- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Secure anonymouse server protocol: comments please
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following is a very sketchy plan for a secure protocol for an anonymous server which allows replies without storing a recipient database in the clear. To send a message: The sender first exchanges keys with the sever (public key cryptography assumed), the server now has the users key and the user the servers. The user sends the server: The recipient for the message the message itself a password previously agreed The users ID on the server The server decrypts to get the above back in plaintext, then it encrypts the ID & the users address with a random session key and stores it in the database. notice nothing is stored in the clear the server now encrypts the session key with the senders public key, and fowards it to the sender of the original message. now finally the server sends the message onto the intended recipient in plaintext (who must also have exchanged keys with the server) along with the ID of the sender encrypted with the servers public key. the recipient responds with his reply, and the ID of the sender still encrypted in the servers Public key The server stores this When the user (the original sender) wants to pick up his mail after a couple of days he sends the server his ID encrypted with the servers public key, the server compares this with all of the encrypted IDs in the database and when it finds a match it fowards the corresponding mail to the original sender of the first message. Thats all folks. This system has 1 huge fault, we can encrypt a uses ID with the servers public key to see what his ID in the encrypted database is and therefore identify him, maybe we need two seperate server public keys, and when IDs come in encrypted with key1 (the one it releases) it decrypts with secretkey1 then encrypts with publickey2 (the one it keeps secret) or maybe we can just hash and sign the IDs in the database? as I said it`s very sketchy, I made most of this up as I wrote it so if you must tear it to pieces please do so constructively, it could be the route to a secure system.... Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Http://www.fatmans.demon.co.uk/crypt/ "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAjH9j+cAAAEEAMBvREiQR0ot9dFCO0TiSCSunAYLv2g1Bc6I3bz8FzKXNH53 6mieJf/W4rD+CxJpT0q9RQaaoRtkHJLwbjfK2il3D7mEahMAyqvF/xRJNqkXfhM3 sRJM0Jh43l+W0M5vwokbEbk25/bxWWGspTsLD3YHbzKnG6pOcL5OPIRbv66xAAUR tCdQYXVsIEJyYWRsZXkgPHBhdWxAZmF0bWFucy5kZW1vbi5jby51az4= =riHc -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: FLT 800: From the Rumor Mill...But It Makes Sense.. (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:59 PM 9/1/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >At 09:04 PM 9/1/96 -0400, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> The Aegis ship in the Gulf wzs not in an exercise. It was in a war zone. >> >> If my memory serves, the Iranian jetliner had its squawker turned off, or >> broken. > >Your memory does not serve: The computers record of the events was: > >Computer tells crew: Civilian jetliner on radar. > >Crew expecting an attack by jetfighters, tell computer to shoot it down. > >Computer does not put up a bunch of dialogs saying: "Hey, I think this >is a CIVILIAN airliner, did you get that CIVILIAN airliner, are you quite >sure you want it shot down? Instead it just shoots it down. Suggestion for future improvement... C:>DEL AIRLINER.COM Are you sure? (Y/N) _ Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

The Esther Dyson Flap
by Chuck Thompson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't quite understand the position taken by Mr. Assange and Mr. Unicorn regarding recent statements attributed to Ms. Dyson. I would appreciate some additional insight. It appears as though they are both critical of statements (taken out of context according to Dyson) because of her position with the EFF. It appears that they both believe that she has no right to her opinion if it is contradictory to the policy of the EFF. If such an EFF policy exists, and if Dyson is of a different opinion, the fact that she holds office in an organization with which she is not in total agreement should not count against her. In fact, it is to her credit that she has the courage to speak her mind, considering that hers is an elected position. She has something to lose by speaking her mind publicly. Mr. Unicorn remains anonymous, thereby mitigating repercussions which might otherwise accrue to him as a result of the expression of his opinion. I agree with Mr. Unicorn that the EFF should state its position unequivocally. I do not agree that officers or staff of EFF should not be allowed to disagree with that position, if in fact they do. In the case of Ms. Dyson, how can we know whether she agrees or disagrees with a non-existant policy? She has, evidently, spoken her mind. Isn't that what freedom of speech allows? Imagine, if you will, where we would be right now if all elected representatives were censured for disagreeing with stated government policy. That ability is what makes this country great - and, what you both seem to be saying you stand for. Is your position solid only if everyone agrees with you and you them? Whatever happened to "defending to the death your right to say it"? Pouncing on someone, without knowing all the facts, who is vulnerable because of their position smacks of dirty politics - it is distasteful. Why not ask for the facts from the source? Then state your opinions or make your threats about not contributing financially. In keeping with the message, you have the right to take a cheap shot. I'd just like some insight into your thinking. Regards, Chuck Thompson

