Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
At 10:33 PM 03/04/2000 -0800, Tim May wrote: >At 9:19 PM -0800 3/4/00, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>In response to Steve Mynott: the name cypherpunk is due to John >>Gilmore > >No, this is not correct. If I remember after-the-fact discussions correctly, it was St. Jude's pun. > >> who was at the time agitating to get the crypto export laws >>lifted. The original agenda was to change society by writting code that >>protected privacy. That part's correct :-) >> John is not a mindless vandal. In fact if you had >>read the Markoff book you would know that Gilmore's house was >>one of Mitnick's targets. Also one of Shimomura's Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
RE: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
At 08:41 PM 3/9/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >At 20:31 3/9/2000 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>I helped change the world. You guys sat on your ass and debated >>theology - policing each other for political correctness as >>assiduously as any Trotskyite faction. > >Hahahahaha... What Matt wrote is correct, of course, but at least this >part of Phill's message is true, for some definition of "political >correctness." > >-Declan Though I should point out that in between the debates, quite a few libertarians (including you but not including me) did a lot in building the Net and Net Culture. Cypherpunks was founded by libertarians. Some of the founders of the EFF were libertarians and many of the techies working on the system were libertarians. DCF Since most murders committed in America are committed by Democrats (or those who would vote Democratic if they voted), we need to protect America by disarming Democrats.
RE: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
At 20:31 3/9/2000 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >I helped change the world. You guys sat on your ass and debated >theology - policing each other for political correctness as >assiduously as any Trotskyite faction. Hahahahaha... What Matt wrote is correct, of course, but at least this part of Phill's message is true, for some definition of "political correctness." -Declan
RE: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
>My favorite quote >from Phill on libertarians: "All the libertariacrap is just that, >prattling of a bunch of blinkered idealogues who know diddly squat >about the net, their ass or their elbow." It was true then and its true now. I helped change the world. You guys sat on your ass and debated theology - policing each other for political correctness as assiduously as any Trotskyite faction. I just drop in from time to time to try and make it just a little bit harder for you guys to persuade more folk to waste their lives in the same way. Phill smime.p7s
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
At 12:02 PM -0500 3/5/00, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >Like John Lennon said: > >"When you're talking about minds that hate, >all I can tell you brother is you have to wait" Just as a point of information. It should be pointed out that Phill is a proud lap dog to the police state. Phill's a proponent of Clinton/Gore, gun control, bigger government etc. My favorite quote from Phill on libertarians: "All the libertariacrap is just that, prattling of a bunch of blinkered idealogues who know diddly squat about the net, their ass or their elbow." At 11:57 PM -0500 2/1/98, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote fight-censorship: >It has been correctly reported that during 1997 and 1998 I acted in an >advisory role providing security advice in connection with a number of >computer installations at the Whitehouse. Regards, Matt- ** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd., PMB 176, Columbus, OH 43229 Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/ **
RE: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
As some will recall, about 3 years ago, I started a thread entitled "'Cypherpunks' considered harmful" suggesting we needed to find a new title for the mailing list. Tim objected quite vehemently, as I recall. I think I proposed 'crypto-enthusiasts' or something like that. "The Secret Admirers", the name of a generally parallel group in Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon" is even more apt, with it's overloaded shades of meaning. Peter Trei (a subscriber to the cypherpunks mailing list, an admirer of secrecy, but not a 'cypherpunk'). -Original Message- From: Tim May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 12:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks At 8:48 AM -0800 3/4/00, Steve Mynott wrote: >I would have thought the very name "cypherpunks" suggests list >sympathies lie more on the "hacker" side then on those of >self-professed security experts. > >On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 07:30:24PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> When cypherpunks was founded, most of the readers on the list were actively >> involved in computer security. I strongly suspect that most readers of the >> list today are hacker 'wannabees', certainly this was the case when I >> stopped reading the list on a regular basis two years ago (although much of >> the material posted by the people I used to follow on the list is >> crossposted or forwarded to me so in effect what I do read probably closely >> resembles the original.) More to the point, Phillip Hallam-Baker is simply _wrong_ in his asssertions above, about the founding period of the list. As to the throwaway line about "most readers of the list today are hacker 'wannabees,'" this tells us all we need to know. --Tim May -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
RE: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
At 9:02 AM -0800 3/5/00, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>>In response to Steve Mynott: the name cypherpunk is due to John >>>Gilmore > >>No, this is not correct. > >Ooops, sorry Tim! On the net you both look alike you know. >I'll get it right in the book. > > Still not right. --Tim May
