- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

a project for those who like it
by treason＠gnu.ai.mit.edu 24 Feb '93

24 Feb '93

I have been working on an idea or a secure chat system for internet and have up with some ideas. The concept is to runa server(a single server) to process the chat for up to say 50 users(more may lag you to death) using public key to secure the system. The server would be on an internet machine and the client would be on the users home pc. We use the home pc concept to avoid transporting raw data(unencrypted) over internet and phone lines. The basic gist (in a pseudo pseudocode) is this: CLIENT SIDE User runs client client asks for password (from pgp key) client checks for servers pgp public key user then connects to the network and such(dumb teminal, with hotkey to activate encryption/decryption) client connects to sever sending userid and hostname client asks for alias client sends server userid hostname start main function when message sent client encrypts with servers public key client sends message to server when message received client decrypts message with users public key (using password supplied at initiation) client displays it to users screen loop to start main function SERVER SIDE Admin starts server with server pgp password as a parameter server waits for connection server gets connection receives host and id server checks id table looking for legal user user is valid connect else boot user check and see if user is logged more than once if true boot both users alarm admin (* This is to make sure noone is lending out their account *) server matches user with pgp key start main function if message sent encrypt message with users pgp public key and sends it out if message received decrypt message sent by user using server secret key and password reencrypt it for each user on the server send message to each user loop to start main function The server would have a copy of each users public key, and a look up table with this format to tell which key is paired with which user: userid@host pgpkeyname When I say a user is logged in more than once in the above comment, I mean logged in on the server, not on his account. The id or hostname of the user is never displayed and cannot be retrieved. There is no similarity to irc, no channels, just one stream going to all users. The data will be encrypted in blocks, and sent out in blocks. There will need to be made some slight changes in pgp to get this to work. flaws: When entering a pgp password, and containing it in memory, this may be retreivable by the root or the server machine. Information will be temporarily stored in kmem, although disorderly, raw. People are stupid. Tell me what you think. People are already wrking on this project, but many more may be needed to bring it to its completion. Since I am not the IP programmer from hell, at this point I am doing the pc client. iI expect bitches about people saying people will use the server for illegal purposes, but because people can use a bathtub for illegal purposes if they wanted to, I will ignore them. Treason@gnu

2 1

When's enough enough?
by Hal 24 Feb '93

24 Feb '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Paul Ferguson asks: > Now, I'd like to ask the cypherpunk readership to clarify the need (or > perhaps a better term may be "desire") for anonymous remailers? Maybe > I'm not getting the "big picture", but it would appear to me that > insurance of private communications is the area of intended interest > here. I know that someone may declare my query as naive, but if you > feel strongly enough about a topic, why wouldn't you want the > recipient to know who you are, where you are and who they can respond > to? There are several different advantages provided by anonymous remailers. One of the simplest and least controversial would be to defeat traffic analysis on ordinary email. Two people who wish to communicate privately can use PGP or some other encryption system to hide the content of their messages. But the fact that they are communicating with each other is still visible to many people: sysops at their sites and possibly at intervening sites, as well as various net snoopers. It would be natural for them to desire an additional amount of privacy which would disguise who they were communicating with as well as what they were saying. Anonymous remailers make this possible. By forwarding mail between themselves through remailers, while still identifying themselves in the (encrypted) message contents, they have even more communications privacy than with simple encryption. (The Cypherpunk vision includes a world in which literally hundreds or thousands of such remailers operate. Mail could be bounced through dozens of these services, mixing in with tens of thousands of other messages, re-encrypted at each step of the way. This should make traffic analysis virtually impossible. By sending periodic dummy messages which just get swallowed up at some step, people can even disguise _when_ they are communicating.) The more controversial vision associated with anonymous remailers is expressed in such science fiction stories as "True Names", by Vernor Vinge, or "Ender's Game", by Orson Scott Card. These depict worlds in which computer networks are in widespread use, but in which many people choose to participate through pseudonyms. In this way they can make unpopular arguments or participate in frowned-upon transactions without their activities being linked to their true identities. It also allows people to develop reputations based on the quality of their ideas, rather than their job, wealth, age, or status. The idea here is that the ultimate solution to the low signal-to-noise ratio on the nets is not a matter of forcing people to "stand behind their words". People can stand behind all kinds of idiotic ideas. Rather, there will need to be developed better systems for filtering news and mail, for developing "digital reputations" which can be stamped on one's postings to pass through these smart filters, and even applying these reputations to pseudonyms. In such a system, the fact that someone is posting or mailing pseudonymously is not a problem, since nuisance posters won't be able to get through. Other advantages of this approach include its extension to electronic on-line transactions. Already today many records are kept of our financial dealings - each time we purchase an item over the phone using a credit card, this is recorded by the credit card company. In time, even more of this kind of information may be collected and possibly sold. One Cypherpunk vision includes the ability to engage in transactions anonymously, using "digital cash", which would not be traceable to the participants. Particularly for buying "soft" products, like music, video, and software (which all may be deliverable over the net eventually), it should be possible to engage in such transactions anonymously. So this is another area where anonymous mail is important. We anticipate that computer networks will play a more and more important role in many parts of our lives. But this increased computerization brings tremendous dangers for infringing privacy. Cypherpunks seek to put into place structures which will allow people to preserve their privacy if they choose. No one will be forced to use pseudonyms or post anonymously. But it should be a matter of choice how much information a person chooses to reveal about himself when he communicates. Right now, the nets don't give you that much choice. We are trying to give this power to people. Hal Finney -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.1 iQCVAgUBK4uRdKgTA69YIUw3AQGDRQP6AunUUIcsG99LdMDS9hKakJ4CcuMfPjjb SIDv/vLjAr+yWcHgu2+DtMaY1MD8+svJjfud/Q58ftupp6cm1Nvi8g/BfTUISMLj uNfOHWezx8vwPFBPiM3wJhQMLh+Cf2+O3fajEoIn8QLN+XRmJpBpbMmhYQ4l4rNt XCLX0Hi9BhE= =8/HS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Beware of anon.penet.fi message!
by an5877＠anon.penet.fi 24 Feb '93

