- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Key Ass-crow
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Bradley wrote: > > Can someone explain the difference between key recovery and key > > escrow? > Key escrow is where your keys are held by one or more trusted and > supposedly independent third parties, on reciept of a court order they > would release the keys. Kind of like trusting a friend not to bugger you while you are drunk and passed out. (But he can't prevent the police from hauling you in for public intoxication and locking you up with someone who might do so.) > But in the end it all comes down to GAK (government access to keys), same > shit, different name. This is much like having a Dominatrix who chains you to the toilet and brings out a mixed bag of utensils and instruments which are about to be used for purposes that are a far cry from what they were created for, and to access areas that Nature never intended to be subjected to large amounts of sunshine. Perhaps someone should come out with a GAK T-shirt which has a citizen "assuming the position" while a GAK cop stands behind him with a crowbar stuck halfway up the citizen's ass, and saying, "If you don't have anything to hide, then you have nothing to worry about." AssMonger

2 1

Re: IBM sues critics?
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <1.5.4.32.19970614201321.009a8b38(a)pop.pipeline.com>, on 06/14/97 at 04:13 PM, John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> said: >Secret Squirrel wrote: >>According to a usually reliable contact in a position to know, IBM Friday >>filed a liable suit against the 11 authors of the study >>titled "The risks of key recovery, key escrow and trusted third-party >>encryption" plus their employers and the Centere for Democracy and >>Technology, which sponsored the report. According to my contact, IBM >>feels that the report directly targets their own key recovery system, >>and falsely implies that it isn't reliable. They are asking for >>unspecified damages. >If this report is true it's worth taking a look at IBM's policy paper >"The need for a global cryptographic policy framework" to understand why >the key study report is such a threat to >Blue's global market strategy: > http://www.ibm.com/security/html/pp_global.html >IBM's economic incentive to attack the report is substantial, not least >because it hopes to garner the lion's share of global GAK -- >not that that's news. Has there been any conformation on this? I would like to get in touch with some of my contacts at IBM but would like to have some info on this first. Thanks, - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM6VncI9Co1n+aLhhAQE7VQQAuDOBM3aqTCbaK/5nPLl1TLaAkHWSIC4h /eOJFw7/EJ1ZQWGj5lxHg2es6+MFSrue5/KnOn0evsJtLnQjX4icYyhzhao2cXYY 9EPaew0FMLHRtJrB0sXlWOeyteRqFstVEkQb7jtqUqxbjNU1A/FZlbr7dclRZ56B nVTBAqZBOzA= =tD2h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

eDrugs / Re: e$: Skins vs. Shirts
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Robert Hettinga wrote: > At 8:21 am -0400 on 6/15/97, John Young wrote: > > > ... Sounds a bit Kallstromish... > > Surely Homer hasn't been hanging with the CT-hypers. > > ...an inflation of > > terrorist-spin to whatever feeds nightsweats of monsters coming to > > Ballmer our babies -- of flesh, markets or surveilling features. > > .......slightly Dilberted with lonely-guy > > infowar & -love games of fantasies of what will never be. ... > > Not that NSCP would sink to that kind of RSA Schwartau TLA insecurity. > > Wow. I actually understood all that... > > The scent of the cogs is unmistakable hereabouts. Hetting and Young both pass on a variety of highly informative and exceedingly normal, reality-based material for the most part. Then, out of the blue, they post Taoist-Kerouac, acid-flashback missives which indicate that the Orphan Zombies roaming the computer Nether- world have not yet managed to steal their souls. Since John and Bob's psyche-meanderings often seem to occur within the same time-frame I have concluded that they both have the same drug connection. So...did you bring enough for everybody? DrugMonger

