- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Jump Start ecash With IPhone
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:37 AM 3/6/96 -0800, Jim McCoy wrote: > 2- The phone companies (actually ACTA, the telco lobby) petitioned > the FCC on Monday to regulate the Internet phone software > companies. > >IP phone systems themselves may need to move underground just to >escape regulation. OTOH, there is nothing to prevent people from >building their own systems once some free software is out there... That would be a super neat trick since the LD business is currently deregulated (and in fact was never a government monopoly) and the local loop is in the process of deregulation, and Vocaltec is in some senses an Israeli company anyway and need not have a presence in New Jersey if it doesn't want do. DCF

1 0

Re: FCC and Internet telephones
by sawyer＠nextek.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> In a statement from Washington, the America's Carriers Telecommunication >Association says it "submits that it is incumbent upon the FCC to exercise >jurisdiction over the use of the Internet for unregulated interstate and >international telecommunications services." > "For example," adds the ACTA statement, "online service providers generally >charge users around $10 for five hours of access and then around $3 for each >additional hour. Five hours equals 300 minutes, divided by $10 is 3.3 >cents per >minute. The average residential long distance telephone call costs about 22 >cents per minute or seven times as much." It seems that once again, big business is trying to get in the way of progress and competition because they are afriad they are going to lose some money. It seems to me that the ACTA is upset because someone found a way to "do it cheaper" and the telco's stand to lose a lot of long distance dollars. So rather then using this technology and perhaps lowering LD rates, instead they seek to block out the technology from the public. I wonder what would happen if someone discovered an drastically cheaper alternative to gasoline, but it never made it main stream because the oil companies would go out of business. Seems like the same type of situation with the telco's. > Says ACTA, "Technology may once again be surpassing government's ability to >control its proper use. However, the misuse of the Internet as a way to >'by-pass' the traditional means of obtaining long distance service could >result in a significant reduction of the Internet's ability to transport >its ever >enlarging amount of data traffic." No, the technology is surpassing the telco's ability to provide low-cost communications. > Specifically, ACTA petitions the FCC to define the type of permissible >communications that may be effected over the Internet. Permissible communications? This sounds like something out of the CDA ... I say, just try and regulate it. I want to see the FCC try and monitor several million computer transmissions every day and see how well regulation works. Thomas J. Sawyer sawyer(a)nextek.com

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Gov't run anon servers
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal wrote: > However, if I were a computer-savvy law enforcement agent, and I wanted > to track messages through one of my remailers, I would try a > technological approach. I would first break the key for my remailer. > That is trivial. The passphrase is in PLAINTEXT in the script file > which runs the remailer!. It has to be. That is true of all automated > remailers. The passphrase could be kept in memory and entered every time the system is started. Gary

1 0

Re: Jump Start ecash With IPhone
by clarissa_wong＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> ... With net-phone projects like Free World Dialup ... My thanks to "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+(a)CMU.EDU> for his timely and informative reply. I am somewhat embarrassed to see the inadequacy of my homework but appreciate the lesson. A web search on "Free World Dialup" yielded several tasty URLs, including: http://www.pulver.com/fwd/ and: http://www.bekkoame.or.jp/~brandon/fwd/servinfo.html These people possess both a subtlety of purpose and an organizational capability that exceed my initial ham-handed efforts, yet their cognizance of the value of ecash is uncertain. > FCC PETITIONED TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET! It's not surprising that the ACTA coalition chose to solicit their armed friends to protect them from superior technology. But events are unfolding faster than I anticipated. Jim McCoy <mccoy(a)communities.com> pointed out that: > 1- Chaum did not have the clue to pick up on this when two > cypherpunks (who shall remain nameless...) pitched this > and several other ideas to involve ISPs in jump-starting ... I don't know about Chaum but perhaps now one can work around the ISPs, making the game accessible to anyone with a spare computer and some spunk. Sometimes for as little as $20. / month one can buy unlimited 28.8 PPP access. With the proper voice modem, two phone lines, and some software, perhaps Joe's Homebrew International Phone Service can go into business. CW

1 0

testing 1 2 3 v1.0
by uunet!in2.uu.net!gatech!purdue!haven.umd.edu!hecate.umd.edu!not-for-mail＠warwick.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a test. This is only a test. -- David J. Murphy for now: eg392(a)umd5.umd.edu Remember, only YOU can prevent fire drills!

