- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Open Fabs [was: Aus hack computers]
by grarpamp 21 Aug '16

21 Aug '16

Second in thread... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chris <tmail299(a)errtech.com> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 13:58:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Did Australian Authorities hack (US) computers with Tor's help? To: tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org On 2016-08-21 10:18 AM, Cannon wrote: > On 08/21/2016 01:06 AM, Chris wrote: >> Microsoft Windows is a threat to your security. All proprietary >> software >> is a threat. Intel and AMD are a threat to your security. There is >> remote control functionality built into every Intel and AMD CPU since >> 2009 and 2013 > > USA technology is garbage. By default dont trust any tech company based > out of the USA. I am not anti-armican, I just dont let patriotism blind > me to reality of the world. It would be naive to think that only the US government or American companies are compromising our security and privacy. We have knowledge of the Chinese backdooring home-grown systems based on ARM through keyboard controller firmware and there have also been public statements about such things being required in recent years (in response to US actions). Russia and Germany appear to be aware of problems with US processors as they've stopped using x86 technology in certain places or funded projects that deal with some of these issues. Where do you think the funding to get CoreBoot for X86 came from on the Lenovos years ago? LibreBoot which is completely free (meaning the complete sources are available) is based off that work. Russia has moved to using typewriters for security reasons and started designing its own CPUs too. Now I don't have an example of Iran or North Korea doing anything technologically as far as computers go- but in other areas they've clearly demonstrated an understanding that for security reasons they can't be dependent on foreign designed technology (particularly given their opposition). These countries are designing all sorts of military hardware even where they might otherwise be able to obtain such hardware from friendly countries (to them, tanks, etc). A start to securing our systems has to come from gaining access to the complete set of source code for all core components. It's not feasible to design many of these components from scratch. The costs are astronomical (it'll cost millions of dollars just to design a CPU and get some samples made, and that doesn't include manufacturing it, testing it, or manufacturing it at a cost effective price point, without the numbers you won't succeed, and nobody will use it then, and that means it would be ridiculously expensive. To succeed you would have to prepay 100 million dollars to have a line dedicated to you such that the cost of the CPU drops to a point to be competitive on the market. This is why All Winner, one company designing CPUs has been successful, because if you get just a 100 CPUs manufactured 50% or more of those will not work, but if you have a line dedicated to manufacturing your CPU then they can keep adjusting the machinery and over a six month period the production results improve. Now you don't have to throw away 50% of the CPUs because they are defective. Now you get to keep 95% of the CPUs. All Winner has large quantities of its CPUs manufactured over a sixth month period and then maintains a large stock of CPUs that are sold over many years This is what makes All Winner's CPUs so ridiculously cheap and competitive on the market. Comparatively companies like AMD and Intel can't do that short of switching architectures and that will mean these companies lose there compatibility advantage. Eventually in the not so distant future you will be able to buy a non-Intel/AMD CPU that is faster for less money. Intel already can't produce its CPUs at a profit and remain competitive. There are also very few companies or countries for that matter capable of manufacturing the core components- like CPUs and wifi chips. For any given core technology we have at best 5-6 companies capable of it. Every other technology company then licenses the tech and has these companies manufacture those core components for them. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Dell don't manufacture anything. Not really. At best they might have some people making already developed technology pretty. Companies like Intel, AMD, Qualcomm Atheros, Samsung, and similar do have design capabilities and sometimes manufacturing capabilities for these types of core components. However even these companies whom are designing these components don't always have sufficient facilities to do the production or any for that matter. AMD doesn't manufacture anything for example. Intel is now manufacturing other companies CPUs (Intel is losing money and is losing face due technological failures that prevent it from advancing its CPUs at competitive prices, and we're seeing that already at a cost level, even if the prices sold at are competitive at the moment). Both US and UK citizens are working on free'ing us of hostile Chinese and US technology/backdoors. Go check it out here: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68 -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

1 0

[RUS] Ukraine and the Russia haters - time to pay up with an ear bashing of "I told you so"!
by Zenaan Harkness 21 Aug '16

