December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Silence is not assent (re the Vulis nonsense)
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dale Thorn ... I believe that my idea above [asking John Gilmore to speak up, and if he doesn't, say to the list that he has declined to do so] is still a great idea (if the subscribers are not afraid of confrontation), as it would tend to force the issue more into the open. I don't know what you mean by "forcing the issue more into the open". Do you mean the issue of John' s not replying, or of censorship per se? If you mean "forcing the issue of John not defending himself on the list", I don't see where the issue needs to be forced. John has rarely posted to the list since it started, and typically only announcements of events or crypto papers/conferences, etc.; he does not engage in the discussions at all. I personally have no argument with his decision over when he posts or what he cares to post about, or how much or how little. My own interest in the list has nothing to do with whether the list owner is moved to defend himself or not. I'm free to roam at will, read or delete, post or unsubscribe, publicly and loudly or privately & quietly. I don't feel constrained in any way, shape or form to stay or go or speak or stay quiet. I make all my own decisions about this and John never knows nor, I expect, suffers any concern over it. And vice-versa. I (and apparently many others) do not feel the need to discuss John's decisions. I, and others, are not bound, like geese flying in formation, to follow his lead, nor are we going to fall apart at a loss for direction if he fails to "show up". You mention what "others had overlooked". How about this: Tim May sent a message the other day stating (in essence) that the whole "censorship" thing was pretty much a size (rather than content) problem. I posted that notion twice, and there has been *no* discussion of it, as far as I know. Too bad Tim didn't post that at the beginning of the affair, since everyone apparently reads *his* mail. What I meant by what "others had overlooked" was in regard of the content of posted messages which I have read, not in regard of *which* poster's messages are overlooked/not read by others. Tim can have whatever opinion he likes about censorship or size or content, and none of us are under any obligation to either agree or disagree with him. On a libertarian/anarcho-capitalistic list like this, the individuals who have elected to join and lurk or post are not expected to do anything but follow their interest. There are more than 1200 subscribers to the list; if each and everyone of them had decided they had something to say to each other about the concept of the rights of the person whose computer these messages are all flowing through, that would have been their fortunate privilege to do, as no one has put any limit to the number of messages allowed, from any one, during any particular period of time. (Of course they would all be expecting not only that their particular message would be read, but that everyone would absorb their wisdom, right. Not!) >Frankly, most of the long-time members of the list would not need any > such statements of defense from John in order to appreciate the nature > of the circumstance and the reasoning for his symbolic 'censorship'. I apologize in advance for this one, but I honestly think that statement says more about acceptance of the Iron Boot principle than it says about what really happened. I for one am not an insider in any of the various cliques that surround this list, so perhaps I missed something that would explain it better to me. I suppose you are referring to an unspoken understanding, but again, and for future reference, you might want to consider the non-long-time members and speak the unspoken, as it were. What really happened is that, upon weighing the relative merits of John's action vs Vulis' contributions, what John did was seen as more of a benefit than a detriment, and this dimmed any arguments which might have been raised against it. It's not like everyone was clammoring for the privilege of reading what Vulis had to say or there aren't any other avenues to getting his literary works. The "unspoken" understanding on the list is that it was started by a couple of guys who happen to be very libertarian/cryptoanarchist in their philosophy of life (not simply as it applies to cryptography, but rather as cryptography relates to that philosophy). I put "unspoken" in quotes because there have been no end of discussion and comments and replies and retorts and flames on this very subject in the past years since I've been on the list (Oct '93, and it is actually what attracted me to subscribing), so it has hardly gone unmentioned and to many is no surprise, although is often difficult to for them to see or agree with. I recommend that you go through the archives and do a little light reading. Your mind will soon be saturated with the flavor of the underlying theme, and you will Understand. .. Blanc

2 1

(no subject)
by Andrew Fairbanks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsuscribe cypherpunks

1 0

RE: [crypto] Avatar Protection?
by Mullen Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

