-Original Message-
From: Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jul 30, 2004 10:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
The profitably part is a non-issue when you have black budgets
This is what J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said
about Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarde on 24 Jul 2004 at 18:44
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
There might be blind cypherpunks, we don't discriminate[1],
There Is No We.
[1] the original phone phreaks were blind,
At 12:07 AM 7/29/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Did you know that your teeth enamel contain isotope ratios that
encode regions where you might have grown up around age 6?
Yes. I am also aware that tooth enamel has the interesting property of
At 12:36 PM 7/29/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Remember that the spookfabs don't have to contend with *economics and
yield*.
Damn, this is precisely where I wish Tim May was still around.
We are all just echoes of the voices in his head.
But I did work for a company that owned fabs. And have
At 06:44 PM 7/24/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
There might be blind cypherpunks, we don't discriminate[1],
There Is No We.
touche'
[1] the original phone phreaks were blind,
This is a ridiculous statement, and even worse, leaks information
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Did you know that your teeth enamel contain isotope ratios that
encode regions where you might have grown up around age 6?
Yes. I am also aware that tooth enamel has the interesting property of
trapping a fantastic number of parmaceuticals.
At 03:52 PM 7/27/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Variola wrote...
In the *public* lit.
Well, perhaps but perhaps not. Burst-mode signaling, transceivers, and
networking technology are a good example. If you see DISA, NSA, and
DARPA
all working with the acknoledged experts inthe academic field, and
or chipset, and implies that they won't be orders of
magnitude better at opening up LOTS of traffic.
(In non-troll mode.)
-TD
From: Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto
proxies
Date: Wed, 28
Variola wrote...
While this cannot be discounted in toto, the tech comes to them from
academia (most of the time), so generally, if you are widely read,
you'll
have a pretty good idea of what's *possible*. You are likely dead-on
accurate about the fabs though.
In the *public* lit.
Well, perhaps
At 04:44 PM 7/24/2004, J.A. Terranson wrote:
[1] the original phone phreaks were blind,
This is a ridiculous statement, and even worse, leaks information about
your nym: [young enough to have not been there].
You are thinking of Joe Whistler Joe Egressia (sp?), and the kid form
New York whose
--
On 23 Jul 2004 at 12:40, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
Depends on whom. Often the money are the main motivation. Of
course, your own country won't pay you as well as the other
one, and will try to appeal to your patriotism like a bunch
of cheapskates - it's better to be a contractor.
The
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:11:58AM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
Google's Gmail is an interesting case.
Unlike Councilman's ISP, who were sneaky greedy wiretapping bums,
Google tells you that they'll grep your mail for advertising material,
and tells you how much of that they'll leak to the
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 10:35:19PM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
You don't know about tape robots, or offline indexing, eh?
FYI from a recent trip to the NSA crypto museum:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Undersea taps are hard. No matter how you figure it.
You think subs are just toys?
Yes. Big ass toys for a bunch of boyz without brainz :-) And remember,
Ivy Bells technology won't work here.
That aside, I'm not arguing that it is
At 09:47 PM 7/23/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
What I meant was, Ames and that FBI dude Hansen (sp?), at least the
KGB
got Ames' wife as part of the package, whereas the FBI CI dude
let his wife off as part of the deal he cut. Nice xian that he was,
he
was into strippers.
Aren't we *all*
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
for free. You just have to start pulse dialing with the hook before the
autodialer kicks in;
The easier way is to wait for the retard to answer, then curse at them.
They'll hang up, and in ~60 seconds you'll be back to a dial tone, and the
dialer
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
There might be blind cypherpunks, we don't discriminate[1],
There Is No We.
[1] the original phone phreaks were blind,
This is a ridiculous statement, and even worse, leaks information about
your nym: [young enough to have not been there].
Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Back when the protocols were unprotected... much like the 'net today :-)
Hell, as recently as three years ago the pay phones in Boston could
still be red boxed. It may actually still be possible---I haven't tried
in a while. Haven't done it here in
At 10:27 AM 7/22/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Gilmore et al used a bunch of old Sun Chassis for his Kocher's
DEScracker. You think this is somehow more than 100 watts, in a
diplo suitcase, nowadays?
My point was, Gilmore et al were way behind what's capable.
Proof of concept needn't be
At 12:39 AM 7/22/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
I'm following the Principle of not underestimating the
adversary,
Don't go overboard: remember that there is a difference between
underestimating your adversary and unrealistically *over*estimating
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
My point is only that they will be killed should they leak their
actual capabilities.
Well... I am reading a book about intelligence now. Specifically, Ernst
Volkman: Spies - the secret agents who changed the course of history.