1 0

Bootable disks
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> New hardware drives with replaceable media in the 100+ Mb >range has developed. The Syquest 135 Mb drive, featured in the latest issue >of _PC Mag_ can, with the parallel port version, reportedly boot. >This means one can have the drive that weighs about two pounds and a $20 >disk, place another OS on the disk, and have a very portable remailer >system. Have made some small study of that area and would be somewhat surprised if possible as advertised (BIOS would need some reason to look for disk on parallel port). What *might* be possible is to create a floppy that would install a device driver that would install directly on top of the BIOS intercepts that would transfer the boot to the Syquest but this would only work for an OS that did not replace the BIOS access with "something else" unless you had a driver for *that*. If you *really* wanted to go overboard, it would also be possible to create a PROM that could be plugged into the "bootp" socket of a NIC and do the same thing but the floppy route would be lots easier. A prom is how Iomega used to be able to make Bernoullis the boot disk - went into a socket on the PC2B (and earlier combo) card. Incidently more than one "hard disk encryption system" using this method has been broken once I have grabbed the intercept out of a booted system. Is also effective for recovering from CPTs. Warmly, Padgett

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Gov't run anon servers
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal Finney writes: >From: mccoy(a)communities.com (Jim McCoy) [...] >> The point is not to make a system which is absolutely, positively, no >> doubt about it, secure against any attacker. If cypherpunks could do >> this they would be working for defense contractors and others who make >> certified systems. The objective is to make a system which is difficult >> to attack, one which costs the attacker time/money. [...] > >I was speaking of present conditions. If and when proven-secure Unix >systems start being used as remailer servers on the net then it may be >worthwhile having a larger key. You are correct in stating that having a huge key on a remailer is as silly as putting a $500 lock on a door made of balsa wood. OTOH, the key selected is vulnerable from attacks which you cannot protect yourself against. No amount of detailed security analysis for a host is going to prevent someone else from factoring the keys, and there is nothing that can be done to prevent this from happening. To prevent this is seesm reasonable to select a key which is at least somewhat outside the range of most attackers, 510 bits seems to be pushing the lower bounds of this range a bit (while more than 1024 is probably useless overkill.) With fairly decent logging and auditing at least you know that you have been screwed when it comes to standard system break-ins, you do not know that you have a problem when your key is factored. [...] >> The unix hosts running remailers also have the advantage in >> that they have been subjected to attack for quite a while now and >> most of the obvious problems (and some of the non-obvious problems) >> have been fixed. > >I am not sure what you mean by this. My experience is that new CERT >advisories come out every few months which represent security holes big >enough to steal remailer keys. Well, most of the announcements in the past year have been attacks through subsystems which a remailer should not be running in the first place (e.g. the recent chargen/daytime/etc attacks.) The fact that the announcements come out in the first place is a "good thing" because it makes you aware of the problem. The timid will then think that the system which is the subject of the announcement is insecure and place their trust in a system which is not under the same sort of public scrutiny (e.g. Windows NT, or a VM/CMS system) but which is even easier to hack. At least people are aware of security issues on Unix hosts... (a quick walk through a Computer Literacy bookstore last night turned up twelve books on Unix/internet-server security and none dealing specifically with Windoze95 or NT security, does that mean that my NT test box is perfectly secure? :) Otherwise, I agree that assuming you have a secure remailer just because you use a big key is a foolish attitude. jim

1 0

Re: Boycott "Applied Cryptography" and AT&T and RSA
by shabbir＠vtw.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

