August 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Trouble at HavenCo?
by Freematt357＠aol.com 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

HavenCo's error was not initially raising the necessary cash to buy Sealand outright from the Bates, or if that didn't work they could have done it the old fashioned way by marrying into the family. Not having total control led to this outcome. As they say it's good to be king. Regards, Matt-

2 1

The last detritus of the dot bombs
by Tim May 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

As I'm feeling chatty this morning, I'll comment on another trend I've been seeing a lot of. While reading the Andrew Orlowski piece on Robin Hanson and the PAM/terror futures thing ( the URL is <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32170.html> ) I got to thinking about "What ever happened to Max More?" (the founder of the Extropians group) I did some Googling and found out he and his wife (Natasha Vita-More...the Extropians often change their names to more future-sounding monikers) are some kind of "motivational coaches" or involved in software to do the same. Then while Googling on Omnivora Policy Systems, or whatever that "disappearing ink" company is, I ran across the name Jeff Ubois, the guy who attended some of my parties. His resume is chockfull of references to "motivational' and "coaching" and similar squishy-soft consulting gigs. Way too many people think they can become the next Tony Robbins, that Neanderthal on late night t.v. selling motivational tapes. The good ideas, the good companies, the good technology...it comes from good ideas and good products, not from EST nonsense, not from motivational coaches, not from late night hucksters. Having talked to some of these folks, though not for the past few years, it really bugs me to see them going down this bullshit path. --Tim May "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." --John Stuart Mill

1 0

Re: Trouble at HavenCo?
by Declan McCullagh 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

Actually the best link for my stories is the News.com site: http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5059676.html They include relevant links; they include better formatting; they include photographs; they are updated faster. News.com syndicates may not include those features. -Declan On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:03:25AM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: > Sunder sent me a better link... > > http://www.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/stories/5059676.htm > > Peter > > > ---------- > > From: Trei, Peter > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:14 AM > > To: 'cypherpunks(a)lne.com' > > Subject: Trouble at HavenCo? > > > > http://rss.com.com/2100-1028_35059676.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj= > > ne > > ws > > > > > > Has 'haven' for questionable sites sunk? > > > > By Declan McCullagh > > Staff Writer, CNET News.com > > August 4, 2003, 1:38 PM PT > > > > LAS VEGAS--A widely publicized > > project to transform a platform in > > the English Channel into a "safe > > haven" for controversial Web > > businesses has failed due to > > political, technical and management > > problems, one of the company's > > founders said. > > > > Ryan Lackey, former chief technology > > officer of HavenCo, said on Sunday > > afternoon that he left the project > > because his business partners > > had become nervous about > > hosting objectionable material > > and were leading the company > > toward financial ruin, with only > > about six customers remaining.

1 0

IPSec vs SSL
by Tyler Durden 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

