- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Philips "CRYPTO1" stream cipher
by Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

Does anyone have any source code or algos for Philips "CRYPTO1" stream cipher as used in their MIFARE products?

1 0

Re: "Terror Reading"
by Harmon Seaver 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:03:00PM -0700, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Anonymous wrote: > > > >Some librarians are probably now thinking they have a patriotic duty to > > >see what people are reading and to report any "suspicious" behavior. First of all, the entire library community is outraged at being put in this position, and, in fact, the American Library Assoc. is suing Asskruft and the fedzis over it. Secondly, I personally know a great many librarians, holding an MLIS myself and having worked in several libraries, and all the librarians I know are very pissed about this and have no interest in cooperating if at all possible. > > >Part of the intent of the Patriot Act and the Library Awareness Program > > >was to bamboozle the nation's librarians into acting as the kind of > > >"ward watchers" that were once so common in the Soviet Union (the > > >babushkas who sat on each floor of apartment buildings and filed > > >reports on the comings and goings of their flock). > > > > The purpose of this is purely a show and indoctrination. > > > > 1. No self-respecting terrorist would go to a fucking library to do > > terror reading (maybe there is something positive here - I think that > > we should get protected by pigs from extremely dumb terorists.) > > The risk is not one "terrorists" have to fear. The biggest problem with > the librarian narc program is the same as most of these anti-terrorism > measures: completely innocent people are harassed, arrested, or placed > under suspicion. > So far I only know of one instance of the pigs coming to a library and demanding info on a patron. And it wasn't the fedzis, it was the local pigs and they weren't after a terrorist, they were after some poor souls library records because they suspected him of something to do with drugs. And I'll bet you that the vast majority of pig demands on libraries are in the same vein. This one was on the web: "The Virginia Public Library received a request for patron records from the Deputy Sheriff. The staff member informed the officer he would need to talk to the Director. Director Nancy Maxwell stated that she would check with the city attorney. When he could not be located in time, she contacted ALS and was advised to give them the information requested since it was accompanied by a court order." http://www.arrowhead.lib.mn.us/compass/minutes/august02.html > You won't catch a terrorist learning to be evil at a library, but you > might wrongfully snare an innocent citizen who happens to have an interest > in "bad" books. > > How long until this program is extended to include anyone checking out any > book that some part of the US law enforcement body deems bad? If you read > Pikhal, do you end up on a watch list? Yup. That's their main interest. Fuck terrorists -- the pigs are only interested if there is something to steal at the bust, like drugs or money, or there might be property to grab. Just try and get them to do anything about regular crime like enforcing disturbing the peace or drunk and disorderly. So, of course, that's what they are using the unpatriot act for. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

1 0

Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
by Justin 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

An Metet (2003-09-01 05:54Z) wrote: > Here's a clue. If and when crypto anarchy ever becomes a reality, > Tim May is going to be one of the first ones killed. He's pissed off > too many people. Once they can get retribution anonymously, his days > are numbered. Are we talking about the tendency of the general population to kill anyone who pisses them off, or yours? -- No man is clever enough to Times are bad. Children no longer know all the evil he does. obey their parents, and everyone -Francois de la Rochefoucauld is writing a book. -Cicero

1 0

Re: "Terror Reading"
by Anonymous 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

>Some librarians are probably now thinking they have a patriotic duty to >see what people are reading and to report any "suspicious" behavior. >Part of the intent of the Patriot Act and the Library Awareness Program >was to bamboozle the nation's librarians into acting as the kind of >"ward watchers" that were once so common in the Soviet Union (the >babushkas who sat on each floor of apartment buildings and filed >reports on the comings and goings of their flock). The purpose of this is purely a show and indoctrination. 1. No self-respecting terrorist would go to a fucking library to do terror reading (maybe there is something positive here - I think that we should get protected by pigs from extremely dumb terorists.) 2. No library that I am aware of requires ID to do on-site anything. The same goes for internet cafes and open wireless access points. 3. Buying books for cash is anonymous as it gets - it's unlikely that a library will have something that university bookstore or Internet doesn't have. Again, poor terorists should be caught. I want to be terorized by professionals.

