Re: Give peace a chance? NAH...
This brings up thoughts of prior debates on whether or not US citizens are subject to the International Court. We (the US) are making a habit of forcing our laws on other countries, but yet we are not subject to the laws of an established INTERNATIONAL court; one who's laws are created from a consensus of people of many nations and backgrounds. The hypocrisy of the Bush Doctrine is simply mind-boggling. -Adam On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:31:16 -0500 (CDT), J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: ... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law? This is but one of the many fatal flaws in the Bush Doctrine of nation-building. --digsig James A. Donald -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Re: Airport insanity
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald All of the terrorists came from countries that were beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi Arabia was certainly not under attack. If they were Palestinians, and they hit the Pentagon but not the two towers, then they would be defending themselves. John Kelsey I'm still trying to understand the moral theory on which you differentiate hitting the two towers from the Oklaholma City bombing. The pentagon did not have a branch office in the two towers. BATF had an office in the Murrah building. Bzzzt! Try again. There were a number of federales in the towers, INCLUDING atf, all the various branches of the armed services, and a large number of spook proxy points. So they killed a whole bunch of people, most of whom had nothing to do with what they opposed, but surely including people who were doing business with Saudi Arabia and Israel. Was McViegh targeting people who do business with BATF? Besides which the terrorists did not target them for doing business with Israel, but for World Trade - globalization and all that. Personal knowledge? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Re: Airport insanity
-- On 22 Oct 2004 at 11:12, Bill Stewart wrote: James - Many, perhaps most, of the POWs at Gitmo weren't foreigners, they were Afghans. Many of the POWs at Gitmo probably were Al-Qaeda or other organized paramilitary groups. But many of them were described by the US propagandists as Taliban fighters - the military arm of the local central government who were legitimate to the extent that any group of warlords who are the current king of the hill are legitimate, Firstly, much of the Taliban is Pakistani, not Afghan. Secondly, if the Taliban were legitimate, their enemies may lock them up for the duration of the war as POWs, Since some elements of the Taliban have not laid down their arms, Taliban prisoners may held for the duration, as POWs, even if they fought in a manner equivalent to fighting in uniform. The Taliban were illegitimate, not on legal grounds, but because they were evil. If someone was in the Taliban, then those threatened by the Taliban have a strong case for locking him up, just as we locked up nazis. Thirdly a government that systematically depopulates large areas of the territory it supposedly rules is not as legitimate as warlords with genuine local roots and traditional authority, who for the most part came to power through religious or military leadership in a spontaneous revolution against tyranny. No one in the Northern alliance ever controlled territory though ethnic cleansing. I can easily imagine circumstances where ethnic cleansing is a legitimate response to an intransigent enemy with strong roots in the local population - but the fact that the Taliban used such measures shows they did not have strong roots in the local population. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG CDUSjXr1dmDzlVeda1332HqM96GZ31CTX2n8IhAm 4Cc7h7PYP1ZhoxEDC8UNo32CFcXQrpBdEEegTPYZ1
Re: Airport insanity
At 01:03 PM 10/23/04 -0400, John Kelsey wrote: Blowing up a building full of random people because a few of them are associated with some action you really disagree with is just outside the realm of the sort of moral decision I can figure out. Just like flying planes into buildings full of people with almost nothing to do with what you're really getting at. --John Kelsey Osama et al suffer from the belief that Americans chose their leaders and thus are responsible for their actions. They also observe that the only language americans understand is dead civilians inside the CONUS. Ergo WTC feedback. Tim McV may have somewhat analogously assumed that all Feds would take notice of his feedback. (In addition, the WTC demolishion got a disproportionate number of jews, just as Okla did get a few BATF goons. But the message was more generally intended.) Consider: If a crip whacks your homey, you needn't pop *that* crip to make your point. Any crip will do. Snipe a few tax collectors and all Caesar's centurions take note. Capiche?
