|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > August 2006 > help with nym servers
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
help with nym servers
|
|
| Anonymous 2006-08-29, 7:15 pm |
| So there are four running nym servers, komite, nym,
pantanym, and hod.
I've successfully configured a hod nym in the past, but it
isn't reliable and is "unmanned" as someone said here
recently.
nym.alias.net won't work with GPG and hasn't had a key
update in years. Is it unmanned too?
Will GPG (rather than PGP) work with komite and pantanym?
What restrictions on key types and sizes are there?
| |
| Anonymous 2006-08-29, 7:15 pm |
| On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Anonymous <nobody@mixmin.net> wrote:
>So there are four running nym servers, komite, nym,
>pantanym, and hod.
>
>I've successfully configured a hod nym in the past, but it
>isn't reliable and is "unmanned" as someone said here
>recently.
>
>nym.alias.net won't work with GPG and hasn't had a key
>update in years. Is it unmanned too?
>
>Will GPG (rather than PGP) work with komite and pantanym?
>What restrictions on key types and sizes are there?
Use PGP, will you?
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2006-08-30, 7:14 am |
| On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 02:05:26 +0200 (CEST)
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Anonymous <nobody@mixmin.net> wrote:
>
> Use PGP, will you?
What the XXXX for? GPG works fine for komite or panta (or Hod, when its up).
I use gpg4win in Windows, default settings; or there are other GUI's in Linux
you can use. Better to avoid IDEA/RSA unless you have it installed for sure.
2048/4096 keys work; can't say about anything else.
| |
| Anonyma 2006-08-30, 7:14 am |
| Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> What the XXXX for? GPG works fine for komite or panta (or Hod, when its up).
> I use gpg4win in Windows, default settings; or there are other GUI's in Linux
> you can use. Better to avoid IDEA/RSA unless you have it installed for sure.
> 2048/4096 keys work; can't say about anything else.
Thank you for a sensible and helpful answer!
| |
| Anonyma 2006-08-30, 1:14 pm |
| > >Will GPG (rather than PGP) work with komite and pantanym?
>
> Use PGP, will you?
Why?
GPG is open source, PGP is proprietary.
| |
| Anonyma 2006-08-30, 1:14 pm |
| Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> What the XXXX for? GPG works fine for komite or panta (or Hod, when its up).
> I use gpg4win in Windows, default settings; or there are other GUI's in Linux
> you can use.
> Better to avoid IDEA/RSA unless you have it installed for sure.
Not sure I understand this part --- if I did't have RSA
installed, I wouldn't be able to use it in my key! As to IDEA, you
mean for the Encrypt-Key: symmetric encryption of the nym server's
output, right?
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-08-30, 1:14 pm |
| Anonyma wrote:
>
> Why?
> GPG is open source, PGP is proprietary.
Nonsense! PGP is also Open Source and has been since day one with the
exception of a couple version 7 releases I believe.
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2006-08-30, 7:13 pm |
| On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:07:58 -0400 (EDT)
Anonyma <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Not sure I understand this part --- if I did't have RSA installed, I wouldn't
> be able to use it in my key! As to IDEA, you mean for the Encrypt-Key:
> symmetric encryption of the nym server's output, right?
>
Sorry, it isn't very clear is it.. 
I'm talking about IDEA - and its best to have it, even if you are not using
Encrypt-Key. I found I needed it with pantanym, but not komite, even when using
Encrypt-3DES: I could decrypt the symmetric-key stages, but not the message
encrypted with my own key by the nymserver (pantanym) - even using a DSA key -
unless I had IDEA included with my gnupg. XXXX knows why - but that's how it
worked.
| |
| anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca 2006-08-30, 7:13 pm |
| This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
server at deuxpi.ca. If you do not want to receive anonymous
messages, please contact deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca. For more information
about anonymity, see http://mixminion.net.
In <d96404e98c98b96f8625e8de2a7f5cf4@pseudo.borked.net> Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>Anonyma wrote:
>
>
>Nonsense! PGP is also Open Source and has been since day one with the
>exception of a couple version 7 releases I believe.
Actually, you are incorrect. See the definition of "Open Source" below.
http://www.internet-guide.co.uk/open-source.html
Open Source
Open source is computer software source code that is freely available to anyone to alter. Software companies often makes their software Open Source so that volunteers can alter and improve it and therefore create a loyal community. An official description
for Open Source is "free of distribution restrictions, not necessarily free of charge" and when programmers release an altered version their is various Open Source licenses available.
PGP's licensing has not met this definition since version 2.3 PGP's Licene does NOT permit
re-engineer or modify the program and release your own modified version. That source is
distributed only for review. For modern versions of PGP, you have to sign a
Non Disclosure Agreement to even see it. That's NOT open. It's anything BUT open.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-08-30, 7:13 pm |
| anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca wrote:
>
> Actually, you are incorrect. See the definition of "Open Source" below.
