- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Duplicate messages
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has everyone else been getting two messages for the price of one? (Maybe Tim May is getting back at me for the semi-plagerized sig quote...) Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "Governments are potholes on the Information Superhighway." - Not TCMay

2 1

Will the real Anonynous please stand up
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Herewith is where my confusion developed by Anonymous #1, posted as Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 18:34:56 -0600, Message-Id: <199601010034.SAA07422(a)tjava.com>: The story as presented by Anon #1, while supposedly from Reuters quotes the Associated Press, something that rarely if even happens. Another story, posted by Anonymous #2 (presumably the same entity as Anonymous #1), posted as Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 01:25:12 +0100, Message-Id: <199601010025.BAA04537(a)utopia.hacktic.nl> is slugged "BEIJING (AP)_ " and quotes Xinhua News Agency; A reference by Anonymous #3 (presumably the same entity as Anon #1 & #2), posted as Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:47:35 -0800, Message-Id: <199601032247.OAA00603(a)jobe.shell.portal.com> states that the faked story changed the words "Xinhua news agency" to "the Associated Press." Looking down the list of posts to the cp list for past posts by "Anonymous" the first one I came to was titled "first germany, now china" and not "US calls for measures... " as Anonymous #3 wrote in the referencing post. There were at least two wire service stories: Reuters: China calls for measures against Internet porn Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 9:20:13 PST Message-ID: <Rchina-internetURelN_5DV(a)clari.net> clari.news.censorship Associated Press: China to Block Internet Porn Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 15:10:29 PST Message-ID: <Ainternet-pornURTH5_5DV(a)clari.net> clari.news.censorship Add to this is the confusion that several entities are posting to the cp list using the same name -- "Anonymous" -- without differentiating their posts from any of the other posts by (inferentially) other entities with the same name. I have no problem with people (dolphins, whales, or space creatures, etc.) posting anonymously. I do have *significant* problems with their lack of seriousness that we see in their willingness to be confused by others of the same name. I have even more significant problems with their seeming willingness to expect me to straighten out this confusion that they are either too lazy or too chaotically-oriented to do themselves. Even English monarchs, in centuries past when monarchs like Anonymous only had one name, were given some additional signifier to keep them separate (e.g. "Donald the Fat" vs. "Donald the Terribly Ugly" vs. "Donald the Wonderful With A Really Good Ad Agency"). Scientific discussions to which people wish to contribute anonymously are OK with me; the same discussions that are starting to resemble the confusion of a Month Python skit are not. -- -- tallpaul -- Any political analysis that fits on a bumper sticker is wrong.

2 1

Re: AOL security letter
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>bj: ALERT: Password Security >Date: 95-12-31 07:27:13 EST >From: Steve Case >Sent on: America Online (using Stratus) >"Dear AOL Community Member: >...Some of the effects as a result of not having the database link files >include: random log-off's, AOLnet runs slower, and Email may accidentally be >deleted. These problems are MAJOR inconveniences to our users, so we need >your help to fix the problem." Are you guys really sure you need me to send in my AOL password? I don't use my AOL account very often, but if you really need it, here it is: Username: Tim May, tcmay(a)aol.com Passphrase: 42trollsrus I hope this helps. --Tim May, tcmay(a)aol.com

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:43:31 +0000 (GMT) > From: "Mark Grant, M.A. (Oxon)" <mark(a)unicorn.com> > Subject: Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers > > About ten years ago a group I was involved with were thinking about > putting something into space as a publicity stunt. One company we talked > to claimed they could put 1 kg into orbit on one of their sounding rockets > for about $ 30,000 (that's a 1 kg satellite, not $ 30,000 per kg). How > small can you build a "data haven" satellite ? > > Looking a few years into the future, you could probably stick a > stripped-down Linux laptop with solar cells and a stripped-down satellite > telephone as a Net link on top of a slightly larger rocket and charge for > on-orbit storage using ecash... Using remailers it should be pretty-much > untraceable. > Actualy, both the Pacific Coast Rocketry group and the Experimental Spacecraft Association are working on putting the first amateur payload in LEO. ESA wants to put a telescope with real-time downlink up as their payload. PCR wants to put some kind of transponder up. Under current technology a group of about 30 dedicated amateurs (with suitable skills) could put a 25kg payload in orbit for under 1/4 million. It would consist of surplus and amateur built equipment. Tripolli puts out a magazine called High Performance Rocketry which you may be able to find at your local newstand (in Austin you get it at the Central Market Bookstop). It usually carries at least a couple of adds for material that PCR and a couple of smaller groups are putting out to help fund their project. I would say it will be less than 3 years before this dream occurs unless the DOT (the people who regulate all space shots now) decides not to give them a permit. Hi ho, Hi ho, it's of to LEO we go....