Re: Airport insanity
-- John Kelsey I'm still trying to understand the moral theory on which you differentiate hitting the two towers from the Oklaholma City bombing. James A. Donald: The pentagon did not have a branch office in the two towers. BATF had an office in the Murrah building. J.A. Terranson Bzzzt! Try again. There were a number of federales in the towers, INCLUDING atf, all the various branches of the armed services, and a large number of spook proxy points. You guys just keep making up facts. There were no branches of the armed services in the towers. You are just spouting bullshit, like the story that Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, that Saddam was installed in a CIA coup, and all those similar lies made up to rationalize terror. Just a few posts ago someone posted that old one that the US started the Korean war by attacking North Korea, in order to make the US rich by imposing poverty on Koreans, despite the fact that we now have the records of Stalin ordering the attack, and despite the obvious and dramatic difference in wealth everywhere between the two sides of the line where the iron curtain used to be - and still is in Korea. The same people spout the new lies in the same breath as they spout the old lies. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG dvBfWIZqEu161Mjru/y6SQOfX5yCTWwAzV2e8e/N 40oki+XXmhK7vuYZqXY+Sr2pWASXQo+gx9TqdXW7/
Re: Airport insanity
-- On 23 Oct 2004 at 19:25, J.A. Terranson wrote: There are all givens to the rest of us - I am trying to fit these arguments into Donald's Reality Distortion Field. Is it also a given to you, as it is to Tyler, that the US attacked North Korea, and that the reason for this attack was to make Koreans poor so that Americans could be rich? Is it also a given to you that the CIA trained Bin Laden? Is it also a given to you that the CIA installed Saddam? Is it a given to you, as it is to Tyler, that the countries on the communist side of the former iron curtain were more successful economically than their neighbors or countrymen on the other side? Is it a given to you that Jews did not turn up for work in the two towers the day they fell? Is it a given to you that Arbenz was democratically elected, and that the guerrilas in Guatemala were an indigenous popular movement that could have won free and fair elections had they been permitted? Is it a given to you that Alger Hiss was framed? Perhaps you need to check some of these givens. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 2xBHaKKtew47vYubi0WVdchRmiM1osWLaPLEM3IJ 4th8Ep6rf2PcPWOoYxyby9cpMSlFehq6Z+8yzjPuc
Re: Airport insanity
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: The Taliban were illegitimate, not on legal grounds, but because they were evil. Using this line of reasoning, Shrub is ripe for that overdue case of high velocity lead poisoning. If someone was in the Taliban, then those threatened by the Taliban have a strong case for locking him up, just as we locked up nazis. Thirdly a government that systematically depopulates large areas of the territory it supposedly rules is not as legitimate as warlords with genuine local roots and traditional authority, who for the most part came to power through religious or military leadership in a spontaneous revolution against tyranny. And if the local warlords are also participating in a vast depopulation, then what? No one in the Northern alliance ever controlled territory though ethnic cleansing. I can easily imagine circumstances where ethnic cleansing is a legitimate response to an intransigent enemy with strong roots in the local population - but the fact that the Taliban used such measures shows they did not have strong roots in the local population. You don't see a circular problem here? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Re: Airport insanity
Let us not forget the more tangible 'value' in bombing the WTC and messing up things downtown. First of all, the companies in the WTC were, to say the least, impacted (actually, the company I work for lost 11 people and relocated to NJ for about a year)hitting them (and their workers) was probably not considered collateral damage by Al Qaeda, any more than bombing German or japanese urban production centers was considered that for the allies in WWII. Next comes the financial district and Wall Street as a whole. The third (and as it turned out by far the most impactful) was the destruction of the Telecom Central Office in #4 World Trade Center, along with bringing off-line the big Verizon CO across the street. These actually caused Wall Street to be knocked off line for several days, an impact that is hard to underestimate. And while I suspect that Al-Qaeda were probably unaware in advance of the impact on Telecom, the rest was certainly a conscious decision. -TD From: J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Airport insanity Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:14:22 -0500 (CDT) On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald All of the terrorists came from countries that were beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi Arabia was certainly not under attack. If they were Palestinians, and they hit the Pentagon but not the two towers, then they would be defending themselves. John Kelsey I'm still trying to understand the moral theory on which you differentiate hitting the two towers from the Oklaholma City bombing. The pentagon did not have a branch office in the two towers. BATF had an office in the Murrah building. Bzzzt! Try again. There were a number of federales in the towers, INCLUDING atf, all the various branches of the armed services, and a large number of spook proxy points. So they killed a whole bunch of people, most of whom had nothing to do with what they opposed, but surely including people who were doing business with Saudi Arabia and Israel. Was McViegh targeting people who do business with BATF? Besides which the terrorists did not target them for doing business with Israel, but for World Trade - globalization and all that. Personal knowledge? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time _ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
Re: Airport insanity
Steve Furlong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [1] The defensive aspect here is to allow the attackers to attack from distance beyond the reach of the other side's active defenses, thus not risking anything more than a piece of overpriced electronics. If some asshole is coming at you with a knife, it's cowardly to shoot him before he's in range? Dumbass. Except that ol' Sodom didn't come for you...
