December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12/22/97 9:41 PM, Jim Choate (ravage(a)ssz.com) passed this wisdom: >As to the loading of the ball onto the gun-powder - you won't do it >the waydescribed above but once. The black powder will go off on >about the 3rd tapand you won't have the two hands it takes to load >a muzzle-loader. If you*ever* load a black powder be *absolutely >shure* that there is a ball pad between the gun powder and the >ball. It is *not* there for barrell sealingor some other silly >explanation - it's there to inhibit compressive explosion of the >black powder. It may indeed serve that purpose, but the patch does serve as a sealant and when set up with the right lubricant it cleans the bore on the way out. This gave birth to the expression "one shot clean" - done right the bore is more or less always dirty from the last shot only as that shot cleaned the residue of the prior shot out by it lubricated patch. Civil war era muskets and later used a Minie ball, which was no ball at all but a tapered projectile which had no patching at all, just 5-700 grains (for a 58 cal musket, lighter for .45 and .50) of pure soft lead with a dab of lubricant in the hollowed base. >... Don't believe it, go down to the hardware orfeed >store and buy a small can of black powder. Then get a 3/4" pipe >andcap. Put only one or two flakes of the black powder on the >threads and thentighten with a pipe wrench (wear gloves, glasses, >and apron). After about a half turn or so you should hear a >distinct snapping sound. This is the blackpowder going off. This is >what will happen if black powder gets between theball and barrel >while you're tapping - and there's a *lot* more gunpowder than a >couple of flakes to take your hand (and your face if you're >sillyenough to be leaning over the barrel which is where not >looking down the barrel of a gun comes from). Quite right, but there's one more caveat you forgot here, Jim, when using the rod to tamp the ball down, its done with one hand with the rod held between two fingers. You sort of 'throw' the rod down onto the bullet, actually letting go, never holding the rod firmly and *never* putting your hand on top of the rod to push it down. (I saw one guy get a rod from a 58 cal three band Enfield shot through his hand at a musket shoot once and more than a few rods shot through rooves or into roof timbers in the shooting sheds or several hundred feet through the air on open ranges) Friction isn't the only source of stray ignition, powder embers from a prior shot when doing rapid fire shooting has been a common culprit. We had one musket shoot on a god awful hot sunny summer day and by the sixth and seventh rapid fire shots in the midday shooting the muskets were hot enough to cook off powder when combined with a little bit too forceful tamping, we had to curtail shooting til later in the day. All in all, the guys who had to use muzzle-loading weapons in war, personal defense, and hunting had to have been an adventuresome lot, todays weapons are boring in comparison. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ9kYz7r4fUXwraZAQGdWQf/QsP8OdDTpTvg2mIbe8v7/ovuPxLPJAwK BPYaOYTAYHKX3LqA+mxj5lx22K+7GufmrDsgL2WwS+sy/ZS/j2jdIKtr64QSXhg5 sIL66Oi1iyMgU/OJyLTCCAdbp5wTSfheznVzdNeee/N9xe0XNPCPoRhXpAYpyLh4 PZVkZ9BQSTV5mbuwLXy16c7yRCxoEaMrjR7GSQY6Y+/ycKnwq7oKWBbVAdg3pQVW 4a0vj6bT+HM8l1w6jvEALg4zSkz/vs2RvnJfYUvs4Xo6A4rqfTr96xfQyp6TH5oL 83V2yAa4EyTHoGpAVs7ANz7M7lnNo1QML9k8Z/oC1YznJdyFn4wFTw== =Tizl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Frisbeetarianism, n.: The belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck." -- author unknown

1 0

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Igor, Sorry you are the one to bring this one up... Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Lock and Load (fwd) > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 21:45:46 -0600 (CST) > From: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) > > AK-47. > The Chinese Norinco version will certainly do so, I've fired a couple of them. Never seen a real soviet model but they are supposed to be piece for piece interchangable. But will check into it and get back to you. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 4

