Computer underground Digest Thu Mar 27, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 25 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 Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #9.25 (Thu, Mar 27, 1997) File 1--A Country goes Offline (Austria) (fwd) File 2--The creation of gov.* is NOT a cause for worry File 3--Re: Coup-d-etat on the Internet (CuD 9.24) File 4--WEBPOSSE ROUNDS UP PORN OUTLAWS File 5--Researchers crack cell phone cipher File 6--end of the road for PK encryption in the UK? (fwd) File 7--Who will control the Net? Problems with RSACi File 8--Cambodia receives Internet connectivity File 9--Network Solutions hit with suit from C/Net File 10--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 1996) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 08:49:36 EST From: Martin Kaminer Date: 26 Mar 1997 10:51:43 -0500 Paul Kneisel writes: > ... am > I the only one to see in the sudden creation of a slippery slope of > globally massive dimensions whereby the U.S. and inferentially other > governments just launched a info-war coup-d-etat on UseNet in particular > and the Internet in general? What I'm seeing here is a fundamental lack of knowledge on how the creation of a new hierarchy has to work. There is a fundamental difference between creating a single newsgroup, and creating a new top level hierarchy. There is no formal RFD/CFV process for doing it. There can't be. It can't be "forced" into being, it has to be "begged" into existence. We are all familiar with the "Big 8" hierarchies, The thing that makes this part of net-news "special" the formalized group creation process that unfolds in , with the RFD, CFV, RESULTs, and Dave Lawrence's PGP signed control messages. But there are other hierarchies. Such as alt, where the "default" rule is that almost anyone can create a newsgroup, but only a few people can rmgroup one. There is not a formal RFD/CFV/voting procedure for alt, just a continuing discussion in . And neither was there a formal process for creating the entire hierarchy. People just were convinced that it was a good enough idea and modified their news server configuration files to permit it to exist. There are now many top level hierarchies beyond the "Big 8" and alt, each with their own social mechanisms for group management and topic enforcement. You can grab the latest INN from the Internet Software Consortium and read the recommended control.ctl file to see a list of most of the better known ones. If you want to create your own top level hierarchy on your own machine, that's easy. But getting that hierarchy to also appear on other machines is the trick. There is not a standard automated way to do that. Instead you have to convince other news admins to "manually" modify their own configurations. Since this process requires the cultivation of "good will" from the community of (overworked) news admins, the creation of the gov.* cannot possibly be interpreted as an "invasion" or an attempt at a "info-war coup-d-etat" in your words. I suspect instead that this is the pet project of a news admin inside the government somewhere, who truly believes that USENET would be a good way to distribute government information "to the masses". I think he may be right. He seems to have done his legwork, and seems to have tale's blessing, which is good enough for me. I'm carrying it on my spools, and asking my main upstream feeder to carry it so I don't need a special feed to get it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 10:26:51 MST From: Ken Arromdee Subject: File 3--Re: Coup-d-etat on the Internet (CuD 9.24) >I certainly could have missed such RFDs and CFVs. >But, assuming that I did not miss them because neither was ever issued, am >I the only one to see in the sudden creation of a slippery slope of >globally massive dimensions whereby the U.S. and inferentially other >governments just launched a info-war coup-d-etat on UseNet in particular >and the Internet in general? No, he's just paranoid. Only groups in the Big 8 hierarchies require a RFD and CFV. The reason why his group requires a RFD and CFV and gov.* doesn't is not because of some sinister government conspiracy against him, but because gov.* is not a Big 8 group. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:46:28 -0800 (PST) From: jc Subject: File 4--WEBPOSSE ROUNDS UP PORN OUTLAWS PIXOTNA PRODUCTIONS Las Vegas, Nevada MEDIA CONTACT: Jan Kepler 303/674-7879 keplerj@netone.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WEBPOSSE ROUNDS UP INTERNET PORN OUTLAWS ATLANTA, LAS VEGAS, ST. PETERSBURG, FL =96 March 10, 1997 -- Web outlaws are brazenly downloading thousands of high quality photos and video clips from legitimate websites and selling them illegally on the net, reported Steve Easton, founder of The WebPosse. Easton and Jerry Taylor, creator of the newly formed Association for the Protection of Internet Copyrights (APIC), are hot on the trail of internet outlaws in an effort to protect all intellectual property rights on the net. According to Easton and Taylor, their initial focus is on adult-oriented websites because they are the most profitable and, thus, the primary targets of the outlaws. They estimate that 95% of the adult material on the internet is stolen from legitimate sources. Taylor warns that, "as soon as other types of sites become profitable, the outlaws will branch out and victimize them as well. Our goals are to protect all types of websites from copyright infringement, educate the naive thieves, and close down