1 0

FWD: Another try to kill democracy
by SPG 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Y'all, I just got wind that the German government is planning to force german ISP's to shut off access to my ISP, XS4ALL, because the german magazine 'Radikal' has a web page on xs4all. This magazine is a radical left wing magazine of the type that in the netherlands is 13 in a dozen, and in germany (obviously) labelled 'terrorist'. The issue here is not my political beliefs (quite distant from radical I can assure you) but the fact that the german government does NOT see fit to extradite nazi war criminals, to fire Judges, DA's and other powerfull officials who were member of the nazi party during WW2, or to take steps towards closing access to US neo-nazi sites, but DOES deem it necessary to shut off an entire server because of a (in the netherlands perfectly legal) left wing magazine. Not so much is changed after all I guess. As student history I can name several people also labelled 'terrorist' before by a government, who were not. 'Terrorist' is the name opressive and undemocratic Junta's use for their opposition. Please considder mirroring or linking to this site. THIS IS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE!! It has litle to do with the actual content of the page (wich is quite harmless) URL: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/radikal/index.htm or contact tank(a)xs4all.nl REMEMBER! NEXT OPINION LABELLED 'UNWANTED' BY A GOVERNMENT, MAY BE YOURS!! Greetz. DD. -- --__+==[ NOTE!! This e-mail adress is read by several different people, due to the fact that it is in use as mailing adress for our editorial staff (TRIBE MAGAZINE), If your message is of a personal nature, and is not to be reposted or used in our magazine , please state so. NOTE: we maintain the right to ignore this, if it has news value. ]==+--__

2 1

Cypherpunk Mailboxes?
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi, I have a thought for addressing the anon. problem. We could create a network of anonymous remailers with mailboxes. All messages in the mailboxes are stored encrypted. No information about the users are keep. Users would be be given x K of mailbox space. We could use PGP keys for encrypting the messages. Each user would have his own key pair for his anonymous mailbox. Any plain text messages received to the server would be encrypted on recept. Let the government's subpoena away. :) "Sorry we don't have user addresses, no I can't decrypt those messages Senator." <BEG> What do you think? - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!! Merlin Beta Test Site - WarpServer SMP Test Site Author of PGPMR2 - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice Look for MR/2 Tips & Rexx Scripts Get Work Place Shell for Windows!! PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii(a)amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMisGh49Co1n+aLhhAQHvAgP/aLktPSyoj3Ps7OnJ2LXlSIJJQq+B3GiA TlGFJ/DZVF9Ai9rKMzjgmTiukLY/+Hf58vrw7QjJA7wp/fcGOZoYNnMt0mW09wsp biUtXnMkX86sW2abtazy6U3f+DR15lGi9S2F0dvZERmFCdUX5Yi5geoa31Zezght Sj/0sFT+AUk= =7tw/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

Re: Los Angeles Times article on Helsingius and anon.penet.fi
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:06 PM 9/2/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >You have to have an anonymizing system that crosses a dozen or so >national boundaries to make such an attack infeasible for most large >organizations. You'd need a system that crossed 50 or more widely >disparate jurisdictions to make it infeasible to large intelligence or >law enforcement agencies, and even then you'd have to NOT have broad >international agreements, such as you'd called for or it would be trivial >to force all the remailers in the chain to cough up personally >identifiable information. > >> My assumption is that there will be a wide variety of Net communities with >> different rules/regulations/attitudes towards anonymity that would apply ex > >This is already true. > >> some kind of international sanctions; I think that's appropriate. > >That's what bugs me - if there are some kind of sanctions coming from a >governmental body (I may be misinterpreting you here), that's probably >enough to kill private and well as public anonymity on the Net. > >Incidentally, if something does happen from a governmental direction to >kill online anonymity, it will probably be readily broadenable to all >other media. At the risk of sounding like a broken record (a phrase that will get ever more obscure now that we're in the CD era...) that's why I pushing AP (Assassination Politics.) While anonymous remailers and chains are great for security, there ought to be some final bulwark against violations of our security and anonymity that doesn't depend on legal arguments, or even technical refinements of encryption. When organizations such as CoS can seek Penet data with impunity, and when courts in Finland can let them, we're not safe. Remember the saying, "The best defense is a good offense." Playing as we do now, it's like saying, "We'll try our best to maintain our security, but if it fails too bad." I propose changing it to, "We'll try our best to maintain our security, but if you manage to violate it anyway you're dead." As rude as it may sound, one of the best advantages is that this defense is free while it's not needed, and is pretty cheap when called upon. In case anybody has any residual doubts as to whether we should enforce our rights in this way, consider this: if we've decided that we have the right to anonymity and security (through remailers and encryption) EVEN IF some people might misuse those tools to cause crime and potentially even death (which, of course, would be an exceedingly rare outcome) then I suggest we've already accepted the principle that our rights to use these tools daily are more important than the possibility of a rare negative outcome. (in the same sense that occasional fatal car accidents don't justify taking away all cars.) And if that's the case, we should also be willing to DELIVER a rare negative outcome to anyone who acts to take these rights away, particularly if such a person is adequately forewarned of our intentions. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

