October 2005 - cypherpunks-legacy

[matthew@matthew.at: RE: [p2p-hackers] P2P Authentication]
by Eugen Leitl 28 Oct '05

28 Oct '05

----- Forwarded message from Matthew Kaufman <matthew(a)matthew.at> -----

1 0

Re: [PracticalSecurity] Anonymity - great technology but hardly used
by cyphrpunk 28 Oct '05

28 Oct '05

> The cypherpunks list is about anything we want it to be. At this stage in > the lifecycle (post-nuclear-armageddon-weeds-in-the-rubble), it's more > about the crazy bastards who are still here than it is about just about > anything else. Fine, I want it to be about crypto and anonymity. You can bash Microsoft anywhere on the net. Where else are you going to talk about this shit? CP

2 1

[kerry@vscape.com: Re: [p2p-hackers] P2P Authentication]
by Eugen Leitl 28 Oct '05

28 Oct '05

----- Forwarded message from Kerry Bonin <kerry(a)vscape.com> -----

3 2

Re: [fc-discuss] Financial Cryptography Update: On Digital Cash-like Payment Systems
by John Kelsey 28 Oct '05

28 Oct '05

From: cyphrpunk <cyphrpunk(a)gmail.com> Sent: Oct 24, 2005 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [fc-discuss] Financial Cryptography Update: On Digital Cash-like Payment Systems On 10/22/05, Ian G <iang(a)systemics.com> wrote: >Note that e-gold, which originally sold non-reversibility as a key >benefit of the system, found that this feature attracted Ponzi >schemes and fraudsters of all stripes, and eventually it was forced >to reverse transactions and freeze accounts. It's not clear that any >payment system which keeps information around to allow for potential >reversibility can avoid eventually succumbing to pressure to reverse >transactions. Only a Chaumian type system, whose technology makes >reversibility fundamentally impossible, is guaranteed to allow for >final clearing. And even then, it might just be that the operators >themselves will be targeted for liability since they have engineered >a system that makes it impossible to go after the fruits of criminal >actions. More to the point, an irreversible payment system raises big practical problems in a world full of very hard-to-secure PCs running the relevant software. One exploitable software bug, properly used, can steal an enormous amount of money in an irreversible way. And if your goal is to sow chaos, you don't even need to put most of the stolen money in your own account--just randomly move it around in irreversible, untraceable ways, making sure that your accounts are among the ones that benefit from the random generosity of the attack. The payment system operators will surely be sued for this, because they're the only ones who will be reachable. They will go broke, and the users will be out their money, and nobody will be silly enough to make their mistake again. >CP --John

4 6

[smb@cs.columbia.edu: Skype security evaluation]
by Eugen Leitl 28 Oct '05

28 Oct '05

----- Forwarded message from "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(a)cs.columbia.edu> -----

5 5

Re: [fc-discuss] Financial Cryptography Update: On Digital Cash-like Payment Systems
by John Kelsey 27 Oct '05

27 Oct '05

>From: cyphrpunk <cyphrpunk(a)gmail.com> >Sent: Oct 24, 2005 5:58 PM >To: John Kelsey <kelsey.j(a)ix.netcom.com> >Subject: Re: [fc-discuss] Financial Cryptography Update: On Digital Cash-like Payment Systems ... >Digital wallets will require real security in user PCs. Still I don't >see why we don't already have this problem with online banking and >similar financial services. Couldn't a virus today steal people's >passwords and command their banks to transfer funds, just as easily >as the fraud described above? To the extent that this is not >happening, the threat against ecash may not happen either. Well, one difference is that those transactions can often be undone, if imperfectly at times. The whole set of transactions is logged in many different places, and if there's an attack, there's some reasonable hope of getting the money back. And that said, there have been reports of spyware stealing passwords for online banking systems, and of course, there are tons of phishing and pharming schemes to get the account passwords in a more straightforward way. The point is, if you're ripped off in this way, there's a reasonable chance you can get your money back, because the bank has a complete record of the transactions that were done. There's no chance of this happening when there's no record of the transaction anywhere. >> The payment system operators will surely be sued for this, because >> they're the only ones who will be reachable. They will go broke, and >> the users will be out their money, and nobody will be silly enough to >> make their mistake again. >They might be sued but they won't necessarily go broke. It depends on >how deep the pockets are suing them compared to their own, and most >especially it depends on whether they win or lose the lawsuit. I don't think so. Suppose there's a widespread attack that steals money from tens of thousands of users of this payment technology. There seem to be two choices: a. The payment system somehow makes good on their losses. b. Everyone who isn't dead or insane pulls every dime left in that system out, knowing that they could be next. It's not even clear that these are mutually exclusive, but if (a) doesn't happen, (b) surely will. Nobody wants their money stolen, and I don't think many people are so confident of their computer security that they're willing to bet huge amounts of money on it. If you have to be that confident in your computer security to use the payment system, it's not going to have many clients. >CP --John

