Cybertek Electric: Issue #4                                           7/30/96

                ¢ss es flestra ferdha fîr; en sk†lpr es sverdha
       /  |\      /|     /|\     |\      |\      /|  |-\       \       /
      /   | \    / |    / | \    | \     | \    / |  |  \       \     /
     /    |  \  /  |   /  |  \   |  \    |  \  /  |  |   >    /  \   /
    /     |   \/   |  /   |   \  |  /    |   \/   |  |  /    /   /  /
    \     |        |      |      | <     |        |  |  \   /   /   \
     \    |        |      |      |  \    |        |  |   >  \  /     \
      \   |        |      |      |   \   |        |  |  /    \        \
       \  |        |      |      |    \  |        |  |-/      \        \
 I know a fifteenth, which Thiodhroerir the dwarf sang before Delling's door.
  He sang might to the Aesir, power to the elves, and understanding to Odin.

                         Cybertek Electric: Issue Four
                                 July 30, 1996
                          edited by Thomas Icom/IIRG
                   <ticom@l0pht.com> <thomas.icom@iirg.com>

              Complements of OCL/Magnitude's Project Blackthorn,
           and The International Information Retrieval Guild (IIRG)


Table of Contents
=================
* Hacking the Human Body
  by Mujahadin
* From Crossbows to Cryptography: Techno-Thwarting The State
  by Chuck Hammill
* Vesoft and the Hewlett Packard 3000
  by Black IC

                                  ---/////---

                            Hacking the Human Body
                                 by Mujahadin

Many of us in the computer 'underground' are used to seeing various postings
about bugs and backdoors in various pieces of software and hardware that make
up this vast culture that we are a part of.  But how many of us know, that for
example, the human body contains many weaknesses, bugs if you will, that can
be exploited just as easily as Wu_ftp?

The reasons for this knowledge not being widely available are obvious. The
people who hold these secrets are like the master hackers who only give out
these powerful secrets to those they implicitly trust, or to those who have
shown their worth by diligent study and application of requisite materials. It
is not my purpose here to disseminate such information recklessly.  Rather it
is to impart the reader with a respect for the capabilities of the human body
and the weaknesses contained therein, and of some of the basic ways these can
be used to protect yourself against a physical attack in the most effective
way possible....you don't want your aggressor to get back up.  It NEVER pays
to be a nice guy during the escalation of a physical confrontation.  Only in
the movies do the nice guys walk away, and not have to turn around.

First some background concerning body mechanics.  The human body, whether
through evolution or divine creation, moves with circular motion on many axes
simultaneously. Next time you walk to the bathroom or to the refrigerator to
refill your beer stein, try walking rigid, like a robot would, using just
linear motion. You will see immediately that this is an UNnatural method of
movement and how uncomfortable it is and to help me prove the theory behind
this article, just how much motion is wasted by this linear activity.  It
takes a CONCERTED effort to maintain balance in this robotic movement. So now
we see the economy of motion and ease of action that the natural way our
bodies want to move gives us. Using this economy of motion and ease of action
now takes us to my next point, physically manipulating the human body in an
unnatural fashion.

While many parts of the human body are very flexible, we can say that nothing
has full 360 degree rotation, and it is in this area I will address most of
this article to.  Joint manipulation is the easiest way to start the
discussion.  The best way to describe a joint manipulation is by example.
Open your right hand exposing the palm upward. Then place the index finger
of your left hand (with the rest of the fingers tucked in) into the right
palm.  Now close your right hand around your index finger.  Rotate your
right hand around feeling the limits of movement and committing them to
memory. Open the right hand back up and put the index finger AND the middle
finger of the left hand both in the palm, closing it.  Rotate the right hand
once again sensing the difference this makes in this technique. Two fingers
are ALWAYS better than one, however, make sure that the two fingers you plan
on seizing are located next to each other on the hand.. or else you may lose
your grasp due to the difficult to grab shape this makes. One can also grab
separate fingers on an attackers same hand using both of your hands.  This
is a great technique and is called separating the bone. Try this on a friend
(or enemy), but if on a friendly victim be sure to be careful, and have the
action performed on you so you know what this feels like.

Moving to the wrist.  There are plenty of things to do with the wrists but
for the sake of clarity I wont be discussing these much because placement of
the hands is very important and since I don't have the tools at my disposal
to include photographs, then I wouldn't want anyone to feel secure with just
a text example.  But I will say this: get a friend and try out the rotational
limits of the wrist using one hand and then two.  That's as easy as I can make
it without photos and for the sake of wasted bandwidth. The elbow is a very
self-explanatory structure, limitwise.

The forearm has some rotation from the elbow due to the radial and ulna, but
this is secondary to the lack of real movement that the elbow has.  This makes
it an extremely vulnerable architecture when it does become accessible for a
technique.  This is the problem though, because the elbow tends to stay
behind the weapon that precedes it.  Namely the fist or whatever the fist is
holding. If one was truly skilled at circular motion then it would be no
problem to simply circle around an attack to make the elbow more accessible,
or avert an attack and depend on the attackers over exertion of his own
sphere of influence....his own over extension of his circular motion, which
by the way helps us make another point.

