Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 08 Issue 60
Computer underground Digest Sun Aug 18, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 60
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #8.60 (Sun, Aug 18, 1996)
File 1--Suit filed to enjoin crypto provisions of the ITAR
File 2--ACLU Gives Princeton "F" for Barring Pol Speech on its Network
File 3--Full Text of ACLU Letter to Princeton re: Computer Use Policy
File 4--EYENET: Ontario Tories Get "Make-Over" On The Web
File 5--BoS: Hare Virus Removal - VirusNet (fwd)
File 6--UK ISPs Restrict cyberporn; AOL (again) (news from noah)
File 7--Scientology begins PGP crack attempt (fwd)
File 8--An Apology to Edupage
File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 15:21:24 -0400
From: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: File 1--Suit filed to enjoin crypto provisions of the ITAR
[I have cross-posted this press release by my lawyers to several
mailing-lists. I am subscribed to all of them and I believe that this
information is relevant to all of them, but I apologize because you
may receive several copies.]
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
------------------------Press Release---------------------------------
Law Professor Sues Federal Government
Over Computer Privacy Issues
Federal Civil Rights Action Seeks Injunction Against
State Department And National Security Agency
Cleveland Scholar Attacks Prohibition On Discussing
Cryptographic Software With Foreign Students And Colleagues
For Immediate Release
Cleveland, Wednesday, August 7, 1996
For More Information Contact:
Raymond Vasvari (216) 522-1925
Gino Scarselli (216) 291-8601
More Information Will Be Available at:
URL: //http:/samsara.law.cwru.edu
A Case Western Reserve University law professor filed suit today in
federal court, challenging government regulations which restrict
his ability to teach a course in computer law. Peter Junger, a
twenty-five year veteran of the law school faculty, will file a
federal civil rights action this afternoon in the United States
District Court in Cleveland. The suit names the Department of
State and the secretive National Security Agency, which administer
federal regulations limiting Professor Junger's ability to teach.
The case involves the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or
ITAR, federal regulations which restrict the export of military
technology. Under the ITAR, cryptographic computer software, which
encodes text to preserve the privacy of messages on the Internet,
is considered a "munition" and subject to strict export control.
The regulations raise significant First Amendment questions by
defining "export" to include discussing technical information about
non-classified software with foreign nationals, such as students
registered for Professor Junger's course.
In recent months, the State Department has sent a series of letters
threatening possible criminal action to a Florida man who posted a
simple cryptographic algorithm to the "sci.crypt" Usenet Newsgroup,
an Internet site popular with cryptography enthusiasts. These and
similar incidents have caused Professor Junger to limit his
discussions of cryptographic material with foreign colleagues, for
fear of violating the ITAR. Penalties for unlicenced disclosure of
cryptographic information are severe: federal law provides ten year
prison terms and One Million Dollar fines for those convicted of
violating the Arms Export Control Act, the legislation under which
the ITAR was promulgated.
Professor Junger, whose class at Case Western Reserve focuses on
the legal aspects of computer use and software development, plans
to turn away any foreign students who register for the course this
fall, largely because the law is uncertain as to what he may teach,
and to whom.
The restrictions at issue are administered by the Department of
State, in cooperation with the ultra-secret National Security
Agency, the organization charged with eavesdropping on foreign
governments. Under the ITAR, Junger may not teach foreign
students about even simple software capable of encoding messages.
Such software is vital to maintaining the privacy of communications
and financial transactions on the Internet, and Junger believes
that lawyers need to understand how it works in order to prepare to
practice in an increasingly technological world.
The information that Junger wishes to disclose is widely available
on the Internet and elsewhere. "It's not as though we are talking
about classified information," explained Gino Scarselli, one of
three lawyers representing Junger in the case. "The material at
issue in this case can be found in any university library, but the
regulations make no exceptions for even the most basic software,"
Scarselli noted. The lawsuit does not challenge the government's
right to restrict access to classified information.
