- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

(certificate-less) digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the internet (fwd)
by Jim Choate 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:51:41 -0700 From: Lynn.Wheeler(a)firstdata.com To: cryptography(a)wasabisystems.com Subject: (certificate-less) digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the internet press release ("digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the Internet") http://www.nacha.org/news/news/pressreleases/2001/PR072301/pr072301.htm results http://internetcouncil.nacha.org/Projects/ISAP_Results/isap_results.htm the report http://internetcouncil.nacha.org/Projects/ISAP_Results/ISAPresultsDocument-… includes the following from the above ... The "real-world" viability of the proposed ANSI X9.59 standard concept for electronic payments using public/private key pairs, which is also known as Account Authority Digital Signature (AADS), was validated by the ISAP Pilot results. These results demonstrate the feasibility of using PKI without digital certificates, thereby minimizing infrastructure requirements and costs for utilizing the ISAP process. ============================ The rfi for the above: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/nacharfi.htm additional information on x9.59 and AADS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn nacha web site http://www.nacha.org/ nacha organization Welcome to NACHA Welcome to the web site of NACHA - The Electronic Payments Association. Here you will find the latest information on the innovative and dynamic world of electronic payments. Electronic payments of all kinds are used frequently by people, companies, and government agencies as a safe, reliable and convenient way to conduct business. Direct Deposit is used for payroll, travel and expense reimbursements, annuities and pensions, dividends, and government payments such as Social Security and Veterans benefits. Other types of electronic payments are frequently used for bill payments, retail purchases, Internet purchases, corporate payments and treasury management, and for the provision of food stamps and other government cash assistance. NACHA is a not-for-profit trade association that develops operating rules and business practices for the Automated Clearing House (ACH) Network and for other areas of electronic payments. NACHA activities and initiatives facilitate the adoption of electronic payments in the areas of Internet commerce, electronic bill payment and presentment (EBPP), financial electronic data interchange (EDI), international payments, electronic checks, electronic benefits transfer (EBT) and student lending. We also promote the use of electronic payment products and services, such as Direct Deposit and Direct Payment. NACHA represents more than 12,000 financial institutions through our network of regional ACH associations. We have over 600 members in our seven industry councils and corporate Affiliate Membership program. I hope you will find this web site to be a valuable resource. Please come again! --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)wasabisystems.com

1 0

Re: Laws of mathematics, not of men
by David Honig 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

At 08:39 AM 8/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > >> 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were >> a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying >> to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help. > >Which is that 'freedom' thing, that is a good thing all in all. > Its freedom until she convinces the men with guns

2 1

What You Don't Know Will Kill You
by John Young 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

Hans Mark, a septugenarian DoD official in a seminar at Harvard on "Intelligence, Command and Control," in Spring 2000 said: "It is as bad to have too much information as it is not to have any. Both contribute to Clausewitzs fog of war. It is not good to have a completely transparent communications system. The private does not need to know what the general knows. In fact, if the private knew what the general knows, he might not want to go over the next hill." Mark says he believes in unquestioned command authority as the most essential quality of the military, over weapons, strategy, tactics and intelligence. He acknowledged that commanders made mistakes but that history has shown the validity of supreme command authority. Elsewhere one reads that commanders are taught that casualties are inevitable in war and that the resolute commander will not hesitate to order an action that will certainly cause death. Corollary of Mark's moral: be a commander never a follower or, best, avoid heirarchies of rank and their promugators. Better than best is to destroy heirarchies. For getting followers to obey commands requires bountiful deception and betrayal. That is called morale building, esprit de corps, patriotism, putting the nation, the unit, your comrades above your self-preservation. Believers in heirarchies get really pissed when you question their authority, and will kill you to show who is boss, or more likely order an underling commander to order a blind faith warrior to do it with a stand-off weaponry created for cowards. Check out the NY Times Magazine's featured piece tomorrow on the US plan to command the world through space weaponry. All doomsday gadgets commanded from Earth by e-generals pushing Linux sysadmins' buttons with dreams of generalship for all just over the hill. Why is command-authority IBM, Oracle and Sun getting so deeply in bed with the Linux mavericks under cover of combating Microsoft?

