- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

ViaCrypt pgp v.4
by Thomas C. Allard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, my site just got ViaCrypt pgp version 4 (Personel Edition) and it was the first I'd heard of it. None of my utilities that worked with the old ViaCrypt pgp 2.7.1 seem to work under version 4 (the script that checks signatures dies, as does the exmh interface which can no longer find my personal keys). I assume that these are mostly due to changes in the command-line options, although I can find no list of what exactly has changed. But my REAL question is will this version of pgp be compatible with the international versions? If not, I'd just assume revert to pgp 2.6.2 from MIT. rgds-- TA (tallard(a)frb.gov) I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me. pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6 DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D

1 0

50,000th Visitor a Winner!
by SpyKing 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Have you heard about the Codex Counter Contest? Every once and a while we post a target number for our page counter...if you are the lucky person who visits our site on that number according to the Connect2 counter...you win! All you need to do is print the page and fax it to us to collect your free prize! The first winner was Kevin Mullen aka jmulle(a)gremlan.org - Kevin won a brand new Sony 8mm video recorder (one thousand dollar value). Congradulations Kevin and enjoy your prize! P.S. While you're there, checkout some of our great resources and products...and don't forget to visit the The Codex Mall. This communication is copyrighted by the author. 1996, All Rights Reserved. This communication may be read only by the person to whom it is addressed. Unauthorized interception, forwarding, posting/re-posting of all/any part of this message is a violation of U.S. Copyright laws and may result in civil or criminal action against violators. The Codex Surveillance & Privacy News - http://www.thecodex.com PGP Key Available upon Request

1 0

RE: Government: Home-Business
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Mike Rose >I'm getting more and more of this kind of crap sent to me. I have >a procmail script which greps a file of undesirable addresses I've >compiled, but that hasn't proven very useful as there aren't many >repeat offenders. (the procmail script is available at >http://www.universe.digex.net/~mbr/unix/junkmail.html) > >How are other people dealing with this? ............................................................. For this particular one, I faxed all 6 pages back to the phone number they gave ("send your check to.....), declining the offer. .. >Blanc

1 0

Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE?
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[..] : "Ecash" is a registered trademark of DigiCash. It is registered : with the Benelux trademark office and the United States : trademark office. I believe that it is considered unwise to use : minor variations on trademarked names, but I'm not an : intellectual property rights lawyer. The Benelux (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) trademark laws don't allow for slight variations, certainly not if there is a change that people get confused, it is very very likey that the judges of the benelux trademark court will decide that ecash and e-cash are just to simular, and will thus confuse the public. (art 5 lid 1 BMW) btw: I'm surprised DigiCash didn't file for a European Trademark, but opted for Benelux and US protection. bEST Regards, -- -AJ-

1 0

Re: Symantec's Your Eyes Only
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 AM 7/16/96 -0400, Clay Olbon II wrote: >Now my $.02. I am concerned about the lack of a distinction between >transient communications and stored data. This is apparent in the GAK >proposals, but is also increasingly apparent in mainstream corporate >products such as this one and ViaCrypt BE. It is apparent (to me anyway) >that corporate access to stored data (data owned by the company, on >machines owned by the company) is probably necessary. I do not see this >same need for access to transient communications. Am I way off base on >this one? This has been mentioned a number of times by various people. It should be obvious that it is pointless to escrow the key of a data stream that you are not recording, such as a telephone conversation. Also, if you have no permanent need for that data (also, the telephone conversation) it is unnecessary. As might be expected, however, the proponents of GAK don't distinguish between keys for storage and keys for communication. Such an oversight is predictable. It's likely that governments will be more interested in keys for communication, because the data is far more easily (and secretly) accessible. Were they to admit that nobody has a need for his own communication data key, they'd lose a substantial fraction of their target data. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Telecom regulations - Reuters coverage
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Of course, the Demopublicans want to subsidize access for their voters. Those already on the net have a considerably higher likelihood, so far as I can tell, of being Independents or Libertarians. The bad guys naturally want to bring it in line with their domination. -Allen > _ Tuesday July 16 1:52 PM EDT _ >FCC Chairman Hundt Sees Tax On Telecom Industry > FAJARDO, Puerto Rico - A small tax will probably be imposed on > telecommunications companies' revenues to subsidize telephone access > in rural areas and help wire classrooms for the Internet, Federal > Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt told the nation's > governors. [...] > But ensuring that residents in sparsely populated areas have access at > affordable rates and meeting the administration's goal of wiring every > classroom in the nation for Internet access will require annual > subsidies of about $10 billion, Hundt said. > "The current subsidy system won't work and has to be totally > overhauled," he said. > Asked how that money would be raised, Hundt said, "Probably the > right way to go is, based on total revenues, throw a chunk of change > into the pot." > He said the levy would be "competitively neutral" and would > represent a small percentage of revenues for the telecommunications > industry, whose annual gross revenues are about $250 billion. [...] > Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved

1 0

Re: preamble (was Re: Markoff on Clipper III)
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:20 AM 7/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 3:50 AM -0700 7/15/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >>At 09:35 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote: >>>Did you miss the part in the Constitution about "provide for the common >>>defence" >>That's a meaningless part of the Preamble. > >Anyone who thinks substantive parts of the Preamble are "meaningless" is >deserving only of contumely. Perhaps you should review your high school >civics course--you did have one of those, yes? I think what he meant (not that I'm trying to speak for him) is that the preamble was intended as an explanation of why the constitution was written, and not to be taken as an actual part of the constitution as such. //cerridwyn//

1 0

Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE?
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <m0ugN8o-000HEEC(a)JATO.hackvan.com> Stig wrote: : > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 22:48:23 +0200 (MET DST) : > From: Alex de Joode <usura(a)replay.com> : > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com : > Subject: Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE? : > Newsgroups: list.cypherpunks : > : > [..] : > : "Ecash" is a registered trademark of DigiCash. It is registered : > : with the Benelux trademark office and the United States : > : trademark office. I believe that it is considered unwise to use : > : minor variations on trademarked names, but I'm not an : > : intellectual property rights lawyer. : > : > The Benelux (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) trademark laws : > don't allow for slight variations, certainly not if there is a : > change that people get confused, it is very very likey that the : > judges of the benelux trademark court will decide that : > ecash and e-cash are just to simular, and will thus confuse the : > public. (art 5 lid 1 BMW) : > : > btw: I'm surprised DigiCash didn't file for a European Trademark, : > but opted for Benelux and US protection. : Perhaps this has already been voiced on the main list (I get a filtered : helping or two of cypherpunks), but *I'm* surprised that such a generic name : as 'Ecash' was granted trademark status anywhere. : It's like giving Microsoft a trademark on the term 'Email'... It's nuts! : Was the term ecash not in use before DigiCash showed up on the scene? Untill januari 1st 1996 you could trademark anything in The Benelux. A bank (ABM*AMRO) has a trademark on 'the bank'; they essentially upgraded a generic name into a trademark, but the recent changes made that impossible since the Benelux Trademark Buro has to check if a name is a generic name and they now have the power to refuse a registration. bEST Regards, -- -AJ-

2 1

Re: Opiated file systems
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> But, on the other hand, it wouldn't be to hard to have the user set both > keys (yeah, so that didn't actually say anything, so what...), and then do > an every-other-byte type thing (although that would be slow... every other > block would be more efficient), and have 2 EFS's in one file, and make it > so that on the "duress" one the extra space appears to be "free". > One could make it a real file system, and add a fake disk error to prevent > over-writing of the "non-duress" filesystem. This sounds a lot like security through obscurity... What happens when someone reverse-engineers the software and sees that it's carefully skipping over blocks? If you don't want people to know about your encrypted data, use stego. Even if They find the stego software, you can always produce the keys to unlock the duress data from two or three .gif files, and say "that's all there is." Use stego to hide data. Use encrypted filesystems for convenience. If you try to put the two together, you'll probably end up with feature-bloat. The idea of an encrypted filesystems being accessable over the internet sounds interesting, though. Sort of a cross between NFS and CFS. Would be great for backup purposes. ===================================================================== | Steve Reid - SysAdmin & Pres, EDM Web (http://www.edmweb.com/) | | Email: steve(a)edmweb.com Home Page: http://www.edmweb.com/steve/ | | PGP (2048/9F317269) Fingerprint: 11C89D1CD67287E68C09EC52443F8830 | | -- Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV, TANSTAAFL, IANAL. -- | ===================================================================:)

1 0

Re: Cybank breaks new ground; rejects public-key encryption
by Seth I. Rich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

C Matthew Curtin (cmcurtin(a)megasoft.com) wrote: >People need to learn that the sort of snake oil that is being sold as >"secure" just won't cut it. Your concern for the customers of Cybank >is valid, however, so I propose something along these lines: > >Announce, very publicly, such that every Cybanlk customer would hear >about it in time, that you have cracked their hokey little non-crypto >scheme, and that you intend to publish your work in a full-disclosure >paper to be published on Month Day, Year. [...] I chuckled when this whole Cybank thing started. Only a month or so ago, they had some funky bug in their mail system such that all their internal email was being cc'd to the First Virtual users' mailing list (and also to one poor individual). They were helpless and completely unable to figure it out, as we watched their (not very happy) internal messages float unrequested into our mailboxes. Seth --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth I. Rich - seth(a)hygnet.com "Info-Puritan elitist crapola!!" Systems Administrator / Webmaster, HYGNet (pbeilard(a)direct.ca) Rabbits on walls, no problem.

7 6