- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

pgp on bsdi 2.0
by The Anarchives 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I'm having trouble getting pgp compiled on bsdi 2.0. Can someone who has successfully done this please email me with some help :) thanx http://www.lglobal.com/TAO/ ___ ___ ___ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /:/ / /::\ / /::\ / /:/ / /:/\:\ / /:/\:\ / /::\ / /:/ /::\ / /:/ \:\ /__/:/\:\ /__/:/ /:/\:\ /__/:/ \__\:\ \__\/ \:\ \ \:\/:/__\/ \ \:\ / /:/ \ \:\ \ \::/ \ \:\ /:/ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\/:/ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ \::/ \__\/ \__\/ \__\/

1 0

Re: Anonymity and Intellectual Capital
by Tom Bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I've ranted about all this here and elsewhere, how falling semiconductor > prices, public networks and strong cryptography beget the reemergence of > bearer certificates, this time in digital form (of which ecash is only the > prima facie example, the existence proof) and what I call, for lack of a > better term, a "geodesic", instead of hierarchical, economy. > Bob Hettinga Agreed. What's more, I'll make a similar claim about the legal system -- with the rise of alternate dispute resolution systems, it too appears to be moving toward a system where law issues less from state authorities and more from private ones. Post's article brings out this point well. As for terminology, I prefer "polycentric." Originally coined (I believe) by Polyani with regard to non-hierarchical societies, it works quite well in economic and legal contexts. A polycentric system harbors overlapping authorities in free and open competition. Tom W. Bell Assistant Professor Law and Technology Program UD Law School bell(a)odo.law.udayton.edu PGP fingerprint: 78 06 76 AC 32 38 A6 4C B3 81 F4 1E 2E 27 AC 71

1 0

No Subject
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Shoe-horning Mondex onto the Internet -- still won't fit There many high barriers to the shoe-horning of Mondex onto the Internet: + Was not designed for the Internet, rather for physical portable cards + Requires expensive hardware: >$100/board for a PC in start-up quantities + Accoring to inside sources, is vulnerable to MITM between payer and payee + According to inside sources, is grossly vulnerable to replay attacks (offline multi-spending to different parties) + The designers have zero experience and reputation in the cryptographic and computer security communities + None of the Mondex designs have been published or peer reviewed. + The protocol cannot be published for security reasons, which means -- Mondex has security holes -- Customers who defraud Mondex-using banks have legal deniability in a court of law: they can simply request banks to produce the security protocols as evidence; if they refuse the case is thrown out of court (precedent: UK and US phantom-ATM withdrawal cases)

1 0

Re: ZD Net Update v.1 #2
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:11 PM 11/18/95, ZD Net / World Wide Web Edition wrote: >__________________________________ZD Net Update_______________________________ >v. 1 #2 11-13-95 > >Welcome to ZD Net Update, the free E-mail newsletter created especially for >registered users of Ziff-Davis Interactive's ZD Net/World Wide Web edition. >ZD Net Update is a bi-weekly bulletin that alerts you to new and exciting >developments on ZD Net. (rest of long newsletter deleted....) Ah, someone has once again subscribed the Cypherpunks list to a newsletter. Will the person who did this please have the decency to reverse this situation? (There are instructions at the end, but the syntax of the "unsubscribe" command may imply that only the site from which the subscribe was initiated can unsub. Whomoever subscribed us can unsub us.) Do I have to point out that just a single one of these long newsletters takes up more list bandwidth the most of the putatively "off-topic" posts do? --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Request for URL'S
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:31 PM 11/6/95, Censored Girls Anonymous wrote: .... >I'd love to make a Cypherpunk URL page, >so if you will send your five favorite URL's >I'll put them all on a page like The Dreams Page, >(http:www.primenet.com/~carolab/dreams.html) >and turn it loose on the net. The following seems to be a pretty good nexus: http://www.quadralay.com/www/Crypt/Crypt.html There is, of course http://www.oberlin.edu/~brchkind/cyphernomicon/ A crypto legal centre: http://www.kub.nl:2080/FRW/CRI/projects/bjk/lawsurvy.htm Happy Hunting

