December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Ma Bell
by LoRd oRiOn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This may not have to do with you guys..but I have a question...why do Telco people and the government blame us hackers for costing them billions of dollars a year to fix the security holes that they have??? Instead of charging us with felony's and with money they should thank us and/or hire us to find thier holes and fix them!! I don't like to screw Ma Bell..but she does have to lighten up. --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Ethnic origins of the ASALA/Earthweb terrorist Ray Arachelian
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

]Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970111192414.006a29c0(a)pop.netaddress.com> ]X-Sender: iverson(a)pop.netaddress.com (Unverified) ]X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) ]Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:28:56 -0500 ]To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) ]From: Casey Iverson <iverson(a)usa.net> ]Subject: Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ] ]At 03:28 PM 1/11/97 EST, you wrote: [about the ufh.wirenet.net mailbomber terrorist] ]>This is the jerk responsible for the mail loop last Xmas, which the Armenian ]>liar Ray Arachelian tried to blame on me. ] ]This probably won't penetrate your sick mind but the fact is that Ray ]Arachelian is *not* an an Armenian. ] ]OTOH *you* are a lying, vicious, sick, perverted, homophobic Russian scumbag. Ray "Arsen" Arachelian admitted being an Armenian. You can complain about his net-abuse to his boss <jack(a)earthweb.com>. In the words of the Russian-Scottish poet Mikhail Lermontov, "Ty rab, tu trus, ty armyanin." ASALA is the terrorist Armenian organization responsible for the murders of dozens of Turkish diplomats and civilians. No wonder they want to use strong crypto to cover up their terrorist acts.

1 0

Re: Private Idaho source code now available
by Lou Zirko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lucifer(a)dhp.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sun Jan 12 00:08:20 1997 It is just a front end for PGP. It requires that you have PGP installed in order to make use of its encryptiom services. There should be no export controls. Lucifer says: > > My understanding is that Private Idaho uses PGP internally > and provides the same functionality as premail, with an > easier to use GUI. > > Given that, it would still be export controlled, since it > enables cryptography. That is why Raph doesn't allow export of premail. > > Lou Zirko (502)499-8729 Zystems lzirko(a)c2.org "We're all bozos on this bus" - Nick Danger, Third Eye -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 iQEVAwUBMth/4MtPRTNbb5z9AQF62wf/anuZ3p8CHhnYGQhVkQXyT4zUppF2gc5H PyJJcXp1C2wMyw2INKBEHvjUGvtSkXXW2GOZaEgeUKR0rsmCSGqgtd9mrx0JZE/Y ue3g8EtaqiezUNsTq7ElNK1v0AW3b6/eIWFvG55dzEP5l2yOCD0Um+wa09Xh6YMY VsQJw32vnnxCroM/gPFqbtyhTw/F+oGOSCCxa8W8QGrtpWan3awMvavlhhSGrBDt elMRH+L03PebhJxajnLSz9+A5x0W+3rTzW+G8KUGDBqG/7DEppw7eltBw6K55LxJ IgTOi0kUbz9k9IsXG3HN9RPsJTGII4/UlrXJv05tpO1Qsihu0cln8Q== =j5i+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RSA over Rubics cube?
by cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just for fun, not that I am sugesting it as a serious encryption method, but has anyone tried exponetion cyphers on the group defined by the Rubics cube? :)

