Anonymous Servers - The Truth: Everything Blows Your Privacy!

Author

The Truth: Everything Blows Your Privacy!

Anonymous

2005-05-17, 5:46 pm

Trolls will post that JBN blows your privacy and that QS blows
your privacy, and then push their own snake oil, but that's just to
confuse the facts.

JBN and QS BOTH blow your privacy!

And do you know why?

Because they both use the Windows Mixmaster binaries.
Did you know there's no source to these binaries? People
just take it on faith that the precompiled binaries are legit.

And so does Mixmaster, especially the binary without source
code that is usually distributed. This was created by Disastry,
who was then killed by the TLAs. Do you believe that rubbish
about the mountain climbing accident? Well, accidents are
easy to arrange and they couldn't have him talking, especially
after he had blown everyone's privacy.

You have been warned.

And anyone who says otherwise, ask them to prove that these
fishy precompiled binaries are any good.

nemo_outis

2005-05-17, 5:46 pm

Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in
news:TL2P9X0H38489.5231944444@anonymous.poster:

> Trolls will post that JBN blows your privacy and that QS blows
> your privacy, and then push their own snake oil, but that's just to
> confuse the facts.
>
> JBN and QS BOTH blow your privacy!
>
> And do you know why?
>
> Because they both use the Windows Mixmaster binaries.
> Did you know there's no source to these binaries? People
> just take it on faith that the precompiled binaries are legit.
>
> And so does Mixmaster, especially the binary without source
> code that is usually distributed. This was created by Disastry,
> who was then killed by the TLAs. Do you believe that rubbish
> about the mountain climbing accident? Well, accidents are
> easy to arrange and they couldn't have him talking, especially
> after he had blown everyone's privacy.
>
> You have been warned.
>
> And anyone who says otherwise, ask them to prove that these
> fishy precompiled binaries are any good.
>

Hey, this should be right up your alley. Where can I get the best prices
on tinfoil hats?

Regards,

Gandalf Parker

2005-05-17, 5:46 pm

Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in
news:TL2P9X0H38489.5231944444@anonymous.poster:

> JBN and QS BOTH blow your privacy!
>
> And do you know why?

QUOTE: "Strange game.. the only way to win is not to play"

Or as security people will tell you, the only secure computer is one that
isnt online. Of course then some smartass security guy next to him will
say.. and even THATS not secure.

Gandalf Parker

Tom Giarmo

2005-05-17, 5:46 pm

On 17 May 2005 18:07:50 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

> Where can I get the best prices
> on tinfoil hats?

Fukken Steve Gielda's XXXXXXX where you live.

Userbeam Remailer

2005-05-18, 5:51 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <Xns9659742E8D107gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>
Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>
> Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in
> news:TL2P9X0H38489.5231944444@anonymous.poster:
>
>
> QUOTE: "Strange game.. the only way to win is not to play"

Wargames?

cypher

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBQos1/ yPnLg7nPH4AEQICRACcC9W667yesXkKJql59ho+B
ega6B0AnR4N
QWrV1WCBen01Iy/YAWaEDw2W
=5lI6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Gandalf Parker

2005-05-18, 5:51 pm

Userbeam Remailer <remailer@userbeam.net> wrote in
news:41b2a3d777f2916a1c583a1e35b77983@us
erbeam.net:

> In article <Xns9659742E8D107gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>
> Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>
> Wargames?

Yep. Ive always loved that quote.

Gandalf Parker

news

2005-05-19, 5:46 pm

nemo_outis said the following on 17/05/2005 07:07 pm:

> Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in
> news:TL2P9X0H38489.5231944444@anonymous.poster:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hey, this should be right up your alley. Where can I get the best prices
> on tinfoil hats?
>
> Regards,
>
>
Is this true? I mean about the pre-compiled binaries? I don't use
windows so I don't know. Where are these from? The post is a bit vague.

Thanks
Andy

The Truth

2005-05-19, 5:46 pm

Anonymous wrote:

>Because they both use the Windows Mixmaster binaries.
>Did you know there's no source to these binaries?
>

Mixmaster source code is available.
Disastry's diff is available.
OpenSSL source code is available.
PCRE library source code is available.
zLib library source code is available.

You are a liar.

The Truth shall set you free.