Re: Airport insanity
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 11:37:02PM -0400, Adam wrote: None-the-less, this has been one of the more inteteresting (and infuriating) threads in recent memory of Cypherpunks. I'm glad we're going through it with such vigor. That thread bores me to tears. I miss technical content. Or, at least, a few pointers of where the action is. I'm tinkering with Nehemiah's RNG (/dev/hw_random is next to useless without a patch), and about to start using PadLock patches, once C5P hardware arrives. I'm also going to look into OpenBSD, once 3.6 is up on mirrors. What is happening in TCP/IP level traffic remixing? P2P apps? Can someone in the know provide a boilerplate, or at least a list of raw URLs? -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net pgpRVFkhn5Xcv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Airport insanity
-- James A. Donald: The Taliban were illegitimate, not on legal grounds, but because they were evil. J.A. Terranson Using this line of reasoning, Shrub is ripe for that overdue case of high velocity lead poisoning. Doubtless he is, but to suggest that he is comparably evil to the taliban casts doubt on your sanity. James A. Donald: Thirdly a government that systematically depopulates large areas of the territory it supposedly rules is not as legitimate as warlords with genuine local roots and traditional authority, who for the most part came to power through religious or military leadership in a spontaneous revolution against tyranny. J.A. Terranson And if the local warlords are also participating in a vast depopulation, then what? But the Warlords are not. Under the Taliban, huge numbers of people fled Afghanistan, under the Northern alliance, they returned. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG qMEkoNR+blkRZmztAFF4sDeSBoKW6Qe4JhwStmV 4j0SHTtKdNY/S/nI2Tmj5ngKX5y1hL7JFg7xma9t5
Re: US Retardation of Free Markets (was Airport insanity)
-- On 23 Oct 2004 at 22:58, Adam wrote: I am curious, Mr. Donald, how exactly you define the word terrorist. I request that your definition be generic; i.e. not a definition like anyone who attacks the US.On 23 Oct 2004 at 22:58, Adam wrote: I am curious, Mr. Donald, how exactly you define the word terrorist. I request that your definition be generic; i.e. not a definition like anyone who attacks the US. Terrorist: One who uses terror as a means of coercion. The word was originally coined to describe the committee of public safety created by the french revolution, and was subsequently used to decribe similar regimes, most of them revolutionary, for example Lenin's. However it is equally applicable to non government groups who use similar measures. The difference between guerrilas and non government terrorists is that terrorists target random innocents - for example blowing up schoolchildren for accepting candy from US soldiers, as recently happened in Iraq. Similarly the deliberately capricious executions by most communist regimes, intended to produce a sense of fear and helplessness in their subjects. McViegh did not target innocents. Bin Laden did target innocents. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Kiq2Py/gfRNvDbIgFETkSh12S9ilsTHs1STZ0G+i 4YtWt9FfhBsS+aa3NSU17iXdsABNEuxtdCDwkYKjY
James may be a dick, but y'all sound like pussies to me...(was Re: Airport insanity)
At 11:37 PM -0400 10/23/04, Adam wrote: You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered. No, that was Tim May. The world champion troll if there ever was one -- among other things. :-). James is right, of course. He may be a dick, but you guys are starting to sound an awful lot like assholes. Or maybe just pussies who are full of shit. :-). See below for details, and click the link, if you want more gems. Better yet, go see the movie. I'm still laughing. BTW, the correct response to my argument, above, the one Tim would take, anyway, is that Team America is puerile, and so, he might add