- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

general purpose telnet bouncer.
by Mark 02 Sep '93

02 Sep '93

Several people have expressed interest in a utility such as this. It's existed for several years but Ive recently decided to fix it up into a releasable condition. Share and enjoy. flames to /dev/null Mark mark(a)cairo.anu.edu.au ---------------------- cut here ---------------------------- /* Name: ts2.c */ /* Author: Hal-9000, Richard Stevens, Xanadude, Avalon, Mark */ /* Distribution: Public */ /* Copyright: Held by the respective contributors */ /* Posted to USENET 1st September '93 by Mark mark(a)cairo.anu.edu.au */ /* This file was telserv.c, part of the Telnet Server package v. 1.0, written by "Hal-9000". Much of that package was developed by Richard Stephens and his thanks go to "Xanadude" for providing him with that section. Performance fix by Darren Reed. */ /* Reworked to add concurrency, password checking and destination selection on the fly. - Mark 31st Aug 93 Compiled and tested on: HPUX 9.01 9000/700 series NeXTStep 3.1 NeXT 68040 OSx Pyramid 90x BSD universe SunOS 5.2 sun4c Ultrix 4.3 DEC RISC To compile, type "cc -O -s ts2.c -o ts2". MY_PASSWORD and SERV_TCP_PORT are all that is required to be altered. */ #define MY_PASSWORD "pass" #define SERV_TCP_PORT 12345 /* port I'll listen for connections on */ #include <stdio.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/socket.h> #include <sys/time.h> #include <sys/resource.h> #include <sys/wait.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <errno.h> #include <netinet/in.h> #include <netdb.h> #include <arpa/inet.h> #include <sys/ioctl.h> #define QLEN 5 char sbuf[2048], cbuf[2048]; extern int errno; extern char *sys_errlist[]; void reaper(); int main(); void telcli(); int main(argc, argv) int argc; char *argv[]; { int srv_fd, rem_fd, rem_len, opt = 1; struct sockaddr_in rem_addr, srv_addr; bzero((char *) &rem_addr, sizeof(rem_addr)); bzero((char *) &srv_addr, sizeof(srv_addr)); srv_addr.sin_family = AF_INET; srv_addr.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(INADDR_ANY); srv_addr.sin_port = htons(SERV_TCP_PORT); srv_fd = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); if (bind(srv_fd, (struct sockaddr *) &srv_addr, sizeof(srv_addr)) == -1) { perror("bind"); exit(-1); } listen(srv_fd, QLEN); close(0); close(1); close(2); #ifdef TIOCNOTTY if ((rem_fd = open("/dev/tty", O_RDWR)) >= 0) { ioctl(rem_fd, TIOCNOTTY, (char *)0); close(rem_fd); } #endif if (fork()) exit(0); while (1) { rem_len = sizeof(rem_addr); rem_fd=accept(srv_fd, (struct sockaddr *) &rem_addr, &rem_len); if (rem_fd < 0) { if (errno == EINTR) continue; exit(-1); } switch(fork()) { case 0: /* child process */ close(srv_fd); /* close original socket */ telcli(rem_fd); /* process the request */ close(rem_fd); exit(0); break; default: close(rem_fd); /* parent process */ if (fork()) exit(0); /* let init worry about children */ break; case -1: fprintf(stderr, "\n\rfork: %s\n\r", sys_errlist[errno]); break; } } } void telcli(source) int source; { int dest; int found; struct sockaddr_in sa; struct hostent *hp; struct servent *sp; char gethost[100]; char getport[100]; char string[100]; bzero(gethost, 100); sprintf(string, "Password: "); write(source, string, strlen(string)); read(source, gethost, 100); gethost[(strlen(gethost)-2)] = '\0'; /* kludge alert - kill the \r\n */ if (strcmp(gethost, MY_PASSWORD) != 0) { sprintf(string, "Wrong password, got %s.