December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Error.
by Connectfree Admins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are experiencing some technical difficulties with our software. Please ignore this message.

1 0

Official comment
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/aes/aes_home.htm#comments OFFICIAL Comments - Anyone may provide NIST with OFFICIAL public comments on the AES candidate algorithms. NOTE THAT ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED SHALL BE MADE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. A comment may be submitted by sending an e-mail message to AESFirstRound(a)nist.gov. OFFICIAL Comment http://www.aci.net/kalliste/bw1.htm to appear at http://zolatimes.com/ Title: Black and White Test of Cryptographic Algorithms Black and White Test of Cryptographic Algorithms by William H. Payne The purpose of this article is to explain the underlying principles of cryptography by examples, and to show some criteria that should be met by cryptographic algorithms before they are seriously considered for adoption. Cryptography is the art or science of scrambling plaintext into ciphertext with a key so that it cannot be read by anyone who does not possess the key. Digital information is stored in the form of 1s and 0s, called BINARY. Binary Numbers Lets count from DECIMAL 0 to 15 in BINARY by adding 1 to the previous number. decimal: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 binary: 0 1 10 11 100 101 110 111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111 Notice that first we start with a single number position, which can be 0 or 1 in BINARY. This number position is a bit. Call this first bit b0. Notice that b0 is either 0 or 1. That is, b0 = 0 or b0 = 1. To get to DECIMAL 2, we have to introduce a second BINARY bit--call it b1. We have b1b0 = 10. Next, for DECIMAL 3, we have BINARY b1b0 = 11. binary: 0 1 10 11 100 101 110 111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111 numbered bits: b0 b0 b1b0 b1b0 b2b1b0 b2b1b0 b2b1b0 b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 b3b2b1b0 Notice that the bit subscript represents a power of 2. That is, b0 really means b0*2^0, where * is multiplication, and ^ exponentiation (for example, 2^0 = 1, 2^1 = 2, 2^2 = 4, 2^3 = 8). The subscript on b is the same as the power on 2. If we had b26, we would know its meaning was b26*2^26. If b26 = 0, then this value is 0. If b26 = 1, then this value is 2^26. Now look at "1111" (which in BINARY is equal to DECIMAL 15). In this case, b3b2b1b0 = 1111. The right-most BIT (b0) is the least-significant bit, because it corresponds to the lowest power of 2. Converting Binary Numbers to Decimal Numbers To convert a BINARY number ...b3b2b1b0 to a DECIMAL number Y, we simply write Y = b0 + b1 * 2 + b2 * 2^2 + b3 * 2^3 + ... The bits b0, b1, b2, b3 are limited to the values 0 and 1 ONLY. Performing the exponentiation of powers of 2 and reversing the bits gives Y = . . . + b3 * 8 + b2 * 4 + b1 * 2 + b0 . Most of us were brought-up to understand that the most significant digits are to the LEFT of the previous digit. For sake of economy of writing and easy conversion, binary numbers are frequently represented in base 16, or HEXADECIMAL, abbreviated HEX. Hexadecimal Numbers BinaryweightsHEXDECIMAL 8 4 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 4 4 1 0 1 5 5 1 1 0 6 6 1 1 1 7 7 1 0 0 0 8 8 1 0 0 1 9 9 1 0 1 0 A 10 1 0 1 1 B 11 1 1 0 0 C 12 1 1 0 1 D 13 1 1 1 0 E 14 1 1 1 1 F 15 Conversion from binary to hexadecimal or hexadecimal to binary is easy if you remember 1010 is A 1100 is C 1110 is E B is one greater than A, 1011. D is one greater than C, 1101. And F is one greater than E, 1111. Computer Memory Computer memory is frequently organized as BYTEs which are eight bits. Since one hexadecimal digit represents 4 bits, it takes two hexadecimal digits to represent one byte. There are 2^8 = 256 different binary values that can be represented in a byte. These 256 values (written in HEX for brevity) are: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E 3F 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 4A 4B 4C 4D 4E 4F 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E 5F 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 6A 6B 6C 6D 6E 6F 