December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

A Special Offer!
by dozer＠netwizards.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are you interested in making Millions in your spare time? Any housewife could do it and so can you! Just email me at dozer(a)netwizards.net to receive your FREE information packet. Thanks for your attention, and I'll be talking with you soon. Bill dozer(a)netwizards.net

1 0

Re: Newt's phone calls
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:58 PM 1/14/97 -0600, Michael Tighe SUN IMP wrote: >Bill Stewart writes: >>Tapping cellphones is more trouble than tapping wired phones - >>they move around, and to tap them from the phone company end >>requires taps everywhere that you activate when you know where >>somebody is. >Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record BOTH sides >of the conversation without interruption? Tapping the wire part is what's hard; the radio part (for analog cell phones) isn't that tough. That makes the "legitimate needs of law enforcement" (blech!) at some disadvantage compared to people who just want to have fun listening in on the radio. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Newt's phone calls
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:58 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Eric Blossom wrote, correctly: >> Eavesdropping on cellphones is illegal, since there's an expectation of >> privacy. >Ummm, Eavesdropping on cellphones is illegal, because it's illegal. >See the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA). Since when does >anybody talking on a *radio* have an expectation of privacy? OK, more precisely, the justification for cellphone eavesdropping being illegal and cordless phone eavesdropping not being illegal was that there's an expectation of privacy from cellphones ("they're from the Phone Company") but not from cordless (everybody with early cordless phones knew they could receive their neighbor's calls if they used the same channel.) >Listening in on normal cordless phones is also now illegal, as a >result of the Communication Assistance to Law Enforcement Act >(Digital Telephony). Good point. The latest word from Louis Freeh is that he's all gung-ho to investigate the CRIMINAL grandma&grandpa who were EAVESDROPPING on Newt's phone calls. Of course, if _he'd_ been eavesdropping on Newt's phone calls, or yours, it would have been the "legitimate needs of law enforcement" at work. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:23 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >As most readers probably know, laptops are often subject to manual >scrutiny. From my non-representative sample, about four out of five tote >bags clearly containing laptops will be manually searched. It's extremely airport, guard, and moon-phase dependent. Some places are real picky, some aren't. I've started following someone's advice about having the laptop go through vertically; it doesn't look like a big opaque block to them, and they can see the rest of the stuff. When I tried it in Orlando, they said "It has to go through lying down", ran it back through lying down, said "Computer", I said "Yup", and they handed it to me :-) >Typically, the attendant requires that the laptop is powered up. >In none of the 20+ manual searches I witnessed did the security personnel >wait past the RAM check before clearing the passenger. I could not help >but contemplate how much of the insides of the laptop could be replaced >while still obtaining an identical display. I've convinced a number of guards to be satisfied by the little LCD-battery-status display that shows it's on and charged (and asleep) without having to actually boot it up (which now that I'm running NT, which doesn't really understand power-management, is a big win...) The two batteries could be replaced with <illegal joke deleted> and the little 5-minute keepalive battery could run that display just fine. It wouldn't take much more to get the main LCD screen to look convincing. On the other hand, there are places that have Real Security Guards; I have a photo of the ceiling of an Israeli bus station where I had to demonstrate that my camera really was camera-like. >Then came the big one: A man wearing a beer truck driver uniform approached >the checkpoint. On his hand truck were two kegs of beer. .... >I was flabbergasted. They let a man with two *large steel containers* enter >unchecked? No asking for ID, no X-ray? I struck up a conversation with the >beer truck driver. I asked him why the kegs did not get X-rayed. He looked >at me with an expression of utter lack of understanding and answered: "They >are too heavy to be put on the [conveyor] belt." Yow! (And also - it's nice that people can occasionally do sensible things even if they're against regulations :-) But you would expect them to have a guard escort the guy to the bar (requiring someone to come back later and take the beer out of the false bottom of the keg. You can already get away with being almost anywhere by being dressed as a pizza deliverer or air-conditioner mechanic or clipboard-carrier; I guess beer-deliverer needs to be added to the list. As long as you act like you belong somewhere.... A more serious example of getting away with things by looking like you're doing something your supposed to be doing was the man who walked out of Nazi Germany carrying a ladder (as told to me by someone else who'd left Germany.) Nobody thought to question him, and it was an era that a laborer not having a truck was normal... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Krenn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Lucky Green wrote: > I recently took a domestic flight from the Oakland, CA airport. While > waiting for the airplane, I spent some time observing the security measures > at the X-ray machine. > > As most readers probably know, laptops are often subject to manual > scrutiny. From my non-representative sample, about four out of five tote > bags clearly containing laptops will be manually searched. Typically, the > attendant requires that the laptop is powered up. In none of the 20+ manual > searches I witnessed did the security personnel wait past the RAM check > before clearing the passenger. I could not help but contemplate how much of > the insides of the laptop could be replaced while still obtaining an > identical display. I have had the same experience. I am sure that removing all components of the laptop not required for its functioning would yield a significant amount of room inside, especially for larger (non-"notebook") machines. I'm not an expert on explosives, but I would imagine a laptop-full of whatever could be pretty nasty. Someone with determination could even make it look like it had a floppy, a CDROM, etc, just by replacing the devices themselves with facades. Not that the airport security would notice, but anyway. But wait - won't the all-important "did you pack your bags yourself" and "did anyone give you bags to take on the plane" stop them? ;-) It just obviates the fact that airport security is really useless against a determined attacker, but manages to be extremely annoying to everyone else. Krenn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMtyOLknqfwPpt/QVAQF5PAQArUhAYtLjoSwsKspwysZYvwP0kCEs9ncS xN5VaZTi/ow5xOcoVXbRhGQPlu5v1sL+04yLz+1AWnYX2UdtIdSBlZAhtNufOCQg Au0cDp6vKeL/GIGEYX3/HEsDjicpbfXSuq+OZ79hhhButM+5jlsXz972nhLkmEvM aeVSFjB9WHY= =FYTH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Pentium optimizations for DES (BIG)
by i.am.not.a.number＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

