Re: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
--- Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then, of course, in the off chance they can't actually break the message under that flag, they can merely send a guy out with binoculars or whatever. Don't forget about rubber-hose cryptanlysis. Rumour has it that method is preferred in many cases since it makes the code-breakers feel good by way of testosterone release. Guns. You may not be able to kill them, but you may be able to force them to kill you. If they're using rubber hoses, they're probably going to kill you anyways. Hoses leave marks, of course, and if there's one thing a spook hates, it is leaving evidence of his or her passage. Unless his or her mission is about leaving visible traces, of course. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
--- Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then, of course, in the off chance they can't actually break the message under that flag, they can merely send a guy out with binoculars or whatever. Don't forget about rubber-hose cryptanlysis. Rumour has it that method is preferred in many cases since it makes the code-breakers feel good by way of testosterone release. Guns. You may not be able to kill them, but you may be able to force them to kill you. If they're using rubber hoses, they're probably going to kill you anyways. Hoses leave marks, of course, and if there's one thing a spook hates, it is leaving evidence of his or her passage. Unless his or her mission is about leaving visible traces, of course. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, they could just tune in on Echelon, which really seems to be reality. There is no need for infinite resources to do such a thing. Echelon ain't a radio, and not all members of TLAs have access. Indeed, you can be damn sure that they are very careful to NOT share a lot of the Echelon-culled information. And unless you're involved in some very interesting operations, as a mere agitant you aren't going to merit release of Echelon info. How do you know? HOWEVER, even if they haven't focused the big microscope on you, this A very good friend of mine once described what you call the big microphone as the panopticon. Clearly this is not a new idea, and consequently we may assume that the TLAs are well in advance of whatever is known about global surveillance by the general public. Technical sophisticates have, however, a distinct advantage here. Furthermore, as I have stated previously, the use of information gleaned from a surveillance effort leaks 'bits' about the surveillance action itself -- this is a mathematical certainty. But, seeing as how the public is expected to live in a rather small fantasy world of conceptual and information poverty, at least as such relates to the activities of TLAs, we can assume that mathematical realities will have zero correlation with politically motivated policies in the public `sphere'. doesn't mean you don't merit phishing by someone (perhaps) who's in a local office and has decided he doesn't like you personally. Thus, lower-level not infinitely secure efforts might be of some use. Obviously. Here is the fundamental misunderstanding. Your email is no account. There are no place where your account is stored. The only thing that exists is an endpoint, where you receive your mail. Before the mail reaches that point, its's just TCP-packets on the wire. OK, what the heck are you talking about? You're telling me that hotmail/gmail is stored on my personal COMPUTER? Not even a TLA-originated campaign of disinformation would attempt to get that across. Are you like a 14-year-old boy or something? It's likely that he is practising his stupidity in order to establish the background of his mailing-list persona. Perhaps his messages also carry coded `freight' of some kind intended for a certain class of reader. If so, and if he uses perfect encryption for his coding scheme, we cannot have any hope of decyphering what he is saying beyond the superficial face-value of his text. The problem with Cypherpunks is that we're way too pre-occupied with infinite security scenarios. Of course, such a subject is of vital importance, but there are lower levels of threat (and appropriate response) that need to be examined. This well they can break almost anything so don't even bother unless you're the Okie City B-*-m-b-*-r or somebody, and then you'll need a faraday cage and colliding pulse mode-locked dye laser for quantum encryption bullshit actually detracts from Cypherpunkly notionsit makes the use of encryption a red flag sticking out of a sea of unencrypted grey. And then, of course, in the off chance they can't actually break the message under that flag, they can merely send a guy out with binoculars or whatever. Don't forget about rubber-hose cryptanlysis. Rumour has it that method is preferred in many cases since it makes the code-breakers feel good by way of testosterone release. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
And then, of course, in the off chance they can't actually break the message under that flag, they can merely send a guy out with binoculars or whatever. Don't forget about rubber-hose cryptanlysis. Rumour has it that method is preferred in many cases since it makes the code-breakers feel good by way of testosterone release. Guns. You may not be able to kill them, but you may be able to force them to kill you.