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 7A 7B 7C 7D 7E 7F 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 8A 8B 8C 8D 8E 8F 99 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 9A 9B 9C 9D 9E 9F A0 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 AA AB AC AD AE AF B0 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 BA BB BC BD BE BF C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 CA CB CC CD CE CF D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 DA DB DC DD DE DF E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 EA EB EC ED EE EF FF F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 FA FB FC FD FE FF Representing Language on a Computer The problem of how to represent characters in a computer has been solved several ways. One way is the American Standard Code of Information Interchange (ASCII). ASCII represents characters as 7 bits. Here is table modified from a web site ( http://members.tripod.com/~plangford/index.html) Hex Char Description Hex Char Hex Char Hex Char ---------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- 00 NUL (null) 20 40 @ 60 ` 01 SOH (start of heading) 21 ! 41 A 61 a 02 STX (start of text) 22 " 42 B 62 b 03 ETX (end of text) 23 # 43 C 63 c 04 EOT (end of transmission) 24 $ 44 D 64 d 05 ENQ (enquiry) 25 % 45 E 65 e 06 ACK (acknowledge) 26 & 46 F 66 f 07 BEL (bell) 27 ' 47 G 67 g 08 BS (backspace) 28 ( 48 H 68 h 09 TAB (horizontal tab) 29 ) 49 I 69 i 0A LF (line feed, new line) 2A * 4A J 6A j 0B VT (vertical tab) 2B + 4B K 6B k 0C FF (form feed, new page) 2C , 4C L 6C l 0D CR (carriage return) 2D - 4D M 6D m 0E SO (shift out) 2E . 4E N 6E n 0F SI (shift in) 2F / 4F O 6F o 10 DLE (data link escape) 30 0 50 P 70 p 11 DC1 (device control 1) 31 1 51 Q 71 q 12 DC2 (device control 2) 32 2 52 R 72 r 13 DC3 (device control 3) 33 3 53 S 73 s 14 DC4 (device control 4) 34 4 54 T 74 t 15 NAK (negative acknowledge) 35 5 55 U 75 u 16 SYN (synchronous idle) 36 6 56 V 76 v 17 ETB (end of trans. block) 37 7 57 W 77 w 18 CAN (cancel) 38 8 58 X 78 x 19 EM (end of medium) 39 9 59 Y 79 y 1A SUB (substitute) 3A : 5A Z 7A z 1B ESC (escape) 3B ; 5B [ 7B { 1C FS (file separator) 3C < 5C \ 7C | 1D GS (group separator) 3D = 5D ] 7D } 1E RS (record separator) 3E > 5E ^ 7E ~ 1F US (unit separator) 3F ? 5F _ 7F DEL Now let us take two different one-word messages we might wish to cipher: "black" and "white". We can use the preceding table to find the ASCII codes for the characters in "black" and "white". messagecharacterASCII (Hex)Binary Message 1black62 6C 61 63 6B0110 0010 0110 1100 0110 0001 0110 0011 0110 1011 Message 2white77 68 69 74 650111 0111 0110 1000 0110 1001 0111 0100 0110 0101 But before doing this, we must understand the general "cipher problem." The Cipher Problem We have three elements in the encryption process: 1. The plaintext message 2. The key 3. The ciphertext Lets start REAL SIMPLE. Let's consider a situation where the plaintext message, the key, and the ciphertext are all the same length. To make it even simpler, let's make each one only one bit long. So the key can be one of two possibilities (0 or 1), and so can the plaintext and the ciphertext. So, in all, there are 2*2*2 = 8 total possible encipherment circumstances. Lets enumerate ALL 8 POSSIBILITIES. Possibilities Table PossibilityKeyPlaintextCiphertext 1000 2001 3010 4011 5100 6101 7110 8111 Thats it! There are no more possibilities than these 8. What does this mean for the encryption process--the "algorithm"? An ALGORITHM is a deterministic processes that accepts inputs and transforms them into outputs. "Deterministic" is important in that the same inputs ALWAYS produce the same output. Consider ANY algorithm which takes as its inputs the key values of 0 or 1 and the plaintext message values of 0 or 1. ANY algorithm can only produce one of the ciphertext outputs seen above. Image the following hypothetical but REAL SIMPLE algorithm: Hypothetical Algorithm: Find the value of the Key in column 2 of the Possibilities Table and the Plaintext message in column 3; then chose as the Ciphertext output whatever number is found in column 4 of that row. But there, of course, is a catch with a valid CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHM. Given the Key and the Ciphertext, one must be