- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Ross Anderson paper on fraud, risk and nonbank payment systems
by Allen 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Steve Schear wrote: [snip] >In real life, following the money is just as important as following >the man. It's time for the system to be rebalanced. In fact, I believe, it is even more important because it is the snail trail that connects the people involved. Significant sized anti-social activities are very rarely one-man bands. Given this, rather than requiring proof of identity to open bank accounts, etc, we should encourage transactions through the normal channels in order to better follow the money, if we are truly after criminals. All the extra controls do is force ordinary people who can't, for whatever reason, meet the proof of identity standards to create covert channels to transact their business. These then become the means the real crooks then use to commit whatever it is they do. The best parallels I can think of are Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Look at the total chaos brought on by Prohibition. Fortunately we were wise enough to put a stop to that relatively, for social controls, quickly. The War on Drugs; however, we have not been as smart about, and now, just over 100 years later we are spending multi-billions to bring forth an occasional mouse displayed in screaming headlines. Both Prohibition and the War on Drugs responded to each new general control by creating covert channels for transacting business. The $10,000 alert system created smurfing where deposits were always less. Now that they have instituted controls on transfers of $5,000 or more, guess what? I think you can see the trend. In addition by imposing general controls what they do is spread the work around. The crooks have to hire more people to do the work which creates a mindset in a larger number of people that laws oppress and that you are better off living outside the law. To bring it back to encryption, what are the goals we are trying to achieve by using encryption? Are they goals whereby we create barriers between people? Or are the goals to assist people in creating connections that are secure and enhance trust? The tools themselves are neutral. Best, Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[cryptography] Is BitCoin a triple entry system?
by Ian G 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 13/06/11 12:56 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > On 2011-06-12 8:57 AM, Ian G wrote: >> I wrote a paper about John Levine's observation of low knowledge, way >> back in 2000, called "Financial Cryptography in 7 Layers." The sort of >> unstated thesis of this paper was that in order to understand this area >> you had to become very multi-discipline, you had to understand up to 7 >> general areas. And that made it very hard, because most of the digital >> cash startups lacked some of the disciplines. > > One of the layers you mention is accounting. Yes, so back to crypto, or at least financial cryptography. The accounting layer in a money system implemented in financial cryptography is responsible for reliably [1] holding and reporting the numbers for every transaction and producing an overall balance sheet of an issue. It is in this that BitCoin may have its greatest impact -- it may have shown the first successful widescale test of triple entry [2]. Triple entry is a simple idea, albeit revolutionary to accounting. A triple entry transaction is a 3 party one, in which Alice pays Bob and Ivan intermediates. Each holds the transaction, making for triple copies. To make a transaction, Alice signs over a payment instruction to Bob with her public-key-based signature [3]. Ivan the issuer then packages the payment request into a receipt, and that receipt becomes the transaction. This transaction is digitally signed by multiple parties, including at least one independent party [4]. It then becomes a powerful evidence of the transaction [5]. The final receipt *is the entry*. Then, the *collection of signed receipts* becomes the accounts, in accounting terms. Which collection replaces ones system of double entry bookkeeping, because the single digitally signed receipt is a better evidence than the two entries that make up the transaction, and the collection of signed receipts is a better record than the entire chart of accounts [6]. A slight diversion to classical bookkeeping, as replacing double entry bookkeeping is a revolutionary idea. Double entry has been the bedrock of corporate accounting for around 700 years, since documentation by a Venetian Friar named Luca Pacioli. The reason is important, very important, and may resonate with cryptographers, so let's digress to there. Double entry achieves the remarkable trick of separating out mishaps from frauds. The problem with single entry (what people do when making lists of numbers and adding them up) is that the person can leave off a number, and no-one is the wiser [7]. We can't show the person as either a bad bookkeeper or as a fraudulent bookkeeper. This achilles heel of primitive accounting meant that the bookkeeping limited the business to the size with which it could maintain honest bookkeepers. Where, honest bookkeepers equals family members. All others, typically, stole the boss's money. (Family members did too, but at least for the good of the family.) So until the 1300s and 1400s, most all businesses were either crown-owned, in which case the monarch lopped off the head of any doubtful bookkeeper, *or* were family businesses. The widespread adoption of double-entry through the Italian trading ports led to the growth of business beyond the limits of family. Double entry therefore was the keystone to the enterprise, it was what created the explosion of trading power of the city states in now-Italy [8]. Back to triple entry. The digitally signed receipt dominates the two entries of double entry because it is exportable, independently verifiable, and far easier for computers to work with. Double entry requires a single site to verify presence and preserve resiliance, the signed receipt does not. There is only one area where a signed receipt falls short of complete evidence and that is when a digital piece of evidence can be lost. For this reason, all three of Alice, Bob and Ivan keep hold of a copy. All three combined have the incentive to preserve it; the three will police each other. Back