Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 8, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 10 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #10.10 (Sun, Feb 8, 1998) File 1--fwd: CYBERsitter caught mail-bombing critics File 2--The letter to Milbourn/Cybersitter File 3--Write a Complaint, Get a Mailbomb (Wired excerpt) File 4--Islands in the Clickstream - January 24, 1998 File 5--"Secure Computing: Threats and Safeguards", Rita C. Summers File 6--At least someone has a sense of humor...... File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 00:50:21 -0600 (CST) From: Bennett Haselton Subject: File 1--fwd: CYBERsitter caught mail-bombing critics CYBERsitter has been caught in the act of mail-bombing someone who wrote a letter to Brian Milburn, the CEO of CYBERsitter, complaining about their product. Spefically, a lady names Sarah Salls sent the following letter to Brian Milburn at bmilburn@solidoak.com: http://peacefire.org/archives/SOS.letters/asherah.2.bm.2.4.98.txt She was writing to CYBERsitter regarding their harassment of Peacefire and their blocking of anti-censorship sites, which is described in more detail at: http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/CYBERsitter/ CYBERsitter replied by flooding her account with over 446 junk messages. While the attack was in progress, Ms. Salls had her ISP's postmaster monitor the incoming attack and shut it off. Naturally, her ISP, Valinet.com, kept copies of the mail logs for that day and has passed them on as evidence to their lawyers. A complaint was also forwarded to MCI's security department, which handles network abuse and illegal denial-of-service attacks that are perpetrated by their customers, which include lower-end network users like CYBERsitter: http://peacefire.org/archives/SOS.letters/valinet.2.mci.2.5.98.txt C-Net's NEWS.com picked up on the story and interviewed Sarah Salls, her ISP, me, and Brian Milburn from Solid Oak Software. Their story is at: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,18937,00.html (Note that the C-Net article compares the act of mail flooding with conventional spam, and says that a bill is being considered in Congress that would outlaw what CYBERsitter did. This is not quite true; flooding a person's account with 500 junk messages is a denial-of-service attack, which is already illegal, and it usually gets you in a lot more trouble than spamming would.) Far from denying the accusations, Brian Milburn gave C-Net the following quote: "Certain people aren't going to get the hint. Maybe if they get the email 500 times, they'll get it through their heads... If they send it to my private email account, they're going to get what they get." No kidding, Brian! -Bennett bennett@peacefire.org (615) 421 6284 http://www.peacefire.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 15:34:49 -0600 From: jthomas@VENUS.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas) Subject: File 2--The letter to Milbourn/Cybersitter ((MODERATORS' NOTE: Here is the letter that precipitated the alleged Spam from Cybersitter and the account of the poster who sent it. When CuD attempted to contact Milbourn/Cybersitter about a year ago to obtain information on a story circulating the net, we received emphatic demands that we never contact him. The demands were veiled in threats of repercussions should we try, so others can contact Cybersitter for themselves to confirm or refute the latest allegations)). ================== Source - http://www.thewitches.com/censor/ In surfing the Peacefire website, I came across information relating to Cybersitter's policies. I decided to download the software, and see how it worked for myself. Everything the Peacefire site had pointed out about Cybersitter was true. Before downloading the software and installing it, however, I visited the sites that were on the blocked list. I couldn't find anything on these sites that would fit Cybersitter's criteria for blocking. While I was on the Peacefire site, I also read through correspondence between Cybersitter's C.E.O. and various people. In numerous letters, representatives of Cybersitter bashed Peacefire for its involvement with the issues surrounding their software, citing that the software was designed for use by parents and that the "kids" at Peacefire had no right to even be involved in this issue. Those letters compelled me to write my own letter, after all, I AM a parent. Here is a copy of the letter I wrote to the C.E.O. of Solid Oak Software, Brian Milburn. Mr.Milburn, You have stated over and over again that your software is for use by parents. And that individuals other than parents, should not be involving themselves in the fight against your just above legal censoring techniques. I, myself am a parent. I have two children who love to surf the Internet, and while I seek to protect them from inappropriate material, I certainly would not want someone else making the decisions on what my children should or should not view for me. Which is exactly what your software does. It does not allow the parents to make the choices about what their children access, that list is already predefined within the software and to top it all off, you encrypt the list so that the parents cannot even view it. This I find completely preposterous. That would be like the video clerk telling me I could only rent G rated movies, because I have children under the age of thirteen in my household. Therefore, I am not entitled to rent a PG-13 movie or above. The PG stands for parental guidance. Which means, that if I determine that my child is mature enough to view the movie, he may. It does not mean that anyone under the age of thirteen is banned from seeing it. In essence, this is