1 0

Spammers' Email List Obtained!!!
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Using only the tools provided by the spammer, and without compromising system security in any way, we have obtained the full list of email addresses that were used by the bulkd(a)valleynet.net direct email spammer. I am not going to tell the public how to get it because I do not want this list to fall into the wrong hands. There are several curious features about the list that strongly suggest that it was purchased from other spammers. I *strongly encourage* the person who formerly used the bulkd(a)valleynet.net account to apologize to news.admin.net-abuse.misc and provide us with the source of the list immediately. - -rich llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMK6E943DXUbM57SdAQHopwP/aY+cRnmrtUBhILl7lvfeQakrpW+uLwuY J1jR6SrSFdiZ+rGM8D4tc5HarOrU77X2zjpqDNOFySJ+yukP3eXvKny3v+3ndUGA ozbnH5EnshOQZE0hQ+aV9TKu+zM0ihfT65PxuvgehPnBi+CgSRHtDddhjuWMvRSD aNGKoAyZLaA= =mKyw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: (CANADIAN PRESS REPORTS)
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Detweiler wrote... >On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, jim bell wrote: > >> >anonymous writes: >> >> I still feel such a sense of violation with what LD did, such an >> >> utter sense of helplessness at the character assassination I've >> >> suffered at his hands, >> > >> >So use PGP, sign your messages. Simple solution. >> >> Absolutely! Anybody who uses anonymous remailers to post to public areas, >> and does not use digital signatures to prevent spoofing when it is obviously >> needed, is a fool or worse. > >Most people believe THAT a digital signature is evidence that I am who my >signature _says_ I am when it really doesn't do that at all. It isn't >reliable at all. > >Unfortunately, I've learned the hard way NOT to do that. Digital >signatures don't prevent spoofing. > >In fact, I think that thinking something is secure when it isn't leads >to even more trouble, and could even lead to many tragedies. > >In a nutshell, here's the problem. > WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! BIG "IF" COMING UP! BIG "IF" COMING UP!!! >If someone takes my pgp secret keyring and my password, then they can ^^ >sign a message *digitally* so that people believe the spoofed message is >really from me. In fact, since most people tend to rely on a pgp message >far more than a non-pgp message, most people would be absolutely >convinced that the message was in fact from me. Pardon me, but what was the point of that last comment? It is an obvious statement of fact that yes, IF IF IF somebody had a secret key AND password, he could duplicate a signature. Digital signatures allow a person to exclude others from being able to sign messages as if they are from him. True, a person could simply publish his secret key and password, at which point everyone could sign notes as if they came from him, but that wouldn't be "interesting" because most people would have no reason to do so. >Signing with PGP is just not a solution. It is, apparently, in the vast majority of possible situations. Why would you even try to disagree? Oh, yes, I forgot... you're Detweiler.

