December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[NOISE] Want to know about this "aga" character? Read the Grubor FAQ!
by Alan Bostick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In case you aren't clued in enough to know, "aga(a)dhp.com" is none other than John Grubor, well-known Usenet Kook Of The Month winner for November, 1995. He *cannot* be reasoned with. Don't even try. He makes Dimitri Vulis appear sane, calm, and rational. Read the Grubor FAQ, http://kendaco.telebyte.com/dharland/Grubor.FAQ.html for more details. Alan "pseudonum of the LYING FORGER PETER VOROBIEFF!!!!1!" Bostick -- Alan Bostick | You know those chemicals women have in them, | when they've got PMS? Well, men have those very mailto:abostick@netcom.com | same chemicals in them *all the time*. news:alt.grelb | Margaret Atwood, THE ROBBER BRIDE http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick

3 2

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Multiple CC's trimmed, I don't think anyone at msn.com cares...] > #From Phrack 49, file p49-09 published this month: ... > File 09 of 16 > by Dr.Dimitri Vulis (KOTM) > A Content-Blind Cancelbot for Usenet (CBCB) ... > And what follows, is Dr. Dimitri, defender of freedom of expression, > champion of the anti-censors on the net, posting code to the world to > engage in exactly those activities that everyone has been ranting about > as being so utterly "horrifying (forged cancellations etc)" as it > were. You call yourself on cypherpunks, and you blithely assume that a Phrack author actually signs his real name? Either I thought you guys were *real* hackers and you aren't, or this is a very funny troll. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet "Better to be safe than to be sorry" is a remark of value only when these are the actual alternatives.

3 2

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The free market will ever be the only real path to free speech, because, > in essence, it is free speech. > Free speech does not, however, require that all speech be universally > broadcast to each and every citizen on the planet free of charge. That's > "subsidized speech." Given that the free market rule is "he who has the money makes the rules", please explain how anything less than "subsidized speech" (as you put it) is anything close to free speech? [For those who's assumptions rule their perception: I am *not* arguing that all speech should be subsidized. I am merely pointing out that the organization that is spending the money to broadcast is controlling the speech, hence it is *not* free speech in terms of freedom or cost.] ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet If you want to get rid of somebody, just tell them something for their own good.