in passing, am I for citing it. Don't forget to do Tim May mocking Team America with a perfectly puerile imitation, or something, while you're at it. Don't forget to correct their or my grammar, haircuts, etc., either, for that matter... Cheers, RAH --- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/quotes Memorable Quotes from Team America: World Police (2004) Gary Johnston : We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies dont like dicks because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes. Assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck a asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate. And it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves. Because pussies are a inch and half away from assholes. I don't know much about this crazy crazy world, but I do know this. If you don't let us fuck this asshole we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit. -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Airport insanity
You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered. It is quite apparent from reading his responses that he is obviously an exceptionally intelligent (academically anyway) individual. I find it hard to believe that such intelligence could reside in a person with such critically flawed core beliefs. I have a hunch that Mr. Donald is instead playing the role of an elaborate devil's advocate, furiously defending his stance against retaliations by our fellow Cypherpunks. Tyler Durden mentioned this hypothesis many emails ago, and I believe him to be accurate, especially since Mr. Donald never responded to the charge. None-the-less, this has been one of the more inteteresting (and infuriating) threads in recent memory of Cypherpunks. I'm glad we're going through it with such vigor. -Adam On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:39:05 -0700, James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: -- Thomas Shaddack: It isn't a problem for you until it happens to you. Who knows when being interested in anon e-cash will become a ground to blacklist *you*. James A. Donald: I know when it will happen. It will happen when people interested in anon ecash go on suicide missions. :-) Bill Stewart More likely, when anon ecash money-launderers start being accused of funding terrorist activities. When e-currency handlers (cambists) are accused of money laundering terrorist's money, the feds steal the money, but they do not obstruct them from travelling, or, surprisingly, even from doing business - well, perhaps not so surprisingly, for if they stopped them from doing business there would be nothing to steal. When the state uses repressive measures against those that seek to murder us, there is still a large gap between that and using repressive measures against everyone. We are not terrorists, we don't look like terrorists, we don't sound like terrorists. Indeed, the more visible real terrorists are, the less even Tim McViegh looks like a terrorist and the more he looks like a patriot. When people are under attack they are going to lash out, to kill and destroy. Lashing out an external enemy, real or imaginary, is a healthy substitute for lashing out at internal enemies. We do not have a choice of peace, merely a choice between war against external or internal enemies. Clearly, war against external enemies is less dangerous to freedom. War is dangerous to freedom, but we do not have a choice of peace. The question is where the war is to be fought - in America, or elsewhere. War within America will surely destroy freedom. What we need to fear is those that talk about the home front and internal security, those who claim that Christians are as big a threat as Muslims - or that black Muslims are as big a threat as Middle Eastern Muslims. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cGrCJvmIhJnYLWO2RB3qmnqijcHlOOsA7iklRoZD 4Ar75eLN10XbfJw/mqPpGQeUW0SzMlz4CLrpHIeEe
Re: Give peace a chance? NAH...