here is Mikkelson's macro, with a few cycles shaved. on my machine there is a small but measurable improvement. DesRound macro RoundNo,reg1,reg2 mov eax, DWORD PTR (RoundNo*8) [ebp] xor ebx, ebx mov edx, DWORD PTR (RoundNo*8+4) [ebp] xor eax, reg1 xor edx, reg1 and eax, 0fcfcfcfch mov bl, al and edx, 0cfcfcfcfh mov cl, ah ror edx, 4 xor reg2, DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[ebx] mov bl, dl xor reg2, DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0200h+ecx] mov cl, dh shr eax, 16 xor reg2, DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0100h+ebx] mov bl, ah shr edx, 16 xor reg2, DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0300h+ecx] mov cl, dh and eax, 0FFh and edx, 0FFh xor reg2, DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0600h+ebx];ebx mov ebx,DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0700h+ecx] xor reg2, ebx mov ebx,DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0400h+eax] xor reg2, ebx mov ebx,DWORD PTR _des_SPtrans[0500h+edx] xor reg2, ebx endm At 10:19 AM 1/14/97 -6, Peter Trei wrote: >I hope you'll look at Svend Olaf Mikkleson's >latest DES round replacement for libdes. He >seems to have gotten the round down to 18 >clock cycles. I have not yet had a chance >to try it myself. > >see: http://inet.uni-c.dk/~svolaf/des.htm > >Peter Trei >trei(a)process.com > >Peter Trei >Senior Software Engineer >Purveyor Development Team >Process Software Corporation >http://www.process.com >trei(a)process.com > >

1 0

Positions open
by overcome＠concentric.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I_Love_SPAM, ATTENTION Fastest growing company expanding. Licensed in 34 counties, publicly held on NASDAQ. Part time up to $500 to $1,500, full time up to $2,000 to $6,000. Need to fill position immediately. Full training provided. Work from Home or Office. Paid vacations plus bonuses. Call this week ONLY for free information. (305)460-8000

1 0

Re: Am I to blame? / "THE INTERNET GOLDRUSH"
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

snow wrote: > > > The "Internet Goldrush" is ON! > > > It's simple! It's quick! It's here! > The funny thing is, most of the "Gold Rushers" wound up broke, or > working for someone else. > Most people are fools. Deliberately so. An interesting observation. The original Gold Rush involved the thronging masses stepping on each other's toes, shooting each other in the back, etc., and the end result was that a few 'lucky' ones got filthy rich, while the people behind the scenes, encouraging this activity, 'all' got filthy rich. If I had a mansion on the hill, with a high wall surrounding it and a guard on the gate, I would be much more inclined to encourage the masses to seek their fortune at my doorstep, and shop at my general store across the street. Toto

1 0

Seen Your Post!
by Garry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I Seen Your Post! I found your post in one of my favorite news groups. You might find my views are exactly the same. In fact my entire WebSite is right up that alley. Every business Opportunity listed at my sight is FREE! In fact one of the businesses I joined (again free) has an excellent earning potential of over $600 profit per YEAR, per CUSTOMER! The best part is don't do anything except promote the business. The company does everything for me!!! Although I do not have anything against MLM, this is not! In order to even notice this biz you have to look up in the top window frame of my site as its loading the image (read the text). Enough about me! If you can contribute to my sight or have any ideas, I would appreciate it. I'll keep an eye out for more of your contributions to the "Newsgroups"! http://www.angelfire.com/biz/PC2CASH Tons of Excellent FREE Stuff for Entrepreneurs too... PS. If you like what you see or have any questions, or ideas about my site, please drop me an e-mail. But, if you don't mind use "pcplus" as the subject. It helps me weed through my junk! Thanks, Garry pccash(a)sprintmail.com If you should get this message more than twice please forgive me. I may have mis-configured this new e-mailer! Day 3 in use #00377782 ******************************************************************* Garry sent you this message using WorldMerge, the fastest and easiest way to send personalized email messages to your customers, subscribers, leads or friends. For more information, visit http://www.coloradosoft.com *******************************************************************

3 2

Re: Newt's phone calls
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:37 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >At 02:48 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Alan Bostick wrote: >>(Someone mentioned that they thought cordless phone intercepts weren't >>illegal the way cellular phone intercepts are. IANAL, but I recall that >>intercepting both was made illegal by the same legislation.) > >It is illegal to intercept cell phone calls. It is legal under federal law >to intercept cordless phones. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 <ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c103/h4922.enr.txt> amended the federal wiretap statutes (18 USC 2510 et seq) to make interception of cordless calls illegal. Also, pursuant to the CALEA, the FBI reported yesterday (1/14) that they anticipate the potential need to conduct almost 60,000 wiretaps "simultaneously" (they define "simultaneous" to mean on the same day) by 10/25/98. (They do some handwaving to explain that while they're saying they might need to do 60K simultaneous wiretaps, they're not really saying they *would* do 60K wiretaps, but they're not promising not to, and really, who are we to question, anyway?) There's a discussion of their methodology and other bureaucratic poetry in the Federal Register (62 FR 1902, 1/14/97, try <http://w3.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html> and search volume 62 of the Federal Register for "calea") but the actual estimates (which are apparently broken down county-by-county) are only available from the FBI's Reading Room in Washington DC. Arrgh. (I got the 60K figure from the Murky News' wire service-to-Email gateway.) And Jamie Gorelick is resigning. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0