Depending on the attacker to not be in tune with his own natural motion, to be
clumsy and aloof, ignorant of how he moves, can also be a great key in
overcoming an opponent.  Sort of like a buffer overwrite.... get the attacker
to overcommit...when he/she does, then take the advantage.  If you happen to
get this far then personally I wouldn't go for the elbow at this juncture, but
for the purpose of discussion if you get in a bind and you have hold of an
arm, then pull downward violently to shake the opponent, causing a mild shock
to the back of the head where it meets the neck (this actually happens). Do
your best to take advantage in this moment of weakness by turning the arm over
placing another hand on the outside of the elbow pressuring downwards.
Experimentation with this pressure is absolutely necessary for you to feel how
this works.  Also don't place the hand too high or too low... this can cause
the attacker to fold his elbow, opening you up to a vicious counterattack with
one of the body's most powerful weapons.  Interesting that one of the bodies
weakest structures at its opposition, can become one of the strongest weapons
the body has.  As for the shoulder, just move your own shoulder around to its
extremes and you will easily see how its weaknesses can be exploited.

Continuing our discussion of the elbow from above, once the elbow is locked,
hopefully you would have enough forethought to make sure your attacker is
slightly away from you and bent over.  Take this opportunity to jam his
shoulder with plenty of force in the direction of his jaw. This is a neat
little bonus of the straight elbow lock. Also preemptive striking to the
shoulder lessens any force of an incoming blow.  This is what Bruce Lee called
a 'stop hit'.  But this takes flawless timing and is out of context for this
article.

Visiting the neck area we see several options.  The throat provides us with
much soft collapsible mass which can be accessed quite easily, as long as
speed and accuracy are on your side. A quick and powerful jab to the larynx,
either above or below, gains us some time to explore more possibilities in our
defensive posture. We can now become the offensive party if we are successful
here.  Note that also on the sides of the neck exist sternomatocollastoid
muscle structures (for exact placement of these check your Gray's Anatomy
Coloring Book) which give us ample space to access several 'pressure points'
which if manipulated (read SQUEEZED) properly will cause the brain to prompt
the body to lift up on the toes, thereby weakening any effort of your attacker
to strike with any force. I have only met one person completely immune to the
initial pain sequence produced by this technique, and it made for lots of
interesting experimentation, and unfortunately for our immune friend, lots of
bruises as well.  Also within this muscle structure are the carotid arteries.
A well placed strike to the outsides of the neck will seize the muscles up,
causing the blood supply to the brain to be shut off. Contrary to popular
belief, this is how a strike to the temples work as well. To revive from such
a strike requires massage and gentle rotation of the neck structure to return
the muscles to their previous state.

The eyes are an obvious weakness as is the nose, be it from straight on,
upwards, sideways, or even downwards.  The ears are interesting because of
the occasional airtight capabilities.  Have you ever been slapped on the
ear? The air pressure involved with that is tremendous for such a little
canal. Its no small wonder then that partial and often full deafness arises
out of such little force. There are also several pressure points located
beneath the ear which have differing effects, depending on how utilized. There
also exists on the back of the skull at the base where the vertebrae end which
when struck causes yet another shutdown of the brain due to the contraction of
muscles. Don't forget this key clue: where the head goes.... the body follows.

Moving in a downward direction we have the ribs, where nerve fibers weave
in and out between the ribcage members.  This takes practice but finding
these aren't too difficult.  There is a term where nerves are exposed to
the underside of the flesh when running between muscle bundles.  Its called
a cavity, and cavity striking is an acquired skill. Bodybuilders are known
for their extra musculature.  Obviously.  But with this muscularity comes a
nice big weakness which can be exploited by someone with little or no muscle
mass at all.....justice ;).  It seems as though with this extra muscle comes
extra cavity space...i.e., more exposed nerve fiber.  Need I say more on
this?

The floating ribs are susceptible to becoming dislodged from their location,
given the right angle of approach.  The abdominal area is naturally tense and
as well should be, unless trained in advanced deep abdominal conditioning
which has been a protected secret for centuries.  I have seen examples of this
training and it is quite impressive.  No tricks involved.  I can spot a fake
from a thousand miles away.  Real 'Iron Body' practitioners can be struck with
a variety of implements using full force with no damage done.  All this is
done with complete relaxation of the abdominal muscle wall.  But there is a
flaw in even the tensing of the abdominal area.  The muscles that make up this
area are primarily weaved in a direction that naturally opposes force from the
front.  If we introduce a spirryllic action slightly downwards to this mass
then we have exploited the weakness in the weave.

The groin structure is really self explanatory, save for the few fanatical
practitioners of several martial arts who practice for hours a technique
where the testicles are drawn up inside the scrotum.  But these guys are a
dead giveaway, wherein they must stand in a particular posture for this to
happen, exposing other areas to vulnerability.

On the sides and slightly to the back of the thigh belong the sciatic nerves.
Repeated strikes to this area will definitely cause weakness in the legs, and
eventually an inability to stand straight without wavering. The knees, when a
person is standing straight up, are extremely vulnerable to being sheared
downward or to the side... this is very violent and should only be used in a
VERY life threatening situation. When slightly flexed then the knees are
vulnerable from the sides and back. Actually, the knees are ALWAYS weak from
the sides. There exist many pressure points on the thigh, shin and arch of the
foot that I will not address, as these require pinpoint accuracy to administer
to and this is beyond the scope of this treatment, however I will say that I
heard a story of a Special Forces Sergeant who, after being injured in Vietnam
had to walk with a cane, became so adept with the cane that in a particular
barfight all he had to do to subdue his attacker was stomp the cane down on
the arch of the foot, thereby disrupting the intricate pattern of bone and
ligament causing separation of said bone and ligament many times over.
Needless to say, with ZEN-like simplicity, the altercation was over before it
started. With this in mind, when in a bear hug type situation, never fail to
stomp down on the arch of the foot, unless you are suspended in the air.  Then
it is a simple matter of using your head to make your point, while kicking at
the knees or shins.

