Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 21:32:29 PST
Reply-To: <surfpunk@osc.versant.com>
Return-Path: <cocot@osc.versant.com>
Message-ID: <surfpunk-0056@SURFPUNK.Technical.Journal>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: surfpunk@osc.versant.com (gnxr na beqvanel ivehf naq jenc vg)
To: surfpunk@osc.versant.com (SURFPUNK Technical Journal)
Subject: [surfpunk-0056] CRYPT: Ban scanners; US Info Policy; Viral encryption

|                            "Fuck raves ... I hate raves ..."
|                                -- sf embarcadero skateboarder, 2325 12feb93
|                                     [les enfants sauvages dans la TAZ]

Here's three different topics from cypherpunks; the first one includes
an action item.  Back around 1986 the FCC broke its longstanding "third
party" policy, which was that anyone can listen to any transmissions
they can receive in their own air, but they cannot forward the
reception to any third party.  Around 1986 it became illegal to
listen to certain frequences.  And guess what people did with the list
of frequencies they weren't allowed to listen to?  Below you can read
Congress's next attempt to ensure your privacy on cellular phones.   --strick

  --  [gnu] FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphone Transmissions
  --  [gnu] Re: Technology Policy and Information Infrastructure
  --  [gnu] Re: Technology Policy and Information Infrastructure
  --  [gnu] Re: Technology Policy and Information Infrastructure
  --  [Murdering Thug]  Re: Viral encryption

_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


From: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com, gnu@toad.com
Subject: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphone Transmissions
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 03:02:21 -0800

Please at least write a one-page letter in response to this
proposed ruling.  The idiots in Congress decided that banning radios
was preferable to allowing (or requiring) decent encryption in
cellular phones.  Now the FCC is making rules to implement the
Congressional ban.  They should hear from us, loud and clear,
that this is completely backwards and wrong.

Your letter should reference Docket Number 93-1 and should clearly
state the subject on which you are commenting.  *Then* comment...

        John

------- Forwarded Message

Message-Id: <199302111305.AA17580@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 08:10:14 -0500
To: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore), barlow@eff.org, jberman@eff.org,
        mkapor@eff.org, blau@eff.org, farber@central.cis.upenn.edu
From: Daniel J. Weitzner <djw@eff.org>
Subject: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphone Transmissions

The file attached here was received today and is too long for
inclusion in a regular issue of the Digest. It is submitted for your
comments and consideration. You might want to send your comments to
the FCC as well.

PAT

  From: raisch@ora.com (Rob Raisch)
  Subject: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphone Transmissions
  Organization: O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
  Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 05:10:24 GMT

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

[ET Docket No. 93-1; FCC 93-1]

Radio Scanners That Receive Cellular Telephone Transmissions

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposes to deny
equipment authorization to radio scanners capable of receiving
transmissions in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications
Service. This action is taken in response to the Telephone Disclosure
and Dispute Resolution Act (Pub. L. 102-556). The intended effect of
this action is to help ensure the privacy of cellular telephone
conversations.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 22, 1993, and
reply comments on or before March 8, 1993.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Wilson, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 653-8138.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No. 93-1, FCC 93- 1,
adopted January 4, 1993, and released January 13, 1993. The full text
of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (room 230), 1919 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision also may be
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Downtown Copy
Center, at (202) 659-8657 or 1990 M Street, NW., suite 640,
Washington, DC 20036.

Paperwork Reduction

   The following collection of information contained in this proposed
rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3504(h)). Copies of this submission may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Downtown Copy Center, at (202)
659-8657 or 1990 M Street, NW., suite 640, Washington, DC 20036.
Persons wishing to comment on this collection of information should
direct their comments to Mr. Jonas Neihardt, Office of Management and
Budget, room 3235 NEOB, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 395-4814. A copy
of any comments filed with the Office of Management and Budget should
also be sent to the following address at the Federal Communications
Commission: Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Managing
Director, Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, DC 20554. For
further information contact Ms. Judy Boley, (202) 632-7513.

   OMB Number: None.
   Title: Scanning Receiver Compliance Exhibit.
   Respondents: Businesses or other for profit, small businesses/organizations 
   Action: New collection.
   Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting.
   Estimated Annual Burden: 
   Number of respondents: 40.
   Annual hours per respondent: 0.25.
   Total annual burden: 10.

Needs and Uses: An exhibit accompanying a Form 731 Application for
Equipment Authorization will determine compliance of applicants
requesting authorization to market scanning receivers and frequency
converters with Congressionally mandated regulations. The regulations
prohibit the marketing of radio scanners capable of intercepting, or
being modified to intercept, cellular telephone conversations.

