- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: CNN.com on Remailers
by Tim May 12 Dec '01

12 Dec '01

On Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 09:41 PM, Len Sassaman wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> [The "prompted a bunch of programmers to rethink" comment has it all >> backwards. Chained remailers were deployed in 1992. The theory was >> known from Chaum's 1981 paper, and the flaws in the >> Kremvax/Kleinpaste/Julf/Penet type of approach were widely known: this >> was why chained remailers, in multiple jurisdictions, were deployed. >> Hal Finney wrote the first code for this, building on the >> Perl/Sendmail scripts Eric Hughes had already released.] > > The quoted portion is basically accurate (true to what I said), but I > was > talking about theoretical attacks at that point. I think I said > something > along the lines of: > > "The cypherpunks developed a system based on the ideas in Chaum's 1981 > paper. Penet-style remailers were potentially vulnerable to hackers and > court orders, which in fact ended up being the downfall of > anon.penet.fi. > These problems prompted them to build better remailers." > > I had this post up my screen when I was talking to him: > http://www.inet- > one.com/cypherpunks/dir.1997.05.29-1997.06.04/msg00310.html > > Penet was *in operation* prior to Eric and Hal's chained remailers, > right? > If not, then that's my error. The Kleinpaste/Julf anonymizing service had been in operation, widely, since 1991-2, before Cypherpunks, yes. The CNN article is enormously misleading in many areas. The suggestiong that Lance Cottrell used the Julf experience to add nested encryption is false. The URL you quote above is one of the most detailed histories of remailers, even if I do say so myself. (Thanks for reminding me/us of it.) From your recollection of what you said to the reporter, it looks like the misunderstanding came from his thinking that the actual Penet failure was what triggered the modern remailer approach, when in fact you meant "these problems" in the sense that Chaum and others (us) realized the obvious limitations of "anonymity services." And apparently the reporter then spun a story about how Lance Cottrell then invented message nesting, etc., all after the Penet failure. This is completely backwards. (It's not just the inaccuracy, or giving Lance too much credit...it's also that it makes it look as if we missed something so utterly obvious, that we were blindsided by the legal attack. Not so. And Chaum knew this at least as far back as '81.) In the big scheme of things, maybe no one who matters will read the CNN article. But it is false history and should be refuted. If not refuted, future historians who write about this interesting period may use it as primary source material. If it isn't apparent, I make these points to correct the record, not to criticize Len, Lance, Julf, or anyone else. But as the URL above points out, we were fully aware of the problems with Kleinpaste/Julf-style services and knew they were neither interesting from our point of view or a stable basis for what we were seeking to build. --Tim May "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound"

1 0

"Spoiling" digital cash
by georgemw＠speakeasy.net 12 Dec '01

12 Dec '01

An idea just popped into my head, I was wondering if anyone had thought of this before. Most likely someone has, and has either proven the idea is impossible or has figured out how to do it. Th idea is, when buying some good or service with digital cash, the customer first forwards the cash to the vendor in some transformed way such that the vendor can't yet spend it, but can verify that it is good cash of the correct amount, and that the customer will no longer be able to spend it. The idea is, if the vendor follows through on his side, the customer will supply the additional information the vendor will need to redeem the cash. The customer can still rip the vendor off by refusing to do so, but he has no incentive, the money's already gone for him. Conversely, an unscrupulous "vendor" could in principle trick a customer into throwing away money on nothing, but he would gain no profit in doing so. I realize the same effect is trivial to achieve if you have a mutually trusted third party willing to act as escrow agent, but if you don't, is there a a way to build this into a transfer protocol? Thanks, George

2 1

Re: CNN.com on Remailers
by Meyer Wolfsheim 12 Dec '01

12 Dec '01

"So far, U.S. and European authorities battling terrorism and cybercrime have apparently focused their surveillance elsewhere. The FBI and the National Security Agency, which monitors international telecommunications, declined to comment on what strategy, if any, they have for dealing with remailers." That would have made the article much more interesting.. What *is* the FBI/etc.'s strategy on dealing with remailers, other than ignoring them (and hoping that anti-spam/anti-terror legislation will make them illegal?) -MW-

1 0

CNN.com on Remailers
by Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer 12 Dec '01