There are many more areas to address here and I have selectively left much out
because of the damaging nature of the techniques.  I didn't pay too much
attention to the circular nature of the body in the offensive posture because
this is very advanced thought. To sum up this circular theory, think of
spinning a yo-yo around in a circle while the string is fully unwraped from
the axle....  what makes it spin faster?? what opposing forces are involved
here?? and where is the actual fulcrumatic action??  These are clues that if
experimented with to even a slight degree, will give the reader a great
understanding as to how a greater amount of force can be generated by using
the natural endowments of the body.

Greets to the guys in VLAD, GHeap, DrHavoc, prophet, Special Forces then,
now, and forever, and to Thomas Icom.
Mujahadin - the real Desert Storm.

                                     -///-

          FROM CROSSBOWS TO CRYPTOGRAPHY:  TECHNO-THWARTING THE STATE
                               by Chuck Hammill
                              weaponsrus@aol.com

           Given at the Future of Freedom Conference, November 1987
                Public Domain:  Duplicate and Distribute Freely

               You   know,   technology--and   particularly   computer
          technology--has often gotten a bad rap in  Libertarian  cir-
          cles.  We tend to think of Orwell's 1984, or Terry Gilliam's
          Brazil,  or  the  proximity  detectors keeping East Berlin's
          slave/citizens on their own side of the border, or  the  so-
          phisticated  bugging  devices  Nixon used to harass those on
          his "enemies list."  Or, we recognize that for the price  of
          a  ticket  on  the Concorde we can fly at twice the speed of
          sound, but only if we first walk thru a magnetometer run  by
          a  government  policeman, and permit him to paw thru our be-
          longings if it beeps.

               But I think that mind-set is a mistake.   Before  there
          were cattle prods, governments tortured their prisoners with
          clubs  and  rubber  hoses.    Before  there  were lasers for
          eavesdropping, governments used binoculars and  lip-readers.
          Though  government certainly uses technology to oppress, the
          evil lies not in the tools but in the wielder of the tools.

               In fact, technology represents one of the most  promis-
          ing  avenues  available  for  re-capturing our freedoms from
          those who have stolen them.  By its very nature,  it  favors
          the  bright  (who can put it to use) over the dull (who can-
          not).  It favors the adaptable (who are  quick  to  see  the
          merit  of  the  new(  over  the sluggish (who cling to time-
          tested ways).  And what two better words are  there  to  de-
          scribe government bureaucracy than "dull" and "sluggish"?

               One  of  the  clearest,  classic triumphs of technology
          over tyranny I see is  the  invention  of  the  man-portable
          crossbow.   With it, an untrained peasant could now reliably
          and lethally engage a target out to  fifty  meters--even  if
          that  target  were  a mounted, chain-mailed knight.  (Unlike
          the longbow, which, admittedly was more powerful, and  could
          get  off  more shots per unit time, the crossbow required no
          formal training to utilize.   Whereas the  longbow  required
          elaborate  visual,  tactile  and kinesthetic coordination to
          achieve any degree of accuracy, the wielder  of  a  crossbow
          could simply put the weapon to his shoulder, sight along the
          arrow  itself, and be reasonably assured of hitting his tar-
          get.)

               Moreover, since just about  the  only  mounted  knights
          likely  to  visit  your  average peasant would be government
          soldiers and tax collectors, the utility of the  device  was
          plain:    With it, the common rabble could defend themselves
          not only against one another, but against their governmental
          masters.   It was the  medieval  equivalent  of  the  armor-
          piercing  bullet,  and, consequently, kings and priests (the
          medieval equivalent of a  Bureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and
          Crossbows)  threatened  death  and  excommunication, respec-
          tively, for its unlawful possession.

               Looking at later developments, we  see  how  technology
          like  the  firearm--particularly the repeating rifle and the
          handgun, later followed by the Gatling gun and more advanced
          machine guns--radically altered the balance of interpersonal
          and inter-group power.  Not without reason was the Colt  .45
          called "the equalizer."  A frail dance-hall hostess with one
          in  her  possession  was  now  fully able to protect herself
          against the brawniest roughneck in any saloon.    Advertise-
          ments  for  the period also reflect the merchandising of the
          repeating cartridge  rifle  by  declaring  that  "a  man  on
          horseback,  armed with one of these rifles, simply cannot be
          captured."  And, as long as his captors  were  relying  upon
          flintlocks  or  single-shot rifles, the quote is doubtless a
          true one.

               Updating now to  the  present,  the  public-key  cipher
          (with  a  personal  computer to run it) represents an equiv-
          alent quantum leap--in a defensive weapon.    Not  only  can
          such  a technique be used to protect sensitive data in one's
          own possession, but it can also permit two strangers to  ex-
          change   information   over   an   insecure   communications
          channel--a  wiretapped   phone   line,   for   example,   or
          skywriting, for that matter)--without ever having previously
          met  to  exchange cipher keys.   With a thousand-dollar com-
          puter, you can create a cipher that  a  multi-megabuck  CRAY
          X-MP  can't  crack in a year.  Within a few years, it should
          be economically feasible to similarly encrypt voice communi-
          cations; soon after that, full-color digitized video images.
          Technology will not only have made wiretapping obsolete,  it
          will  have  totally demolished government's control over in-
          formation transfer.

