- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:42 AM 1/15/97 -0800, Alan Bostick wrote: >Was he wearing a ID badge with a photo? Was he known to the security >staff? I would assume the staff knew the person. But that's not the point. The beer delivery man could hardly know what was in the kegs. The kegs might have been switched beforehand. In the warehouse, at a previous stop, etc. An attacker might have to replace several kegs, to make sure that at least one altered keg makes it inside the "secure" area. This can be done quite easily. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

1 0

Re: RSA challenge: is it legal to try?
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:35 PM 1/14/97 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >Patents only apply to commercial use. Got a cite for this? I can't seem to find any authority for it. It sounds to me like a simple economic calculation (it's not worthwhile to sue noncommercial users for infringement because they usually don't have enough $ to even pay for the litigation, and "IBM sues 70-year old grandmother" makes for poor public relations) that got turned into "law" by the machinery of urban legend. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Re: How to Deal with a Homo Superior Who is on the Make with You
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is clear from reading this that all equal employment laws should be eliminated. On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Path: perun!news2.panix.com!panix!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mailmasher.com!non-tell > From: Anonymous <non-tell(a)mailmasher.com> > Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.sex,alt.psychology,alt.renewing.american.civilization,alt.sci.sociology,misc.jobs.misc > Subject: How to Deal with a Homo Superior Who is on the Make with You > Message-ID: <199701131555.HAA14303(a)mailmasher.com> > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 07:55:23 -0800 > Organization: http://www.mailmasher.com pseudonymous service > Lines: 68 > Comments: Please report abuse to abuse(a)mailmasher.com > Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster(a)nym.alias.net > > How to Deal with a Homo Superior Who is on the Make with You > > The answer is very simple: lobby for a return to employment > "at will" by repealing ALL equal employment opportunity laws > including the provisions of the Americans with Disability Act > which pertain to employment. Filing complaints or lawsuits > is definitely not recommended as this would be the worst kind > of career suicide. > > Years ago when homosexuality was stigmatized and there was > employment at will, the homos kept a very low profile because > if they let loose with their true nature, then they would be > out on their ear, pronto! > > However, pass equality laws in a small minority of jurisdictions, > and the homos get the impression that they can get away with > just about anything even if they are not covered by one of those > laws in their own jurisdiction. > > The behavior at major corporations on the part of homos ranges > from "the look" to outright propositions, to outright vigorous > harassment and even extortion. I thought that the emergence of > the AIDS epidemic would have a drastic dampening effect on this > type of behavior, but boy, oh, boy, was I ever wrong!! It seems > that if you groom yourself to any degree, the elements get the > impression that you are germ-free and highly desirable, and you > will attract their attention like a lightening rod. > > To be fair, the worst perpetrators of this adverse behavior are not > those guys perceived to be homosexuals but bisexuals - you know, > the guys with the wives or girlfriends. Boy, are these guys ever > confused, and boy, are they ever motivated, sex hungry, and on the > prowl! > > Homosexual managers and executives share a trait with females, that > is, they will not tolerate capable male subordinates for long (unless, > of course, the subordinate is extra special friendly - if you get > my drift.) These managers and executives are paranoid about their > job security just as females are, and they cannot stand any competitive > threat. By the way, female managers and executives have an affinity > for gay subordinates. It just goes to demonstrate how sociological > alliances are forming under government enforced equality. > Yes, and this points out how homosexuals and females (who are usually always also homosexual) are the WORST thing that any viable Corporation can ask for. An ALL male heterosexual entity is the ONLY way to survive the business world today. A woman's place is in the home, and a faggots place is NEVER to be superior to any heterosexual person. > Now that the job market is quite tight and very much a buyers' market, > prospective employers get the impression that they can reduce job > candidates and subordinates to sexual slavery since workers have > few, if any, alternatives, and the saddest part of the situation is > that many workers are going along with the extortionate demands thereby > making matters much worse for the workers who refuse to do likewise! > > Now, I know that some detractors in the reading audience will say, > "If you re-stigmatize homosexuality, you will drive it underground," > but what the h-ll is wrong with driving it underground??? This > statement is sophistry at its worse because it doesn't even make > any sense on its surface. > > On a related front: > The Treatise on the Downward Wage Equalizing Effects > of Equal Employment Opportunity is available at: > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3982/ > > "Government enforced wage equalization will work only in the > downward direction" - despite any initial appearance to the > contrary! And the most shocking thing of all is that the > least preferred worker does not even have to be awarded a > job for many phenomena to occur. > >