24 Feb '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This is a longer response to the warning posted by Xavier. > Beware of the message about the security bug in the > anon.penet.fi software! Indeed. > If you do as requested, and send your true email address to > an5877(a)anon.penet.fi then he will see both your true email > address and your anonymous address (if you have one - if you > don't, you will be assigned one and he will see that). Any > future use you make of this anonymous server (say, to post > anonymously) will appear under that same anonymous address - and > this person will know your true email address that goes with > it. You got me. I meant only slight malice here: I had intended to "expose" a few email/anon associations to highlight the problem. The problem became apparent to me when I sent pseudonymous mail to a prominent person on this list; his reply exposed his pseudonymous id at anon.penet.fi, surely without his knowledge. > an5877's message appears to be a trick, designed to collect > anonymous/real address pairs. Johan Helsingius should take > action against this trickster. Since he is learning other > people's real addresses, perhaps it would be appropriate for his > own real address to be revealed. Now that would be a _very_ serious "bug" in the anon.penet.fi remailer (or, more accurately, in its administration); I am confident Johan Helsingius will reject this suggestion. > But, this does point out that these systems which automatically > assign anonymous addrsses have several security flaws. Johan > has already had to introduce a "password" feature to make it > more difficult to send fakemail that appears to be from a > particular email address through the server, thus revealing the > corresponding anonymous address when it is delivered. I think that merely masks the real problem. > an5877's trick is a variant on one discussed in > news.admin.policy where it is pointed out that you can mail to > someone via anon.penet.fi and ask for information; when the > return mail comes back it will be from that person's anonymous > address. So again you can pair up real and anonymous > addresses. I missed that discussion, or I wouldn't have wasted your (our) time. > These are serious problems. We need some discussion of how to > avoid these simple tricks for defeating the anonymity while > still having an easy-to-use system. Any ideas? For starters, I think the default behavior of anon.penet.fi is badly broken. But a more serious problem with anon.penet.fi and the other remailers I am aware of is the necessity that we pseudonymous clients have to rely on the integrity of their administrators to keep our pseudonyms private. In the face of social pressure, such as Xavier's, that may be asking a lot. > ::Xavier:: DEADBEAT -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.1 iQBFAgUBK4lr4/FZTpBW/B35AQGqeAF/UBefmNprQacueYazdvhAKMF4nA+2vl44 /+FMACnWjd7yaoG99VeyhO/S6vptT1UB =yZRb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi. *IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to update(a)anon.penet.fi for details.

3 4

No Subject
by bmullane＠ultrix.ramapo.edu 24 Feb '93

24 Feb '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- So, has pgp 2.2 really been released? does anyone know? Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.1 iQCVAgUBK4u8ZOrVZ1ozEurpAQHqHQQAuyNiSkIVW8WN0vh1mng6FGWMNTD0utgP STeeKX3zRyYKPHUQDLN+fCpQDqNdw5I0zn0iicw2DBMWfQSEYXPsmiGlhQLbz+A5 q5e2xxhZJdEj0D8G34GLE2L/uSE6ZlT4MMst7o/tdZi5WHp2pHx5M46QDYS2KzWJ aTEldUjbjNc= =Uje7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Poor Man's Anonymous Remailer
by Aviel David Rubin 24 Feb '93

24 Feb '93

> it really doesnt work out... MANY ways are inherent in the scheme > to eventually match a face with an account. If you always pay > in cash, if you always where a mask(WAIT MASK??? well I think you get the IDEA) > credit cards will; eventually be traced and bank accounts discovered > unless one started taking their precautions before the information age... > now the only absolute privacy/anonymity will be the ones that can > insure it with technology > cheers > kelly No here's another application for anonymous cash.

