- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

cell phone hook-ups bootleg illegal --whatever--just free
by Sbarnett884＠cs.com 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

yo, can ya tell me how. tell how to program the Motorola T2900 back into service if service has been cut ?? If I already have service on another phone ( Ericsson A1228 ) can I clone service to the Motorola or just go for free somehow ? mucho gracias

2 1

Scientific American: News In Brief: Nanomold for Metal Wires: February 9, 2001
by Jim Choate 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

http://www.sciam.com/news/020901/2.html -- ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

ZKS mail system questions (RE: anonymity)
by Adam Back 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

I think the 2.0 mail system has a number of advantages over the reply-blocks based 1.0 pseudonymous mail system, though a couple of disadvantages. These trade offs are documented in the mail system white paper. http://www.freedom.net/info/whitepapers/ In summary for people who don't want to wade through a wide paper, ZKS version 2 mail system is a POP and SMTP server you connect to pseudonymously via the freedom network and therefore tunnel your SMTP and POP sessions through the freedom cloud. The system is put together with Dan Bernstein's popular qmail high performance mail system to build ZKS' mail hub and pop account system. The differences are that ZKS has a number of qmail modifications to deal with pseudonym to internet and internet to pseudonym mail. (To encrypt incoming mail for the pseudonym and a few other things to do with authentication). The details are in the white paper. > Does zk traffic traverse public networks (via VPN or otherwise)? In the case of the connections between the user, the nodes in the freedom network, and the ZKS mail system the traffic is all routed over the internet. The nodes in the freedom network are operated by a mixture of owners. Some ISPs, some individuals interested in privacy and some ZKS operated. The user can choose which nodes he trusts. There is a diagram in the mail system white paper showing the internal communications inside the mail system. However these are just messages passing information between the mail system cluster of machines and are inside a firewall. Conceptually you can consider this cluster as a single machine owned by ZKS. The point is if you are connecting pseudonymously you have limited need to trust ZKS mail system because it doesn't know who you are, and further, nym to nym mail is end to end encrypted. The mail server sees nym to internet user and internet user to nym mail bodies, but so does any passive eavesdropper sniffing packets entering and leaving the mail system as the internet user has no compatible client software, unless the nym and internet user use end to end encryption software such as openPGP or S/MIME. The mail system does encrypt internet to nym mail for the nym's key so it doesn't have data it can read after the fact, although clearly it could record it, at least it protects against after the fact requests to decrypt mail -- ZKS can't decrypt it because only the nym has the keys. > Do these networks collect packet data (to, say, analyse attacks)? The freedom network is operated by third parties. ZKS to my knowledge makes all attempts to not log things and to set up the software so that it does not. Third party operators may or may not record data. Whether you trust third party operators or ZKS to not log is a matter of personal taste, and why you want distributed trust -- so you can choose who to trust based on your opinions of who is trustworthy (or more correctly which set of nodes can be trusted not to collude -- a mutually distrusting pair of nodes operated by NSA and KGB might provide pretty good security even if you didn't trust either of them, if you trust their paranoia prevents them from colluding or collaborating). The software is not setup or written to log anything which could lead to privacy leaks we audit what it does log for error tracking for privacy and correlation implications. So no. It would probably be difficult to log enough to analyse attacks without logging enough to erode privacy. But then as the system attempts to offer distributed trust, you should not have to trust that a given node does not log all that it could log and this is the case with limitations as discussed below. > Do they stagger packet transmissions to confuse origin and > destination? The freedom network supports only interactive pseudonymous tunnels. You might think that this would allow a timing correlation attack on the mail system by getting ISP usage logs and comparing freedom users online time with outgoing mails as there are no (significant) delays in the freedom mail system. However one of the advantages of the freedom 2.0 mail system over the 1.0 reply block based one is that web and mail traffic act as cover for each other. An ISP log just shows when you logged on, not when you uploaded mail. The window of time in which you send mail may allow some users to be excluded from being potential originators of a message, and this effect can be cummulative. The same argument would apply to necessarily interactive internet activity -- ISP logs together with logs of pseudonymous behavior can lead to correlations. This latter effect is a general attack on any pseudonymity system even with a perfect idealised mix net. You can observe and correlate input and output activity based on time if the inputs are not continously connected, continuously sending traffic and 100% failure free. (A tall order). Mail traffic does not need to be completely interactive. 15 mins or even an hours delay may be quite acceptable and allows more cover in terms of potential originators. We are looking at this for mail 2.1. > Do they only broadcast real data and no masking data? In freedom 2.0 the freedom network used fixed sized data packets at the transport layer with end to end crypto between the user and the exit node. There are however other things which limit the amount of privacy and anonymity you can get from an interactive communications tunnel implemented on top of best effort routing, and selectively and plausbily deniably DoSable IP. There was discussion of this on this list a few months back with comments from Lucky Green and Wei Dai. These issues are discussed somewhat in "Freedom 2.0 security issues and analysis" at the same URL as above. Anton Stiglic, Ulf Moeller and I have a paper submitted to the Information Hiding Workshop which discusses these issues a little more formally which hopefully should stimulate discussion from Lucky and others, and hopefully encourage the crypto community to explore the open questions we pose in the area of interactive anonymous communications. > And if they properly conceal data how well do they scale? With all > the encryption of traffic, etc. ZK's adoption by isps, etc. etc. is > a scalability question. The encryption is a constant factor. Each user uses 1, 2 or 3 hops and therefore incurs the