- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Meet the iMarker, Russian targeted ad service which analyze your traffic on ISP side
by Anton Nesterov 09 Jan '15

09 Jan '15

How it works? ISPs install the iMarker equipment and mirror all user's traffic on it (Russian surveillance system, SORM, works the same way). Software takes time, URL and HTTP Headers from HTTP requests. Then scraper with IP 92.242.35.54 and User-Agent WebIndex follow every visited URL and analyze its content. All this information used to build a profile for user. They says that information is removed right after analysis, and software saves only result of that analysis. Their website lists that they categorize users by search queries, online shopping activity, time of visits, activity on social networks, keywords on visited pages, visited websites, social-demographic info, such as sex, age, marital status, and education level, and then they use that data to distribute users for consumers groups. Every user has some kind of pseudonymous ID with linked profile. It's also has an opt-out option http://www.imrk.net/status How many users affected? They says it's 38 million people all over Russia. Minister of Communication Nikolay Nikiforov said in 2014 there was 62 million people in Russia using Internet, 56m of them do it every day, so it's 61% of Russian Internet users. iMarker's website list Akado, Rostelecom, ER-Telecom, NetByNet, Qwerty, and TTK as ISPs that installed iMarker's equipment. How to check if this affects you? If you are a client of Russian ISP, you can check it here http://imarker.valdikss.org.ru If you own a webserver, grep the logs for connections from 92.242.35.54. How do check script works? It generate a random link and wait for 3 seconds for connection from iMarker's IP address. How long iMarker works? Company start work on January 2010, commercial sells started on August 2011. http://imarker.valdikss.org.ru/ — script that checks if your ISP use iMarker http://www.vedomosti.ru/tech/news/15669231/bolshoj-reklamnyj-brat — report on iMarker from 2013, says they are ready to provide free DPI to ISPs in exchange of user's data (Russian) http://sporaw.livejournal.com/347832.html — blog post quoting private mails from iMarker's crew (Russian) http://www.imrk.net/privacy — TOS (Russian) http://habrahabr.ru/post/247465/ — blog post about iMarker (Russian) http://www.imarker.ru/ — iMarker website (Russian) http://www.imrk.net/status — opt-out page (Russian) http://minsvyaz.ru/ru/news/index.php?id_4=44571 — Nikiforov's statement on number of Russian Internet users (Russian) -- https://nesterov.pw GPG key: 0CE8 65F1 9043 2B11 25A5 74A7 1187 6869 67AA 56E4 https://keybase.io/komachi/key.asc

3 2

Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...]
by grarpamp 09 Jan '15

09 Jan '15

> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey(a)cathalgarvey.me> wrote: > > However, sorry, but I'll continue emailing as I always have done; if I > come from a different internet culture to you, and if top-posting is > anathema to you but not I, that's just ... lazy. You know the history and reasons the internet has against top posting, especially on newgroups and mailing lists. You and everyone else top posting are just lazy culture at the expense/abuse of other people, in particular the brain power needed to decipher your messages in both direction and context. Stop wasting hundreds of other people's cycles and invest some of your own. Learn trimming and interleaving replies, google it, make your mail art, not dog shit. (: shitter a as but asses lazy your to cost no it's all After. off else everyone pissing on keep, want all you what that's if But.