to BitCoin. BitCoin achieves the issuer part by creating a distributed and published database over clients that conspire to record the transactions reliably. The idea of publishing the repository to make it honest was initially explored in Todd Boyle's netledger design. We each independently converged on the concept of triple entry. I believe that is because it is the optimal way to make digital value work on the net; even when Nakomoto set such hard requirements as no centralised issuer, he still seems to have ended up at the same point: Alice, Bob and something I'll call Ivan-Borg holding single, replicated copies of the cryptographically sealed transaction. With that foundation, we can trade. > Recall that in 2005 > November, it became widely known that toxic assets were toxic. In 2005, the SEC looked at my triple entry implementation, and.... > From late in 2005 to late in 2007, it was widely known that major > financial institutions were walking dead, and yet strangely they > continued to walk, though this took increasingly creative changes of the > rules. ...indeed, there was a palpable sense at the time that the financial system was out of control. They were looking at this thing with worried eyes. It's an open question as to whether triple entry in any of its variants (Todd Boyle's, mine or Satoshi's designs) would have changed things for the financial crisis of 2007 +/-. I think the answer is; it was way too late to effect it. But, it wouldn't have hurt, and with other things added in [9], the sum would have changed things, assuming widespread implementation. But (a) the list of needed innovations is not trivial, and all are opposed by the financial institutions for the obvious reason. Also, (b) it has to be said that at the bottom of the financial crisis is securitization, which changes everything about finance [10]. And I do mean everything :) Without understanding the role that securitization plays, talking about triple entry or toxic assets or ratings agencies or bad behaviour or poor people or whatever is pretty much doomed to irrelevance. Which is how they like it! > Today in 2011, there is still no audit that acknowledges that toxic > assets were and are toxic. This one winds all the way to [11] ... > While doubtless a good monetary system should embrace all these aspects > of knowledge, our existing monetary system does not. iang [1] reliably here means to play its part in the overall security model against attacks of fraud, etc. [2] this rant is essentially a highly compressed version of: http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html [3] there is an intermediate step here where Bob can also sign the payment into a deposit instruction, thus confirming acceptance. But this can be optimised out. [4] think here of European Notaries, responsible to both parties to intermediate. [5] crypto people would recall the term "non-repudiable" although that is out of favour; "non-repudiation is repudiated :). BitCoin paper uses the term "non-reversible." Finance prefers terms like "final settlement. Legal people look for "evidence." I choose the legal term here because in a dispute their opinion matters more. [6] this is not really apparent on paper, only in code and implementation (aka issues). [7] all of this logic is applicable & analogous & consistent when the bookkeepers are computers... [8] accounting history does not accept this point as proven. Having seen the difference of both double entry and triple entry in accounting systems, I'd say its clear. But historians don't have the benefit of seeing accounting systems stuff up in glorious fashion, they only have the dry old parchments to work from. [9] another of the things essential on the list is final settlement / irreversibility / non-repudiation, as pioneered in many digital cash schemes. c.f., Mutual Funds Scandal. [10] Everything important about the financial crisis in 4 short essays, start here: http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001297.html [11] http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001126.html _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: Ross Anderson paper on fraud, risk and nonbank payment systems
by Allen 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Steve Schear wrote: [snip] >In real life, following the money is just as important as following >the man. It's time for the system to be rebalanced. In fact, I believe, it is even more important because it is the snail trail that connects the people involved. Significant sized anti-social activities are very rarely one-man bands. Given this, rather than requiring proof of identity to open bank accounts, etc, we should encourage transactions through the normal channels in order to better follow the money, if we are truly after criminals. All the extra controls do is force ordinary people who can't, for whatever reason, meet the proof of identity standards to create covert channels to transact their business. These then become the means the real crooks then use to commit whatever it is they do. The best parallels I can think of are Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Look at the total chaos brought on by Prohibition. Fortunately we were wise enough to put a stop to that relatively, for social controls, quickly. The War on Drugs; however, we have not been as smart about, and now, just over 100 years later we are spending multi-billions to bring forth an occasional mouse displayed in screaming headlines. Both Prohibition and the War on Drugs responded to each new general control by creating covert channels for transacting business. The $10,000 alert system created smurfing where deposits were always less. Now that they have instituted controls on transfers of $5,000 or more, guess what? I think you can see the trend. In addition by imposing general controls what they do is spread the work around. The crooks have to hire more people to do the work which creates a mindset in a larger number of people that laws oppress and that you are better off living outside the law. To bring it back to encryption, what are the goals we are trying to achieve by using encryption? Are they goals whereby we create barriers between people? Or are the goals to assist people in creating connections that are secure and enhance trust? The tools themselves are neutral. Best, Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[cryptography] Is BitCoin a triple entry system?