3 2

Re: IMDMP 8192 PKCS and IMDMP Summary
by Three Blind Mice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 DataETRsch(a)aol.com wrote: > include a public key cryptosystem. However, on March 1st, 1997, new versions > of UDCM and IMDMP will be released that do support the public key > cryptosystem method. The future versions will also support multi-party key Oh, so you're just going to fix up your program a little bit, and immediately your private key system will turn into a public key system? Are you sure you read A.C. and didn't just look at the pictures? > algorithms, as well as 1024 (8192 bit) keys. Note that the current version of > IMDMP only allows 256 byte (1024) bit keys. The current shareware version and I'm beginning to see this <insert long acronym here> as being a variation on XOR. > the UDCM V2.0 software package / archive. UDCM V2.0 was modified to restrict > keys to 50 bits so as to comply with the latest ITAR details. The extensively The amazing shrinking key... pretty soon we'll have 1 bit keys, and they'll have to be registered with this company for ITAR compliance. ;) > methods are not too comparable to PKCS methods. What I was referring to when > I said IMDMP is more advanced than RSA, etc. is the actual encryption > procedure itself, not the way keys are secured. Again, irrashional claims Says who? You? Hahahahahaha. > were not intended at all. The amount of analytical research invested in IMDMP > was thought to be sufficient. So a cryptosystem that's been in existence for an entire eleven days (you said it was created January 1, 1997) has had "sufficient" "analytical research invested"? My, you ARE clueless. > AND-ing algorithm without trying it first. I find it extremely hard to > believe that the celebrated creator(s) of Blowfish, IDEA, etc. had to go > through all of this ritualistic screening complexity too. (Please do correct > me if I am wrong.) You're right, they didn't. It's because they published code first and then asked for review. They didn't try to make a profit on an operating system-specific piece of pre-compiled code before explaining the system and giving full details. > (For the record: DataET Research's promotional agent has been fired.) Then why are you still posting? > UDCMV20.ZIP is currently unavailable on the web site as the software is > undergoing additional security modifications. You mean you're changing XOR to AND? > structuring. Sub-algorithms of IMDMP are basically additional applications of > one or more of the aforesaid techniques. SUB encrypt1 'Super secret encryption routine SHARED text_to_encrypt$ text_to_encrypt$ = "[SECRET]" + text_to_encrypt$ + "[SECRET]" END SUB (Will you sue me for copyright infringement now? I bet it looks identical to your code -- and in the same language, too.) --3bmice

2 1

Re: John, Sandy & the Dr. DV K Conspiracy Theory
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone writes: > Dr. Vulis, > A lot of things surrounding the upcoming 'moderation' of the > CypherPunks list just don't seem to add up. If you think their agenda is what I think it is, then it all adds up. ... > some interesting algorithms clicked into place in regard to the > grand 'moderation' experiment about to befall the CypherPunks. > > I thought about the fact that you pissed the elite de la elite > of the CypherPunks off to the extent that they shit in their own > back yard--ie. these supreme libertarians unSCUMscribed you from > the C'punks list. > They did exactly what every people's-defender/hidden-dictator > has done from the beginning of time. They pointed their righteous > libertarian fingers at a source of great evil which everyone must > be protected from--you. (The reason 'pointing' is so important > is so that those too dim to 'recognize' who their enemy is, will > be able to 'stay with the concept' while they explain it.) > So now we have: > Ronald RayGun -----> Commies / The Red Menace > George Bush -----> Saddam / The Mother of All Evil > John Gilmore ----> Dr. DV K / The Spamming Homophobe > > John was very eloquent in defining the 'threat' that you > represent, and the 'abuse' that you represent, and, suddenly, > there are a few good sheep saying, "By gosh, by golly, you're > right. Now that you've pointed out that I'm being wrongly > abused by this man, I see it all clearly now. Thank you for > saving me." > Unfortunately, there were also those who didn't go for the > 'feint', and posted missives simply stating, "Excuse me, John, > nice try, but you've got some shit sticking to your shoe, there, > despite your self-serving explaination of your actions." > ('I' don't have a 'personal' problem with the doc, I'm doing > this for the good of 'everybody'.) > > I suppose that might have been the end of it, had you gone > quietly into the night. But, 'double' unfortunately, you hardly > seemed to break stride in continuing to participate in the > CypherPunk list. > So, now, after taking a 'firm hand' in 'saving' the CypherPunks > from the Evil Dr. Vulis, Big John finds himself being ridiculed > and laughed at for his ineffective and ineffectual public beheading > of the 'enemy of the people'. > Suddenly, however, out of the blue, comes the answer to his > prayers--a 'bigger' threat. CypherPunks is deluded with a > mountain of email from 10,000 Laker's fans named Bubba. A genuine > 'outside' spam attack, pissing everyone off. Then, a rash of > 'Make $$$Money$$$ Fast' probing actions from 'more' outsiders. So far, so good. Unfortunately mail loops happen every once in a while. What was unusual about the one this list had about Xmastime was that a) Ray Arachelian "officially" accused me of being responsible for it, and this lie has not been retracted by him or Gilmore or anyone. b) the poster responsible for the maling loop (ufh.wirenet.net) just posted a rant in favor of moderation. > This time, John insulates himself with his 'front' man. The > 'done-deal' announcement starts, "SANDY and I..." With, of > course, the standard govt-line, blah, blah, 'your input', blah, > blah. > > And, this time, the 'rubes' come out of the woodwork like flies > on shit. > Suddenly, we have people giving a 'Vote of confidence..." > HOLD IT!!! > Nobody is 'voting', you stupid bastards. Read John and Sandy's > lips...there 'is' no vote. You were 'told' what they are going > to do, and you were 'told' that your preferences for the color > of Vaseline they will use will be 'considered'. > Do the words 'denial' and 'self-delusion' set off any bells > and whistles here? > > At this very moment, in small rooms around the world, the > heads of clandestine agencies are shouting at their people, > "Why can't 'you' imbeciles pull off an operation like this?" > > Notice, please, that John and Sandy have remained above the > fray. They have been content, until very recently, to let the > dogs tear at each other's throats (and let the 'voters' take > part in self-delusional schemes and scenarios, constructing > 'moderation systems' in-the-sky). > And now Sandy begins to step in, replying only to his > 'supporters' (like a 'staged' political rally), gracefully > accepting their kudos in his assumption of benevolent > dictatorship. (Complete with assurances that there is no > 'enemies list'.) Too bad some hooligans break the ranks to shout to Dale: "Soon Sandy will shut you up!" > If anyone had written up, a few weeks ago, a scenario such > as this and posted it to the list, he would have been laughed > out of cyberspace. > But today, it is a reality, and more--a 'classic' operation > that will go down in history as a maneuver that ranks with > the best of socio/political coups. I think Gilmore's pretty transparent. Gilmore is running for the Internet Soviet [Council] right now, so he doesn't want his lies and hypocricy exposed on his own private forum. ObModeratorFodder: I hope cocksuckers Gilmore and Sandfart give each other AIDS --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

