- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: "trust management" vs. "certified identity"
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:40 1/7/96, Frank O'Dwyer wrote: >But it is usually easier to >determine (and vouch for) who a stranger is than how trustworthy >they are, if only because there are quick and easy real-world >mechanisms for this (driver's licence, passport,etc.). That's all >I meant. Though it may seem that way, I am not so sure that it is true. I am told that you can buy a CA driver licence in the hispanic part of San Francisco for about $50. Hologram and all. Reputations can take years to establish. I am would feel more comfortable to sign certain statements about the (on-line) character or technical skills of some people on this list whom I have never met, than to sign the PGP key of an utter stranger that shows me his Alabama ID card. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

3 2

Re: Noise and the Nature of Mailing Lists
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 31-JAN-1996 00:44:48.72 >However, and current subscribers will no doubt jump in and give their views, I hear that the current volume of messages is less than one per day, with--according to my sources--sometimes days between messages. (I also hear that the Extropians are devoting more of their energy to their magazine, which may also be a factor.) ------------ Actually, I'd guess that the recent problems with the mailing list software are the problem. I got signed off of there when I changed mailing addresses, and they haven't been able to put me back on. If it's that low-traffic, I may see about requesting it from them again. ------------ >And remember, it's a whole lot easier using filters and reading tools to reduce the volume of messages on an active group than it is to get an inactive group up to critical mass! ------------ One idea is to set up two lists, one of which has an automatic filter that forwards stuff to another list... I'm currently trying to set that up for another list I'm on. Something to keep in mind is that irrelevant discussion can chase people off... what's happened to the list I mentioned. -Allen

1 0

[Fwd: Re: ABOI: Desperate User Support]
by Shri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seen on Alt.best.of.internet. Would love to find out if this is true! Shri > > Origination: alt.sysadmin.recovery > > Originator: jerry(a)worf.tcs.com (Jerry Carlin) > >Original Subject: support call - urban legand or fact? > > Date: 27 Jul 1995 16:44:18 -0700 > >... (many forwards deleted)... > > >This falls into the "Why did it have to happen on *MY* shift?" category. > > >A friend of mine is a chief engineer at SuperMac, and he related this > >story to me. > > >SuperMac records a certain number of technical support calls at random, > >to keep tabs on customer satisfaction. By wild "luck", they managed to > >catch the following conversation on tape. > > >Some poor SuperMac TechSport got a call from some middle level official... > >from the legitimate government of Trinidad. The fellow spoke very good > >English, and fairly calmly described the problem. > > >It seemed there was a coup attempt in progress at that moment. However, > >the national armoury for that city was kept in the same building as the > >Legislature, and it seems that there was a combination lock on the door > >to the armoury. Of the people in the capitol city that day, only the > >Chief of the Capitol Guard and the Chief Armourer knew the combination to > >the lock, and they had already been killed. > > >So, this officer of the government of Trinidad continued, the problem is > >this. The combination to the lock is stored in a file on the Macintosh, > >but the file has been encrypted with the SuperMac product called Sentinel. > >Was there any chance, he asked, that there was a "back door" to the > >application, so they could get the combination, open the armoury door, > >and defend the Capitol Building and the legitimately elected government > >of Trinidad against the insurgents? > > >All the while he is asking this in a very calm voice, there is the sound > >of gunfire in the background. The Technical Support guy put the person on > >hold. A phone call to the phone company verified that the origin of the > >call was in fact Trinidad. Meanwhile, there was this mad scramble to see > >if anybody knew of any "back doors" in the Sentinel program. > > >As it turned out, Sentinel uses DES to encrypt the files, and there was > >no known back door. The Tech Support fellow told the customer that aside > >from trying to guess the password, there was no way through Sentinel, and > >that they'd be better off trying to physically destroy the lock. > > >The official was very polite, thanked him for the effort, and hung up. > >That night, the legitimate government of Trinidad fell. One of the BBC > >reporters mentioned that the casualties seemed heaviest in the capitol, > >where for some reason, there seemed to be little return fire from the > >government forces. > > >O.K., so they shouldn't have kept the combination in so precarious a > >fashion. But it does place, "I can't see my Microsoft Mail server" > >complaints in a different sort of perspective, does it not?