RE: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
I am not sure that the libertatian goal is to destroy the state, but rather to figure out what is really necessary and valuable and then severely cut it back. Ciao, owlswan The war on drugs is one of the longest running political witch hunts since the inquisition. On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >I see the cypherpunk agenda as broader than mere privacy protection, > >but rather the libertarian goal of the the destruction of the state > >through technological means. > > Like John Lennon said: > > "When you're talking about minds that hate, > all I can tell you brother is you have to wait" > > > Phill
RE: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
>>In response to Steve Mynott: the name cypherpunk is due to John >>Gilmore >No, this is not correct. Ooops, sorry Tim! On the net you both look alike you know. I'll get it right in the book. Phill smime.p7s
RE: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
>I see the cypherpunk agenda as broader than mere privacy protection, >but rather the libertarian goal of the the destruction of the state >through technological means. Like John Lennon said: "When you're talking about minds that hate, all I can tell you brother is you have to wait" Phill smime.p7s
RE: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
>>Ooops, sorry Tim! On the net you both look alike you know. >>I'll get it right in the book. > >Still not right. And getting farther off the mark. From the surveillance video I've seen John and Tim do not look alike. When streaking for a hot tub one wears a modesty apron, for example, the other nothing on the x-ray spectrum.
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 12:02:34PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >I see the cypherpunk agenda as broader than mere privacy protection, > >but rather the libertarian goal of the the destruction of the state > >through technological means. > > Like John Lennon said: > > "When you're talking about minds that hate, > all I can tell you brother is you have to wait" He also said "in" quietly after "But when you talk about destruction/Don't you know you can count me out" But despite the offering of this sort of discussion as a valid subject at American universities I remain unconvinced. http://www.trinity.edu/departments/education/teacher/lessons.htm "Brainstorm individaully (sic) all the connections you can make to the word revolution in any and all senses; write all associations on board as a class Listen to the Beatles' song "Revolution I" and discuss any unclear lyrics as a class Individually respond to questions about song's lyrics" -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pineal.com/ it's nineteen sixty-nine, ok? war across the u.s.a.
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 12:19:03AM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > I don't think anyone has accussed Markoff of actually falsifying the emails > exchanged between Mitnick and his accomplices and I refered to the book > only to establish that the material was already in the public domain and > not subject to any duty of confidence. [ .. ] > In response to Steve Mynott: the name cypherpunk is due to John > Gilmore who was at the time agitating to get the crypto export laws > lifted. The original agenda was to change society by writting code that > protected privacy. John is not a mindless vandal. In fact if you had > read the Markoff book you would know that Gilmore's house was > one of Mitnick's targets. I have read the book. Your memory fails you. There were no emails from Mitnick in that book. I think what you must be talking about are the intercepts of UNIX talk sessions between kdm and jsz. These and more material appear on http://www.takedown.com/ People talk shit in talk and irc sessions. Big deal. These guys did what they did for fun. Shimomura has done work for the NSA and is no friend of freedom. I see the cypherpunk agenda as broader than mere privacy protection, but rather the libertarian goal of the the destruction of the state through technological means. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pineal.com/ the steady state of disks is full. -- ken thompson
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
At 9:19 PM -0800 3/4/00, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >In response to Steve Mynott: the name cypherpunk is due to John >Gilmore No, this is not correct. > who was at the time agitating to get the crypto export laws >lifted. The original agenda was to change society by writting code that >protected privacy. John is not a mindless vandal. In fact if you had >read the Markoff book you would know that Gilmore's house was >one of Mitnick's targets. > > >Phill
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
I don't think anyone has accussed Markoff of actually falsifying the emails exchanged between Mitnick and his accomplices and I refered to the book only to establish that the material was already in the public domain and not subject to any duty of confidence. Mitnick was given a chance and let off lightly the first time. It was his decision to break parole and commit more crimes. If you can't do the time then don't do the crime. Four years ain't bad for a second offense. In response to Steve Mynott: the name cypherpunk is due to John Gilmore who was at the time agitating to get the crypto export laws lifted. The original agenda was to change society by writting code that protected privacy. John is not a mindless vandal. In fact if you had read the Markoff book you would know that Gilmore's house was one of Mitnick's targets. Phill
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
