- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

alternate US site for pgp22
by Pat Farrell 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

Hi, Can someone point me to another US FTP site with PGP22. I've downloaded it a couple of times from soda.berkeley.edu, and can't get it unzipped. I've tried all known combinarions of binary, non-binary, etc. The file, once it reaches my PC is 209409 but pkunzip 204g says it is broken. If I use pkzipfix, I can get some of the files, docs, keyserver, etc. but it always fails with a CRC error on or after exploding LANGUAGE.TXT One piece of tech info: I have to FTP to a SUN server, and then use Kermit to bring the file to my PC. This has worked many times for many other files, but there could be some user error in here. Thanks Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)cs.gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA PGP Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

2 1

volunteers and standards
by Al Whaley 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

I apologize for sending this broadly for it will not apply to most of you who work with and understand the meaning of standards... If a person sticks his/her neck out to let you volunteer for a desirable event, and you don't hold up your end of the bargain, you can expect your own treatment back in the future. Anyone wanting to receive a scholarship or volunteer for the Computers, Freedom and Privacy '94 conference should please contact George Trubow at g.trubow(a)compmail.com He'll also have a WELL account soon. I suggest that he's not facile with email yet, so you're welcome to copy me with your notes and I'll also make sure he gets them for now. Despite controversy about its cost, it will continue to cost about the same amount next year as this year, with the probable exception of adding student rates (yes, you'll have to be full time at some school/university/college). Thanks. judi -- Al Whaley al(a)sunnyside.com +1-415 322-5411(Tel), -6481 (Fax) Sunnyside Computing, Inc., PO Box 299, Palo Alto, CA 94302

1 0

Community standards for email anonymity
by Marc.Ringuette＠GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

Good point, Ted, what we're after is some "community standards" for cyberspace, and what I'm suggesting is the fairly libertarian standard that goes like this: Prefer technological solutions and self-protection solutions over rule-making, where they are feasible. This is based on the notion that the more rules there are, the more people will call for the "net police" to enforce them. If we can encourage community standards which emphasize a prudent level of self-protection, then we'll be able to make do with fewer rules and a less intrusive level of policing. Some more specific versions of this: Self-protection Protection via rules --------------- -------------------- "Don't read the newsgroup Forbid all newsgroups which a if it offends you" reasonable person would find offensive. Allow anonymous posting Use software to Forbid all in all newsgroups; use allow anonymity in anonymous posting. information filters. some groups only. Handle volume bombs by Track down volume bombs using digital postage and and disconnect the offender. information filters. Trace harrassing notes to Tell people to just ignore or filter the source. out harrassing material. I guess it's a matter of preference. I wonder if it's asking too much to achieve general agreement among us cypherpunks? -- Marc Ringuette (mnr(a)cs.cmu.edu)

2 1

crypto poem
by gnu＠cygnus.com 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

To: rms(a)ai.mit.edu Subject: crypto poem From: pgut1(a)cs.aukuni.ac.nz Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 15:17:29 -0800 Subject: And now for something completely different... PGP or not PGP (from Hamlet Act III Scene I) -------------- PGP or not PGP - that is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous patents, Or to take arms against a sea of lawyers, And by encrypting end them? To crypt, to sign No more; and by a program to say we end The patents and the export restrictions That RSA is heir to - 'tis a consummation. Devoutly to be wish'd. To crypt, to sign. To crypt - perchance to pem-code: aye, there's the rub! For in that test of wills what lawyers may come When we have shuffled off this PGP business, Must give us pause. There's the respect that makes calamity of such legal restrictions. For who would bear the whips and scorns of Leavenworth Th'patent systems wrong, the export laws worse, The pangs of despis'd lawyers, the NSA's delay, The insolence of Sternlight, and the spurns That patient usage of PGP takes When he himself might his quietus make with PEM? Who would this program bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary system, But that the dread of something after PEM The undiscover'd country, from whose bourne No cryptographer returns -- puzzles the will, And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry And lose the name of action. - Apologies to Bill Shakespeare

