December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Keystroke sniffer question
by Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. Is there a file name to look for? Where do people get them? ======================================= Scott Bellavance scott-b(a)ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~scott-b/homepage.html ======================================= -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzAu56UAAAEEAL8pOdPu2pw5E91f99ByJWT+O1smtcOlIr6GL9TdCbdZ6I2U UPLl7RL5cV4e3Wv4nIIZiOIePMAUouM5fQZib4vnGpCKM/WxfGQBRGafsq2mlzvE IKLBrdYhQ5STl/qZIaCKI2+V4hdsvTPaI0PCqGzGoiDv9gbbZ40Gi3F38KqtAAUR tCtTY290dCBSLiBCZWxsYXZhbmNlIDxzY290dC1iQGl4Lm5ldGNvbS5jb20+ =Hfbk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > >> My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > >> my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > >> If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > >> able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > >> new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > >> passphrase? > > Passphrases are MD5-hashed into 128-bit IDEA keys and used to > encrypt the secret key; there's a "pgpcrack" program out there > that does dictionary-style searches to find if you've got > wimpy passphrases. So if your passphrases is "secret", you lose, > but if it's "fjhw;doifvjuc-[09efiu v` 2 4rnhc;ljoipcvjpoiewujfgv;loik" > you're probably pretty safe, unless that's written on the yellow > sticky you left on the side of the PC. > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > they've already gotten you.... If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should > not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a > free and open society must tolerate any action. > > This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY > ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no > means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. > It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open > society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting > individualy or in concert. I have waited, with bated breath, for you to take a position which is short, concise, and well-reasoned. Well, you finally did, but you just couldn't leave it alone, could you? I think that what you have written (above) is a valid and meaningful statement of your position. I see what follows, however, as a train of 'logic' which follows a pre-defined, emotionally-charged justification of a defensive position you have taken, as a result of a real or imagined 'slight'. I have followed your 'libel' thread, as rambling (and sometimes dichotomously incoherent) as it is, and I recognize that you are passionate in your beliefs (for which I salute you), but I think that perhaps your interests might be better served if you let logic lead your emotions. If you did so, I might well hire you as my lawyer (to defend me in your libel suit against me), since you do have a 'bulldog' sense of determination in pursing any position you take. The million-and-one posts you made with the results of your search-engine research on libel only served to accentuate your inability to fully understand the issues underlying libel and defamation. Your own opinions regarding your thoughts and opinions regarding these same issues were much more poignant and enlightening. I would hope that, in the future, you would justify your beliefs and opinions with a revelation of your own points of logic (or illogic) rather than attempting to support them with legalese rulings which often stand on a foundation of sand, especially under close judicial scrutiny. You do, indeed, raise some points that are worthy of valid consideration, and debate, but they tend to get lost in your excessive arguments regarding them. Toto

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that > philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just > government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. I've seen this kind of statement so many times I just have to point it out: "which this moderation policy *clearly* (emph. mine) is not". Why is it so clear to you, but not everyone? Am I missing something? Didn't Reagan, Bush, North et al make it clear enough to Americans that much of what the govt. does has been privatized, as if we didn't know already from the 1970's assassination hearings in the Congress, or from when Carter fired the 900 security guys and they went to work for "private" contractors? I ask you again to look at the motives of the people involved. John Gilmore isn't about to waste a second of his personal time "moderating" this list (who could blame him?), and I can't for the life of me see a reason why Sandy would want to devote so much time to it. Have you or anyone seen a real reason why Sandy would want to do this? Is he so devoted to crypto and personal freedom that he'll do *anything* to eliminate the postings which "threaten" this list, or could there be some other, hidden motivation? My long experience in the real world says that professional people do *not* devote a great deal of their time to things like this unless there is an *awfully* good reason. > On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Toto wrote: > > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > > > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > > > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > > > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > > > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > > > repercussions). > > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > > > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > > > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > > > would be the end of freedom! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while?

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > At 08:02 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Toto wrote: > > I also think that the other list members involved in this thread are > >'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. > > It's odd that you would say this. I get that impression ("nobodies") about > practically EVERY subject discussed here. Why name this particular one, as > if it were somehow special? Jim, "You're 'nobody', till 'somebody' loves you..." Everybody has their own prediliction as to what interests them, and what is 'frivilous' on the list. Someone, in private email, mentioned that they felt that 60% of the posts were 'uninteresting'. I replied that this seemed to be a close approximation of many list members' beliefs, but that, if we all moderated/censored out 'our' 60% of 'uninteresting' posts before the list was sent out, that there would be precious little left. I don't know if you recognized my comment as humor, since I have an aversion to using 'happy faces' (the result of a childhood trauma), but I just love to poke fun at the plethora of personas on the list who seem to believe that anything outside of their immediate scope of interest is somehow 'unworthy' of being posted the list. By the way, in order to prevent this post from going to the 'flames' list, I will NOT say that you are a low-life, scum-sucking Nazi piece of shit. I will likewise refrain from suggesting that your mother wears army boots, you are a child-pornographer, an imbecile, and a pervert, or that you beat your wife and children regularly. By golly, I think I'm 'getting the hang of' this new, improved, Politically Correct, nicey-nice list format. Toto

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. -Declan On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Toto wrote: > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > > repercussions). > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > > would be the end of freedom! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while? > > >

2 1

Re: GSM technology
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:37:38 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >At 09:43 AM 1/20/97 -0500, Nurdane Oksas wrote: >> Does anyone use ADSL lines? or are they still very expensive? > >I just had a very interesting talk with somebody from Northern Telecom (Canada's Phone Company). NorTel has apparently skipped ISDN and is now deploying ADSL. Some areas already have access to ADSL at, can you believe this, $60/month. > I'm not sure about Nortel but ADSL is availible in Calgary from CadVision. http://www.cadvision.ca It's not cheap. BCTel is yapping about offering it by the end of the year.

1 0

NOISE.SYS Home Page
by Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I now have an under-construction home page for NOISE.SYS, in case you're interested: http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/software.htm#noise (NOISE.SYS is a crypto-RNG device for DOS boxes.) Rob ----- "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: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Greg Broiles Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) .................................................................. Heh - Jim B. and Jim C.: the Yin & Yang of Society At Large. What could a discussion between them produce. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Lesher <wb8foz(a)nrk.com> writes: > USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. > Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 > 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. Don't let the old-fashioned look deceive you. Most mail storage boxes use lever tumbler locks (similar to what's used in safe deposit vaults, though obviously the mailbox locks have a flimsier plug). Lever tumbler locks are in general much harder to pick than pin tumbler locks (the kind on most doors).

2 1