists and engineers will now be free to collaborate with their peers in the United States and in other countries. This will enable them to build a new generation of tools for protecting the privacy and security of communications. The Clinton Administration has been using the export restrictions to goad companies into building wiretap-ready "key recovery" technology. In a November Executive Order, President Clinton offered limited administrative exemptions from these restrictions to companies which agree to undermine the privacy of their customers. Federal District Judge Patel's ruling knocks both the carrot and the stick out of Clinton's hand, because the restrictions were unconstitutional in the first place. The Cold War law and regulations at issue in the case prevented American researchers and companies from exporting cryptographic software and hardware. Export is normally thought of as the physical carrying of an object across a national border. However, the regulations define "export" to include simple publication in the U.S., as well as discussions with foreigners inside the U.S. They also define "software" to include printed English-language descriptions and diagrams, as well as the traditional machine-readable object code and human-readable source code. The secretive National Security Agency has built up an arcane web of complex and confusing laws, regulations, standards, and secret interpretations for years. These are used to force, persuade, or confuse individuals, companies, and government departments into making it easy for NSA to wiretap and decode all kinds of communications. Their tendrils reach deep into the White House, into numerous Federal agencies, and into the Congressional Intelligence Committees. In recent years this web is unraveling in the face of increasing visibility, vocal public disagreement with the spy agency's goals, commercial and political pressure, and judicial scrutiny. Civil libertarians have long argued that encryption should be widely deployed on the Internet and throughout society to protect privacy, prove the authenticity of transactions, and improve computer security. Industry has argued that the restrictions hobble them in building secure products, both for U.S. and worldwide use, risking America's current dominant position in computer technology. Government officials in the FBI and NSA argue that the technology is too dangerous to permit citizens to use it, because it provides privacy to criminals as well as ordinary citizens. "We're pleased that Judge Patel understands that our national security requires protecting our basic rights of free speech and privacy," said John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backed the suit. "There's no sense in `burning the Constitution in order to save it'. The secretive bureaucrats who have restricted these rights for decades in the name of national security must come to a larger understanding of how to support and preserve our democracy." Reactions to the decision "This is a positive sign in the crypto wars -- the first rational statement concerning crypto policy to come out of any part of the government," said Jim Bidzos, President of RSA Data Security, one of the companies most affected by crypto policy. "It's nice to see that the executive branch does not get to decide whether we have the right of free speech," said Philip Zimmermann, Chairman of PGP, Inc. "It shows that my own common sense interpretation of the constitution was correct five years ago when I thought it was safe to publish my own software, PGP. If only US Customs had seen it that way." Mr. Zimmermann is a civil libertarian who was investigated by the government under these laws when he wrote and gave away a program for protecting the privacy of e-mail. His "Pretty Good Privacy" program is used by human rights activists worldwide to protect their workers and informants from torture and murder by their own countries' secret police. "Judge Patel's decision furthers our efforts to enable secure electronic commerce," said Asim Abdullah, executive director of CommerceNet. Jerry Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based Internet advocacy group, hailed the victory. "The Bernstein ruling illustrates that the Administration continues to embrace an encryption policy that is not only unwise, but also unconstitutional. We congratulate Dan Bernstein, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and all of the supporters who made this victory for free speech and privacy on the Internet possible." "The ability to publish is required in any vibrant academic discipline," This ruling re-affirming our obvious academic right will help American researchers publish without worrying," said Bruce Schneier, author of the popular textbook _Applied Cryptography_, and a director of the International Association for Cryptologic Research, a professional organization of cryptographers. Kevin McCurley, President of the International Association for Cryptologic Research, said, "Basic research to further the understanding of fundamental notions in information should be welcomed by our society. The expression of such work is closely related to one of the fundamental values of our society, namely freedom of speech." Effect of the decision Judge Patel's decision today only legally applies to Prof. Bernstein. Other people and companies are still