- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

ZDNet Members-Only: JavaOne Discount!
by announce＠lists.zdnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 3/26/97 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings from ZDNet! Ziff-Davis, a Silver co-sponsor of JavaOne(sm) has an exclusive offer for ZDNet Members: Attend JavaOne(sm) on April 2-4 for a *SPECIAL* low rate of $995, a $200 discount! What: JavaOne, Sun's 1997 Worldwide Java Developer Conference Where: Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco, California When: April 2-4, 1997 Here's your chance to get in-depth technical knowledge directly from the source: Sun's Java Development Team. JavaOne(sm) is three very full days of intensive Java learning from the people who invented Java. If you are an Internet developer or want to be one, you won't want to miss it! Keynotes will be delivered by Scott McNealy, James Gosling, Alan Baratz, Vinton Cerf, Eric Schmidt, and Jeff Johnson. In addition to the three day conference, there will be loads of extracurricular activities that will further your opportunity to learn about Java and to meet other Java developers. For complete information on the conference, visit the JavaOne web site at http://java.sun.com/javaone/ To register at this special rate of $995, please call 800-668-2741 (US & Canada), or 415-372-7077 (International) before March 28, and refer to source code "JAVAZIFF." If space is still available, you can register at this special rate on-site too, but you will have to mention source code "JAVAZIFF." For more Information: http://java.sun.com/javaone/ 800-668-2741 (US & Canada) 415-372-7077 (International) _______________________________________________________________ ZDNet Announcements are periodic notices of new features, special events and free offers available to members of ZDNet. --To subscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-on(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. --To unsubscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-off(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. _______________________________________________________________ Powered by Mercury Mail: http://www.merc.com

1 0

heavensgate.com?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have a copy of the heavensgate.com web pages? I've found a couple mirrors of Higher Source already. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, look at http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/970327/news/stories/suicides_7.html) If you want to send something anonymously, finger -l declan(a)eff.org for my PGP public key. -Declan

4 4

Microsoft ammunition
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From Infoworld: March 24, 1997 Coda dependency may contribute to the fall of the great Gates empire Last week's column demonstrated that Microsoft is unable to respond to the network computer in its usual "co-opt the technology" manner -- a fact that may signal the turning point in the company's history. (Why am I leaving Intel out of this prediction, you ask? Because it is in a far more flexible position than Microsoft. Its chips can run anything. Microsoft needs them to run Windows.) Add to this NC threat the mounting troubles for Microsoft, and it's no wonder there's no joy in Redmond tonight. Look at the trends. According to International Data Corp., Microsoft SQL Server for Windows NT has been losing significant market share for two years to competing products that run on multiple platforms. Microsoft's Wolfpack clustering technology is turning out to be a Chihuahuapack. (See "Toothless Wolfpack," March 17.) Seemingly endless rapid-fire announcements by ISVs to support standards such as Java, JDBC, LDAP, IMAP4, and CORBA are shoving Microsoft's TAPI, MAPI, ISAPI, "SLAP-HAPI," and a host of other Microsoft-centric specifications right out of the limelight. By now you have undoubtedly heard more than you want to hear about the fellow in Germany who demonstrated that a malicious ActiveX control can secretly empty your bank account. Leaks, bugs, and hastily cobbled service packs have been drawing attention to the immaturity of Windows NT. And, most recently, college kids have found more holes in Internet Explorer than it takes to fill the Albert Hall. (My apologies to those outside the Beatles generation who don't get the reference.) Meanwhile, Microsoft has crushed or alienated practically every potential partner that might otherwise have helped it out of its current fix. Network hanky panky This latest Microsoft Internet Explorer security dustup really isn't a bug, it's a feature. Internet Explorer was built to make it easy to launch a file, whether that file is on your hard drive or sitting on a server somewhere in Freedonia. Unfortunately, it took someone outside Microsoft to realize last August that the file one launches from Explorer could be a Word for Windows document packing a malevolent macro. Then, in the past few weeks, .URL, .LNK, and .ISP files were added to the danger list. Then it surfaced that Microsoft's Common Internet File System opens the door to network hanky panky. This is clearly a company that isn't used to thinking outside of the universe of the local LAN. The Microsoft patches configure Explorer to ask your permission before launching a potentially dangerous file type (similar to Netscape Navigator). OK, but this solution makes it virtually impossible for Microsoft or anyone else to integrate a browser seamlessly into the Windows desktop. If seamless, safe desktop access to remote files on the Internet is the goal, Microsoft is spinning its wheels. There is really only one way to provide these features without introducing a local security risk. You have to eliminate the possibility that anything you run can affect your local drives. Better still, get rid of your local drives. In short, a Java-based browser is a good way to do it, but a Java-based network computer is best. Which brings us back to the conclusion of last week's column. But, if you're tired of the repetition, here's a reason you should sit through another sermon: RandomNoise's Coda. Coda lets you design entire Web pages in Java rather than use a mixture of HTML content, tags, and Java applets. Most pundits seem to be fixated on the fact that Coda gives you a way to display fancy fonts that HTML can't handle. Our own Bob Metcalfe is the only one I know of who addressed the bigger picture. (See From the Ether, March 10). He pointed out that Coda may lead the way toward replacing HTML with Java. A Java-based Web page removes the distinction between application and data. It presents data just as an HTML page would, but every element on the screen has the potential to be an interactive part of a sophisticated application. In other words, the Web page becomes both powerful and safe enough to earn the right to be the new desktop user interface to the world. But Internet Explorer and Windows are nowhere in that equation. So is Microsoft in a batting slump, or is this the beginning of the end? Personally, I think Microsoft can pull out of this one. All it would have to do to fully recover is turn Windows NT into Unix, drop Distributed Component Object Model for CORBA, phase out its Windows-centric protocols for platform-independent standards, adopt NetWare's Novell Directory Services, kill ActiveX, port SQL Server to several different platforms, and abandon the idea of integrating Internet Explorer into the desktop. Well, I'm going to take a nap. Wake me when all that happens.