what you have done with your software. You have taken the "parental guidance" out of it. A parent is not allowed to determine which sites on your list are or are not appropriate as they are not allowed to view the list that your software operates from. I, for one, am not opposed to my children learning about diversity, yet you have blocked The National Organization for Women, who's key issues include Racial and Ethnic Diversity as well as issues concerning Violence Against Women, which unfortunately in their younger days my children had to deal with firsthand. If it were not for Organizations like N.O.W. many women would not be able to find the resources the need to escape abusive relationships, thus allowing the children to suffer further. You have also banned The Human Awareness Institute which teaches individuals to prosper in healthier, happier, more emotionally balanced relationships. This is something I WANT my children to learn. After all, what is the alternative? For them to learn to wither in unhealthy, unhappy, emotionally leeching, abusive relationships? We live in an area that is extremely diverse and has a large gay population. Although, some homophobia still exists in the community, it is starting to be dispelled by the amount of information available in cyberspace about the gay/lesbian community. Not so if you are using CYBERsitter however. I think that based upon the extraordinarily large number of gay/lesbian sites that you have banned, we can see where the main homophobia exists. (Looked in a mirror lately, Mr. Millburn?) Until recently, you had also blocked a large number of wiccan/pagan sites as well because they obviously did not subscribe to your own Christian values not because they were in violation in any way of your list of criteria for blocked sites. By doing this, if I were using your software, you would have infringed upon my right as a parent to teach my children about their religion, as I would not have been able to access many valuable wiccan/pagan sites. I truly think that you need to re-evaluate your motives in distributing this product. If the product is not based upon your own agendas but merely to help parents in protecting their children, then you need to revamp your product so that it allows parents to decide what is appropriate for the children. By decoding your banned lists and making your product more "parent-friendly". It is not groups like Peacefire that are causing you to lose revenue. It is your own product. Organizations like Peacefire and many other individuals and organizations are merely bringing attention to faults which already exist within your product. Faults that the consumer would discover for themselves once they purchased it. If I were you, I would take the complaints you get to heart and use them to make your product better, rather than trying to shut down every single site that airs a complaint about your company's software. I, for one fully intend to make it known how your software operates. I have many friends on many domains who are willing to help me inform consumers about your product. If you feel it necessary to track us down, and block each and every one of us, then I wish you luck in your endeavors. But it might make it necessary to add the word CYBERsitter to your list of banned words, and just what would that do to your business? Sincerely, ( My name witheld here, I did include it in the original letter along with my title and e-mail address) I sent that first letter to the CEO's e-mail address, which is posted publicly on Solid Oak's Website (that address bmilburn@solidoak.com ) Well, that letter was returned to me along with a message stating that it was unwanted e-mail to a private e-mail address. So, I decided that perhaps the CEO wanted his privacy, even though he had posted his e-mail address on Solid Oak's website for the world to see. Or that he might have been offended by the header of my message, which read TheWitches.Com. I could understand that. I sent the message again, this time using my Z-Bear account and addressing the message to support@solidoak.com . The same thing happened again. My letter was returned with a message stating that it was unwanted e-mail sent to a private e-mail address. Okay, so perhaps they didn't want me cluttering up their support mailbox (which again was publicly displayed on their website) with feedback. That was the solution!!! Feedback!! I sent the message again, this time using the feed.back@solidoak.com Yet again, the message was returned to me with the same message: unwanted e-mail to a private e-mail address. Since when is a feedback address private? I copied and pasted the message right into an e-mail on their website, using the address located just below where it states, "We welcome your feedback" I returned to the Peacefire website and noticed something I had missed before. A section stating not to include the word Peacefire in any e-mail sent to Solid Oak, as they were screening the message bodies for this and if it was discovered the message would be rejected. I went back into my e-mail and took out all mention of Peacefire. Again, I sent the message to feed.back@solidoak.com. Rejected. Again. Well now that Solid Oak has been contacted, I can now tell the rest of the story about what happened. Here is a copy of the fourth e-mail I received from Solid Oak Software: -----Original Message----- From: Technical Support To: postmaster@zbear.com Date: Thursday, February 05, 1998 10:54 AM Subject--Unwanted e-mail [Re:] Fourth request. We have asked for your assistance regarding repeated unwanted e-mail from this account. You have seen fit however to ignore our requests. Since you will not do anything, we will. So, I had to wonder, what were