able to get back the Plaintext! A cryptographic algorithmic should have an INVERSE. So a cryptographic algorithm could not produce ALL of the eight combinations seen above for the reason that it is impossible to invert some of the possibilities. For example, some of the mappings are incompatible from an inverse standpoint, because same values of the key and ciphertext can lead to two different values of the plaintext. Notice how the following pairs of possibilities conflict: 1 and 3; 2 and 4; 5 and 7; 6 and 8. PossibilityKeyPlaintextCiphertext 1000 3010 2001 4011 5100 7110 6101 8111 But there two different cryptographic algorithms that could be made from the Possibilities Table, both of which have inverses: Cryptographic Algorithm 1 PossibilityKeyPlaintextCiphertext 1000 4011 6101 7110 Cryptographic Algorithm 2 PossibilityKeyPlaintextCiphertext 2001 3010 5100 8111 Of course, the output of Algorithm 2 is merely the same as the output of Algorithm 1, with 0s and 1s switched. (This is called a logical NOT operation.) Logic and Its Electronic Representation Logic, sometimes called Boolean logic when it is dealing with 0s and 1s, has several elementary rules. In computers, TRUE is usually represented by a 1. FALSE is represented by a 0. Electrically a 1 is usually, but not always, represented by a HIGH VOLTAGE. A zero by a LOW VOLTAGE. The three basic operations in logic are NOT, AND, and OR: Logical OperationInput(s)Output NOT0 1 1 0 AND000 010 100 111 OR 000 011 101 111 A derivative operation called an EXCLUSIVE-OR, abbreviated XOR, is defined as follows: Logical OperationInput(s)Output XOR000 011 101 110 In XOR, if the two input bits have the the same value, they sum to 0. If they have different values, they sum to 1. Now look back at Cryptographic Algorithm 1. It is, in fact, the exclusive-or (XOR) of the key and plaintext. Algorithm 1: Ciphertext Output = Key XOR Plaintext. Cryptographic Algorithm 2, meanwhile, is just the NOT of Algorithm 1. Algorithm 2: Ciphertext Output = NOT (Key XOR Plaintext). The REALLY IMPORTANT property of the XOR is THAT IT HAS AN INVERSE. By contrast, logical AND does not have an inverse for the reason that if the Key and (Key AND Plaintext) are both 0, then the Plaintext itself is ambiguously either 0 or 1. Logical OperationKey InputPlaintext InputKey AND Plaintext AND000oops 010oops 100 111 Likewise, logical OR does not have an inverse for the reason that if the Key and (Key OR Plaintext) are both 1, then the Plaintext itself is ambiguously either 0 or 1. Logical OperationKey InputPlaintext InputKey OR Plaintext OR 000 011 101oops 111oops So logical AND and OR dont work well for a crypto algorithm, but the XOR does because it has an inverse. How to Create Two Keys for Deniability The XOR works even better from a legal standpoint. Imagine the following conversation: Ciphercop: We have the ciphertext 0 and we CAUGHT you with the key with a bit value of 1, so you sent a plaintext 1. Citizen: No I did not! You PLANTED the key with bit value 1. The real key bit is a 0, and I sent 0 as the plaintext. Lets generate a key for the REAL WORLD crypto messages "black" and "white", messagecharacterASCII (Hex)Binary Message 1black62 6C 61 63 6B0110 0010 0110 1100 0110 0001 0110 0011 0110 1011 Message 2white77 68 69 74 650111 0111 0110 1000 0110 1001 0111 0100 0110 0101 and see if we can produce a REAL EXAMPLE of a SECOND KEY. Heres a key, which we will call key 1: key 1: 1010 0101 1100 0011 1110 0111 1111 0000 0110 1001 Key 1 doesnt look too random. Each group of four bits is followed by its logical NOT (e.g. NOT(1010) = 0101, etc.). Which leads to another lesson. To claim that a sequence of 0s and 1s is random requires statistical testing. Otherwise, the state of the sequence is UNKNOWN. Here's another key, which we will call key 2: key 2: 1011 0000 1100 0100 1110 1111 1110 0111 0110 0111 These two keys produce the same ciphertext for the two different messages "black" and "white". black0110 0010 0110 1100 0110 0001 0110 0011 0110 1011 key 11010 0101 1100 0011 1110 0111 1111 0000 0110 1001 ciphertext (XOR)1100 0111 1010 1100 1000 0110 1001 0011 0000 0010 white0111 0111 0110 1000 0110 1001 0111 0100 0110 0101 key 21011 0000 1100 0100 1110 1111 1110 0111 0110 0111 ciphertext (XOR)1100 0111 1010 1100 1000 0110 