December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Netscape Bug Reproduced
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Netscape privacy problem reproduced at EIFIST Date: 6/16/97 5:34 PM Netscape privacy problem: Using information gleaned from the web site of the Danish company that first reported the problem, Keith Woodard and Dave Humphrey at EIFIST have built a web page which reproduces the privacy problem in Netscape Navigator and Communicator web browsers. From that effort they have developed a better understanding of how the Netscape bug works, and what defensive measures users can take until a bugfix is available from Netscape. First, the problem is indeed read-only, and involves only files to which the explicit path name is known. Second, all file systems accessible from the Netscape user's system are reachable -- that means mapped network drives as well as the local hard disk. Third, JavaScript can be used by a web site to automate reading a user's file so that it is invisible to the user. However, the bug does not involve use of Java at all. The demo website can be visited at the following URL: http://eifist.frb.org/hacker/fileupload.html Please urge all Internet web users to take the following interim steps until a permanent fix is available from Netscape: * In Navigator 3.x and 2.x, go to the Options menu and select Security Preferences. Select the "Submitting a Form Insecurely" preference to enable that warning dialog box. This will generate a warning box whenever a site tries to upload a form, giving the user a chance to decide whether to allow it. * Also, in Navigator 3.x and 2.x, go to the Options menu and select Network Preferences. Turn OFF the "Enable JavaScript" preference. This will block execution of JavaScript code which might try to perform an invisible file upload, while permitting display of the rest of the page. These measures are temporary until a full bug fix is made available by Netscape and proven against the EIFIST demo page. Regards

1 0

Re: eDrugs / Re: e$: Skins vs. Shirts
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Drug Monger wrote: >> Wow. I actually understood all that... >> The scent of the cogs is unmistakable hereabouts. > > Hetting and Young both pass on a variety of highly informative and >exceedingly normal, reality-based material for the most part. Then, >out of the blue, they post Taoist-Kerouac, acid-flashback missives >which indicate that the Orphan Zombies roaming the computer Nether- >world have not yet managed to steal their souls. > Since John and Bob's psyche-meanderings often seem to occur within >the same time-frame I have concluded that they both have the same >drug connection. > > So...did you bring enough for everybody? That's the nice thing about data-based drugs - just tear open this hypercard and look at the nice binary patterns, and you can make lots of copies for your friends. Do _you_ have the hacker nature? <IMG HREF="http://www.blacknet.net/snowcrash.gif"> Do you _still_ have the hacker nature? Raven