Amusing book;
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
I'm following the Principle of not underestimating the
adversary,
Don't go overboard: remember that there is a difference between
underestimating your adversary and unrealistically *over*estimating your
adversary.
who does plenty of RD, just
At 10:09 AM 7/21/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Variola wrote...
Dark fiber.
Dark Fiber ain't a talisman you merely wave at data to get it to
magically
move to where you want it to.You've got to LIGHT that fiber, and to
light
that fiber you need LOTS and LOTS of power-hungry, space-occupying
At 11:28 AM 7/21/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
As for the cable landings, likewise I've never heard anyone mention
that
they saw any government equipment at the landings, so I suspect it's
relatively minimal.
I'm sorry but I have to puke at your cluelessness. Do you actually
think the folks in
At 10:12 PM 7/21/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
With all due respect, you think Ft. Meade uses the same COTS crap
as you are forced to deal with? Bwah hah hah.
Sorry Major, I'm gonna have to call you on that one. Yes, they are
lighting that
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 10:09 AM 7/21/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Variola wrote...
Dark fiber.
Dark Fiber ain't a talisman you merely wave at data to get it to
magically
move to where you want it to.You've got to LIGHT that fiber, and to
light
that fiber
Variola:
You say a lotta good shit here, but you're really out of your area in this
case. You seem to miss the basic points, and then fill in your blindspot
with pure theoretical conjecture. Let me point out some of the lil' flaws in
your thinking
With all due respect, you think Ft. Meade
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:20:36AM -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Yes, but I think it's fairly clear that if one needs to dissasemble the
OC-Ns in the field, you simply need too much gear. It's going to be far
It's clearly not viable to process much underwater. How much machine room
square
Eugen Leitl wrote...
It's clearly not viable to process much underwater. How much machine room
square meters do you need at those cable landings, though?
Not that much, if all you need to do is send a spliced copy over to your own
undersea Optical Fiber Amplification node or undersea DWDM OADM.
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
I guess the question arises as to whether the FBI, for instance, shares it's
network with the NSA.
You've got it backwards.
-TD
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF
...justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those
At 01:07 PM 7/18/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Let me fill in what he left out. Yes, the industry is moving towards
MPLS over POS. That's not where it is now though. At least not for
most
interfaces. Right now the industry is chock full of lagacy gear,
mostly
old fashioned ATM. You think
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:56:05AM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
None of which qualify here - remember, the discussion was based upon a
quiet implementation.
A VPN link from a *nivore box streaming filtered info is pretty quiet.
There are plenty of dedicated network processors for packet
As suggested, tapping oversea fibres in shallow waters is probably the Way
To
Do It.
Apparently NSA has it's own splicing sub for this purpose. As for US fibers,
I've spoken to folks who have actually seen the splice in cable landings
that went over to W. VA or wherever.
-TD
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto
proxies
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:35:19 -0700
At 01:07 PM 7/18/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Let me fill in what he left out. Yes, the industry is moving towards
MPLS over POS
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Eugen Leitl wrote:
For those of you who have worked at major ISPs, can the fact that traffic is
routed through a few customer boxes be hidden from employees?
Speaking as someone who qualifies: no. However, the fact that you even
asked the question begs another question,
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:06:40PM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
On the other hand, 100,000 employees times two disk drives per desktop
and a few departmental servers can get you that much capacity.
I understand there is this thing called a black budget. The production
rate limit of plain text
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Eugen Leitl wrote:
I was thinking about a box at each incoming/outgoing point with a NIC in
passive mode.
A NIC? You gotta realize that we're talking about mesh circuits here:
OC3-OC48 trunks, OC192 backbones... This is no small job. A mom/pop or
midsized regional maybe
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 06:13:49AM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
A NIC? You gotta realize that we're talking about mesh circuits here:
OC3-OC48 trunks, OC192 backbones... This is no small job. A mom/pop or
At times of 10 GBit Ethernet, OC192 data rate doesn't seem all that
intimidating.
A
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 07:50:16AM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
I have seen a passive tap on a gig line used for IDS, true, but that's
pretty close to the state of the art right now. There's an issue with
There are dedicated network processors, though, and one can outsorce the
filter
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 06:13:49AM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
A NIC? You gotta realize that we're talking about mesh circuits here:
OC3-OC48 trunks, OC192 backbones... This is no small job. A mom/pop or
At times of 10 GBit Ethernet, OC192 data
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 05:55:02AM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Now, *mirroring* to a couple of choke points, sure, but then you ave
transit and other associated costs (you gotta haul the data to all of the
collectors).
