December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: effective GACK fighting
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vlad the Mad wrote: >hence, I think we need to rely more on the courtroom-- it's >the only "language" that bureacrats understand. extremely >expensive, but more effective. it forces us to put our money >where our mouths are. "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" >and a lot of cash as well. the PRZ case proves the public >can support such a campaign. also tactics >as used by Softwar such as the FOIA attack approach. ....................................................... I'm agreeing with Vlad (euwwwww), mainly because I've had the same idea for a long time, about the effect of winning intellectual battles in a courtroom. This is a prime location for the airing-out of ideas, clarification of concepts, and making decisive conclusions about what is/is not the right way for governming bodies to behave, to do, to treat citizens, in relation to the original ideal (and could that ideal be clarified even further, for those who still don't get it?). It would require some 'real' libertarian lawyers of the kind cpunks could support. But wouldn't it be grand to watch as they decimated the opposition, as they reminded everyone of the raison d'etre for this exceptional nation, and as they 'put it to' a jury, in black & white, just what the deal is in a free society? Shoot, we don't need another President - just a good lawyer. Just imagine! Dream on! .. Blanc

2 1

Re: effective GACK fighting (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 19:50:49 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: effective GACK fighting > Vlad the Mad wrote: > > >hence, I think we need to rely more on the courtroom-- it's > >the only "language" that bureacrats understand. extremely > >expensive, but more effective. it forces us to put our money > >where our mouths are. "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" > >and a lot of cash as well. the PRZ case proves the public > >can support such a campaign. also tactics > >as used by Softwar such as the FOIA attack approach. > ....................................................... > > I'm agreeing with Vlad (euwwwww), mainly because I've had the same idea for > a long time, about the effect of winning intellectual battles in a > courtroom. This is a prime location for the airing-out of ideas, > clarification of concepts, and making decisive conclusions about what is/is > not the right way for governming bodies to behave, to do, to treat > citizens, in relation to the original ideal (and could that ideal be > clarified even further, for those who still don't get it?). It would > require some 'real' libertarian lawyers of the kind cpunks could support. I also agree. It is high time those of who believe in our rights put their money where our mouth is. But, why do we need a lawyer? We have the right to represent ourselves, why let somebody who has a intimate stake in the status quo represent us? Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. Also, let's start something relating to the 2nd. We should also move to have an amendment which requires all existing and future legislation pass constitutional review *prior* to being voted into existance. We should also move to have an amendment that *requires* government employees be responsible for their actions on a individual basis and eliminate the protection that Congress has put in place, that is *not* in the Constitution. We should further move to have the seizure laws revoked because they are not constitutional. The drug laws should also be attacked on that level as well. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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

cute.
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>What's the point in distribuing your public key through the same >channels as a signature? Kinda defeats the purpose. Esp since I can't >verify that the given public key is indeed yours, since you're anonymous. Well, there's some point in it. If I send an anonymous message, sign it with a key, and then include that key you can use that key to verify that it indeed was the key used to sign the message. For this to be of any value, however, future messages should be signed with that key but should not include it. This just proves that the person who wrote the last message is the same guy who wrote the first. That's about the only poitn I can see, though.