2 1

You ought to REALLY look at this...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ladies and Gentlemen, I hereby quote a rather remarkable letter, which I pass on to whom it may concern. I consider it an _honour_ to have received such a letter, even though the material expressed in the letter is a serious assault on the entire Western Value System, and possibly Civilisation itself, no joke. At first I did not believe such a *terrorist* letter could have EVER been written. And I could never believe myself to be the recipient of it either. But now I strongly recommend you read it carefully and think about it... For your OWN benefit, I believe more than mine... With thanks for your attention George A. Stathis P.S. If you take a deep breath, see my (amusing?) comments in the end. :) >Hops: 0 >Posted-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 20:13:15 -0200 (GMT) >X-Sender: tcmay(a)mail.got.net >Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:18:36 -0800 >To: "George A. Stathis" <hyperlex(a)hol.gr> >From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> >Subject: Stathis on "Don't Hire" List >Content-Length: 1426 > >At 9:00 AM -0200 11/17/96, George A. Stathis wrote: > >>It is not ethical to send such strong negative _injunctions_ to masses >>of people and also to strangers (the 1900-strong members of the cyberphunks >>list for instance). Because, you may or may not have strong reasons for >>believing you are justified in such invalidation, but more than a 1000 >>people are now _told_ by (self-appointed) "experts" such as yourself what >>and whom to ignore or to believe. (Like sheep led to the slaughter)... > >"Not ethical"? > >But we will do it anyway. Moreover, some of us maintain lists of "Do Not >Hire" persons. Few high tech or Silicon Valley software companies will hire >such folks. > >Congratulations, Stathis, as you are now on such a list. > > > >"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM >that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." >[NYT, 1996-10-02] >We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." Comments? (1) Well, first of all, Tim May is doing a disservice to the companies who use his services. They will end up hiring only morons and controllable relics of human creativity; Which is why there a WORLD-SHORTAGE of SUPER- PROGRAMMERS at the moment, as reported e.g. by Byte-magazine. (2) If I were a _clever_ American employer, I'd use Tim's 'black list', in order to HIRE precisely those people whom he considers 'unemployable'... (3) Now I don't want to boast about who I am, but it's strangely ironical that I _am_ one such "Super-Programmer" (fluent in PROLOG. Assembly, 'C' and also... English -a computer-lingo as it happens). In the eighties I was also a painter (of pictures, not walls), and other things... As a 'New Age' kind of person, I used to admire America for rewarding and promoting human _talent_, as opposed to human mediocrity, subservience (the "Yes-Man" attitude), and Evil in the Soul. (as often happened in old-whore Europe; especially in Greece)... :-) Nowadays, however, when 'people' like Tim May, are able to dictate to your admirable High-Technology firms, *what* kind of people to hire and what not to hire, I can see... very gloomy prospects for American Research, _if_ this type of monstrocity (as his letter) is prevails for too long... :-) Originally, lists of "unemployable" people, which I had heard of, crossed my mind as 'probably justified'. As an EMPLOYER MYSELF, with a small but strong software-house, here in Athens, with at least one important Market Success, I do have some experience, you know, of what kind of people *are* and what kind of people are *not* 'employable'. I once knew a very good but very egotistic Assembly Language programmer. When he stopped working with me he stole large sections of my source-code. As a result, I find it hard to trust 'employees' ever since... (4) I would therefore request a list of 'unemployable' people in order to choose possible collaborators, in my work. They should be highly proficient in PROLOG code, as well as ASSEMBLY and 'C', and should also be sociable, witty and independent-minded. Clashing with personalities like Tim May's may be considered an added advantage. (5) Just for the record, I spoke on the phone with an important partner, told him what happened, and was told by him that Tim May's letter is the kind of scum-fascism no serious European Company would ever give credit to... However, Tim's letter appears not so much to address me personally, as much as the hordes of gullible, insecure, employment-hungry young Americans, who are often _terrorised_ into complete SILENCE, since the _slightest_ amount of free speech in their own natural (or Net-) surroundings, causes Fascist PUnk-Thugs like TIm May to threaten them with unemployability. Although Tim May's letter in itself constitutes terroristic harrasment, threat to libery (via threat of unemployability), and so on, I consider these labels to be irrelevant in this case, and legal arguments highly irrelevant. When Nazi Germany deported Einstein it took much less elaborate procedures than flawed 'unemployability lists'. Perhaps hiring Mafia men to finish us off would be a much more efficient tactic in this respect. :-) With Dismay, but also... Inspiration :-) Geore A. Stathis P.S. I also cross-posted this DELIBERATELY, this time to the cypherpunks list, in order to give more COURAGE to those poor list-members whose standard of living suffers the terror and threat of Unemployment, just in case they know who is responsible for their future sufferings.

1 0

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vulis writes about unwanted noise: > They feel compelled to silence it altogether. They claim altruistically > that they don't want the noise to bother anyone else, such as the clueless > newbies who keep subscribing to this mailing list and don't know how to > use mail filters. (Sandy Sanford's concern for them was soooo touching...) Misplaced altruism is one of the primary causes of social injustice, authoritarian regimes, and security measures. It is not possible to be "altruistic" until one realizes that one doesn't know what true "altruism" is. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Don't follow in the footsteps of the ancients, seek what they sought.

