December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

The product formerly known as VGP
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am just announcing that I am changing the name of my program, Very Good Privacy (distinct from Pretty Good Privacy) in response to a complaint from PGP, Inc. It was cool, though, because I got an e-mail message from Phil, which is akin to talking with God. Just to quell the trademark questions some people might have, a trademark violation is defined as something where there is a possibility of confusion with another product; as made obvious by the hundreds (literally) of messages I have received asking about the features of this new version of PGP (which it is not). I have not changed the name of the product on the web page, and will just post a notice of clarification until I think of a new name. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks. The product formerly known as VGP can be downloaded at: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 If you have any questions, please e-mail vgp(a)cryogen.com

5 4

Re: cypher-PUNKS...
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Tue Dec 10 17:03:21 1996 Dimitri hath written... (and the killfiles sang...) > > That charge is every bit as foundless as the charges that you are > > responsible for the "A Daily Warning Regarding Tim May" posts > > of a while back, or the current round of remailed messages featuring > > the sickeningly cutesy ASCII graphics at the bottom. > Tim must have been a heinous baby... I would call this a non sequitur, but I can honestly say that I have no idea what the hell that sentence is supposed to mean. > The real identities of people who use the "anonymous" remails to send > out "homophobic" or otherwise "politically incorrect" materials are > frequently disclosed on the "remailer-operators" mailing list. For > example: > > ]To: remailer-operators(a)c2.net > ]Someone who proports to be from ******************* is sending out a > ]huge spam/mailbomb right now. I suggest you sourceblock the prick > ]now. How did you translate "huge spam" into "homophobic"? Are you using the Windows translation of the Russian character set, or what? You are obviously seeing something that just ain't there. dave - ----- David E. Smith, P O Box 324, Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 dsmith(a)prairienet.org http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith send mail with subject of "send pgp-key" for my PGP public key "Remember: King Kong died for your sins" - Principia Discordia -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMq3sRnEZTZHwCEpFAQF7GAf+JvaozDbAgY+kXv2dhi8Z43i1XusRzRzK gvJmWF5gafgdxWyBiBxjuEYNdca24jreIVWG8YbSSauvl2xt4al/jzhGLoOcBAC1 7KwydcwaEn3p1vkRmp4rwT8gxQ/Nb68z1NYZzktBxl3/Evo2kgUCkVG6xpAUBixA LKKtMAmiZlqqiTYmB/Se+RMBPjhgiGsuAosca7S/Ia3m2f7mBmyKAB7khcbgHUJ8 ARr9zfj4+pykt9z0W6SCPlxMoXNzu1ozmmHIojDVMBSAY26reGNWkLclLSrOCzyU pktVLlVMyL95TKjXomByCuNC9Dp23wHmCBKQufNRQN70c87eIbh09A== =L6ZG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Secure Erase for PCs?
by John Fricker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter's paper is an interesting overview of data recovery technology. He does conclude that his 35 write regiment will overwrite all signals on hard disk media. It would seem that performing the 35 writes multiple times would yield an securely erased drive. Yet he clearly is not an expert in data recovery, is organizing others research, and does not provide evidence or tests for his postulates such as the need for a good PRNG. It would be quite interesting to send a disk off to a data recovery company after running through Peter's method with perhaps different parts of the disk treated differently. Also, the section on RAM talks about data persistance but does not cover recovery methods other than SRAM power up bias. Nor is the RAM section referenced. RAM is so active that it would seem little pertinent data could be recovered if any. So, in spite of not being an expert myself I am not convinced that any very well funded entity can recover data that has been overwritten an arbitrarily large number of times. Of course the relative value of my personal data is low and my level of paranoia follows. One can not be called reactionary by recommending a "no-trust" policy. Reading the paper reminds me how long ago it was that I studied the physics of microelectronic devices. Yow! >Bill Frantz (frantz(a)netcom.com) said >At 8:05 PM -0800 12/9/96, John Fricker wrote: >>> Though, technically, no disk can be securely erased, my program, >> >>Sure it can. Ten overwrites will rendered remnant data obscure. So says the >>electron microscope waving data recovery experts anyway. > >You should really check out Peter Gutmann's paper in the 1996 Usenix >Security Conference Proceedings. After reading it, I think you will come >to the conclusion that the only secure data destruction technique, against >a well-funded attacker, is destruction of the disk. I like thermite myself. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Bill Frantz | I still read when I should | Periwinkle -- Consulting >(408)356-8506 | be doing something else. | 16345 Englewood Ave. >frantz(a)netcom.com | It's a vice. - R. Heinlein | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA > --j --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ | John Fricker (jfricker(a)vertexgroup.com) | -random notes- | My PGP public key is available by sending | me email with subject "send pgp key". | www.Program.com is a good programmer web site. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

take me off the list, please!!!
by DWSKI1283＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please take me off the mailing list, i cant stand the petty bickering. What a waste, you guys spend all your time taking potshots at each other instead of really relevant issues. My sincere apologies to those not involved.