\n", gethost); write(source, string, strlen(string)); close(source); exit(0); } do { found = 0; bzero(gethost,100); sprintf(string, "Host: "); write(source, string, strlen(string)); read(source, gethost, 100); gethost[(strlen(gethost)-2)] = '\0'; hp = gethostbyname(gethost); if (hp) { found++; #if !defined(h_addr) /* In 4.3, this is a #define */ #if defined(hpux) || defined(NeXT) || defined(ultrix) || defined(POSIX) memcpy((caddr_t)&sa.sin_addr, hp->h_addr_list[0], hp->h_length); #else bcopy(hp->h_addr_list[0], &sa.sin_addr, hp->h_length); #endif #else /* defined(h_addr) */ #if defined(hpux) || defined(NeXT) || defined(ultrix) || defined(POSIX) memcpy((caddr_t)&sa.sin_addr, hp->h_addr, hp->h_length); #else bcopy(hp->h_addr, &sa.sin_addr, hp->h_length); #endif #endif /* defined(h_addr) */ sprintf(string, "Found address for %s\n", hp->h_name); write(source, string, strlen(string)); } else { if (inet_addr(gethost) == -1) { found = 0; sprintf(string, "Didnt find address for %s\n", gethost); write(source, string, strlen(string)); } else { found++; sa.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr(gethost); } } } while (!found); sa.sin_family = AF_INET; sprintf(string, "Port: "); write(source, string, strlen(string)); read(source, getport, 100); gethost[(strlen(getport)-2)] = '\0'; sa.sin_port = htons((unsigned) atoi(getport)); if (sa.sin_port == 0) { sp = getservbyname(getport, "tcp"); if (sp) sa.sin_port = sp->s_port; else { sprintf(string, "%s: bad port number\n", getport); write(source, string, strlen(string)); return; } } sprintf(string, "Trying %s...\n", (char *) inet_ntoa(sa.sin_addr)); write(source, string, strlen(string)); if ((dest = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0)) < 0) { perror("telcli: socket"); exit(1); } connect(dest, (struct sockaddr *) &sa, sizeof(sa)); sprintf(string, "Connected to %s port %d...\n", inet_ntoa(sa.sin_addr), ntohs(sa.sin_port)); write(source, string, strlen(string)); #ifdef FNDELAY fcntl(source,F_SETFL,fcntl(source,F_GETFL,0)|FNDELAY); fcntl(dest,F_SETFL,fcntl(dest,F_GETFL,0)|FNDELAY); #else fcntl(source,F_SETFL,O_NDELAY); fcntl(dest,F_SETFL,O_NDELAY); #endif communicate(dest,source); close(dest); exit(0); } communicate(sfd,cfd) { char *chead, *ctail, *shead, *stail; int num, nfd, spos, cpos; extern int errno; fd_set rd, wr; chead = ctail = cbuf; cpos = 0; shead = stail = sbuf; spos = 0; while (1) { FD_ZERO(&rd); FD_ZERO(&wr); if (spos < sizeof(sbuf)-1) FD_SET(sfd, &rd); if (ctail > chead) FD_SET(sfd, &wr); if (cpos < sizeof(cbuf)-1) FD_SET(cfd, &rd); if (stail > shead) FD_SET(cfd, &wr); nfd = select(256, &rd, &wr, 0, 0); if (nfd <= 0) continue; if (FD_ISSET(sfd, &rd)) { num=read(sfd,stail,sizeof(sbuf)-spos); if ((num==-1) && (errno != EWOULDBLOCK)) return; if (num==0) return; if (num>0) { spos += num; stail += num; if (!--nfd) continue; } } if (FD_ISSET(cfd, &rd)) { num=read(cfd,ctail,sizeof(cbuf)-cpos); if ((num==-1) && (errno != EWOULDBLOCK)) return; if (num==0) return; if (num>0) { cpos += num; ctail += num; if (!--nfd) continue; } } if (FD_ISSET(sfd, &wr)) { num=write(sfd,chead,ctail-chead); if ((num==-1) && (errno != EWOULDBLOCK)) return; if (num>0) { chead += num; if (chead == ctail) { chead = ctail = cbuf; cpos = 0; } if (!--nfd) continue; } } if (FD_ISSET(cfd, &wr)) { num=write(cfd,shead,stail-shead); if ((num==-1) && (errno != EWOULDBLOCK)) return; if (num>0) { shead += num; if (shead == stail) { shead = stail = sbuf; spos = 0; } if (!--nfd) continue; } } } } ----------- end of file ------ cut here -------