               I'd like to take just a moment to sketch the  mathemat-
          ics  which makes this principle possible.  This algorithm is
          called the RSA algorithm, after Rivest, Shamir, and  Adleman
          who  jointly created it.  Its security derives from the fact
          that, if a very large number is  the  product  of  two  very
          large  primes,  then it is extremely difficult to obtain the
          two prime factors from analysis  of  their  product.    "Ex-
          tremely"  in  the  sense that if primes  p  and  q  have 100
          digits apiece, then their 200-digit product cannot  in  gen-
          eral be factored in less than 100 years by the most powerful
          computer now in existence.

               The  "public" part of the key consists of (1) the prod-
          uct  pq  of the two large primes p and q, and (2)  one  fac-
          tor,  call it  x  , of the product  xy  where  xy = {(p-1) *
          (q-1) + 1}.  The "private" part of the key consists  of  the
          other factor  y.

               Each  block of the text to be encrypted is first turned
          into an integer--either by using ASCII,  or  even  a  simple
          A=01,  B=02,  C=03, ... , Z=26 representation.  This integer
          is then raised to the power  x (modulo pq) and the resulting
          integer is then sent as the encrypted message.  The receiver
          decrypts by taking this integer to the  (secret)  power    y
          (modulo  pq).  It can be shown that this process will always
          yield the original number started with.

               What makes this a groundbreaking development,  and  why
          it  is  called  "public-key"  cryptography,"  is  that I can
          openly publish the product  pq and the number   x   ,  while
          keeping  secret  the number  y  --so that anyone can send me
          an encrypted message, namely
                               x
                             a    (mod pq)  ,
          but only I can recover the original message  a  , by  taking
          what  they  send, raising it to the power  y  and taking the
          result (mod pq).  The risky step (meeting to exchange cipher
          keys) has been eliminated.  So people who may not even trust
          each other enough to want to meet, may  still  reliably  ex-
          change  encrypted  messages--each  party having selected and
          disseminated his own  pq  and his  x  ,   while  maintaining
          the secrecy of his own  y  .

               Another benefit of this scheme is the notion of a "dig-
          ital signature," to enable one to authenticate the source of
          a given message.  Normally, if I want to send you a message,
          I raise my plaintext  a  to your x and take the result  (mod
          your pq)  and send that.

              However,  if in my message, I take the plaintext  a and
          raise it to my (secret) power  y  , take the result  (mod my
          pq), then raise that result to your x   (mod  your  pq)  and
          send this, then even after you have normally "decrypted" the
          message,  it  will still look like garbage.  However, if you
          then raise it to my public power x   , and take  the  result
          (mod  my public pq  ), so you will not only recover the ori-
          ginal plaintext message, but you will know that no one but I
          could have sent it to you (since no one else knows my secret
          y  ).

               And these are the very concerns by the way that are to-
          day tormenting the Soviet Union about the whole question  of
          personal  computers.    On the one hand, they recognize that
          American schoolchildren are right now growing up  with  com-
          puters  as commonplace as sliderules used to be--more so, in
          fact, because there are things computers can do  which  will
          interest  (and instruct) 3- and 4-year-olds.  And it is pre-
          cisely these students who one generation hence will be going
          head-to-head against their Soviet  counterparts.    For  the
          Soviets  to  hold  back might be a suicidal as continuing to
          teach swordsmanship  while  your  adversaries  are  learning
          ballistics.    On  the  other hand, whatever else a personal
          computer may be, it is also an exquisitely efficient copying
          machine--a floppy disk will hold upwards of 50,000 words  of
          text,  and  can  be  copied in a couple of minutes.  If this
          weren't threatening enough, the computer that  performs  the
          copy  can also encrypt the data in a fashion that is all but
          unbreakable.  Remember that in Soviet society  publicly  ac-
          cessible  Xerox  machines are unknown.   (The relatively few
          copying machines in existence  are  controlled  more  inten-
          sively than machine guns are in the United States.)

               Now  the  "conservative" position is that we should not
          sell these computers to the Soviets, because they could  use
          them  in weapons systems.  The "liberal" position is that we
          should sell them, in  the  interests  of  mutual  trade  and
          cooperation--and  anyway,  if  we don't make the sale, there
          will certainly be some other nation willing to.

               For my part, I'm ready to suggest that the  Libertarian
          position should be to give them to the Soviets for free, and
          if  necessary, make them take them . . . and if that doesn't
          work load up an SR-71  Blackbird  and  air  drop  them  over
          Moscow in the middle of the night.  Paid for by private sub-
          scription, of course, not taxation . . . I confess that this
          is not a position that has gained much support among members
          of  the conventional left-right political spectrum, but, af-
          ter all, in the words of one of Illuminatus's characters, we
          are political non-Euclideans:   The shortest distance  to  a
          particular  goal may not look anything like what most people
          would consider a "straight line."    Taking  a  long  enough
          world-view,  it is arguable that breaking the Soviet govern-
          ment monopoly on information transfer could better  lead  to
          the enfeeblement and, indeed, to the ultimate dissolution of
          the Soviet empire than would the production of another dozen
          missiles aimed at Moscow.

               But  there's  the rub:  A "long enough" world view does
          suggest that the evil, the oppressive, the coercive and  the
          simply  stupid  will "get what they deserve," but what's not
          immediately clear is how the rest of  us  can  escape  being
          killed, enslaved, or pauperized in the process.

