December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: ideal secure personal computer system
by John Fricker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Igor Chudov @ home (ichudov(a)algebra.com) said something about Re: ideal secure personal computer system on or about 11/16/96 7:41 AM > >Bill Frantz wrote: >> Protection against strangers walking up to your machine and using it is >> nice, and easy to do. Protection against viruses which install Trojan >> horses in your system would also be nice, but is very hard to do in systems >> where programs run with all the privileges of their users. Examples >> include (in alpha order): DOS, MacOS, Unix, and Windows (including NT). > >I wonder what are the operating systems where programs may be run with >_less_ privileges than the user who starts them? Is VMS one of such >systems? > >thanks > > - Igor. >End of message In WinNT a program may impersonate a user such as Guest. Also, trojan horses are ineffective in NT as typical users do not have write permission to system binaries. --j ----------------------------------- | John Fricker (jfricker(a)vertexgroup.com) | -random notes- | My PGP public key is available by sending mail with subject "send pgp key". | www.Program.com is a good programmer web site. -----------------------------------

1 0

Re: Why I shall never undescribe
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 AM 11/15/96 -0500, Alec wrote: >>From: Bovine Remailer <haystack(a)cow.net> >>To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >> >>Foulmouthed Timothy May rehashes his lies like a rabid parrot >>choking on a stale mantra stuck in its poisonous beak. > >Where else today can one find such prose? Nay poetry! > >And they say poetry is dead! I thought they said that chivilry was dead.

2 1

Re: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:38 PM 11/15/1996, Adam Back wrote: >Peter Hendrickson <ph(a)netcom.com> writes: >> However, if you restrict postings to an approved group of people, perhaps >> everybody on the mailing list, you can eliminate spam. How, then, do we >> allow anonymous postings to come through? Individual people on the list >> can receive the proposed post and forward it to the list if it is >> appropriate. They could even charge a fee for doing it. That's easy to >> do if there is a "paying" remailer which will handle the money for them. > Not necessarily a good idea. The post may be a hot potatoe, and the > forwarder may find themselves in legal trouble. (Say RC4 & RC2 source > code, NSA handbook, the results of the Mykotronic's dumpster diving > spree, etc). Exercising `editorial control' has landed some ISPs in > trouble, to the extent that some are specifically avoiding it for that > legal reason alone. Being _paid_ for forwarding the message may make > that even worse. Yes, this is the part of my proposal with which I felt least comfortable. Actually, not to flog a dead horse or anything, this is a perfect application for semi-anonymous authentication. Anybody on the list could forward the mail, but nobody need know exactly who sent it. > Howabout someone liberates skipjack and forwards it to you via > remailers with $50 for your trouble. Do you bite? I thought not, NSA > interviews, ITAR violation, etc. Well, there are ways to do this. For instance, you can send it to a bunch of other people anonymously at, say, a dollar each. It will get around quickly, albeit at greater inconvenience and a higher cost. But, for something this important that would be acceptable. > Ecash for email works better to stop spam sent directly to email > addresses where you don't cash the money as a curtesy, and your > software junks if it doesn't have valid ecash. Email spam itself is > getting mildly annoying lately, I get a couple a day average at the > moment. Except most people don't have e-cash accounts, software that handles e-cash, or the interest in keeping a site which is secure enough to handle e-cash. This is the feature of having the remailer operator deal with it. The technology can be introduced to the existing system with minimal hassle and cost. All you need is one remailer operator to do it. Incidentally, a similar idea can be used to handle flooding attacks on remailers. A bad person could take down a remailer by directing many encrypted packets to it that did not contain any payment. This is hard to solve, of course, because the mail all comes from other remailers. The solution is for the remailer itself to not accept mail from other machines that do not pay. The other remailers in the network make a payment themselves (out of money they already received) to make it worthwhile for the remailer to look inside the message and see if there is even more business. Does anybody know if military communications systems ever take this approach? I know that a highly redundant network is used when any part of it can be taken out. What is awkward about this is that everybody wants to send messages at the very same time the bandwidth is attenuated; i.e., during battle. I'm guessing that in practice everybody in the network - all of whom are basically trusted and identifiable - is ordered to send only urgent traffic. But, it would be neat if there was a way to budget bandwidth for every unit, just like we do for ammunition. Peter

