- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

"Helping the clueless" on crypto-privacy: the Zundelhoaxers
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I seem to have introduced one of the leading white supremacist activists to PGP and cypherpunk remailers recently, perhaps because of my promise to archive their mailing list publicly and spoof messages from them if they didn't. I'm so proud. I assume the ADL and allied organizations will be learning more about PGP as well. Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 1024/C01741A1 1996/02/01 Don Black <dblack(a)jbx.com> ^^^^^^^^^^ Tom Metzger <metzger(a)cts.com> and Neo-Nazi straight woman Ingrid Rimland <ezundel(a)cts.com> do not yet use PGP, but I'm working on it. The message below (Stormfront-L is Don's moderated mailing list for "Aryan" activists, which can be quite entertaining -- subscription instructions at tail) has a few technical misconceptions that should probably be corrected, though of course it would be Bad to cross-pollinate the lists. I've also created and propagated PGP keys for each of Don Black's other email addresses as a way of teaching him about key identification, propagation, and signing. There was an earlier message on Stormfront-L from an alpha.c2.org nym who was having trouble. I assume Sameer helped him out. So anyway, here's the message. I have a few more comments after the included message. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 13:01:02 GMT From: Stormfront-l <stormfront-l(a)stormfront.org> To: llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu Subject: Re: a message on Stormfront-L NOTE: THIS MESSAGE WAS ORIGINALLY ADDRESSED TO DON BLACK From: Secret Squirrel Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 13:01:02 GMT Subject: Re: a message on Stormfront-L BTW it is a good idea to sign your own key, as this helps defeat fraudulent use of your pgp public key. (I don't know how it's done, but read about the problem on alt.security.pgp). I've signed my key twice, once with my 1024 and again with my 2048 bit key. I saw a message on Stormfront-L saying that the 'international version' was the best PGP system, however this is only for use outside the USA. It might be best for nationalists in the US to note this in order to avoid any problems. (It does have 2048 bit security, but 2.6.2 can generate 2047 bits, so it isn't that bad!) Also people should use a _minimum_ of 1024 bits as smaller numbers have been 'cracked'. In a message to Stormfront-L re: White Wolf, it was stated that there was problems posting to that address. I can confirm that there is interference with the remailers and pseudo-anonymous mailers. I believe that neither of these systems is secure. In my case I found that one could subscribe to your list, but the moment one posted to it, the account was blocked. Further that anonymous messages sent to the list via a remailer (no a/c) would get through on the first attempt, but not afterwards. This suggests that the enemy inform the sysops of the remailers, and subsequently posting is blocked from those remailers. Further I suspect that the remailers keep 'message in - - message out' ID logs, which means that (if they take sufficient interest) a message could be subsquently traced back through a chain of remailers. There is a method of finding out where messages come from, it is called (I believe) 'packet tracing'. It is possible that I've experienced this with pseudo-anonymous posts to your list. I set up an account with alpha.c2.org via remailers (they wouldn't know my real address) however the messages were stripped from your list, and large numbers of 'packets' of the same size were sent out, i.e. my reply-block only. These packets can be traced through remailers to an address (by people with sufficient computing power). Believe me the enemy is so concerned with the white-nationalist movement, they want to know exactly who is posting. If you search amongst the web sites dealing with security, the details of tracing etc. are fully documented (unfortunately I've lost the addresses due to problems with my web browser cache). The use of anon accounts is useful to the sender, however people who reply will, no doubt, have there addresses recorded at alpha.c2.org etc. All mail sent by nationalists to their comrades should be in PGP, so even if their adds. are recorded the contents will be (mostly) hidden. Although the anon people may hit back by blocking the a/c! The anon server at anon.penet.fi is basically useless for posting to the alt.nationalism group. All my messages have been returned 'unwanted group'. I've also found that the mail-to-news gateways won't accept traffic to those groups either. Essentially the enemy has denied people anonymous access to nationalist usenet groups. For a short period my ISP blocked direct posting to alt.politics.nationalism.white, but for some reason this has been restored. I hope the above has been of interest to you, and if you wish to forward the info. to the list etc., please anonymize it. Regards, - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: Multiple recipients of the Stormfront-L Mailing List Host: Don Black <dblack(a)mail.stormfront.org> Finger for PGP public key. To unsubscribe, send e-mail to 'listserv(a)stormfront.org' with the line 'unsubscribe Stormfront-L' in the message BODY, not the subject. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ----- Processed with Listserv v2.83 for Wildcat v4 - ---------- End Forwarded message ---------- I like Nazis and racists. I want to learn more about them. Where they live, how they make their money, who they call, and so on. All completely above-ground, of course. By the way, does anyone know of any security deficiencies in this Wildcat Listserv software that would allow someone to obtain the list membership? They seem to be assuming that it's a secret, which IMO is a bad policy. They should all move to anonymous remailers or, better, carrier pigeons. If you know of any sich problems, please send me encrypted mail, and Cc Don. Of course, you can't be absolutely sure which key is Don's... Maybe you should use the ultra-secure Enigma code instead of PGP. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." "Fight hate speech with more speech." "To the ends of the earth I will follow thee." "The pen is mightier than the sword." - -rich Institute for Ernst Zundel Revisionism http://36.190.0.210/~llurch/Not_By_Me_Not_My_Views/ "First, bring down Zundel's suffering in terms of numbers and events, both real and imagined, to what it really was, not what they say it was, what they exploit for their own political, financial, and geopolitical purposes." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMR6AzY3DXUbM57SdAQFPqgP/VUS9aydQjv6kmJc/fbg6exXQRl17RTKb EaUNftVUZJyMYLpOYg0X/UFH19fpBPQnbw1FFOiOMqSyc3pXtINUMpJZ1mmLI8Ro ZopVLS01d15cx+nZfVTjVF68eGthDgjKKAPZ/FXsn8/8tQtfq6jZsaDNBldWPjAX hlWEctOfdKo= =hck9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: "Rights"
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:12 PM 2/10/96 -0500, jf_avon(a)citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada)) wrote: >Ed.Carp(a)linux.org, ecarp(a)netcom.com wrote: > >>What happens when there *is* no remedy, when there are no other sites to >>go to, when there are no employers who would refrain from violating an >>employee's privacy? What then? > >Easy! Either you do not get on the net or you start your own ISP service. >It might cost money. i.e. requires work, but it is feasible. Of course, in a market environment, you can do better than that. Because there are almost always other people who want what you want, and barring major government interference, there are ways to find them and usually people interested in offering you and your fellow-travellers the service you want. Most of the time, there are economies of scale that make it cheaper to get the service together rather than each doing it yourself, and you can decide whether to do it as a cooperative or buy it from the vendor who's supporting the bunch of you. ObCrypto: Even _with_ major government interference, there will be ways to find your fellow-travellers. Anonymously. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs Pager +1-408-787-1281