VTW supports the Leahy/Goodlatte bill, since it helps to free lots and lots of cryptography that is currently being crushed under the weight of the Clinton Administration's cryptography export regulations. -Shabbir J. Safdar * Online Representative * Voters Telecomm. Watch (VTW) http://www.vtw.org/ * Defending Your Rights In Cyberspace PS AT&T makes so much money in a year that if everyone on cypherpunks switched to Sprint, it still probably wouldn't even put a dent in their annual budget for paperclips. anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com writes: >Bruce Schnier (Author of applied cryptography) and Matt Blaze (Who >is a crypto bigwig at at&t) have made it clear that they support >key escrow. Both have written letters in favor of the new crypto >law, it creates a key escrow system and also other restricts on >crypto. The letters are on the CDT homepage and i think were >posted here. > >WHAT THE FUCK?????????????????????????????????????????? > >EFF, EPIC, VTW and almost everyone else (except for Bizdos at RSA, hmmmm) >have all come out against this piece of shit. But with these so called >experts baking it it could pass anyway. > >Maybe the ltrs are a forgery? We should ask them, and if this is true, LETS >SEND THEM A MESSAGE!!!!!!!! SWITCH YOUR PHONE SERVICE AND TELL AT&T WHY!!! >STOP RECOMMENDING APPLIED CRYPTO (THERE ARE EASIER BOOKS ANYWAY). DEMAND >THAT THESE PEOPLE STOP GIVING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >their addresses are > schneier(a)counterpane.com > mab(a)crypto.com > jim(a)rsa.com >

1 0

Re: Jump Start ecash With IPhone
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell writes: >At 11:37 AM 3/6/96 -0800, Jim McCoy wrote: >> 2- The phone companies (actually ACTA, the telco lobby) petitioned >> the FCC on Monday to regulate the Internet phone software >> companies. >> >>IP phone systems themselves may need to move underground just to >>escape regulation. OTOH, there is nothing to prevent people from >>building their own systems once some free software is out there... > >That would be a super neat trick since the LD business is currently >deregulated (and in fact was never a government monopoly) and the local loop >is in the process of deregulation, and Vocaltec is in some senses an Israeli >company anyway and need not have a presence in New Jersey if it doesn't >want do. > The regulation in question was regarding things like local/state/federal telecom taxes and levies, and all of the BS hoops that LD carriers must jump through. Regarding where such companies are located, I am also at a loss as to how this recent action will be enforced; that does not necessarily mean that a bureaucrat somewhere will not try to do something stupid. Just because LD is "deregulated" does not mean that it is without any governmental oversight, much as I wish it were... LD companies still have to pay certain taxes (take a look at your next phone bill, they are clearly listed in addition to your actual phone charges) and I am certain that they have entire office buildings stuffed with drones filling out paperwork for Uncle Sam... jim

1 0

Boycott "Applied Cryptography" and AT&T and RSA
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bruce Schnier (Author of applied cryptography) and Matt Blaze (Who is a crypto bigwig at at&t) have made it clear that they support key escrow. Both have written letters in favor of the new crypto law, it creates a key escrow system and also other restricts on crypto. The letters are on the CDT homepage and i think were posted here. WHAT THE FUCK?????????????????????????????????????????? EFF, EPIC, VTW and almost everyone else (except for Bizdos at RSA, hmmmm) have all come out against this piece of shit. But with these so called experts baking it it could pass anyway. Maybe the ltrs are a forgery? We should ask them, and if this is true, LETS SEND THEM A MESSAGE!!!!!!!! SWITCH YOUR PHONE SERVICE AND TELL AT&T WHY!!! STOP RECOMMENDING APPLIED CRYPTO (THERE ARE EASIER BOOKS ANYWAY). DEMAND THAT THESE PEOPLE STOP GIVING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! their addresses are schneier(a)counterpane.com mab(a)crypto.com jim(a)rsa.com

4 3