- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CDR: load1 going goodbye
by billp＠nmol.com 02 Sep '00

02 Sep '00

http://share.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/load1.html Try do do something about Lee. COMPLAIN http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/

1 0

CDR: Austin: Physical Meet - Sept. 12, 7-9pm
by Jim Choate 02 Sep '00

02 Sep '00

Central Market HEB Cafe 38th and N. Lamar 7-9pm We usualy meet outside unless the weather is inclimate. Look for the red covered "Applied Cryptography" book. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

CDR: deniable encryption
by Tom Vogt 18 Aug '00

18 Aug '00

in a follow-up to the recent discussion (mostly between Riad Wahby and myself) I have decided to code an example implementation and have most of the details down. however, there are some crypto-related specifics I'm lacking. if anyone can help, I'd be happy. most importantly, is there an implementation of rivest's "all-or-nothing package thingy? this is definitely something I want, since it greatly strengthens the chaffing-like approach I'll be using. however, I don't feel confident enough to create it myself.

1 0

CDR: chaffing/winnowing software test
by Tom Vogt 18 Aug '00

18 Aug '00

I've done a simple chaffing and winnowing implementation, and would like to invite everyone interested to have a look and give comments. download: ftp://ftp.lemuria.org/pub/Code/Shaft-0.1.tar.gz requires: openssl (for hmac) the program consists of two parts: shaft will encode/decode, while shaftsort will sort the chunk within a file. shaftsort has two purposes: first, shaft relies on sorted input when decoding. second, the standard shaft output is sorted by input files, which makes the whole chaffing process more or less irrelevant. bugs: some trailing zeros in final output, and shaftsort still retains the "order by input file", which is a Bad Thing(tm). it should take all the chunks with identical sequence numbers and resort them randomly or by some arbitrary definition ("first 3 data bytes"). usage: see the test.sh or the source. basically, for encryption, shaft wants input files and keys/passwords on the commandline. for decryption it wants just one key. shaftsort is a filter (stdin to stdout).

1 0

Re: CDR: I'll Take Crypto For $50...
by Riad Wahby 18 Aug '00

18 Aug '00

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 reeza(a)flex.com wrote: >I've sent a couple emails to h_bray@,,, have received no bounces (yet). Likewise, I have received no bounces from bray@..., so apparently both are good. Riad Wahby rsw(a)mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5k4VmiHor6RkxxqYRAstiAJ9N4oyO4M7WKx98KY336ccmLYZOZgCggcVU lxa/jy5OKi5WhrTer9v85iE= =nGPp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: CDR: I'll Take Crypto For $50...
by Riad Wahby 18 Aug '00

18 Aug '00

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 reeza(a)flex.com wrote: >I've sent a couple emails to h_bray@,,, have received no bounces (yet). Likewise, I have received no bounces from bray@..., so apparently both are good. Riad Wahby rsw(a)mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5k4VmiHor6RkxxqYRAstiAJ9N4oyO4M7WKx98KY336ccmLYZOZgCggcVU lxa/jy5OKi5WhrTer9v85iE= =nGPp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Netscape versions
by Jim Drewniak 18 Aug '00

18 Aug '00

Do you know where I could get a list of released versions of the Netscape browser and the versions of the components within ? Regards, Jim Drewniak

1 0

CDR: Constitution, gun rights, et al
by Sean Roach 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