1 0

Info Security News article on Clipper (fwd)
by Anonymous 02 Sep '93

02 Sep '93

Info Security News Volume 4, Number 5 September/October 1993 page 14 --- D.C. Dateline --- New Crypto Standards in Contention by Charlotte Adams Experts are hotly debating the Clipper initiative, a plan to standardize on a voice-encryption device with built-in law-enforcement access. Although de facto or mandatory acceptance of Clipper or similar hardware now seems remote, the potential cost of such action makes it worth considering. The rationale for Clipper was to maintain the government's information-eavesdropping capability as the use of encryption spreads. The hope was that the market would follow the government's lead, making Clipper the de facto standard. The National Institute of Standards and Technology sees benefits in making Clipper the accepted standard. "If we deny [criminals] the use of the national communications net, [that's a] nontrivial accomplishment," says Ray Kammer, NIST's acting director. If the network standard is Clipper, he reasons, criminals would "have to set up their own [communications] system, an interesting and formidible task." NIST is pushing ahead with a proposed Escrowed Encryption Standard. If all goes well, this Federal Information Processing Standard could be in place by October, an important step toward widespread use by the federal government. The key-escrow mechanism should be in place by autumn, government sources say. A related issue is NIST's Digital Signature Standard, which was developed in secret by the National Security Agency. NIST added a new issue to the DSS debate last summer when the agency announced a proposed settlement with Public Key Partners giving PKP control over commercial use of the standard. Clipper pros and cons. The key-escrow concept, allowing access to law-enforcment agencies, will have to become mandatory because it makes no sense on a voluntary basis, critics say. "It clearly has implications for data transmission, as well," says Phil Karn of Qualcomm, a San Diego maker of cellular telephones. Government contractors, in fact, are already fine-tuning another chip, called Capstone, which will be much more convenient for data-security applications. Capstone will add the NIST's secure hash, digital signature and key-exchange algorithms to Clipper's Skipjack encryption algorithm and escrow support. "Clipper is good for voice, for telephony, but not as a coprocessor inside a PC, selectively encrypting fields," says Richard Ankney, a technical consultant with Fischer International Systems Corp. "Capstone is better in that regard." The trouble with Capstone is that it is big and expensive, a full custom, very-large scale-integration ciruit design, says John Droge, vice president of program development for chip designer, Mykotronx Inc., of Torrance, Calif. VLSI Technology Inc., in San Jose, is actually fabricating the chip. Mykotronx expects the chips initially to sell at $100 apiece in quantities of 10,000. PCMCIA (Personal Computer Memory Card International Association) cards initially will sell in the $300 range, he predicts. That's a far cry from the government's $100 target price for the PCMCIA module. If the hardware becomes mandatory, space would have to be found for the chips inside notebooks and palmtops, as well as in laptop and desktop computers. Estimates on the markup to customers vary from 25 to 200 percent. The cost of retrofitting Clipper or Capstone into existing machines would be tremendous, says Fred Gluck, director of marketing for control products with Datamedia Corp., a Nashua, N.H. security software and token vendor. Simply multiply the $25 to $30 per half-hour you pay for technical people times the 100 million or so PCs out there, he says. But much of the cost may be hidden from the end user, Ankney counters. "You could take the hit and not raise the price at all." The Digital Signature Standard. Although eclipsed by the Clipper controversy, DSS nevertheless remains an issue. Even though its algorithm is not secret, NSA "played a very dominant role" in creating it, says David Sobel, legal counsel for the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibilty. The secrecy surrounding NSA's role in DSS goes beyond the will of Congress in the Computer Security Act of 1987 for the "[standards] development process to be open and accountable," Sobel says. The PKP angle is also a problem, CPSR says. The arrangement by which NIST allows PKP to control commercial use of the Digital Signature Standard "really comes down to ... almost paying them off," says Marc Rotenberg, director of CPSR's Washington office. People shouldn't read too much into the proposal, NIST says. "It means ... the government wants to move on and get this out of the way ... without any acknowledgement of [the validity of the PKP] infringement action," explains F. Lynn McNulty, NIST's associate director for computer security. The "big payoff" of the proposed agreement is that individual citizens communicating with the government won't have to pay royalties, he says. More information needed. Almost everyone agrees that more information is necessary before a policy decision can be made. "Are we talking about completely revamping the communications infrastructure to facilitate 800 wiretaps?" asks Daniel Weitzner, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. EFF coordinates the activities of the Digital Privacy and Security Working Group, a coalition of information security technology companies and non-profit groups that has raised many questions about Clipper. "We want a real, solid understanding of the problems from [the administration's] perspective and a fact-based risk assessment," Weitzner says. NIST's own security and privacy advisory panel refused to rubberstamp the Clipper initiative at first sight and various interest groups have demanded a more thoughtful and open review. The Digital Privacy and Security Working Group has been asked to contribute substantively to the ongoing interagency crypto policy review, EFF's Weitzner says. CPSR, however, is forming its own policy review group. The administration's approach of taking outside imput is still essentially a closed process, CPSR says. "The point we're trying to make [is that] the public has an interest in its privacy and consumers have an interest in what they ultimately might end up paying, " Rotenberg says. ---------------------------------------- Charlotte Adams is a free-lance journalist covering technology issues in the Washington D.C. area for a variety of magazines. Copyright (c) 1993 by MIS Training Institute Press, Inc. Ye olde Spooge Meister spooge /spooj/ 1. Inexplicable or arcane code <spooge(a)dev.null.net> or random and probably incorrect output from a computer program.

