- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

TODAY'S NEWS AND PICS PACKED STUFFED! - READ IT NOW!
by STUFFED NEWS DAILY 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ BOP TIL YOU DROP + SEX MAD FOR IT + STUPID SPICE + THE BEST OF EUREKA + PANTY THEIF + LEZ BE PALS + WHIP U + DO I TAFT TO ----> http://stuffed.net/98/9/25/ <---- Welcome to today's issue of Stuffed. To read it you should click on the URL above. If it is not made clickable by your email program you will need to use your mouse to highlight the URL, copy it and then paste it into your browser (then press Return). This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/98/9/25/ <----

1 0

An Extended Version of My Encryption Algorithm WEAK3
by Mok-Kong Shen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have done a trial implementation of a number of suggestions received for improving my encryption algorithm WEAK3 and have decided to integrate a subset of these into WEAK3 to form an extended version of it designated WEAK3-E. The added features are the following: 1. Text block chaining. Two options are provided. These are similar though not identical to the block chaining methods PBC and CBCC as described in B. Schneier's book. 2. Another block chaining method that is specific to our scheme. It consists in modifying, depending on the text being processed, the pointers that are used to access the various pseudo-randomly generated tables of the algorithm. 3. All pseudo-randomly generated tables used in the algorithm can now be refreshed at user specified periods. 4. Checksums of the chaining values in (1) and (2) above are output to provide integrity checking. An implementation in Fortran 90 is available in: http://www.stud.uni-muenchen.de/~mok-kong.shen/#paper12 The rationales of design of the base version, WEAK3, are given in http://www.stud.uni-muenchen.de/~mok-kong.shen/#paper11 The implemented new features largely follow the suggestions of CWL. I like also to thank GR and CK for construcive critiques and TPS for validating the program code. All eventual remaining deficiencies and errors are however exclusively mine. A binary executable file for PC may be downloaded through: http://www.stud.uni-muenchen.de/~mok-kong.shen/#software Critiques comments and suggestions for improvements are sincerely solicited. M. K. Shen