21 Aug '16

One of the few good things today is that information gets out onto the Internet, and we all get to read various bits of dirty laundry re our world's' "elites" or oligarchs aka scoundrels and war mongers - neo cons as they're called. Well, courtesy DC Leaks and with a <hat tip> to traditional John Young style leaking (my moral support for the work of Wikileaks still unwavering mind you), some will undoubtedly be heard subtly blasting "I told you so" across the airwaves. Read it and celebrate a small iota of freedom of information, and an example of the very definition of 'conspiracy' - this is not conspiracy theory, now one would have to call it conspiracy fact.. ** Leaked memo shows George Soros worked to push Greece to support Ukraine coup, paint Russia as enemy ( http://theduran.com/leaked-memo-shows-george-soros-worked-to-push-greece-to… ) ------------------------------------------------------------ By Alex Christoforou on Aug 19, 2016 04:41 pm Soros Greece Last week we reported on the DC Leaks hack (http://theduran.com/george-soros-criminal-ngos-fully-exposed-dc-leaks-2500-…) of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times leads to chaos and civil war. One country of particular focus for George Soros and his NGOs is Ukraine. It is now accepted fact that Soros was deeply involved in the Maiden protests in 2014 and the violent coup, that saw a democratically elected government overthrown in the name of “EU values”. What is even more troubling, as revealed by the DC Leaks hack, is how Soros and his network of “non-profit organisations” worked to lobby EU member states into not only buying his Ukraine “Maidan” narrative, but to also disavow any ties and support for Russia. Leaked documents show that George Soros was active in mapping out the Greek media landscape with generous grants, so as to further his Ukraine project, while also using his deep pockets to get Greek media to turn against the Russian Federation…in what can only be described as a well-funded and orchestrated smear campaign. In one document entitled: “Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE). Mapping the Ukrainian debate in Greece” (Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece.docx), Soros offers a consultant a remuneration of $6,500 (gross) for “at least 15 full working days in carrying out this task” plus all expenses paid. The aim of this task: The consultant is expected to chart the main players in the Greek debate on Ukraine, outline the key arguments and their evolution in the past 18 months. Specifically, the report will take stock of any existing polling evidence provide a ‘who is who?’ with information about at least – 6 newspapers, – 10 audiovisual outlets (TV and radio), – 6 internet sites, – About 50 opinion leaders and trends in social networks[1]. Categorize the main strains of discussion and eventually identify different sides / camps of the discussion. Provide a brief account of how Russia has tried to influence the Greek debate on Ukraine through domestic actors and outlets Include a section with recommendations on – What are the spaces OSF should engage and would most likely to have impact? – What are the voices (of reason or doubt) that should be amplified? Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE) selected Iannis Carras for the Greek media mapping grant. The justification why he was chosen… All contracts were for the same amount. We needed to find highly specialized researchers to map the debate on Ukraine in Europe, therefore we identified a shortlist of candidates in consultation with colleagues in the Think Tank Fund, OSEPI and in consultation with members of the OSIFE board and chose the most qualified who could produce the report in the time allowed. In the case of Greece we agreed that Iannis Carras, an economic and social historian of Balkan and Russian relations with expert knowledge of Greece’s NGOs and social movements, was the best suited to the task. What is even more interesting is not the grant from OSIFE, but a letter from grant winner Carras to a person named Mathew (another Greek speaker???), outlining his plan in detail for pushing Soros’ Ukraine agenda in Greece. Of significance is how Carras tells Mathew about Greek society’s overall suspicion of The Open Society after the roll in played in seeding unrest in Yugoslavia. Carras even tells Mathew to not mention The Open Society in Greece. “Do you want your name to appear alongside mine on the paper? Do make comments on all of the below. In general, and at your discretion, do not say you are doing this for Open Society because it is likely to close down doors. There’s a lot of suspicion about Open Society in Greece, mainly because of its positions vis-à-vis the former Yugoslavia. As I am simultaneously writing an article for Aspen Review Eastern Europe that can be used as the organisation for which research like this is taking place.” Carras then goes on to outline his approach in manipulating Greek society, covering topics such as: 1. Media. 2. Political parties and think tanks 3. Opinion polls. 4. Business relations. 5. Religious and cultural ties. 6. Migration and diaspora. 7. Greece and Ukraine in the context of Greece’s economic crisis. 8. Greece, Ukraine and the Cyprus issue. 9. Names and brief description of significant actors: a ‘who is who?’ with information on at least 50 opinion leaders Carras notes how Russia has much goodwill in Greece, exercising “signifiant soft power”. Carras notes that Greece is, at this moment, a weak player in the Ukraine debate and the Greek Foreign Minister Kotzias realises this. Summary: I am working on the hypotheses largely born out by the interviews carried out so far that Russia has significant soft power in Greece though this does not easily convert into hard power (e.g. vetoing EU sanctions).Greeks are basically not very interested in Ukraine and the crisis there. They reflect and understand that conflict through their own economic crisis and their relations with Europe (nowadays primarily Europe and not US). To the extent that relations with Europe remain the focus and do not go off the rails, Greece will bark but will not bite. If they improve, Greece might not even bark (as can be seen with Greece’s policy on Israel, Kotzias can be very much a realist). Carras does warn that should Greece’s economic situation deteriorate further, than Greece may very well look to Russia for support, and this has implications