the bad guys." Easton, Taylor and John Copeland, all website owners and friendly competitors, have been hit hard by theft. "Legitimate website owners like us are wondering if "www" really stands for "wild, wild web" instead= of "world wide web,"" jokes Copeland, an internationally published photographer who has sold hundreds of sets to Penthouse, Playboy and dozens of other well-known men"s magazines. He is also the owner of Pixotna Productions, an adult-oriented website. "Our initial WebPosse members are mostly mainstream adult-oriented magazine photographers who keep accurate records, have fully signed releases from their adult models, and use only legal materials on their sites," says Easton. "These legitimate businesses are being hit hard in the pocket book and their integrity is being compromised by the outlaws." Copeland claims that it is not just the loss of revenue that motivates the photographers to fight back: "Some stolen images have shown up in phone sex ads, on websites that also sell illegal child pornography, scenes of bestiality, abuse, etc. These illegal usages often violate the releases that we have with our models, and are insulting and demeaning to the women," he added. "Some people think that all nude pictures are pornography, but there are laws and standards within the industry with which the legitimate photographers and producers abide." Some outlaws have developed a myth of "public domain" as it relates to copyrighted images, and Copeland complains "they conduct business under the theory that it is easier to get forgiveness than permission. Other internet outlaws, however, are just hard core thieves making a bundle before we shut "em down." While no shoot-outs have been reported, Easton and other WebPosse members are receiving threats of physical violence and terrorist attacks (e-mail bombs, etc.) on their websites from the hard core outlaws. Copeland has been the target of many such thefts and some veiled terrorist threats. He recently contacted a two month old website, the owners of which claim they unwittingly received hundreds of Copeland"s stolen images to sell on their site. Last month alone, this one site made more than $20,000 selling illegal images. They even included Copeland"s copyrighted material in their logo, on their home page, and throughout the site. He gave them 7 days to remove his material. Taylor says that copyright infringement is only one of the violations facing the outlaws. There are often images posted on these illegal sites that are not exempt from the requirements of Federal statutes: Section 18 U.S.C. 2257 and the regulations of Section 75 C.F.R. 75. To be in compliance with these regulations "every image on display for which there is no release of copyright, or documentation of copyright ownership, model releases and model identification with age verification on file, that is of sexual content, cannot be published, and must be removed under penalty of law." "It"s not only the professional photographers and models who are vulnerable to illegal internet activity," says Taylor. "The latest scam is called Amateur Models. Without documentation, snapshots of nude women are posted anonymously on the newsgroups. The photographers are often men looking for revenge against their unsuspecting ex-wives and ex-girlfriends. While policing anonymous newsgroup posts is impossible, when those illegal photos are re-posted on websites, they spell big trouble for the website owners." WebPosse and APIC are planning legal action against the illegal sites, whose owners are either unwilling to shut down voluntarily or become legitimate. Taming the "wild, wild, web" will not be easy admits Easton and Taylor, but with the backing of other legitimate website owners, they anticipate making a significant dent in illegal activities in 1997. For more information about efforts to protect websites from copyright infringement, contact Steven Easton at 954-983-6611 or by e-mail at sheriff@webposse.com; Jerry Taylor at 770-300-0998 or by e-mail at JT@netcommand.com., and John Copeland at 702-247-9830 or by e-mail at pixotna@intermind.net. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 09:14:29 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 5--Researchers crack cell phone cipher Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Attached below is John Markoff's front-page article in today's NYT on how Bruce Schneier's team "cracked a key part of the electronic code meant to protect the privacy of calls made with the new, digital generation of cellular telephones." I talked to Schneier about his successful codebreaking yesterday, but was too exhausted from the Supreme Court arguments to write about it and do him justice. When we spoke, he stressed that cracking this cipher was anything but difficult: "It wasn't that hard. This isn't a subtle thing. This is a major flaw." He said: "For the second time we as a country had a chance to make cellular phone conversations private and we blew it. We didn't make analog conversations private and now, when we move to digital, we had the chance to put in good encryption algorithms. We didn't." How long does it take to crack? A forthcoming paper the group wrote says: "Our (unoptimized) implementation uses minutes to hours of computation time on a Pentium; it can be easily parallelized for further speed... The attack described in this paper is practical, and can be used against existing cellphones that use [this algorithm] for security." The success of the codebreaking team -- which