POT_hot
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct, Lead Essay: "Postmodern Terrorism. The terrorism of the future may be far more destructive than terrorism as we have known it." An informative survey and pot-heat by Walter Laqueur. Terrorism's prospects, often overrated by the media, the public, and some politicians, are improving as its destructive potential increases. Terrorism has replaced wars between nations of the 1800s and 1900s. In the future, terrorists will be individuals or like-minded people working in very small groups. An individual may possess the technical competence to steal, buy, or manufacture the weapons he or she needs for a terrorist purpose. The ideologies such individuals and minigroups espouse are likely to be even more aberrant than those of larger groups. And terrorists working alone or in very small groups will be more difficult to detect unless they make a major mistake or are discovered by accident. Society has also become vulnerable to a new kind of terrorism, in which the destructive power of both the individual terrorist and terrorism as a tactic are infinitely greater. The advanced societies of today are more dependent every day on electronic information. That exposes enormous vital areas of national life to mischief or sabotage by any computer hacker, and concerted sabotage could render a country unable to function. Why assassinate a politician or indiscriminately kill people when an attack on electronic switching will produce far more dramatic and lasting results? If the new terrorism directs its energies toward information warfare, its destructive power will be exponentially greater than any it wielded in the past -- greater even than it would be with biological and chemical weapons. The single successful one could claim many more victims, do more material damage, and unleash far greater panic than anything the world has yet experienced. ----- http://jya.com/pothot.txt (30 kb) POT_hot (in 2 parts)

1 0

Kill all "libertarians"
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From nobody(a)REPLAY.COM Mon Sep 2 12:26:36 1996 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:42:57 EDT for dlv Received: from basement.replay.com by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA18013 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 2 Sep 96 12:26:36 -0400 Received: (from replay@localhost) by basement.replay.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA11752 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199609021626.SAA11752(a)basement.replay.com> To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited Xcomm: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting Xcomm: Report misuse of this automated service to <abuse(a)REPLAY.COM> Subject: All russians are scum. No exceptions. Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials" From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: Dole/Kemp '96! Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 01:19:37 EDT Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> writes: > On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, James A. Donald wrote: > > > > I agree with what you are saying but not all polititions are that bad. > > > You make it sound as if their are no politisions are for freedom of the > > > net. > > So who is the exception? > > Harry Browne Libertarian Party Candidate. Harry Browne is a fucking statist. All politicians are scum. No exceptions. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: DON'T Nuke Singapore Back into the Stone Age
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:06 AM 9/2/96 +0800, James Seng wrote: >that). I have a long argument with this person, telling him that despite >what they have done, i could still access to those stuff which they ban. >his reasoning is "how many people can do it? 10%? 5%? That's fine with us. >If the people really wans it, they can get it". The flaw with this view is that it is no harder to deploy software that defeats Singapore's proxy than it is to establish a tcp/ip connection in the first place. For civilians (such as myself) establishing a tcp/ip connection is as hard or as easy as establishing an encrypted tcp/ip tunnel to defeat government control efforts. For both these tasks, I am dependent on software writers who know more than I do. Since the software of the Net is written by people not governments, the governments will find it hard to hold "free users" down to a 5% or 10% figure. The Net is nothing more than the software that it runs on and we (not governments) write the software. In addition, we are not imposing our ideology on Singapore. If Singapore changes, it will be because an encounter with the realities of the free flow of information changes it. DCF

3 2

Anonymity and free speech
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Instead of discussing whether or not Esther Dyson or other EFF board members are personally comfortable with anonymity, let's talk about whether or not the EFF and its board members believe that the First Amendment provides a right to speak and associate anonymously. (I believe that the First Amendment gives everyone the right to wear a t-shirt which says "I am an asshole." But I have no interest in wearing such a t-shirt. And so on.) I believe that it does, and that the Supreme Court has already made that clear. In cypherpunks(a)toad.comparticular, I'm thinking of _NAACP v. Alabama ex rel Patterson_, _Talley_, and _McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission_. (Sorry for the lack of cites; 95% of my stuff is still in boxes and I'm sending this via laptop and a Ricochet modem.) If the right to speak/associate in "real life" is protected by the First Amendment, I don't see why it wouldn't be on computers and networks which are located inside the United States. And if that right is based upon the Constitution, it will take a constitutional amendment or a big sea change in the Supreme Court to take it away. (I wonder if the decision in _McIntrye_ would have gone the other way if Ms. McIntrye were selling drugs via anonymous message pools instead of discussing school funding via windshield flyers.) Discussions about the utility of anonymity would be more useful if we were designing a communication system or a constituion from scratch; but that's not our current situation. Is there serious debate about whether or not the Constitution and the Internet allow anonymous communication? (I'm not asking a rhetorical question. If someone's familiar with an argument to the contrary, please tell me about it.) Both the Constitution and the Internet are difficult to modify quickly; we probably have anonymity (like it or not) for at least a few more years. (I'm not trying to imply that US law is the only law, or that the rest of the world doesn't existy. But I don't know poo about the right to anonymity in other nations; and to a certain extent anonymity anywhere on the Internet is the same as anonymity everywhere on the Internet. Are other readers aware of other jurisdictions where anonymous speech is considered a right?) ---- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)netbox.com http://www.io.com/~gbroiles

2 1