5 8

free speach and the government
by Stephan Mohr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, I feel that I agree with the people on the right of free speech for i.e. the neo-nazi stuff or other political, ideological and/or religious ideas. But there is still something that leaves me uneasy: imagine there would be a way to easily make a powerful poison, easily applicated to your town's water-reservoir, or a very easy way to build some strong explosive device. etc. Actually, I think that stuff like this does exist already. But the idea that one day I just put 'easy made deadly poison for millions' into my webcrawler and whoop there it is on my screen or on the screen of any other fool, doesn't sound to right to me. I would like things like this to be better put aside and locked up. Well, maybe my imagination isn't strong enough to make my point. But do you fighter for free speech, in principle, think that nothing, really nothing, shouldn't be prevented of being published? And by being published, I mean published in the net, not at loompanics (who knows loompanics?). I know, of course, that by accepting that there is something that shouldn't be available on the net, we would need something to decide what and how to ban. So I wonder what would be a more 'net'-like way of handling this type of thing and how to prevent that some 'strong-armed' governments take the net over. I do not see tokay's governments being prepared for the net (at least not the German one). But I see them trying to put the 'old' laws onto the net. Not because they are mean, but because they don't know any better. So, I think it would be nice to have something to offer to them. I do not think though that they will accept the totally right of free speech (yet). There is something that is closely related to the right of free speech but not the same and that is the right of privacy. And I think there is a big danger of the issue of free (public) speech been taken over to the right of privacy. Governments may, by arguing to control the public net, start to prohibit the use of strong cryptography. It seems important to me to separate this two issues. Maybe it will be necessary to agree to some kind of (hopefully self organized) control of the public net. But it is totally unacceptable to allow whatever organization to look into someone's private life. Comments and hints to information on these topics very much welcome Stephan

