December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [SURVEY] pgp5.x / pgp2.x users
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> wrote: >Fill out and email me, and I'll tabulate results, and post here and on >ietf-open-pgp: >==============================8<============================== >mini straw poll on pgp2.x and 5.x usage: > >1. What are you currently using for everyday use: 2.x or 5.x >[ 2 or 5 ] 2.x. 5.x is purposefully incompatable and crippled. >2. What proportion of people you use PGP to communicate with are using 5.x >[ x / y ] None. If they're using 5.x I by definition can't communicate with them. >3. How many of the 5.x users you communicate with are cypherpunks >[ z ] See above. >==============================8<============================== >The question has come up on ietf-open-pgp as to how important it is >for the OpenPGP standard to support backwards compatibility with >pgp2.x. Very. 5.x right now is nothing but annoying. I can understand wanting to use the new algorithms. However if the authors want to do that and literally force people into upgrading then they need to make sure that every platform which had a version of 2.x has a version of 5.x available, and they need to stop breaking *every* script and program which calls PGP. If they release a version of PGP for one platform before they do others and the new version is incompatable with the old for all intents and purposes, they're just feeding OS wars, frustration, and hostility. >The IETF generally likes to steer clear of patented algorithms as >MUSTs in standards. This encourages implementations, etc. >(Personally I'm pretty keen on this point, though I would like more >backwards compatible pgp5.x implementations -- I've already received >emails I can't read without resorting to the pgp5 command line app, >which doesn't work with my mailer integrated system.) That's exactly my situation. I figure, however, that if somebody is going to send out broken email I won't bother kludging around to read it no more than I will go start X11 and fire off a 20 MB browser (Communicator) because some moron doesn't know how to use HTML as it was originally designed. I'm personally appalled at the number of Cypherpunks using a version of PGP which is completely incompatable with previous versions and outrageously annoying to use unless you run Windows since it breaks everything which is integrated. >So the question arises, just how many pgp2.x users are there. PGP Inc >are pointing to the ratio of RSA keys to DSA/EG keys on keyservers as >showing that pgp2.x users are in the minority. However that ratio is >something like 20,000 to 75,000, and I'm sure we've heard statistics >in the past about there being literally millions of pgp 2.x users. >One suspects that either many pgp 2.x users aren't using keyservers (I >know several cypherpunks who have something against key servers and >avoid them for perceived security or privacy reasons), and/or the >pgp2.x user base is exaggerated. You can't compare the user bases this way. First, 5.x integrates easily into several Windows mailers. This encourages people to go get it and install it over 2.x. Second, 5.x integrates keyserver functions. 2.x does not. It's really no work for 5.x users to submit a key to a keyserver, where it takes some effort with 2.x. Third, most people probably have Windows installed already. They heard 5.x was out, and didn't realize that it was so...well, broken. I know I fetched 5.x when it came out and installed it. I almost sent my key to the servers, then stopped to think about how the generated key doesn't work with 2.x. Fourth, if you're using Windows and communicating with other Windows users there is really no reason not to use 5.x. People communicating with classmates at universities and such are likely to go install 5.x because it's easy to use, send their key to the keyservers because they can, and inflate the numbers. Fifth, there are far more Windows users than users of other OSes. Windows users have no reason not to upgrade, while other users have every reason to stick with previous version. I think the major problem with 5.x right now as it stands is the complete lack of support from http://beta.pgp.com, the forced command-line incompatabilities, and the lack of a stable multiplatform version. Add to that the CMR debacle. Now in defense of PGP 5.x I do like the keyserver integration, expiry dates on keys, and some of the other features. I like how it integrates with the mailers. This entire thing makes me think of a web site which checks your browser and OS. If you aren't running what the author likes, it tells you that you suck, you're a moron, you're behind the times, you're using an inferior operating system, and then doesn't show you the data. This is analogous to what PGP Inc. has done. This compatability thing could have very easily been avoided. Face it, PGP Inc. screwed up. I think it's ultimately going to be the job of Cypherpunks outside of the Land of the Freeh to clean up their mess. Has anyone considered hacking up 2.6.xi to handle the new format? It would have to be saner than 5.x is at this point. I would try, but I'm in the Land of the Freeh where you put your backside on the line to write any crypto software at all. Ah, I love America. CompatabilityMonger

2 1

Re:
by wabe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

yeah, so ABC has an absolutly discusting thing last night (was that 20/20) that I watched for almost 20 minutes, in which they actually showed the "raptists" (he met and had sex? with a fifteen year old girl.) Who even meets girls on the internet? Then there was a proto-hacker who shut down the porn chat rooms on Aol. (I commend him, if for nothing else, than for developing software that shuts down parts of AOL. :>) Anyways, Mr. Protohacker actually cried on the camera, because he was raped at age 4, and he couldn't believe we let those pornographers on the internet to spread their web of filth. When TV gets into the war against the Internet, it scares me. I don't want a war between the bible belt and the technocrats... _______________________________________ -wabe

1 0

New remailer in operation at CharmQuark@juno.com
by vcarlos35＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi everyone, I'm running an Type 1 (or Cypherpunks) Remailer at CharmQuark(a)juno.com, using GoddessHera's Juno Remailer ver 4.9, with nym capabilities turned on. Send a message with subject "remailer-help" (No quotes) for more information.