1001 0011 0000 0010 So when the ciphercops FALSELY accuse you of encrypting "black", you SCREAM "Bull pucky!", and produce key 2 to show that you, IN FACT, encrypted "white". Then sue the government--pro se, of course. (See http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm.) The recipe for producing the second key in this example is simple. Take two plaintext messages of the same length. Encrypt one of them with an arbitrary key that yields a ciphertext of the same length. XOR the ciphertext with the second plaintext message. The result is the second key. Store this one for plausible deniability. So from the standpoint of plausible deniability it is BEST to have TWO KEYS for any given encryption: 1. The REAL KEY 2. The key you can CLAIM was the REAL KEY. Just in case you get caught. "Have we gone beyond the bounds of reasonable dishonesty?" --CIA memo (The CIA quote is from Weird History 101, by John Richard Stephens, page 55.) None of us want to get caught going beyond the bounds of reasonable dishonesty. Thus far two criteria of a worth candidate for cryptographic algorithm have been established. Criterion 1: The ciphertext is invertible with the help of a key back into the plaintext. Criterion 2: There is ALWAYS a second key. Just in case you get caught. Plaintext and Ciphertext Sizes The plaintext and ciphertext should be the same size. First, note that if the plaintext is longer than the ciphertext, then the ciphertext is not invertible. For example, lets suppose that the plaintext is two bits long and the ciphertext is one bit long. PlaintextCiphertext 0 00 or 1 0 11 or 0 1 0oops 1 1oops After the first two ciphertext bits have been assigned to plaintext pairs, the next two plaintext pairs (10,11) must conflict with this assignment. The ciphertext thus correspondents to more than one plaintext possibility. We run into problems for the reason that we cannot establish a one-to-one correspondence between the plaintext and cipher text and, therefore, cant possibly have an inverse. Second, if the plaintext is shorter than the ciphertext, then the ciphertext can't be trusted. It may include too much information. For example, lets suppose that the plaintext is one bit long, the key is one bit long, and the cipher text is two bits long. Iran Cryptographic Algorithm KeyPlaintextCiphertext 0 0 00 0 1 10 1 0 11 1 1 01 Not only is the above algorithm invertible, but now the crypto key has been sent along with the ciphertext in the second bit position! That is, the first bit in the ciphertext is is the value of (key XOR plaintext). The second bit is the key itself. So if you XOR the two ciphertext bits with each other, you recover the plaintext bit. You might ask who would be audacious enough to pull such stunt. The Great Satan, of course. For the story of how the National Security Agency (NSA) bugged the encryption equipment that was sold by a Swiss company to 140 nations around the world, see the following links: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm http://caq.com/cryptogate http://www.qainfo.se/~lb/crypto_ag.htm http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm And the Great Satan got caught. No plan B. Or in crypto parlance, no second key. So we have a third criterion for a cryptographic algorithm we might wish to adopt. Criterion 3: The length of the plaintext equals the length of the ciphertext. In simple terms, if more bits come out of a crypto algorithm than go in, WATCH OUT! Otis Mukinfuss and the Advanced Encryption Standard Bruce Hawkinson (BHAWKIN(a)sandia.gov) WAS Sandia National Laboratories Lab News editor some years ago. In one editorial, Hawkinson wrote that while we was traveling for Sandia, he spent his motel time looking up strange names in the phone book. One name I recall mentioned was Steely Gray who was a government office furniture salesman. Hawkinson concluded his article by writing his all-time favorite name was Otis Mukinfuss. Hawkinson was no longer editor of Sandias Lab News shortly thereafter. J. Orlin Grabbe has done an excellent job writing about cryptographic algorithms in Cryptography and Number Theory for Digital Cash. One inescapable conclusion from Grabbes internet article is that from a laymans standpoint public key cryptography is an incomprehensible mess. A Muckinfuss. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is holding a CONTEST to select an Advanced Encryption Standard to replace the current Data Encryption Standard (DES). Click through the candidates to view some additional examples of Mukinfusses. So another criterion has been established for a cryptographic algorithm to be considered for adoption. Criterion 4: The crypto algorithm must be simple and CONVINCE EVERYONE that it is ONLY PERFORMING ITS SIMPLE INTENDED FUNCTION. While we are at the NIST web site, the NIST Advanced Encryption Standard contest reminds me of a the plot of a recent movie, The Game, starring Michael Douglas and Sean Penn: The film is a thriller directed by David Fincher (Se7en). "The Game" is what begins when a high-powered businessman named Nicholas Van Orton (Douglas) receives the birthday gift of a lifetime from his brother he alienated years ago (Penn). What Nicholas gets is entry into a mysterious new form of entertainment provided by C.R.S. (Consumer Recreational Services) simply called "The Game." It proves to be an all-consuming contest with only one rule: there are no rules. By the time Van Orton realizes he is in, it is too late to get out. ... (See http://www.movietunes.com/soundtracks/1997/game/.) NIST does not appear to publish any criteria for winning the AES contest! Look at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/confpage/980820.htm and decide for yourself. Perfect Cryptography Here we have described a process of encrypting a plaintext by XORing it with a key of the same length. This encryption technique is called a "one-time pad", or Vernam cipher. Just as long as each key is only used once, the encryption technique is perfectly secure. The one-time pad described here satisfies all criteria mentioned so far: 1. The ciphertext is invertible with the help of a key back into the plaintext. 2. There is ALWAYS a second key. Just in case you get caught. 3. The length of the plaintext equals the length of the ciphertext. 4. The crypto algorithm must be simple and CONVINCE EVERYONE that it is ONLY PERFORMING ITS SIMPLE INTENDED FUNCTION. I add Criterion 5: The length of the key must equal the length of the plaintext. Extensive mathematics or complication fails Criterion 4. Public key cryptograpy that uses the RSA algorithm MAY fail Criterion 1 if the message divides the product of the two prime numbers, p and q, used in the modulus. Most crypto algorithms are designed so that the key cannot be recovered from a plaintext-ciphertext pair. Therefore, they fail Criterion 2. Criterion 3 is much more difficult to ensure against. Black and White Hats American western movie producers used to aid their audiences in identification of the heroes and villains. The heroes wore white hats. The villains, black hats. US government agencies adopted the term black hatter to describe an employee whose job it is to break into THINGS. Or screw them up: http://www.jya.com/whp1.htm A white hatter is one who analyzes THINGS to make sure they cannot be broken into. And they cant be screwed up. But the empirical fact is that the black hatters can figure-out methods to transmit the key on a covert channel, tell the white hatters they did this. And the white hatters cant find out how they did it. Algorithmic Processes Suppose the key is five bits: 1 0 1 0 1 Suppose the plaintext is six bits: 1 1 1 1 1 1 And the ciphertext is also six bits: 1 0 1 1 0 1 Ask the cryptographer give you a key which changes ONLY the sixth bit of the ciphertext, as in the following: 1 0 1 1 0 0 You like the other 5 bits just fine. If the cryptographer cant, then you might look for another algorithm to adopt. Conclusion We have five criteria to judge the outcome of the NIST Advanced Encryption Standard contest. If none of the algorithms pass the five tests, we will not be discouraged. We know that Gilbert S. Vernam and Joseph O. Mauborgne solved the crytptography problem in 1918, when they created the one-time pad. (See "What is a One-Time Pad?".) William H. Payne P.O. Box 14838 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87191 505-292-7037 Embedded Controller Forth. Generalized Feedback Shift Registers Here are some links to some of my students: Ted Lewis (Friction-Free Economy) John Sobolewski (HPCERC) -30-