Junger is also represented by Raymond Vasvari and Kevin Francis
O'Neill, two Cleveland attorneys with considerable experience in
First Amendment issues. As Vasvari explained, the suit presents
important First Amendment questions about the government's ability
to regulate academic life. "These regulations allow the government
to dictate what a professor may and may not teach, even though the
material involved poses no threat to national security," Vasvari
explained.
The suit charges that by requiring Junger to apply for a federal
license to discuss cryptography with foreigners, the government is
violating a well-established First Amendment rule which prohibits
the government from imposing prior restraints on expression without
clear, narrowly drawn standards distinguishing prohibited
expression from permissible speech. The United States Supreme
Court has consistently held that such prior restraints face a heavy
burden in court, and that standardless licencing schemes allowing
officials broad discretion in restriction speech are
unconstitutional.
Because computer cryptography is expected to play an important role
in the economic development of the Internet, the case is being
closely watched. Scarselli has worked closely with attorneys
affiliated with the San Francisco based Electronic Frontier
Foundation in preparing the suit, and Junger and his lawyers have
been in frequent contact with John Gilmore, formerly of Sun
Microsystems, who has offered his assistance as a technical advisor
in the case.
At issue is not only Junger's right to discuss cryptography with
foreigners, but also his and other's right to publish and
distribute such information both in traditional forms and on the
internet.
Professor Junger's suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
prohibiting the government from interfering with his, or any other
person's, discussing non-classified cryptographic information with
foreign persons or from publishing that information. Lawyers for
Junger have moved the court for a preliminary injunction. Junger's
course begins in the fall semester, later this month.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:14:12 GMT
From: Ann Beeson <beeson@usa.pipeline.com>
Subject: File 2--ACLU Gives Princeton "F" for Barring Pol Speech on its Network
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
News Release August 15, 1996
----------------------------------------------------
Free Speech 101: ACLU Gives Princeton University an "F"
for Barring Political Speech on its Network
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, August 15, 1996
Contact: Ann Beeson, ACLU National (212) 944-9800, x788
David Rocah, ACLU of New Jersey (201) 642-2084
NEW YORK--In a letter sent today to Princeton University officials, the
American Civil Liberties Union urged them to reconsider a policy barring
students and staff from using the computer network for "political
purposes."
The letter was sparked by complaints the ACLU national office received over
a recent memo from Princeton officials advising faculty, staff and
students, "especially in this year of a presidential election," that the
school's not-for-profit status barred it from allowing use of the computer
network "for political purposes."
The ACLU called this conclusion mistaken, pointing out in its letter that
the Internal Revenue Code specifies that only the University itself is
barred from political activity -- not faculty, staff, or students acting
independently. In fact, the ACLU said, the IRS has previously held that
statements in support of political candidates appearing on the editorial
page of a student newspaper would not be considered violations of a
university's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
"Because there exists no legitimate reason for Princeton's blanket
prohibition of political speech over the computer network," the ACLU letter
stated, "it is an unjustified content-based restriction on the free
expression rights of students, faculty and staff. Therefore, the policy is
not only unworthy of a great university like Princeton, it is in violation
of the New Jersey State Constitution." The letter was signed by ACLU
national staff attorney Ann Beeson and David Rocah, staff attorney of the
ACLU of New Jersey.
"We understand the university's concerns regarding it's tax-exempt status,"
Rocah said. "But this is free speech 101. Sadly, Princeton is not making
the grade."
Rocah said the ACLU would consider legal action if the university refuses
to drop its censorship policy.
"Traditionally, college campuses are the center of political discussion and
debate," said Beeson. "The fact that the debate is taking place on the
Internet does not mean that the speech is any less deserving of
protection."