I got this in response to something I said here. I decided to pass it along to you. >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:03:19 -0400 >From: Steven Furlong >Subject: Constitution, gun rights, et al > >force with trained leaders. You said you don't know the word to >descibe it.> > >Sounds like a militia. In at least some implementations, the private >soldiers, and I use the term advisedly, trained once in a while to >familiarize them with group movements, but didn't have any other >peacetime responsibilities. Officers were also "regular folks" but >they got more extensive training in tactics, communications, >logistics, and the whole shebang. > >That worked when the basic tools of war were the soldier's personal >long guns and horse-drawn wagons, and the scope of the militia was >much smaller, with all members of a company, including the leaders, >being drawn from the same community. I don't know that it would be >effective with today's complexity of weapons systems and logistics >systems. The scale of military operations is another problem. I have >some ideas on simplifying the technical systems. Bringing the scale >of military operations back to a militia level is a political and >social question, and I don't think it can be addressed in the US >without some major societal changes. > >I'm sending this via email rather than by posting to the c-punks >list because I'm not a subscriber to the list. It seems that I >_could_ post, but think it would be rude. Feel free to quote this >message if you want to post a response. ----- End of forwarded message from Sean Roach ----- I see the point he's making, I think it makes some assumptions that aren't realy valid though. At the federal level you have: army, navy, militia. All are managed by Congress unless they hand authority to the President. In all cases the funding and regulation comes from Congress. The states do get to appoint the officers of the Militia however. I assume this is under the presumption that such officers are more likely to refuse to follow federal orders if those orders are clearly outside the line. It's a sort of checks and balances. Now if we look at the section on states, that I claim gives the states the responsibility to keep an indipendant force in time of invasion, there is no stipulation as to who or how they are to be selected, organized, or funded; other than it ain't federal or state doing it. One could argue that this would then mean counties/parishes and then indipendant municipalities before it gets to individual citizens, but that seems to beg the question in my mind; not to mention they are not involved in the government of the US. It can't be federal because there is no delegate that directs the Congress to allocate funds for this use. It can't be the states doing the funding since they are specificaly prohibited from doing this, without permission from Congress, until an actual invasion or a situation that 'will not admit delay'. This implies the sherrif and associated folks going from house to house asking for help from the citizens as they see fit. Bubba and all his rowdies (those that haven't been co-opted by the federal forces so far) along with Grandpa and the two Jones' sisters ( :) ) getting in their pick-ups and going hunting. It seems to me that it is the lower civil authorities deputizing the commen citizen as a last ditch defence effort. I think 'deputized citizen' is a more accurate term to describe the participants of this last ditch effort to retain freedom. As to the claim of militia or citizen soldiers not being effective, there are plenty of bush wars going on right now that would argue contrary to this. Using poetic license; I suspect that if you got a squad of Texans chasing a group of non-US soldiers out in the bush of Texas we'd have 'em for lunch. The same holds for just about every other state as well. I can just imagine the results of a bunch of Russians (for example) trying to chase Cajuns in the swamps of Louisiana. Or American Indians in S. Dakota. They couldn't beat the Mujahadin and they sure as hell won't beat us on our home turf. Compared to a Dog Soldier the Mujahadin are amateurs. "Give me liberty, or give me death." -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

CDR: Constitution, gun rights, et al
by Sean Roach 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

I got this in response to something I said here. I decided to pass it along to you. >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:03:19 -0400 >From: Steven Furlong >Subject: Constitution, gun rights, et al > >force with trained leaders. You said you don't know the word to >descibe it.> > >Sounds like a militia. In at least some implementations, the private >soldiers, and I use the term advisedly, trained once in a while to >familiarize them with group movements, but didn't have any other >peacetime responsibilities. Officers were also "regular folks" but >they got more extensive training in tactics, communications, >logistics, and the whole shebang. > >That worked when the basic tools of war were the soldier's personal >long guns and horse-drawn wagons, and the scope of the militia was >much smaller, with all members of a company, including the leaders, >being drawn from the same community. I don't know that it would be >effective with today's complexity of weapons systems and logistics >systems. The scale of military operations is another problem. I have >some ideas on simplifying the technical systems. Bringing the scale >of military operations back to a militia level is a political and >social question, and I don't think it can be addressed in the US >without some major societal changes. > >I'm sending this via email rather than by posting to the c-punks >list because I'm not a subscriber to the list. It seems that I >_could_ post, but think it would be rude. Feel free to quote this >message if you want to post a response. ----- End of forwarded message from Sean Roach ----- I see the point he's making, I think it makes some assumptions that aren't realy valid though. At the federal level you have: army, navy, militia. All are managed by Congress unless they hand authority to the President. In all cases the funding and regulation comes from Congress. The states do get to appoint the officers of the Militia however. I assume this is under the presumption that such officers are more likely to refuse to follow federal orders if those orders are clearly outside the line. It's a sort of checks and balances. Now if we look at the section on states, that I claim gives the states the responsibility to keep an indipendant force in time of invasion, there is no stipulation as to who or how they are to be selected, organized, or funded; other than it ain't federal or state doing it. One could argue that this would then mean counties/parishes and then indipendant municipalities before it gets to individual citizens, but that seems to beg the question in my mind; not to mention they are not involved in the government of the US. It can't be federal because there is no delegate that directs the Congress to allocate funds for this use. It can't be the states doing the funding since they are specificaly prohibited from doing this, without permission from Congress, until an actual invasion or a situation that 'will not admit delay'. This implies the sherrif and associated folks going from house to house asking for help from the citizens as they see fit. Bubba and all his rowdies (those that haven't been co-opted by the federal forces so far) along with Grandpa and the two Jones' sisters ( :) ) getting in their pick-ups and going hunting. It seems to me that it is the lower civil authorities deputizing the commen citizen as a last ditch defence effort. I think 'deputized citizen' is a more accurate term to describe the participants of this last ditch effort to retain freedom. As to the claim of militia or citizen soldiers not being effective, there are plenty of bush wars going on right now that would argue contrary to this. -- ____________________________________________________________________ When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.org www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