4 3

Re: Microsoft continues to mislead public about Windows securitybugs (a bit long, with references)
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 0:37 1/9/96 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: > >Very true. But why does it always seem to take an exploitable crack before >companies pay attention to security flaws? Is it because they are unable to >admit that they have made a mistake? Everybody makes mistakes. What's the >big deal? I really don't understand it. Any psychologists on this list? Having, in the past, attempted to sell an Operating System with high security features, and failed, I think I can give you some insight. Security does not sell an OS to anyone, even the Department of Defense. People buy OSs to run applications. The only thing a lack of security in an OS will do is allow someone in an obscure department (perhaps called Corporate Security) to say no. Security is a checkoff item, and if you can convince a retired major that the OS is secure, then he will approve it. He is not going to check the details. His expertise is in guard stations and chain link fences. However, if someone, e.g. the trade press, rubs his nose in the fact that an OS's security can be breached, then he will take action. He will pressure the publisher to release a fix that they say will fix the problem. When they do, he will be happy. Microsoft particulary, is oriented to selling product, not pride in workmanship. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: [NOISE]CIA Contra Crack and LA Gangs (fwd)
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed Aug 21 08:35:15 1996 Rich Graves wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Jim Ray wrote: ... > Oh, I don't think it's impossible or even unlikely that at least > some of the > groups lumped together as "contras" were involved in drug > smuggling, and I > think it's reasonable to have different views regarding how much > money was > involved and who knew what when (my view is very little, and > medium). Anyone who says "very little" money is involved in any aspect of the cocaine importation trade definitely doesn't live in Miami. >What I > object to are conspiracy theories along the lines of: > > 1. The Reagan Administration used the Contras to smuggle crack > to the US in > a deliberate attempt at genocide against Black people. (I > heard this a > lot, though seldom in so many words, on KPFK in the mid-80's; > the SJ Merc > series certainly has this as a subtext.) I never said that, and I object to calling something a "conspiracy theory" just because it's politically inconvenient. People in power conspire to get rich and stay in power. Sometimes they use laws they write and sometimes they break laws they wrote. This is a fact of life, not a conspiracy theory. > 2. Clinton was a CIA agent involved in the Contra drug-smuggling > CaBaL. He was governor of Arkansas when Reagan was President of the United States. Do the search I already gave you, and read the articles. mena /p cocaine ... > > It is a major, bipartisan, Watergate-style but bigger > > scandal, and the strange bedfellows in the media who were > doing a > > halfway decent job of covering it [The Wall Street Journal and > > "High Times" magazine(!)] have fallen strangely silent on the > > subject as the election approaches. Hmmmmm. > > 4. Anything where vague unsupported asserions are thrown out, > followed by > a Hmmmmm (sorry). OK, looks like I have to say it again, and remember this is NOT me, it's those conspiracy theorists at CBS News, printed in that radical purveyor of vague unsupported asserions...The Wall Street Journal: "The FAA, FBI, Customs, CIA, Justice, DEA and the IRS were all involved in Mena. They won't say how they were involved, but they will tell you there is nothing there." -- Bill Plante, CBS News Correspondent, & Michael Singer, Producer, CBS News, New York. [In Tuesday, May 3, 1994's Wall Street Journal letters to the editor section.] Look it up. I am not a journalist, but it sometimes seems I have a better institutional memory than they do. This story was covered poorly, even though there was/is plenty there, because of politics and power masquerading as "national security." The story is there for journalists who want to risk covering it, but the trail is getting cold, and yes, some loons have latched onto it, due in part to the vacuum in "legitimate" media coverage. [This will be my final word on this subject in this forum.] <sound of Perry cheering> JMR Regards, Jim Ray -- DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy "'Filegate' is starting to make _Ed_ _Meese_ look ethical." -- me Defeat the Duopoly! Vote "NOTA," not Slick/Dull in November. Harry Browne for President. Jo Jorgensen for Vice-president. http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ ___________________________________________________________________ PGP id.E9BD6D35 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 <mailto:liberty@gate.net> http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray Coming soon, the "Pennies For Perot" page. Keep billionaires off welfare! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMhsCim1lp8bpvW01AQHsYQP+JeN4t0Cd/d+Woy0eyvvVtCHy//RoSWJI K3gWOAHTMB71xZDKu7qbuUMRBs1nsFv2dlvYlKMIJLxn9Bl2H+13IpOsYTtPntg+ r+YOPazgwVVm8wNICEekdKjki9MaiTj1AFIX2P2LbVp7EZkmQIwxJfkYZituWNIy LNFZyOGhVaQ= =b3jZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Jan 13 Mountain View CA meeting
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Did you have any specific time in mind? - -rich mrm(a)netcom.com (Marianne Mueller) wrote: >Hi all, happy new year. > >The Jan 13 Mountain View, California meeting will be held again >at Sun Microsystems, at Sparcy's cafeteria. That's building 21, >in the set of Sun buildings near Shoreline Park in Mountain View. >Take 101 to Amphitheater Parkway exit, turn left onto Charleston >at the light (this street is also named Garcia at its far end) >and follow the purple Sun signs for building 21. You'll drive >down Charleston (Garcia) for about 1/3 mile and then turn right >onto a road that in about 3 blocks takes you to B21. > >Please send mail if you have a topic you would like to speak about, >and I'll send out a speaking agenda towards the end of the week. > >Marianne >mrm(a)netcom.com >mrm(a)eng.sun.com > >p.s. I'll bring bagels again but since I never got reimbursed >last time around I think I will put out the donation jar this >time ...! - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBEAwUBMPBeHCoZzwIn1bdtAQFR9wF4nonVEmlnlahBGjNOnEvKlFCWz9QXkTPB vH/9uXyAZsWPwf01bqe4xWiBCvePqVI= =pdTJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Microsoft white paper on Access "security"
by Richard Charles Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apparently the file name of the official position on Access security is wx1051.exe. It should be on CompuServe and www/ftp.microsoft.com. Among other wondrous things, Peter Miller writes in article <4crdu2$gua(a)news-e1a.megaweb.com> in comp.databases.ms-access: BTW, there's a typo in the White Paper. Where it says Access security relies upon 'RSA4 data encryption', they meant to say 'you not knowing the difference between a secure database application, and one that just contains a bunch of security dialogs that confuses the average user, but fails to protect either your code or your data'. I bet someone's going to have a lot of fun with this one!!! -rich

1 0

Re: phone calls from hell
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:48 AM 1/9/96 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >Media reports said that the explosion was set off by >remote control when Ayyash answered a call to him. It is >not known how the identity of Ayyash was ascertained. NBC News reported Monday that it was a Motorola phone, that Israel cut the landlines to the house to encourage cellular use, that *the* call came from the Engineer's *father*, and that an Israeli aircraft overhead triggered the blast after assuring itself (by voice info) that the Engineer was using the phone. DCF

1 0

Re: "Re: NSA says strong crypto to china??
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:47 AM 1/7/96 -0800, Raph Levien <raph(a)c2.org> wrote: > My best guess is that we're seeing a distortion of this >interchange. If I were a Chinese dissident, I wouldn't want to use >GAK, for three reasons: using US-lackey encryption is certainly not >going to get you into any _less_ trouble than using independent >encryption, if you used GAK you'd be working as a US spy whether you >wanted to be or not, and finally, who says the Chinese can't decrypt >it, especially with the rapid growth of television. And, four, there's no guarantee the US keymasters won't burn you to the Chinese government, if it seems useful in preserving "stability"... #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281 # # "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" used to mean us watching # the government, not the other way around....

1 0