Is it possible to break Norton Encrypt??

Howdy fellow 'punks-
	A friend of mine thinks his girlfriend has been cheating on him, and 
thinks the proof may be in a few Norton Encrypt files. Is there anyway to get
the password with a data/resource editor, or is he shit-out-of-luck and looking
for a new girl-friend?

Please reply via private mail, since I had to leave the list for my christmas 
break.

Adam Gerstein
-=-
"Practice safe HEX - always use a keyboard condom" - anon
PGP Key available bye finger or mail with the sub: PGPKEY
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
|(e)Mail me:                                            |
|  Gerstein@scsu.ctstateu.edu   |  AGerstein@aol.com    |
|  MacGeek@scsu.ctstateu.edu    |  MacGeek@eWorld.com   |
|           an41389@anon.penet.fi (for anonymity)       |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
                        EWWWWW! - Betsy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQBWAwUBLq/fYbXVc2UFUOWNAQHu4QIBAQzD1aOCh4DV3Dg4DSJPmNu+1xGDRxND
0PavaUaBFP7GGT6EneTBwVX1ddL1PFFKdeMf8qo9FgWfG0EOHuHJTkY=
=6rlg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From: "ADAM GERSTEIN, _THE_ MACGURU" <GERSTEIN@SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU>

All this moralizing about the issue of breaking someone else's
encrypted files seems to mask one important question:

Does anybody here know jack about Norton Encrypt?

Eric

On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, ADAM GERSTEIN, _THE_ MACGURU wrote:

> A friend of mine thinks his girlfriend has been cheating on him, and
> thinks the proof may be in a few Norton Encrypt files.  Is there anyway
> to get the password with a data/resource editor, or is he
> shit-out-of-luck and looking for a new girl-friend?

Boy; talk about an inappropriate use of technology...  Is "privacy"
in that guy's vocabulary?  I respectfully submit that if he has to
start snooping on her, the relationship is over anyway.

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) | dave@esi.com.au | VK2KFU @ VK2AAB.NSW.AUS.OC | PGP 2.6
Opinions expressed are mine. | E7 FE 97 88 E5 02 3C AE  9C 8C 54 5B 9A D4 A0 CD

Dave Horsfall writes:
> ADAM GERSTEIN, _THE_ MACGURU writes:
> > A friend of mine thinks his girlfriend has been cheating on him, and
> > thinks the proof may be in a few Norton Encrypt files.  Is there anyway
> > to get the password with a data/resource editor, or is he shit-out-of-luck
> Boy; talk about an inappropriate use of technology...  Is "privacy"
> in that guy's vocabulary?  I respectfully submit that if he has to
> start snooping on her, the relationship is over anyway.

My sentiments exactly. Whether or not she's two-timing, I imagine she'd be
pretty upset (and justifiably so) if she knew her boyfriend wants to break
into her private documents. He should *ask* her straight out to confirm or
deny his suspicions. If he doesn't like the answer, he should get out.

Someone needs to give her PGP ASAP, IMHO....

-L. Futplex McCarthy

I have recntly moved to Chicago, and was wondering if there was a 
regional branch of the Cypherpunks in this area.  If so is there a 
meeting scheduled soon? 


**I've got the strap-on connections in Lesbos, and the KY trust in
Sodom, I'm the only Man in Istanbul, I'm the only punk in Islam,
I'm the only bar on Skid Row, I'm the only whore on the
waterfront** _Cobble Stone Gardens_ William Seward Burroughs

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <199412230045.TAA21904@thor.cs.umass.edu>,
"L. McCarthy" <lmccarth@thor.cs.umass.edu> wrote:
>Dave Horsfall writes:
>> ADAM GERSTEIN, _THE_ MACGURU writes:
>> > A friend of mine thinks his girlfriend has been cheating on him, and
>> > thinks the proof may be in a few Norton Encrypt files.  Is there anyway
>> > to get the password with a data/resource editor, or is he shit-out-of-luck

>> Boy; talk about an inappropriate use of technology...  Is "privacy"
>> in that guy's vocabulary?  I respectfully submit that if he has to
>> start snooping on her, the relationship is over anyway.

GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing
perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc...

Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an attack
on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or
terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what
state the relationship is irrelevant.

The gentleman asked a question regarding a standard cryptographic problem...
how you can intercept and interpret encrypted information, either in theory
in practice. To make judgement calls is WAY out of line and a hell of a bad
precedent for this group.

I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he
had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....

>
>My sentiments exactly. Whether or not she's two-timing, I imagine she'd be
>pretty upset (and justifiably so) if she knew her boyfriend wants to break
>into her private documents. He should *ask* her straight out to confirm or
>deny his suspicions. If he doesn't like the answer, he should get out.

Oh boy! Pretty soon we will have this list as "cypherpunks giving advice to
the lovelorn..."!!! Lets cut the crap, stick to the problem at hand and
offer solutions to what the participants of the list know best, namely the
the use and analysis of cryptographic problems.

Save the relationship bullshit for Masters and Johnson....

>
>Someone needs to give her PGP ASAP, IMHO....

Sure, from a disspassionate point of view, I agree. But I thought that the
whole point of this list was the promotion of PGP and the discussion of
the pro's and con's of encryption in general. That should include attacking
as well as defense.

Since, how can you rationally discuss defense unless you know what kind of
attack your opponents can mount against you???????

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBLvo+sHBFBj7pSNyhAQEj8Qf/Yk+avezO8+bQw1vFBFht/STmhmHbXuVL
qtWiJhHdCJigsUyVAGWMgCBhZE6eWHgD0DylhIHywVK2Y2VvI0A6Vi1/Bk+rkviw
F2AFLJwV+td2yvoEVWCRL4kQlW7RLAuiYdJ2Vlb0Kw2Q8EkuxOcLiYXYAE/c6LTf
DNXc9238IbMoL+hbUzA3xkPL/S7LriRcNW9nzeCYHLt0SSkEn9mxd8c120jRz0aL
F33i7Fgnuy3OM5QUORxv78bjfzo6jBTXzW02ikp7YwtbDYv+RCt8b7dwmdJDHoV+
LtJ+qOV3pNk6UBUXMqeTig5Azi9NtVyh8MmhCozC0BaVuOxodcjkRA==
=VPdb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Mark Terka wrote:

> GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing
> perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc...
                                ^^^^^^^
You said it.

> Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an attack
> on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or
> terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what
> state the relationship is irrelevant.

And *HE* gave the reason - he wanted go rifling through his girlfriend's
private files.  And here I was, thinking that this list was about "better
privacy through cryptography" - I must have subscribed to alt.2600 by
mistake...  Come to think of it, that's a better place for the original
query...

> The gentleman asked a question regarding a standard cryptographic problem...
> how you can intercept and interpret encrypted information, either in theory
> in practice. To make judgement calls is WAY out of line and a hell of a bad
> precedent for this group.

Read it again - he specifically wanted to sneak into his partner's files;
that is a clear invasion of privacy.  Jeeze - I thought a Yank would have
understood this...

> I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he
> had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....

And would you have been just as sympathetic if somebody wanted to rifle
YOUR files?

> Oh boy! Pretty soon we will have this list as "cypherpunks giving advice to
> the lovelorn..."!!! Lets cut the crap, stick to the problem at hand and
> offer solutions to what the participants of the list know best, namely the
> the use and analysis of cryptographic problems.

That has nothing to do with it - person A wanted advice on how to invade
person B's privacy (he presumably doesn't have the guts to just ask her).
Sorry, but privacy works both ways - she's entitled to it just as much
as anybody else.

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) | dave@esi.com.au | VK2KFU @ VK2AAB.NSW.AUS.OC | PGP 2.6
Opinions expressed are mine. | E7 FE 97 88 E5 02 3C AE  9C 8C 54 5B 9A D4 A0 CD

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 15:41:49 +1100 (EST)
> From: Dave Horsfall <dave@esi.COM.AU>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Mark Terka wrote:
> 
> > GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing
> > perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc...
>                                 ^^^^^^^
> You said it.

[Watch now how the author perverts the notion of privacy...]

