December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Schneier's metrocard cracked
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I heard on the radio that the security scheme used in New York City metrocards (designed with much input frm Bruce Schneier) has been cracked and that the "hackers" can now add fare to the cards. Does anyone know any details? What encryption did Schneier use? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Syn-l: Re: White House Or Red Roof Inn? (fwd)
by Michael Stutz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This message originally appeared on the synergetics-l at <http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/Synergetics-L/synl.html>, a list for the discussion of R. Buckminster Fuller's magnum opus.] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:38:22 GMT From: Kirby Urner <pdx4d(a)teleport.com> Reply-To: synergetics-l(a)teleport.com To: synergetics-l(a)teleport.com Subject: Syn-l: Re: White House Or Red Roof Inn? Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.fbi,alt.politics.org.cia softwar(a)us.net (softwar(a)us.net) wrote: >friends inside the White House. Barth claimed the British were >already selling encrypted radios to China and his new boss, >Motorola, deserved a "level playing field". In fact, according >to Barth, the National Security Agency (NSA) agreed with >Motorola's request for export. > I want to be clear on your position: you are apparently against administration efforts to frustrate domestic access to strong encryption. This makes sense, since that would just put the domestic population behind the rest of the world, which has access to same through other channels. But are you saying companies like Motorola should not sell encrypted radio or television to clients not classified as "domestic"? Or is it just some clients (e.g. the Chinese) but not others that you're saying Motorola should turn away. Sounds to me like you're picking on the Chinese because they're an easy target, after all the brouhaha about where the DNC has been getting its money (are you so sure the British have never helped put their preferred candidate in power through banking channels? Is this really a new game? I think not -- USAers just aren't used to having the Asians playing it, but in retrospect you have to wonder what took them so long). My view is that we're fast coming to (already well passed?) the point where we're going to have to regard lethal-against -humans applications of high technology as uniformly negative wherever they occur -- exceptions will be few and far between. Big money is seeing a secure path into the future, but not if high explosives are factored in as wild cards -- like you're trying to plan the motherboard of a computer and some politician comes in and says "by the way, every now and then we plan to blow a whole section of circuitry sky high, maybe explode a chip or two -- think you can handle that?" The Intel engineers I know would all shake their heads and think this guy must be missing more than a few screws. Computers need it cold. The temperature needs to keep dropping, down, down, down -- to way below what jingoists and knee-jerk patriots of all stripes and coloration find comfortable, but which delicate high technology absolutely must have to operate with any integrity. Motherboard Earth is not some Hollywood movie set, where misguided Rambos can run amuk at will. Save that stuff for the video parlor or the schoolyard, where it's safe to indulge in less than grown-up behavior. If the Qualcomm kid was even inadvertently feeding data to GIS systems bound for the "brains" of Tomahawk cruise missles aimed at "external" (non-domestic) targets in another hemisphere, then Qualcomm is liable to go down in history as a felonious player, a villain. One just can't afford to misrepresent one's true intentions so blatantly and expect to survive as trusted player. Using GIS and GPS to make flying safer is a positive civilian use of the technology, but if those planes are carrying weapons of mass destruction (armed and dangerous), then we're certainly going to follow the chain of command right to the top and find out exactly what logic is driving this design decision -- like why are you wearing a gun coming into a crowded civilian restaurant Mr. CEO President? People who want to flaunt terrifying weaponry had better come clean under interrogation, or own up to a "terrorist" charge -- applied without regard for skin color, creed, or place of origin. The econosphere has become very sophisticated and techno- logical, all the more delicate and sensitive as a result of the human presence. We could have a pretty good world here in fact, if we're willing to treat it with the respect owing any high precision instrument. People who plan to simply barrel ahead with lethal weapons planning, come what may, need to provide some iron clad logic for this course or their trackers and backers simply will kiss them good buy (and good riddance) for failing to offer any credible scenarios worth funding. Big ticket weaponry just doesn't have that same sex appeal anymore, has "boondoggle" written on it even before they get off the drawing board. Like "who's gonna pay for this shit?" is the first question smart money asks. Best to not hide behind "national security" shields as in the past at this point, is what I advise the corporate R&D divisioins -- because now you know that security chiefs don't necessarily buy the company hype anymore. You better have it in writing where you got your orders, if you want to plead "not guilty" and pass the buck on up the line. So if you want to play profitable commerical games in the civilian sector, don't be so sure your weaponry subsidiaries will escape scrutiny, and don't count on preferential enforcement of statutes to protect your namebrand from being utterly trashed if you turn out to be defrauding