2 1

ACLU/EPIC: First Amendment Pledge Campaign
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:04:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: ACLU/EPIC: First Amendment Pledge Campaign ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:50:00 -0400 From: Dave Banisar <banisar(a)epic.org> To: press <info(a)epic.org> Subject: Press Release: First Amendment Pledge Campaign JOINT PRESS RELEASE: American Civil Liberties Union Electronic Privacy Information Center ACLU, EPIC Call on Congress and Clinton to "Take the First Amendment Pledge" FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, June 16, 1997 Contact: Emily Whitfield, ACLU Nat'l Office (212) 549-2566 emilyaclu(a)aol.com David Sobel, EPIC (202) 544-9240 sobel(a)epic.org NEW YORK -- As the nation awaits a Supreme Court decision on the future of free speech on the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center today launched www.firstamendment.org, a website dedicated to upholding the First Amendment in cyberspace. The groups called on President Clinton and members of Congress to be among the first to "Take the First Amendment Pledge" and cease any further attempts to draft legislation to censor the Internet in the event the Supreme Court upholds a lower court decision striking down government regulation of the Internet as unconstitutional. "In our view there is no such thing as a 'Constitution-proof' law criminalizing so-called indecency in cyberspace," said Chris Hansen, ACLU Senior Staff Attorney and lead counsel in Reno v. ACLU. The launch of the website comes as Clinton Administration officials have begun publicly discussing a shift in policy on Internet regulation, saying that "industry self-regulation" -- not laws criminalizing certain Internet communications -- is the solution to shielding minors from online "indecency." Hansen added that if the Administration had indeed adopted such a policy, it is obligated to announce it to the Court before they rule in the case. "If the report in this morning's New York Times is indeed true, it would appear that the Clinton Administration is preparing to take the 'Pledge,'" Hansen said. Reno v. ACLU challenges censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act aimed at protecting minors by criminalizing so-called "indecency" on the Internet. The ACLU, along with EPIC and 18 other plaintiffs, filed a challenge to the law the day it was enacted. A ruling on the case could come as soon as Thursday, June 19, the next scheduled day for release of Supreme Court decisions. "Attempts to censor the Net will not end with the Supreme Court decision ," said David Sobel, legal counsel for EPIC and co- counsel in Reno v. ACLU. "Proponents of Internet content regulation have already indicated their desire to take a 'second bite of the apple' if the Communications Decency Act is struck down." In anticipation of such new attempts at online censorship, visitors to www.firstamendment.org are invited to "Take the First Amendment Pledge," which reads: "I pledge to support free speech and free expression for all Americans and to urge Congress to uphold the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and pass no law abridging our freedom of speech." Online users can capture the "First Amendment Pledge" GIF (graphic image file) for placement on their own website. Other features planned for the site include an "action alert" that informs users of legislative threats to the First Amendment and allows them to instantly e-mail or fax their member of Congress, and an online "postcard" that can be e-mailed to friends, relatives and elected officials, urging them to "Take the Pledge." The ACLU is a nationwide, non-partisan organization dedicated to defending and preserving the Bill of Rights for all individuals through litigation, legislation and public education. The ACLU can be found online at www.aclu.org and through America Online at keyword: ACLU. EPIC is a non-profit, education and research organization based in Washington, D.C. EPIC examines civil liberties and privacy issues that arise in new electronic media. It maintains a website at www.epic.org. ..

6 6

Re: Declan as a Crime Beat Reporter
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:38:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea(a)netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> As a real Hollywood reporter, I'm sorry to tell you both Chasen's and the Brown Derby are long shuttered. So is Scandia and Cock 'n Bull. About the only old-line place of that type left is Tam O'Shanter. Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea(a)netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999

1 0

Re: Homer on Terrorism
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: >I agree. It seems a bit like blackmail to me. These 'consultants' would >have better off having friends buy put options on Netscape stock prior to >the phone call. Then if Netscape won't pay their price they get the money >from the market when they make the information public, including the source >code. Spare me the insider trading rants. Good point. Perhaps CNNfn and PC Rag insiders did just that. Maybe even got a few for CaboComm's account. Maybe the insiders at NSCP dumped a few after the negotiations tanked. Screaming "terrorism" for smoke. Isn't it conventional wisdom that the market is churned with with blackmail, greenmail, "terrorist" slaughter of W&O and such, laying down "free market" smoke. Story from Federal pen here is that the WTC bomb aimed to topple the pile onto World Financial Center across the road where the plushest players squat on gold but job-lock TLAs running the op said no-no, just terrify the fats into upping our CT-consulting fees and budgets, like IRA @ London City. Inmate Ian was heard to warn, "Worked like a charm, din it: now shut your hole Youseff about that salted laptop fabbed up St Andrews, Great Malvern."

