- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: "Good job NANAE. You really fucked up royally." -- DataBasix
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore+spam(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: ^^^^^ Netcom is now requiring "truth in labelling", eh? > : Cat got his tongue? > > I was busy. Surely now you'll try to figure out what I was doing. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough, since you seem to be so intent on taunting your readers with your latest mischief. If you're dying to tell us, then feel free to do so. Otherwise, drop it. Your call. > : Really? Then why are you hiding your own post from being archived by a neutral > : third party? Trying to maintain "plausible deniability" if you post something > : you later regret saying and want to claim it was "forged"? > > What does DejaNews have to be with this? You can save all of her/my posts on > your own if you want to. *No doubt, you've already done that* so why > complain? So you can claim that anything you posted that later proves to be too embarassing was "forged", right? That's a lot easier to do if you don't sign them with the PGP key which you keep advertising in your bloated .sig, and you make sure they aren't archived by any NEUTRAL third party. (Remember when you called someone else [who shall remain nameless at his request] a "coward" for hiding HIS posts behind an "X-No-Archive" header?) Many readers will remember that you were whining pitifully a few months ago about how remailers were allegedly being used to "forge" posts in your name. You were given several suggestions, one of which was to install PGP, generate a key, and use it to sign *ALL* of your genuine posts. Your huge .sig now contains the fingerprint of a PGP public key that YOU ARE STILL NOT USING. Still trying to maintain "plausible deniability" for your posts? And then a few weeks ago you butted into technical question posted to alt.privacy.anon-server about Private Idaho with the implication that the person asking the question wanted to know the answer so that he/she could commit "forgery". If you're so concerned about forgery, why have you not bothered to try what was already suggested the last time you launched into your "remailer users are abusive assholes" tirade? > : Posing as a > : "lawyer" for DataBasix, you demanded that Jeff Burchell turn over all of his > : user logs to you and Gary, just as the so-called "Church" of $cientology > : did with the anon.penet.fi remailer in Finland last year. > > She never posed as a lawyer. Yet another of your lies. Then why did you demand that Jeff violate the privacy of all of his users by turning over his user logs to you and Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com>? And when he said that the only condition he'd release them was in response to a letter FROM YOUR LAWYER, Belinda Bryan sent such a letter? Perhaps the remailer users would like to know what purpose you had in mind for demanding the e-mail addresses of EVERYONE who either SENT or RECEIVED anonymous mail through Jeff's remailer. > : The end > : result was the same in both cases, too. Both remailers shut down to avoid > : the continued harassment from people like you, Gary, and Helena. I hope > : you're proud of yourselves. > > Even the remailer operator proved you wrong. Nice try liar. It's not going > to work anymore. It's your abuse that's not going to work anymore. You've cried wolf once too often about "abuse", "forgery", and other imagined offenses. The remailer operator did not "prove me wrong". Reread his post when you're sober: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html Just to refresh your memory, you were asked whether you had asked Jeff Burchell to censor any anonymous posts that mentioned your name. You stonewalled the question, flippantly suggesting that he/she ask the operator. Someone did just that, and Jeff's post is the result of that. Looks like you gambled and lost that time! You can call remailer users "liars" and "anonymous assholes" to your heart's content, but your censorious actions and those of your associates at DataBasix speak for themselves. --

1 0

Re: Sadaam Burnore Strikes Again (was: Re: Keman the Klueless Strikes Again)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