1 0

Re: What Will Revolution Look Like?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The distinction between civilians and soldiers, which came about in the 17th and 18th centuries, is close to meaningless in the context of a modern revolution. However, this distinction, and the Clausewitzian claim that war is the continuation of politics by other means, underly the 'law of war.' War as the continuation of politics implies that the State sends soldiers to war against other soldiers to fight for policy rights. War to gain teritory, war over insults or honor, religious war, is seen as a thing of the past. Barbaric. Modern warriors can not understand people who play by other rules. To some extent, this has been good for us civilians. The firebombings of German cities were an exception, not the rule. However, as the anti-colonial movement demonstrated, a people can effectively fight a modern army, and win. They are marked as terrorists, defamed for their capitalist activites such as drug smuggling to finance the struggle, and hanged when caught. A modern revolution, as Mao taught, is based on forcing people to decide if they are with you or against you. There are no neutrals who simply want the status quo to continue, because once the revolutionaries have started to do their job, the state lashes out, passing facist new laws (see Northern Ireland, Peru, the United States). The status quo disappears, and the revolutionaries are committed. It is only by making starkly clear who stands where that enough people to fuel the revolution can have the manpower to sucseed. The alternative to the revolution becomes living under the government that killed your family members. In Algeria, once the first few thousands of martyrs died, every additional person the French killed was a new reason to fight. Surrender, to the Alerians, became inconcievable. Life as French was not worth living. So they fought. When the revolution comes to the United States, it will not be a pretty thing. Our best hope is for a rapid surrender of the current government, which is not likely. By deploying now the tools of communication (remailers, strong encryption, directions for building bombs and traps, cheap radio transmitters), as well as the tools for deception (how hard is it to build a fake GPS transmitter?), and the understanding that the US governemnt has grown cancerous, we bring closer the begenning and the end of the revolution. We bring its start closer by forcing the Government to show its true colors, turning more people against it. We bring its finish closer by having ready the tools to render ineffective the large fighting machines we have paid for, by making it clear tht the government does not have the support of the people, and by making it clear that once committed, we will have to fight. So, Tim, we disagree that it will be like nothing seen before. It will be like many modern revolutions, because we can't force the government to fight on our terms today. 20 years later, we will look back, and realize that governments have murdered most of the innocents they will ever kill, because will can deploy technology to make government voluntary. But we're not there, and getting there may be bloody. There is, of course, Duncan's Berlin Wall theory, but I fear things will have to get worse before they get better. Adam Tim May wrote: | Some of the questions by Mark Rogaski and others ask about the nature of | the revolution I and others are predicting and encouraging. | | What will a just revolution, like those anticipated by Jefferson, Franklin, | and others, look like? | | The British thought the colonial rebels were "playing dirty" by shooting | from behind trees instead of marching in bright uniforms with drums and | bugles to herald their way. | | Modern armies think freedom fighters are "terrorist scum" for not fighting | honestly and fairly in their own M-1 Abrams tanks and aircraft carriers. | | So, too, will revolutionaries be seen as fighting "unfairly" and being | unethical sneaks, child killers, and terrorists. | | (As if children and other innocents did not die in various incidents in | past wars, on all sides.) | | When Jefferson predicted that a revolution was needed every 20 years or so, | he surely was not saying that throwing one party out of leadership and | putting the other party in was an example of such a revolution, or that | "campaign reform" is such an example. Nor was he saying that the only valid | revolution would be when a buch of citizens or states got together their | own army and marched on Washington. | | (Actually, raising such an army is in violation of numerous laws about | heavy weaons, licenses to carry weapons, etc. No doubt illegal. Ironically.) | | No, the revolution, when it comes, will likely be different from anything | quite like we've seen to date. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:28:22 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > The real problem as I see it with democracy is that not only do your > neighbours get to vote to have you locked up for something which is > none of their business, and has no conceivable effect up on them; but > they actually get to vote for you to be charged for the "service" of > being locked up to protect you from yourself. Exactly what kind of democracy are you speaking of? Sounds like you are lumping them all into one big bucket, a disservice to all involved in this discussion and a popular spin-doctor tactic. If so, please be so kind as to demonstrate how a representative, constitutional, and majority democracy are the same? And for the record, we have a constitutional representative democracy. Personaly, I figure you must be one of those folks with a cognitive disfunction. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not understand? > The wild west was better than this state of affairs -- people didn't > have the energy or inclination to waste their own resources being nosy > parkers, and those that did were apt to wind up full of lead. Boy, you history is simply fucked. If you seriosly think the west was like television you should spend more time reading books and period newspapers and less time looking at the boob-tube. At the height of the range wars there were only 9 murders associated with the conflict, not hundreds as the popular entertainment media and spin-doctor culture would have you believe. Get your fucking facts straight. Face off's at high-noon simply didn't happen and poeple didn't run around having gun fights all the time. I would suggest *strongly* that if nothing else you review the western history series by Time*Life, should be at your local library, and UT Press put out a book called "The Texas Rangers". I have both of them but unfortunately they are in my shop 30 miles away. A lookup at your local bookstore should get them if you are truly interested in how it was. "The Quick & The Dead" was a movie, not a historical documentary. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:06:10 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> writes: > > > > Exactly what kind of democracy are you speaking of? Sounds like you are > > lumping them all into one big bucket, > > I figure it's a reasonable summary of a lot of democracies right now. What is a reasonable summary? Reasonable to who? What 'lot' of democracies? > > If so, please be so kind as to demonstrate how a representative, > > constitutional, and majority democracy are the same? And for the > > record, we have a constitutional representative democracy. > > Didn't say they were "the same". No, but you certainly imply it with your broad brush. > But they do share a characteristic: > distortions of free market in the form of voting for theft and > redistribution of other peoples money leading to annoying government > micro-management, and general do-gooder busy-body-ness, and the many > laws on thought crimes. Again, demostrate your assertion(s). Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? > > Personaly, I figure you must be one of those folks with a cognitive > > disfunction. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not > > understand? > > I understand it, but US politicians either don't, or don't care and > largely ignore the constitution. What does it matter whether I > understand it or not? If you don't understand it you can't use it, effectively or otherwise. > Your constitution says you can own and carry > guns; your politicians and law enforcement increasingly say that you > can not. Your response to my saying that is that _I_ don't understand > the constitution? No, my responce is prove your assertions. Explain to me why you believe these are valid views and why they provide a more usable environment for understanding what is going on then others. > > > The wild west was better than this state of affairs -- people didn't > > > have the energy or inclination to waste their own resources being nosy > > > parkers, and those that did were apt to wind up full of lead. > > > > Boy, you history is simply fucked. If you seriosly think the west was like > > television you should spend more time reading books and period newspapers > > and less time looking at the boob-tube. > > I don't own a TV, and so don't watch much (by choice -- it's mostly > garbage); printed mass media is a bit better, but not that much. Nice side step. > > At the height of the range wars there were only 9 murders associated > > with the conflict, not hundreds as the popular entertainment media > > and spin-doctor culture would have you believe. Get your fucking > > facts straight. > > I know, that was my point; recall that I said the murder rate was low. No, you said *nothing* about murder rate. What you did say was that back in the old days people ran around killing those who bothered them. Which isn't true either. > The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling their > neighbours what they could think. Really? What was the law count say in 1865 versus 1965? 1897 v 1997? Demonstrate your point.

