- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

More censorware stupidity, from the anti-spam camp
by Stanton McCandlish 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

Jonathan Wallace's BESS/N2H2 post reminds, me... A friend of mine runs a "garage ISP", on which I run some mailing lists. I got deluged with bounces the other day, all from a new subscriber. The mail from the (hi-traffick) list they'd joined was all being returned, with a notice from that person's ISP saying that the mail was blocked because the site it was sent from is blacklisted on the ORBS anti-spam blacklist for running an open mail relay. Funny thing is, my friend's little ISP has not run an open mail relay is well over a year. Not only that, but ORBS is dead. The "organization" folded, and no updates to their blacklists have been published in months. The upshot of this is pretty scary, given that an estimated 40% of US ISPs and 20% of ALL ISPs are using ORBS, MAPS and other. Your ability to communicate via SMTP with your friends, family and associates around the world is largely dependent on sysadmins remembering to dilligently update their blacklist subscriptions and thinking to ensure that their chosen blacklist is actually still viable (as much as any of them can be called that to begin with). Not only that, but when a spamcensorware maker kicks the bucket, if your site is blacklisted *it can never be unblacklisted ever again, from that particular list, for all eternity* and some site somewhere WILL be using that blacklist, for years. Meanwhile innocent list admins get tarred with bounce floods, people cannot reach who they are trying to mail, and users whose ISPs don't bother to inform them much less adhere to an opt-in (or even opt-out) spambouncing policy will not receive mail intended for them and often never even know about it. The only thing worse than a blacklist, is a blacklist that is "in-play" in the real world, but not being corrected. If/when MAPS dies, this problem is going to *explode*. Hardly anyone used ORBS and this has already caused a lot of people severe headaches that still continue. But, maybe the problem will be so big if/when that happens that blacklists will largely be simply abandoned. NB: I'm not against individual spam filtering - I do it agressively myself, and subscribe to several group-maintained *invidual-use* blacklists that I've chosen to trust (more or less). I'm referring to ISP-level "stealth blocking", esp. that based on the technical capabilities of the sending site, rather than said site being a known spam house. -- -- Stanton McCandlish mech(a)eff.org http://www.eff.org/~mech Technical Director/Webmaster Electronic Frontier Foundation voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 fax: +1 415 436 9993 EFF, 454 Shotwell St. San Francisco CA 94110 USA ---

1 0

More censorware stupidity, from the anti-spam camp
by Stanton McCandlish 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

Jonathan Wallace's BESS/N2H2 post reminds, me... A friend of mine runs a "garage ISP", on which I run some mailing lists. I got deluged with bounces the other day, all from a new subscriber. The mail from the (hi-traffick) list they'd joined was all being returned, with a notice from that person's ISP saying that the mail was blocked because the site it was sent from is blacklisted on the ORBS anti-spam blacklist for running an open mail relay. Funny thing is, my friend's little ISP has not run an open mail relay is well over a year. Not only that, but ORBS is dead. The "organization" folded, and no updates to their blacklists have been published in months. The upshot of this is pretty scary, given that an estimated 40% of US ISPs and 20% of ALL ISPs are using ORBS, MAPS and other. Your ability to communicate via SMTP with your friends, family and associates around the world is largely dependent on sysadmins remembering to dilligently update their blacklist subscriptions and thinking to ensure that their chosen blacklist is actually still viable (as much as any of them can be called that to begin with). Not only that, but when a spamcensorware maker kicks the bucket, if your site is blacklisted *it can never be unblacklisted ever again, from that particular list, for all eternity* and some site somewhere WILL be using that blacklist, for years. Meanwhile innocent list admins get tarred with bounce floods, people cannot reach who they are trying to mail, and users whose ISPs don't bother to inform them much less adhere to an opt-in (or even opt-out) spambouncing policy will not receive mail intended for them and often never even know about it. The only thing worse than a blacklist, is a blacklist that is "in-play" in the real world, but not being corrected. If/when MAPS dies, this problem is going to *explode*. Hardly anyone used ORBS and this has already caused a lot of people severe headaches that still continue. But, maybe the problem will be so big if/when that happens that blacklists will largely be simply abandoned. NB: I'm not against individual spam filtering - I do it agressively myself, and subscribe to several group-maintained *invidual-use* blacklists that I've chosen to trust (more or less). I'm referring to ISP-level "stealth blocking", esp. that based on the technical capabilities of the sending site, rather than said site being a known spam house. -- -- Stanton McCandlish mech(a)eff.org http://www.eff.org/~mech Technical Director/Webmaster Electronic Frontier Foundation voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 fax: +1 415 436 9993 EFF, 454 Shotwell St. San Francisco CA 94110 USA ---