3 2

Re: PSYOPS/infowar
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is surely going to piss some people off, but let's some fun with this, shall we? At 9:30 pm -0500 on 3/29/97, Greg Broiles wrote: > According to Ronald Duchin, graduate of the US Army War College and > former special assistant to the Secy of Defense and director of the > Veterans of Foreign Wars, activists fall into one of four categories: > radicals, opportunists, idealists, and realists. He recommends a > three-step strategy to neutralize activists: > > 1. isolate the radicals Tim May Kelly Goen Phil Zimmermann (then) Belize, say > 2. "cultivate" the idealists CFP (a virtual terrarium :-)) EFF (agrabiz!) Phil Zimmermann (now) Eric Hughes Michael Froomkin Any cypherpunk who's actually making money on this stuff :-). Anguilla Vanuatu Me ;-) > 3. co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry RSA Mondex (a little hand-biting here, on my part) x.blabla SET-folk David Chaum Hong Kong Indonesia The Phillipenes Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

FCC Internet Paper
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As summarized below the FCC has issued a long paper: "Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy." To supplement the FCC's PDF and WordPerfect versions we've converted it to HTML: http://jya.com/oppwp29.htm (270K; 189K images) ------- From: Robert Cannon <cannon(a)DC.NET> Subject: FCC Releases staff Working Paper on Internet policy To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM News Release -- March 27, 1997 DIGITAL TORNADO: THE INTERNET AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY FCC Staff Working Paper on Internet Policy The FCC's Office of Plans and Policy (OPP) today released a staff working paper analyzing the implications of the Internet for the FCC and telecommunications policy. OPP Working Paper No. 29, "Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy," was written by Kevin Werbach, Counsel for New Technology Policy. OPP periodically issues working papers on emerging areas in communications; these papers represent individual views and are not an official statement by the FCC or any FCC commissioner. "Digital Tornado" represents the first comprehensive assessment of the questions the Internet poses for traditional communications policy. A central theme running through the paper is that the FCC, and other government agencies, should seek to limit regulation of Internet services. In framing his approach, Werbach states: "Because it is not tied to traditional models or regulatory environments, the Internet holds the potential to dramatically change the communications landscape. The Internet creates new forms of competition, valuable services for end users, and benefits to the economy. Government policy approaches toward the Internet should therefore start from two premises: avoid unnecessary regulation, and question the applicability of traditional rules." After providing an analytical framework to understand the forces driving Internet growth, and describing the Internet's development and architecture, the paper addresses three primary areas: CATEGORY DIFFICULTIES Policy and legal questions arising from the fact that Internet- based services do not fit easily into the existing classifications for communications services under federal law or FCC regulations. PRICING AND USAGE Policy questions arising from the economics of Internet access, including assertions by local telephone companies that current Internet pricing structures result in network congestion, and arguments by Internet service providers that telephone companies have not upgraded their networks to facilitate efficient transport of data services. AVAILABILITY OF BANDWIDTH Regulatory and technical issues affecting the deployment of technologies promising to enable high-speed Internet access to the home and to businesses, including the implications for the Internet of the FCC's role in promoting universal service. The paper is available on the FCC World Wide Web site, <http://www.fcc.gov/>. The file is available for online viewing in PDF (Adobe Acrobat) format at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp29.pdf or for downloading in WordPerfect format at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp29.wp Copies may also be purchased from International Transcription Services, Inc., 1919 M Street, NW, Room 246, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 857-3800. -FCC-