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:29 PM 11/15/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 4:46 PM -0800 11/14/96, I wrote: >>>On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote: > >>To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote: >> >>>Why? Are you a criminal? >>>What are you hiding behind your PGP? >> >>Okay, I'll bite. Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy >>is a criminal? Charlie McCarthy might have said that. > >You mean in his book "Crypto by Dummies"? > >Or were you perhaps thinking of Joe? > I was probably thinking of Joe. I keyed on McCarthy and Charlie was the first christian name to mind. I intended to give the name of the former Senator. I apologize for not checking the historical accuracy of the name I did use.

1 0

Re: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:38 PM 11/15/1996, Adam Back wrote: >Peter Hendrickson <ph(a)netcom.com> writes: >> However, if you restrict postings to an approved group of people, perhaps >> everybody on the mailing list, you can eliminate spam. How, then, do we >> allow anonymous postings to come through? Individual people on the list >> can receive the proposed post and forward it to the list if it is >> appropriate. They could even charge a fee for doing it. That's easy to >> do if there is a "paying" remailer which will handle the money for them. > Not necessarily a good idea. The post may be a hot potatoe, and the > forwarder may find themselves in legal trouble. (Say RC4 & RC2 source > code, NSA handbook, the results of the Mykotronic's dumpster diving > spree, etc). Exercising `editorial control' has landed some ISPs in > trouble, to the extent that some are specifically avoiding it for that > legal reason alone. Being _paid_ for forwarding the message may make > that even worse. > Often the posts which would get the anonymous poster (or the true name > forwarder) into the most troublle, are the ones which are most > interesting, and also very on topic. (In case you get this out of order, this is my second response.) Another way to have anonymous posting but not be subjected to spam and the like is to dispense tokens every week to the subscribers. They can be signed blindly so that anonymity is preserved, just like e-cash. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Crypto Chango
by P. J. Ponder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steps to changing US encryption policies: (Note, you must be logged in as US President for this to work.) 1. Try to bug everyone's phone and computer with special chips. 2. Get your butt kicked at and missed by technical weenies, and eventually stomped on by your own national research council. 3. Wait for Congress to show leadership. (Lose two turns if you actually thought they would do something.) (Return) 4. Try to tap everything without using any special chips. (Goto 2) 5. See if any other governments want you to be able to tap their stuff, too. 6. Try to tap everything with half the key tied behind your back when you start. (Goto 2) 7. Issue the new policies. Play Again [Y/N]? Michael Foomkin and John Young have links to the edict. You may try: <A HREF="http://www.jya.com/" <John Young (look under Crypto)</A> <A HREF="http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/" <Prof. Froomkin's Page[?]</A> please excuse the handmade-from-memory URLs above if they don't work. . . . a little snippet from the Internet Scout Report . . . New from Net Scout ------------------ 1. The Scout Toolkit Version 2.0 http://www.cs.wisc.edu/scout/toolkit/ http://wwwscout.cs.wisc.edu/scout/toolkit/ http://rs.internic.net/scout/toolkit/ The most trusted source for information on how to make the Internet work better for you is now available in extra strength. Version 2.0 of the Scout Toolkit debuts today, with a completely new interface, many new sections, and a focus on the future. In addition to the current awareness you've come to expect from Net Scout, we've added an increased emphasis on analysis and insight. Sections include: Searching the Internet, Latest Tools and Technologies, End User's Corner, Net Scout Sidekicks, a Selective Guide to Publications on the Internet, and Future Internet Directions. The new Toolkit is mirrored on three sites to allow Internauts unhindered access. . . . Copyright Susan Calcari, 1996. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of the Scout Report provided the copyright notice and this paragraph is preserved on all copies. The InterNIC provides information about the Internet to the US research and education community under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation: NCR-9218742. The Government has certain rights in this material. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Wisconsin - Madison, the National Science Foundation, AT&T, or Network Solutions, Inc. . . .

