December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cypherpunks meeting in SE
by whgiii＠NO.amaranth.com.SPAM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi, I am intrested in setting up a cypherpunks meeting in the South East USA. I think that Atlanta would be a good place for this but I am open to other locations. I am located in FL so I would like to keep it within a days drive (Atlanta is 4-5 hrs from me). If you would be intrested in such a meeting please e-mail me and let me know when you would be able to attend and where you are located. If I can get enough people intrested I would like this to be a monthly thing simmilar to the meetings on the West Coast. Thanks, - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii(a)amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: Windows NT: From the makers of Windows 3.1! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 ES000000 iQCVAwUBM3ka549Co1n+aLhhAQF1TAP/ZgGHDjGI/LeIeDPv3IALNYWYgXucZ3+r ODpUOtIAbCp/FVGdBTnPuKuKvsOzEVIk6Uly1OzEh4kdKXV7W+VbhBoUJX3NF+0J gTWPfq2bSFbsMR85Ln+T0FCeWTAjrzuOwSTjy1YrlFKGc75JJ4oMlk15aMrK84/v voyNIKPZ2ko= =mWRj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: "The policeman inside"
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 13 May 97 at 9:19, Tim May wrote: > As ur-cyberpunk Burroughs noted, we must beware "the policeman > inside." > > Authorities _want_ people to "police themselves," to think twice > before speaking freely, to limit the topic of their conversations, > and to generally fear the knock on the door late at night (or, in > fin de siecle Amerika, the suddent appearance of black-clad ninja in > one's bedroom at 4 a.m., shooting anything that moves). Hey, that shit scares me, too. BUT: > Bomb-making information is protected by the First Amendment. Period. Correct. It's using that technology that's the crime, in most cases. > So is crypto information. So is saying Congressmen are vermin who > need to be taken out and shot. I think you can say "taken out and Spanked Naked In The Streets" I don't think you can advocate shooting them... Correct me if I'm wrong. > Get this straight, people! The First Amendment *IS* still in force. > (Now whether such opinions are to one's taste, or whether the > Cypherpunks list is a reasonable forum for posting bomb-making > plans...well, that's a completely different issue, one of taste and > appropriateness, First Amendment issues are *on topic*. > than the calls by Declan and Ray that such messages > are dangerous and could invite retaliation by the Authorities. If > that's indeed the case, then by all means we should be posting > bomb-making instructions and calls for treason trials with street > justice.) Hey, *They* read this list anyways. Fuck *Them* Hard. > Beware the policeman inside. Fuck the FBI, Fuck the CIA. Fuck 'em all. Now that's freedom! God, I love America! =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

2 1

96 Wiretap Report
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We offer the text and three summary tables of the U.S. Courts "1996 Wiretap Report" at: http://jya.com/96wiretap.htm (36K)

3 2

Re: The Interlinked Cypherpunks Lists? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, > > * Is it possible for the interlinked lists to send out announcements of > > list problems to subscriber of all such lists? (Each list owner could do a > > periodic "who cypherpunks" of the other lists, then use this list to send a > > message if a problem comes up. More sophisticated cross-processing could > > eliminate duplicates, etc.) Sounds like time to start another list subscribed to the existing nodes and offer such services to the subscribers at the operators whim. I oppose any action which would force the list to become more 'cooperative' in the sense that each node operator would be forced (sorta anti-cpunks I believe) to comply with some set of scripts and such they didn't develop in the first place. It would be just another means to limit the ability of people in general, and the cpunks in particular, to communicate with as little structure and 'authority' as possible. Unless I am seriously mistaken on this, the point was to make the list more robust and less centralized. Pretty soon we'll have to join some damn union or something. Now some of you are going to say that this is taking it to extremes. That what is being proposed is a good thing and not something that could be used to 'manipulate' the lists. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the guy driving the paving truck only wants to help you (as he paves your petunia's). > > * Alternatively, if one of the sites goes down, such as > > "cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net" seems to have done, could the other sites > > automagically pick up the task of distributing articles until the site > > comes back up? This again is anti-cpunks, it forces a level of cooperation and information sharing that is in direct opposition to beliefs in anonymity and privacy. I don't want it known who is subscribed to lists through SSZ, in short: It isn't any of your damn business and quit asking. Solution? Get a life or start an archive site. > The only true reliability can be achieved by subscribing to two or more > cypherpunks sites, and eliminating duplicates. Reliability has its costs. As do freedom, privacy, anonymity, etc. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