the very people you make such a noise about wanting to protect. The people are waking up, some of them, and are finding out they don't like what's been taking place in their name. Kirby --------------------------------------------------------- Kirby T. Urner http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/kirby.html 4D Solutions http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ [PGP OK] ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 98 16:42:43 -0800 > From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> > every respondent to my post has missed the key points. Not quite. Of course I don't agree with all of them either. There are two rules you should consider: - It's ok to have an open mind, just don't let it slosh out on the ground. - Understanding a view is not equivalent to supporting a view. You might also want to consider that two opposing views might very well *both* be right...it depends on where you sit on the fence as to what the tree looks like. > >Scientists even in schools and foundations are often secretive, too. > > > >The notion that "science" is about blabbing one's latest discoveries or > >theories is overly simplistic. Many scholars and scientists choose not to > >publicize their work for years, or decades, or, even, never. > > if so, they are not SCIENTISTS. a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing > results. science cannot advance without it. name me one scientist > who did not publish an important result, or is considered a good > scientists for doing so! I must agree here. If a technologist (ie one who studies science for profit, hence creating a technology) chooses not to publish their results that is fine. However, a scientist is one who studies nature and its interactions, profit is not and should not be a motive. Simplistic or not; in fact some things are better understood when simplified (ala the scientific principle). A scientist has an obligation to discuss and publish their results for other scientists (and even technologist) when they are reasonably sure their results will stand up to indipendant verification (a critical issue in science, not in technology however). Don't be confused by Timy's claim to be a scientist, he is a technologist at heart. Many of his views and beliefs are motivated by issues of control *not* curiosity. > >Consider Andrew Wiles, Princeton math professor, and the prover of Fermat's > >Last Theorem. He labored in secrecy for many years, only going public when > >he felt his results were complete. (As it turned out, they were not, and he > >needed another year or two to fill in some gaps.) > > but he PUBLISHED his results, he gave a LECTURE on his findings. I am > not saying that secrecy and science are mutually exclusive in this way. > secrecy is a useful tool, I am not in general against secrecy. but > secrecy can be ABUSED, and our government is ABUSING it. Further, the *reason* he was so secretive was because of the history of failed attempts and early 'proofs' that later failed. He was motivated by getting it right and ruining his reputation; not because he thought proving Fermat's Last Theorem would provide him riches and laurels for the remainder of his mortal coil. > have you > been following that Clinton was just fined $286,00 for lying to > a judge? Which means, per the Constitution, that he should be removed from office. He broke a public trust and that means he looses any public station he currently has and is barred from future office. > I could give > >dozens of examples of where the open literature either did not exist or was > >not used...and science still advanced. Of course, this is a specious argument. If it was already in the literature it wouldn't be science advancing (learning something that wasn't known before). The whole point to science is to understand and explain what we see and don't see that creates the cosmos we inhabit. Now if your point is that Intel taking some trade secret only they are aware of and using this to make quicker chips is science then you don't know a damn thing about science. > but science eventually published the results. It is *required* for doing 'science', it isn't for doing 'technology'. As a matter of fact a little perusal of history demonstrates that science requires open and unhindered dialog while technology requires closed channels of communcication and mechanisms of control. A perfect current example is the move to cloan humans. The guy, Creed?, is right "you can't stop science"; you can however stop technology and businesses do every day. Until that oocyte goes viable it's science, from that point on it's technology. > human endeavor. how can you argue with something so obvious? You don't know Timmy very well do you... > all this is uninteresting to me-- I was making a moral point in an > essay that is obviously unintelligable to most people here. its my > big mistake in this world, to pretent that morality plays a role. Actualy your mistake is assuming that there is *one* morality. Don't fret though. Just about everyone wants to jam everyone else into their nice little easily understood molds. It makes it much easier to justify their actions to themselves and potentialy to others if they get them to swallow even once. > of how things should be? things ARE, PERIOD. good lord, no wonder > Ayn Rand is so uninfluential. Reasonable men don't change the world. If we aren't motivated by our ethics and belief that our actions can change the world into the way it 'should be' then what is the motive? Money? Even that is a veiled mechanism to make the world the way we think it should be (ie we have more money or social station than currently endowed with). Changing the world is what *makes* life worth living. The question *is* why do you want to change the world and *who* gets to profit by it? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________|

