- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

CNBC: SpaceX prices Starlink satellite internet service at $99 per month, according to e-mail
by jim bell 29 Oct '20

29 Oct '20

CNBC: SpaceX prices Starlink satellite internet service at $99 per month, according to e-mail. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/27/spacex-starlink-service-priced-at-99-a-mont…

5 5

1 big thing: The CIA's new license to cyberattack
by coderman 29 Oct '20

29 Oct '20

1 big thing: The CIA's new license to cyberattack In 2018, President Trump granted the CIA expansive legal authorities to carry out [covert actions in cyberspace](https://link.axios.com/click/20914074.53225/aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLnl…, providing the agency with powers it has sought since the George W. Bush administration, former U.S. officials directly familiar with the matter told Yahoo News. Why it matters: The CIA has conducted disruptive covert cyber operations against Iran and Russia since the signing of this presidential finding, said former officials. Driving the news: According to the Yahoo News story, of which I am the lead author, the 2018 covert action finding gives the CIA much more power to undertake such operations without needing prior approval from the National Security Council. - Under the Obama administration, U.S. officials would discuss proposals for specific potential covert actions for months, or even years, before signing off on them, former officials said. - Now they can go “from idea to approval in weeks,” a former U.S. official told Yahoo News. And many proposals can now circumvent the NSC entirely, said former U.S. officials. “Trump wanted to push decision-making to the lowest possible denominator,” said another former U.S. official — which means many of these decisions are now being made in-house within the CIA, said former officials. Of note: These new powers are not related to the CIA’s ability to hack for the purpose of mere intelligence-gathering, said former officials. - Instead, they are about creating real-world effects like degrading or destroying adversaries’ infrastructure or exposing rival intelligence services’ secrets, said these officials. - The CIA’s new authorities have allowed it to more freely engage in “hack-and-dump” operations of the sort popularized by Russian intelligence via WikiLeaks, where pilfered data is leaked to journalists or released online via personas like Guccifer 2.0, the online front used by Russian operatives to publicize the 2016 hack of the DNC, said former U.S. officials. - The CIA has already dumped Russia- and Iran-related tranches of data online, said former officials. Other impacts of the 2018 finding: 1. Financial institutions. It loosens prior restrictions on disruptive or destructive targeting of financial institutions, former U.S. officials said. - In prior administrations, wiping or dumping hacked banking data was considered an uncrossable line because of the potential effects of retaliation by foreign states on the U.S. banking system, said former officials. - Treasury Department officials were always particularly vociferously opposed to such measures in the past, said former officials. - “These were “things CIA always knew were an option, but were always a bridge too far," a former official told Yahoo News. “They had been bandied about at senior levels for a long time, but cooler heads had always prevailed." 2. "Cut-outs." The presidential authorization makes it much easier for the CIA to target “cut-outs” believed to be working surreptitiously for hostile foreign intelligence services at media organizations, charities, religious institutions or other nonstate entities for disruptive or destructive cyber actions, said former officials. In the past, the burden of proof for targeting such entities was high; now, standards have been made far more lax, said former officials. 3. The "big four." The finding explicitly enables the CIA to use these new powers against the “big four” U.S. adversaries — China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. But even though the CIA already had more legal maneuverability on covert operations against Iran than other U.S. foes, the Trump administration was particularly focused on escalating its activities against Tehran, said former officials. - These new CIA authorities, as well as a capacious interpretation of prior ones, have contributed to the administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, say former officials, with the CIA conducting disruptive cyberattacks against Iranian infrastructure throughout Trump's term. - This maximum pressure campaign has been tantamount to a “regime destabilization” strategy for some senior Trump-era national security officials, aiming to weaken the Iranian government in order to force it to retreat to its own borders — and even hopefully collapse entirely, say former officials. The big picture: Some officials emphasize that Trump-era shifts in U.S. offensive cyber operations are part of a natural evolution in U.S. policies in this arena and that many changes would have been granted under a new Democratic administration as well. - “It’s not like some cabal of folks who had been sort of outside the national security establishment ... were then brought in and hijacked” this process, a former senior official told me.