1 0

Wanna meet fun and interesting people fo FREE!?!? 934238434ishjqvfmg
by znyxlc32＠yahoo.com 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by (znyxlc32(a)yahoo.com) on Wednesday, August 8, 2001 at 16:16:48 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- msg: Are you looking for your one true love? Or are you a lonely single man or woman? Or are you just a married man or woman that wants to chat and have fun.. well for anyone of these things, Adult Friend Finders is just for you. Now you may be thinking that this is some pornography site, but I assure you it is not. Adult Friend Finders has been around for over 32 years, and is the internet's #1 Adult Friend Finding Network. We have over 500,000+ members and this number is growing as we speak. One major opportunity that we have is a FREE membership program, along with a non-free membership progam. The free program allows you to find sexy and interesting personals, of people that would suit you. You can chat and have a good time on AFF, without being obligated. So join for free today, or you will be missing out on one of the greatest friend finding networks in the world! < a href="http://laser.to/adultfinders">Join Today For FREE and! have a look around!!!</a> Who knows! You may just find your soul mate! ;o) 934238434ishjqvfmg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Microsoft Risking "Spoliation" Charges
by Tim May 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

Looks like Microsoft is racing to get copies of XP out where they can't be retrieved, where the distribution is a done deal, a fact on the ground. No word yet on whether Black Unicorn's "Mr. Happy Fun Court" is "not amused." --Tim May --begin excerpt--- Windows XP could see September ship date By Joe Wilcox Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 7, 2001, 3:20 p.m. PT Starting next month, some new PCs could include an unexpected accessory: Windows XP. Microsoft has given PC makers the go-ahead to ship Windows XP as much as one full month before the operating system's official Oct. 25 launch date, sources close to four major PC makers told CNET News.com. ... For Microsoft, the early release of Windows XP has an additional benefit. The company is advancing its release schedule to try to beat any possible injunction that would delay the new operating system's debut, analysts said. ..... "Because a new remedy would be forward-looking, that could include (Windows) XP," said Andy Gavil, an antitrust professor with Howard University School of Law. "There's no reason to think the government is not considering an injunction against XP." .... Specter of injunction Getting Windows XP on new systems ahead of the scheduled Oct. 25 launch could help Microsoft fend off possible injunctions against Windows XP,... ... Publicly, Microsoft Group Vice President Jim Allchin said the company had no contingency plan should an injunction be issued against Windows XP. But sources close to Microsoft said the company is concerned about the possibility. ---end excerpt---

2 1

Re: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia
by Tim May 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 02:28 PM, Faustine wrote: > Lots of interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications, I'm > sure... > > Massively Parallel Computational Research Laboratory > http://www.cs.sandia.gov/ Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? (The "challenges" broken by a couple of our own list members over the past several years were all weak ciphers by modern standards, or had key lengths way below even the recommended lengths of the day. Increasing the key lengths by just several bits ups the work factor by a factor of ten or so. Increasing it to recommended levels ups the work factor to the level of "not all the computers that will ever be built in all of the galaxies of the universe" will be able to brute-force a crack.) There are indeed some cryptographic uses for big computers, but not much of real interest here. Some voice- and traffic-analysis stuff, but not cracking modern ciphers. --Tim May

1 0

IRS Criminal Investigation Handbook
by John Young 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