2 1

Blackmail / Re: e$: Skins vs. Shirts
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > At 1:26 AM -0700 6/15/97, Tom Weinstein wrote: > > >Just to be clear, we didn't give the blackmailer any money. As Mike > >Homer put it: "We don't bargain with terrorists." > (What the Danes offered was a straight buiness deal, albeit made weirder > and more frantic by the constraints of time, publicity, and worldwide > attention. Still a business deal, though. When Collabra wanted X dollars to > be acquired by Netscape, was this also "terrorism"? The term "terrorist" > hardly applies in business deals.) As Tim almost points out, people who use their own time, resources and money to examine your product and discover weaknesses in it which can be corrected in order to make it a better product hardly qualify as blackmailers (unless a company considers that their in-house QA staff is "blackmailing" them to receive a salary). (Pay attention, Netscape--major CLUE coming up...) It is not the consumer or user's job to keep track of what the company who produces the software deems to be "proper" use of the product they have bought. Likewise, it is not the job of computer analysts and researchers to search out the flaws in a profitable software and give away their knowledge so that the producer of the software can maintain or increase their profits. If the people who discovered the flaw had wanted they could have chosen to sell their knowledge to Microsoft for probably a very substantial sum. Can you imagine the embarassing position Netscape would be in if Bill Gates made a press announcement about the Netscape flaw and informed the public that a "Netscape fix" was available at microsoft.com? TruthMonger

2 1

SnailMail Ver. 1.0 / Re: Impact of Netscape kernel hole
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David E. Smith wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Tom Weinstein wrote: > > Sorry, but we don't have any plans to respin 2.x at this time. If we > > get enough requests for it, it might be possible to change our mind, > > though. > > I still have a copy of MCOM/Netscape Navigator 0.94 around... does the > bug exist this far back, or am I going to have to start using Cello, > or something equally obscure? SnailMail Version 1.0 will soon be coming out. The product includes a pen, paper, envelopes and instructions on how to purchase stamps. While it does not offer perfect security, the chances are that the only person who might snoop through it is your postman. Since he is probably banging your spouse, he's practically a member of the family, anyway. SnailMail Version 1.0 also includes letter-size envelopes so that you can print out a copy of your Web page and mail it without bending or folding it. SnailMonger

2 1

Re: Spam Libs (Frauenfelder on HotWired)
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- C Matthew Curtin <cmcurtin(a)research.megasoft.com> wrote: > * Sometimes my mail relay seems to choke on spam, and sends back a > packet with a MSG_OOB bit sent to the host that originated the > spam. Gee, dunno how that happened. Sometimes if the host stays > up after that, it's followed by an oversized ping. Shucks, that's > too bad when that happens. Maybe one day I'll track down that, uh, > bug and ... fix it. Damn... this bug must spread like the Good Times Virus. Mine just started showing one of these symptoms, too, but only when approached by certain domains (it being impolite to hit people who've been framed). Have you isolated any code fragments that might help a virus scanner detect this problem? This must be stopped, and I think full disclosure might help. - -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBM6RU7pNcNyVVy0jxAQHC9wH/Wi0lty3BWv4NjDYbmoNL2KZrqEkr1LTq uJBCTW5xwgSnZlZOy3ZEW1+qHTfC3rvTEXQhUjM1Fdk/4yZC5iuoQA== =YPKa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Impact of Netscape kernel hole
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dave Smith wrote: >I still have a copy of MCOM/Netscape Navigator 0.94 around... does the >bug exist this far back, or am I going to have to start using Cello, >or something equally obscure? Dave suggests the key to Netscape's Andreesen's amazing trajectory from lab rat gizmoid to market leader, while others languish uncompensated, at least just yet. It's Mark's changeable feature for peeking and tracking, approved by law for orderly commerce. "Bugs bounty" is the make light of it charade, while "bug" is the venerable hardware name. Find the first few, sure, that's for easy diversion, find those somewhat deeper, those're for sweeping by the seasoned pros. Then there are those that are never found, the ones that always tell what's needed to know in national emergency but can never be revealed. Perhaps any day now MS and NSCP will morph to push browser GAK, claiming that public privacy and secure commerce demand protection from cyber-terrorists. That's the theme, hey, hey, of the Denver meet of global leaders on June 20. Could it be that that's what the Silicon chiefs went to DC to plan last week while speechifying contrarily to CNN, C-SPAN and Declan. Surely, though, bountifully trusty PGP is not party to this G-10 globalization of crippled crypto, or at least not its Chief Technology Officer, right? BTW, Declan's spin on national affairs is starting to smell of pontification to the masses, classis sign of "if only you knew what I've been let in on." Shimomuraism, that, empty data.

