- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

cypherpunks press
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The 29 January New Yorker has an article "Hackworm" that discusses the Mitnick-Shimomura-Markoff echoing cypherpunks lack of sympathy for the Markoff-Shimomura P.R. extravaganza. Article ends mentioning cypherpunks and John Gilmore specifically, discussion of crypto politics, while not entirely toe-ing the cypherpunks party line, an enhearteningly informed and rational treatement. [An altavista search reveals the New Yorker is at http://www.enews.com/magazines/new_yorker/, but they don't seem to put the entire issue online, and parts of the 15 January issue is what you get when you click on "current issue"]

4 3

Netscape for Linux
by Jeff Simmons 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Found this on Comp.os.linux.misc - hope it's true: Tobias Engel <s120808(a)fb1.fhtw-berlin.de> writes: >I looked at the Data Sheet-Page for the Netscape Navigator 2.0 today (http://home.netscape.com/comprod/products/navigator/version_2.0/datasheet.h…) >There is a "Supported Platforms"-List at the end of the Page. For Unix it >says: >--- >Digital Equipment Corp. Alpha (OSF/1 2.0) >Hewlett-Packard 700-series (HP-UX 9.03) >IBM RS/6000 AIX 3.2 >Silicon Graphics (IRIX 5.2) >Sun SPARC (Solaris 2.4, SunOS 4.1.3) >386/486/Pentium (BSDI) >--- >So, where is Linux??? In comp.infosystems.www.browsers.x Jamie Zawinski <jwz(a)netscape.com> said that there *will* be a 2.0 version for Linux. He also explained why Linux isn't listed and why Netscape will tell you that there will not be a supported version of Netscape for Linux. This is a copy of that article, which is worth reposting here, I think, because of the large threads about this subjects: From: Jamie Zawinski <jwz(a)netscape.com> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.browsers.x Subject: Re: Netscape 2.0 for Linux Organization: Netscape Communications Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 16:11:19 -0700 Marco Trincardi wrote: > > There will be a Linux version of the new upcoming Netscape 2.0 ??? > At Netscape HomePage i didnt find usefull info. And I replied: > > Yes, once 2.0 is released (please don't ask me when) it will be > available for all platforms on which 1.1 is available. Since then, it would seem that some folks have called our customer support lines and gotten a seemingly different answer, so allow me to clarify: When someone in customer support tells you "we will not be supporting Linux in Netscape 2.0," they're right: but that's because we didn't support it in 1.0 or 1.1 either. "Support" means we sell the software, and you can buy a support contract. This is not, and has never been the case for Linux. You have never been able to get a *supported* version of Netscape Navigator for Linux. We have no Linux *product*; our sales and support folks don't deal with it in any way, and never have. However, there has been an unsupported educational/evaluation version available for that platform, and this will also be the case for 2.0. -- Jamie Zawinski jwz(a)netscape.com http://www.netscape.com/people/jwz/ -- -- Jos Vos <jos(a)xos.nl> -- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 -- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204 -- Jeff Simmons jsimmons(a)goblin.punk.net

1 0

Ooops! Sincerest apologies.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I just sent out a copy of my essay as a response to an inquiry, and inadvertently posted it here, too. My sincerest apologies; I intended to delete the list from the private email. Much sorry. Jim Bell -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRfpZ/qHVDBboB2dAQHblAQApam8DgJPK/rnXUnfT47SrdYFLxpCPiFd /DdQpCikjAIJtwGRDcHm7w3RBKiMzIOQ9rGuXF/FH9Q2pfWQ3DAK4RMNTNwC/0Hf 2fAJzz1psmlZ4EhPrX6qSyJi5fv1anKFe27GnGdE2nXA8sjOwH4Xg7x+/9dPKr9O qsgu8E4bwAY= =IFXd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Quick ping about Surety Technologies
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 00:17:17 -0500 (EST) From: <Somebody> To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: Re: Quick ping about Surety Technologies > *That*'s interesting. Haven't heard it before. If you want, I'll bounce it > around. If you would, that would be interesting. The patent info on their web site includes: Method for secure timestamping of digital documents. U.S. Patent No. 5,136,647, issued August 4, 1992. U.S. Patent Re. 34,954, reissued May 30, 1995. The initial patent issue covers a variety of fundamental technology and algorithmic components of digital timestamping. More specifically, the claims cover: * Any use of an outside party's digital signature to timestamp a document. * The "hash-and-sign" method in which the outside party receives the one-way hash of the document to be timestamped. I distrust software patents, but even that aside, these sound really broad to me. More info at <http://www.surety.com/patent_overview.html>. <snip> <Somebody's .sig> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: The Value of Money
by f_griffith＠ccsvax.sfasu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >I understand this much: there is some gold and other actual metal >located in a vault, sitting there as a symbolic standard of wealth, >worth, value. Everyone stakes a claim to it, and they exchange that >claim to others in substitution for something else (dog, rifle, gas in >the car, baby-sitting). >Blanc > Actually, there is no connection between the gold and our money. I.e. you cannot take US $ to Fort Knox (or any other government location) and get gold for it. This is why some posters have referred to "fiat money" - the $ is money because the government says it is. Reynolds