The IRS Criminal Investigation Handbook describes in 95 chapters the procedures for investigation of crime, preparing for trial and a host of other activities including undercover operations and surveillance: http://cryptome.org/irs-ci/irs-ci.htm The handbook aptly describes the variety of methodologies used in the Bell and Parker cases, in particular covert methods used to induce criminal actions for entrapment, as well as massaging trial testimony of witnesses and agents. The chapter on Undercover Operations provides for covertly attending client-attorney sessions; posing as an attorney, physician, clergyman, or member of the news media; obtaining through false pretense privileged information from attorneys, physicians, clergy and news media; giving false testimony; putting innocent parties at risk of physical violence; carrying out criminal actions; and earn income to offset cost of the operations ("churning"): http://cryptome.org/irs-ci/36211a.html The chapter on Surveillance and Non-consensual Monitoring states: "It is important to distinguish between investigative techniques used in surveillance activities and certain undercover operations. The following characteristics apply to surveillance: The purpose is to observe ongoing activities and individuals. Interaction with subjects and third parties is usually not initiated. Conversations are incidental to the surveillance. Conversations are not monitored or recorded, except as set forth in above. The special agent has limited cover, used to protect the integrity of the surveillance. Local special agents are used. Special agents need not be trained in undercover techniques. Initiated surveillance activity bears little resemblance to an undercover operation. The following situations indicate the surveillance activity evolved into an undercover operation: The activity continues for an extended period, and begins to focus on certain individuals. Reliance on cover identities increase. Contacts with targets and other individuals are more in-depth. Agents become participants rather than observers of the activities of interest. The following characteristics apply to undercover operations: The purpose is to initiate or participate in activities with identified targets. Interaction with subjects and third parties is sought. Undercover agents or other authorized individuals initiate and direct conversations to further the objectives of the operation. Conversations may be monitored and recorded. The undercover agent has a documented cover. This cover is used as a basis for contacts with targets or witnesses." http://cryptome.org/irs-ci/36209a.html

2 2

Re: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net closing
by Anonymous 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

Eric Murray wrote: > I wrote the stuff below to answer someone's request for a list of > CDRs and their policies. I'd like to keep it up to date and post it > regularly. Eric Murray kicks ass.

1 0

Teasing happy fun court
by Adam Shostack 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

> Lawyers May Reveal Secrets of Clients, Bar Group Rules > Backers of an initiative to overhaul legal ethics rules, allowing > lawyers more leeway to disclose client confidences to prevent fraud, > injury or death, won a partial victory at the annual meeting of the > American Bar Association in Chicago this week. > > The House of Delegates, the body that sets policy for the > organization, voted 243 to 184 on Monday to approve a proposal > allowing lawyers to disclose confidences when doing so prevents > "reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/national/08ETHI.html -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Mixmaster Message Drops
by Public <Anonymous_Account> 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

