December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Report from Supreme Court on CDA arguments
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > Nothing I have seen in the interpretations of the CDA would "excuse" me > from saying "Fuck" (or worse) in a forum if I knew readers under 18 might > see it. (Some of the pro-CDA folks talk about possible exceptions for, say, > two 17-year-olds discussing sexual problems between themselves). > > This was the main reason I did "Tim's Vernacular Translation of the Bible" > as an alternate .sig. (Included below, by the way.) > -- > [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency > Act of 1996] > And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why > don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll > just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: > "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." > So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure > enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan > really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant > while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he > came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your > brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course > God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular > Translation, TCM, 1996] Perhaps this sig could be used in all replies to government agencies in regard to CDA and other censorship matters. Is it in the public domain? -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

Re: FBI Visits JPUNIX
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > At 10:35 PM 3/20/97 -0500, John Perry wrote: > > Apparently some high-ranking > >official has been receiving anonymous email coming from my site that > >is of a threatening nature. This official has decided to call in the > >FBI as I was visited by said organization. I am shutting down remailer > >operations immediately. > I think you should name the "high-ranking official" involved. If there actually is one. > We (and you) might also point out that as far as you know, these threatening > notes could have been send by GOVERNMENT people, in an attempt to shut down > the system. Perhaps there was no threatening note. Perhaps there was no visit from the FBI. The attempt to destroy the cypherpunks list failed. The next logical target would be the remailers. Two remailers go down in the same week, both being tenacles of C2Net. Greg Broiles once again happens upon the scene of the accident, and predictably warns everyone of the grave dangers and liabilities facing remailer operators. How long until he publicly calls for the remailers to be "killed," as he did with the cypherpunks list? Instead of solutions to the problems facing small remailers, we have schills coming out of the woodwork to proclaim that remailers are only feasible for Big Business to operate. Corporate takeover of the list failed, now corporate takeover of the remailers seems to be the new agenda. I suggest that, instead of wasting time on a new battle, we simply resurrect all of the arguments over list control and re-post them as arguments over remailer control, simply substituting the word "remailer" everywhere that the word "list" occurs. Truthmonger Cindy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4 3