also included David Wagner and John Kelsey -- underscores why it's dangerous to develop algorithms in secret. The only reliable way to learn about weaknesses in a algorithm is to expose it to public scrutiny. (Anyone want a Clipper Chip?) David Brin at CFP last week echoed this idea, saying "public criticism" is the best societal means of learning the truth. Schneier takes this concept so seriously that his essay on "Why Cryptography is Harder than it Looks" is required reading for all employees. -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Thu, 20 Mar 1997 07:12:21 -0500 From--John Young For details of the crack see the cryptographers' press release at: http://www.counterpane.com/cmea.html The New York Times, March 20, 1997, pp. A1, D2. Code Set Up to Shield Privacy Of Cellular Calls Is Breached By John Markoff San Francisco, March 19 -- A team of well-known computer security experts will announce on Thursday that they have cracked a key part of the electronic code meant to protect the privacy of calls made with the new, digital generation of cellular telephones. The announcement, intended as a public warning, means that -- despite their greater potential for privacy protection -- the new cellular telephones, which transmit streams of digital information in code similar to computer data, may in practice be little more secure from eavesdropping than the analog cellular phones, which send voice as electronic patterns mimicking sound waves, that have been in use the last 15 years. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:30:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Stefan Magdalinski Subject: File 6--end of the road for PK encryption in the UK? (fwd) I don't have time to investigate this, or write anything up. I just found it in another mailing list I'm on, and thought you'd be interested. stef... ============ Subject-- UK Government to ban PGP - now official! From-- rja14@cl.cam.ac.uk (Ross Anderson) Date-- 1997/03/21 Newsgroups-- alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt The British government's Department of Trade and Industry has sneaked out proposals on licensing encryption services. Their effect will be to ban PGP and much more besides. I have put a copy on http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/dti.html as their own web server appears to be conveniently down. Licensing will be mandatory: We intend that it will be a criminal offence for a body to offer or provide licensable encryption services to the UK public without a valid licence The scope of licensing is broad: Public will be defined to cover any natural or legal person in the UK. Encryption services is meant to encompass any service, whether provided free or not, which involves any or all of the following cryptographic functionality - key management, key recovery, key certification, key storage, message integrity (through the use of digital signatures) key generation, time stamping, or key revocation services (whether for integrity or confidentiality), which are offered in a manner which allows a client to determine a choice of cryptographic key or allows the client a choice of recipient/s. Total official discretion is retained: The legislation will provide that bodies wishing to offer or provide encryption services to the public in the UK will be required to obtain a licence. The legislation will give the Secretary of State discretion to determine appropriate licence conditions. The licence conditions imply that only large organisations will be able to get licences: small organisations will have to use large ones to manage their keys (this was the policy outlined last June by a DTI spokesman). The main licence condition is of course that keys must be escrowed, and delivered on demand to a central repository within one hour. The mere delivery of decrypted plaintext is not acceptable except perhaps from TTPs ovberseas under international agreements. The effect of all this appears to be: 1. PGP servers will be outlawed; it will be an offence for me to sign your pgp key, for you to sign mine, and for anybody to put my existing signed PGP key in a foreign (unlicensed) directory 2. Countries that won't escrow, such as Holland and Denmark, will be cut out of the Superhighway economy. You won't even be able to send signed medical records back and forth (let alone encrypted ones) 3. You can forget about building distributed secure systems, as even relatively primitive products such as Kerberos would need to have their keys managed by a licensed TTP. This is clearly impractical. (The paper does say that purely intra-company key management is OK but licensing is required whenever there is any interaction with the outside world, which presumably catches systems with mail, web or whatever) There are let-outs for banks and Rupert Murdoch: Encryption services as an integral part of another service (such as in the scrambling of pay TV programmes or the authentication of credit cards) are also excluded from this legislation. However, there are no let-outs for services providing only authenticity and nonrepudiation (as opposed to confidentiality) services. This is a point that has been raised repeatedly by doctors, lawyers and others - giving a police officer the power to inspect my medical records might just conceivably help him build a case against me, but giving him the power to forge prescriptions and legal contracts appears a recipe for disaster. The scope for fraud and corruption will be immense. Yet the government continues to insist