technically required to follow the export restrictions when speaking or publishing about cryptography, or when speaking or publishing cryptographic source code. However, the decision sends a strong signal that if the government tried to enforce these rules against other people, the courts are likely to strike them down again. Judge Patel has specifically not decided whether the export controls on object code (the executable form of computer programs which source code is automatically translated into) are constitutional. Existing export controls will continue to apply to runnable software products, such as Netscape's broswer, until another court case challenges that part of the restrictions. Background on the case The plaintiff in the case, Daniel J. Bernstein, Research Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, developed an "encryption algorithm" (a recipe or set of instructions) that he wanted to publish in printed journals as well as on the Internet. Bernstein sued the government, claiming that the government's requirements that he register as an arms dealer and seek government permission before publication was a violation of his First Amendment right of free speech. This is required by the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. In the first phase of this litigation, the government argued that since Bernstein's ideas were expressed, in part, in computer language (source code), they were not protected by the First Amendment. On April 15, 1996, Judge Patel rejected that argument and held for the first time that computer source code is protected speech for purposes of the First Amendment. Details of Monday's Decision Judge Patel ruled that the Arms Export Control Act is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, because it requires Bernstein to submit his ideas about cryptography to the government for review, to register as an arms dealer, and to apply for and obtain from the government a license to publish his ideas. Using the Pentagon Papers case as precedent, she ruled that the government's "interest of national security alone does not justify a prior restraint." Under the Constitution, he is now free to publish his ideas without asking the government's permission first. Judge Patel also held that the government's required licensing procedure fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards. When the Government acts legally to suppress protected speech, it must reduce the chance of illegal censorship by the bureacrats involved. Her decision states, "Because the ITAR licensing scheme fails to provide for a time limit on the licensing decision, for prompt judicial review and for a duty on the part of the ODTC to go to court and defend a denial of a license, the ITAR licensing scheme as applied to Category XIII(b) acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." She also ruled that the export controls restrict speech based on the content of the speech, not for any other reason. "Category XIII(b) is directed very specifically at applied scientific research and speech on the topic of encryption." The Government had argued that it restricts the speech because of its function, not its content. The judge also found that the ITAR is vague, because it does not adequately define how information that is available to the public "through fundamental research in science and engineering" is exempt from the export restrictions. "This subsection ... does not give people ... a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited." The failure to precisely define what objects and actions are being regulated creates confusion and a chilling effect. Bernstein has been unable to publish his encryption algorithm for over three years. Many other cryptographers and ordinary programmers have also been restrained from publishing because of the vagueness of the ITAR. Brian Behlendorf, a maintainer of the popular public domain "Apache" web server program, stated, "No cryptographic source code was ever distributed by the Apache project. Despite this, the Apache server code was deemed by the NSA to violate the ITAR." Judge Patel also adopted a narrower definition of the term "defense service" in order to save it from unconstitutional vagueness. The immediate effect of this decision is that Bernstein now is free to teach his January 13th cryptography class in his usual way. He can post his class materials on the Internet, and discuss the upcoming class's materials with other professors, without being held in violation of the ITAR. "I'm very pleased," Bernstein said. "Now I won't have to tell my students to burn their notebooks." ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono. Major additional pro bono legal assistance is being provided by Lee Tien of Berkeley; M. Edward Ross of the San Francisco law firm of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss; James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzker of the First Amendment Project in Oakland; and Robert Corn-Revere of the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information. EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and helped collect members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from EFF's online archives at http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ The full text of Monday's decision will be posted there as soon as we scan it in.