5 5

Re: Schneier's metrocard cracked
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr. Dim wrote: > > I heard on the radio that the security scheme used in New York City metrocards > (designed with much input frm Bruce Schneier) has been cracked and that the > "hackers" can now add fare to the cards. > > Does anyone know any details? What encryption did Schneier use? It sounds like a procedural thing. Something like there was a way to swipe cards and have the system wrongly think it updated the card. The city announced that every cardreader in the system is going to be recalibrated, and this will cause problems for "a few" existing cardholders. ---guy

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 19:26:11 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > "Name me one..."? How about Gauss, who didn't publish many of his results. > Or, of course, Fermat, ironically linked to Wiles. True, Gauss didn't publish many of his results and he wasn't famed for that either. He *was* famed because he *did* publish some of his works. In fact, if you study Gauss you find a insecure introvert who in general hated his competition. He lied in his correspondance about work he supposedly did (see his relations with Bolyai who was a friend of his from school - "Non-euclidean Geometry" by Roberto Bonola; Dover ISBN 0-486-60027-0 $5.50). Yes, Gauss was respected for his math, he was hated for his humanity, or lack thereof. If anything Gauss' bahaviour held back science because of his self-interest. Fermat in general published most of his work, however, much of it was lost including his proof. His statement was that it was too long to be written in the margin of the book, not that he didn't write it down. The implication being that he *had* written it down and it got misplaced or lost it. Both of these folks are *very* poor examples of your point. > Not to mention Darwin, who sat on his results for almost 20 years, and only > issued a paper and his famed book because he learned another naturalist was > about to announce similar conclusions. Darwin set on his results because he was aware of the results of his work and the consequence to his career. He felt he needed more stature and as a consequence more security before publishing. He also understood he was right and that the first to publish would go down in history and the second would be an also ran. If you study the others alive at the time there were many people who had suggested similar theories. His own uncle had written similar material several decades before Darwin ever set foot on the Beagle. Darwin didn't invent evolution, he did refine it. Further, Darwin *isn't* know in the scientific community for his two books intended for lay readers. He *is* known for his seminal study of finches and mollusks, both quite clearly demonstrate his beliefs and theories and both had a much bigger impact on the scientific acceptance of evolution than 'Species' ever hoped to have. You are confusing the acceptance by the lay public as equivalent to scientific acceptance. You really should read Mayr. Again, a bad example. > Publication and, more importantly, discussion and challenge, is often very > important to the advancement of science. But is some cast in stone > requirement? Of course not. Actualy the open discussion of hypothesis and the testing thereof in open and unbiased comparison by indipendant researchers *is* most certainly a requirement in science - your protest not withstanding. > Building an artifact which embodies the science, for example. Exploding an > atom bomb was pretty clearly a demonstration that the science done was > correct, regardless of whether there was "open literature" or not. Don't confuse the science of atomic physics with the engineering of building a bomb. They are not the same thing. The majority of the work done to succesfuly understand an atomic bomb was known world wide in the 1920's and early '30's. The engineering to do it along with the money and project management skills motivated by the political where with all to actualy do it didn't. You are confusing affect and effect. > This is just too easy, refuting Detweiler's points. So I'll stop here. Thanks. My smashed finger is starting to hurt and your points are pretty easy to refute as well. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 19:05:21 -0800 > From: David Honig <honig(a)otc.net> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > chooses. The universe owes you nothing. That depends on your personal philosophy, or are you claiming to have found "The Way"? (that's rhetorical, please don't respond since the consequencial discussion leads nowhere that we aren't already) > Your goals and alliances are yours to choose. You got to choose your family and what country you were born in and how much money you have? Cool, you should consider yourself truly blessed, in the several 10's of thousands of years of humanity you are the first so gifted. > Everyone picks what they are comfortable with, and it ain't your business > what they decide. No one is > obligated to agree with you. And everyone is > obligated to let you alone, unless you violate their > right to be left alone. But you know this. No, everyone doesn't pick what they are comfortable with. Only somebody that takes their station in life with its consimmitent spoils as a given would say something this idiotic. Nobody is obliged to let you alone unless they decide to of their own volition. It only takes one to make war (the old saying is wrong) it takes two to make peace. And man being what he is wants his own way even at the expense of somebody elses way. Such is the trials and tribulations of social animals. > On secrecy, Saint Chas. Darwin sat on evolution forever, until he reviewed > a paper that was going to scoop him, you know. Oh god, somebody else who hasn't studied Darwin or Meyr.... I covered the rebuttal to this commen folk tale in a reply to Timmy. Look for it... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 U.S. Postal Service and crypto
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 1/8/98 3:26 PM, Robert A. Costner (pooh(a)efga.org) passed this wisdom: >At 10:45 AM 1/8/98 -0800, David Miller wrote: >>> An interesting feature of the digital postmark is that the USPS was making >>> the claim that if you receive an email that the USPS send to you that was >>> not meant for you, then you have committed a federal crime when you read >it. >> >>I'm not so sure about this, Robert. I've heard the rumor that it is a crime, >>but I have also heard that if something is delivered to your box, it is yours >>and you are not required to send it back unopened if it is not addressed to >>you. I tend to believe the latter, as it is the side of the story shared by >>USPS employees. > >I wasn't commenting on the legality, but on the fact that the USPS web page >was making the claim that it was a crime. Apparently whoever wrote the >legal disclaimer felt that email could be misdelivered in the same fashion >in which postal mail could be misdelivered and was making this claim. I >found the claim to be nutty and made me think they didn't know what they >were doing. Maybe they are confusing an electronic mailbox with a snailmail box ... the USPS has always contended that they (the USPS) "own" your mailbox and use that criterion to prosecute people who drive around putting things like circulars etc in mailboxes. Maybe they we on a role thinking that if they got into the e-mail business they would 'own' that piece of your hard drive so to speak. Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> The Windows PC Versus Macintosh Buying Decision: "If you want to encourage your kids to color outside the lines, think creatively and zig when the other kids zag, get the Mac. On the other hand, if you want to teach your kid that life if full of frustration and that anything worth getting takes plenty of patience and hard work, a Windows machine should do quite nicely." - David Plotnikoff in the San Jose Mercury News