Re: LA Times article on crypto anarchy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal Finney wrote: > "'Activity in cyberspace ultimately forecasts the end of national > control,' said David Post, visiting associate professor of law at > Georgetown University." > The article goes on to mention digital cash, crypto policy debates, > problems with the CDA, Germany's attempt to block access to Radikal > magazine and anti holocast info on the net, and other topics which we > have discussed at length. It is good to see these ideas beginning to > enter the mainstream. > This is what this list and this movement is capable of. A lot of > these ideas would not have received their prominence if it were not > for the cypherpunks. And of course there are powerful forces arranged > in opposition. Of course, those who attempt to point toward those powerful forces will be be subjected to ridicule as paranoid conspiracy theorists. And when they point out the facts concerning the underlying alliances and motivations behind various actors on the list, then they will be met with rebuttals that so-and-so had a beer with them, once, and they seemed like a nice person. Big news flash! Nazi's attend the opera and kiss babies. Money buys people (even those who deny it to themselves). I wish I had a dime for every post I've seen on this list that denigrates those that suggest that the list is both followed by, and subjected to interference by, clandestine agencies and agents. "What? Our 'How to build a Nuclear bomb' list is being subjected to surveillance? How silly!" Buy a clue, dudes and dudettes. Cryptography is the new Nuclear technology of the Information Age. Big Brother is paying attention. > How easy they find it to distract us, to fill the list > with irrelevant discussions! When I see so many posts which are purely > flame bait, or which seem to go out of their way to explore trivia as > though it were of interest, I believe that in at least some cases they > are intentionally designed to thwart our efforts. Most people who recognize this still fail to see the 'thwarting' that takes place by those whose sole purpose is to spread disinformation while seeming to agree with the consensus opinion on the list. The subtle slants which are a constant undercurrent in their posts are seldom seen as an attempt to undermine the issues they appear to be supporting. > I'm not calling for censorship, but I'd like people to be aware of what > is going on. Before responding to an off-topic or flaming post, consider > the motivations of the creators of the thread. Is it possible that this > is purely an attempt to fill the list with noise, to drown out discussion > on more important and relevant topics? In some cases, undoubtedly, but anyone who thinks that the flames and off-topic posts are the enemy on this list are _not_ aware of what is going on. Noise will deflect idiots and lightweights from following the crucial issues surrounding cryptography, but this in no great loss. The true loss to the list is when the supposedly intelligent members lose the capacity to distinguish critical points raised on the list because they have allowed themselves to fall into the same personality based mode of censorship as was forcefully imposed on the list. Look at the number of people on the list who _boast_ about their killfiles. They are idiots. Even those who profess to use their filters as an information tool seem to base their filtering on personality, to a large degree. The result? They are filtering _into_ view those the disinformation artists who will lick their dick in order to lead them away from areas they don't want to receive too much attention. The result of the sheep mentality of cliques who killfile each other is that if a list member wants to raise an issue outside of his or her own _clan_ on the list, then they must make NOISE sufficient to draw in the members of other clans, whose other members will read their replies. Your post might waken a few of the converted to remind them that it takes an effort to stay on track, but if you had found a way to work the word "cocksucker" into the list, you would have reached a wider audience, and perhaps done some good where it will be more effective. (Or, better yet, badmouth the list Icons.) The fact of the matter is, spotting spooks and schills on this list is a minor matter of the simplest of traffic analysis, given the fact that so many list members are content to focus their attention only on the _visible_ enemies that those who use deceit and deception have to make little effort to cover their tracks. > Simply being aware of the attack will, I suggest, go a long way towards > reducing its impact. I think that all list members would be well-advised to read your post and give it serious thought. I think, however, that they should also make an attempt to broaden the concepts you deal with, in their own mind, in order to adjust their view as to the true nature of the traffic on this list really is. TruthMonger