-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Anonymous

2005-05-19, 5:46 pm

On Thu, 19 May 2005, news <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote:
>nemo_outis said the following on 17/05/2005 07:07 pm:
>Is this true? I mean about the pre-compiled binaries? I don't use
>windows so I don't know. Where are these from? The post is a bit vague.
>
>Thanks
>Andy

For Christ's sake, NO!! Don't you have the intelligence and good judgement
to recognize 1st class grade A FUD when you see it?

This living abortion has been in here trying to scare the newbies with this
same old TIIIIIRED crap for almost 2 years now.

His whole silly "Polymorphing DLL" schtick has been laughed off the page so
many times that he has decided to try another aproach. It is still
laughable.

It's probably a cop, or maybe a retired cop, who is just philosophically
opposed to privacy. It is the stupid old argument "If you don't have
anything to hide, you won't mind the government reading all of your
correspondence"

nemo_outis

2005-05-19, 8:45 pm

news <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote in
news:d6j2ru$j31$1@reader01.news.esat.net:

> Is this true? I mean about the pre-compiled binaries? I don't use
> windows so I don't know. Where are these from? The post is a bit
> vague.
>
> Thanks
> Andy
>

This is a classic example of bullshit FUD. The author is a major loon.

Yes, there may be pre-compiled binaries which act as a bit of a "black
box" and which you cannot be fully sure do not compromise your security.
But this is exactly the situation that obtains with **almost every piece
of commercial code** you will ever run in a Windows environment,
**including Windows itself!**

Some make open-source their sine qua non. However, open-source
application programs (e.g., email programs - even encrypted ones) running
under a closed-source operating system are, in terms of security, a
castle built on a foundation of sand. IOW, worrying about JBN or
Quicksilver binaries in a Windows environment is madness!

Moreover, even TOTAL open-source is not invincible. The classic
exposition is Kernighan's "Reflections on Trusting Trust" which is widely
available on the net. (PS Kernighan is one of the co-originators of the
C language, etc. so that gives you some idea of his heavyweight
credibility). Read it and weep.

http://budi.insan.co.id/courses/ec7...flections%20on%
20Trusting%20Trust.htm

However, for those even more theoretically inclined, it can be shown
(using reasonably broad definitions, constraints, etc.) as a corollary of
the "halting problem theorem" with respect to a Turing machine that there
CANNOT BE a universal process that can show an arbitrary program to be
free of "malware." The demonstration is left as an exercise for the
reader :-)

Regards,

PS Ain't life a XXXXX? :-)

Nicol So

2005-05-19, 8:45 pm

nemo_outis wrote:
>
> The classic
> exposition is Kernighan's "Reflections on Trusting Trust" which is widely
> available on the net.

That paper was written by Ken Thompson, not Brian Kernighan.

--
Nicol So
Disclaimer: Views expressed here are casual comments and should
not be relied upon as the basis for decisions of consequence.

nemo_outis

2005-05-20, 2:45 am

Nicol So <anonymous@no.spam.please> wrote in
news:z4bje.10548$dd.7464@trnddc09:

> nemo_outis wrote:
>
> That paper was written by Ken Thompson, not Brian Kernighan.
>

Whoops, brain fart.

Ah well, even Homer nods :-)

Regards,

Thrasher Remailer

2005-05-20, 7:46 am

In <d6j2ru$j31$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, nospamatall@iol.ie wrote:
>nemo_outis said the following on 17/05/2005 07:07 pm:
>

[snip FUD]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Is this true? I mean about the pre-compiled binaries? I don't use
>windows so I don't know. Where are these from? The post is a bit vague.
>
>Thanks
>Andy

Andy, don't pay any attention to shit like that, it's nothing but FUD and
will degrade your intellect if you pay attention to it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

Anonymous

2005-05-20, 7:46 am

On 20 May 2005, Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>In <d6j2ru$j31$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, nospamatall@iol.ie wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Andy, don't pay any attention to shit like that, it's nothing but FUD and
>will degrade your intellect if you pay attention to it.

Notice how the NSA troll attempts to divert attention away from the facts.

Look at the Quicksilver download site:
ftp://ftp.quicksilvermail.net/pub/quicksilver

It distributes binaries of Mix 2.9b39. No sources. In fact, you will find this
same binary all over the place.

The guy who compiled these binaries then mysteriously disappeared
for months right before being reported as dead in a mountaineering
accident.

And then this same self-professed group of security conscious paranoids
doesn't find anything remotely unusual about distributing these dubious
precompiled binaries to everyone in sight with no verification of any kind,
and they even scream incoherently in rage if you point out this is questionable
behavior.

It's all very, very fishy.

