December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

It can be disabled (was Re: PGPMail Log File)
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 31 Jan 1997 09:27:45 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:22 AM 1/31/97 +0000, "Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl'" >< WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.comwrote: >> Is there a way to disable the \WINDOWS\PGPW_32.LOG? >> In subtle ways it's a security hole if left to accumulate over time, >> since it keeps records of which keys you encrypted messages to. >This is a damn good question. I do NOT have the "write to a log file" > option slected in the misc. tab and it STILL writes a log file. How DO >we disable this? It's disabled, with the exception of keeping when it was last run. Technically a 'security hole' but so minor I can live with it. Maybe your version (I'm using beta 11) has a problem, but mine's fine. I was just careless and didn't look closely (not something one should do with crypto...) Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvLTBQTNlSxdPy6ZAQEe4Qf7B1tIyBSZvdtg48lSZAnr4IOh9NbbrgvK RSoGF8UVGnfQWgItsiYIkA82WAqxBBMQaJuHBolkm8PTh7eb/Q3dd4Wz9BZdMp/g +aCRIM2MzfX2+SagyTw4r7L98XozfcUkhnSKcmJQDtrrq04Rlglt5Muf96jrW++p ltp4gXh4nawx75GZlGIS2XB223g5Rd9RSXAGER0gV1BtZKYt8uGkzeGL0OnsZnr+ VUgNVmXX2jeCn0essUX5WcKlSK2vATkoqv3UR1deEbP0Xdt/PTwjS/GZHrvnP5B1 zfOn7iV0CGZYXWpQAGO58HtW16vqC8wZ6lb5N7tdbBRcGX0B/cHc8A== =49OA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Re: Intelligence Update (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 PM 1/30/97 -0800, you wrote: >>Note: According to a recently obtained DOJ surveillance training manual: >>"The typical range for the 28 ghz devices is six miles, the typical >>range of the 2.4 ghz is thirty miles, and the typical range for the >>1.7ghz is 44 miles." How sure are you about the quality of your sources here? I'd expect 1.7ghz and above equipment to require line of sight, and even a range of six miles seems really high for a very low power device - getting that as "typical" seems pretty unlikely. Could all of these figures have been 6, 30, and 44 _meters_ instead? :-) # 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: UNSCRIBE
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > XaViUs(a)pe.net wrote: > > > > UNSCRIBE > > Your message has been received by the CypherPunks list, and we will > shortly be sending a rabbi and a surgeon to UNSCRIBE you. > In the meantime, please try to keep your foreskin cleansed and > hygenic, in order to prevent infection. Toto, The guy who actually cuts off the foreskin is called "mohel", not rabbi. Once there was a very old mohel whose hands were shaky. He wanted to buy an insurance policy in case he cut off too much. His insurance broker shopped around and said: "I found this great insurance policy, but there's good news and bad news. Good news is, you get a million dollar policy for only 20 bucks a year. Bad news is, there's a two inch deductible." ObModeratorComment: please don't buy Stronghold or any other product from C2. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: David E. Smith / Known Flamer
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto wrote: > David E. Smith wrote: > > My understanding was that the moderator is supposed to ONLY > > filter out ads and utterly-content-free messages. > That seems to be a very common misunderstanding--one which will > remain without question on the censored list, since they have > chosen to remain behind the ElectroMagnetic Curtain. You'll recall that Sandfort (as Logos) ranted without letup about decorum, decorum, ... ad nauseam, which, now that I look back on it, is a *very* handy tool for controlling the list. Logic does not interfere with decorum, despite the implication of the nym Logos. > > (Mind you, I took the smart out and subbed to cp-unedited, > > so I'm in no place to judge.) > You're in a far better place to judge than those who have > chosen to remain spoon-fed their world-view. I just hope your judgement isn't skewed when you don't get some of the mail, i.e., when the pony breaks down and can't run for awhile. > > Aha, a good point to be brought up: Sandy, are you autofiltering > > anyone based on user name, or on certain keywords? Seems to > > defeat the purpose of having a _human_ moderator. > You realize, of course, that your question is moot, since this > post of yours was already thrown in the crapper/flame-list. > It seems that questioning the process is a 'flame'. The List Lord made it clear "In The Beginning" that some posts would probably be irretrievably lost due to unavoidable "mistakes". Think "FBI Crime Lab". You get the picture.

6 8

Re: Intelligence Update (fwd)
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 11:11 PM 1/30/97 -0800, you wrote: >>>Note: According to a recently obtained DOJ surveillance training manual: >>>"The typical range for the 28 ghz devices is six miles, the typical >>>range of the 2.4 ghz is thirty miles, and the typical range for the >>>1.7ghz is 44 miles." > >How sure are you about the quality of your sources here? >I'd expect 1.7ghz and above equipment to require line of sight, >and even a range of six miles seems really high for a very low power >device - getting that as "typical" seems pretty unlikely. >Could all of these figures have been 6, 30, and 44 _meters_ instead? :-) While these claims may be for links under near ideal conditions, Hams routinely make very long distace links at 900, 2400 and 5700 MHz during contests using less than 1 Watt. Also, our deep space probes operate many links to earth in this spectral region using low power transmitters. Of course they have 200 ft. antennas (e.g., Goldstone) at the receiveing end with cryogenic reciever front-ends. Links do become increasingly line-of-sight above 1 GHz this is radio not visual (i.e., shots through trees. etc.) and there is increasingly the ability to utilize reflection ("billboard" shots) advantageously. As frequency increases path loss also increases. Fortunately, as frequencies increase antenna gain also increases. In fact, by holding antenna dimensions constant (for an arbitrary antenna design, e.g., parabolic) gain increases with frequency in direct proportion to increasing path loss, thus cancelling it out. There are other factors, such as required S/N or bit error rate for the particular application, reciever sensitivity and noise floor, and background noise levels, which directly affect link margins (transmit power - path loss - reciever sensitivity; all in dB) and thus viability of a link. Above 1 GHz terrestrial noise, including that produced by man, declines rapidly at the moment. However, as more UHF communication devices and microprocessors operating at 100s of MHz proliferate that noise floor is sure to rise. --Steve

