December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Newt's phone calls
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 07:59:24 -0800 (PST) > From: Brian Lane <nexus(a)eskimo.com> > To: Eric Murray <ericm(a)lne.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Newt's phone calls > On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Eric Murray wrote: > > > Clay Olbon II writes: > > > > > > The congressman (Boehner? from Ohio) whose cellphone was "eavesdropped" > > > stated today that he was parked in the lot of a Waffle House in Lake City > > > FL. The couple said that they just happened to be driving by when they > > > overheard and began taping the conversation. > > > > Interesting. In California, operating a scanner while driving is illegal. > > Of course it was probably the passenger running the scanner. > > Actually in Florida its illegal to even have a scanner in your car! > These folks have broken several state and federal laws, as well as the > congressman who leaked it to the newspapers instead of turning it over to > the head of the Ethics committe as he should have. Everyone involved here > is, or should be, in deep yogurt. > > I don't like the laws they passed, but since they passed them I want to > see them enforce them to the full extent posible. Then maybe people will > start to wonder why the transmission wasn't encrypted. Which also leads to > another question. How much information is in the clear from congressmen > and government employees who are clueless about the security of their > cellphones, cordless phones, etc? > Brian I don't know about Florida, but in most states with anti-scanner-in-car bans, there's an exception for FCC licensed Amateur Radio Operators (aka 'hams'). Peter Trei N1MNV trei(a)process.com

1 0

Re: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> And how come Paul didn't use the word "fuck" in every paragraph, the way > he usually does? I suppose you want a special censored list where everyone who uses the word "fuck" in relation to your good self or any other member of this list you agree with has their posting cut? Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

2 1

auto-reply to your request...
by usteam1＠tech-center.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Recently this E-mail address was provided to one of our sites >autoresponders and activated this auto reply. In order to >accurately provide you with the correct information we need you >to help us by specifying what information you were interested in. >Below you will find seven(7) items to select from. Please select >which choice(s) match your needs and type its keyword in either > the subject area or the message area of your reply to us at: >>>> usteam(a)tech-center.com (***Note: If you need to >choose more than one(1) keyword, please use a separate line >for each keyword you choose). Thank You for your request! >........................................................................................................... > > (1) Keyword: INFO-ALL >*Obtain Information on ALL selections/software/ services > offered below (on choices #2 thru #6). > > (2) Keyword: FREE-EMAIL >*How To get this FREE software,for your home or business, > No Internet access needed. It's 100% FREE! > > (3) Keyword: FREE-PAGER >*How you can obtain one or more Pagers FREE for > your personal or business use. > > (4) Keyword: PAGER-BIZ >*How You Can Get PAID To Give Away FREE PAGERS. > 10% of the monthly paging service fees for the life of the customers. > > (5) Keyword: LONG-DISTANCE >*How you can SAVE $$$ on your home or business Long Distance > with a FLAT RATE per minute plan (Average Savings $120 Annually > for residential customers). Also info on Unlimited Internet Access for > (home & business) for One Low FLAT RATE. (Business Internet has > FREE 5 MB file space for your Web Site, 150 word classified ad, > listing in all major search engines & more); cellular; Pre-paid calling > cards & other telecommunication products & services. > > (6) Keyword: TELECOM-BIZ >*How To Get PAID To 10% of EACH Customers Long Distance bill, > Internet services & All Telecom products/services, you refer & they > refer (NO Limits!) (FREE to become a marketer and/ or a customer). > > (7) Keyword: REMOVE >*If we've responded to an Incorrect E-mail address, due to a typing > error, which occurs by the requesting party; or you've changed your > mind & do not want our FREE Information, we will Remove & > unsubscribe you from our database; Nothing further is sent to you. > >End message<