rfg(a)monkeys.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) wrote: > >Your looney maroon conspiracy theories that Ron Guilmette has been "stalking" > >you and is responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened to you > >are simply more evidence of your paranoid mental state. > > I realize that you think that you are trying to do some good, but I'm > going to ask you nicely to please stop all of this baiting of Burnore. > Sure, he's basically kind of a dickhead, but what's the point? > > I want to be really really clear about this... What you are doing is > just making things worse. You aren't helping. In fact you are making > things worse by feeding his paranoia. (And it isn't entirely clear from > where I sit that he is entirely stable, so this is rather a dangerous > thing for you to do... not for you of course... posting anonymously... > but for me. It isn't you that's going to be signing hospital consent > forms when you finally push this guy over the edge and make him go postal. > I'd like you to consider that.) If you have evidence to support that conclusion, then do us all a favor and give it to the authorities so that Gary Burnore can receive the help he needs. I can apreciate your motivation to appease him. In the past, he's displayed a tendency to shift his abuse and attacks to someone else (like Scott Dentice) when you've done that. But shifting the focus of his attacks doesn't end them. I doubt that you're even the PRIMARY focus of his tirades anymore, even though that seems to be the impression he's trying to give. Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan, and the rest of the DataBasix wrecking crew seem to be on a power trip these days. The fact that he attempted to CONTROL you by posting embarassing information to the net and threatening to post more unless you stopped criticizing him gave us a glimpse of his real agenda. I doubt that discrediting Ron Guilmette forms more than a tiny fraction of his and Belinda's overall agenda. IMO, you and the fanciful charges he's made against you are only his excuse for doing what he's been doing. > P.P.S. If you have some beef about something that Burnore has done to > _you_ then alright. Talk about that and only that. If I have a beef > with Burnore please allow me the dignity of persuing that myself. I > don't need your help, and I don't need you to defend me. I can take > care of myself, thank you very much. Exactly. You've got to do what you've got to do, and I must do likewise. Perhaps I don't know the entire background of what's going on here, and if you'd care to enlighten us all, then by all means feel free to do so. My involvement in this controversy started when my account at Mailmasher suddenly stopped working and I learned that one of Gary Burnore's buddies, Billy McClatchie (who calls himself "Wotan"), was behind the attack that shut it down. I might never have connected that attack to Gary until he and Belinda Bryan tried something similar against another remailer also operated by Jeff Burchell and Jeff chose to go public with an expose (post-mortem, unfortunately) of the abusive tactics that DataBasix had employed (see URL at the bottom), including a situation where Belinda Bryan attempted to impersonate an attorney in demanding that Jeff turn over all of his user logs to DataBasix. As it turns out, Mr. Burchell wisely kept no such logs, but what use do you suppose Gary might found for the e-mail addresses contained in those logs, had he succeeded in obtaining them? When Gary uses you as an excuse to try and violate my privacy and that of other remailer users, then it becomes my business. > Am I making myself clear? Butt out. When I need you, I'll let you know. > In the meantime, fight your own fights. That's exactly what I'm doing. And I'd suggest that you do likewise. If you have reasonable cause to believe that Gary Burnore would resort to violence against you, then take any and all necessary steps to protect yourself. But don't expect everyone else to shut up in an attempt to appease Burnore. If and when he chooses another pretext to attack the right to speak freely on the net, then I'll challenge him on that. Don't flatter yourself in thinking that this is primarily about you. Gary is a CONTROL FREAK. He has some underlying need to control what's said on the net. When he can't refute the MESSAGE, he attempts to punish the MESSENGER. While you certainly saw that happen in your case, you're far from unique. And when the MESSENGER is beyond his reach (posting anonymously or whatever), he attacks the CHANNELS of communication instead. When one such attack affected me, then it became my business. (A later search in DejaNews confirmed that I was not the first anonymous poster to draw file from Gary Burnore.) Involving you in this is Gary's choice, not mine. When he makes claims such as "Ron Guilmette used an anonymous remailer to forge my name", or "rfg sent anonymous letters to harass a teenage girl with a web page at DataBasix" in order to attack remailers, then you've just become unwittingly involved in the debate. Ignoring Gary and his provocations doesn't work, because he goes out of his way to pick fights with other remailer users. For example, he recently butted into a thread over on alt.privacy.anon-server with an anti-remailer tirade. Someone merely posted a technical question about how to do something with a remailer interface software package and was treated to a "reply" about how remailers were being used by you to "spam bait" him. In fact, he did this with two different threads. If you haven't been following that saga, I'd invite you to read Jeff Burchell's account of Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan, and Billy McClatchie's attacks on his remailers at: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html If you come up with a way to prevent similar future attacks by Gary Burnore, then please share it.

