- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

C2Net Software's Stronghold Web Server Adds nCipher Hardware Encryption Support
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Authentication-Warning: fma66.fma.com: majordomo set sender to owner-espam(a)lists.espace.net using -f X-Orig-From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> X-e$pam-source: Various X-Sender: rah(a)atanda.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:04:32 -0400 To: espam(a)intertrader.com, e$pam <e$pam(a)atanda.com> From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: C2Net Software's Stronghold Web Server Adds nCipher Hardware Encryption Support X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by lbo.leftbank.com id NAA11958 Sender: owner-espam(a)lists.espace.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- This mail is brought to you by the e$pam mailing list --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Reply-To: rah(a)shipwright.com Organization: The Shipwright Development Corporation MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: C2Net Software's Stronghold Web Server Adds nCipher Hardware Encryption Support http://www.prnewswire.com:80/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/s tory/7-14-9 7/275856&EDATE= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="275856&EDATE=" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="275856&EDATE=" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by lbo.leftbank.com i d KAA11101 [Todays News] C2Net Software's Stronghold Web Server Adds nCipher Hardware Encryption Support OAKLAND, Calif., July 14 /PRNewswire/ -- C2Net Software today announc ed its Stronghold(TM) secure web server now supports the nFast hardware cryptographic accelerator from nCipher Corporation Ltd. "Like Stronghold, the nFast accelerator is manufactured outside of the U.S., enabling us to off er our world-wide customers a simple, platform-independent way to speed up s ecure web server throughput," said C2Net Software president Sameer Parekh. "Man y will find that Stronghold's terrific out-of-the-box performance is more t han enough for their needs. If not, adding one or more nFast units is a fast, simple way to increase encryption performance as required." "nCipher's nFast cryptographic accelerators enhance e-commerce and on line transactions by speeding up the processing of crypto keys," said Alex van Someren, president of nCipher. "Using nFast together with the Stronghold web server gives customers throughout the world a quickly-scalable environmen t for conducting secure business on the Internet." nCipher's nFast cryptographic accelerator interfaces via a standard S CSI2 interface, making it compatible with virtually any computer platform, and mounts within the space of a standard 3.5-inch disk drive bay. Each nFast accelerator can carry out approximately three hundred 1024-bit public key signings per second. The Stronghold Web Server is an enhanced, secure, commercial version of the popular Apache server. Based on figures in a Netcraft survey (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/) Stronghold is the second most popular commercial server for UNIX and the second most popular for secure applica tions on the Internet. nCipher Corporation Ltd. (http://www.ncipher.com/) an affiliate of the Newbridge Network Corporation (NYSE: NN), is a privately-owned developer of cryptographic technologies for securing server transactions, including bo th software and hardware cryptographic acceleration products. nCipher headquarters are located in Cambridge, England, with US offices in Andove r, MA and in Santa Clara, CA. C2Net Software, Inc. (http://www.c2.net/) is a leading provider of uncompromised network security software. Through its international offsho re development programs, all C2Net products are exempt from U.S. government export restrictions, allowing the company to offer uncrippled, strong cryptography solutions to customers worldwide. SOURCE C2Net Software Inc. CONTACT: Steve Cook of C2Net Software, Inc., 510-986-8770 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- [PR Newswire Logo] (Today's News) (Company News On-Call) (Feature News) (Automotive) (Entertainment) (Health/Biotech)(Technology) (Financial) (Energy) (Washington and the World) (Money Talks) (About PRN)(Ask PRN) (Links) (P RN Events) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ©1997 PR Newswire. All rights reserved. Redistribution, retransmission, republication or commercial exploitation of the contents of this site are expressly prohibited without the written consent of PR Newswire. These pages have been optimized for Netscape v.2.0 or later --------------------------------------------------------------------- Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- Like e$? Help pay for it! See <http://www.shipwright.com/beg.html> Or, for e$/e$pam sponsorship, <mailto:rah@shipwright.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