My studies show about 1 chance in 20 that any particular running remailer will drop a message. This is based on sending a bunch of messages through chains of remailers of varying length and seeing how many arrive in a day or so, and then calculating the average probability. Note that in a chain of twenty remailers this causes many messages to be dropped. Even if we achieve a reliability rate of 1 in 100,000, this means about 1 in 5000 messages will be lost through a chain of 20 remailers. For some reason remailer culture has accepted message drops as normal. They aren't normal. There isn't any reason why a remailer should be any less reliable than a mail server. I estimate mail servers are far more reliable than 1 loss in 100,000 messages. One possibility is that some of my tests went through remailers that are just down. This hasn't been ruled out beyond any reasonable doubt, but it appears that the drops are occuring in remailers which are still carrying traffic. I did an extensive series of tests with an internal mixmaster network running Mixmaster 2.0.3. I had to fool around with it, but I was able to run many hundreds of messages through chains of 20 hops without a single message drop. The core software appears to be solid (unless bugs have been introduced into more recent releases ;-), but the setup needs to be tweaked. The practice of putting something like this into .forward is a problem: "|/usr9/loki/Devel/Mix/mixmaster -R >> /usr/spool/mail/username" If too many messages come in at once this brings a machine to its knees because it runs many mixmaster processes at once. There may also be a bug in mixmaster which is only expressed when many mixmaster processes simultaneously tries to queue a message. FYI, this also creates an easy DoS on a mixmaster node. Just send the node a bunch of messages which loop back into itself over and over again. This should rapidly cause sendmail to spawn many mixmaster processes and lock up the machine. I haven't tried this on anybody else's mixmaster node. The solution is to have a small program which puts incoming messages into a spool file. I've enclosed the perl script I used, which comes with no guarantees and hasn't been tested all that much. (It would be nice if errors went to a log file instead of being bounced.) The script copies the message into a file in the spool directory starting with "temp". Then it moves it to a file starting with "spool". The reason for the move is to guarantee that all "spool" files are complete messages. The time of creation is encoded in the name so a processing program can get the files in order. The other pieces needed are a small perl script which monitors the spool directory and calls mixmaster to queue up each file and another process which calls mixmaster repeatedly to process the queued messages. This setup causes no more than two mixmaster processes to run at a time and is more robust. Would somebody mind polling the remailer operators to see how many are running mixmaster directly from .forward? I suspect this is most of the problem. If it isn't, we need to eliminate it before pursuing the next suspect. ---cut here------cut here------cut here------cut here------cut here------cut here--- #!/usr/bin/perl -w # This code is in the public domain. # Put in a .forward file. Spools mail into a directory for processing # by something else. require 5; use strict; use English; my(@pwvals) = getpwuid($UID); my($homedir) = $pwvals[7]; my($spooldir) = "$homedir/spool"; die "Home directory doesn't exist." if ! -e $homedir; die "Home directory isn't a directory." if ! -d $homedir; die "$spooldir doesn't exist." if ! -e $spooldir; die "$spooldir is not a directory." if ! -d $spooldir; my($now) = time; my($now_string); if( length($now) < 12 ) { $now_string = ('0' x (12 - length($now))) . $now; } my($temppath) = "$spooldir/temp.$now_string.$$"; die "Amazingly, $temppath already exists." if -e $temppath; open(SPOOLFILE, ">$temppath") or die "Could not open $temppath for writing.\n"; while(<>) { print SPOOLFILE $_; } close(SPOOLFILE); my($spoolpath) = "$spooldir/spool.$now_string.$$"; die "Amazingly, $spoolpath already exists." if -e $spoolpath; if( ! rename $temppath, $spoolpath ) { die "Could not rename $temppath to $spoolpath."; } # Let sendmail know everything is fine. exit(0);

1 0

Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia
by Faustine 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

Lots of interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications, I'm sure... Massively Parallel Computational Research Laboratory http://www.cs.sandia.gov/ Linux On Steroids By Jason Levitt You can salivate over the fastest computers in the world by browsing http://www.top500.org, or you can build your own. Sandia National Laboratories, which conducts research under the auspices of the Department of Energy, has released Cplant open-source software for building Linux supercomputing clusters. -->The 50 Mbytes of source code is available free to those who want to build a supercomputer using off-the-shelf hardware.<-- Cplant is designed to link PCs running Linux to create highly scalable, parallel computing clusters typically used for intensive number-crunching required by activities such as seismic research and economic forecasting. Building your own Linux cluster capable of supercomputer-class computing still will cost thousands, but by using conventional PCs running Linux, a Cplant cluster will be several orders of magnitude cheaper than a Sun E10000 Starfire, a Fujitsu VPP5000, or any other name-brand supercomputer or proprietary clustering system. "Our systems are roughly four times cheaper for the same Linpack number," says Neil Pundit, department manager of scalable computer systems at Sandia, in Albuquerque, N.M. Linpack is a benchmark program widely used to rate the basic computational performance of supercomputers. A 1,000-node Cplant cluster ranked 31st last year on the http://www.top500.org site with a Linpack number of 512 gigaflops. The Cplant software can be downloaded at http://www.sandia.gov. Sandia's Linux cluster, Antarctica, is one of the largest and most powerful in the world, with 1,500 rack-mounted Compaq 1U servers, each with a 466- MHz Alpha CPU and 256 Mbytes of RAM. The machines are interconnected using Myricom Inc.'s Myrinet gigabit clustering hardware, which is widely used for clustering and is sold by 18 of the 20 largest computer companies. The Cplant software requires you to use Myricom's clustering hardware, which roughly doubles the cost of hardware for each Linux system but is a key component of Cplant's fast internode communication. Sandia uses Antarctica to simulate physical phenomena such as the effects of radioactive materials as well as for weather forecasting.

1 0