12 Dec '01

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/12/10/anonymous.e.mail.ap/index.html SAN JOSE, California (AP) -- For years, anonymous e-mail has been a choice tool for whistle-blowers, human rights activists and undercover sources looking to protect themselves while imparting vital information. Anonymous online communication could just as easily be used by terrorists to plot attacks or send threats. Yet little has changed since September 11 for users and operators of Internet-based anonymous e-mail servers, which launder messages by deleting identifying information, rendering them virtually untraceable. Now there are indications the servers have increased in number. While no evidence has been released linking such services to any criminal or terrorist conspiracy, experts fear governments could crack down on anonymous remailers -- or at least subject them to greater scrutiny. Law enforcement generally despises technology that leaves such cold trails, said Mark Rasch, former head of the Department of Justice's computer crimes unit and current vice president of cyberlaw at Predictive Systems. So far, U.S. and European authorities battling terrorism and cybercrime have apparently focused their surveillance elsewhere. The FBI and the National Security Agency, which monitors international telecommunications, declined to comment on what strategy, if any, they have for dealing with remailers. "There's a lot more concern about border security and banking records," said Mike Godwin, a policy fellow at the Center for Democracy and Technology. That's just fine with the people who operate remailers. They don't do it for money, but rather share a common ideal of protecting online privacy. Len Sassaman, an e-mail security consultant who runs a remailer as a hobby, thinks any attempts to crack down would lead to more cropping up around the world. [...]

3 2

Is Nomen Nomescio John McCain?
by Tabla bin Rasa 12 Dec '01

12 Dec '01

At 08:20 PM 12/11/01 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote: >Danny Popkin writes: >> > Rather, the problem with AP is that it is mob rule at its worst. >> >> Worse than the secret ballot? > >Much worse. With a secret ballot you need to get a majority to support >any particular position. That's a significant hurdle to overcome. >But with AP any small group of people that can put up enough money to >hire an assassin can get their way. The going rate for a murder is >around $5-10K to off an average person, more if he's heavily guarded. >If 100 people put up $100 each then that's enough to get someone killed. > >Imagine a secret ballot where any measure to increase government power >would pass if it received as few as 100 votes. How much freedom would >you have left in such a society? That's what AP represents. Hilarious, you sound like John McCain whining about campaign donations...

1 0

FW: FreeSWAN Release 1.93 ships!
by Lucky Green 12 Dec '01

12 Dec '01

While I am too far from the process to offer comment to the contents of the post below, the last paragraph of the post in some bizarre way did help crystallize a thought that I knew had been nagging in the back of my mind for months, perhaps as much of a year, but that I just could not quite bring to the foreground. FreeS/WAN occupies a position very rarely found in efficient markets, such as open source software. While the position is rarely encountered, it can nonetheless exist: I believe that FreeS/WAN is a natural monopoly. Natural monopolies are usually only found in extremely small markets. The economic textbook example is a power company on an island of 50 people. The market size is simply too small to sustain the overhead of two companies, no matter how efficient both companies may become. Therefore, the market doesn't attract competitors, even absent any regulatory market distortions. (Hence the "natural" in "natural monopoly" :-) But for whatever reasons, FreeS/WAN has been holding such a natural monopoly position in by far the largest market in which I have ever seen such a beast. I find this fascinating. I wonder if economists will some day study the case to determine what factors brought it about. [I presume somebody other than the FreeS/WAN project may have written a few lines of Linux open source IPSec code, but they aren't competitors in that market any more than a guy walking around with a charged car battery offering service would be a competitor to the power company in the island example]. --Lucky, who simply had to share this revelation. Back to writing Mixmaster remailer code. -----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com] On Behalf Of Anonymous Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 7:54 PM To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com; cryptography(a)wasabisystems.com Subject: RE: FreeSWAN Release 1.93 ships! On Sunday 09 December 2001 07:32 pm, Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> wrote: > The big question is: will FreeS/WAN latest release after some 4 or 5 > years of development finally both compile and install cleanly on > current versions of Red Hat Linux, FreeS/WAN's purported target > platform? The latest releases of both Suse and Mandrake are both able to install kernels with Freeswan already integrated. It's a little newer addition to Mandrake, so you may want to use Suse. Suse makes it easy to set up encrypted file systems and other nice features. The major problem that holds back the development of FreeS/WAN is with its management. [Management that cares more about sitting on its pulpit, than getting useful software into the hands of people.] Unless things have changed recently, they still won't accept contributions from the US. This makes no sense. GPG is shipping with every Linux distribution I know of, and the German's take contributions from the US. The primary kernel developers have been willing to integrate crypto into the kernel since the crypto regs were lowered. It's the policy of no US contributions that's holding back Linux IPSEC. IMHO: If Freeswan had never been created, an alternate, more mature implementation would already exist in the mainline Linux kernel. --Anonymous