> 
> > Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an attack
> > on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or
> > terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what
> > state the relationship is irrelevant.
> 
> And *HE* gave the reason - he wanted go rifling through his girlfriend's
> private files.  And here I was, thinking that this list was about "better
> privacy through cryptography" - I must have subscribed to alt.2600 by
> mistake...  Come to think of it, that's a better place for the original
> query...

And what has the author done here, but involve himself in the affairs of 
our poster requesting information on Norton...?  Some privacy he afforded 
the would be norton breaker, or even norton breaker's girlfriend.

Sure, Norton breaker should have kept his mouth shut, but a small comment 
at the end of a technical post detailing norton should have taken care of 
this.  Mind your own business next time smart guy.

> > The gentleman asked a question regarding a standard cryptographic problem...
> > how you can intercept and interpret encrypted information, either in theory
> > in practice. To make judgement calls is WAY out of line and a hell of a bad
> > precedent for this group.
> 
> Read it again - he specifically wanted to sneak into his partner's files;
> that is a clear invasion of privacy.

How much context do you have here?

I submit again, you should just mind your own business.  I hardly accept 
your judgement as to when information should or should not be released.

  Jeeze - I thought a Yank would have
> understood this...
> 

Not all of us are "Yanks" my friend.

> > I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he
> > had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....
> 
> And would you have been just as sympathetic if somebody wanted to rifle
> YOUR files?

Had I encrypted with Norton encrypt?  I would have been deserving of 
whatever attack ensued.  When the hell are people going to take 
responsibility for themselves.  Who are you to assume anothers 
responsibility for their privacy?  What will happen when your 
paternalistic regime is on vacation?

Let's make a government crypto subsidy eh?  Obviously people are such 
idiots that they all need government to supply them with crypto.  I guess 
you'd be the head of standards?  Deciding when and who gets which methods?

> > Oh boy! Pretty soon we will have this list as "cypherpunks giving advice to
> > the lovelorn..."!!! Lets cut the crap, stick to the problem at hand and
> > offer solutions to what the participants of the list know best, namely the
> > the use and analysis of cryptographic problems.
> 
> That has nothing to do with it - person A wanted advice on how to invade
> person B's privacy (he presumably doesn't have the guts to just ask her).
> Sorry, but privacy works both ways - she's entitled to it just as much
> as anybody else.

I see, and if I asked how to eavesdrop on digital cellular, your position 
would be that I should not know.  Obviously I intend, or could 
distribute such information to thousands who might violate the privacy of 
millions.  Funny how the general disclosure doesn't bother you, but the 
specific disclosure, one which affects no more than perhaps three people, 
does.

I suggest you get your perspectives in order.

> -- 
> Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) | dave@esi.com.au | VK2KFU @ VK2AAB.NSW.AUS.OC | PGP 2.6
> Opinions expressed are mine. | E7 FE 97 88 E5 02 3C AE  9C 8C 54 5B 9A D4 A0 CD
> 

-uni- (Dark)


073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.941223153106.2289B-100000@eram.esi.com.au>,
Dave Horsfall <dave@esi.COM.AU> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Mark Terka wrote:
>
>> GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing
>> perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc...
>                                ^^^^^^^
>You said it.

And the defense thereof.....

>
>> Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an attack
>> on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or
>> terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what
>> state the relationship is irrelevant.
>
>And *HE* gave the reason - he wanted go rifling through his girlfriend's
>private files.  And here I was, thinking that this list was about "better
>privacy through cryptography" - I must have subscribed to alt.2600 by
>mistake...  Come to think of it, that's a better place for the original
>query...

Gee...I guess we shouldn't get too concerned when gov't agencies try to
break OUR communications on a large scale ...or maybe the cypherpunk
system of remailers were set up just as a hobby...


>
>> The gentleman asked a question regarding a standard cryptographic problem...
>> how you can intercept and interpret encrypted information, either in theory
>> in practice. To make judgement calls is WAY out of line and a hell of a bad
>> precedent for this group.
>
>Read it again - he specifically wanted to sneak into his partner's files;
>that is a clear invasion of privacy.  Jeeze - I thought a Yank would have
>understood this...