bandwidth between those hops, and the CPU load on those nodes to do the keyexchanges to set the link up and the bulk encrypt and decrypt to do the end-to-end crypto, but once the key exchange is done an entry level PC can do blowfish at 16MB/sec (there are other overheads in the freedom nodes, but it's quite fast). So if you imagine going from 10 nodes to 20 nodes it can support almost linearly more users based purely on crypto overhead. The trickier thing to get right is scalable topology management and scalable PKI for the authentication of node and nym keys. > 2. is their e-mail system really anonymous? if i were a known bad > actor, le might be capturing data from my pc or my isp or my phone > company directly. why bother worming through zk networks? Because your data is end-to-end encrypted through the freedom cloud tunneled through a pseudonymous tunnel? > oh, and if someone could respond to you via your anonymous zk e-mail > address, isn't that an instantaneous-tag-the-sender tool for le? > Gee, let's see the recipe for this...serve zk a search warrant, map > zk address 'A' to e-mail address 'B' and there you have it: easier > than instant jello pudding. Nice system for anonymizing traffic to > companies, bad system if you're trying to get away with something > you shouldn't. The mail system doesn't work like penet.fi -- there is no map of nyms to users. Users pick up their mail pseudonymously from a mailbox in the pseudonym name. It's a third type of pseudonymous mail system. In the taxonomy of cryptographically secured replyable email systems - alpha nymserver with reply blocks (or manually maintained and managed reply blocks). freedom 1.0 mail system worked like this also. - freedom 2.0 mail system (pop mail account accessed via pseudonymous IP tunnel over anonymous IP network) The have different properties. - reply blocks are subpoena-able, because they are not forward secret. - reply blocks get good cover because they rely on mixing. But you can flood them and watch the flow of traffic because there is no replay protection as it does not make sense if people are allowed to send arbitrary amounts of mail. (Mixmaster has replay protection but that is for sending not receiving). - pseudonymous pop boxes have forward secrecy because all communications with them are forward secret and they have no remaining information which could identify users encrypted or unencrypted. - pseudonymous pop boxes don't have distributed trust mixing, or delays. usability advantage, but potential security disadvantage. One could envisage adding trust-the-pop-server delays, or perhaps alternate routing rules inside the anonymity network to have distributed trust mixing and delays for delivery to the mail system. This would a bit like using mixmaster to deliver mail. > [...]. so i'll go out on a limb and predict now that anonymous > email is going to be nearly impossible for them to sell to more than > 1/2 of 1% of the world. Predicting privacy and anonymity system uptake is an interesting discussion. Do users care? It seems that many users probably think they are fairly anonymous and untouchable just using the internet with no privacy tools. Until they get snarled up in some chat room law suit for some dubm-ass defamation suit, or whatever. Perhaps this will change, perhaps not. Also general public perception of "anonymity" and "privacy" are quite different though one is necessary to obtain the other. We see LEs trying to do news management and color people's opinion of privacy. > plus would you want to receive anonymous e-mail? Who is "Phillip Zakas" is that a nym? Does it matter? What about hotmail accounts? Who is dave123(a)hotmail.com, superman(a)hotmail.com, etc. Most email accounts for normal purposes are nyms. So I'd suspect in most cases the recipient simply wouldn't care or even notice. > 4. ZK is a commercial entity, ergo cooperation with everyone. I'm > sure they have IPO plans. They claim IBM as a partner (actually IBM > is selling them stuff, but these days anyone who sells you equipment > is a 'partner'...I see this every day). If a grandma in illinois is > going to invest in their company when it goes public, is she going to > be happy that drug dealers, stalkers and pedophiles use this network? > I don't think so. I'm sure there are contingency plans for > 'revealing' activity when served with a subpeona and/or a search > warrant. ZKS is about cryptographically assured privacy with "zero knowledge", This means the systems are designed with distributed trust, which means the threat model is that users don't have to trust ZKS. So clearly if they don't trust ZKS it doesn't matter what info ZKS does or does not give to LE because ZKS does not know anything to give them. > 5. Is ZK a spammers tool? If truly secure and anonymous, > etc. etc. etc. why couldn't the spam king use it? If it is a spammers > tool will ZK be blackholed? There are mail sending limits. Currently around 250 mails per day per nym. Junk mailers want to send 100s of thousands per hour. Not much of a haven for that activity. > I don't believe a commercial entity, especially a US-based one with > IPO plans, can market themselves as a full anonymizing service for > e-mail. ZKS is development is done in Canada. ZKS has servers in a number of US and European and other locations. > I think anonymous e-mail is best achieved through a cooperative, > non-commercial program of unaffiliated individuals (with no > commercial worries, and lots of jurisdictions around the world), or > by simply purchasing pre-paid internet access, or if i were a > wealthy bad actor find a more expensive solution. There are a number of anonymous mail systems, and combinations of things that can be used to achieve anonymity even though they weren't designed for it competing (commercial and non-commercial). I'm sure the market will decide which is used, or if the market even cares about the whole issue. The deciding factors will be the usual things: tradeoffs of convenience, usability, reliability, compatibility, cost etc. - mixmaster (anonymous send only, no receive) - freedom mail (pseudonymous send and receive) - alpha nym server systems (pseudonymous send and receive -- based on cypherpunk remailer reply blocks) - a bunch of penet.fi like systems (trust me send and receive pseudonymity) I think proxymate works like this, plus it has target revokable mail, which is handy. - a bunch of "trust me" pop/smtp proxies -- seem to be just ISP like setups with the addition that they say "trust us not to record your IP address" - privada (trust me pseudonymous send and receive with a twist -- it has a publicly declared spook backdoor -- carnivore enabled -- see their press release http://www.privada.com/news/releases/20000717.html) - open access web proxies and hot mail accounts - anonymizer.com and hot mail accounts - anonymizer.com shell accounts which have mail I presume - anonymizer.com shell accounts accessed via freedom network (freedom supports SSH) -- anonymous SSH account -- how cool is that.. All interesting stuff. Adam Personal opinions only, of course.

