December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:48 AM 11/16/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Alan Olsen wrote: >> What a week! What is this? "Net Loon pig-pile on Cypherpunks day?" >> So far i have killfiled three people in the past two days. (That is the >> total number I filtered to trash before that date.) >> For those of you who are sick of wading through this mess, I am willing to >> show you what it will take to filter those of your choice to /dev/null or >> its local equivelent. (procmail can be your friend!) > >Thank you in advance for your filtering instructions (yawn). > >BTW, why would anyone give a shit whether you killfiled anyone or not? The point is not who or what I care to killfile. The idea is that it can be done by most people without a whole lot of hastle. There are a number of people who do not have experience in setting up procmail. I am offering to help them out in the hope that it will strain out some of the resultant noise from these "Freedom Knight" loons. (Or at least keep a number of people from dropping the list from the bogosity.) I suspect I am in a number of killfiles already... --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.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.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Validating SSNs
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> Indeed, I protected my privacy decades ago by discarding my issued SSN >> and substituting a different one. This "phony SSN" is what I use on my >> tax returns, my credit cards, and for my employers. >> >> Ha! None of them know that this is not my True Social Security Number! >> >> By this I protect my privacy. "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" were not written by Homer but by another Greek of the same name. Old joke. Might I suggest though that you use varying SS numbers and varying names, addresses, and Dates of Birth so that you deny The Great Enemy a Key_field in the database of life. DCF

1 0

Re: Mirror of new export control regulations
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:10 PM 11/15/96 -0500, Alan Davidson wrote: > http://www.cdt.org/crypto/clipper311 > I'm holding out for Clipper '95 myself. DCF

1 0

RE: ideal secure personal computer system
by John Fricker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Igor Chudov @ home (ichudov(a)algebra.com) said something about Re: ideal secure personal computer system on or about 11/16/96 7:41 AM > >Bill Frantz wrote: >> Protection against strangers walking up to your machine and using it is >> nice, and easy to do. Protection against viruses which install Trojan >> horses in your system would also be nice, but is very hard to do in systems >> where programs run with all the privileges of their users. Examples >> include (in alpha order): DOS, MacOS, Unix, and Windows (including NT). > >I wonder what are the operating systems where programs may be run with >_less_ privileges than the user who starts them? Is VMS one of such >systems? > >thanks > > - Igor. >End of message In WinNT a program may impersonate a user such as Guest. Also, trojan horses are ineffective in NT as typical users do not have write permission to system binaries. --j ----------------------------------- | John Fricker (jfricker(a)vertexgroup.com) | -random notes- | My PGP public key is available by sending mail with subject "send pgp key". | www.Program.com is a good programmer web site. -----------------------------------

1 0

Re: Why I shall never undescribe
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 AM 11/15/96 -0500, Alec wrote: >>From: Bovine Remailer <haystack(a)cow.net> >>To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >> >>Foulmouthed Timothy May rehashes his lies like a rabid parrot >>choking on a stale mantra stuck in its poisonous beak. > >Where else today can one find such prose? Nay poetry! > >And they say poetry is dead! I thought they said that chivilry was dead.