Sorry....I'm Canadian......and sure. He wanted to sneak into his partners
files. What a strange cryptographic concept that happens to be....

>
>> I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he
>> had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....
>
>And would you have been just as sympathetic if somebody wanted to rifle
>YOUR files?

Yup! Alls fair in luv...or WAR! If you aren't prepared to play the game,
then stay at home!!

>
>> Oh boy! Pretty soon we will have this list as "cypherpunks giving advice to
>> the lovelorn..."!!! Lets cut the crap, stick to the problem at hand and
>> offer solutions to what the participants of the list know best, namely the
>> the use and analysis of cryptographic problems.
>
>That has nothing to do with it - person A wanted advice on how to invade
>person B's privacy (he presumably doesn't have the guts to just ask her).
>Sorry, but privacy works both ways - she's entitled to it just as much
>as anybody else.

Just like the Japanese were entitled to THEIR privacy before Midway, eh?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBLvpySnBFBj7pSNyhAQG+9wf/XJP/KiXtPidMOka+sMWHPQMY8jMPwqML
TEubTnBmzb97zjefBCigrygmJZS6IatJKyf9sBtFHxHy7JBvbuzCBywT5d7xzQ65
D/7Ms50gCwZ50SWx2TFm9xfnbUBpYsmuRwWKn2yu+JZZu+vg7nOuPAhBVgg6RF3m
LyxHkpoQ+SvtJHsyqYXL4lEkkdJ3hLSjMEsHcJBUaIaYWaO++By3J6Nmsv3J4K/k
DwHFEDssuMjpKqIYdStJ+mGQ13dyB9yn73gTD5cvwhdNn3IrG96IdGQeIGECT+Bv
Z8mNB2urLuHKe6Gipdf//OsXlerFxYlPbHsJiRUYu0Qc0cokhTlIlw==
=f8M4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, L. McCarthy wrote:

> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 19:45:17 -0500 (EST)
> From: L. McCarthy <lmccarth@thor.cs.umass.edu>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> Dave Horsfall writes:
> > ADAM GERSTEIN, _THE_ MACGURU writes:
> > > A friend of mine thinks his girlfriend has been cheating on him, and
> > > thinks the proof may be in a few Norton Encrypt files.  Is there anyway
> > > to get the password with a data/resource editor, or is he shit-out-of-luck
> > Boy; talk about an inappropriate use of technology...  Is "privacy"
> > in that guy's vocabulary?  I respectfully submit that if he has to
> > start snooping on her, the relationship is over anyway.
> 
> My sentiments exactly. Whether or not she's two-timing, I imagine she'd be
> pretty upset (and justifiably so) if she knew her boyfriend wants to break
> into her private documents. He should *ask* her straight out to confirm or
> deny his suspicions. If he doesn't like the answer, he should get out.
> 
> Someone needs to give her PGP ASAP, IMHO....
> 
> -L. Futplex McCarthy
> 

As darwinian as it seems, perhaps someone should just tell the guy how to 
bust Norton's encryption, eh?

Since when are cypherpunks relationship counslers?

If she gets burned using norton encrypt, perhaps she'll take the time to 
learn about real encryption.  (I assume Norton's is trash)

Short term privacy loss perhaps, but long term gain.

If it were to be otherwise, I guess we all better stop posting crypto 
weaknesses at all, afterall, who knows what girlfriend will next be 
violated if we tell joe hacker how to break e.g., enigma.

While everyone is at it, why not just subscribe wholeheartedly to the 
security through obscurity doctrine...?

The more I think about the above, the more I wonder if those on the list 
have conflicting goals, that is, absolute privacy by agreement.  Are we 
really that naive?  If so, why develop crypto at all?

-uni- (Dark)


073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

On Dec 22,  9:46pm, Mark Terka wrote:
> GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing
> perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc...

> Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an
attack
> on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or
> terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what
> state the relationship is irrelevant.

What a load of amoral rubbish.

