- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [NOT NOISE] Microsoft Crypto Service Provider API
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:21 PM 12/22/96 -0800, geeman(a)best.com wrote: > >Software that is imported becomes subject to ITAR with respect to >re-exportation, of course (but of course IANALetc.) > >If you can't demonstrate to MSFT that you are >playing by the rules --such that you have the proper export papers >for your code if you plan to export it, for example-- they won't sign, >even if developed outside US. Except that it isn't clear that there are any enforceable "rules," particularly after the Patel decision. >So: you develop a CSP outside US ... you have to IMPORT it to get it signed. >It becomes subject at that point to ITAR export regs. Unless you demonstrate >that you fulfull those requirements, no signature. So there's no relief by >looking at just exporting the signature. You've stated a position, but you haven't supported it. It's the position you might expect the government to take, given its past behavior, but it isn't yet clear that this is the case. Even if, arguably, once-imported software becomes subject to ITAR, it is by no means clear that a "signature" is in any way controlled by ITAR. After all, looked at generously, the "signature" might simply be a plaque or paper certificate, saying "this is wonderful software!" Remember, no matter how long that signature it, it might just happen to be the same string as a compressed bit of data from some other source, etc. The signature might be 16 bits long, for all we know. In short, the "you can't export signatures" is simply more steps removed from the "you can't export crypto software." We have yet to see anybody attempt to enforce this. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: The LIST
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 24 Dec 96 at 4:52, Carl Johnson wrote: > Ross Wright wrote: > > > > Yes, Dr., this latest tripe that has spewed forth from Tim's > > keyboard reeks of bigotry. And all this time I felt you may have > > been too hard on him. This latest rant of his has made me > > reconsider your rough treatment of Mr. May. I kinda think he > > deserves a slapping right now. > > Supporting Dr. DV K, are we? > OK, pal, now your on the LIST, too. Not the first "LIST" I've been "put" on. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Re: Armenians (was Securing ActiveX)
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> "Generalisation"? It's a historical fact that Armenians have murdered > 2,500,000 Turks, Kurds, and Sephardic Jews in this century alone. Yes it was, you stated that "Armenians are murderous cowards", whether that is true in the majority of cases I am not well qualified to comment but to make a statement to the effect that an entire class of people are genocidal because a number (even a majority) of them are seems to me a sweeping generalisation. > Interesting. Paul Bradley does not consider Timmy May's (fart) latest rants > on "ebonics" and "colored race" to be racist? I think Timmy May hates > blacks even more than he hates Jews. Let's quote Timmy's sick garbage on > soc.culture.african.american and ask if they find it offensive and racist. My point was not that you had no right to be racist, you have every right to discriminate against someone on the basis of their colour, religion etc... my point was you are standing on very thin ice when you flame someone for being racist then post racist comments yourself. 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"

1 0

Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Michael Gurski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It's that wonderful season again, when all the assholes are out in force, and people feel obligated to purchase merchandise to give to each other. For various reasons, I don't believe in credit cards, and yet, trying to pay for something by personal check at the local Hecht's, they either *require* a credit card, or go through the Nazi check-warranty company Equifax. However, it doesn't stop there...only SOME departments seem to have this requirement (Electronics/Luggage not requiring). Is it legal to require credit cards? |\/|ike Gurski mgursk1(a)umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/ finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index" Hail Eris! -><- O- |Member, 1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570 | Team My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them. | OS/2 Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man! iQCVAwUBMr2dZiKEMrE5tbrdAQGNEwQAjxsj387SAbEQnGr+8j0z12cWpREK/Y8U e5xCYMMwJ6J+rLip05nZ8uMHfY/anfGW5m2mMrvsVOggMh5Sv9Ljrw3u4uFl66B5 yU3iU3couXIZx5Dv1QhGdOSZPRpIo7wZGwCGtF4z9TM+cUzEUzA8LMDgavG8fY0D T+yrGuzhSzg= =aQ97 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4

Re: The LIST
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 24 Dec 96 at 11:52, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Carl Johnson <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > > > Ross Wright wrote: > > > > > > Yes, Dr., this latest tripe that has spewed forth from Tim's > > > keyboard reeks of bigotry. And all this time I felt you may > > > have been too hard on him. This latest rant of his has made me > > > reconsider your rough treatment of Mr. May. I kinda think he > > > deserves a slapping right now. > > > > Supporting Dr. DV K, are we? On or About 24 Dec 96 at 11:52, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Uh-oh - Ross, good buddy, we've been outed. Yes, my tolerance of humanity has been brought to the forefront! I can only hope it only goes as far as the "punks" on this list. It would not look good for a salesman like myself to be known as a tolerant person. > > > OK, pal, now your on the LIST, too. > > Do you mean Timmy May's "don't hire" list? Oh, I think this is a much bigger "LIST". I think the men with sunglasses and shiny black shoes are gonna show up soon... Just cause I am paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get me. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

