richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/29/89)
Chuq von Rospach's recent tyrade containing many inaccuracies and
a dew outright lies has been delt with ina forum fitting of the demeaner
of his post: alt.flame.
It has become quite clear that Chuq does not has the objectivity, tact
or patience to be a newgroup Czar. I therefore declare with all
the pompousity such a position requires, that Chuq has been removed
as a newsgroup Czar, effective immediately.
Since this leaves an important gap in the fabric of USENET, I am declaring
myself newsgroup and naming Czar.
If you have the results of a newsgroup vote, send them to me and I'll
audit them and send out the newgroup.
If you have any questions, send them to me.
I realize this position requires certain things I do not posess. Fear not.
I am running right out and buying a cockatoo.
--
``Mathematics is a fiction created by man to rationalize the universe. It
is not a science'' - Thomas Silverton, 1799.
richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOVtoto@tank.uchicago.edu (Sandra Jessica Smyth) (10/30/89)
In article <21593@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
:Chuq von Rospach's recent tyrade containing many inaccuracies and
:a dew outright lies has been delt with ina forum fitting of the demeaner
:of his post: alt.flame.
:
:It has become quite clear that Chuq does not has the objectivity, tact
:or patience to be a newgroup Czar. I therefore declare with all
:the pompousity such a position requires, that Chuq has been removed
:as a newsgroup Czar, effective immediately.
:
:Since this leaves an important gap in the fabric of USENET, I am declaring
:myself newsgroup and naming Czar.
:
:If you have the results of a newsgroup vote, send them to me and I'll
:audit them and send out the newgroup.
:
:If you have any questions, send them to me.
:
:I realize this position requires certain things I do not posess. Fear not.
:I am running right out and buying a cockatoo.
:
:
:--
:``Mathematics is a fiction created by man to rationalize the universe. It
: is not a science'' - Thomas Silverton, 1799.
:richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
This, boys and girls, is an example of a forged posting. As offensive as
Richard has been recently, he would not do something as dumb as this.
However, everyone who thought it was real on first reading is to be
excused.
Now, is it obvious why we don't need discussions of how postings can
be forged?
--
Sandra Jessica Smyth Believer in lost causes
toto@tank.uchicago.eduromkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey) (10/31/89)
In article <6037@tank.uchicago.edu> toto@tank.uchicago.edu (Sandra Jessica Smyth) writes: >Now, is it obvious why we don't need discussions of how postings can >be forged? "Security through obscurity" is no security at all. At best, it prevents people from learning a problem exists to be fixed. -- - john romkey USENET/UUCP: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us Internet: romkey@ftp.com "And I'd rather have my county die for me" - Grace Slick/Jefferson Airplane
greg@gryphon.COM (Greg Laskin) (10/31/89)
In article <6037@tank.uchicago.edu> toto@tank.uchicago.edu (Sandra Jessica Smyth) writes: >In article <21593@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >:Chuq von Rospach's recent tyrade containing many inaccuracies and >:a dew outright lies has been delt with ina forum fitting of the demeaner >:of his post: alt.flame. > >This, boys and girls, is an example of a forged posting. As offensive as >Richard has been recently, he would not do something as dumb as this. Yes he would. And he did. >However, everyone who thought it was real on first reading is to be >excused. Because it was. > >Now, is it obvious why we don't need discussions of how postings can >be forged? > No it isn't. -- Greg Laskin greg@gryphon.COM <routing site>!gryphon!greg gryphon!greg@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (11/01/89)
I've said this before, and I may as well repeat it. Back when we created netnews, we knew there was no possibility of real security short of usable, deployed, public-key cryptosystems or digital signature schemes. Our solution was simple: we didn't put in any control capabilities. Later generations of netnews deities have seen fit to reverse that decision, with consequences we can all see. There is, and can be, no protection against forged articles in a network based on UUCP and (standard) TCP/IP. When RFC 111[345]-compliant mail systems become available, it may be possible to change all that, if the legal minefied can be navigated. Until then, I suggest that you take any articles with a grain of salt. Btw, the optimization that the netnews software uses to avoid wasting bandwidth -- not sending an article to a host in the Path: line -- was designed for environments where bandwidth was (a) limited (we started with 300 bps modems...), and (b) expensive (it was a toll call from UNC to Duke.) Folks who don't operate with those restrictions may want to consider removing that code. --Steve Bellovin att!ulysses!smb, smb@ulysses.att.com
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (11/01/89)
In article <6037@tank.uchicago.edu> toto@tank.uchicago.edu (Sandra Jessica Smyth) writes: >In article <21593@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >: >:Since this leaves an important gap in the fabric of USENET, I am declaring >:myself newsgroup and naming Czar. >: > >This, boys and girls, is an example of a forged posting. As offensive as >Richard has been recently, he would not do something as dumb as this. >However, everyone who thought it was real on first reading is to be >excused. This boys and girls, was real. And a a newgroup Tsar, I resent your attitutde. We newsgroups Tsars work pretty hard on this stuff placing the net before Family, jobs and cockatoos, and it saddens me to read such utter nonsense. -- You don't want to send mail to Richard. He's dead.
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) (11/01/89)
In article <6037@tank.uchicago.edu>, toto@tank.uchicago.edu (Sandra Jessica Smyth) writes: Sandra> Now, is it obvious why we don't need discussions of how postings can Sandra> be forged? >>>>> On 31 Oct 89 01:47:51 GMT, romkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey) said: John> "Security through obscurity" is no security at all. At best, it John> prevents people from learning a problem exists to be fixed. Okay. Repeat after me: "USENET news can be forged. Electronic mail can be forged. Trust no one. Keep your laser handy." The problem is such that it cannot be fixed without major changes in the news and mail transport software of *every* site running netnews and/or netmail. You wanna do that? There are sites running B news 2.9 out there, *still,* and you think we can get everyone upgraded to "D news" or whatever we're gonna call it? Maybe Spaf should put it in the news.announce.newusers monthly postings: "Occasionally, someone somewhere will discover that they can forge news articles. They usually discover soon after that this is no great accomplishment, and simply marks them as someone who is capable of annoying great numbers of people to no apparent end." This should serve to warn any siteadmin who doesn't already know that it's possible to forge news, without giving the details. Hell, the details aren't that tough to find. I know of at least 3 ways. But why bother? I'd rather make some actual contributions, and get flamed or praised on my own damn merits. Followups to news.misc because this is pretty misc. [I also removed t.b and a.f from the headers, because this message is neither bizarre nor flamage.] -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet> "Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."
dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz) (11/02/89)
In article <21698@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <6037@tank.uchicago.edu> toto@tank.uchicago.edu (Sandra Jessica Smyth) writes: >>In article <21593@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>: >>:Since this leaves an important gap in the fabric of USENET, I am declaring >>:myself newsgroup and naming Czar. >>: >>This, boys and girls, is an example of a forged posting. As offensive as >>Richard has been recently, he would not do something as dumb as this. > >This boys and girls, was real. And a a newgroup Tsar, I resent your >attitutde. Ah, but how do we know *this* article wasn't forged? In fact, the Tsar/Czar spelling difference is incontrovertible proof that there are two Richard Sextons loose on this net. Maybe we should ask the second one to campaign AGAINST sci.aquaria just to add some excitement to this rather bland {sci | rec}.aquari* discussion. -Dan Veditz uunet!ashtate!dveditz