Continued proliferation of commercialized technologies. I also saw an add in Business week for a Blacberry-enabled Palm Phone. Mobile security and "Triple DES" were explicitly mentioned. No doubt 'permissionless' approaches ocasionally yield useful fruit, but the IP-->VC$$$-->Startup route is at least as important. -TD AUGUST 04, 2003 PREVIOUS NEWS ANALYSIS SSL Players Get Feature-Happy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aventail Corp. and Neoteris Inc. are upgrading security gear to keep pace with virtual private networking (VPN) rivals that have focused on IPSec technology. Today, the companies made separate announcements regarding new features to their clientless Secure Socket Layer (SSL) VPN solutions (see Neoteris Expands SSL Access and Aventail Upgrades VPN Kit ). In an effort to build products that can eventually replace IPSec VPNs, they've each added broader application support, a key issue for SSL VPNs. The move is important because SSL gear risks becoming somewhat generic; more features will be needed to keep pace with technologies such as IPSec. For Aventail and Netoeris to succeed they need to become a full replacement for IPsec, says Michael Suby, senior research analyst with Stratecast Partners. Theyve got to prove that SSL holds more value, is just as secure, costs less, and is easier to manage than IPSec. IT managers today have two choices when it comes to secure remote access. They can deploy IPSec clients on individual laptops, desktops, and mobile devices, or they can use an SSL solution, which utilizes encryption capabilities built into browsers and does not require a client-side software installation other than the browser. Each solution has its pros and cons. Its a tradeoff between the simplicity of SSL VPNs and the security of IPSec VPNs. Emerging SSL VPN technologies generally deliver secure access to more places at a lower total cost of ownership, because they include less administrative overhead. But these benefits typically come at the cost of important features already available in IPSec solutions, like strong desktop security and broad application support. As a result, most companies use a combination of the technologies, depending on the application. Some IPSec vendors are starting to add SSL technology. To combat this trend, Aventail and Neoteris are taking SSL VPNs to the next level with enhanced support for additional applications. Neoteris has added a new product it calls Network Connect. Instead of creating a secure tunnel for a particular application, Network Connect creates a tunnel for a network connection. Just like an IPSec network tunnel, this allows users access to the entire network, including complex applications like streaming media and voice over IP. But unlike IPSec, the company asserts that a full-fledged client is not required on end-users devices, making it easier to manage and deploy. The company also announced that it has developed application programming interfaces for integration with security products from other companies like InfoExpress, Network Associates Inc. (NYSE: NET - message board), Sygate Technologies Inc., and Zone Labs. And it has fully integrated features from Network Associates and Fortinet Inc. to provide anti-virus support on its appliances. Aventail has also added new capabilities to its OnDemand 3.0 product that will expand the type of applications it can support. For example, it will now support dynamic traffic redirection, which allows it to identify and secure traffic by domain, IP range, or subnet. This eliminates the need for making unnecessary changes to IT infrastructure like the domain name servers, desktops, or applications. OnDemand 3.0 also now includes support for dynamic port assignments. This allows it to support applications that use a complex, changing range of ports, like those from SAP AG (NYSE/Frankfurt: SAP - message board) and Siebel Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: SEBL - message board). But the competition from incumbent equipment providers is heating up. Nortel Networks Corp. (NYSE/Toronto: NT - message board), which also sells an IPSec solution in its Contivity product line, has continued to add new SSL VPN features to its Alteon Web switch (see Nortel Expands Security Portfolio ). Nokia Corp. (NYSE: NOK - message board), a leader in mobile/wireless devices, announced SSL VPN support this summer (see Nokia Sweetens SSL ). Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO - message board) is also expected to make an SSL announcement soon. NetScreen Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq: NSCN - message board) is supposedly shopping for a startup to buy (see NetScreen SSL Move Likely ). And Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (Nasdaq: CHKP - message board) is likely to evolve its current SSL solution. When you have Cisco, Check Point, Nokia, and Nortel all with something in this market and all with channel distributors, its tough competition for a small private company, says Stratecast's Suby. You can be a niche player for SSL, but these small private companies are going to have to tie their wagons to a large IPSec vendor or some other kind of vendor. Consolidation has already started happening. F5 Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: FFIV - message board), a load balancing appliance vendor, announced two weeks ago that it was acquiring SSL startup uRoam (see F5 Buys Into SSL VPNs ). There is still a long list of SSL VPN suppliers out there including: Array Networks Inc., Aspelle Ltd., Netilla Networks Inc., NetScaler Inc., SafeWeb Inc., and Whale Communications Ltd. Marguerite Reardon, Senior Editor, Light Reading _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

RE: Trouble at HavenCo?
by Trei, Peter 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

Sunder sent me a better link... http://www.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/stories/5059676.htm Peter > ---------- > From: Trei, Peter > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:14 AM > To: 'cypherpunks(a)lne.com' > Subject: Trouble at HavenCo? > > http://rss.com.com/2100-1028_35059676.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj= > ne > ws > > > Has 'haven' for questionable sites sunk? > > By Declan McCullagh > Staff Writer, CNET News.com > August 4, 2003, 1:38 PM PT > > LAS VEGAS--A widely publicized > project to transform a platform in > the English Channel into a "safe > haven" for controversial Web > businesses has failed due to > political, technical and management > problems, one of the company's > founders said. > > Ryan Lackey, former chief technology > officer of HavenCo, said on Sunday > afternoon that he left the project > because his business partners > had become nervous about > hosting objectionable material > and were leading the company > toward financial ruin, with only > about six customers remaining.

