two bogus messages to this list

I did not write the two messages below. I did have a small party
yesterday, probably some of my guests did that...

	- Igor.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com  Mon Nov 11 06:35:19 1996
Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors@toad.com>
Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with UUCP id GAA16814 for ichudov@algebra.com; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:34:44 -0600
Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with ESMTP id CAA20037 for <ichudov@algebra.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 02:34:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA01399 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.video-collage.com (www.video-collage.com [199.232.240.107]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA01394 for <cypherpunks@toad.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:49:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with UUCP id AAA19874 for cypherpunks@toad.com; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:51:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from ichudov@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id XAA15989 for cypherpunks@toad.com; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:47:00 -0600
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:47:00 -0600
From: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com>
Message-Id: <199611110547.XAA15989@manifold.algebra.com>
Subject: FUCK ME HARD
Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

FUCK NME HARD


>From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com  Mon Nov 11 00:35:29 1996
Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors@toad.com>
Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with UUCP id AAA16188 for ichudov@algebra.com; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:35:24 -0600
Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA19940 for <ichudov@algebra.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 01:37:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA00961 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:03:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.video-collage.com (www.video-collage.com [199.232.240.107]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA00956 for <cypherpunks@toad.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with UUCP id AAA19793 for cypherpunks@toad.com; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:05:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from ichudov@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id WAA15563 for cypherpunks@toad.com; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:36:03 -0600
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:36:03 -0600
From: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com>
Message-Id: <199611110436.WAA15563@manifold.algebra.com>
Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

manifold::~==>premail -t cypherpunks@toad.com
Chain: haystack;jam
Subject: I urgently need a lot of money.

Please share your money-making secrets, I am in a desperate need
for cash.

In <199611111238.GAA17346@manifold.algebra.com>, on 11/11/96 
   at 06:38 AM, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) said:

-.I did not write the two messages below. I did have a small party
-.yesterday, probably some of my guests did that...

        just goes to proof it:  Microslop and Intel boxes are secure
    only when most of their parts are stored under lock and key.

--
    Cyberspace and Information are Freedom.  
        FUCK your WIPO, too. 
                -attila

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 attila@primenet.com wrote:

> In <199611111238.GAA17346@manifold.algebra.com>, on 11/11/96 
>    at 06:38 AM, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) said:
> 
> -.I did not write the two messages below. I did have a small party
> -.yesterday, probably some of my guests did that...
> 
>         just goes to proof it:  Microslop and Intel boxes are secure
>     only when most of their parts are stored under lock and key.
> 


Um, not to disagree with you re Intel/Micro$loth, but most UNIX systems 
can be brought up in single-user mode and the root password changed by 
anyone with physical access to the system. You could end up with even 
more trouble than if someone messed with your M$ box.

-r.w.

--Boundary..3948.1071713639.multipart/signed
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Rabid Wombat wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 attila@primenet.com wrote:
>
>> In <199611111238.GAA17346@manifold.algebra.com>, on 11/11/96 
>>    at 06:38 AM, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) said:
>> 
>> -.I did not write the two messages below. I did have a small party
>> -.yesterday, probably some of my guests did that...
>>         just goes to proof it:  Microslop and Intel boxes are secure
>>     only when most of their parts are stored under lock and key.
>
>Um, not to disagree with you re Intel/Micro$loth, but most UNIX systems 
>can be brought up in single-user mode and the root password changed by 
>anyone with physical access to the system. You could end up with even 
>more trouble than if someone messed with your M$ box.

Microsloth has, at the heart of it's system, a call which traps ALL
KEYSTROKES and EVENTS.  This call exists from Win32s on, and can be
placed inside of a DLL which most users would have no idea was loaded.
Even under NT, this DLL can be made to remain resident and trapping
Keystrokes, events, and window contents.

Does this just BEG to be exploited?

If you give me normal user access to ANY microsloth machine, I can
have most of the system's security broken down to NOTHING within a
week.  And I'm not even a good MS programmer!  <Are my prejudices
showing?>

At least under UNIX, you damned well know you have to secure your
system.  Microsloth attempts to sell itself as a secure platform.

---
"Obviously, the US Constitution isn't perfect, but
it's a lot better than what we have now." - Unknown
PGP key id - 0xDEACDFD1 - Full key available from
pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu




--Boundary..3948.1071713639.multipart/signed
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="pgp00000.pgp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pgp00000.pgp"
Content-Description: "PGP signature"
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--Boundary..3948.1071713639.multipart/signed--

Ted Garrett wrote:
> Microsloth has, at the heart of it's system, a call which traps ALL
> KEYSTROKES and EVENTS.  This call exists from Win32s on, and can be
> placed inside of a DLL which most users would have no idea was loaded.
> Even under NT, this DLL can be made to remain resident and trapping
> Keystrokes, events, and window contents.
> 
> Does this just BEG to be exploited?

Also, permissions of many of the system binaries on NT 4.0 are
wrong.

	- Igor.

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Rabid Wombat wrote:

> Um, not to disagree with you re Intel/Micro$loth, but most UNIX systems 
> can be brought up in single-user mode and the root password changed by 
> anyone with physical access to the system. You could end up with even 
> more trouble than if someone messed with your M$ box.

This is far over-simplified.  Most BSD derived Unices provide the _option_
for single-user mode not to be password protected (depending on whether the
console is marked secure in /etc/ttys).  A few default to this behavior,
but on all it is either a configuration choice or a password is always
required (as it is in USG'ish unices).

--

				Jim Wise
				System Administrator
				GSAPP, Columbia University
				jim@santafe.arch.columbia.edu
				http://www.arch.columbia.edu/~jim
				* Finger for PGP public key *