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 20:41:47 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd) > Add Choate to the list of dimbulbs who think calling me "Timmy" (or Timy) > is some kind of witty insult. On this list, Detweiler and Vulis seem to > favor this usage. We're awful testy tonite aren't we...believe me junior, if I want to jump in your shit I'll do it direct first person and in your face. Since it seems to have got stuck in your craw, I apologize for not asking you the correct usage of your name prior to typing it into my reply. In the future I think I'll use 'that crazy indipendently wealthy ex-Intel technologist and self-important testy gun nut that lives in California who almost got to see John Denvers plane crash'; is *that* ok with you? (not really, I think my fingers would cramp) > Jeez, and I don't even recall insulting Choate. Perhaps he got his nose out > of joint when I challenged his "all snipers use .223" piece of > misinformation. Unfortunately, for you, I never made that claim (if anything you did regarding some comments I made about some police snipers liking .308's) and therefore you didn't get to refute it. Whatever strategy you're on regarding drugs and alcohol, reverse it; the dementia are back. > Back in my killfile he goes. Incredible that he is even connected with one > of the Cypherpunks distribution points. Been there before, I won't loose any sleep that is for shure. > BTW, nowhere in my piece did I refer to myself as a "scientist." I spoke of > Wiles, and then of Gauss, Fermat, and Darwin. Certainly not directly, but considering your background and past comments it is an assumption that is justified. You most certainly feel qualified to discuss the distinctions and consequences thereof. Me, I consider myself a scientist and have since I was about 6 years old. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NuriLogical is anguished that some people are immoral: >all this is uninteresting to me-- I was making a moral point in an >essay that is obviously unintelligable to most people here. its my >big mistake in this world, to pretent that morality plays a role. >as EH once said, normative philosophies are a waste of time. what >room does the world have for someone who thinks only in terms >of how things should be? things ARE, PERIOD. good lord, no wonder >Ayn Rand is so uninfluential. ................................................................. As your hero and biggest fan, EH, said: cypherpunks do not wait for other people to become moral; cypherpunks create their own reality. (or something to that effect) How can we know which flaw (for there are many possible) causes a person - scientific or otherwise - to behave like a coward and give up their integrity for the sake of safety or money or an undeserved reputation? How can we know how someone could keep a contradiction in their head, maintaining a position of virtue in the commuity while yet depending on the slavery of those whose benefit they purport to be working for? I guess you will tell us this in your forthcoming article. (Perry, where are you when we need you? :>) just kidding!!) BTW, you should consider that when Einstein proposed the creation of a bomb, it was within the context of a war being advanced globally by an evil madman who was gathering every resource to subdue and decimate everything in his way, and that the rest of the world was desperate for a solution. Also you should remember that some brilliant people, like Newton, who was a shy man and didn't necessarily see himself as others did/do, did not care if anyone else saw the results of his work. Once he had solved the problems in his own mind, he was not exceptionally concerned that others were also struggling with the same, nor whether "the community" needed the answer. He was pursuing knowledge for reasons of his own. .. Blanc

2 1

Accounts payable
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[rook] May is just a poor excuse for an unschooled, retarded thug. (_) _____ (_) /O O\ Timmy C[rook] May ! I ! ! \___/ ! \_____/

2 1