3 4

EFF: Bernstein court declares crypto restrictions unconstitutional
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

COURT DECLARES CRYPTO RESTRICTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Free Speech Trumps Clinton Wiretap Plan December 18, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Attorney 301/375-8856, ssteele(a)eff.org John Gilmore, Founding Board Member 415/221-6524, gnu(a)toad.com Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail 415/341-2585, cindy(a)mcglashan.com San Francisco - On Monday, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel struck down Cold War export restrictions on the privacy technology called cryptography. Her decision knocks out a major part of the Clinton Administration's effort to force companies to build "wiretap-ready" computers, set-top boxes, telephones, and consumer electronics. The decision is a victory for free speech, academic freedom, and the prevention of crime. American scientists and engineers will now be free to collaborate with their peers in the United States and in other countries. This will enable them to build a new generation of tools for protecting the privacy and security of communications. The Clinton Administration has been using the export restrictions to goad companies into building wiretap-ready "key recovery" technology. In a November Executive Order, President Clinton offered limited administrative exemptions from these restrictions to companies which agree to undermine the privacy of their customers. Federal District Judge Patel's ruling knocks both the carrot and the stick out of Clinton's hand, because the restrictions were unconstitutional in the first place. The Cold War law and regulations at issue in the case prevented American researchers and companies from exporting cryptographic software and hardware. Export is normally thought of as the physical carrying of an object across a national border. However, the regulations define "export" to include simple publication in the U.S., as well as discussions with foreigners inside the U.S. They also define "software" to include printed English-language descriptions and diagrams, as well as the traditional machine-readable object code and human-readable source code. The secretive National Security Agency has built up an arcane web of complex and confusing laws, regulations, standards, and secret interpretations for years. These are used to force, persuade, or confuse individuals, companies, and government departments into making it easy for NSA to wiretap and decode all kinds of communications. Their tendrils reach deep into the White House, into numerous Federal agencies, and into the Congressional Intelligence Committees. In recent years this web is unraveling in the face of increasing visibility, vocal public disagreement with the spy agency's goals, commercial and political pressure, and judicial scrutiny. Civil libertarians have long argued that encryption should be widely deployed on the Internet and throughout society to protect privacy, prove the authenticity of transactions, and improve computer security. Industry has argued that the restrictions hobble them in building secure products, both for U.S. and worldwide use, risking America's current dominant position in computer technology. Government officials in the FBI and NSA argue that the technology is too dangerous to permit citizens to use it, because it provides privacy to criminals as well as ordinary citizens. "We're pleased that Judge Patel understands that our national security requires protecting our basic rights of free speech and privacy," said John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backed the suit. "There's no sense in `burning the Constitution in order to save it'. The secretive bureaucrats who have restricted these rights for decades in the name of national security must come to a larger understanding of how to support and preserve our democracy." Reactions to the decision "This is a positive sign in the crypto wars -- the first rational statement concerning crypto policy to come out of any part of the government," said Jim Bidzos, President of RSA Data Security, one of the companies most affected by crypto policy. "It's nice to see that the executive branch does not get to decide whether we have the right of free speech," said Philip Zimmermann, Chairman of PGP, Inc. "It shows that my own common sense interpretation of the constitution was correct five years ago when I thought it was safe to publish my own software, PGP. If only US Customs had seen it that way." Mr. Zimmermann is a civil libertarian who was investigated by the government under these laws when he wrote and gave away a program for protecting the privacy of e-mail. His "Pretty Good Privacy" program is used by human rights activists worldwide to protect their workers and informants from torture and murder by their own countries' secret police. "Judge Patel's decision furthers our efforts to enable secure electronic commerce," said Asim Abdullah, executive director of CommerceNet. Jerry Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based Internet advocacy group, hailed the victory. "The Bernstein ruling illustrates that the Administration continues to embrace an encryption policy that is not only unwise, but also unconstitutional. We congratulate Dan Bernstein, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and all of the supporters who made this victory for free speech and privacy on the Internet possible." "The ability to publish is required in any vibrant academic discipline," This ruling re-affirming our obvious academic right will help American researchers publish without worrying," said Bruce Schneier, author of the popular textbook _Applied Cryptography_, and a director of the International Association for Cryptologic Research, a professional organization