3 3

RFC 8937: Randomness Improvements for Security Protocols
by coderman 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html RFC 8937 Randomness Improvements for Security Protocols [Abstract](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#abstract) Randomness is a crucial ingredient for Transport Layer Security (TLS) and related security protocols. Weak or predictable "cryptographically secure" pseudorandom number generators (CSPRNGs) can be abused or exploited for malicious purposes. An initial entropy source that seeds a CSPRNG might be weak or broken as well, which can also lead to critical and systemic security problems. This document describes a way for security protocol implementations to augment their CSPRNGs using long-term private keys. This improves randomness from broken or otherwise subverted CSPRNGs. This document is a product of the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) in the IRTF. [Status of This Memo](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-status-of-this-memo) This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research and development activities. These results might not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Crypto Forum Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8937. [Copyright Notice](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-copyright-notice) Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Secure and properly implemented random number generators, or "cryptographically secure" pseudorandom number generators (CSPRNGs), should produce output that is indistinguishable from a random string of the same length. CSPRNGs are critical building blocks for TLS and related transport security protocols. TLS in particular uses CSPRNGs to generate several values, such as ephemeral key shares and ClientHello and ServerHello random values. CSPRNG failures, such as the Debian bug described in[[DebianBug](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#DebianBug)], can lead to insecure TLS connections. CSPRNGs may also be intentionally weakened to cause harm[[DualEC](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#DualEC)]. Initial entropy sources can also be weak or broken, and that would lead to insecurity of all CSPRNG instances seeded with them. In such cases where CSPRNGs are poorly implemented or insecure, an adversary, Adv, may be able to distinguish its output from a random string or predict its output and recover secret key material used to protect the connection. This document proposes an improvement to randomness generation in security protocols inspired by the "NAXOS trick"[[NAXOS](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#NAXOS)] Specifically, instead of using raw randomness where needed, e.g., in generating ephemeral key shares, a function of a party's long-term private key is mixed into the entropy pool. In the NAXOS key exchange protocol, raw random value x is replaced by H(x, sk), where sk is the sender's private key. Unfortunately, as private keys are often isolated in Hardware Security Modules (HSMs), direct access to compute H(x, sk) is impossible. Moreover, some HSM APIs may only offer the option to sign messages using a private key, yet offer no other operations involving that key. An alternate, yet functionally equivalent construction, is needed. The approach described herein replaces the NAXOS hash with a keyed hash, or pseudorandom function (PRF), where the key is derived from a raw random value and a private key signature. ImplementationsSHOULDapply this technique a) when indirect access to a private key is available and CSPRNG randomness guarantees are dubious or b) to provide stronger guarantees about possible future issues with the randomness. Roughly, the security properties provided by the proposed construction are as follows: - If the CSPRNG works fine (that is, in a certain adversary model, the CSPRNG output is indistinguishable from a truly random sequence), then the output of the proposed construction is also indistinguishable from a truly random sequence in that adversary model. - Adv with full control of a (potentially broken) CSPRNG and ability to observe all outputs of the proposed construction does not obtain any non-negligible advantage in leaking the private key (in the absence of side channel attacks). - If the CSPRNG is broken or controlled by Adv, the output of the proposed construction remains indistinguishable from random, provided that the private key remains unknown to Adv. This document represents the consensus of the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG). [2.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-2)[Conventions Used in This Document](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-conventions-used… The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14[[RFC2119](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#RFC2119)][[RFC8174…, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. [3.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-3)[Randomness Wrapper](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-randomness-wrappe… The output of a properly instantiated CSPRNG should be indistinguishable from a random string of the same length. However, as previously discussed, this is not always true. To mitigate this problem, we propose an approach for wrapping the CSPRNG output with a construction that mixes secret data into a value that may be lacking randomness. Let G(n) be an algorithm that generates n random bytes, i.e., the output of a CSPRNG. Define an augmented CSPRNG G' as follows. Let Sig(sk, m) be a function that computes a signature of message m given private key sk. Let H be a cryptographic hash function that produces output of length M. Let Extract(salt, IKM) be a randomness extraction function, e.g., HKDF-Extract[[RFC5869](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#RFC5869)], which accepts a salt and input keying material (IKM) parameter and produces a pseudorandom key of L bytes suitable for cryptographic use. It must be a secure PRF (for salt as a key of length M) and preserve uniformness of IKM (for details, see[[SecAnalysis](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#SecAnalysis)]) LSHOULDbe a fixed length. Let Expand(k, info, n) be a variable-length output PRF, e.g., HKDF-Expand[[RFC5869](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#RFC5869)], that takes as input a pseudorandom key k of L bytes, info string, and output length n, and produces output of n bytes. Finally, let tag1 be a fixed, context-dependent string, and let tag2 be a dynamically changing string (e.g., a counter) of L' bytes. We require that L >= n - L' for each value of tag2. The construction works as follows. Instead of using G(n) when randomness is needed, use G'(n), where G'(n) = Expand(Extract(H(Sig(sk, tag1)), G(L)), tag2, n) Functionally, this expands n random bytes from a key derived from the CSPRNG output and signature over a fixed string (tag1). See[Section 4](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#tag-gen)for details about how "tag1" and "tag2" should be generated and used per invocation of the randomness wrapper. Expand() generates a string that is computationally indistinguishable from a truly random string of n bytes. Thus, the security of this construction depends upon the secrecy of H(Sig(sk, tag1)) and G(L). If the signature is leaked, then security of G'(n) reduces to the scenario wherein randomness is expanded directly from G(L). If a private key sk is stored and used inside an HSM, then the signature calculation is implemented inside it, while all other operations (including calculation of a hash function, Extract function, and Expand function) can be implemented either inside or outside the HSM. Sig(sk, tag1) need only be computed once for the lifetime of the randomness wrapper andMUST NOTbe used or exposed beyond its role in this computation. Additional recommendations for tag1 are given in the following section. SigMUSTbe a deterministic signature function, e.g., deterministic Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)[[RFC6979](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#RFC6979)], or use an independent (and completely reliable) entropy source, e.g., if Sig is implemented in an HSM with its own internal trusted entropy source for signature generation. Because Sig(sk, tag1) can be cached, the relative cost of using G'(n) instead of G(n) tends to be negligible with respect to cryptographic operations in protocols such as TLS (the relatively inexpensive computational cost of HKDF-Extract and HKDF-Expand dominates when comparing G' to G). A description of the performance experiments and their results can be found in[[SecAnalysis](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#SecAnalysis)]. Moreover, the values of G'(n) may be precomputed and pooled. This is possible since the construction depends solely upon the CSPRNG output and private key. [4.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-4)[Tag Generation](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-tag-generation) Both tagsMUSTbe generated such that they never collide with another contender or owner of the private key. This can happen if, for example, one HSM with a private key is used from several servers or if virtual machines are cloned. TheRECOMMENDEDtag construction procedure is as follows: tag1:Constant string bound to a specific device and protocol in use. This allows caching of Sig(sk, tag1). Device-specific information may include, for example, a Media Access Control (MAC) address. To provide security in the cases of usage of CSPRNGs in virtual environments, it isRECOMMENDEDto incorporate all available information specific to the process that would ensure the uniqueness of each tag1 value among different instances of virtual machines (including ones that were cloned or recovered from snapshots). This is needed to address the problem of CSPRNG state cloning (see[[RY2010](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#RY2010)]) See[Section 5](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#sec_tls13)for example protocol information that can be used in the context of TLS 1.3. If sk could be used for other purposes, then selecting a value for tag1 that is different than the form allowed by those other uses ensures that the signature is not exposed. tag2:A nonce, that is, a value that is unique for each use of the same combination of G(L), tag1, and sk values. The tag2 value can be implemented using a counter or a timer, provided that the timer is guaranteed to be different for each invocation of G'(n). [5.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-5)[Application to TLS](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-application-to-tls) The PRF randomness wrapper can be applied to any protocol wherein a party has a long-term private key and also generates randomness. This is true of most TLS servers. Thus, to apply this construction to TLS, one simply replaces the "private" CSPRNG G(n), i.e., the CSPRNG that generates private values, such as key shares, with G'(n) = HKDF-Expand(HKDF-Extract(H(Sig(sk, tag1)), G(L)), tag2, n) [6.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-6)[Implementation Guidance](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-implementation-g… Recall that the wrapper defined in[Section 3](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#wrapper)requires L >= n - L', where L is the Extract output length and n is the desired amount of randomness. Some applications may require n to exceed this bound. Wrapper implementations can support this use case by invoking G' multiple times and concatenating the results. [7.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-7)[IANA Considerations](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-iana-consi… This document has no IANA actions. [8.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-8)[Security Considerations](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-security-c… A security analysis was performed in[[SecAnalysis](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#SecAnalysis)]. Generally speaking, the following security theorem has been proven: if Adv learns only one of the signature or the usual randomness generated on one particular instance, then, under the security assumptions on our primitives, the wrapper construction should output randomness that is indistinguishable from a random string. The main reason one might expect the signature to be exposed is via a side-channel attack. It is therefore prudent when implementing this construction to take into consideration the extra long-term key operation if equipment is used in a hostile environment when such considerations are necessary. Hence, it is recommended to generate a key specifically for the purposes of the defined construction and not to use it another way. The signature in the construction, as well as in the protocol itself,MUST NOTuse randomness from entropy sources with dubious security guarantees. Thus, the signature schemeMUSTeither use a reliable entropy source (independent from the CSPRNG that is being improved with the proposed construction) or be deterministic; if the