Beeson added that the policy could bar students and staff from a wide range
of protected expression, including downloading position papers from the
Dole or Clinton website; sending e-mail to their parents urging them to
vote for Ralph Nader; and organizing online discussion groups for student
chapters of politically active groups such as Greenpeace. In short, Rocah
said, "Everything that would be acceptable, even welcome, off-line, becomes
off-limits on the Internet."
In its letter, the ACLU called on the school to take a leadership role in
the academic community: "As a school with a well-deserved reputation as a
leader in American higher education, Princeton should be the first to
promote and defend academic freedom and freedom of expression within its
community, to the very limits of the law," the letter said.
Beeson added that the ACLU is working to develop model guidelines for
colleges and universities to help sort out the confusion in academia
regarding free expression on the Internet. Many schools have already put
in place "Appropriate Use Policies" to police student and faculty computer
use, some of which violate rights of free expression, Beeson said.
[The full text of the ACLU letter and Princeton memo are also available
through the ACLU's website <http://www.aclu.org>and America Online site
(keyword: ACLU).]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:29:11 GMT
From: Ann Beeson <beeson@usa.pipeline.com>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu, rountable@cni.org
Subject: File 3--Full Text of ACLU Letter to Princeton re: Computer Use Policy
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
NATIONAL LEGAL DEPARTMENT
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
------------------------------
August 15, 1996
Mr. Harold Shapiro
President BY FACSIMILE, E-MAIL, & REGULAR MAIL
1 Nassau Hall
Princeton University
Princeton NJ 85044
RE: Computer Use Policy
Dear President Shapiro:
In response to complaints we have received from members of the Princeton
University community, we write on behalf of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ)
to urge you to reconsider the policy prohibiting members of the University
from using the Princeton's computer network for "political purposes." We
believe that the policy is based on a misunderstanding of the law regarding
the University's tax-exempt status, and restricts free speech and academic
freedom rights guaranteed by Art. I, par. 6 of the New Jersey Constitution.
Princeton University's decision to offer its faculty, staff and students
widespread access to the University's computer network and the Internet
greatly expanded the resources available for academic research. It also
provided a new and exciting forum for the free communication of ideas. In
contrast, Princeton's decision to prohibit the use of the network for
"political purposes" unjustifiably interferes with the right of the
University community to exchange ideas freely, regardless of their content.
Princeton's current computer use policy holds that "the Computing and
network resources of the University may not be used by members of the
University community for commercial or political purposes or for financial
gain . . . ." Trustees of Princeton University, Rights, Rules,
Responsibilities 11 (1993) (emphasis added) (hereinafter "Rights," attached
as Appendix A). On July 19, 1996, the Office of the General Counsel sent
an e-mail to members of the University community warning them that any use
of the Internet or computer network for "any participation in, or
intervention in, (including the publishing or distributing of statements),
any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
public office" would result in disciplinary action. See Office of the
General Counsel, "Internet use and Politics," E-mail of July 19, 1996,
attached as Appendix B.
We understand that the rationale behind the computer use policy is a
concern that the University will lose its tax-exempt status, under Internal
Revenue Code 501(c)(3), if it allows members of the University community to
use the computer network for political purposes. We believe that this
concern is misplaced, based on the policies and rulings of the Internal
Revenue Service.
Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) provides that an educational organization
will be tax-exempt as long as it "does not participate in, or intervene in
(including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public
office." The Internal Revenue Service has clarified that in order to
constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign, the
political activity must be that of the University itself and not the
individual activity of its faculty, staff, or students. See Internal
Revenue Service, Exempt Organizations Technical Institution Program for
1993 426-27 (1993), attached as Appendix C. Thus, any personal
communication by University members over the computer network cannot
threaten Princeton's tax-exempt status.
The fact that Princeton provides the computing facilities over which the
communication takes place does not change this conclusion. The Internal
Revenue Service has stated that a principal factor in determining whether
the provision of university facilities to a group engaged in political
activities will constitute participation in a political campaign by the
university under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3), is whether the
facilities are provided on an equal basis to groups using them for
non-political reasons. Id. at 427. Princeton provides fair and equal
access to the computer network, including e-mail and World Wide Web access,
to all University members, and allows use of the network for a variety of
non-political purposes. See Rights at 11. Thus, political speech over the
network will not jeopardize Princeton's tax-exempt status.