1 0

What I've been up to
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As some of you may know, I have been working on a skunk works project to further knowledge about smartcards and add smartcard support to crypto applications. While the latter isn't nearly ready for release, the former has resulted in a number of tools some on this list should find useful. Namely, we have a truly universal smartcard reader and software. Unlike the proprietary protocol garbage the smartcard vendors will sell you for lots of cash together with their overpriced toolkits, our reader uses only ISO standards and can handle *any* smartcard. In addition, we developed drivers and fully-automated scanning software for UNIX and Win32. If you don't get results just by typing "scan", then whatever you inserted isn't a smartcard. :-) At this time, we need sample smartcards and documentation. Anonymous donations of both is encouraged. For more information, please see https://www.cypherpunks.to/ All questions/offers should be directed to scard-admin(a)cypherpunks.to - -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNFwSMvXUPTw3WtkkEQLSZQCg8EVW2bprGr4E21W8Qg6EELc9+gcAoMdZ 6LbtU7WCfpfsYPi+Gj4l5ecX =5Bi8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: effective GACK fighting (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: >But, why do we need a lawyer? We have the right to represent ourselves, why >let somebody who has a intimate stake in the status quo represent us? Well, first of all I was being facetious, because of how people are always saying we need Leadership (tm) and need to elect another President in order to have a more Perfect Union. But I said we need a "good" lawyer - a libertarian lawyer - because I expect that it would take someone who had studied the legal system and made it their project to be well-educated and articulate on these matters, to be able to successfully represent the Consitutional values which we subscribe to. Maybe not. I myself don't think I could do it, although I would lend all kinds of backend support to whoever would, and frankly I don't think I would select you, either, Jim, because I don't think your arguments would be effective. I would be thrilled if someone like Tocqueville existed. He would get my vote. >Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or >Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment >relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to >the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. I don't know. But this is the sort of issue I was thinking of. >Also, let's start something relating to the 2nd. We should also move to [. . . ] Okay, you first. heh. You're being quite free with your recommendations. Remember, right now we're just a bunch of people sitting around their computers talking. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back wrote: >[Ed Note: Jim Choate wrote:] >> 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. The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling >their neighbours what they could think. It's not hard to believe that this was the case in some places and in some times, but a term like the "Wild West" covers a lot of time and territory. For example, in San Francisco in the early 1860s there was a very high murder rate, something like 1000 people were killed in one year and nobody was convicted. (Forgive minor factual errors as I haven't studied this in awhile.) I have also read reports of substantial violence in the mining communities of Nevada and California with minimal enforcement action taken. It seems likely to me that the low murder rate claim has some exceptions, even if we ignore the mutual atrocities between various native groups, Americans, and Mexicans. I would also like to see how pervasive the temperance movement was in the Wild West. By the late nineteenth century my impression is that it was going strong in the Wild West although it possibly hadn't grasped the levers of power yet. >> Face off's at high-noon simply didn't happen and poeple didn't run >> around having gun fights all the time. > >Right! I'm pretty sure there were gunfights, but that they happened a lot more quickly and a lot less formally than we see on TV. But, I could believe that overall they happened infrequently. Anybody have a reference? I am told that knife fighting was a lot more common than is widely known. A lot of poor runaways showed up to work in various mining towns and they were unable to afford expensive toys like guns. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFu5n5aWtjSmRH/5AQGsoQf7BfsZArO2JaJEGVAw9IzRGEQeykgrkFzc JXmCkT32PmZOA0uhMxPW9cC7ehmijwhr7HOVOKO7j4BlxqXemD4oV5M9/EwQfqzU rFgJJ/GIW5LF7h+HCI8gjsoS0VJtbpDs/d2zsuCOvwM4yXkQ330jwaAfk/iErgYs 3thfm7ZAgYcLJPeeCDc541b+eKAtxvbHoOCp3UTqM3EBws0NpDlD9+A3ZzT1a87e UAUsvesecZyz3e1ZHlqw4L08eHdmaMxtkHE3bDrnfJQA4Ij4HPa1ayMMlJmC1XhR U7PEl8CWC9dSLN2Z6pUpC0pIp3A6zqhISPxDW8nGpUipKwhojicXfQ== =lL5j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: cute
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > There was a discussion a little while ago suggesting that toad.com had > been compromised by people who were sowing dissension by partially > distributing certain messages. Had toad signed all of its messages, > it would be possible to obtain evidence supporting this hypothesis > without relying entirely on the word of people we may not know. How do signed messages deal with the incompleat distribushun problem? If legit signed messages are not sent to half the list, what does the sig gain us? > Had somebody compromised toad, they would still have to correctly sign > messages. But, depending on the compromise, this could be possible. > > This would also prevent an attack where somebody forges mail from a > > cypherpunks list machine to flush out identities. If the attacker > > sends a unique message to every person, he or she will be able to > > break an identity if the message is replied to on the list. Thats why its a good ideal to missquote peaple. And to only reply from the account you read on. And to use remalers. Monty Cantspell Editor in Chief Groan Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/groan_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantspell_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFu/fZaWtjSmRH/5AQGSdAf8DdZj05c4/WS/V9YF/o1lZ9W7/5vGlTDf mvU8nFPNT4TB9eha7UW/Ub2xaUI4TneBrWrIwXTeEqo1slUbzmShneeUoUlKMEho +PlrA8NjQhh/QRwMXsVUp4vtoV3oDUbCTRLE8PWIikC7Rpo92UocujfFhsey3Ewu /SCA/TrkjVO8efeR4H6GOBnVWd/+4YigLPtZhP6QzlKjf3Soq5OJNfVlHA3ci+3a UgbM+IQ/OTTkXMVbya60veWrN6/Njo/66D0EyUuHB5/bUHkFIjnWaz1DSG8g0vJq XfFNOusz9Dkrhz0gearv/fbRb93GxXRejTK/Jo9sMJta8pWAm4d1Yg== =5Loi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Japan's Constitution and GAK
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does someone have access to a verificable copy of Japan's Constitution? Someone pointed me to one on the web, which would seem to make difficult implemmenting international GAK systems. http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/japan.html Article 21. Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