The problem is, of course, that the US simply cannot keep their dicks out of the affairs of other countries. We are obsessed with controlling how the world develops, so as to guarantee to force countries to evolve in such a way that is beneficial to the US. Such is an inevitable hazard of becoming the last remaining super-power; we know we can control the world, and have now (with the declaration of war in Iraq) let the world know that there's nothing anyone can do about it. The US wants the world to operate like a giant corporation run by old white fudge-packers who smile on TV and fuck us all behind closed doors. Terrorism, as you say, is the response of other countries who violently resent American involvement in affairs that, at their core, have nothing to do with the US. Unfortunately, the US's war on terror completely misses this point, and only serves to further the problem. Sure, we might kill a few existing terrorists, but where do terrorists come from? Won't these actions create a larger and more hostile breeding ground for more people to lash out at US involvement in foreign affairs? The US government just doesn't understand, or just doesn't care. -Adam On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:21:06 -0400, Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: War is dangerous to freedom, but we do not have a choice of peace. The question is where the war is to be fought - in America, or elsewhere. War within America will surely destroy freedom. So. Why don't we see terrorist attacks in Sweden, or Switzerland, or Belgium or any other country that doesn't have any military or Imperliast presence in the middle east? Is this merely a coincidence? What I strongly suspect is that if we were not dickin' around over there in their countries, the threat of terrorism on US soil would diminish to very nearly zero. In other words, we DO have a choice of peace, and our choice was to pass on it. -TD From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Airport insanity Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:39:05 -0700 -- Thomas Shaddack: It isn't a problem for you until it happens to you. Who knows when being interested in anon e-cash will become a ground to blacklist *you*. James A. Donald: I know when it will happen. It will happen when people interested in anon ecash go on suicide missions. :-) Bill Stewart More likely, when anon ecash money-launderers start being accused of funding terrorist activities. When e-currency handlers (cambists) are accused of money laundering terrorist's money, the feds steal the money, but they do not obstruct them from travelling, or, surprisingly, even from doing business - well, perhaps not so surprisingly, for if they stopped them from doing business there would be nothing to steal. When the state uses repressive measures against those that seek to murder us, there is still a large gap between that and using repressive measures against everyone. We are not terrorists, we don't look like terrorists, we don't sound like terrorists. Indeed, the more visible real terrorists are, the less even Tim McViegh looks like a terrorist and the more he looks like a patriot. When people are under attack they are going to lash out, to kill and destroy. Lashing out an external enemy, real or imaginary, is a healthy substitute for lashing out at internal enemies. We do not have a choice of peace, merely a choice between war against external or internal enemies. Clearly, war against external enemies is less dangerous to freedom. War is dangerous to freedom, but we do not have a choice of peace. The question is where the war is to be fought - in America, or elsewhere. War within America will surely destroy freedom. What we need to fear is those that talk about the home front and internal security, those who claim that Christians are as big a threat as Muslims - or that black Muslims are as big a threat as Middle Eastern Muslims. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cGrCJvmIhJnYLWO2RB3qmnqijcHlOOsA7iklRoZD 4Ar75eLN10XbfJw/mqPpGQeUW0SzMlz4CLrpHIeEe _ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
Re: Airport insanity
-- James A. Donald All of the terrorists came from countries that were beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi Arabia was certainly not under attack. If they were Palestinians, and they hit the Pentagon but not the two towers, then they would be defending themselves. John Kelsey I'm still trying to understand the moral theory on which you differentiate hitting the two towers from the Oklaholma City bombing. The pentagon did not have a branch office in the two towers. BATF had an office in the Murrah building. So they killed a whole bunch of people, most of whom had nothing to do with what they opposed, but surely including people who were doing business with Saudi Arabia and Israel. Was McViegh targeting people who do business with BATF? Besides which the terrorists did not target them for doing business with Israel, but for World Trade - globalization and all that. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG F1A5ubUDIrbSNLUuleFdhNEKrRgGGTlY3WAjUS9V 4IOaq8sP0KR47YXUJterj5PKXQM9mYdBplIzlApRI
Blowfish C code still chokes
hello,
The C code for the blowfish encryption algorithm
posted in Mr.Schneier's site, acocording to Michael.B
still 'chokes' as it is not corrected even though the
bug report, mentions that it is a fatal bug.
The bug report is available at
http://www.schneier.com/blowfish-bug.txt
His opinion is that the code still 'chokes' in
http://www.schneier.com/code/bfsh-sch.zip
Though Mr.Mike Morgan in the bug report attrbutes the
bug to non-standard use of the 'union' construct, I
think it is automatic type cast form type signed char
to unsigned long,is responsible for this bug.
Please see his comments below.
Regards,
Sarad A.V
Forwarded on request by Michael.B
-
Also the bug IS a very serious security issue if you
read into the bug doc, making Blowfish a very easy
crackable cipher... and yes you are right every
responsible programmer should use test vectors etc., I
do, but how do I know someone else did if I can't
review the code and have no other means of testing,
for example with (proper - see below) test vectors?