1 0

WebWorld 19
by Bubba Rom Dos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: OPINION: moderation and anonymity
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jay Denebeim (denebeim(a)deepthot.cary.nc.us) wrote * Igor Chudov @ home <ichudov(a)algebra.com> wrote: * * >3. It is a common misconception to think that since anonymity means no * >accountability, it will lead to abuses. Even though such an argument may * >be made in general (it is subject to a significant disagreement), it * >does not apply in the least to moderated groups. Since moderators are, * >generally, responsible for the content of the messages that they allow, * >the final responsibility and control is in their hands. If a certain * >anonymous posting does not satisfy the newsgroup charter, moderators can * >always reject it. I would like to thank Jay for his thorough and thoughtful comments. I agree with many of his point, and leave only those that I disagree on. * You can have both accountability and anonymity. From a newsgroup * moderator's perspective it's not necessary to know the account of the * person, only a way to uniquely identify the individual. There is * cryptography available for every machine that can provide these unique * signatures without requiring a valid from address. You are correct, there are tools allowing individuals to sign their articles and verify electronic signatures. My moderation bot STUMP even has built in support for PGP signature verification. Some of its features are directly indended to be helpful for anonymous users who want to not only post to newsgroups, but also maintain their reputations. As you know, I think that anonymous users can be great contributors to moderated newsgroups. I am not sure that this article is the place to go into a lot of detail about these features, but I can summarize them for those who are interested. However, there is a big and sticky question of what identity really is. For example, I can establish several PGP keys and post anonymously using all of them in turns. What would be my identity? And if I use one of the keys to post off-topic articles and you "punish" that key not knowing that the same physical person uses several others, what's the point of such "punishment"? That is not to say that using PGP signatures in moderated groups is bad: it is great, especially since anonymous users who use PGP to sign their articles can be safely put to the preapproved list of robomoderator bots. The problem is that while we have IDENTIFICATION, there is little we can to do enforce ACCOUNTABILITY. * However, the current newsgroups where this issue has been raised are * all robo-moderated purely for spam elimination. That means that there * must be some way to identify posters so they can be mechanically * blocked if necessary. Cryptography and/or valid e-mail addresses * (whether those addresses actually show up in posts or not) are * necessary for the filtering function to be totally bullet-proof. I disagree with this point. First of all, forging email messages to look like they come from non-anonymous addresses is very easy (just telnet to port 25 and type 3 magic lines). Second, a person can secretly have multiple keys. If someone is determined to bypass a robomoderation bot that does not require EVERY preapproved poster to positively identify herself, they will get through. By the way, I believe that most forgeries in moderated groups are results of personal problems of posters AND moderators, and moderators need to honestly take care of the underlying problems. It is very hard if not impossible to deal with determined and knowledgeable forgers. I would much rather ensure that they get equal access to the group than try to fight them by technical means. * Actually, the cryptographic signature posts are the only 100% reliable * ones, although all newsgroups I'm aware of only accept the forgable * from: lines currently, the spammers have not figured out how to get This is 99% correct, but not 100% correct. Newsgroups that are moderated by STUMP will NOT ACCEPT forged From: lines pointing to posters who have requested special cryptographic protection. All articles purporting to be from such persons pass mandatory check of a PGP signatures. * past robomodded groups yet, and if they do forge addresses, they are * breaking the law currently (fraud), so I don't know that this will * ever become an issue. * * Now, there are some other, even less reliable, methods of * robo-moderating. The 'clue test', which requires a password on your * first post that is listed in a FAQ is one that I think would work * quite well today. It does have a problem in that if the spammers ever Yes. It is an absolutely great method for newsgroup that do not want to bother themselves with the costs of having a human moderator, while at the same time eliminating spam and multiposted "flame" threads. We now have two bots, one of which is yours, that allow to quickly set up such automoderated groups. People who are determined to post off-topic articles to such groups have very many ways of getting past the robomoderator bot. That is usually OK since it is not the regulars who are the problem. - Igor.

