Computer underground Digest Wed Oct 9, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 72 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, #8.72 (Wed, Oct 9, 1996) File 1--Boy May Have Killed Self, Mom Over Internet Bills File 2--Global online intellectual property conf at American Univ File 3--Stealth Attack in Budget Bill File 4--The WEB Magazine: The Party's Over: Another Perspective File 5--Wiretap In the Night (CyberWire Dispatch) File 6--Cyberspace Free Speech Law for Non-Lawyers File 7--Book review: "Computer Virus Supertechnology 1996" File 8--Jim Thomas Thursday at HotWired 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, 3 Oct 1996 06:31:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 1--Boy May Have Killed Self, Mom Over Internet Bills Boy May Have Killed Self, Mom Over Internet Bills 10:14am EDT, 10/2/96 CHICAGO, (Reuter) - A 12-year-old Missouri boy may have killed his mother and himself in a dispute over Internet-related telephone bills, police said Tuesday. The bodies of Ann Hoffman, 42, and her son Brad were found in their California, Missouri, home last week. She had been shot six times and the boy died of one shot to his head. A gun was found near his body. The Moniteau County Sheriff's Office near where the family lived in central Missouri said the boy's telephone bills from an online provider service ran into hundreds of dollars a month. It said the boy's father, who was divorced from Hoffman, had met with his son and ex-wife last week to discuss the bills. Sheriff Kenny Jones also said he was investigating a report that the boy had chatted over the Internet with a girl in Mexico last month telling her that he was contemplating suicide. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 21:05:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 2--Global online intellectual property conf at American Univ Folks in the DC area might want to stop by this free conference on intellectual property next week at American University. I'll be giving the closing remarks; Mike Nelson from the White House will be presenting the opening statement. -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- All who are interested are invited to attend a conference . . . The 1996 Conference of American University's Global Intellectual Property Project OWNERSHIP ON-LINE: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS OF THE GLOBAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE October 16, 1996 1:00-6:00 pm Husghes formal Lounge American University 4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20016-8071 Free and Open to the Public Opening Session: Michael R. Nelson Special Assistant for Information Technology White House Office of Science and Technology Panel 1: Where are we and how did we get here? Panel 2: Where are we going? Closing Session: Declan McCullagh, HotWired Participants Include: David Holtzman, IBM's inforMarket Theodore Henke, Atlantic Mutual Insurance Companies Adam Eisgrau, American Library Association Elizabeth Blumenfeld, America On-Line Chris Meyer, Meyer and Klipper (formerly of the Patent and Trademark Office) Carsten Fink, World Bank Edward Comor, American University James Boyle, American University Peter Jaszi, American University Edward Malloy, Department of State Manuel Gameros, Mexican Finance Ministry Organizing Committee: Erran Carmel, American University Carole Ganz-Brown, American University and National Science Foundation Renee Marlin-Bennett, American University Conference Sponsors: American University Atlantic Mutual Companies Visit our Website, under construction, but with updated information, at: http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/MOGIT/glipp96.htm or call: 202-885-1843 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 09:48:20 +0100 From: Glenn Hauman Subject: File 3--Stealth Attack in Budget Bill >From this morning's NYT CyberTimes. Links to the Bill text are already there. Great job, Pam: New Digital Child Porn Law In Budget Bill By PAMELA MENDELS A little-known corner of the huge government budget bill passed on Monday was legislation that updates child pornography statutes by banning computer-generated depictions of children engaging in sexual conduct. The new law was quickly attacked by free speech advocates who say that it undermines First Amendment protections and is so broad that it could make sex scenes from movies in which adults portray teen-agers legally suspect. [...] But the new law, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, would expand the definition of illegal child pornography to include images not necessarily based on a real child. Among other things, the act, introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, outlaws "any visual depicition, including any photograph, film, video image or picture . . . where . . . such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." [...] Bruce A. Taylor, president and chief counsel of the National Law Center for Children and Families, a Fairfax, Va.,-based anti-pornography group that supports the new law, said: "Congress has moved from seeing child pornography as a crime scene of yesterday's child abuse. It is also a tool for tomorrow's molestation. In other words, pedophiles look at child pornography and become incited to molest children, and pedophiles show those pictures to children to seduce them into imitating the pictures." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 04:57:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 4--The WEB Magazine: The Party's Over: Another Perspective ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Wed, 02 Oct 96 16:05:45 PST From--spencer_ante@PCWorld.com Hey Declan, Como estas? This is an article I wrote for the premiere issue of The WEB Magazine, where I'm editing the politics section (and the Web site; www.webmagazine.com). It offers an alternative perspective to Chapman's LA Times article. One of the many problems with Chapman's article is his misreading of the youth vote, which has been shown to lean towards third-party candidates. He also overlooks the fact that people are for the first time *already* registering to vote online, which has the potential to upset the ossified two-party system. Feel free to redistribute. cheers, Spencer ------------ Copyright The WEB Magazine, 1996 By Spencer E. Ante The Party's Over The Net is going to remake the face of politics in America, but not the way you might think. Cocktail-party pundits foresee a brave new digital nation in which the Net has rendered representative government obsolete. For their part, online activists predict the rise of "desktop democracy" as people register-and one day vote-from their home computers (see "The Online Ballot Box"). But such prognostications are so heavy on theory and light on spe-cifics that it's hard to gauge what will really happen as the heartland comes kicking and screaming into the Information Age. Then again, Ray Wolfinger of UC Berkeley may know. The 65-year-old political science professor doesn't have e-mail and doesn't surf the Web (he says his "life was fully formed before the Internet"), but his research on the 1993 federal "motor-voter" law may foretell the next stage of U.S. electoral politics. Officially named the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), motor-voter was signed into law after a four-year-long partisan foodfight in Congress. Besides instituting a universal voter registration form, it mandates that states permit their citizens to register when they apply for a driver's license, welfare benefits, or other government services. Though NVRA began as a bipartisan bill (with Newt Gingrich as a cosponsor), GOP leaders later withdrew their support, citing the potential for fraud but really fearing that greater public participation would be a bonanza for the Democrats. As it turned out, the Republicans may have been looking for monsters in the wrong closet. Wolfinger found that motor- voter legislation is most likely to increase registration for people under 30-the same population most likely to be online. Therein lies the rub: Politically alienated twenty-somethings have weaker party identifications than do older voters, Wolfinger says, which makes them more inclined than their elders to vote for third-party candidates. In the 1992 election, for example, Ross Perot won 28% of the under-30 vote, his best showing among all age groups. "The most obvious beneficiary of higher turnout by young people," Wolfinger writes, "would be almost any third-party candidate." That's where the Net comes in. In spirit and demographics, the online population resembles the sweaty mosh pit of a rock concert, which explains why Rock the Vote (http://netvote96.mci.com/) recently opened shop on the Web. Jointly sponsored by Rock the Vote and MCI, NetVote '96 represents the nation's first online voter registration program; and like motor-voter, it is designed to increase political participation by weaving registration into the course of everyday life. "Our goal is to take voting registration to where the kids live," says Mark Strama, the 28-year-old program director of Rock the Vote. "We've gone to concerts, campuses, and movie theaters. With so many people using the Net these days, it just made sense to move into cyberspace." To date, NetVote '96, which launched in April, has registered more than 21,000 young adults. The numbers involved aren't staggering, but they certainly point to the program's tremendous potential. "I assume that most people aren't interested in politics," Wolfinger says. "So when you surf the Internet and it's pretty painless, this may provide you with the impetus to register." Motor-voter may have been a struggle to enact, but members of both parties in Congress have voiced support for NetVote '96. In particular, Congressional Internet Caucus cofounders Rep. Rick White (R-WA) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have applauded it as a democratic initiative. Perhaps they shouldn't be so hospitable. By embracing registration reform and the new technologies that bolster it, Congressional innovators may be creating their own Frankenstein's monster. But it will take a lot more than a stellar Web campaign to break down the doors of the White House. Spencer E. Ante is editor of Web Central Station, the online home of THE WEB Magazine. Send your comments and questions to politics@webmagazine.