And... (you really did not read into the bug-doc)...
standard test vectors DO NOT SHOW the bug. Which is
why it is such an evil one, aside the extreme security
loss.
150 products use Blowfish so far, as counterpane.org
states, and many of them don't have a verification
scheme at all. I recall a Secure Shell for example,
implementing Blowfish as an optional cipher to choose
from among others. Now with that (commercial) product
I would choose Blowfish never more since I can't
review the code or test with selected test vectors.
And this is the point. The bug thing coming directly
from Schneier does create a general distrust in
Blowfish for me.
now this is an ORIGINAL quote from the bug-describing
doc taking direct from schneier's website.
next, please consider this ORIGINAL paste of the
ref-installation by schneier
short InitializeBlowfish(char key[], short keybytes)
{
unsigned long data;
... //lots of code ommitted
j = 0;
for (i = 0; i N + 2; ++i) {
data = 0x;
for (k = 0; k 4; ++k) {
data = (data 8) | key[j]; //(my comment)
CHOKE! see above
...
}
The discussion is available here
http://www.security-forums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21640postdays=0postorder=ascstart=8
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: US Retardation of Free Markets (was Airport insanity)
I am curious, Mr. Donald, how exactly you define the word terrorist. I request that your definition be generic; i.e. not a definition like anyone who attacks the US. I'd be willing to bet that you cannot provide a clear generic definition of terrorist. Moreover, I can guarantee that you cannot provide a definition that isn't self-contradictory. -Adam On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:59:15 -0700, James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: -- On 19 Oct 2004 at 10:23, Tyler Durden wrote: Most Cypherpunks would agree that free markets are a good thing. Basically, if you leave people alone, they'll figure out how to meet the needs that are out in there and, in the process, get a few of the goodies available to us as vapors on this world. I assume you would agree to this. There are however some bad people, who want to conquer and rule. Some of them are nastier than others. Those people need to be killed. Killing some of them is regrettably controversial. Killing terrorists should not be controversial. More than that, some of the countries we've been kicked out or prevented from influencing have been modernizing rapidly, the most obvious example is China and Vietnam. Your history is back to front. China and Vietnam stagnated, until they invited capitalists back in, and promised they could get rich. Mean while the countries that we were not kicked out of for example Taiwan and South Korea, became rich. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG y7IV2I3RzvTRwezbeYDac49MQJFtu4pLd09CpaV1 4wwT8kfGpRCZY7aO/mhgeoOcaR9vYeYFWae8aMM/M
Re: Airport insanity
There are all givens to the rest of us - I am trying to fit these arguments into Donald's Reality Distortion Field. //Alif On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Tyler Durden wrote: Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:41:45 -0400 From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Airport insanity Let us not forget the more tangible 'value' in bombing the WTC and messing up things downtown. First of all, the companies in the WTC were, to say the least, impacted (actually, the company I work for lost 11 people and relocated to NJ for about a year)hitting them (and their workers) was probably not considered collateral damage by Al Qaeda, any more than bombing German or japanese urban production centers was considered that for the allies in WWII. Next comes the financial district and Wall Street as a whole. The third (and as it turned out by far the most impactful) was the destruction of the Telecom Central Office in #4 World Trade Center, along with bringing off-line the big Verizon CO across the street. These actually caused Wall Street to be knocked off line for several days, an impact that is hard to underestimate. And while I suspect that Al-Qaeda were probably unaware in advance of the impact on Telecom, the rest was certainly a conscious decision. -TD From: J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Airport insanity Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:14:22 -0500 (CDT) On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald All of the terrorists came from countries that were beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi Arabia was certainly not under attack. If they were Palestinians, and they hit the Pentagon but not the two towers, then they would be defending themselves. John Kelsey I'm still trying to understand the moral theory on which you differentiate hitting the two towers from the Oklaholma City bombing. The pentagon did not have a branch office in the two towers. BATF had an office in the Murrah building. Bzzzt! Try again. There were a number of federales in the towers, INCLUDING atf, all the various branches of the armed services, and a large number of spook proxy points. So they killed a whole bunch of people, most of whom had nothing to do with what they opposed, but surely including people who were doing business with Saudi Arabia and Israel. Was McViegh targeting people who do business with BATF? Besides which the terrorists did not target them for doing business with Israel, but for World Trade - globalization and all that. Personal knowledge? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time _ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Re: Airport insanity
