- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

Chaining to Julf's remailer
by hal＠alumni.cco.caltech.edu 15 Apr '93

15 Apr '93

On news.admin.policy, a 'nym' called Nowhere, Man called somebody an asshole and told them to fuck off. Someone objected, and Nowhere responded: > You're right, and I'm really sorry if my insults got somebody bent out > of shape. I just think some people deserve to get flamed once in a while. > Also, the mail return address doesn't work becuase this message goes therough > a chain of other remailers before it gets to JUlf's base. So netnews is > the only way to get messages to me. Hey, maybe there should be a board > just for messages to nyms. Crypted, even. How about it, news.admin.policy > phreaks, should we put it to a vote? Nowhere, Man . Apparently it is in fact possible to chain remailers now. I assume that he is chaining through cypherpunks remailers into penet. I'm curious to know which remailer is being used for this purpose? Perhaps we could add a description of how to do this to the documentation. My guess is that "Nowhere" reads this list. Hal

1 0

.....
by trump＠pluto.ee.cua.edu 15 Apr '93

15 Apr '93

ok well i am sure that there are a lot of people out there that want to learn how to do basic cypher/decyphering... so i think it would be nice if people gave their knowledge on how to do decryption... even if its very very basic and perhaps a faq could be made out of this info... Clovis

3 2

Re: alt.whistleblowers
by KINNEY WILLIAM H 15 Apr '93

15 Apr '93

Some comments on alt.whistleblowers from an (up to now) lurker. In brief, this strikes me as being a very foolish idea. In detail: -- Does anyone really think this is going to have much of an effect on anything? My suspicion is that a forum providing unlimited ability for people to anonymously post undocumented accusations against powerful people will be summarily ignored, not just by the targets of the accusations, but by everybody else with an actual life. There seems to be no discussion of the biggest weakness of this idea: the expected signal to noise ratio. This accomplishes nothing if it is overrun by, say, Kennedy asassination loons. It doesn't seem wise to me for the Cypherpunks' first major public act to be something this pointless and ill-conceived. Ok. Suppose I'm wrong about the above, and this thing works like people seem to think it will. -- The tools available to accomplish this task (PGP, remailers, anon servers) are certainly impressive, but I really don't think they're well developed enough yet to give cause for much confidence in taking on the government and the entire U.S. corporate sector in a frontal assault. -- Is this really in line with the purpose of the Cypherpunks? To quote from the charter "Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress." I like this paragraph, and what it says to me is that (a) people are, in the end, responsible for their OWN security and need to be made to realize this, and (b) PATIENCE is the most important prerequisite for success. Both of these principles are being violated by the hasty creation of alt.whistleblowers. This has nothing to do with enabling people to independently achieve data security, and it shows no patience whatsoever. Wouldn't everybody be better served by quiet, patient development and distribution of tools, instead of a huge juvenile "FUCK YOU!" to people who could really care less? Let's not piss away a solid foundation with cheap theatrics. -- Will "Getting people to fight by letting the force of momentum work is like rolling logs and rocks. Logs and rocks are still when in a secure place, but roll on an incline; they remain stationary if square, they roll if round. Therefore, when people are skillfully led into battle, the momentum is like that of round rocks rolling down a high mountain -- this is force." -- Sun Tzu *** PGP PUBLIC KEY AVAILABLE BY FINGER

3 2

WARNING: Forward of unposted alt.config message
by rclark＠nyx.cs.du.edu 14 Apr '93