1 0

Cpunks Frog Forwards discontinuation
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I will be discontinuing my "Cpunks Frog Forwards" filtering service within one week of the announcement of Perry Metzger's new crypto list, and possibly sooner if my patience runs out, because 1) I have too many other things to take care of in my life, 2) there really isn't as great a need for it anymore due to the number and variety of other filtering services, and 3) my sanity is being stretched to its limits having to wade through the mountains of bullshit that now infest my inbox, even with procmail's kindly assistance. Perry was right: Cypherpunks has become a sewer. As Robert Anton Wilson said, "Only a sewer accepts everything." Here is a list of the other filtering services I am currently aware of: o Alan Clegg runs an UNMODERATED cypherpunks digest, which only reduces the the volume of separate messages. Subscribe by mailing to majordomo(a)gateway.com (Standard majordomo list -- send "help" in the body for information.) o Eric Blossom runs a commercial "Cypherpunks Lite" for a modest fee, approximately 20.00US/year. Mail eb(a)comsec.com for more info. For a sample, read the archive at ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/co/comsec/cp-lite o Ray Arachelian runs a free filtering service, sticking mostly to news and technical stuff with a few other tidbits thrown in. Mail sunder(a)dorsai.dorsai.org for more info, or to be added. See you all on the other side. "Cypherpunks write code." -- I let go of the law, and people become honest / I let go of economics, and people become prosperous / I let go of religion, and people become serene / I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass. .oOo. [Tao Te Ching, Chapter 57, Stephen Mitchell translation]

3 3

Emergency powers
by Charles Platt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Of course, Michael Froomkin is right in everything he says about presidential emergency powers. But an unconstitutional abuse of power is surely not acceptable merely because it has become a routine method for accomplishing everyday legislative tasks. First, it allows significant possibility for future abuse; and second, if the Constitution is routinely circumvented, this diminishes its general power (as any law loses its power when it is routinely flouted). The situation is all the more troubling because it receives so little publicity, outside of militant "extremist" groups (i.e. those that are crazy enough to believe that presidential power should be limited in accordance with the law of the land). When a president can take almost action under the excuse that it's a "national emergency" (when in fact there is no emergency), and he doesn't have to answer questions till later, and most citizens are unaware of this, we have a potentially dangerous situation. They key word here is "potentially." Michael Froomkin seems relatively sanguine because the potential for great harm has not been realized. I am not so easily reassured. --Charles Platt

2 1

ALERT! 123,000 announced job cuts
by John Jackson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DOWNSIZED? - RIGHTSIZED? - RESTRUCTURED? HOW CAN YOU PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THIS EVERYDAY OCCURRENCE? ---> AT&T = 123,000 announced job cuts ---> GENERAL MOTORS = 122,000 announced job cuts ---> IBM = 400,000 announced job cuts ---> JOE's PRINT SHOP = 2 announced job cuts Are you dodging the arrows of Corporate America? Do you know someone (a family member, a friend, maybe even yourself) who has lost a job during the past six months? Has this person secured another job that is paying the same salary and benefits as the job they lost? There was once a time when people held a job for 20 to 30 years and retired with a secure pension. Those days are gone! So what can the average person do to protect him or herself financially in the unfortunate, but all too common, event of losing a job? Financial advisors have been telling us for years that we should diversify our investments. If this concept makes sense, should we not also diversify our sources of INCOME? Does it make sense to leave yourself vulnerable by expecting all of your income to come from one source? Rexall, an international company that was founded in 1903, is flourishing today as a very successful publicly traded company. You have no doubt heard of Rexall and are familiar with the more than 7,000 Rexall drug stores around the country. In fact, more than 87% of adult Americans today recognize the name Rexall and associate it with trust and integrity. Rexall's six divisions are all very profitable and growing at staggering rates. So what does this have to do with you? Rexall has developed an entrepreneurial arm of its company that helps individuals build a substantial secondary income stream without the hassles of ordinary business. No huge investments, no inventory, no employees, NO RISK. This is not some fly-by- night operation. This is REXALL! One of the most well known and respected corporate names in America. My partner, Todd Smith, has helped hundreds of people diversify their income and create substantial passive income streams through the entrepreneurial arm of the Rexall Companies. Todd himself has earned over one million dollars in EACH of the last three years in this simple, no-stress, home-based business. He knows what he is doing and how to help point people, like you, in the right direction. If you would like to learn how we can help you create a financial hedge against a possible downturn in your present employment, or simply to develop an additional source of passive income, call me today. Todd has created an informational audio tape that explains our entire business and how you can participate in it. If you are making all the money you want, have your retirement completely paid for, enjoy your job and can see working it until you retire, then CONGRATULATIONS. You are one-in-a-thousand. On the other hand, if you are like most Americans that are not happy with their current financial situation, it would be worth the phone call and some time listening to Todd's tape. What have you got to lose? If you DON'T call, you have a lot to lose. Call (303)-480-5841 right now and ask for this free tape to be rushed to you without any obligation whatsoever. PS: The message on this Tape is timely, addresses the societal and economic forces that WILL change our lives in the coming new century, and explains precisely why entirely new methods of doing business are necessary and are evolving. Your thinking about money, business, success and your own future will be challenged by this message! (303) 480-5841 - 24 hours ASK FOR TODD's TAPE J. Jackson Associates Income Diversification Strategies Parker, Colorado U.S.A.