1 0

[EVENTS]: security related
by jet＠netcom.com 02 Sep '93

02 Sep '93

[marginal interest to this list. -eric] Last update: 08/31/93 COMPUTER SECURITY EVENTS CALENDAR This file contains a list of upcoming computer security events. The absence or inclusion of any particular event does not imply criticism or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the sysop. Because of the nature of this material and how it is obtained, it is impossible to include every event. If you know of computer security events that are not listed, please send the conference/course literature to the following: Lawrence B. Keys National Institute of Standards and Technology Room A-216, Bldg. 225 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 DATE: 09/09/93 TITLE: 3rd International Virus Bulletin Conference LOCATION: Amsterdam SPONSOR: CONTACT: Editor, Virus Bulletin ADDRESS: 21 The Quadrant, Abingdon Science Park CITY_ST: Abingdon, OX14 3YS, UK PHONE: +44 (0)235 559935 DATE: 09/15/93 TITLE: Information Warfare Conference LOCATION: Montreal, CANADA SPONSOR: National Computer Security Association CONTACT: Michael E. Kabay, Ph.D. ADDRESS: P.O. Box 509 CITY_ST: Westmount, QC/H3Z2T6 CANADA PHONE: 514-931-6187 DATE: 09/20/93 TITLE: 16th National Computer Security Conference LOCATION: Baltimore, MD SPONSOR: NCSC and NIST CONTACT: NCSC, Attn: NCS Conference Secretary, AS11 ADDRESS: National Computer Security Center CITY_ST: Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000 PHONE: (410) 850-0272 DATE: 10/04/93 TITLE: 4th USENIX UNIX Security Symposium LOCATION: Santa Clara, CA SPONSOR: USENIX Association CONTACT: USENIX Conference Office ADDRESS: 22672 Lambert Street, Suite 613 CITY_ST: El Toro, CA 92630 PHONE: (714) 588-8649 DATE: 10/04/93 TITLE: 13th Conference on Control, Audit & Security of Information Sys. LOCATION: Boston, MA SPONSOR: MIS Training Institute CONTACT: MIS Registration ADDRESS: 498 Concord St. CITY_ST: Framingham, MA 01701-2357 PHONE: (508) 879-7999 DATE: 10/04/93 TITLE: 2nd Annual Pacific Conference on Information Systems Auditing LOCATION: Seattle, WA SPONSOR: EDP Auditors Association & CANAUDIT Inc. CONTACT: CANAUDIT Inc. ADDRESS: P.O. Box 4150 CITY_ST: Simi Valley, CA 93093 PHONE: (805) 583-3723 DATE: 10/04/93 TITLE: Information Security Principles and Practices LOCATION: Fairfax, VA SPONSOR: Center for Professional Development (Gerorge Mason University) CONTACT: Catherine M. Hoover ADDRESS: Center for Professional Development (George Mason University) CITY_ST: Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 PHONE: (703) 993-2090 DATE: 10/04/93 TITLE: Recent Developments in Information Security LOCATION: Fairfax, VA SPONSOR: Center for Professional Development (George Mason University) CONTACT: Catherine M. Hoover ADDRESS: Center for Professional Development (George Mason University) CITY_ST: Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 PHONE: (703) 993-2090 DATE: 10/12/93 TITLE: UNIX Security LOCATION: Fairfax, VA SPONSOR: Center for Professional Development (George Mason University) CONTACT: Catherine M. Hoover ADDRESS: Center for Professional Development (George Mason University) CITY_ST: Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 PHONE: (703) 993-2090 DATE: 10/20/93 TITLE: 10th World Conference on Computer Security, Audit & Control LOCATION: Westminster, London, UK SPONSOR: Compsec International CONTACT: Karen Giles ADDRESS: Elsevier Advanced Technology, Mayfield House, 256 Banbury Road CITY_ST: Oxford OX2 7BR, United Kingdom PHONE: +44 (0) 865 512242 DATE: 10/25/93 TITLE: Protecting Networks and Small Systems LOCATION: Gaithersburg, MD SPONSOR: CSI, Hosted by NIST (gov. employees/contractors only) CONTACT: CSI Conference Registration ADDRESS: 600 Harrison St. CITY_ST: San Francisco, CA 94107 PHONE: (415) 905-2626 DATE: 10/28/93 TITLE: Building Information Security Awareness LOCATION: Gaithersburg, MD SPONSOR: CSI, Hosted by NIST (gov. employees/contractors only) CONTACT: CSI Confrence Registration ADDRESS: 600 Harrison St. CITY_ST: San Francisco, CA 94107 PHONE: (415) 905-2626 DATE: 11/01/93 TITLE: 7th USENIX Systems Administration Conference (LISA VII) LOCATION: Monterey, CA SPONSOR: USENIX CONTACT: USENIX Conference Office ADDRESS: 22672 Lambert St., Suite 613 CITY_ST: Lake Forest, CA 92630 PHONE: (714) 588-8649 DATE: 11/03/93 TITLE: 1st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security LOCATION: Fairfax, VA SPONSOR: Bell Atlantic & George Mason University CONTACT: Ravi Ganesan ADDRESS: Bell Atlantic, 7th floor, 11720 Beltsville Dr. CITY_ST: Beltsville, MD 20705 PHONE: (301) 595-8439 DATE: 11/08/93 TITLE: 20th Annual Computer Security Conference & Exhibition LOCATION: Anaheim, CA SPONSOR: Computer Security Institute CONTACT: CSI Conference Registration ADDRESS: 600 Harrison St. CITY_ST: San Francisco, CA 94107 PHONE: (415) 905-2626 DATE: 12/01/93 TITLE: 4th Annual EICAR Conference LOCATION: St. Alabans, Hertfordshire, ENGLAND SPONSOR: Eicar CONTACT: Ms. Allison Sweeney ADDRESS: S&S International Ltd., Berkley Ct. Mill St. CITY_ST: Berkhamsted, Herts, HP2 4HW, England PHONE: +44 442 877877 DATE: 12/06/93 TITLE: 9th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference LOCATION: Orlando, FL SPONSOR: Aerospace Computer Security Association CONTACT: Dr. Ronald Gove ADDRESS: Booz-Allen & Hamilton, 8283 Greenboro Drive CITY_ST: McLean, VA 22102 PHONE: (703) 902-5280 DATE: 01/04/94 TITLE: 4th IFIP Working Conference on Dependable Computing for Critical LOCATION: San Diego, CA Applications SPONSOR: IFIP Working Group CONTACT: Dr. Gerard Le Lann, INRIA -Project REFLECS ADDRESS: BP 105 CITY_ST: 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, FRANCE PHONE: + (33) 1 39 63 53 64 DATE: 02/04/94 TITLE: Internet Society Symposium on Network and Distributed Sys. Sec. LOCATION: San Diego, CA SPONSOR: Internet Society CONTACT: Robert W. Shirey, MS Z202 ADDRESS: Mitre Corp. CITY_ST: McLean, VA 22102-3481 PHONE: (703) 883-5397 DATE: 05/17/94 TITLE: 6th Annual Canadian Computer Security Symposium LOCATION: The Ottawa Congress Centre SPONSOR: The Canadian System Security Centre (Government of Canada) CONTACT: Karen Lowther ADDRESS: Canaian System Security Center, P.O. Box 9703, Terminal CITY_ST: Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3Z4 PHONE: (613) 991-7513 DATE: 06/14/94 TITLE: IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop VII LOCATION: Franconia, NH SPONSOR: IEEE Computer Society CONTACT: Ravi S. Sandhu ADDRESS: ISSE Department, George Mason University CITY_ST: Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 PHONE: (703) 993-1659 DATE: 10/04/94 TITLE: 1st European Dependable Computing Conference LOCATION: Berlin, GERMANY SPONSOR: Joint Technical Interest Group CONTACT: Erik Maehle, University of Paderborn/FB14 ADDRESS: Warburgerstr. 100 CITY_ST: D-W-4790 Paderborn GERMANY PHONE: ++49 (5251) 602209