1 0

Re: "Good job NANAE. You really fucked up royally." -- DataBasix
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore+spam(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: ^^^^^ Netcom is now requiring "truth in labelling", eh? > : Cat got his tongue? > > I was busy. Surely now you'll try to figure out what I was doing. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough, since you seem to be so intent on taunting your readers with your latest mischief. If you're dying to tell us, then feel free to do so. Otherwise, drop it. Your call. > : Really? Then why are you hiding your own post from being archived by a neutral > : third party? Trying to maintain "plausible deniability" if you post something > : you later regret saying and want to claim it was "forged"? > > What does DejaNews have to be with this? You can save all of her/my posts on > your own if you want to. *No doubt, you've already done that* so why > complain? So you can claim that anything you posted that later proves to be too embarassing was "forged", right? That's a lot easier to do if you don't sign them with the PGP key which you keep advertising in your bloated .sig, and you make sure they aren't archived by any NEUTRAL third party. (Remember when you called someone else [who shall remain nameless at his request] a "coward" for hiding HIS posts behind an "X-No-Archive" header?) Many readers will remember that you were whining pitifully a few months ago about how remailers were allegedly being used to "forge" posts in your name. You were given several suggestions, one of which was to install PGP, generate a key, and use it to sign *ALL* of your genuine posts. Your huge .sig now contains the fingerprint of a PGP public key that YOU ARE STILL NOT USING. Still trying to maintain "plausible deniability" for your posts? And then a few weeks ago you butted into technical question posted to alt.privacy.anon-server about Private Idaho with the implication that the person asking the question wanted to know the answer so that he/she could commit "forgery". If you're so concerned about forgery, why have you not bothered to try what was already suggested the last time you launched into your "remailer users are abusive assholes" tirade? > : Posing as a > : "lawyer" for DataBasix, you demanded that Jeff Burchell turn over all of his > : user logs to you and Gary, just as the so-called "Church" of $cientology > : did with the anon.penet.fi remailer in Finland last year. > > She never posed as a lawyer. Yet another of your lies. Then why did you demand that Jeff violate the privacy of all of his users by turning over his user logs to you and Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com>? And when he said that the only condition he'd release them was in response to a letter FROM YOUR LAWYER, Belinda Bryan sent such a letter? Perhaps the remailer users would like to know what purpose you had in mind for demanding the e-mail addresses of EVERYONE who either SENT or RECEIVED anonymous mail through Jeff's remailer. > : The end > : result was the same in both cases, too. Both remailers shut down to avoid > : the continued harassment from people like you, Gary, and Helena. I hope > : you're proud of yourselves. > > Even the remailer operator proved you wrong. Nice try liar. It's not going > to work anymore. It's your abuse that's not going to work anymore. You've cried wolf once too often about "abuse", "forgery", and other imagined offenses. The remailer operator did not "prove me wrong". Reread his post when you're sober: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html Just to refresh your memory, you were asked whether you had asked Jeff Burchell to censor any anonymous posts that mentioned your name. You stonewalled the question, flippantly suggesting that he/she ask the operator. Someone did just that, and Jeff's post is the result of that. Looks like you gambled and lost that time! You can call remailer users "liars" and "anonymous assholes" to your heart's content, but your censorious actions and those of your associates at DataBasix speak for themselves. --

