December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Further costs of war
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:02:01 +0100 (MET) > From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > Subject: Further Costs of War Hi Monty, I have a couple of questions... > A few more comments on World War II. > > Had World War II been prevented, along with deaths of 50 million or so > people, we would also have been spared (in the United States) income > tax withholding. Previously the only people paying income tax were > fairly wealthy and there was no withholding. Any particular methodology you might care to share on stopping WWII? Being an avid amateur historian concerning WWII I am very much interested in any insight you might have. As to taxation and withholding: ARTICLE XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. [25 February 1913.] Notice the date of implimentation, considerably before WWII, it is in fact the year before the US became involved in WWI. Perhaps you meant WWI instead of WWII? Citizens of the US have been paying taxes since 1914. > I doubt very much that income tax withholding would have been accepted > if the War were not used to justify it. ("You don't want to pay > taxes? What are you, a traitor?") What war? The taxes came about because of issues other than fighting a war which hadn't even happened yet. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 4

Another Anti-Privacy Bigot Heard From (was: The Guilmette/Burnore deba
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sjsobol(a)devel.nacs.net (Steve Sobol) wrote: > So my challenge to the people posting anonymously is to either go away, or > find some balls and post non-anonymously. I know this won't happen, as much > of the stuff being said is rather libelous and can get the poster into a lot > of legal trouble, but hey, if any of the cowards involved would *like* to > reveal themselves... If you'd like to expose ... er, I mean "reveal" yourself, be my guest. <g> But knock off the bigotry -- anonymous posters are not going to be relegated to the back of the bus just because some control freak is annoyed by hearing things with which he disagrees posted by people that he can't identify. You're merely chanting the same line we've all heard over and over -- "unless you have something to hide, you won't mind my snooping and meddling in every aspect of your life". Threats of "a lot of legal trouble" for speaking one's mind are nothing new. But the tort of libel requires that the information be FALSE. There's a difference between something being libellously false and merely being embarassingly true. And, of course, the burden of proof is on the person making the charge. --

