From: Joe Eversole Area: Public Key Encryption To: Scott Mills 12 Feb 95 16:54:48 Subject: Golded @enc: PGP UpdReq Hey Scott! 10 Feb 95 13:42, Scott Mills wrote to All: SM> @MSGID: 1:265/119 2f3b6e95 SM> @ENC: PGP SM> -+---BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-+--- SM> Does anyone have any further info on this kludge? Is this just to make it SM> easier for sysops to bounce PGPed traffic or is there another use for it? Well, that feature seems to work. =) Joe Eversole , SysOp - HearthStone 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Gordon Campbell Area: Public Key Encryption To: Christopher Baker 15 Feb 95 11:55:16 Subject: unauthorized info gathering instead? [Was: UnauthorizedUpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On (13 Feb 95) Christopher Baker wrote to Scott Mills... CB> a conspiracy nut might say it was an obvious attempt by a government CB> agent to identify pro-encryption folks. [grin] Who are you calling a nut? ;-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i Comment: Help! Help! The paranoids are after me! iQCVAwUBL0IyBoomCDt60qk9AQHxjAQAgomLSENkdbOnqy8fF6AlN+jH6d0+n03Z GA5a5jG3+Gy5ZN3i67Fz7F8HLBxcJGjVRdwqmT2oHazcRoxmY8/EH3wHxEMC+qrq lW9EhyQE/FhdyB+mmPTPJJNtjz/wi0G5b1Qy4keZ7WpDA0FAPCKb6lTBlKId37/L BGrnn9/OdfU= =KkjI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ... Key fingerprint = FD E8 27 CA 15 6C 4A 4F 09 1E B5 B0 7B 09 6E 50 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Nolan Lee Area: Public Key Encryption To: Armando Ortiz 16 Feb 95 10:01:30 Subject: Unauthorized Entry UpdReq On Feb 11 17:40 95, Armando Ortiz of 1:206/2406@FIDOnet wrote: AO> If you've beta tested software, then you had to go through AO> a questionnaire direct from the developer answering each AO> individual question that you come across... AO> I doubt you've beta tested anything except an IUD... Nothing like reverting to name calling when you can't justify your position on an issue, huh? AO> VQWK 6.20 [Rev H - 04/04/94] For what it's worth, before you start on your program, you might want to double check your QWK packet reader configuration. You're sending two (2), of each message. Klatu, Barada, Nickto, Nolan 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: David Chessler Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jim Bell 15 Feb 95 13:42:00 Subject: Pgp news UpdReq On 02-12-95 (21:03), Jim Bell, in a message to David Chessler about "PGP NEWS", stated the following: > JB>That assumes that the letters are "intimidating." What about a few > >dozen "NICE" letters... mailed to his house? JB> DC> Give up. You're wrong. Dangerously wrong. JB>"Baaaaahh! Baaaaahh!" JB>I love your sheep imitation! You don't understand still don't understand the difference between effective protest and counterproductive threats. What you propose would just make things worse for Zimmermann in the short run and for all of us in the long run. You do not protest to the prosecutor. If you want to protest, you write your congresscritters, the President, and possibly the Attorney General. Mail to them is considered a normal and constitutionally protected "petition" to the government. Any mail to the house of a US Attorney would be investigated as a threat, and would be treated as evidence of a possible conspiracy. JB> DC> Even "nice" letters to the house would be taken as "we know where >you > DC> live," and as a threat. JB>Well, given that he's a government thug, you may be right that he'd >interpret them in that way. But if that's indeed the case, then we >REALLY NEED to apply as much pressure as we can, and unless the letters >contain actual threatening language, they won't be legally actionable. Bullshit. They don't have to threaten anything. All the law enforcement people have to do is show a conspiracy, and show an implied threat, and you can spend $100,000 defending yourself. And, as I said, this kind of pressure would push back. They would come down on Zimmermann like a ton of bricks. JB>And, of course, nothing stops us from writing NICE, yet UNSIGNED >letters. That's worse. Those would be treated as threats. And do you want to find out how good--or bad--the FBI is at tracing unsigned letters. JB> JB>Acting like sheeple (you _do_ know what a "sheeple" is, don't >you?!?) > >only encourages the thugs to continue their previous abuse. JB> DC> Cheap threats are worse. JB>Stop misrepresenting my notes. You don't get 'debate points' by lying >about somebody else's statements. You are the one who is talking about "pressure". There is no way you can pressure a US Attorney, and your talk of sending them to his house, not his office, and not signing them does most definitely move them to the category of cheap threats. Threats you have no way of backing up. What pressure are you talking about? There is none--except the cheap threat of "we know where you live." JB>Let's look very carefully at what you just said. You said militias are >not threatening, but they scare the Feds. Right? Indicating that the >Feds can get VERY nervous even when nobody is doing anything illegal. >Well, if that's the case perhaps we've got to ask WHY. Because they have guns. Armed men and women, organized with commanders, who talk about "tyranny," and when asked for examples, talk about actions by duly sworn law enforcement officers, pursuant to warrants, which they might consider tyranny. Threats by people with guns are not cheap threats, and are taken seriously. JB> DC> But they never mention individual prosecutors, or BATF agents, or > DC> anyone else. If they did that, they would be put away and the key >lost. JB>On what charges? "Felony 'mentioning' "? What