by Ian G 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 13/06/11 12:56 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > On 2011-06-12 8:57 AM, Ian G wrote: >> I wrote a paper about John Levine's observation of low knowledge, way >> back in 2000, called "Financial Cryptography in 7 Layers." The sort of >> unstated thesis of this paper was that in order to understand this area >> you had to become very multi-discipline, you had to understand up to 7 >> general areas. And that made it very hard, because most of the digital >> cash startups lacked some of the disciplines. > > One of the layers you mention is accounting. Yes, so back to crypto, or at least financial cryptography. The accounting layer in a money system implemented in financial cryptography is responsible for reliably [1] holding and reporting the numbers for every transaction and producing an overall balance sheet of an issue. It is in this that BitCoin may have its greatest impact -- it may have shown the first successful widescale test of triple entry [2]. Triple entry is a simple idea, albeit revolutionary to accounting. A triple entry transaction is a 3 party one, in which Alice pays Bob and Ivan intermediates. Each holds the transaction, making for triple copies. To make a transaction, Alice signs over a payment instruction to Bob with her public-key-based signature [3]. Ivan the issuer then packages the payment request into a receipt, and that receipt becomes the transaction. This transaction is digitally signed by multiple parties, including at least one independent party [4]. It then becomes a powerful evidence of the transaction [5]. The final receipt *is the entry*. Then, the *collection of signed receipts* becomes the accounts, in accounting terms. Which collection replaces ones system of double entry bookkeeping, because the single digitally signed receipt is a better evidence than the two entries that make up the transaction, and the collection of signed receipts is a better record than the entire chart of accounts [6]. A slight diversion to classical bookkeeping, as replacing double entry bookkeeping is a revolutionary idea. Double entry has been the bedrock of corporate accounting for around 700 years, since documentation by a Venetian Friar named Luca Pacioli. The reason is important, very important, and may resonate with cryptographers, so let's digress to there. Double entry achieves the remarkable trick of separating out mishaps from frauds. The problem with single entry (what people do when making lists of numbers and adding them up) is that the person can leave off a number, and no-one is the wiser [7]. We can't show the person as either a bad bookkeeper or as a fraudulent bookkeeper. This achilles heel of primitive accounting meant that the bookkeeping limited the business to the size with which it could maintain honest bookkeepers. Where, honest bookkeepers equals family members. All others, typically, stole the boss's money. (Family members did too, but at least for the good of the family.) So until the 1300s and 1400s, most all businesses were either crown-owned, in which case the monarch lopped off the head of any doubtful bookkeeper, *or* were family businesses. The widespread adoption of double-entry through the Italian trading ports led to the growth of business beyond the limits of family. Double entry therefore was the keystone to the enterprise, it was what created the explosion of trading power of the city states in now-Italy [8]. Back to triple entry. The digitally signed receipt dominates the two entries of double entry because it is exportable, independently verifiable, and far easier for computers to work with. Double entry requires a single site to verify presence and preserve resiliance, the signed receipt does not. There is only one area where a signed receipt falls short of complete evidence and that is when a digital piece of evidence can be lost. For this reason, all three of Alice, Bob and Ivan keep hold of a copy. All three combined have the incentive to preserve it; the three will police each other. Back to BitCoin. BitCoin achieves the issuer part by creating a distributed and published database over clients that conspire to record the transactions reliably. The idea of publishing the repository to make it honest was initially explored in Todd Boyle's netledger design. We each independently converged on the concept of triple entry. I believe that is because it is the optimal way to make digital value work on the net; even when Nakomoto set such hard requirements as no centralised issuer, he still seems to have ended up at the same point: Alice, Bob and something I'll call Ivan-Borg holding single, replicated copies of the cryptographically sealed transaction. With that foundation, we can trade. > Recall that in 2005 > November, it became widely known that toxic assets were toxic. In 2005, the SEC looked at my triple entry implementation, and.... > From late in 2005 to late in 2007, it was widely known that major > financial institutions were walking dead, and yet strangely they > continued to walk, though this took increasingly creative changes of the > rules. ...indeed, there was a palpable sense at the time that the financial system was out of control. They were looking at this thing with worried eyes. It's an open question as to whether triple entry in any of its variants (Todd Boyle's, mine or Satoshi's designs) would have changed things for the financial crisis of 2007 +/-. I think the answer is; it was