Re: Hate speech and censorship
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > > Yes, those on the list a few months ago (around the time the list moved > > > > from cocksucker John Gilmores toad.com to the distributed list format) > > > > will remember censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail > > > > threatening legal action to those who criticised the security of his > > > > companies "stronghold" firewall, which I among others suspect to contain > > > > govt. backdoors, uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick > > > > to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex > > > > watches to tourists. > > > > > > Sameer parekh sounds like he lives by the Arab proverb: "Women for sons, > > > boys for pleasure, but a camel for sheer extasy". > > > > I guess I am missing something, but what is so good about camels? > > I don't know - you'd have to ask Sameer Parekh. Does he keep one in his > C2Net office, and is it a male or a female camel? Yes, Sameer Parekh does keep a Bactrian camel in his C2Net office. The camel is male. Sameer uses his oral and anal orifices to play the part of a female camel. +-----#--+ | O # | | |#__O | |._#_> \ | +-#------+ Stop AIDS!

1 0

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12/22/97 11:37 PM, Igor Chudov @ home (ichudov(a)Algebra.COM) passed this wisdom: >I could field strip an AK (mind you, with all military gadgets) in 11 >seconds and assemble it back in 21 seconds. > >What crypto relevance does it have? Maybe it keeps Timmy happy to talk about guns ;-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ9lsj7r4fUXwraZAQE69wf9ETIRbPnEIxYn5JPfyvrl8I2Mw+UWauvA LkhrI+OV2XCBvXpx+/CxAvbE3I+M0EFtYAScmNc4M+b6fZzuHxptcqvO2X+MBh/k BQyLqopDw6aB7pZPWNjHsyHJtA4goftRx030mrF/oGf032E/0R9TVTy1uXsml1EP OO7YJTzHJ+3c5VnufLNHjyEvwKlYmdSaPuOyK3Ov69reUPpAXcj3jVdijXm5XZp7 S1rdt/1Ez74yBvyEdjNXqfeQTH1VHpO5CS2pEJGE+gGPL4Z8wrCLgBJ4mHmwqSO/ 9SkGK9kRZ7FVMHPjTLnjCzKdgjDvv3tClJvYF1Mm9APKpTgPYnHpAA== =2Woq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place. -- Douglas Adams, on Windows '95

1 0

Gilmore Publishes Strong Crypto Code Online for Authentication
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This announcement does not relate directly to the Bernstein case, but I felt the overlap of interest would be very strong. -- John] Strong Crypto Code Published Online for Authentication San Francisco, December 23, 1997 - Civil libertarian John Gilmore today published strong authentication source code on the Internet, making it available for worldwide access, despite U.S. National Security Agency attempts to restrict such software. He is publishing Domain Name System Security software that contains a complete copy of RSAREF, well-known cryptography software that is a predecessor to the DNSsafe software released in October by RSA Data Security, Inc. Mr Gilmore explains, "Internet publication of cryptography software is considered an export by the US Government, and often requires government permission under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). But those regulations specifically exempt programs which merely prove that information is authentic (authentication), rather than hiding the information (privacy)." The export regulations were amended in 1989 to exclude authentication software. Since that time, however, the National Security Agency has been telling people privately that the exclusion only applies to ready-to-run "binary" programs. They have reportedly claimed that the regulations still require government permission to export the human-readable "source code" of authentication programs. The plain text of the regulations makes no such distinction, though; all authentication programs are exempt. Readers can obtain the software from Mr. Gilmore's web site for Domain Name System Security, at http://www.toad.com/~dnssec or at http://www.flash.net/~dnssec. Future releases will be available from the Internet Software Consortium, http://www.isc.org/bind.html. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which Mr. Gilmore co-founded, is sponsoring a lawsuit to have the entire cryptography software export control regime overturned. In the three-year suit, Bernstein v. State, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel has invalidated export controls administered by both the State Department and the Commerce Department. She ruled they are an unconstitutional prior restraint against our First Amendment right to speak and publish about cryptography. The case is now in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Domain Name System Security: http://www.toad.com/~dnssec or http://www.flash.net/~dnssec Internet Software Consortium: http://www.isc.org RSA Data Security: http://www.rsa.com Electronic Frontier Foundation: http://www.eff.org Press Contacts: John Gilmore, Founding Board Member, EFF +1 415 221 6524, gnu(a)toad.com Shari Steele, Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation +1 301 375 8856, ssteele(a)eff.org More press background is available at: http://www.toad.com/~dnssec/pressrel1.background.txt

