- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Voting Monarchist?
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unicorn(a)schloss.li wrote: <snip> >I hate lightning it's pretty, but it can be nasty. most pretty things can. > Vote Monarchist who is the candidate? LaRouche?

4 5

Re: POT_hot
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:50 PM 9/2/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 11:39 PM 9/2/96 GMT, John Young wrote: >> Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct, Lead Essay: >> >> "Postmodern Terrorism. The terrorism of the future may be >> far more destructive than terrorism as we have known it." >> >> An informative survey and pot-heat by Walter Laqueur. >> >> Terrorism's prospects, often overrated by the media, >> the public, and some politicians, are improving as its >> destructive potential increases. Terrorism has >> replaced wars between nations of the 1800s and 1900s. >[deleted] >> Why assassinate a politician or indiscriminately kill >> people when an attack on electronic switching will >> produce far more dramatic and lasting results? If the >> new terrorism directs its energies toward information >> warfare, its destructive power will be exponentially >> greater than any it wielded in the past -- greater >> even than it would be with biological and chemical >> weapons. The single successful one could claim many >> more victims, do more material damage, and unleash far >> greater panic than anything the world has yet >> experienced. >> http://jya.com/pothot.txt (30 kb) > > ><sigh> >Am I being unreasonable to expect at least a certain degreee of logic in the >world? Why is it that this guy (Laqueur) seems to believe that the future >is filled with "greater panic than anything the world has yet experienced." >I believe that, while there may be panic, it'll be panic on the part of the >politicians, not ordinary citizens. I suppose a certain amount of bias is >to be expected, seeing as how it's Foreign Affairs magazine. A good representation of postmodern paranoia...the ingredients: a mind somewhat boggled by the extent of change (and the extent of awareness of change) occasioned by the 'information revolution,' a growing awareness of the fragile interdependence of control systems, and (this is the clincher) an inability to trust the intentions of the vast conspiratorial World Outside. -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

1 0

Re: SNAKEOIL? Top Secret for Windows
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DJ> From: frogfarm(a)yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) DJ> Subject: SNAKEOIL? Top Secret for Windows DJ> http://www.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/win3/security/tsecret.zip DJ> ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/win3/security/tsecret.zip 12070 bytes DJ> tsecret.zip TOPSECRET!: Easily encrypts any file DJ> TOPSECRET is a program to encrypt your sensitive files. ............ DJ> Shareware. Uploaded by the author. DJ> Siva Krishna DJ> sk510019(a)mail.idt.net PA> I'm interested in reading the source PA> code and any more detailed description you have. SK> I am currently not releasing the source code.Here is a copy of the zip SK> file if you get hold of a pc. -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Passive Trojan (was:Re: HAZ-MAT virus)
by Paul S. Penrod 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This has been done in the past using several vairants (but not in a image program). The key to the success is that the application in question has to be compromised to respond to these codes, either by design or by hacking. Either way the individual responsible must modify the execution mechanism, not just the data itself. Let's see -current examples of computing items with this kind of a "feature"... magic cookies, macros, OLE, DDE, MS Objects, JAVA, and the list keeps growing. On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Jason Wong wrote: > > Actually , THINK about it, it does makes a interesting idea for a trojan > horse doesn't it ? I mean, just get a solid graphic program, insert codes > into it so that when certain conditions, i.e. a particular gif or jpg file > is view, print, etc, the trojan activates !! > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Jason Wong (CNE, MCP) Jason(a)MCSB.COM.SG > Network Engineer > MCSB Systems Pte Ltd > ___________________________________________________________________________ > >