way too late to effect it. But, it wouldn't have hurt, and with other things added in [9], the sum would have changed things, assuming widespread implementation. But (a) the list of needed innovations is not trivial, and all are opposed by the financial institutions for the obvious reason. Also, (b) it has to be said that at the bottom of the financial crisis is securitization, which changes everything about finance [10]. And I do mean everything :) Without understanding the role that securitization plays, talking about triple entry or toxic assets or ratings agencies or bad behaviour or poor people or whatever is pretty much doomed to irrelevance. Which is how they like it! > Today in 2011, there is still no audit that acknowledges that toxic > assets were and are toxic. This one winds all the way to [11] ... > While doubtless a good monetary system should embrace all these aspects > of knowledge, our existing monetary system does not. iang [1] reliably here means to play its part in the overall security model against attacks of fraud, etc. [2] this rant is essentially a highly compressed version of: http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html [3] there is an intermediate step here where Bob can also sign the payment into a deposit instruction, thus confirming acceptance. But this can be optimised out. [4] think here of European Notaries, responsible to both parties to intermediate. [5] crypto people would recall the term "non-repudiable" although that is out of favour; "non-repudiation is repudiated :). BitCoin paper uses the term "non-reversible." Finance prefers terms like "final settlement. Legal people look for "evidence." I choose the legal term here because in a dispute their opinion matters more. [6] this is not really apparent on paper, only in code and implementation (aka issues). [7] all of this logic is applicable & analogous & consistent when the bookkeepers are computers... [8] accounting history does not accept this point as proven. Having seen the difference of both double entry and triple entry in accounting systems, I'd say its clear. But historians don't have the benefit of seeing accounting systems stuff up in glorious fashion, they only have the dry old parchments to work from. [9] another of the things essential on the list is final settlement / irreversibility / non-repudiation, as pioneered in many digital cash schemes. c.f., Mutual Funds Scandal. [10] Everything important about the financial crisis in 4 short essays, start here: http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001297.html [11] http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001126.html _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [p2p-hackers] Bitcoin incentive on Kademlia networks
by ianG 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 7/11/12 11:54 AM, Ted Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 00:05 +0100, Changaco wrote: >> Let me get this straight, someone writes a message asking people not to >> go into political debates that have been done over and over, but you do >> it anyway. >> >> This is exactly why I previously said I wasn't going to argue with you, >> because from your messages here and a quick look at your website I >> guessed what you were going to say. >> >> I agree with Ted Smith on the uselessness of the "debate" you are >> trying to fuel, therefore I won't participate. > > This debate has only one possible use: it can motivate people to test > hypotheses related to economics on p2p networks. > > So far, I've seen a great deal of that in this thread, and I hope I can > see more. Not only is that constructive and on-topic, it's the best way > to have the underlying political debate: through a solid basis of > empiricism. That's the point :) As a slice of experience, this business of creating new monies demands an integrity to economics that is uncompromising. Whatever your views, you will find them challenged. The more you know, the better you'll be. If you don't have a total commitment to the reality of people's financial habits, and a total commitment to being totally wrong from time to time, you'll find this business an unhappy one. You are asking people to choose your form of money over others, and your customers will be incisive and brutal with your chosen set of presumptions. Another thing you will need is a thick skin; the ability to debate the real issues while not getting distracted by the sink into politics and verbal tit-for-tat. Back in the good ol' days, Zooko and I used to run something called the Weber Economics Club. Every week we would collect all the local monetary engineers and discuss one economics topic of interest. I remember Coase's theorem one week, Schelling points another week. For an hour ... and then the beer would steer us to other topics. Which is probably good, as our group was filled with randians and marxists alike, and we wanted to survive the night. We should have produced a poster, something like http://iang.org/images/beer3.jpg "Beer - helping Randoids and Commies debate economics since 1862!" iang _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers(a)lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [liberationtech] Security / reliability of cryptoheaven ?