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making:

   1. By this action, the Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2
and 15 to prohibit the manufacture or importation of radio scanners
capable of receiving frequencies allocated to the Domestic Public
Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service.  This action is in response
to the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act (Act), Pub. L.
102-556.

   2. The Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service
("Cellular Radio Service") provides telephone service to mobile
customers. Cellular telephones use frequencies in the bands 824-849
MHz and 869-894 MHz to connect their users to other cellular system
users and to the Public Switched Telephone Network.

   3. As defined in 47 CFR part 15 scanning receivers, or "scanners,"
are radio receivers that automatically switch between four or more
frequencies anywhere within the 30-960 MHz band. In order to control
their potential to cause harmful interference to authorized radio
communications, the rules require that scanners receive an equipment
authorization (certification) from the Commission prior to marketing.

   4. In the past five years, 22 different models of scanning
receivers capable of receiving cellular telephone transmissions have
been issued grants of equipment authorization. During this same
period, ten other models capable of tuning frequencies between 806 and
900 MHz except for the cellular bands have also been authorized.
Several publications currently on the market describe relatively
simple modifications that users can make to many of the latter
scanning receivers to enable that equipment to receive cellular
telephone transmissions.

   5. The Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act requires
that the Commission, by April 26, 1993, prescribe and make effective
regulations denying equipment authorization for any scanning receiver
capable of:

    Receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to 
the domestic cellular radio service,
    Readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions 
in such frequencies, or
    Being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular 
transmissions to analog voice audio.

The Act also stipulates that, beginning one year after the effective
date of the regulations adopted to satisfy the above requirements, no
receiver having the above capabilities shall be manufactured in the
United States or imported for use in the United States.

   6. In accordance with the Act, we are proposing to deny equipment
authorization to scanning receivers that tune frequencies used by
cellular telephones. We are also proposing to require applicants for
the authorization of scanning receivers to include in their
applications a statement declaring that their receivers cannot be
tuned to receive cellular telephone transmissions.

   7. Also in accordance with the Act, we are proposing to require
that scanning receivers be incapable of being readily altered by the
user to operate within the cellular bands. To assist us in determining
whether a scanner complies with this requirement, we propose to
require applicants for scanning receiver equipment authorization to
include in their applications a statement pledging that their
receivers cannot be readily altered to receive cellular telephone
transmissions. We also propose to prohibit the authorization of any
scanning receiver for which cellular coverage can be readily restored
by the user. We solicit comment on this proposed reporting requirement
and on the definition of "readily altered."  We also seek comment on
whether additional information, such as why the receiver cannot be
readily altered, should be required.

   8. In further compliance with the Act, we propose to deny equipment
authorization to any scanning receiver that can be equipped with
decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice
audio. We invite comment on the potential impact of this requirement
on existing models of scanning receivers.

   9. There currently are a number of frequency converters on the
market that can be used in conjunction with scanners that receive
frequencies below 800 MHz to enable the reception of cellular
telephone transmissions. We are proposing to deny equipment
authorization to converters that tune, or can be readily altered by
the user to tune, cellular telephone frequencies. We will require that
applicants for FCC equipment authorization of frequency converters
used with scanners include in their applications a statement pledging
that the converters cannot be easily altered to enable a scanner to
receive cellular transmissions. We seek comment on whether this
statement should also include evidence indicating why the converter
cannot be easily modified.

   10. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is contained in the
text of the Notice.

11. Comment Dates

   Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in 47 CFR 1.415 and
1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before February 22,
1993, and reply comments on or before March 8, 1993. In order to
comply with the requirement of the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute
Resolution Act that FCC rules be promulgated within 180 days of
enactment, we will proceed with this Notice without furnishing a prior
text as provided by Article 607 of the United States-Canada Free-Trade
Implementation Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-499, 102 Stat. 1851). To do so
would frustrate achievement of a legitimate domestic objective. In
addition, the Commission is not likely to be able to accommodate
requests for extension of the comment periods. To file formally in
this proceeding, you must file an original and five copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each
Commissioner to receive a copy of your comments, you must file an
original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments
to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available
for public inspection during normal business hours in the Dockets
Reference Room of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554.

12. Ex-Parte Rules-Non-Restricted Proceeding

   This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making proceeding.
Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine
Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission
rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203 and 1.1206(a).

   13. For further information on this proceeding contact David
Wilson, Technical Standards Branch, Office of Engineering and
Technology, 202-653-8138.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2 and 15:

   Communications equipment, Wiretapping and electronic surveillance.

Federal Communications Commission.

Donna R. Searcy,
Secretary.