1 0

Re: The TRILATERAL COMMISSION -was: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:01 ðì 16/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: >> As regards the "gullibility", it's plainly dangerous; And cultivated >> by the Media, apparently stronger in the U.S. than in many other places. >> (written by E. Francis, on the "Trilateral Commission", and distributed >> to all members of his own -private- mailing list, of which I'm a part). >> >THE LAND OF SHADOWS >> > >> > Early this month is the last presidential=20 >> >"election" before the year 2000. As of this writing and=20 >> >long before, the election was decided in favor of Bill=20 >> >Clinton. It works out astrologically, but the real=20 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I think this just about says it all. A ha ha ha!!! ROTFL. You forget that Astrology is... unsuitable for gullible children. :-) > Go talk to Don Wood. Don't know who the hell Don Wood is. However, I bet you _also_ don't know who Mr. Stringas is. Well, he is the author of several books about his experience as a prominent C.I.A. official working for the Trilateral Commission, a former NATO official who acted as a "link" between the Athens government and Washington, and he also (at the age of 70+) doesn't give a damn about anyone putting a bullet in his head (or so he says) which is unlikely anyway since it would be too "obvious". Mr. Stringas is not the only one who wrote thousands of pages about the Trilateral Commission's activities and members (e.g. Clinton). However, you seem to dismiss well-known facts for the simple reason that they were originally posted by an astrologer (E. Francis) and apparently you believe astrologers are by nature non-credible. That's fine with me. As a highly analytical Virgo with Venus in Libra, I understand you very well. :-) I will reply with a real life JOKE, in this case: Two days ago I had a rather official meeting with some nice people with whom we negotiated a contract (of details irrelevant here). Carrying my notebook computer (as I always do) with several astrology programs inside it, I actually took it out and made a horoscope for my... lawyer, who ALSO happens to be a Virgo with Venus in Libra, and this was hilarious, since we _now_ understood our... similarities. Then a gentleman came into the room who remarked that Astrology is only suitable for loonies and gullible morons. He added that for these people, the Greek word "zodion" applies except without the 'd' and the 'i' in the 3rd and 4rth places inside the word 'zodion' ('Zodion' means 'Zodiac sign'). (If you delete those characters, you are left with the word 'Zoon' which means 'animal'). An astrologer friend of mine, also in the same room, immediately replied: Aha! But the way you phrased it, Sir, makes you surely a virgo, too; probably with a Virgo ascendant, I would say. The guy stared at us in terror. He WAS a Virgo, and had a Virgo ascendant, as he himself said. He promptly stopped talking and looked rather thoughtful... Perhaps a... coincidence? :-) Have fun (with astrology). George

1 0

The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Privacy is a hassle. Is it worth it? Which unfortunate situations does privacy prevent? What are the odds that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a typical reader of this list.

