- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: floating point crypto?
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:51 PM 1/5/95, Timothy C. May wrote: >Robert H. has asked that we reply in e-mail to him, to avoid >"cluttering the list more than I already have...," but the logic of >this is faulty. The few lines of a response such as this one, or even >of several such responses, are as nothing compared to dozens or more >people sifting their own archives so they can each independently send >Robert what they find. Hence my public reply. Got that right. No one can be more chagrined than I about this, because I've seen it happen. I remember Way Back in Ancient History (1985) when someone who couldn't remember the name of the movie posted the plot to "Slient Running" to net.sf(?), and asked for e-mail answers, so it "wouldn't clog the newsgroup". He was begging for mercy as little as 4 hours later... How soon they forget. I'm lucky it didn't happen to me. Thanks Tim, for saving my bacon. Nonetheless, I *am* thankful to Jim Gillogly, who sent me a great bunch of stuff about what the pentium.whistleblower, Dr. Nicely, was working on. Jim said he got it out of WWW, and maybe he'll post the URL here and that will be that. Nicely was working with finding multiple primes: Prime twins, prime triplets, etc. I will now proceed to post the relevant bits of Jim's and Tim's stuff to the newsgroup I got "called" in. Thanks to everyone who sent me comments, pointers, etc. >Not to sound strident, but if folks would keep copies of articles and >spend some time organizing them in data bases or in other searchable >forms, this would help the list. In my opinion, having personal access >to past posts is several orders of magnitude more important than >having MIDI-MIME JPEG-II TeX players that can display "Cypherpunks R >Us" in the correct font and with the "R" reversed according to spec. Indeed. Having limited space on my poor PowerBook, I have kept mostly the "excrable e$" types of files, to wit: anything mentioning money, finance, economics, and whatever crypto is specific to those areas. Since I started hanging out here this spring, I've accumulated about 10 megs of stuff between this list and www-buyinfo. I just archived everything from November backwards into Stuffit-compressed Eudora mailboxes. If you want those, I've got 'em. I did search the files I have after the "great squeeze", but to no avail. Unfortunately, I did not think I would have to keep anything to do with WIntel and their potential tribulations. I am, after all a Certified Macintosh Bigot. Thanks again, everyone. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

2 1

Re: sniff passwords on PC (DOS)
by pstemari＠erinet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:00 AM 1/6/95 CST, m00012(a)KANGA.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU wrote: > ... It does not work after starting windows. Not sure, but it seems obvious >that MS windows installs it's own keyboard interrupt. ... True, but it's fairly simple to write a program that loads itselfs in win.ini and also hooks the keyboard messages from Windows. --Paul J. Ste. Marie pstemari(a)well.sf.ca.us, pstemari(a)erinet.com

3 2

Re: for-pay remailers and FV (Was Re: Remailer Abuse)
by Nathaniel Borenstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Excerpts from fv: 6-Jan-95 for-pay remailers and FV (W.. jrochkin(a)cs.oberlin.edu (4416*) > Hmm. Maybe I don't completely understand how this is going to work, but > won't _every_ remailer in the chain need to know your FV billing account? > How would the rest of them charge via FV without knowing your billing > account? What Russell was suggesting (I think), was that only the first > would bill via FV directly, so only the first would need to know your > billing account, and then he'd settle up with the others at the end of the > month. (A particular variation of that scheme is what you mentioned later > in your message, and I'll get to that). The latter is what I was proposing. Only the first one would charge via FV, but the other ones would form a "closed system" that you could only get into by going through one that charged. > But assuming that every remailer along the chain _was_ charging via FV, I > fail to see how only the last one would need your billing account; seems to > me they all would, and thus any one could collude with FV to violate your > anonimity. That's not my assumption. I think you may have misread my mail -- I *agree* with you on this point. Sorry if I was unclear! > The > remailer operators still have to have an organization and remain in close > contact, which I am uncomfortable with because it seems to make collusion > more likely. As I said, it all depends on your level of paranoia.... I tend to think that in such an organization, where the primary "product" is privacy, each member would tend to watch all the other members like hawks, eager to publicize any instance of the other guy not being sufficiently zealous in protecting privacy. (Of course, I'm assuming that people like *you* will be running these services, i.e. people even more paranoid about privacy than me.) > And it's still dificult to intermix for-pay and free remailers > within your chain, or even just for-pay remailers from several different > consortiums. I think this is wrong. In my model, each consortium model has two, a for-pay and a for-free. Anyone can send to a for-pay, but only a consortium remailer can send to a for-free. Not that complicated, really. > [The > consortium, as far as I can tell, would also find it rather dificult to > charge more for a longer chain, I can't think of any way for them to charge > anything excpet a uniform amount regardless of length of chain, unless you > give the first remailer a way to tell the length of your chain, which is > undesirable. I'm not sure if this is a problem.] To my mind, that's not a bug, it's a feature. The consortium is charging you a set fee for privacy, and you get to decide how many hops are required to have a level of privacy you trust. > And this level of paranoia would be perfectly well surved by a Julf/penet > style remailer, which _would_ work well with an FV-payment system, as I > agreed before. The cypherpunks chained remailernet system as a whole is > overkill for your paranoia needs, but appearantly not for the needs of > those who use it over Julf's. It appears to me, that an FV-style payment > scheme can't be added to the cypherpunks chained remailer system without > dropping it's security to the level of Julf's. Which might be good enough > for you, but not good enough for me, or presumably for anyone else that > uses cypherpunks remailers. This is true of the scheme that I said I would be satisfied with (one remailer + FV), but not true, I think, of the "overkill" scheme, which was the consortium. > [Do you understand how cypherpunks remailers work, and the difference > between them and a julf/penet style remailer? Do you understand how > encryption is used in a cypherpunks-style remailer chain to make it so each > individual remailer only knows the next remailer along the chain, and not > the entire rest of the chain?] Well, I *think* I do, though I may be suffering from a bit of dilletantism here -- I'm certainly no expert in cryptography, but I think I understand the concepts involved. We haven't even gotten into the effect of encryption yet -- so far, we've just been talking, I thought, about untraceability. But as far as I can see, there's no reason that the consortium pay-only-at-entry scheme couldn't work with encrypted remailers. Am I confused? Couldn't you use the same cryptographic chain as is currently used, where all the inner entries in the chain are free crypto-remailers open only to other consortium remailers, but in which the outer encrypted message had the FV payment attached, which gained it entry to the remailer pool? > Try to bring up objections to a digicash-style system that are applicable > to remailers. I agree that they are different technologies that fill > different requirements, but it seems to me that the particular requirements > of a remailer system are only met by a digicash/magic money style > technology. Again, I think you mis-read me. I haven't (nor do I care to) spent a lot of time thinking about how to do remailers at all, let alone with digicash. What I was referring to was the basic objections that come from using a digital cash scheme in the first place. > I think an electronic cash system that will work with remailers, must > satisfy these things: > 1) You need to be able to enclose the "signifyer" of the transaction inside > encryption. Whether the "signifyer" is the cash itself, or an agreement to > make a transaction together with a billing number, or whatever, you need to > be able to enclose it in a PGP (or other arbitrary PKE protocol) encrypted > block. > 2) The "signifyer" of the transaction (which again might theoretically be > the cash itself, or some kind of billing number) alone shouldn't be enough > to reveal the identity of the anonymous user. I agree that FV doesn't meet the above requirements, but I don't see why they're necessary for remailers. In the consortium scheme I'd proposed, the only thing that could ever be proven about you would be that you had used a remailer. Now, if the message was not encrypted, your anonymity could be broken by collusion of FV and the "entry" remailer. But if the cypherpunks style cryptographic chain was used, i.e. if the contents (including an inner envelope that said who you really sent it to) were encrypted, nothing more would ever be derivable without the collusion of everyone in the chain, and even then it would only be derivable if certain records were kept. All I'm claiming is that it's do-able using the FV payment system. I'm not going to do it myself because I don't personally feel that this level of untraceability is EVER legitimately necessary..... -- Nathaniel

