The truth about RProcess

RProcess was not an individual as most think. It's a code name for a team of
programmers. They produced programs like Potato, JBN1, JBN2, Reliable, and
others. This was done for the NSC, CIA, and FBI. The anonymous community was
grateful for an easy way of secure communications, no more hand rolling and
manual encrypting. They even released the source code, proving how safe thei
r
programs were.(NOT) A group from the UK discovered discrepancies in the
coding. When RProcess was confronted the team was quickly disbanded. This
fact, and that the FBI runs most remailer today put you in great danger.
More to come.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <cup3vt$g6a$1@domitilla.aioe.org>
afriend@forprivacy.net (A Friend) wrote:
>
> The truth about RProcess
>
> RProcess was not an individual as most think. It's a code name for a team 
of
> programmers. They produced programs like Potato, JBN1, JBN2, Reliable, and
> others. This was done for the NSC, CIA, and FBI. The anonymous community w
as
> grateful for an easy way of secure communications, no more hand rolling an
d
> manual encrypting. They even released the source code, proving how safe th
eir
> programs were.(NOT) A group from the UK discovered discrepancies in the
> coding. When RProcess was confronted the team was quickly disbanded. This
> fact, and that the FBI runs most remailer today put you in great danger.
> More to come.

This reminds me of the movie "Conspiracy Theory."  The
protagonist
made wild allegations that no one took seriously, and most of
them were clearly false and based on no evidence other than
his own twisted mind.

In the movie he got one right, and what a surprise it was.  This
insinuation about RProcess, however, is based on nothing but
the peculiar nick chosen by RProcess.

Likewise, the idea of a competent government employee running
remailers in order to compromise the remailer network is
plain old bunk.  Even if they could run remailers, they
would still not be able to put it all together.  If the
final message is PGP encrypted, and either retrieved
at aam or in another newsgroup, the FBI would have simply
aided and abetted the criminals they should have been
trying to stop.  Unless the *entire* remailer network and
all nym servers were run by the government, there could
be no advantage.

Well, that's too much written about this silly matter.

J. A. Prufrock

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

">
> I think it's interesting all these bullshit posts started showing up just
> about the time the quicksilver-support troll, meqsuser, popped his ugly
> head up again.

It is him 4 sure,  meqsuser = mefagot troll paid by QS

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <cup3vt$g6a$1@domitilla.aioe.org>
afriend@forprivacy.net (A Friend) wrote:
>
> The truth about RProcess
>
> RProcess was not an individual as most think. It's a code name for a team 
of
> programmers. They produced programs like Potato, JBN1, JBN2, Reliable, and
> others. This was done for the NSC, CIA, and FBI. The anonymous community w
as
> grateful for an easy way of secure communications, no more hand rolling an
d
> manual encrypting. They even released the source code, proving how safe th
eir
> programs were.(NOT) A group from the UK discovered discrepancies in the
> coding. When RProcess was confronted the team was quickly disbanded. This
> fact, and that the FBI runs most remailer today put you in great danger.
> More to come.

This reminds me of the movie "Conspiracy Theory."  The
protagonist
made wild allegations that no one took seriously, and most of
them were clearly false and based on no evidence other than
his own twisted mind.

In the movie he got one right, and what a surprise it was.  This
insinuation about RProcess, however, is based on nothing but
the peculiar nick chosen by RProcess.

Likewise, the idea of a competent government employee running
remailers in order to compromise the remailer network is
plain old bunk.  Even if they could run remailers, they
would still not be able to put it all together.  If the
final message is PGP encrypted, and either retrieved
at aam or in another newsgroup, the FBI would have simply
aided and abetted the criminals they should have been
trying to stop.  Unless the *entire* remailer network and
all nym servers were run by the government, there could
be no advantage.

Well, that's too much written about this silly matter.

J. A. Prufrock

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

Thrasher Remailer wrote:
| On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, afriend@forprivacy.net (A Friend) wrote:
|
|>The truth about RProcess
|>
|>RProcess was not an individual as most think. It's a code name for a
team of
|>programmers. They produced programs like Potato, JBN1, JBN2, Reliable,
and
|>others. This was done for the NSC, CIA, and FBI. The anonymous
community was
|>grateful for an easy way of secure communications, no more hand
rolling and
|>manual encrypting. They even released the source code, proving how
safe their
|>programs were.(NOT) A group from the UK discovered discrepancies in the
|>coding. When RProcess was confronted the team was quickly disbanded. This
|>fact, and that the FBI runs most remailer today put you in great danger.
|>More to come.
|
|
| Bullshit. There was never any group from the UK that discovered anything.
| The source code has been examined countless times throughout the years by
| many experts. No holes have ever been found.

Use of the Visual Basic Rnd() function for cryptographic purposes anyone
(e.g. used in Esub)? Stop-and-Go mixes anyone (Reliable)? Two almost
fatal flaws that would have be avoided by a more (cryptographically)
capable development team..