4 3

Re: [PracticalSecurity] Anonymity - great technology but hardly used
by Major Variola (ret) 27 Oct '05

27 Oct '05

At 08:41 PM 10/26/05 -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: >On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 23:40 -0500, Travis H. wrote: >> Many of the anonymity protocols require multiple participants, and >> thus are subject to what economists call "network externalities". The >> best example I can think of is Microsoft Office file formats. I don't >> buy MS Office because it's the best software at creating documents, >> but I have to buy it because the person in HR insists on making our >> timecards in Excel format. > >1) You have told your HR person what a bad idea it is to introduce a >dependency on a proprietary file format, right? > >2) OpenOffice can read Excel spreadsheets, and I would assume it can >save the changes back to them as well. Why don't you send her comma-delimited text, Excel can import it?

2 1

blocking fair use? 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers
by Major Variola (ret) 27 Oct '05

27 Oct '05

Here's a very interesting case where (c)holders are trying to ban "fair use" (educational) of (c) material. I agree with their motivations ---Kansan theo-edu-crats need killing for their continuing child abuse-- but I don't see how they can get around the fair use provisions. (Bypassing whether the state should run schools, or even pay for them, for now.) 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers Sign In to E-Mail This Printer-Friendly Reprints Save Article By JODI WILGOREN Published: October 27, 2005 CHICAGO, Oct. 27 - Two leading science organizations have denied the Kansas board of education permission to use their copyrighted materials in the state's proposed new science standards because of the standards' critical approach to evolution. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association said the much-disputed new standards "will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/national/27cnd-kansas.html?hp&ex=11304720…

1 0

blocking fair use? 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers
by Major Variola (ret) 27 Oct '05

27 Oct '05

Here's a very interesting case where (c)holders are trying to ban "fair use" (educational) of (c) material. I agree with their motivations ---Kansan theo-edu-crats need killing for their continuing child abuse-- but I don't see how they can get around the fair use provisions. (Bypassing whether the state should run schools, or even pay for them, for now.) 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers Sign In to E-Mail This Printer-Friendly Reprints Save Article By JODI WILGOREN Published: October 27, 2005 CHICAGO, Oct. 27 - Two leading science organizations have denied the Kansas board of education permission to use their copyrighted materials in the state's proposed new science standards because of the standards' critical approach to evolution. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association said the much-disputed new standards "will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/national/27cnd-kansas.html?hp&ex=11304720…

1 0

Court Blocks Ga. Photo ID Requirement
by Major Variola (ret) 27 Oct '05

27 Oct '05

[Using the *financial* angle, having to show state-photo-ID is overturned to vote is overturned. Interesting if this could be used for other cases where the state wants ID.] Today: October 27, 2005 at 12:33:27 PDT Court Blocks Ga. Photo ID Requirement ASSOCIATED PRESS ATLANTA (AP) - A federal appeals court Thursday refused to let the state enforce a new law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls. Earlier this month, a federal judge barred the state from using the law during local elections next month, saying it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax that could prevent poor people, blacks and the elderly from the voting. The state asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the stay, but the court declined. Under the law, voters could show a driver's license, or else obtain a state-issued photo ID at a cost of up to $35. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/oct/27/102700584.html

1 0