It's worth pondering what demonization and criminalization may evolve from close study of the early Cypherpunk archives made availalble a few days ago by Ralph Seberry : http://lanesbry.com/cypherpunks After a fews days of reading those remarkable exchanges, it would be a surprise if they are not already being assessed for explanations of what makes the Net so threatening. And now that many of the writers have gone on to deeply embed themselves in society to carry out their takeover schemes, why it is the duty of every law-abiding person to expose these Mitnick moles. Here are the names, get plumbing on Deja Declan's report today on the soon to be released recommendation to legislate controls on Net anonymity could be a harbinger to attack many of the Cypherpunk inventions and proposals. Or even to mount a campaign to root out all vestiges of, if not cypherpunkism, then cryptoanarchy. The history of the rise of virulent anti-whatever frightens the populace, and its usefulness to centrists to attack any kind of anti-authoritarianism, should remind how handy it would be to plumb the cpunk archives to devise a comprehensive campaign for criminalizing a new generation of disagreeables who dare to dream of overthrowing the status quo. What is surprising, in reviewing the cpunk archives, is the tranformation of some into Shimomuras, no doubt, as with him, due to the allure of being the best, rather being told that by crafty recruiters like Markoff -- or did Shimomura's employers recruit The Times.
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
To the contrary, there have been questions raised about the book by journalists who are not in any way a "Mitnick supporter." Check out way back issues of CuD. Mitnick may well be a loser but that does not mean everything written about him was true. -Declan t 10:57 3/4/2000 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > Markoff. Isn't that the guy who may have fabricated (artistic license) > > portions of a less than adequately documented book for personal profit, > > then collaborated on an even more ficticious movie? > >"May have fabricated", you don't have any proof, but you don't like what >he wrote. As Cartman would say that's weak man. > >Since the accusations appear to come from Mitnick's supporters they >have to be considered somewhat suspect. > >I know enough people who were involved in the previous investigations >of Mitnick to corroborate the points I made, namely that Mitnick is a nasty >piece of work and a pathetic loser rather than the harmless chap his >defence attorney would have people believe.
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
At 8:48 AM -0800 3/4/00, Steve Mynott wrote: >I would have thought the very name "cypherpunks" suggests list >sympathies lie more on the "hacker" side then on those of >self-professed security experts. > >On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 07:30:24PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> When cypherpunks was founded, most of the readers on the list were actively >> involved in computer security. I strongly suspect that most readers of the >> list today are hacker 'wannabees', certainly this was the case when I >> stopped reading the list on a regular basis two years ago (although much of >> the material posted by the people I used to follow on the list is >> crossposted or forwarded to me so in effect what I do read probably closely >> resembles the original.) More to the point, Phillip Hallam-Baker is simply _wrong_ in his asssertions above, about the founding period of the list. As to the throwaway line about "most readers of the list today are hacker 'wannabees,'" this tells us all we need to know. --Tim May -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
I would have thought the very name "cypherpunks" suggests list sympathies lie more on the "hacker" side then on those of self-professed security experts. On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 07:30:24PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > When cypherpunks was founded, most of the readers on the list were actively > involved in computer security. I strongly suspect that most readers of the > list today are hacker 'wannabees', certainly this was the case when I > stopped reading the list on a regular basis two years ago (although much of > the material posted by the people I used to follow on the list is > crossposted or forwarded to me so in effect what I do read probably closely > resembles the original.) -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pineal.com/ "elvis was a hero to most, but he never meant shit to me you see"
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
Phill wrote: >I know enough people who were involved in the previous investigations >of Mitnick to corroborate the points I made, namely that Mitnick is a nasty >piece of work and a pathetic loser rather than the harmless chap his >defence attorney would have people believe. Watching Mitnick yesterday beng queried by US Senators on what to do about hacker attacks was pretty astonishing in the light of so-called public revulsion about Mitnick and hackers. There was surprising deference toward Kevin by the senators, and they even joked with him about his imprisonment. What it reminded me of was the way the fathers of Shawn Reimerdes and John Johansen, two so-called hackers in the DeCSS affair, kidded with their sons at the foolhardiness of governments which do not know what to do with they do cannot control and barely understand. Typically, the fathers explain, first authoritarians demonize then, when intimidation doesn't work, they criminalize. It appeared that the Senators wanted to learn from Kevin, as oldsters must, to avoid being vainly stupid, an occupational hazard of those who compulsively believe they know what needs to be known. Then parents grow up and out of that deliberate ignorance and learn to listen to those kids who ain't kids anymore. To be sure some parents and some senators, even a few experts, never succumb to the temptation to abuse their power, to demonize those smarter, much less criminalize their superiors. That takes guts, and humilty, attributes in short supply at the top of small heaps.
