Re: alt.anonymous.messages

2003-12-11 Thread Eugen Leitl 
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:39:29PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Use your laptop and random open Wi-Fi hotspots (esp. a consumer's)
> for such sensitive communication.

Make sure you set your WiFi NIC MAC to something random before, and that your
MUA is not leaking bits into the headers.

-- Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl
__
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

[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Re: alt.anonymous.messages

2003-12-11 Thread Nostradumbass 
From: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> You do not need to use remailers to take advantage of
> alt.anonymous.messages.  If someone posts directly to
> alt.anonymous. messages, still the adversary cannot tell who he
> is posting to.  (Assuming his recipient sets his newsagent to
> always download all new messages) 

Or access Usenet via a satellite feed.

Re: alt.anonymous.messages

2003-12-11 Thread Nostradumbass 
 Original Message 
From: Anatoly Vorobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You do not need to use remailers to take advantage of
> > alt.anonymous.messages.  If someone posts directly to
> > alt.anonymous. messages, still the adversary cannot tell who he
> > is posting to.  (Assuming his recipient sets his newsagent to
> > always download all new messages) 
> 
> Oh, that's true of course; but the adversary would be able to know
> that you posted something (given that he's monitoring your traffic). 
> That's already something, and frequently more than you'd want to
> give away. 

Use your laptop and random open Wi-Fi hotspots (esp. a consumer's) for such sensitive 
communication.

Re: alt.anonymous.messages

2003-12-11 Thread Anatoly Vorobey 
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:07:33PM -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
> --
> On 10 Dec 2003 at 18:22, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
> > alt.anonymous.messages has a healthy amount of traffic.
> > Google Groups says they have a bit more than 200 messages in
> > it on December 9, for example. I assume nearly all of it is
> > from remailers posting to Usenet (or remailers sending mail
> > to mail2news gateways), otherwise there's little point of
> > using it.
> 
> You do not need to use remailers to take advantage of
> alt.anonymous.messages.  If someone posts directly to
> alt.anonymous. messages, still the adversary cannot tell who he
> is posting to.  (Assuming his recipient sets his newsagent to
> always download all new messages) 

Oh, that's true of course; but the adversary would be able to know
that you posted something (given that he's monitoring your traffic). 
That's already something, and frequently more than you'd want to
give away. 

I did inspect a few random messages and they all came from remailers.

--
avva

alt.anonymous.messages

2003-12-10 Thread James A. Donald 
--
On 10 Dec 2003 at 18:22, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
> alt.anonymous.messages has a healthy amount of traffic.
> Google Groups says they have a bit more than 200 messages in
> it on December 9, for example. I assume nearly all of it is
> from remailers posting to Usenet (or remailers sending mail
> to mail2news gateways), otherwise there's little point of
> using it.

You do not need to use remailers to take advantage of
alt.anonymous.messages.  If someone posts directly to
alt.anonymous. messages, still the adversary cannot tell who he
is posting to.  (Assuming his recipient sets his newsagent to
always download all new messages) 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 zMY49IWQvar+nBxNmFDbRihngyDWi30UIYQY9NAh
 4rVDPJdqGIjPUeycOPjbn3AbW2+7fZ0HFzy2xQEeX