on the Ukraine plan. If they deteriorate however, Greece will be looking to Russia for increased support and will alter its Ukraine policies accordingly. Do you agree with these hypotheses? Can you find confirmation for or against them in the media outlets examined? Carras places extra emphasis on influencing the media in Greece, citing various large news outlets that the Soros NGO can target, including approaching left wing and right wing blogs. This is the bulk of the work (we have to think about how to divide the work up). We have to provide a ‘who is who?’ with information about at least 6 newspapers, 10 audio-visual outlets (TV and radio) and 6 internet sites. Some of these will be obvious, but, even in these cases, change over time (at least eighteen months) is an important consideration. Here are some suggestions for newspapers: Kathimerini, Avgi, Ta Nea, Vima, Efymerida Syntakton, Eleutherotypia, Proto Thema, Rizospastis? etc. What else? Protagon? Athens Review of Books? (info on Kotzias). As for TV, we’ll just do the main ones. What about left wing blogs? What about commercial radio stations? I think we should cover Aristera sta FM. Sky. What else? Anything from the nationalist and far right? My choice would be Ardin (already looking at this) which at least tries to be serious. Patria is even more unsavoury. I’ll deal with the religious web sites in the culture and religion appendix. I think we should interview Kostas Nisenko (http://www.kathimerini.gr/757296/article/epikairothta/kosmos/viaih-epi8esh-…) and Kostas Geropoulos of New Europe to get into the issues involved… not at all sure though that it’s advisable to talk to the Russia correspondents Thanasis Avgerinos, Dimitris Liatsos, Achileas Patsoukas etc. (I know all of them). Also if we come across articles with interesting information on any one of the topics, we should mail them to one another. Attention is placed on influencing political parties. Carras sees this as a more difficult task, as parties in Greece would not be warm towards turning their back on Russia. Who if anyone deals with Russia / Ukraine within each of the political parties? How important are political parties in formulating policies? (my hunch is totally unimportant). I must admit I have little idea of how to proceed with this one, but I have written to the academic Vassilis Petsinis and I hope I’ll get to skype with him soon. Think-tanks are easier, and, I think, more important. I have already interviewed Thanos Dokos (director Greek foreign policy institute, ELIAMEP) in person. Carras notes how he has approached various religious leaders, academics and actors, to gauge a sense of how deep Russia’s influence and “soft power” runs in Greek society and culture. So far I have interviewed by telephone Metropolitan John of Pergamum (one of the top figures in the inner circle of the Istanbul based Ecumenical Patriarchate). I have read Metropolitan Nektarios of the Argolid’s recent book (2014), “Two bullets for Donetsk”. I have tried but so far not succeeded in contacting Metropolitan Nektarios himself, and have started work on two of the main religious news websites romfea.gr and amen.gr . With respect to culture I intend to contact Georgos Livathinos, leading director of Russian and other plays and Lydia Koniordou, actress. Also the management of the Onassis Centre, particularly Afroditi Panagiotakou, the executive vice-director who is quite knowledgeable in this field having travelled to both Ukraine and Russia. In 2016 Greece and Russia will be hosting each other as the focus of cultural events in the two respective countries. I will be looking to understand the extent to which Russia’s unparalleled cultural soft-power might translate into Greek policy making. Greek military is the final point of influence, with Carras interviewing Ambassadors and policy decision makers. Foreign policy and the Greek military. So far I have interviewed in person Ambassador Elias Klis (formerly ambassador of Greece to Moscow, advisor to the current Foreign Minister, advisor to the Greek Union of Industrialists. He is perhaps the single most important person for understanding Greek-Russian diplomatic relations at present). Ambassador Alexandros Philon (formerly ambassador of Greece to Washington, to whom I am related). Captain Panos Stamou (submarines, extensive contacts in Crimea, also secretary and leading light of the Greek-Russian historical association) who emphasised the non-political tradition of the Greek armed forces. Tempted to talk to Themos Stoforopoulos for a nationalist left wing view. I have also read foreign minister Kotzias’ latest book. All of this has provided me with useful insights for appendices 7 and 8, and particularly for the connection to the Cyprus issue (which at the moment Greece is very keen to downplay). Carras places an emphasis on Cyprus, perhaps recognising the islands affinity to support Russia and its large Russian diaspora community. The recommendations will be for the medium and the short term, cited here based on interviews carried out so far. Medium term recommendations will include a cultural event (to be specified later) and a one-day conference on Ukraine and international law, citing precedents for dealing with the situation in Ukraine (particularly Cyprus). Recommendations may include capacity building for local Ukrainian migrant spokesperson(s). Short term recommendations will include an action pack on what Greece has at stake in Ukraine, and ways to narrate parallels in interactions between nation and empire vis-à-vis Greece / Ukraine. Think about whether these work / what else we might recommend? ------------------------------------------------------------ Both of the documents are below:- Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece -Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece2 -Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece3 Document from Iannis Carras… “Ukraine and Europe-greece-carras tsimitakis greece ukraine mar 2015.docx”-Ukraine and Europe-greece-carras tsimitakis greece ukraine mar 2015 -Ukraine and Europe-greece-carras tsimitakis greece ukraine mar 20152 -Ukraine and Europe-greece-carras tsimitakis greece ukraine mar 20153 The post Leaked memo shows George Soros worked to push Greece to support Ukraine coup, paint Russia as enemy (http://theduran.com/leaked-memo-shows-george-soros-worked-to-push-greece-to…) appeared first on The Duran (http://theduran.com) .