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
> Markoff. Isn't that the guy who may have fabricated (artistic license) > portions of a less than adequately documented book for personal profit, > then collaborated on an even more ficticious movie? "May have fabricated", you don't have any proof, but you don't like what he wrote. As Cartman would say that's weak man. Since the accusations appear to come from Mitnick's supporters they have to be considered somewhat suspect. I know enough people who were involved in the previous investigations of Mitnick to corroborate the points I made, namely that Mitnick is a nasty piece of work and a pathetic loser rather than the harmless chap his defence attorney would have people believe. Phill
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
- Original Message - From: Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Matthew Gaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 12:25 AM Subject: Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks > At 07:30 PM 3/3/00 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >In support of Vin's case, it is not unusual for hackers to claim noble > >motives for their actions that are completely refuted when their private > >communications come to light. A key example of the type being Kevin Mitnick > >whose protestations of having never intended harm are contradicted by the > >hate filled and on occasion racist emails he exchanged with his accomplices > >(see the Markoff book for details). > > Markoff. Isn't that the guy who may have fabricated (artistic license) > portions of a less than adequately documented book for personal profit, > then collaborated on an even more ficticious movie? > > No thanks, I'll pass - but thank you for playing truth or dare. > > reese >
Re: Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
In support of Vin's case, it is not unusual for hackers to claim noble motives for their actions that are completely refuted when their private communications come to light. A key example of the type being Kevin Mitnick whose protestations of having never intended harm are contradicted by the hate filled and on occasion racist emails he exchanged with his accomplices (see the Markoff book for details). It is strange that so many vandals go boasting about the damage caused by their exploits on IRC and then claim to have 'never intended any harm' when they get caught. My belief, right or wrong is that the best means of discouraging folk from causing malicious damage for whatever reason is the threat of substantial jail sentences for the few who get caught. If folks don't want to go to prison then the simple answer is don't go arround hacking other folks systems. Civil disobedience has its place, but hacking attacks look more like terrorist thuggery than Ghandian passive resistance to me. When cypherpunks was founded, most of the readers on the list were actively involved in computer security. I strongly suspect that most readers of the list today are hacker 'wannabees', certainly this was the case when I stopped reading the list on a regular basis two years ago (although much of the material posted by the people I used to follow on the list is crossposted or forwarded to me so in effect what I do read probably closely resembles the original.) Hacking needs to lose the mistique that the media have created for it. Rather than presenting hackers as heros and role models they should present them in their true colours - somewhat pathetic teenage thugs. Equally I think we need to be very carefull about ideas like full disclosure, lest they get hijacked and become a license for hacking by proxy. The folk smart enough to develop attacks are these days smart enough to let fools do their dirty work for them. My strong suspicion is that the dolt who set off Trinoo against Yahoo et. al. was not participating in a stock fraud. Anyone smart enough to set up the fraud is probably smart enough to realise that all they can achieve the same effect placing the tools in some dweebs hands. What we need is to reduce the status acquired by downloading an attack tool from a Web site and setting it off. At the moment the lamer who does this thinks that they are 'Elite' rather than what they really are - the patsy for the guy who wrote the tool. Putting my propaganda analyst hat on for a moment, the most effective method available for such a status reduction available would be an appropriate label for the behaviour that would make explicit the fact that it is 1) not particularly clever and 2) being used by the author of the tool. A term like the good old fashioned AI lab term 'Luser' but conveying more of an insult. Perhaps the term 'drone' would serve, since it means both an insect with few braincells that does no work and a pilotless aircraft under the control of another person. Another fact about drones is that they only get sex once in their entire life. Phill