At least unless you realize the obvious conclusion. The Mixmaster
binaries are tainted and they blow your privacy.

Thomas J. Boschloo

2005-05-21, 5:46 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

nemo_outis wrote:
> Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in
> news:TL2P9X0H38489.5231944444@anonymous.poster:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hey, this should be right up your alley. Where can I get the best prices
> on tinfoil hats?

I think <http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html> can be very helpful..

...Thomas
- --
"I don't know, it just seems to be so incredibly beautiful. It's magic."
- - emmel, alt.games.creatures, may 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQo9PnAEP2l8iXKAJAQHHrgMfX7ItOc3y
Dbd8gINqBYle9Vp56n4OXeX5
ELgLA7F8Ic70ixe/Kkq/OYNK9Cs91IbNjc5QIP8lwFBFW/56E2y5lD7oEErNeQXC
DDtKXt0aKrOJMFRh1/1BAAO9Mo5vAgu0hwW4vA==
=VX2E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thomas J. Boschloo

2005-05-21, 5:46 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Anonymous wrote:
> On 20 May 2005, Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Notice how the NSA troll attempts to divert attention away from the facts.
>
> Look at the Quicksilver download site:
> ftp://ftp.quicksilvermail.net/pub/quicksilver
>
> It distributes binaries of Mix 2.9b39. No sources. In fact, you will find this
> same binary all over the place.

<http://sourceforge.net/project/show...lease_id=115068>??

It is too bad that Richard signed the win32 binaries however and not
Disastry himself. They could have been altered in transit IMHO:

gpg: Signature made 04/12/04 21:58:08 using DSA key ID 67D0D303
gpg: Good signature from "QuickSilver <quicksilver@quicksilvermail.net>"
gpg: aka "QuickSilver <quicksilver@skuz.net>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
owner.
Primary key fingerprint: B55A EE74 F592 8387 6294 E866 6F64 2EA9 67D0 D303

> The guy who compiled these binaries then mysteriously disappeared
> for months right before being reported as dead in a mountaineering
> accident.

I have had similar thoughts as yours however..

> And then this same self-professed group of security conscious paranoids
> doesn't find anything remotely unusual about distributing these dubious
> precompiled binaries to everyone in sight with no verification of any kind,
> and they even scream incoherently in rage if you point out this is questionable
> behavior.
>
> It's all very, very fishy.
>
> At least unless you realize the obvious conclusion. The Mixmaster
> binaries are tainted and they blow your privacy.

IIRC Disastry compiled them for Richard himself and he was the only one
who understood windows well enough to compile them to date unfortunately :-(

I sure miss him!
Thomas
- --
"I don't know, it just seems to be so incredibly beautiful. It's magic."
- - emmel, alt.games.creatures, may 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQo9RrgEP2l8iXKAJAQHW1AMggHknEOro
syjEUe/18IAKC44G1UtZlhlg
v9UeHyz2u3N7FDn2xj1FJQNCiXvA/Y0+7lDSPM9Ev7pKJ57Qp2tQQ9b4FdFZuCBa
TLT81m0JT2zfe4Jl00A6y1YJ31zK7eBQXRLBSw==

=+JLf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The Truth

2005-05-21, 5:46 pm

Anonymous

2005-05-22, 7:45 am

On 19 May 2005, Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (The Truth) wrote:
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Mixmaster source code is available.
>Disastry's diff is available.
>OpenSSL source code is available.
>PCRE library source code is available.
>zLib library source code is available.

So prove that the Windows binaries distributed on the QuiskSilver
page by Richard "Blow Your Privacy" Christman were actually
compiled from the source as modified by that diff.

Go ahead, Mr. Wizard. If you can't, that will just prove that you
are a BIG FAT LIAR.

nemo_outis

2005-05-22, 5:46 pm

Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in
news:YZS4TN8T38494.2775@anonymous.poster:

> On 19 May 2005, Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (The Truth) wrote:
>
> So prove that the Windows binaries distributed on the QuiskSilver
> page by Richard "Blow Your Privacy" Christman were actually
> compiled from the source as modified by that diff.
>
> Go ahead, Mr. Wizard. If you can't, that will just prove that you
> are a BIG FAT LIAR.

Prove that the Windows XP binaries were actually compiled by Microsoft and
not by "das elves in der black forest."

Anonymous

2005-05-22, 5:46 pm

On Sun, 22 May 2005, "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
>Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in
>news:YZS4TN8T38494.2775@anonymous.poster:
>
>
>
>
>Prove that the Windows XP binaries were actually compiled by Microsoft and
>not by "das elves in der black forest."