Even use of the computer network for political purposes in connection with
a particular course would not jeopardize Princeton's 501(c)(3) status. The
Internal Revenue Service has previously held that a university that
required its students in a certain political science course to participate
in a political campaign of the student's choice for 60 to 80 hours during
the semester was not participating in political campaigns within the
meaning of Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3). See Revenue Ruling 75-512,
1972-2 C.B. 246, attached as Appendix D.
In addition, student organizations are able to publish political views on
the computer network without threatening Princeton's tax-exempt status.
The Internal Revenue Service has held that a university was not
participating in a political campaign within the meaning of Internal
Revenue Code 501(c)(3), when statements made in support of political
candidates appeared on the editorial page of a student newspaper. This was
true despite the university's provision of financial support and facilities
to the newspaper, as long as the views expressed in the newspaper were
clearly those of the students and not of the university itself. See
Revenue Ruling 75-513, 1972-2 C.B. 246, attached as Appendix E.
Accordingly, Princeton University does not risk its tax-exempt status by
allowing University members to use its computer network for political
purposes. We recognize that Princeton has a legitimate interest in
ensuring that the individual views of its members not be mistaken for
official positions of the University. At most, the only permissible
regulation that Princeton might desire is one requiring a member of the
University community, who uses Princeton's name in a way that could lead a
reasonable person to interpret the author's statement as an official
position of the University, to include a disclaimer clarifying that the
opinions expressed over the computer network are those of the author alone.
Compare Rights, "Guidelines Relating to the Tax-Exempt Status of the
University and Political Activities," at Section 3.
Because there exists no legitimate reason for Princeton's blanket
prohibition of political speech over the computer network, it is an
unjustified, content-based restriction on the free expression rights of
students, faculty and staff. Therefore, the policy is not only unworthy of
a great University like Princeton, it is in violation of Art. I, par. 6 of
the New Jersey Constitution.
Although Princeton University is not a state university, the New Jersey
Supreme Court has held the Princeton University campus to have been
sufficiently devoted to expressive uses so as to require the University to
honor the State constitutional guarantee of free expression. See State v.
Schmid, 84 N.J. 535, 564-65 (1980); see also New Jersey Coalition Against
the War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326 (1994)
(holding that regional shopping malls were sufficiently open to expressive
use so as to extend state constitutional right to leaflet). Princeton's
computer facilities are as much a part of the Princeton "campus" as are the
lawns and buildings. Princeton may not constitutionally restrict its
students, faculty, and staff from engaging in political speech over the
Internet any more than it could prohibit them from engaging in such speech
in the dorm rooms, classrooms, halls, lawns, and offices of the campus.
Political expression has always received the highest degree of
constitutional protection. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976).
The Constitution was written with the intention to protect from censorship
those who wish to express their political beliefs and their support for
political candidates. Indeed, "where political speech is involved, our
tradition insists that government `allow the widest room for discussion,
the narrowest range for restriction.'" State v. Miller, 83 N.J. 402, 412
(1980). As a school with a well-deserved reputation as a leader in
American higher education, Princeton should be the first to promote and
defend academic freedom and freedom of expression within its community, to
the very limits of the law.
The computer use policy, read literally, also infringes upon the free
speech rights of Princeton faculty, staff, and students to receive
information. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 307 (1965) (right
to receive information precludes government from labeling certain
publications "propaganda") (Brennan, J., concurring); Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479-482-83 (1965) ("right of freedom of speech . . .
includes not only the right to utter or print, but the right to . . .
receive, the right to read . . . and freedom of inquiry, freedom of
thought, and freedom to teach . . . . Without these peripheral rights the
specific rights would be less secure."); Kreimer v. Bur. of Police for Town
of Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242, 1350-55 (3d Cir. 1992) (listing cases). This
is because the University's computer facilities, although located on the
Princeton campus, are a gateway to a virtual, worldwide community. See
ACLU v. Reno, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7919 (E.D. Pa., June 11, 1996). They
provide a unique means for students, faculty, and staff to access
information on virtually any topic, including politics.
