- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Crack for DOS
by Steve O 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Guys, 1. A colleague of mine was interseted in in demonstrating the unix password cracking program Crack on a windoze system. Where can one be found if one exists? 2. If you were looking to compare single key block ciphers like Blowfish, DES, 3xDES etc. Which one would be considered the best for implementation in a software security package, assuming maximal key lengths irreverant of the governmental restrictions. 3. Does anyone have info re: S/MIME implementation time table into the Netscape browser? Thanks SO Steve O. "True Utopia can only be reached by an uncensored and secure Internet, True Chaos can only be reached by the government, True love can only be reached in the movies." S.O. "Bang your head, Metal Health will drive you mad!" Quiet Riot "Welcome my friend, Welcome to The Machine" Pink Floyd "Lonelyness and Emptiness; Love and Fulfillment; Are all but flashes in the eye of the storm of our tormented soul." S.O.

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Ga Law/No False Identity
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:43 PM 6/27/96 -0400, AwakenToMe(a)aol.com wrote: >falsely id a person?? Well it seems to me ya just wanna get the messages >OUTTA there and arent trying to 'act' as that person in the sense that you >are posing to NO person that you really are that person. I just wonder how the law is going to effect all those web servers posing as nobody (uid #-1). "When SUID is outlawed, only outlaws will become sysadmins." --- |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Yet another mailing list
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For those of you who are privacy-cypherpunks - there is another list (run by big-brother) out there on the issue. >From the list-of-lists: PRIVACY Subscription Address: PRIVACY-REQUEST(a)FTC.GOV Owner: John Audette <ja(a)mmgco.com> Last Update: 12/28/95 Description: A mailing list created bt the US Federal Trade Commission to allow interested parties to discuss the issues surrounding the privacy interests of consumers visiting web sites. It is part of the FTC's "Privacy Initiative" to investigate whether the information collected at websites (either that affirmatively submitted by a visitor via a form or information collected based upon a visitor's selection of pages at a site to reflect personal interests) should be the subject of regulation by the FTC. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: CIA Fears UmpTeen InfoNukes
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:51 AM 6/28/96 -0500, Rick Smith wrote: >frantz(a)netcom.com (Bill Frantz) writes: >>I think that backward compatibility requirements are a significant part of >>the reason we see this problem. The other part is, of course, that there >>is no market for security. > >... > >The requirement isn't "backwards compatibility," the requirement is >that people get their work done. If the security threat keeps them >from getting their work done, then backwards compatibility is no >longer a major requirement. Absolutely. However, from a vendor's point of view, customers have a wide range of security problems. Some run in an open environment and have no use for security. They may still be using those VT100s. These are the customers the vendor considers when thinking of backwards compatibility. >>The ideal situation for them would be to use public key authentication >>because it would be entirely user-transparent. ... > >Nonsense. The mere fact that it's not currently deployed guarantees >that it won't be user transparent. Vendors will include it on some >rewrite of whatever software it's embedded in. Memory requirements go >up and delays are introduced when the crypto computations are >performed. Security will be added only if it gives customers more >things they can do, so there'll be other functional changes as well. There are several "users" at issue. I fully agree that those administrators responsible for upgrading the software and hardware for the change will notice. The people who have to pay for it all should also notice. But the actual end user may find the logon simplified. If is sufficent to mearly identify the machine and not the person, then the new software can eliminate end user involvement in the logon. The administrator is responsible for installing the private key in the machine and the end user never sees it. On the other hand, if users still must be identified, it is possible to give them a logon interface which is unchanged from the old, non-one-time-password, interface, while still giving them the benefits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

crypto and bagpipes [NOISE]
by vinnie moscaritolo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>>A Missive From: David Kovar (kovar(a)nda.com) >>> >>>What is the connection between crypto and bagpipes? Well >>>crypto is regarded as an armament by the US ITAR regulations. >>>Later this month a British court is to rule as to whether >>>bagpipes are still classified as "instruments of war"! >>>The story is in today's Times newspaper (The British one) >>>It seems that a piper is being taken to court for practising >>>on Hampstead Heath, which has a bye-law forbidding music. >>>Mr Brooks, the piper, has denied the charge, citing a case in 1746, >>>where bagpipes were declared to be instruments of war, not musical >>>instruments, and a subsequent Act of Parliament which specifically >>>stated that they were weapons. He claims he wasn't playing a musical >>>instrument, but practising with a weapon! >>> >>>The imagination boggles if his claim is successful! Will it >>>be possible to sue pipers for assault with a deadly weapon? >>>Will airports be equipped with bagpipe detectors? >>> >>>David Wadsworth | Wohin der Weg? Kein Weg! >>>dwadsw(a)etna.demon.co.uk | Ins Unbetretene. (Faust) Vinnie Moscaritolo ------------------ "friends come and friends go..but enemies accumulate." http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