What about this is whooshing over your head, genius boy?

Mixmaster binaries for Windows are distributed through the QuickSilver site.
Most Windows users use these binaries.

There is absolutely no evidence these binaries were compiled from known
source.

What about this fits your definition of Open Source software?

These Mixmaster binaries are a black box of unknown origin, from an
individual who mysteriously died in a bizarre accident shortly after making
them.

But you don't think this is even worthy of note, choosing to mock it instead.
How much are you paid by the NSA anyway, to blow people's privacy?

The Truth

2005-05-22, 5:46 pm

Anonymous wrote:
>On 19 May 2005, Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (The Truth) wrote:
>
>So prove that the Windows binaries distributed on the QuiskSilver
>page by Richard "Blow Your Privacy" Christman were actually
>compiled from the source as modified by that diff.
>
>Go ahead, Mr. Wizard. If you can't, that will just prove that you
>are a BIG FAT LIAR.
>

You were caught in your lie.

You attempt to steer direction away from that truth.

There is no possibility to prove given binary
was compiled from a given source code.

You rely on this one truth to spread lies.
[vbcol=seagreen]

You have proved to be a liar.

The Truth shall set you free.

-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

nemo_outis

2005-05-22, 5:46 pm

Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in
news:CR7HSIWU38494.51@anonymous.poster:

> On Sun, 22 May 2005, "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> What about this is whooshing over your head, genius boy?
>
> Mixmaster binaries for Windows are distributed through the QuickSilver
> site. Most Windows users use these binaries.
>
> There is absolutely no evidence these binaries were compiled from
> known source.
>
> What about this fits your definition of Open Source software?

Uhh, it is only morons like you who need to point out that binaries, by
their very nature, are not open-source. You're a master of the obvious.

> These Mixmaster binaries are a black box of unknown origin, from an
> individual who mysteriously died in a bizarre accident shortly after
> making them.

Your brains have addled. Black box of unknown origin? Shit, I have
gigabytes of them!

I have hundreds of megabytes of closed-source binaries on my computer -
they're part of the Windows OS. And I have hundreds of megabytes more
of closed-source binaries for application programs run under that OS.
**Any one** of those could **completely subvert** any alleged protection
that an open-source email program that I compiled myself could provide me
(e.g. the Windows TCP stack as just one obvious example).

Run openBSD or something like that and maybe open-source apps have a
point; otherwise you're a complete idiot - and an annoying whining one at
that!

As for "mysteriously died in a bizarre accident"? Ya think cosmic death
rays got him? Or maybe he and Elvis both were "raptured?"

> But you don't think this is even worthy of note, choosing to mock it
> instead. How much are you paid by the NSA anyway, to blow people's
> privacy?

It is a trivial commonplace unworthy of note that binaries are not
inherently trustworthy unless you have compiled them yourself (and maybe
not even then as the Ken Thompson paper I cited earlier attests). And
any program - even an open-source one - run on a closed-source OS is a
castle built on sand!

However, if compiling your own binaries matters so much to you, then do
it, But, in any case, quit bleating and whining, you moronic troll.

Oh, and maybe get a chinstrap for your tinfoil hat. Don't want that
coming off at a crucial moment and the cosmic death rays getting you.
After all, with you bravely pointing out the dread conspiracy on usenet,
you're a marked man!

Oh, as for the NSA - you got me; I'm outed; I 'fess up. For thwarting
crucial whistleblowers like you, the NSA pays me millions.

Regards,

Anonymous

2005-05-23, 5:49 pm

The Truth

2005-05-23, 5:49 pm

Tom Giarmo

2005-05-23, 5:49 pm

On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:54:16 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

> Prove that the Windows XP binaries were actually compiled by Microsoft and
> not by "das elves in der black forest."

Prove that fukken Cotse isn't reading your emails and dumping their logs,
CaptainWannabeGielda.

Tom Giarmo

2005-05-23, 5:49 pm

On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:29:42 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

> Oh, as for the NSA - you got me; I'm outed; I 'fess up. For thwarting
> crucial whistleblowers like you, the NSA pays me millions.

I thought you said you're a fukken money launderer?

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer

2005-05-23, 5:49 pm

In <1brwd7o3fz5nw$.1igrkvwga0o7i.dlg@40tude.net>, TomGiarmoI@use.net wrote:
>On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:54:16 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>
>Prove that fukken Cotse isn't reading your emails and dumping their logs,
>CaptainWannabeGielda.