they going to do? Report me to my ISP? They had already done that and my ISP responded to them that they didn't feel there was anything innappropriate about my e-mail. Approximately five minutes later, when my Outlook Express automatically logged on to check my mail, I found out. I couldn't believe my eyes. Hundreds of e-mails were being downloaded into my account. Solid Oak was mailbombing me! I immediately called my ISP and got one of the heads on the phone. I explained what was happening. He logged into my account and was witness to the mailbombing. He immediately took steps to shut off Solid Oaks mail to my account as well as to the rest of Valinet, my ISP. 300+ messages had already downloaded into my account by the time he stopped it with another 500+ remaining on the server. He was livid and so was I. What right did they have to do this. Especially since I had simply written a letter to give feedback on their product. This is not the kind of behavior one would expect from a company that states it is in business to help parents. I am a parent and this company attacked me and my ISP by mailbombing me. The person at my ISP is also a parent, his children and mine attend school together. And up until yesterday, my ISP was distributing Cybersitter as their filtering software. Solid Oak actually attacked a business that was selling their product! They certainly didn't teach me that in business school. That is a completely new tactic. I guess the only feedback they want is positive feedback. Anything negative or contrary will be rejected apparently and the person who gives the negative feedback will be childishly attacked. I would encourage you to write to Solid Oak Software to express your opinions about both their software and their business practices but I would warn you to do so at your own risk. They don't appear to take criticism well. If you would like more information on the filtering processes of Cybersitter or any of the other major filtering software, or if you would like to find out what you can do to help fight internet censorship, please visit the Peacefire website. Bright Blessings, ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 21:32:06 -0600 From: jthomas3@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas) Subject: File 3--Write a Complaint, Get a Mailbomb (Wired excerpt) Source - lynx http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/10141.html Wired News has been nominated for a Webby Award. You can vote for it at http://www.webbies.com/. Write a Complaint, Get a Mailbomb Janelle Brown 7:05pm 6.Feb.98.PST Solid Oak, the maker of Cybersitter Web filtering software, is under fire from a woman who says the company launched an email attack against her after she sent the firm a critical letter. A company spokesman offered a semi-denial of the accusation. Sarah Salls, a Web designer and mother of two, sent an email to Solid Oak on Wednesday that accused the company of carrying out censorship in its filtering software. After the email was rejected by four Solid Oak email accounts (including support, feedback, and the CEO's personal account), Salls says, she was mailbombed on Thursday. Her account received over 800 emails from support@solidoak.com, quoting her letter with the subject line "re: your crap" and a message "Do not send us any more e-mail!" Solid Oak denied Salls' allegation. But not flatly. "We know absolutely nothing about this - I can't imagine that this would happen," spokesman Marc Kanter said Friday. He conceded, however, that something might have happened - by accident. He said the company has a new automatic response email filtering system that Solid Oak is beta-testing and that it "could have made a mistake." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:00:26 From: Richard Thieme Subject: File 4--Islands in the Clickstream - January 24, 1998 Islands in the Clickstream: Why the Soft Stuff is Hard I am currently consulting with a large diverse organization about technology and communication. Listening to the people on the front lines, I discovered once again that the collective wisdom of the work force is immense, but building structures to enable that wisdom to flow freely isn't easy. Every introduction of new technology in the organization created problems. The "efficiency" of voice mail left people dangling. They didn't know if messages had been heard, action was being taken, or what. Email has solved some of those problems, but created others. You get a response, one said, but people often hide behind email, staying out of reach. They use words to duck for cover, not communicate. My mantra -- "Mutuality - Feedback - Accountability" -- holds true here too. Unless all three are maintained, an organization skews in predictable ways. Technology creates mutuality and feedback only if the leader holds people accountable to how it's used. This particular business spent lots of money on hardware, less on software, and almost nothing on training people to use email effectively -- not how to use email programs, but how to use words in a high-context medium. When we need to communicate, we can walk down a hallway and speak face-to-face, or pick up a telephone, or send email. Each medium creates a different context. When building a virtual group, it works best to have plenty of face-time up front, then use email to sustain -- not replace -- those relationships. Something that works when said face-to-face can feel like a boxing-glove coming out of a closet when an email pops up on the monitor and delivers the same words. Computer networks are only half the solution. Computer networks are fused to people networks. We humans beings animate the network, making it alive. Otherwise it's a monster that