   Parts 2 and 15 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 2-FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES
AND REGULATIONS

   1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

   Authority: Secs. 4, 302, 303 and 307 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 154(i), 302, 303, 303(r) and 307.

   2. Section 2.975 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(8) 
to read as follows:

2.975   Application for notification.

   (a) * * *
   (8) Applications for the notification of receivers contained 
in frequency converters used with scanning receivers shall be 
accompanied by an exhibit indicating compliance with the provisions 
of 15.121 of this chapter.
*     *     *     *     *     
   3. Section 2.1033 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(12) 
to read as follows:

2.1033   Application for certification.
*     *     *     *     *     
   (b) * * *
   (12) Applications for the certification of scanning receivers under
part 15 shall be accompanied by an exhibit indicating compliance with
the provisions of 15.122 of this chapter.  
* * * * *

PART 15-RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

   1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

   Authority: Secs. 4, 302, 303 and 307 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303 and 307.

   2. Section 15.37 is amended by adding a last sentence to paragraph
(b), and adding a new paragraph (f), to read as follows:

15.37   Transition provisions for compliance with the rules.
*     *     *     *     *     
   (b) * * * In addition, receivers are subject to the provisions in
paragraph (f) of this section. 

 * * * * *

   (f) The manufacture or importation of scanning receivers, and
frequency converters used with scanning receivers, that do not comply
with the provisions of 15.121 shall cease on or before April 26, 1994.
Effective April 26, 1993, the Commission will not accept applications
for equipment authorization for receivers that do not comply with the
provisions of 15.121.  This paragraph does not prohibit the sale or
use of authorized receivers manufactured in the United States, or
imported into the United States, prior to April 26, 1994.

   3. Section 15.121 is added to read as follows:

15.121 Scanning receivers and frequency converters used with scanning
receivers.

   Scanning receivers, and frequency converters used with scanning
receivers, must be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being
altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated
to the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service.
Receivers capable of "readily being altered by the user" include, but
are not limited to, those for which the ability to receive
transmissions in the restricted bands can be added by clipping the
leads of, or installing, a diode, resistor and/or jumper wire; or
replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip. Scanning receivers, and
frequency converters used with scanning receivers, must also be
incapable of converting digital cellular transmissions to analog voice
audio.

------- End of Forwarded Message


________________________________________________________________________

From: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: ["Vinton G. Cerf": Technology Policy and Information Infrastructure]
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 02:07:03 -0800

I sent him some sound bites about Internet policy and about crypto policy.
I'll send them to Cypherpunks too.

        John

------- Forwarded Message

To: trustees:;@isoc.org, isoc-interest@sgi.com, ietf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US,
        iab@isi.edu, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, Members:;@isoc.org
Subject: Technology Policy and Information Infrastructure
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 08:25:06 -0500
From: "Vinton G. Cerf" <vcerf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Message-Id:  <9302100825.aa02728@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

Dear Internauts and friends,

I have been invited to testify before the US House Subcommittee on
Technology on the subject of technology policy and information
intrastructure. To prepare my testimony, it would be helpful to
have SHORT (please!) comments, suggestions, "bullets" as input,
so that Internet Society ideas and considerations can be represented
(or, at the least, offer some national and international perspective
on a matter of global importance).

If you want to send something on this point, please send it ONLY
to: vcerf@cnri.reston.va.us. DO NOT SEND IT TO THE ENTIRE LIST OF
ADDRESSEES (or they will do something terrible to me).

Many thanks for letting me disturb your busy mailboxes, and thanks
in advance for your ideas.

Vint

p.s. I need any inputs by end of February

------- End of Forwarded Message

________________________________________________________________________

To: "Vinton G. Cerf" <vcerf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>, gnu@toad.com
Subject: Re: Technology Policy and Information Infrastructure
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 01:43:31 -0800
From: gnu@toad.com

Sound bites for Congress re technology policy and information infrastructure:

  *  Government investment invariably brings government control, which
     is harmful to the development of a communications medium in a free
     and open society.

  *  The Government seized control of telegraphy, radio, and television
     early in their development, and they have never had full First Amendment
     protection.

  *  Private, interactive electronic media involve Fourth and Fifth Amendment
     issues as well.

  *  The Executive Branch is already advocating broad wiretapping, and
     banning of privacy technologies, and they don't even own the network.
     If the government owned the network, there'd be no stopping them.

  *  The risk of moving society into media where individual rights are
     regularly abridged is too great.  Economics is pushing us into
     individual electronic communication, regardless.

  *  If Congress truly believes in the Bill of Rights, it should get the
     hell out of the networking business and stay out of it.