2 1

Re: Cypherpunks & Ecash in WSJ, Chaum,and Amazing Revelation by NSA
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal Finney <hal(a)rain.org> writes: ... > In my travels around the web, I find that First Virtual is being > relatively successful for small amounts like shareware fees. It is > easy to get started with FV; you fill out their web page and make a call > to their 800 number with your credit card info. You're ready to go in > a few minutes. I'm sure there are a lot more people buying things with > FV than with Digicash. ... I just had an idea for an interesting demo project. Perhaps someone wants to take it up and to put a spin on it to promote privacy/cryptography. Most (perhaps all) states' motor vehicle departments allow you to connect to their computer (usually via a modem) and map licence plate numbers into names/addresses. Typically you must first set up an account and pay, e.g., $200, and then something like $4 is deducted from the account for each query. Obviously, only someone who performs a lot of queries (like a p.i. or a lawyer) would set up an account. It occurred to me that it might be "interesting" for someone to set up accounts with all the states that have this service; and to establish a Web site that would do quantity 1 queries for a reasonable fee, like $FV10. I recall that someone got hold of the Washington State database and operated such a service for free for a few days as a demo. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: More disinfo from Cocksucker John Gilmore
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > >no longer trusted Gilmore to > >host the list. > > > > On the planet I live on, the list moved because Gilmore was no longer > > willing to host the list > > On the other hand the majority of the list members, including myself, > would say that the reason the list moved was because of the > censorship imposed by statist cocksucker Gilmore. > > The list rapidly disentigrated into infighting and flame wars as soon > as the censorship was announced, several people suggested new list > solutions before Gilmore anounced he was closing the list, I remember > talking in private email with Igor and several others about the > distributed mailing list solution immediately the censorship was > announced. > > > Question: > > > > Is this true dissinformation or does this scumbag Russian sociopath > > believe his own lies? > > Question: > > 1. Is this bot generated or does "Casey Iverson" really exist? - I > would say he is a real person due to the level of context sesitivity and > quoting in his posts, however, it is beyond my comprehension that > anyone could be this inane... Unfortunately, New York City is the home to several people who in a more restrictive society would have been committed - Case Iverson, Ray Arachelian, the lying crackpot Charles Platt from alt.torture... > 2. If "Casey" does exist does he suck John Gilmore`s cock or is he > more of a Sandfort man? Neither Gilmore nor Sandfart have cocks long enough to reach from California... But Iverson may be sucking Arachelian's cock. > 3. Could the level of stupidity in his posts be easily emulated by a perl > script or would this require more complicated code including inducing > gramatical errors, anti Russian rants and turns of phrase that simply > fail to scan right in the context in which they are generated? With difficulty. A program's output would likely sound more intelligent. > 4. Is there a low bandwidth stego channel hidden in his rants, with > the data transmitted as integers giving the apparent IQ of the writer > for each message? Yes, but it's a very low bandwidth channel capable of transmitting single digits only. > 5. If he does exist and is sentient is he an NSA schill wasting our > time and effort to stop us doing crypto? A very good point, Paul. You may have noticed that Cocksucker John Gilmore spreads lies and disinformation, he makes up hard numbers which can be proven to be false - but it would require an effort that could be used more productively e.g. on setting up more remailers. Consider several of Cocksucker John Gilmore's recent claims made through his subservient mouthpiece Rich Graves. In article <5gl63i$4eu(a)quixote.stanford.edu> Cocksucker John Gilmore wrote: >comparing me to Vulis doesn't work, I don't think. He'd have >mailbombed the list subscribers at the drop of a hat; and in >the case of cypherpunks, he and GruBoursy did, to such an >extent that the list had to move from toad.com to cyberpass.net. >I'm sure I've disappointed some people by doing nothing of the >kind. Doesn't stop Seth from saying I'm obsessed, of course. This is a lie. I haven't mailbombed cypherpunks. There were several mail loops during the list's existance on toad.com, none of which were caused by me. The list moved because of Gilmore's censorship, which Graves forgets to mention at all. list. In article <5gkfag$36o(a)quixote.stanford.edu> Cocksucker John Gilmore/Graves further wrote: >>In any case, I personally would not ever absolutely reject posts >>arbitrarily from someone if I was moderating a list, even if 99.9% of >>their posts were absolute junk. (I've been in such situations---try >>moderating an biological evolution newsgroup and fend of all the >>creationists.) > >You've never met Dr. Vulis, then. Imagine 50 messages a day like this: > >http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-96.10.24-96.10.30/ > >|Timmy May has tons of dandruff (and dried up semen) in his beard. >|Is he Jewish??? >| >|--- >| >|Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >|Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps The cypherpunks mailing list is archived at several sites. As I pointed out, it's possible to search the archives and to verify that in the several years that I've been on this list, there was not a single day when I posted 50 articles; not a single day when I posted even 15 articles; and probably less than 10 days when I posted more than 5 articles. Cocksucker John Gilmore is lying again. In the same article Gilmore/Graves wrote: >Vulis also posted megabytes of Serdar Argic screeds, just to be annoying, >and with the stated intention of disrupting the list. That's called a >denial of service attack. More lies. I have repeatedly stated that it is NOT my intention to disrupt the mailing list. The total size of the Serdar Argic material is under 200K. I'd be surprised if the total size of my contributions to cypherpunks over the years adds up to more than a couple of megabytes. But of course we know that Cocksucker John Gilmore is a pathological liar, so we can do something more useful than digging through the archives. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