1 0

Re: Erols again...
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Afterburner wrote: > In other news, abuse(a)erols.com is no longer pulling this list, so > you're safe from further canned responses from that address. Sadly, it > wasn't an autoresponder. It was a real-live human being sending out > canned responses that had been written by the PREVIOUS abuse(a)erols.com > person. It has finally happened--the machines have taken over. Now, the machines will lie on the beach in Hawaii while the humans do all of the mindless grunt-work. Toto

1 0

Re: Hi again, and an invitation to kibitz
by amanda＠intercon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > (b) Client sends Microsoft NT authentication response to the server > > (take the password in Unicode form, do an MD4 hash, pad with 0s to 21 > > bytes, split into 3 7-byte groups, use these as DES keys to encrypt > > the challenge three times, send the 24-byte result as the response). > > I think this can be strengthened in a few ways. The third DES key generated > using this technique has an effective keylength of 16 bits. Correct. This is the reason I've been thinking of switching to SHA-1, which gives a 20-byte hash (leaving only one byte of zeros, which can be filled in with some function of the other 20 bytes to arrive at 21 bytes). I haven't found any hole opened by exposing the last two bytes of the MD4 hash, but it's the piece I'm most worried about just on general principles (never expose more than you have to :)). I'm currently using the NT algorithm simply because I had it around and needed to get a demo working for the show. We're not tied to using it, although it would be useful if we end up doing an NT version of the server (since NT stores the MD4 hashes of passwords, not the plaintext). > I believe the D-H patent expires sometime in September or October this year. Yup. April was wishful thinking on my part; we won't adopt D-H until the patent expires. > Any unbroken cipher with a keyspace larger than that of DES would be better. Yup. I started with vanilla DES because I was worried about speed, but as it turns out the cipher step has a negligible impact on performance. I'm considering DES-EDE (the easy option), Blowfish (also pretty easy), or the DES variant Bruce Schneier describes in Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed. (the one with independent subkeys). So far, DES-EDE and Blowfish are the front runners, since they're the ones that have been poked at the most. DES-EDE has the advantage that more people know what DES is (the "buzzword compliance" factor). I'm not inclined to make the cipher a user-configurable option unless customers demand it, just to keep the user interface as simple as humanly possible. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Krenn wrote: > >> But wait - won't the all-important "did you pack your bags yourself" and >> "did anyone give you bags to take on the plane" stop them? ;-) > > If your friends or family are a little late catching the same plane as >yourself, then just answer, "No, my son packed them." > This, on the average, gives your companions an extra 10-15 minutes >to catch the plane, since regulations require them to do a complete >check of your baggage (and they are 'supposed' to take them to a >secure area to do so). > Since you are ready to board the plane they cannot legally detain >you and let the plane go on, in order to process you and your >baggage according to proper regulatory procedure. They must, >instead, detain the plane. > They may jump up and down and tell you this is not so, but I have >never missed a plane, and neither have most of my tardy companions. I don't know which airlines you fly, but the ones I am familiar with ask these questions at the baggage counter (checked luggage) and gate (carry-on items). Since you are supposed to be at the airport one hour before departure, in most instances if you get to the counter or gate less than 10 minutes before take-off your reservations lapse (by Fed rules) and are no longer requred to board you. If they are forced to search you luggage they will, legally, allow the plane to depart w/o you. -- Steve