Cypherpunks is a group whose members believe in the application of
technology to PROTECT privacy, not to violate someone else's.
Once you assume that capability implies right, you're on very
shakey moral ground, but that is exactly what you are saying in this
post.  I find that position repellent, and I would be very surprised
and not a little disappointed if you find many others here who felt
the same way.

> I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he
> had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....

Possibly.  IMO, what the original requester was asking for was so
repulsive and immature that the responses so far have been mild.

							Ian.

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Ian Farquhar wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 14:52:06 -0500
> From: Ian Farquhar <ianf@sydney.sgi.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> On Dec 22,  9:46pm, Mark Terka wrote:
> > GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing
> > perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc...
> 
> > Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an
> attack
> > on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or
> > terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what
> > state the relationship is irrelevant.
> 
> What a load of amoral rubbish.

By who's standard?  Yours?

> 
> Cypherpunks is a group whose members believe in the application of
> technology to PROTECT privacy, not to violate someone else's.
> Once you assume that capability implies right, you're on very
> shakey moral ground, but that is exactly what you are saying in this
> post.  I find that position repellent, and I would be very surprised
> and not a little disappointed if you find many others here who felt
> the same way.

Who the hell are you to define the position of cypherpunks?
Who the hell are any of us to do this?

I guess I suffered from the silly idea that as a whole, the members of 
the list would not put  short term morality before the long term goal.  
It seems there are those who disagree with me.  I would offer the 
following:  While it may be that Joe Break-Into-Girlfriend's-Files may or 
may not be justified, that is not ours to judge.  It is simply for the 
crypto non-challenged to comment on the security or lack thereof of a 
given system.  As soon as this list turns into a pile of bleeding heart 
liberals, anxious to embroil themselves in the personal matters of 
others, it has failed.

I cannot believe that people on this list, those who claim to be 
interested in the preservation of privacy, would support the proposition 
that knowledge about the strength or weakness of a given system should be 
surpressed.  What the hell is that?  I guess no one who supports this 
position has ANY business >WHATSOEVER< in pointing out that digital 
cellular has a low level of security than it is advertized as, or that 
Clipper is compromised.  Who the hell are you people to second guess?

Back to security through obscurity I suppose.  How typical.  What a 
perversion.

Freedom of information, except where that information may violate 
principals we define, and enforce.

Strong crypto for all, except those who would use weak systems, those we 
will keep in ignorance, and refuse to educate in any manner.

Denouncement of insecure crypto security, unless of course, it might tend 
to offend someone, the definition of offense we shall, of course, define.

What a load of sanctamonous crap.

We will decide what's good for you, and what you are allowed to know.

Disgusting.  Get off this list, you belong on alt.codependency.recovery, 
or alt.bleeding.liberal.


> > I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he
> > had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....

I submit that the response should have been the same regardless of the 
nature of the material.

Which is it going to be?


1>

Q: "How do you attack X?"
A: "Y"

or


2>

Q: "How do you attack X?"
A: "Realistically X should not be attacked, because to allow the 
widespead lack of confidence in X will destroy society as we know it, and 
anyhow it's nasty."


> Possibly.  IMO, what the original requester was asking for was so 
> repulsive and immature that the responses so far have been mild.

Who are you to judge?  Take it to alt.partronizing.jerk

> 
> 							Ian.
> 
> 

-uni- (Dark)


073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Ian Farquhar wrote:

> > What a load of amoral rubbish.
> 
On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Black Unicorn wrote:
> By who's standard?  Yours?

Well I guess Black Unicorns standards are not such that
one should entrust secrets to him.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com

On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, James A. Donald wrote:

> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 00:01:19 -0800 (PST)
> From: James A. Donald <jamesd@netcom.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Cc: Ian Farquhar <ianf@sydney.sgi.com>
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Ian Farquhar wrote:
> 
> > > What a load of amoral rubbish.
> > 
> On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > By who's standard?  Yours?
> 
> Well I guess Black Unicorns standards are not such that
> one should entrust secrets to him.

Absolutely not unless:

1>  I am paid to keep them.

2>  I am bound by an attorney-client relationship.

3>  Ignore the above two in any absolute forms.