Thomas
- --
"All my life, I've always wondered, What it would be like to fire a
ballistic missile" - Wonderfully colored plastic war toys, The Dead
Milkmen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

 iQB5AwUBQhhnUAEP2l8iXKAJAQFa8AMdGG1kScJa
z6fiaUJRHiAZgtIyVaYr31P7
SCUVx8mwY3ohCeig6O9m/ z2Nx8nmYFIHJPXTnrnp+PEYycaxqPItr17T2sNpF
Rhi
 3A40lqevRc+Pvo+8m1cZlehGBZv52GxHeUSH6w==

=v90d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

J.Alfred Prufrock wrote:

<snip>

| Likewise, the idea of a competent government employee running
| remailers in order to compromise the remailer network is
| plain old bunk.  Even if they could run remailers, they
| would still not be able to put it all together.  If the
| final message is PGP encrypted, and either retrieved
| at aam or in another newsgroup, the FBI would have simply
| aided and abetted the criminals they should have been
| trying to stop.  Unless the *entire* remailer network and
| all nym servers were run by the government, there could
| be no advantage.
|
| Well, that's too much written about this silly matter.

It might be silly, but I believe that our intelligence services run
remailers themselves. They do this to protect their own employees and to
track non-government users. All this would be under the supervision of
the US (CIA?).

If the first and the last hop of a remailer message are done through a
government observed remailer, the timing between the first and last hop
will correlate depending on how many hops are in between and their
latent time. Especially Reliable remailer servers will have an average
of their latent-time's latency.

Note that with Mixmaster remailers, you cannot set the latent time
directive. And also remember that Cypherpunk is highly insecure and
replayable like a reply block would.

If the CIA would run half the remailers in the world (or control their
inner working), they could probably pretty much recover the route of all
traffic through the remailer network. Assuming they also control the
first and last hop of the remailer network. By getting good stats and
reliability the last hop can practically be forced and by offering e.g.
TLS the first hop can be forced.

Also remember RProcesses essay on disappearing traffic.. He basically
said that uncontrolled traffic would disappear into the void.
<http://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/rprocess.html>

I think that is enough for now,
Thomas
- --
"All my life, I've always wondered, What it would be like to fire a
ballistic missile" - Wonderfully colored plastic war toys, The Dead
Milkmen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQhhtvQEP2l8iXKAJAQH/cwMdFJ1p4i7FTMn2DZ8TVCUKgdtQHFmT2VN3
 JqrmhHNLP3VxqWAAZ9mQ5eofJ4zlESWTYjfUxGjj
sLPgxSv1zdBVOr15gppH3flj
 5IOPKWCjTiP00KW0y1kEVhG4LIxlxdAD++7KfQ==

=cmJ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

afriend@forprivacy.net wrote:
>The truth about RProcess

<snip>

>More to come.

Yeh? We're waiting ............

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <42186ea3$0$772$3a628fcd@reader10.nntp.hccnet.nl>, Thomas J.
Boschloo wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Thrasher Remailer wrote:
>| On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, afriend@forprivacy.net (A Friend) wrote:
>|
>|>The truth about RProcess
>|>
>|>RProcess was not an individual as most think. It's a code name for a
>team of
>|>programmers. They produced programs like Potato, JBN1, JBN2, Reliable,
>and
>|>others. This was done for the NSC, CIA, and FBI. The anonymous
>community was
>|>grateful for an easy way of secure communications, no more hand
>rolling and
>|>manual encrypting. They even released the source code, proving how
>safe their
>|>programs were.(NOT) A group from the UK discovered discrepancies in the
>|>coding. When RProcess was confronted the team was quickly disbanded. This
>|>fact, and that the FBI runs most remailer today put you in great danger.
>|>More to come.
>|
>|
>| Bullshit. There was never any group from the UK that discovered anything.
>| The source code has been examined countless times throughout the years by
>| many experts. No holes have ever been found.
>
>Use of the Visual Basic Rnd() function for cryptographic purposes anyone
>(e.g. used in Esub)? Stop-and-Go mixes anyone (Reliable)? Two almost
>fatal flaws that would have be avoided by a more (cryptographically)
>capable development team..
>
>Thomas

Panta Admin fixed that, please get off 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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

Anonymous via Panta Rhei wrote:
> In article <42186ea3$0$772$3a628fcd@reader10.nntp.hccnet.nl>, Thomas J.
> Boschloo wrote:
> 
>
>
> Panta Admin fixed that, please get off it.

I was refuting the statement "No holes have ever been found". Just like
QS, JBN2 has had bugs and RProcess is not a godlike cryptographer that
can produce code without errors.

Thomas
- --
"All my life, I've always wondered, What it would be like to fire a
ballistic missile" - Wonderfully colored plastic war toys, The Dead
Milkmen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

 iQB5AwUBQiCQGgEP2l8iXKAJAQEIoQMgmTt4WQ0R
JqfQ6k9mE+2DKYmSqlctzgFG
 VpkErCaVtk1GViSAMuMo5hq2irIT+74JuHgq61bX
WAKJ9lYSsxNBmphsOuwIZJM7
7zFbR5PdJ7F5NZfn2/I7gKmPcunjsgkV/1kWHg==
=b05A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, "Thomas J. Boschloo" <nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Anonymous via Panta Rhei wrote: 
>
>I was refuting the statement "No holes have ever been found". Just like
>QS, JBN2 has had bugs and RProcess is not a godlike cryptographer that
>can produce code without errors.
>

Well pal, we would all be using someone else's software then. What, no one
else put the time and effort into producing an alternate and better version
of software compared to the free JBN and reliable? When are you going to
release your versions of perfectly coded privacy software so we can all
benefit from your immense skills?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]