6 5

Re: KKK derails crypto bill, report from House Judiciary... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Tue, 13 May 97 20:33:41 -0500 > Subject: Re: KKK derails crypto bill, report from House Judiciary... (fwd) > >> Every bill that *is not* passed by congress is just that much more freedom > >> that is saved. If all the bills passed by congress over the past 100yrs. > >> could all be repealed no one would miss them in the least (well no one > >> except the STATEST). > > >Yeah, > > >Blacks could go back to being niggers. > >Women could go back to being barefoot and pregnant > >etc... > > >Talk about statest. > > I don't know where you get the above from? Constitutional Amendments are general passed by Congress. Hence, your statement taken literaly is advocating a great deal of good that has come from such actions. > I supose that your statest brainwashing has convinced you that such social > issues could have only been resolved by Federal intervention. Quite the > contrary is true. Any laws passed by congress in these areas were brought > about *because* society was already moving in those directions not the > other way around. I was a small boy in the 60's in and around Houston. I remember what it was like before and after the desegregation that took place in the mid-60's when I started elementary. I can promise you from personal experience there were still seperate washrooms and fountains. Sweeney, Tx. still had a sign on Interstate 90 that said (and I quote) "If you are black don't let the sun set on you in Sweeney." (the sign was on private property adjacent to the interstate I found out years later) As to a little modern social commentary. Ride the city bus in your town for 1 month each day. During that time keep track of where people sit. Would you like to explain why the majority of blacks still sit in the back of the bus? And for those who are white with real cajones, walk into a black bar around 1AM on a Sunday. > If someone is going to descriminate on the basis of race or sex or any > other criteria they are going to do so reguardless of what laws are passed > in DC. Absolutely, as is their Constitutionaly protected right. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND EVERY OTHER FORM OF SOCIAL AND LEGAL INSTITUTION SHOULD NOT EVER, PERIOD. Private individuals and companies should, and can, discriminate to their hearts content. I personaly wouldn't deal with a business that I knew a priori discriminated against employees or customers based on sex, religion, etc. as a matter of standard policy. I suspect that most others with 2 halves of a clue to rub together would refuse as well. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

5 4

Re: KKK derails crypto bill, report from House Judiciary... (fwd) (correction)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> > Subject: Re: KKK derails crypto bill, report from House Judiciary... (fwd) > Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:16:21 -0500 (CDT) > Constitutional Amendments are general passed by Congress. Hence, your > statement taken literaly is advocating a great deal of good that has come > from such actions. Insert 'eliminating' between 'advocating' and 'a great' on the second line.

1 0

Re: The Interlinked Cypherpunks Lists? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: The Interlinked Cypherpunks Lists? (fwd) > I wasn't advocating either: > > a) any "forcing" of anything > > b) any compliance with scripts, cooperation, etc. > > Instead, imagine this "service": > > - a distribution point (= list) which subscribes to all of the various > lists (cyberpass, algebra, ssz, etc.) > > - it sends out to subscribers the first instance of any message it receives > > - duplicates (see discussion below) would not be sent > > - it would, ideally, be on a robust machine > Exactly, pity that isn't what you stated in the first place. > >This again is anti-cpunks, it forces a level of cooperation and information > >sharing that is in direct opposition to beliefs in anonymity and privacy. > >I don't want it known who is subscribed to lists through SSZ, in short: > >It isn't any of your damn business and quit asking. > > No one has ever said you, or SSZ, or anyone, has to participate. Sorta defeats the whole concept of 'inter-linked lists' doesn't it? The point was to make it easy for ANYONE who wanted to participate. If you exclude parties because they won't do it 'your' way what is the difference? Nada, null, nill, zero, nothing. I can see it now; "oh, if you want to be a member you have to run this set of scripts that automaticaly subscribes you to the other lists and you can expect repeated querries of your subscription database. Oh, by the way you are also agreeing to have other lists subscribe and unsubscribe their user lists to your site at their operators whim. Oh yeah, and if they get really clever they can have you shipping subscription lists of your membership all over the place as well." Sounds so much like the FBI going to the library for loan records and denial of service attack it isn't even funny. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Spoofing Corporate Proxy Servers: poor man's SSL
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

