- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

kernal timezone options
by Matthew E. Patton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm not having much luck figuring out what values exist for the TIMEZONE and DST kernel options. The default is 0 and 0 which puts my machine off by about 4 hours. The installation routine put in the proper link to US/Eastern or on another box EST5EDT. This apparently is insufficient to get the date command to behave. Incorrect time obviously impacts the entire system. My bios clock is right on. So where are the integers defined that correspond to the various zoneinfo files? This is definately man page material. thanks for the continuing assistance. ps, I figure -1 or -4 is the correct value for DST

2 1

pna.show_story?p_art_id=409724&p_section_name=Sci-Tech
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN Custom News logo [LINK] Home World U.S. Weather Sports Business Sci-Tech Showbiz Lifestyle alt On Target Customize Profile Help Feedback Switch User [ISMAP] InfoSeek [INLINE] October 16, 1997 3:29 am GMT [INLINE] Sci-Tech Title [INLINE] Ad Space ________________________ ___Word ___Theme ______________ Options [INLINE] The story below was selected from CNN Custom News - a new personalized service that delivers only the news that's important to YOU. Sign up now to receive your personal news stories, weather, sports scores, and stock quotes from over 100 different sources - all for FREE. If you're already a user, please login. Custom News NEW SURVEY SHOWS BIG RISE IN INTERNET USE, BUT NOT FOR SHOPPING LA Times 14-OCT-97 Consumers Don't Trust Internet Enough To Share Their Credit Card Information ORLANDO, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 14, 1997-- More than one out of three Americans have become users of the Internet during the last year, primarily for information gathering, but decidedly not for shopping, according to a national survey reported today by a leading consumer researcher. "There is clearly something addictive about the availability of galaxies of information for the asking," said Britt Beemer, chairman of America's Research Group, the firm that conducted the research project, in his keynote address before the 21st Century Commerce & CALS Expo USA at the Orange County Convention Center. "However, it's a very different story for shopping," he adds, "where very few people (2.8 percent ) feel comfortable in using the Internet to make a purchase in cyberspace." Beemer, who pioneered the influence of fear of crime on shopping with his annual survey on the subject, says he is "surprised more people weren't actively patronizing the Internet to eliminate worry about their personal safety, particularly for shopping at night." When asked about the degree of trust they had for shopping at a store in the mall compared with a purchase via the Internet, respondents opting for the store (72.1 percent) outnumber Internet shoppers (6.7 percent) by more than ten to one, the survey indicated. According to Beemer: "Most people (77.9 percent) are reluctant for security reasons to give their personal credit card data via the Internet to a virtual salesperson, but many others (26.9 percent) don't want to buy something they can't see and touch; 14.9 percent say they always buy in stores; 11.6 percent report they like to pay cash; and 11.1 percent simply enjoy shopping too much to let their computer have all the fun." The few products that do sell at all via the Internet include computer software, books, apparel, and home furnishings, but the percentages of people actually buying are nominal, Beemer says. Consumer use of the Internet to get information in influencing various purchasing decisions does appear to be increasing, with many people (45.9 percent) reporting they sought information prior to shopping, and 9.6 percent indicating they were searching for both information and advertising. Those who use the Internet say the reason they do so is to acquire information (68.4 percent); to chat with and meet people (7.1 percent); and to keep track of their finances (6.1 percent). When it comes to information gathering, 41.0 percent are seeking the news of the day; 23.7 percent are getting data on companies; 12.8 percent are looking for help in school work; 6.4 percent are checking out stock and bond prices related to their financial status; and 5.8 percent are surfing for travel information, the study points out. "There is some hope down the road that people's fears and concern about using the Internet for various personal business purposes will ease," says Beemer. "When asked whether they would expect to make financial transactions in the future, nearly six out of ten said `no,' but nearly 10 percent (9.4 percent) answered in the affirmative," he reports. The survey was conducted during the last week of September, 1997 of a national sample of 1000 respondents. Of this number, 41.7 percent had no access to a computer either at home or at work; 24.6 percent both at home and at work; 17.7 percent at home; and 15.9 percent at work, only. The study has a margin of error of +/- 4.3 percent. America's Research Group is a leading consumer research firm, headquartered in Charleston, S.C. Its staff has interviewed three million Americans over the past dozen years, giving ARG the largest database of retail trends in America. Britt Beemer is the author of PREDATORY MARKETING, published early this year by William Morrow. Search the net: InfoSeek ___________________ ____ [Help] [INLINE] Ad Space Top Copyright © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. A Time Warner Company ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Terms under which this information is provided to you. [INLINE]

