- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Blacknet hits the trade press
by Major Variola (ret) 04 Nov '02

04 Nov '02

EWeek 21 Oct 2002 p 58, "High-tech products invite tech crimes" P. Coffee Writing about a consultant who tried to sell a client's software, and got busted: "Next time, a code theif may use a "BlackNet" brokerage (as envisioned in the widely circulated essay by Timothy May) to avoid such traps." [He is commenting on whereas stolen chips are valuable to many, stolen software is valuable only to a few...]

1 0

网站建设空间域名
by 想建站就进来看 04 Nov '02

04 Nov '02

中国服务全球专业的域名注册提供商，现推出主机、域名注册优惠服务： “特惠1+1企业上网套餐”是中国服务器网络有限公司为您推出的超值服务， “先服务，后收费！”内容包括：　　 30M asp cgi,php +ACCESS 数据库,送国际顶级域名一个 250元/年 (送五个邮箱) 100M asp cgi,php +ACCESS 数据库,送国际顶级域名一个，只需 350元/年(送六个邮箱) 200N asp cgi,php +ACCESS 数据库,送国际顶级域名一个,只需 600元/年特惠1+1上网套餐是企业上网，企业商务化的理想选择，现正火爆选购中快速度申请(请点击）： http://www.linemail.net/host/index.asp ===================================================================== 百度竞价、新浪排名、搜狐排名、网易排名等服务，使您的网站知名度大大提高。系列超值赠送服务，不可不看！马上申请: http://www.linemail.net/special/index.asp ====================================================================== 欢迎访问我司网站进一步了解： http://www.linemail.net 联系电话:0592-2180338 传真:0592-2516932

1 0

cypherpunks You Won $30.00 On Our Site Today!
by eaygoc＠ibm.com 04 Nov '02

04 Nov '02

1 0

Re: What email encryption is actually in use?
by David Howe 04 Nov '02

04 Nov '02

at Monday, November 04, 2002 2:28 AM, Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> was seen to say: > Those who need to know, know. Which of course is a viable model, provided you are only using your key for private email to "those who need to know" if you are using it for signatures posted to a mailing list though, it just looks silly. > You, I've never seen before. Even if you found my key at the Liberal > Institution of Technology, what would it mean? it would at least give us a chance to check the integrity of your post (what a sig is for after all) and anyone faking your key on the servers would have to prevent you ever seeing one of your own posts (so that you can't check the signature yourself) > Parts of the PGP model are ideologically brain-dead. I attribute this > to left-wing peacenik politics of some of the early folks. The Web-of-Trust model is mildly broken - all you can really say about it is that it is better than the alternatives (X509 is not only badly broken, but badly broken for the purpose of hierachical control and/or profit) In the current case, one reason to sign important posts is to establish a pattern of ownership for posts, independent of real-world identity. If I know that posts a,b & c sent from nym x are all signed, I will be reasonably confident that key y is owned by the normal poster of nym x. that I don't know who that is in meatspace is pretty irrelevant. Where both systems break down is when trying to assert that key y is tied to anything but an email address (or possibly a static IP). There is little to bind a key to anything or anyone in the real world, unless you meet in person, know each other reasonably well (if only via third parties that can identify you both) and exchange fingerprints. in fact, WoT is simply an attempt to automate this process offline, so that you can be "introduced" to someone by a third party without all three of you having to meet; you still have to make a value judgement based on how sure you are about the third party's reliability and how confident they seem about the identity of x - however in the real world, both of those are vague, hard-to-define values and in the WoT they are rigid (you have a choice of two levels of trust for an introducer, and no way to encode how much third parties should rely on your identification)

1 0

Intel's LaGrab
by Tim May 04 Nov '02

04 Nov '02

"New PCs Likely to Cede Some Control Sun Nov 3, 1:58 PM ET By MATTHEW FORDAHL, AP Technology Writer SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - To thwart hackers and foster online commerce, the next generation of computers will almost certainly cede some control to software firms, Hollywood and other outsiders. That could break a long-standing tenet of computing: that PC owners ultimately control data on their own machines. Microsoft calls its technology "Palladium." Intel dubs it "LaGrande." " I say we call it "LaGrab." --Tim May "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater

2 1

中国教育网：汕头大学研究生正在招生
by owner-cypherpunks＠minder.net 04 Nov '02

04 Nov '02

1 0

Re: What email encryption is actually in use?
by David W. Hodgins 04 Nov '02

04 Nov '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- If you signed your messages on a regular basis, it would let me know whether or not you're the same Tim May, I've been reading since back when toad.com was the only server for the list. If you're key was signed by anyone I've dealt with, who I know will actually check your id, it would increase my confidence that you really are Tim May, and not just a net persona. It doen't make one iota of difference, whether you choose to distribute your key or not. Your ideas are usually thought provoking, and consistent enough to form a persona in the minds of the list readers. Or at least, in mine. I know you know (whether or not you agree) with the above. It just struck me as humourous that you'd sign the post, with the comment to the effect that there isn't much point in doing so, with a key that isn't on the servers. Do you see the PGP web of trust as completly useless? As to who I am, well... I'm a programmer, living in London, Ont. Canada. I've been lurking, off and on, since 94 or so. I don't think I've actually posted anything to the list since back in 96, when I wrote a freeware program to simplify using PGP with dos based offline mail readers (MPI.ZIP). While I normally promote privacy issues, only with those I meet face to face, I still consider myself a cypherpunk. I normally only post to the list, when my point of view isn't being expressed by any of the regular posters. Regards, Dave Hodgins. Tim May wrote: > > On Sunday, November 3, 2002, at 06:14 PM, David W. Hodgins wrote: > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > The advantages really disappear, when the key used to sign the > > message > > isn't sent to the key servers {:. > > > > Those who need to know, know. > > You, I've never seen before. Even if you found my key at the > Liberal Institution of Technology, what would it mean? > > Parts of the PGP model are ideologically brain-dead. I attribute > this to left-wing peacenik politics of some of the early folks. > - --Tim May -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQEVAwUBPcXu94s+asmeZwNpAQFQuAf+LbwrdQV8CPAc/lw2AF5HPvKLGopHCj3i tFR+drfFAYDDA6UHMPJOFxzDdhFYrRbhQ3c3cSkExSSoI7Mce389KPdGimWQZTJZ rCYyvnXtG+S//ya8yCELXC3SSwwra0+laPpoSz6lseIU6YJUYFyMLnnXaH5gpxHi O7TtK8kfPFQVVdbBuJC4mp9SjNO3DqIM29UbPSrf9KZ1w2zPXA4eov9GL9jjU808 CzT+wncCYaE1EU8cT3C+TFJyd8r8B1S6CLbjX9hC71kIt5bVUt1EHMHUx8u2YaXZ i4o2kKQGePbJvIIiOuwngIUOuwnbgLlGO7+zhsL4y2UuXeJ1/W5NVQ== =8BJt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: What email encryption is actually in use?
by Bill Stewart 04 Nov '02

04 Nov '02

At 12:41 PM 11/02/2002 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote: >The only business environment I've ever worked in which successfully >used encrypted email mandated specific versions of mail client >(Outlook, ecch) and PGP (integrated into Outlook), had a jackbooted >thug to make sure everyone's keyring was up to date, and had a fairly >small (couple dozen), mostly technically proficient, user base. And >even there, half the time the encrypted message wasn't sensitive enough >to be worth encrypting nor important enough to be worth decrypting. All of the business email I send from home is encrypted - not by the mail user agent or mail transfer agent, but by the VPN I use to reach my work intranet. If it goes outside the company, it's normally not encrypted. (Also, non-business email I send when VPN-connected is encrypted, on the dialup portions, but not past that.) What would be really nice, and would encrypt a large chunk of the US's business email, would be for MS Exchange / Outlook mail servers to adopt STARTTLS for their SMTP services.

1 0

Re: What email encryption is actually in use?
by David W. Hodgins 03 Nov '02

03 Nov '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The advantages really disappear, when the key used to sign the message isn't sent to the key servers {:. Regards, Dave Hodgins. Tim May wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > (P.S. I'm going to do something I don't often do: sign a post. > Reasons for not signing posts are manyfold. Advantages are few. But > this is to -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQEVAwUBPcXX8Is+asmeZwNpAQE9dQf/YKjY4AZRXEEdYmYDrDt+IAYmag8EhC31 tMpORG0FlZMzbIbwTCk0f4tAlvJHQXSDHSWLbJznmImMb2uRmYOkAOUdnYvTweCU k65fBFC5ZM988/enSP5y4uJ0HW6iLvPTrUffojHh/gMJZlJ/DGh7BdIUpHKIzE7f zqZB+Z5uyVGpDvYh+pRe1Js9k9XBo/HyYqO862sV8zPs4uVRtRCLwJlOnAsrAPcS 7cTlk2zF1LTr9LOBobNPSiWVq92vJY17kI/Xodasjhzk2/o7SlGCVjCtLlmiEey8 KOuiJfkPsUKNfm6Tn9Nw2hVR51qpBnVIc5KgBgebr/SR9xDjVBSMjQ== =sWNd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Sending bricks through the mail
by Steve Furlong 03 Nov '02

03 Nov '02

On Sunday 03 November 2002 17:17, Thoenen, Peter Mr. EPS wrote: > Tried emailing direct but bounced so apologize to the list for the OT > content :) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Major Variola (ret) [mailto:mv@cdc.gov] Peter, you might want to google on "variola major" (not "major variola"), note Maj Variola's alleged host, and consider the possibility it's a nym. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Vote Idiotarian --- it's easier than thinking

1 0