💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › magazines › CUD › cud0979.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 11:06:44.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Computer underground Digest Sun Nov 2, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 79
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.79 (Sun, Nov 2, 1997)
File 1--RC5 Cracked - The unknown message is... (fwd)
File 2--Justice Dept charges Microsoft w/violating 199 order
File 3--Microsoft's reaction the the DOJ lawsuit
File 4--Small Minds Think Alike
File 5--Illinois Library Decides Not to Filter Net
File 6--Gullibility Virus Warning
File 7--Bandwidth Turnabout: Not Just Fair Play But Future Wave?
File 8--Islands in the Clickstream
File 9--Kashpureff in custody. (fwd)
File 10--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:43:38 -0500
From: Albert Garrido <Albert.Garrido@nextel.com>
Subject: File 1--RC5 Cracked - The unknown message is... (fwd)
Hi, I'm sending the message below for inclusion in the next CuD issue.
---
Below is the original press release detailing RC5-56 bit encryption
being cracked by the Bovine effort at http://www.distributed.net
Please note that the Bovine effort has not stopped, and has moved onto
cracking RC5-64. See for details.
----------
From-- David McNett <nugget@slacker.com>[:]
Sent-- Wednesday, October 22, 1997 3:14 PM
Subject-- [rc5] The unknown message is...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
It is a great privilege and we are excited to announce that at 13:25
GMT on 19-Oct-1997, we found the correct solution for RSA Labs' RC5-
32/12/7 56-bit secret-key challenge. Confirmed by RSA Labs, the key
0x532B744CC20999 presented us with the plaintext message for which we
have been searching these past 250 days.
The unknown message is: It's time to move to a longer key length
In undeniably the largest distributed-computing effort ever, the
Bovine RC5 Cooperative (http://www.distributed.net/), under the
leadership of distributed.net, managed to evaluate 47% of the
keyspace, or 34 quadrillion keys, before finding the winning key. At
the close of this contest our 4000 active teams were processing over
7 billion keys each second at an aggregate computing power equivalent
to more than 26 thousand Pentium 200's or over 11 thousand PowerPC
604e/200's. Over the course of the project, we received block
submissions from over 500 thousand unique IP addresses.
The winning key was found by Peter Stuer <peter@dinf.vub.ac.be> with
an Intel Pentium Pro 200 running Windows NT Workstation, working for
the STARLab Bovine Team coordinated by Jo Hermans
<Jo.Hermans@vub.ac.be> and centered in the Computer Science
Department (DINF) of the Vrije Universiteit (VUB) in Brussels,
Belgium. (http://dinf.vub.ac.be/bovine.html/). Jo's only comments
were that "$1000 will buy a lot of beer" and that he wished that the
solution had been found by a Macintosh, the platform that represented
the largest portion of his team's cracking power. Congratulations
Peter and Jo!
Of the US$10000 prize from RSA Labs, they will receive US$1000 and
plan to host an unforgettable party in celebration of our collective
victory. If you're anywhere near Brussels, you might want to find
out when the party will be held. US$8000, of course, is being
donated to Project Gutenberg (http://www.promo.net/pg/) to assist
them in their continuing efforts in converting literature into
electronic format for the public use. The remaining US$1000 is being
retained by distributed.net to assist in funding future projects.
Equally important are the thanks, accolades, and congratulations due
to all who participated and contributed to the Bovine RC5-56 Effort!
The thousands of teams and tens of thousands of individuals who have
diligently tested key after key are the reason we are so successful.
The thrill of finding the key more than compensates for the sleep,
food, and free time that we've sacrificed!
Special thanks go to all the coders and developers, especially Tim
Charron, who has graciously given his time and expertise since the
earliest days of the Bovine effort. Thanks to all the coordinators
and keyserver operators: Chris Chiapusio, Paul Chvostek, Peter
Denitto, Peter Doubt, Mishari Muqbil, Steve Sether, and Chris
Yarnell. Thanks to Andrew Meggs, Roderick Mann, and Kevyn Shortell
for showing us the true power of the Macintosh and the strength of
its users. We'd also like to thank Dave Avery for attempting to
bridge the gap between Bovine and the other RC5 efforts.