That's Easy. I don't USE Cotse. *All* of my mail is encrypted and remailed

Anonymous

2005-05-23, 8:45 pm

In article <UTEWL4C438495.3673842593@anonymous.poster>
Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> On 20 May 2005, Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Notice how the NSA troll attempts to divert attention away from the facts.
>
> Look at the Quicksilver download site:
> ftp://ftp.quicksilvermail.net/pub/quicksilver
>
> It distributes binaries of Mix 2.9b39. No sources. In fact, you will find this
> same binary all over the place.
>
> The guy who compiled these binaries then mysteriously disappeared
> for months right before being reported as dead in a mountaineering
> accident.
>
> And then this same self-professed group of security conscious paranoids
> doesn't find anything remotely unusual about distributing these dubious
> precompiled binaries to everyone in sight with no verification of any kind,
> and they even scream incoherently in rage if you point out this is questionable
> behavior.
>
> It's all very, very fishy.
>
> At least unless you realize the obvious conclusion. The Mixmaster
> binaries are tainted and they blow your privacy.

Shut the XXXX up patrick. You've always hated Christman because
people like his software and not even one remop would use your phoney
nym server program. Hell, no one would even join your XXXXing mailing
list. You are a pathetic little liar. No one wants anything to do
with you so you strike out hatefully as you always have.

BTW The source is there just where you said it would not be.

Anonymous

2005-05-24, 2:45 am

Tom Giarmo

2005-05-25, 5:47 pm

On Mon, 23 May 2005 21:20:06 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous via the Cypherpunks
Tonga Remailer wrote:

>
> That's Easy. I don't USE Cotse. *All* of my mail is encrypted and remailed

I was talking to nemo the idiot.

nobody@winstonsmith.info

2005-05-26, 8:45 pm

This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
server at winnie.winstonsmith.info. If you do not want to receive
anonymous messages, please contact winnie-admin@winstonsmith.info

-----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext

In <3qn8wnhnzqad$.j63wednvfpte.dlg@40tude.net> TomGiarmo@use.net wrote:
>On Mon
>23 May 2005 21:20:06 +0200 (CEST)
>Anonymous via the Cypherpunks
>Tonga Remailer wrote:
>
>22 May 2005 14:54:16 GMT
>nemo_outis wrote:
>
>
>I was talking to nemo the idiot.
>

There is no nemo, nemo outis is an illusion

- --
This message brought to you by a new mixminion GUI under development

-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----

Thomas J. Boschloo

2005-05-28, 5:45 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Anonymous wrote:
<snip>

> It's all very, very fishy.
>
> At least unless you realize the obvious conclusion. The Mixmaster
> binaries are tainted and they blow your privacy.

Do you understand enough about programming to tell us in which
(unnoticeable) ways Mixmaster might blow your privacy? E.g. if Mixmaster
started connecting to sites all over the internet your firewall would
catch this. If you are going to be paranoid, at least do a good job at
documenting your fears. Then, if anything is left, publish them.. You're
not doing any good for the group now with biased assumptions and the
sources are at
<http://sourceforge.net/project/show...lease_id=115068>
as I already pointed out in this thread.

Just curious,
Thomas
- --
"I don't know, it just seems to be so incredibly beautiful. It's magic."
- - emmel, alt.games.creatures, may 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQpib4gEP2l8iXKAJAQGVhAMfb4Xi1xX4
sRaXBwXpl9+wu20TTik39yTA
tysswqVOs4tBRP4LDL5YuaXSh4mwUZVlAFXer6rp
EtZbMHy2xHc6L6gUhlJsNbe7
xy655uqojDFmJpBSjdFOmYbfdIn03Ho+PGAg8w==

=0MXW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thomas J. Boschloo

2005-05-28, 5:45 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Anonymous wrote:
<snip>

> So prove that the Windows binaries distributed on the QuiskSilver
> page by Richard "Blow Your Privacy" Christman were actually
> compiled from the source as modified by that diff.
>
> Go ahead, Mr. Wizard. If you can't, that will just prove that you
> are a BIG FAT LIAR.

Proof that the Quicksilver program was compiled from the sources on
Richard's site. Proof that JBN2 was compiled from the sources signed by
RProcess. Proof that the Mixmaster 2.0.4b46 for windows was compiled
from the sources signed by Len. Proof that /any/ binary was compiled
from /any/ source and we will take some more..