1 0

Non-Cash Schemes -- precedent?
by collins＠newton.apple.com 01 Sep '93

01 Sep '93

This mornings (1 Sep 93) Wall Street Journal, page B2, Enterprise column: "'Scrip' ATMs Appeal to Growing Number of Retailers". The artical describes retailers who are installing ATM machines that hand out 'scrip', deducted from a clients account, for use in the stores. Less attractive to thieves, cheaper to build and maintain. A physical precedent for digital schemes ? Scott Collins | "Few people realize what tremendous power there | is in one of these things." -- Willy Wonka ......................|................................................ BUSINESS. voice:408.862.0540 fax:974.6094 collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2C Cupertino, CA 95014 ....................................................................... PERSONAL. voice/fax:408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Encryption policies of Fidnet, etc.
by Jason Zions 01 Sep '93

01 Sep '93

JTD> It is illegal to encrypt messages period. JTD> E-mail encryption is illegal >Depends on your network and where you live. >It is illegal to use PGP in the United States due to its use of a >copyrighted algoritm. It is *NOT* illegal to use it anywhere else in >the world. Other encryption methods are legal. Jeez, talk about misinformation. If it were copyright, then a US copyright is indeed restrictive world-wide; that's the point of the Berne Convention. However, it's not copyright; it's pretty tought to copyright an algorithm, all one can do is copyright the exact expression of one implementation of that algorithm. What's involved here is a patent, which is (as you note) not binding outside the US. Finally, is it certain that PGP indeed infringes on a valid patent? >... Get the facts first - you can distort them later! Ah. This explains much. Jason