2 1

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Michael H. Warfield" <mhw(a)wittsend.com> > Subject: Re: Lock and Load (fwd) > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:50:36 -0500 (EST) > This is what "the experts" have claimed. Can't personally claimed to have > read it in any specific manual myself. I've seen a couple and there are *lots* of references to the various manuals (and I think every wanna be professional soldier in the last 500 years has written one at some point) in the various readings I do studying tactical combat techniques but that doesn't make me an expert by any stretch of the imagination. The very fact that there are so many and so many were never accepted (quality?) means even they are by no means a final reference. I would like to know if there were exceptions or even who wrote the first manual with 'lock and load'... > This friend happened to have a fire in his house about five years ago. Yuck, I had a house fire going on 3 years ago now. Every time I smell a bar-b-q pit I remember it...;( > his journey into discovering the nature of life beyond. I personally would > not recommend subjecting such substances to such abuses of heat and pressure, > but some are known to get away with it and still live to tell the tale. I've seen that sort of behaviour as well. I've tried to demonstrate the pipe model and truth be told, it works only about 9 out of 10 times. Black powder just ain't that unstable. > > You can buy working 'Brown Bessie' models at most any gun or decent hobby > > store. They're cheap (around $100 last time I looked), loud, smelly, and > > loads of fun... > > I personally like the Kentucky Longs you can build from kits. Will > throw and impressive 1/4" lead ball and leave one hell of an impression when > it arrives... Agreed... Merry Christmas! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12/23/97 2:33 AM, Jim Choate (ravage(a)ssz.com) passed this wisdom: >Right mounted safety? Sounds like a lefties gun. Safeties are usualy thumb >tripped which means they are on the left. The idea is you can safety the >weapon without taking your finger from the trigger. That could explain the >loading problem, guns built for lefties typicaly have all kinds of weird >handling issues. It sounds to me like a real nightmare to load and use in >the bush since you have to take your hand off the gun in order to get the >safety off while you load another round while cycling the bolt through its >action - eliminates snap shots that's for shure. Do you know if it is a >lefty build? If so then it clearly isn't a military grade weapon since they >are ubiquitously designed for right handed firers (at least until the last >20 yrs. or so). > >Once the clip is in place, top feed since you said "push down", does the >safety prevent the cycling of ammo through the breech? Does it use a >stripper clip or a carrier? You don't happen to know the type of action? It was the first cicilian marketed semi-auto in the country ... the right hand safety can be operated and usually is by the thumb of the right hand its a big flat lever with a good sized tab on it, just extend the right thumb and push down. The magazine was a non removeable clip that could only be loaded from the top, no stripper clips. The one drawback to the weapon was it was a top eject and the it was said that the ejecting shell distracted the eye of the shooter, personally I got used to that within the first 100 round I fired with it. >Is this a military grade weapon or sport? > >> >A parallel pistol example would be nice too, if you're so inclined. >> >> I don't know of any pistols .... except that in the case of the >> ubiquitous military .45 (1911A1) while one can easily insert a magazine >> with the gun on safe, it isn't truly loaded til a round is chambered >> which involves coming out of safe to rack the slide > >Interesting since the 1911 I use doesn't exhibit this ... I don't >have a problem loading it irrespecitive of the safety. If the safety is on >the hammer is blocked from the bottem by a lever. You can put ammo in it, >cock it via the slide, etc. Just can't pull the trigger. Will have to look >more into this... agreed ... but .. my point is that racking the slide to chamber a round invlved bring the weapon to full cock, which, considering the abysmal track record of the the thumb safety removed the weapon from the only really safet state which was half-cock ... but that is maybe splitting hairs ... Merry Christmas to you too ... we here in Vermont are having a *very* white Christmas already with more snow coming tonite and tomorrow ... Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "When hell freezes over, grab your ice skates." -- Mark Johnson