              When  the  liberals and other collectivists began to at-
          tack freedom, they possessed a reasonably  stable,  healthy,
          functioning economy, and almost unlimited time to proceed to
          hamstring   and   dismantle  it.    A  policy  of  political
          gradualism was at least  conceivable.    But  now,  we  have
          patchwork  crazy-quilt  economy held together by baling wire
          and spit.  The state not only taxes us to  "feed  the  poor"
          while also inducing farmers to slaughter milk cows and drive
          up food prices--it then simultaneously turns around and sub-
          sidizes research into agricultural chemicals designed to in-
          crease  yields of milk from the cows left alive.  Or witness
          the fact that a decline in the price of oil is considered as
          potentially frightening as a comparable increase a few years
          ago.  When the price went up,  we  were  told,  the  economy
          risked  collapse for for want of energy.  The price increase
          was called the "moral equivalent of war" and the Feds  swung
          into  action.    For the first time in American history, the
          speed at which you drive your car to work in the morning be-
          came an issue of Federal concern.   Now, when the  price  of
          oil  drops, again we risk problems, this time because Ameri-
          can oil companies and Third World  basket-case  nations  who
          sell  oil  may  not  be  able to ever pay their debts to our
          grossly over-extended banks.  The suggested panacea is  that
          government  should now re-raise the oil prices that OPEC has
          lowered, via a new oil tax.  Since the government is seeking
          to raise oil prices to about the same extent  as  OPEC  did,
          what  can we call this except the "moral equivalent of civil
          war--the government against its own people?"

               And, classically, in international trade, can you imag-
          ine any entity in the world except  a  government  going  to
          court  claiming  that  a  vendor  was  selling  it goods too
          cheaply and demanding not only that that naughty  vendor  be
          compelled by the court to raise its prices, but also that it
          be punished for the act of lowering them in the first place?

               So  while the statists could afford to take a couple of
          hundred years to trash our  economy  and  our  liberties--we
          certainly  cannot  count  on  having an equivalent period of
          stability in which to reclaim them.   I contend  that  there
          exists  almost  a  "black  hole"  effect in the evolution of
          nation-states just as in the evolution of stars.  Once free-
          dom contracts beyond a certain  minimum  extent,  the  state
          warps  the fabric of the political continuum about itself to
          the degree that subsequent re-emergence of  freedom  becomes
          all but impossible.  A good illustration of this can be seen
          in the area of so-called "welfare" payments.  When those who
          sup  at the public trough outnumber (and thus outvote) those
          whose taxes must replenish the trough,  then  what  possible
          choice has a democracy but to perpetuate and expand the tak-
          ing  from  the few for the unearned benefit of the many?  Go
          down to the nearest "welfare" office, find just  two  people
          on  the dole . . . and recognize that between them they form
          a voting bloc that can forever outvote you on  the  question
          of who owns your life--and the fruits of your life's labor.

               So essentially those who love liberty need an "edge" of
          some  sort  if  we're ultimately going to prevail.  We obvi-
          ously  can't  use  the  altruists'  "other-directedness"  of
          "work,  slave, suffer, sacrifice, so that next generation of
          a billion random strangers can  live  in  a  better  world."
          Recognize  that, however immoral such an appeal might be, it
          is nonetheless an extremely powerful one in today's culture.
          If you can convince  people  to  work  energetically  for  a
          "cause," caring only enough for their personal welfare so as
          to  remain  alive  enough  and  healthy  enough  to continue
          working--then you have a truly massive reservoir  of  energy
          to draw from.  Equally clearly, this is just the sort of ap-
          peal which tautologically cannot be utilized for egoistic or
          libertarian goals.  If I were to stand up before you tonight
          and say something like, "Listen, follow me as I enunciate my
          noble "cause," contribute your money to support the "cause,"
          give  up  your  free  time  to  work for the "cause," strive
          selflessly to bring it about, and then (after you  and  your
          children are dead) maybe your children's children will actu-
          ally  live under egoism"--you'd all think I'd gone mad.  And
          of course you'd be right.  Because the point I'm  trying  to
          make is that libertarianism and/or egoism will be spread if,
          when, and as, individual libertarians and/or egoists find it
          profitable and/or enjoyable to do so.    And  probably  only
          then.

               While I certainly do not disparage the concept of poli-
          tical  action, I don't believe that it is the only, nor even
          necessarily the most cost-effective path  toward  increasing
          freedom  in  our time.  Consider that, for a fraction of the
          investment in time, money and effort I might expend in  try-
          ing  to  convince  the  state to abolish wiretapping and all
          forms of censorship--I can teach every libertarian who's in-
          terested  how  to   use   cryptography   to   abolish   them
          unilaterally.

               There  is  a  maxim--a proverb--generally attributed to
          the Eskimoes, which very likely most Libertarians  have  al-
          ready  heard.    And while you likely would not quarrel with
          the saying, you might well feel that you've heard  it  often
          enough already, and that it has nothing further to teach us,
          and moreover, that maybe you're even tired of hearing it.  I
          shall therefore repeat it now:

               If you give a man a fish, the saying runs, you feed him
          for a day.  But if you teach a man how to fish, you feed him
          for a lifetime.

               Your exposure to the quote was probably in some sort of
          a  "workfare"  vs.  "welfare"  context;  namely, that if you
          genuinely wish to help someone in need, you should teach him
          how to earn his sustenance, not simply how to  beg  for  it.
          And of course this is true, if only because the next time he
          is hungry, there might not be anybody around willing or even
          able to give him a fish, whereas with the information on how
          to fish, he is completely self sufficient.