by Maxim Kammerer 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Brian Conley <brianc(a)smallworldnews.tv> wrote: > I am immediately suspicious of any service advertising simple easy encrypted > email Why? The notion that easy encrypted email is hard is a myth, perhaps resulting from people being trapped inside the concept of using PGP and its non-scalable b web of trustb. LibertC) Linux implements cables communication [1], which provides just that b easy encrypted email. The catch is that there is no interoperability with SMTP, and there are no easy-to-remember usernames. > but perhaps someone here can offer a coherent reply based on their > privacy policy or other info as to why this should not be trusted? >From going over the security summary [2], I don't see why CryptoHeaven's servers can't trivially MITM retrieval of recipient's public key: b The public portion of the key is then sent to the server where it can be picked up by others connecting to the system.b >From Security FAQ [3]: b CryptoHeaven manages public keys automatically and securely. User simply allows others to communicate with him through the use of "Contacts" within the CryptoHeaven system. The system takes care of the exchange of the public keys automatically.b The underlying problem is that the username (apparently) does not include a hash of the public key. It is possible that user ID mentioned in b How can I verify that I am sending messages to whom I think I am?b entry in the FAQ is such a hash, but it is not clear from the brief description. It is also not clear whether the server can decide to make a message disappear b i.e., are there mandatory authenticated receipts? And of course, due to the centralized nature of the system, CryptoHeaven can perform traffic analysis, building social networks of correspondents, etc. I am also not sure why they mention b non-repudiation and anonymityb in the FAQ. Non-repudiation is seen as problematic in encrypted communications nowadays (together with lack of perfect forward secrecy, which seems to be an attribute of the protocol as well), and is differentiated from communication authenticity per se (e.g., see OTR [4]). The claim of anonymity looks like an overstatement. All of the above is written based on high-level descriptions on CryptoHeaven website b I didn't look at the code (which is available [5]), so some points could be incorrect. [1] http://dee.su/cables [2] http://www.cryptoheaven.com/Security/security-encrypted-email.htm [3] http://www.cryptoheaven.com/Security/SecurityFAQ.htm [4] http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/ [5] http://www.cryptoheaven.com/Download/Files/CryptoHeaven-SourceCode.jar -- Maxim Kammerer LibertC) Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Attacking a secure smartcard
by Jerry Leichter 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

I've previously mentioned Flylogic as a company that does cool attacks on chip-level hardware protection. In http://www.flylogic.net/blog/?p=18 , they talk about attacking the ST16601 Smartcard - described by the vendor as offering "Very high security features including EEPROM flash erase (bulk-erase)". The chip is covered by a metal mesh that, if cut or shorted, blocks operation. However, Flylogic reports: "Using our techniques we call, b magicb (okay, itbs not magic but webre not telling), we opened the bus and probed it keeping the chip alive. We didnbt use any kind of expensive SEM or FIB. The equipment used was available back in the 90bs to the average hacker! We didnbt even need a university lab. Everything we used was commonly available for under $100.00 USD. This is pretty scary when you think that they are certifying these devices under all kinds of certifications around the world." -- Jerry --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Attacking a secure smartcard
by Jerry Leichter 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

I've previously mentioned Flylogic as a company that does cool attacks on chip-level hardware protection. In http://www.flylogic.net/blog/?p=18 , they talk about attacking the ST16601 Smartcard - described by the vendor as offering "Very high security features including EEPROM flash erase (bulk-erase)". The chip is covered by a metal mesh that, if cut or shorted, blocks operation. However, Flylogic reports: "Using our techniques we call, b magicb (okay, itbs not magic but webre not telling), we opened the bus and probed it keeping the chip alive. We didnbt use any kind of expensive SEM or FIB. The equipment used was available back in the 90bs to the average hacker! We didnbt even need a university lab. Everything we used was commonly available for under $100.00 USD. This is pretty scary when you think that they are certifying these devices under all kinds of certifications around the world." -- Jerry --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[tahoe-lafs-weekly-news] TWN 26
by Patrick R McDonald 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 ======================================================= Tahoe-LAFS Weekly News, issue number 26, April 14, 2012 ======================================================= Welcome to the Tahoe-LAFS Weekly News (TWN). Tahoe-LAFS_ is a secure, distributed storage system. `View TWN on the web`_ *or* `subscribe to TWN`_. If you would like to view the "new and improved" TWN, complete with pictures; please take a `look`_. .. _Tahoe-LAFS: https://tahoe-lafs.org .. _View TWN on the web: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/TahoeLAFSWeeklyNews .. _subscribe to TWN: https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-lafs-weekly-news .. _look: https://tahoe-lafs.org/~marlowe/TWN26.html - From the tahoe-dev Mailing List =============================== As