- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: why we need more cryptome mirrors, in all corners
by John Young 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

And, best, no pun, every mirror unique and as flawed as their makers, like none other, especially differing from the source and its makers. Mirrors are mirrors, like originals, are always illusory and evermore changing and degrading -- with crypto and comsec and infosec. Archives, drops, mirrors, crypto, USBs, AWstats, leaks, Wiki fools gold. This forum a grain of a great Sahara. From these grains mirrors of mirrors of mirrors. Forsoothed Alice to narcissistic Bob. At 06:45 PM 10/11/2015, you wrote: >On 10/10/15, Shelley <shelley(a)misanthropia.org> wrote: > > ... > > The Cryptome archives *are* publicly accessible. John limits bots and > > leechers to a certain number of files per day (as is his right, he is > > paying for the bandwidth), approx 100 iirc, but anyone who can use search > > strings can find anything on the site. > > >it is exceptionally difficult, short of ordering physical duplicates, >to obtain a significant portion of cryptome archive from cryptome.org. > >part of this is inherent abuse - any mirror gets serious algorithmic >beatings - akin to HackingTeam mirrors perhaps, not counting the >mindless cloud VM bot walkers, annoying enough. even the hidden >service only mirrors got offensive proddings. remember, some of >cryptome-opponents are relying on obscurity - thwarted every time some >makes a mirror... > >for this, i am quite grateful to see the archive.org natsec section >expanded with cryptome mirror! >https://archive.org/details/nationalsecurityarchive > >thanks to all involved (esp. you, Michael :) > > >best regards,

1 0

Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers? or did they ... !!! [ plot twist ]
by coderman 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

On 10/11/15, Dr. J Feinstein <drjfeinstein(a)mail.com> wrote > So how the fuckd this really happen? your error is assuming there are only two parties in this equation: JYA and netsol. your secondary fallacy involves netsol as solitary, singular entity of one action and awareness. how'd this not get fucked harder, is the question. (or did it? :) best regards,

2 1

Ubiquitous AWStats Not the Worst
by John Young 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

Presumably cybersec wizards have warned about the ubiquity of AWStats and access log files online, or maybe not, just quietly exploit them. There are hundreds of thousands listed on Google's. tip of the iceberg. Beyond the simplistic AWStats and access logs to snapshot traffic for the amateur pryer, peddler and peeper, there are those which log much more about visitors' behavior, desires, secrets, hook-ups, adulteries, informing, cheating, avoiding, perambulating among personal device records, types and models of equipment, passwords, attempts to anonymize, encrypt, hide, evade. Search engines, social media, TLAs, archives, drops, clouds, server farms, corporations, NGOs, AVs, Gorgon-headed bots, heavily-followed and handsomely paid Schneier-Mitnick-grade global traveling gov-advising security entrepreneurs are hardly alone in aggregating users nonchalant share of data for those running their own Amazons of quick supply to media, advertisers, spies, govs, invest vultures, In-Q-Tel, oligarchs, and to swap with others operating in rogue nations and below and beyond the superficial Dark web. Presumably there is material in the Snowden dump, or withheld by Snowden to "not harm national security," which shows the great range of data available for grabbing, manipulating, exploiting, bargaining, ransoming, doctoring, pre-positioning, threatening, monetizing, shaping economic and political policies. And what similar holdings are held by the opposition in a stand-off of first use of digital mutual destruction.

3 2

Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their payingcustomers?
by wirelesswarrior＠Safe-mail.net 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

Despite almost two decades of cypherpunk activity I cannot fathom why U.S. residents operate sites clearly in the cross-hairs of intel agencies. Have they never heard of non-resident nominee officers and directors? All U.S. resident people dealing with the site should be bona fide contractors so they aren't subject to either receiving or implementing court orders or NSLs. -------- Original Message -------- From: bbrewer <bbrewer(a)littledystopia.net> Apparently from: cypherpunks-bounces(a)cpunks.org To: Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org>, cryptome <cryptome(a)freelists.org> Subject: Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their payingcustomers? Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:30:00 -0400 > > > On Oct 11, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Anyway to rule this out other than hearing it from John? How long before we begin to seriously consider it or assume it? > > > > And if there was a NSL, why not shut down? Why put users at ongoing risk?? > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit > > "Levison said that he could be arrested for closing the site instead of releasing the information, and it was reported that the federal prosecutor's office had sent Levison's lawyer an e-mail to that effect.” > > I’m just blabbering on suppositions here, but I wouldn’t be surprised by… anything. > > -benjamin