1 0

ports and networks blocked by national government firewalls in the Middle East
by zooko＠mad-scientist.com 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

At the Jan. BACPM I mentioned this data, and a couple of people in the audience requested a copy. (Sorry I don't remember who.) http://www.angelfire.com/wy/5waynes/blockingByCountry.html --Z P.S. Hey Bill, did you try running an MN server yet?

1 0

Do You Qualify?
by From192060＠yourdomain.com 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Hi, I am looking for 10 leaders to handle free leads for a 15 year old, solid network marketing company with a tremendous compensation plan. These leads are very hot, double qualified leads, most of which are ready to sign up, so there will be very little selling of the opportunity involved. Many of these leads you will simply be signing up underneath you. We cannot handle all of the leads! We are generating massive spillover so if you are an experienced network marketing leader or are motivated and not afraid to talk to people about getting paid to save money and helping others save money, reply whith the word "ready" as the subject. Do not reply unless you are seriously interested in making a change in your life and earning at least $5000 a month with the help of our professional marketing team. If you are ready for change, reply with the word "ready" as the subject. Sincerely, Daniel Lee 3066 Spring Street Hendersonville, NC 28739 P.S. Only serious individuals please, as we are focusing our efforts in signing up the leads we already have. If you would prefer not to be contacted again about increasing your wealth, reply with the word "remove" as the subject.