RE: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
At 17:43 2005-04-29, you wrote: Eh...for email you may have a point, but I'm not 100% convinced. In other words, say they want to monitor your email account. Do you really believe they are going to tap all major nodes and then filter all the traffic just to get your email? ... Well, they could just tune in on Echelon, which really seems to be reality. There is no need for infinite resources to do such a thing. This is that whole, The TLAs are infinitely powerful so you might as well do nothing philosophy. And even though I might be willing to concede that they get all that traffic, one hand doesn't always talk to the other. there may be smaller branches on fishing trips accessing your email if they want. if one were able to monitor the email account for access, you'll at least force your TLA phisher into going through proper internal channels. He might actually get a no, depending on the cost vs risk. Here is the fundamental misunderstanding. Your email is no account. There are no place where your account is stored. The only thing that exists is an endpoint, where you receive your mail. Before the mail reaches that point, its's just TCP-packets on the wire. If the listener is on a mail router, you could possibly see a trace of it in the message header, but it's possible to rewrite that stuff to, so the only way to KNOW if someone reads your mail is to analyze the potential readers behaviour based on the information in your mail. /O
RE: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
Well, they could just tune in on Echelon, which really seems to be reality. There is no need for infinite resources to do such a thing. Echelon ain't a radio, and not all members of TLAs have access. Indeed, you can be damn sure that they are very careful to NOT share a lot of the Echelon-culled information. And unless you're involved in some very interesting operations, as a mere agitant you aren't going to merit release of Echelon info. HOWEVER, even if they haven't focused the big microscope on you, this doesn't mean you don't merit phishing by someone (perhaps) who's in a local office and has decided he doesn't like you personally. Thus, lower-level not infinitely secure efforts might be of some use. Here is the fundamental misunderstanding. Your email is no account. There are no place where your account is stored. The only thing that exists is an endpoint, where you receive your mail. Before the mail reaches that point, its's just TCP-packets on the wire. OK, what the heck are you talking about? You're telling me that hotmail/gmail is stored on my personal COMPUTER? Not even a TLA-originated campaign of disinformation would attempt to get that across. Are you like a 14-year-old boy or something? The problem with Cypherpunks is that we're way too pre-occupied with infinite security scenarios. Of course, such a subject is of vital importance, but there are lower levels of threat (and appropriate response) that need to be examined. This well they can break almost anything so don't even bother unless you're the Okie City B-*-m-b-*-r or somebody, and then you'll need a faraday cage and colliding pulse mode-locked dye laser for quantum encryption bullshit actually detracts from Cypherpunkly notionsit makes the use of encryption a red flag sticking out of a sea of unencrypted grey. And then, of course, in the off chance they can't actually break the message under that flag, they can merely send a guy out with binoculars or whatever. -TD
RE: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
At 16:10 2005-05-02, you wrote: Here is the fundamental misunderstanding. Your email is no account. There are no place where your account is stored. The only thing that exists is an endpoint, where you receive your mail. Before the mail reaches that point, its's just TCP-packets on the wire. OK, what the heck are you talking about? You're telling me that hotmail/gmail is stored on my personal COMPUTER? Not even a TLA-originated campaign of disinformation would attempt to get that across. Are you like a 14-year-old boy or something? That's completely unwarranted for. The end point for hotmail is Microsoft's hotmail-servers, and for gmail the endpoint is Google's servers. Stop being so damned rabid. /O
Re: Email Certification?
Suggestion - you can do what advertisers do - encode a web bug image as
part of some jucy html emails on a web server that you own and check
your logs. (not sure if hotmail or whatever allows this, as I don't use
their cruft.)
