- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

STAINLESS STEEL PIPES AND TUBES
by Textiles 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

MUHAMMAD UMAIR HAMEED, M2/E888, SSC-BLK-C, KHI-75730 [PK] Email:- paktrade@khi.paknet.com.pk,bsasteel@aol.net.pk,alfaqar@paknet3.ptc.pk Fax:- 92-21-7775337/7730667/2563698 AND VOICE 2564053/2578624/7777746 Dear, Sir I want some stainless steel pipes and tubes.{AISI304}-{AISI316} Quantity up to 2 to 5 containers. Please give me lowest price FOB base. I will be very thank full to you. WAITING FOR YOUR KIND REPLY. With best regards, UMAIR HAMEED

1 0

Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages.
by Declan McCullagh 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:07:14PM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Now, the above is of course fiction, for now at least. But keeping such > widescale attacks on the infrastructure part of the threat model is not, > IMHO, a bad idea. The discussions on stego, disposable remailers, physical > broadcast technology and the like are part of that, and serve to lay the > groundwork in case shit one day does hit the fan. Last I checked, the vast bulk of remailers were in North America and Europe. Given sufficient provocation (Bush twins kidnapped, Osama talking biochemwomdterror in DC), I could easily see a coordinated set of pre-dawn raids to "gather evidence" and seize computers as part of a criminal investigation. Obviously the servers would have to be held as potential evidence for a trial - did they keep logs? our techs will find out - which could take a decade. This would cripple the current remailer network and generate almost no public outcry beyond the cypherpunks and such. -Declan

6 8

Re: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition
by Eugene Leitl 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > Have you happened to have seen any good papers on constructing do-it- > yourself cheap, effective, portable shielding? Probably might as well > ask for the moon too while I'm at it, but it's worth a shot! Using cast aluminum cases, copper foil shielding, tight glands which preferably transport only optical signals or coax, using low power parts which don't clock too many Hz, and the like. Even if you don't have access to a testing facility, careful work and some thinking will eventually make you very, very silent. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3

1 0

Re: Anonymous Posting
by Anonymous 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

Tim May wrote: > I find it lower. Maybe it's just me. A lot of gibbering, ranting, > and insults-without-traceability. Doesn't mean I don't "support" the > legality and technology of remailers, just a comment on what traffic > I see from them. Not surprising, of course. It may depend on your window. Remailer traffic's been pretty good for the last six months. No spam, for example. Yes, one would expect all sorts of trash, but for some reason that's not happening right now. > The technology won't get there by a particular person using > remailers, inasmuch as the actions of that person don't cause others > to change. Setting a good example is an effective technique. I'm using remailers because of somebody else's example. > This is also known as the "but what if everyone did what you're > doing?" fallacy. I've grokked this since around 1966. Why isn't > this obvious? Fewer people doing it just means the process is slower. It's really a question of whether one wants to participate. > 2) I used the earlier Cypherpunks remailers in their first month of > operation, in 1992. More to the point, I architected the basic > features remailers should have at the first Cypherpunks > meeting. Check the archives if you doubt this. Actually, I consider the Great Timothy May to be beyond my judgment. (No irony intended.) In general, however, it's hard to understand why people who claim to be cypherpunks won't use remailers or even encrypted mail. The "I only use these tools when I'm committing felonies" model is flawed. If people were saying they are not interested in these tools or technologies, then there's no issue. But what I don't understand is people claiming this stuff is interesting but then not even using it. Even worse, many actually disparage those using encryption or remailers and yet remain subscribed to this list. Strange. Using something is the first step to extending and improving it. Even non-coder users are helpful because they can encourage the coders to make things better, as well as sending in bug reports, suggestions for improvement, etc. etc. No technology is developed solely at the drafting board. People need to hammer on it, kick it around, and play with it, before it gets to be solid. > 5) Signing an article is giving away something of value. (For > example, it might be used against the signer.) Absent some reason to > sign, some "consideration," why sign a post? You got me there, pal. (If there was more noise coming from remailers I'd probably sign posts so filtering would be feasible. Hopefully, I'd be filtered in!) > Fuck that. Cypherpunks care about both code _and_ ideology, else why > bother? If Rijndael C code is all that matters, why not just drop > Cypherpunks and join Perrypunks? > Oh wait, it seems most nitwits _have_. Never mind. Many of these people are potentially useful. It is unfortunate that they fled instead of seeking technical solutions. I consider this a serious mistake.