CDR: Constitution, gun rights, et al
by Sean Roach 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

I got this in response to something I said here. I decided to pass it along to you. >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:03:19 -0400 >From: Steven Furlong >Subject: Constitution, gun rights, et al > >force with trained leaders. You said you don't know the word to >descibe it.> > >Sounds like a militia. In at least some implementations, the private >soldiers, and I use the term advisedly, trained once in a while to >familiarize them with group movements, but didn't have any other >peacetime responsibilities. Officers were also "regular folks" but >they got more extensive training in tactics, communications, >logistics, and the whole shebang. > >That worked when the basic tools of war were the soldier's personal >long guns and horse-drawn wagons, and the scope of the militia was >much smaller, with all members of a company, including the leaders, >being drawn from the same community. I don't know that it would be >effective with today's complexity of weapons systems and logistics >systems. The scale of military operations is another problem. I have >some ideas on simplifying the technical systems. Bringing the scale >of military operations back to a militia level is a political and >social question, and I don't think it can be addressed in the US >without some major societal changes. > >I'm sending this via email rather than by posting to the c-punks >list because I'm not a subscriber to the list. It seems that I >_could_ post, but think it would be rude. Feel free to quote this >message if you want to post a response. ----- End of forwarded message from Sean Roach ----- I see the point he's making, I think it makes some assumptions that aren't realy valid though. At the federal level you have: army, navy, militia. All are managed by Congress unless they hand authority to the President. In all cases the funding and regulation comes from Congress. The states do get to appoint the officers of the Militia however. I assume this is under the presumption that such officers are more likely to refuse to follow federal orders if those orders are clearly outside the line. It's a sort of checks and balances. Now if we look at the section on states, that I claim gives the states the responsibility to keep an indipendant force in time of invasion, there is no stipulation as to who or how they are to be selected, organized, or funded; other than it ain't federal or state doing it. One could argue that this would then mean counties/parishes and then indipendant municipalities before it gets to individual citizens, but that seems to beg the question in my mind; not to mention they are not involved in the government of the US. It can't be federal because there is no delegate that directs the Congress to allocate funds for this use. It can't be the states doing the funding since they are specificaly prohibited from doing this, without permission from Congress, until an actual invasion or a situation that 'will not admit delay'. This implies the sherrif and associated folks going from house to house asking for help from the citizens as they see fit. Bubba and all his rowdies (those that haven't been co-opted by the federal forces so far) along with Grandpa and the two Jones' sisters ( :) ) getting in their pick-ups and going hunting. It seems to me that it is the lower civil authorities deputizing the commen citizen as a last ditch defence effort. I think 'deputized citizen' is a more accurate term to describe the participants of this last ditch effort to retain freedom. As to the claim of militia or citizen soldiers not being effective, there are plenty of bush wars going on right now that would argue contrary to this. Using poetic license; I suspect that if you got a squad of Texans chasing a group of non-US soldiers out in the bush of Texas we'd have 'em for lunch. The same holds for just about every other state as well. I can just imagine the results of a bunch of Russians (for example) trying to chase Cajuns in the swamps of Louisiana. Or American Indians in S. Dakota. They couldn't beat the Mujahadin and they sure as hell won't beat us on our home turf. Compared to a Dog Soldier the Mujahadin are amateurs. "Give me liberty, or give me death." -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0