December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cool Website Check it out
by Wolf 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check out my cool website at http://members.tripod.com/~wolf16

1 0

Angel and Javier can't unsubscribe!
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:46 PM -0400 12/3/96, Angel Luis Ortiz Ruiz wrote: > > Friend: Thank's for your asnswer but I already do that. The server say >that I'm not in the list but I still reacive the messages. Thankx And then there was another message: At 6:00 PM -0400 12/3/96, Javier Rivera wrote: > Friend: Thank's for your asnswer but I already do that. The >server say that I'm not in the list but I still reacive the messages. >Thankx again! Both seemed to come from "zeen(a)caribe.net". One under the Ruiz name, the other under the Rivera name. And similar messages, both in broken English. I suggest Angel and Javier get together and decide which one of them is the name they or it subscribed under, and use that. Oh, and I have a sneaking suspicion they sent in the increasingly-canonical "unsuscribe" or "unscribe" misspelling. I'm beginning to think that Cypherpunks appeals especially to morons. --Tim May To subscribe to the Cypherpunks mailing list: -send a message to: majordomo(a)toad.com -body message of: subscribe cypherpunks To unsubscribe from the Cypherpunks mailing list: -send a message to: majordomo(a)toad.com -body message of: unsubscribe cypherpunks

2 1

(no subject)
by Wolf 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubscibe cypherpunks

1 0

Go to my website
by Wolf 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Games,links,and a hacking page under construction http://members.tripod.com/~wolf16

2 1

Re: testing
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Eric Murray wrote: > Phiberelic Phreaker writes: > > > > PhReAkInG iS a ViOlEnT pOiSoN. iT cAnNoT Be ApPlIeD > > eXtErNaLlY tO aNiMaL oR hUmAn TiSsUe WiThOuT sErIoUs InJuRiOuS > > rEsUlTs. It CaNnOt Be TaKeN iNtErNaLlY wItHoUt InDuCiNg VoMiTtInG, > > bLiNdNeSs, AnD GeNeRaL pHySiCaLlY uLtImAtElLy ReSuLtInG iN dEaTh. > > PhReAk ThE pLaNeT--http://www.angelfire.com/ne/PhreakThePlanet/index.html > > > Evidently "PhReAkInG" causes uncontrollable ourbursts of CaPiTaLiZaTiOn due > to horrible shift-key spasms... > > > > PhIbErDeLiC PhReAkEr > > You probably want alt.2600, it'll be more your style. > BTW, you've posted the same fucking message 4 times now. > Plonk. 4 only? We have received over 30 copies of this shit.

1 0

RE: Modulating the FM noise spectrum considered infeasible
by Charley Musselman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:38 AM 12/3/96 -0500, Bob Hettinga wrote: >At 9:52 am -0500 12/3/96, James A. Tunnicliffe wrote: >> At 2:55 am -0500 12/3/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >>> [...]Having said this, Johnson noise makes a superior noise source, > ^^^^^^^ >>> if a physical source is desired. ><snip> >>Yours makes NOISE? Impressive... >> >>In this case, I guess entropy is preferable to atrophy, though. :-) > >Indeed. > >I've found that my Johnson only makes noise with the proper, er, >peripheral, though... Geez, guys, what's this? Pound the physicist day? Johnson noise is the Brownian motion of electrons in an electronic circuit. It is the irreducible noise, often measured in temperature (obvious?) Cheers, Charley "We accomplish what we work at." | Rules from "We get better at what we practice." | childhood.

2 1

RE: IP address
by Internaut 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Even greater than denial of service I believe that there are other threats. Like I just found this file on c2.org (I believe it was) on using an IP address to explore somebody's hard drive under certain conditions. EXPORTING YOUR ENTIRE FILESYSTEM Samba When a Windows for Workgroups or Windows 95 machine shares any folder, bugs in Microsoft's SMB implementation over all network protocols allow access to the whole drive, with whatever permissions the sharename was given. These resources are advertised on a browse list that is made available to anyone on the local network by default, and to anyone on the Internet who knows the machine's IP address. Any user sharing any folder over TCP/IP without a password is opening the whole disk to the whole Internet (for those that can locate the machine) and those with a password should be aware that Windows has no protection against brute force attacks. SMBCLIENT, an ftp-style browser for any UNIX, plus a complete file system for Linux and a few UNIX versions, are available from the Samba web site. Please note that Samba's exploitation of this fundamental bug in Microsoft file sharing was unintentional, and was immediately reported to Microsoft. It could have happened with any client over any protocol. An alleged fix for Windows for Workgroups was quietly released in early October, and Microsoft publicly announced a fix for Win95 on October 20th. It has not been rigorously tested, but it appears to fix the problem. The fix for Windows for Workgroups might not be a complete fix, but rather a patch for one way to exploit the problem. (The release version of Win95 prevented cd .. below the shared folder "root," but not cd ../) The patches and Microsoft press releases (which have been corrected at least twice, but which still erroneously identify Samba as shareware, neglect to credit the people who notified Microsoft of the problem, and neglect to mention that this is a fundamental bug in Windows, not a problem specific to TCP/IP or Samba) are available on Microsoft's Windows 95 Updates Page. The patch only works on the US/English version of Windows 95; at this writing, all non-English versions of Windows 95 are still vulnerable. Troy Varange wrote: > Well, the "danger" of posting a static IP must be even > greater than with a temporary IP. > > Just call the police if you uncover a bonafide case of a > denial of service attack. From what I gather, they take > this shit seriously, and have better capacities of > getting lazy admins to reveal the relevent data in their > logs. I just have this gut feeling that sitting out here without any protection somebody could write something that could hook into a program, or even worse the system (i.e. Explorer). Perhaps my fears are totally unfounded (besides above problem w/ samba), but I have not heard anyone say that one *is* secure. -- Internaut PS: I am running win95 but feel free to answer this question for any os.