promised, this is the issue where we catch up on the mailing list posts from our outage. Next week will resume our regularly scheduled TWN. Tahoe-LAFS and Ports - -------------------- Marko Niinimaki posted a question regarding `what TCP ports Tahoe-LAFS uses`_. From docs/configuration.rst: "``tub.port = (integer, optional)`` This controls which port the node uses to accept Foolscap connections from other nodes. If not provided, the node will ask the kernel for any available port. The port will be written to a separate file (named ``client.port`` or ``introducer.port``), so that subsequent runs will re-use the same port." Hopefully this answers Marko's question. I will be adding the question and its answer to the `FAQ`_. .. _`what TCP ports Tahoe-LAFS uses`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2012-April/007286.html .. _`FAQ`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/FAQ Volunteer Grid 2 Hits a Milestone - --------------------------------- Shawn Willden `announced VG2 hitting a major milestone`_. "VG2 hit a milestone sometime early this morning or late last night: 20 nodes! 20 highly-available (95+% uptime), high capacity (500 GB - 1 TB) nodes, distributed all over the world. Well, we'll see if the newest nodes meet the availability standard, but their operators have committed to it. According to the stats gatherer (which appears to have data on 16 of the nodes -- we'll get the others in there), we currently have just over 9 TB available storage space, right around 6 TB used, and we're uploading 140 GB per day. Next goal: 32 nodes highly-reliable nodes." [`0`_] Congratulations to all the members of VG2 and good luck hitting your next milestone. .. _`announced VG2 hitting a major milestone`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2012-April/007267.html .. _`0`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2012-April/007267.html Welcome Page - ------------ Ted Rolle, Jr `requested a couple fixes to the welcome page`. The first request was to order the nodes by nickname rather than by peer ID. This is ticket `#1709`_. The second requested was to change 'To' to 'to'. This is ticket `#1708`_ and has already been fixed. .. _`requested a couple of fixes to the welcome page`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2012-April/007256.html .. _`#1709`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1709 .. _`#1708`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1708 New Web UI Concept - ------------------ Tony Arcieri `began work on a new Web UI` using the Twitter Bootstrap CSS Framework. His work is built with a responsive layout which will allow to it degrade to the appropriate screen size. This would allow the web UI to fit comfortably in the screen of your smart phone. The response to the work has been favorable and a ticket exists at `#1713`_ if you would like to review it or learn more. .. _`began work on a new web UI`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2012-April/007257.html .. _`#1713`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1713 AppArmor Profile - ---------------- Mike Kazantsev `created an AppArmor profile` for Tahoe-LAFS. `AppArmor` is "an effective and easy-to-use Linux application security system. AppArmor proactively protects the operating system and applications from external or internal threats, even zero-day attacks, by enforcing good behavior and preventing even unknown application flaws from being exploited. AppArmor security policies completely define what system resources individual applications can access, and with what privileges. A number of default policies are included with AppArmor, and using a combination of advanced static analysis and learning-based tools, AppArmor policies for even very complex applications can be deployed successfully in a matter of hours." [`1`_] Further information can be found on the `Tahoe-LAFS AppArmor`_ page. I would really like to see this profile incorporated into Debian and Ubuntu packages of Tahoe-LAFS. .. _`created an AppArmor profile`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2012-March/007128.html .. _`AppArmor`: http://wiki.apparmor.net/index.php/Main_Page .. _`1`: http://wiki.apparmor.net/index.php/Main_Page .. _`Tahoe-LAFS AppArmor`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/apparmor Patches Needing Review of the Week ================================== There is one (1) ticket still needing review for 1.9.2: * `#1115`_: add servers-of-happiness to reports (post-repair says 10 hosts have good shares but there only 4 hosts) There are four (4) tickets still needing review for 1.10: * `#1161`_: improve new-downloader logging * `#1579`_: Patch to Add "Move" Functionality to Web Interface problem) * `#443`_: set ETag on immutable directories, short-circuit on cache hit * `#1693`_: flogtool doesn't get automatically provided .. _`#1115`: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1115 .. _`#1161`: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1161 .. _`#1579`: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1579 .. _`#443`: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/443 .. _`#1566`: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1566 .. _`#1693`: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1693 - ---- *The Tahoe-LAFS Weekly News is published once a week by The Tahoe-LAFS* *Software Foundation, President and Treasurer: Peter Secor* |peter| *. Scribes: Patrick "marlowe" McDonald* |marlowe| *, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn* |zooko| *, Editor: Zooko.