1 0

[CRYPTO] Sphere packings
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May's police record is many times longer than his prick (well, that's not hard). /\ __/__\__ | 00 | Timmy May |: \ :| | \_/| \__/

1 0

Apropros of labeling systems...
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yahoo has a Reuter's story covering a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics. They're concerned about record content description labels; they don't think their "strong" enough. If the industry does not develop a stronger voluntary system, it said, Congress should impose one. (I wonder if they really said that Congress should impose a stronger voluntary system?) I wonder when people will realize that the threat of Congress imposing a ratings system seems functionally equivalent to Congress imposing a ratings system? -- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com http://www.io.com/~m101 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

1 0

Re: Redlining
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:37 PM 12/10/1996, Jim Wise wrote: >On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote: > >> The logical implication here is that a thousand people "getting >> together" and doing something is no different in principle than one >> person doing that something. Not a valid implication, although the >> result is not necessarily false on a per-case basis. > >Actually, I think this is a very valid implication. One of the main >ways in which statist societies justify their restrictions on >individuals is by reifying large bodies of individuals and giving >them their own rights and responsibilities _as_a_seperate_entity_. >To speak of a mass of individuals, whether you call it a corporation, >a collective, or a government, as having a different set of rights >than the individuals who make it up, is the heart of statism. Naturally, I agree with Jim. To expand on his comments, if it is acceptable to lend your money to whomever you like, surely it must be acceptable to lend your money to other people on whatever terms you like. These terms could be "I will lend you this money on the condition that you lend it only to pure-blooded Albanians." The reason organizations are subjected to controls has only to do with what is feasible. The people who want to control these organizations would be quite happy to dictate to individuals what they may do with their money. Fortunately, this is not practical. Historically, many societies have not allowed the formation of organizations without governmental approval. For instance, in pre-Revolutionary France, it was not even possible to form a club without official sanction. The Monarchy made a major concession when it permitted the free formation of clubs. It may also have been a strategic blunder, as the clubs immediately became the focus of Revolutionary political activity. I believe that in many Medieval and Renaissance societies, even something as simple as a market could not be established without approval. One of the great ideas of the modern age is that people have the right to form organizations. It should probably be in the Bill of Rights. (We do have the right to "peaceably assemble", but that is not as general as the right to organize.) You are completely correct that control of human organizational activity is the hallmark of a totalitarian state. Back to redlining, it is typically minority groups which are the most prone to lending only to their own group. This has been said about Jewish people, although I haven't seen it in practice. (Perhaps this was true a few centuries ago?) An excellent modern example is the Korean-American community. There is a custom to form pools of capital between small numbers of friends, five would be a typical number. One friend is appointed to set up and run the business. There are very powerful social prohibitions against failure and consequent loss of capital. Very seldom is one of the group anything but Korean. My understanding is that this works quite well. It is hard to find anything objectionable in the practice. >> Ironically, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, hate, etc. are often >> judged by the public on a "gut level" as well. It's just a matter of >> how to "educate" the public to see these things. > >Exactly. Like most, I have a strongly visceral negative reaction to >bigotry. I wish there could be a system of law which contained it. >There cannot, or at least not without doing even more harm. But what is it that we want to make illegal? Bigotry is not a well defined term. Generally what we object to is people drawing the "wrong" conclusions about other groups of people. Certainly, we do not believe that we should dictate what conclusions people should draw, any more than we believe we should dictate what they may say. Do we then believe that we should outlaw the actions they take based on these beliefs? So long as the people in question are doing no harm, I propose we leave them alone to live their lives. Ironically, I have found that those who are most vocal on the subject of bigotry are most prone to it themselves. It isn't okay to make statements of your belief regarding Albanians - especially poor Albanians - but it is okay to make any statement about yuppies, preppies, geeks, nerds, Libertarians, Objectivists, or any other sort of approved "those people" groups. I'm sure many readers of this list have had conversations which abruptly end with "Are you a Libertarian?", which is generally completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. What is happening is that the other person is more interested in knowing your tribal identification than what you believe. A pity. Red Rackham

3 2

FW: Hoax: the "Deeyenda" virus (was ... VIRUS ALERT ...)
by Morbid Angel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

found in a Usenet posting: ----------------------------------- >From Melvin Klassen <KLASSEN(a)UVVM.UVIC.CA> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:00:00 PST Newsgroups: bit.listserv.help-net MIKE R BLAKE <> writes: >>> FYI... >>> **********VIRUS ALERT********** >>> There is a computer virus that is being sent across the Internet. If >>> you receive an email message with the subject line "Deeyenda", DO NOT >>> read the message, DELETE it immediately! Nonsense. Your message is a **HOAX** ! Instead, check the "Computer Virus Myths Home Page", and the specific page describing "Deeyenda", at: http://www.kumite.com/myths/myth027.htm >>> FCC WARNING!!!!! -----DEEYENDA PLAGUES INTERNET The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) does not issue such messages. It's not part of their mandate to do such. -- returning to lurk mode...

1 0

Virus?
by Aaron Burnett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anybody heard of the Monkey_B virus? If so what does it do exactly? Also does anybody know where I could find a downloadable Win95 upgrade upgrading Windows 3.x to Win95?

1 0

Are accountants smart or stupid?
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

xx

1 0