- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Passphrase Online...
by John Shaft 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I >>type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private >>Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? >>If so, how would that be done? There are a number of things that can happen. Basically, if you don't directly control the device/application that is doing the encryption for you, you run the risk of someone intercepting whatever you xmit. For example, if you have a dial up type shell account with your local ISP, and you depend on some UNIX based encryption program to secure your mail (running on the ISP's machine), anyone with root access can tap the tty and watch you enter your passphrase. You're also susceptable (sp?) to someone taping your phone line and looking at you with a packet analyzer. I suppose if you were doing something locally, and someone wanted to be really sneaky, they could embed something like keycopy on your machine (with a virus or something) and get coppied every time you enter a keystroke. I don't suppose it would be all that difficult to get a machine to run a tsr that got kicked off every time you accessed something like, say , PGP....Comments? Shaft! Damn Straigt. shaft(a)africamail.com

2 1

Re: Moderated list is missing headers
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Lou Poppler wrote: > The arguments about imaginary quotes and libel are harder to untangle > because the moderation process seems to consume the mail headers showing > the messages' travels before reaching toad.com. I suggest that these > headers are signal not noise, and should be propagated if at all possible. > We have had problems in the past with forgeries, and should retain this > basic tool for evaluating a message's source. I agree, except I rely on this to sort the moderated and unmoderated lists into separate folders. I'm sure the bugs are still being worked out, but it would be much easier to filter if the sender header was set appropriately. Here's the procmail recipe in case anyone's interested: :0 * ^Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com { :0 * -1^1 ^Received: * 4^1 ^Received:.*from majordom(a)localhost.*by toad.com * ^Message-Id:.*toad.com in.cpunks :0 unedited } The number 4 should be changed depending on how many hops a message must make to reach its destination. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMu0gyyzIPc7jvyFpAQGCrAgAlIT6oSZ18sVGuMQWeszAWPE67BwMRx/1 2CLsrtpCaKfj5j+C5DsT2dpv4IhlOFOftrtCPL8KOEot5YRg3mUeUl7efwfnioeB UmM3h7Zx8W5RFZlTlhMim58G5o88jYVE3Rsov+f8nYM9hoXPDyjgoZmnG4BUn8Ca saL3ul2zO39bB4YwRmBKCeXRBzefmaowJbdC7Hl+S+uU61+Dbtbk/Fq2o5B9Gsvq wjg3QF4u+oyDCfcxdmLajL9tE6K7L2bgEkvi9kxt7AUP5e/l53epXK9cFplYF0B6 qgPd0shYmWiTSbhjQ4tw6jZkxuyxWqFX/nAHGp7Tciqp/rIkwX/tNQ== =riw1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by Ciro Maria 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

remove

1 0

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >I am not sure if you posted this information in response to my request >to cite a statute that would prove that libel is a crime. > >Me> Jim Choate wrote: >Me> > >Me> > >Me> > >Me> > Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that >Me> > party did not write them is a crime? >Me> >Me> cite the statute > > >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in some places) still on the books. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: OTP security
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I was thinking about the thread we had a week or so ago about OTPs. Say > I'm going to burn a CD of what I think are cryptographically random bits, > but somehow I end up with part of my stream being predictable (say every > 16th bit). What does this do to the security of my CD? Depends on how that 16th bit is related to the other bits and whether these predictable bits give any information about the other bits on the disk. If we assume all the other bits are true random and that the 16th bits are predictable only in that they can be predicted left and right but do not depend upon the other bits not in positions 16, 32, 48, 16n etc... we can just discard them and use the rest obtaining perfect security. We can even use all the bits and all we lose is one bit every two bytes and therefore if we are calling the bytes ASCII and say adding mod 13 we only have "imperfect" security on every 2nd character where there are 2^7 eg. 128 possible characters. Suprisingly this yields perfect security as there are still a number of possible pads which lead to reasonable and plausible decryptions. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

[[[ Worldwide Computer Based Business ! ]]]
by bigboy＠gte.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you have a PC and want to achieve real Financial Independence then you MUST take a look at our Powerful Computer Based Business. No matter who you are or where you live, Our Business is Universal. We distribute software and information all over the world through E-Mail and the Internet. Our program called PC-SUPER-MLM is the most simple and powerful MONEY MAKING software in the world!. of course, you don't have to believe me until you see the actual program. Reply to this message and i will send you a FRE copy of the PC-SUPER-MLM software via E-Mail as an attachement. Have a great day !.