1 0

מתמטיקה
by aviram eldar 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

1 0

Re: ha ha
by No Name 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

> > How stupid is this ha ha sender really? > > Does he not understand that everyone by now know he sends a virus file > > out? > > Probably alot less stupid than you. > > Let me explain it to you again, using small words so you can understand. < vbg > that'll be the day huh.. > > It is from different people whos systems are infected by a virus. > > The virus forges the From: e-mail address. > > These people are using an e-mail client that is vulnerable executing > attached executables (like Outlook 2000 with preview mode) or have > clicked on the attachment and have infected themselves with the virus. > > The infected people have a cypherpunks address(es) in their address > book. > > The virus sends to everyone on the address book. > > Thetoad.com address is depreciated. > > Understand now? > > I didn't think so... you made my day, that's for sure.. (if you ever knew..) just because someone doesn't point out these (well known things) you did doesn't mean they are not aware of them. fuck'n elite alan.. :o don't be so quick on judgements, that only makes you look like an idiot

1 0

published secret - similiar to AP prot
by Tom 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

I'd like to bounce an idea off the list and get some feedback, especially on what I missed. say alice has some information, published e.g. on her website. she is afraid that said information may be a thought crime, aka decss or an sdmi hack. bob makes a copy of the information and wants to inform alice that he did so in case a court or some jackboots tell her to take it down, so she can link to him or do twist her dns records, whatever. so far, simple. the new twist is that I want bob to know when alice (or someone else) makes use of the information. at the lowest level, bob may want to simply know when his mirror is being used. or the information may be highly illegal and bob must know that he is now in the line of fire. or maybe he doesn't even actually provide the information until he gets the message that it is now required (think moving target). my solution is as follows: when bob copies the info, he sends a message to alice. the "outer shell" is encrypted to alice private key, to ensure that only alice can make use of it. it contains a URL, a public key and a second, encrypted part. the URL is under bob's control and provides the key to the second part. it is not linked from anywhere and reasonably complicated to make any "accidental" hit to it extremely unlikely. come day X where bob's mirror is needed. alice decrypts her mail and visits bob's URL to get the 2nd key. bob now knows (or at least can know, if he cares) that alice is in posession of the whole message (e.g. containing the URL of his mirror site) and can react accordingly. the 2nd key is also encrypted to alice, so eve can not learn about the whole message until and if alice decides to publish it (e.g. link to the new mirror site). the 2nd key is also signed with the key contained in the 1st message in order to assure alice that the information she now retrieves (possibly months or years later) is from the same source as the original message. problems I know about: legally, this surely puts bob and alice "in cooperation", so a legal injunction against alice will bind bob as well. any ideas on how to solve that would be great. it sure sounds a little heavy for a simple goal. I'm fairly sure there is a more general solution to the problem. it's just so common. "bob sends alice a message. bob needs to know when alice reads it." -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net --

3 3

archive request
by Reese 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

A coupla' years ago, there was an ongoing thread regarding the "know your neighbor" crap. Someone, Anonymous if memory serves, posted a rather eloquent address on what he could reasonably be expected to reveal regarding crimes he was a witness to, but how his memory would fail more and more, the further and further questions deviated from what was relevant to any crime that had been witnessed. A scenario described, a next-door neighbor "Joe" and the lady who lived there with him. Was the lady his wife? Dunno, haven't seen a marriage certificate. Was "Joe" really "Joe"'s name? Dunno, haven't seen birth certificates or other forms of ID. What does "Joe" do for a living? Dunno, I go to my own job in the morning, don't follow Joe to his. That sort of thing. If anyone remembers this, has it archived or knows just what the url is at inet-one, I'd be much obliged, I've been searching for an hour and can't find shit. I thought I had it saved on my hd, too. Reese

1 1

re: Brit Intel Telling Tales
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

The document "Enquiry: The Killing Years in Ireland" has been published on Mojo Nation. It can be accessed by searching for the title in the "Web Site" content type or by either of the following links: http://localhost:4004/id/SAEMq4Al5Z-SO4wq51sshfEt4mg/ or http://mojonation.net/dinode/eNpl0ktvgkAABOC_QvaOAgqWBDE2aFsrWAq6yoUsy4IosJ… EnergQr4p-k5DQxFoBJq2QKJmD4H_lGtjez5YY96Zv1qKkDa4m5jFi7Z9whqY-qxvWkM9U-gnxnype5HBAh9E0LUrNDYh950LeDc76UvDc239eu58kCrFDMmUWHxn3kIM2tyvgztVqvRts83ZujkELh7N7RqI8WGbHjcYILZw3F99A5aNWLFjWGKbx0SOgjdIDRAouTnXHgl629ai6WpvkriMs74vsIt3t- fpovCljUn29GgGz7ET5LZchyHeKuyKYlir9loT4ow9_xNlgYhPjEV8fK8E9WhrerqF8ph74Y/ ks

1 0