Make sure that unlike a web bug you don't set the name so it looks like
a web bug (i.e. don't call it 1x1.gif) and don't set the image size
attributes on the IMG SRC tag to say 1x1. Instead make the file name
into something that looks like it came from a digital camera and put it
in a path that matches that cover story.
ie:
http://127.53.22.7/phightklub_files/2004-xmas-party-pix/JoeShmoeDrunkAndHigh/Kodak/DSC03284345.JPG
No guarantee that someone won't read the email as source and thus not
grab the image too, but you can make it look like the content of the
image is important to the message's content and jucy enough to make
whomever you believe is spying on you want to fetch it. i.e. Here's a
picture of the party, you can clearly see he's got a crack pipe in his
hand and his eyes are dialated. I'm thinkin' of reporting him to deh
fedz, what do u think?(I'm assuming that the feds are your threat
model here, but you can vary this up with whatever threat model you
think is appropriate. i.e. if you think your woman is spying on you,
make it a fake email from your supposed mistress, something she'd want
to open - i.e. subject I'm gonna tell ur wife about us if you don't do X.)
I'd also make sure that nothing on the webserver itself points to the
directory where this lives so it can't be picked up by the search
spiders/bots accidentally, and make sure that you don't allow the
directory it lives in to have an auto-index.
Then, watch the server logs like a paranoid hawk with a caffeine
addiction problem and hope they bite, when they do, you know they've
read the other emails. You also have to make sure that you don't
accidentally open these emails yourself, or leave an open web browser
with your account where someone can randomly snoop.)
But of course, since you are using hotmail and you're about to receive
this email, if your account is watched, guess what, you can no longer
use this method. Oh well.
Tyler Durden wrote:
Yes, but this almost misses the point.
Is it possible to detect ('for certain', within previously mentioned
boundary conditions) that some has read it? This is a different problem
from merely trying to retain secrecy.
Remember, my brain is a little punch-drunk from all the Fight Club
fighting.
BUT, I believe that the fact that deeper TLAs desire to hide
themselves from more run-of-the-mill operations might be exploited in an
interesting way. Or at least force them to commit to officially
surveiling you, thereby (one hopes) subjecting them to whatever frail
tatters of the law still exist.
A better example may be home security systems. If they're going to
tempest you, I'd bet they'd prefer not to inform your local security
company. They'd rather just shut down your alarm system and I bet this
is easy for them.
BUT, this fact may enable one to detect (with little doubt) such an
intrusion, and about this I shall say no more...
RE: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
At 17:43 2005-04-29, you wrote: Eh...for email you may have a point, but I'm not 100% convinced. In other words, say they want to monitor your email account. Do you really believe they are going to tap all major nodes and then filter all the traffic just to get your email? ... Well, they could just tune in on Echelon, which really seems to be reality. There is no need for infinite resources to do such a thing. This is that whole, The TLAs are infinitely powerful so you might as well do nothing philosophy. And even though I might be willing to concede that they get all that traffic, one hand doesn't always talk to the other. there may be smaller branches on fishing trips accessing your email if they want. if one were able to monitor the email account for access, you'll at least force your TLA phisher into going through proper internal channels. He might actually get a no, depending on the cost vs risk. Here is the fundamental misunderstanding. Your email is no account. There are no place where your account is stored. The only thing that exists is an endpoint, where you receive your mail. Before the mail reaches that point, its's just TCP-packets on the wire. If the listener is on a mail router, you could possibly see a trace of it in the message header, but it's possible to rewrite that stuff to, so the only way to KNOW if someone reads your mail is to analyze the potential readers behaviour based on the information in your mail. /O
RE: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