1 0

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>implementing the basic encoding rules, used in the PCKS and X.509 - >can someone give me a pointer to where I can find a >copy of v3 online? It's not available online. ISO specs are hardcopy (and hard currency :) only. /r$

1 0

re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands >(not wishing to start a flamewar) Why do you think so ? "...provide for the common defense" "To regulate Commerce with foreign nations..." "...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." There are the bytes - try reading them in context. Warmly, Padgett

2 1

Encryption software
by medea＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was telling a friend that I was going to buy a program similar to PC Anywhere to be able to communicate between my computer at home and the one at the office. He suggested trying to find a similar program which includes encryption. Anyone know of such a program? Thanks. Medea ============================================================ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + |---------------------------------------------| + + | The mind is its own place, and of itself | + + | Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven | + + |---------------------------------------------| + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Re: LACC: CDA Court Challenge: Update #6
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> This would ONLY impact packets that carry pornographic material, and all > other packets would remain unchanged. Naturally, you would not be able > to have Classified Pornographic material under this scheme, but I think > that's probably an acceptable tradeoff. Oh, I don't know. The remote satalite imaging lab in reston has been known for sometime now to have enough resolution to look down a good clean cleavege, and certainly their perspective is vertical enough. > Furthermore, any parent that wanted to allow a child to attach to the > Internet and wanted pornographic protection would be responsible for > setting their own filter up to limit these packets. Thus the provider > of pornographic material and the parent of the child using the net are > the only two groups affected by this change. The rest of the net can > continue unhindered. ISPs don't have to identify users. After all, it > is the parent and the bookstore owner who are responsible for keeping > children out of the dirty book section, not the bus driver who brings > the child to the neighborhood or the company that paves the street. I've thought about this as well. You could also use the IP TOS minimise-cost bit, which is defunct, doesn't require IP options, is included in every packet and in most modern unix's and rfc1122 complient TCP/IP protocol interface stacks can be set at user level with a simple setsockopt() call. That said, it has a granularity of one. To my mind, it is value judgement, and a difficult one at that to decide when information is appropriate or otherwise for a given age group. A given community may feel the age of maturity is something other than 18, and physiologically the age of maturity is different for differing racial groups. It is a strange world where it is permissible to get married at 16 -- and all that implies, but not permissible to think freely until 18, or 21 in certain states. More appropriate would be content flags. Using the security option there is a resonable number that could be assigned. OPT_R_UPPER_NUDITY, OPT_R_LOWER_NUDITY, OPT_R_FULL_NUDITY, OPT_R_FEMALE, OPT_R_MALE, OPT_R_BIZARRE, OPT_R_HOMOSEXUAL, OPT_R_BESTIALITY, OPT_R_DISECTION, OPT_R_INTERCOURSE, OPT_R_VIOLENCE and OPT_R_ADVERTISING come to mind. Unlike TOS however, many IP stacks have no real support for the security option. The value of re-using it then for this purpose it dubious. There is no reason another IP option couldn't be added. Perhaps the spare TOS bit could be used as a catch-all until a content option is implimented. Most french wouldn't be concerned about OPT_R_FULL_NUDITY provided OPT_R_HOMOSEXUAL wasn't set. -- "I mean, after all; you have to consider we're only made out of dust. That's admittedly not much to go on and we shouldn't forget that. But even considering, I mean it's sort of a bad beginning, we're not doing too bad. So I personally have faith that even in this lousy situation we're faced with we can make it. You get me?" - Leo Bulero/PKD +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+ |Julian Assange RSO | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union | |proff(a)suburbia.net | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID = | |proff(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 | +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Dranged Mutand is far from deranged when he writes: At 12:09 PM 2/11/96 -0500, Deranged Mutant wrote: ... >And besides... why rate program just on violence? Why not "quality" from >a variety of orgs? Other content ratings, from various organizations. ... One thing the V-Chip gives us is the argument: Now that parents have the ability to control what their children watch, the government should turn responsibility over to them and butt out. Bill