5 4

Re: "White 'Punks on Dope" (w apologies to The Tubes)
by mike＠fionn.lbl.gov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Jul 11, 11:15pm, snow wrote: > > man is just ridiculous, & betrays the author's lack of knowledge. > > No, the POINT IS MIS-DIAGNOSIS. Children who are either brighter > than their classmates and figured out the assignement with in minutes These are not the people who are being talked about here > of the teacher giving it, or children with _no_ boundries implemented > by their parents (people are like fractals, very subject to initial > conditions) hence they keep pushing and pushing so the parents respond > by instituting chemical control. Well, like I said earlier, in the old days very hyperactive boys probably did have the tar whipped out of them. This does work, for short periods. In the long run, it's ineffective. Totally ineffective for a medical condition. Do you think, for example, that it is effective to tell a person suffering from depression to "cheer up", or someone suffering from some forms of schizophrenia to "ignore the voices & stop acting silly"? No amount of your cajoling is going to get a person with a heart deficiency up El Capitan, & there's no chance you can guilt trip someone with severe emphysema to run a marathon with you. I'm sure there's plenty of misdiagnoses, but unless you're willing to lay your md or your epidemiological credentials on the table, I'm not giving you any credit. Your argument sounds like some kind of reactionary victorian moralizing to me (parents setting boundaries .... sheesh).

1 0

Re: FW: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"blancw(a)accessone.com" "blanc" 10-JUL-1996 06:04:36.86 > As Tim said, the selective application of drugs or persecution = >regarding their use points to a great hypocrisy (and deterioration of = >character), and the more widespread the acceptance of hypocritical = >double-standards, the higher the rate-o-meter goes up in favor of = >statism. At the very least, all the confusion surrounding drug use will = >create "disrespect for Authority" (which in turn will inspire statists = >to propose further crack-downs, pardon the pun, on "criminals"). Actually, my Ritalin was one of the things that led me to come to the conclusion that drug laws were nonsense. It's a Schedule II drug that I never felt _any_ addiction to; I was off it on evenings, weekends, and during holidays. So at least in my case it had a pro-libertarian effect. > It makes me think of those Communist countries (remember them?) where = >political dissenters were been labelled insane - the protesters were the = >ones identified as having the problems, not the State. The imprisoned = >troublemakers were then drugged, thus taking care of their "irrational" = >behavior and lack of appreciation. The matter is that Ritalin isn't acting as a mind control pill, or whatever the hysterics are claiming. Indeed, I nominate it as one of the more transhumanist drugs I know of (for adults with ADHD and children), and I've done somewhat of a study of the subject. -Allen

1 0

Can't block caller ID in Massachusetts? (fwd)
by gimonca＠skypoint.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: David Mazieres <dm(a)amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Can't block caller ID in Massachusetts? > > My last phone bill said that Nynex is now giving out people's names in > addidtion to their phone numbers over caller-id. I therefore called > Nynex and told them to block caller-id on my phone line. > > They said no problem, but... They said nothing I can do will block it > when I call 800 numbers. "The people with 800 numbers have special > software, and there is nothing you can do to block your identity when > calling them. Not even *67." > > Wow. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I never expected this. I can > never again call an 800 number anonymously to get information about > something unless I go out to a pay phone. What an incredible > inconvenience, and how truly depressing. > This has been true for years. On 800 numbers, the receiver gets ANI, not CID. Check newsgroups like alt.dcom.telecom, comp.dcom.telecom, etc.: there's always somebody talking about CID and ANI. In the back of my mind, I remember hearing about an anonymizer for 800-number calls. Maybe at WilTel. Check the search engine of your choice. Personally, I like Caller ID, because it gives individuals a service that formerly only governments and corporations could get. --gimonca(a)skypoint.com

1 0

Re: Can't block caller ID in Massachusetts?
by Dana W. Albrecht 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Mazieres writes: > My last phone bill said that Nynex is now giving out people's names in > addidtion to their phone numbers over caller-id. I therefore called > Nynex and told them to block caller-id on my phone line. > > They said no problem, but... They said nothing I can do will block it > when I call 800 numbers. "The people with 800 numbers have special > software, and there is nothing you can do to block your identity when > calling them. Not even *67." > > Wow. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I never expected this. I can > never again call an 800 number anonymously to get information about > something unless I go out to a pay phone. What an incredible > inconvenience, and how truly depressing. > > I know 800 number owners probably used to be able to get lists of > calling phone numbers on their phone bills, but this is less > disturbing as it would take significant effort to match up the lists > after the fact. I just want to be able to call up companies and say, > for instance, "If I buy your product, can it do X?" as opposed to, for > instance, "I'm stuck with your product, can it do X?". People are > often more helpful in the former case. Now, though, they'll know > exactly who I am before they even say hello. > > David 800 (And 888/900 etc.) numbers use a different mechanism (ANI) than caller ID to provide your telephone number to the person you are calling. This has been around far longer than caller ID, and really doesn't have all that much to do with the caller ID service, which is entirely different. So in essence, nothing's really changed with regard to 800 numbers, except that people are now becoming _aware_ that the called party has access to their telephone number. If you want additional information, I'd recommend starting with the FAQ for the alt.2600 newsgroup. Dana W. Albrecht dwa(a)corsair.com

1 0

Re: Another bad idea
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12 Jul 96 at 10:23, Alan Olsen wrote: [..] > Of course this is all a moot point, because it has been proven by computer > projections that all informative net traffic will be buried under > advertisements by the year 2000 anyways. I expect some legislative body to > try and make money fast on the net by selling ad space on IP packet headers. Yes. They can follow the American model and rather than censor communications, allow advertising. Nobody will be able to get an inteeligent thought from the net without being interrupted by an ad every five minutes... and people will pay good money for this 'privledge' (sp?) too. Rob --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0