- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle," > "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not > flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But they are not ad hominem attacks on Tim May. The are my opinions of some of his arguments. Even very smart people such as Tim say poorly thought out or even silly things. > But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But Nor I, Tim's. Nothing personal, but that's the point. It is still possible to conduct ourselves with mutual respect even if our views and styles differ. > As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same > for his comments. After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be served by doing another point by point response. From Tim's tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where they were. I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim may be having. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: PGP 2.1
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3 Feb 1997 10:46:20 -0500, you wrote: >Mark Henderson wrote: >> >> Larry Johnson writes: >> > Hello, >> > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? >> > Thanks >> > >> But, why do you want version 2.1? >Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail Phil Zimmerman? >charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if No, the charges were not "jail charges". They were for exporting munitions. He was let off after 2.5 or 2.6. The urban myth is that 2.3a is safe. You can read the source code yourself. 2.6.2 is fine. Older versions actually have some minor bugs. >I don't know why. >I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be >paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, >since he said it. You'd be using a version with holes in it. Why not read the source code of the new version and verify it's security yourself? (If you can't undertsand it, it won't matter which version you're using because you're trusting it no matter what.) >I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. >(I don't think) Well, start thinking.... Rob ----- "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

No Subject
by Krenn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Mark Henderson wrote: > > > > Larry Johnson writes: > > > Hello, > > > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > > > Thanks > > > > > But, why do you want version 2.1? > > Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail > charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if > I don't know why. > I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be > paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, > since he said it. > I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. > (I don't think) > No, you're not real smart. The source code is _provided_ with PGP. If you are paranoid, _read_ it. Krenn

1 0

GAK cracking?
by tmcghan＠gill-simpson.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just days after a U.S. graduate student cracked the most powerful computer encryption system allowed out of the country, the Commerce Department announced it would allow three companies to export an even stronger system. Until this year, computer encryption programs, which scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key," were classified as munitions and stronger programs could not be exported. But under a controversial new Clinton administration policy that took effect Jan. 1, companies may receive permission to export stronger programs. "I'm happy that we've been able to do this within the first month without rancor or difficulty," Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration William Reinsch told Reuters in a telephone interview. To export stronger programs immediately, companies must agree to incorporate features within two years allowing the government to decode encrypted messages by recovering the software keys, however. The administration's policy has been widely criticized as not relaxing the export limits enough and some companies feared the requirement for a two-year plan would substantially delay export approvals. The quick approvals should quell some of the criticism and encourage more applicants, Reinsch said. "As a result of this, you will have more companies taking it seriously and we will expect more plans over the next couple of months," he said. Encryption was once the realm of spies and generals. But with the explosion of online commerce on the Internet, encryption has become a vital tool for protecting everything from a business' email message to a consumer's credit card number sent over the net. The amount of protection afforded by encryption is largely a function of the length of the software key measured in bits, the smallest unit of computer data. Companies said products with just 40-bit long keys, the old limit, were too easy to crack. The approvals came just days after Ian Goldberg, a graduate student at the University of California, cracked a message encoded with a software key 40-bits long. The government did not name the companies given permission to export stronger, 56-bit programs, but Glenwood, Md.,-based Trusted Information Systems acknowledged that it was one of the three.

2 1

Re: Key Security Question
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > 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. Face it, the only solution is to wrap your computer, cat, family, car and yourself in aluminium foil and burn your hard disk whilst chanting "yamma yamma yamma yaaaaamaa" 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

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. > >If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

RE: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Timothy C. May With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities... .......................................... Your thoughtful contributions to the list are missed, Tim. As soon as I realized that you had left the list I suspected it had something to do with its moderation. However, I must protest the inclusion of Toto's posts as one of the "inane". His posts were intentionally formulated to cause to stand out what was, indeed, inane - as he said, to "hold up a mirror". And he continually decried the list experiment, pointing out the philosophical contradiction of a moderated "anarchist" forum. If the antidote to bad speech is more speech, then he certainly provided some, although not on the level or style as yourself. And you may say that some of these posts are not worth replying to, but didn't I see you respond to one of Dale's, regarding a photo of Jessica-the-pilot which he keeps above his desk? .. Blanc

2 1

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by pdh＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:12 PM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >>> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >>> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. >> If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? > That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is > impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of > the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the > same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining > energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! Who should do what to comply with your proposal? Should John shut down the list? Are you asking everybody to unsubscribe? I don't think "killing the list" is an option for you or anybody else. The List transcends all domains. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Hendrickson writes: > Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I > can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. The quality of the Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the amount of signal. The amount of noise is irrelevant. Barring someone continuously mail-bombing the list 24 hours a day from a T3, it is easy to pick and choose the posts one wishes to read, and wipe the rest with a single keystroke afterwards. I read the list selectively depending upon the amount of free time I have. I always try to read serious crypto articles, and all posts by Tim, Hal, Eric, Duncan, and a few other notables. If I have additional time, I will read other threads of interest, a little Vulis, and selected Toto, who happens to be a very funny person at times. Now that we have moderation, I can't do this while subscribed to the main list, and have to live in eternal fear that I am writing for an audience of 20 every time I respond to something on the unedited list. Foo on that. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Peter Hendrickson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:12 PM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >>> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >>> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. >> If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? > That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is > impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of > the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the > same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining > energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! Who should do what to comply with your proposal? Should John shut down the list? Are you asking everybody to unsubscribe? I don't think "killing the list" is an option for you or anybody else. The List transcends all domains. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0