5 5

anonymous mail
by remail＠tamsun.tamu.edu 01 Sep '93

01 Sep '93

PEM also reveals who signs messages, even when the message is encrypted. In other words, if I send you a PGP encrypted message which I also signed, the signature is hidden under the encryption. You do not know who sent you the PGP message (assuming a cypherpunks remailer or equivalent was used) until after you decrypt the first "packet" and gaze inside. PEM, on the other hand, reveals in the clear who signed the message, outside of the encrypted portion. Also note that to be PEM compliant, you *must* always sign your messages. So much for anonymous encrypted messages... There is something to be said for the PGP encapsulated approach...

3 2

Re: NY TAXES CYBERSPACE, CRAM REACTS
by Jason Zions 01 Sep '93

01 Sep '93

Y'know, a two-paragraph summary in calm tones, followed by the text of the tax notice, would have been more effecitve; breathless hyperbole turns some people off. In any event, I see no reference to retroactivity. At worst, if someone paid an annual fee, tax is owed only on the prorated portion of services to be rendered after September 1. That is, if someone paid $30 on January 1 for one year's service, tax is owed only on the "unused" $10 covering Sept 1 through December 31. This is relatively clear from the wording regarding "service to be rendered after...". Yes, it's monumentally stupid. You think you got it bad? I can't believe the brokerage houses on Wall Street let this one go; NYSE ticker feeds are covered by this, as are all generic reuseable information feeds, which means transmission of credit reports and the like. This is gonna jack up most things related to the US finance industry, especially NYSE and large arbitrage. I left New York State years ago; seems the state's IQ really *did* get stupider after I left. :-) Jason

2 1

Re: Encryption policies of Fidnet, etc.
by doug＠netcom4.netcom.com 01 Sep '93

01 Sep '93

khijol!erc(a)apple.com (Ed Carp) said: >I hate to jump into the fray, but according to Public Key Partners, if you >use RSA for educational, (etc.) purposes, you are not infringing on their >patent. > It has long been held that there is an exemption to 'patent infringment' >for educational or other "non-commercial" uses. Hmm. I would love to interpret this as meaning that I can freely use their technology in freeware software that I write for and release to the net. However there would seem to be reason to doubt this. ;-) Any opinions on how much/how little one could get away with on such things? Would it make a difference if the piece of software were intended for a focused education/research area (say groupware research) rather than being highly general (as a mailer is)? I'm less familiar with patent exemptions than copyright exemptions, so this is all somewhat opaque to me. And there's always the old issue of whether someone will be motivated to sue you, and whether you want to spend time & money on defense, quite aside from the hypothetical legality or illegality that might eventually be established. Urk. Doug

1 0

Re: NY TAXES CYBERSPACE, CRAM REACTS
by plmoses＠unix.cc.emory.edu 01 Sep '93

01 Sep '93

Arguably the NY tax is a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Is the state's local interest more compelling than the burden this law places on interstate commerce? Doubtful. Paul