1 0

[USA] from Bill to Hillary Clinton - 'impeachment' prior to potential POTUS ? :)
by Zenaan Harkness 21 Aug '16

21 Aug '16

<blue suede shoes department> I found my thrill ... on perjury hill. </cannot resist department> The show goes on... ** Republicans look to nail Hillary Clinton for perjury [Video] (http://theduran.com/republicans-look-to-nail-hillary-clinton-for-perjury-vi…) ------------------------------------------------------------ By Alex Christoforou on Aug 17, 2016 07:05 pm Republicans look to nail Hillary Clinton for perjury [Video] Perjury. Will Hillary Clinton’s documented lies bring the untouchable politician down? The Hill reports (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291494-gop-lays-out-case-for-ch…) … A pair of leading House Republicans on Monday laid out detailed instructions for the Justice Department to file perjury charges against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) . More than a month after first requesting the department open a criminal probe (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/287283-judiciary-oversight-chai…) into Clinton for alleged misstatements she made under oath, the GOP heads of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees told a federal prosecutor (https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016-08-02-Kadzik-DO…) specifically where they believed Clinton had lied to Congress about her email setup at the Department of State. “Believed Clinton had lied to Congress.” Their is no doubt she lied to Congress, and the American people, multiple times, over and over. Clinton is simply too powerful and well connected, with the media in her pocket, to prosecute. She is without a doubt above the law. The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291494-gop-lays-out-case-for-ch…) notes that perjury charges may finally be the undoing of HRC. Republicans are pointing to statements that Clinton had made under oath before the Benghazi Committee last October… For one, Clinton repeatedly claimed that none of the material she sent or received via her personal email account was marked as classified. The FBI later declared that at least three emails on her machine contained some classified markings, although they were incomplete and apparently done in error. Additionally, Clinton previously claimed that her lawyers had gone through each of her emails individually; that all of her work-related emails were given back to the State Department in 2014; and that she used only one server throughout the course of her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat. Each of those points was proven incorrect, the GOP lawmakers claimed. “The four pieces of sworn testimony by Secretary Clinton described herein are incompatible with the FBI’s findings,” they wrote. “We hope this information is helpful to your office’s consideration of our referral.” GOP leaders of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees told a federal prosecutor the instances (four to be precise), where they believed Hillary Clinton had lied to Congress… In at least four separate occasions during a marathon appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, the lawmakers alleged, the former secretary’s claims were at odds with what the FBI has now discovered to be the truth about her private server. “Although there may be other aspects of Secretary Clinton’s sworn testimony that are at odds with the FBI’s findings, her testimony in those four areas bears specific scrutiny in light of the facts and evidence” provided by FBI Director James Comey, Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Channing Phillips. Goodlatte leads the Judiciary Committee and Chaffetz runs the Oversight Committee. Monday’s letter is a sign that Republicans are committed to pressuring the Justice Department to act against Clinton, even after it notably declined to prosecute her for mishandling classified information. So we do not forget the tangled web of lies that Hillary Clinton has weaved, the Oversight Committee released a video detailing the inaccuracies in Hillary’s testimony… IFRAME: [1]http://www.youtube.com/embed/BvFiH_F9jLo?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&… Via: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291494-gop-lays-out-case-for-ch… The post Republicans look to nail Hillary Clinton for perjury [Video] (http://theduran.com/republicans-look-to-nail-hillary-clinton-for-perjury-vi…) appeared first on The Duran (http://theduran.com) . References 1. http://www.youtube.com/embed/BvFiH_F9jLo?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&sh…