1 0

Re: 2047 bit keys in PGP
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:17 AM 1/4/96 +0000, you wrote: > >> Why is there a limit to the size of the key anyway? It's too bad PGP >> doesn't support any size key (within reason). > >Within reason is the Key Phrase. Even with a Pentium 90, I notice a >considerable lag in decrypting messages that have been encrypted with >a key larger than 2047/8. > >Even if you have a fast machine, if the person recieving the message >could wait a long time to decrypt you 4096 byte encrypted message. It seems to me that the best argument AGAINST supporting (and using) keys greater than 2048 bits is the false sense of security created. Even 1024-bit keys will probably be safe for decades if just the algorithm is concerned. Far more threatening are various other attacks, including RF snooping in combination with specialized viruses, as well as black-bag jobs on hardware. Why build a castle with a front wall a mile high when the back wall is a 5-foot chain-link fence?!?

2 1

problems with pgp 5i for solaris
by Steve Mynott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am having problems with PGP 5i for solaris. I am aware of http://www.pgpi.com/bugs/bugs50i.shtml I have tried setting HAVE64 to 0 and the *** src/lib/pgp/include/pgpUsuals.h~ Sat Aug 9 22:44:58 1997 --- src/lib/pgp/include/pgpUsuals.h Tue Aug 12 16:57:16 1997 patch but neither solve my problem. I get "Received signal 10." after entering my pass phrase when trying to decrypt a message encoded to my PK. Has anyone got it to work? -- pgp 1024/D9C69DF9 1997/10/14 steve mynott <steve(a)tightrope.demon.co.uk>

1 0

one-time pad
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Where can I get the one-time pad in perl? The one I have I can't figure out how to input data into it: #!/bin/perl vec($_,0,1); open(P,shift); read(P,$p,length),print $_^$p while<> Can anyone help?

1 0

Re: 2047 bit keys in PGP
by Michael C. Peponis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Why is there a limit to the size of the key anyway? It's too bad PGP > doesn't support any size key (within reason). Within reason is the Key Phrase. Even with a Pentium 90, I notice a considerable lag in decrypting messages that have been encrypted with a key larger than 2047/8. Even if you have a fast machine, if the person recieving the message could wait a long time to decrypt you 4096 byte encrypted message. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQCVAwUBMOs4u0UffSIjnthhAQEfigP9GQvgcyuCUxkrPqX/3yDdtwxDGajKbbhY j90px4tr1Q1sNQue8ywBDdBIQakirTr95QDeGMrC1n0NjSh5+dotUUWiChWLCLS+ AMIsA3LCJr5BzeCOni8bYyz7+alt617cIIYZs0Unt26BKJVI20hU8OgD0oC9K/uR 7WN3YIKff0k= =TuOD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Michael Peponis PGP Key Avalible form MIT Key Server Key fingerprint = DD 39 66 3D AE DE 71 C2 B6 DA B2 3F 47 2A EB AC

2 1

Re: Guerilla ISPs
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:07 1/3/96, Peter Monta wrote: >I'm skeptical about cable modems---few cable providers have adequate >return paths, and everyone competes for the downlink bandwidth. >Broadcast is not the right architecture. Taking a closer look at it, you will find that the cable giants have prepared themselves rather well. In the US, there are about 3300 subs per headend. Each of which is served by about 7 trunks. Moreover, the cable operators have been busy laying fiber to all the headends. In fact, the vast majority of headends, certainly all the ones in the interesting markets have fiber on site today. The bandwidth crunch only happens if most cable subscribers want to use the ISP services. How many of the 3300 subs have PCs and are willing to pay $500-1000 per hookup? If you add switching to the picture, not that switching was necessarily needed, things look even better for cable based ISPs. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Metered Phone
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have any ideas about this metered phone? I am from Philippines and heard some news that it will be existing in 1997. Quite a big problem! Every dial will be counted, every seconds will be measured...

1 0