2 1

Re: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> And how come Paul didn't use the word "fuck" in every paragraph, the way > he usually does? I suppose you want a special censored list where everyone who uses the word "fuck" in relation to your good self or any other member of this list you agree with has their posting cut? Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

2 1

Dick Graves continues his DOS attack
by varange＠crl.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Dick Graves continues his DOS attack > The appended messages from Howard Goldstein > <hgoldste(a)bbs.mpcs.com>, Stan Kalisch III <sjkiii(a)crl.com>, > Chris Lewis <clewis(a)ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, Eric Bohlman > <ebohlman(a)netcom.com>, trebor(a)sirius.com, Dave the > Resurrector, and myself below show why Dave Harman, > formerly qut(a)netcom.com and an572010(a)anon.penet.fi, now > varange(a)crl.com, has targeted us. While the deranged varange > may occasionally sound superficially plausible, his record > is quite clear. Apologies for the length, but I figure it's > better to have this all in one place. This article is also > saved at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/skipsummary This article will be saved to http://www.crl.com/~varange/netabuse/ or the NET ABUSE - FALSE COMPLAINTS category of my index.html. > Since abuse(a)crl.com just goes to /dev/null, I'd appreciate it if > some CRL user could confirm, as three different CRL users did > a month ago in response to a rash of forged usenet postings > in October (I'm appending two posts on that topic below), > that the only account logged on to the given machines at the > time of every incident of forged net abuse was varange(a)crl.com. Six weeks or so is all the public access there is to the wtmp file; ask Sandy or Stan if you don't know how to read it from your own CRL account. (How conveniant of you to accuse me of the repulsive "Mark Wehal(sp?)" forgery past the date it can be easily verified; why should the CRL admins drag out their backup tapes on the account of your spurious allegations? Anyone who checked up Dejanews on "Mark Wehal" could have seen that some user had forged his name as revenge spam against "Mark Wehal's" offensive under 18 style sex spam in a few exceedingly odd choice of newgroups, alas, "Mark Wehal" never complained about the forgery and an unknown user may have been the instigator of a business prank against a ligitimate electronics firm whose street address was listed in the original sex spam.) > crl6 Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:14:26 -0800 > crl6 Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:07:02 -0800 > crl11 Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:22:59 -0800 > crl6 Tue, 24 Dec 1996 17:10:58 -0800 Or check the Here: line of my posts for better readability than the additional standard Date: line. > Forged email headers follow. The full 750K text of the > unwanted harassing email, of which I received several copies, > is at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/skipbomb2 > and skipbomb3. I'm sure more people besides Gord McFee > and I received copies; maybe everyone on his targets list, > ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/qu/qut/misc/address > > Personally, I think nine months of this bullshit is more than > enough. If CRL sees no problem with this, then I don't believe > CRL should be allowed access to our network. "Our?" Are you allowed to abuse the Stanford network because you are a user, employee, or the actual admin? If Graves is the actual admin, or is allowed to act like one, then bona fide complaints about users conduct on the Stanford network can't be sent directly via e-mail; send a registered letter/return receipt to whomever is responsible (who?) I read his post as a threat to the Stanford network. Bogus complaints and forged posts from everyone under the sun: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] Full article referred by myself to my web page: http://www.crl.com/~varange/netabuse/ -- Cheers!

