Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks

From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
> On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>
> > Send a number of unique tokens to each subscriber each day.
> [...]
> > If tokens are used improperly (to post off-topic materials) the 
> > offending subscriber is denied any further tokens.
> > 
> > The problem of this scheme is (besides its cost) that anonymous users
> > will not be truly anonymous.
>
> I think this problem can be solved by blind signing the tokens.  A user
> generates a random number, multiplies it by the blinding factor, then sending
> it to a token server which would append a timestamp and sign the blinded
> token.  All signature requests should be signed with a PGP key.  The server
> response would be encrypted with the user's public key.  A person's PGP key
> would be sent along with the subscription request and then saved by the list
> software.

This is an interesting idea, however it will be possible for someone with
a respectable public persona to continue getting tokens indefinately for
posting abusive anonymous messages.  There is no way to link the anonymous
tokens with the ones which were issued to good subscribers.

An alternative is to give each subscriber only a small, fixed number of
blinded tokens which he will use for the lifetime of his subscription
to the list.  When someone posts anonymously, they use up one of their
tokens.  Then, if the message was not abusive, a new blinded token is
created, encrypted with the public key of the good-guy anonymous poster,
and broadcast to subscribers.  This way good anonymous posters will get
to keep posting, while abusive ones will shortly run out of anonymous
posting tokens.

The big problem with schemes like this is the difficulty of defining
"good" posts in an acceptable way.  Some list members are hard-line
freedom-of-speechers and don't want to see any limitations on list
postings.  Others would probably classify 80% of the messages on the list
at times as grounds for termination of posting privileges.  Everyone will
have their own thresholds.

There is also the administrative problem of who will judge the posts.
This could take a large commitment of time.  I'm sure many of us
have gotten behind in our list reading from time to time and it can be
intimidating to return from a trip to find hundreds of messages waiting.
Imagine how it would be if you were supposed to be reading them and
looking for bad messages.

We might also want to consider the paradoxical possibility that if we
remove the junk, the list will die!  At least now we are constantly
reminded that the cypherpunks list exists.  Other lists like the
cryptography and coderpunks can sometimes go for quite a while without
any posts at all.  On CP you have the sense of a dynamic community where
you can hope for a response to your posts, more so than on a list which
is silent for days at a time.

Hal

Hal Finney wrote:
> 
> We might also want to consider the paradoxical possibility that if we
> remove the junk, the list will die!  At least now we are constantly
> reminded that the cypherpunks list exists.  Other lists like the
> cryptography and coderpunks can sometimes go for quite a while without
> any posts at all.  On CP you have the sense of a dynamic community where
> you can hope for a response to your posts, more so than on a list which
> is silent for days at a time.

Hal,
 Have you been watching "It's A Wonderful Life", with Jimmy Stewart,
again?

Toto

At 12:32 PM -0800 12/31/96, Hal Finney wrote:

>We might also want to consider the paradoxical possibility that if we
>remove the junk, the list will die!  At least now we are constantly
>reminded that the cypherpunks list exists.  Other lists like the
>cryptography and coderpunks can sometimes go for quite a while without
>any posts at all.  On CP you have the sense of a dynamic community where
>you can hope for a response to your posts, more so than on a list which
>is silent for days at a time.

A very good point. This is what I meant in my last message by saying that
moderated lists can become "moribund." I've seen a bunch of nominally
"quality" lists simply die the death of inactivity because the volume was
so low.

Cypherpunks is like a crowded coffee house, or bar, with people having
various conversations, sometimes shouting, and with debate raging.

It's easier to filter out things I don't want to hear than it is to
_induce_ things I _do_ want to hear! And as I said in my last message, even
with 100 messages a day, this is easily manageable with filtering tools and
a quick hand on the "delete" key.

Massive spam attacks, or denial of service attacks, such as we have seen
several times in the last year or so, are more problematic than mere
"off-topic" or "not what I wanted to read" posts. Solutions to this would
be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

(It seems to me that majordomo could be hacked to either recognize
subscriptions with some indication of "list" in the name, and not allow the
list to be subscribed to other lists. Not that this would always work (as
"cypherpunks@toad.com" so clearly shows).)

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Hal Finney <hal@rain.org> writes:
>
> We might also want to consider the paradoxical possibility that if we
> remove the junk, the list will die!  At least now we are constantly
> reminded that the cypherpunks list exists.

It "exists" as a laughing stock for the media and the NSA.
It has no credibility, thanks to cocksucker John Gilmore's
content-based plug-pulling and censorship.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

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

On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Hal Finney wrote:

> This is an interesting idea, however it will be possible for someone with
> a respectable public persona to continue getting tokens indefinately for
> posting abusive anonymous messages.  There is no way to link the anonymous
> tokens with the ones which were issued to good subscribers.

If the number of tokens given to each subscriber per day is limited (5 to 7
is probably reasonable), then this will limit the amount of abusive anonymous
messages posted.  This scheme might not prevent people from anonymously
posting abusive messages, but it will prevent spam.

Limiting the number of abusive anonymous messages one can post is an
interesting idea, but this only allows pseudonymity and not anonymity.  The
pseudonymity-anonymity issue seems to be a trade-off between more privacy and
less noise.


Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMsnpCSzIPc7jvyFpAQFovggAhOFPeHaj/huH/kQUSI7FViH8TrUOH3X1
c3Ux5ZjiBPyO0dknI2crLhDZuBYf5dVH0K6rR5D5vXMsNn6+0p8Ec4w5HXouHN6K
zP6sUnntcFXFuddOblit8R4LGCZbmaW+7WZBp4h+UfBsN1Xg/iP156VrwFy7eBve
MXhyoROwDpRq8ENceqA9CvgyXtbjb5xBJVnB8rj+y5qc0kQH4mFZZZBRX+sgXHdI
6XdI7R1Thoy8ZXa+LQV+imOe68lykPYaV1rKkqC91Ne7kjMGh09qOPseVWl2RAqe
8dacmuneryrsEr8MMXJPAyOqSSrTpKEIHF//MmL+IkRePd1nv4zaAg==
=ckjR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----