6 6

Re: your mail
by Jonathon Fletcher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 7 Jan 1995, Jonathon Fletcher wrote: > who cypherpunks > end I know, I know. I'm sorry. I'll send it to the right place next time. Small slip of the qwertys -Jon -- Jonathon Fletcher, jonathon(a)japan.sbi.com

1 0

Re: Outlawing Anonymity
by No Taxes through No Government 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TC May writes: >I see no prospect whatsover that a ban on anonymous mail could be >implemented, enforced, or upheld in the courts. Never say never. Even coming from Tim, this surprises me just a little. Never think that government won't do something. The effectiveness of their 'solution' may be minimal, but billions can be wasted, and countless lives ruined, before it can be stopped (or more likely, dammed; once government achieves power, it is loath to relinquish it without a death struggle). Some nation's groups of 'leader'-thugs may be in a better position than others to go for such a power grab at this moment in time. But any and all of them should be constantly scrutinized for the inevitable slide down that slippery slope. The "article" by our pal Martha which the SF Chronicle had the poor judgment and atrociously swollen cojones to publish, is one of the most dramatically explicit warning signs of the year so far... and NOT because the year is yet so young. And to think, Tim used to be the pessimist on this list, saved only by the reassurances of Duncan and Sandy... :-S

1 0

Too Much!
by Brian Lane 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yet again I have un-subbed from the list because of the S/N ratio. And things were looking so good there for a while. Advice to Carol Ann: Take your crusade to e-mail. Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Everyone is a prisoner holding their own key." | finger blane(a)seanet.com -- Journey | PGP 2.6 email accepted ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

procnail
by Nesta Stubbs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in response to the recent barrage of nonsensical bullshit here, I was wondering if anyone knew the archive site or procmail, the mail filtering program? I think this is a good time to school everyone in the basics of Killfiles. I have never wanted to killfile a person before, this is a big step for me. 8) i want to know everything http://www.mcs.com/~nesta/home.html i want to be everywhere Nesta's Home Page i want to fuck everyone in the world & i want to do something that matters /-/ a s t e zine

3 2

Remailers, Linux, & Help ...
by root 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Normaly I use(d) 'ravage(a)bga.com' to access this list but the times they are a changin' ... I have successfuly gotten my network at home on Internet via a ISDN link. We are interested in setting up a remailer which among other things supports anonymity. If anybody has experience or learned input on doing this under Linux please contact me. A reminder that RoboFest 6 in Austin, TX will occur this year on April 1 & 2. If there are any c-punks interested in giving a talk or doing demo's then please contact me. If any of you folks are in the area then stop by and say Hi. I will be working at the Wired Society booth. Take care!

1 0

Re: Peter D. Lewis
by nissim＠acs.bu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm unfamiliar with what it is people have against Kevin Kelly. Why "wanton scum"? people might want to send mail not cc:ed to cypherpunks to keep the list from experiencing too much of a burden here. -A

1 0

RE: CP meeting lost&found
by Johnathan Corgan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Did anyone notice a left over coat at the CP meeting? My friend seems to be >unable to locate his. It's a purple Timberland with white leather trims. >The coat has very important mail in the inside pocket. Yes. As we were leaving, Katy was asking around for the owner of the jacket. I assume she probably still has it or it is at SGI for safekeeping. == Johnathan Corgan "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." jcorgan(a)scruznet.com -Isaac Asimov

1 0