Eh...for email you may have a point, but I'm not 100% convinced. In other words, say they want to monitor your email account. Do you really believe they are going to tap all major nodes and then filter all the traffic just to get your email? This is that whole, The TLAs are infinitely powerful so you might as well do nothing philosophy. And even though I might be willing to concede that they get all that traffic, one hand doesn't always talk to the other. there may be smaller branches on fishing trips accessing your email if they want. if one were able to monitor the email account for access, you'll at least force your TLA phisher into going through proper internal channels. He might actually get a no, depending on the cost vs risk. Look...they aren't some super-Orwellian hyperorganized hive-mind. They're a big, fat bureaucracy full of big, fat bureaucrats. That's why they don't get real jobs! Look...a little tiny yap yap dog can often scare off a bigger dog or animal by making it clear that any interaction's going to suck. This isn't because the big dog couldn't ultimately kill the little dog, but because the big dog will realize it's just not worth it. -TD From: Morlock Elloi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:17:53 -0700 (PDT) I'm still having trouble understanding your threat model. Just assume braindeath and it becomes obvious. No tla with any dignity left would bother e-mail providers or try to get your password. All it need to do is fill gforms and get access to tapped traffic at major nodes (say, 20 in US is sufficient?). Think packet reassembly - filter down - store everything forever - google on demand. Concerned about e-mail privacy? There is this obscure software called 'PGP', check it out. Too complicated? That's the good thing about evolution, not everyone makes it. end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 11:43 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: Look...a little tiny yap yap dog can often scare off a bigger dog or animal by making it clear that any interaction's going to suck. For some reason I'm reminded of the old tagline: YIP! YIP! YAP! YIP! YAP! *BANG* [EMAIL PROTECTED] NO TERRIER -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
Eh...for email you may have a point, but I'm not 100% convinced. In other words, say they want to monitor your email account. Do you really believe they are going to tap all major nodes and then filter all the traffic just to get your email? This is that whole, The TLAs are infinitely powerful so you might as well do nothing philosophy. And even though I might be willing to concede that they get all that traffic, one hand doesn't always talk to the other. there may be smaller branches on fishing trips accessing your email if they want. if one were able to monitor the email account for access, you'll at least force your TLA phisher into going through proper internal channels. He might actually get a no, depending on the cost vs risk. Look...they aren't some super-Orwellian hyperorganized hive-mind. They're a big, fat bureaucracy full of big, fat bureaucrats. That's why they don't get real jobs! Look...a little tiny yap yap dog can often scare off a bigger dog or animal by making it clear that any interaction's going to suck. This isn't because the big dog couldn't ultimately kill the little dog, but because the big dog will realize it's just not worth it. -TD From: Morlock Elloi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:17:53 -0700 (PDT) I'm still having trouble understanding your threat model. Just assume braindeath and it becomes obvious. No tla with any dignity left would bother e-mail providers or try to get your password. All it need to do is fill gforms and get access to tapped traffic at major nodes (say, 20 in US is sufficient?). Think packet reassembly - filter down - store everything forever - google on demand. Concerned about e-mail privacy? There is this obscure software called 'PGP', check it out. Too complicated? That's the good thing about evolution, not everyone makes it. end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 11:43 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: Look...a little tiny yap yap dog can often scare off a bigger dog or animal by making it clear that any interaction's going to suck. For some reason I'm reminded of the old tagline: YIP! YIP! YAP! YIP! YAP! *BANG* [EMAIL PROTECTED] NO TERRIER -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Email Certification?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A Can anyone figure out a way to determine if one's hotmail, etc...has been looked at or not? Hi. Email is more or less like sending a post card. Anyone inbetween can take a peek if they have the knowledge. (And not much knowledge is required). This is why cryptgraphic signing and encryption is preferable to communicate through EMail. So the answer to your question is: Always assume someone has looked at it. Regards Ola -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCcJgxGTAxXnkBC3IRAs6NAJ9EJi8RwMWHF//Z3lgQz/FZ+UkdbwCbBZT5 L0mjFCQ3x+SYRjD6uatzCvY= =ef/B -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Email Certification?
Yes, but this almost misses the point.
Is it possible to detect ('for certain', within previously mentioned
boundary conditions) that some has read it? This is a different problem from
merely trying to retain secrecy.
Remember, my brain is a little punch-drunk from all the Fight Club fighting.