2 1

Re: DoS of spam blackhole lists
by Roy M. Silvernail 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

On Monday 01 September 2003 05:03, Andrew Thomas wrote: > The above is useful information. Specifically, the recognition > of duplicate mail receipts is a concept that is new to me, though > that would require that both email addresses would receive an > equal amount of 'publicity' on newsgroups, mailing lists, etc > in order that they are both acquired by a potential spammer. That 'publicity' may be easier to come by than you think. I migrated to my present domain from a much older one just 4 months ago. Now, a quick check of my spam folder shows that fully 5% of the received spam is directed to the new domain address. Considering that the old domain had a 7-year history, I'd say the harvest bots are working harder than one might otherwise think.

1 0

Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
by Major Variola (ret) 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

At 12:02 PM 8/31/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: >He said: "An ISP is free to say "anyone requesting a tap is required to >pay a fee," just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle >installation of special Carnivore equipment for a certain fee." > >A customer of the ISP is certainly _not_ the one requesting a tap. And >he is certainly not the one installing Carnivore equipment. If you rent your house, and the renters cause you to get billed for something they do, you can certainly pass on the cost to the renter. If you get a ticket in a rented car, you (not the car owner) reimburse the owner. If your ISP gets a lot of complaints about your usage, they *could* pass on the cost to you. An ISP could regard its court-ordered hassles (or other hassles, eg attacks launched from your node) as your fault.

1 0

RE: DoS of spam blackhole lists
by Major Variola (ret) 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

At 11:03 AM 9/1/03 +0200, Andrew Thomas wrote: >> b) realize that the distributed method you suggest already >> exists - it is called procmail(*). >Procmail serves no purpose by itself. It requires no small >amount of effort on the part of the administrator to utilise >for any type of systems implmentation, and thus administrators >with limited time (common in smaller companies) will rather rely >on (flawed) projects than self-initiated implementations. The "overworked small netadmin" will simply use someone else's scripts. Not hard. >> (*) or you could setup a dummy email account on all > >The above is useful information. Specifically, the recognition >of duplicate mail receipts is a concept that is new to me, though You're behind then. Putting "harvest this and get blocked" email bait is common practice, eg on websites with addresses. I don't suppose you've ever heard of fake streets in maps (cartographic watermarks) to detect copying?

1 0

Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
by Major Variola (ret) 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

At 01:54 AM 9/1/03 -0400, An Metet wrote: >Here's a clue. If and when crypto anarchy ever becomes a reality, >Tim May is going to be one of the first ones killed. He's pissed off >too many people. Once they can get retribution anonymously, his days >are numbered. What, exactly, has Tim done that wrongs others? Publishing bits doesn't matter. Change the channel. Coercion (under threat of violence) matters. Sticks and stones.

1 0

Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
by Major Variola (ret) 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

At 08:06 PM 8/31/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: > >The Mob doesn't actually have to kill too many stoolies for it to be >widely known that ratting can be a very dangerous business. > Ask David Kelly. Or his associates. Reputation is a tool.

1 0

DoS of spam blackhole lists
by Andrew Thomas 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

Hi, Considering that it appears that spammers are now resorting to DoS'ing sites that host spam lists, wouldn't now be a good time to investigate the possibilities of a distributed, or at least, load balanced blacklist provider? Even something as simple as round-robin DNS with sufficient nodes (couple of hundred?) should be enough to make such attacks highly inefficient and far, far less likely to be effective. Of course, with round robin DNS, one can target the DNS servers. Would this make for an interesting community project? Any comments appreciated. -- Andrew G. Thomas Hobbs & Associates Chartered Accountants (SA) (o) +27-(0)21-683-0500 (f) +27-(0)21-683-0577 (m) +27-(0)83-318-4070

2 2