of cryptographers. Kevin McCurley, President of the International Association for Cryptologic Research, said, "Basic research to further the understanding of fundamental notions in information should be welcomed by our society. The expression of such work is closely related to one of the fundamental values of our society, namely freedom of speech." Effect of the decision Judge Patel's decision today only legally applies to Prof. Bernstein. Other people and companies are still technically required to follow the export restrictions when speaking or publishing about cryptography, or when speaking or publishing cryptographic source code. However, the decision sends a strong signal that if the government tried to enforce these rules against other people, the courts are likely to strike them down again. Judge Patel has specifically not decided whether the export controls on object code (the executable form of computer programs which source code is automatically translated into) are constitutional. Existing export controls will continue to apply to runnable software products, such as Netscape's broswer, until another court case challenges that part of the restrictions. Background on the case The plaintiff in the case, Daniel J. Bernstein, Research Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, developed an "encryption algorithm" (a recipe or set of instructions) that he wanted to publish in printed journals as well as on the Internet. Bernstein sued the government, claiming that the government's requirements that he register as an arms dealer and seek government permission before publication was a violation of his First Amendment right of free speech. This is required by the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. In the first phase of this litigation, the government argued that since Bernstein's ideas were expressed, in part, in computer language (source code), they were not protected by the First Amendment. On April 15, 1996, Judge Patel rejected that argument and held for the first time that computer source code is protected speech for purposes of the First Amendment. Details of Monday's Decision Judge Patel ruled that the Arms Export Control Act is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, because it requires Bernstein to submit his ideas about cryptography to the government for review, to register as an arms dealer, and to apply for and obtain from the government a license to publish his ideas. Using the Pentagon Papers case as precedent, she ruled that the government's "interest of national security alone does not justify a prior restraint." Under the Constitution, he is now free to publish his ideas without asking the government's permission first. Judge Patel also held that the government's required licensing procedure fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards. When the Government acts legally to suppress protected speech, it must reduce the chance of illegal censorship by the bureacrats involved. Her decision states, "Because the ITAR licensing scheme fails to provide for a time limit on the licensing decision, for prompt judicial review and for a duty on the part of the ODTC to go to court and defend a denial of a license, the ITAR licensing scheme as applied to Category XIII(b) acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." She also ruled that the export controls restrict speech based on the content of the speech, not for any other reason. "Category XIII(b) is directed very specifically at applied scientific research and speech on the topic of encryption." The Government had argued that it restricts the speech because of its function, not its content. The judge also found that the ITAR is vague, because it does not adequately define how information that is available to the public "through fundamental research in science and engineering" is exempt from the export restrictions. "This subsection ... does not give people ... a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited." The failure to precisely define what objects and actions are being regulated creates confusion and a chilling effect. Bernstein has been unable to publish his encryption algorithm for over three years. Many other cryptographers and ordinary programmers have also been restrained from publishing because of the vagueness of the ITAR. Brian Behlendorf, a maintainer of the popular public domain "Apache" web server program, stated, "No cryptographic source code was ever distributed by the Apache project. Despite this, the Apache server code was deemed by the NSA to violate the ITAR." Judge Patel also adopted a narrower definition of the term "defense service" in order to save it from unconstitutional vagueness. The immediate effect of this decision is that Bernstein now is free to teach his January 13th cryptography class in his usual way. He can post his class materials on the Internet, and discuss the upcoming class's materials with other professors, without being held in violation of the ITAR. "I'm very pleased," Bernstein said. "Now I won't have to tell my students to burn their notebooks." ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono. Major additional pro bono legal assistance is being provided by Lee Tien of Berkeley; M. Edward Ross of the San Francisco law firm of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss; James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzker of the First Amendment Project in Oakland; and Robert Corn-Revere of the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information. EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and helped collect members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from EFF's online archives at http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ The full text of Monday's decision will be posted there as soon as we scan it in.