1 0

Perl 5.00401, gcc 2.7.2.3 ..
by Andreas Brusinsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It was told in the mailinglists that with the integration of the gnu utillities into the source tree it is easy to keep up with changes of their utillities. So what is the reason to stay on little elder versions of perl and gcc? Shouldn't gcc 2.7.2.3 and perl 5.00401 be within the source tree? Why are they not? Does the source tree really depend on the 'old' perl? I got somehow the impression that gcc is a special adapted version so I could understand that this is not integrated but perl? Or am I utterly wrong because perl is a kind of compiler and gcc is a kind of compiler so they dont need to be chaged becaus they work and may be more fixed than real gcc/perl and utillities that demand perl5.00401 can just be twiddled to use OpenBSD/perl .. Thanks for comments. Bye Brusi by E-Mail: ab2(a)inf.tu-dresden.de Tel.-priv: 0351-8499347 (Germany/Dresden) \____

1 0

Checklist, expanded
by Marshall Midden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NOTE: if upgrading or restoring files, it appears that some group numbers have been changed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- New installation checklist, after install and multi-user boot. (Instructions for correcting not given.) 1) Login on console as "root". 2) Check the system date. Type "date". If necessary, set the system date, and/or change the symbolic link to get the correct Time Zone. 3) Put a password on root. Run "passwd". 4) Check hostname. Type "hostname". (man "hostname" if need to change, and you also need to edit /etc/myname.) 5) Verify network interfaces configured correctly. a) "ifconfig -a". Correct by editing /etc/hostname.{INTERFACE} and via "ifconfig" if you do not with to reboot. Loopback interface will look something like: lo0: flags=8009<UP,LOOPBACK,MULTICAST> inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 An ethernet interface something like: le0: flags=9863<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST> inet 192.168.4.52 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.4.255 [Will someone else fill in the ppp and slip interfaces.] b) You may wish to turn off multicast routing in /etc/netstart by commenting out (place a # sign at start of line) the line: # route add -net 224.0.0.0 -interface $hostname c) Check for routing. ("netstat -r -n") It will look something like: Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Mtu Interface default 192.168.4.254 UGS 0 11098028 - le0 127 127.0.0.1 UGRS 0 0 - lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 3 24 - lo0 192.168.4 link#1 UC 0 0 - le0 192.168.4.52 8:0:20:73:b8:4a UHL 1 6707 - le0 192.168.4.254 0:60:3e:99:67:ea UHL 1 0 - le0 Fix via editing /etc/mygate, and using "route delete" and "route add" if you do not wish to reboot. d) If using the Bind Name Server (DNS), check /etc/resolv.conf. It might look something like: domain nts.umn.edu nameserver 128.101.101.101 nameserver 134.84.84.84 search nts.umn.edu. umn.edu. If using a caching name server add the line "nameserver 127.0.0.1" first. (Of course, you need to change "named_flags" in /etc/rc.conf and add the named.boot file in the appropriate place. Same holds true if this is the name server for you domain. Also make sure "named" is running. [Otherwise there are long waits while timeouts happen.]) e) If using "NIS" (old yellow pages), check "domainname" and edit /etc/defaultdomain to correct. [Will someone else fill in more here. I refuse to use this package.] 6) Check disks correct. a) cat /etc/fstab b) df Edit "/etc/fstab" and "umount" and "mount" as necessary. (See man pages.) c) You may want to do NFS partitions later, but you may do them now. d) If you are using concatenated disks, edit /etc/ccd.conf and use "ccdconfig -U" and "ccdconfig -C" till you have it correct. ("umount" and "mount" and edit /etc/fstab as needed.) e) Go into the "amd" directory if using this package. [Will someone else fill in more here. I do not use this package.] 