1 0

Re: Sadaam Burnore Strikes Again (was: Re: Keman the Klueless Strikes
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore+spam(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: ^^^^^ No thanks, Gary. I'll avoid your added spam. > X-No-Archive: yes Cute, Gary. Hide the evidence, then challenge people later on to produce it. > : Gary L. Burnore <gburnore(a)netcom.com> wrote: > : > : > X-Rfg-Is-An-Asshole: yes > : > : What follows ought to be really objective, right? > : > : > : >The account is closed. Find something ELSE to be obsessed about. > : > : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > : > > : > : Take your own fucking advice. Get off Ron Guilmette's back. > : > > : > Why? > : > > : > : You posted his ten year old tax lien. > : > > : > Yup, that's right. Just as he said: It's public information, already > : > available to the public so it's Ok to post (Referring to email addresses > : > of NETCOM customers. Ron Guilmette's own words. > : > : OK, so you both posted "public information", but you're justified for doing > : so, but Ron was not? Aren't you the hypocrite who was spouting off about > : "two wrongs don't make a right"? > : > : So if he was right for what he (supposedly) did, what's your problem? Why > : the ongoing vendetta? And if he was wrong, then you were, too! > : > : > : You mail bombed him and tried syn flooding without success. > : > > : > Of course you have no _EVIDENCE_ of any of this. From where did i syn > : > flood? From where did I mailbomb? > : > > : > If I did these terrible things and you err... ron, have proof, why not > : > show that to my provider. Again, which provider? When and where am I > : > supposed to have done this from? WHERES THE EVIDENCE? > : > : And where's the evidence for all of the fanciful charges you've made > : against Ron? Where's the proof, for example, that he "abused" an alleged, > : unnamed, "teenage girl" at DataBasix, as you've charged? > > Where's the proof that I accused him of abusing someone? You have none because > there is none. You're so sure that just because you hide all your posts behind that "X-No-Archive" header and had DejaNews remove all of your old posts from their archives that no one can hold you accountable for the numerous false charges you've made in the past? Maybe you can find a job cataloging video tapes of campaigning fund-raising events for the White House. Your selective memory might be put to good use, there. <g> Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten about this accusation you posted: > Subject: Cowards > From: gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) > Date: 1997/02/18 > Message-ID: <gburnoreE5rxEF.F3n(a)netcom.com> > Sender: gburnore(a)netcom22.netcom.com > Organization: the home office in Wazoo, NE > Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc > > > [ Article crossposted from news.admin.net-abuse.email ] > [ Author was Gary L. Burnore (gburnore(a)netcom.com) ] > [ Posted on Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:26:02 GMT ] > > So now the cowards in Ronald Francis's corner (I'm outright expecting the > culprit to be ronald francis himself) have taken to sending email to > those who have names listed on databasix's web page. Sending comments to > a 17 year old that they're going to tell her mother that she's having an > affair with me. Telling her mother that I'm molesting her daughter. > Having all sorts of fun. > > > Well OK Ronald Francis. You win. You were right. It _IS_ ok to send a > list of names of those who annoy you to UCE sites causing those who annoy > you grief. I see it a lot differently now. You were right. BTW, as soon > as I find the connection between these posts, those from wazoo.com, those > from mailmasher.com and YOU ronnie, it'll all be reported to law inforcement. > > -- > gburnore(a)databasix.com mailto:gburnore@databasix.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I spilled spot remover on my dog. Now I can't find him. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > San Francisco, CA | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 Ý³Þ³ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ > http://www.databasix.com | Official Proof of Purchase > =========================================================================== > > -- > gburnore(a)databasix.com mailto:gburnore@databasix.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > <-- Invisable Sig > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > San Francisco, CA | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 Ý³Þ³ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ > http://www.databasix.com | Official Proof of Purchase > =========================================================================== In fact, just to really smear Ron, you posted the article twice. The second copy was identified as follows: > Message-ID: <gburnoreE5rxJ6.FFt(a)netcom.com> This allegation was based on a supposed anonymous message to an anonymous "victim" at DataBasix, and people are supposed to believe that Ron Guilmette was responsible for it despite that you've posted, to borrow your own words, "not a shred of evidence". --

1 0

Iraq and computers
by Michael Wilson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As you see from the news bit attached, I wonder if we'll need to worry about 'disk escrow,' or perhaps a requirement that disks be of an unusually large size (thus making them easier to detect), or a requirement for diskless machines... MW http://www.7pillars.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ Iraq reportedly hiding arms data on U.S.-made computers ____________________________________________________________________________ Copyright ) 1997 Nando.net Copyright ) 1997 Reuters WASHINGTON (November 23, 1997 02:35 a.m. EST http://www.nando.net) - To conceal its deadliest arms from U.N. weapons inspectors, Iraq has increasingly turned to U.S.-made computers sold in Baghdad since the end of the 1991 Gulf War in violation of international sanctions, the Los Angeles Times reported in its Sunday editions. Quoting U.S. officials and U.N. diplomats, the newspaper said that Iraqi scientists and defense officials are using Western-made computers to transfer data from bulky papers to small disks that can be easily dispersed, making the information difficult for inspectors to track. In addition, they are using computers for research and development in the four categories specifically forbidden under the U.N. resolution ending the war -- nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles. U.N. sources did not disclose the brands or quantity of U.S.-made computers, except to say they make up a significant percentage of what was in use in Iraq, the paper said. "There are not garden-variety computers that you can go down to Radio Shack and buy," the paper said, quoting a former U.S. diplomat. "This requires specialized equipment and programs only available in certain places. Most of the U.S. equipment was probably purchased through third parties to circumvent U.S. companies' more rigorous monitoring of such illegal sales, U.N. and U.S. sources said, according to the newspaper. The use of high-tech equipment underscored how Baghdad continued to keep data beyond the reach of the United Nations, the paper said, adding that President Saddam Hussein's regime was widely suspected of using the three-week gap while U.N. inspectors were out of the country to further disperse data on disks. The use of computers also reflected the way Iraq used its limited sources to modernize its military capability rather than address humanitarian issues, U.S. and U.N. officials said, according to the report.

