- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Key Security Question
by Eric Murray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alan Olsen writes: > At 10:41 AM 1/31/97 -0800, Z.B. wrote: > >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > >passphrase? > > Depends on how guessable your passphrase is. If you use something that would > fall to a dictionary attack, then you are vulnerable. (Providing that they > actually looked for your keyring and made a copy.) > > If you had nyms on your keyring, then those nyms can be associated with your > "true name" with no passphrase required. (Unless you keep your keyring > encrypted. Private Idaho supports encrypted keyrings, but little else does.) Other attacks would be installing a keyboard sniffer, replacing your PGP binary with a trojan that records your passphrase, etc. This sort of stuff is quite possible but not likely. Yet. > If you are really concerned about it, you could learn to do your own computer > repairs. Or put your PGP keys on removeable media. -- Eric Murray ericm(a)lne.com ericm(a)motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

1 0

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto, quoting the Cyphernomicon 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). ......................................................................... Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? Side note: Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some kind of statement about it. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Crypto in New Zealand - an update
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:03 AM 2/2/97, pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: [...] >The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR >containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal >privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were >required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: [...] Just for clarification, it is the Wassenaar *arrangement* (somehow the term is more fitting anyway...) and it does *not* require the signatory countries to implement crypto export controls. Not that this will make any difference, since it would be the first time that a government would allow facts to stand in the way of politics. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 1 Feb 97 at 9:39, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Mail Storage Box keys? I think they use combination locks, actually. Supposedly it's the same combination nationally too. There was an article in 2600 Magazine about that. The locks are actually 'insecure' and you can test every possible combo in about 10-20 minutes. - --Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvPFpgTNlSxdPy6ZAQF7QAf+IFPhGavlD7p5WFsmhESHi+PKd9msqYhN pxl8ZdUZMDJg61F6nLF4Oa7rfoCmzDXqP4w0WU1pk8MkkwwVb9oTTJg2k4hY4AKr IixesiAcDlGc9+11314Nao+PuU6epJYmLddGSIc0Ra3FKrqamyueW6qunsJQT1Z6 5E/BiqpEGAiEGqog9J/xXtSra4q9g1SzrMCGcR5z077gCzb5ONxIgWzQ6zlL0leb X1Y9pzABnm1iJbq7Q2HRAVAQVBiPC/vg+hW8COfao4XHGqsqVg2UBcZWT8TdbV4N cwqVw5fDpoZXPyQtzRynmq55xH4OIJWZ2HnNNK3KHdRcyS+JW24MBQ== =oAVd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

2 1

Re: Crypto in New Zealand - an update
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: > At 06:03 AM 2/2/97, pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > [...] > >The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR > >containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal > >privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were > >required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: > [...] MFAT doesn't put crypto in the ovens, they just turn on the gas. > Just for clarification, it is the Wassenaar *arrangement* (somehow the term > is more fitting anyway...) and it does *not* require the signatory > countries to implement crypto export controls. > Not that this will make any difference, since it would be the first time > that a government would allow facts to stand in the way of politics. ...or allow 'citizens' to stand in the way of politics. Toto

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc wrote: > From: Toto, quoting the Cyphernomicon > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). > Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist > philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded > to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even > though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only > recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the > existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? > Side note: Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been > wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although > it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some > kind of statement about it. Maybe Tim's Last Words got "lost", eh? So far, several people have stated that "it could happen".

1 0

NSA Material at the National Archives
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For access to the 5,000 items declassified under NSA's OPENDOOR program (http://www.nsa.gov:8080/programs/opendoor) we got this answer from the National Archives: Dear Mr. Young: This is in response to your electronic mail inquiry of December 20, 1996, concerning National Security Agency records transferred to the National Archives. The material described on the NSA web site was transferred to the National Archives and made available in April 1996. We can supply you with electrostatic (paper) copies of select files for $0.25 per page. Please let us know which files you would like copied, and we will send you a reproduction price quote (please include your mailing address with all such requests). We ask that you limit each request to five files. Should you choose to come to Washington to do research, our records and microfilm publications are available for consultation without charge in our research room. The National Archives at College Park (Archives II), is located at 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland. If you do not have a research card, you must apply for one in the reception area. Research room hours (except legal holidays) are 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday and Wednesday; and 8:45 a.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Our subject matter specialists are not on duty after 5:15 p.m. The research rooms also are open on Saturday from 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., with a small research room staff present. Requests for records must be made before 3:30 p.m. Monday-Friday; no requests can be made on Saturday. The telephone number for the Archives II Reference Branch is 301-713-7250. Ken Schlessinger Archives II Textual Reference Branch National Archives at College Park 8601 Adelphi Rd College Park, MD 20740-6001 kenneth.schlessinger(a)ARCH2.NARA.GOV

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to >> control >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Policy," or similar. For example, "Company A" wants to build a mine or factory or something similar at a location. Citizens object, causing political problems. Company sues the individuals for damages, which costs the individuals a great deal of money to defend against even if they never lose the suit. The real problem is actually a series of mistakes: 1. Individual should not be able to cause political problems for company. 2. "Government" should not be able to impact company activities short of actual harm. 3. Company should not be able to impact individual by suing except for actual harm done by that individual. Naturally, the source of these problems is that by each of their existence, lawyers make more money. As usual, I have a solution to that problem. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone (Igor?) suggested I said that libel can't be criminalized. I don't think that's correct, but I may have been unclear. I haven't researched the question and can't call to mind a case directly on point, but my hunch is that states may criminalize libel, but a conviction would require that the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt (because it's a criminal case), and that the defendant acted with actual malice (because the state is seeking to punish speech, and punitive damages in civil cases require proving actual malice). "Actual malice" means that the defendant said something s/he knew was untrue or recklessly disregarded the truth of what s/he said. (This excludes, for example, an "honest mistake" about what's true.) _Times v. Sullivan_, the case which introduced the actual malice standard, discussed Alabama's criminal libel statute - so the Supreme Court, in the mid 60's, didn't seem to have a problem with criminalizing libel. I can't seem to find a criminal libel statute in California; and if I remember correctly the Oregon Legislature contemplated but did not pass one during its last legislative session. Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of interest. The decision itself is online at <http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=376&invol =254> - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of the underlying facts. Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

3 3

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc wrote: > Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist > philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded > to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even > though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only > recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the > existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? I value Reason (big 'R'), humor (small 'h'), and A/ambiguity (take your pick). Anarchy is only a pause between dictators. Fascism is necessary to remind us not to take freedom for granted. One should call for 'order' during the rein of anarchy and for 'freedom during times of Fascism. I have 'appeared' and/or 'come out of lurking' on the CypherPunks list at various times since it's inception, under various personas. Few have noticed, and fewer, still, have ever accurately described, as you have, what I truly value about the CypherPunks--"a unique group of stray cats." The CypherPunks have, over the years, weathered varying sorts of 'problems' in the development of the list, as a result of various 'voices of Reason' prevailing in the setting the list's direction--even when those 'voices' were diametrically opposed in their beliefs. What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). If the day comes when I am able to file away the CypherPunks list under this-or-that category, then I will put a tombstone in the file, as well, and put flowers in it once a year. Toto > Side note: > Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been > wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although > it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some > kind of statement about it. > > .. > Blanc

1 0