There were several USG offices in the Twin Towers, some of them intelligence. In addition, CIA was located in 7 WTC, along with Secret Service and military offices. The military offices were used as cover for the others. There was far more USG in WTC than in Murrah, and the lesson learned in OKC was no doubt useful to the attackers: collateral hurt to innocents is magnitudes more powerful than hitting military targets -- that is what strategic bombing was invented to demonstrate, not to say threatening with WMDs, a practice invented by the US and which remains its primary defense strategy. The cause and effect between USG WMD threats and terrorist attacks is yet to be fully admitted outside military circles: the military accepts that innocents will be slaughtered, and the winner must slaughter the most. Terrorism to the military is a nuisance even when a few of its troops are picked off. The losses in Iraq do not even make a blip on expected casualties of a major war. More military have died in conventional accidents, murders and suicides around the world than have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. But those in the Middle East have greater utility for the military to boost its suck for more funds and more our boys and girls sacrifice and more bawling in congress and the presidential campaign about protecting the nation, defense cut-back not even a dream since ever so convienent 9/11. Murrah bombing helped the battle against homeland militants, and WTC got the ball rolling for battle overseas. Who planned them is yet to be revealed, but the usual suspects don't mean shit.
Re: Airport insanity
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: You guys just keep making up facts. There were no branches of the armed services in the towers. You are just spouting bullshit, like the story that Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, that Saddam was installed in a CIA coup, and all those similar lies made up to rationalize terror. OK - I'm out of this discussion. This is either just the worlds most elaborate troll, or Donald's brain is dense enough to used when we finally run out of depleted uranium. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Re: Airport insanity
From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Oct 23, 2004 7:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Airport insanity Let us not forget the more tangible 'value' in bombing the WTC and messing up things downtown. First of all, the companies in the WTC were, to say the least, impacted (actually, the company I work for lost 11 people and relocated to NJ for about a year)hitting them (and their workers) was probably not considered collateral damage by Al Qaeda, any more than bombing German or japanese urban production centers was considered that for the allies in WWII. Right. I don't visualize OBL Co sitting up nights trying to decide whether their next attack needlessly terrorizes civilians, I think that's a decision they already made. I'm pointing out that once you've started justifying acts of terror by people you agree with, it seems to be quite hard to draw any meaningful line between them and Al Qaida. Now, this causes no problem for me--OBL, Tim McVeigh, the Unabomber, they all look like remorseless murderers to me, and I see the differences between them mainly in terms of how effective and dangerous they are. .. And while I suspect that Al-Qaeda were probably unaware in advance of the impact on Telecom, the rest was certainly a conscious decision. I don't know if this was a goal, exactly, but the other thing the 9/11 attacks achieved was to scare the hell out of the power elite in the country, especially the people at the top of government, media, and finance. That made all kinds of dumb responses (some parts of the Patriot act, Bush's breathtaking claim of the power to lock up citizens without trial, his administration's equally breathtaking claim that he could ignore laws and treaties against torture on his authority, the invasion of Iraq) possible. -TD --John
Re: Airport insanity
Adam wrote: You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered. It is quite apparent from reading his responses that he is obviously an exceptionally intelligent (academically anyway) individual. I find it hard to believe that such intelligence could reside in a person with such critically flawed core beliefs. You forget SternFud so easily?