1 0

We have a verdict. (fwd)
by wixer!pacoid＠cactus.org 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

For Lists That Care About Computer Privacy: In case you didn't catch this elsewheres.. I've been covering the SJG vs. SS trial for certain magazines. Hopefully you'll be able to read soon an in-depth, first hand account of the fiasco our paid officials attempted to conduct during the SS trial. The bueno news is that individuals and small companies can actually sue the US Fed govt for privacy violations, and win. Judge Sparks didn't give a whole lot of airplay to the *damages* sustained, but this is an important step forward. The flood gates are opened.. pxn. ---- Forwarded message: > From cs.utexas.edu!tic.com!sjackson(a)cactus.org Sun Mar 14 16:25:06 1993 > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 15:05:19 -0600 > From: tic.com!sjackson(a)cactus.org (Steve Jackson) > Message-Id: <9303142105.AA17568(a)aahsa.tic.com> > To: ... > Subject: We have a verdict. > > We won. > > Pete Kennedy, our attorney at George, Donaldson & Ford, called me > with the news about 3:30 today. Apparently the decision came in late > Friday while Pete was at the CFP. > > The judge ruled for us on both the PPA and ECPA, though he says that > taking the computer out the door was not an "interception." (I have not > read the decision yet, so no quotes here.) > > He awarded damages of $1,000 per plaintiff under the ECPA. > > Under the PPA, he awarded SJ Games $42,259 for lost profits in 1990, and > out of pocket costs of $8,781. > > Our attorneys are also entitled to submit a request for their costs. > > No word on appeal yet. > > Look for a more complete and coherent account after we all read > the decision. > > Please copy this announcement to all electronic and other media. > > Thanks for your support through all this!

1 0

soda.berkeley.edu
by Peter shipley 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

1 0

PGP: PGP & WAFFLE??
by edgar＠spectrx.Saigon.COM 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

The SYSOP of this system posted the following enquiry to me: I've heard that there is a program to allow pgp stuff online with waffle; if you know of such a thing, please point me towards it. I'd like to be able to secure this site for people who want it. I haven't heard of any such program, but if you have, please reply by E-mail to edgar(a)spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) -- edgar(a)spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Silicon Valley, Ca

1 0

Re: Threat of restoring the status quo
by Al Billings 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

