- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto, quoting the Cyphernomicon 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). ......................................................................... Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? Side note: Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some kind of statement about it. .. Blanc

3 2

Re: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes.
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: | > What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong | >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken | >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it | >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). | > | | Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal | ball in hand. I wear three around my neck. Its a new age thing. More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, AFAIK. Adam -- Pet peeve of the day: Security companies whose protocols dare not speak their name, because they don't have one. Guilty company of the day is now V-One.

3 2

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Lesher <wb8foz(a)nrk.com> writes: > USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. > Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 > 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. Don't let the old-fashioned look deceive you. Most mail storage boxes use lever tumbler locks (similar to what's used in safe deposit vaults, though obviously the mailbox locks have a flimsier plug). Lever tumbler locks are in general much harder to pick than pin tumbler locks (the kind on most doors).

2 1

Re: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 > minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience > about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a > letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must > have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a > different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. > The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been > unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings. Sounds suspiciously like Sandy's approach to 'fair' moderation, to me. > All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably > thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by > definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on > each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered. Perhaps they author these 'letters' themselves: "I agree wholeheartedly with the position espoused by '60 Minutes'. and, "I don't not think maybe dat dese guys are write, nohow." > A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws > were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and > verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of > whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present. Next thing you know, saying, "The king is fucking the queen.", is libel and defamation. Go figure... Toto

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > >> My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > >> my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > >> If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > >> able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > >> new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > >> passphrase? > > Passphrases are MD5-hashed into 128-bit IDEA keys and used to > encrypt the secret key; there's a "pgpcrack" program out there > that does dictionary-style searches to find if you've got > wimpy passphrases. So if your passphrases is "secret", you lose, > but if it's "fjhw;doifvjuc-[09efiu v` 2 4rnhc;ljoipcvjpoiewujfgv;loik" > you're probably pretty safe, unless that's written on the yellow > sticky you left on the side of the PC. > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > they've already gotten you.... If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > At 08:02 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Toto wrote: > > I also think that the other list members involved in this thread are > >'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. > > It's odd that you would say this. I get that impression ("nobodies") about > practically EVERY subject discussed here. Why name this particular one, as > if it were somehow special? Jim, "You're 'nobody', till 'somebody' loves you..." Everybody has their own prediliction as to what interests them, and what is 'frivilous' on the list. Someone, in private email, mentioned that they felt that 60% of the posts were 'uninteresting'. I replied that this seemed to be a close approximation of many list members' beliefs, but that, if we all moderated/censored out 'our' 60% of 'uninteresting' posts before the list was sent out, that there would be precious little left. I don't know if you recognized my comment as humor, since I have an aversion to using 'happy faces' (the result of a childhood trauma), but I just love to poke fun at the plethora of personas on the list who seem to believe that anything outside of their immediate scope of interest is somehow 'unworthy' of being posted the list. By the way, in order to prevent this post from going to the 'flames' list, I will NOT say that you are a low-life, scum-sucking Nazi piece of shit. I will likewise refrain from suggesting that your mother wears army boots, you are a child-pornographer, an imbecile, and a pervert, or that you beat your wife and children regularly. By golly, I think I'm 'getting the hang of' this new, improved, Politically Correct, nicey-nice list format. Toto

1 0

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, rex wrote: > Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> wrote: > > >If you want to look at it a different way, if you are involved with a drug > >offense and are not using a weapon, you'll get a lower sentence than a > >full fledged drug crime. It's a step in the right direction - i.e. away > >from manadatory sentencing of a flat time period for a crime regardless of > >circumstances. > > But Putra got the same sentence she would have gotten had she been > convicted on both charges. The fact that she was acquitted meant nothing. That this is true once, does not make it so in all cases. You also lose sight of the general scheme of things. That the sentence imposed may have the same maximum sentence with sentencing enhancements and a lesser included offense as with conviction of a "great offense" means nothing with regard to the validity of sentencing enhancements. That theft and low level bank fraud have the same penality when theft is enhanced with a "victim was infirm or helpless" or a "firearm was used in furtherance of the crime" could as easily reflect a lack of vigor and spite in the prosecution of bank fraud as it could reflect severe vigor and spite in the prosecution of theft. Please note that the difference between: "But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." and "But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." is subtle at best. Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland

1 0

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. ................................................ Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological makeup? = I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. .......................................... Hm, well, I'm not in the custom of doing either of those things, but thanks for the compliment! = But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. ............................................... Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. = Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. ............................................ Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division of History & Philosophy .... .. Blanc

2 1

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. ................................................ Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological makeup? = I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. .......................................... Hm, well, I'm not in the custom of doing either of those things, but thanks for the compliment! = But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. ............................................... Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. = Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. ............................................ Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division of History & Philosophy .... .. Blanc

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone using the Huge Cajones mailer wrote: David Lesher <wb8foz(a)nrk.com> writes: > USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. > Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 > 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. Still did last I checked. Don't let the old-fashioned look deceive you. Most mail storage boxes use lever tumbler locks (similar to what's used in safe deposit vaults, though obviously the mailbox locks have a flimsier plug). How is that obvious? Safe deposit locks generally aren't designed to be hard to open, just hard to open without damage. There's always either a guard or a locked vault door protecting the locks. Mailboxes, on the other hand, generally aren't kept under guard or in vaults.

1 0