14 Apr '93

I am sending this here _prior_ to posting it to give advance warning; responses received have varied on the methods of creation of the group, but have largely tended toward a consensus that it is wise to have some sort of discussion period; in addition, I have chosen a cross-post to those groups most likely to have an interest in creating the group, and if this results in a flamewar in alt.config, so be it. After I tally the votes and they vastly outnumber the NOs I will create the newsgroup without further delay. I just wish for people to clarify; sorry if you missed it, but this is going out in four hours exactly to the aforementioned newsgroups. I will implement all important suggestions mailed to me by that time, including alteration of procedural points, wording changes, alteration of Newsgroups: line, etc. I will also delay posting if valid and immediate concerns are brought to light; however, since I leave the major axes: Moderated or unmoderated, length of discussion period, length of voting period, open for discussion, it should not be a disaster if it goes out in its current form. Join the discussion, and if you like the idea, PLEASE send a YES vote only WHEN the Call for Votes is posted. Additionally, suggestions for additions/deletions of Newsgroups from the crosspost, or a more appropriate place to redirect replies, or any suggestions whatever will be adopted if suitable. If you have no interest in the privacy issue, please type 'd' now. ---- Newsgroups: alt.config, alt.privacy, alt.privacy.anon-server, soc.motss, alt.sex, alt.sex.bestiality, alt.drugs, comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac Followup-to: alt.config Subject: Call for discussion: alt.whistleblower In light of the current debate concerning whether anonymous posting can serve a useful purpose, I propose the immediate experiment of creating a group which shall provide a genuinely useful service to the public. This newsgroup is to be called alt.whistleblower, and is for the purpose of allowing those who might otherwise be unwilling to come forward to provide information about the illegal activities of government agencies, large corporations and similar malefactors without fear of illegal reprisals against them. The need for this group is evident in light of the extreme usefulness of information concerning the behavior of the governing bodies of the United States, and the large number of government employees and corporate employees with access to the Internet and anonymous posting services. This group could also include reports of illegal discrimination by those who fear reprisal if they reveal their names, information concerning safety issues by those who know that their company is releasing an unsafe or dangerous product, or defrauding customers by dishonest and illegal means. Considering the immediate need for this newsgroup in light of those who, in many cases, provide services for a fee and then provide an inadequate service by cutting their downstream sites from reading anything that the service-provider deems is inappropriate, I request a waiver of procedure in this matter and that, if significant interest is present and seems to form a general consensus, it shall be accepted that I revise and present a prospectus for this newsgroup and a call for votes on a date no sooner than seven days from this initial posting and no later than ten days after the call for discussion. Procedural points concerning the length of the voting period are to be addressed in the public discussion, and anyone wishing to send anonymous mail should forward it to me. This newsgroup is necessary and of great potential use, as those of you with a legitimate need for privacy know well. If you value your privacy, let us discuss this wisely and equitably in order to reach a consensus. Whether this newsgroup is to be moderated or unmoderated, whether the name is appropriate or another hierarchy would be preferable, and all procedural points are to be decided based on the general consensus. I realize there will be those who will oppose the creation of this newsgroup on the oft-cited grounds that "Anyone who needs privacy must be hiding something." This is true; however, in our society there are many things which need to be revealed as well as many things which need to be concealed. I believe that a corollary truism could be applied to those who oppose the notion of public privacy. "Anyone who fears privacy must be hiding something." Let the discussion begin. Final note: Do NOT, repeat, NOT send votes until I post a "Call for Votes" at the end of the discussion period. The length of the discussion period may be increased if some drastic occurrence requires it, but I'm planning to post it in one week. Vote then. I thank you for your consideration in this matter. ---- "Occasionally an honest man is sent to the legislature." Mark Twain rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu PGP key available by mail or finger rclark(a)metal.psu.edu

2 1

Re: FWEE! Re: alt.whistleblowers
by Clark Reynard 14 Apr '93

14 Apr '93

This would come into play as something necessary only after the creation of the group, and at least the anonymous posting part of it is already being studied by others, for entirely different reasons. And, in addition, the method of posting will be determined by the nature of the group itself, which is only determinable after a period of discussion. For which alt.config is as suitable a place for discussion as this mailing list. In fact, the newsgroup is better, since we'll be getting feedback from the Enemy as well. A fogware (not quite vaporware) FAQ could be provided at a moment's notice, simply containing an explanation of the newsgroup and its purpose (which would be a slightly modified carbon copy of the Call for Votes; more vaporware), the list of anonymous remailers at soda.berkeley.edu, and perhaps some cullings from more cogent postings regarding the anonymity issue. Then, as FAQs actually appear, it can be expanded. I am capable of doing this at least for the next few months, and probably longer. Once the newsgroup, which I think would be unmoderated by its very nature, or moderated in something of the same way as alt.hackers, except that the accepted moderator-list would consist of any anonymous remailer on the list in the FAQ (this, I couldn't do, since I don't maintain the anonymous remailer list and couldn't be guaranteed of getting it right). In any case, I think that having it unmoderated and not doing anything but posting a FAQ every week should take care of it. It's an unusual newsgroup idea, but in execution it should be similar to existing newsgroups. In any case, I think that beginning the discussion is appropriate; if the specs for the newsgroup are to be changed, they can always be changed before the posting of the Call for Votes, when everything becomes Locked in Stone. ---- Robert W. Clark rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu PGP signature available by mail or finger

1 0

FWEE! Re: alt.whistleblowers
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 14 Apr '93

14 Apr '93

> Kick it around on alt.config >> Just do it .... The problem is that alt.whistleblowers is technically more complex than just creating an alt.group and having one anon.poster site - we need to resolve issues of secure mail standards (e.g. should the system use RIPEM or just PGP, are there any non-US sites with RIPEM so that non-US anon.poster sites can use it, should there be multiple anon.sites and should they do remailing between them, etc.) Otherwise we may end up with a single point of failure, and if it's any good, it will at least get its mail watched, if it doesn't get raided - traffic analysis is important here. Are we only going to use anon.posting sites, or are forged postings also going to be an acceptable technique? Do we at least need to publish a guide to forging mail headers so your mail to the anon.poster can appear to come from kremvax or whitehouse.com? Let's try to get a good idea of what we want to do before dropping it into alt.config. Bill Stewart -- This isn't the 8th Dimension, we're somewhere over New Jersey