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:32:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 5--Wiretap In the Night (CyberWire Dispatch) CyberWire Dispatch // September // Copyright (c) 1996 // Jacking in from the "Smoked Filled Room" Port: Washington, DC -- Federal provisions funding the digital telephony bill and roving wiretaps, surgically removed earlier this year from an anti-terrorism bill, have quietly been wedged into a $600 billion omnibus spending bill. The bill creates a Justice Department "telecommunications carrier compliance fund" to pay for the provisions called for in the digital telephony bill, formally known as the Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). In reality, this is a slush fund. Congress originally budgeted $500 million for CALEA, far short of the billions actually needed to build in instant wiretap capabilities into America's telephone, cable, cellular and PCS networks. This bill now approves a slush fund of pooled dollars from the budgets of "any agency" with "law enforcement, national security or intelligence responsibilities." That means the FBI, CIA, NSA and DEA, among others, will now have a vested interest in how the majority of your communications are tapped. The spending bill also provides for "multipoint wiretaps." This is the tricked up code phase for what amounts to roving wiretaps. Where the FBI can only tap one phone at a time in conjunction with an investigation, it now wants the ability to "follow" a conversation from phone to phone; meaning that if your neighbor is under investigation and happens to use your phone for some reason, your phone gets tapped. It also means that the FBI can tap public pay phones... think about that next time you call 1-800-COLLECT. In addition, all the public and congressional accountability provisions for how CALEA money was spent, which were in the original House version (H.R. 3814), got torpedoed in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Provisions stripped out by the Senate: -- GONE: Money isn't to be spent unless an implementation plan is sent to each member of the Judiciary Committee and Appropriations committees. -- GONE: Requirement that the FBI provide public details of how its new wiretap plan exceeds or differs from current capabilities. -- GONE: Report on the "actual and maximum number of simultaneous surveillance/intercepts" the FBI expects. The FBI ran into a fire storm earlier this year when it botched its long overdue report that said it wanted the capability to tap one out of every 100 phones *simultaneously*. Now, thanks to this funding bill, rather than having to defend that request, it doesn't have to say shit. -- GONE: Complete estimate of the full costs of deploying and developing the digital wiretapping plan. -- GONE: An annual report to Congress "specifically detailing" how all taxpayer money -- YOUR money -- is spent to carry out these new wiretap provisions. "No matter what side you come down on this (digital wiretapping) issue, the stakes for democracy are that we need to have public accountability," said Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Although it appeared that no one in congress had the balls to take on the issue, one stalwart has stepped forward, Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.). He has succeeded in getting some of the accountability provisions back into the bill, according to a Barr staffer. But the fight couldn't have been an easy one. The FBI has worked congress relentlessly in an effort to skirt the original reporting and implementation requirements as outlined in CALEA. Further, Barr isn't exactly on the FBI's Christmas card list. Last year it was primarily Barr who scotched the funding for CALEA during the 104th Congress' first session. But Barr has won again. He has, with backing from the Senate, succeeded in *putting back* the requirement that the FBI must justify all CALEA expenditures to the Judiciary Committee. Further, the implementation plan, "though somewhat modified" will "still have some punch," Barr's staffer assured me. That includes making the FBI report on its expected capacities and capabilities for digital wiretapping. In other words, the FBI won't be able to "cook the books" on the wiretap figures in secret. Barr also was successful in making the Justice Department submit an annual report detailing its CALEA spending to Congress. However, the funding for digital wiretaps remains. Stuffing the funding measures into a huge omnibus spending bill almost certainly assures its passage. Congress is twitchy now, anxious to leave. They are chomping at the bit, sensing the end of the 104th Congress' tortured run as the legislative calender is due to run out sometime early next week. Then they will all literally race from Capitol Hill at the final gavel, heading for the parking lot, jumping in their cars like stock car drivers as they make a made dash for National Airport to return to their home districts in an effort to campaign for another term in the loopy world of national politics. Congress is "going to try to sneak this (spending bill) through the back door in the middle of the night," says Leslie Hagan, legislative director for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. She calls this a "worst case scenario" that is "particularly dangerous" because the "deliberative legislative process is short-circuited." Such matters as wiretapping deserve to be aired in the full sunlight of congressional hearings, not stuffed into an 11th hour spending bill. This is legislative cowardice. Sadly, it will most likely succeed. And through this all, the Net sits mute. Unlike a few months ago, on the shameful day the Net cried "wolf" over these same provisions, mindlessly flooding congressional switchboards and any Email box within keyboard reach, despite the fact that the