1 0

Re: Inflation-index bonds and private e-currency
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rfiero(a)pophost.com" "Richard Fiero" 1-OCT-1996 04:50:07.73 >E. Allen Smith wrote: >> One of the attractions of privately-produced currencies is as a >> hedge against inflation; this development may be a competitor to this >> idea. On the other hand, this setup does have an unavailability in _time_ >> of the money (more so than other, equal-security bonds of the same duration), >> which may offset its greater spendability. >I don't get it. Why is this bond not saleable like any other? What >"privately-produced currencies" are a hedge against inflation? If >this bond is saleable like any other, why is the money unavailable? >What means "greater spendability?" Is this assumed to be yet another >government plot because it competes with other offerings and reduces >the cost of borrowing? The bond in question is salable... but its value is only guaranteed (to the extent that any government promise is guaranteed) when it comes due. Money supplies can be continuously adjusted by a private issue to keep a privately-produced currency's value stable. Privately-produced currencies, with a few (unfortunately minor) exceptions, are currently more of a free market economist idea than a reality; current governments are quite close on keeping their monetary powers (witness the protests in Europe against going the opposite way, to a common currency; also witness governmental attempts at keeping the free market from determining exchange rates). It is possible that private digital currencies will solve this problem, since they are much cheaper to produce than paper money is to print and can be traded privately much easier. There are likely to still be some legal problems with them, although A. selecting the proper country to base an issuer out of and B. not actually making avaliable through the issuer the reverse transaction - privately produced money to governmental money - only transactions for governmental money to privately produced money and privately produced money for services and/or goods may do the trick. Greater spendability refers to that when this bond is converted to government-backed dollars, most businesses will currently accept such dollars. This is unlikely to be the case for the first few years for a private currency, although an increased ease of exchange of a digital (as opposed to governmental paper) currency may make up for this difficulty. I doubt that most of the governmental types involved in making this decision know about privately produced currencies... but some may, and may have encouraged central bankers et al (and those who oppose Greenspan for his (quite admirable) opposition to inflation, like numerous politicians) to encourage this idea; assuming complete innocence of a particular motive on the part of any large organization is generally about as ignorant (and often stupid) as assuming complete guilt. Moreover, government competition with the private sector is rarely beneficial; in this particular area, I'd point out that it isn't reducing the cost of borrowing, it's increasing it - when lenders can lend to the government, they're _not_ lending to private businesses and others who can make far better use of the money. This factor, in a large part, is why most economists are in favor of a reduction in the government deficit. -Allen P.S. Sorry about the lateness of this reply, but I'm just getting around to some of my earlier mail.

5 9

Re: Earl Edwin Pitts, $224,000
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:06 PM 12/18/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 8:20 PM -0500 12/18/96, Adam Shostack wrote: >>http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/18/fbi.spy/index.html >>FBI agent spied for Soviet Union, Russia. >>Too bad he didn't have access to the Clipper database. That would >>have helped us find its free market price. > >...and who's to say he didn't? Anyone who bought it--the Russians, for >example--would hardly have been likely to publicize their purchase. > >(Maybe if _we_ purchased it, we'd publicize the purchase, but nearly anyone >else would not.) Or maybe he could just _claim_ to have sold the database. That'd work just as well, I think. Think how much trouble the gov't would have to go to do disprove him! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

RE: permanent invasion of privacy
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dale Thorn, who hasn't a clue [on why the cpunks of late haven't discussed children's point of view]: Not lately? And why is that? Don't know, Dale. Would everyone please send a message to Dale, explaining why you haven't been discussing this? -- [on the possibility that abused children might be helped by the uses of encryption]: How is an abused child going to be helped by encryption? Why are you on this list, Dale? -- [on why, as I said, "empathy with children is not borne of government, but of a normal state of mind"]: That's just rhetoric. What normal state of mind? Takes one to know one, Dale. -- [on going out to alt.philosphy.objectivism to evoke detailed discussions of pertinence to his interest in benefitting from government programs]: In other words, if it doesn't offer something for me, the selfish adult, I don't wanna hear it. I'm not *obliged* to hear, it Dale. .. Blanc

4 6

C2NET ANNOUNCES STRONGHOLD 2.0, BUNDLED THAWTE CERTIFICATES