3 2

PGPsdk is out, but not for free
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

More proof that the PGP folks have some kind of alterior motive. Translation: They created a software package which purposefully breaks the previous free versions of that package. Then they release a development kit for that package with outrageous licensing fees. Welcome to the new PGP Inc. >First, PGPsdk has been released: > http://www.pgp.com/sdk/ >The bad news: the licensing fees are so high that there will be no >freeware or shareware applications using it. Here's an example of the >licensing: >License Plan #1 > Authentication, Encryption/Decryption, > PGP/MIME, Key Management: $25,000 advance on >royalties + 2% of product revenues (minimum $1 per client and $35 per >server) >Add Certificate Server Integration: > $5,000 advance on royalties >Support/Upgrades > (includes email support by a trained > developer support technician) > $1,500 per year + 15% of royalty payments

1 0

PGPsdk is out, but not for free
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

More proof that the PGP folks have some kind of alterior motive. Translation: They created a software package which purposefully breaks the previous free versions of that package. Then they release a development kit for that package with outrageous licensing fees. Welcome to the new PGP Inc. >First, PGPsdk has been released: > http://www.pgp.com/sdk/ >The bad news: the licensing fees are so high that there will be no >freeware or shareware applications using it. Here's an example of the >licensing: >License Plan #1 > Authentication, Encryption/Decryption, > PGP/MIME, Key Management: $25,000 advance on >royalties + 2% of product revenues (minimum $1 per client and $35 per >server) >Add Certificate Server Integration: > $5,000 advance on royalties >Support/Upgrades > (includes email support by a trained > developer support technician) > $1,500 per year + 15% of royalty payments

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

## In-reply-to: <19971101145349.14850(a)ultra7.umr.edu> (message from Matthew Nuckolls on Sat, 1 Nov 1997 14:53:49 -0600) Subject: Re: cute. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Matthew Nuckolls says > Warning: The following message is apolitical. > > > -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- > > mQCNAzRbd7MAAAEEAONwsEpUgiezyfP6lxBzM5SfHJS6MK12JyR09KBZp2rrW680 > > ... > > =6dKS > > -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- > > What's the point in distribuing your public key through the same > channels as a signature? Kinda defeats the purpose. The purpose is to create a persistent nym. The signature, and public key ensures that you know that this message is from the same person as you were attempting to nit pick :-] > I can't verify that the given public key is indeed yours, since > you're anonymous. True. So it's only as good as the keys you might fetch from a keyserver that you have no connection to in the web of trust. You aren't supposed to link it to my True Name. All that can be done is to get a signature from a timestamp server, and a signature from Bill Stewart's nym key signing service. I don't think there are any timestamp servers which provide key signatures. Anyone want to start one? This is important because it prevents someone else from generating more keys with the same userID, such as happened with Tim May's blacknet key. The only protection I have against that is the public record of my key being posted to cypherpunks. The http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/ archive helps as a public record of first publishing of a key with this userID. A timestamp service signature on my key would be a better solution. Amad3us -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBNFugu/KMuKFNFivhAQEJUwP7BUCoER9V60RDWQHLRNB1tGudDwWtQsRy lnZJuI+VK9ljr5ze6O8b7/3WLItSqxyd4o+yyf/hx7SARqyZ1BV6KEljUXe7i3RQ 4Dy5H7/E+hZe9B4cN9OYs8A2oAcLKs5fIYSKqyEado6+IL4G9YrDTNmz28z/flmY kvfVsPWKk7w= =oXSI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQCNAzRbd7MAAAEEAONwsEpUgiezyfP6lxBzM5SfHJS6MK12JyR09KBZp2rrW680 4vbKAO/oteftRRM1jYYaQM6pUd2Tbb9z+cSuQGr2GH9kQ0Y7bllh89E1PItj7frG ARSCbt1gbbXDXEICY8Ne1zZB7FfMt2qGVBdrKG/i2vfdZa5+n/KMuKFNFivhAAUR tCNBbWFkM3VzIDxjeXBoZXJwdW5rc0BjeWJlcnBhc3MubmV0PokAlQMFEDRbjMPy jLihTRYr4QEB38ED/1P9L2yLURl5B2GJok3eIf6EnF1ahFxSK7wuK++YfKRKb3Ku oPTzwSXH+92PZX28dpC+aYu8Qb0dMSCk4Cadn9cxz4n42u509JU4z0o897lB4u2I TxV3YKbBAQSv/jZ/Gq8drdFtemQXUPigNL6IjDAPc/REiHv7IZNKAniSBo1P =N8Gg -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

PGPsdk is out, but not for free (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 16:36:05 -0500 > From: Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> > Subject: PGPsdk is out, but not for free > >License Plan #1 > > > Authentication, Encryption/Decryption, > > PGP/MIME, Key Management: $25,000 advance on > >royalties + 2% of product revenues (minimum $1 per client and $35 per > >server) > > >Add Certificate Server Integration: > > $5,000 advance on royalties > > >Support/Upgrades > > (includes email support by a trained > > developer support technician) > > $1,500 per year + 15% of royalty payments > Hmmm, will have to rethink suggesting any PGP based products to my customers now. I simply refuse to pay anybody any percentage of my product revenues simply because I use their tool. I buy a SDK for a flat fee like I buy a book, screwdriver, or a car. I can't imagine Black & Decker wanting a percentage of the house sale simply because the carpenter used their hammers and saws. Ford or Chevy wanting to see my income statement each year so they can figure out how much I owe them because I drive their brand of vehicle to my customers sites...yeah right. $25k?...PGP Inc.....Get a clue. Hell, at those kinds of license fees I can afford to develop my own libraries. What I do with it and how much money I make with it is my income alone (minus taxes) *unless* they want to cover some percentage of my business costs (which I don't want). ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0