new PGP key
by J. Lasser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Due to a hard drive crash near the beginning of last month and an inane lack of backups, I lost my old PGP keys (2047/0xDED5B791 and 1024/0xEC001E4D). I've generated a new key, enclosed below. Key info is as follows: Type Bits KeyID Created Expires Algorithm Use sec+ 2047 0x4CDD6451 1997-10-12 ---------- RSA Sign & Encrypt f16 Fingerprint16 = D8 5A 85 06 93 6C 86 E8 79 3A 07 AA 15 6E 3A BD I will personally verify this information at the physical DC Cypherpunk meeting tomorrow (well, today, actually), as well as hand out copies of the fingerprint. The key is also available at my web page, at either http://students.goucher.edu/jlasser/interests/pgpkey.html or http://gwyn.tux.org/~lasser/interests/pgpkey.html Yes, I keep backups now ;-) Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 2047/4CDD6451 1997/10/12 Jon Lasser <jon(a)lasser.org> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQENAzRBY9QAAAEH/2q2YaKg6zOpzWNHyPuO2cdEAIAIhsmOPjOp61bnrU9LAyKK gNJn2+Tn9PTfbnq0S8HupLTvgUsSuv0P0d1SzgDV0LtgUy9CYrtwkcExvK6UO103 RksrpAP0+wbaAWjp2Qogn2ZJskn8wayl1J9cHX4VfFQNUxQyqBqV8HUK5W+R4N91 76bWX0QrX+yQm0wCW8PT6xTe5L23N7lfUsDawOxsjIxHom3dg2lr1zQ1Pu/4wrw7 Mcoj1Wy+kxOxpZaMPF8ylyu953LKaPPJw5yQpjtzKBdi/ZxFI86rB7K2nra1NxGi c8Yq+Jy+LzGwI0RF330zI2/wpvqsoSqcnUzdZFEABRG0G0pvbiBMYXNzZXIgPGpv bkBsYXNzZXIub3JnPokAlQMFEDRCtOcalOfjf5iOyQEBBTID/iqETsBM1EZaOJlr nbkSYEcfrnM29Uo2fgbD7mQlrgOb/jNScvh7LaHdU7yZMaYmszCrC29S06RZYSOf HUCN62yVVZyFlWECvqcjspTzi0tdmhhpjHLAdW3/odmEbW6fsWhTauPCo1pp4IXq lyo9so9iAtjGSDB6QfFhf4htAcuWiQCVAwUQNEGY2xN3Wx8QwqUtAQHLxgP6AnOj ZWIMYazhH2pYemXrHmmyMTtM+CqW+YFCgD4ioDnwZqsghaNF8d7klJ7zL2GNK9XX o2PbBowsrZJ8Nt4tAMdC++giYLqW4UCb0BO1oLnKO/khbcPR0J3F0nBfIejbc82U aM72raafmZjpqCspjD5hBMRSaoS0xZaTe+sCJzOJARUDBRA0QZiLXprN4cSo7vEB AUmoB/0YspOyZ0u+0XbQsMsM4GPVlPWib0WiVeWpF2sBmzzCET7JIM5LcmqU71GG sGa1j/1Xc4rXMflzdPTCm2l+oRiQIOAfhW6daLR13DXYLPnyZl6dpy2SvRA5gdpj vztoLc4WafmEs5T0+cLkD6WqJ2fUBFH30UO8kJgIm7dGucFE73pdQJ75Ss+AmeM7 9Hu0lKKtTnaLnxLktuiJb6/xyzmAReW+dT1BJg0iKn0J2qJD5ZvPm1KRsBINgSO+ mmxtjo8IgCX71KLcWy/JtdD3Dizm1sXjg+wBD81WLhuQzhbbA8yNvhjQOnHqSfpC hq4ixqQUA7WQXicq21hy+xQW4eHciQEVAwUQNEFj1aEqnJ1M3WRRAQFdtAf/RRdT nUmU/hCY+lnA5V5O0zEQa9kX3/WWQ5f8asVEjij2NqZcBxnthwDxF0kFcq89TmjS oOg+FGJv7r23H7rloIHcLowFq3Eg0+enR/RqOv32N3KxJCC2OIu2FuXs2bBKs64+ kqHqs6+SL0hTuWGAn9y+7VuXE+Qy1F/rUQ/Rj3w2ZKQKS9x/c8Nukor3yGAfgvce pr20K5AgMSGjZXO4GttyTkw4SSRL+OdT3cZ+b0JLwe2R4AU5lb3oVXpjkD1eMcCJ isTGMGc9kMBCDMarCbhr1tvJlAAp7I7A5GQgUI77r5y8OjEVOoOxTjiTmXDvUdp9 KTjzW/PqE9xzo0sLWA== =xg8Z -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -- Jon Lasser (410)383-7962 jon(a)lasser.org http://wauug.erols.com/~lasser/ New PGP key coming soon "Flap your ears, Dumbo! The feather was only a trick!"