1 0

Re: [eff-austin] Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?
by mindfuq＠comcast.net 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

* Sunder <sunder(a)sunder.net> [2003-08-04 17:00]: > > > Yes, this is the problem I'm trying to address. Normally when Alice > > tries to transmit information to Bob, if Mallory decides to sabotage > > the communication, this is a denial of service attack, forbidden by > > criminal law. > > Why is it forbidden by law? I can think of hundreds of reasons DoS attacks are illegal. Now I'm not sure if it's illegal everywhere; I'm only familar with the way it's written in the California Penal code, which is where Mallory is located in this case. But to answer your question, just look at all the damage that's caused by DoS attacks. Look at the Slammer worm. It would be a seriously neglectful to allow such damaging attacks on people and businesses. > Bob signed a contract with Mallory waiving certain rights in > exchange for the service provided by Mallory. Mallory provided full > disclosure of it's rights to Bob along with Bob's responsabilities, > etc. Bob chose to accept those terms, how is this illegal again? First of all, Bob was coerced into this contract because Bob had no idea that the fine print said there may be cases where he doesn't get the service he thinks he's paying for. Specifically, Mallory didn't tell Bob that she would be filtering his mail for him, and certainly didn't tell Bob that she would take the liberty of blocking some non-spam mail as well. Such a contract is quite questionable, and I'd like to see it put before a court for fair analysis. > If the service Mallory provides Bob is inadequate, that's between Mallory > and Bob, not between Alice and Bob. Alice and Mallory have no contract > what-so-ever. It's upto you, Alice, to convince Bob of this fact. If you > can't, that's Bob's choice, not yours. And you have no business to > interfere between Bob and Mallory. The problem with this argument is that Mallory is not just denying service to Bob, but Alice as well. Furthermore, Alice may not even have the option of explaining the service problem to Bob, because Mallory is preventing Alice from talking to Bob. Mallory is everyone's business, because a malicious attack on the Internet affects everyone. The fact that Bob is paying Mallory money doesn't make it okay- in fact, it worsens the problem, because the perpetrator is being compensated by her own victims. > > However, if the communication passes through Mallory's back yard, we > > can let the attack happen because it's on Mallory's property. > > Wrong. Bob agreed to those terms of service, it's not a denial of > service, it's part of Bob's agreement with Mallory. Such a contract is predatory, and has no business in this country. It prays on ignorant users, and provides a false representation for what the user is signing up for. FYI- you can't put anything you want in fine print, and expect it to be legally enforceable. Even if two parties agree that an illegal activity is okay, this does not legalize the activity. > > At the > > same time, if I sabotage the city water line that passes through my > > property, I can be held accountable. And rightly so. > > No. Either you have agreed to live in said house by purchasing it, and > have therefore become a citizen of said city, and by such actions agreed > to abide by it's laws, or pre-existing laws allowed the city to run such > water services through your propery. This too is by contract. This is just what I said. You're making my point here. Absolutely, I cannot sabotage the city water line that goes through my property. > Where, Ms. Alice, is your contract with Mallory again? No contract necessary; criminal law is enforceable w/out a contract. Even more so, actually, because there is no chance of a contract removing the effect of Alice's claim. > > AOL isn't even a human, so to put the private property rights of AOL > > above the well-being of any human is a silly mistake. > > So, in that case if you need a red stapler, you should be able to break > into AOL's offices and steal one????? Since fucking when? Certainly not- there is no superceding free speech right or anything of the kind that would entail stealing a stapler. Blocking email, OTOH, violates multiple rights: free speech, right to assemble and petition the government, freedom of enterprise.. it could even run into public safety issues. So this stapler analogy doesn't really work here. > > In my particular case, AOL is blocking me from talking to friends and > > family. > > That's the choice of your friends and family, not yours. Take it up with > them, not AOL. While I have gotten all but one friend and all family members to drop their AOL/Earthlink services, this still remains an issue for users whome I don't know personally. > > and AOL is vandalizing my property by destroying > > these packets. > > No, dumbass, you placed those packets on said network repeatedly after you > have discovered that they will be dropped in the bit bucket, that's too > bad for you. You've vandalized your own packets. I didn't do this, I created them- AOL is the one destroying things. I'm the aaahteeest, the creator.. AOL is the destroyer, using their property destructively. > > You can argue that how you want, but the bottom line > > is that AOL is using their property to gain power to control who may > > talk to who. > > And that is their right, as contractually agreed to by their customers - > your friends and family members included. You have no stake in this, nor > any relationship with AOL. Like I said, DoS laws don't require there to be a contract between Alice and Mallory. In fact, it *usually* is the case that Mallory and Alice have no contract. If you do a ping of death attack on victim.com, do you actually think that absense of a contract between you and victim.com gives you the right to do this? Absurd. Contract or not, DoS attacks are illegal. If Bob signs a contract with Mallory allowing Mallory to do a DoS attack on him, he's the only one who may not be able to take action. But the state can still take action, as well as other victims who didn't sign their rights away (Alice, for example). > > This is clearly an abusive use of property, and I have > > no tolarance for it. > > No, you abused your own property knowing full well it would be dropped > into the bit bucket right after the 1st time you tried it. And since > you've got no contractual agreement with AOL, you have no expected > reasonable expectation that AOL would forward your packets to your f&f, > especially if AOL deems your packets to be harmful to it's network for > whatever reason. It's quite reasonable to expect corporations to abide by all laws in their jurisdiction. > > They need to be removed from power, and the > > consumers who contributed to the purchasing of their property need to > > be given some rights. > > > > So if you're saying that AOL's private property rights are supporting > > their effort to stop me from talking to my family, then of course I > > have very little respect for private property rights. I often see > > people using their private property to cause damage to others, so it's > > not real top on my list in these cases. > > > > Your idiocy is showing. Ad hominem. It's natural to get frustrated when your words don't carry much weight, but this only decreases your credibility. You just need to work on better angles, and find better ways to illustrate the points you're trying to support. Even I could come up with a better argument against myself than this worthless argument you present. Need some help? You might argue that AOL's property rights are sacred, and above all other rights. You might challenge me to produce an example of private property being used to damage others. You could argue that it doesn't matter who gave AOL the money to buy their property, it's theirs regardless. Just pick one. The only idiot here is you if you can only produce an ad hominem. You need to work on that.