1 0

Re: OTP security
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I was thinking about the thread we had a week or so ago about OTPs. Say > I'm going to burn a CD of what I think are cryptographically random bits, > but somehow I end up with part of my stream being predictable (say every > 16th bit). What does this do to the security of my CD? Depends on how that 16th bit is related to the other bits and whether these predictable bits give any information about the other bits on the disk. If we assume all the other bits are true random and that the 16th bits are predictable only in that they can be predicted left and right but do not depend upon the other bits not in positions 16, 32, 48, 16n etc... we can just discard them and use the rest obtaining perfect security. We can even use all the bits and all we lose is one bit every two bytes and therefore if we are calling the bytes ASCII and say adding mod 13 we only have "imperfect" security on every 2nd character where there are 2^7 eg. 128 possible characters. Suprisingly this yields perfect security as there are still a number of possible pads which lead to reasonable and plausible decryptions. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Nurdane Oksas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Nurdane Oksas wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Nurdane Oksas wrote: > > > > California is know for very beautiful girls ... > > > > wrong. > > > well, seems D. Thorn agrees with the song: 'california girls' > > Depends on where you go, and what time of year. So. Cal. is no doubt > a revolving door for the girl markets, especially on the beach board- > walks, or on San Vicente where a lot of joggers run. seems, Americans like their own women , which is all they have seen maybe... > > Anywhere else and it's no different from Cleveland or Pittsburgh. Well, can you say you've been 'anywhere else'? Regards,

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list (fwd)
by Daniel Harter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Actually, it is a certifiable fact that the list subscribers can > jump to the unmoderated list whenever they want to. It is also a > certifiable fact that they (97% or so) have *not* done so. Has anyone compiled a summary of the difference of volume of posts to the lists? I'd be interested to find out. > Because of these facts, I must conclude that either: > > 1. The subscribers have spoken by staying put, or, > 2. The subscribers are so lazy and unaware of what's going on that > they've just left things as is. > > Now, in my opinion, we've come to this: Some people here will hold > the optimistic view of the bulk of the subscribers, and others will > hold the pessimistic view (the bulk will presumably be in-between). I just started subscribing to the list near the time it started, so I have not noticed a difference. If the unmoderated list is not much more (~10%) I think I'd prefer the unmoderated list. Regards, Dan Harter dharter(a)harter.pg.md.us

1 0

Re: Moderated list is missing headers
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lou Poppler wrote: > > The arguments about imaginary quotes and libel are harder to untangle > because the moderation process seems to consume the mail headers showing > the messages' travels before reaching toad.com. I suggest that these > headers are signal not noise, and should be propagated if at all possible. > We have had problems in the past with forgeries, and should retain this > basic tool for evaluating a message's source. The header information, on all of the lists, has been changed in order to make it more difficult for list members to keep track of what is going on behind the Electromagnetic Curtain. A simple example is the fact that, originally, a quick glance at the header was sufficient to recognize which messages were sorted to the flames list and were sent out by toad.com from this list. This has since been changed to make the process of censorship more obtuse. Your complaint about it being difficult to 'untangle' certain message threads seems to stem from the fact that you have chosen to receive only a cypher-world-view that has been censored before you receive it. The purpose behind censorship on the list is for the censoring party to be able to spoon-feed you only what they deem fit for you to read. Given the haphazard methods with which the censorship is being instituted, it is not in the best interest of the censors to make it easy for the list members to track the course of the various postings. Toto

1 0