1 0

Re: Flag Burning...
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:52 AM 6/13/97 -6, Peter Trei wrote: ... >Think about this: > >Would you rather people did not burn the flag because: > >1. They'll be thrown in the slammer if they do. >2. The[y] revere the values for which it stands, and will not descrate a > meaningful symbol of these values. > >In (2), we can look at the (very rare) individuals who *do* burn the >flag, and determine for ourselves if they have a valid point to >convey. > >In (1), we'll never know. > >For Congress to deny the freedom to burn the flag is a desecration of what >the flag stands for - a descration of the flag by the government itself. (I'm on Ray's FCPUNKS, please cc me directly, my replies may be delayed and this may have already been covered anyway. Probably was.) 1. Burning is a proper way to dispose of old flags, according to my old boyscout handbook, so I guess this is thoughtcrime. 2. Why not outlaw desecrating the Bill of Rights? (Oh, yeah. Congress does that daily right now...) 3. Since when was "the flag" sacred, anyway? Doesn't something have to be sacred for it to be desecrated? Isn't this a secular country? 4. Doesn't this seem like a way _not_ to discuss the sea of red ink that this country is currently drowning in, and just stir up folks' emotions instead? Sure does to me...I wish veterans and others who get hot under the collar about this would get 1/8 as pissed about the national debt. 5. Burn my flag (or copy of the Bill of Rights) and you'll probably wind up shot. Burn your own flag/copy and watch me yawn. This law is a *particularly* stupid one. JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEPAwUBM6Y7IjUhsGSn1j2pAQFLCwfQyJd1lPvX/TJOu6draMvMuZW9fBSHQI09 vflL8+Po+Y8KS6v12qi8wsUsVSINYOL2SS+/BSu87GbqExLxgqDji5H3imH9lKmO v7ipjyg8T9ybrKWinpkFGh/SWXNsJt6vsLltbRQgzurHRKVXAAs4KhCeHFUrwdQT 5GYh9CQkWsiyRW15/7iR2gkn3wcnZdnQBemFrTAIwswwuS9McyyluX+NO6a/nS27 HDU7aqlVtJ12i9eXY1yg60BGRK66fa4a/52XkIRe92mhWDp7soxDaeWTE4akCIiG Hd2APfyVI+CAnaUlocgbg0o6j6nCe5ZKKB3JbX9sevA8Pw== =Cytc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Jim Ray <jmr(a)shopmiami.com> DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy One of the "legitimate concerns of law enforcement" seems to be that I was born innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. -- me http://shopmiami.com/prs/jimray/ PGP id.A7D63DA9 98 1F 39 BA 93 86 B4 F5 57 52 64 0E DA BA 2C 71

1 0

Re: IBM sues critics?
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <v0302090bafcb5bb9218f(a)[207.226.3.11]>, on 06/16/97 at 05:13 PM, Alan Davidson <abd(a)cdt.org> said: >At 11:17 AM -0500 6/16/97, William H. Geiger III wrote: >> >>Has there been any conformation on this? >> >>I would like to get in touch with some of my contacts at IBM but would >>like to have some info on this first. >To the best of my knowledge neither CDT nor any of the individual authors >has been served with any papers or received any other notice of a suit >regarding the key recovery report. (Available at >http://www.crypto.com/key_study) >I suspect that the last thing IBM would want to do is give this experts' >report >more publicity. At this point, rumors of a lawsuit appear to be >unfounded. >And remember: In libel cases, truth is always a defense. :) I figured that it was FUD but I have seen IBM do much more stupid things than this so it seemd worth the effort to follow up. Thanks, - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM6W9PY9Co1n+aLhhAQEYVwP+PUDMGuCZI/3JQUYPTuF0gY/lcru7cB+O m4Bv68B1FRma7TXHOHBTy56uoD2+jDeAf1rhELcnNhyblowBxlWccwXO1slTDpUm f+UHJ59KeC73Mr4k0qDDwOIzArHLMVwJ8qeyz5ZoZLay7n90U4Ol8uuPAvTObf6y N6nNzGeMHUI= =LN2a -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Anonymous proxies & ITAR question
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The renter of a car or truck is not responsible for the contents. The >driver of a truck is ^^^^^^ This is ambiguous. By this I meant the "person who rents to another," not the "person who rents from someone." --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 3

LAN_law
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Los Alamos lab is using its supercomps to develop pattern-recognition programs to spot fraud in the health care system similar to work for IRS to spot tax cheats. LAN_law

1 0

If only...
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > At 07:10 PM 6/13/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: > >>You mean they can license handguns, but not reporters??? > > >Indeed, it is strange. What part of "Congress shall make no law" > >do they not understand? > > the part between "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed"... If only they had written "Congress shall make no law." and left it at that... TM

1 0