2 2

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:24 ðì 16/11/1996 -0500, Tim Scanlon wrote: >Between >the 2 lists & various people I see represented here, with all due & >serious respect, you folks have GOT to have better, more important, >and far more deserving issues to devote your time to. I would hope >that you would take a few moments and think about those things, and >consider acting appropriatly in light of those thoughts. [...] >And it's >gotten way, way out of hand. I suggest that it might be better not >to spam cypherpunks with this stuff, and to give it a rest. >Tim Scanlon I think the expulsion of Dimitri Vulis is HIGHLY on-topic inside the Freedom Knights List. As it happens, it is ALSO on topic in the cypherpunks list, no matter how HARD you try to forget this. After censoring Dimitri, you will also NATURALLY try to censor others too, such as myself (receiving notices that I stop "cross-posting" to the cypherpunks list). However, you are a HYPOCRITICAL ASSHOLE, becayse you ALSO cross-post to your own (cypherpynks) list. What you CLEARLY want is to HAVE THE "LAST WORD" ABOUT THIS ISSUE. This is typical of all censorship. If your request was SINCERE, you would be the FIRST to NOT CROSS-POST IT to the cypherpunks list. Oh Gods of Olympus! :-) >Stephen Boursy wrote, along with a horde of others with no lives: >[lots of worthless crap snipped out] You mean whatever you disagree with, or perhaps don't bother to read, you dismiss as 'worthless crap'. It's funny, this attitude. I find it philosophically inexcusable. I never dismiss the opinions of others as "worthless crap" when they are expressed eloquently. What I said instead is that "VERY important ideas have been expressed from all sides". Perhaps you didn't notice. >> When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered >> a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum. The whole problem >> here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore. >> >It's not an abuse of power. It was an effort to curtail inappropriate >SPAM. Much like this entire topic has become non-crypto SPAM on the >cypherpunks list. You have begun REDEFINING "SPAM" according to your personal feelings and opinions. "SPAM" as EVERYONE ELSE understands it, implies some kind of _gain_ (e.g. from advertising) inside a posting. Redefining "SPAM" is consistent with attempts to redefine other known words as well. Like the word "Censorship", which has been redefined to mean "ONLY official censorship". The tendency of closed-minded internet communities to REDEFINE common words as they deem fit, is RATHER WELL KNOWN, where I come from. I am a dictionary maker by profession, BTW. (I write some of the software for it, and run the business. OK, I also do spelling mistakes. It's not my job to know everything, ya know! :-) :-) ) However, if you take my own opinions for instance, they are expressed without ANY thought of gain (by definition impossible, since I don't advertise anything. I write these texts at the intervals of a very real life, involving a lot of swimming, and a lot of Research. When my friends and I meet, we laugh a lot with the situation thousands of miles across the ocean, where... EVEN a "cypherpunks" mailing list has evicted someone forcibly. Rather typical, as it happens. Gives you people a bad name you know... >> The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there >> is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller. > >All bullshit aside, this whole thing has NOTHING to do with crypto. >And it has very VERY little to do with censorship either. Which means you probably didn't read much of what was said anyway. Typical... George

1 0

It Used to Be Eric's Inscrutable Deficiency
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In glancing through and deleting so many messages about how blasphemous and perverted John Gilmore is for having "censored" one list afficionado (more symbolically than in actual fact), I am amused to recall that it used to be Eric Hughes who was the bad guy identified as the Egotistical Slave Master who abused his ownership privileges. Now he's left the list, it is JG who gets the drift & drivel about list management. Strange, too, that those who clamor for freedom of speech are accusing JG of being contrary to his principles. They expect that just because individuals should be at liberty to speak, everyone must therefore be prepared to tolerate all manner and kind of insults against themselves (or be a passive witness to it). In that case, it would mean that because individuals are to be free "to do" as they will, therefore that courtesy and manners are no longer valid, that high standards of personal behavior are not important, that self-command is not required, that exercising one's best judgement is of no practical value for life in the real world. It would mean that in the environment of liberty, it would be incorrect for individuals to prevent assaults against themselves or their morals, against their personal preferences, or against their choice of topics for a discussion list which they started. This would mean that, for instance, it wouldn't be right for free individuals to prevent from being sexually molested, because it would be "censorship" against the perpetrator. These complaintants against censorship must not understand the purpose for freedom of action, of expression, etc.; that they do not understand the need for being "free": it is so that one may, without interferance from uninvited participants, engage in arranging the elements of one's existence for the greatest benefit to oneself. Tolerating insulting drivel does not fall into that category. The environment of liberty to express oneself also permits the exercise of the highest logic possible to an unfettered intelligence. Filling up the mailing list with irrelevant accusations about bizarre sexual practices is not of any logical benefit towards enlightenment on the subjects of encryption or privacy. .. Blanc

3 2