funding provisions had been already been stripped from the anti-terrorism bill, there has been no hue-and-cry about these most recent moves. Yes, some groups, such as the ACLU, EPIC and the Center for Democracy and Technology have been working the congressional back channels, buzzing around the frenzied legislators like crazed gnats. But why haven't we heard about all this before now? Why has this bill come down to the wire without the now expected flurry of "alerts" "bulletins" and other assorted red-flag waving by our esteemed Net guardians? Barr's had his ass hanging in the wind, fighting FBI Director Louis "Teflon" Freeh; he could have used some political cover from the cyberspace community. Yet, if he'd gone to that digital well, he'd have found only the echo of his own voice. And while the efforts of Rep. Barr are encouraging, it's anything from a done deal. "As long as the door is cracked... there is room for mischief," said Barr's staffer. Meaning, until the bill is reported and voted on, some snapperhead congressman could fuck up the process yet again. We all caught a bit of a reprieve here, but I wouldn't sleep well. This community still has a lot to learn about the Washington boneyard. Personally, I'm a little tired of getting beat up at every turn. Muscle up, folks, the fight doesn't get any easier. Meeks out... ------------ Declan McCullagh contributed to this report. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 15:25:37 PST From: Eugene Volokh Subject: File 6--Cyberspace Free Speech Law for Non-Lawyers PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD The Cyberspace Law for Nonlawyers free e-mail seminar (now at over 17,000 subscribers) is about to start its Free Speech unit. If you've ever wanted to brush up on the constitutional law of free speech, especially as it applies to cyberspace, this is your chance. To subscribe, send a message with the text SUBSCRIBE CYBERSPACE-LAW Yourfirstname Yourlastname to LISTSERV@PUBLISHER.SSRN.COM * The seminar is aimed at educated laypeople, not primarily at lawyers. Low on legalese and Latin. * This is a low-traffic distribution list, NOT a discussion list. Subscribers will get one message (a few paragraphs long) every few days. * The seminar is co-authored by Prof. Larry Lessig, University of Chicago Law School Prof. David Post, Georgetown University Law Center Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law Larry Lessig clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and now teaches constitutional law and the law of cyberspace. He's written about law and cyberspace for the Yale Law Journal and the University of Chicago Legal Forum (forthcoming). David Post practiced computer law for six years, then clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and now teaches constitutional law, copyright law, and the law of cyberspace. He's written about law and cyberspace for the University of Chicago Legal Forum (forthcoming) and the Journal of Online Law, and writes a monthly column on law and technology issues for the American Lawyer. Eugene Volokh worked as a computer programmer for 12 years, and is still partner in a software company that sells the software he wrote for the Hewlett-Packard Series 3000. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and now teaches constitutional law and copyright law. He's written about law and cyberspace for the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, Michigan Law Review, and the University of Chicago Legal Forum (forthcoming). -- Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 1996 20:13:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Crypt Newsletter Subject: File 7--Book review: "Computer Virus Supertechnology 1996" Mark Ludwig's "Computer Virus Supertechnology 1996" (American Eagle, ISBN 0-929408-16-0) radically ups the ante for those interested in learning how to write computer viruses. At $395.00 for about 200 pages, Ludwig has pitched it predominantly to repeat customers of American Eagle, would-be information warriors at Pentagon think tanks like Science Applications or MITRE Corp., the libraries of computer security organizations and a handful of eccentrics with too much discretionary cash and time on their hands. It's an effective sales strategy and, I imagine, covers just about the entire audience for the book in the United States and a handful of other countries. In direct contrast to his $12.95 underground bestseller "The Little Black Book of Computer Viruses," Ludwig only has to sell a few hundred copies of "CVS1996" to make a substantial return on investment. Printed in a run of 500, Ludwig claims to have already sold 60 percent of the lot. By the time you are reading this review, presumably "Computer Virus Supertechnology" will be about sold out. "CVS1996" focuses on writing viruses that infect Windows95 programs. It includes on its companion diskette the first one written, called Boza/Bizatch, which was originally published by the Australian virus-writing group, VLAD. Boza never made it into general circulation. And since its publication -- despite a spurt of crazy stories about in the mainstream media -- the current crop of virus writers, in general, have shown very little interest or ability in turning out the same hordes of trivial viruses for the new operating system as is the case with DOS. Ludwig says this is because the vast majority of virus writers write their programs as a