1 0

(fwd) MISC> ISPs to be hit with fees
by frogfarm＠yakko.cs.wmich.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: wmich-news!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!ncar!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!mr.net!news.mid.net!news.mid.net!not-for-mail From: Gleason Sackman <gleason(a)rrnet.com> Newsgroups: comp.internet.net-happenings Subject: MISC> ISPs to be hit with fees Date: 13 Jan 1997 09:29:05 -0600 Organization: Global Internet, Peace of Mind is finally Online! Lines: 80 Sender: infoserv(a)news.mid.net Approved: ralphie Message-ID: <5bdkc1$bie(a)shocker.gi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: shocker.gi.net Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:49:16 -0600 From: The CyberTracker <JAX(a)CyberTracker.com> Subject: ISPs to be hit with fees To: NETTRAIN(a)LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU ISPs to be hit with fees By CNET STAFF January 10, 1997, 6:45 p.m. PT The cost of getting online looks like it's going up again. Network Solutions, the InterNIC subcontractor that assigns Internet domain names for a fee, has proposed tacking on more fees to the numeric addresses behind those names, addresses that are now free. For example, the domain name "cnet.com" masks a numeric Internet Protocol address. The domain name system makes it simpler to send email or locate a Web site by name, rather than by a number up to 12 digits long, such as 198.41.0.52. Under Network Solutions' plan, a new nonprofit organization called the American Registry for Internet Numbers would replace the government-subsidized InterNIC IP group. North American ISPs would be hit with fees ranging from $2,500 up to $20,000 for blocks of IP numbers that they now receive for free and parcel out to their users. The plan would not affect individual users unless the ISPs chose to pass along the additional costs. But nonprofits, free community networks, and others that do not charge for Internet access would have to pay. "They all have operational fees today," said Jon Postel, head of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which oversees all three of the world's Internet number assigning authorities, including the InterNIC IP group. "It's just another operational expense." It is the IANA as well as the National Science Foundation that would have to approve Network Solutions' plan before it would go into effect. The proposal is not clear about how the registry would spend the thousands and possibly millions of dollars it would take in each year if the plan goes through. The proposal did say that the executive director, chosen by the board of trustees, would receive a salary determined by the board. Network Solutions' representatives could not be reached for comment. But IANA's Postel says that Net addresses must be treated like the airwaves. "Address space is a kind of a public resource like the airwaves," he said. "There are certain bands set aside for CB radio, but if you want to be a powerful radio station, you have to go through a much more complicated licensing procedure." But unlike the airwaves, Internet address space is public resource that is parceled out without any governmental oversight, whereas the Federal Communications Commission oversees spectrum allocation. Postel thinks the lack of such oversight is a good thing. "You think about the FCC procedures and how long it takes to get a decision out of them on anything," Postel said. "I'm not sure you'd want them involved." Only companies and individuals capable of paying a $1,000 per year in fees will be allowed to participate in forming American Registry's policies. By contrast, any U.S. citizen has the right to file comments with the FCC about communications policies. The American Registry's five-member board of trustees would be initially selected by Network Solutions. Future boards would in their turn be selected by the board that Network Solutions had picked, giving the private company an unprecedented influence over the assignment of increasingly scarce IP numbers. The IP numbering system is reaching its limits and plans are currently being considered to extend it. ********************************************************************** * Jackson K. Windham * CyberTracker Consulting Services * * JAX(a)CyberTracker.com * Internet Consultant / Trainer * * ACE INTERNET CLUB - President * Http://www.CyberTracker.com * ********************************************************************** *** Member of HTML Instructors Association and HTML Writer's Guild *** ******* May the Best of your Past, Be the Worst of your Future ******* ********************************************************************** -- frogfarm(a)yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) is officially declared Unmutual s..O).... The smurf wields a hypodermic! -- More -- I like women who @.../.".. You destroy the smurf! -- More -- are *strong*, in .$*...].. You feel self-righteous! <B>every</B> sense of the word.

1 0

Re: Seen Your Post!
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:17 AM 1/15/97 -0800, Garry wrote: >I Seen Your Post! > >I found your post in one of my favorite news groups. You might find my views >are exactly the same. In fact my entire WebSite is right up that alley. >Every business Opportunity listed at my sight is FREE! In fact one of the >businesses I joined (again free) has an excellent earning potential of >over $600 profit per YEAR, per CUSTOMER! The best part is don't do anything >except promote the business. The company does everything for me!!! Although >I do not have anything against MLM, this is not! Anyone else ever listen to Paul Harvey? Anyone else know what it is like to realize that you are listening to an ad halfway through the ad? I hope that our moderator will judge posts on the total content, otherwise insidious little posts like this one may slip through.

3 2