2 1

Re: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:38 PM 11/15/1996, Adam Back wrote: >Peter Hendrickson <ph(a)netcom.com> writes: >> However, if you restrict postings to an approved group of people, perhaps >> everybody on the mailing list, you can eliminate spam. How, then, do we >> allow anonymous postings to come through? Individual people on the list >> can receive the proposed post and forward it to the list if it is >> appropriate. They could even charge a fee for doing it. That's easy to >> do if there is a "paying" remailer which will handle the money for them. > Not necessarily a good idea. The post may be a hot potatoe, and the > forwarder may find themselves in legal trouble. (Say RC4 & RC2 source > code, NSA handbook, the results of the Mykotronic's dumpster diving > spree, etc). Exercising `editorial control' has landed some ISPs in > trouble, to the extent that some are specifically avoiding it for that > legal reason alone. Being _paid_ for forwarding the message may make > that even worse. Yes, this is the part of my proposal with which I felt least comfortable. Actually, not to flog a dead horse or anything, this is a perfect application for semi-anonymous authentication. Anybody on the list could forward the mail, but nobody need know exactly who sent it. > Howabout someone liberates skipjack and forwards it to you via > remailers with $50 for your trouble. Do you bite? I thought not, NSA > interviews, ITAR violation, etc. Well, there are ways to do this. For instance, you can send it to a bunch of other people anonymously at, say, a dollar each. It will get around quickly, albeit at greater inconvenience and a higher cost. But, for something this important that would be acceptable. > Ecash for email works better to stop spam sent directly to email > addresses where you don't cash the money as a curtesy, and your > software junks if it doesn't have valid ecash. Email spam itself is > getting mildly annoying lately, I get a couple a day average at the > moment. Except most people don't have e-cash accounts, software that handles e-cash, or the interest in keeping a site which is secure enough to handle e-cash. This is the feature of having the remailer operator deal with it. The technology can be introduced to the existing system with minimal hassle and cost. All you need is one remailer operator to do it. Incidentally, a similar idea can be used to handle flooding attacks on remailers. A bad person could take down a remailer by directing many encrypted packets to it that did not contain any payment. This is hard to solve, of course, because the mail all comes from other remailers. The solution is for the remailer itself to not accept mail from other machines that do not pay. The other remailers in the network make a payment themselves (out of money they already received) to make it worthwhile for the remailer to look inside the message and see if there is even more business. Does anybody know if military communications systems ever take this approach? I know that a highly redundant network is used when any part of it can be taken out. What is awkward about this is that everybody wants to send messages at the very same time the bandwidth is attenuated; i.e., during battle. I'm guessing that in practice everybody in the network - all of whom are basically trusted and identifiable - is ordered to send only urgent traffic. But, it would be neat if there was a way to budget bandwidth for every unit, just like we do for ammunition. Peter

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:29 PM 11/15/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 4:46 PM -0800 11/14/96, I wrote: >>>On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote: > >>To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote: >> >>>Why? Are you a criminal? >>>What are you hiding behind your PGP? >> >>Okay, I'll bite. Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy >>is a criminal? Charlie McCarthy might have said that. > >You mean in his book "Crypto by Dummies"? > >Or were you perhaps thinking of Joe? > I was probably thinking of Joe. I keyed on McCarthy and Charlie was the first christian name to mind. I intended to give the name of the former Senator. I apologize for not checking the historical accuracy of the name I did use.

1 0

Re: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:38 PM 11/15/1996, Adam Back wrote: >Peter Hendrickson <ph(a)netcom.com> writes: >> However, if you restrict postings to an approved group of people, perhaps >> everybody on the mailing list, you can eliminate spam. How, then, do we >> allow anonymous postings to come through? Individual people on the list >> can receive the proposed post and forward it to the list if it is >> appropriate. They could even charge a fee for doing it. That's easy to >> do if there is a "paying" remailer which will handle the money for them. > Not necessarily a good idea. The post may be a hot potatoe, and the > forwarder may find themselves in legal trouble. (Say RC4 & RC2 source > code, NSA handbook, the results of the Mykotronic's dumpster diving > spree, etc). Exercising `editorial control' has landed some ISPs in > trouble, to the extent that some are specifically avoiding it for that > legal reason alone. Being _paid_ for forwarding the message may make > that even worse. > Often the posts which would get the anonymous poster (or the true name > forwarder) into the most troublle, are the ones which are most > interesting, and also very on topic. (In case you get this out of order, this is my second response.) Another way to have anonymous posting but not be subjected to spam and the like is to dispense tokens every week to the subscribers. They can be signed blindly so that anonymity is preserved, just like e-cash. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Crypto Chango
by P. J. Ponder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steps to changing US encryption policies: (Note, you must be logged in as US President for this to work.) 1. Try to bug everyone's phone and computer with special chips. 2. Get your butt kicked at and missed by technical weenies, and eventually stomped on by your own national research council. 3. Wait for Congress to show leadership. (Lose two turns if you actually thought they would do something.) (Return) 4. Try to tap everything without using any special chips. (Goto 2) 5. See if any other governments want you to be able to tap their stuff, too. 6. Try to tap everything with half the key tied behind your back when you start. (Goto 2) 7. Issue the new policies. Play Again [Y/N]? Michael Foomkin and John Young have links to the edict. You may try: <A HREF="http://www.jya.com/" <John Young (look under Crypto)</A> <A HREF="http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/" <Prof. Froomkin's Page[?]</A> please excuse the handmade-from-memory URLs above if they don't work. . . . a little snippet from the Internet Scout Report . . . New from Net Scout ------------------ 1. The Scout Toolkit Version 2.0 http://www.cs.wisc.edu/scout/toolkit/ http://wwwscout.cs.wisc.edu/scout/toolkit/ http://rs.internic.net/scout/toolkit/ The most trusted source for information on how to make the Internet work better for you is now available in extra strength. Version 2.0 of the Scout Toolkit debuts today, with a completely new interface, many new sections, and a focus on the future. In addition to the current awareness you've come to expect from Net Scout, we've added an increased emphasis on analysis and insight. Sections include: Searching the Internet, Latest Tools and Technologies, End User's Corner, Net Scout Sidekicks, a Selective Guide to Publications on the Internet, and Future Internet Directions. The new Toolkit is mirrored on three sites to allow Internauts unhindered access. . . . Copyright Susan Calcari, 1996. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of the Scout Report provided the copyright notice and this paragraph is preserved on all copies. The InterNIC provides information about the Internet to the US research and education community under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation: NCR-9218742. The Government has certain rights in this material. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Wisconsin - Madison, the National Science Foundation, AT&T, or Network Solutions, Inc. . . .