Finally, the computer use policy is in conflict with other University
policies and practices. Princeton recognizes that
"the central purposes of a University are the pursuit of truth, the
discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the teaching
and general development of students, and the transmission of knowledge and
learning to society at large. Free inquiry and free expression within the
academic community are indispensable to the achievement of these goals.
The freedom to teach and to learn depends upon the creation of appropriate
conditions and opportunities on the campus as a whole as well as in
classrooms and lecture halls."
Rights, Introduction to "Principles of General Conduct and Regulations."
With respect to political speech, the University also recognizes that it
has a fundamental responsibility to ensure
"the opportunity for all members of the University community to
exercise their prerogatives as citizens. . . . Encouragement of an
interest in public affairs and the furthering of a sense of social
responsibility have long been considered important elements of a liberal
education. The University continues to consider self-chosen participation
in political and social action by individuals and groups to be a valuable
part of the educational experience it seeks to encourage. Such activities
on the part of individuals or groups do not, and should not be taken to,
imply commitment of the University to any partisan political position or
point of view."
Rights, Introduction to "Guidelines Relating to Tax Exempt Status."
For all of the above reasons, we strongly urge you to repeal the existing
ban on use of the computer network for political purposes, and we look
forward to your early reply.
Sincerely,
Ann Beeson, Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union
National Legal Department
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
(212) 944-9800 x788
David Rocah, Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union
of New Jersey
2 Washington Place
Newark, NJ 07102
(201) 642-2086
cc: Office of General Counsel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 20:59:11 -0400
From: eye WEEKLY <eye@eye.net>
Subject: File 4--EYENET: Ontario Tories Get "Make-Over" On The Web
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eye WEEKLY July 18, 1996
Toronto's arts newspaper .....free every Thursday
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EYENET EYENET
ONTARIO TORIES GET "MAKE-OVER" ON THE WEB
by
K.K . CAMPBELL
6 am. I ascended the stairs to the eyrie in which my computer was
perched. The little mail program flag was up. Personal mailbox.
Navigating a steaming (and grungy) coffee cup to lips, my other hand
rifled through the usual collection of crap from the night. Nothing
special... wait, here was something. From "Anonymous."
I opened it and scanned the headers for which remailer -- the
Netherlands.
The anonymous author(s) wrote me: "The Ontario Progressive
Conservative Web Site has been hacked by absolut(0) & Essex. It has
been given a new look that we @ fix feel is a more suitable reflection
of their policies and ideology."
I was politely asked to visit the Tory web site at
http://www.ontariopc.on.ca.
"What the hell," I muttered and moused to the URL, expecting nothing.
The page came up: a picture of a Mike Harris sign burning.
Now, _that_ woke me up.
Putting coffee aside, I went back to the email, scanning the headers
much more closely this time. The missive was dated July 11, 5:08 am
(Dutch time). Assuming our anonymous friends were actually in Ontario,
that meant the letter was sent around 11 pm the night before
(Wednesday, July 10).
Back to the web site. I realized why the picture of Harris was so
familiar. It was from the Embarrass Harris web site
(http://www.eye.net/Misc/Harris). I had scanned it myself. (Actually,
I scanned a much larger picture, "absolut(0) & Essex" were using a
cropped detail from it.)
