December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

OTP security
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was thinking about the thread we had a week or so ago about OTPs. Say I'm going to burn a CD of what I think are cryptographically random bits, but somehow I end up with part of my stream being predictable (say every 16th bit). What does this do to the security of my CD? _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Sam Jones <samjones(a)leo.unm.edu> on the Nine Types of User: Shaman - "Last week, when the moon was full, the clouds were thick, and formahaut was above the horizon, I typed f77, and lo, it did compile." Advantages: Gives insight into primative mythology. Disadvantages: Few scons are anthropology majors. Symptoms: Frequent questions about irrelavent objects. Real Case: One user complained that all information on one of their disks got erased (as Norton Utilities showed nothing but empty sectors, I suspect nothing had ever been on it). Reasoning that the deleted information went *somewhere*, they wouldn't shut up until the scon checked four different disks for the missing information.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It is obvious to me that those who are waving the bloody flag of > "censorship" are doing so for either of two reasons. The ones to > whom I am the most sympathetic are those who simply do not have > a clear and coherent understanding of rights in an anarchistic, > volunteeristic society. You need have no sympathy. Those members of this list see it as it is, a list that was supposed to be, in some small way, a "model" of an anarchistic discussion forum for the subject of cryptography, either technically (later split into coderpunks) or at a sociopolitical level. That was the intended direction of the list, it has rapidly disentigrated over recent months into a censored list where the elite post to the main list and anyone else is nearly always relegated to a seperate list for the crypto-untermenshcen. > The ones for whom I have no sympathy are those whose obvious > goal is disruption of the Cypherpunks list and who are hiding > behind a phoney interpretation of "free speech." You may make as many excuses as you like, the bottom line is you have become what you profess to hate most, a censor. If having the right to post freely on a list that was supposed to operate as a free and open anarchic forum is not a valid interpretation of free speech I cannot envisage any more elegant example. > I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the > extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be > run. I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive > behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they > sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves > maintain. If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following: Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to the list" message: We do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise. > This is a voluntary list folks. We tried incivility and that did > not work. Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse > in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. For "Reasoned discourse in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will" read "content based censorship". > If most list members like the change, it will continue. If not, then we > can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else. In the > meantime, get over it. If you really like flames and spam, show > John and me how it really should be done. Start another list. > Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot > more than homesteading. It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be permenant, it is a form of online ethnic cleansing whereby the lists clique of illuminati have taken it upon themselves to remove the elements of the list they feel endanger their position of superiority and respect, the point they have missed is that they have no credibility whatsoever after this incident, as well as a number of other such occurances and therefore are only isolating themselves into their own little world. "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" 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

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk > To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> > Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:12:05 +0000 > Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Priority: normal Can anyone tell me if my previous message with the above headers (end of message quoted in below) was sent to the censored list or to cypherpunks-flames? - I subscribe to the unmoderated version of the list so do not get to see what goes where.... > I do not have the resources to run such an unmoderated list but I > hope someone on this list does and is good enough to start such a > list, cypherpunks is a shell of what it once was. > > Also, please note this message will be junked onto cypherpunks-flames > even though it contains no flames or flame bait because it dares to > criticise the censorship of the list (once again Sandy, I give you an > opportunity to prove me wrong). 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"

1 0

Re: Censorship
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 26 Jan 97 at 22:28, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > "Ross Wright" <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> writes: > > > On or About 26 Jan 97 at 2:19, blanc wrote: > >> > > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > >>>Jim Choate wrote: > > > >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > > > It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: > > > Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the > > > only cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings". > > > > THE PRICE OF FREE SPEECH IS TOLERANCE OF IDEAS THAT WE MAY > > OBJECT TO. > > Comversely, some people are willing to give up their own freedom of > speech so as to silence others whose views they don't like. Who could be that stupid? Why would they even want to give up an inch of their freedoms? >They > hope that they'll be censored less than their "enemies". A weak hope at best. Once you start censoring it becomes a "Slippery Slope". > But a forum > can't be "a little bit censored" just like a woman can't be "a > little bit pregnant". You got that right! =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Posting percentages
by Peterson, Mike 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr. Dimitri Vulus KOTM wrote: Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes: >> Regardless of which side you take on this matter, remember that the issue >> was forced by the actions of an extremely small segment of the list >> "population." >The list "population" (readers) is a couple of thousand people, almost >all of whom are lurkers. All posters are an extremely small segment of >the readership. It's true on most Internet forums. Just because us "lurkers" don't post, doesn't mean that we aren't taking sides, agreeing, disagreeing, or otherwise. Small portions of the population doesn't mean that the rest of us have no comment, just not the will to make the post.

1 0

OTP security
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was thinking about the thread we had a week or so ago about OTPs. Say I'm going to burn a CD of what I think are cryptographically random bits, but somehow I end up with part of my stream being predictable (say every 16th bit). What does this do to the security of my CD? _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Sam Jones <samjones(a)leo.unm.edu> on the Nine Types of User: Shaman - "Last week, when the moon was full, the clouds were thick, and formahaut was above the horizon, I typed f77, and lo, it did compile." Advantages: Gives insight into primative mythology. Disadvantages: Few scons are anthropology majors. Symptoms: Frequent questions about irrelavent objects. Real Case: One user complained that all information on one of their disks got erased (as Norton Utilities showed nothing but empty sectors, I suspect nothing had ever been on it). Reasoning that the deleted information went *somewhere*, they wouldn't shut up until the scon checked four different disks for the missing information.