White House swaps stand and decides to invite ACLU after all
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:28:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: White House swaps stand and decides to invite ACLU after all [Two hours after the ACLU issued this press release and journalists started to call, the White House reversed its stand. Now it says the ACLU is permitted to come to the meeting tomorrow after all. --Declan] *********** White House Excludes ACLU and Others From Summit Meeting on Internet Censorship FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, July 15, 1997 Contact: Emily Whitfield, (212) 549-2566 WASHINGTON -- Contrary to earlier Administration statements, the White House has failed to invite the American Civil Liberties Union and other leading civil liberties organizations to its high-level conference on Internet censorship. "With this last-minute shift, the Administration has set an unfortunate beginning to this important process," said Donald Haines, ACLU Legislative Counsel for the Washington National Office. "Just as the ACLU continues to work with members of Congress as they shape national policy regarding the Internet," Haines said, "we were most interested in working with President Clinton and Vice President Gore on finding strategies to empower parents to help their children use the Internet wisely." The conference, set to take place on Wednesday, July 17, includes representatives from Internet giants Microsoft, America Online and Prodigy and executives from filtering software companies, as well as the Internet censorship group Enough is Enough. The American Library Association, a defender of online free speech, was invited, but the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based cyber-liberties group, was excluded along with the ACLU. "The Administration's failure to open this process to all interested parties is short-sighted and could ultimately lead to another expensive legal battle," Haines added. Tomorrow's meeting on Internet censorship comes in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court decision late last month striking down censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act as unconstitutional. The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the CDA on behalf of 20 organizations and individuals, the day after President Clinton signed the law. Several weeks later, a second group of plaintiffs filed another challenge, American Library Association v. Department of Justice. The two challenges were consolidated into ACLU v. Reno by a federal district curt in Philadelphia, which ultimately ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The government appealed that ruling and the case moved up to the Supreme Court. Writing for a nearly unanimous Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, Justice John Paul Stevens said that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." Commenting on the law's purported aim to protect minors from so-called indecency, Justice Stevens noted that "Under the CDA, a parent allowing her 17-year-old to use the family computer to obtain information on the Internet that she, in her parental judgment, deems appropriate, could face a lengthy prison term." "The Court's decision was clearly written to protect individual online users," said the ACLU's Haines. "They, not industry giants, are the people the ACLU represents, and they are the people who are being denied a voice in this meeting." -endit-

1 0

[FC97] Anonymous Networking?
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can someone summarize McCoy's `Anonymous Networking and Virtual Intranets' from FC97 plz?

1 0

No Subject
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

The Big Sellout
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:25:50 -0400 From: Michael Sims <jellicle(a)inch.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Cc: jberman(a)cdt.org, jseiger(a)cdt.org Subject: The Big Sellout It's here. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/15/cybersmut.ap/index.html Computer industry to announce anti-smut initiatives July 15, 1997 Web posted at: 9:59 p.m. EDT (0159 GMT) [20 minutes ago. I'm quick, aren't I?] WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hoping to avoid a V-chip for the Internet, the computer industry will announce at the White House on Wednesday it will provide greater access to anti-smut software and work to flag Internet sites that are clean enough for kids. Weeks after the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law designed to keep cyberspace's seedy side away from children, the White House is urging the computer industry and parent's groups to take such voluntary steps to make the Internet safe for youngsters. "We don't need to reinvent the wheel here and we don't need a V-chip for the Internet. We have tools out there which are 100 percent available," said Jerry Berman of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a group that works to protect computer users' civil liberties. They just need to be more widely used and understood, he said. President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, a computer enthusiast, will host the private meeting Wednesday. About 30 to 40 people are expected, including representatives from America Online, Netscape Communications Corp., Microsoft Corp., Yahoo! Inc., the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Library Association, makers of screening technology and electronic civil liberties groups. The White House has said it wants a solution "as powerful for the computer as the V-chip will be for the television that protects children in ways that are consistent with America's free-speech values." Instead of seeking new legislation to force the computer industry to shield children from Internet smut, the Clinton administration is pushing voluntary ideas. That's welcome news for the industry and electronic civil liberties groups, which fought to overturn anti-smut provisions in the 1996 telecommunications law. "It's a very positive thing to try to come up with a constructive alternative to legislation," said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a nonprofit media watchdog group. No final industry-wide voluntary plan is expected to be announced Wednesday, but some companies are expected to unveil plans. For instance, Netscape Communications is expected to announce it will back a software standard that allows people, using a Web browser, either to block or select certain Web sites based on their electronic labels, said industry and government sources, speaking on condition of anonymity. Netscape did not return a phone call for comment. Microsoft Corp.'s Explorer browser already uses the standard, dubbed PICS, which can work with more than one labeling or ratings system. Parents using a browser with the PICS technology could, for example, call up Web sites designated to be "family friendly" or they could block sites labeled as violent or sex-filled. The Center for Democracy and Technology, meanwhile, is supposed to debut a Web page that would give parents information on how and where to get free smut-screening software, Berman said. The center estimates all of the major providers of Internet access to consumers offer screening technology for free or at a nominal cost. Those providers cover 14 million households, and include AOL, AT&T WorldNet, CompuServe, Prodigy and Erol's. The American Library Association is working on a broader effort. It has compiled a listing of family friendly Web sites parents can access separately or through its Web page, said spokeswoman Joyce Kelly. The listing will be updated and expanded, she said. And Microsystems Software Inc., maker of Cyber Patrol, a widely used screening software, is expected to unveil new technology to make it easier for owners to label their Web sites, a company representative said. "We're heartened that the industry is taking steps on its own," said Patty Yoxall, spokeswoman for the National PTA. "We prefer voluntary efforts over government intervention." White House officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed that in addition to the voluntary efforts for indecent or smutty content, the government still will enforce vigorously provisions making illegal any obscene materials carried on the Internet. The Supreme Court upheld that provision of the 1996 law on June 26, even as it overturned provisions aimed at restricting children's access to indecent online materials. Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

