December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Encryption to the poors
by Fuck＠yourself.up 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: Fuck(a)yourself.up >Subject: Encryption to the poors > >Hey, i can doit to... >RareTrip >-------------------------------------->>CLIP<<--------------- >begin 644 greets.com >MZPJ\3"<!40)2`98#OB8!B_Z+#@@!BQ8"`;AW`5#\K3/"JXO0XOA_R+8/>XT/ >M1XQW]#?&_D'\#TT,O5EX4\U\2(T/1XQ_]#^%K7]5@X4(__&!A@&4%7LJ14C1 >MWN^D>Z/9Y!C\43_,RS"R5JI(@ERBOU?^"/4G"@'KL`)-Z+!_-``N``!V`%P` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M``````````````````````"_:KW4:+S3"[GUK,(a)^GMM)2PCU4;N[^!MY.WDX >M>3A'\7022H4*2[_!('<KN[XZ>1IT,KFI"+N\3WEOOTR;:NFS3PY'N^/S49B[ >MWCIY&GD.>0Y!)RX'*Q\M'VD@=U:[PQMY.W0FN;T$N[!/>6^_!\HG^S**B5R[ >M6""_#L83>1V_"/GQ^<C&47E@>1]Y'WD8>1AY;E^97\PZ!"P?*1<O%VD@=RN[ >MOCIY&B:W7ZT.,;O'('D8#E.XIR._(<@,N[@Z>1IY;7EM#-@Z&`1=D@X`LG<: >M``````````````````````````````````!7:0D<-V]S```````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M````ZE>_5KA6N,<%>O![L,00@V#58Q(1I+[3#@`_\LDK`.A9@;#XZ,8!OOSR >G6$NDN+L`N[D`N;H`NKT`O;X`OK\`OPX?``"RX4-!_[[X_A\JY]<` >` >end >-------------------------------------->>CLIP<<--------------- >

1 0

Encryption to the poors
by Fuck＠yourself.up 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: Fuck(a)yourself.up >Subject: Encryption to the poors > >Hey, i can doit to... >RareTrip >-------------------------------------->>CLIP<<--------------- >begin 644 greets.com >MZPJ\3"<!40)2`98#OB8!B_Z+#@@!BQ8"`;AW`5#\K3/"JXO0XOA_R+8/>XT/ >M1XQW]#?&_D'\#TT,O5EX4\U\2(T/1XQ_]#^%K7]5@X4(__&!A@&4%7LJ14C1 >MWN^D>Z/9Y!C\43_,RS"R5JI(@ERBOU?^"/4G"@'KL`)-Z+!_-``N``!V`%P` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M``````````````````````"_:KW4:+S3"[GUK,(a)^GMM)2PCU4;N[^!MY.WDX >M>3A'\7022H4*2[_!('<KN[XZ>1IT,KFI"+N\3WEOOTR;:NFS3PY'N^/S49B[ >MWCIY&GD.>0Y!)RX'*Q\M'VD@=U:[PQMY.W0FN;T$N[!/>6^_!\HG^S**B5R[ >M6""_#L83>1V_"/GQ^<C&47E@>1]Y'WD8>1AY;E^97\PZ!"P?*1<O%VD@=RN[ >MOCIY&B:W7ZT.,;O'('D8#E.XIR._(<@,N[@Z>1IY;7EM#-@Z&`1=D@X`LG<: >M``````````````````````````````````!7:0D<-V]S```````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M````ZE>_5KA6N,<%>O![L,00@V#58Q(1I+[3#@`_\LDK`.A9@;#XZ,8!OOSR >G6$NDN+L`N[D`N;H`NKT`O;X`OK\`OPX?``"RX4-!_[[X_A\JY]<` >` >end >-------------------------------------->>CLIP<<--------------- >