on control of, and access to, signing keys as well as decryption keys. This shows that the real concern is not really law enforcement at all, but national intelligence. Finally, there's an opportunity to write in and protest: The Government invites comments on this paper until 30 May 1997 Though if the recent `consultation' about the recent `government.direct' programme is anything to go by, negative comments will simply be ignored. Meanwhile, GCHQ is pressing ahead with the implementation of an escrow protocol (see http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/GCHQ/casm.htm) that is broken (see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/users/rja14/euroclipper.ps.gz). In Grey's words, ``All over Europe, the lights are going out'' Ross <<<<<<<< ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 18:21:52 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: File 7--Who will control the Net? Problems with RSACi ****** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,740,00.html The Netly News Network March 18, 1997 RSACi-Hacky by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) MSNBC has a problem, and its name is Microsoft. For Microsoft (the MS in MSNBC) has championed the RSACi Net-rating system, and it would be, well, impolitic for MSNBC not to use it. Therein lies the problem. RSACi wasn't designed to classify news web sites. It's a video game rating system, and its coarse, clumsy categories -- from "creatures injured" to "wanton and gratuitous violence" -- are better suited to shrink-wrapped boxes of Doom than to the archives of msnbc.com. To comply with the system, MSNBC editors need to review and rate each story -- which is why MSNBC now has stopped using RSACi, sources told The Netly News yesterday. Some time during the last week, MSNBC editors gave the order to remove the page-by-page tags and the "We are rated with RSAC" logo that graced the site's home page. MSNBC officials were unavailable for comment yesterday. Could it be that a one-man campaign waged by online gadfly Michael Sims finally worked? For months, Sims had pointed out to MSNBC editors that certain pages were inaccurately labeled. For instance, the recent Empire State Building gunman spree story was rated "0" for violence -- which would undoubtedly come as a surprise to the families of the murder victims. It certainly was a surprise to Sims, who correctly pointed out that the story should have earned an RSACi 3, the penultimate violence rating ("humans injured or killed.") These inconsistencies were, of course, easy to find, and Sims relished bringing them to the attention -- sometimes daily -- of MSNBC editors. Ridiculously flawed though the RSACi system is, it hasn't stopped Microsoft from pressuring others to use it. Pathfinder executives learned last week that to play nicely with Redmond, pages ought to be rated with RSACi: despite other reports to the contrary, a Microsoft official said on Thursday that the company might well ship the next version of its web browser, Internet Explorer, with RSACi "on" by default. That means if content providers choose not to rate with RSACi their sites would be automatically blocked. Furthermore, the upcoming Windows 97 integrates Internet Explorer into the desktop, and will ship with a few dozen independent, clickable "channels" on the default screen -- clearly choice real estate for content providers. However, in order to qualify for that high-profile channel space, content providers must agree to follow 8 out of 10 conditions. One of the conditions, of course, is RSACi rating. The ratings muddle and Microsoft's internal struggles demonstrate the damage that has already been done in the fight over free speech online -- even before the Supreme Court hears arguments in the Communications Decency Act lawsuit tomorrow morning. Indeed, it was two years ago, when Congress considered passing the CDA, that in a fit of hysterical overreaction, industry groups started talking about rating systems and censorware. Trade associations turned to PICS (a ratings framework) and RSACi (a rating system based on PICS) to stave off a government-imposed censorship scheme. But now there's good news. Lawyers involved in the CDA lawsuit are optimistic about their chances tomorrow. Bruce Ennis, the American Library Association attorney who will be arguing on behalf of all the plaintiffs, has been prepping for weeks. Attorneys from the ALA and ACLU held a second moot court last Thursday where Ennis practiced encapsulating descriptions of the Net in 30-second arguments. The lower court's carefully reasoned opinion striking down the CDA will, the attorneys believe, prove convincing to the Supremes. ### ------------------------- Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 21:29:26 -0500 From: Ari Herzog Subject: File 8--Cambodia receives Internet connectivity Source -- fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Source: Phnom Penh Post February 7-20 1997 We take a brief look departure from the timed local calls debate this week to see Telstra's pro-Internet stance in action. Most people following the debate would agree that Telstra's claims of Internet users causing network congestion are far from the truth. Two initiatives in the last few weeks have exposed the, what can only be called, doublespeak. The first program encourages callers to use the phone longer to call interstate in Australia. The second (and the one we are reporting) brings the Internet to Kampuchea...surely a company seriously worried about Internet