BUT, I believe that the fact that deeper TLAs desire to hide themselves from
more run-of-the-mill operations might be exploited in an interesting way. Or
at least force them to commit to officially surveiling you, thereby (one
hopes) subjecting them to whatever frail tatters of the law still exist.
A better example may be home security systems. If they're going to tempest
you, I'd bet they'd prefer not to inform your local security company. They'd
rather just shut down your alarm system and I bet this is easy for them.
BUT, this fact may enable one to detect (with little doubt) such an
intrusion, and about this I shall say no more...
-TD
From: Ola Bini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email Certification?
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:00:49 +0200
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A
Can anyone figure out a way to determine if one's hotmail, etc...has been
looked at or not?
Hi.
Email is more or less like sending a post card. Anyone inbetween can take a
peek if they have the knowledge. (And not much knowledge is required). This
is why cryptgraphic signing and encryption is preferable to communicate
through EMail. So the answer to your question is: Always assume someone has
looked at it.
Regards
Ola
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCcJgxGTAxXnkBC3IRAs6NAJ9EJi8RwMWHF//Z3lgQz/FZ+UkdbwCbBZT5
L0mjFCQ3x+SYRjD6uatzCvY=
=ef/B
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Email Certification?
I'm still having trouble understanding your threat model. If you're talking about somebody who can get Hotmail's cooperation, e.g. cops or sysadmins, there's no way you can prevent them from doing anything they want to your incoming mail. If you're worried about crackers guessing your password, then some web-based email systems automatically mark mail as read, some don't, some let you mark it, some let you remark it as unread. (I haven't ever used hotmail, and my cat stopped using it when the Child Online Protection Act required Hotmail to cancel accounts for anybody under 13 years old who didn't have parental permission, so the interface has probably changed since I last saw it.) Are you worried specifically about Hotmail? You're mentioning using gmail to pre-filter your hotmail messages - gmail's going to have similar potential threats, except that it's probably better managed, and if you're going to send the mail to gmail anyway, why not just read it on gmail? In general, if you've sent unencrypted email to an untrusted system, then you've got no way of knowing that it hasn't been read. At 01:09 PM 4/27/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Oh...this post was connected to my previous one. Sorry...my ideas along these lines are still a little foggy but I'll try to articulate. Basically, let's assume someone with some resources has cracked your email and wants to monitor what you send and receive. let's also assume they don't want you to know it. Let's assume they also are not particularly thrilled about having hotmail know what they're up to (if needs be they can obtain a warrant, etc..., but this is clearly less than desirable compared to more direct techniques). It seems fairly easy to me to (for instance) create a bot that duplicates all of the email and resends it to your hotmail account so that when you log in everything looks fresh and new. (There are probably easier ways to do this via direct hacks of hotmail). Is there some way to make it evident that someone has opened your email? Right now, I can't think of anything you could do aside from suggesting that hotmail (or whoever) offer some kind of encryption service. BUT, it occurs to me that you might be able to have gmail forward your mail to hotmail via some intermediate application you've set up that takes the timestamp and whatever and creates a hash.
Re: Email Certification?