1 0

Re: Non Logging News Servers? Try #2
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lcs Remailer Administrator <mix-admin(a)nym.alias.net> wrote: > The unfortunate reality is that almost all news servers log, and there > is no way to tell if you don't actually have an account on the server. > There may be privacy conscious ISPs that actually promote the fact > that they don't log, but I don't know of any to recommend. > > The point of putting that in the help file was also to make people > realize there is a trade-off. Posting to news groups might not > actually be the safest solution. Basically, if you are more worried > about the remailer operators, alt.anonymous messages is probably the > best place to send messages. However, if you are more worried about > your employer/ISP than about the remailer operators, then it probably > makes more sense just to have an ordinary e-mail reply block. One solution to this problem is to run your own personal news server like "souper" that gathers ALL new news article in a certain NG and stores them locally for off-line reading. If you're consistently pulling news messages for the alt.anonymous.messages NG off of a certain server, it could be reasonably inferred that you are the intended recipient of at least SOME of those messages. But if you use a client that invariably grabs all the new messages each time, it would be rather difficult to determine which messages you are interested in. To avoid traffic analysis, use a software program to pull the messages for you. If you do it manually, even if you try to pull them all, you will undoubtedly read and save them in a certain order, or spend more time reading certain ones that will betray your interest in certain messages. As for employers, any of them that are sophistocated enough to be monitoring NNTP connections and creating a profile of your reading habits probably also have their own firewall and news server. IOW, if they run their own news server and carry a certain NG, then they'd have a hard time objecting to your reading it. It would probably be wise to assume a worst-case scenario and only deviate from it when you're sure it's safe to do so. For example, suppose you used a pseudonym to publish an article that was critical of the current Ayatollah in Iran, or perhaps deemed offensive to Islam in general, and you were sentenced to death in absentia ... if they can find and identify you. (Sort of an anonymous Salmon Rushdie.) Start out assuming you need that level of security and go from there. But if someone has gone to the trouble of setting up a 'nym, then he probably perceives a need for more than just a casual level of security. --

1 0

Without Laws, There Are No Rights
by damaged justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[1]SIDEBAR [2][LINK] No End In Sight To Thai Internet Regulation ****No End In Sight To Thai Internet Regulation 11/28/97 BANGKOK, THAILAND, 1997 NOV 28 (NB) -- By Sasiwimon Boonruang, Bangkok Post. Finding a consensus on how the Internet should be regulated in Thailand is proving to be a difficult task, experts say. Attorney General Office Prosecutor Shinnawat Thongpakdee said the law defines and protects human rights and duties and inevitably involves itself with human behavior. As the Internet is a phenomenon related with human behavior as well, it would "unavoidably" be involved with the law as well. There are several "rights" involved with Internet information: the right to control access to information, right of information use, right of copying information, and the right to publicize information. These rights cannot be separated, he said. The rights come from several laws - "without laws, there are no rights," the prosecutor said. [And a BIG, HEARTY RASPBERRY to this CLUELESS MORON!] In the Internet world, the producers of information own the copyright to their work, and consequently, any law regarding the Internet should also go hand in hand with copyright laws. There is no solution at the moment as to whether there should be compulsory laws regarding the Internet because it's difficult to use legal means to enforce such laws, and they would also vary greatly from one country to the next. One practical approach would be drawing up of a worldwide conventional agreement regarding Internet regulation, allowing each country to sign off of their own choosing. At the very least, he said, we should accumulate information concerning the Internet in order to consider what should be allowed or prohibited - this information would be useful in the future. Mr Shinnawat added that Internet technology is very new for the legal sector and other societies, and it was difficult to make any conclusions in legal term about the Internet at the moment. He said the Internet provided the opportunity for all - rich and poor alike - to access and make use of information, even though the reality would be that the gap between rich and poor would grow even wider. According to Internet Thailand Service Center (ITSC) President Trin Tantsetthi, infringement on the Internet has increased greatly during the last year, and laws regarding the Internet would be very hard to enforce. For example, there were already 30,000 documents on the Internet in Thailand already. Copyright infringements on the works of others was wrong in both moral and legal terms, he said, but using legal means to deal with it would prove difficult. Social pressures might be an alternative. Wanchai Kanti, of Thammasat University, said people should have freedom of speech and freedom to express opinions, and that the flow of information "should not be closed", especially to academic institutes. There should not be laws to control Internet content, although opinions expressed should be done in a responsible manner. Reported By Newsbytes News Network: [3]http://www.newsbytes.com (19971128) [4]Copyright ©Newsbytes News Network. All rightsreserved. For more Newsbytes see http://www.newsbytes.com. [5]Home | [6]Daily | [7]Weekly | [8]Publishers | [9]Search References 1. http://www.newsbytes.com/menus/navbar.map 2. http://ad.preferences.com/click.ng;spacedesc=CliqTech_Newsbytes_468x60_CTGe… 3. http://www.newsbytes.com/ 4. http://www.nbnn.com/copyrght.html 5. http://www.nbnn.com/home.html 6. http://www.nbnn.com/news/s_daily.html 7. http://www.nbnn.com/news/s_week.html 8. http://www.nbnn.com/publishers/publi_1.html 9. http://www.nbnn.com/html_p/search.html

1 0

Microsoft Rides Again
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Micro$oft fucked me up the ass. Please help. I'm bleeding to death.