1 0

re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by tomservo＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Note: my references to the Constitution are from http://atl46.atl.msu.edu/atl/reh/battle/u.s.con.html "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" writes: >>> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >>> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands lmccarth(a)cs.umass.edu replies: >>(not wishing to start a flamewar) Why do you think so ? "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" replies: >"...provide for the common defense" (From the Preamble) So, if it isn't related to the "common defense," this doesn't apply. >"To regulate Commerce with foreign nations..." (Article I, Section 8) My dictionary claims "commerce" is "the buying or selling of goods, esp. when done on a large scale between cities, states, or nations" (primary definition, anyway). If you can convince someone that "social intercourse" (secondary definition) is what the Founding Fathers really meant, your argument carries more weight. >"...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Article III, Section 3, clause 1) Doesn't say anything about them being foreign or domestic. Theoretically everyone who participated in the Confederate cause during the War Between The States :^) committed treason -- but that's another argument. >There are the bytes - try reading them in context. Hmm. I did, but wasn't edified. It seems to me that Tim May's commentary is dead on. Maybe a more appropriate statement would be: "The government has the power (_not_ the right) to regulate communications between citizens and non-citizens / sites in other lands under narrowly defined circumstances." If you're not engaging in espionage, trading with countries like Libya or Iraq, or committing treason, it doesn't sound like there's any reason for the government to regulate your communications with non-citizens (at least from a Constitutional point of view). That may not stop them from trying to vacuum them up off the Internet, though. :-) Scott -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMR7Aq+vEnOI8TfM9AQH+vQMAjL/+IGDKKz9M1WB6LdeswpEVUWmLq+4i qTrPH4pci8gkU3fH1O893xmWMCHbVCYywazk4tF69wyLV6WvWlNSOyYRW1S7xiq1 24PFoBpD7yLpDguTB2UEU1b9HxwZ017y =Wus/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 11, 1996 14:06:45, 'tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May)' wrote (among other things): > >I rarely understand the points "tallpaul" makes, but this one is especially >confusing to me: > I'll close on this point. >At 7:59 PM 2/11/96, tallpaul wrote: > >>I do seem to observe strange sounds of silence from lib'bers on the >>cypherpunks list about the legislative body who passed the law, although >>they must know about the law since they blast the "libera;" to "socialist >>statist" President who signed it. >> >>I seem to observe similar sounds of silence from people who get upset at >>ostensibly liberal Tipper Gore's godlike powers to implement, as a single >>individual, some form of record labels while remaining silent about the >>conservative forces supporting Gingrich clustered around fundamentalist >>christianity who were calling for censorhip. > >As a card-carrying "lib'ber," it seems to me that I have written more than >enough articles denouncing the CDA, making fun of it and Congress, etc. And >so have numeous other "lib'bers" on this list, including (but not limited >to) Bill Stewart, Duncan Frissell, Jim Ray, Rich Graves, Sandy Sandfort, >Vince Cate, and others too numerous to mention. > >tallpaul must be reading a different list than I am reading if thinks those >he dismisses as "lib'bers" (in his other posts, and this one) are somehow >in league with the Christian Right in supporting censorship. > I suspect that T.C. May and I are reading the same list just as I suspect that Alan Pugh and I are living in the same country with the same shared press corp. But I do not dismiss people as "lib'bers;" I merely call them that. I have noticed that a large number of libertarians are fans of Rush Limbaugh and chuckle a lot when Rush refers to women like Andrea Dworkin and her supporters as lib'bers. I also find that the people opposed to Drowkin & Co. are upset at her use of demagogic language, private dictionaries, and the like. So am I, and started long before Rush got his TV shows. I am, however, equally (if not more upset) by what I perceive as similar demagogic etc. behavior by many libertarians. In short, I do not seek "to dismiss" libertarians as "lib'bers." I am not a magician and do not believe that complex issues go away through magical chants (around which T.C. May has correctly written.) But I do call them "lib'bers" much as Ruch Limbaugh uses the term in other areas. Do some people not like this? I imagine so. Do they have the right to complain? Absolutely, and I support their right to so complain. Do they really have a right not to be styled "lib'bers?" No, I do not think they have that right. Put another way, what is sauce for the goose cannot be slander for the gander. I do not believe that all lib'bers are in league with the Christian right; I am distrubed, however, by the large numbers of lib'bers who strangely never mention the existence of the fundamentalists in the ultra-conservative ultra-private-property camp. I am equally concerned with some leftists who consider every example of authoritarian behavior as "fascism" as I am with 'ib'bers who lump everyone who argues for social responsibility as a "socialst statist." One difference I see is that I am willing to criticize both groups while many (but not all) lib'bers are again strangely silent at least the "statist" side of the equation. I am sorry that T.C. May frequently has problems understanding my posts. Both of us frequently use sarcasm and rhetorical hyperbole to make our points. Witness his excellent _reductio ad absurdum_ post on warning labels for every group around the orld who believes that his or her personal folkways and mores are deserving of unique consideration. However, this in itself does not reduce the confusion. Let me then offer a possible compromise to reduce the confusion. If T.C. May makes a special effort to better identify sarcasm when people such as myself use it and rhetorical hyperbole, I in turn will make a special effort to be more sarcastic and more hyperbolic in posts containing both. --tallpaul Internet sports fan: Go Big Red! Smash State!