1 0

Anonymity vs accountability - a balanced view (maybe?)
by mjr＠netcom.com 24 Feb '93

24 Feb '93

Concerning the discussions of privacy, and anonymity on various USENET groups, attacks on Johan Helsingus, etc. I'd like to add my two cents... If we are going to convince the USENET community as a whole of the value of anonymity it seems to me we must also recognize the propriety and value of what seems to be the dominant sentiment on the USENET now, that being that accountability and responsibility (for what you say) reflected in a real identification is also valuable, and under most ordinary circumstances is more desirable then not. Putting it another way, I think most of the USENET community would accept the argument that access to anonymity is something that we should all have. It is a desirable thing, but it becomes desirable only under certain circumstances (e.g. active persecution, or a real threat of same, by a government or corporation, etc). Most of the time, it is better that people "stand for what they say" and accept the accountability that goes with non-anonymized postings. If we approach it this way I think we could achieve consensus at least to the degree that the existence of alias servers are generally supported. matthew rapaport Philosopher/Programmer At Large KD6KVH mjr(a)netcom.com 70371.255(a)compuserve.com

1 0

Re: Poor Man's Anonymous Remailer
by ghabrech＠ultrix.ramapo.edu 24 Feb '93

24 Feb '93

I think the idea is just that it is an e-mail account. I don't think you have any disk quota or such and probably can't even telnet or ftp from it. The idea for this is privacy. The best way to keep someone from reading your files is to make it so that they can't get their hands on 'em. George

1 0

Poor Man's Anonymous Remailer
by Duncan/Lois Frissell 24 Feb '93

24 Feb '93

To compensate the List for consuming bandwidth with my "political" posting on advertising yesterday, I thought I'd offer some ideas on easy anonymous posting -- no remailers required. Isn't an account that can't be traced to you anonymous? How about an (email only) account for $3/month billed to you (no credit cards required). AT&T Mail (desperate for customers) charges $3/month per Email box with no setup fee. They do charge a minimum of 70 cents per message sent (50 cents if you use their pricy communications software) but they charge nothing to receive mail and give you an Internet address that looks like dfrissell(a)attmail.com. If you open a mail receiving service box in a nome de guerre (which is not hard to do in spite of what you might have heard), call AT&T Mail at (800) 624-5672 and sign up. After you receive your signon info, you can drop the box at the mail receiving service and just pay your future bills without a printed bill. They'll be happy to tell you what your balance is. You can logon to AT&T Mail anytime at (800) 624-5123. Use a payphone if you are really careful and enjoy anonymous posting without outside help and without having to worry about flaky remailers. Duncan Frissell

2 1

Pgp v 2.2
by M..Stirner＠f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG 24 Feb '93

24 Feb '93

According to a message I read today on the Fidonet Public Keys conference, PGP is now in version 2.2 & is available off CompuServe. Has anyone seen this yet? If this is for real, let's get this thing circulating pronto. . ~ . M. ... "Huh? BILL Clinton??? I thought I voted for GEORGE Clinton!!!" ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 -- M. Stirner - via FidoNet node 1:125/555 UUCP - ...!uunet!hoptoad!kumr!fidogate!28!M..Stirner INTERNET - M..Stirner(a)f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG

1 0

Enough's enough already
by fergp＠sytex.com 24 Feb '93

24 Feb '93

Excuse me for dropping my two cents in here, but just what's the big, hairy deal? I apologize for initially bringing up the topic of self-encrypting viruses; had I known that folks would have reacted in such a childish manner, I would never have posted that topic at all. For those of you who wish to discuss it further, I'd suggest posting to comp.virus in the future. I suppose I would take it a tad more seriously when reading some of the posts that have drifted through this area, if they were originally posted to an area that was designed for virus banter. If this sounds like a plea for some sort of sanity check, then I must be coming across loud and clear. Now, I'd like to ask the cypherpunk readership to clarify the need (or perhaps a better term may be "desire") for anonymous remailers? Maybe I'm not getting the "big picture", but it would appear to me that insurance of private communications is the area of intended interest here. I know that someone may declare my query as naive, but if you feel strongly enough about a topic, why wouldn't you want the recipient to know who you are, where you are and who they can respond to? I think my train of thought is geared towards anon remailers protecting those who may operate in less than honorable means, without ethical guidelines and wishing to "hide" behind a veil of anonymity. Somehow, that just strikes me as less-than-honorable. (No, I was never a Marine. Army, yes. Marine, no.) Gee, I sure feel better. Paul Ferguson | Network Integration Consultant | "All of life's answers are Alexandria, Virginia USA | on TV." fergp(a)sytex.com (Internet) | -- Homer Simpson sytex.com!fergp (UUNet) | 1:109/229 (FidoNet) | PGP public encryption key available upon request.

1 0