But not for the reasons you suspect, in fact I submit the reverse is true.

Clearly the distinction between the likelyhood of someone keeping a 
secret and the advisibility of disclosing damaging information to anyone, 
trustworthy or not (or protecting it insufficently, or failing to 
research the methods use you to protect it), evades you.

If you cannot see that my trustworthiness, when a significantly positive 
variable, is not the sole consideration in deciding if you should tell me 
something, you're in the wrong area of speculation.

Further, if you cannot see that my hands off and nose out of where it 
doesn't belong position, makes me a MORE attractive individual to confide 
in, one less likely to turn your secrets over to the thought police, or to pass 
judgement based on some personal and artificial moral construct bearing only 
limited resemblence to any other, and being utterly unpredictable, then 
you're in the wrong area of speculation.


Query:  Who is likely to turn more evidence over to police in criminal 
matters?

1>  "Trusted" family members.
2>  "Amoral" attornies who refuse to be blinded by conventional (read 
reactionary) morality?

Who do you want knowing your secrets?  (When anyone should know them at all)


-uni- (Dark)

>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our
> property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
> are.  True law derives from this right, not from
> the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com
 
And I would submit, you, and you alone, the individual you, have the 
OBLIGATION to defend yourself and your property, and the RESPONSIBILITY 
to defend it less the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state come in and 
do it for you.

-uni- (Dark) 
 

073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

On Dec 23, 11:28pm, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > What a load of amoral rubbish.

> By who's standard?  Yours?

Of course.  Whose are you speaking for, if not your own?

> > Cypherpunks is a group whose members believe in the application of
> > technology to PROTECT privacy, not to violate someone else's.
> > Once you assume that capability implies right, you're on very
> > shakey moral ground, but that is exactly what you are saying in this
> > post.  I find that position repellent, and I would be very surprised
> > and not a little disappointed if you find many others here who felt
> > the same way.

> Who the hell are you to define the position of cypherpunks?
> Who the hell are any of us to do this?

I agree.  I thought that it was rather obvious that all of us are
speaking for ourselves.  My statement of position was based on my
perception of the original list statement of intent, and the
discussion I have seen over the last six months.

> I guess I suffered from the silly idea that as a whole, the members of
> the list would not put  short term morality before the long term goal.

Possibly you did, although I question whether the two are incompatible.

> It seems there are those who disagree with me.  I would offer the
> following:  While it may be that Joe Break-Into-Girlfriend's-Files may or
> may not be justified, that is not ours to judge.

Rubbish.  Nor do you seem particularly backwards at being judgemental,
or are you applying a different standard to the issue of what is
right and wrong to discuss as you are to the original discussion?

> I cannot believe that people on this list, those who claim to be
> interested in the preservation of privacy, would support the proposition
> that knowledge about the strength or weakness of a given system should be
> surpressed.

I don't recall anyone who did mention censorship.  I saw a lot of people
suggesting that helping the original pathetic individual was not a
good idea, and then several howls of outrage accusing these people of
censorship.  There is a difference between non-disclosure and censorship,
and its not an arbitrary one either.

> Disgusting.  Get off this list, you belong on alt.codependency.recovery,
> or alt.bleeding.liberal.

But isn't that exactly what you're proposing?  "Get off the list because
your position disagrees with mine."  Sounds like censorship to me,
except that "Black Unicorn" is the one deciding what is acceptable.

							Ian.

#include <std.disclaimer>

On Wed, 28 Dec 1994, Ian Farquhar wrote:

> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 11:17:19 -0500
> From: Ian Farquhar <ianf@sydney.sgi.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> On Dec 23, 11:28pm, Black Unicorn wrote:

> 
> > I guess I suffered from the silly idea that as a whole, the members of
> > the list would not put  short term morality before the long term goal.
> 
> Possibly you did, although I question whether the two are incompatible.

A legitimate issue.  Perhaps one for e-mail?