1 0

[WAR] Does Russia want war?
by Zenaan Harkness 21 Aug '16

21 Aug '16

For some folks, perhaps an "average North American citizen", this article might possibly be important. To me it is stating the obvious, but it just might allay some fears for some folk out there... ** 5 questions for Peter Lavelle: Does Russia want war? (http://theduran.com/5-questions-peter-lavelle-russia-want-war/) ------------------------------------------------------------ By Peter Lavelle on Aug 18, 2016 11:27 am Russian soldiers dressed in Red Army World War II uniforms prepare to parade in Red Square in front of a backdrop of St. Basil Cathedral in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, Nov. 7, 2013. Thousands of Russian soldiers and military cadets marched across Red Square to mark the 72nd anniversary of a historic World War II parade. The show honored the participants of the Nov. 7, 1941 parade who headed directly to the front lines to defend Moscow from the Nazi forces. The parade Thursday involved about 6,000 people, many of them dressed in World War II-era uniforms. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko) Question: The first and most important question: does Russia want a war against the west, against the U.S.? Answer: Most emphatically no! During the Cold War the primary adversaries went to great lengths to understand the other side’s position – to put themselves in the other guy’s shoes. Today this is not happening. This is why the current situation is so unstable and dangerous. Washington is not interested in resolving conflicts; in fact, it only inflames them, i.e. Syria, Ukraine and the South China Sea. More broadly, Americans refuse to recognize that Russia has its own national security interests – its own “red lines.” The Kremlin has resigned itself to having to deal with an interlocutor that is deaf and dumb. Russia is preparing for the worst. Q.: How to do you respond to the claim that Russia is determined to undermine NATO, western alliances, and return to the Middle East as a major player? Is Putin’s Russia determined to restore the power and influence of the Soviet Union? A.: We have to remember the Cold War was never properly ended. Mikhail Gorbachev naively believed Washington would keep its word (a gentlemen’s agreement given verbally – not in writing) NATO would not move eastward with the dissolution of the Warsaw Part. Russia was lied to. NATO did expand eastward and does pose a security threat to Russia. The Kremlin reflects on this every single day as it is endlessly accused of behaving “aggressively.” Does Russia want to see NATO collapsed or reformed in a way that identifies 21^st century security realities? Of course it does. This is acting like a rational nation-state actor. When it comes to the Middle East, it is clear what is happening. Washington has shown itself to be erratic, incredibly violent, and unreliable. Too much of America’s foreign policy behavior is influenced by its unholy alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia – countries that are only security liabilities for the U.S., its alliance partners in the Middle East and further afield. The illegal regime change in Iraq and the other wars of choice in the region have all ended in disastrous failures. Russia doesn’t want to see the same to happen in Syria. Doing so has made Russia an enemy of the west. Washington’s plans to overthrow the secular regime in Damascus are nothing less than insanity. On the issue of re-building the Soviet Union or Russian Empire: this is fantasy. Russia was a net loser in the Soviet Union. There are many Russians who do miss the Soviet Union, but not for its empire. They miss certainty and stability – the all-encompassing welfare state. The vast majority of Russians never give Estonia a thought. Even if a majority of Estonians voted to join Russia, I bet the vast majority of Russians would say no. Russian designs on the Baltic States are a western media illusion. Q.: Why does the west’s media portray Russia as an enemy if you say Russia has no interest in a conflict? A.: What Russia is, does and says is really not at issue – Russia is merely a bit player in a much greater drama. Washington’s obsession with Russia is about how America sees its place in the world – and that place is at the center. It must have sway everywhere and all the time. Once this hegemonic practice faces resistance all resources are marshaled to assault this “threat.” Because Russia has the resources and will to resist it is automatically labeled an enemy. All the more so as Russia conducts its foreign policy based on its defined interests – this course infuriates Washington’s foreign policy establishment, particularly when the U.S. goes from one policy failure to another. Someone has to be blamed! Just read some of the statements coming from Defense Secretary Ash Carter and State Secretary John Kerry – “if Russia agrees,” if the Russians only cooperated” etc. Translation: Russia doesn’t do what it is told. Viewed from Moscow, Washington acts like an addicted and violent adolescent who can’t accept being told “no.” Q.: What are the chances the simmering conflict in Ukraine will escalate? Is this where a hot conflict could start? What about Syria? A.: I have mentioned elsewhere Ukraine could be used as a kind of “October Surprise” in the American presidential campaign – start a war in Ukraine and then blame Russia. The Kiev regime has already signaled it is more than willing to play its part. The recent incident in Crimea is a message to me the American public is being prepared to be inflamed to justify a NATO intervention. This will result in utter failure. Crimea is now part of Russia. The Kremlin will have no choice but to use ALL means available to it to protect Russian sovereignty. An attack on Crimea will ignite a conflict that could escalate into a general war – including the use of nuclear weapons. Regarding Syria: we already know a Clinton presidency will target Syria for regime change starting the first day of the new administration. Any attack on Syria will also be designed to undermine and end Russia’s legal intervention there. Again, this is very risky. It needs to be remembered Washington only attacks countries that cannot defend themselves. Syria with Russian and Iranian support is something completely different. Syria has the will and means to resist. And I have no doubt Syria and its allies are preparing for such an eventuality. Q.: You say it is Washington that desires a conflict with Russia, so what can Russia do? A.: Russia will keep doing what it has been doing – preparing for a conflict. There is no evidence Washington is interested in negotiations to resolve conflicts. It won’t force its client state Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements, thus maintaining conditions for a greater conflict with Russia. The U.S. and its NATO allies continue to aid and protect terrorist groups in Syria. Washington is far more interested in removing Assad from power – and the Islamic State is a useful tool toward that end. One thing I am convinced of: if the west continues on the path of direct military conflict, it will eventually happen. Confronted to with an overwhelming existential threat Russia will resist and will be determined not to be defeated. It is up to Washington – it must decide whether it wants to pursue another war of choice. Peter Lavelle is host of RT’s political debate program CrossTalk. His views may or may not reflect those of his employer. The post 5 questions for Peter Lavelle: Does Russia want war? (http://theduran.com/5-questions-peter-lavelle-russia-want-war/) appeared first on The Duran (http://theduran.com) .