1 0

Just who should Kenneth Starr work for next?
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Pat Cain wrote: > Folks - > > Allegedly a Reuters story, from sources unknown (too many forwards to give > proper credit). > > pjc > > ===================================================== > Flynt offers Starr job as porno aide > Pretty amusing. After Billy has resigned/been impeached he could star in porno movies that Flynt produces -- maybe use the proceeds to pay the taxpayer back for all the wasted time and money. The real problem with all this is that Star was forced to reveal exactly what acts took place because Clinton insisted on defining the minutia of what constituted "sexual relations" -- thus revealing whether he did or didn't conform to that definition was mandatory. The question of perjury balances on these facts. Any adult with half a brain knows that sexual relations are relations that are sexual in nature. A reasonable man/woman (especially wives of the adulterer in question) would consider oral sex sexual relations. But that is beside the point. Billy C is being hoist on his own petard. The fishing expedition discovery process allowed by sexual harrasment suits were an invention of NOW (and the club of socialist lawyers that Mr Clinton clearly is a member of.) By any stretch of the imagination Clinton has either perjured himself in his civil deposition (a felony offense), perjured himself before a federal grand jury (an even more serious felony offense), obstructed justice or all three. Of course the whole thing could have been avoided if Clinton had simply told the truth during the deposition and to the American people. (Actually it could have been avoided if Mr. Clinton had not made a habit of making his private life a matter of public record). Now Clinton has put either himself or the Republic in a very precarious situtation. (1) Either the perjury and obstruction of justice laws apply equally to everyone, or they apply to no one. If the judicial system fails to enforce these laws they set an example. Next time someone is under oath they can decide what they can and can't lie about. They can decide that "alone" means something other than what a reasonable man would agree with. They can decide to deceive the judge and jury if the prosecution is hostile (as if the prosecution is ever anything but). They can give testimony before a federal grand jury over a closed circuit video feed so that they are free to refuse to answer questions without chance of being held in contempt and jailed. (2) Admit that he lied under oath and open himself up to prosecution (and definite impeachment). (3) Resign and save (a) the Democratic Party (b) tax payers dollars (c) his own skin (4) Refuse (2) and (3) and trash the democratic party in the elections, waste huge amounts of taxpayer dollars and jeopardize the institution of the presidency and the legal system. (whats left of them ;-) And before all the dems on this list bitch that I'm just being partisan and just "let the man get on with his job" -- let me state that telling the people the truth *is* part of "his job". (and I'm neither a democrat or a republican -- not that there is much differnce anymore) We all laugh at and belittle politicians for lying to us when "their mouths are moving", but when they move those mouths under oath they are held to a high legal standard. Would you prefer this standard not apply when taking the oath of office? Would you countenance a politician who, appearing as a witness in a murder case, lied about who he had seen stabbing whom? Part of the oath of office swears out the fact that they will faithfully execute the laws of the land. Is this another sworn oath we could write off as the "trappings" of the republic? More importantly, as Noam Chomsky points out in "Manufacturing Consent", lying politicians are the modern democratic equivalent of feudal tyrants beating or executing citizens in more "uncivilized times". When the king decided to supress the power of the citizens he simply beat, killed or imprisoned them. When modern politicos want to relieve people of power they lie to them straightfaced, then do whatever they choose. The more slick they are, the less the people even know whats being done to them -- and the more dangerous they are. They become tools of force for those who wish to buy them. The velvet glove over the iron fist. In this Heinlein is dead right -- democracy is force. If anyone could watch the clinton testimony on video tape and not believe that he is a congenital liar then you are deluding yourself. And as for getting on with the business of government that most "liberals" hope for: education, welfare, more money for more people -- maybe they ought to start thinking more about what is being done *to* them than *for* them. "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." President Bill Clinton, MTV's "Enough is Enough" 3-22-94 (*gulp*, the Founders are rolling in their graves like blenders on frappe. The true colors of a "communitarian") In any case, since I'm neither Demoblican or RepublicRat I see the whole issue like a bystander at the crash of the Hindenberg. The first flames are breaking out on top and you know that the thing is made of hydrogen and flammable materials. The conflagration is not going to go out until the fuel is exausted. Between Lewinsky, TravelGate, FBIFileGate, DonationGate, Whitewater, Elections, Satellite News and the Internet thats a hell of a lot of fuel. Add Y2K to the fire and you just know the thing is going to burn to a cinder as it grounds out. "Oh, the humanity" Being of libertarian disposition I'm no fan of the nature of sexual harrasment proceedings, but if you are the chief executive of those laws then you must also live by them or risk undermining the very underpinnings of the legal system. If you want to be the banker in the game of Monopoly, don't complain that you don't like the rules when someone catches you cheating. (i know the original post was intended humoursly, but I'm so tired of the prevarication, deceit, etc I had to put a word or two in ;-) taking a deep breath, jim burnes "Libery cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have .. a desire to know; .. that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge. I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers." -- John Adams A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law [1765]

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 21:43:34 -0400 "Edwin E. Smith" <edsmith(a)IntNet.net> writes: > > > >If you have Microsoft Word (6.0 or later), and have a thesaurus >installed, do the following: > >1) Open a new, blank document. >2) Type in the words: I'd like to see Bill Clinton resign. >3) Highlight the entire sentence. >4) Click on the tools menu and select thesaurus (tools, language, > thesaurus) > >Look what is immediately highlighted in the selection box. > This was almost funny. Too bad the following sentences also work: I'd like to drink frog urine I'd like to hug large, purple dinosaurs I'd like to cook onions with garlic and tomatoes I'd like to strangle you with a mouse cable

