December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

SPAMs across the border - regulatory arbitrage strikes again
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I got my first Canadian spam today - as US Congresscritters are planning to pave a few more blocks of the Information Superhighway with "good intentions", spammers are moving offshore (well, if Bedford NS is offshore, anyway...) outside their grasp. Of course, the SPAMMER's ISP is Spamford, but he could move to the Great White North as well. # 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 or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Web page picketing is easy - there are a bunch of ways to do it, >with varying degrees of coverage. Here are some examples: >0) Hijack DNS or routers - sorry, no points for this. Foo. I forgot to add an obvious variant 0a) Creating a similar or parody domain name like micros0ft.com or microsquish.com sometimes gets you points, if done well. # 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 or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

RE: McVeigh? Nimrods.....
by Chris DiBona 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<rant> Okay folks...what the hell is wrong with you? First off, this whole McVeigh Crap is a bit off topic..but we all know this. The amazing thing about the string of posts has been that people have forgotten that He has been found guilty of murdering quite a few people. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. Jury of his peers, dare I say, people like us all. Randomly selected. This is how our system works. Yes there are flaws in the system. Yes the US govt. has it's problems in the past, present and future. Yes people have died because schnooks in DC have had thier heads up thier ass. Or not. So whether or not you belive he did it.....how can anyone be _for_ what _happened_. People died senselessly, I can't believe that anyone (in this case Duncan Frissell frissell(a)panix.com, lets give credit where it is due) can be so callous and , frankly, sick , to say : <> As to the Children of OKC, people who turn the care of their children over to government employees or contractors do not place too high a value on those children. <> Are you serious? You should be ashamed that you think this way. Do you really think those children who died weren't cared for? You are a sick person who should seriously consider therapy. Anyone who read this and said "Yeah!" is on the same plane. To all the people who defend blowing shit and people up to get thier point across.... Okay..so the IRA does it, and HAMMAS does it, and the CIA does it. So does the PLFP the FARC and a zillion other terrorist groups. And it appears McVeigh did it. But that doesn't make blowing up children in freakin' day care all right. Do you understand this? There is no reason to blow up kids. It's wrong. For any reason. Bad. Duncan...looking over your past posts.. .I've got to wonder if you were on acid when you wrote this, many of your posts were fairly cozigent. But this? Do you have children? Any cousins who are children? A nephew or neice? Do these children who may be important to you have parents who "care" about them enough to scour the planet to find a good,safe day care that isn't withing the blast radius or shooting range of : A government office. A large corporations headquarters. A law firm. A post office. A town square. A restaurant. A bank. Anywhere some asshole might have a gun and go loopy. Anywhere some asshole might have a car be drunk and go loopy. Anywhere some asshole might have a gun and a car and be drunk and go loopy. If they even could, I'm someone somewhere will find a way to fuck up that safe place. You get the point, I could go on....but I won't. Perhaps you should think and read over your posts before you post again. The only good thing (and I mean ONLY) to come out of the whole Mcveigh thing being discussed here on cypherpunks, is that it has allowed me to add to my killfiles people who have for some reason, had a prefrontal. To all the dipshits who could possibly think otherwise. I should also mention it is an EQUALLY fucked up thing to blow up adults. Like my fellow Santa Clara County Resident Bill Frantz said : For cypherpunks this comes down to: Make code, not bombs. Chris DiBona </rant>

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:06:19 -0400 (EDT) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > Jim's fundamental misunderstanding below seems to be, as far as I can > tell, confusing public funding with public forums. What is amazing is your denying there is any sort of connection at all. I am not claiming that they are 1-to-1 as you would have readers believe but rather one brings along certain rights for the user from the other area. One of those rights is going to be protection of their civil liberties. Your tacit assertion that simply because some resource receives public money does not affect the civil or criminal aspect at all is also misleading. > Just because an entity > receives most, or all, of its funding from the state does not mean that > that entity or the service that entity provides becomes a public forum for > the purposes of First Amendment analysis. BUT, and you seem unable to grasp this important concept, its users DO receive such extra protection over and above a solely private resource. This means that communictions BETWEEN said users will ALSO gain that protection. Now it seems plain to me that if the reader sends a packet over that network link, the server sends a packet over that same network in responce a third party on that link with a CIVIL interest in the content of that exchange may be able to force a minimal level of communications because they ALSO use that link and have a vested interest in what the server is sending over that link publicly. > After all, many research > universities receive half their revenues from Federal grants but they do > not become public fora. I suppose part of the analysis in this case might > turn on whether the state is setting up such networks itself and "owning" > them or whether it's providing grants to a private entity. If the government owns the link, say between Salt Lake and Chicago, wholely then there is most definitely a comparison to be made. Even if the funding is only partial that still brings along additional contractual obligations for the operators in regards to civil rights and legal protections. I could see them taking the end-point servers over on national security grounds (like civilian airport radio equipment or the telephone) in regards to breeches or damages against the servers. Shoot, they could integrate them into the EBS (or whatever they are calling it this week). That could mean that ANY hacking that was carried would automaticaly involve the government on national security grounds ("Damn, I wish I hadn't changed my password without writing it down!..."). THAT is just way too Red Scare for me. > Again, the Internet is not a public street. Yes, and your point? It can't be that a specific backbone cable between two cities owned by the government is equivalent to the Internet in toto, even conceptualy. Because it is clear that such a construct is equivalent to the publicly funded highway running between the same cities, and you most definitely CAN picket on a highway easment legaly. I have seen farm workers in Texas do it my entire life. The Info-Highway comparison goes a LOT farther than most people seem to have taken it. I personaly, don't think we should go there in the case of communications technology. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

