- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

(NOISE) Re: Free Pronto Secure Offer
by geoff＠commtouch.co.il 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: unicorn(a)schloss.li, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Fri Aug 16 02:41:34 1996 Unicorn, > No, I was merely pointing out that if the review revealed that it > had problems (one assumed that the intent of peer review is to reveal > such problems in the first place, but perhaps you just like giving > software away?) then the offered reward was valueless. Peer review seems to have voted that their risk paid off. > A lot of people use DES on this list too I'll wager. and... > I "tried out" your promotional scheme when I read your message, and > it was that scheme which my opinion targeted. You misinterpreted my reply to a list member's enquiry about whether our offer of Pronto Secure in exchange for feedback was still available. > This is a subjective question. Yes. > Cypherpunks is always getting the cash poor developer who thinks he > very clever because he has to pay testers no money if he offers his > new product free to the person who discovers a flaw, or writes a > review. Unicorn, you are again letting your fingers move faster than your brain. On what do you base your evaluation of our liquidity ? (not that it is relevant). Most Cypherpunks are technically savvy and crypto aware people, they provide a perfect community for evaluating and debugging a security enabling product. I would strongly recommend this route to any developer of serious security enhancing software. My sincere thanks to all c'punks who have and continue to provide incredibly valuable input into Pronto Secure. > From your home page, I would guess that you request that reviewers > allow you to make their comments public. That's called an > endorsement, and, by the way, people are usually paid for them. > Sometimes in the millions. Think Michael Jordan is getting a deal > when you use his name to promote your product and then give him a > $99.00 piece of software (which is effectively worth the amount of > time it takes to write a few kiss ass paragraphs on the software, not > $99.00)? Unicorn, you are again making groundless assumptions. I suggest that you do some fence painting before you enlighten us with your opinions about our "kiss ass paragraphs" of code. Unless Michael Jordon is reading Schneier on the sly, his endorsement of Pronto secure is not worth 99c. > Alturisim is a pipe dream. Depends what you are putting in your pipe :) I venture that most c'punks would agree that moving strong e-mail security into mainstream is a good thing. This is not going to happen without people making money from it. >> Unicorn, you are invited to whitewash my fence :) > Do I have to review pronto secure first? Yes. Geoff. - --------------------------------------------------------------- Geoff Klein, Pronto Secure Product Manager; www.commtouch.com My PGP public Key 1814AD45 can be obtained by sending a message to geoff(a)commtouch.co.il with "Get PGP Key" as the subject. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMhO1s0Lv5OMYFK1FAQG5WAP/XoLteaVpdhnLpj/pk/1aPiWX7Nx/h1cc 5Sf0mgOWv3Q9MASWHV2lKrgqF9jc15ZaymfJZDq1duGttrPj6SJqX/nwOTcYi006 Hh3qh+LnXWnBd7QA/mZL5Fn4SLAOBno/uspqwMbM+6DCw39MpCY2NG0jQ2Qi8vMH n1IG+PYYTAs= =5HnW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

RAD_ius
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

8-14-96. NW: "Proposed IETF standard to ease a variety of remote access concerns ." The scheme, called Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS), provides a centralized and secure method for authenticating remote dial-in users, authorizing appropriate enterprise resources and gathering accounting details. RADIUS also provides a way to integrate the security administration of dial-in users with that of the resident enterprise population. ----- http://jya.com/radius.txt (5 kb) RAD_ius

1 0

re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry Metzger wrote: >Bart Croughs writes: >>When economists say that wages are determined by the amount of >>capital >> invested, they mean on a regional/national level, not on the level of >> individuals. >So, you are saying that if everyone in the country spent their life >savings on building giant green pylons, the capital investment would >drive up everyone's wages? Wow! In fact, we could borrow money >from >other countries to build more green pylons and drive up wages so >fast >we could pay off the resultant debt! >Perry >(PS Please stop posting these things -- you may kill everyone >watching >with laughter.) No, I am not saying that if everyone in the country spent their life savings on building giant green pylons, the capital investment would drive up everyone's wages. You are suggesting that I'm saying this, but it's simply not true. This is called 'setting up a straw man'. I am saying that the fact that American workers are better paid than workers in Third World countries, can be explained for a large part by the fact that there is much more capital invested in the US than in Third World countries. If you still don't understand this, I suggest you study my other posts on this subject, or better still, you study the works of the Austrian economists I've quoted before. Bart Croughs

3 2

PGP...
by sasa.roskar＠uni-lj.si 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm confused.... if you don't want people to be able to read your email, you code it with PGP or other encoders... but why give away your key on your website to everyone? That makes your email readable to everyone... doesn't it? Oh well... I hope someone can explain this to me... Roki

4 3

Re: Read; NOW
by pjn＠nworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> >> Hi I'm Unix Code and have a few things to ask...(it may not go >> with Cryptography but go ahead and read) > Sad. You read my mind. P.J. pjn(a)nworks.com ... Smell The Roses And Eventually You'll Inhale A Bee. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

1 0

thank god and phil...
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

All I can say is thank God and Phil for PGP... My next X was using the 'puter last night and opened my email folders and was rooting around... I had to "fumble" my pass phrase and finally "give up" saying that the damn PGP was broke again... we all know it don't break !! This could have cost me a fortune in divorce court !!