_______________________________________________________________________________ From: Nelson Minar on Thu, Dec 5, 1996 19:00 >Ah, the age-old question. This is the same question as "is there a way >for me to show a web page to someone and not let them copy it?", As a sidelight to this thread which has already strewn far from the [crypto] heading, it *is* possible to show a web page to someone w/out letting them copy it. Some guy in California, who touts the fact he has "every foul word known to man" on his site (to generate more hits) has (I believe developed/worked to help develop) a product which does so. I don't know how he does it, and I know there are ways around it through sniffing, etc., but when you do the trivial act of "View Source" in Netscape, a filtered version is displayed in the source window. While it's really not possible (AFAIK) to eliminate unwanted copying by a person who knows what they're doing, this works against people who don't (like most people). If anyone's interested, I *might* be able to find the URL somewhere. PM

1 0

Crypto hits the mainstream
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PC Magazine's web site has a prominent article reviewing four PC-based crypto apps: they all seem to be oriented towards storage security not communications security (to adopt Tim's taxonomy). The apps are from Symantec, RSA, AT&T, and PGP; their "Editors' Choice" was Symantec's program, followed closely by RSA's. They seem more concerned with speed and user interface rather than the strength of the algorithms or their implementations. The article won't teach anyone who's read Applied Crypto anything new about crypto, but it's neat to see that security is becoming a mainstream concern. (It should have always been one.) There may very well be an associated dead-tree version of the article as well, but I've lost touch with the PC market. The article is located at <http://www.pcmag.com/features/crypto/_open.htm>. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

2 1

PGP Tools for Linux
by Mark Grant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Now that I'm back in Europe I've been able to do some more work on Privtool (PGP-aware mail-reader for X11 on SunOS/Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD) and should be releasing version 0.86 once I've fixed the last segmentation fault (see my Web site for details of the latest changes). In the meantime I've finally got around to fixing one of the early PGP Tools versions that escaped to Europe so that it works on Linux (and probably FreeBSD). I'm just about to upload pgptools.linux.1.0.tar.gz to utopia.hacktic.nl and idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it, so it should be available there shortly. I'm not back on the list yet, so send any mail to this address. Mark |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark(a)unicorn.com | |WWW: http://www.c2.org/~mark MAILBOT: bot(a)unicorn.com | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

1 0

Welcome to cryptography
by Majordomo＠c2.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- Welcome to the cryptography mailing list! Please save this message for future reference. Thank you. If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to <Majordomo(a)c2.net> with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe cryptography cypherpunks(a)toad.com Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: [Last updated on: Mon Dec 2 19:23:19 1996] "Cryptography" is a low-noise mailing list devoted to cryptographic technology and its political impact. WHAT TOPICS ARE APPROPRIATE: "On topic" discussion includes technical aspects of cryptosystems, social repercussions of cryptosystems, and the politics of cryptography such as export controls or laws restricting cryptography. Discussions unrelated to cryptography are considered "off topic". Please try to keep your postings "on topic". In order to assure that the quality of postings to the mailing list remains high, repeated postings "off topic" may result in action being taken by the list moderators. MODERATION POLICY: In order to keep the signal to noise ratio high, the mailing list will be moderated during its initial weeks of operation. This will be changed if it appears that the list will remain on topic without moderation. TO POST: send mail with your message to cryptography(a)c2.net TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send mail to majordomo(a)c2.net with the line unsubscribe cryptography in the body of your mail. IMPORTANT -- PLEASE READ: Please note that sending requests to unsubscribe to the mailing list itself is considered highly antisocial. If the software running the mailing list is not working and you cannot reach the moderator, the users of the mailing list will be utterly unable to help you, so sending requests to the list will only succeed in annoying them. If all else fails, send mail to postmaster, NOT to the mailing list. If you think you may have trouble remembering how to unsubscribe, then save this message forever -- do not simply try asking the mailing list for help.