> > I cannot believe that people on this list, those who claim to be
> > interested in the preservation of privacy, would support the proposition
> > that knowledge about the strength or weakness of a given system should be
> > surpressed.
> 
> I don't recall anyone who did mention censorship.  I saw a lot of people
> suggesting that helping the original pathetic individual was not a
> good idea, and then several howls of outrage accusing these people of
> censorship.  There is a difference between non-disclosure and censorship,
> and its not an arbitrary one either.

When based on individual judgement, fine, when based and justified by 
some individual's concept of what cypherpunks stand for and what they 
should or should not be disclosing, forget it.

> 
> > Disgusting.  Get off this list, you belong on alt.codependency.recovery,
> > or alt.bleeding.liberal.
> 
> But isn't that exactly what you're proposing?  "Get off the list because
> your position disagrees with mine."  Sounds like censorship to me,
> except that "Black Unicorn" is the one deciding what is acceptable.

I am properly chastized, and will again, apologize to both the list and 
the individual.  (Sorry)

Looking at those words, I can't imagine what infancy prompted me to type 
them.

(Sigh)  I would say black outs, but I really don't drink much.


> 							Ian.
> 
> #include <std.disclaimer>
> 
> 

073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <9412231452.ZM19768@wiley.sydney.sgi.com>, you wrote:
>On Dec 22,  9:46pm, Mark Terka wrote:
>> GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing
>> perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc...
>
>> Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an
>attack
>> on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or
>> terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what
>> state the relationship is irrelevant.
>
>What a load of amoral rubbish.

Oh goody! Now we are getting a judgement call with respect to how cryptography
in general aids "the greater good".

Do you suppose the NSA makes the same call when they do routine traffic
analysis or try to bust a suspiciously (to them) encrypted message??????
>
>Cypherpunks is a group whose members believe in the application of
>technology to PROTECT privacy, not to violate someone else's.

Ummmm...excuse me...."the cypherpunks are an informal group of people
interested in teaching and learning about cryptography. They also
experiment with cryptography and try to put it into use"

from Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schnier....pg 445.

That to me indicates that the members of this list should be at least
remotely interested in the subject of attacks as well as defense as you
can't defend aginst something unless the method of attack has been discussed.

>Once you assume that capability implies right, you're on very
>shakey moral ground, but that is exactly what you are saying in this
>post.  I find that position repellent, and I would be very surprised
>and not a little disappointed if you find many others here who felt
>the same way.

GROAN! (again) And how, pray tell, do we go about protecting ourselves
against others if we are not prepared to discuss what sort of attacks
may be mounted against us?????

Like I alluded to before, I bet if it was a case of someone trying to
descramble something like skipjack to try and discover something about
National Security (ours OR theirs) I bet the members of this list
would have fallen all over themselves trying to help the original poster.

I don't recall seeing too much in the waqy of condemnation of the guy that
posted RC4 to this list ..... but as soon as we see something that touches
close to home like male/female relationships, the shit hits the fan!!!!!

>
>> I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he
>> had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....
>
>Possibly.  IMO, what the original requester was asking for was so
>repulsive and immature that the responses so far have been mild.

And in my opinion what the original poster was no different than the British
attack on "Enigma" or the American attack on "Purple".

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBLvpu/HBFBj7pSNyhAQEHggf+M2p7VvvJB+Aoy1/r1bCiEN7gPzlY7CeZ
Ykgwcg/v0ZP/ivJGOpkyeWnboz/Jj5AXGtnK3+BMCzsTbrgH6zs3OU555gQN9oGW
BtYESXz4n2H5hOucKix9qUKlkf7NkooD6q2k3s+Cof9v4F7214W5Ae6cVXW5F2Dx
jVVGyh1/e/WdgHrV5857lwfGNdF6a2TJSNtsOnargd1v2+eZifZmGocf7fnSq+4L
rjj7qsTiyl9JkUKhSjh64W3Ay1wEk8GnlcON7m4J2u57pcBU8JDhoBiXjIA0uqAi
6pYE1k/05su6gvm9GcgDgVv5W76VfSFvXHA2jQ4HLjhp6O3IQJqtZw==
=FYQy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Dec 23,  1:11am, Mark Terka wrote:
> Oh goody! Now we are getting a judgement call with respect to how
cryptography
> in general aids "the greater good".