The "new-look" Tory site featured a quote from the US intellectual and
pinup boy Noam Chomsky:
"And apart from the most cynical, [the corporate and government]
planners must convince themselves of the justice of the actions, often
monstrous, that they plan and implement. There are only two pretexts:
self-defence and benevelonce. It need not be assumed that use of the
tools is mere deception or careerism, though sometimes it is. Nothing
is easier than to convince oneself of the merits of actions and
politics that serve self-interest."
(Actually, the quote might be from John Snobelen's "Summer of 95"
video pep talk.)
Only other text was a quote from Jim Hightower: "Let's keep our
factories and jobs here and move our corporate headquarters to Mexico,
Korea, or wherever else we can get some reasonably priced chief
executives."
"Anonymous" concluded the email to me: "We are happy that we could
help out. We imagine the 'new look' will last 24-72 hrs so see it
while you can."
The new-look Tory page was gone faster than that. News of it spread
like wildfire. Toronto's Golan Klinger even put it up on a big screen
at the Metro Convention Centre COMDEX show.
Finally a Tory was dragged off the golf course and cellphoned net
provider Magic to replace the hack. Having no other material at hand,
Magic put up an ad for themselves.
FOR OUR FINGER-PRINTIN' FRIENDS
In December 1994, someone did an anonymous newsgroup spoof of then-
Ontario premier Bob Rae (an impersonation, not a real forgery). At the
time, the Tories told eyeNET that if anyone did that to them, they
would track down the vile criminals. (To his credit, Rae took the
spoof in stride in a real follow-up post to the net.)
When the Tories won the election, they killed the premier account Rae
had established. They didn't want anything to do with the net.
Being loyal Ontarians, we at eyeNET want to help our finger-printin'
friends at Queen's Park track down these vile hackers. Here are two
helpful URLs: The Canadian Security Intelligence Service at
http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca, and the Ontario Provincial Police --
http://www.gov.on.ca/OPP. Get to works, boys!
Hmm. You Tory chaps are probably scratching your heads, wondering if
this Noam Chomsky guy is some superhacker in the computer underground.
Here's another helpful URL:
http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/index.html. New World Media and ZNet
host the net's largest collection of Chomsky writing (almost eight
megs of text).
And for that strange conceptual stuff about CEOs being economic
parasites... you can read more about it at
http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html -- which web page is a
previous winner of an eyeSITE Web Award.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Retransmit freely in cyberspace Author holds standard copyright
http://www.eye.net Mailing list available
eyeNET archive -----------------------> http://www.eye.net/News/Eyenet
eye@eye.net "...Break the Gutenberg Lock..." 416-971-8421
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 12:38:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Noah <noah@ENABLED.COM>
Subject: File 5--BoS: Hare Virus Removal - VirusNet (fwd)
From -Noah
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:41:55 -0400 (EDT)
From--Safetynet, Inc. <safety@gti.net>
Subject--BoS--Hare Virus Removal - VirusNet
Safetynet Virus Alert
---------------------
Virus: Hare.7610, Hare.7750, Hare.7786
Type: Resident Stealth OSBR MBR EXE COM
Frequency: Common
As you probably already know, the Hare virus (PC platform) is set to
trigger on August 22 and September 22. Computers infected with this virus
may have their hard drive information erased.
Safetynet has included detection and removal for the three known variants
of the Hare virus in its VirusNet v2.24 scanner update. All registered
users should download this update and scan their computers daily through
the end of September. A total of 8,300 virus are detected by v2.24.
Evaluation versions of VirusNet with full virus detection and removal are
also available for download. Visit the Safetynet WWW site at
http://www.safe.net/safety/ and select the Free Stuff link. For Windows
95, Windows NT, Windows 3.x and DOS users, download VirusNet 95. For
network administrators who wish to scan an entire network, download
VirusNet LAN.
Questions about this and other virus related issues should be sent to
support@safe.net.