1 0

NY TAXES CYBERSPACE, CRAM REACTS
by L. Detweiler 01 Sep '93

01 Sep '93

Attention c'punks! A massive artillery fire on our Cyberspatial Reality Advancement Movement (CRAM) has been volleyed on the NY front! Retrenchments and counterattack requested ASAP! Reports that this is the first major enemy offensive on free Cyberspatial territory, to be followed by supporting attacks in nearby theatres soon! The enemy must be subjugated at this early critical period before basic footholds are established to supply a larger offensive! Critical aspects of our evolving plan: 1) match offensives with more powerful counterattacks 2) infiltrate the enemy with spies and saboteurs, leverage strategic insights 3) propaganda and disinformation campaign on the public and enemy We've been caught completely off guard by this attack! Let's banish our passivity and complacency and surge into action! Onward, troops! ===cut=here=== Date: 31 Aug 93 06:01:03 EDT From: Marty Winter <76407.3521(a)compuserve.com> Subject: Sales tax on information services to increase OK, so what does all this gobbledegook mean? It means simply that New York State has decided to trash the information superhighway that has been touted as the solution to unemployment and the means by which New York could have rebuilt itself. New York, former home of leading edge high-technology is working overtime to relegate its citizenry to the welfare rolls. It means that BBS's which are already liable for collection of sales tax must now go back and collect an additional 5% for a total of 13%. This tax is RETROACTIVE ... Any BBS which has already collected a membership fee or other charges up front for a year of service must go back and collect more money from their subscribers unless their fiscal year begins on September 1. It means that a connection to the Internet, a subscription to GEnie, Prodigy, or CompuServe just got A LOT more expensive. It means that directory assistance calls to look up a phone number will cost more. Calls for technical support or 800 or 900 services just got a lot more expensive. Relatives of mine who are still employed by IBM downstate got told by their superiors that as a potential result of this change IBM and numerous other information service providers have decided or will decide to leave New York as quickly as possible. Newspapers and other entities that would have poured millions of dollars into New York's economy have found the cost to potential users and subscribers of new information services has now moved beyond practicality. The bottom line is that New York has literally killed its own future. New York's politicians from the Governor to the majority in both aisles of the legislature have shown a degree of stupidity unparalleled since Nero was emperor in Rome in killing the golden goose that could have made New York a mecca for high tech communications. Modern communications in New York by political fiat will have to consist of semaphor flags and smoke signals while the remainder of the world outside our third-world state go digital. This particular episode proves that New York's political system is so corrupt and so incredibly inept that citizens of New York really have to give serious consideration to drastic measures against our state government including voting out every single politician in statewide office. I am particularly dismayed that this tax law was kept SO secret while being nursed through the legislative process that no one knew about it at all, including the Senate. Not a single one of my contacts was able to find out about any of this in advance. Even the notification from Tax and Finance a mere three days before its enactment was incredible and unprecedented. This latest folly will have no effect on free bulletin boards such as Friends & Lovers, but it will be murder on those services run by those who thought New York might have permitted them to eek out a living with a computer and a modem. Thirteen percent sales tax? Think about that number a little bit. The morons we elected have gone and done it. Do we really think they're done yet? Are you REALLY going to vote for the same guy again in the Assembly, the Senate, or the State house? Or are you going to make use of your digital communications while there is still a dialtone? Is Bill Clinton watching New York's government and is Bill Clinton REALLY going to sit idly by and let our bozos in Albany get away with it? Information superhighway ... ptooey! [...] The biggest threats to the use of cyberspace are NOT going to come out those committees and state organizations that deal directly with coputes, the Internet or other on-line services, but from places like the Finance committeess, etc, who see the use of the Internet and other services as a way of helping to fill the state's coffers. If we are going to educate anybody within the government, it MUST be those who seem to have the least sake in cyberspace. As Kevin so rightely pointed out, the boays in Finance and over at T&F have effectively put the Internet, CompuServe, GEnie and other commercial on-line services out of the reach of those who might benefit MOST from the use of such services. In some areas of the state the extra 5% that they just tacked onto the bill could bring the total coast closer to 20% rather than the 13% it does in ALbany. Worst part is, that the legislation that authorizes such things is often buried in the middle of bills that take weeks to read owing to their sheer size. Our information highway is going to become a dead end dirt road if things like this continue in NY. STATE OF NEW YORK SLAPS 13 PERCENT SALES TAX ON INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The following is a complete electronic transcript of a bulletin issued by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and was received by Friends & Lovers BBS on Saturday, August 28, 1993. (begin T&F document) New York State Department of Taxation and Finance N-93-20 (8/93) IMPORTANT NOTICE Increase in Tax Rate Applicable to Entertainment and information Services Provided by Means of Telephony or Telegraphy Effective September 1, 1993, there will be an additional state sales tax at the rate of 5% added to the existing 4% state sales tax imposed on receipts from the services of furnishing or providing an entertainment or information service which is furnished, provided or delivered by means of telephony or telegraphy or telephone or telegraph service of whatever nature (see section 1105(c)(9) of the Tax Law). The treatment of these services for sales tax purposes remains identical to the existing treatment except as to rate. Thus, the only change is that the state sales tax rate on such services has been increased from 4% to 9%. The Municipal Assistance Corporation sales taxes (section 1107 of the Tax Law), the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District sales taxes (section 1109 of the Tax Law) and local sales taxes imposed pursuant to the authority of Article 29 of the Tax Law are to be added to the aforementioned 9% state sales tax rate. Example: A person residing