1 0

Die Zeit interviews Appelbaum ioerror
by grarpamp 21 Aug '16

21 Aug '16

http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-allegations-contradi… Inconsistencies have emerged in the allegations of rape and sexual assault against American Internet activist Jacob Appelbaum. Reporting by the weekly newspaper DIE ZEIT shows there is considerable doubt about the veracity of the claims. Tracking mentions... https://github.com/Enegnei/JacobAppelbaumLeavesTor

9 36

MotherJones: My Four Months As A Private Prison Guard
by grarpamp 21 Aug '16

21 Aug '16

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-corrections… ...One of the other inmates on suicide watch, who's been silent until now, starts yelling through his food slot. "World war!" he shouts. "I got some niggas who need to tell the CIA something, since they already got their eye in the sky, the satellite orbiting in space processing global information." His voice has a demonic quality to it and he occasionally hits the plexiglass to punctuate his sentences. The CO sitting directly across from him twiddles his thumbs and gazes ahead blankly...

2 2

Fwd: [Cryptography] UK report on "Bulk Powers Review" of GCHQ interception
by grarpamp 21 Aug '16

21 Aug '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 11:47:48 -0700 Subject: [Cryptography] UK report on "Bulk Powers Review" of GCHQ interception To: cryptography(a)metzdowd.com, gnu(a)toad.com BBC news - Britain's spies should be allowed to continue harvesting large amounts of data from emails, the government's reviewer of terror legislation has said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37130455 UK Government report: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5… John _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

1 0

Fwd: [tor-talk] Did Australian Authorities hack (US) computers with Tor's help?
by grarpamp 21 Aug '16

21 Aug '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chris <tmail299(a)errtech.com> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 21:06:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Did Australian Authorities hack (US) computers with Tor's help? To: tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org On 2016-08-20 06:54 PM, tortalk(a)arcor.de wrote: > Hi! > > I found two articles which may have something in common. 1. Some Tor > users (29.000) got deanonymized by authorities while up/downloading > childporn. 2. Someone claims that "Tor suddenly dump over 30 > megabloats of steaming faeces onto a file system on exit". > 1. Is it just a question of time when other deanonymisations will come > public? > https://motherboard.vice.com/read/australian-authorities-hacked-computers-i… > "Australian Authorities Hacked Computers in the US > Written by Joseph Cox Contributor > August 15, 2016 // 10:10 AM EST > ... > By the very virtue of the investigation, Australian authorities likely > would not have known where the computer they wanted to hack was > located; indeed, that was the exact problem that the Tor network > presented. > > Whether the Australian authorities hacked computers in other > countries remains unclear. > > It is unclear on what authority Australian law enforcement obtained a > warrant, or whether one was obtained at all to gather IP addresses > from Piccolo and others in the US. Task Force Argos declined to answer > any questions or comment for this story. > ... > Whether using a hacking tool to grab the real IP address of a Tor user > constitutes a search in a legal sense has recently become a > contentious issue in the US. Several judges have said that suspects do > not have a reasonable expectation of privacy around their IP address > when using the Tor network, meaning that it is not protected by the > Fourth Amendment, and a hack grabbing it would not require a warrant. > The Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as some courts, have > argued otherwise. The article seems to suggest that those taking proper security precautions would not have been impacted by this exploit. Users are warned that opening external files can compromise their security. In this case it was apparently a video file. If Tails has been designed properly this should not have been a problem for Tails users. I have not recently examined Tails, but from my understanding, in the past all traffic was routed through Tor. This would have included the video player. Most likely in that scenario if the exploit worked on Tails it would have only provided an IP address of a Tor exit node [which is not a privacy threat]. That was changed in a