Forwarded from news.admin.policy where this individual is threatning to set up a cancel message generating script to kill all posts from Julf's Anon Service. In article <C3tzLF.5ou(a)redpoll.neoucom.edu> Richard Depew <red(a)redpoll.neoucom.edu writes: >Hi David, > > I hope you don't mind my changing the title of this thread... I >didn't care for the one you were using: >Re: Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue > > Tisk, tisk... you make it sound as if masses of postings are >threatened. Have you *looked* for anonymous postings in the "sci" >hierarchy? There are really very few. Only two, for Friday: ><1993Mar12.010241.2849(a)fuug.fi> ><1993Mar12.061727.9451(a)fuug.fi> > > The best time to put out a fire is while it is still small. :-) > >In article <1nq1f2INNfed(a)flash.pax.tpa.com.au> dclunie(a)pax.tpa.com.au writes: >[...] > >>I presume that cancel messages can be cancelled ... though I haven't >>experimented with this yet, but it looks like I might have to. In fact I >>think I will probably just turn off response to cancel messages totally if >>you go ahead with this scheme, and I encourage other news administrators >>to do the same ... they were a bad kludge in the first place and still are. >>It seems to me they are rarely used for other than controversial purposes >>like you are proposing (I don't like other people's postings so I won't let >>anyone else read them). > > That (disabling cancel messages) would be unfortunate. They have >many legitimate uses. Cancelling inappropriate postings is one of >these legitimate uses. Controversial, sure, but my reason for >activating the Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation script, if >Julf remains unwilling to accept any compromise, is simply to >demonstrate that the status quo with regards to anonymous postings from >a particular site *can* be effectively enforced. As I have said many >times before, I do *not* object to anonymous postings in newsgroups >that invite them. However, I think it *is* important to demonstrate >that USENET *does* have a defense against a self-styled cyberpunk >who refuses to cooperate with the rest of the net. Whether USENET can >find the *will* to oppose him remains an open question. I simply >intend a brief demonstration of one defense mechanism. > >>I really think you are getting carried away with a non-issue here, and >>inflamming the situation is going to make you extremely unpopular, and >>undoubtedly start a "cancelling war" at the very least. > > The issue of an irresponsible system administrator trying to >impose his anonymous server on readers of thousands of newsgroups is >not a trivial one. My proposal to restore the status quo in a >hierarchy that has protested anonymous postings may not make me >popular with anonymous posters, but I haven't seen a single message >claiming that any sci newsgroup has invited anonymous postings. If >there is to be a "cancelling war", it will be very brief. If I >activate the ARMM script, it will only be for the weekend. > >>No-one has appointed you as the moderator of all the non-alt groups >>retrospectively or otherwise, and no-one is likely to appoint anyone else >>in such a position either. > > You are right, no one has appointed me to the post of >minimal-moderator. It is a volunteer position with, I assure you, >miserable fringe benefits. I will gladly relinquish the position when >the opportunity arises. :-) > >[...] >>> There shouldn't be much controversy over this, but there will be >>> anyhow. :-) >> >>There should be and there will be ... you are way out of line here Richard, >>regardless of how many smileys you tack on the end of your message. > > No. It is Julf who is way out of line here... and has been for >four months, now. He has finally met someone who has gotten fed up >with his silly game, and is willing to call his bluff. > >>I hope you are prepared to take responsibility for what is going to happen >>to your institution's news and mail servers if you go ahead with this plan. > > I hope you didn't mean that the way it reads... as a threat. I >thought you were more responsible than that. Perhaps I am wrong. You >*have* been one of Julf's strongest supporters in this newsgroup, >urging him to ignore the advice of the experienced news administrators >in this group. To date, this has been an argument between, if not >friends, then at least respected opponents. Most of us have the best >interests of the net in mind, agree that anonymous postings have their >place, and agree that cooperative anarchy is a wonderful experiment. >You may not like my "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script, >but you must at least admit that it is simply an automated version of >moderation - a well-accepted practice in newsgroups that want to keep >an acceptable signal/noise ratio. You may protest that I have >bypassed the usual mechanisms for establishing moderation, and you >would be right. I have brused some USENET traditions while trying to >protect others. However, threats against the integrity of internet >sites are a far more serious matter. I sent a long note to the >system administrators of my feed site, explaining my proposal and >pointing out some of the threats that might affect them. We then >had a long talk. They were, as you might expect, less than thrilled >at my rash proposal, which received a decidedly mixed reception. They >were even less thrilled at the prospect of being the recipient of >denial-of service attacks. They will take any such attacks seriously, >indeed. > >[...] >>I am sure you don't want to become Usenet's next "J Palmer" in terms of >>reputation. (This is reference is becoming a bit like the "who is John Galt ?") > > Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor. :-) > >Regards, >Dick >-- >Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH red(a)redpoll.neoucom.edu >"Leap years are a pain; the earth should be stabilised." - Geoff Collyer > and Mark Moraes in getabsdate.3

1 0

Re: warning to "sci" anonymous posters
by Al Billings 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