Once again, a heartfelt clap on the back goes out to all of us who
have run the client. Celebrations are in order. I'd like to invite
any and all to join us on the EFNet IRC network channel #rc5 for
celebrations as we regroup and set our sights on the next task. Now
that we've proven the limitations of a 56-bit key length, let's go
one further and demonstrate the power of distributed computing! We
are, all of us, the future of computing. Join the excitement as the
world is forced to take notice of the power we've harnessed.
Moo and a good hearty laugh.
Adam L. Beberg - Client design and overall visionary
Jeff Lawson - keymaster/server network design and morale booster
David McNett - stats development and general busybody
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 97 00:08 CST
From: Cu Digest <TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU>
Subject: File 2--Justice Dept charges Microsoft w/violating 199 order
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AT
MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1997 (202) 616-2771
TDD (202) 514-1888
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CHARGES MICROSOFT WITH
VIOLATING 1995 COURT ORDER
Asks Court to Impose $1 Million a Day Fine if Violation Continues
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Justice asked a
federal court today to hold Microsoft Corporation--the world's
dominant personal computer software company--in civil contempt
for violating terms of a 1995 court order barring it from
imposing anticompetitive licensing terms on manufacturers of
personal computers.
The petition filed today by the Department's Antitrust
Division alleges that Microsoft violated the court order by
requiring PC manufacturers to license and distribute Microsoft's
Internet browser, called Internet Explorer, as a condition of
licensing Microsoft's Windows 95. Most PC makers preinstall
Windows 95--the dominant PC operating system--at the factory on
the PCs they sell.
"Microsoft is unlawfully taking advantage of its Windows
monopoly to protect and extend that monopoly and undermine
consumer choice," said Attorney General Janet Reno.
The Department brought today's action to enforce the earlier
court order, and to prevent Microsoft from being able to expand
and protect its monopoly in the PC operating system market by
anticompetitive means. The Department also wants to ensure that
PC manufacturers and consumers will be able to choose among
competing software products.
"Our main concern is that by violating the court order,
Microsoft is using an unlawful advantage to beat back an
important competitive challenge to its Windows monopoly," said
Joel I. Klein, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
Department's Antitrust Division. "Even as we go forward with
this action today," Klein added, "we also want to make clear that
we have an ongoing and wide-ranging investigation to determine
whether Microsoft's actions are stifling innovation and consumer
choice."
Much of Microsoft's market power today results because most
applications programs for PCs--programs such as word processing,
spread sheets and money managers--are written to work with
Microsoft's Windows 95 PC operating system, the Department said.
Unfettered competition among Internet browser products could lead
to development of a computer environment in which business and
consumer applications would work regardless of which operating
system was installed on the PC. Software companies are currently
developing applications that use an Internet browser as the user
interface and work on other operating systems as well as with
Windows 95.
Microsoft's operating system is installed on more than 80
percent of the nation's PCs, and preinstallation on PCs at the
factory is Microsoft's main distribution channel.
Under the 1995 court order, Microsoft is prohibited from
forcing computer makers to license any other Microsoft product as
a condition of licensing Windows 95. Many PC manufacturers want
the ability to choose freely among competing software products
when they decide what to package with their PCs in order to offer
their customers the best mix of software products available.
The petition charges that Microsoft has conditioned licenses
to Windows 95 on manufacturers' licensing of Internet Explorer
and that it has denied manufacturers' requests not to ship
Internet Explorer on new PCs with Windows 95.
The Department stressed that it is not taking sides in the
"browser war" between Microsoft and its rival, Netscape
Communications Corporation, or in any emerging competition
between Windows and other products.
"Microsoft is not entitled to require computer manufacturers
and consumers to take Internet Explorer when they license Windows
95," said Klein. "Each of Microsoft's products should compete on
its own merits."
Klein stressed, however, that today's action in no way
prevents consumers or PC manufacturers from voluntarily choosing
to obtain Internet Explorer and Windows 95, either together or
separately, if they so wish.
In its petition, the Department asked the court:
* To stop Microsoft from requiring PC manufacturers to
accept Internet Explorer as a condition of receiving Windows 95.