1 0

Re: THE NEW YORKER on the V-Chip
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:48 AM 1/24/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: ... >While I think it's always useful to consider unintended (or otherwise >unexpected) consequences, Gladwell's argument sent a shiver down my spine >with its shameless paternalism. This bit (from roughly the middle of his >piece) is what I found creepiest: > >"According to one recent study, somewhere between twenty and twenty-seven >per cent of the parents of four-to six-year-olds never restrict their >children's viewing hours, never decide what programs they can watch, never >change the channel when something objectionable comes on, and never forbid >the watching of certain programs. It has apparently never occurred to these >parents that television can be a bad influence, and it strains credulity to >think that the advent of the V-chip is going to wake them up. Yet their >families - mainly lower-income, ill-educated - are the very ones most in >need of protection from television violence. Here is a rearranging effect >with a vengeance: not only does the V-chip make television worse, it makes >television worse precisely for those already most vulnerable to its excesses." > >I understood Gladwell's point to be, in essence, that the V-chip will allow >TV producers to generate higher levels of morally impure content which he >fears will pollute the minds of poor children because their parents are too >stupid to protect them from the harmful content and too poor to buy new >televisions which will include V-chips. ... What this means is, subsidized v-chip upgrades, and v-chips turned on by default. Now to watch the really good stuff you have to subscribe to "tv-un v-chipped" Sorry, I couldn't resist the pot shot.

1 0

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = "<remail(a)miron.vip.best.com> cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = '<alias(a)alpha.c2.org> alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = '<nymrod(a)nym.jpunix.com> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = "<mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = "<remailer(a)remailer.nl.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = "<haystack(a)holy.cow.net> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = "<lucifer(a)dhp.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = "<remailer(a)huge.cajones.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = "<middleman(a)jpunix.com> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = "<dustman(a)athensnet.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = "<x(a)deathsdoor.com> cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = "<middleman(a)cyberpass.net> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer(a)crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 27 Jan 97 6:48:19 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config(a)nym.alias.net ****#**#**## 1:33 99.99% balls remailer(a)huge.cajones.com *****++###*# 2:40 99.98% dustbin dustman(a)athensnet.com --+---+---+ 2:14:49 99.92% winsock winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net ------------ 4:55:21 99.87% exon remailer(a)remailer.nl.com ###*### #### :37 99.76% haystack haystack(a)holy.cow.net ###+*##***#* 29:02 99.72% weasel config(a)weasel.owl.de ++++++-++++ 1:17:40 99.33% squirrel mix(a)squirrel.owl.de +++-++++++ 1:16:21 99.16% extropia remail(a)miron.vip.best.com ----------- 3:58:51 99.13% lead mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu +*+*+ +++--+ 2:05:09 98.97% middle middleman(a)jpunix.com -- .-*++. 8:38:28 98.42% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com __.-+-.- 25:34:03 97.98% cyber alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net +*+**+++*+ * 1:28:18 96.80% reno middleman(a)cyberpass.net -+--- +--+ 1:16:40 95.45% lucifer lucifer(a)dhp.com ++++++++ + 1:24:25 95.15% replay remailer(a)replay.com *** * * 16:22 69.31% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Daniel Harter wrote: > ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Why do they take antibiotics? Just curious. > To treat various Venerial Diseases whose standard treatments are > antibiotics. > > Also, I haven't heard that antibiotics were bad for immune system, > > has that been proven? > What does seem to have credence is that the use of antibiotics breeds > resistant strains of bacteria, which may or may not be contagious. > A book that poses an opposing viewpoint to the current AIDS epidemic > is _The AIDS War_ by John Lauritsen (1993, Asklepios, New York, ISBN > 0-943742-08-0). It is written from a Gay man's perspective dissenting > from the current HIV-AIDS theory. Another book he wrote is _Poison by > Prescription: The AZT Story_. Also search on Peter H. Duesberg for > primary sources in various Journals. According to my AIDS database, a possible reason for the "hotly debated" theories of Duesberg is that because of the suspicion falling on the govt. and the WHO in regard to creating the HIV virus, the govt. was happy to have Duesberg and ilk deflecting a lot of that criticism. This doesn't make Duesberg wrong by implication, but there were suggestions of disinformation....

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It is obvious to me that those who are waving the bloody flag of > "censorship" are doing so for either of two reasons. The ones to > whom I am the most sympathetic are those who simply do not have > a clear and coherent understanding of rights in an anarchistic, > volunteeristic society. You need have no sympathy. Those members of this list see it as it is, a list that was supposed to be, in some small way, a "model" of an anarchistic discussion forum for the subject of cryptography, either technically (later split into coderpunks) or at a sociopolitical level. That was the intended direction of the list, it has rapidly disentigrated over recent months into a censored list where the elite post to the main list and anyone else is nearly always relegated to a seperate list for the crypto-untermenshcen. > The ones for whom I have no sympathy are those whose obvious > goal is disruption of the Cypherpunks list and who are hiding > behind a phoney interpretation of "free speech." You may make as many excuses as you like, the bottom line is you have become what you profess to hate most, a censor. If having the right to post freely on a list that was supposed to operate as a free and open anarchic forum is not a valid interpretation of free speech I cannot envisage any more elegant example. > I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the > extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be > run. I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive > behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they > sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves > maintain. If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following: Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to the list" message: We do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise. > This is a voluntary list folks. We tried incivility and that did > not work. Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse > in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. For "Reasoned discourse in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will" read "content based censorship". > If most list members like the change, it will continue. If not, then we > can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else. In the > meantime, get over it. If you really like flames and spam, show > John and me how it really should be done. Start another list. > Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot > more than homesteading. It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be permenant, it is a form of online ethnic cleansing whereby the lists clique of illuminati have taken it upon themselves to remove the elements of the list they feel endanger their position of superiority and respect, the point they have missed is that they have no credibility whatsoever after this incident, as well as a number of other such occurances and therefore are only isolating themselves into their own little world. "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" 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"

7 14