signatures are probabilistic and use weak entropy, our construction does not help, and the signatures are still vulnerable due to repeat randomness attacks. In such an attack, Adv might be able to recover the long-term key used in the signature. Under these conditions, applying this construction should never yield worse security guarantees than not applying it, assuming that applying the PRF does not reduce entropy. We believe there is always merit in analyzing protocols specifically. However, this construction is generic so the analyses of many protocols will still hold even if this proposed construction is incorporated. The proposed construction cannot provide any guarantees of security if the CSPRNG state is cloned due to the virtual machine snapshots or process forking (see[[MAFS2017](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#MAFS2017)]) It isRECOMMENDEDthat tag1 incorporate all available information about the environment, such as process attributes, virtual machine user information, etc. [9.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-9)[Comparison to RFC 6979](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-comparison-to-rfc-69… The construction proposed herein has similarities with that of[[RFC6979](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#RFC6979)]; both of them use private keys to seed a deterministic random number generator.[Section 3.3](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6979#section-3.3)of [[RFC6979](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#RFC6979)]recommends deterministically instantiating an instance of the HMAC_DRBG pseudorandom number generator, described in[[SP80090A](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#SP80090A)]and Annex D of[[X962](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#X962)], using the private key sk as the entropy_input parameter and H(m) as the nonce. The construction G'(n) provided herein is similar, with such difference that a key derived from G(n) and H(Sig(sk, tag1)) is used as the entropy input and tag2 is the nonce. However, the semantics and the security properties obtained by using these two constructions are different. The proposed construction aims to improve CSPRNG usage such that certain trusted randomness would remain even if the CSPRNG is completely broken. Using a signature scheme that requires entropy sources according to[[RFC6979](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#RFC6979)]is intended for different purposes and does not assume possession of any entropy source -- even an unstable one. For example, if in a certain system all private key operations are performed within an HSM, then the differences will manifest as follows: the HMAC_DRBG construction described in[[RFC6979](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#RFC6979)]may be implemented inside the HSM for the sake of signature generation, while the proposed construction would assume calling the signature implemented in the HSM. [10.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-10)[References](ht… [10.1.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-10.1)[Normative References](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-normative-refe… [RFC2119]Bradner, S.,"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119,DOI 10.17487/RFC2119,March 1997,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC5869]Krawczyk, H.and P. Eronen,"HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)",RFC 5869,DOI 10.17487/RFC5869,May 2010,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>. [RFC6979]Pornin, T.,"Deterministic Usage of the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)",RFC 6979,DOI 10.17487/RFC6979,August 2013,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6979>. [RFC8174]Leiba, B.,"Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words",BCP 14,RFC 8174,DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,May 2017,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. [10.2.](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#section-10.2)[Informative References](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-informative-re… [DebianBug]Yilek, S., Rescorla, E., Shacham, H., Enright, B., and S. Savage,"When private keys are public: results from the 2008 Debian OpenSSL vulnerability",ICM '09,DOI 10.1145/1644893.1644896,November 2009,<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fcf9/fe0946c20e936b507c023bbf89160cc995b9.…>. [DualEC]Bernstein, D., Lange, T., and R. Niederhagen,"Dual EC: A Standardized Back Door",DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-49301-4_17,March 2016,<https://projectbullrun.org/dual-ec/documents/dual-ec-20150731.pdf>. [MAFS2017]McGrew, D., Anderson, B., Fluhrer, S., and C. Schenefiel,"PRNG Failures and TLS Vulnerabilities in the Wild",January 2017,<https://rwc.iacr.org/2017/Slides/david.mcgrew.pptx>. [NAXOS]LaMacchia, B., Lauter, K., and A. Mityagin,"Stronger Security of Authenticated Key Exchange",DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-75670-5_1,November 2007,<https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/stronga…>. [RY2010]Ristenpart, T.and S. Yilek,"When Good Randomness Goes Bad: Virtual Machine Reset Vulnerabilities and Hedging Deployed Cryptography",January 2010,<https://rist.tech.cornell.edu/papers/sslhedge.pdf>. [SecAnalysis]Akhmetzyanova, L., Cremers, C., Garratt, L., Smyshlyaev, S., and N. Sullivan,"Limiting the impact of unreliable randomness in deployed security protocols",DOI 10.1109/CSF49147.2020.00027,IEEE 33rd Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF), Boston, MA, USA, pp. 385-393,2020,<https://doi.org/10.1109/CSF49147.2020.00027>. [SP80090A]National Institute of Standards and Technology,"Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators, Special Publication 800-90A Revision 1",DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-90Ar1,June 2015,<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-90Ar1>. [X962]American National Standard for Financial Services (ANSI),"Public Key Cryptography for the Financial Services Industry, The Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)",ANSI X9.62,November 2005,<https://www.techstreet.com/standards/x9-x9-62-2005?product_id=1327225>. [Acknowledgements](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#name-acknowle… We thankLiliya Akhmetzyanovafor her deep involvement in the security assessment in[[SecAnalysis](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8937.html#SecAnalysis)]. We thankJohn Mattsson,Martin Thomson, andRich Salzfor their careful readings and useful comments.