* To require Microsoft to notify consumers of PCs that have
Windows 95 that they are not required to use Internet Explorer,
that they are free to use any compatible Internet browser, and to
give consumers simple instructions about how to remove the
Internet Explorer icon from their PC desktop if they choose.
* To impose large daily fines--$1 million--on Microsoft if
it continues to violate the court's order.
* To strike down broad portions of non-disclosure
agreements that Microsoft requires those with whom it does
business to sign.
The non-disclosure agreements may deter companies and
individuals from coming forward voluntarily to provide
information about Microsoft to the Department. Moreover, they
sometimes require signatories to notify Microsoft first before
complying with the Department's formal requests, or even court
orders, for such information.
Microsoft has advised the Department that it would not
insist on prior disclosure when the Department approaches
companies or individuals and assures them that it will keep
information confidential. But, this informal agreement, Klein
said, does not address the concerns of parties who wish to come
forward voluntarily.
Klein stressed the importance of full, voluntary disclosure
of information relevant to the Department's larger investigation
of Microsoft's practices. He expressed concern that the broad
non-disclosure agreements could possibly hamper its investigation
and indicated that, to remove any possible impediment, even if
unintended, the Department was seeking a court order.
"We need a court order to clear the air here so that anyone
with relevant information will feel free to come talk to the
Department without any fear of intimidation or reprisal," Klein
said. "We will not let Microsoft or anyone else burden that
fundamental right."
Today's petition was filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, where the 1995 consent decree was entered.
Microsoft will have an opportunity to respond to the
Department's petition in writing within 11 days. At that time,
the judge will decide whether a hearing is appropriate.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:54:52 -0700
From: Jack Dean <JackDean@webworldinc.com>
Subject: File 3--Microsoft's reaction the the DOJ lawsuit
Here's an interesting press release on Microsoft's reaction to the the DOJ
lawsuit:
REDMOND, Wash. - Oct. 21, 1997 -- In direct response to accusations
made by the Department of Justice, the Microsoft Corp. announced today
that it will be acquiring the federal government of the United States of
America for an undisclosed sum.
"It's actually a logical extension of our planned growth," said Microsoft
chairman Bill Gates, "It really is going to be a positive arrangement for
everyone."
Microsoft representatives held a briefing in the oval office of the White
House with U.S. President Bill Clinton, and assured members of the press
that changes will be "minimal." The United States will be managed as a
wholly owned division of Microsoft. An initial public offering is planned
for July of next year, and the federal government is expected to be
profitable by "Q4 1999 at latest," according to Microsoft president Steve
Ballmer.
In a related announcement, Bill Clinton stated that he had "willingly and
enthusiastically" accepted a position as a vice president with Microsoft,
and will continue to manage the United States government, reporting
directly to Bill Gates. When asked how it felt to give up the mantle of
executive authority to Gates, Clinton smiled and referred to it as "a
relief." He went on to say that Gates has a "proven track record", and
that U.S. citizens should offer Gates their "full support and
confidence." Clinton will
reportedly be earning several times the $200,000 annually he has earned
as U.S. president, in his new role at Microsoft.
Gates dismissed a suggestion that the U.S. Capitol be moved to Redmond as
"silly," though did say that he would make executive decisions for the U.S.
government from his existing office at Microsoft headquarters. Gates went
on to say that the House and Senate would "of course" be abolished.
"Microsoft isn't a democracy," he observed, "and look how well we're doing."
When asked if the rumored attendant acquisition of Canada was proceeding,
Gates said, "We don't deny that discussions are taking place." Microsoft
representatives closed the conference by stating that United States
citizens will be able to expect lower taxes, increases in government
services and discounts on all Microsoft products.
About Microsoft
---------------
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (NASDAQ "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in
software for personal computers, and democratic government. The company
offers a wide range of products and services for public, business and
personal use, each designed with the mission of making it easier and more
enjoyable for people to take advantage of the full power of personal
computing and free society every day.
About the United States
-----------------------
Founded in 1789, the United States of America is the most successful
nation in the history of the world, and has been a beacon of democracy and
opportunity for over 200 years. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the
United States is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation.