over- controls us. How we manage, not the computer network, but the integrated human-computer system determines how knowledge is leveraged in an enterprise. Because "soft skills" are harder to teach and supervise than tasks, we often spend more time buying chips and switches or choosing software programs than wrestling with the real struggles of the folks on the front lines. We can use emoticons like smiley faces all we want -- adding :-) or '-) or :-0 -- but emoticons don't convey subtleties or innuendoes. Besides, different cultures use them differently. The best carrier of meaning in the digital world is text. Using speech -- including virtual speech -- and text effectively is seldom taught. Yet "soft skills" are more important than ever in a work place that relies more and more on computer technology. The CEO of a large utility company told me he used to spend 85% of his time on the generation and distribution of power, only 15% on process issues. Now, he said, those percentages are reversed. He agreed that 85% of the effectiveness of anyone at any job is the "soft stuff" -- attitude, working well with others, communication. That CEO is not a touchy-feely kind of guy who can't wait to get to the office to get his hugs. He's a left-brain executive more comfortable with power grids than personnel. But managing people during times of change requires that we pay attention to how human beings link to one another, how energy and information moves through the human as well as the electronic system. That determines the real distribution of power. The latest books addressing this issue call it management of intellectual capital. When so many books on a single subject show up on best-seller lists, it's best to treat the event as a symptom rather than a solution. The symptoms show up for good reasons, signalling a real need, but seldom provide the whole answer. Re-engineering, for example. Re-engineering was invented (duh!) by engineers. They understood systems as if they were mechanical and taught a process that restructured businesses through brute force, a process better suited for rearranging marbles in boxes than human beings in cubicles. In a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal, Michael Hammer, one of the original re- engineering gurus, acknowledged that he added two days to his three-day seminar because he had not anticipated difficulty with people. When asked what to do with people who could not adapt easily to change. he had always replied, "Shoot them." He is learning that the people are the system, and the coupling of networked people and networked computers creates a single beast. Ignoring how that hybrid learns, grows, and produces value wreaked havoc in organizations that thought they were taking the easy way out. The recent emphasis on the proper use of intellectual capital is one antidote to the excesses of re-engineering, a way to say that knowledge and wisdom have to be managed, not ignored. Of course, good leaders always knew that the engine of any enterprise is the people who make it up, how they have learned to work together, how they train and sustain one another -- in short, the culture of the organization. They know too that how a culture works is not always measurable. Their intuitive understanding of creativity is a butterfly that can't be caught with a calibrated net. So beware of books that reduce complex human processes to simple grids. Any integration of human beings and their technologies requires that humans learn how to those technologies effectively to minimize friction, generate and sustain energy, and keep tacking back and forth across a straight line to our goal or vision. That journey is a long-distance run, not a sprint, and a long-distance run requires a different kind of training and a different kind of discipline. There are plenty of smart people in the work place, but sometimes we need perspective rather than a quick fix. Perspective, Alan Kay said, is worth 50 points of IQ. Wisdom may be scarcer than intelligence, but it's nuclear fuel that burns clean and burns a lot longer. ********************************************************************** Islands in the Clickstream is a weekly column written by Richard Thieme exploring social and cultural dimensions of computer technology. Comments are welcome. Feel free to pass along columns for personal use, retaining this signature file. If interested in (1) publishing columns online or in print, (2) giving a free subscription as a gift, or (3) distributing Islands to employees or over a network, email for details. To subscribe to Islands in the Clickstream, send email to rthieme@thiemeworks.com with the words "subscribe islands" in the body of the message. To unsubscribe, email with "unsubscribe islands" in the body of the message. Richard Thieme is a professional speaker, consultant, and writer focused on the impact of computer technology on individuals and organizations. Islands in the Clickstream (c) Richard Thieme, 1997. All rights reserved. ThiemeWorks on the Web: http://www.thiemeworks.com ThiemeWorks P. O. Box 17737 Milwaukee WI 53217-0737 414.351.2321 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:43:52 -0800 From: Subject: File 5--"Secure Computing: Threats and Safeguards", Rita C. Summers BKSCCMTS.RVW 971109 "Secure Computing: Threats and Safeguards", Rita C. Summers, 1997, 0-07-069419-2, C$87.95 %A Rita C. Summers %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-069419-2 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O C$87.95 905-430-5000 +1-800-565-5758 +1-905-430-5134 %O fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca lisah@McGrawHill.ca %P 688 p. %T "Secure Computing: Threats and Safeguards" This work is intended