10 9

Re: White House swaps stand and decides to invite ACLU after all
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 23:05:15 -0400 From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir(a)vtw.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Cc: barrys(a)aclu.org, beeson(a)aclu.org, privaclu(a)aol.com Subject: Re: White House swaps stand and decides to invite ACLU after all Some obvious problems with this bit: At 3:28 PM -0700 7/15/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >[Two hours after the ACLU issued this press release and journalists >started to call, the White House reversed its stand. Now it says the ACLU >is permitted to come to the meeting tomorrow after all. --Declan] I know people who received their invites late this afternoon, so it's not obvious that the ACLU wasn't invited, just that they got their invitation later than everyone else. >From aclu press release: >"The Court's decision was clearly written to protect individual online >users," said the ACLU's Haines. "They, not industry giants, are the people >the ACLU represents, and they are the people who are being denied a voice in >this meeting." As a hard working member of the net civil liberties community I find it inappropriate that the ACLU assumes that even though other civil liberties folks will be there, including myself, that we don't represent Internet users. I don't think any of us has the right to say who solely represents the Internet community. To say that even though VTW and CDT and ALA and others will be there, that the net community is still not represented is pretty out of line. And though I'm not defending the fact the White House's actions, I wonder if it occurs to anyone that the reason they were left until last is because when the White House started moving away (in the Magaziner paper) from the CDA the week before the SC decision, the ACLU dissed them in the press. Perhaps the reaction to that shouldn't have been to trash them in the press, but to say encouraging things while saying "Actions will speak louder than anything". It's not as if the White House can't modify their position on this issue, they've moved around on others before. Shouldn't we make that work for us for once? To diss them, regardless of what they do, violates the "carrot and stick" principle of politics. If they say stuff we agree with, like "no legislation please" and then we diss them, why will they bother to stick up for the net anymore? -S

1 0

[ANNOUNCE] IETF "OpenPGP" Standard thread beginning
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Greetings, The OpenPGP standard discussion is now on the IETF Standards track through the courtesy of the Internet Mail Consortium. The first event will be an OpenPGP BOF (Birds of a Feather) discussion at the Munich IETF meeting in August 97 (see www.ietf.org) to determine what interested parties want to have included/supported in the OpenPGP standard. Meanwhile, the IETF OPEN-PGP mailing list is being hosted by the IMC for the IETF. The list mechanism is currently accepting subscriptions, but the list itself will not be active for posting for a few more days (notifications will be made to subscribers when it is active). If you'd like to sign up for the IETF's OpenPGP mailing list now, please send email as follows: To: ietf-open-pgp-request(a)imc.org Body: subscribe (If your mailer/etc supports "hot" links, just double-click this URL: <mailto:ietf-open-pgp-request@imc.org?body=subscribe>) For related materials, including the archive of the OpenPGP mailing list, please see the IMC website at: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-open-pgp/>. For information on PGP Inc's involvement with this standards activity, please contact Charles Breed <cbreed(a)pgp.com> or myself. dave __________________________________________________________________________ Dave Del Torto tel: +1.415.596.1781 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc 555 Twin Dolphin Dr. #570 ddt(a)pgp.com fax: +1.415.631.1033 Redwood Shores CA 94065 engineering key: see X-PGP header web: http://www.pgp.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM8xZ2KHBOF9KrwDlAQENvQQAjVlB6gIJ89XRlgdElr0n25/xJr/B1Ueo hAj9CjRUeJJ3T5WuoT/9kHScYl1FfwYXF82tLcztNsDmYdjRYylFQ1uiaIeDRMUU tBZyi7+NkyHIpd6trFqGDd4F61mb/nxOZQvx7t7XJLHo0pATdflL1OwGEUOAD1jw Xz+pwUc+QhE= =9Igf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