Re: For-pay remailers (was: PGP Security)
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal Finney wrote: > Rather than try to design or envision a grand infrastructure with > everything working perfectly like a smoothly running machine, let's wait > and see how for-pay remailers fare once they appear. There's nothing > like the profit motive to unlease creativity. I'm sure methods for > providing high quality service can be found. That sounds much better than "Let's sit on our asses and see if the for-pay remailers fare, _if_ they ever appear, while the attacks continue knock off more remailers." One of the main reasons the CypherPunks list continued as it did was because of those who actively made plans for its continuance, instead of sitting on their asses. Are you and Greg working as a team, here? -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

Re: Crypto Info War
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young wrote: > > Congressional Record: March 19, 1997: > > The Senate > > ***** > > DOD AUTHORIZATION--INFORMATION WARFARE [5] > Committee on National Security: Subcommittee on Military Procurement > and Subcommittee on Military Research and Development held a joint > hearing on fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense authorization > request--Information Warfare. Testimony was heard from the following > officials of the Department of Defense: > Vice Adm. Arther K. > Cebrowski, USN, Director, Navy Space, Information Warfare, Command and ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Control, Chief of Naval Operations; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > and Marvin Langston, Deputy Assistant Secretary, > Navy C41/Electronic Warfare/Space Programs, Office of the Assistant ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition); ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Who was it who funded the development of RSA? Can you say "Navy?" Sure, you can. TruthMonger

2 1

Security of SSL proxies
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A number of vendors are now selling SSL proxies which implement secure tunnelling for web browsers using a non-crippled SSL implementation running on the client machine. Has anyone considered the total security level provided by one of these systems? I can see three problems with this approach: 1. The security stops a few feet short of the browser, making a MITM attack possible (see below). 2. Security and authentication is handled by the proxy and not the browser. This means that the browser (and browser user) never get to see the usual indicators that their connection is secure (or "secure" for non-US users). 3. If you use a proxy like this to protect traffic for an entire company, the proxy provides the same type of target as a GAK key center: An attack which compromises this compromises security for the entire company. The first one is a practical problem, the second one is more perceptual. Consider the following possible attack: A nice authenticoded ActiveX control ("the tee proxy") installs itself on your machine and hooks itself into the chain of proxies by either moving the SSL proxy to a different port or changing the browser config entry so it's the first proxy in the chain. It then scans all data being forwarded for credit card numbers/PINs/whatever and forwards them to God knows where. There are various simple defences (eg the SSL proxy checks to make sure the browser still goes to it first), but in the end it's just a cat and mouse game - the tee proxy could spoof the registry calls (there was an article in DDJ which explains how to do this), or disable the check, or hook directly into the proxy service by patching the DLL (this was explained in MSJ I think). In short, because the security stops a few feet short, it's possible to attack the system. A related problem is that fact that the browser isn't aware that a layer of security is being applied to the connection, and so will act as if the connection was insecure (ie it won't display the usual signs that the link is secured, and will give annoying warnings when navigating secure web sites). Finally, pulling personal certs into/through the proxy is rather complex, requiring the cooperation of the CA in issuing specific types of certs (one browser-specific one for the browser and an identical-content but proxy-specific one for the proxy), and all sorts of complex juggling by the user to install them. This probably makes the use of certs in this environment fairly luser-proof, which more or less means no certs. Are there any other problems which people are aware of? There was a bit of a fuss made about these proxies being the end of ITAR when they were first announced, but since then things seem to have gone quiet. Peter.

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks & Ecash in WSJ, Chaum,and Amazing Revelation by NSA
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:17 AM 3/22/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: ty 1 queries for a reasonable fee, like $FV10. > >I recall that someone got hold of the Washington State database and >operated such a service for free for a few days as a demo. It was Oregon... unless you are thinking of an incident that I didn't hear of. I have the Oregon DMV database on CDROM. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

A cypherpunk push-poll ? (Was Re: Dorothy and the four Horseman)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems to me that that whole "survey" was a classic example of "push" polling. That is, a poll where leading and inflamitory questions area asked about a political opponent so that the respondent is incited to vote against that opponent. Maybe there should be a cypherpunk counter-poll. Any ideas for questions? Cheers, Bob ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/

1 1