7 9

Re: cypherpunks Digest, Vol 19, Issue 11
by John Elicker 08 Jan '15

08 Jan '15

Please unsubscribe On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:00 AM, <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: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (grarpamp) > 2. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (Cathal (Phone)) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 04:26:15 -0500 > From: grarpamp <grarpamp(a)gmail.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org > Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > Message-ID: > <CAD2Ti2_= > de+t7C3swNoJW9jx8kGJu9P2M_1bhauZ9P3xHvf30Q(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Ted Smith <tedks(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 11:33 +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote: > >> The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of the > >> work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. > >> Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the > >> ultra-short > >> "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't > > Probably because their model and vision is different, they're > not really out to modify the world beyond saying "here you > go, it's free", only out to modify the code, so they've little > interest in legal longtexts or lawyers. > > >> terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be. > > > > The GPLv3+ contains this sort of patent protection > > Section 10, last paragraph, last part. Don't know if that has been tested > in court as other parts have been in the news. And all of paragraph 11, > which grants patents. > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > >> Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply > >> removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does not > >> mean that the total freedom in the world has increased. > > > > BSD advocates, I think, are not interested in total freedom in the > > world. This is a CONSEQUENCE or OUTCOME of a choice, not the choice > > itself. > > > boils down to consequentialist morals on the GPL side, and deontological > > or rule-based morals on the BSD side. > > Yes, depends on definition of freedom. Unfortunately GPL and BSD people > seem define that differently. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:40:37 +0000 > From: "Cathal (Phone)" <cathalgarvey(a)cathalgarvey.me> > To: grarpamp <grarpamp(a)gmail.com>, cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org > Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > Message-ID: <249E482B-33E1-4653-B035-8D06B083F6AB(a)cathalgarvey.me> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I don't think it's unfortunate, I think it's complementary. GPL is > valuable for trailblazing and stamping.out new territory because it > prevents E3, BSD is valuable because it helps shitty tech companies migrate > to standards that aren't total snakeoil. Between the two, the world > improves. Obviously I think GPL is better and more important, but that > doesn't mean I disparage or undervalue other open work. > > On 8 January 2015 09:26:15 GMT+00:00, grarpamp <grarpamp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Ted Smith <tedks(a)riseup.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 11:33 +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote: > >>> The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of > >the > >>> work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. > >>> Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the > >>> ultra-short > >>> "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't > > > >Probably because their model and vision is different, they're > >not really out to modify the world beyond saying "here you > >go, it's free", only out to modify the code, so they've little > >interest in legal longtexts or lawyers. > > > >>> terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be. > >> > >> The GPLv3+ contains this sort of patent protection > > > >Section 10, last paragraph, last part. Don't know if that has been > >tested > >in court as other parts have been in the news. And all of paragraph 11, > >which grants patents. > > > >https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > > >>> Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply > >>> removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does > >not > >>> mean that the total freedom in the world has increased. > >> > >> BSD advocates, I think, are not interested in total freedom in the > >> world. This is a CONSEQUENCE or OUTCOME of a choice, not the choice > >> itself. > > > >> boils down to consequentialist morals on the GPL side, and > >deontological > >> or rule-based morals on the BSD side. > > > >Yes, depends on definition of freedom. Unfortunately GPL and BSD people > >seem define that differently. > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >

5 4

Re: cypherpunks Digest, Vol 19, Issue 9
by John Elicker 08 Jan '15

08 Jan '15

Please unsubscribe On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:00 AM, <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: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (Cathal Garvey) > 2. Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (Mark Steward) > 3. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (grarpamp) > 4. Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (Cathal Garvey) > 5. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > (Georgi Guninski) > 6. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (Cathal Garvey) > 7. Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (Griffin Boyce) > 8. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (grarpamp) > 9. What is offtopic and what should be avoided on this list? > (Georgi Guninski) > 10. Re: Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (stef) > 11. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > (Georgi Guninski) > 12. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > (Georgi Guninski) > 13. Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (grarpamp) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:21:42 +0000 > From: Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey(a)cathalgarvey.me> > To: cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org > Subject: Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] > Message-ID: <54AD08B6.1070603(a)cathalgarvey.me> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > You know the history and reasons the internet has against top > > posting, especially on newgroups and mailing lists. > > I know the reasons but they don't apply to me, nor to a growing majority > of users who don't use text-only clients. Most clients these days are > pre-configured to hide replied-to text unless directly quoted, making > pre-quoted text actually more irritating than sub-quoted. > > Despite this, I *do* use text-only mode, and nevertheless find scrolling > down to find replies inline irksome. > > So, as I mentioned previously, this is a cultural difference; I find > your preferred mode annoying, and you find mine annoying. Tough; you > don't own the internet, and neither do I. I won't waste my time > conforming to your expectations, and you won't to mine. So we get over > it and move on. > > ..did you really call top-posting "abuse of other people"? Dude, get > some perspective! > > On 07/01/15 10:07, grarpamp wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Cathal Garvey < > cathalgarvey(a)cathalgarvey.me> wrote: > >> > >> However, sorry, but I'll continue emailing as I always have done; if I > >> come from a different internet culture to you, and if top-posting is > >> anathema to you but not I, that's just > > > > ... lazy. > > > > You know the history and reasons the internet has against top > > posting, especially on newgroups and mailing lists. You and everyone > > else top posting are just lazy culture at the expense/abuse of other > > people, in particular the brain power needed to decipher your > > messages in both direction and context. Stop wasting hundreds of > > other people's cycles and invest some of your own. Learn trimming > > and interleaving replies, google it, make your mail art, not dog shit. > > > > (: shitter a as but > > asses lazy your > > to cost no it's > > all After. off else > > everyone pissing on > > keep, want all you > > what that's if But. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:37:43 +0000 > From: Mark Steward <marksteward(a)gmail.com> > To: grarpamp <grarpamp(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org" <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> > Subject: Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] > Message-ID: > < > CAPyX2ncw3jDRW43TvK8OA5+FE43TX8orPQG3wnKSczRO07d7ZQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > UNSUBSCRIBE > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Cathal Garvey < > > cathalgarvey(a)cathalgarvey.me> wrote: > > > > > > However, sorry, but I'll continue emailing as I always have done; if I > > > come from a different internet culture to you, and if top-posting is > > > anathema to you but not I, that's just > > > > ... lazy. > > > > You know the history and reasons the internet has against top > > posting, especially on newgroups and mailing lists. You and everyone > > else top posting are just lazy culture at the expense/abuse of other > > people, in particular the brain power needed to decipher your > > messages in both direction and context. Stop wasting hundreds of > > other people's cycles and invest some of your own. Learn trimming > > and interleaving replies, google it, make your mail art, not dog shit. > > > > (: shitter a as but > > asses lazy your > > to cost no it's > > all After. off else > > everyone pissing on > > keep, want all you > > what that's if But. > > >