Re: US Retardation of Free Markets (was Airport insanity)
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: McViegh did not target innocents. Bin Laden did target innocents. I'm confused. So is Mr. Donald. Is Mr. Donald saying McVeigh did not surveil his target sufficiently to know that there was a day care center in the damage pattern? Or is he saying it only takes one non-innocent in a damage zone to justify an attack? (in which case, how is he privy to Bin Laden's attack plan, such that he can rule out any non-innocent targets) No, Mr. Donald is demonstrating irrational thought processes. You see, McVeigh isn't a terrorist because he had purity of purpose. But Bin Laden IS a terrorist because he had purity of purpose. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Donald's Job Description
I have a hunch that Mr. Donald is instead playing the role of an elaborate devil's advocate, furiously defending his stance against retaliations by our fellow Cypherpunks. Tyler Durden mentioned this hypothesis many emails ago, and I believe him to be accurate, especially since Mr. Donald never responded to the charge. Well, specifically my suspicion was (and to some extent still is) that part of Mr Donald's job description may involve posting to cypherpunks...he may be part of some Ministry of Love somewhere, probably in the DC beltway. Either that or perhaps it's not an official part of his job, but he's trying to defend the actions he takes as part of his job. I've just never encountered anyone who had NO doubt about anything the current regime is doing. -TD From: Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Airport insanity Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:37:02 -0400 You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered. It is quite apparent from reading his responses that he is obviously an exceptionally intelligent (academically anyway) individual. I find it hard to believe that such intelligence could reside in a person with such critically flawed core beliefs. I have a hunch that Mr. Donald is instead playing the role of an elaborate devil's advocate, furiously defending his stance against retaliations by our fellow Cypherpunks. Tyler Durden mentioned this hypothesis many emails ago, and I believe him to be accurate, especially since Mr. Donald never responded to the charge. None-the-less, this has been one of the more inteteresting (and infuriating) threads in recent memory of Cypherpunks. I'm glad we're going through it with such vigor. -Adam On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:39:05 -0700, James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: -- Thomas Shaddack: It isn't a problem for you until it happens to you. Who knows when being interested in anon e-cash will become a ground to blacklist *you*. James A. Donald: I know when it will happen. It will happen when people interested in anon ecash go on suicide missions. :-) Bill Stewart More likely, when anon ecash money-launderers start being accused of funding terrorist activities. When e-currency handlers (cambists) are accused of money laundering terrorist's money, the feds steal the money, but they do not obstruct them from travelling, or, surprisingly, even from doing business - well, perhaps not so surprisingly, for if they stopped them from doing business there would be nothing to steal. When the state uses repressive measures against those that seek to murder us, there is still a large gap between that and using repressive measures against everyone. We are not terrorists, we don't look like terrorists, we don't sound like terrorists. Indeed, the more visible real terrorists are, the less even Tim McViegh looks like a terrorist and the more he looks like a patriot. When people are under attack they are going to lash out, to kill and destroy. Lashing out an external enemy, real or imaginary, is a healthy substitute for lashing out at internal enemies. We do not have a choice of peace, merely a choice between war against external or internal enemies. Clearly, war against external enemies is less dangerous to freedom. War is dangerous to freedom, but we do not have a choice of peace. The question is where the war is to be fought - in America, or elsewhere. War within America will surely destroy freedom. What we need to fear is those that talk about the home front and internal security, those who claim that Christians are as big a threat as Muslims - or that black Muslims are as big a threat as Middle Eastern Muslims. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cGrCJvmIhJnYLWO2RB3qmnqijcHlOOsA7iklRoZD 4Ar75eLN10XbfJw/mqPpGQeUW0SzMlz4CLrpHIeEe _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Donald's Job Description
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Tyler Durden wrote: I've just never encountered anyone who had NO doubt about anything the current regime is doing. Really? I have - every single person voting for Shrub seems to be exhibiting this particular blindness. -TD -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Re: US Retardation of Free Markets (was Airport insanity)
On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 03:43 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: McViegh did not target innocents. Bin Laden did target innocents. I'm confused. Is Mr. Donald saying McVeigh did not surveil his target sufficiently to know that there was a day care center in the damage pattern? Or is he saying it only takes one non-innocent in a damage zone to justify an attack? (in which case, how is he privy to Bin Laden's attack plan, such that he can rule out any non-innocent targets) Or is the problem perhaps that any reasonable definition of terrorist must describe both McVeigh and Bin Laden? Ends do not justify means. A reasonable man would argue that attacking an occupied building with highly destructive weapons is an act intended to incite terror, without needing to even consider the motive. -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFS SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
