- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

The last I'll say on the unsubscribing thing
by Brad Shantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm did not say that the people sending the messages to "unsubscrive" were justified in what they did. YES, it is written in the welcome message. I just think that maybe we need to be a little tolerant of a few people out of 1200 who made an honest mistake. I still believe that the people sending the messages haven't read Tim's "nth Fucking Time" message. Or his "Under attack by foreigners" message. Or my response about their lack of ignorance. (Tim, I just mentioned your messages because they came to mind. **GRIN**) Steve, I even think that they didn't read your "unsubscrive list" message, which I thought was wonderful. I just think that instead of complaining to the list they're trying to remove themselves from, we should send them mail individually. I'm sure that Tim already has. (at least he said he did...i think.) Since I posted yesterday, I have received a nubmer of messages from people interested in removing themselves from Cypherpunks. I sent them the paragraph from the welcome message. And that was that. Brad

1 0

Re: No matter where you go, there they are.
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter - didn't they say that the checking station is also listening to the satellites? That way they can tell that you are playing back signals that you taped earlier because they won't match what the satellites are broadcasting right now. I think your idea would work if you wanted to pretend to be at a point which was _farther_ from each of the satellites than where you actually are. Then you could delay all of the signals. But the only way to be farther would be to be deep underground. You might be able to pretend to be at the center of the earth, but that is not very useful. Actually I suppose this only applies to those satellites which are shared between you and the checkin station. If you are far away then maybe you only share one or two. If you know which ones those are, you can lie to your heart's content about other ones, and for the shared ones you can again delay the signal and claim to be farther than you are. If their authenticated repeaters are used then you have to assume the checking station has all the satellite signals and again the best you can do is pretend to be a Mole Man. Hal

1 0

Re: No matter where you go, there they are.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:41 AM 4/10/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > >Anonymous writes: >> >> Location-based System Delivers User >> Authentication Breakthrough >> >> By Dorothy E. Denning and Peter F. MacDoran >> Copyright(c), 1996 - Computer Security Institute - All Rights Reserved >> Top - Help >> > >A bunch of us heard about this a while back, and I was in on an >exchange between several people including Phil Karn and Dorothy >Denning. The gist of it is that Denning et al believe they have >something -- and they are smart people -- but all the smart people who >understand both GPS and crypto think its total bunk and not at all >hard to fake being anywhere at all. I would say that I go with the >latter. The latter is far closer to the truth. First off, GPS signals can be faked. In fact, there are commercial boxes sold that generate a full synthetic constellation of GPS signals; these boxes are usually intended to simulate motion of a vehicle when the GPS unit under test is actually stuck in a laboratory or factory floor. If such a box were connected to an amplifier of a few tens or hundreds of milliwatts, it would be possible to park near a potential target and deny him service by making it look like his signal came from anywhere else around the world. (Military boxes would detect this because of A/S, however.) And if you had a receiver at some specific location at which you intend to appear to be connected at, it is likely that full data describing the motions of the satellites could be supplied to any other location on the Internet needing well under 14,400 bps. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

CoS supoenas records of all anonymous remailers? (Unverified)
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[FWIW, Biased Journalism is a reasonably reputable source. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:27:02 -0700 To: fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu, eric(a)remailer.net, farber(a)cis.upenn.edu (Dave Farber) From: jwarren(a)well.com (Jim Warren) Subject: (fwd fyi - NOT verified!!) very urgent news Seems like it's just a tad overbroad, if true. Another example of, "all the 'justice' that one can buy"? --jim >Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:44:52 -0700 (PDT) >From: shelley thomson <sthomson(a)netcom.com> >Subject: very urgent news >To: jwarren(a)well.com > >Hello, Jim Warren: > > The church of scientology plans to subpoena the records of every >anonymous remailer in the USA. > > I publish a news/black humor magazine on the net called **Biased >Journalism**. As a journalist I have covered the collision between the >church of scientology and the net. My last three issues have focused on >legal action by the church against Grady Ward and Keith Henson. > > Today I had a note from Grady Ward, whose deposition was finished >today. He said that they asked him a lot of questions about me, and >warned me that they may issue a subpoena for me and a demand for my >email. > > The church presumably intends to claim that I am not a real >journalist because I only publish on the net. I need to prepare a legal >defense, and needless to say, can't afford a lawyer. If you can direct >me to any resources, I would appreciate it very much. > > On the basis of events today, Ward believes the church will >issue subpoenas for the records of every anonymous remailer in the USA. > > If these records are delivered to the church, our First Amendment >rights go with them. > > Shelley Thomson > > publisher, **Biased Journalism** > 800-731-0717 voice message >

