- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Southern Cracker Beer Bombs in Trucks
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:23 PM 8/1/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both >ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware >stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a >good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly >on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. >Do not pack >the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want >the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder >sitting loose in a very rigid container. For "safety" purposes (at least for the builder!) I would add that the threads on the pipe should be covered with a generous quantity of vaseline, grease, wax, or other similar material. Otherwise, the final tighten-up might cause an explosion if granules of powder get stuck in the threads and ignite due to friction. Evidence reduction tips: Discard drill bit used to make hole in pipe. Carefully avoid leaving any drill shavings in work area. Completely use/discard any extra powder/fuse not used in the bomb. (Chemical analysis will reveal similarity...) When tightening the pipe/cap, shield the work with a thick layer of folded-up paper towel or other material, so your Vice-Grips (or other such wrench, or vice) don't leave "tool marks" on the pipe. (Discard, by burning, such paper after use.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Is 1024-bit PGP key enough?
by David F. Ogren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Fri Aug 02 01:13:30 1996 >Somebody says: >>> Is security provided by 1024-bit PGP key sufficient against most powerful >>> computers that are available today? Say if smoe organization spent 10 >>> billions of dollars on a cracking machine, would it be possible to crack >>> the keys in reasonable time? I'll defer to Mr. Atkin's numbers here, although I think that TLA's may have more computing power than his rough estimates. No matter what the exact numbers are, it seems that the answer is the same. 1024 bit keys appear to be secure for 1996, at least for individuals. You also have to remember that even if a 1024 bit key could be cracked for a mere [sic] million dollars, you have succeeded in making it easier for an organization to break into your house and bug your computer than crack your RSA key. Or use some other method (bribery, extortion, violence) to obtain that information. > Also, remember that although the PGP key is 1024 bits, it generates a > much > smaller IDEA key with 56 bits (I think... anyone?). The 56 bit key is > vunerable to that $1 mil mystery machine that the NSA may or may not > have. > IDEA keys are 128 bits long. (DES keys are the ones with 56 bits.) However, symmetric cryptosystems, such as IDEA, are harder to break by brute force. It is currently estimated that a 128 bit IDEA key is the equivalent of a 2304 bit RSA key. So, even though the 128 bit IDEA session key is shorter than the 1024 bit RSA key, the RSA key is easier to break using brute force. - -- David F. Ogren | ogren(a)concentric.net | "A man without religion is like a fish PGP Key ID: 0x6458EB29 | without a bicycle" - ------------------------------|---------------------------------------- Don't know what PGP is? | Need my public key? It's available Send a message to me with the | by server or by sending me a message subject GETPGPINFO | with the subject GETPGPKEY -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMgGOfOSLhCBkWOspAQEpzgf/Tn1gI8rjg+RxNbor9uIHMZgLWxGHcoMu WleZrgd2O/K6JNcBySpeLCVe+xgUwbdXPThLO6jP4eSwqpuNtZTLWmaU2LZond+O XIWSXRzEcvdFPoFISDpxLyLEJtZu122bc1xdlI8zhbO2CqeOcJmJ47WAaTul3wg7 MIyl7zZAvrXrzZ8ByYTpoG7C5d11kEeKCLw7ObxYXCaXXhWFphbxO8Kq3/C597H1 rb9cRu2zyt5OmN1ySMifTbrfMJvkeb9cNsSijv3q5m+ciIX5DKoH07kO82RxjT98 ndpyGbZkbZLWjKvDeNvrh2EtJRV6mfOIIZr2zaQyuyKlYmoP+VKuDA== =QN4L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: The "Secure" version of Netscape for Linux is *NOT*
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:31 PM 8/1/96 -0700, Alan Olsen wrote: >At 05:25 PM 8/1/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote: >>Alan Olsen wrote: >>> >>> I just installed the "secure" version of Netscape off of the "US Only" >>> download site. >>> >>> Seems that it is actualy the international version and not the 128 bit >>> version. >> >>What makes you think you got the export version? >> >>Here's one way to find out. If you look in the Security Preferences >>panel under the Options menu, there are two "Configure" buttons for >>configuring what ciphers are enabled for SSL 2 and SSL 3. The domestic >>version supports a greater variety of options, including triple DES. > >I connected to my site running Stronghold 1.3b1. Only got 40 bit >encryption. I then connected to Netscape's Store site. Only got 40 bit >encryption. I checked the info box (or about box, I don't remember which) >for the connection and it claimed to be running the "exportable" version. >(The Win95 version connects properly to both sites with no tweaking needed.) > >I will double check, but neither site would connect with 128 bits straight >out of the tar file. My apologies to everyone involved! I fucked up! There was a period of time between when I downloaded and when I installed. The version I installed was not the one I installed from the secure site. (I had thought I had not downloaded the 3.0b5 version for Linux, except for the secure version. It seems that I had downloaded it when the first version of 3.0b5 came out, not the 3.0b5a version...) Sorry again! --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