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

## In-reply-to: <199711020051.QAA23884(a)sirius.infonex.com> (message from Mix on Sat, 1 Nov 1997 16:51:19 -0800 (PST)) Subject: Re: cute. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Monty says > What would be really nice is if the mailing list machines time stamped > messages. That would be nice. I wonder, could one of our list hosts add a script to sign outgoing majordomo traffic? Here's a script to do it: - --------------------8<-------------------- #!/usr/local/bin/perl $userID="cypherpunks\(a)algebra.com"; $pgp="/usr/local/bin/pgp"; $tmp="/tmp/.sig$$"; undef($/); $post = <STDIN>; ($headers,@body) = split(/\n\n/,$post);$body = join("\n\n",@body); open(PIPE,"|$pgp -satf +batchmode +verbose=0 -u $userID > $tmp"); print PIPE $body; close(PIPE); open(SIGNED,"<$tmp");$signed=<SIGNED>;close(SIGNED); print "$headers\n\n$signed"; unlink($tmp); - --------------------8<-------------------- It handles one mail only. If you want to run it on a mail folder, use formail. > This would also prevent an attack where somebody forges mail from a > cypherpunks list machine to flush out identities. If the attacker > sends a unique message to every person, he or she will be able to > break an identity if the message is replied to on the list. You could do something similar with independent parties posting hashes of messages in the feed they got to the list, or to subscribers to the service. The list bot signing is more convenient to check though with existing software. Also, unfortunately, most MUA pgp software doesn't check nested signatures, so a signature from the list would break ability to auto check signatures from posters. Here's another script to check the list added signature on receipt: - --------------------8<-------------------- #!/usr/local/bin/perl $userID="cypherpunks\(a)algebra.com"; $pgp="/usr/local/bin/pgp"; $tmp="/tmp/.sig$$";$in="/tmp/.in$$";$msg="/tmp/.msg$$"; undef($/); $post = <STDIN>; ($headers,@body) = split(/\n\n/,$post);$body = join("\n\n",@body); open(BODY,">$in");print BODY $body;close(BODY); $res = system("$pgp -f +batchmode +verbose=0 -u $userID < $in > $tmp 2> $msg"); open(SIGNED,"<$tmp");$signed=<SIGNED>;close(SIGNED); open(ERR,"<$msg");$err=<ERR>;close(ERR); if ($res==0) { ($who) = ($err =~ m/Good signature from user "(.*)"\./); if ($who !~ m/$userID/) { $res=1; } } $headers =~ s/\[FORGERY\]//g; if ($res) { $headers =~ s/(Subject: )([^\n]*)/\1\[FORGERY\] \2/g; } print "$headers\n"; print "X-Signature: ", $res ? "forgery" : "ok $who", "\n"; print "\n\n$signed\n"; unlink($tmp,$in,$msg); - --------------------8<-------------------- > I'm not sure a timestamp matters that much for "authenticating" your > key. After all, you don't own "Amad3us", you own key 0x4D162BBE1. Yes. Except for minor nit: 0x4D162BBE1 is susceptible to a 0xdeadbeef attack, anyone can generate another key with that keyID. Even the fingerprint is spoofable. But the combination is truly hard to spoof, and this I do own: 0xa11a8a18bf6dbe8362926e9458a3616d/0x4d162bbe1 (fingerprint/keyID). Amad3us (0xa11a8a18bf6dbe8362926e9458a3616d/0x4d162bbe1) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBNFwjxvKMuKFNFivhAQGYnAQA33Ss68TKF+QfDGweQZ7TAkbmlOeqPC/J iBoV5zA+skqdgs+PD2afLAhQn5otm7xbx7rBEnBgMOYff9GyKB6Bfs/po7juwqs5 dACGPZhc5kNf4f18V04jv5sr6PWLWdwsoVegshVsiHmQgWtG9UlnZ0wKe2ORKzxf sQkJsIe3/jA= =naXX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0