- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CDR: [PGP:] Are you all this Blind? [Resent.]
by Wilfred L. Guerin 13 Sep '00

13 Sep '00

-=|=- CP: This message was distributed from Algebra.com as NULL content back on Sunday, 27 August, 2000. It, and postant null and erred content from various nodes triggered questions over the last week, numerous admins have checked on the issue of problems, apparently. [There have been no changes to this text since the original post, simply re-sent now. -WLG] -=|=- [PGP]: Are you all this blind? Regarding the "New Realization" of the PGP "fixes"... This short denouncement of performance is directed to all those of semi-competence and awareness and understanding of the reality. For the rest of "us" sheep, Let "us" learn from 'their' mistakes. I do not know who in their right mind --who actually comprehends the basis of _this_ intellectual environment and the surrounding realities in which we operate-- could possibly not comprehend the legitimacy and security issues surrounding the PGP projects after the fixes were introduced. As we *ALL* _SHOULD_ know, PGP releases prior the original release of 2.6.2 and (there may be a legitimate interim version, however its life span was limited) prior the introduction of external influences and the release of the 5.*+ series and the replaced 2.6.2 distributions, are the only semi-secure and legitimate releases of the PGP algos/code. You should ALSO know that all versions 5.*+ are severely defective, and altered versions of 2.* replaced legitimate public distributions of 2.* during the same time frame. I will refuse to accept the apparent "realization" that is currently circulating the public media. Are those of you on this list, and involved in any and all related fields, claiming to be so blind sighted that *YOU* did not notice the variance in code, that *YOU* did not "bother" to examine or check the totally faulted releases of anything from these sources after the fixes? Are *YOU* going to tell us that you "didn't notice" the variance in code structures in the server-distributed versions of 2.6.2 releases immediately after the fixing? Nor any of the more obvious transitions? Granted, although for obvious reasons, no one immediately put up alarms due to their full comprehension of the situations the PGP project was faced with during this time period... BUT... Why is it only NOW, _years_later_, that it is such a revelation? Why is it only now that there is a release of a statement of common-knowledge reality? Or is the fact that no one with any comprehension or ability to recognise the issues bothered to elucidate the reality to the rest of the world? This is the epitome of failure, on one of many fronts. I am thoroughly disappointed that the current public understanding of the PGP code and algos has thought it to be stable and legitimate encryption, especially when there are thousands+ of individuals capable of simple review that *SHOULD* have looked at the code upon release and prior their use. How many did? Most. And? Now, how many PGP sigs in this list (and others) are explicitly tag lined with a statement resembling "2.6.2 _ORIGINAL_ PGP" or similar? I will continue to refuse to believe that we have gone (for how many years?) failing to exhibit the faulted PGP versions circulating publicly and no one publicly questioning it? Granted, the sheep are supposed to be dumb for a reason, but, in this regard, has anyone ever bothered to teach them a more complex "baah!" ? Or, are we to assume that our friendly spooks have failed so miserably that only now have they created a computational system capable of analysing the real PGP systems? This would be a statement of pathetic failure on their behalf... I would expect the damned spooks to at least know how to run simple (untraditional) numerics on data sets and not have any problem with any common-use encryption to date... How can they fail so miserably? [This assumes the common "let the sheep 'baah' after we have countered it" mentality...] Generally, I feel this is a pathetic failure on the part of all competent individuals who most certainly analysed and reviewed the code and noticed the blatant flaws many years ago (yes, they are blatantly obvious), yet *CHOOSE* to *NEVER* elucidate this reality to the common environment? - Let us take this awareness and insight ("Learn from your Mistakes and Failures") so that we do not consistently allow this type of global stupidity to propagate for _SO_LONG_ without cross-checks... Please. I bid you good wishes on your quest for intellectual freedom, yet also distribute cynical remarks to all of "us" who FAILED to audience the simple reality and stir the crowds years ago in this excessively basic issue... What about all the others? -Wilfred L. Guerin Wilfred(a)Cryogen.com [You really expect a PGP sig here?] -=|=- ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:25:20 -0400 > >Cryptome offers the ADK bug-fix PGP Freeware 6.5.8:

1 0

CDR: gun permits
by Anonymous 13 Sep '00

13 Sep '00

I'm somewhat amused by the irony of the Canadian government advertisements to register early for gun ownership permits interspersed between the dramatization of the Neurenberg trials. I wonder what proportion of the sheeple even noticed the irony. (The nazi's instituted gun ownership laws soon after they came to power). GunMonger

2 1

CDR: Re: gun permits
by An Metet 13 Sep '00

13 Sep '00

On 13 Sep 2000, Anonymous wrote: > I'm somewhat amused by the irony of the Canadian government > advertisements to register early for gun ownership permits > interspersed between the dramatization of the Neurenberg trials. What advertisements??

1 0

CDR: Win $2,000.00
by B-Square Publishing Co. 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Win $2,000.00 in spending money and a four day three night trip to Las Vegas for two. Read all four W.G. Goldstein's novels and solve the mystery of Who is the real W.G.Goldstein. Books are available at major boodstores or online at: BN.com Amazon.com booksamillion.com borders.com The Goldstein Novel's are: Class Reunion - ISBN 0-9672756-4-4 The Roommate - ISBN 0-9672756-5-2 Classmate - ISBN 0-9672756-6-0 Searching For a Stare - ISBN 0-9672756-7-9 This message is sent in compliance with the new email bill: Section 301, para (a) (2) (C) of S. 1618. sender Info: P.O. Box 44941, Wash. DC 20026. If you wish to be removed from future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and you will be automatically blocked from future mailings.

1 0

CDR: Registration confirmation - Yahoo! Chat
by Yahoo! Member Services 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Welcome to Yahoo! DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. SEE BELOW FOR INSTRUCTIONS IF YOU DIDN'T REQUEST THIS ACCOUNT. This message confirms your new account with Yahoo!. Your Yahoo! ID is: flaming_perimeter Your email address: cypherpunks(a)toad.com We will use this address to contact you if you ever forget your Yahoo! ID or password. To learn how to change this address, read below. ********************************************************** WHAT CAN I DO WITH THIS ACCOUNT? You can use your Yahoo! ID and password for ALL of Yahoo's free, personalized services. My Yahoo - http://my.yahoo.com Yahoo Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com Yahoo Chat - http://chat.yahoo.com Yahoo Classifieds - http://classifieds.yahoo.com Yahoo Clubs - http://clubs.yahoo.com Yahoo Finance - http://quote.yahoo.com Yahoo Games - http://play.yahoo.com Yahoo GeoCities - http://geocities.yahoo.com Yahoo Mail - http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo Message Boards - http://messages.yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.com Yahoo Travel - http://travel.yahoo.com To see a full list go to http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/family/more.html You can return to Yahoo! Chat by going to http://chat.yahoo.com/ ********************************************************** IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE EMAIL ADDRESS ON YOUR ACCOUNT Just go to any of Yahoo!'s Personalized Properties ( like http://my.yahoo.com ) and look for the Account Information link at the top of the page (sometimes it's under the options). The Account Information page will let you update your email address, password, home and work address and other personal information and preferences. ********************************************************** THANK YOU FOR SIGNING UP WITH YAHOO! If you have additional questions regarding other Yahoo! Services, we suggest Yahoo! Help Central at: http://help.yahoo.com/ ********************************************************** IF YOU DID NOT REQUEST THIS ACCOUNT, or no longer wish to use it, we encourage you to REMOVE it by visiting the following address: http://edit.yahoo.com/config/remove_user?k=IXtKYXtmen55YGh3YnV%2bemJzYnU4ji… If you are prompted for the deletion key when using the URL above, please use the following deletion key: IXtKYXtmen55YGh3YnV+emJzYnU4jiF5SmMyNX94NDV6YmEwfXohdUpOMU9PNjIyNE4hc0pkf2Zz Or, if you do not have internet access, please reply to this email (and make sure to copy this entire email in your reply) with REMOVE as the subject line. [216.116.34.143]