No, the threat model was outlined in a previous post. Consider some agency that has lots of resources and technologies, but also doesn't particularly want local authorities or (for instance) hotmail to know what they are doing. In general, this is going to make their operation much less intrusive, lower cost (ie, due to not having to physically send people) as well as avoiding a lot of legal hassles due to paper trails. So I guess what I'm looking for is way to be quite certain that someone (aside from Hotmail admin) is opening, reading, and closing my email 'unobtrusively'. Of course, once such an effort is detected, said agency may decide to follow a more intrusive investigative path, but this has practical consequences. My home alarm system is probably a better example. If NSA, for instance, is going to bother entering your house and setting up whatever, I'd bet they'd LOVE to not bother with the local security/alarm company, because then there's a paper trail, people who might be a friend of the surveilled, and other 'local' issues. They're definitely going to use their fancy gadgets, etc..., to bypass the alarm system while making the alarm company everything's going just fine, or perhaps a battery has expired. In this case there'd be nothing to subpeona. Therefore, if you suspect you're being surveilled, even if you can't secure anything you want might want to secure, you can at least force them to commit legally actionable acts, or else force them to give up their 'phishing' expeditions. -TD From: Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email Certification? Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:04:54 -0700 I'm still having trouble understanding your threat model. If you're talking about somebody who can get Hotmail's cooperation, e.g. cops or sysadmins, there's no way you can prevent them from doing anything they want to your incoming mail. If you're worried about crackers guessing your password, then some web-based email systems automatically mark mail as read, some don't, some let you mark it, some let you remark it as unread. (I haven't ever used hotmail, and my cat stopped using it when the Child Online Protection Act required Hotmail to cancel accounts for anybody under 13 years old who didn't have parental permission, so the interface has probably changed since I last saw it.) Are you worried specifically about Hotmail? You're mentioning using gmail to pre-filter your hotmail messages - gmail's going to have similar potential threats, except that it's probably better managed, and if you're going to send the mail to gmail anyway, why not just read it on gmail? In general, if you've sent unencrypted email to an untrusted system, then you've got no way of knowing that it hasn't been read. At 01:09 PM 4/27/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Oh...this post was connected to my previous one. Sorry...my ideas along these lines are still a little foggy but I'll try to articulate. Basically, let's assume someone with some resources has cracked your email and wants to monitor what you send and receive. let's also assume they don't want you to know it. Let's assume they also are not particularly thrilled about having hotmail know what they're up to (if needs be they can obtain a warrant, etc..., but this is clearly less than desirable compared to more direct techniques). It seems fairly easy to me to (for instance) create a bot that duplicates all of the email and resends it to your hotmail account so that when you log in everything looks fresh and new. (There are probably easier ways to do this via direct hacks of hotmail). Is there some way to make it evident that someone has opened your email? Right now, I can't think of anything you could do aside from suggesting that hotmail (or whoever) offer some kind of encryption service. BUT, it occurs to me that you might be able to have gmail forward your mail to hotmail via some intermediate application you've set up that takes the timestamp and whatever and creates a hash.
Re: Email Certification?
I'm still having trouble understanding your threat model. If you're talking about somebody who can get Hotmail's cooperation, e.g. cops or sysadmins, there's no way you can prevent them from doing anything they want to your incoming mail. If you're worried about crackers guessing your password, then some web-based email systems automatically mark mail as read, some don't, some let you mark it, some let you remark it as unread. (I haven't ever used hotmail, and my cat stopped using it when the Child Online Protection Act required Hotmail to cancel accounts for anybody under 13 years old who didn't have parental permission, so the interface has probably changed since I last saw it.) Are you worried specifically about Hotmail? You're mentioning using gmail to pre-filter your hotmail messages - gmail's going to have similar potential threats, except that it's probably better managed, and if you're going to send the mail to gmail anyway, why not just read it on gmail? In general, if you've sent unencrypted email to an untrusted system, then you've got no way of knowing that it hasn't been read. At 01:09 PM 4/27/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Oh...this post was connected to my previous one. Sorry...my ideas along these lines are still a little foggy but I'll try to articulate. Basically, let's assume someone with some resources has cracked your email and wants to monitor what you send and receive. let's also assume they don't want you to know it. Let's assume they also are not particularly thrilled about having hotmail know what they're up to (if needs be they can obtain a warrant, etc..., but this is clearly less than desirable compared to more direct techniques). It seems fairly easy to me to (for instance) create a bot that duplicates all of the email and resends it to your hotmail account so that when you log in everything looks fresh and new. (There are probably easier ways to do this via direct hacks of hotmail). Is there some way to make it evident that someone has opened your email? Right now, I can't think of anything you could do aside from suggesting that hotmail (or whoever) offer some kind of encryption service. BUT, it occurs to me that you might be able to have gmail forward your mail to hotmail via some intermediate application you've set up that takes the timestamp and whatever and creates a hash.