1 0

Experience Microsoft Site Builder Workshop Live!
by ! Drive 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Microsoft Site Builder Workshop Live! ( apprx 2.5 hours ) via Real Audio at http://ww3.audionet.com/events/microsoft/ what you need: The RealAudio Player At least a 28.8Kbps connection to the Internet A screen resolution size of 800 x 600 pixels :: Archived On November 13th From The INFOMART In Dallas, TX

1 0

Re: RFC: A UNIX crypt(3) replacement
by Joshua E. Hill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have gotten a lot of e-mail that has said basicly the same things: 1) Don't try to redo UNIX crypt(3), S-KEY (Secure Shell, etc.) is better. Well... This is most certainly the case. And if I could force the people in my user base to use one of these alternatives, I would. Unfortunately, I cannot. A fair number of the people who use the systems that I administer log on through dumb terminals. If I can't successfully teach them not to hit the "Ctrl-S" key, how am I going to teach them to do IDEA encryption in their heads? Or MD4 hashes for that matter? The fact is that if I tried to use S/KEY everyone would print out their key list for the month, and then promptly loose it, and regenerate a new one. Gee... Wouldn't that be secure. I have to stay with the one password system. 2) If your administer was worth his weight in spit, you would have a shadow password system, and the preexisting crypt(3) function would be good enough for you. Actually, I _am_ the administrator, and I am worth my weight in spit. Rather, I do use a shadow password suite. However, as security professionals, you must know that it is not whether an attacker can break into your system, but how long it takes. Once there, it is not whether the attacker can gain root, it is how long it takes (how many of the holes have been patched, and how many are even known about). And then to the password file. It is not whether the attacker can crack _all_ the passwords, it is how long it takes. With this algorithm, I hope to increase the last of these values. 3) The algorithm is too complex (or too simple) The algorithm that I proposed makes use of a NMAC as a basic cryptographic primitive. The security analysis of the algorithm should follow the same lines as a hash; that is: if the basic operator is secure, then the chaining of the operator is secure. The NMAC is provably as secure as the key used and the underlying hash function. I did everything that I could to maintain simplicity throughout the algorithm's design. I realize that a simple algorithm is easier to analyze and check for security. A fair bit of the complexity is to make it so that the algorithm is actually a NMAC. 4) Why don't you use FreeBSD's MD5 based crypt(8) replacement? I didn't like FreeBSD's MD5 drop in, because it lacked any security analysis, and complexity of the algorithm prevented any serious attempt at said analysis. It also uses MD5, which has not held up well to the ravages of time. The recent papers on easier ways to find collisions in MD5 did _not_ give me an attack of the warm-and-fuzzies. I would like to make use of an algorithm that is still thought to be secure. Joshua -----------------------------Joshua E. Hill----------------------------- | Thoreau's Law: | | If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intention | | of doing you good, you should run for your life. | -------jehill@<gauss.elee|galaxy.csc|w6bhz|tuba.aix>.calpoly.edu--------

1 0