               But  I  submit  that this exhausts only the first order
          content of the quote, and if there were nothing  further  to
          glean  from  it,  I would have wasted your time by citing it
          again.  After all, it seems to have almost a crypto-altruist
          slant, as though to imply that we should structure  our  ac-
          tivities  so  as  to  maximize  the  benefits to such hungry
          beggars as we may encounter.

               But consider:

               Suppose this Eskimo doesn't know how to  fish,  but  he
          does  know  how  to hunt walruses.   You, on the other hand,
          have often gone hungry while traveling thru  walrus  country
          because  you  had  no idea how to catch the damn things, and
          they ate most of the fish you could catch.  And now  suppose
          the  two  of  you  decide to exchange information, bartering
          fishing knowledge for hunting knowledge.   Well,  the  first
          thing  to  observe  is  that  a  transaction  of  this  type
          categorically and unambiguously refutes the Marxist  premise
          that  every  trade  must  have a "winner" and a "loser;" the
          idea that if one person gains, it must necessarily be at the
          "expense" of another person who loses.  Clearly, under  this
          scenario, such is not the case.  Each party has gained some-
          thing  he  did  not have before, and neither has been dimin-
          ished in any way.  When it comes to exchange of  information
          (rather  than material objects) life is no longer a zero-sum
          game.  This is an extremely powerful notion.   The  "law  of
          diminishing   returns,"   the  "first  and  second  laws  of
          thermodynamics"--all those "laws" which constrain our possi-
          bilities in other contexts--no longer bind us!   Now  that's
          anarchy!

               Or  consider  another possibility:  Suppose this hungry
          Eskimo never learned  to  fish  because  the  ruler  of  his
          nation-state    had  decreed fishing illegal.   Because fish
          contain dangerous tiny bones, and sometimes sharp spines, he
          tells us, the state has decreed that their  consumption--and
          even  their  possession--are  too  hazardous to the people's
          health to be permitted . . . even by knowledgeable,  willing
          adults.   Perhaps it is because citizens' bodies are thought
          to be government property, and therefore it is the  function
          of the state to punish those who improperly care for govern-
          ment  property.    Or perhaps it is because the state gener-
          ously extends to competent adults the "benefits" it provides
          to children and to the mentally ill:  namely,  a  full-time,
          all-pervasive supervisory conservatorship--so that they need
          not  trouble  themselves  with making choices about behavior
          thought physically risky or morally "naughty."  But, in  any
          case,  you  stare stupefied, while your Eskimo informant re-
          lates how this law is taken so seriously that  a  friend  of
          his was recently imprisoned for years for the crime of "pos-
          session of nine ounces of trout with intent to distribute."

               Now  you  may  conclude  that  a society so grotesquely
          oppressive as to enforce a law of this  type  is  simply  an
          affront to the dignity of all human beings.  You may go far-
          ther  and  decide to commit some portion of your discretion-
          ary, recreational time specifically to the task of thwarting
          this tyrant's goal.  (Your rationale may be "altruistic"  in
          the   sense   of  wanting  to  liberate  the  oppressed,  or
          "egoistic" in the sense of  proving  you  can  outsmart  the
          oppressor--or  very likely some combination of these or per-
          haps even other motives.)

               But, since you have zero desire to become a  martyr  to
          your "cause," you're not about to mount a military campaign,
          or  even try to run a boatload of fish through the blockade.
          However, it is here that technology--and in  particular  in-
          formation technology--can multiply your efficacy literally a
          hundredfold.    I say "literally," because for a fraction of
          the effort (and virtually none of  the  risk)  attendant  to
          smuggling in a hundred fish, you can quite readily produce a
          hundred  Xerox copies of fishing instructions.  (If the tar-
          geted government, like present-day America, at least permits
          open  discussion  of  topics  whose  implementation  is  re-
          stricted,  then that should suffice.  But, if the government
          attempts to suppress the flow of information as  well,  then
          you will have to take a little more effort and perhaps write
          your  fishing manual on a floppy disk encrypted according to
          your mythical Eskimo's public-key parameters.  But as far as
          increasing real-world access to fish you have  made  genuine
          nonzero  headway--which  may  continue to snowball as others
          re-disseminate the information you have provided.   And  you
          have not had to waste any of your time trying to convert id-
          eological  adversaries, or even trying to win over the unde-
          cided.  Recall Harry Browne's dictum  from  "Freedom  in  an
          Unfree World" that the success of any endeavor is in general
          inversely proportional to the number of people whose persua-
          sion is necessary to its fulfilment.

               If  you  look  at  history, you cannot deny that it has
          been dramatically shaped by men with names like  Washington,
          Lincoln,  .  .  .  Nixon  .  . . Marcos . . . Duvalier . . .
          Khadaffi . . .  and their ilk.  But it has also been  shaped
          by  people with names like Edison, Curie, Marconi, Tesla and
          Wozniak.  And this latter shaping has been at least as  per-
          vasive, and not nearly so bloody.

               And  that's  where  I'm  trying  to  take The LiberTech
          Project.  Rather than beseeching the state to please not en-
          slave, plunder or constrain us, I propose a libertarian net-
          work spreading  the  technologies  by  which  we  may  seize
          freedom for ourselves.

               But here we must be a bit careful.  While it is not (at
          present)  illegal  to  encrypt  information  when government
          wants to spy on you, there is no guarantee of what  the  fu-
          ture  may hold.  There have been bills introduced, for exam-
          ple, which would have made it a crime  to  wear  body  armor
          when government wants to shoot you.  That is, if you were to
          commit certain crimes while wearing a Kevlar vest, then that
          fact  would  constitute a separate federal crime of its own.
          This law to my knowledge has not passed . . . yet . . .  but
          it does indicate how government thinks.