* `View TWN on the web`_ *or* `subscribe to TWN`_ *. Send your news stories to* `marlowe(a)antagonism.org`_ *b submission deadline: Friday night.* .. _marlowe(a)antagonism.org: mailto:marlowe@antagonism.org .. |zooko| image:: zooko.png :height: 35 :alt: zooko :target: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/AboutUs .. |peter| image:: psecor.jpg :height: 35 :alt: peter :target: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/AboutUs .. |marlowe| image:: marlowe-x75-bw.jpg :height: 35 :alt: marlowe :target: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/AboutUs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPiZXkAAoJEAT4nRyi0elyiTsQAMj5L1r9ZXPZ/DWxBHSUs7Lw OYKcqfB2Wtzp2HqKIikZS6Lvkzxc59jlk4Pb08s0kBa2C18b8OajxlolD5NVaeaO jP5WCEOOMS4PtOsos6nCJtdIj1BvvsIzYoT2hqVn1l+je8StvrbiT+lZQyWiFtXO vIGsl/8aOrW/2woe8z95z2GdKRDr4TTvWXYv4XrtJUAcVEdB7dWANK8gLDNbl63f CDEetwhfjnwqCCtfIPrfDKV1VvKt4g6p7Cg1/UYbwoaWoqRGYKmCv7jYgvpQvrjO a85TfFDYVhA8+3qRowJ9TrVNDgSyKYrXo0xEenNEHglWHyFw25HSViW2Z5of12t8 EQDu1hOtq6CLMbmlZ2ZKn92GHt566rE52QOzn5bc2TTAq+RJs7nBaBeAEKqQGPjM HO5Nywv0N1NDdfwGKyaZTgNJ9m/QUiKcqh1erm8MVeKk+2+RQfdotLryYYPcCg3t 6uaMo1N8fRX6BKHoPViQjsff9WRph9+G5ZZUOM3AnHH0OEKUOQ73QaAn4eKX0KWv XK6wMEku1io/ezW0zB8SE3RzUL44v65gcY3V13+KNeGRtMUmEKq88iyFPP2Wemw/ t1QvHX8V7GcRAH4vBoL3n35KiS1n8E8EqDYnlj1CxuEXne5CeA0/yH+LtzyjRJ9y HsJtAJ6o40KZrt0pF7dG =G0AO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ tahoe-lafs-weekly-news mailing list tahoe-lafs-weekly-news(a)tahoe-lafs.org http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-lafs-weekly-news ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: Your e-mail to Murray Kahl re The Jewish Left in America vs The
by Ratzlav-Katz 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Christian Right Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:33:11 +0200 Well, Bob, I am glad you answered my e-mail. What makes your philosophy an interesting combination of right-wing politics and anti-Semitism is that throughout your answers, you still insist on singling out the Jews for special treatment, which is CONTRARY to my understanding of right-wing, merit-based philosophy - with your only reason for it being "they got money" - like some jealous, Communist revolutionary. If a certain group is more successful than another - like the Orientals in America as opposed to the Blacks, for instance - that is the strength of an open, free market society like America. Secondly, Jews support lots of things. A Jewish left-winger supports the Rainbow Coalition for the same inane, stupid reasons that any Boston white, Anglo-Saxon liberal supports it. You, however, insinuate some conspiratorial plan by Jews to destroy America. You are wrong. Ditto for world government - Jews are not in a conspiracy to take over the world. That implies a special evil motivation for Jews (i.e., anti-Semitism). I reapeat: Jews who support leftist insanities support them for the same reason that anyone else of any other ethnicity does. What if I told you that most Americans of Italian background support liberal immigration laws? You'd find a reason - they want to make sure their relatives can get in and join them, etc.Would you say "AHAH! They are trying to take over America for a renewed fascist Italy!" Jews are motivated by the same things anyone else is. Thirdly, targeting Jews for extermination because they are taking over the world (or America)... that is ancient, classical anti-Semitism exactly for the reasons I listed above. As for Israel. It is the fulfillment of the prophesy of the ingathering of the exiles. Zionism seeks one thing: a Jewish State where Jews will be able to take their destiny in their own hands. I don't care what your friend told you. It was either a wishful, lefty, John Lennon, peace and love speech that he assumed is an insidious plan for world conquest (which is what most of these conspiracy theories are) or he is making up nonsense. Zionism is the OPPOSITE of one-world government - it demands that Jews have an independent, separate state, where most Jews will live. That is a call for yet another national entity, not an international one. You'll just have to trust me that you cannot lecture me about Zionism or Judaism or Israeli history or policies. [ IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORTHODOX JEWS WERE NEARLY ALL OPPOSED TO ZIONISM BECAUSE THEY INTERPRETED PROPHECY TO SAY THAT ISRAEL WOULD NOT BE A NATION AGAIN UNTIL THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY THAT ZIONISM WAS STARTED AND PROMOTED BY ATHEIST RUSSIAN JEWS WHO WERE MARXISTS. ] If you oppose Jewish national sovereignty, then the burden is on you to show why you support other national sovereignties. Mostly, in fact, it is leftist, internationalist, pie in the sky types who are anti-Israel, because they are anti-nationalism of any kind. But YOU are pro-nationalist. So if you are in favor of all other nationalisms, but the Jewish one, then that is, again, anti-Semitism, just from the perspective of logic. Also, the rabbis who were against Zionism in the 1800's were indeed fearful of the secularism of most, but not all, of its founders. However, there were three groups. Those opposed, those in favor and the majority, who were silent, reserving judgement. Nowadays, there is only a small insignificant sect who calls for the absolute dismantling of Israel - and even THEY claim to believe it should be done peacefully. The Jewish groups that tend to support Arab violence against Israel, on the other hand, are EXACTLY those leftists that you so despise! Getting confusing, isn't it? [ IT IS TRUE THAT THE ORTHODOX JEWS HAVE NEARLY ALL BEEN CO-OPTED TO SUPPORT ZIONISM NOW. BUT WE SHALL SEE IF THIS WAS INDEED A SATANIC PLOT OR A G-D BLESSED PLOT. THE LAST CHAPTER IS NOT YET WRITTEN. ALSO, SINCE I AM VERY HOSTILE TO ISLAM I WOULD MORE GLADLY SUPPORT ISRAEL AS A BULWARK AGAINST ISLAM, BUT THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY OF THE LEFT-WING AMERICAN JEWS CONFUSES MY LOYALTIES. ] Finally, I live in Israel, man. How would you feel if I said that it should have been the "People's Republic" of Massachusetts (where I went to school) that was hit by Bin Laden, killing thousands, just to "wake up the liberals there."