1 0

IP: Analysis of a Hack: Why was NYT Different?
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Analysis of a Hack: Why was NYT Different? Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:09:43 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Online Journalism Review http://olj.usc.edu/indexf.htm?/sections/ September 17, 1998 Analysis of a Hack By Doug Thomas, Online Journalism Review Staff Columnist The following report is based in part on interviews conducted with Kevin Mitnick and John Markoff, two key people whose names were invoked as part of the September 13, 1998 hack of The New York Times Web site. On Sunday, September 13, a group calling themselves "Hackers for Girlies" hacked into The New York Times Web site, forcing the Times to take its site offline for nine hours - hours that happened to be on what was potentially one of the paper's biggest days in the paper's online history. According to the Times, traffic that was already up 35% on Saturday was expected to double on Sunday, in large part due to The New York Times' coverage of the Starr Report and the report's full text, which was also on the site. The hack, which was by all accounts a fairly sophisticated attack, is different from most previous hacks in a number of ways. There have previously been hacks of Web pages designed to express political dissatisfaction. The Department of Justice Web page, for example, was hacked in response to the passage of the Communications Decency Act. Sites of both the Conservative and Labor parties in Britain were hacked prior to elections. But this is the first hacking incident - which could also be considered a political intervention - where a major media outlet has been financially damaged over the public perception that their coverage was unfair. At the heart of the dispute is the case of Kevin Mitnick, and at issue for hackers is the question of Times technology reporter John Markoff's coverage of Mitnick's case. Mitnick, who has served the last three and a half years as a pre-trial detainee at the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, was the subject of several Times stories written by Markoff. He was ultimately the subject of a best-selling novel co-authored by Markoff and Tsutomu Shimomura, the San Diego-based security expert who helped the FBI track and capture Mitnick. Hackers allege that Markoff used his position at the Times to hype the story of Mitnick's arrest and capture - and to demonize Mitnick in the public imagination. These perceptions, according to the hacker community, account in large part for Mitnick's continued incarceration in a maximum-security jail and his denial of the right to a bail hearing. He is only four months from trial on a 25-count federal indictment for alleged hacking. In short, the message that hackers left on the Times Web site could be boiled down to this: They feel that the way hackers are covered by the mainstream media generally, and by The New York Times specifically, is unfair. They are disturbed both by what is written about hackers, as well as what stories are overlooked. The battle over such representations continues to be played out in the coverage of the hack itself. Mitnick learned of the Times hack through local radio broadcast reports, some of which described it as an "act of Internet terrorism" led by Mitnick. But Mitnick said in an interview that he was upset both by the incident and the subsequent coverage of it. The message that the hackers left Sunday came in two parts: the page that was displayed on the Times' Web site and the comments left in the HTML code, which were far more articulate than the hacker-speak that appeared on the surface. The hackers themselves indicate this in their P.S. "0UR C0MMENTS ARE M0RE 'LEET THAN 0UR TEXT. DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE T0 TH1S PAGE AND P0NDER 0UR W1ZD0M." It is in the comments embedded in the source code that the hackers describe "the real meaning" of the page, including supporting quotations from Tennyson, Voltaire and Milton. The hackers' central grievance stems from what they see as Markoff's involvement in the pursuit and capture of Mitnick. The Web page's message targets Markoff, specifically asking: "D0 YOU HAV3 N1GHTMAR3S ABOUT H3LP1NG 1MPRIS0N K3VIN? KN0WING THAT Y0UR LI3S AND D3C3IT H3LP3D BR1NG D0WN TH1S INJUST1C3?" What lies beneath the code in the comments spells out the hackers' complaint