From: Matt Thomlinson <phantom@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:21:05 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: ((subscribe msgs to list) && (DOS stego deleted filespace))
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9402181824.A18238-0100000@stein1.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


subscribe msgs:

I've been thinking about this problem as long as the rest of you have, 
and have finally come to the conclusion that 1) eric doesn't want to 
change the way the list software and 2) eric is going to continue to be 
human and not be able to reply to subscribe/unsub messages as fast as 
something like majordomo could. Knowing this, I propose:


A vacation.msg file or equivalent on cypherpunks-request@toad.com should be 
constructed that:

	o replies to ALL messages 
	
	o Explains that ALL requests are done by a human and to expect a 
		week or more for subscribe/unsubscribe requests. 

	o Also describes large volume of mail (useful for those who are
		attempting to subscribe)


Now when someone sends the subscribe request and fails to read the message
sent regarding how to unsubscribe, and then (from traffic volume) decides 
to unsubscribe the explanation will be mailed again automatically. 

Might keep some of the garbage off of the list. 

Yes, this is basic. No, this has not been done, obviously.




dos stego:

I don't think the current discussion is taking into account the fact that 
if someone suspects you of using steganography they're going to check. 
If what you are describing becomes a popular way of steganography, you're 
out of luck -- they'll check that first. 

Think about it: your 'bad-sector' stego or 'wiped-filespace' stego begins 
gaining popularity. Wouldn't you think they'd check for funny bad sectors if 
they were going to check your computer for contriband info? 


Another thing that has bothered me: if you didn't have the sectors marked,
you'd need to remember where they were (so you could protect them from
writes). You wouldn't necessarily want to do this on the computer; it'd be
there for the picking. How to do it?f

Someone suggested you just use the end of the wiped filespace (use norton
or other utility to defrag the disk and move empty space to the end of the
disk, then use portion of disk furthest away from being written to. This 
might work, except for the fact that fragmentation _does_ go on, and when 
you were to write files to the drive (heck, I do every time I start up 
windows and write a huge temp swapfile) you're going to be playing 
roulette with your data. 


I think the point about the blank track (the one linux uses) is
interesting;  then again, once your method becomes well-known, it is no
longer useful. 


Just thoughts; I wish I had more answers. Heck, ANY answers would be nice.

mt

Matt Thomlinson                               Say no to the Wiretap Chip!
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Internet: phantom@u.washington.edu      	    phone: (206) 548-9804
PGP 2.2  key available via email or finger phantom@hardy.u.washington.edu