- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

pgpfingerd
by Jeremey Barrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- For what it's worth, I wrote a very short fingerd that fetches _only_ a user's .pgpplan file, should it exist. Else it just exits. Someone may have already done this, so be it. This was mostly for my own use, but if anyone wants the code, feel free to use it. It's available from my home page ( http://www.veriweb.com/people/jeremey/ ). After calling getpwnam() on the username supplied, it calls setuid() with the uid of the user being fingered. It ignores any finger options and attempts to parse them out. It's possible I missed some. After setuid(), it attempts to open a file called .pgpplan in the directory (pw_dir) returned by getpwnam(). If this is not a _regular_ file, it exits, i.e. no symlinks. Then it shoves the file out over stdout (this assumes it was invoked by inetd). That's it. I've only compiled it on Linux and BSDI, but it doesn't do anything very odd, so it should compile fine on other Unix platforms. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvKgyy/fy+vkqMxNAQHqKgQAqxKiAzcOUDx9ThN5D6OHwuyUE1WlCtXr EVjg0d19fhafiTGO3HwAFbk8zxtzs/YMtSJ4a5nbALQTUxVBF/749DboXU+IS37l urB7MjBb0mB7+4IDmmR/iFEJa/U/mlTWZiLZ7JOq2Y7GtuqDmGgN3Z/T+K0loQvl 7Qn1x8aHXlI= =RxZM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

News: Panic! Internet is full of terrorists!
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm really sick and tired of this hypocritical bullshit from our executive branch. On one hand, we have FBI + CIA + NSA crying terrorists and child pornographers can get away with their crimes if networks are secured with cryptography. On the other hand, we also have presidential panels crying that our networks are vulnerable to terrorists if we don't do some serious security overhauls. What the *#@!! do they want? If you outlaw security software, then stop whining that the networks aren't secure! If you want secure networks, stop whining about the encryption "problem". Either the network is secure or it isn't. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! Ern -------- QUOTED ARTICLE FROM: San Jose Mercury (Jan 31, 1997) PRESIDENTIAL PANEL WARNS OF CYBERATTACK THREAT Critics charge danger overstated, could lead to unwarranted intrusion on Net Published: Jan. 31, 1997 BY RORY J. O'CONNOR Mercury News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- The United States faces a serious risk of cyberattacks against vital computer-controlled networks, attacks that could threaten the nation's security or economy, according to a presidential commission evaluating the threat. [SNIP] -------- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua(a)chromatic.com

1 0

It can be disabled (was Re: PGPMail Log File)
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 31 Jan 1997 09:27:45 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:22 AM 1/31/97 +0000, "Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl'" >< WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.comwrote: >> Is there a way to disable the \WINDOWS\PGPW_32.LOG? >> In subtle ways it's a security hole if left to accumulate over time, >> since it keeps records of which keys you encrypted messages to. >This is a damn good question. I do NOT have the "write to a log file" > option slected in the misc. tab and it STILL writes a log file. How DO >we disable this? It's disabled, with the exception of keeping when it was last run. Technically a 'security hole' but so minor I can live with it. Maybe your version (I'm using beta 11) has a problem, but mine's fine. I was just careless and didn't look closely (not something one should do with crypto...) Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvLTBQTNlSxdPy6ZAQEe4Qf7B1tIyBSZvdtg48lSZAnr4IOh9NbbrgvK RSoGF8UVGnfQWgItsiYIkA82WAqxBBMQaJuHBolkm8PTh7eb/Q3dd4Wz9BZdMp/g +aCRIM2MzfX2+SagyTw4r7L98XozfcUkhnSKcmJQDtrrq04Rlglt5Muf96jrW++p ltp4gXh4nawx75GZlGIS2XB223g5Rd9RSXAGER0gV1BtZKYt8uGkzeGL0OnsZnr+ VUgNVmXX2jeCn0essUX5WcKlSK2vATkoqv3UR1deEbP0Xdt/PTwjS/GZHrvnP5B1 zfOn7iV0CGZYXWpQAGO58HtW16vqC8wZ6lb5N7tdbBRcGX0B/cHc8A== =49OA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Re: Intelligence Update (fwd)
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 11:11 PM 1/30/97 -0800, you wrote: >>>Note: According to a recently obtained DOJ surveillance training manual: >>>"The typical range for the 28 ghz devices is six miles, the typical >>>range of the 2.4 ghz is thirty miles, and the typical range for the >>>1.7ghz is 44 miles." > >How sure are you about the quality of your sources here? >I'd expect 1.7ghz and above equipment to require line of sight, >and even a range of six miles seems really high for a very low power >device - getting that as "typical" seems pretty unlikely. >Could all of these figures have been 6, 30, and 44 _meters_ instead? :-) While these claims may be for links under near ideal conditions, Hams routinely make very long distace links at 900, 2400 and 5700 MHz during contests using less than 1 Watt. Also, our deep space probes operate many links to earth in this spectral region using low power transmitters. Of course they have 200 ft. antennas (e.g., Goldstone) at the receiveing end with cryogenic reciever front-ends. Links do become increasingly line-of-sight above 1 GHz this is radio not visual (i.e., shots through trees. etc.) and there is increasingly the ability to utilize reflection ("billboard" shots) advantageously. As frequency increases path loss also increases. Fortunately, as frequencies increase antenna gain also increases. In fact, by holding antenna dimensions constant (for an arbitrary antenna design, e.g., parabolic) gain increases with frequency in direct proportion to increasing path loss, thus cancelling it out. There are other factors, such as required S/N or bit error rate for the particular application, reciever sensitivity and noise floor, and background noise levels, which directly affect link margins (transmit power - path loss - reciever sensitivity; all in dB) and thus viability of a link. Above 1 GHz terrestrial noise, including that produced by man, declines rapidly at the moment. However, as more UHF communication devices and microprocessors operating at 100s of MHz proliferate that noise floor is sure to rise. --Steve