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Krenn wrote: > >> But wait - won't the all-important "did you pack your bags yourself" and >> "did anyone give you bags to take on the plane" stop them? ;-) > > If your friends or family are a little late catching the same plane as >yourself, then just answer, "No, my son packed them." > This, on the average, gives your companions an extra 10-15 minutes >to catch the plane, since regulations require them to do a complete >check of your baggage (and they are 'supposed' to take them to a >secure area to do so). > Since you are ready to board the plane they cannot legally detain >you and let the plane go on, in order to process you and your >baggage according to proper regulatory procedure. They must, >instead, detain the plane. > They may jump up and down and tell you this is not so, but I have >never missed a plane, and neither have most of my tardy companions. I don't know which airlines you fly, but the ones I am familiar with ask these questions at the baggage counter (checked luggage) and gate (carry-on items). Since you are supposed to be at the airport one hour before departure, in most instances if you get to the counter or gate less than 10 minutes before take-off your reservations lapse (by Fed rules) and are no longer requred to board you. If they are forced to search you luggage they will, legally, allow the plane to depart w/o you. -- Steve

2 1

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:42 AM 1/15/97 -0800, Alan Bostick wrote: >Was he wearing a ID badge with a photo? Was he known to the security >staff? I would assume the staff knew the person. But that's not the point. The beer delivery man could hardly know what was in the kegs. The kegs might have been switched beforehand. In the warehouse, at a previous stop, etc. An attacker might have to replace several kegs, to make sure that at least one altered keg makes it inside the "secure" area. This can be done quite easily. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by ed.falk＠Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> As most readers probably know, laptops are often subject to manual > scrutiny. From my non-representative sample, about four out of five tote > bags clearly containing laptops will be manually searched. Typically, the > attendant requires that the laptop is powered up. In none of the 20+ manual > searches I witnessed did the security personnel wait past the RAM check > before clearing the passenger. I could not help but contemplate how much of > the insides of the laptop could be replaced while still obtaining an > identical display. Almost all of them. I saw the keyboard of an IBM thinkpad flipped up at a party the other day and was flabbergasted. It's all empty space! You can add & remove innards all you want. Disk drives, batteries, etc. are all removable. The actual computer itself is so tiny I couldn't believe it. You could pull out the CD-rom, floppy disk, spare battery, etc. and have a nearly empty box that still runs windows and unix.

1 0

Careful with subkeys - Re: Hi again, and an invitation to kibitz
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Amanda Walker wrote: > I'm considering DES-EDE (the easy option), Blowfish (also pretty easy), > or the DES variant Bruce Schneier describes in Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed. > (the one with independent subkeys). This might be a bad idea. Rumor has it that independent subkeys are eaten alive by related-key attacks (not very practical usually). I think I saw this in a post by Matt Blaze about last November on coderpunks. That post suggested 2 key schedule strategies: 1) planned, like DES, by people who know how a particular schedule affects related-key attacks 2) scrambled, like Turtle & Blowfish, so that key bits all depend on each other in a messy way I mark the margin of my AC book with snippets like this. I don't seem to have kept the post in question. -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Re: Seen Your Post!
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:17 AM 1/15/97 -0800, Garry wrote: >I Seen Your Post! > >I found your post in one of my favorite news groups. You might find my views >are exactly the same. In fact my entire WebSite is right up that alley. >Every business Opportunity listed at my sight is FREE! In fact one of the >businesses I joined (again free) has an excellent earning potential of >over $600 profit per YEAR, per CUSTOMER! The best part is don't do anything >except promote the business. The company does everything for me!!! Although >I do not have anything against MLM, this is not! Anyone else ever listen to Paul Harvey? Anyone else know what it is like to realize that you are listening to an ad halfway through the ad? I hope that our moderator will judge posts on the total content, otherwise insidious little posts like this one may slip through.