7) The system should be usable now, but you may with to do more customizing, adding of users, etc. Many sections may be skipped if you are not using that package (for example kerberos!). My suggestions are to go into /etc ("cd /etc") and: a) Edit motd to make lawyers comfortable and make sure that no mention of the word "Welcome" appears. (Some U.S. lawyers have stated that the word "Welcome" is an invitation to come on in.) b) Add users. There is a "adduser" script. You can use "vipw", and edit "/etc/group" if you desire. Make sure to put people in "/etc/group", under the "wheel" group if they need root access (non-kerberos). Something like: wheel:*:0:root,m4 c) Check for any local changes needed in /etc/rc.conf, /etc/netstart, /etc/rc.local, rc.securelevel.. Turning on something like the Network Time Protocol in /etc/rc.local and /etc/rc.securelevel requires: A) Making sure the package is installed. (see http://www.openbsd.org under "Ports: a Nice Way to Get Third-Party Software). B) Uncommenting the lines in rc.local (delete the # signs). if [ -f /usr/local/etc/httpd/httpd ]; then echo -n ' httpd'; /usr/local/etc/httpd/httpd fi C) Uncommenting the lines in rc.securelevel (delete the # signs). if [ -x /usr/local/sbin/xntpd ]; then /usr/local/sbin/tickadj -Aq echo -n ' xntpd'; /usr/local/sbin/xntpd fi d) Edit /etc/printcap and /etc/hosts.lpd to get printers set up. e) You might want to tighten up security by editing: fbtab Set security for X -- when you install X ... . inetd.conf Turn off extra stuff, add that which is really needed. f) Go into /etc/kerberosIV and configure kerberos. Remember to get a srvab. g) Edit /etc/aliases. Set postmaster, etc. Run newaliases after changes. h) If this is a bootp server, edit /etc/bootptab. You will have to turn it on in /etc/inetd.conf, or run "bootpd" in stand-a-lone mode. i) If this is an NFS server A) make sure /etc/rc.conf has "nfs_server=YES". B) Edit /etc/exports and get correct. It is probably easier to reboot than get the daemons running, manually, but you can get the order correct by looking at /etc/netstart. j) Edit /etc/rbootd.config if needed for remote booting (ethernet MAC address to IP tranlation). k) Look at and possibly edit the /etc/daily, /etc/weekly, and /etc/monthly scripts. Your site specific things should go in /etc/daily.local, /etc/weekly.local, and /etc/monthly.local. l) Look at the other files in /etc and edit as needed. (Do not edit files ending in ".db" -- like aliases.db, pwd.db, spwd.db, nor localtime, nor rmt, nor any directories.) 8) Check what is running via crontab "crontab -l". Do you need anything else? Do you wish to change things? For example: 30 1 * * * /bin/sh /etc/daily 2>&1 > /var/log/daily.out 30 3 * * 6 /bin/sh /etc/weekly 2>&1 > /var/log/weekly.out 30 5 1 * * /bin/sh /etc/monthly 2>&1 > /var/log/monthly.out 9) After the first nights security run, change ownerships and permissions on things. Best bet is to have permissions as in the security list (the first of the two listed permissions, and the first group number of the two). Use "chmod" and "chgrp" as needed. 10) Install packages to make the system more useful. A) Install your own. Easiest way is to copy source and compile it. B) Copy vendor binaries and install them. You will need to install any shared libraries, etc. (hint: "man -k compat") C) Install any of a large number of Third-Party Software that is available in source form. (See http://www.openbsd.org under "Ports: a Nice Way to Get Third-Party Software). You may have "fun" installing due to various compiling errors. Don't get discouraged easily! Sometimes checking the mailing lists for past problems that people have encountered will result in a fix posted.