? [ WELL IN RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU WROTE IN THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE, I MUST SAY THAT IF I WAS A JEW WHO LIVED IN ISRAEL, I WOULD BE A 100% MILITANT RIGHT-WINGER. I WOULD UTTERLY CRUSH ARAFAT AND I WOULD FORCIBLY REMOVE THE PALESTINIANS TO SYRIA, IRAQ, IRAN OR WHERE EVER AND I WOULD DO ALL OF THIS WITH NO APOLOGY. HOWEVER, IF I WAS A PALESTINIAN, I WOULD KILL AS MANY JEWS AS I COULD. I WOULD HATE THE JEWS AND REGARD THEM AS FOREIGN INVADERS WHO MUST BE REMOVED BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY, INCLUDING TERRORISM. AS A CHRISTIAN, MY LOYALTIES NORMALLY WOULD GO FIRST TO SUPPORTING JEWS AGAINST ISLAM, BUT MY ANGER AT WHAT THE LEFT-WING JEWS ARE DOING TO AMERICA HAS ME SOMEWHAT FLUMOXED. ] Incidentally, "messianic Jews" are an insult to Christianity and Judaism. If you do respect Orthodox Judaism, you will respect that you cannot combine true Judaism with true Christianity. There are anti-missionizing laws on the books in Israel. That applies to Hare Krishna just as much as to Jews for Jesus. No Christian in Israel is targeted because he is a Christian. There are Christians (and other non-Jews) in all sectors of Israeli society (incl. the army, the government, business). The claim of oppression of Christians in Israel is just wrong (do you read Josef Farah? He is an Arab and a religious Christian - and pro-Israel. He edits WorldNetDaily.com) [ REGARDING "MESSIANIC JEWS." THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY JEWS. JESUS WAS A JEW. THE APOSTLE'S PAUL & PETER & JOHN & MARK & MATTHEW WERE ALL JEWS. CHRISTIANITY IS A JEWISH RELIGION. CHRISTIANITY WAS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY JEWISH IN IT'S EARLY YEARS - SO - YOU ARE WRONG TO SAY THAT "MESSIANIC JEWS" ARE AN INSULT TO CHRISTIANITY. THOSE ANTI-MISSIONIZING LAWS ARE EVIL AND BIGOTED UNLESS YOU ADVOCATE THAT EVERY NATION SHOULD BE ABLE TO WRITE LAWS FAVORING THE SELECTED "STATE" RELIGION. YOU SOUND LIKE THE TALIBAN WHEN YOU ADVOCATE SUPPORT FOR "ANTI-MISSIONIZING" LAWS. BTW, YES, I READ AND LOVE JOE FARAH. JOE IS PRO-ISRAEL, JUST LIKE ALL PROTESTANT CHRISTIANS IN AMERICA USED TO BE. I AM TRYING TO CHANGE THAT. I AM WORKING TO TURN CHRISTIANS AGAINST THE LEFT-WING JEWS IN AMERICA OUT OF A MOTIVE OF SELF-DEFENSE BECAUSE OF WHAT THESE JEWS ARE DOING TO US CHRISTIANS IN AMERICA. ] That is why I say, stick to defeating liberal IDEAS - do not allow yourself to be drawn by conspiracy theories that depend on a certain ethnic group all working together to take over the world. What is true is that common problems lead to common solutions. [ I AM ONLY FOCUSING ON THE JEWS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE LEADERS OF NEARLY ALL OF THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN GROUPS IN AMERICA. ] Once you stop singling out Jews and start singling out wrong-headed, liberal ideas alone, you might earn some respect from more right-wing Jews, like myself. ---------- Nissan R. [ STICK MY HEAD IN THE SAND AND PRETEND I DO NOT SEE WHAT THE LEFT-WING JEWS ARE DOING TO AMERICA... IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME TO DO? ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT I SHOULD NOT WRITE OR TALK ABOUT WHAT THESE LEFT-WING JEWS ARE DOING TO AMERICA? PS - YOU CLAIM TO BE RIGHT WING, BUT I SUSPECT YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF ABORTION RIGHTS, TOLERANCE OF HOMOSEXUALS AND PERHAPS EVEN SOME SOCIALISM SUCH AS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE OR SOCIAL SECURITY TYPE RETIREMENT PROGRAMS. TELL ME IT IS NOT TRUE. I AM BCC'NG THIS TO 150 PEOPLE ON MY PERSONAL EMAIL LIST. SHALOM, BOB FROM MICHIGAN.] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Tiny Wireless Camera under $80! Order Now! FREE VCR Commander! Click Here - Only 1 Day Left! http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/XgSolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Dear Friend, Please help me make this email list grow. Please send me a list of email addresses of people you think might be interested in joining the email list. Please write to them and let them know that I am going to be sending them an invitation to join that will automatically add them to the email list if they simply REPLY to the email I send them from the Anti_Immigration(a)YAHOOGROUPS.COM email list. Or they may subscribe directly by sending an email to the following address: Anti_Immigration-Subscribe(a)YahooGroups.com Or they may un-subscribe directly by sending an email to the following address: Anti_Immigration-unsubscribe(a)YahooGroups.com Thank you very much, BobfromMichigan74(a)hotmail.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

1 0