2 1

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:11 PM 12/22/97 -0800, you wrote: >What is the best long gun for a Cypherpunk? > > 308 Winchester would be a pretty good all around choice. You would be a little over gunned for some of the smaller ones, however.

1 0

Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 97 23:05:19 -0600 > Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks > >Why should any state be in the business of owning and running any parks? > >We pay $60/year for a family membership in an excellent private park. > >Most public parks in NYC are extremely unpleasant and dangerous places. > > I find it quite amazing that anyone would live in a place where you had to > pay to see grass and trees. I don't know whether I should feel blessed or cursed now....I spent several hours today clearing the yard (covered in grass) of tree limbs that were knocked down from the storm last week and in preperation for the storm to come in to town tomorrow...still have to mow that green stuff since it's getting a tad tall...maybe this weekend. Personaly, I can't imagine why anyone would allow them to build a city without parks and grass and trees and such. Hell, we have laws in Austin that make such things mandatory...there is currently a big fight going on about 'Triangle Park' here in Austin between leaving the 50+ acres at N. Lamar, Guadalupe, & 45th alone or selling to make a movie theatre and parking lot. Looks like the trees are gonna win this one...I know my dog certainly likes romping in the mud puddles...(I live about 10 blocks away) So big bucks don't always win and the city & state (the park is owned by the state hospital and currently houses some sort of juvenile center in one small corner) governments do sometimes listen to the people of a neighborhood over commercial interests. Money is not more important than trees sometimes & government sometimes does listen... Merry Christmas! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Question on CFB variant with c[i-N]
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Johnson, Michael P (Mike) <JohnsMP(a)LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM> > To: 'coderpunks(a)toad.com'; 'cypherpunks(a)algebra.com'; 'David Honig' <honig(a)otc.net> > Subject: RE: Question on CFB variant with c[i-N] > Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 12:22 PM > How about this mode: > c[i] = e(K1, e(k2, c[i-1]) ^ p[i-1]) ^ p[i] > p[i] = e(K1, e(k2, c[i-1]) ^ p[i-1]) ^ p[i] > > The feedback possibilities are literally endless. The analysis of the > effects on security, speed, error propagation, etc., are left as an > exercise for the reader. <grin> > Some standard modes have been well analyzed and accepted. They also are > built into specialized cracking hardware. Offering and using multiple > modes and multiple algorithms raises the cost of building specialized > cracking hardware. I'm kind-of skeptical of the big advantages of this. I mean, if you were convinced someone with a DES-cracking engine was listening in on an encrypted channel, and you really wanted to make sure they wouldn't manage to get any plaintext, would you rather alter your system to use some weird and not-too-well analyzed chaining mode, or alter your system to use DESX or Blowfish or something else with a key length too big to be vulnerable to such keysearch machines? There clearly *are* ways to get more than 56 bits of security out of DES. However, they're not generally obvious, and even very bright cryptographers have shot themselves in the foot trying to design them. (Remember 3DES with internal CBC-mode chaining, Ladder DES, and DES-Tran-DES-Tran-DES?) --John Kelsey, kelsey(a)counterpane.com / kelsey(a)plnet.net NEW PGP print = 5D91 6F57 2646 83F9 6D7F 9C87 886D 88AF

1 0