1 0

RE: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messa ges.
by Bill Stewart 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

At 10:30 AM 08/13/2001 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: >I'm aware of exactly two datapoints - Skipjack (which wasn't good enough >that anyone wanted to use it), and the recent 'dual counter mode' snafu. >That's not enough to draw broad conclusions. Dual Counter was a serious crypto product that was broken and failed. But Skipjack was apparently strong enough, within the limits of 80-bit keys, and while the academic whitewash team didn't have time for more than a cursory examination, that wasn't the real problem with the system. After all, it came with a guaranteed wiretap capability, was a clear political scam, and rapidly acquired public hatred and ridicule, plus the only advantage it had was being stronger than 1-DES, which was in practice strong enough for almost all non-money-transfer apps. The whole system reeked badly, but the Skipjack part was the strongest link.

1 0

Gnutella scanning instead of service providers.
by Gary Jeffers 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

My fellow Cypherpunks, It has been stated that Gnutella is completely decentralized. This is not so. In order to get started with a Gnutella search, you need to use a Gnutella search provider to find Gnutella groups. Would it be possible to write some kind of scanner that would look at an ISP, say for example, htc.net and display all the Gnutella users there? We seem to be over the "fax effect" (a Snelling point?) magnitude where automated hunting for Gnutella users would be practical. Also, maybe the scanner could search thru various ISP's as well as particular ones. If it did close ISPs 1st, then it could help with the efficency of file searches. Also, note that Gnutella deals in files - ANY kind of files. I suppose that most? Cypherpunks know that - but just to be sure. If a scanner were written and widely deployed, then I think that the problem of crushing Gnutella would be at least a magnitude harder. Maybe the Gnutella support sites would promote and distribute such a scanner? Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

4 3

None
by Kidsheep 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

-- Yours sincerely Kidsheep <Kidsheep(a)21cn.com>

1 0

failure notice
by Mailer Daemon 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

1 0

How To Make $14,874.27 per month QUICKLY on the Net...with NO $$$Money! ? ?
by $14,874.27 per month 22 Aug '01

22 Aug '01

This is NEW and INCREDIBLY EXCITING!! 100% Fail-Proof! It is like NOTHING you have ever seen on the net today! You can join for FREE and MAKE MONEY!! Learn the secrets. Once your earnings START, they NEVER STOP! Multiple bonuses. Check out this EXCITING OPPORTUNITY. No money required. Just click this link and I'll e-mail you free details. mailto:info_31@usa.com?subject=JoinFREE (DO NOT HIT REPLY) or info_31(a)usa.com and type "JoinFree" in subject line. (You MUST put "JoinFree" in subject line). --->(DO NOT HIT REPLY UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE REMOVED)<--- Hope you don't miss this one. Guaranteed to work fast. ============================================= ((( Do *Not* Hit Reply ))) -- --->Removal Instructions Below<--- ---------------------------------------------- *********(REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS BELOW)********** ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- If you wish to be removed from future mailings, then you can hit "reply" with the subject "Remove" and you will automatically be blocked from any future mailings. ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo
by David Honig 22 Aug '01

22 Aug '01

At 01:49 PM 8/6/01 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: >On 4 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > >> What's up with voice encryption? I'm ready to use it. I'm ready to > >Me, too. Let's do it, then: http://www.speakfreely.org/ And nautilus and PGPfone. Maybe on a pocket PC if they have decent audio. How do you make money on this approach, though? >We've got a lack of user base problem. I'm expecting voice encryption in >software when PDA (or wearable) with ~10 kBps wireless connectivity become >commonplace. Interop with an existing PC/Mac based tool might help.

8 13