more directly: "The injustice Markoff has committed is criminal. He belongs in a jail rotting instead of Kevin Mitnick. Kevin is no dark side hacker. He is not malicious. He is not a demon. He did not abuse credit cards, distribute the software he found or deny service to a single machine. Is that so hard to comprehend?" Markoff, in an interview Tuesday, said his coverage of Mitnick's case was totally objective. After years of covering Mitnick and because of his close connections with Shimomura, Markoff said he found himself with "access to remarkable events" and wrote about them "as accurately and clearly as I could." "There were no dilemmas," he said. "I told my Times editors what I was doing every step of the way." Regarding the decision to make a Page One story of the FBI pursuit of Mitnick, he said: "I didn't place the story." "If hackers are upset and believe the story was hyped, they are targeting the wrong person," Markoff said. "Their quarrel is with the Times' editors, not me." Although the term given to Mitnick - "darkside hacker" - did figure prominently in Markoff's book, "Cyberpunk," which he co-authored with Katie Hafner, Markoff said that the "darkside" moniker was "created by the Southern California press." He said the term appeared in stories by both the Los Angeles Times and the Daily News in the San Fernando Valley well before he ever used it. Markoff thinks the hack against the Times has the potential to do "tremendous damage" to Mitnick. If Mitnick's defenders want to make the claim that Mitnick and people like him are "harmlessly wandering through cyberspace," Markoff said, an event like this is the "clearest example to contradict that." Emmanuel Goldstein, editor of the hacker publication 2600, sees things differently. "It's not what I would have done," Goldstein said. "But it got the story out. It is a story that has been suppressed for so long." The popular sentiment among hackers is that the coverage of the Mitnick case hyped his arrest and capture - by referring to him as the "Internet's Most Wanted," as a "cyberthief" and in some cases as a "terrorist" - but the press has paid little or no attention to issues of Mitnick's long incarceration without a hearing, the denial of his right to a bail hearing, or to the fact that the government has failed to provide Mitnick with access to the evidence to be presented against him. Even Markoff, who insists that he played no part in putting Mitnick in jail, indicated that he has "a lot of sympathy for Kevin," acknowledging that Mitnick is in a "difficult situation" and is faced with a "grim set of alternatives." But Markoff rejects the notion that anyone but Mitnick himself is responsible for his current situation. "Kevin made himself what he is," Markoff said. A statement from Mitnick's attorney, released on Monday, addressed the hack of the Times: "Kevin Mitnick appreciates the support and good wishes of those who speak out against his continued state of incarceration for years without bail. However, he does not encourage any individuals to engage in hacking pranks on his behalf. Kevin believes other avenues exist that can be more beneficial to his circumstances." Supporters were directed to the Mitnick Web site at www.kevinmitnick.com. In the aftermath of the hack, several issues remain. The New York Times will undoubtedly claim that the damage done to their site has cost them substantial lost revenue and a decrease in traffic and e-commerce. Goldstein, however, quarrels with the claim that any real damage was done. "They didn't trash the Times' Web site and they could have," he said, indicating that the hack was intended to send a message, rather than to do any serious damage. This is not the first time a Web site has been hacked in support of Mitnick. In fact, in December of 1997, hackers posted a threatening message at Yahoo!, demanding the release of Mitnick. While that incident can be dismissed as a prank, the Times attack is something altogether different. Even the message the hackers left on the Times' page criticizes other hackers for not having "a real purpose" and for not leaving a "meaningful statement" in their hacks. © Copyright 1998 Online Journalism Review Doug Thomas is a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication. His column, Hacker Alert, appears monthly in the Online Journalism Review. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