Vin McLellan & Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: Sent with permission. Charles Mudd's rebuttal appears at the end of Vin McLellan's comments. I thought both posts covered some interesting territory.] From: Vin McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Hearings on Denial of Service Attacks Charlz Franz is a generous soul. Unlike him, I don't have any problem declaring the D-DoS attacks "obviously wrong" -- whatever the (thus far undeclared) "state of mind and purpose" behind the attack. Mr. Franz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> suggests -- on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever, so far as I can see -- that these attacks could be "protests against the commercialization of the net," and suggests that this could be a mitigating circumstance. I certainly agree with both Mr. Franz and American Bar Association luminary Charles Mudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that the motivation and goal of the perpetrator(s) should be considered in determining punishment -- in the unlikely event that he or they are identified and prosecuted -- but I think it is utter balderdash to presume, as both do, that the recent Distributed Denial of Service (D-DoS) attacks are only naive adolescent pranks. The most notable and obvious result of this series of D-DoS attacks was a whipsaw on Wall Street. If we are going to make assumptions, let's assume that what happened is exactly what the perp expected and intended to happen. Why not assume that the person who planned this -- and it was obviously very premeditated -- made a million or two shorting Internet stocks and going long on the leading infosec vendors? (That is certainly as likely -- far more likely, IMNSHO -- than Mr. Franz's fantasy that these attacks were an expression of community protest.) D-DoS attacks -- like computer virus and worm attacks -- are closer to arson than halloween pranks. Things of value get destroyed; real institutions and real people are threatened -- perhaps hurt; certainly harassed; probably burdened with out-of-pocket losses. As with arson, some people figure out how to use such destruction for their own economic benefit. Others burn down buildings out of delight in the dancing flames and the pain they cause. To suggest that this behavior might be a cry for social justice -- or as a protest against the popularization and commercialization of the Internet -- is romantic claptrap... the same thumb-sucking myth-mongering that the media used for years to romanticize a generation of destructive behavior among the virus writers. Mr. Franz runs up the Flag with his warm fuzzy memories of Vietnam War protestors who marched, got their heads bashed, and then showed up (book-laden and bourgeois) in class the next day. As someone who wrapped 7 or 8 year of his life around the Anti-War and Civil Rights movements, I find the suggested parallel offensive and unwarranted. Social justice is not a likely motivation for the perp or perps in this case. (If you want to get nostalgic, recall instead the fears -- widespread among those of us who marched, as well as among the FBI agents of Cointelpro, and the Civil Defense mavens in their '50s-era bunkers;-] -- that some idiot would seize the moment and toss a mayonase jar full of Leary's acid, or some other psychoactive drug, into an urban water reservoir.) Again, AFAIK, there is not a smidgen of evidence that these attacks are associated with any prayer for social justice, or motivated by any political or social or religious values. What we do know is that -- on top of the losses of the DoS targets and their customers -- a lot of quick money made on the stock market by investors who placed their bets on the heavy-hitters in the mecurial compsec and comsec sectors. I think the presumptions that Mr. Mudd and Mr. Franz make about a naive young perpetrator (with or without a Cause) colors their attitude to an embarassing degree. Mr. Mudd and Mr. Franz both referred to the Morris Worm. My recollection is that Bob Morris Jr. did not intend to do damage. Morris thought he was clever enough to infect thousands of computers without disrupting them and the Net. (His worm became known, destructive, and famous because he fouled up on the implementation.) This was not the case with the author of these D-DoS attacks. Like the virus writers, the person or persons who set up all these D-DoS attacks had overt destruction as a goal. Perhaps a purposeful (profitable?) destruction. "Voices demanding to be heard?" Gimme a break! Again, there is absolutely *no* published evidence that the perpetrator(s) want to protest, or communicate, or do anything other than what they did! This Child of the Sixties, for one, would not hesitate to send a healthy check to any fund which set a NetCitizen's Bounty on the perp or perps. Let's pony up a reward for (anonymous) information leading to the arre