ANNOUNCE: Mixmaster 2.0.4 beta available (fwd)
by Fred B. Ringel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all- No warranties or representations regarding this announcement, however I thought some on the list might find this of interest. I'm putting mine together right now. Fred ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 03:25:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: Name Withheld by Request <nobody(a)replay.com> Subject: ANNOUNCE: Mixmaster 2.0.4 beta available This is to announce the release of Mixmaster 2.0.4 beta. Mixmaster is a new class of anonymous remailers. Inspired by the existing "cypherpunk" remailers and discussions on the Cypherpunk mailing list, Mixmaster is the next generation in the evolution of remailer technology. Mixmaster is available from: ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/replay/pub/remailer/Mix-204b1.tar.gz What's new? - several bug fixes. - "middle only" remailer. - messages compression. - support for /dev/random. - rudimentary support for the list of reliable Mixmaster remailers. - new installation script. - can be compiled under DOS/Windows. Mixmaster is (C) by Lance Cottrell <loki(a)infonex.com>. This release was made by Ulf Möller <um(a)idril.shnet.org>.

1 0

DES [Was: Re: Webpage picketing?...]
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(maybe) TruthMonger (maybe not) wrote: >[lots of editing] > I used Peter Trei and others' software for the DES Challenge, > but I posted a suggestion to the list that perhaps their programs > contained subterfuge designed to thwart others in their attempts > to find the secret keys. Was I spreading FUD? The responses to > my post gave me much more information about the processes behind > the software than any direct inquiries I had made about their > workings. (And they reinforced the fact that "blind trust" in > their programs or anyone else's is foolish.) > I could put a pointer to Peter's software which opens an > adjoining window which warns that it may be compromised as a > result of ulterior motives. The fact is, however, that Peter > might himself put a disclaimer on his page saying, "If you > can't read code, then you can't be certain of what my software > is doing." (As a matter of fact, I believe his documentation > mentions that there is no guarantee his logic is not in error.) TM: Yes, you were spreading FUD, of a particularly stupid kind. I've always distributed my DES cracking software with full source code, as well as a compilied Wintel version. Anyone who wants to can examine the source and compile it independently if they worry about a mismatch between the source and the included binary. Sven Mikkelsen (http://inet.uni-c.dk/~svolaf/des.htm) has now published full source for BrydDES was well. It runs faster than my code, but is only for x86 (mine includes generic 'C'). If you want to participate in a coordinated attack, and don't mind using a binary-only client, see. http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm. This effort claims to have already searched 15% of the keyspace. For overall info on the DES challenge, see http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/des.html Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Cybernetic money laundering
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, we've been saying this for years. It appears the experts now admit we were right. The difference is that what they _worry_ about, we _embrace_. --Tim Wednesday June 4 10:07 AM EDT Internet could help crime syndicates launder money By Richard Waddington LISBON - Big crime syndicates could soon be using the Internet to launder dirty money and there might not be much authorities can do about it, an international conference was told on Tuesday. The international web, which already allows clients to shop and sell around the globe, could become the perfect medium for the cocaine barons of Colombia or the Mafia gangs of Sicily to make their ill-gotten wealth respectable. International police are already having a hard time keeping up with the sophisticated maneuvers of criminals and fraudsters as they switch funds from country to country, often making use of lax banking regulations. But with the Internet and the coming introduction of electronic cash, so-called E-cash, the authorities could lose what has been one of their only advantages -- the need for criminal gangs to handle and at some stage deposit big quantities of cash. ..... E-cash could take the place of physical money in the same way that E-mail has replaced the posting of letters. Huge sums could be switched from person to person without the need to pass through any form of banking system, experts said. .... Backhouse said that experiments with E-cash, or digital banking, were already being carried out in around 25 countries and the system could become commonplace within five years or so. "What is only a little trickle at the moment will become a roaring torrent," he told Reuters. But the ability to switch faceless funds effortlessly around the world was not the only danger posed by the revolution under way in international communications, experts said. Organized crime could use the Internet to set up web-based companies offering services of all types to act as vehicles for "washing" their funds. "The Internet is an ideal medium. It will be difficult to prove that such companies and transactions are false," said Maclachlan. Crime gangs could even go so far as to set up their own banking services as accounts can be established with Internet banks using no more than a photocopy of a driving license as proof of identity, experts said. Global by nature, the network could be particularly difficult to police because of the tricky question of territoriality. Which country has responsibility when a bank can be based only in electronic space? Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved

1 0

Re: Hacker Links page (fwd)
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I sent this out last night, leaving the Cypherpunks distribution as "cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com." Alas, it does not seem to have propagated to my site. So here it is: >Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:09:30 -0700 >To: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com>, cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com >(Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer) >From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> >Subject: Re: Hacker Links page (fwd) >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > > >When I was on the Cyberial-l list, for lawyers and others interested in >cyberspace law issues, this issues of URLs being infringements came up a >couple of times. > >I think the answer is very clear: nobody needs permission of others to >print URLs. > >URLs are like footnotes. They are not actually links or tunnels of any >sort. They are just like "machine readable footnotes." If I refer a reader >to "Applied Cryptography," either by citing the book title and ISBN numer, >I do not need the permission of Bruce Schnier to cite this information. No >copyright law has ever been held to apply to the recitation of such cites. > >A URL is just an address, much like a ISBN number. > >In modern browsers, clicking on such a URL may be perceived as "taking you >there," and in some sense it does. But what the clicking really does is to >invoke the commands needed to send stuff to the address specified in a URL >and ask that site to send some stuff back. > >Jim and others know this, of course, so I am not lecturing them. Rather, I >am framing the debate in terms that copyright lawyers will surely >understand. > >Now, it may be true that Don Lancaster has decided, for example, that he >doesn't "like" the association of his URL with "hacker" topics. Too bad. > >It would be no different if Lancaster were to object to Timothy McVeigh >providing a reference or footnote to Lancaster's "The TTL Cookbook." Even >if McVeigh were to say he found the "TTL Cookbook" essential for building >bomb timers. (Not that far-fetched, actually.) > >"Fair use" extends to even including chunks of another's writing for >purposes of comment, critique, agreement, discussion, etc. It clearly then >applies to cites of the author's books. > >And more than just "fair use," citing the influence of others and saying >where more information can be found is the essence of free speech. > >(Which means I have the feeling Electronic Frontiers Georgia may be >entering the case on the side of Lancaster!) > >And Lancaster's choice to make his URL publically accessible means that >anyone can click on it. Open and shut. > >--Tim May > > There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Password pirates plunder XXX sites, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[We include links to sites with porn passwords in today's story, BTW. --Declan] ******* http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1015,00.html The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com/) June 4, 1997 Porn Free by Chris Stamper and Greg Lindsay (thenetlynews(a)pathfinder.com) Sexfilms.com used to be a small, members-only adult site that shipped full-frame videos over a super-fast T-3 line. Traffic on the site was comfortably low for about a year, owner Ray Alba says, until one name -- "Joe Camaro" -- started appearing with some frequency. Actually, it started appearing 500 times a minute. From Sweden, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore -- just about anywhere. Somebody was passing out the password. Download speeds faltered, from 300K/sec to 6K/sec. And then the servers themselves began to crash. Finally, Alba had to shut down the site for several weeks to clear out Camaro and numerous other accounts that had leaked out to the Net. Alba was the latest victim of... Porn Piratz! A huge number of passwords to pay-only porn sites are loose on the Net. Just surf newsgroups like alt.sex.passwords or do a simple search through a typical web engine and long lists of logins are easy to find. Some of these logins are giveaways from people who ponied up the low, one-time-only flat fees that many sites charge. Others, apparently, were obtained with phony credit card numbers. Who knows how Porn Piratz get the rest. But they do: A Hustler executive told us that Hustler's sites have seven times its paid membership logging on every day. [...]

1 0

G-10 on Electronic Money
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We offer the April 1997 report of the G-10 countries* "Electronic Money." http://jya.com/g10emoney.htm (121K) This is a survey of the electronic payments systems of the ten countries, and the status and prospects in each for policy, law enforcement, privacy and related issues. The report is by a Working Party set up after the Lyon conference in June 1996 to examine three policy areas: (1) consumer issues; (2) law enforcement issues; and (3) supervisory issues It was presented at a G-10 conference in DC on April 28 and publically released in the US on May 7 by the Treasury Department. * Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States.

1 0