2 1

Re: The Value of Money
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Wed, 4 May 1994 f_griffith(a)ccsvax.sfasu.edu wrote: > >> Actually, there is no connection between the gold and our money. I.e. >> you cannot take US $ to Fort Knox (or any other government location) and >> get gold for it. >> >> This is why some posters have referred to "fiat money" - the $ is money >> because the government says it is. > >Unless of course you have a $ bill that is a specie note. I have a few ten >dollar bills that state that they are redeemable for specie. You'll have much better luck taking them to a numismatist than to Fort Knox. Specie notes are, to the best of my knowledge, no longer redeemable in specie. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: What was the quid pro quo for Wassenaar countries?
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One thing which came to me recently when I was trying to figure out what sort of gun the US held to the rest of the world's head to get them to agree to this: Could the Wassenaar outcome have been a sign of Echelon in action? Consider this: Delegates from each country have been travelling to Vienna for some months now to negotiate their countries position. During the negotiations, they'll be contacting their governments via phonecalls carried over microwave trunks, satellite links, or undersea cables to discuss the progress of the negotiations and what position they should take. Just like the negotiations which lead to the Five-Power Treaty in 1921, if one country had the ability to intercept all the other countries communications it would know how far they could be pushed, and where the most resistance was likely to come from, allowing greater amounts of "persuasion" to be concentrated on them. I can't think of a more appropriate application of Echelon (use worldwide surveillance technology to perpetuate the usefulness of worldwide surveillance technology), and it would go some way towards explaining the very peculiar agreement which was reached. Peter.

4 3

Re: The Next Hack
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199509211832.LAA24086(a)infinity.c2.org>, sameer(a)c2.org (sameer) wrote: >Proposal for action: > >1) Reverse-engineer a server to see if the keygen phase uses >a weak RNG seed. -- if so, determine the exact algorithim. > >2) Organize a net-wide search over the space of the RNG seed to >crack the private key of some well known secure server. > >3) Release the private key to the net. Count me in. Let's start with Netscape's own. - -- - -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMGMSJSoZzwIn1bdtAQFqiwF+IZKDv1t5Q2va2yE2JZMCHGITkxoDHHML alvjYK+XyxPNaVGgRgMk5gTsZMcHqBvz =meVk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Building crypto archives worldwide to foil US-built Ber
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Beroff wrote: >Wait a sec. Maybe I'm confused. I thought you were talking about >mass-mirroring the *content* of key sites, not just the URL pointers. > >I would imagine that a small committee would have to "edit" by >suggesting what should and shouldn't be included; one must realize >that if the final file is too large, people will be discouraged from mirroring. Yes, Gilmore's proposal was to mirror the contents; URLs threaten no reg-makers. Yep, mirrors of everything would be very large. We've heard already that folks would like help in knowing what to mirror if they can't do large archives, or can't easily decide which are most important. My advice so far: mirror whatever you can until better advice comes forth. Prime need: many mirrors of the strongest stuff, especially anything above 40-bits, that is anything that now requires a US export license (which appears to be where Wassenaar wildebeests and the domestic US is being stampeded). What would help is a list from experts on what are the most gov-enraging programs. We'd like to offer a few of those on jya.com, to test BXA's up-and- running crypto-enforcement program, maybe get some jail and trial pleasure, it's been too quiet on Bernstein, Junger, Karn, et al, a deliberate gov-stall, awaiting Wassenaar.

1 0

Remailers
by Matthew J Ghio 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For all the newbies who keep asking for info on the remailers, the address is: mg5n+remailers(a)andrew.cmu.edu You can get an anonymous address from mg5n+getid(a)andrew.cmu.edu Each time you request an anon address, you get a different one. You can get as many as you like. The addresses don't expire, however, so maybe it's not the ideal 'one-shot' system, but it allows replies without connecting you to your 'real name/address' or to any of your other posts/nyms.

1 0