------------------
Virus Support Team
Safetynet, Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 23:18:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Noah <noah@enabled.com>
Subject: File 6--UK ISPs Restrict cyberporn; AOL (again) (news from noah)
U.K. INTERNET PROVIDERS PLAN TO RESTRICT CYBERPORN
Reacting to pressure from Scotland Yard, the Internet Service
Providers Association, representing 60 of an estimated 140
providers in the United Kingdom, will be asking its members to
voluntarily block access to sites and services featuring
hard-core pornography. An executive of Demon Internet, which has
the largest subscriber base in the U.K., dismisses the proposed
action as ineffective: "This is not a solution, it is just
hiding the problem." (Financial Times 10 Aug 96)
AOL SEES ITS IMPORTANCE "MORE CLEARLY THAN EVER"
Following last Wednesday's 19-hour blackout of America Online on
August 9th because of system problems that developed during
routine maintenance, AOL chief executive Steve Case concluded
that "the disruption caused by the temporary unavailability of
AOL illustrates more clearly than ever before how important AOL
has become in the daily lives of our members." Case said: "We
still have a long way to go to make AOL as reliable as must-have
utilities such as electricity and the telephone. But that's what
we intend to do." Members will get credit for the lost service,
which, for individuals who subscribe to AOL's standard billing
plan, will amount to about a 30-cent credit. (Atlanta
Journal-Constitution 9 Aug 96 D2)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Subject: File 7--Scientology begins PGP crack attempt (fwd)
Newsgroups--alt.religion.scientology,alt.security.pgp
From--grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward)
Subject--Criminal cult begins PGP crack attempt
The Special Master has informed me that Madame Kobrin has asked
her to retain a PC expert to attempt to "crack" a series of
pgp-encrypted multi-megabyte files that were seized along with
more than a compressed gigabyte of other material from my safety
deposit box.
Ironically, they phoned to ask for assistance in supplying them
with a prototype "crack" program that they could use in iterating
and permuting possibilities. I did supply them a good core
pgpcrack source that can search several tens of thousands of
possible key phrases a seconds; I also suggested that they should
at least be using a P6-200 workstation or better to make the
search more efficient.
The undercurrent is that this fresh hysterical attempt to "get"
something on me coupled with the daily settlement pleas reflects
the hopelessness of the litigation position of the criminal cult.
It looks like the criminal cult has cast the die to ensure that
the RTC vs Ward case is fought out to the bitter end. Which I
modestly predict will be a devastating, humiliating defeat for
them from a pauper pro per.
I have given them a final settlement offer that they can leave or
take. Actually they have a window of opportunity now to drop the
suit since my counterclaims have been dismissed (although Jusge
Whyte invited me to re-file a new counterclaim motion on more
legally sufficiant basis).
I think Keith and I have found a successful counter-strategy to
the cult's system of litigation harassment.
Meanwhile, I could use some help from veteran a.r.s'ers. I need
any copy you have of the Cease and Desist letter that you may
have received last year from Eliot Abelson quondam criminal cult
attorney and Eugene Martin Ingram spokespiece.
Physical mail:
Grady Ward
3449 Martha Ct.
Arcata, CA 95521-4884
JP's BMPs or fax-images to:
grady@northcoast.com
Thanks.
Grady Ward
Ps. I really do need all of your help and good wishes after all.
Thanks for all of you keeping the net a safe place to insult
kook kults.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1996 19:22:32 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 8--An Apology to Edupage
CuD periodically receives news clippings or other items that
helpful readers forward to us for publication. We stress that
either permission should first be received for reprinting, or
that the items should be edited for fair use.
We also emphasize that the original source *MUST* be attributed.
Because we have neither the time nor resources to check on
forwarded posts, we rely heavily on submitters to assume
responsibility for copyright compliance.
Most recently, we inadvertantly reprinted excerpts from EDUPAGE
without attribution. We apologize for the error, and thank the
reader who recognized the source and let us know.
We appreciate the forwarded material that readers send, and we
equally appreciate being informed of possible goofs. Keep them
both coming.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/CuD
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #8.60
************************************