PGP 5.0 source available (but not online yet)
by Ian Goldberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I received a copy of the latest source (12 volumes) from a PGP, Inc. rep at the July Bay Area Cypherpunks Open Meeting on US Soil (12 July on Stanford campus). You can order your own copies through Printers, Inc.: Printers, Inc. 301 Castro St. Mountain View, CA. 94041 (415) 961-8500 <http://www.pibooks.com> PGP 5.0 Platform Independent Source Code Five Volumes, $94.00 ISBN 099649654-5-3 PGP 5.0 Win95 Source Code Three Volumes, $57.00 ISBN 099649654-6-1 PGP 5.0 Mac Source Code Four Volumes, $82.00 ISBN 099649654-7-X - Ian

2 1

Re: CCTV Cameras in Britain
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Damaged Justice wrote: > Privacy International says that in Britain, there are an estimated > 300,000 CCTV surveillance cameras in public areas, housing estates, > car parks, public facilities, phone booths, vending machines, > buses, trains, taxis, alongside motorways and inside Automatic > Teller (ATM) Machines. > Yes, there are many cameras, and more going up all the time. The vast > majority of the population is glad that these cameras are being > introduced. Ordinary crime has been reduced greatly in those areas > (proven fact) where the cameras are in use. Does this 'move' the crime to a different area? If so, then the next step will be to add cameras to the other areas. Eventually, I suppose, it will only be safe to commit crimes in the homes of the (unarmed) citizens. By then, I am sure the citizens will protest very little when the government decides that cameras are needed in every home to fight "drug dealers and child pornographers." > A very popular and effective program on UK TV is called 'Crimewatch' > where video footage, from these cameras, of crimes and suspects is > shown not for sensationalism and ratings but in order to ask for help > identifying the perpetrators. It is very effective and crimes featured > have a very high clear-up rate. The U.S. is now inundated with a plethora of "Good Cop" shows and an increasing variety of "Dumb Criminal" video shows, including a few specials that are blatantly geared to spread the message, "The Surveillance Camera Is Your Friend!" This is not the result of happenstance. The whitewashing of LEA's and other government agencies, as well as the promotion of the belief that Constitutional rights are our enemy (and the friend of crime), are the result of conscious, active direction on the part of those in power. > Unfortunately there are immoral, > irresponsible and downright antisocial > people who will not abide by the law > and persist in infringing our rights. > As long as those people exist... > then we need such laws and technology. This type of thinking is exactly the reason that government interests lie in creating more crimes and more criminals. Since an ounce of good marijuana costs $300.00 instead of merely $3.00, it is profitable to not abide by the law. Since it is also cause for imprisonment, it makes it worthwhile to use violence in order not to get caught with it. Under the "life imprisonment for a third felony" laws, you might as well rob and kill someone as write them a $1.00 bad check (or be better off, in some states). > I would feel very ashamed if my attempts to protect my rights caused > the death of innocent people because security against those who are > irresponsible had to be drastically cut back. If so, then consider feeling ashamed *now* for that fact that your lack of attempt to protect your rights, and other's rights, is causing the death of innocent people because security against those who want their freedom has been increased. Both the U.S. and Britain send armed thugs to foreign soil to force their citizens to live according to our belief in what is right, and then we call them *terrorists* when they respond to armed force with armed force. With the use of radar to create "speed traps," government realized the profits to be had from *creating* crime and they have never looked back. I have no doubt that the surveillance industry will prove every bit as profitable as the prison industry, and just as easy to sell to a citizenry that is being frightened and held hostage by a government which should be protecting them and helping them to protect themselves. Save your "In order to save the patient, we had to kill him." laws-and-technology speech for forums where freedom and privacy are considered less precious than comfort and security. TruthMonger

1 0

Re: The Big Sellout
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/15/cybersmut.ap/index.html > Computer industry to announce anti-smut initiatives > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hoping to avoid a V-chip for the Internet, the > computer industry will announce at the White House on Wednesday it > will provide greater access to anti-smut software and work to flag > Internet sites that are clean enough for kids. > White House officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed > that in addition to the voluntary efforts for indecent or smutty > content, the government still will enforce vigorously provisions > making illegal any obscene materials carried on the Internet. Translation~~They will attempt to imprison people who are victims of those who voluntarily access their web sites and then complain to the authorities, despite the sight being clearly marked as a adult-oriented site. TruthMonger

1 0