users causing congestion would not be openly promoting and profitting from increased Internet use? The Cambodia Daily reports that Telstra has signed a contract with the Kampuchean government to bring the Internet to Phnom Penh within three months. Previously access was most reliable through Singapore or other countries in the region. Telstra is installing a satellite Internet connection. The Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications was poised to sign an exclusive Internet deal with US Sprint last March, but pulled out of the deal later, saying it wanted to encourage competition between at least two providers. The service will cost about 50,000 riel ($18) per month for eight hours of on-line time - an amount considerably more than many people in Australia are prepared to pay. In addition to the planned Telstra service the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPTC), with the assistance of the International Development Research Centre of Canada (IDRC), will provide the Kingdom with a national Internet service. Its priority is to provide Internet to government institutions free of charge and, secondly, to not-for-profit NGOs at a subsidized rate. "Connectivity will occur in the very near future, perhaps as early as next month," says Bill Herod, Research Assistant at IDRC. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:13:03 EST From: Martin Kaminer Subject: File 9--Network Solutions hit with suit from C/Net ------- Forwarded Message Date--Fri, 21 Mar 1997 12:03:14 -0600 From--FringeWare News Network Sent from--David Farber Network Solutions hit with suit By Margie Wylie March 20, 1997, 3:45 p.m. PT Network Solutions has been accused of violating antitrust laws through its exclusive sale of commercial Internet domain names. PGP Media this morning filed a suit in a New York court alleging that the partially government-funded Network Solutions has conspired with several other Internet groups to set up artificial barriers to competition in the selling of Internet domain names and maintain monopoly control of the market. The International Ad Hoc Committee, the Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA) and its director, Jon Postel, the Internet Society (ISOC), and unnamed "control persons" are named as "nonparty coconspirators" in the complaint. According to the complaint, which has not yet been formally served on Network Solutions, the company is using its historical control of Internet "root servers" to preclude competition in domain name service. Root servers are computers that act like switchboard operators, matching up familiar network names, like "cnet.com" with the location of that Net resource, like a Web site, email server, or gopher server. At issue is a small database file, the "config file," that resides on these 11 root servers scattered across the world. The first step in "resolving" a domain name system address, the config file acts something like a directory of area codes. It contains a listing of every officially sanctioned top-level domain, the usually three-letter suffix on a domain name. Network Solutions issues names in seven top-level domains, including ".com," ".net," and ".gov." A top-level domain not listed in the official root servers is virtually unreachable. By refusing to list top-level domains other than its own, Network Solutions keeps out competition, the complaint alleges. PGP Media's own domain naming service, called name.space, can't operate on the Internet without access to the config file on the Internet's official root servers. The company is asking that the court force Network Solutions to list name.space's top-level domains, such as ".camera," in the official root servers in addition to minimum damages of $1 million. "The same as AT&T was forced to give MCI access to its phone wires, Network Solutions should be forced to give us access to the config file," said Michael J. Donovan, the attorney representing PGP Media in the case. "It's property my clients need access to in order to compete. We can't recreate this; to do so would mean we have to recreate the Internet." PGP Media asserts that despite Network Solutions's InterNIC agreement, an exclusive cooperative agreement and grant with the National Science Foundation, the company has no authority to limit or control the growth of the domain naming system. Network Solutions has said in the past that it does not control the root servers but that the IANA does. Donovan, however, said that Network Solutions, not IANA, is the responsible party because it was granted the exclusive contract for domain service from the government. "We've been through every document we can find and nowhere is IANA named as a government contractor," he said. The complaint also said PGP Media reserved the right to challenge the 1995 change to the original National Science Foundation agreement that allowed Network Solutions to start charging $100 fees for two-year name registrations on grounds of price-fixing and restraint of trade, though the current suit does not address the agreement. The IANA was sued earlier this month by Image Online Design. The company accused IANA of reneging on a deal to grant it a new ".web" registry. Network Solutions officials were unavailable for comment. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 10--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 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. 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 #9.25 ************************************