sort of casual hobby. They lack the ability or the patience to crunch the internals of Windows 95 code to the extent required to write functional viruses for the system. It's a reasonable claim. The vast majority of virus writers are, essentially, Caspar Milquetoasts when it comes to this type of "work." They tend to prefer collecting viruses or fragments of them in large numbers and mounting them as public collections on bulletin boards or Internet providers; writing aggressively menacing-sounding electronic press releases; and cobbling together hacks of any one of the thousands of DOS viruses already in existence. This could change writes Ludwig, using the following arguments. A number of relatively inexpensive books on the internals of Windows and Win95 are now in bookstores. These certainly furnish the essentials for understanding the ins-and-outs of file structures and system functions, sufficient information for virus-writers intent on the subject. Further, Ludwig points out DOS appeared in 1981 but the Pakistani Brain virus didn't show up until 1985. And by 1988 there were still only a small number of computer viruses written for that operating system. The current virus production glut is a phenomenon with its roots in the first half of this decade which tends to obscure the fact the DOS virus development didn't happen overnight. Ludwig implies the groundwork is now there for viruses under Windows95 but it will be a different cohort of virus-writers who wind up producing them. "CVS1996" walks the reader through the design of three viruses. All of them are "direct action" infectors, which is to say -- as Ludwig does -- that they're effective as basic demonstrators but because of their limited strategy in file infection, not likely to be successful in the wild. The first virus, called Hillary, looks for Windows95 files with more than 500 bytes of zero fill, or contiguous empty space in them. It then writes itself to this hole and adjusts the host program so that when loaded the virus gets control first. Although workable on just about anyone's PC, it's a reluctant infector -- much like Ludwig's TIMID virus from "The Little Black Book." Another virus adds itself as a code section to hosts; the last one in the book shuffles the host's internal code around before adding itself to the final product, an effort to make the infection a little less noticeable. The bulk of the virus tutorials are spent detailing the internal structures of the average Windows 95 program and the way in which a virus has to modify them to infect the file without ruining it or crashing the machine. The final section of "CVS1996" is devoted to Robert Morris, Jr.'s Internet Worm. The Worm was unleashed on a computer in MIT's Artificial Intelligence lab in 1988. In a couple of hours it was paralyzing computers on the Internet from coast to coast. Morris confessed to it, was tried, convicted and sentenced with three years of probation, community service and a fine. Like many other discussions of the Worm, Ludwig writes the code of it is schizophrenic: routines that don't get called, either by error or in effort to throw others off. It presents "convoluted logic that seems at best illogical." Still, it was an amazing program in its effect on the Internet, Ludwig continues. And for the conspiracy-minded: "Though Morris has confessed to writing it . . . there has been lingering suspicion over the years that others were behind it, and possibly the NSA. Such allegations are, of course, unproveable." A detailed presentation of the Worm's code and function is delivered. Ludwig adds a small bit of the original is missing: "I simply could not find it anywhere." "Computer Virus Supertechnology" is one of kind. Despite years of social opprobrium, Mark Ludwig is still the only one doing these types of books regularly. The audience is entirely his. Paradoxically, other publishers offering books on computer viruses -- usually from the anti-virus side of things -- now call him to have their offerings sold through the American Eagle mail catalog! Finally, like the rest of American Eagle's recent offerings, "CVS1996" delivers a hefty amount of dense computer code and analysis requiring, at the very least, a passing familiarity with the subject or the patience to master a rather technical treatment in the taboo worlds of computer virus writing and publishing. Plus, there's its unique list price. These are not minor obstacles to the dilettante computer vandal. (American Eagle, POB 1507, Show Low, AZ 85901; ph: 1-520-367-1621) Crypt Newsletter http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 09:52:35 -0500 From: Jon Lebkowsky Subject: File 8--Jim Thomas Thursday at HotWired Electronic Frontiers Forum Thursday, October 10 6PM Pacific Time (9PM Eastern, Friday 01:00 GMT) Guest: Jim Thomas, Editor of Computer Underground Digest On the table: control/enforcement issues of the criminal justice system, online hucksters, net censorship, privacy (is it over-rated?), the great child-porn myth, how is net technology changing culture? Where to login: telnet: talk.wired.com javachat: http://talk.wired.com Free membership required (http://www.hotwired.com/reception/join) -- Jon Lebkowsky FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators 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) 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 #8.72 ************************************