in New York State subscribes to an entertainment service that is provided by telephony. The entertainment service recipient receives the service on a monthly basis and is charged for the service directly on the bill for telephone service. Prior to September 1, 1993, both the telephone service and the entertainment service were subject to an 8% sales tax (4% state, 4% local). However, any entertainment service provided after September 1, 1993 will be subject to a 13% sales tax (9% state, 4% local). There is no change in the rate of tax imposed on the telephone service which remains at 8%. The affected services contracted for or paid for prior to September 1, 1993 will be subject to the additional state sales tax if they are rendered after September 1, 1993. A new line and reporting code has been added to the sales and use tax return in order to report the additional state sales tax imposed on such services. Entertainment and information services provided or delivered by means of telephony or telegraphy or telephone or telegraph service include ALL such services delivered by such means. These services are taxable, and subject to tax at the higher rate and the applicable local tax rate, whether provided through 500, 700, 800 or 900 telephone numbers, as well as those delivered by local exchange, private telephone line, cable, or channel. It should be kept in mind that the services subject to tax at the increased rate are distinct from telephone or telegraph services subject to tax under section 1105(b) of the Tax Law. Collecting, compiling or analyzing information of any kind and reporting such information to other persons by means of telephony or telegraphy or telephone or telegraph service constitutes the rendering of an information service subject to tax at the increased state tax rate as well as the applicable local sales tax, unless otherwise exempt. Information services that are currently subject to tax when furnished in written form by printed, mimeographed or multigraphed matter or duplicating written or printed matter, such as tapes, disc, electronic readouts or displays, continue to be subject to tax at the 4% state tax rate and the applicable local tax (see section 1105(c)(1) of the Tax Law). The higher sales tax rate applies to all charges for the service by the vendor to the customer which are subject to tax pursuant to section 1105(c)(9) of the Tax Law. A fee for subscribing to a taxable entertainment or information service (taxable under section 1105(c)(9) of the Tax Law) that is billed on a monthly, annual or other basis is taxable at the new rate. Membership or other fees entitling the subscriber to receive by means of telephony, telegraphy, a certain number of free reports or services, or reduced charges on reports or services, are also taxable at the new state tax rate. No tax is due if the vendor makes no charge for the services. Tax is to be separately stated on the recipient's telephone bill, credit card charge receipt or any other bill issued for such services. The increased state tax rate does not apply to any receipts from the sale of information services that are not subject to tax under section 1105(c)(1) of the Tax Law. These include an information service which is personal or individual in nature and is not or may not be substantially incorporated into reports furnished to other persons by the person who collected, compiled or analyzed the information. Examples of such services include a personalized management report delivered orally over the telephone, or an insurance damage appraisal conveyed over the telephone. Also, purchases of information services by newspapers or radio and television broadcasters that are used in the collection and dissemination of news are exempt from sales tax. In addition, the increased state sales tax rate does not apply to charges made to organizations and entities (such as government agencies, exempt organizations, etc.) that are exempt from the general sales and use tax in accordance with section 1116(a) of the Tax Law. Documentation which substantiates exemption from the state and local sales tax for such organizations will likewise serve to exempt such organizations from the additional 5% state sales tax. When exempt entertainment services or exempt information services are being billed by a person other than the actual exempt provider of the services, the actual provider must give an exempt certification document, form ST-930, Certification of Nontaxable Services Provided Via Telephony or Telegraphy or Telephone or Telegraph Services, to the person who will be doing the billing in order that sales tax (including the increased state sales tax) will not be charged on the exempt services. This sales tax exempt certification document may not be issued unless the person issuing the document is registered to collect sales tax or is specifically exempt under section 1116(a) of the New York State Tax Law (and, if required issued a Form ST-119, Exempt Organization Certificate). When any person, affiliate or agent other than the actual provider of entertainment or information services bills the recipient of the services on behalf of the provider, that person will be deemed a vendor of the service for sales tax purposes and will be liable for all the obligations of a vendor. Such obligations include collecting, reporting, and remitting the sales tax (including the additional 5% state tax) due on entertainment and information services which are furnished, provided or delivered by means of telephony or telegraphy or telephone or telegraph services. A person deemed a vendor of these services is entitled to and possesses all the rights afforded a vendor, including the right to an exclusion or a credit or refund of tax as provided in section 1132(c) of the New York State Tax Law with respect to such services. The person providing the billing service, whetyher doing the actual billing or or having the billing done by an affiliate or agent, will be deemed to be a vendor of entertainment or information services when the charges for the services are wither listed as part of, or as a schedule to the statement of such person to its customers, or are billed separately. The term affiliate means an entity which: - directly, indirectly or constructively controls a person deemed a vendor of entertainment or information services. - is controlled by a person deemed a vendor of entertainment or information services - is controlled by a common parent who also controls a person deemed a vendor of entertainment or information services. The designation of a person as a vendor, by virtue of such person performing the billing of charges on behalf of the actual provider of entertainment or information services, in no way limits the obligations or removes the liabilities of the actual provider of such services or any other person with respect to the sales tax imposed on these services. (end of T&F bulletin N-93-20 [8/93]) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==========================================================================

2 1