2 1

CodeRed Fix
by Wilfred L. Guerin 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

Greetings all... I ask a simple and profoundly obvious question... With eeye and others releaseing codeRed src almost a month ago, has anyone bothered to modify the worm and bother distributing (by force) the file checked by the current worm which will suppress its operation? This is such an obvious fix, however noone seems to have yet had a clue to do it? Now that some of my boxes are being bothered with CRed noise, I'm prone to creating a secondary replacement worm, mass distributing it, and using it to squelch the bullshit of this one... If that many can be infected by using a psuedo-random sequence, this could be easily traced or more effectively a far more effective sequencing pattern for the disbersal could be utilized... Moreso, if noone is competant to have yet done this, can anyone provide an EXTREMELY stable high-load capacity box which can accept reporting of infected hosts? -- This would be highly useful in the target analysis of the worm's progress... Granted, this is a distributed infiltration mechanism, however, I somehow doubt the stateside feds and other morons would be contradicting of ceasing a distributed attack, even if we do not bother to stop the wh.gov targeting... It's wasting our resources, hastling all of us, etc. So... two things: A: Has anyone bothered to do this yet. B: If I am personally gonna have to deal with this bs, can anyone offer a logging-server target to send reports to? I shall await reply to the CDR lists, or direct to "Wilfred(a)Cryogen.com" ... -- I dont really want to waste the time fixing the code, though will if this keeps up for long... Till the next annoyance (or the fix of this one), -Wilfred L. Guerin Wilfred(a)Cryogen.com ...

3 3

Copyright Licenses and Assignments (BitLaw)
by Jim Choate 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