1 0

Fox News: Ted Cruz grills Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for 'censoring' Hunter Biden story
by jim bell 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

Fox News: Ted Cruz grills Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for 'censoring' Hunter Biden story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhg4dtuhvNk Jim Bell's comment:. Twitter does a 'belly-flop' into the pool of MSM bias.

2 1

Fwd: People Hacking Votes Right Now Fwd: OR/WA Election System Flawed: Votes Changed by Black Hatters
by Karl 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

So, I can't tell if the voting issue is fake news or not, since I don't know the details of anyone in one of the affected areas. They appear to be stating that they do not accept digital votes. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: SOS Orestar-Support * SOS <Orestar-Support.SOS(a)oregon.gov> Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 5:39 PM Subject: RE: People Hacking Votes Right Now Fwd: OR/WA Election System Flawed: Votes Changed by Black Hatters To: Karl <gmkarl(a)gmail.com> Hello, Thank you for reaching out to our office. You can find information regarding Election Security on our website by visiting this link: https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/security.aspx Altering someone’s voter registration or attempting to vote another person’s ballot are crimes. It is a felony with up to 5 years in prison and a $125,000 fine. Attempts to alter information on MyVote can be tracked through our system logs to help identify the individual who is committing the crime. No votes can be cast or cancelled online through MyVote. While you can view a voter’s information if you know their name and birthdate, (it is all public information that anyone can view at an elections office) you cannot change it online without having the drivers license number. The mark my ballot tool helps voters with disabilities and military and overseas voters to mark their ballot. They still must return the ballot with the proper identifying information, including their signature, which will be compared against the voter’s signature in the voter registration file before being accepted to count. Thank you, Oregon Elections Division Phone: 503-986-1518 Email:Elections.SOS@Oregon.gov [image: cid:image001.png@01D51C66.5FBE3300] -----Original Message----- From: Karl [mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 6:55 PM To: SOS Orestar-Support * SOS <Orestar-Support.SOS(a)oregon.gov> Subject: People Hacking Votes Right Now Fwd: OR/WA Election System Flawed: Votes Changed by Black Hatters Hi orestar-support.sos, A lot of people have been talking about logging in to https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/vr/showVoterSearch.do as people other than themselves, and messing votes up or changing things to be more republican. See discussions at for example https://boards.4chan.org/search#/votergate/pol . Could you maybe disable this page to reduce the damage? Could you also please share this information with any other states using the same system? I've only e-mailed you. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Se7en <se7en(a)cock.email> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:13:14 -0700 Subject: OR/WA Election System Flawed: Votes Changed by Black Hatters To: "Cock.li Mailing List" <mailman(a)lists.cock.li>, Cyperpunk Mailing List < cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> Cc: Jeff Rense <ContactRense(a)earthlink.net>, Matt Drudge < drudge(a)drudgereport.co>, Lars Larson <lars(a)larslarson.com>, Rush Limbaugh < rush(a)rushlimbaugh.com> THE OREGON AND WASHINGTON ONLINE REGISTRATION SYSTEM HAS A MAJOR FLAW THAT ALLOWS ANYONE TO FIND THE PERSONAL ADDRESS OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS, ALLOWS ONE TO CANCEL VOTES, AND ALLOWS INDIVIDUALS TO ISSUE BALLOTS IN OTHER'S NAMES! This is not a joke people. Last night, black hatters successfully used the system to find the personal addresses of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates[1]. The Black hatters then discovered a system of online voting designed for senior citizens and disableds to vote. This system was then used to cancel the ballot issued by Mayor Ted Wheeler (D, Portland) to President Donald Trump as proof of the flaws. Voter registrations were then changed for numerous individuals to change their mailing address to gibberish.