1 0

Re: The TRILATERAL COMMISSION -was: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:01 ðì 16/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: >> As regards the "gullibility", it's plainly dangerous; And cultivated >> by the Media, apparently stronger in the U.S. than in many other places. >> (written by E. Francis, on the "Trilateral Commission", and distributed >> to all members of his own -private- mailing list, of which I'm a part). >> >THE LAND OF SHADOWS >> > >> > Early this month is the last presidential=20 >> >"election" before the year 2000. As of this writing and=20 >> >long before, the election was decided in favor of Bill=20 >> >Clinton. It works out astrologically, but the real=20 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I think this just about says it all. A ha ha ha!!! ROTFL. You forget that Astrology is... unsuitable for gullible children. :-) > Go talk to Don Wood. Don't know who the hell Don Wood is. However, I bet you _also_ don't know who Mr. Stringas is. Well, he is the author of several books about his experience as a prominent C.I.A. official working for the Trilateral Commission, a former NATO official who acted as a "link" between the Athens government and Washington, and he also (at the age of 70+) doesn't give a damn about anyone putting a bullet in his head (or so he says) which is unlikely anyway since it would be too "obvious". Mr. Stringas is not the only one who wrote thousands of pages about the Trilateral Commission's activities and members (e.g. Clinton). However, you seem to dismiss well-known facts for the simple reason that they were originally posted by an astrologer (E. Francis) and apparently you believe astrologers are by nature non-credible. That's fine with me. As a highly analytical Virgo with Venus in Libra, I understand you very well. :-) I will reply with a real life JOKE, in this case: Two days ago I had a rather official meeting with some nice people with whom we negotiated a contract (of details irrelevant here). Carrying my notebook computer (as I always do) with several astrology programs inside it, I actually took it out and made a horoscope for my... lawyer, who ALSO happens to be a Virgo with Venus in Libra, and this was hilarious, since we _now_ understood our... similarities. Then a gentleman came into the room who remarked that Astrology is only suitable for loonies and gullible morons. He added that for these people, the Greek word "zodion" applies except without the 'd' and the 'i' in the 3rd and 4rth places inside the word 'zodion' ('Zodion' means 'Zodiac sign'). (If you delete those characters, you are left with the word 'Zoon' which means 'animal'). An astrologer friend of mine, also in the same room, immediately replied: Aha! But the way you phrased it, Sir, makes you surely a virgo, too; probably with a Virgo ascendant, I would say. The guy stared at us in terror. He WAS a Virgo, and had a Virgo ascendant, as he himself said. He promptly stopped talking and looked rather thoughtful... Perhaps a... coincidence? :-) Have fun (with astrology). George

1 0