1 0

Re: Traffic Analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 01:34:56 -0400 > From: "Robert A. Costner" <pooh(a)efga.org> > Subject: Re: Traffic Analysis > Remailers in general will throw away messages at times. Sometimes on > purpose, sometimes by accident. This is not replaced by any cover traffic. Perhaps this should be added. > For purposes of argument, we could say that a remailer throws away > messages that violate usage policies. This accounts for some amount of > traffic, let's just say 10% to name a figure. Way too high for commercial use. Get it down to something like .01 and that would be workable I suspect (haven't done the math). Course this raises the issue of who pays for dumped mail on a commercial box. Should the customer pay since it was their action that instigated the drop? Or perhaps the remailer since they were selling a service which they didn't provide at their discretion? > Of course this sounds > reprehensible, Not to me. It's your box and your money, set any policy that you desire. If I as a user don't like it, I'll beat feet... > so you ask what sort of message gets thrown out? Some > examples might be: > > * 3,000 copies of the same message to the same person > * Any mail from Sanford Wallace at Cyberpromo.com > * A 300MB mailbomb Let's generalize a bit to see if we can get a clearer picture. - traffic that seems to be duplicate. What if the digital signature on each one is valid implying the originator intended to send the 3,000 pieces. Do you dump them and take the money? - traffic from specific parties whose reputation capital is low. As a business should this really matter as long as the creetin pays the bill? - traffic of an abnormal format Don't see any issues with this one. Are there any other classes that you can think of that you might want to filter on? > Basically some messages that constitute abuse (without examining actual > content) get tossed. Ok, so you are doing header filtering. > These are "valid" messages from people which the > remailer might decide to not continue to send. Much of this mail never > even reaches the remailer code as it gets tossed at an earlier level. > Since about 10% of incoming traffic gets tossed, it would seem that this > would somehow effect traffic analysis. This traffic is not replaced, and > much of the dropped traffic is not even know to the remailer. How much > would this actually effect traffic analysis? Let's see if we can put some numbers to it... We receive n pieces of mail. n/10 is tossed at reception based on header filtering. For each mail that gets to the remailer code we sent m cover messages and 1 real message. So the remailer handles a total of (n - n/10) + (m + 1)(n-n/10) pieces in a given time period, t. Let z stand for (n - n/10) the actual number of processible traffic, we can reduce this to z + (m + 1) z. Let's assume now that we go ahead and transmit cover for those emails we get something like z + (m + 1) z + m ( n/10 ). We don't add a 1 to the m(n/10) because we don't have a real outgoing to process. So the total traffic load of the remailer can be represented by: L = z + (m + 1) z + m ( n/10 ) or, L = (n - n/10) + (m + 1)(n - n/10) + m(n/10) Now if you look at a travelling salesman problem you see quickly that the complexity grows quite quickly. This produces a traffic analysis load of something of the form, T = L ^ v Where v represents the complexity factor in dealing with the possible combinations possible. So, without actualy plugging numbers in there, I would say it looks like a small increase in output could grow pretty quickly because of the power growth factor in the extra traffic and processing it. > As a side point, software problems will at times cause chained messages to > get tossed. From time to time certain remailers become incompatible with > each other, or user held public keys do not get updated properly. This > will also cause messages to get tossed. Ok, let's add a 'software failure' category. > Cracker sends messages as "Anonymous" and does not allow replies to be > returned to the sender. Redneck on the other hand allows each user to pick > a pseudonym and allows relies to be returned to the sender. This is known > as a "nym". The whole point of a nym is to be able to receive replies (as > well as establish reputation capital). People who have nyms on the > remailer want to receive email back to them. Nyms are managed and > authenticated with PGP. My question is would it foil traffic analysis if a > number of remailer server generated messages were to go out to the nyms > without ever having matching incoming traffic? If I understand you the remailer would send outbound traffic to its input for distribution to your subscribers? I don't believe it would factor into the analysis at all if all the source destinations are the same. Outbound traffic from party A that went to party B would be important to track. So, if you wanted to do this sort of stuff and you wanted Mallet to chase their tail I would randomly pick source addresses from my subscriber base and send the bogus messages to my subscribers making shure nobody received an email from themselves. Then it looks like everyone is involved in a conspiracy... > >A commercial remailer should not keep records of its use. However, I suspect > >that eventualy remailers will be required to keep usage records by law. > > I'd be willing to be involved in a first amendment challenge against any > such law. I suspect we would win in the US. At least we won the last 1st > amendment challenge against remailers. (ACLU vs Miller) It has nothing to do with limiting speech so I doubt you'd have a 1st leg to stand on. Furthermore, the 1st doesn't guarantee the right to anonymity. If you want to claim that as a fundamental right you'd need to use the 9th and 10th. It does have to do with being able to trace the perp back if needed. I am not saying I agree with it, just recognize that reasonable people will see this lack of tracability via a court order as a clear threat to their security at all levels. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: >> Stalkers, thieves, rapists, drug addicts, perverts, etc., or just real >> animals from the animal kingdom, strike at the most inopportune times, when >> there are no officially sanctioned police forces around to be of help. > >I have to object to the inclusion of drug addicts, they do what they do >because the legislators and police want to stick their noses in other >peoples business. If drug addicts resort to crime then society as a whole >must garner some of the responsibility of putting them in that situation. .................................................... We weren't discussing why people commit crimes against others, Jim. We were discussing the disagreeability of having & using guns. And yes, killing doggies is also a Bad Thing. Generally. ('cept when they're foaming at the mouth, snarling, with red blazing eyes, lunging directly at you. That is a Very Bad Doggie.) .. Blanc