1 0

[ADMINISTRATIVIUM] Secure checksums
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a jerk-off competition Tim May finishes second, third and fifth. ,/ \, ((__,-,,,-,__)), `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---`

1 0

Re: 40-bit encryption keys
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dickhead L>ily< Vulis K>ondom< Of The Minute studied yoga back-stretching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will). /o)\ Dr.Dickhead L>ily< Vulis K>ondom< Of The Minute \(o/

1 0

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jan 1997 15:26:16 -0500, Jim Ray wrote: >from http://www.herald.com/dade/digdocs/021949.htm >Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something >By ARNOLD MARKOWITZ Herald Staff Writer > U.S. mail carriers carry more than just the U.S. mail. >They carry something else so secret that nobody outside the >Postal Service knows about it -- except four crooks who steal >them from letter carriers on the streets of Miami. There's a >$25,000 reward for tips producing capture and conviction. - Nicaraguan cocaine shipments bound for Los Angeles - Coded messages from the grays - L.Ron Hoover's posthumous writings on appliantology

2 1

It can be disabled (was Re: PGPMail Log File)
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 31 Jan 1997 09:27:45 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:22 AM 1/31/97 +0000, "Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl'" >< WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.comwrote: >> Is there a way to disable the \WINDOWS\PGPW_32.LOG? >> In subtle ways it's a security hole if left to accumulate over time, >> since it keeps records of which keys you encrypted messages to. >This is a damn good question. I do NOT have the "write to a log file" > option slected in the misc. tab and it STILL writes a log file. How DO >we disable this? It's disabled, with the exception of keeping when it was last run. Technically a 'security hole' but so minor I can live with it. Maybe your version (I'm using beta 11) has a problem, but mine's fine. I was just careless and didn't look closely (not something one should do with crypto...) Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvLTBQTNlSxdPy6ZAQEe4Qf7B1tIyBSZvdtg48lSZAnr4IOh9NbbrgvK RSoGF8UVGnfQWgItsiYIkA82WAqxBBMQaJuHBolkm8PTh7eb/Q3dd4Wz9BZdMp/g +aCRIM2MzfX2+SagyTw4r7L98XozfcUkhnSKcmJQDtrrq04Rlglt5Muf96jrW++p ltp4gXh4nawx75GZlGIS2XB223g5Rd9RSXAGER0gV1BtZKYt8uGkzeGL0OnsZnr+ VUgNVmXX2jeCn0essUX5WcKlSK2vATkoqv3UR1deEbP0Xdt/PTwjS/GZHrvnP5B1 zfOn7iV0CGZYXWpQAGO58HtW16vqC8wZ6lb5N7tdbBRcGX0B/cHc8A== =49OA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > At 09:05 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: > >I dare say that the downside of this is much less pleasant than the > >virtual anarchy (in the bad sense) we suffer now. If the police get > >out of control, A.P. will arrive just in time to plug a few of those > >holes, so to speak. Ideally, future robotics should be able to provide > >something like Gort (sp?) to take the place of human officers, given > >advances in the kind of pattern matching needed to deter aggression and > >the like. Those who don't make it past the robots, well, the rest of > >us can learn to behave, and we'll be much better off when we do. > Your comparison with the fictional Gort, in the movie "The day the earth > stood still" is of course apt. It was only after I'd written most of the > essay that I realized that an AP-type system would function much as Gort did. There are some things that just go off in my mind like a light bulb coming on, and the realization that the system would take care of itself was one of those things. > Occasionally we (CP) see a spoof where somebody claims to have developed a > software program to "replace the judicial system" or something like that. > Well, the problem with such a claim (aside from the obvious and enormous > AI-type difficulties) is that the current system contains numerous biases. > Writing a program to replace the legal system would presumably require that > these biases be measured (and admitted-to!) and implemented into a > well-defined system. There is also a great deal of disinformation in the system, which leads to a misperception on the public's part about just what those biases might be. Examples that come to mind are the OKC bombing and the OJ murders. In both cases, grand juries composed of middle class people (all or almost all White in the Simpson case) would not indict based on the evidence they were given, and so they were dissolved and an excuse was made up to cover someone's butt. Now some of the fallout is blowing in in the form of revelations about the FBI crime lab. > What we'd discover is that the current system only barely resembles the > guarantees in the US Constitution. At that point, there would be an argument > between those who will insist that the Constitution be followed, and those > who believe that the current de-facto system, however biased, be maintained > as-is. I don't see any reason why we can't develop programs to do certain levels of preliminary analysis in these cases, much like the programs which have been around for years on PC's, i.e., Mind Prober, Decision Analyst, and so on. I gotta believe that teams of people who prepare these cases are using this stuff anyway, albeit discretely. If it's brought out into the open, and the public can look at case facts that have been processed thru multiple software sites, it would have to be a helluva lot better than Joe Schmucko's byline in the L.A. Times, for example.

1 0