1 0

junk mail analysis, part 2
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last time I gave the equilibrium for the junk mail game. Now I will look at a modified game that allows the sender to include an ecash deposit with his email. (Note that there is a slight change of notation from the game tree given last time.) A: Send mail? / \ no / \ yes / \ (0,0) A: Decide deposit d | | | B: Read mail? / \ no / \ yes / \ (-d,d) B: Accept offer? / \ no / \ yes / \ (-d,d-c) (s,r-c) Solution We again apply the method of backward induction. In the last stage B accepts if r >= d. Therefore in the next to last stage, B knows that if he reads, his expected payoff is P(r<d)*(d-c) + P(r>=d)*E(r-c|r>=d). However, in equilibrium it is not possible that P(r<d) > 0 since A is always better off by offering a deposit of 0 instead of any deposit greater than r. Therefore B reads if E(r|r>=d)-c >= d. Now we come to A's deposit decision. A knowns that if he offers any d such that r >= d and E(r|r>=d)-c >= d, B will read and accept. A is indifferent between any such d, so he might as well offer the smallest such d if it exists. If it doesn't exist, A offers d=0. Finally A again always sends regardless of the parameters, since A can get a payoff of at least 0 by sending, and may do better if there is a small probability of B making a mistake. Conclusions We saw that if there exists a d such that r >= d and E(r|r>=d)-c >= d, A offers the least such d, and B reads and accepts. Otherwise A offers d=0, and B does not read. Interestingly, if E(r) > c, d=0 satisfies r >= d and E(r|r>=d)-c >= d, so we reach the same outcome as before. However, if E(r) < c, the outcome of the new game represents a Pareto-improvement since for realistic distributions of (s,r) it seems likely that for all sufficiently large r there exist d such that r >= d and E(r|r>=d)-c >= d, and for these values of r both the sender and the receiver do better than they did in the previous model. Let's call the smallest such r t. Unfortunately the outcome is still not Pareto-optimal if t > c. This conclusion opens the question of whether a better solution exists. One possibility is the following (called the pre-payment solution). A: Send mail? / \ no / \ yes / \ (0,0) A: Decide pre-payment p | | | B: Read mail? / \ no / \ yes / \ (-p,p) B: Accept offer? / \ no / \ yes / \ (-p,p-c) (s-p,r+p-c) If there is enough interest, I'll follow up with a comparison between the pre-payment solution and the deposit solution.

1 0

Zero-knowledge interactive proofs
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim Maytag, a product of anal birth, appeared with a coathanger through his head. /_/\/\ \_\ / /_/ \ \_\/\ \ \_\/

2 1

Microsoft ammunition (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:11:50 -0600 > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Microsoft ammunition > But, if you're tired of the repetition, here's a > reason you should sit through another sermon: > RandomNoise's Coda. Coda lets you design entire > Web pages in Java rather than use a mixture of > HTML content, tags, and Java applets. > > A Java-based Web page removes the distinction > between application and data. It presents data > just as an HTML page would, but every element on > the screen has the potential to be an interactive > part of a sophisticated application. Mix this with the distributed processing model of Plan 9 and you may just have tomorrows computer environment. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0