(from www.MacsOnly.com)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:10:47 -0800 (PST)
From: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock@well.com>
Subject: File 4--Small Minds Think Alike
Source - : fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
CyberWire Dispatch Bulletin
Washington --In this boneyard of Washington, DC it doesn't take
long for big dawgs and small alike to bark. A couple of small
ones yipped it up today.
Rep. Marge (no relation to Homer) Roukema, R-N.J. and Sen. Lauch
(??) Faircloth, R-N.C. introduced a bill to amend the
Communications Act that would ban convicted sex offenders from
using the Internet.
"We must protect our children by denying convicted violent sex
offenders this form of access to their victims," Roukema said.
[Hey, you knew THAT line was coming...]
Roukema calls this a "practical, workable bill." Because known
sex offenders must register, the bill will work! she says. No,
no, no, this is NOT an infringement of the 1st Amendment. After
all, she says, if a felon can be denied the right to vote, a
violent sex offender can certainly be denied the right to
'cruise' the Internet looking for victims," she says.
[Okay. Line up HERE: to take your one free shot at this brain
dead logic.]
The bill bars interactive service providers from giving sex
offenders an account. Break that law and you get fined $5,000
for each day the perp is online.
Meeks out...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:19:13 GMT
From: owner-cyber-liberties@aclu.org
Subject: File 5--Illinois Library Decides Not to Filter Net
Cyber-liberties Update
October 17, 1997
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Illinois Library Decides Not to Filter Net, Others Consider Restricting
Policies
Deciding that parents are in the best position to decide what their
children may view on the Internet, the Des Plaines, Ill., Public Library
recently installed Internet browsers on two computers located in the
children's section of the library without installing blocking software,
reports the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University.
<http://www.fac.org/>.
In an interview with the First Amendment Center, Library Administrator
Sandra Norlin explained that "while we make suggestions on what we think
are the best sites for children, we are not the right people to be
determining each child's maturity level and each family's system of values.
Our policy is based on high regard for the people in our community and
their ability to make wise and prudent decisions for themselves."
Library officials also cited problems with filtering software in their
decision not to install it and that the software creates a false sense of
security in parents, the First Amendment Center reports.
"We felt that filtering software was not the appropriate action to take,"
Norlin said. "It's the 'one-size-fits-all' approach. =85 Everyone has the
same restrictions placed on them. No one would have the individual
opportunity to make their own decisions."
Meanwhile, in Virginia Fairfax County officials this week proposed a policy
which would allow parents of children under age 13 to prohibit their
children from using the Internet in public libraries. Library officials
claimed that the policy may be the only solution since they cannot arrive
at a consensus on the filtering issue.
Under the policy being considered by the county's library board, a child's
parents or guardians would have the right to notify the library system that
they did not want him or her to be given access to the Internet. Children
13 and older still would have unrestricted access.
Other local libraries in the Washington, D.C. area are also considering
whether to install filtering software. However, the Loudoun County library
board, which voted in July to install screening software on all computers
is reconsidering the policy.
Last month, the San Jose, Ca., City Council overwhelmingly rejected a
proposal that would have mandated restriction of Internet access in public
libraries, however, neighboring local counties are continuing to consider
filtering proposals, Ann Brick, a staff attorney with the ACLU of No. Ca.
said.
Filtering software is particularly problematic because it often blocks a
much wider spectrum of speech than legally obscene speech, Brick said,
adding that the decision to filter runs counter to the Supreme Court
decision in Reno v. ACLU from this year.
"The Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU held that the Internet, as much as the
books and newspapers found in our public libraries, is entitled to the very
highest level of First Amendment protection which means that Internet
censorship in the library off limits for government, including City
Councils," she said.
++++++++++++++++++++
About Cyber-Liberties Update:
ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor:
Cassidy Sehgal (Cassidy_Sehgal@aclu.org)
American Civil Liberties Union
National Office 125 Broad Street,
New York, New York 10004
To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to
majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of your
message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to
majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 23:57:13 -0600
From: Avi Bass <te0azb1@corn.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 6--Gullibility Virus Warning