Some specific info on 'implied' copyright. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html The best that Declan can hope for is a 'non-exclusive' copyright, but even that would require an exchange (ie a meeting of minds) between the two parties. However, that won't fly since, as an operator of at least one of the nodes, the policy is that you as the original author release no rights by participating in the CDR itself, implied or otherwise - which I've stated many times (check the archives). So the 'implied' contract perspective falls down because one of the parties involved has EXPLICITLY made known the conditions of use. That over-rides ANY implied anything. Further, by the other nodes agreeing not to modify backbone traffic they have explicitly agreed to this for all parties NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THEIR NODE. What we do have is a EXPRESS LICENSE between node operators. And then a (potentialy) implied (unless they print a policy on a webpage like SSZ does) contract between subscriber and node operator. The CDR is NOT(!!!!!!) Usenet, even if we are distributed over several nodes. -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: The real enemies of the poor
by Jim Choate 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > >The point I'm making is that demeanor and attitude (for example) are > >inextricably linked. > > Sure, but for me both are almost entirely separable from my personal > evaluation of someone's scholarship and competence. See a comment #1 below... > None of this has the slightest bearing on the fact that he's one of the > most brilliant, knowledgeable and incisive people I've ever met: his social > skills deficit is just an unfortunate by-product. You're very description argues against your own assertion. > Why do you think concepts need to be orthagonal to be useful? Comment #1: I don't. I'm simply stating that you're trying to seperate out concepts that are not seperable. You are treating 'components' of a characteristic as seperable and individual from the characteristic itself. This is a false distinction when talking about human psychology (which is what we're talking about when you get right down to it). > No, I realize that I'm probably a little more sensitized to (and upset by) > the way Dr. Alphachimp treats the people around him because I have a > tendency to the same sort of failings myself. Bravo!!!!! I salute you. That I can respect. > head unnoticed. You sure can learn a lot about yourself by stepping back > and noticing how you react when interacting with other people... Agreed. It's also worth noting that at some point you have to ignore what other people think or want as well. At some point you have to say "I don't care". A good example is that many people will critize actions because they hurt other peoples feelings. Not realizing that by complying your own feelings get hurt. It's a conflict of viewpoint, the belief of an absolute when no such exists. > >As to 'know enough to be worth listening to', out of the mouths of babes. > >Sometimes the last person who needs to be talking about a problem is > >somebody that 'knows all about it'. There are other shades of tinted > >glasses besides rose. > > It's important not to shut yourself off from new ideas, but you have to > have a way to decide at what point you're wasting your effort. I put this a different way, It's good to have an open mind, just not so open your brains slosh out on the floor. > Oh not really, it's fine as long as at least one person is able to maintain > the veneer of civility. As long as Dr. Alphachimp never figures out what I > really think of him, it'll be an awesome opportunity to keep learning from > him. I see more of the "genteel patronizing condescension" side anyway, > which helps a lot. Or at least that's the way it feels, ha. Ah, he wants a date...;) > >>If you say so. I've found them to be rather confused myself. > > Not orthagonal enough..? No, confused. It's not the dataset and their manipulation but rather their axioms I find distasteful, the goal they are looking to reach and the base assumptions they leave unsaid (eg almost w/o exception we have mind/body duality as well as human beings somehow 'above' or 'seperate' from the cosmos - raging, rampant, anthropocentracism). This harks back to the comment I made about Newton and pebbles on a beach. Newton once made a comment that when he went in to solve a problem he had no pre-concieved notion of the end result. He simply played (that's a very strong paraphrase). It's a rare view that just looks at what is there and doesn't try to prove/resolve some aspect of themselves in the process. > >They all seem to be trying to get around basic fundamental facts they > >don't want to face. > > Oh yeah? Schopenhauer is about as honest and real as they come. In many ways I agree. However even he has a fundamental problem with respect to his base philosophy. He was an atheist yet was understanding of Christianity and other relgions (eg his exploration into Vedic philosophy). This represents a mind/body duality problem though, which seriously undermines the applicability of his views. Why? He fails to recognize that being an atheist, christian, whatever is nothing more than anthropocentricism. His fundamental assumption isn't that humanity somehow stands on a divide but is that divide. He took a stand to resolve conflicts as a result of his world view, not recognizing that the world view WAS the problem. He didn't step out of his humanity (in fact this is the failure of all Utopian sojourns). The ONLY exception to this failing in philosophy that I've found is Pantheism, which is very rare. Only a handful of non-antropocentric philosophers have written (and no I don't even agree with all of them, Spinoza for example was of the belief that 'rights' were an extension of society and that irrespective of social harm one should submit - then compare this to his life ling running from persecution, he was excommunicated from the Jewish religion as a result). Both Schopenhauer and Spinoza almost got there. > That's a pretty heavy dose of Platonism, no? No. Socrates. > ...whole lotta reification goin' on... Not really, there is no concept of 'universality'. We're not making a statement about that which we are answering question, only how we answer questions. The Socratic Method isn't about finding 'reality' or 'fundamental essence' (ie crap) but rather about finding conflicts in the thought process. In the Socratic method the discussion is more on how you got to the conclusion, not how you carried it out. > Just because an event is nonlinear and non-determined doesn't mean it > negated the laws of causality. No, but they obfuscate any hope of actually determining what that causality is. The distinction between 'there is no causality' and 'there is no way to determine causality' isn't that great a void from a pragmatic perspective. Either way, it's a dead end road. > The building blocks are much smaller and > less obvious, but they're still present in some form, even when they're not > readily ascertainable. That's as good a definition of 'faith' as I've ever run across...;) > preceeding it were in place. Is there a great degree of freedom in > discovery? Of course, but you have to have some mental dice to throw before > you can throw them! Now we're into that 'free will' discussion I don't want to have...our answering the question iwth a flat 'of course' isn't good reasoning. You are in effect presenting an axiomatic assumption as a derivative conclusion. Arguing in circles. {and yes, I fully recognize that the basic tenets of 'science' are nothing more than the basic tenets of 'religion' - faith. The distinction being the acceptance, and management thereof, of the concept of 'transcendence'. Which is another aspect of the 'human condition' that I think every philosopher to date has skipped merrily around.) > That issue is fairly clear-cut for me. But if you were to ask me about > something I'm more ambivalent about--say, "globalization"--it's easy to > imagine having simultaneous viewpoints that are seemingly contradictory on > a superficial level. You are confusing 'understanding' with 'holding'. The killer word in your assertion is 'ambivalent' you are admitting you hold no opinion (and that 'no opinion' is itself singular). [About contradicting yourself, see 'Para-consistent Logic'. Note that at no time have I asserted that paradoxes are not real. In my mind the question is whether one sees this conflict as a 'universal' or something that is unique to the 'human perspective'.] > No, but then there's the issue of whether you really can, or just think you > can. If you can use the 'understanding' to make accurate predictions then you have some sort of handle that others who can't don't have. > If you're sensitive enough to be able to pick up on how and why > someone formed a certain view, it helps. Great page on empathy, analogy and > cognitive processes: > > http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Empathy.html Empathy and consideration are great tools, provided they don't become singularly important (eg politicaly correct). Given the choice of hurting your feelings by saying something that is real and concrete and not saying it and hurting myself in the process, you're feelings are toast. People have a right to 'pursue happiness', the unsaid assertion is that peoples natural state is 'unhappy'. A person has no right to interfere with anothers pursuite of that happiness, but they don't have a responsiblity to help nor do they have a responsiblity to hurt themselves to minimize the others discomfiture. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Oh, the CDR isn't...
by Jim Choate 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