               Other  technological  applications,  however, do indeed
          pose legal risks.  We recognize, for  example,  that  anyone
          who  helped a pre-Civil War slave escape on the "underground
          railroad" was making a clearly illegal use of technology--as
          the sovereign government of the United States of America  at
          that time found the buying and selling of human beings quite
          as  acceptable  as  the buying and selling of cattle.  Simi-
          larly, during Prohibition, anyone who used  his  bathtub  to
          ferment  yeast and sugar into the illegal psychoactive drug,
          alcohol--the controlled substance, wine--was using  technol-
          ogy  in a way that could get him shot dead by federal agents
          for his "crime"--unfortunately not to be  restored  to  life
          when  Congress  reversed itself and re-permitted use of this
          drug.

               So . . . to quote a former President,  un-indicted  co-
          conspirator  and pardoned felon . . . "Let me make one thing
          perfectly clear:"  The LiberTech Project does not  advocate,
          participate  in, or conspire in the violation of any law--no
          matter how oppressive,  unconstitutional  or  simply  stupid
          such  law may be.  It does engage in description (for educa-
          tional and informational  purposes  only)  of  technological
          processes,  and some of these processes (like flying a plane
          or manufacturing a firearm) may well require appropriate li-
          censing to perform legally.    Fortunately,  no  license  is
          needed  for  the  distribution or receipt of information it-
          self.

               So, the next time you look at the political  scene  and
          despair,  thinking,  "Well,  if 51% of the nation and 51% of
          this State, and 51% of this city have  to  turn  Libertarian
          before  I'll  be  free,  then  somebody might as well cut my
          goddamn throat now, and put me out of my  misery"--recognize
          that  such  is not the case.  There exist ways to make your-
          self free.

               If you wish to explore such techniques via the Project,
          you are welcome to give me your name and address--or a  fake
          name  and  mail  drop, for that matter--and you'll go on the
          mailing list for my erratically-published newsletter.    Any
          friends  or acquaintances whom you think would be interested
          are welcome as well.  I'm not even asking for stamped  self-
          addressed envelopes, since my printer can handle mailing la-
          bels and actual postage costs are down in the noise compared
          with  the  other  efforts  in getting an issue out.   If you
          should have an idea to share, or even a  useful  product  to
          plug,  I'll be glad to have you write it up for publication.
          Even if you want to be the proverbial "free rider" and  just
          benefit  from  what others contribute--you're still welcome:
          Everything will be public domain; feel free to  copy  it  or
          give it away (or sell it, for that matter, 'cause if you can
          get  money  for  it while I'm taking full-page ads trying to
          give it away, you're certainly entitled to  your  capitalist
          profit . . .)  Anyway, every application of these principles
          should make the world just a little freer, and I'm certainly
          willing to underwrite that, at least for the forseeable  fu-
          ture.

               I  will leave you with one final thought:  If you don't
          learn how to beat your plowshares into  swords  before  they
          outlaw  swords,  then you sure as HELL ought to learn before
          they outlaw plowshares too.

                                                       --Chuck Hammill

                                                 THE LIBERTECH PROJECT

                                     -///-

                    ³ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒø
                    Š Vesoft and the Hewlett Packard 3000 Š
                    Š            by Black IC              Š
                    ¿ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒŸ

        There have been numerous articles written about the Hewlett Packard
3000 and how to break the system.  This write up does not deal solely with
the HP3000 but with the addon for tighter security by the VESOFT corporation.

        As time goes on and people begin to see the need for better security
and a more productive system, it's becoming harder to exploit any weakness
that could be on said system.  That's where VESOFT comes in.

VESOFT
1135 S. Beverly Dr.
Los Angeles, CA
90035-1119

(310) 282-0420
(310) 785-9566 (Fax)

        They have been supporting Hewlett Packards since 1980 with excellent
addons for the HP3000. In the following paragraphs I discuss the various
utilites that VESOFT employs and what you might expect on a VESOFT secured
system.

                             ³ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒø
                             Š MPEX 3000 Š
                             ¿ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒŸ

        The MPEX addon emulates and implements virtually all of the MPE/iX
user interface features (variables, command files, implied :RUN, :CALC,
:COPY, :PRINT, etc) on MPE/V.  Not only does this add a lot of power to the
MPE/V system, but it also lets you use the same job streams on MPE/V and on
the MPE/iX (If the owner of the Hewlett Packard has both setups!)

        So initially you wont see a difference with the target system.  Also
if the system has VESOFT installed and not on the other systems their,
that's not an issue right now cause if you are experienced with the 3000
series and the likes you will be able to navigate with out a problem.

                            ³ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒø
                            Š VE AUDIT 3000 Š
                            ¿ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒŸ

        The Audit program from VESOFT is a resecurement utility very similar
to the SATAN program for UNIX.  The purpose of VE AUDIT is to check the
system for loopholes and to assist the Manager/System Administrator in
resecuring the system.  VE AUDIT takes the laborous job of checking accounts
(LISTACCT), users (LISTUSER), and groups (LISTGROUP) to see who has what
access, capabilities, no passwords, etc.  The program goes through everything
and then reports to manager what loopholes (if any) are found and what is the
suggested step to resecure that system.  This program can also be used to
alter the system accounting structure as well as look at it with a new set
of commands.

        The program is run when you set the attributes (password, capability,
access mask).  List them in one or two line object format. Create an MPEX
command file that will rebuild the accounting structure when the program is
executed.  Purge them after prompting.