1 0

Re: Seeing Both Sides
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Robert Hettinga wrote: >...people are out there, right now, writing code instead of... To which Tim May replied: >Spare us the "writing code instead of" appeals to some sort of >guilt. Cypherpunks write code for computers. Tim May writes code for cypherpunks.

1 0

Re: Russ Alberry/CAUCE vs. the Cypherpunks (was: Re: RESULT: comp.org.cauc
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: > > Russ Allbery <rra(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > > > * I am specifically pissed at Igor about trolling for votes on ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > random newsgroups and on Cypherpunks. > In what sense are you using the word "trolling"? Are you saying that the > mention of a proposal to ban anonymity is considered "trolling" when posted > amongst a group of pro-privacy, pro-anonymity individuals such as the > Cypherpunks? Sounds like he is only objecting to you discussing issues important to you with groups you belong to and groups that you *don't* belong to. Sounds like Chelsea is pushing daddy's fascist agenda at Stanford. > Why is publicly disagreeing with you considered a "propaganda campaign"? > Why should the C.A.U.C.E. brand of propaganda be the only variety allowed? Because fickless ducks live in fear of individuals who threaten their ability to hide under phantom security blankets. > When I first heard of the C.A.U.C.E., my initial thought was that it was a > good idea. Finally a means to fight back against the spammers. Now I'm > starting to wonder what sort of agenda is driving some of these illogical > anti-privacy requirements. Often, it is just the result of people who come up with some inane brainstorm that looks good on the surface, but are too intellectually lazy to think it through and resent anyone who does so (thus destroying their petty work of self-proclaimed 'genius'. The real losers end up doing a lot of campaigning to make up for the insufficiency of their logic, under the delusion that getting as many others as possible to jump on their bandwagon will somehow increase their low level of self-esteem. Sounds to me like the dweeb is pissed because he had to do a lot of blather-spamming to overcome the effects of Igor's rational and balanced posts on the subject. Perhaps his next project could be to promote a vote on a new value for 'pi'. TruthMonger

2 1

The hacker's friend
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://cnet.com/Content/Features/Dlife/Inside/ss03.html "Microsoft and Netscape insist that the W3C does produce truly open standards, and that it's the only way to make sure the Web doesn't dissolve into chaos." The W3C is also producing a "single point of failure" so that hackers will be able to concentrate their energies on gaining access to *everything*. Chaos==Anarchy==Freedom

1 0

Remailer Header Truncation?
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've started to notice that in posts to Usenet involving a Mixmaster remailer and a mail2news gateway, the lines in the header were being truncated to 79 characters or less. Is this limitation in the gateway software or in Mixmaster itself? --

1 0

Mondex help needed
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just received one of the Chase Manhattan Mondex cards. Since I've been doing a bit of work with smartcards lately <https://www.cypherpunks.to/scard/>, I'd like to take an extended look at this card. The task would be much easier if I had one or several of the following: o Mondex card Programer Reference Manual. Somebody on this list must have access to one. o Protocol specifications. Even partial specs would be helpful. o Any PC software that talks RS-232 to a reader that is meant to hold a Mondex card. And of course the reader. If the reader work with non-Mondex cards, all the better, because that probably means that the reader is generic and the commands can be reverse engineered and emulated. o An RS-232 adapter to the PCMCIA sized reader that came with my Chase Mondex card and associated PC software. The reader has a tiny connector on the side meant to connect to a serial port adapter. Since this is a Mondex-only reader, I am not sure how much of the intelligence resides in the reader. Listening to the communication between the PC software and this particular reader may not provide much information. Your help is much appreciated. Anonymous donations are accepted and encouraged. Thanks, -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