1 0

Sorry for the "TWIT" messages
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Well seems I had a rather intresting morining. :) After receiving several "Phreak messages I went to modify my "twit" scripts. Unfortunatly the changes I made caused ~50 "twit" messages to go out. My appologies to anyone who received these messages. Thanks, -- ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!! Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of PGPMR2 - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice Look for MR/2 Tips & Rexx Scripts Get Work Place Shell for Windows!! PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii(a)amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info ----------------------------------------------------------- *MR/2 ICE: OS/2: Logic, not magic.

1 0

Re: more IPG and random numbers
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:24 PM 12/3/96 -0800, Eric Murray wrote: >I did some more experiments with the IPG stream-cipher >algorithim and random number tests. Since IPG claim that their >algorithim passes chi-square tests of randomness, I found >a chi-square test program. It's written by Peter Boucher >and was posted to sci.crypt in '93 (<2bum8sINN98j(a)roche.csl.sri.com>). Eric, The chi-square test is fairly easy to implement. Understanding the alogrithm and interpreting what the test results mean is as important as a proper implementation. An excellent text that covers testing PRNGs (including, chi-square, KS, runs (up, down, above & below the mean), and autocorrelation) is Simulation Modeling & Analysis, by Law & Kelton. >> Does the 'runs up' (or 'runs down') test with run-length equal to two >> get me anything over the standard chi-square test? I left it in. Yes. It tests yet another aspect of "is the data truly random?" >First I ran the output from my version of the IPG algorithim that I >posted a couple days ago : > >% ./boucher < ipg.out >Occurances: n = 12000000, V=-8375833.71 >Character occurances non-random >Successions: n = 46875, V=62287.82 >Character successions non-random Unless the V is a typo, there is an error in the code. The chi-square statistic can never be negative. >Then I ran output from a test RNG that's basically a loop around random(): > >% ./boucher < myrandom/out >Occurances: n = 3414720, V=213050.62 >Character occurances non-random >Successions: n = 13338, V=1143.41 >Character successions non-random I did considerable testing on random() a while back. It is actually quite good at producing a uniform distribution. There were other problems however (notably autocorrelation in triplets). >Eric Murray ericm(a)lne.com ericm(a)motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm >PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF I suggest you take a look at the chi-square program and check it for errors. Based on the above observations, I am a little suspicious of your results. As a side note, I tend to test PRNGs using stream lengths that are similar to what I will need in a real use of the generator. I also test multiple seeds, because statistically, some seeds will fail. Of course, testing multiple seeds has its own problems (see the bonferroni inequality) of which most non-statisticians are unaware. I have been curious for a while about developing a statistical test that would examine the expected number of failures of a repeated statistical test. Haven't had the time to look into it yet though - not enough hours in the day. ******************************************************* Clay Olbon olbon(a)ix.netcom.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. **********************************************tanstaafl

2 1

No Subject
by logos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vulis wrote: > Lame losers who call themselves "cypher punks" and bend > over for John Gilmore. It is obvious that you, Dimitri Vulis, intend to be disruptive to the operation of this list. I have politely asked you several specific questions about your motives. I am politely asking you again, Dimitri Vulis, why are you unwilling to rationally and politely discuss whatever grievances you have with specific Cypherpunks? I believe you are capable of rational discourse, you allegedly have some academic credentials so you must have a passing familiarity with formal debate. Why are you unwilling to join this discussion with anything other than immature insults? If the facts are on your side, a reasonable demeanor can only enhance your arguments. If the facts are not on your side, why can you not graciously admit you are wrong and withdraw your accusations. I have been unfailingly polite to you. Do you have it within your character to respond to me in kind? Thank you for your attentions to this matter. Logos out

4 4