        As you can see this program will assist the manager/system
administrator in an easy to use manner and allows the system security to be
tightened in a way that was not as easy on the standard HP3000.

                            ³ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒø
                            Š SECURITY 3000 Š
                            ¿ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒŸ

        The VESOFT security program works in several ways to secure the
Hewlett Packard system.  Most HP3000 systems will allow users to log on to
the system using a non-unique name and generic session name with a session
password (i.e. JOE.PAYROLL as opposed to JOE,CLERK.PAYROLL).  The VESOFT
program will no matter what format the system uses to establish identity
allow the use of a session name and a password for that individual, thus
increasing the security 10-fold. It will also eliminate the annoying habit of
users omitting the session name since the MPE operating system considers it
optional.

        Changing of passwords become manditory through the security program.
Saving the account manger time by having a set time period for the users
to change their passwords (i.e. every 30 days or as set).

        Some HP3000 systems when accessed give the user access to the MPE
prompt ":" which most users don't need access to all the commands. VESOFT now
sets up a menu of options which allows the user to use the given choices
and nothing else.

        If the system has dial-ups the security program allows passwords on
a terminal by terminal basis thus adding in a second password to protect the
system. Thus anyone calling up not only has to get past the dial-up sequence
but they also have to log in to the system as if they were at the console.

        If the system is run on networks then the program will synchronize the
network and allow file transfers with out actually logging into the
receiving system. Users will also have to login to a system at a different
terminal just as if they were at that console.

        Embedded passwords are probably one of the biggest threats to HP3000
systems along with shared passwords and passwords that have not been changed
in a long time. It then is easier for someone to access the system seeing as
it will be easier to figure out. Once a password has become embed the ability
to change it in a job stream is very hard and time consuming. The security
program comes with what is called the "STREAMX" module which will do all the
handy work for the account manager.

        Logoff now has a built in timer so those users that are idle or leave
the system unattended for a given amount of time will automatically be logged
off and the integrity of the system brought back to normal.

        This covers the basics of the VESOFT programs.  As you can see any
entry into an HP3000 using VESOFT will not react as usual and the
accessibility has been changed to that of seriously protected.  I'll save the
coverage of surveillance social engineering and dumpster diving for others.
What I will say is you need to have a firm grasp of the target system and its
users.

                               ³ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒø
                               Š  DEFAULTS  Š
                               ¿ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒŸ

        The following is a list of some of the defaults in the Hewlett Packard
MPEX System used on the 3000 and the likes. Keep in mind that a resecured
system is going to have the defaults removed and replaced with a tighter
setup.  Remote login maintenance has been a pride and joy of Hewlett packard
owners.  It is also one of the most exploited in terms of malicious entry.
With the VESOFT programs properly installed the usual one password entry
for remote will now be two.  The default accounts are almost always open if
they still exist.  Aside from "dumpster diving" you should consider social
engineering names and as much info as possible about the system you are
attempting to get in on, just incase you are asked for a password.  Sometimes
you will come across a system that uses the "terminal password" at login.
This is an old option and thus being an option does not have any defaults.


operator.cognos                 mgr.hpword              field.hpword
manager.hpoffice                mgr.hpoffice            wp.hpoffice
spoolman.hpoffice               mailman.hpoffice        advmail.hpoffice
mail.hpoffice                   field.support           operator.support
operator.sys                    rsbcmon.sys             pcuser.sys
operator.system                 operator.disc           mgr.xlserver
manager.itf3000                 sys.telesup             manager.security
mgr.conv                        mgr.rje                 mgr.hpp187
mgr.hpp189                      mgr.hpp196              field.hpp187
mgr.intx3                       mgr.carolian            manager.tch
mgr.word                        mgr.telesup             field.service
operator.disc                   mgr.ccc                 field.hpunsup
field.hp                        mgr.hpp189              mgr.hpp196
mail.mail                       mail.netbase            mgr.rego
mgr.rje                         mgr.robelle             mgr.cnas
mgr.hpdesk                      mgr.robelle             mgr.vesoft


        I hope this write up will provoke more interest in the Hewlett Packard
systems namely the HP3000.  If you have any comments or wish to discuss these
systems more indepth please feel free to contact me at the following e-mail
address:

black.ic@iirg.com

Hope to hear from some of you.

Black IC/IIRG

                                  ---/////---

Unless otherwise noted Cybertek Electric is Copyright (C)1996 by
OCL/Magnitude, P.O. Box 64, Brewster, NY 10509. All Rights Reserved.
Noncommercial reproduction is encouraged provided this electronic publication
is redistributed in its entirety with credits intact. Cybertek Electric is
published for educational purposes only; under The First Amendment of The
United States Constitution. No illegal use is implied or suggested. If you
have a problem with this, too fucking bad. SUBMISSIONS WANTED. If you can read
and understand this e-zine then you should know what we're interested in.
Please send any feedback, questions, and/or submissions to either of the email
addresses in the signature below.


   |\  /|  /\    /   |\  |                    Thomas Icom/IIRG
   | >< | <  >  /    | \ |\                The Blackthorn Project
   |/  \|  \/  <     |   | >       <ticom@l0pht.com> <thomas.icom@iirg.com>
   |    |  /\   \  \ |   |/       International Information Retrieval Guild
   |    | /  \   \  \|   |                "May Odin guide your way!"
           Madhr er manna gaman, ok moldar auki, ok skipa skreytir.

<End of Text>