1 0

Encryption to the poors
by Fuck＠yourself.up 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: Fuck(a)yourself.up >Subject: Encryption to the poors > >Hey, i can doit to... >RareTrip >-------------------------------------->>CLIP<<--------------- >begin 644 greets.com >MZPJ\3"<!40)2`98#OB8!B_Z+#@@!BQ8"`;AW`5#\K3/"JXO0XOA_R+8/>XT/ >M1XQW]#?&_D'\#TT,O5EX4\U\2(T/1XQ_]#^%K7]5@X4(__&!A@&4%7LJ14C1 >MWN^D>Z/9Y!C\43_,RS"R5JI(@ERBOU?^"/4G"@'KL`)-Z+!_-``N``!V`%P` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M``````````````````````"_:KW4:+S3"[GUK,(a)^GMM)2PCU4;N[^!MY.WDX >M>3A'\7022H4*2[_!('<KN[XZ>1IT,KFI"+N\3WEOOTR;:NFS3PY'N^/S49B[ >MWCIY&GD.>0Y!)RX'*Q\M'VD@=U:[PQMY.W0FN;T$N[!/>6^_!\HG^S**B5R[ >M6""_#L83>1V_"/GQ^<C&47E@>1]Y'WD8>1AY;E^97\PZ!"P?*1<O%VD@=RN[ >MOCIY&B:W7ZT.,;O'('D8#E.XIR._(<@,N[@Z>1IY;7EM#-@Z&`1=D@X`LG<: >M``````````````````````````````````!7:0D<-V]S```````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >M````ZE>_5KA6N,<%>O![L,00@V#58Q(1I+[3#@`_\LDK`.A9@;#XZ,8!OOSR >G6$NDN+L`N[D`N;H`NKT`O;X`OK\`OPX?``"RX4-!_[[X_A\JY]<` >` >end >-------------------------------------->>CLIP<<--------------- >

1 0

Anonymous hate mail from John Gilmore, his friends, and lovers
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

More shit from some "cypher punk" asshole: >Received: (from daemon@localhost) by abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (8.7.5/local) id RAA17454 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:14:06 -0800 >Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:14:06 -0800 >Message-Id: <199612170114.RAA17454(a)cypherpunks.ca> >To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com >From: nobody(a)cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald, a remailer node) >Comments: There is _no way_ to determine the originator of this message. > If you wish to be blocked from receiving all mail from the remailer > network, send your request to the <remailer-operators(a)c2.org> > mailing list. The operator of this particular node can be > reached at <remailer-admin(a)cypherpunks.ca>. >References: <2Js2yD23w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> > >Could you please stop wasting the time of cypherpunks with your stupid >vendettas? Your posts are consistently a stupid waste of time. "Cypher punks" have no life.

1 0

RE: Securing ActiveX.
by Blake Coverett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim McCoy wrote: > The other problem is that the proposed Authenticode system and other "signed > applet" systems only provide accountability after the fact. This is little > help when your hard drive is toast and the only proof you had was a logfile > which was the first thing erased... No, it's not really the accountability that's the issue. It's the ability to choose before the fact that I 'trust' the software's author. > The illusion that only "trusted software > puslishers" will be given blanket authorization is a pipe dream: users are > sheep who will hit that "OK" dialog box as many times as necessary to get the > tasty treat they are anticipating (and there is actual experimental evidence > to back this up :) Yup, point well taken. <story user=clueless>I popped into an empty users cube last week to borrow the phone. On the monitor was a post-it note from one of his co-workers that read, 'Please write your password here:' and of course the helpful fellow had done just that.</story> With real users I suspect only centrally administered security decisions that they can't override will be effective. Hmm... wonder what I can retrofit into IE to accomplish that. > I expect that the first post-Authenticode ActiveX virus > will be one to modify the signature checking routines or add additional keys > to the registry which makes the second round of the attack appear to be a > valid OS update from Microsoft. Shh... we have enough kool dewds floating around here looking for ideas. > The state of the art was up to it quite a while ago. Check out KeyKOS and > other OSes which use capability semantics for access control. I agree 100%. The intent of my comments was that such security *is* possible, but it's not available in widely deployed mass-market OS's. I'd love to hear feedback to the contrary, but it seems to me that it's extremely difficult to layer that type of security onto an existing system. -Blake (who's thinking about putting crazy glue into one user's floppy drive)

3 2

ElGamal
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May is widely recognized on the net, because of his frequent vitriolic postings, as someone/thing ready to cut off his own penis to spite the testicles, although his friends recognize him better from the rear. __o _ \<_ Tim May (_)/(_)