I can't even fukken proof that
<http://home.hccnet.nl/t.j.boschloo/wordcnt> or
<http://home.hccnet.nl/t.j.boschloo/netsafer> was compiled by me, but me
signing it and my memory seems to implicate that..

Just for the sake of argument, the original 2.9b39 didn't work from the
commandline because the wrong dll was supplied with it (from an old
version of something). Richard changed this and resigned the whole
distribution.

Thomas
- --
"I don't know, it just seems to be so incredibly beautiful. It's magic."
- - emmel, alt.games.creatures, may 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQpigowEP2l8iXKAJAQG3OAMfUW4cHpKd
Zv3XT4bZJeRhJTkOkbC3W08k
9EKt0sZx00vtIcsWXeQYOIU/j67rdMEGoFN05c8/ixiBc0c99VPAa5PEwvnE8yME
Y75NJVy4C4M3T4zkM2CjW/wzXuxt7DMkKbNkSg==
=8HNX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thomas J. Boschloo

2005-05-28, 5:45 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Thomas J. Boschloo wrote:
<snip>
> from the sources signed by Len. Proof that /any/ binary was compiled
> from /any/ source and we will take some more..

Sorry, I meant to say "Then we will _talk_ some more",
Thomas
- --
"You can't be safer, can't be more secure than with a breast in each
palm, that's the way I was born and that's the way I want to die" -
Sugarcubes, Mama, 1988
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQpjraQEP2l8iXKAJAQEUwgMgmUuy46BJ
jydZfv86y4vjrak2wNfgBRf+
2jKmXVgeacvoFG+/gwtES1l7++ufk8qN0mKGK+QZ18JkofQ2/5uMzywgTSSBv0UC
7M7akyqshqottUQFFxKbvUohhchKs8SxpamwrA==

=cNzH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Nomen Nescio

2005-05-29, 7:45 am

In <4298a24f$0$147$3a628fcd@reader2.nntp.hccnet.nl>,
nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid wrote:
>=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
>Signature: 0x225CA009
>Date:
>Status: INVALID (Unknown)
>
>Anonymous wrote:
><snip>
>
>
>Proof that the Quicksilver program was compiled from the sources on
>Richard's site. Proof that JBN2 was compiled from the sources signed by
>RProcess. Proof that the Mixmaster 2.0.4b46 for windows was compiled
>from the sources signed by Len. Proof that /any/ binary was compiled
>from /any/ source and we will take some more..
>
>I can't even fukken proof that
><http://home.hccnet.nl/t.j.boschloo/wordcnt> or
><http://home.hccnet.nl/t.j.boschloo/netsafer> was compiled by me, but me
>signing it and my memory seems to implicate that..
>
>Just for the sake of argument, the original 2.9b39 didn't work from the
>commandline because the wrong dll was supplied with it (from an old
>version of something). Richard changed this and resigned the whole
>distribution.
>
>Thomas

Then that was a really bad mistake on the part of Richard Christman.

He *should* have made a new archive. in it should be:

1) the original distribution with it's original signature.

2) another archive from Richard with the corrected dll and a readme that
explained what it was for and how to install it.
appropriately signed by Richard.

That would have a MUCH better trust factor than what he DID do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

Thomas J. Boschloo

2005-05-29, 5:46 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> In <4298a24f$0$147$3a628fcd@reader2.nntp.hccnet.nl>,
> nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid wrote:
<snip>
>
>
>
> Then that was a really bad mistake on the part of Richard Christman.
>
> He *should* have made a new archive. in it should be:
>
> 1) the original distribution with it's original signature.
>
> 2) another archive from Richard with the corrected dll and a readme that
> explained what it was for and how to install it.
> appropriately signed by Richard.
>
> That would have a MUCH better trust factor than what he DID do.

Why do you trust Disastry over Richard?
Thomas
- --
"You can't be safer, can't be more secure than with a breast in each
palm, that's the way I was born and that's the way I want to die" -
Sugarcubes, Mama, 1988
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQpnPIQEP2l8iXKAJAQFTYgMdExYb0qW3
/x37/Ew++4kyRoNo/9PeX0sq
JCWh8TSlHlDYQFkFmCJXmo1ifa2GYPS1qSU5kFUy
vNnBp62jkaaABBZ1POrTalWb
JN3JO6z/7QwQw0/wlGr7xrajG36oll0yqB/JvQ==
=DQCI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----