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:28 PM 12/4/1996, Andrew Loewenstern wrote: >nobody writes: >> She is seen as "one of us" because she wrote a book on >> cryptography. As a consequence, she is seen as a traitor. >> I am not endorsing this view. > >She didn't just write a book on cryptography, but several books. She is also >the Chairperson (eek, PC titles...) of the CS department at Georgetown, a >very respectable institution, and has taught classes there on cryptology. She >has also done research on crytpographic access control to databases and other >stuff. So as far as being a cryptologist she is quite learned and should >deserve respect regardless of her political views. > >However, after reviewing the Skipjack algorithm (of course her being invited >to look at it was certainly due to her anti-strong-crypto-for-the-masses >views), she said something to the effect of "We looked at it over the weekend >and couldn't find anything wrong with it, so you should trust it." when she >knows damned well that you can't evaluate a cypher in three days. It is for >this that she no longer deserves respect as a cryptologist. She basically >cashed in her reputation-capital to help the U.S. Govt. dupe the American >people into buying Clipper. Fortunately, we didn't buy it. You make an excellent point. Didn't Denning claim that they just reviewed NSA's evaluation process? Regardless, the claim that SKIPJACK is therefore trustworthy is irresponsible. Sir Galahad

1 0

Re: Laptops and TEMPEST
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:18 PM 12/5/96 -0800, Joel McNamara wrote: >Thinking that LCD screens reduce the risks of emanation monitoring is a >dangerous misconception (at least under a high threat model). I disagree that it's a "dangerous misconception" to believe that "LCD screens reduce the risks of emanation." While it might be correct to say that it would be dangerous to believe that they ELIMINATE the risks, LCD displays would make it exceedingly difficult to read the screen remotely. The main reason is that the LCD segments are activated in parallel, which means that the electronic noise associated with a particular row is a smeared product of each portion of the display. This is quite unlike CRT's, in which individual pixel information is completely (well, except for color) demultiplexed by time. > However, the gotcha with current laptops is their >backlighting. Electric and magnetic fields are considerably higher >compared with a low-res/contrast device. What does the backlighting have to do with anything? The backlight and its noise is not modulated (at least, not in anything less than the optical band) by the imformation provided on the screen. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Control E-Mail Advertising
by tuvak＠troi.iq-internet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We all love or hate advertising, it just depends on if it interests us ... Advertisers want to send YOU E-Mail ... BUT, will it interest you??? Reply to this message with the names of your favorite magazines to receive messages from firms who would advertise in those publications. Reply to this message with NO MAIL to prevent ANY commercial E-Mail from C.A.R.E. member firms. Thank You, The Red Pages and C.A.R.E. ( 1-800-257-7831 ) "Concientious Advertising thru Responsible E-Mail"

1 0

Re: The Science Generations
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996 22:10:04 -0800, Jamie Lawrence wrote: >> I'm not sure if Gilbert chemistry sets went off the market for liablity >> reasons, or for "lack of interest." The "4-banger" I had in 1961, >> supplemented with varius Bunsen burners, arc furnaces, Erlenmayer flasks, >> and whatnot, was amazing for its time. (And not terribly expensive, in case >> some of the "social democrats" on this list are thinking I lived a >I can provide a datapoint here. I started getting into chemistry >when I was about 8, which was in 1981. I can't remember the brand >name, but my first (and last, actually) 'value-added' kit was >designed to keep kids from doing anything that could be >dangerous, a fact tactfully explained on the packaging. Or how about those TrashShack kits everyone buys a science-oriented kid (until you warn them not to)? Geez. It's about as fun as one of those slide-show demo programs. >To solve that problem, my mother gave me an Edmund Scientific >catalog and a (severely limited, given my family background) >budget for whatever I wanted. >I ordered direct for supplies from then on. Gee, you too? I probably could have broke the $30k mark, though, if given the chance. Still could, easily, but it'd be Computer Shopper now. >computers as a daily part of their work. You can run, but you can't >hide. Hehe ... Person one: "And they [computer illiterates] will call us" Person two: "Secretaries" Bonus points if you get the reference. >> get the point. Being 44 years old, and almost 45, I claim no knowledge >> about what the "latest generation" is all about. Maybe it's the "Beavis and >> Butthead" generation...I don't know.) >Yes, many of us are devoted to the study of Brute Force Insect >Dissection. Many others are devoted to "the study of Chaotic systems involving realtime exothermic reactions with common household substances". (Pyromania might not be a bad sub title) Others still are most interested in Brute Force Wallet Extraction. Or, of course, the ever popular: Members of the Opposite Sex and How to Attract Them. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0