1 0

What the hell can be done with this trinity?
by Badbiosvictim 06 Jan '15

06 Jan '15

USPS interdiction of routers, computers, packages and mail has little over sight. USPS attempted to censor report of failure to follow safeguards. https://politico.com/story/2014/06/snail-mail-snopping-safeguards-not-follo… >From: " Александр " <afalex169(a)gmail.com> >From the "Spiegel" article > >If all else fails, the NSA and its allies resort to brute force: >> 1. They hack their target's computers/ >> 2. >> >> They hack Internet routers to get to the secret encryption/ >> 3. T >> >> hey intercept computers on the way to their targets, open them and >insert >> spy gear before they even reach their destination. > > >Ok. Nothing new. > >But what the hell can be done with this trinity? >

3 4

John Gilmore: Cryptography list is censoring my emails
by John Young 05 Jan '15

05 Jan '15

http://cryptome.org/2014/12/gilmore-crypto-censored.htm

4 3

Re: full year 2014 corpus
by coderman 03 Jan '15

03 Jan '15

> ... > "This is a trap, witting and unwitting. > Do not use it or use at own risk. > Source and this host is out to pwon and phuck you in complicity > with global Internet authorities. > > Signed Batshit Cryptome and Host, > ^H^H^H^H Dec 2014 it is: 47G, 63504 files, sig attached. https://peertech.org/files/fy2014lst.txt hidden service distribution to begin soon. we'll be collecting and reporting on performance results obtained. e.g. https://bugs.torproject.org/8902

1 0

Re: [Cryptography] New Encryption Standard of the Russian Federation GOST Grasshopper
by grarpamp 03 Jan '15

03 Jan '15

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:39 PM, ianG <iang(a)iang.org> wrote: > On 2/01/2015 11:37 am, Eric Filiol wrote: >> The Russian Federation has recently published (in Russian only) the >> tchnical description of its new Encryption Standard. >> I have translated the document into English and implemented this >> algorithm in C (under GPLv3). >> http://cvo-lab.blogspot.fr/2015/01/the-new-gost-standard-from-russian.html > > *Interesting* and it would be very interesting to hear what the real > cryptographers think of the Russian cryptographer's invention! Good work! So there are no real Russian cryptos? Umm. > fair and open competition) did the net voluntarily swing to AES. The competition was part of the swing, so was govt's saying AES(256) was good for TOP SECRET (not that they use it over their own suites), so was it's speed/hardware/simplicity. > What do people say? Should GOST be supported in SSL? Is there any merit in > the "national government mandates" argument? There are govt laws for what the govt itself will only use. (Are you going to not sell to and profit from that govt?) There are govt laws for what the populace will only use. (Are you going to jail for breaking that ban, or will you bow?) There are paths between all the laws for what obediant users can use. And rebels will use whatever they want. If you personally use crap ciphers, that's your own problem. If you support (absent force of law) crap ciphers, or more than the best few in each class such that community has no time to properly analyze them all, that's a community problem. If you don't resist crap law, crap ciphers, or the spawning of endless new ciphers of the month just because, that's a community problem.

2 1

Snowden docs show none are originals of spies
by John Young 31 Dec '14

31 Dec '14

PDF properties of Snowden docs show none are originals of spies. Likely sanitized-redacted by Snowden/outlets, originals need open scrutiny.

2 1

Snowden Paywalled
by John Young 31 Dec '14

31 Dec '14

Free: 577,131 documents (millions of pages) informing public debate: https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/ Paywalled: Snowden: 3,361 pp of 58K-1.7M files: http://cryptome.org/2013/11/snowden-tally.htm

2 1