[2] This is NOT A BUG, this is a DESIGN CHOICE for convenience. Furthermore, it was also brought to attention that people can email a vote in. The way the system works is that the most-recent ballot is the only valid one, and all previous ballots were canceled. This group of blackhats, posting to the 4chan board /pol/, were later suppressed and silenced. I expected this to be front-page news by morning. I see nothing of it. Shortly after this was discovered, the voting system was briefly down but restored Sunday morning. No changes were made. All one needs to do is know the Legal Name, and the birth date of the individual to find their private information. No other qualifiers are necessary. The website itself for voter registration[3] does not have a TLS Certificate, meaning the connection is insecure and any information submitted to it is vulnerable to a simple MITM attack. This is the /least/ of the problems at hand. I do not know when this system was implemented, but I believe it may have been as far-back as 2008. This should be FRONT PAGE NEWS across the entire country. I request that anyone who reads this email forward it to at least 10 more individuals to spread the word. [1] <https://imgur.com/jNxdUmO.png> [2] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hujJxFVcCa0> [3] <https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/vr/showVoterSearch.do> -- |-----/ | Se7en / The One and Only! | se7en(a)cock.email / | 0x0F83F93882CF6116 / | https://se7en-site.neocities.org

6 17

USA: Rubio: "Last night a working mother of 7 was confirmed by the Senate and then sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court by an African American associate justice. What a country!" - [ENJOY] [PEACE]
by Zenaan Harkness 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

Marco Rubio, USA Senator: Marco Rubio @marcorubio Last night a working mother of 7 was confirmed by the Senate and then sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court by an African American associate justice. What a country! 10:13 PM · Oct 27, 2020 https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1321047430209671169C Found here: Watch: Leftists melt down as qualified, faithful, successful woman appointed to Supreme Court https://notthebee.com/article/leftists-across-nation-shriek-as-qualified-fa…

3 2

Stories
by Karl 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

I had this weird vision of zenaan strongarming me to spam to the list. Maybe I think about his posts the wrong way. Some people have been oppressed by black people. Some people have been oppressed by white people. Meanwhile, others of us have stories too. Is it important to hear the stories of people? What stories are present in this mailing list? What stories were present 10 years ago, on this mailing list? [... prior to the mutual leaks of the mid 2010s...?] Why are things different?

4 7

Project Veritas: Exposing Voter Fraud, Google, Political Parties, Big Tech 2020
by grarpamp 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

https://mobile.twitter.com/Project_Veritas https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesokeefeiii https://www.projectveritas.com/ Project Veritas putting out many trending stories lately, too many to list here. Be Brave. "You can offer free credits, free advertising credits, to Democratic parties to advertise." "You are just plain and simple trying to play God... You're Gonna Delete." -- #ExposeGoogle "We're trying to DownRank it." -- Twitter "DeBoosting" -- Facebook "The truth is that these platforms are influencing you in a way you didn't sign up for." #RiggedElection

1 0

How can Liberation Tech help prevent Media Bias and Censorship? (re: DailyVote, etc)
by grarpamp 27 Oct '20