13 23

Congratulations! We found your website!
by submitking 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greetings from SUBMITKING, the leader in automated URL submissions! We found your website using our high-technology, specially designed, "web crawling" software. Unfortunately, most people don't have access to this type of technology. But we can help! As you're aware, most people find websites using any number of popular (and sometimes not so popular) search engines and other marketing resources (like "Site of the Day" (Week, Month, etc.)). But who has the hours and hours to spend searching the Web to find these resources and THEN submit the information to each one? We did it for you! SUBMITKING has taken thousands of man hours to research the top resources people use to find what they need on the Internet. With even more hours we have written special software for each individual resource so that with the information from one form you fill out we can register YOUR site with each of these resources as well as you could do it yourself...if you had 20 or so hours on your hands. Sure, we charge for this service. It's $19.95 for submission to all 200 resources. Which works out to less than a dime each. If you COULD do each site in just 5 minutes (paying yourself .10 each) you'd do 12 an hour (thus earning a whopping $1.20 per hour). Probably 50 or 100 visitors to your site is all it would take to see a huge return on your investment. It's a logical thing to do when you consider all the benefits you stand to gain from being listed in 200 places. That being said we can say no more. We simply invite you to visit the site at http://www.submitking.com and Thank-you for your time. Kind regards, SUBMITKING

1 0

Re: Democratic Assassination
by Paul Bradley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Speaking entirely hypothetically: If assasination bots were implemented, > > and I ran one, I would choose to keep a list of poloticians, DEA cops, > > censors etc. and only allow contracts on them, of course, there is > > nothing to stop anyone else running a server that accepted bets on > > anyone. I would just choose not to allow my equipment to be used for > > hiring assasins to kill innocent people. > > But by using this system, aren't we removing the concept of what an > 'innocent' person is anyway? A person 'deserves' to die when enough people > or money dictates that they should. I believe in this sense a DAP system would be a bad thing, but anonymous digital contracts in the more direct sense (ie. just a normal assasination contract as agreed today in meatspace, but using digital cash and other systems to make payments untraceable) are a better option as they remove this democratic side to the killings (although the democratic method prevents frivolous killings). I am not at all saying that a person "deserves" to die when enough people say they should, but merely describing the situation. It is currently the case that when someone becomes A. unpopular enough in public opinion, or B. unpopular with someone with a lot of money, they stand a chance of being killed for this. > Effectively you're censoring votes > for the assasination of a person who you don't feel deserves it - no matter > how many people donate money to that cause. > This destroys the whole 'democratic' idea of what this ideas about. Whoa there! An assasination bot and the hardware it ran on would be private property, I can choose to censor whatever the hell I want on private property. I personally would not run an AP type bot that democratised the process of assasination, as I have said I favour the probable outcome of a more direct contract system, but whether I did or not it is my decision who I accept bets on. If I choose to only accept bets on innocent children and old ladies, that is my own decision on my own property. Business suceeds through reputation, remember the basic principles of the free market... > Also, how do you tell the difference between an 'evil' and 'innocent' > DEA cop? ROFL, the very notion of an innocent DEA cop is a joke... Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

The Cartoon Decency Act, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*********** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1055,00.html The Netly News Network June 13, 1997 The Cartoon Decency Act? by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) We all know what threats confront our children today: War. Hunger. Poverty. Ignorance. But animated cartoon characters on the Net? Actually, the Center for Media Education and its allies ignored the others and just zeroed in on the looming menace of Net-toons yesterday during the Federal Trade Commission's interminable privacy hearings. CME's Shelley Pasnik warned, "Animated product spokescharacters are coming into our childrens' computers... Parents are deeply troubled by the intrusive nature of the online [world] coming into our homes." Hadn't she read Kurt Anderson's editorial in The New Yorker this week, that the onslaught of 'toons signals a cultural renaissance in the U.S.? Doh! The Center for Media's alarums sound familiar. Supporters of the notorious Communications Decency Act cried that "pornography is coming into our home computers" and used the same excuse of "protecting children" to justify passing the law. [...] Next came Michael Brody from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, who cranked up the rhetoric even more. "Ronald McDonald is so very busy in a cyberspace with no child rules. With entertainment and advertising totally merged, Ronald exploits children easily," Brody said. "Cholesterol is not the real public health menace on Ronald's web site, but the invasion and destruction of a child's fantasy life." Good thing he hadn't seen HotWired's Cocktail site. [...]

1 0