________________________ R i c k O s b o r n e ________________________ My company, as well as many of yours I'm sure, uses a proxy server to give its users access to the internet beyond its firewall. There are strict policies concerning what is and isn't viewable or retreivable according to corporate guidelines. Unfortunately, the people making these policies aren't always as open and "fair" as they could be. Not to mention the fact that each and every request is logged and achived for eternity (or at least as long as the CDs and/or tapes last). Some of you may remember my post from ~6 months ago concerning my company's view on the use of PGP (they didn't like it and were very frank about it). My pursuit of crypto-related information is viewed very dimly, even while at the same time I am told to implement certain levels of crypto in some of the applications I develop. The constant barrage of "why did you visit this page?", or "what does this application you downloaded do?" is not only irritating but counter-productive. This got me thinking: disregarding outside proxy schemes (such as Anonymizer), we can't really keep the proxy server from knowing the site we are connecting to. We can, however, hide the page we are retrieving. Suppose each web server had a public/private key pair, sort of like SSL. Instead of requesting a page using the normal "GET /mypage.html HTTP/1.1" method, the user could encrypt the URL with the server's public key (along with appropriate headers and a random string to prevent known-plaintext attacks) and pass that to a CGI or even a dedicated server on another port. The server then decrypts the request, which may or may not have included a public key to encrypt the response, grabs the appropriate page, and sends it back (possibly encrypted). Other than the CGI (or the port number of the dedicated server), the proxy server has no idea what document has been retrieved. Essentially we have made a remailer out of an HTTPd, tangentally related to Adam's Eternity server, sort of like a poor-man's SSL. For extensibility concerns, a loose protocol would have to be developed such that different encryption schemes could be plugged in, but even a Perl POST CGI using PGP would be trivial. This would not only solve security problems (varying keysizes would set the security of the data), but could remove the corporate presence from the HTTPS market (who wants to pay $150/key, when you can generate 2048-bit keys with PGP?). While this does not stop the proxy server admins from simply blocking the entire site, it does at least offer anonymity until they figure it out. (I successfully used the Anonymizer for about 2 weeks before it was blocked.) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ (A)bort, (R)etry, (T)ake down entire network?

2 1

Re: 96 Wiretap Report
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William Geiger wrote: >I noticed in the summary report that e-mail intercepts were used. Is there >more detailed information on this? I would be interested to know how >involved the govenment is becoming involved in this area. Of great interest >would be the location and means used to do such taps. We could find no listing of E-mail intercepts in the tables, so it's not clear what the summary was referring to beyond stating that "electronic mail" was included under "electronic intercepts" along with digital display pagers, voice pagers, and cellular phones. The tables list intercept information under two categories: Type and Place. Type: 1. Phone Wire 2. Micro-Eavesdrop 3. Electronic 4. Not Reported Place: 1. Single-Family Dwelling 2. Apartment 3. Multiple Dwelling 4. Business 5. Roving 6. Other "Other" is further listed as: Automobile/Van Briefcase Cellular/Mobile Phone Cemetary Closed Circuit TV Container Digital Display Pager Facsimile Garage/Parking Lot Hospital Hotel Room/Motel Room Jail Mobile Home/Trailer Package/Cargo Pay Phone Pen Register Prison Social Club Storage Telefax Courthouse Street Computer We found only a single instance where the "place" was a computer. BTW, the 193-page printed report is available free from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Telephone: 202-273-2156. Web site: http://www.uscourts.gov/ Folks there were quite helpful, so it's possible that you might get E-mail intercept details from them by requesting it. If you do, let us know, quick!

1 0

RSA v. PGP Complaint
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Vin McLelland we offer the text of the complaint of RSA v. PGP: http://jya.com/rsavpgp.txt

2 1