1 0

NYTimes Editorial slams F[reeh,uck] and calls on Clinton to stamp it out!
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The lead editorial, the stated opinion of the paper itself, in this mornings NYTimes slams F[reeh.uck]'s initiative as "crossing the line" and that Clinton "needs to stamp out a bad idea." strong words, newspaper policy editorial, important words. The NYTimes actually has a clue, a strong clue. support the NYTimes! The NYTimes syndicate feeds thousands of the US papers, particularly the small town papers and is considered gospel by many. http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/editorial/03fri4.html The Clinton Administration has proposed several unworkable plans over the years to keep powerful encryption programs that scramble telephone and computer messages out of the hands of foreign terrorists and criminals. But it has never tried to put the need to eavesdrop on criminals above the privacy rights of ordinary Americans. Last month the F.B.I. Director, Louis Freeh, crossed that line by urging Congress to outlaw the manufacture and distribution of encryption programs the Government cannot instantly crack.... ...The plan is unworkable because uncrackable encryption software is readily available abroad. Congress could try to forbid Americans to use any unbreakable encryption, regardless of who makes it. But that would trample on rights that Americans jealously protect to communicate free of Washington's interference. The best way to reduce many types of industrial and financial crime is to provide citizens powerful encryption so they can communicate without fear of corporate spies and thieves.... ... Before encryption controls pick up more momentum, the White House needs to stamp out a bad idea. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBNDS47L04kQrCC2kFAQFFJAQA1/jnXjczlvUyVZ/8G6iVnLdD7+dmGw5k 8DnMy5Gw4nuR6cPBFjGLnomvZI2OXgJ4RFR/8Mv3pG9MBohPxOKq6nGdWjZV60F/ 8GpInE/Unb6hzFIxjET7a3wbjgt93PrmZjjSwfHCSiUBqUQXYcH0RUpyNF9zl0o8 HD7uS5WgVow= =7ZNz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Low blow (but a *good* one!)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alex Le Heux wrote: Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: >Let's also take a look at the Dutch performance during their >occupation. While there certainly were many courageous Dutch people >who helped refugees (at great personal risk, to say the least), and >there were many courageous Dutch people who were in the resistance, >there were also many Dutch people who did not perform so well. Not >only were a large number of Jewish people turned in by Dutch >informers, but there were even Dutch SS units. You have a nerve. You, coming from a country where people are still regularly killed in the name of racism, tell me this?! Alex ------------ The Same Old Guy replied: Want the cold, hard facts of life, Bubba? You didn't put WWII 'behind' you. We did! Gun-loving Americans conquered your continent and gave you your countries back instead of enslaving you, like every other winner in history has done. *** Certified Low Blow *** Some of us discriminate against Jews. Do you know why? Because we HAVE some! *** Certified Low Blow *** We were giving them refuge while Europe was massacring them by the millions. Now you have the balls to say we're not all treating them right all of the time. Buy a fucking clue!

1 0

IPO ALERT: C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Available Through Wit Capital
by edwin＠witcapital.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wit Capital Corporation is pleased to announce that we are able to provide first-come first-serve participation in the following initial public offering: Issuer: C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. is the largest third party logistics company in North America with 1996 gross revenue of $1.6 billion. The company is a global provider of multimodal transportation services and logistics solutions through a network of 116 offices in 38 states and Canada, Mexico, Belguim, The United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Singapore and South Africa. Security: Common Stock Expected Size of Offering: 10,578,396 shares Expected Price Range: $15.00 to $17.00 Managing Underwriters: BT Alex Brown Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Piper Jaffray Inc. If you think you may be interested in this Initial Public Offering available first- come first-serve through Wit Capital, please visit http://www.witcapital.com. You can view, print or download the Preliminary Prospectus from our New Issues Section. Investors can also call Wit Capital at (888) 4-WITCAP for more information. A REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATING TO THESE SECURITIES HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION BUT HAS NOT YET BECOME EFFECTIVE. THESE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD NOR MAY OFFERS TO BUY BE ACCEPTED PRIOR TO THE TIME THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT BECOMES EFFECTIVE. THIS COMMUNICATION SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER TO SELL OR THE SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY, NOR SHALL THERE BE ANY SALE OF THESE SECURITIES IN ANY JURISDICTION IN WHICH SUCH OFFER, SOLICITATION OR SALE WOULD BE UNLAWFUL PRIOR TO REGISTRATION OR QUALIFICATION UNDER THE SECURITIES LAWS OF SUCH JURISDICTION. Wit Capital Corporation Member NASD SIPC

1 0

Re: Stronghold
by phelix＠vallnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Nope. Like I said, I'm not selling Stronghold or any competing product, I >don't lose anything when someone foolishly buys it, so why should I present >any evidence? I (and several other people on this mailing list) were threatened >by C2Net's lawyers; so to avoid unpleasant disputes, I told them I won't be >publishing whatever I might know about their product. > So, why don't you (and several other people on this mailing list) use the ananymous remailers to present your evidence. Others have wondered why people would use remailers. Here's a prime example. Use the remailer (if you have anything to say).

1 0