This is another message on the Cancel Message Generator issue in news.admin.policy. In article <C3tzrs.5t5(a)redpoll.neoucom.edu> Richard Depew <red(a)redpoll.neoucom.edu writes: > As I promised yesterday, I emailed each recent anonomous poster >in the "sci" hierarchy a note explaining what may happen this >weekend. > >Dick >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Dear anonymous poster, > > You may not be aware of the discussion in news.admin.policy >concerning the propriety of posting anonymously to newsgroups which >have not invited such postings. As someone who has posted anonymously >to the "sci" hierarchy recently, you should read it. > > I am writing to inform you that if Julf, admin(a)anon.penet.fi, >does not soon block anonymous postings to the "sci" hierarchy, then >I will activate an "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script >that will cancel postings to this hierarchy from his server. This is >intended to restore the pre-Julf status quo, at least temporarily, >over the weekend. > > Rest assured that there is nothing personal in this. I have not >read your postings, and I have no reason to believe that they were out >of line in any way other than being anonymous. I have nothing against >anonymous postings to groups that have decided to accept such >postings, nor do I object to any newsgroup deciding to do this. I >*do* object to Julf's permitting his server to post to newsgroups >without any effort to determine whether the readers of those newsgroups >want to permit anonymous postings. > > You have several possible courses of action if you wish to post >to the "sci" hierarchy while the "Automated Retroactive Minimal >Moderation" is in effect: > >*1 convince Julf to accept the "Petersen Proposal" for default > settings for different hierarchies. I promise to turn off the > ARMM script as soon as I hear that he will do this (or anything > reasonably responsive). > >*2 convince the readers of the newsgroup to which you want to post > that anonymous postings should be accepted in that newsgroup. > I can think of several valid reasons that may prompt such a desire, > but the decision should be made by the readers of the newsgroup, not > imposed by a single person such as Julf, or me. I promise to > abide by whatever decision the newsgroup makes. This does not > need to be a formal vote. A straw vote with a clear majority will > suffice. > >*3 have a friend post for you, use a different anonymous server, > or, if all else fails, post under your own name. People used to > do this, you know. :-) > > If none of these suit you, then simply be patient, and wait until >Monday. I intend to run ARMM, if I run it at all, for less than 48 >hours... this time. This is merely intended to be a demonstration >that an effective enforcement mechanism for blocking postings from a >particular site can work. > > I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you. >My argument is with Julf and is about the default setting for entire >hierarchies; it is not with you or your particular postings. > >Sincerely, >Dick Depew >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >-- >Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH red(a)redpoll.neoucom.edu >"Leap years are a pain; the earth should be stabilised." - Geoff Collyer > and Mark Moraes in getabsdate.3

1 0

[detecting interesting lines to look at]
by Doug Humphrey 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

> And don't tell me they can > build computers that can distinguish between a PGP file transmission > and some > hormone crazed 15 year old dork downloading the latest GIF of Cindy Crawford > or a ZIPed ware. I've looked at hexdumps of GIFs and ZIPs and for all > practical purposes they look about as random as PGP data. If the NSA > can build a parellel computer that scans all the trunks in the U.S. > simultaneously AND can tell the difference between PGP streams and ZIP/GIF > file data streams, then I just might as well go and shoot myself right > now. > >Er.... you might want to get your gun out..... the middle of hexdumps of >GIF's and ZIP's and PGP files may look the same, but the file headers >are quite distinguishing. If you want to hide encrypted data, each >person needs to find their own way of doing it ---- if everyone hides it >in the low bits of a GIF file, it would be very simple for the NSA to >scan GIF files to see if the low bits looked like the header of a PGP >file..... To some extent, this discussion is ignoring the importance of "context". Yes, if you have to do detailed searches of the data traveling down a million lines, you are likely to fail. That is why you don't do it. What you DO is look for things that look out of the ordinary, things that alone would look fine, but within a given context would look wrong, and then search those exception cases in more detail. Example, someone comes up with a way that voice looks just like fax from the data spectrum standpoint. Great, no way that anyone can scan the line and figure out, in the few seconds that they are scanning, that what they are seeing is really voice. So, you attack it by looking at connection records, and looking for what looks like fax machines from the data standpoint, but seems to have a usage record (times of day, duration of calls, time between retrys, etc) of telephones. Remember, even though the technology has changed, the end users of it have not, and the end users are the ones that you are looking for, the ones who are setting up the usage records. So, they now have a catagory of "fax machines that behave like fax machines" and "fax machines that behave like phones". Wonder which ones they will use the Special Equipment on, eh? Same goes for PGP vs. GIFS. The guy moving 4k long GIFS is the guy moving the PGP stuff that looks like GIFS. It doesn't nail all of the possible uses, but this is all a game of the odds anyway, and in the long run the usage patterns, the more meta data, can give people good clues to work with.

1 0