1 0

Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?
by Michael Best 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

Used to be you'd be accused of being COINTELPRO, now it's JTRIG. "Differing opinion"? Almost never an option. Different=wrong-bad-evil-enemy-hate-suspect-accuse. On technical issues, I'm definitely a neophyte, but I'd been in contact with JYA for quite sometime, he'd published a few documents I supplied and shared many links on twitter. You'd think that would get him to look at the data before smearing me. As for off-message? That's a spin term. I'm not anti-authoritarian enough, I guess - that's quite possible by some standards. On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:43 PM, <cypherpunks-request(a)cpunks.org> wrote: > Send cypherpunks mailing list submissions to > cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cypherpunks-request(a)cpunks.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cypherpunks-owner(a)cpunks.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cypherpunks digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (Razer) > 2. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (bbrewer) > 3. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (Shelley) > 4. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (John Young) > 5. Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers? > (Alfie John) > 6. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (Michael Best) > 7. Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers? > (Dr. J Feinstein) > 8. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (Dr. J Feinstein) > 9. Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers? > (Travis Biehn) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:25:03 -0700 > From: Razer <Rayzer(a)riseup.net> > To: cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org > Subject: Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? > Message-ID: <561AC59F.9070508(a)riseup.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > > On 10/11/2015 01:04 PM, Michael Best wrote: > > That would explain keeping silent, *NOT* making up lies about me and > > saying the data is fake. > > I'm not going to make JYA's argument here, even if what's been assumed > is fact, but the strategy would be a stall at least with the potential > for redirection from the 'dead canary' hypothesis because it's typical > for people to explode into useless flame wars over the 'leakage' instead > of giving serious thought beyond ego/profit motives to why the leak > occurred. > > But, as a notable scientist once said... "Yes, but the whole point of > the warrant canary is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell > the world, eh!?!" > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmCKJi3CKGE > >

2 1

Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?
by Shelley 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

On October 11, 2015 10:05:29 AM lucas power <power.lucas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Also seems to be geared toward individuals monetizing blogs and such, which > to my thinking are just scraps from Big Data's table. I'm more interested > in understanding how something like me using gmail provides google with a > product to sell on to a corp or govt actor. How are valuations reached, how > are transactions structured? Not Google specifically, but here is one example of the highly invasive tracking of much, much more than web logs: https://www.propublica.org/article/verizons-zombie-cookie-gets-new-life "Verizon is giving a new mission to its controversial identifier that tracks users that tracks users of mobile devices. Verizon said in a little noticed announcement that it will soon begin sharing the profiles with AOL's ad network, which in turn monitors users across a large swath of the Internet. That means AOL's ad network will be able to match millions of Internet users to their real-world details gathered by Verizon, including "your gender, age range and interests." AOL's network is on 40 percent of websites, including on ProPublica. AOL will also be able to use data from Verizon's identifier to track the apps that mobile users open, what sites they visit, and for how long. Verizon purchased AOL earlier this year." More at the link, plus previous reports on the Verizon zombie cookie. -Shelley > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > That site doesn't mention anything about web logs or IP addresses. =( > > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> wrote: > > > >> Maybe try Google with this search phrase: > >> > >> "How to monetize your website" for 400,000 hits. > >> > >> Omit the quotes for 5 million hits. > >> > >> Quick overview: > >> > >> 33 Ways To Monetize your Website > >> > >> http://websitesetup.org/33-ways-to-monetize-website/ > >> > >> The best way is to have your filthy rich relative buy your solution > >> to immortality. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >

1 0

Why not P2P yet, Iceland, and "legal shit" [and: Cryptome's Diapers Leaking :-]
by grarpamp 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed but we do still have pirate bay TPB is a long since sold and sold out third party joke of what it once was. Moreover, Iceland, Sweden, whatever for TPB itself... it never protected users, because torrenting protocol the clearnet cannot protect users. For that, torrenters MUST rehome themselves exclusively to the darknets. I2P and Phantom and even Tor and so forth would work reasonably well for that against corporate MAFIAA attacks. But torrenters are stupid. And it is the role of cpunks to provide designs for such capable darknets. > and the drug pushing parasites Yes, on I2P and Tor, lol. But note, save maybe openbazaar P2P alikes, people are vain, so real P2P is not popular for them to do as it removes their fame and control via their would be central sevices. This is why real P2P hasn't taken off. Imagine a truly P2P Uber / Lyft... it doesn't exist because everyone who thinks it up wants a cut, at which point they are middlemen and not true [anon] P2P. > Icelandic servers have a base of security because of the structure of law Blah blah blah. How many and which treaties and partnerships, both front and backdoor and silent, are Iceland's Government and country party to? How strong is your adversary? Oh, now you have a problem once you strip off the Iceland publicity bullshit. If Iceland were something special you'd see them openly advertising forbidden hosting, not necessarily for themselves, but for foreigners. And if it were a free country internally, they'd advertise it for themselves. Silly laws, and mores. Ain't no bases there. > Legal shit has ramifications Real independant legal shit is seriously fucking hard to achieve. >> > > John's replies appear weird to me. >> > i find that understanding of John's replies is best achieved through a >> > structured series of mind altering substances ingested, inhaled, or Cryptome is a unique character worthy of respect and dialogue should you have the chance. An honor it would be in fact. While the technicals of cryptome.org and its parentage could perhaps make use of review. On the other hand, they are uniquely Cryptome. >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE Lol.

3 4

[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
by Michael Best 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

> > If that's true, JYA was being either unimaginably stupid, or > unimaginably weird. Still, there was no need to publish the logs just to > make a point. Redacted excerpts and hashes of the files would have been > enough, no? True and documented, and as I said in my last email - I DID REDACT THEM. John *still* denied they were real and accused me of faking them. On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:25 PM, <cypherpunks-request(a)cpunks.org> wrote: > Send cypherpunks mailing list submissions to > cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cypherpunks-request(a)cpunks.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cypherpunks-owner(a)cpunks.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cypherpunks digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [cryptome] Cryptome has been leaking its user logs for > over a year (coderman) > 2. Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] (Shelley) > 3. Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Yay: [cryptome] (coderman) > 4. Re: [cryptome] Cryptome has been leaking its user logs for > over a year (Mirimir) > 5. Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] (Mirimir) > 6. [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] (Michael Best) > 7. Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] (Shelley) > 8. Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] (Mirimir) > 9. Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] (Michael Best) > 10. Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] (Mirimir) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:28:42 -0700 > From: coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com> > To: Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org > Subject: Re: [cryptome] Cryptome has been leaking its user logs for > over a year > Message-ID: > < > CAJVRA1RoJBTn4OaOXYKcHtyS7LwxGThpqMr5Tud4KwHUEPvFdw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On 10/9/15, coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > > 0eb8551d977dde4f4193b3a16dedcd18f01e854e371e96623d33dd5b9519e413 > USB-1.rar > > > see attached. then xref with Tor exit db :P > > > best regards, >

6 12

Cryptome has been leaking its user logs for over a year
by Michael Best 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

16 44

Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?
by Michael Best 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

> > If Mike had uploaded them without full inspection, no problem. But, as I > understand the narrative, he knowingly uploaded them. I found them after uploading them, as I and the Daily Dot article said. He discovered the files when he uploaded the contents of the sticks to the > Internet Archive, Best told the Daily Dot in a Twitter message. “Scrolling > down through the list, I found about a hundred awstats log files listed in > a row,” he said, referring to Cryptome analytics data. On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> wrote: > To prove the GCHQ slide could've been fake, getting John to fix the leak > and stop calling me a liar. Same as I've said all along. How is that > implausible? > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Razer <Rayzer(a)riseup.net> wrote: > >> Got it. Totally altruistic motivation... >> >> >> On 10/10/2015 01:46 PM, Michael Best wrote: >> >> "Any money" is still more than I'll make off this. My only compensation >> is a headache from ridiculous accusations. >> >> Any chance you hold this same standard to Snowden and consider his press >> coverage as >> "an ongoing for-profit commercial motivation as redistributor" for the >> NSA docs? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Oct 10, 2015, at 16:39, Razer <Rayzer(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/10/2015 01:35 PM, Michael Best wrote: >> >> Nope, laughing at someone who has no idea how little a media mention is >> worth in terms of money. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> Yes I do and it depends on how much money you consider 'money'... For >> some, paying the rent is enough. Ask any artist or musician. >> >> RR >> >> >> >> On Oct 10, 2015, at 16:33, Razer < <Rayzer(a)riseup.net>Rayzer(a)riseup.net> >> wrote: >> >> Nervous laugh... >> >> On 10/10/2015 01:32 PM, Michael Best wrote: >> >> I say Best's name's appearance in DailyDot or >>> any other media constitutes an ongoing for-profit commercial motivation >>> as redistributor. >> >> >> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. >> >> >> >> >> >

2 2