1 0

Re: Internal Passports
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 13:06 8/1/96, David M. Rose wrote: >On 1 Aug 1996 (Timothy C. May) wrote: > >>I'm with Duncan and Lucky on this one. Nations with a "Privacy Ombudsman" >>are almost always nations with extensive files on individuals, their >>habits, and their political activities. >> >>Having a "Privacy Ombudsman" is a bone thrown to the proles. I suspect a >>police state like Singapore has such a person. > >My understanding is that the acceptable term is "ombud", or possibly >"ombuds". Cf.: "chair", "anchor", "milk", "post", "g-", "colored", "fire", >"police", "China", "French", etc. Ombudsman is a Swedish term. I suppose the modern day English deconstruction/reconstruction would be ombudsperson. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Brian quit the feds! [was:Re: Photo IDs]
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:51 8/1/96, Brian Davis wrote: >No longer a federal prosecutor! Congratulations, Brian. Though I will miss having a confessed 'real' Fed on the list. Well, "former federal prosecutor" still sounds pretty good. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: Tolerance
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:46 8/1/96, Chris Adams wrote: >Just a comment to all of the 'true libertarians' out there, especially >the "defend to the death" types: How many of you defended Mr. >Sternlight's recent membership? There was nothing to defend. To the best of my knowledge, nobody suggested that DS be thrown off the list. One joker unsubed Sternlight, but that was hardly something that he couldn't fix himself. Did I want him on the list? Hell no. Do I believe he has a right to join the list? Yes, with one possible exception. The list owner can ban anybody, since the list is using the owner's resources. In this case, from a libertarian standpoint, not even an explanation of such an action would be required. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: Southern Cracker Beer Bombs in Trucks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I work with Hi Performance and Experimental rockets and I am somewhat familiar with explosives and the handling thereof. I have a couple of comments to add to the pipe bomb building thread... Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 23:06:14 -0800 > From: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> > Subject: Re: Southern Cracker Beer Bombs in Trucks > > >Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both > >ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware > >stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a > >good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly > >on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. > >Do not pack > >the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want > >the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder > >sitting loose in a very rigid container. > > For "safety" purposes (at least for the builder!) I would add that the > threads on the pipe should be covered with a generous quantity of vaseline, > grease, wax, or other similar material. Otherwise, the final tighten-up > might cause an explosion if granules of powder get stuck in the threads and > ignite due to friction. Do this and you will get a reaction which can cause a spontaneous explosion. In short keep all greases and other such products away from explosives. If you must use threads on a pipe in such a situation make VERY shure they are clean and dry. I would use water to first wash the water solubles away and then would use alcholol to clean the threads of the remaining debree. Also, always use a cotten rag otherwise you run the risk of building up a static charge sufficient to set it off. > When tightening the pipe/cap, shield the work with a thick layer of > folded-up paper towel or other material, so your Vice-Grips (or other such > wrench, or vice) don't leave "tool marks" on the pipe. (Discard, by burning, such paper after use.) If you must use metal tools in the constructio of your bomb make shure of two things. First, there is another person to call the ambulance. Also be shure to use a non-sparking tool (read that as expensive) do NOT use steel or iron tools. You would just be asking to blow yourself up from sparks. Most tool catalogs will have a small section of Beryllium based tools or something similar. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: Is 1024-bit PGP key enough?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:16 PM 8/1/96 -0400, "Geoffrey C. Grabow" <gcg(a)pb.net> wrote: >Also, remember that although the PGP key is 1024 bits, it generates a much >smaller IDEA key with 56 bits (I think... anyone?). The 56 bit key is >vunerable to that $1 mil mystery machine that the NSA may or may not have. The PGP RSA keysize is user-selectable. The IDEA key is not 56 bits (that's DES) - it's 128 bits, and remember that you currently need to use brute force keysearch on it, unlike RSA keys which have to be much longer because they have special forms and can be cracked by prime-number searching, which is a much faster process that doesn't have to try anything near to every 1024-bit number. As somebody else pointed out, the 128-bit IDEA key is about as strong as a 3000-bit RSA key - though that was before the latest factoring algorithm was demonstrated to work so well, which means that it's probably about as strong as a 4-5000-bit RSA key. > | That which does not kill us, makes us stranger. - Trevor Goodchild | :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # Dispel Authority!

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Hi All, Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:35:00 -0700 > From: shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) > Subject: Re: Tolerance > > Hell no. Do I believe he has a right to join the list? Yes, with one > possible exception. The list owner can ban anybody, since the list is using > the owner's resources. In this case, from a libertarian standpoint, not > even an explanation of such an action would be required. If the person joining the public list is warned that the list owner reserves that right I would agree. It would require such a warning to be issued at the time the person received their notification of successful joining. If that warning is not present and the list is advertised as PUBLIC then NO, not even the list operator can ethicaly refuse membership to anyone for any reason other than criminal activity by a member. Otherwise it isn't public. Just because you provide a service does not give you unlimited or even limited control if you make it clear it is public and therefore open to anyone. Libertarian views should be basicaly if it doesn't harm anothers person or property without their prior consent then it should be legal and permissible. A public list means that the owner does not reserve any rights of moderation or cencorship. This is the way public is applied to the government and it is the way it MUST be applied to private individuals. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In short the ethical situation is the same as if a city declares a park to be public and then begins to bar people from sleeping there at night. Jim Choate

2 1

Who the hell is ....
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- OK, I'v been on the list a bit now. I see a lot of the same people posting to it, My question is " Who the Hell is Sternlight" At first I thought it was a pen name ( the light on the end of a boat ?? ) Thanks -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCXAwUBMgHOEeJ+JZd/Y4yVAQEu4gQLB0BjGZB+ezonyMrzCEE4+FWA/l18CeLz tIyRRuLiCKw/IO/sNAJeaCQP0D0IsFcMVnjs6rlQ5hiVX09+P4P8IlNfFjH6TdN0 HezEsU9yupltcNpje9PoxnGI38QgN3yQbjB06+xHf37KPxdIzBr+/7/pRyash5dl z5StfU0SSZIhPg== =cUAP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2