did they put Al Capone in prison for? Do you remember? They don't need a charge. And yes, "mentioning" an individual in that context might well constitute a felony. JB> DC> Unless you have a militia, you are just a pest, and they will >squash > DC> you--and PRZ--like a cockroach. JB>The whole country is working on the project of forming and organizing >these militias. JB>How about your flock? If you had a militia, you would know better than to make cheap threats--and wouldn't have to. Give up. You have been told by everyone that what you propose would do no good to anyone, and, if taken at all seriously, would do a lot of harm to Zimmermann (even if they don't take it seriously, it would likely do harm). You are just full of idle braggadocio, and I've had enough of your name calling. So far as I'm concerned, you have said nothing useful, much that is harmful, have been generally obnoxious, and are working for a place on the twit list. This thread is cut. -- ___ __ david.chessler@neteast.com d_)--/d chessler@capaccess.org chessler@trinitydc.edu * SLMR 2.1b * E-mail: ->132 1:109/459 david.chessler@neteast.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Perkhiser Area: Public Key Encryption To: Scott Mills 15 Feb 95 05:32:40 Subject: Inquiry UpdReq In a message of , Scott Mills (1:265/119@fidonet.org) writes: SM> A good way would be to take a small file then ZOO, SQZ, LBR, ... SM>you change the file extensions you could cost them alot of SM>irritation trying to decrypt a SQZ or LBR. They probably want be For what it's worth (and by now way off topic?) there is a program (for MS-Dos) that can look at a file (regardless of extension) and output an error code based on the type of compression that file used. Wes 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Perkhiser Area: Public Key Encryption To: Richard Dale 15 Feb 95 05:37:54 Subject: Clear signing UpdReq In a message of , Richard Dale (1:280/333@fidonet.org) writes: RD> suspect using my 1024-bit key would be faster, but am unsure RD> how to do it. RD> I use: PGP -sta +clearsig=on reply Try PGP -sta +clearsig=on -u0x32C23C95 reply Wes 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Chris Adams Area: Public Key Encryption To: David Chessler 15 Feb 95 18:04:40 Subject: Quotes as passphrase UpdReq On (14 Feb 95) David Chessler wrote to Chris Adams... CA>How about just having about 4 different computers at the same clock rate >right next to each other? Just have the other 3 running Windows to burn >those clock cycles... ;) Someone suggested a tesla coil, but I think DC> This has been suggested on Sci.crypt. The consensus was, it's no problem DC> to pull one signal out of the noise. Expensive and painstaking, perhaps, DC> but not a problem. DC> From what I know about digital signal processing and spectral analysis, I DC> suspect they're right--"jamming" or obscuring the signal won't work. Probably. How would multitasking with something OS/2 affect it? It seems that swapping a few different programs in and out would complicate their job a bit keeping things straight. >that would be dangerous, unless it drained COMPLETELY through the case >into the ground cable, at which point it would probably be very >effective... Also, an RFI generator would help. DC> Jamming with white noise would be no problem at all. So much for that... ... Wizard's Guild Parking. Violators will be toad. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Chris Adams Area: Public Key Encryption To: Bill Brown 15 Feb 95 19:27:00 Subject: Clear signing UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On (14 Feb 95) Bill Brown wrote to Richard Dale... RD> It takes 45 seconds to sign it, BB> Sigh. It takes about twice that here, and I only use a 1024-bit key. Hmmm. What are you running it on? RD> Or should I just forget it and move my mail to the faster computer RD> or suffer through the wait on this one? BB> What's your time worth to you? ;) Less than the money I don't have... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBL0LGS7f8VAamwaxpAQE9IAP/ed9mv4szd3a6xwMH5Q3Lce3fdEZWTxsO mT8DHOeGYpNMvwKGlfpei2H8xyX9xOd9HL0Fn8Yh0cxVxpCdOdb7VCu6Z1/r5pFA a8PK0l+dqtikwpYh9TOvBoJNWiNPbSqSiWJK3RskguEAml044eXRDtkEazQ+p83E crdRzEdgAms= =d5He -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Only took about 5 seconds here... ... Quasars shift red, Hot stars burn blue. Space is warped and so are U. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: Armando Ortiz 17 Feb 95 11:55:24 Subject: PGP for OS/2 Slow v3.0 UpdReq Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Armando Ortiz said this to ALL: AO> I know my tagline submits my basic attitude for it, but if I can get the AO> Lotus SmartSuite for OS/2 for just under $130 with Lotus 123, AmiPro, AO> Freelance, and cc:Mail, why should I have to stay with DOS? There's no reason in the world why you shouldn't upgrade, Armando. Assuming you have plenty of RAM. Ami Pro for OS/2 is a major resource hog. AO> Is there a version of PGP for OS/2 or is it going to run under the OS/2 AO> DOS Window? Both! Either! Whichever you want! I'm using the OS/2 version, but the DOS version has worked fine here in the past as well. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: Armando Ortiz 17 Feb 95 11:58:00 Subject: unauthorized info gatheri UpdReq Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Armando Ortiz said this to Christopher Baker: AO> PGP is illegal outside of the United States. Where did you get this rubbish? MIT's versions are illegal to export; that's it. Everybody else's versions are completely legal in most countries. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718