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For Release: December 19, 1996 C2Net: Douglas Barnes, +1 510 986 8770, cman(a)c2.net UK Web: Dave Williams, +44 0113 222 0046, dwilliams(a)ukweb.com Thawte Consulting: Mark Shuttleworth, +27 21 975 4675, marks(a)thawte.com C2NET ANNOUNCES STRONGHOLD 2.0, BUNDLED THAWTE CERTIFICATES Oakland, CA -- C2Net Software, an Oakland-based security software company, announced today the beta release of Stronghold 2.0. Stronghold is currently the second most popular commercial webserver on the Unix platform, according to the Netcraft survey of webservers on the Internet. (see: http://www.netcraft.co.uk/survey/) Bundled With Thawte Certificates ================================= Additionally, C2Net and Thawte Consulting cc, a certificate authority based in South Africa, jointly announced a bundled product: a Stronghold webserver and a Thawte server certificate. The bundle will sell for $545; Stronghold alone lists at $495. Thawte's main competitor, Verisign, sells web server certificates for $290; similar certificates are $100 when purchased separately from Thawte. "We can now offer our customers the convenience of one-stop shopping when setting up a secure web site," said C2Net President Sameer Parekh. "Thawte is now poised to be a significant competitor to VeriSign, and we think that competition in this area is very healthy and will bring greater value to the entire Internet" Certificates are used for secure connections to authenticate the server to the client. People using Netscape and Microsoft browsers can connect to sites using both Thawte and VeriSign certificates because the "root certificates" for these companies come pre-loaded with the Netscape and Microsoft browsers. New Features in Version 2.0 =========================== Stronghold 2.0 is adding a number of new features users have been asking for. "We've redesigned the security interfaces and built on the new Apache 1.2 code base," commented Mark Cox, Stronghold product manager at UK Web. "Stronghold has had many productivity and performance enhancements and it is now fully compliant with the new HTTP/1.1 standard." The HTTP/1.1 standard is a significant update to HTTP/1.0, the protocol that governs how web browsers and web servers communicate. HTTP/1.1 brings many new features to the table, including improved content and language negotiation, improved persistent connections, and better recovery from interrupted transfers. (For more information on HTTP/1.1, see http://www.apacheweek.com/features/http11/) Stronghold 2.0b1 also incorporates a number of popular features from the Thawte webserver, Sioux, including more flexible directives for specifying security properties and improved certificate-based authentication. A subsequent beta version of Stronghold 2.0 will contain a full-fledged grapical configuration manager, based on the one in Sioux, as well as support for the latest version of the SSL protocol, known as SSLv3. Merged With Sioux ================= Along with the bundling agreement, Thawte and C2Net have merged their webserver products, Sioux and Stronghold. "This gives us a chance to focus more of our energy on our certificate business," said Mark Shuttleworth of Thawte Consulting. "By doing this, our two companies will be better able to compete in both the web server and certificate- issuing markets." Existing Sioux customers will be able to upgrade to the new version of Stronghold for $95. Upgrade Policy ============== Starting today, users who purchase Stronghold will be guaranteed a free upgrade to 2.0 when it gets out of beta testing. Other existing Stronghold users will probably need to pay a $95 upgrade fee, depending on when they purchased the product. Stronghold is developed outside of the United States, and is distributed within the US and Canada by C2Net (http://stronghold.c2.net/) and in the rest of the world by UK Web (http://stronghold.ukweb.com/) All versions of the product use uncompromised, full-strength cryptography. Background ========== C2Net (previously known as Community ConneXion, Inc.) is the leading provider of uncompromising security on the Internet. In addition to Stronghold (http://stronghold.c2.net/) C2Net also markets SafePassage Web Proxy (http://stronghold.ukweb.com/safepassage/) a product that allows users of popular web browsers to use full-strength cryptography worldwide. UK Web Limited is a leading Internet services company specialising in server technology, Internet security, business solutions and effective site design. They are the international distributors for both Stronghold and SafePassage products. Portions of Stronghold were developed by the Apache Group, and were taken with permission from the Apache Server http://www.apache.org/. Stronghold also includes software developed by Eric Young (eay(a)mincom.oz.au) Contacts ======== C2Net: Douglas Barnes, +1 510 986 8770, cman(a)c2.net UK Web: Dave Williams, +44 0113 222 0046, dwilliams(a)ukweb.com Thawte Consulting: Mark Shuttleworth, +27 21 975 4675, marks(a)thawte.com New with Stronghold v2.0b1 http://stronghold.c2.net/get/beta/ == Security In Stronghold 2.0b1 we've upgraded to the latest SSL and cryptography library, with a number of performance improvements, particularly in the DES implementation. The security/SSL architecture in Stronghold has been rewritten to take advantage of the Sioux source code base and the various features in Sioux. SSL client authentication has been improved. Regular expression-based matching of client certificate information to determine access control is possible. Stronghold now has an API for certificate to username mapping so that client certificates may