Re:
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How about: I'd like humping your mom with a prosthetic limb. I'd like Hillary to get down on both knees and eat out Monica's ass. I'd like nothing more than for anyone who even thinks about mentioning Bill Clinton to spontaneously combust, preferably right in front of a gas pump where his whole family is sitting in some sort of catatonic stupor, unable to digest any information beyond that which The Machine feeds them every day. Who the fuck wouldn't drink to that? For Christ's sake, I'd be buying! At 10:34 PM 9/25/98 +0200, Anonymous wrote: >On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 21:43:34 -0400 "Edwin E. Smith" <edsmith(a)IntNet.net> >writes: >> >> >> >>If you have Microsoft Word (6.0 or later), and have a thesaurus >>installed, do the following: >> >>1) Open a new, blank document. >>2) Type in the words: I'd like to see Bill Clinton resign. >>3) Highlight the entire sentence. >>4) Click on the tools menu and select thesaurus (tools, language, >> thesaurus) >> >>Look what is immediately highlighted in the selection box. >> > >This was almost funny. Too bad the following sentences also work: >I'd like to drink frog urine >I'd like to hug large, purple dinosaurs >I'd like to cook onions with garlic and tomatoes >I'd like to strangle you with a mouse cable >

2 1

Cypherpunks defeat?
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:02 AM -0500 9/24/98, Albert P. Franco, II wrote: >I think perhaps a tougher question is, "Is there a way, without resorting >to bloodshed, to regain control of our private property and private lives?" >That's not a troll! I know that there are a lot people on this list with >their assault rifles at the ready, that are convinced that only armed >resistance will work. But. I think that's the "easy" way out. (How) can it >be done another way? It's ironic that you would have to ask that question here. The cypherpunks group was founded on this very premise: that through the use of cryptography, people would become able to engage in a wide range of voluntary transactions, outside of the reach of meddling interlopers. Most cypherpunks have become disillusioned about their dreams, and you will seldom hear them defend the notion that cryptography offers any kind of alternative to a society based on coercion. The past few years have been hard ones. The failure of digital cash, the gradual trend towards a debate over when and how (rather than whether) to regulate domestic cryptography, widespread abuse of anonymity, all these make the original cypherpunk goals seem even more distant today than in the past. Is the cypherpunks dream dead? Is the movement over? Maybe it is time to give up. Throw in the towel, admit that we lost. Sure, there are still battles to be fought, rear-ground actions where we can perhaps delay the inevitable outcome. But the vision has been lost, and all that is left is the post-mortem analysis of the failed dream.

8 11

Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 23 Sep 1998 04:27:46 Reeza! wrote: > Well, it seems I have an admirer. A follower, anyway. Quoting things I said > from two separate posts. I read all the posts to cypherpunks. Some several times to try to understand what some blowhard is trying to say. [Re; Clinton] > I believe the other issues are relevant. ... clear evidence of malfeasance > in many, and every area should not be ignored ... My argument was: 1. You can't seriously be this fired up over perjury (post OJ), can you? 2. there have been several topics discussed on cypherpunks that were more odious. 3. Charge him with his big crimes. Don't "Al Capone" him. Your belief that Starr is leading up to the real issues is compatible with my (now belaboured) point. I still don't understand what you're trying to add. > I'm not building up the bogey man, I'm discussing what I see. What I see, > on every major and minor newstation, is a disgrace. A documented, public > record disgrace. Well, this *is* a pathetic reason. You want Clinton impeached because the media tells you so. At 23 Sep 1998 04:31:48 Reeza! wrote: > > -- an anonymous aol32 user. > > You must be proud of that sig. It's a shit magnet. Works, too! > I'll bet you weren't on the list when the list of deceased CIC bodyguards, > friends and associates was posted either. > <sigh> > flush out your head, you aol user. there is more going on here than just > 'fibbing'. Fine. charge him with the other things! As far as the "newby" flame, I've seen that corpse lists here twice recently. Maybe you've dated yourself? I remember a time without Reeza! posts... And there's a sig flame in there, trying to get out. A new low for you, Reeza? > > Reeza! -- an anonymous aol32 user.

2 1

The ecash protocol (for real)
by Ian Goldberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, they did it. Probably quite a few people are sending something to this effect to CP right now, and we're crossing paths. Check out http://www.digicash.com/ecash/protpublish.html. Analysis is forthcoming (I'll probably have something useful to say by the December Bay Area meeting...). - Ian

1 0

Re:
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul is coming from AOL using Netscape as a mailer and using the open relay at cesvxa.ces.edu. Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA16186 for cypherpunks-unedited-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 02:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cesvxa (cesvxa.ces.edu [144.50.1.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA16181 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 02:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 200-148-112.ipt.aol.com (200-148-112.ipt.aol.com) by cesvxa.ces.edu (PMDF V5.0-6 #6874) id <01J2AH6J8P400003T4(a)cesvxa.ces.edu> for cypherpunks(a)toad.com; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 06:01:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 05:59:49 -0700 From: "Paul H. Merrill" <paulmerrill(a)acm.org> Subject: Re: To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Message-id: <360E36C5.33C7DFDC(a)acm.org> Organization: Twenty First Century Camelot MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win16; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <199809270531.HAA09168(a)replay.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com X-List-Admin: ichudov(a)algebra.com X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

1 0