1 0

CJ Key Check
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bear in mind that that information on this matter may be used to hammer or help Carl Johnson if not others. As Adam Back has proposed: To check the validity of the allegations made by the IRS about Toto(s)'s messages in the Carl Johnson complaint, a review is underway of archived messages to see if there are any signatures by a key before the private key has been posted, especially if the post in question has been (or may be later) cited by the IRS. If there are none, then the IRS "authentication" of the claimed Toto posts evaporates. Even if there are some, the `authentication' becomes more suspect if there are others which are made after the key post. To assist checking messages an initial list of candidate keys is available (none of the anonymous keys show a link to Carl Johnson of the IRS complaint): http://jya.com/anon-keys.htm Additional candidates and findings of message checks are welcomed, with a nod to the opening caution.

1 0

Netly News article on Toto/Johnson PART II
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/0,2326,201980910-14595,00.html

1 0

CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM - September 10, 1998
by CTIA Daily News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================================== Welcome to today's edition of the CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM. Please click on the icon / attachment for the most important news in wireless communications today. The future of your company will be announced October 12 @ Wireless I.T. Will you be there? CLICK HERE NOW TO SIGN UP AND SAVE http://www.wirelessit.com/portal.htm Team WOW-COM wowcom(a)ctia.org ===========================================

1 0

CFP: The Insider December 1998 edition
by Technical Incursion Countermeasures 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Call for Papers The Insider - December 1998 edition The Insider (http://www.ticm.com/info/insider/index.html) has been in publication since November 1997. Since then it has gone trough a number of changes - all for the better :}. The latest change is to move from a newletter containing just the musing of its editor to a "learned journal". Yes, the papers will be refereed and the editorial board has some weight in the IT security world. On that note this is the first Call for papers. We are looking for papers on Information Technology Security and fitting within the following broad areas: Audit, Design and Maintenance of IT Security. The Papers can be from 1000 to 2500 words. We may accept papers of down to 600 words or up to 5000 words but they will have to be of the utmost quality. For more information see http://www.ticm.com/info/insider/current.html Yours Bret Watson - Editor Technical Incursion Countermeasures consulting(a)TICM.COM http://www.ticm.com/ ph: (+61)(041) 4411 149(UTC+8 hrs) fax: (+61)(08) 9454 6042 The Insider - a e'zine on Computer security - August Edition out http://www.ticm.com/info/insider/index.html

1 0

Re: Forwarded mail....
by EpicTeU＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-09-10 01:11:05 EDT, you write: << Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:27:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Jrjeffro(a)aol.com HaCkaZ OnlY Da EliTeHelLO YaLL DiS is Da MaDD AAOOLL HaCka Ima startin a GreWp fOR HaCs Only So In OthA WerDS yA gOttA KnOw The WAreZ anD HoW toO UsEr FaTe AnD AOL So MaIl Or Im Me FoR Da TeTaIls If YeR LeeTo K Pe@CE FrOmE The LeeTs HacKJeFFrO) >> What the hell is this? No wonder why AOLers have a bad name Im going to Flame this guy

1 0

Re: computer implant in 1997
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nothing surprising about it - just implant your basic lost-pet ID chip, and set up a detector to read it. All commercially available except perhaps the computer interface to the detector, which isn't all that complex either. The more interesting journalism question isn't the lack of archive-checking by the journalist or this year's claimant to firstness, but what political spin the professor tried to push with his press release and interviews and whether it was accepted blithely or skeptically. >> > READING, England -- Professor Kevin Warwick claimed Tuesday to be the >> > first person in the world to have a computer chip surgically implanted >> > into his body. >> [...] >> > Warwick demonstrated the chip in action by walking through the front >> > door of his department. "Good morning, Professor Warwick. You have five >> > new emails," said a computerized voice activated by the inserted chip. >> [...] > >Kac implanted a computer chip in his body last year [...] >i wonder to what extent journalists fact-check these "firsts". Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Archives and such - I can host these...
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If the folks that run or ran archives need a mirror site to host their mirrors, I can happily provide space for them on sundernet. I've plenty of space on the drive, and if not I can get more spindles for it... If you have already written perl scripts to archive incoming mail I'd put those up too... -- =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================

1 0

SSZ down (whatta story!)...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Sorry for the downtime but a big (40ft.) tree fell and took out the phone lines, nearly squished one of my dogs, and had the power lines under some considerable tension. If you're receiving this then everything should be back up and operating normaly. No further downtime is expected. Now back to your normal bat channel... ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0