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:54 AM 2/11/96 -0500, John Young wrote: >It's hard to tell the difference between "Assasination >Politics" and government-sponsored provocateurism, a >well-documented practice to stigmatize anarchical and >anti-authoritarian ventures. I deeply appreciate your quandary. Needless to say, _I_ know which I am, and what my motivations are. But there are a few clues which might assist you: 1. Most "government sponsored provocateurism" is given substantially more publicity than the meager amount I've managed to acquire on FIDOnet, USENET, and CP. You can well imagine that if the government were trying to use an "Assassination Politics"-type scenario to drum up support for Clipper-type and FBI-wiretap ideas, they'd do a better job getting the word out. 2. I think I've tried to make it clear that I believe that this idea is technically inevitable; it will occur REGARDLESS of the efforts which attempt to resist it. If this were "government-sponsored provocateurism," I would have added something to the effect that "This is going to happen unless [fill in the blank with something the government wants to do to us...]". 3. "Watch this space" If you still have any residual doubts, and think I might be in league with the government on this, wait a few months. You'll be astonished. >However, it takes guts and thick skin to advocate overthrow of >authority, knowing that reasonable people will think you're a >nut seeking celebrity martyrdom. Well, it's not like I'm SEEKING martyrdom, but the possibilities have certainly crossed my mind. Some people have suggested, and only partially in jest, that I may be one of the system's first victims. They may be right. Nevertheless, I was undeterred, as evidenced by the fact that I published the essay anyway. >Happily for the careers of agent-and-anarchist back-stabbing >back-scratchers, there is no easy way to know for sure which is >which, or even if there's any difference when the media >juggernauts are provocateuring both roles for melodramatic >infotainment. My idea has already resulted in an article in the Asahi Evening News newspaper, an English-language newspaper for residents of Japan. A copy of this article was mailed to me a couple days ago. It may also result in a (I hope positive) screenplay. FAR more exciting that "The Net." Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto Something is going to happen. Something...Wonderful! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMR6EVfqHVDBboB2dAQH6IgP+MjeXW5l7MxBJxjjFN35Rc6xBS+l924Re byW467mj3BQ1Iz9g/UBVnleMUBzx+6mseBFZ+aYqjdrzFOMAo/F8Qys9HgD96I1o TLJ+dziKzpNPj4GmrYhliFaF8sifZgbatEIfnu4WFz1jT6rqxwbkTh49xxz2crjC JKSskpxXoMA= =XPh3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0