3 3

CyberCash response to: Major security flaw in Cybercash 2.1.2 (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=====================================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 ========================== ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 04:08:28 -0500 From: Pat Farrell <pfarrell(a)CYBERCASH.COM> To: BUGTRAQ(a)NETSPACE.ORG Subject: CyberCash response to: Major security flaw in Cybercash 2.1.2 This message is going to bugtraq because I first heard of the report from this list. I believe it is in the spirit of the list's usage guidelines. Redistributed in accordance to the terms below. Other responses should be off list, directly to me. Pat -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have been asked by Steve Crocker, CyberCash's Chief Technical Officer, to post this message concerning security of CyberCash's software. The following should appear in its entirety if it's printed at all. Permission is granted to repost this message as long as the entire message is reposted unaltered with the PGP signature intact. Pat The following message appeared on the net. > === begin quoted message === > >From: Anonymous <anon(a)ANON.EFGA.ORG> >Subject: Major security flaw in Cybercash 2.1.2 >To: BUGTRAQ(a)NETSPACE.ORG > >CyberCash v. 2.1.2 has a major security flaw that causes all credit >card information processed by the server to be logged in a file with >world-readable permissions. This security flaw exists in the default >CyberCash installation and configuration. > >The flaw is a result of not being able to turn off debugging. Setting >the "DEBUG" flag to "0" in the configuration files simply has no >effect on the operation of the server. > >In CyberCash's server, when the "DEBUG" flag is on, the contents of >all credit card transactions are written to a log file (named >"Debug.log" by default). > >The easiest workaround I've found is to simply delete the existing >Debug.log file. In my experience with the Solaris release, the >CyberCash software does not create this file at start time when the >DEBUG flag is set to 0. > >The inability to turn off debugging is noted on CyberCash's web site >under "Known Limitations". The fact that credit card numbers are >stored in the clear, in a world readable file, is not. > > === end quoted message === We have taken this quite seriously and have put through a full release of our software which will be available Monday 11/24 for three platforms and others shortly thereafter. The flaw was in the debug logging function, not in the protocols or core implementation. Nonetheless, the effect was an unnecessary exposure of potentially sensitive information, and it shouldn't have gone out the door that way. We're tightening our internal processes to avoid this in the future. That said, here's the actual exposure. The credit card information that's in the clear in the log comes from "merchant-initiated" transactions, which means the merchant obtains the credit card number from somewhere -- phone, mail, fax, SSL-protected Internet interaction, or unprotected Internet interaction. The merchant thus has the same info in the clear already. If the card number was provided via a wallet, then the card number is blinded at the consumer's end. It is therefore not in the clear as it passes through the merchant's machine and the reported exposure does not apply.. In order for the unprotected log to pose a risk of exposure, someone has to be able to gain access to the merchant's machine. If the machine is well protected, viz behind a firewall and/or carefully configured, presumably an outsider won't be able to gain access. And in terms of the *additional* exposure the open log represents over existing risks, if the same information is accessible in the clear elsewhere on the machine, eliminating from the log or encrypting the log provides little or no real protection. We continue to advise merchants to take strong steps to protect their machines. To our knowledge, the exposure documented above has not resulted in the actual loss of any customer data or other security incident. - ---------------------------------- Steve Crocker Desk: +1 703 716 5214 CyberCash, Inc. Main: +1 703 620 4200 2100 Reston Parkway Fax: +1 703 620 4215 Reston, VA 20191 crocker(a)cybercash.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNHfwF7CsmOInW9opAQHurAP+MPve2kBqh7Vtt6cMbzohCt2PTjaa6dl3 AzxTVPzgMPdGLB+pehGNxsxrlb/hQ07P3IqMaKcaKXs9O+7Av7ijaUGGkbWpbhEJ Zy38iKpEsMIHe2vrLXyyjVbzorj/8f/OHEr28NbXjviSllyJlGzowgS0AXuFMLMt lByJBsTAAS4= =ZlLs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Pat Farrell CyberCash, Inc. w:(703) 715-7834 Senior Engineer pfarrell(a)cybercash.com #include standard.disclaimer

1 0