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

Hello,

The Komite nymserver will cease all operations no later than august
31st. New nym creations are already no longer possible, and users are
advised to migrate elsewhere as soon as possible.

Regards,

The Komite nymop.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

 iD8DBQFGmzBXTUld8sb4OVwRAkFmAJ981KR16USZ
MKcgCYRi7SDw/cIyAgCfWFhq
l5emdO2bqKv1YzOa3kjwryY=
=qRxQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> Hello,
>
> The Komite nymserver will cease all operations no later than august
> 31st. New nym creations are already no longer possible, and users are
> advised to migrate elsewhere as soon as possible.
>
> Regards,
>
> The Komite nymop.

Thanks for letting us know. May I ask why you decided to close it?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

Anonymous schreef: 
>
> Thanks for letting us know. May I ask why you decided to close it?

Because it is end of life??
Maybe an experimental mixminion server will take its place. Who knows!

Thomas
- --
I am the M-1
I kill for fun
I kill
for Thrill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

 iQB5AwUBRp9lZgEP2l8iXKAJAQFBHwMfa4xUDsG+
4ZCqNWDgiy9Cu2yNd255hct/
LG1jkbcKPeSJv1qgXS/ kMT9nnbV4HHm75J0UoSo0l8JzBxb6Fgdh7IvfDG+
UKz53
 Fa+hb3E4yhiNFfSBuJ77ZN5TN7CuJHaFDiid5Q==

=g4Fk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 18 juil, 18:35, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Thanks for letting us know. May I ask why you decided to close it?

As I plan to replace this computer with a new low profile machine, it
was a perfect opportunity to acknowledge the fact that type I
nymserver is broken, as are basically all reply-blocks based
nymservers (yes, including type III according to
http://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/p...article-620.pdf section
4.2).

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Laurent Fousse <lfousse@gmail.com> wrote:

> As I plan to replace this computer with a new low profile machine, it
> was a perfect opportunity to acknowledge the fact that type I
> nymserver is broken, as are basically all reply-blocks based
> nymservers (yes, including type III according to
> http://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/p...article-620.pdf section
> 4.2).

Since more secure alternatives aren't available, even type I
nymservers seem to be an acceptable solution unless the replyblock
contains the nymholder's address. IMHO it's the user who has to decide
whether he can accept the well-known weaknesses of a nymserver for the
intended job.

Many thanks for your service.
.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer schreef:
> Laurent Fousse <lfousse@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>
> Since more secure alternatives aren't available, even type I
> nymservers seem to be an acceptable solution unless the replyblock
> contains the nymholder's address. IMHO it's the user who has to decide
> whether he can accept the well-known weaknesses of a nymserver for the
> intended job.

But it is for the remop to decide if he can get the user the level of
security he wants to protect against. I played with the idea of running
a mixmaster remailer earlier this year, but that involved running a mail
service on the same machine. Something I don't think I am capable of
(yet) and something that is not as secure as I would like the remailer I
envision running to be.

Not every potential remop uses the threat model of Eelbash Admin (if it
produces output given a certain input then it must be secure)

Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBRqD+yAEP2l8iXKAJAQFPbQMcD5RC/QwcmJUBUNBm3CfW57R1txIVvGKN
 vLQqIWxzTsheD9wikqHUR18R8LAf76BbJjRiiTnm
2dWGJXxp0N+Gs1XiPjL0clNM
pDy2P+DHg7g2qMIYdHZSZV6UU/0DEWH4V4gAMQ==
=cEq/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article < 92e2a9ebd011a7e4be0eb59c6e149814@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>
>
> Laurent Fousse <lfousse@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>
> Since more secure alternatives aren't available, even type I
> nymservers seem to be an acceptable solution unless the replyblock
> contains the nymholder's address. IMHO it's the user who has to decide
> whether he can accept the well-known weaknesses of a nymserver for the
> intended job.
>
> Many thanks for your service.
> .

If I understood it right, according to section 4.2 a nym can be "statistical
ly broken" when it is used frequently enough. I am not sure someone in dire 
need of security would keep the same nym for too long or wouldn't use a news
group as an exit point (whi
ch I think is possible?)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

Laurent Fousse <lfousse@gmail.com> writes:

> As I plan to replace this computer with a new low profile machine, it
> was a perfect opportunity to acknowledge the fact that type I
> nymserver is broken, as are basically all reply-blocks based
> nymservers (yes, including type III according to
> http://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/p...article-620.pdf section
> 4.2).

Nym reply blocks should post replies to alt.anonymous.messages to
avoid these problems.  The user then selects her replies from among
the posted articles and ignores the rest.  She takes a full feed of
a.a.m at all times without interruption and does the selection on her
own machine out of public view, so nobody sees which she selects.

Every user interested in privacy should be taking a full feed of
newsgroup alt.anonymous.messages at all times without interruption.
It has uses other than nym reply blocks, such as stealthmail.


-- StealthMonger
<StealthMonger@nym.alias.net>
<StealthMonger@hod.aarg.net>
<StealthMonger@nym.panta-rhei.eu.org>
--
stealthmail: Scripts to hide whether you're doing email, or when,
or with whom.  http://stealthsuite.afflictions.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

 iD8DBQFGoTx1DkU5rhlDCl4RAjiAAKCfT6tp7VBR
YJrWpGYAFoj4aDf8RACgqoI3
EF+L5hH8mOW83qM5+NUa3bQ=
=4dfE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer schreef:
> In article < 92e2a9ebd011a7e4be0eb59c6e149814@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>
> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote: 
>
> If I understood it right, according to section 4.2 a nym can be "statistically bro
ken" when it is used frequently enough. I am not sure someone in dire need of securi
ty would keep the same nym for too long or wouldn't use a newsgroup as an exit point
 (w
hich I think is possible?)

The problem as I understand it is that you cannot control how much mail
your nym gets.

What is worse, your reply block unwraps as a gift revealing your e-mail
address (unless you drop to aam). Once you put your reply block at the
nym server of your choice, you cannot put it back into the bottle. And
cypherpunk keys aren't changed that often :-(

Thomas
- --
"Every time a car horn blows, an angel gets it's wings"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

 iQB5AwUBRqSTWgEP2l8iXKAJAQGrRgMguAoicIlN
4EhREMf6H5YKLep+Bbc2WcKT
KZw+7/ oxungMllEoejDWs+HtM7omYyPezGNLdn8OxlPhvQ
qmgxahtAQt4WzGtvbE
 W0x5RBRcQTjGHlpP3RqTSFGlkCgdqYlJOXrEMA==

=sZ5+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

lfousse@gmail.com (Laurent Fousse) wrote:

> was a perfect opportunity to acknowledge the fact that type I
> nymserver is broken, as are basically all reply-blocks based
> nymservers (yes, including type III according to
> http://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/p...article-620.pdf section
> 4.2).

Am I right, that this is only important, when an adversary knows
the real
email-address and needs a confirmation?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]