be mapped to standard usernames. Session ID caching is now more robust. The sessiond is no longer needed, because the session ID cache is within the same address space as the server processes. == Ease of Use The Stronghold documentation has been revised and improved greatly since the last release. The 2.0b1 documentation is now three hundred pages long and will grow to include more extensive documentation for the final release. The documentation is available in both PostScript and HTML formats. The server has more command line options which provide information about the server. In particular, you can get a list of all the modules in the server or a full listing of all configuration directives that are supported by that binary. Compiling the server to add/remove new modules is also much easier. The Configure script automatically detects which operating system the server is running on and sets the compilation flags appropriately. Stronghold is now easier to install, with more verbose text during the install. Stronghold now comes with binaries for a number of useful management utilities, such as htpasswd, htdigest, and dbmmanage. == Functionality Stronghold is now compliant with HTTP/1.1, the latest in web protocol technology. Stronghold is the first commercial webserver to support HTTP/1.1. Stronghold 2.0b1 includes the lastest beta version of Apache (1.2b2), which includes a number of improvements, in addition to a large number of bugfixes. The server status page has been improved include additional information, including virtual hosts and client side certificates. The status page is also much more readable. Stronghold has a more fully-functional server-side includes mechanism, including the "eXtended Server Side Includes" SSI format. Stronghold provides server admins the ability to easily setup cookie-based user tracking so the admin can see what path through their site the users have been taking. It is now possible to restart the server and reload the configuration files without interrupting connections which are currently in progress. Stronghold is now compatible with the NCSA "Satisfy" directive for access control. CGI scripts are now "unbuffered". By unbuffering the CGI scripts it is possible to do things using normal CGI that were previously only possible using "nph". More information is available to ErrorDocument handlers about the cause of the error via the use of the ERROR_MSG environment variable. == New Bundled Modules Stronghold now bundles PHP, a very powerful language for dynamic content and database connectivity. PHP provides for database connectivity to mSQL, Postgres95, Solid, and mysql servers. Using PHP, Stronghold can now generate web pages on the fly using a very powerful C-like language for processing forms input, database queries, etc. Stronghold now bundles with SWISH/WWWWAIS search engine for indexing and searching through web sites. Stronghold now comes with the proxy module enable by default. The proxy module has also been significantly improved since the previous version. A full-featured URI rewriting language that allows server administrators to define rules for transforming URIs. Support for the DigiCash ecash protocol is now built into the server. Using this module it is possible to set up an ecash-accepting shop on the Internet without an actual account with an ecash-issuing bank. == Configurability It is now possible with Stronghold to configure the server such that user's CGI scripts are run under their own UID, with their own permissions, instead of the UID of the server, with the same permissions as the rest of the server or other CGI programs run by other users. Many directives now support regular expressions, so configuration options can be set based on regular expression matching criteria. The new <Files> container allows server adminstrators to set configuration options on a much finer basis, down to individual files in directories. Server administrators can now set environment variables based on which web browser the client is using. These environment variables can be used to deliver different web pages, or work around bugs in various different browsers. Configurable logging is now the default, and has been enhanced. It is now possible to create a number of different logfiles each with their own configurable logging format. It is also now possible to setup a virtual host which listens to more than one IP number, or more than one port. It is easier in Stronghold 2.0b1 to debug CGI scripts. The server administrator or CGI author can configure logfiles where CGI error messages and diagnostic information get stored. The entire server can protect itself from runaway CGI scripts by configuring in the resource limits for CGI that are now available in Stronghold. Server redirects are more configurable. The client can now be told whether or not a redirect is temporary, permanent, or if the requested object is completely gone. The "Options" directive is much more configurable. It's possible now using the "Options" directive to add and remove options from the current set of "Options" merely by prepending a '-' or '+' to the option name. There is now a configuration directive to set and remove HTTP headers. Using this directive various directories or various files can have custom headers attached if the server administrator wants to easily support some of the many HTTP extensions. The configuration file can include directives which are turned on or off conditionally depending on whether or not certain modules are compiled into the server.

1 0