2 2

Re: Los Angeles Times article on Helsingius and anon.penet.fi (fwd)
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Godwin on E.Dyson: [please note that I'm just a conduit here; direct replies accordingly] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 02:17:12 -0700 >From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)well.com> To: Michael Froomkin <froomkin(a)law.miami.edu>, Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)well.com> Subject: Re: Los Angeles Times article on Helsingius and anon.penet.fi (fwd) Esther had written: >Now, speaking personally: I believe there are trade-offs -- which is what I >told the LA Times. I assume I was quoted accurately (although the word >"enforce" is awkward), but out of context. Anonymity can be dangerous -- >as can traceability, especially in/by repressive regimes. Therefore I would >favor allowing anonymity -- with some form of traceability only under terms >considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap. >Anyone who seriously needs anonymity because of a repressive government is >likely to use a foreign (outside whatever jurisdiction he fears) server, so >that this is not a matter of "local" laws. The tracer would have to pass >through what I hope would be tighter hoops than we have now. This is surely a reasonable statement for Esther to have made, even though connotatively it may seem to have an anti-anonymity thrust to it. Who can dispute that individual freedom (of any sort) entails the potential that someone will use that freedom badly, and that the greater the freedom the greater the theoretical potential for harm? The civil-libertarian argument can't be any naive denial of this sort of analysis -- instead, it has to something that acknowledges the truth of the principle, yet simultaneously denies the inference that the principle, standing alone, amounts to a case for limiting that freedom. One way to do so is to argue that the theoretical threat is outweighed by the benefits both to society and to individuals. Another is to point out that there seems to be no evidence that the theoretical problem has transmuted itself into a real one. You may feel free to forward this. --Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Law Professor Volokh Errs In Slate Article About Communications Decency Act. Set your browser to the following URL to read a critique of the Slate article by EFF's Mike Godwin and MIT's Hal Abelson: <http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~hal/volokh-slate-critique-by-godwin-abelson.html>. Mike Godwin, EFF Staff Counsel, can be reached at mnemonic(a)eff.org or at his office, 510-548-3290. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Educating former anon.penet.fi users about other remailers
by Johan Helsingius 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>If somebody were to put together a one-page note on other remailers, >would it make sense to send it to all the penet.fi users? >A canonical cypherpunks approach would be to just write one and >send it to na000001(a)anon.penet.fi ..... na600000(a)anon.penet.fi, >but I assume either my system or Julf's would decide it was spam >and discard it (even if it were split up into 60,000 10-message chunks.) Yes, thatŽs what would happen. And I fear what woudl happen, load-wise, if I tried to send 700.000 messages. Might be a good idea to post it into the appropriate newsgroups, at least. Julf

1 0

re:hackerlist
by Paul Reese 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:51 AM 9/1/96 EDT, you wrote: Get a clue! Why on earth would you want a list like this and why on earth would anyone want to place themselves on such a list? Dumb idea! Proves the kind of clientel that Juno opens the doorways of Internet E-mail to.... >I am planning to make a list of hackers and would appreciatte it if you >would e-mail me with the following information. >handle >e-mail >city,state >url >whether or not you would like to recieve the list when finished > thanks for your help > P. Cummings > Patrickbc(a)juno.com > > Reply-To: preese(a)erinet.com

1 0

Re: Moscowchannel.com hack
by Rick Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Joel McNamara wrote: : > Just a matter of time before some builds a dedicated Satan type tool that : > scans for HTTP server holes or messed up file permissions to make locating : > potential victims easy. Snow replied: : Write your web site to a CD-ROM and hard-code the base directory into the : webserver. Or host it on something with mandatory access control protections. There are still a handful of us building such things, and they can give really good protection to web page contents. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com secure computing corporation

2 1

Re: The Esther Dyson Flap
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:11 PM 9/2/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > Esther Dyson says that anonymity on the Net can do more damage than > anonymity in other forums, and thus may need to be regulated and restricted > in various ways. > > [...] > > This is the "knife edge," or "fork in the road," I've long talked about. If > anonymity is outlawed, it will take draconian measures to enforce > it--citizen-unit ID cards, officially issued encryption keys, escrow, > monitoring of communications, massive penalties to deter illegal use of > encryption, and other police state measures. Esther Dyson has gone over to the enemy, she is chairman of the EFF, therefore the EFF has gone over to the enemy. > I don't call her our enemy. Perhaps she just hasn't thought things through > as deeply as many of us have. This seems unlikely. After all, it is her job. The net makes free speech more effective. Therefore the world must become more free, or else must suppress free speech, and thus become less free. Which side are you on? It is that simple. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by James C. Sewell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:47 AM 8/24/96 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote: > >No I have to dissagree. Who I send mail to or whom I receive mail from is >no-ones business. I for one have no intention of "signing up" or >"regestering" with any mail server. I most certainally want to be the one to >decide what mail I receive or do not receive, not someone elses idea of what >I should receive. Upon reflection I can say you are right, UNLESS we can put this "signup" thing on the end-user's machine so he can set it in his own privacy and no one else can pilfer it. The ultimate solution is AI mail clients, but that's too far off to wait for, I feel. Jim Sewell - jims(a)tansoft.com Tantalus Incorporated - Key West, FL

2 1