1 0

This would also explain AOL...
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.pretext.com/nov97/short4.htm Mark Grimes: "Why do 39,440 people a month look up "Yahoo" on Yahoo!? Maybe too many ate lead paint as children." A recent compilation of the 200 most popular keywords submitted to the Yahoo! Search engine offers some insights about the types of individuals that prowl the Web. "Baywatch" babe Pam Anderson racked up 172,760 inquiries in a recent month to place 12th--two places behind "weather," 10 places ahead of "Microsoft," and 92 slots before "Bob Dole." Janet Reno could fine Pamela an inch a day until she ranks equally with Bob Dole, as a sex symbol. (3,000,000 places ahead of Reno.) Good News: "Metallica" (59) finished just ahead of "real estate" and "stock quotes"; at No. 82 "anal sex" was just before "cars" and "USA Today." Bad News: "Days of Our Lives" (91) came up more frequently than "marijuana" (93) and "Beatles" (111)." Huh?: The top 50: sex, chat, Playboy, Netscape software, nude, porno, games, porn, weather, Penthouse, Pamela Anderson, pornography, pussy, Persian Kitty, maps, Halloween, music, adult, chat rooms, erotica, Microsoft, jokes, shareware, magazines, pictures, employment, jobs, erotic, gay, Jenny McCarthy, Netscape, bondage, lingerie, hardcore, Cindy Crawford, Hustler, ESPN, supermodels, Disney, Star Wars, girls, movies, Star Trek, mIRC, genealogy, screen savers, Japan, soccer, and tits. I suppose that a more cynical mind than mine might make much of the fact that the comma between 'Microsoft' and 'jokes' may well be a 'typo'. As to why both mentions of Netscape's name are followed by a plethora of requests for information on various forms of sexual perversion, I would like to point out that I am not the *only* person who uses Netscape and Yahoo, so it obviously could not be *totally* due to my search habits. TruthMonger