later version of Tails to drop traffic instead because it posed a security risk [maybe, I think most users would probably have been fine behind a NAT network assuming Tails is designed well]. This attack vector would not have worked in Tails for that reason. Now it also most likely would not have worked because the exploit almost certainly targets Microsoft's media player. The exploit (if you can call it that, given it's not designed to be privacy friendly and doesn't open up the media player or system to remote access, etc) is either a known problem that has never been fixed (not entirely sure it is an issue from a security perspective, though it is from a privacy perspective) or a new problem that should have been on the radar of any developer designing a secure privacy friendly operating system [which Microsoft Windows is not]. Microsoft Windows is a threat to your security. All proprietary software is a threat. Intel and AMD are a threat to your security. There is remote control functionality built into every Intel and AMD CPU since 2009 and 2013. It would naive to think that US companies AMD and Intel have not been ordered to insert a backdor. Intel and AMD will not release the code and have signed these components such that even if they were reversed engineered the user can't load a backdoor free version of the software. The answer to the problem is in crowd funding a new standard that has been in the works for years that modularizes critical components into a 'computer card'. By doing this it gives computer designers a less expensive way to design backdoor-free computing devices. It also lets us utilize non-Intel/AMD designed CPUs from Chinese companies. Now this is not to say China isn't a threat to users privacy and security. We know about backdoors in homegrown Chinese designed laptops. The difference is the backdoors were inserted in keyboard controller firmwares and were dependent on an OS level component to work. By modularizing the design it was possible to produce a laptop (the first ever) that we can be reasonably confident is NSA/Chinese/Russian/etc backdoor free. The keyboard and LCD controller is based off work for which we have the complete set of source code. The equivalent microcode/firmware for CPU related components are available. There is no BIOS and the bootloader and other critical driver related components we have the complete set of source code for. There are only five days left of the campaign. It is important that people contribute to it. The concept needs to succeed if we want to eventually have devices that we can be reasonably confident are secure from government(s) and other criminal elements. Here is that crowd funding campaign: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68 * The people behind the project are more trustworthy than the people behind some other crowd supply campaigns. The FSF has worked with Luke (lead engineer) on ensuring the complete set of code is available. It's also the case that all code is available unlike past RYF laptops (for which there has been valid criticisms, particularly from a security stand point). Now this doesn't make this device secure in and of itself. There is a lot that has to happen. This is only going to result in a base that can be used build truly secure and privacy friendly devices. More work needs to be done at porting key software to ARM, increasing the user base to a point where fingerprinting is less effective, etc. There are significant hurdles to overcome. > " > 2. The author embedded a list of his findings in his article. > http://rixstep.com/2/2/20160817,00.shtml > "Tor 6.0.4 > ... > Why does Tor suddenly dump over 30 megabloats of steaming faeces onto > a file system on exit? > ... > Most of the junk left behind comes from an EFF extension, but this > extension has been used all along, and it serves no purpose to copy > the data out to yet another location. If this is caused by an error at > EFF, why hasn't this been corrected?" If I had to guess it's probably a bug causing some component (the plug-in) to crash. It's not abnormal for reports to be generated after a crash and written to disk. There are good reasons users whom are at serious risk should run Tails and not the Tor Browser Bundle. Tails is designed to ensure nothing gets recorded to disk (especially unencrypted). The only exception I'm aware of is related to storing data on Tor entry nodes to thwart certain types of attack (it's possible other exceptions exist). Other data can be saved to encrypted partitions. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