1 0

CDR: Re: USA.net proxy: heh-heh-heh
by George＠Orwellian.Org 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

I wrote: >Previously I whined that USA.net was changing the URLs A. Melon" <juicy(a)melontraffickers.com> wrote: # Who cares ? Stop whining and use encryption. # # Dont waste the bandwidth complaining about each and every sheeple # xploiting event. Being outraged doesnt achieve shit. Hey numbnuts: o the email isn't local to my system o I don't complain about every little thing, you do o being outraged is a good first step towards achieving shit o you wasted bandwidth You're just another luser. You're on the right list. IBM nutter Choate is here.

1 0

CDR: COPPA
by jfanonymous＠yahoo.com 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Anyone else out there think that COPPA sucks? I've got the perfect name for it: Children Loose their Right to Free Speech Online = CLRFSO I'm going to add that to my signature... ...Done. Check it out! Ryan M. McConahy ---------------------------------------- jfanonymous(a)nightmail.com ICQ# 81118154 PGP Key: E338FF41/1024/RSA PGP Key/64 Bits: 4297D981E338FF41 ---------------------------------------- Privacy NOW! http://www.pgpi.org Hw who argues with ididots lowers himself to their level. No Jesus No Peace, Know Jesus Know Peace. "He who gives up liberty for security gets neither." - Ben Franklin "COPPA, AKA Children Loose their Right to Free Speech Online" - ME __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

1 0

CDR: Re: DNA
by David Marshall 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Michael Motyka <mmotyka(a)lsil.com> writes: > Does UV light destroy DNA? I know it is a reasonable way to sterilize > water ( with some caveats ) which it does by denaturing proteins. UV light tends to totally hose up the DNA. The main problem, at least in bacteria, is caused by the creation of a bunch of cyclobutane-pyrimidine dimers and pyrimidine dimers. An enzyme called photolyase cuts pyramidine dimers to get the original _two_ pyramidines back. (Photolyase uses visible light for activation, if anyone cares.) This is a repair mechanism, but doesn't work 100% of the time and has the occasional error. The short answer is that UV light screws the DNA up. Sometimes the cell can fix it, and sometimes it can't. But it probably wouldn't throw off gel electrophoresis too much. (In forensics, the DNA is subjected to a bunch of restriction enzymes which cut it at specific sequences. Different DNA gets cut at different places, meaning that the fragments have different lengths, meaning that they're of substantially different weight. These are put on a gel and pulled through it by an electrical field. If a fragment is heavier, it doesn't go as far.) DNA isn't a protein, though, and, strangely enough, isn't anywhere near as dependent on secondary, tertiary, and quartenary structure as proteins tend to be. Proteins have to be in a specific confirmation to get the desired functionality. DNA just kind of needs to be there. (It's more complicated than this, of course, because of things that happen in cell division, but I could sit here and write a book-sized posting which nobody, including me, wants.) IIRC, DNA also tends to renature, either by itself or with the help of other mechanisms. (cf. histones, etc.) > If DNA is also destroyed would not a baseball eventually become > invalidated just by sitting on a shelf? Yes, but not so much by UV light as by the occasional bacterium which secretes something to break it, and by probably hundreds of other processes. > As someone wears and handles clothing, washes it along with clothing > worn by others wouldn't the DNA become damaged or contaminated? One would think. > Sounds trendy but I'd bet it has problems. Oh yeah.

1 0

CDR: Blue Ribbon Campaign
by jfanonymous＠yahoo.com 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Where do I link to for the Blue Ribbon thingy? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

1 0

CDR: Is Janer Reno a lesbian?
by ichudov＠Algebra.Com 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

see subject - Igor.

1 0