- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Lawsuit over publishing how-to-murder book
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From LI Newsday today, p. 18: Suit Follows Muder by the Book Publisher of how-to 'Hit Man' manual is blamed in 3 killings The Associated Press (Greebvelt, Md.) - James E. Perry committed muder by the book. Now the book's publisher is accused of aiding and abetting his crimes. In a case that legal scholars say could set a precedent in First Amendment law if allowed to proceed, a federal judge yesterday said he would rule in 30 days on a motion against the publisher of "Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors". [..] The $10, 130-page book has sold 13,000 copies since it was published in 1983 by Paladin Press of Boulder, Colo., a small company that sells mostly through mail orders from its catalog. [..] No mention of the Internet or four-horseman in the article.

1 0

Re: [Noise] was Re: Giving 6 year old kids Uzi's
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 5:14 PM -0700 7/22/96, Ernest Hua wrote: >>Or the way many blacks were lynched (physically and socially) in the South. >>Or the way many asians were segregated. Or the way many ethnic groups >>fought each other in inner cities. >> >>These are cultural relics of the good ol' days I simply can do without. Few armed blacks were lynched. Like--none. In any case, posession of machined metal is in no way comparable to lynching. Massed armed attacks on people simply because they are alleged to have possessed machined pieces of metal the size and shape of fifty-cent pieces (the reason for the BATF attack on the religious community outside of Waco) *is* comparable to lynching. DCF

2 1

Re: NSA Lawyers Believe ITARs Would be Overturned if Tested in Court (fwd)
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My arms trafficker page has been up since April 26th. We have 838 arms traffickers and a public file with a list of 360 "known arms traffickers". It was mentioned on CNN. So far, nobody from the NSA or anywhere else has complained. I am sure if this went to court they would loose. They have to claim that clicking a mouse button on a web form so that 3 lines of text go back to where they just came from, makes someone a criminal. "May it please the court, the charge against these 838 criminal clickers is international arms-trafficking." In a country where a double murderer can walk? I am sure they realize this, which is why I feel it is safe for me to do this (also I believe that EFF etc would so love to have my case as a test case that they would pay my legal bills). -- Vince Cate http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/ http://online.offshore.com.ai/publicity/cnn.html

1 0

Re: Bare fibers
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:30 AM 7/23/96 -0500, Douglas R. Floyd wrote: >> >> * Carbons sent to: In: jimbell(a)pacifier.com >> >> -=> Quoting In:jimbell@pacifier.com to Harka <=- >> >> In> The fiber is usually coated with a very thin layer of clear plastic to >> In> protect against moisture and abrasion, and the diameter is around 0.5 >> In> to 1.0 millimeters in diameter. >> >> >> Doesn't that make it vulnerable (detectable) to Tempest attacks? > >Not really sure how. I have had heard of ways to tap a fibre optic link >noninvasively, but its not related to Van Eck or anything like that. You could break the fiber and add a repeater (if you know enough about the light protocol). Plastic fiber can be cut with a pocket knife, glass requires a machine which will make a square cut and polish the end. Those machines are not yet cheap. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Digital Watermarks for copy protection in recent Billbo
by Alex F 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Sniffers aren't much effort, and if I sniff your tagged purchases and > put them out over the net anonymously, they are traced to you. Actually I was thinking more along the lines of physically stealing, but if someone sniffed an electronic transfer of a record then the laws would become even more useless as far as enforcement goes. > Probably, but the Billboard article discussed using CC numbers as an > ID in the online watermarked transactions. Doesn't mean they were > correct, of course. Considering that their sources are probably more reliable (even though less knowledgable), and considering the idiocy of such an idea, I would risk saying that they are right :) > AFAIK, most "bootlegging" is of unreleased concerts or out-takes. > Digital watermarks would be of little use. There are solutions to this that work. 1) The Greatful Dead approach - let everyone bootleg live shows. Who cares? 2) The Frank Zappa Approach - take the bootlegged copies, use better equipment, and possibly your own soundboard recordings of the same show, and put them out yourself. Since you are capable of putting out a better product sonically, then beat them at their own game ("Beat the Boots") Alex F =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Alex F alexf(a)iss.net Marketing Specialist Internet Security Systems =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 16:07 7/23/96, Tom Weinstein wrote: >The Deviant wrote: >> >>> You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein >>> coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw(a)netscape.com >> >> Style is standing up for what you beleive in. Netscape obviously has >> none, or they would be activly fighting the ITAR. > >Anyone who believes that Netscape is not actively fighting ITAR is a >fool. Amen. -- 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: random numbers reverse-engineering
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:28 PM 7/15/96 +0300, Juri wrote: >Is there somewhere where I could find more information on finding out RNG >algorithms or reverse-engineering RNG's, once you have some quantity of >random numbers generated by some RNG? > >For example a local bank is giving each customer a list with 600 one-time >passwords (6-digit decimal numbers), and I believe they use the account >number as (one of the) seeds for the RNG. Is there some program that I >could use, together with the numbers and possible seed, to try to break >the RNG? If you have some guess about the algorithm being used, you can try it, and if they've chosen a weak algorithm, you may be successful. For instance, if they use a simple Linear Congruential Multiplicative PRNG, X[n+1] = ( a * X[n] + c ) mod m and if you've got a list of 600 one-time passwords, you can get a good approximation to m by taking the largest password and looking for prime numbers slightly higher than it. You can then try solving for a and c. On the other hand, if the account number is large, and each X[n+1] is the low-order 6 digits of Y'[n+1] = MD5(Y[n]) and Y[0] = account number, then it'll be much harder to reverse-engineer. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Confuse Authority!

1 0

Re: Defend Mail Bomb
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:25 PM 7/14/96 +0800, you wrote: >Is it possible to defend mail bomb? If not, detect who they are? Mail bombs are hard to defend against. If your company or ISP has a firewall or mail server that handles their incoming email, it can potentially be configured to block mail from known harassers, but it's much harder to do if automatically - ten megabytes of binary data might be mailbombs, or might be the CAD/CAM file that your engineering department wanted. If the mailbombs are all coming from one place, over a period of time, you can often look at the headers and track down where they came from, and contact the administrators of the machines the mail came from to ask them to stop the problem. But if the attacker is good, this requires looking at large numbers of log-files, and many administrators aren't willing to do this except for serious on-going problems. If the mailbombs are coming from anonymous remailers, most remailer operators are happy to put you on their block list, to block further anonymous mailbombs. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Confuse Authority!

1 0

Re: Sternlight on C'punks
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:42 7/16/96, Peter D. Junger wrote: >How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list? I run a Linux box >with sendmail and use the MH mail system. > >My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like >your advice before going to a lot of labor. Procmail is the way to go. -- 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

Re: Banning Anonymity As Well (was Re: How I Would Ban Strong Crypto
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Also, the key which decodes the GAKed data is just too valuable and too >> easy to steal. > >Assuming the info is encrypted with one GAK key, yes. There might be >a series of keys, perhaps for each escrow agency, or an id-number >that identifies the key. I predict that the "Access requires two master key agents" feature that Clipper I pretended to have* gets lost along the way. It wasn't in Steve Walker's software key-gakking system that he and Dorothy were touting a year or so ago, and it's a bit of work to actually implement in software depending on the encryption methods used. [* The Clipper I chip didn't actually implement dual GAK agents, though it could have without much extra effort; that was all part of the process of loading the chip's master-key in the vault charade, and could therefore be easily changed later... ] # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Confuse Authority!

1 0