2 1

Re: No matter where you go, there they are.
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-04-10 10:33:19 EDT, D. Denning allegedly writes: >For two-way authentication, the reverse process would be performed. In the >current implementation, location signatures are 20,000 bytes. For >continuous authentication, an additional 20 bytes per second are >transferred. Re- authorization can be performed every few seconds or >longer. The location signature is virtually impossible to forge at the >required accuracy. This is because the GPS observations at any given time >are essentially unpredictable to high precision due to subtle satellite >orbit perturbations, which are unknowable in real-time, and intentional >signal instabilities (dithering) imposed by the U.S. Department of Defense >selective availability (SA) security policy. Further, because a signature >is invalid after five milliseconds, the attacker cannot spoof the location Umm, excuse me, but doesn't it take longer than 5 ms for a data packet to transit from point A to point B? We ARE talking about transmitting via the Net here, aren't we? >by replaying an intercepted signature, particularly when it is bound to the Replaying an intercepted signature would completely unnecessary. GPS positions are calculated by comparing the phase differential between several different satellite signals. It would be trivial for anyone who understands the inner workings of reprogram their GPS receiver (or build a hacked one) to give a false location. Simply calculate the distances to the satellites relative to your position, (GPS already does this to determine your position) and then calculate them in reference to another location. (This other location would have to be close enough to receive signals from four of the same satellites that you are receiving, if I remember GPS specs correctly.) Phase-shifting the signals according to the distance differences between your true location and the other location yields a signal set that can be fed into any GPS receiver to yield the other location, in real time. >message (e.g., through a checksum or digital signature). Continuous >authentication provides further protection against such attacks. See above. Is this a troll? Jonathan Wienke

1 0

RE: COQ_tal--comment
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:59 PM 4/17/96, Matt Thomlinson wrote: >damn, that's the second time I've done that this week! dang 'R' key.. > >apologies, > >mattt By the way, Matt, thanks for mentioning this on the list. As this was the second time I'd seen this, I was about to send you a short note mentioning that your requests to John's bot were also going to the list (in case you didn't know). I suspect at least 5 or maybe 10 others were thinking about doing the same thing. So, your acknowledgement helps. (This is the same reason I think most replies ought to be public, as this one will be: it signals others that a reply has been made. Standard game theory arguments.) --Tim Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re[2]: on corporations and subpoenas
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:42 AM 4/17/96, Adam Pingitore wrote: > Um, well, then I'm going to have to spam your ass. Your metaphor escapes me... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "If they could 'just pass just pass a few more laws', we would all be criminals." --Vinnie Moscaritolo The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

LolitaWatch
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sunnyvale, CA. Nubility, Inc. is pleased to announce the availability of "LolitaWatch," a filter program for the Web and Net which alerts users about the presence of nubile, young teens (and even younger!). LolitaWatch operates by checking the federally-mandated "age bit." No longer will you be frustrated in trying to contact that 12-year-old girl, only to eventually learn she's a 44-year-old male playing mind games. The President of Nubility, Pete Ofeil, said "Hey, the government says that they have to wear a sign announcing their age...all we're doing is offering a service to our customers." (There is still the problem that the girl may be a boy, or vice versa, depending on your preferences, but this is likely to be solved as the "Fairness to Women and Other People of Color Protection Act," which mandates that a "gender bit" be set.) "LolitaWatch allows me to cut quickly to the chase, screening out the hags," says Roy G. Biv, appreciator of young girls. "I've even rigged up my copy of LolitaWatch to automatically alert me when one of these nubile young things enters an IRC chat room!," he added with a sly grin. LolitaWatch is available immediately for Windows and Macintosh. No Unix version is planned because Unix users are, well, unix.

1 0

Re: on corporations and subpoenas
by jpb＠miamisci.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

re: > GET ME OFF THE DAMN LIST Read the damn directions you got when you signed on. You know, that first message that told you to save the damn message in case you ever wanted to sign off the list in the future. Your cluelessness does not create any obligation in me to fix your problem. Perhaps if you were a little less rude someone might be inspired to give you useful information. Joseph Block <jpb(a)miamisci.org> "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." -- Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A) PGP 2048bit-Fingerprint: F8 A2 A5 15 56 42 9B 16 3F BD 57 0F 8A ED E3 21 No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.

1 0

LolitaWatch v1.1
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ Newt Gingrich and his ilk being the mensches they are, I expect v2.0 may ] [ add support for the "Jew," "Nigger," "Kike," "Fag," "Nerd" and "Wop" bits ] [ -dave ] Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:55:42 -0700 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) Subject: LolitaWatch Sunnyvale, CA. Nubility, Inc. is pleased to announce the availability of "LolitaWatch," a filter program for the Web and Net which alerts users about the presence of nubile, young teens (and even younger!). LolitaWatch operates by checking the federally-mandated "age bit." No longer will you be frustrated in trying to contact that 12-year-old girl, only to eventually learn she's a 44-year-old male playing mind games. The President of Nubility, Pete Ofeil, said "Hey, the government says that they have to wear a sign announcing their age...all we're doing is offering a service to our customers." (There is still the problem that the girl may be a boy, or vice versa, depending on your preferences, but this is likely to be solved as the "Fairness to Women and Other People of Color Protection Act," which mandates that a "gender bit" be set.) "LolitaWatch allows me to cut quickly to the chase, screening out the hags," says Roy G. Biv, appreciator of young girls. "I've even rigged up my copy of LolitaWatch to automatically alert me when one of these nubile young things enters an IRC chat room!," he added with a sly grin. LolitaWatch is available immediately for Windows and Macintosh. No Unix version is planned because Unix users are, well, unix.

1 0