4 6

The fucking essay
by mattd 11 Dec '01

11 Dec '01

"...the fucking essay. It's flawed in a variety of ways. It's understanding of human psychology (which it purports to >manipulate in realistic ways - not) is so flawed as to make it very tedious. Speaking of tedious,Im on record with total opposition to freud being used for anything other than birdcage liner.I still havent read that part of AP with any degree of attention.If thats what your referring to re.human psychology then I heartily agree.Freud is extremely tedious.Where jim appeals to the angels of our better nature is probably also flawed as a realistic appeal to human psychology.(last page 10) Sandys on record with at least one flaw on the confirmation of prediction end.I wish the police would take note and return my latitude.Id like to talk to jim about updating and streamlining the essay but its a bit tricky.The powers that be feel threatened by jims ideas.I doubt very much they would find anything threatening at your wing nut web site. >>Its about making very credible threats to limit violence.Paradoxical but effective. > Not paradoxical, hypocritical. And no, it doesn't limit anything (unless there are is so much money being made killing wives, husbands, and competitors there are no more hit men left). How is operation soft drill hypocritical? Jim might argue with that too but cant,of course.10 years for a flawed,tedious essay.Mmm. It does'nt limit anything that is not already limited.Like knowing where your target is,or even who they are.Numbskull nomen knows that.The limits come from the 'thermostat' effect,mentioned in the essay.Its a self limiting state of affairs that does'nt even require crypto.I think a misconception comes in when hitmen get a mention.A 'hitman' could be a child or an elderly butler.Almost anyone is capable of killing.Sure pros would be attracted,make a pile,spend it,become targets and so on.Self limiting see? Theres a mass levelling of wealth and power as no sane person wants to be anything but anonymous.There will be those who think they're so lovable they wont attract a juicy pool and we'll always have celebrities,they just wont be around so long,maybe. >It simply provides a mechanism for the 1st party to >anonymously hire the 3rd party to kill >>the 2nd party. Well dont we have that now,(the internet) A lot of what Im talking about is there in front of your face.The trains left the station.Assasination politics is on the news in occupied palestine and 'ghan and its got doctors all over your scumbag ratshit,craphole rogue error state of amerdikkka wearing bulletproof vests.With OSD even anonymity isnt required,simply enough sensible people to see the benefits of distributed justice by consensus (not mob rule at all) and take firm committed civil disobedient direct action.A nuremburg website for all the little eichmanns that want to slice away our inalienable human and civil rights like salami. FUCK THAT,FUCK THEM and FUCK YOU,you loopy spamming spacecase.

2 1

: 100 million responsibilities (Re: AP Al quim)
by mattd 11 Dec '01

11 Dec '01

At 06:27 AM 12/12/01 +1100, mattd wrote: >.>..regarding Assassination Politics: > > Just keep in mind that AP is a >joke among knowledgeable > > technologists for >its unworkability, but a >wonderful joke > > on those who believe it's anything more than a taunt. > >Total bullshit again. Yes, but the reason it's bullshit is that shooting >messengers does no good. It leaves intact the originators of the message, >all hundred- million of them. Tomorrow, the hundred million will be >stumbling over each other trying to empower new messengers to replace those >fallen. Bingo. This is why the WTC takedown was such excellent feedback. The above is baba rum rasins entire post.WTF my names on top for Im fucked if I know.Its all crap.Feedback for shitheels. Im not getting any feedback on operation soft drill so Ill pack it in next year and let nature take its course.Leave my name out of it.

1 0

Lynn Cheney vs. Tipper Gore -which is more evil?
by Tabla bin Rasa 11 Dec '01

11 Dec '01

>>> There's also a blacklist on the Web of people in academia who have >>> publicly stated less than glowing support for Bush's war against >>> "evil." > >> Where is it? > >It was released by ACTA, formerly the NAF, run by Lynne Cheney, formerly >arch-conservative Bill Bennett's heir at the National Endowment for the >Humanities, and the wife of the federal government's favorite cardiac >patient, Vice President Dick Cheney. > >Imagine the joy of being a university professor, and waking up one morning >to find that a big powerful organization run by the Vice President's wife >has issued a report practically calling you a traitor. Almost as much fun as being a musician and waking up one morning to find that a big powerful organization run by the VP's wife is practically calling you immoral. Tipper Gore is mentally ill, but that's no excuse.

1 0

100 million responsibilities (Re: AP Al quim)
by Tabla bin Rasa 11 Dec '01

11 Dec '01

At 06:27 AM 12/12/01 +1100, mattd wrote: >.>..regarding Assassination Politics: > > Just keep in mind that AP is a >joke among knowledgeable > > technologists for >its unworkability, but a >wonderful joke > > on those who believe it's anything more than a taunt. > >Total bullshit again. Yes, but the reason it's bullshit is that shooting >messengers does no good. It leaves intact the originators of the message, >all hundred- million of them. Tomorrow, the hundred million will be >stumbling over each other trying to empower new messengers to replace those >fallen. Bingo. This is why the WTC takedown was such excellent feedback.

1 0