1 0

alt.whistleblowers
by Clark Reynard 14 Apr '93

14 Apr '93

I suggest that as a first step in the process of making alt.whistleblowers a reality, that we kick around the idea for a while, either here or on alt.config. If I receive a positive response, I will post the control message myself. Three possible choices of action: 1) Kick it around on alt.config. 2) Kick it around on news.groups, etc. 3) Kick it around here. 4) Don't even bother kicking it around; just create the group, and hell with anyone who doesn't like it. So, what's the general consensus on the best course of action? And, yes, I know that was four, and not three possible choices; it's probably really eight or ten. ---- Robert W. Clark rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu PGP signature available by mail or finger

4 3

Re: Encrypted Cordless phones
by George A. Gleason 14 Apr '93

14 Apr '93

And also.... Radio Shack just entered the market with a cordless which uses frequency inversion. That's analog... Probably can be broken in less than a minute, even by amateurs who know how to solder. About 1986 or so, a certain state agency ordered some expensive walkie-talkies which were supposed to be secure against protesters with scanners. Guess what? Analog frequency inversion. And in fact, with a little practice, you can listen to inverted speech directly and make sense of it.

1 0

REMAIL: Positive Reputations Now!
by Hal 14 Apr '93

14 Apr '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- There's been a lot of talk on news.admin.policy about ways of handling abusive or illegal anonymous posts. One proposal is to restrict posts from certain people, but this will fail if multiple remailers allowing chaining become available. I had an idea for another way of filtering anonymous posts which might be achievable with current news software. It would require some work by the remailer operators, though. We have talked here about positive reputations as a filtering method. A positive reputation would basically be a recommendation by some respected person that a particular poster is worth listening to. If posts could be marked with such recommendations, people could set up their news software to filter out non-recommended anonymous posts. This would be a way of distinguishing between those who want to post anonymously just for privacy, and those who want to harrass or abuse others. Current news software doesn't provide for such reputations. But there were suggestions being made at one time for a standard way of marking anonymous posts. One idea was to give them a unique identifier in the "Distribution" field of "anon". I gather that this would require a little modification of major news distribution sites to honor this distribution but from what I understand the changes needed are not major. My idea is to implement positive reputations at the source which is in the best position to provide them: the remailer operator. Applying the distribution idea, posts which were from people on a "good guys list" would be posted from the remailer with a specific distribution that identifies them as such. Anonymous posts from people not on the list would get a different identification. In order to verify that posts were really from who they claimed, they would have to be PGP (or RIPEM or PEM) signed. The list would actually be a list of keys rather than a list of user ID's. People would get on the list by asking the remailer operator, perhaps by pointing to some of their posts which were responsible. People would be removed from the list at the remailer operator's discretion, presumably when they posted objectionable messages. The advantage of this system is that it introduces, in a limited way, the idea of positive reputations. It fits into the current killfile system so that people easily offended can avoid seeing most offensive anonymous posts. It encourages the use of encryption software on the part of people who want to post anonymously and get a good reputation. And the only difficult software requirements are in the remailing/posting software; everybody else just runs the current SW. Now, since I don't run a remailing/posting service, I am in the rather embarrassing position of offering a "solution" which requires somebody else to do the work. I would be very willing to help with the software requirements for recognizing incoming PGP signed messages and looking up keys in a database. The actual maintenance of the good posters list would take some time and energy on the part of the operator. But perhaps this would not be that much more than the other activities involved. And it would have the advantage that it would point out a new direction for the net, towards a system where privacy and responsibility can coexist. Hal Finney 74076.1041(a)compuserve.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBK8uFMqgTA69YIUw3AQFqswQAhx/GN/qg4Jx6Ggqh8Rmt6Lta1iN82dOQ gAAkEwcgJsMuvEjtcgRFkHxxW6uCF/8m2kLU3HUA8lnT94BR5TJc/0K5xH05gKhH NvU+74sCxIV68ef+0pz1X9TzC1E7tUxAhJKPQ80li1QFsBw5yATzuh1UHeDIk/5O 7yyVS8AGQFc= =RyI6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Encrypted Cordless phones
by Sandy 14 Apr '93

14 Apr '93

_________________________________________________________________ FROM THE VIRTUAL DESK OF SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At the Bay Area Cypherpunks meeting, I mentioned two cordless telephones that encrypt between the handset and the base unit. Here is some information about them. VTech Tropez 900DX Transmits signal digitally between handset and base unit on one of 20 channels in the 900 MHz band. Automatically selects one of over 65,000 digital security codes each time handset is returned to the base unit. Range is up to 800 meters; with up to 4.5 hours of continuous talk time. Suggested retail cost is $349.95. For more information: Steve Johnson, (503) 643-8981. PhoneMate 2910 Transmits signal digitally between handset and base unit on one of 10 channels in the 900 MHz band. Automatically selects one of over 1,000 digital security codes each time handset is returned to the base unit. Range is up to probably about the same as the VTech. No figures are given for talk time. Suggested retail price is $219.95. For more information: Suzanne Nastaskin, (310) 314-6649. Both phones have all the usual advanced features like auto-redial and such. Neither company's literature tells what encryption technology they uses. S a n d y _________________________________________________________________ PLEASE RESPOND TO: ssandfort(a)attmail.com (except from CompuServe) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1