Indeed. Open Source was a poor choice of words. The issue at hand
however is the distinction between PGP being proprietary or not, as the
poster asserted. It certainly isn't.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-08-30, 7:13 pm |
| On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca wrote:
>This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
>server at deuxpi.ca. If you do not want to receive anonymous
>messages, please contact deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca. For more information
>about anonymity, see http://mixminion.net.
>
>In <d96404e98c98b96f8625e8de2a7f5cf4@pseudo.borked.net> Borked Pseudo
>Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
>Actually, you are incorrect. See the definition of "Open Source" below.
>
>http://www.internet-guide.co.uk/open-source.html
>Open Source
>
>Open source is computer software source code that is freely available to
>anyone to alter. Software companies often makes their software open source
>so that volunteers can alter and improve it and therefore create a loyal
>community. An official description for Open Source is "free of
>distribution restrictions, not necessarily free of charge" and when
>programmers release an altered version their is various open source
>licenses available.
>
>PGP's licensing has not met this definition since version 2.3 PGP's Licene
>does NOT permit
>re-engineer or modify the program and release your own modified version.
>That source is
>distributed only for review. For modern versions of PGP, you have to sign a
>Non Disclosure Agreement to even see it. That's NOT open. It's anything
>BUT open.
You are playing stupid little semantics games. OK, fine, PGP doesn't meet
you preferred definition of "open source". However, it is Open Source in
the broader, more literal definition.
PGP source code is available for peer review, and once you have it, you may
compile it on your own.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-08-31, 1:16 am |
| On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca wrote:
>
>You are playing stupid little semantics games. OK, fine, PGP doesn't meet
>you preferred definition of "open source". However, it is Open Source in
>the broader, more literal definition.
No, It does not. The definition that legally counts is the one where PGP
corporation defines the license which spells out what you are and are not
permitted to do with it.
>PGP source code is available for peer review, and once you have it, you may
>compile it on your own.
yes, once you agree to their terms you can obtain the source and compile it
on your own, but ONLY for testing purposes assosiated with reviewing the
source code.
See http://www.pgp.com/downloads/source...de_license.html for
details
GnuPG is true open-source,licensed under the GPL.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-08-31, 1:16 am |
| Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!
newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.germany.com!news.motzarella.org
!news.ainex.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news
From: Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>
Subject: Re: help with nym servers
Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server
X-No-Archive: yes
Message-ID: < 570a18f5210535d7b8b5b1c7ac61f9cd@remaile
r.paranoici.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 05:11:20 +0200 (CEST)
Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com
Organization: mail2news@dizum.com
Lines: 94
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca wrote:
>
>You are playing stupid little semantics games. OK, fine, PGP doesn't meet
>you preferred definition of "open source". However, it is Open Source in
>the broader, more literal definition.
No, It does not. The definition that legally counts is the one where PGP
corporation defines the license which spells out what you are and are not
permitted to do with it.
>PGP source code is available for peer review, and once you have it, you may
>compile it on your own.
yes, once you agree to their terms you can obtain the source and compile it
on your own, but ONLY for testing purposes assosiated with reviewing the
source code.
See http://www.pgp.com/downloads/source...de_license.html for
details
GnuPG is true open-source,licensed under the GPL.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
>No, It does not. The definition that legally counts is the one where PGP
>corporation defines the license which spells out what you are and are not
>permitted to do with it.
>
>
>yes, once you agree to their terms you can obtain the source and compile it
>on your own, but ONLY for testing purposes assosiated with reviewing the
>source code.
>
>See http://www.pgp.com/downloads/source...de_license.html for
>details
>
>GnuPG is true open-source,licensed under the GPL.
Yes, swell, wonderful for it. It doesn't make it any better than PGP.
You are trying to argue the meaning of the phrase "open source" while
ignoring the point. The point being that while it imposes restrictions on
what you can do with it's source code, PGP source code is available for
peer review. It *is* peer reviewed. Meeting the exact description of "open
source" does not mean it is less secure.
GPG is no safer, it is just "cooler".
| |
| George Orwell 2006-08-31, 1:16 am |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
> No, It does not. The definition that legally counts
<SNIP>
If this were a court of law you might have a valid point.
This is Usenet, so you're just playing stupid little semantics games.
| |
| Anonyma 2006-08-31, 1:14 pm |
| Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:07:58 -0400 (EDT)
> Anonyma <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
> Sorry, it isn't very clear is it..
Now it is, thanks.
> I'm talking about IDEA - and its best to have it, even if you are not using
> Encrypt-Key. I found I needed it with pantanym, but not komite, even when using
> Encrypt-3DES: I could decrypt the symmetric-key stages, but not the message
> encrypted with my own key by the nymserver (pantanym) - even using a DSA key -
> unless I had IDEA included with my gnupg. XXXX knows why - but that's how it
> worked.
No problem, it's easy enough to include IDEA if you compile gnupg from
source.
|
|
|
|
|