27 Oct '20

> DailyVote, which is an attempt to put a civic tech spin on participatory news sites like reddit, Hacker News, etc A problem with sites like Reddit, is not only are they centrally controlled, biased, censored and steered by partial owners, employees, and algorithms, but in practice such sites billed as "agnostic for everyone" end up (in part with central help) downranking and outvoting valid speakers via mass channel invasion takeovers that then become permanent bias. > historically - they create a situation of evil then will sell a solution for it, > but both the evil and the solution have been engineered by whosoever > is manipulating the system This happens especially in politics... Corona, Economics, Wars. ie: Is there record who in world first proposed and executed the first oppressive, economic disruptive, Government power growing, Corona lockdowns. How can Liberation Tech help prevent Media Bias, Censorship, Fraud, etc? How can Liberation Tech help provide uncensorable mediums so that people can collate, share, and freely discuss all topics, find and cover stories, facts, truths impartially, and from the big to the small? How can new Media be created that is ranked by and awarded for impartiality that all would agree, Media that is supported by disinterested parties, Channels that are totally uncontrolled such that Bias and Censorship cannot be imparted, etc? Articles instead of by "like or dislike" by "truth or untruth"? Consideration to weightings to address any imbalance within any identifiable human tendencies to be present on social or not. Here are some recent examples of how Biased Media and platforms have suppressed information that would normally provide input to choices in society, or has only taken up stories that fit Media's biased narrative (many more subject areas from around the world are similarly afflicted by Bias and Censor, this is only one example)... https://mobile.twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1320820871267639296 Tony Bobulinski says he met with Joe Biden about China. The media have suppressed the story, but it's real and it matters. Voters have a right to know the details. Bobulinski sits for an extended interview Tuesday night at 8p ET on #FoxNews https://mobile.twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1320850294411067394 Tony Bobulinski will play recordings of Biden operatives begging him to stay quiet... Some states allow you to change your vote! https://mobile.twitter.com/stillgray/status/1321118066277666819 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KK8YwsDHuA Fair coverage covers all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsI9TBI_-NI Waving to empty field https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVkLMDiOzMA Parkinsons alzheimers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p92WwaXzq7I Just nothing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBMk1xkN-Bo Handlers cut off rage stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmD-X_hXjFU Gets stuck in the mud again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B5KNcf2vIE Prompt exposure media lid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mk--J1mdvg Puts american lives at risk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0NhOvOcptQ Stops willing answers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIilo1nZGnc Not just one bad day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3EDfNMouho Why no questions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMpXoTRcJ7o Teleprompter exposed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOradie8WzI In own words https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADDrSvNyqEY What they say https://mobile.twitter.com/teamtrump https://mobile.twitter.com/warroom2020 https://mobile.twitter.com/project_veritas Many subject areas around the world are covered in the few remaining uncensored corners of the internet. Since the Media won't tell you where those are, you have to search and ask around... > It's not just Aaron, > People have been systematically obliterated throughout history And ask... why all the Censorship? Why people being deleted for speaking. Then work to end the censorship.

1 0

Re: Fwd: privacy, safety, and freedom -- Re: Whether To Design Open Source Public Records Equipment
by Zenaan Harkness 27 Oct '20

27 Oct '20

> >> really curious whether you received my question regarding pgp. Next > > > >> > > Our emails are at _least_ filtered by the list spam filter, right? So > >> > > why > >> > > don't _you_ use a pgp signature? > > > > It does not seem useful to me, for the things I want to achieve. > > Well, that sounds important. To me, it's about relevance, and what's important to me. Other people have different things which are important to them. > > There is also the possibility that for some types of communications, it > > could be harmful. > > How do you see? OK, here's another example of a discussion where you ask me genuine questions, and I want to be courteous to you, and then at some point in the conversation, like with this last question, I start to realise that (at least) this part of the discussion should be public, so that other people can benefit from it. When there are misunderstandings, or viewpoints not understood, it is tiresome for me to spend a lot of time and energy explaining things privately to one person, when the SAME amount of time and energy could be spent explaining it to that one person, and because it's public then many people might benefit. This is the point where I get frustrated, since you failed to realise that your questions should have been public - that this part of the conversation should have been public. (There is another benefit to me with public conversations - sometimes other people have different views to me, or share different considerations, making the conversation even MORE useful to the person asking the question.)

1 0