3 2

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:42 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 10:23 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >>As most readers probably know, laptops are often subject to manual >>scrutiny. From my non-representative sample, about four out of five tote >>bags clearly containing laptops will be manually searched. > >It's extremely airport, guard, and moon-phase dependent. >Some places are real picky, some aren't. I've started following >someone's advice about having the laptop go through vertically; >it doesn't look like a big opaque block to them, and they can see >the rest of the stuff. When I tried it in Orlando, they said >"It has to go through lying down", ran it back through lying down, >said "Computer", I said "Yup", and they handed it to me :-) So, to successfully place a "package" on an international flight, take a connecting flight that hooks up at the same terminal. Go to your local "has no x-ray, doing well to have a metal detector" airstrip and take a flight on one of the commuter flights such as Eagle, (this way you might be lucky enough to enter the next, probably major airport, in the same terminal as some international flights.) Now, its presumed that you have already been searched at your last stop because you're already in the secured area. Such a plan would require multiple stops and homework into the layout of the airports (to know which airlines share the same terminals). Also, the bag would have to be a carry-on, otherwise the dogs would get it. BTW, the package could be just about anything, including chemicals, sarin, TNT, artifacts, human tissue, or anything else with export controls and being a physical substance. This post is not meant to suggest ways of breaking state, federal, or international laws. Merely to point out the weaknesses of the system as it stands. If the airport network was a computer network, it would be compromized inside of 48 hours. All because the level of trust between airports defaults to full. Correct me if I'm wrong.

3 2

Dick Graves continues his DOS attack
by varange＠crl.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Dick Graves continues his DOS attack > The appended messages from Howard Goldstein > <hgoldste(a)bbs.mpcs.com>, Stan Kalisch III <sjkiii(a)crl.com>, > Chris Lewis <clewis(a)ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, Eric Bohlman > <ebohlman(a)netcom.com>, trebor(a)sirius.com, Dave the > Resurrector, and myself below show why Dave Harman, > formerly qut(a)netcom.com and an572010(a)anon.penet.fi, now > varange(a)crl.com, has targeted us. While the deranged varange > may occasionally sound superficially plausible, his record > is quite clear. Apologies for the length, but I figure it's > better to have this all in one place. This article is also > saved at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/skipsummary This article will be saved to http://www.crl.com/~varange/netabuse/ or the NET ABUSE - FALSE COMPLAINTS category of my index.html. > Since abuse(a)crl.com just goes to /dev/null, I'd appreciate it if > some CRL user could confirm, as three different CRL users did > a month ago in response to a rash of forged usenet postings > in October (I'm appending two posts on that topic below), > that the only account logged on to the given machines at the > time of every incident of forged net abuse was varange(a)crl.com. Six weeks or so is all the public access there is to the wtmp file; ask Sandy or Stan if you don't know how to read it from your own CRL account. (How conveniant of you to accuse me of the repulsive "Mark Wehal(sp?)" forgery past the date it can be easily verified; why should the CRL admins drag out their backup tapes on the account of your spurious allegations? Anyone who checked up Dejanews on "Mark Wehal" could have seen that some user had forged his name as revenge spam against "Mark Wehal's" offensive under 18 style sex spam in a few exceedingly odd choice of newgroups, alas, "Mark Wehal" never complained about the forgery and an unknown user may have been the instigator of a business prank against a ligitimate electronics firm whose street address was listed in the original sex spam.) > crl6 Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:14:26 -0800 > crl6 Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:07:02 -0800 > crl11 Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:22:59 -0800 > crl6 Tue, 24 Dec 1996 17:10:58 -0800 Or check the Here: line of my posts for better readability than the additional standard Date: line. > Forged email headers follow. The full 750K text of the > unwanted harassing email, of which I received several copies, > is at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/skipbomb2 > and skipbomb3. I'm sure more people besides Gord McFee > and I received copies; maybe everyone on his targets list, > ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/qu/qut/misc/address > > Personally, I think nine months of this bullshit is more than > enough. If CRL sees no problem with this, then I don't believe > CRL should be allowed access to our network. "Our?" Are you allowed to abuse the Stanford network because you are a user, employee, or the actual admin? If Graves is the actual admin, or is allowed to act like one, then bona fide complaints about users conduct on the Stanford network can't be sent directly via e-mail; send a registered letter/return receipt to whomever is responsible (who?) I read his post as a threat to the Stanford network. Bogus complaints and forged posts from everyone under the sun: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] Full article referred by myself to my web page: http://www.crl.com/~varange/netabuse/ -- Cheers!

1 0