Re: Email Certification?
No, the threat model was outlined in a previous post. Consider some agency that has lots of resources and technologies, but also doesn't particularly want local authorities or (for instance) hotmail to know what they are doing. In general, this is going to make their operation much less intrusive, lower cost (ie, due to not having to physically send people) as well as avoiding a lot of legal hassles due to paper trails. So I guess what I'm looking for is way to be quite certain that someone (aside from Hotmail admin) is opening, reading, and closing my email 'unobtrusively'. Of course, once such an effort is detected, said agency may decide to follow a more intrusive investigative path, but this has practical consequences. My home alarm system is probably a better example. If NSA, for instance, is going to bother entering your house and setting up whatever, I'd bet they'd LOVE to not bother with the local security/alarm company, because then there's a paper trail, people who might be a friend of the surveilled, and other 'local' issues. They're definitely going to use their fancy gadgets, etc..., to bypass the alarm system while making the alarm company everything's going just fine, or perhaps a battery has expired. In this case there'd be nothing to subpeona. Therefore, if you suspect you're being surveilled, even if you can't secure anything you want might want to secure, you can at least force them to commit legally actionable acts, or else force them to give up their 'phishing' expeditions. -TD From: Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email Certification? Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:04:54 -0700 I'm still having trouble understanding your threat model. If you're talking about somebody who can get Hotmail's cooperation, e.g. cops or sysadmins, there's no way you can prevent them from doing anything they want to your incoming mail. If you're worried about crackers guessing your password, then some web-based email systems automatically mark mail as read, some don't, some let you mark it, some let you remark it as unread. (I haven't ever used hotmail, and my cat stopped using it when the Child Online Protection Act required Hotmail to cancel accounts for anybody under 13 years old who didn't have parental permission, so the interface has probably changed since I last saw it.) Are you worried specifically about Hotmail? You're mentioning using gmail to pre-filter your hotmail messages - gmail's going to have similar potential threats, except that it's probably better managed, and if you're going to send the mail to gmail anyway, why not just read it on gmail? In general, if you've sent unencrypted email to an untrusted system, then you've got no way of knowing that it hasn't been read. At 01:09 PM 4/27/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Oh...this post was connected to my previous one. Sorry...my ideas along these lines are still a little foggy but I'll try to articulate. Basically, let's assume someone with some resources has cracked your email and wants to monitor what you send and receive. let's also assume they don't want you to know it. Let's assume they also are not particularly thrilled about having hotmail know what they're up to (if needs be they can obtain a warrant, etc..., but this is clearly less than desirable compared to more direct techniques). It seems fairly easy to me to (for instance) create a bot that duplicates all of the email and resends it to your hotmail account so that when you log in everything looks fresh and new. (There are probably easier ways to do this via direct hacks of hotmail). Is there some way to make it evident that someone has opened your email? Right now, I can't think of anything you could do aside from suggesting that hotmail (or whoever) offer some kind of encryption service. BUT, it occurs to me that you might be able to have gmail forward your mail to hotmail via some intermediate application you've set up that takes the timestamp and whatever and creates a hash.
zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
I'm still having trouble understanding your threat model. Just assume braindeath and it becomes obvious. No tla with any dignity left would bother e-mail providers or try to get your password. All it need to do is fill gforms and get access to tapped traffic at major nodes (say, 20 in US is sufficient?). Think packet reassembly - filter down - store everything forever - google on demand. Concerned about e-mail privacy? There is this obscure software called 'PGP', check it out. Too complicated? That's the good thing about evolution, not everyone makes it. end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Email Certification?
Hum. Can anyone figure out a way to determine if one's hotmail, etc...has been looked at or not? The only thing my limited mind can think of sounds superficially like it won't work: Use a gmail account to forward all email to some routine that time-stamps and then hashes the message+timestamp and then sends the email on to the hotmail account. Of course, they can just start looking at the gmail account and monkey with things before they get over to the hotmail account. But that might be an improvement...depending on how gmail forwards, they might not be able to interfere without at least notifying gmail. That's a lot better than nothing. -TD
Re: Email Certification?