1 0

Re: Cats Out of Bags
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sure, it's available. For most governments, though, even DES is enough to threaten their dominance, though 40-bit is pretty much a joke. The main impact of US 56-bit products would be that they make it easier to get crypto built in to unavoidable Microsoft applications*, [*If the Borg had any sense....] as opposed to the totally useless crypto in MS Word, etc.; users can obviously also use free-world crypto software also, but you usually have to explicitly go obtain and install that. With Netscape, even wimpy 40-bit crypto is a threat, since almost no country will block you from using it, and since 128-bit products are readily available overseas, though you also have to do nonzero work to get them. Since the two products are interoperable (at the wimpy level), it's easy to upgrade, and the 40-bit version also works with SafePassage. At 11:50 AM 1/31/97 -0800, sameer wrote: >> > "Other governments were upset with the 56-bit export allowance. >> > They said it was going to undermine their national security." >> >> On this point, the other governments are correct. >> It really _is_ tougher to maintain a nation-state when your >> former subjects can have private conversations with each other >> and with other governments' former subjects...... >> And even 56 bits is a start. > > Full strength crypto is already available worldwide. It makes >not one iota of difference. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksu > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercockscocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksucker > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercoc > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksucke > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercoc > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksucksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksu > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckershit Sandy, Why was this sent to the flames list? - surely it wasn`t directed at any specific person and was therefore a comment on "wooly thinking" ??? Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

2 1

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. > > It is, they say, a rich man's game > > Exactly, instead of equal protection under the law we have a specieocracy. Anyone can afford a contingency-free attorney as long as the plaintiff has a good chance of being awarded damages. This has the benefit that the legal system doesn't get overcrowded with frivolous cases. > > -- if I'm libeled by the NYT, I'm > > probably not going t be able to sue them, but Donald Trump can. Moreover, > > if I don't have the resources to sue but the statement is libelous, it > > creates a *presumption* in the minds of the readers that the article is > > certainly true. (If it were not, I would have sued, right?) > > Another good example of why our system is broke. If the legal concept of libel is abandoned, this presumption will largely disappear. People will have to rely on the credibility of the source, instead of whether or not the victim of libel has sued. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvJkASzIPc7jvyFpAQESzAf+Km41fJ4vhavBizPODBuzM8OpolOHFUIy N45inFeUGtsaPH5BBz0T4blAlfgKoYU7N72E/nxbLx+QHZ42oQxcsvtoxiS/zjW8 ilygkVyVxsokueexwLo1QbBn87XIYHbyJBX2Tom31I5iw67caMAfKibnQoVEb1/r 8wlLe00CVB/rkob3QMO1VpT+FLl68+qjo+xfvCNe/GyyvJe0soppnh+croNSWA7R uksNa18XENdntBmy5UDqyCrTfLI40rZkd4wYoTkOy7K2eq1cz2uSO9J2BJOpHnh6 zh4JtXI5UVYOvj3BMbYe0v7Cs/V+1e/eLtqyMNvFGNM2jdl2f39G6w== =lYDr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

Re: David E. Smith / Known Flamer
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto wrote: > David E. Smith wrote: > > My understanding was that the moderator is supposed to ONLY > > filter out ads and utterly-content-free messages. > That seems to be a very common misunderstanding--one which will > remain without question on the censored list, since they have > chosen to remain behind the ElectroMagnetic Curtain. You'll recall that Sandfort (as Logos) ranted without letup about decorum, decorum, ... ad nauseam, which, now that I look back on it, is a *very* handy tool for controlling the list. Logic does not interfere with decorum, despite the implication of the nym Logos. > > (Mind you, I took the smart out and subbed to cp-unedited, > > so I'm in no place to judge.) > You're in a far better place to judge than those who have > chosen to remain spoon-fed their world-view. I just hope your judgement isn't skewed when you don't get some of the mail, i.e., when the pony breaks down and can't run for awhile. > > Aha, a good point to be brought up: Sandy, are you autofiltering > > anyone based on user name, or on certain keywords? Seems to > > defeat the purpose of having a _human_ moderator. > You realize, of course, that your question is moot, since this > post of yours was already thrown in the crapper/flame-list. > It seems that questioning the process is a 'flame'. The List Lord made it clear "In The Beginning" that some posts would probably be irretrievably lost due to unavoidable "mistakes". Think "FBI Crime Lab". You get the picture.

6 8

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark M. wrote: > If the legal concept of libel is abandoned, this presumption will largely > disappear. People will have to rely on the credibility of the source, instead > of whether or not the victim of libel has sued. God forbid that people should have to use their judgement and their brains, rather than their overly charged emotions. Toto

1 0

Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This would be the end of freedom!

1 0