I was thinking about a box at each incoming/outgoing point with a NIC in
PROTECTED]
To: J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:46:10 +0200
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 06:13:49AM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
A NIC? You gotta realize that we're talking about
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
I think it would be far easier if WAN protocols were plain GBit Ethernet.
WAN won't be 1GbE, but it will probably be 10GbE with SONET framing, or else
OC-192c POS (ie, PPP-encapsulated HDLC-framed MPLS). In either case, I
suspect it will be far
than to try to break out a zillion lil' tiny DS1s.
-TD
From: Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:34:18 +0200
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 07:50:16AM
that conversation came out of.
-TD
From: J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:07:10 -0500 (CDT)
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tyler
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
JA, ya' gotta good point here. Or at least, this sheds a lot of doubt on
things.
But then again, the purpose of GIG-BE may be precisely to move an optical
copy (use a $100 splitter) back to processing centers where the traffic is
stored. In this
You could try sending an email to Austin Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] to see
if he could organize releasing source for remaining freedom related
source that they are not currently using.
Adam
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:34:04PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
I wonder if the mail 2.0 code could be publicly
I can't imagine any intelligence professional wasting her time reading
the crap at times coming over this list.
As of mid 2000 most of traffic is recorded. By this time 'most' is very close to
'all'. But if you e-mail someone with account on the same local ISP, using dial-in at
the recipient
At 01:09 PM 7/7/2004, Adam Back wrote:
Then we implemented a replacement version 2 mail system that I
designed. The design is much simpler. With freedom anonymous
networking you had anyway a anonymous interactive TCP feature. So we
just ran a standard pop box for your nym. Mail would be
Thomas Shaddack writes:
Reading some news about the email wiretapping by ISPs, and getting an
idea.
There are various email forwarding services, which are nothing more than a
SMTP server with pairs of [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, mostly for use as disposable email
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:36:11PM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 06:58 AM 7/7/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
I can't imagine any intelligence professional wasting her time reading
the crap at times coming over this list.
Frankly sir, that's because you have no idea of their budget,
or
At 02:47 PM 7/6/04 -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
Messages in storage have much lower judicial protection than messages
in
transit. (This does not have much technical merit, in the current
atmosphere of damn the laws - there are terrorists around the
corner,
but can be seen as a nice little
the copy
into storage or into the short list for an analyst to peek it.
-TD
From: Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto
proxies
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:40:29 -0700
At 02:47 PM 7/6/04
At 02:47 PM 7/6/2004, Hal Finney wrote:
Thomas Shaddack writes:
There are various email forwarding services, which are nothing more than a
SMTP server with pairs of [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, mostly for use as disposable email addresses.
I've used spamgourmet to good effect,
At 06:58 AM 7/7/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
I can't imagine any intelligence professional wasting her time reading
the crap at times coming over this list.
Frankly sir, that's because you have no idea of their budget,
or their fascistic urges.Its not paranoia to think you're tapped,
its
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:40:29PM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
smoking something I've run out of. Its all recorded. I'm sure the
archiving
and database groups in Ft. Meade will get a chuckle out of your
the right to idioms.
All this stuff goes into some database slot. It will only
Absolutely, look at the threat model. You're not worried about
someone
breaking into your computer, you're worried about your ISP legally
reading your email.
Guaranteed, and encryption is bait. Use stego.
That's very true, however there can be operators you trust more than
your
ISP, eg. a
Reading some news about the email wiretapping by ISPs, and getting an
idea.
There are various email forwarding services, which are nothing more than a
SMTP server with pairs of [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages in storage have much lower judicial protection than messages in
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Hal Finney wrote:
There are various email forwarding services, which are nothing more than a
SMTP server with pairs of [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, mostly for use as disposable email addresses. I've used
spamgourmet to good effect, myself.
I
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 10:28:01AM -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Well, I don't actually believe it's all recorded. As I've attempted to
explain previously, they almost certainly have risk models in place. When
several variables twinkle enough (eg, origination area, IP address,
presence of
At 07:28 AM 7/7/2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
If you think the cable landings in Va/Md are coincidental, you are
smoking something I've run out of. Its all recorded. I'm sure the
archiving and database groups in Ft. Meade will get a chuckle out of your
the right to idioms.
Well, I don't actually
This is somewhat related to what ZKS did in their version 1 [1,2] mail
system.
They made a transparent local pop proxy (transparent in that it
happened at firewall level, did not have to change your mail client
config). In this case they would talk to your real pop server,
decrypt the parts
62 matches
Mail list logo