the WWW either. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Slashdot | Ricochet Modems == Wireless LAN?
by Jim Choate 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/08/03/2337255.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

The Register - Congress tears Media Giant's hearts out
by Jim Choate 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20839.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.
by Black Unicorn 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

----- Original Message ----- From: "Trei, Peter" <ptrei(a)rsasecurity.com> To: "'Black Unicorn'" <unicorn(a)schloss.li> Cc: <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:53 AM Subject: RE: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. > Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect > control' bit is the part that got lost in the article. Sure. News articles are the WORST source for legal analysis. > I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to > deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but > rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way > to make *sequestration* of a piece of info impossible, > by placing copies permanently outside 'his direct or > indirect control'. It was clear. I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with impunity. I didn't believe that you were exhibiting this behavior, but failing to clear things up often leads to misconceptions by others, who then cite the erroniously intrepreted stuff to support their silly ideas about legal-immune key escrow and etc. > I hope you read Mike's 'Oh pointy one' note carefully; > it points out one of the great problems most of us IANAL > have with IAAL types - the confusion of laws and court > action with right and justice, and actions which are > simply unlawful at a given time and place with wrong > and injustice. It's a base conflict. A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical cynicism. It quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but that it is often pretty damn screwed up. American jurisprudence is about _fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong. The frustration that IAAL types usually have is that IANAL types tend to cross the line from criticzing the law to giving legal advice which is more derrived from their dislike for the state of the law than a recognition of what it really is. > Laws and courts are or should be an attempt to map > the behaviour of governments to right and justice, but > lawyers so often seemed to have been conditioned > into thinking they are one and the same, rather than > a (very) rough approximation. Well, again, the legal education process is designed around navigating through the system, not mapping the behavior of governments. > [Case to point: Canter and Siegel claiming that there > was nothing wrong with them sending their Green Card > spam, since there was no law against it.] > > It's possible - indeed essential - for people to argue > over right and wrong, justice and injustice without > regard for what a given legal and court system says; > even a court and legal system which can send Men > With Guns after them. Oh, I wholly agree. And I believe this is a fully valid function for cypherpunks. Unfortunately, it often shifts into "you should design this technical solution" - typically a technical solution which will end the operated in jail. To me the important distinction is to recognize what we want the ideal to be, but avoid running afoul of the law in the process. > Laws do not define Right and Wrong. > Courts and Legal Systems do not define Justice. > > They are better than nothing at all, but we should > never imbue them with divine wisdom. That way > lies Tyranny. Agreed. > Peter Trei >

11 21