Let's write a good Usenet spambot
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 24 Dec 96 at 13:33, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Ross, let's write a good Usenet spambot. The ones out there suck > because they go through newsgroups alphabetically and post the same > crap all at once. Then they get detected and cancelled by assholes > like Chris Lewis. Yeah, those assholes are getting in the way of my first amendment right to spam the fuck out of anyone and everyone I fucking want to!!!! My hero, Larry Flint, says "The price of freedom of speech is tolerance of other people's views.: So everyone can Fucking tolerate as much spam as a spamming robot can be told to spew!!! > > A good spambot would cover all unmoderated newsgroups, look for > traffic, pretend to follow up on postings from actual people, say > something on-topic, and post your message, but vary it randomly, so > it's almost never the same. Dr., this is a stroke of genius!! I think we should start on this immediately! No one would even know it was spam, or a spamming robot!!! > > I think we can make a pretty good program. "Cypher punks" don't > write code, but we do. Fuck them if they can't take a joke!!! Let's write some code! I am cc:ing this to a couple others who helped me write the "link following" web-robot I am currently using! Let's get on this usenet thing NOW!!!! Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

MCIP?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have on an old account being closed, most of the traffic from the Mac Crypto Interface Project mailing list. Does anyone want them? -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

2 1

RE: [NOT NOISE] Microsoft Crypto Service Provider API
by Blake Coverett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > Even if, arguably, once-imported software becomes subject to ITAR, it is by > no means clear that a "signature" is in any way controlled by ITAR. After > all, looked at generously, the "signature" might simply be a plaque or paper > certificate, saying "this is wonderful software!" The signature in question (on a Win32 Crypto Service Provider) is embedded in the executable. Certainly I could rip it out and inject it into an unsigned but otherwise identical copy outside the U.S., but that is obviously not going to be legal under ITAR. ITAR is wrong and should be abolished, but that sort of weasling isn't going to make something legal under the current laws. --- More interesting would be the OS patch that allows an unsigned (or signed by someone other than MS) CSP to be loaded... Hmm, logically the patch must be built in and only need to be switched on as it would be too annoying to debug a CSP if you needed to get it signed every time you built a new version. Microsoft's Authenticode system had such a patch at one time for just that purpose, and all it required was a registry setting. regards, -Blake (off to grep around inside some binaries)

2 1

Re: Untraceable Payments, Extortion, and Other Bad Things
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:17 PM 12/22/96 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >Timmy writes: >>Fortunately for the bulk of us, the likely number of deaths and economic >>losses from such crimes of kidnapping, extortion, and even murder for hire, >>is still likely to be vastly lower than the number of deaths caused by >>powerful central governments enriching themselves and their cronies with >>foreign wars. Not to mention the deaths in the Drug War, the lives wasted >>in other interferences in private behavior, etc. > >imho, it's a very warped kind of mind that insinuates some evil is no >big deal because greater evils exist in the world. You obviously (deliberately?) are misrepresenting May's comment above. It isn't that some kinds of evil are "no big deal": It's that quantiatively, refusing to accept a solution that would prevent, say, 100 deaths, simply because it would cause _one_ DIFFERENT death is foolish and misguided. If you feel inclined to deny this, consider the reverse situation: Would you approve of the saving of one life if it cost 100 lives? (all things being equal.) While most people would feel uncomfortable being asked to make decisions of this kind, that does not mean that one outcome is not identifiably better than another. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: Ebonics
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> 1. What do you mean conclude? For whom? I mean conclude. For me. I am the authority on all. I am just personally a little sick of this Ebonics thing, as we have obviously irreconcilable positions. I tried to take a concilliatory position with which all would agree. It has little to do with cryptography and is a stretch even for this generally weird mailing list. > 2. Rather than hypothesize a "standard" language, the language evolves > and generates the standard. Just relax and enjoy it. No. I'm right and you're wrong. Face it. :-) > 3. Black people are/are not stupider than what? Mark, you should go > live in the deep South for awhile, and become part of it, and > watch the outsiders come in and tell your friends and neighbors on > the TV, on radio, and in in-person seminars that they speak "wrongly" > and should lose their Southern "accents", as though they were something > to be ashamed of. > > Mark, you need to learn simple logic. Instead of saying "...are often > difficult to understand", you should say "...are often difficult for > *me* to understand". I personally have no problem understanding Southern accents. Other people have stated that they have problems understanding Ebonics, so I was just playing devil's advocate and taking another, conflicting position. I sense that one of the reasons why *some* people are so disgusted with Ebonics is that only black people speak it. I am just responding to those racist sentiments (Ahem. Timothy May) and trying to present a white example of muddled speech. Also, the entire issue of clarity of speech is relative and *will* be different for each person, another thing many people are ignoring. > You see, Mark, I could understand you in speech I am sure, and I can > also understand the Southern speech by-and-large, but it's you who > seems to have the limitations. Now you want to force people who don't > talk like you to talk like you, otherwise you won't deal with them. > > What a petty, narrow-minded person you must be, and how sad. Again, I was being devil's advocate and imitating other people's distaste with Ebonics. Your rather biting comments describe their narrow mindedness.

2 1