1 0

Re: Revolt Against Tor Over Rape Claims, Process, Board, Etc
by Zenaan Harkness 21 Aug '16

21 Aug '16

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 07:27:48PM -0400, S wrote offlist: > Doesn't it prove that Tor is awesome when state level entities are > using Tor for their comms and hiding among the traffic. Not sure how > that is a bad thing as it shows how good the Tor network is at what it > does not the other way around. Everyone has their own agendas. Let to > each their own. Tor, as Juan has pointed out so many times, is developed on only so far as the USA govt can still maintain a GPA ability. This means that technically, for some things we can "hide amongst the traffic" but only if our own chosen speech is not objected to by the USA state. Or, unless our personal op-sec is really really good. And so Tor network as it stands today is one sided - in favour of the USA government, at least in respect of certain types of speech which are very important to a sane world. In other words, the rot/crap needs to be improved, and the "community cathartic experience" of the breakdown happening in Tor community and Tor Inc is a very good thing - because, it is only the really important free speech which matters in the long term (think survival of the species etc). Accepting fundamental compromises to our principles is not the punk way - at least, it's not my way. HTH ..

1 0

Tor being forked.
by xxyyzz＠tuta.io 20 Aug '16

20 Aug '16

For those who have suggested it there's already plans and a roadmap for the fork of Tor. Two concurrent networks which are compatible with a singular browser would greatly diversify the ecosystem and give users more choice. At this point this is the only way forward imo. More info: https://rotorbrowser.com

7 11