as a general, and mostly complete, coverage of all computer security topics. The author wishes to avoid the problem of a number of specialized works that address only isolated subjects within the field of security. The work is also intended for all audiences: developers, purchasers, security experts, managers, students, computer professionals, and even users. Just about everyone, it seems, except the non computer-using public at large. The book does provide a broad overview, looking at a general introduction to concepts, the context for security, threats, policies, models, cryptography, secure design and implementation, architecture and operating systems, security services, database security, network security, distributed systems, management, and analysis. Within those topics are included such diverse elements as ethics and physical security. The content is said to cover the topics to a "moderate depth." This depends upon what topic is being addressed. Theoretical areas are dealt with in mathematical detail. More practical subjects get rather short shrift. There is a very definite "large system" bias in the work: the author's tenure at IBM will surprise nobody. The book, while not completely disorganized, feels rather confused. This may be because, while the first four chapters are collectively referred to as "Foundations," in many ways the entire book is one long backgrounder. Chapter four is entitled "Policies and Models" but chapter twelve, on management, is much more appropriate as a guide to what a security policy has to deal with and take account of. (Ironically, the one place in the book that does suggest that the question is better dealt with in a later section of the book is in the section on viruses, which says that chapters eight and twelve provide more detailed information on antiviral safeguards. Chapters eight and twelve have nothing significant to say about the topic.) References are listed at the end of each chapter, both as a collection of works in bibliographic format, and in a section by section annotation of suggested further readings. While a large number of the citations are to magazine and periodical articles, a very healthy selection of superior books are included as well. There are a series of exercises at the end of each chapter. Commendably few of these questions are simply tests of whether you have read the material and can find the right page to copy the answer. Most of them pose problems or questions for discussion and reflection. However, in some cases I noted queries that were very open-ended, or that admitted a large variety of answers depending upon your interpretation of the question. In some other cases the material presented in the chapter was not sufficient to properly deal with the exercise. Although Summers seems to be quite proud of producing what she considers to be a very readable text, the writing is quite dry. Perhaps in an attempt to "write down" to non-experts, the author sometimes includes statements that are profoundly trivial, such as the assertion in chapter four that a "computer security policy is expressed in a language such as Spanish or English or Japanese." While the point that natural language is not as precise as mathematics might be valid, even in English it could be written better than that. The section on computer viruses is quite weak. An old definition is used that excludes boot sector infectors and macro viruses, but these infectors are discussed within pages without note of the disparity. Most of the research done in this area seems to be quite dated: a virus prevalence survey from 1992 is cited that gives rates orders of magnitude lower than currently seen. "Free software" and bulletin boards are cited as possible sources (as usual), although surrounding sentences note that any sharing of disks and even commercial software can be viral vectors. Although not as pronounced, similar weaknesses can be found in other technical sections. The chapter on cryptography is "by the book" and while it does provide algorithms for many encryption methods it doesn't address real issues of relative strength and weakness in different methods. Overall, the book provides a broad, but pedestrian, overview of data and system security. It might best be recommended to students in university and college courses on the topic. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKSCCMTS.RVW 971109 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:00:40 +0000 From: David Smith Subject: File 6--At least someone has a sense of humor...... Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu http://www.techserver.com/newsroom/ntn/info/020498/info13_26321_noframes .html Congressmen says he worried about e-mail pregnancy Copyright c 1998 Nando.net Copyright c 1998 Reuters News Service WASHINGTON (February 4, 1998 8:49 p.m. EST http://www.nando.net) - Citing the case of a woman who claims she got pregnant from e-mail, an Ohio Democrat called Wednesday for a "chastity chip" for the Internet. Rep. James Traficant, known for his flamboyant rhetoric, gave a brief floor speech about a woman named Frances who claimed to have gotten pregnant through an e-mail exchange with a paramour 1,500 miles away. "That's right -- pregnant," he proclaimed, warning of the dangers of "immaculate reception." He called on Congress to go beyond "v-chips" that would protect kids from sexual content on the Internet, saying: "Its time for Congress to act. The computers do not need a v-chip. The Internet needs a chastity chip." Although Traficant did not say whether he believed the woman's account, he did say it was "enough to crash your hard drive." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #10.10 ************************************