2 1

Trouble at HavenCo?
by Trei, Peter 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

http://rss.com.com/2100-1028_35059676.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=ne ws Has 'haven' for questionable sites sunk? By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 4, 2003, 1:38 PM PT LAS VEGAS--A widely publicized project to transform a platform in the English Channel into a "safe haven" for controversial Web businesses has failed due to political, technical and management problems, one of the company's founders said. Ryan Lackey, former chief technology officer of HavenCo, said on Sunday afternoon that he left the project because his business partners had become nervous about hosting objectionable material and were leading the company toward financial ruin, with only about six customers remaining.

1 0

The Register - Meet the 'transhumanists' behind the Pentagon terror casino (re Extropian) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32170.html -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

CNN.com - Linux gets sensitive government use approval - Aug. 5, 2003 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/industry/08/05/linux.software.ap/index.html -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Austin Cypherpunks Monthly Meet, Aug. 12.
by Jim Choate 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

Time: Aug. 12, 2003 Second Tuesday of each month 7:00 - 9:00 pm (or later) Location: Central Market HEB Cafe 38th and N. Lamar Weather permitting we meet in the un-covered tables. If it's inclimate but not overly cold we meet in the outside covered section. Otherwise look for us inside the building proper. Identification: Look for the group with the "Applied Cryptography" book. It will have a red cover and is about 2 in. thick. Contact Info: http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr/index.html#austincpunks -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0