1 0

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:02 PM 8/11/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > >I failed to note obvious counterexamples. Well known authors get giant >advances for books written with manual typewriters. Minimum wage >workers routinely operate expensive equipment. Workers doing the same >job in different places using identical equipment that cost identical >sums earn different salaries. > >Clearly, wages are defined by supply and demand -- not by "capital >investment". In the long run, employers will bid wages up to the level of discounted value of marginal product of the labor -- the present value of the future "price" of the increase in output ascribable to the added worker. It never ceases to amaze me that there are people in this country who actually believe that the average American in poorer now than in 1970. I can only be those who were unconscious in 1970. DCF

1 0

Re: "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought metal collanders on the cranium were to prevent space aliens from reading our thoughts and controlling our minds.... Guess I'll have to come up with a better solution... mine seems to have worked thus far, though Charley > >"Erik E. Fair" (Time Keeper) <fair(a)cesium.clock.org> writes: > >> I wonder how well the imager works through mylar or gold lame' clothing (or >> other high-metal content clothing)? > >Have you ever wondered why Tim May wears a protective layer of aluminum >foil on his head? (And lead foil wrapped around his balls.) > >--- > >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps >

1 0

Re: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim writes: > I don't see how "remote scanning" of the population at large, without > probable cause, is much different from the cops listening in from a > distance with parabolic antennas. Both cases involve detection of signals > emitted from the target. And yet such long-distance interception is not > allowed without a warrant. I vaguely remember another possibly relevant precedent, where a judge ruled that a warrant was required before a thermal imager could be used to look at a house suspected by the police of being a (pot) grow house. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Fw: 1024-bit keys
by David.K.Merriman＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: spencer(a)luckman.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Tue Aug 13 10:36:48 1996 Absent any ability to cite a chapter-and-verse for making such a statement, and considering the vagueness of it, I would suggest that it either be clarified, justified, or removed. I would think that, in it's present form, that statement leaves Luckman in no small amount of jeopardy: if true, but misunderstood because of lack of reference, anyone violating it may seek redress against Luckman in the event of prosecution by some law enforcement agency. If untrue, Luckman could be considered equally liable for any real or perceived lost income because of an erroneous limitation, when it's incorrectness is discovered. - -----Begin Included Message ----- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:00:42 -0700 From: Spencer Yuen <spencer(a)luckman.com> (by way of Technical Support via Heidi <heidi(a)luckman.com>) To: merriman(a)shiner.amaonline.com Cc: David, to my knowledge- it's the latter. U.S. prevents Verisign from deploying keys greater than 512 bits to Web servers outside the U.S.. And no, I can't tell you the Federal Regulation, Title, Section. >"Also, please note that you cannot send keys longer than 512 to servers >outside the United States." > >I would like to ask for clarification on this point. Is this meant to say >that a server inside the United States is not allowed to use a 512+ bit key >with a client outside the U.S., or that a Web Commander server outside the >U.S. may not employ a key of greater than 512 bits? In either case, what is >the justification for such a statement/restriction? If a Federal >regulation, could you please cite the Title and Section? > ===================================================================== | Spencer Yuen | Luckman Interactive | | spencer(a)luckman.com | (213) 614-0966 | | Quality Assurance | ext. 145 | ===================================================================== ________________________________________________________________________ Heidi Lou Bailey (h) 213.664.8669 (w) 213.614.0966 ext. 137 The world is stinky and the world is smelly. That makes for a nice day //// (0 0) **ooO*(_)*Ooo** ________________________________________________________________________ "To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of the arts." * * * * * * >>--- * * NICK--> * * * * * - ---- End of forwarded message ---- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- PGP Email welcome, encouraged, and PREFERRED. Visit my web site at http://www.shellback.com/p/merriman for my PGP key and fingerprint "What is the sound of one hand clapping in a forest with no one there to hear it?" I use Pronto Secure (tm) PGP-fluent Email software for Windows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMg/qSMVrTvyYOzAZAQGTtgQAr0TQQs7hkR8VvjhFUvOoLY4eScAI86Z7 qJ4HLHtniZExAueAYrL/fyh1tRi5RbuwtL49KdzhWF8d9nYNddzqc8O1ybb4yt3O 2TU96gDOfjFmv6mLTlWv+LfWIiYBXzNvGT1DYSeZO8atyPTW1BOX7ES/y3t1XPco FDwfFR9NUM4= =V0EI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0