Please indicate where I said or implied this.  Possibly there is such
a thing as the "greater good", but I have seen it used too many times
to justify the applications of someone's personal beliefs or (more commonly)
phobias and personal problems to the world at large.  It's not a concept I
have a lot of respect for, purely on this basis.

Personally - and let's face it, none of us can express much more than
a personal opinion - I think the best that any of us can do is to base
our decisions on individual cases, which seems to have been what has
happened in this case.

> Do you suppose the NSA makes the same call when they do routine traffic
> analysis or try to bust a suspiciously (to them) encrypted message??????

No I don't.  On the other hand, I am sure that a whole load of judgement
calls go into the selection of individuals or subjects which go onto
watchlists.

> That to me indicates that the members of this list should be at least
> remotely interested in the subject of attacks as well as defense as you
> can't defend aginst something unless the method of attack has been discussed.

Agreed.  But that doesn't mean that the way you go around investigating
attacks on protocols and cryptosystems is to help a fairly pathetic
individual violate someone else's privacy.  To me, that just doesn't
follow.

> GROAN! (again) And how, pray tell, do we go about protecting ourselves
> against others if we are not prepared to discuss what sort of attacks
> may be mounted against us?????

I never said we should not discuss it.  But I do say that IN MY OPINION
the original poster who wanted help was a pathetic little slime, and that
IN MY OPINION, shouldn't be assisted to do anything.

Generic attacks on Norton's Encrypt are "valid" subjects for cypherpunks
discussion, which I would have thought goes without saying.  An even
better outcome would be to provide the girlfriend with some indication
of the true security against attack she is getting from the program,
and to replace it with something better if it turns out to be
inadequate.

> Like I alluded to before, I bet if it was a case of someone trying to
> descramble something like skipjack to try and discover something about
> National Security (ours OR theirs) I bet the members of this list
> would have fallen all over themselves trying to help the original poster.

I suppose that would depend on what the individuals concerned perceived
as the consequences of their action.

> I don't recall seeing too much in the waqy of condemnation of the guy that
> posted RC4 to this list ..... but as soon as we see something that touches
> close to home like male/female relationships, the shit hits the fan!!!!!

So?  Based on past conversations and discussions, many of us are here
because we don't like the idea of organisations or individuals being
able to arbitrarily violate our own privacy.  Speaking for myself, I know
that I have had my privacy violated on a couple of occasions, and have
become convinced that technical solutions are the way to go about it.
But it does not follow that I should help someone violate another's
privacy.  It seems that some people feel that their own privacy is
inviolate, yet others are fair game.

> >Possibly.  IMO, what the original requester was asking for was so
> >repulsive and immature that the responses so far have been mild.

> And in my opinion what the original poster was no different than the British
> attack on "Enigma" or the American attack on "Purple".

Well, wartime attacks like these are usually motivated by the belief
that a lot of people's lives depend on the success of the venture.
Whether this is true or not is debatable, and the lives in question are
usually on one side only.   I personally do not find the comparison
to be valid.

						Ian.

#include <std.disclaimer>

I finally have a safe system to recieve mail on where I am the 
admin so I am wondering if there is a way i can automate PGP signing and 
decrypting and crypting mail with PINE, now with PINE I can choose emacs 
as my alternate editor and jump into emacs, and then use perhaps a PGP 
interface for Emacs then.  But the emacs macros would have to allow me to 
specify the save name, or keep it the same as the tmp file PINE assigns 
for outgoing compositions when I crypt them.  

Also since PINE is MIMI supporting, is their MIMI support for PGP stuff yet?

I am sorry I am so behind on this shit, it's just that I only marginally 
bothered to keep up with the interface stuff for Unix machines since I 
never had a machine that I could safely work from to sign outgoing mail 
and posts.

thanx


**I've got the strap-on connections in Lesbos, and the KY trust in
Sodom, I'm the only Man in Istanbul, I'm the only punk in Islam,
I'm the only bar on Skid Row, I'm the only whore on the
waterfront** _Cobble Stone Gardens_ William Seward Burroughs