3 4

Re: Private Idaho source code now available
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:35 PM 1/11/97 -0500, Anonymous wrote: >Joel McNamara says: >> Private Idaho 2.8b3, a bug fix version of the popular Windows freeware PGP >> and remailer utility, is now available. This will be my last official >> release of PI for the foreseeable future. >> >> Due to other projects and new directions, I haven't been able to spend as >> much time as I'd like coding and supporting Private Idaho. Instead of >> seeing it die on the vine, I've decided to release the source code under >> the GNU General Public License (export disclaimer - the sources do not >> include, or have ever contained, cryptographic algorithms). > > My understanding is that Private Idaho uses PGP internally >and provides the same functionality as premail, with an >easier to use GUI. > > Given that, it would still be export controlled, since it >enables cryptography. That is why Raph doesn't allow export of premail. The "enables cryptography" thing just doesn't cut it. A computer "enables cryptography" to a person without a computer. The MSDOS operating system "enables cryptography" to a person with a computer but without an OS. A hard disk with a filesystem "enables cryptography" by providing an intermediate data storage location (and format) for encrypted and unencrypted data, as well as the encryption program. Even a modem program or mail program "enables cryptography", or at least enables the transmission of encrypted data, etc. Apparently, the phrase "enable cryptography" is either just about meaningless, or is so broad as to be not usable to determine which items are exportable and which aren't. How about narrowing it down a bit? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: What!
by Murple 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Excuse me? > > What is faulty about IMDMP? > > - Jeremy > The only people who can answer that question are you and the good people at DataET Research, the reason being that you are the only people who know what IMDMP is. A more appropriate question would be 'What is faulty about UDCM?' The problem is that to us, UDCM is like a 'black box' - we put data in, and data comes out, but we have no understanding of what goes on to produce the data which comes out. IMDMP could well be more secure than all the cryptographic algorithms in use today, but it could just as easily have huge security holes which we may never know about, or at least not until it is too late. The difference between this and public algorithms such as IDEA, is that we can obtain source code, descriptions, comments, and often detailed analyses of these algorithms, and we can decide for ourselves whether we want to entrust our privacy to them. With UDCM, and hence IMDMP, this is simply not possible, and this is where I believe you have gone wrong. Brian Herlihy

1 0

New Win95 PGP Program
by CVHD 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone taken a look at the "Lock and Key" program for Win95/PGP? It can be found at : http://www.voicenet.com/~wheindl/lock&key.htm I was wondering if there were any inherent problems using a program like this inside Win95 what with the swap-virtual memory files. TIA for any comments Regards from the, Computer Virus Help Desk http://www.indyweb.net/~cvhd

1 0

Re: Free money, 3
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Mr. Anonymous, Thank you very much for the free money. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Yours Truly, The Shadow

1 0