1 0

RE: !! Point 'n Crypt -- Win95 Privacy for Everyone !!
by Walt Armour 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Security through obscurity is no security at all. As for PnC (actually, the scCryptoEngine beneath it), we get the 40 bits from the 56 bits by nulling out the high nybble of every other byte. walt ---------- From: Peter Trei[SMTP:trei@process.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 1996 2:02 AM To: walt(a)blarg.net; cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: RE: !! Point 'n Crypt -- Win95 Privacy for Everyone !! > From: Walt Armour <walt(a)blarg.net> > To: "'Matthew Ghio'" <ghio(a)myriad.alias.net> > Cc: "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> > Subject: RE: !! Point 'n Crypt -- Win95 Privacy for Everyone !! > Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:30:23 -0800 > There is no arguing that 40 bits is strong security. I agree with that. [...] Would you mind telling us just how you expand the 40 key to the 56 bits needed for DES? (Security through obscurity has a bad rep on this list). For many methods of doing so, 40bit DES is NOT secure against a motivated individual's attack. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Re: ASM vs portable code [WAS: Re: Java DES breaker?]
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 21:28:46 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >> Averaging several runs: >> "C": 102,300 crypts/sec >> ASM: 238,000 crypts/sec >Someone on this list should know if it is possible to maximize speed in >a typical 'C' routine, using Register variables (particularly for loops), >inlining everything possible, etc., to get executable code much closer >than a factor of 2x difference. Can it be done on a PC, and how hard >would it be to explain, to cover a representative variety of techniques? A good optimizing compiler comes _close_ to hand coded, especially with the many new concerns on Pentium+ processors (pipeline optimization, fpu tricks, etc). # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

permanent invasion of privacy
by attila＠primenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'll pass the article along... I'm not sure I wish to even comment on the two social worker do-gooders who are proposing [and have legislation introduced] something worse than Hillary's "It take a global village" other than $E^&*&@!!! the absolute ultimate on invasion of privacy imaginable. might as well add this one to: "...they get my weapon, still smoking, from my cooling hand." or maybe: "54-40 or fight" needless to say, any member of the cypherpunk list would be an automatic loser in this game of life. I for one believe ability and drive is signicifantly more genetics than social environment. -attila == I'll get a life when it is proven and substantiated to be better than what I am currently experiencing. --attila ************** forwarded article **************** LICENSING PARENTS REVISITED The December 1996 edition of the journal Society contains a symposium on the subject of "Licensing Parents" -- a totalitarian proposal with which regular readers of The New American may be familiar. (See "Whose Child Is This?" in our November 28, 1994 issue and "Are You Fit to Be a Parent? in our January 23, 1995 issue.) Included in the symposium were Dr. Jack C. Westman of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, author of Licensing Parents: Can We Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect? and Professor David T. Lykken of the University of Minnesota, author of The Antisocial Personalities. Westman and Lykken are the most prominent advocates of a system of parental licensure in which parents would have to be certified "competent" by the government before being permitted to raise a child. In his Society essay, Lykken writes, "I will testify in support of a parental licensure bill to be introduced at the next session of the Minnesota State Legislature. The only sanction proposed in this bill for unlicensed parents who produce a child is periodic visits by child- protection caseworkers who will do an annual audit of each child's physical, social, and educational progress." However, Lykken asserts, "Minnesotans and their legislative representatives will [eventually] recognize the need to take one further step. That step, I suggest, should be to take custody of babies born to unlicensed mothers, before bonding occurs, and to place them for adoption or perma- nent care by professionally trained and supervised foster parents." Nor is this the last step that Lykken would take toward the abolition of parental authority by the state. The December 17, 1994 Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported, "Under Lykken's system, if children were born to un- licensed parents, the state would intervene immediately. Licenses would be checked in hospital maternity wards. Unlicensed parents would lose their children permanently. Adoptions would be final and irreversible." Furthermore, according to Lykken, "Repeat offenders might be required to submit to an implant of Norplant [a surgical contra- ceptive] as a way to keep them from having another baby for five years." Source: Insider Report, p.12 The New American December 23, 1996

1 0

Re: KRA_gak
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:50 AM 12/13/96 -0500, John Young wrote: > 12-12-96 > "High-Tech Leaders to Facilitate Recovery of Encrypted > Information Globally. Key Recovery Alliance Welcomes 29 > New Members" > The key recovery alliance has more than tripled its membership > and identified its charter objectives. > + expediting the widespread, global use of strong encryption > + evaluating technologies that are flexible and scaleable to meet > various changing commercial needs and policies > + promoting interoperability between different key recovery and > non-key recovery solutions > + defining a commercial infrastructure for worldwide development > of strong encryption > + maximizing security for business While this will, of course, be obvious to those frequenting CP, notice a curious fact here: The commentary above refers to the organization as a "Key Recovery Alliance." Well, one might normally expect that organizations are usually named based on their primary raison d'etre. Yet, the objectives listed above clearly do not require, or even desire, "Key Recovery." Quite the opposite, in fact. If there was any need to demonstrate the illegitimacy of this arrangement to the press or public, you need merely show that the people and organizations participating in it don't even consider the goal implicit in the name to be a desireable outcome. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0