1 0

reputations: discussions and meta-discussions
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, Bill Stewart wrote: > Here's the new entity's key, signed :-) I haven't added it to the > PGP key servers; I'll leave that up to you... As we know, a public key certificate is a binding between the key and some attribute, as asserted by the signer. In this case you have asserted a binding between my key and the string "a new entity, as yet unnamed". I don't understand why you did this. Would you please explain? The only reason I can think of is that you wanted to provide evidence for the key's creation date by timestamping it. If that was the case, I thank you. But in the future, to avoid confusion, perhaps you can create a new ID "timestamp" for the key and sign that instead. ------------- On a different subject, given the likelihood of an increasing number of new identities showing up on this list, I propose that we create a new mailing list (cypherpunks-reputations) devoted to the discussion of reputations of cypherpunks participants. A significant number of posts on cypherpunks are already discussions of this sort. I believe it would be benificial to create a seperate channel for these meta-discussions so they do not interfere with regular cypherpunk topics. By encouraging discussions about reputations of specific entities, we may also gain some insight on the general properties of reputation systems. In this sense by creating this new list we create an interesting self-referential loop -- cypherpunks-reputations contains meta-discussions about cypherpunks, which in turn contains meta-discussions about cypherpunks-reputations. Examples of posts appropriate for this new mailing list would include: * knowledge, intelligence, style and quirks of cypherpunks participants * exchange of keys and certificates * speculation on connections between entities * kill file entry recommendations I do not have the physical resources to serve such a mailing list, so I hope someone who does will volunteer. - keyid D072FC19 (still unnamed) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMK8CnY2Fr67QcvwZAQGUJgP9G8ER/qH8OKvSbOtPYwaDQMkVyKFWafxH Ukbm0lKgCwS97cEKufxJH49VCRkxrd+t+ia5IRNDxewB1xlcjAKRvp4MK8Ps6MTy FbhmEpfhB4pnfE5l+e8VnZSoD79j0Sv6C80C48NL6NJNV6PhhTS9B5lXxW/qJv9D 3ZTpTf5AjZI= =e4DU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: remailer abuse
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 22:43 11/19/95 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Yes, anonymous communication is getting easier, and the costs of trying to >stop it are becoming impossibly high. It would essentially require a police >state to stop, and even then it probably couldn't be stopped... Considering that there are well known ways of spoofing IP addresses, if you really want to, you can be anyone. (They must be well know. I know at least one. <grin>) >2. Sender pays the costs of transmission. That is, if someone wishes to >send 10 megabytes to a site, at least _he_ (or _she_) pays the freight. >This is of course the way things now work with the U.S. postal system, with >"Postage Due" no longer common... I think we lack direct charges for network traffic because detailed accounting for use of each net-link is too expensive. The situation is similar to that of the telephone system in the 1950s, where the switches which connected local calls did not have enough smarts to do charging, and so started the tradition of "free" local calls. When lots of people start sending full motion video over the net we may see ISPs develop use based charging schemes. I should add that one of the reasons I use Netcom is that they do NOT charge for connect time or network traffic. There is a market for known, fixed costs too. Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: "Dear Newt" Letter...
by rwizard＠mindspring.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:38 PM 11/20/95 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > >My, *this* looks interesting... > > >Cheers, >Bob Hettinga ... >Dear Mr. Speaker: > > We are writing to express serious concerns about the >Administration's efforts to continue to restrict the ability >of computer users at home and abroad to protect their personal >and private information over electronic networks through the >use of encryption technology. The Administration seems ... As a constituent and campaign volunteer of Mr. Newt, I think I will drop a hard copy of this off at his office along with a healthy dose of *my* views ! Thanks for posting it. rwizard(a)mindspring.com ================================================= "The Internet is already full - Go Away !" ================================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzChH30AAAEEAL4nhMMmeqVZXx2UYZgyZfjgm+oVkbLkVhgr7Z8rBPWd1FwX wv+vQlX7smRbYF+FymeUKlWiKl8hhkueo5iObyek5C32a5NP0snYQYJDfwn9UE6P hJGBpYcjiKU8XzUXfpfAC95FGkCqrLCp1kfDhLpqJChUK1GN8Va+auujevB9AAUT tCVSYW5keSBXaWxzb24gPHJ3aXphcmRAbWluZHNwcmluZy5jb20+ =KccN - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQCVAwUBMKl1wVa+auujevB9AQGJJwQAs9Y13pi2Rq5vFKc9RRIfed7Qkx63RFpz J1AhkBLE+HEixfjhx3WEmg5hAloae8N2N7/gpPXs3i/TcOQ/XMXtd9L4SSlGieIJ FrJDF6aktnHoBetKMsaRIFtIC0rXYZCMLktYjTXICPDwZMKWnWy9M5vGYNApS2Rz DKcZp5UWIIA= =ZmFv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Begin Geek Code--- GAT d- s+:+ a+ C++++ UH++++L++++ P+ L++ E--- W+++ N+ K- w++++ O-- M-- V PS--- PE+++ Y++ PGP++ t+++ 5+++ X++ !R tv- b+ DI+++ D+ G-- e* h---- r+++ y++++ ---End Geek Code---

1 0