On 4/27/05, Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hum. Can anyone figure out a way to determine if one's hotmail, etc...has been looked at or not? By whom? Someone at hotmail, or someone who got your password and logged in as you? Hotmail shows mail that has already been viewed in a different color than mail you haven't looked at yet. So it would be obvious if someone else logged in as you and read your email. But of course there is no way to know what insiders are doing. Maybe you could explain your attack concept more clearly. The only thing my limited mind can think of sounds superficially like it won't work: Use a gmail account to forward all email to some routine that time-stamps and then hashes the message+timestamp and then sends the email on to the hotmail account. What would this accomplish? That is, what attack would it make more difficult? Are you worried that someone is intercepting your email en route to hotmail, reading and delaying it, then passing it on? And you hope to detect the unwarranted delay? CP
Re: Email Certification?
Oh...this post was connected to my previous one. Sorry...my ideas along these lines are still a little foggy but I'll try to articulate. Basically, let's assume someone with some resources has cracked your email and wants to monitor what you send and receive. let's also assume they don't want you to know it. Let's assume they also are not particularly thrilled about having hotmail know what they're up to (if needs be they can obtain a warrant, etc..., but this is clearly less than desirable compared to more direct techniques). It seems fairly easy to me to (for instance) create a bot that duplicates all of the email and resends it to your hotmail account so that when you log in everything looks fresh and new. (There are probably easier ways to do this via direct hacks of hotmail). Is there some way to make it evident that someone has opened your email? Right now, I can't think of anything you could do aside from suggesting that hotmail (or whoever) offer some kind of encryption service. BUT, it occurs to me that you might be able to have gmail forward your mail to hotmail via some intermediate application you've set up that takes the timestamp and whatever and creates a hash. Now your 'observer' of course could possibly go over to hotmail and try the same tricks, but this might be harder...the forwarded emails might not last very long. this might require a pretty heavy hack into gmail or else a subpeona, in which case they are much closer to the surface than before...'they' need more resources and possibly subject themselves to the legal system, which they probably still want to avoid. -TD From: cypherpunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email Certification? Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:14:50 -0700 On 4/27/05, Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hum. Can anyone figure out a way to determine if one's hotmail, etc...has been looked at or not? By whom? Someone at hotmail, or someone who got your password and logged in as you? Hotmail shows mail that has already been viewed in a different color than mail you haven't looked at yet. So it would be obvious if someone else logged in as you and read your email. But of course there is no way to know what insiders are doing. Maybe you could explain your attack concept more clearly. The only thing my limited mind can think of sounds superficially like it won't work: Use a gmail account to forward all email to some routine that time-stamps and then hashes the message+timestamp and then sends the email on to the hotmail account. What would this accomplish? That is, what attack would it make more difficult? Are you worried that someone is intercepting your email en route to hotmail, reading and delaying it, then passing it on? And you hope to detect the unwarranted delay? CP
Re: Email Certification?
On 2005-04-27T16:09:12-0400, Tyler Durden wrote: Oh...this post was connected to my previous one. Is there some way to make it evident that someone has opened your email? Hotmail could make this evident. - Force deleted messages to remain in the Trash bin for a week after receipt of the message, and display all Trashed mail in the Inbox with red strikethrough. - Record and display login ip addresses, dates, times, in the style of unix last. Each addresses different aspects of the problem. Right now, I can't think of anything you could do aside from suggesting that hotmail (or whoever) offer some kind of encryption service. If you're worried about unsophisticated attackers reading your mail, why not use PGP or S/MIME? That's one of the things encryption is for. Of course that wouldn't prevent an intruder from deleting all your mail, but hopefully the sender would notice your lack of response and contact you out-of-band. Nobody should consider email a reliable communications medium these days.