1 0

Business Loans For You
by loans＠xitau.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you need to increase profits in your business? Do you need venture capital to get you there? Are you frustrated with your bank turning you down for the capital your business needs to grow? Be frustrated no more. Zion Worldwide can put you in touch with hundreds of offshore investors waiting to invest in a viable business just like yours. What Is An Offshore Investor? An offshore investor may be an offshore bank or a group of offshore lenders looking to invest in and to lend money to viable business enterprises both in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Why Not My Own Bank? U.S. federal banking law permits American banks to tie up a lot of their money in overhead expenses and advertising costs. Which means that American banks have less money to lend out to their customers (the ones who gave the banks their money in the first place!). Offshore banks, on the other hand, are required by offshore banking rules and regulations to lend more of their customer's money to, you guessed it, their customers. And groups of offshore lenders (often referred to as 'conglomerates'), are not necessarily restricted to the number or type of businesses that they can invest in, as long as these businesses are viable and show potential for future growth and profit. How Do I Take Advantage Of These Offshore Lending Opportunities? Zion Worldwide works with literally dozens and dozens of offshore banks and conglomerates across the world to put American businesses in touch with reputable offshore lenders. By submitting an offshore loan application to Zion Worldwide, your businesss automatically becomes eligible for the following types of offshore funding: Venture Capital Loans, Signature Loans, Equipment Leasing, Cash Grants, Self Liquidating Loans and a $25,000 Line of Offshore Credit, as well as offshore corporate credit cards. How Do I Apply And How Much Does It Cost? To apply simply write to: Zion Worldwide 5015 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 125, Las Vegas, NV, 89102. ..and ask for an offshore loan application. There is a non-refundable application fee of $200US payable to Zion Worldwide via money order, cashier's check, Visa or Mastercard. Why The $200 Fee? When you make application for offshore lending opportunities, Zion Worldwide literally sends your company's loan application to several major funding institutions around the globe. The $200US application fee assists our organization to cover the costs of shipping your loan application documents around the world. How Does Zion Worldwide Make Its Money? When your company's loan application arrives back to our office, Zion Worldwide receives a brokerage fee from our offshore lenders for finding them viable businesses to invest in. Can I Apply? Any viable business in the US or abroad may make application to Zion Worldwide in order to receive serious consideration from Zion's offshore lenders. Is It Hard To Apply? Absolutely not. Simply prepare to provide your company's past earnings as well as future earnings potential, as well as some documented business plan and, of course, some basic business details (e.g. your company's name, address, phone, fax etc.) and you're set. In fact, we want you to succeed in securing your loan, because when you succeed, we succeed. Why Is Zion Worldwide Located In Las Vegas? Nevada is America's last haven for judgment proof corporations (better than Delaware, better than Wyoming). Zion Worldwide strives to take full advantage of all of the incorporation benefits that the State of Nevada provides. What's The Catch? Sometimes interest rates on offshore loans are higher than interests rates on similar loans in the United States. However, apply for an offshore loan, then immediately turn around and expand your business with it, and of course, enjoy the increased profits your business generates, repay your offshore loan early, and the interest charged to you on your offshore loan will total no more than the interest on a loan you can (or can't) get in the US. AnyThing Else? Nope, except 'Apply Today'

1 0

Re: Another Anti-Privacy Bigot Heard From (was: The Guilmette/Burnore deba
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > : The only exception I see is if > : someone threatens the life or wellbeing of another. Then I can understand > : why someone that posts anonymously should get into trouble. > > So when someone posting anonymously makes statements about YOU that are > outright lies what will you say? Will you consider that part of your > exception (falling under the well being of another) or will it be under the > protection from the government part? > > You totally missed his point and turned it into a freedom of speech thing. > > Well guess what bozo, it's NOT within someone's rights to post lies about > another person. THAT's why it's being done anonymously. It's not fear of the > government that's keeping the anon asshole anonymous. It's knowing that if > his/her identity is discovered, he/she could be held accountable for the > _LIES_. What part do you expect the goverment to play in this scenario, though? Shall they establish an "Internet Truth Police" squad? The problem is, for just about every accusation there is another voice saying that the first accusation is false and counter-accusing that the original accuser is a "filthy rotten liar". Neither of these rival accusations deserves to be believed without supporting evidence. It's obvious that when you refer to one party in a debate as an "anon asshole" that your mind is already made up and you're really afraid of hearing all the facts. It is evident that there are a far larger number of NON-anonymous "assholes" on the net. Such ad hominem anti-privacy bigotry only betrays the weakness of your position. Ideas can stand on their own and if you must resort to an ad hominem smear campaign to make your point, you are already well on your way to losing the debate. Are you implying that if an "anonymous asshole" were to say, for example, that the world is flat that you'd prefer to know the person's name so that you could dig up dirt to smear him with rather than simply refuting his IDEA? Why do I get the impression that your modus operandi is to intimidate potential opponents into remaining silent rather than refuting their ideas in reasoned, rational debate? To anyone who hates privacy so much, I'd invite them to post their snail mail address, home phone number, Social Security number, and date of birth lest they likewise be accused of "hiding" something. Most are too hypocritical to do so, of course. --

1 0

Digital Signatures
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You can't see it up here, but this is a signed message using a protocol which is modestly titled "Cantsin Protocol No. 1". Suggestions for improvement are most welcome. At the bottom of this message you will find a series of hexadecimal numbers expressed in ASCII which comprise the signature. I considered using ASCII armor or uuencode to store the information, but the straight numbers are easier to work with. That is, the components of the signature are easily manipulated using off the shelf tools such as Perl. Also, because certain numbers are freely accessible, the message is easy to filter without necessarily calling other programs. It makes it easy to find signed messages using search engines which are not necessarily aware of encryption protocol formats. Having the numbers exposed has a nice feel. It lets you see exactly what is going on. It encourages people to investigate the meaning of the numbers and to think about the information a signature really conveys. Cantsin Protocol No. 1 uses El Gamal to sign hashes generated by SHA1. Executive summary of the signature format: <Cantsin Protocol No. 1 code> <comments> <SHA1 hash of public key components> <SHA1 hash of message> <offset> <length> <a> <b> The first line is "16A5942B6EED349ECF4594C784DFD177 [Cantsin Protocol No. 1]". The hexadecimal number was chosen randomly and is the indicator that this is a Cantsin Protocol No. 1 signature. The number was chosen randomly and it is somewhat unlikely that anybody else will accidently choose it. The text following the number is just there so a human reading it will know what they are looking at. No program should rely on that text. The signature begins where the code (i.e., "16A59...") begins - it need not be preceded by a newline. (It can be used to sign anything, in other words.) The public portion of an El Gamal key consists of three variables p, g, and y. p is a large prime, g is a randomly chosen number, and y is computed using the secret key. (See "Applied Cryptography" for the details. I'm using Schneier's nomenclature.) Monty Cantsin's public authentication key is: p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g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y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his key should not be used for communication. It is not very well secured. Also, I like Adam Back's assertion that authentication keys should be different from communications keys.) The second line in the signature is an SHA1 hash of the public key. The hash is computed on the concatenation of the hexadecimal ASCII forms of p, g, and y respectively. There should be no leading zeros. (Remember to leave off the newline!) The third line is an SHA1 hash of the message itself. The fourth line contains an offset and a length to specify the area of the text which is signed. The offset is relative to the signature itself. That is, the first character of the Cantsin Protocol No. 1 code is at position 0. As signatures are usually appended, the offset will usually be the additive inverse of the length. This is an unobtrusive and highly flexible signature format. No text is modified to accommodate the protocol. No information needs to be prepended to the text. This means that signing a document only makes it longer at the end - the area a reader cares the least about. You can sign as often as you like and it won't really matter that much. This protocol could be used to sign The Declaration of Independence. Not only that, but it is possible to be highly selective in what is signed. The user could sign a portion of a message without modifying or sabotaging other signatures. It is completely compatible with other signature formats. Not only can you sign the subset of text which another user signed, but signatures can even overlap. The last two lines are the signatures themselves. El Gamal signatures consist of two values which Schneier calls "a" and "b". Note that the signature does not contain a time stamp! Users who want time stamps can add one in the text. El Gamal is simple enough that the signature on this message can be checked using standard Unix tools such as dc version 1.1. Let's say M is the SHA1 hash of the message. It is checked by verifying the truth of this equation: (y^a * a^b) mod p = g^M mod p. (dc version 1.1 has an | operator which is used to compute equations of the from a^b mod n like: a b n |. The left side of the equation will be easier to compute if you compute ((y^a mod p) * (a^b mod p)) mod p instead.) You also need to be able to compute SHA1 hashes. I've been using something called "sha1file" which, I believe, originated at Adam Back's web site. I have some crude tools for making and verifying these signatures, but they still need work. At some point they will be released into the public domain. Aside from ordinary message signing, there are at least two good uses for these signatures. One is for timestamping services. Since the signature is unobtrusive, it would be easy to route a message to all known timestamping services. The timestamp can only fail if all timestamping services fail. Yet, the message would still be completely readable without any garbage at the top. Another is for authenticating messages from the distributed cypherpunks mailing list machines. Right now it would be somewhat ugly to have all three machines signing every message. But, with this protocol it just makes each message a little longer. This would prevent certain kinds of attack and make it harder to exploit a compromise of any of the mailing list machines. (It's harder because an undeniable trail of inconsistency is left even if the compromiser has the power to sign messages at will.) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Digital Signatures To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 16A5942B6EED349ECF4594C784DFD177 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0