        John Gilmore
        (not speaking for) Electronic Frontier Foundation
        (but ask EFF if they want to say something like this...)

________________________________________________________________________

To: "Vinton G. Cerf" <vcerf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Subject: Re: Technology Policy and Information Infrastructure
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 01:52:35 -0800
From: gnu@toad.com

Vint, if your testimony will touch on "technology policy" as it relates to
cryptograpy policy, then here are a few more "sound bits":

  *  Privacy and authenticity technologies are key to reliable
     and trustworthy social and business interactions over networks.

  *  Current government policies actively prohibit and inhibit the
     research, design, manufacturing, sale, and use of these technologies.

  *  Taxpayers have been investing many billions of dollars per year
     in these technologies, in the NSA "black budget", but have seen no
     return on this investment.

  *  Current "cold war" policy should be turned on its head.  Privacy
     is one of the fundamental rights from which the Bill of Rights was
     derived.  Government policy should encourage privacy technologies.
     Government controls on cryptography should be completely removed.

  *  The taxpayer investment in privacy technologies should be returned to
     the taxpayers by declassifying NSA research and encouraging its
     widespread deployment to protect domestic civilian communications.

________________________________________________________________________


From: thug@phantom.com (Murdering Thug)
Subject: Re: Viral encryption
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 11:47:43 EST

As Mr. Ferguson pointed out, polymorphic viruses are making their way into the
DOS world.  This is a problem in the short term, but not in the long term
because people will be changing to memory-protected & file-permission based
operating systems like NT, OS/2 and Unix, where it is very difficult for
most kinds of virus to spread.

I myself am very familiar with the virus underground, so for those who are
not, let me explain the two newest and most deadly virus techniques which
are being seen in the DOS world.

The first is something called "Stealth" viruses.  Stealth viruses imbed
themselves into DOS and intercept disk read calls from applications. If
those read system calls are reading non .EXE or .COM files, then they are
processed normally.  However when an application such as virus scanning
program is reading in .COM and .EXE files (in order to scan them for virus
code), the stealth code in DOS intercepts this and returns to the application
what the .EXE or .COM file would look like if it wasn't infected by the
stealth virus.  Thus, all virus checking programs can be decieved in this
manner.  There are steps to get around this, like booting off of a
write-protected floppy disk (with a clean copy of DOS on it) and running
the virus checking program directly from that floppy.  But people seldom
do that, so the stealth technology is a worthwhile one for virus creators
to pursue.

The second is called "Polymorphic" viruses.  These are viruses which
contain a tiny encryption/decryption engine.  The great thing about
polymorphic viruses is that they encrypt themselves with a different key
each time they replicate (make a new copy of themselves).  The small
amount of virus bootstrap code which is not encrypted is changed in each
replication by dispursing random NOP's throughout the virus boostrap code.
Thus each sample of polymorphic virus looks completely different to
virus checking programs.  The virus checking programs cannot use
"signature" byte strings to detect polymorphic viruses.

I have seen something called D.A.M.E., also known as Dark Avenger
Mutation Engine.  This is a freeware polymorphic library/kernel/toolkit
which allows anyone to take an ordinary virus and wrap it in a polymorphic
shell.  Thus each new copy of the virus will look completely different
as it replicates.  D.A.M.E. is a great toolkit for those who want to
release new viruses but don't have the skills to write a virus from
scratch.  DAME works very well with Turbo Assembler and MASM.
I believe that DAME II will be coming out sometime this spring. At
least that is what the author has promised.  Among the new features
will be more powerful encryption, stealth capabilities, and compatibility
with Stacker and DR DOS compressed file systems.  I have read that the
author of DAME and DAME II will be coming out with a Virus Construction
Set, which will allow point-n-click building of new viruses using
object oriented techniques.  It works sort of like a Mr. Potatohead,
you point and click on the parts/modules you want and it builds it for
you.  You select the replication method, stealth capability,
polymorphism, and payload module (there are several payloads, varying
from playing music and showing graphics, to printing a text message on
screan, to complete wipe out of the HD). The really wonderful thing
is that you will be able to build your own modules and link them into
the virus.  I am sure a flourishing of third-party modules will occur.

With the VCS, a 9 year old can build a competely new virus just by
pointing, clicking, and dragging, popping up windows and choosing options.

My oh my, aren't we in for fun times ahead...

Thug

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

The SURFPUNK Technical Journal is a dangerous multinational hacker zine
originating near BARRNET in the fashionable western arm of the northern
California matrix.  Quantum Californians appear in one of two states,
spin surf or spin punk.  Undetected, we are both, or might be neither.
________________________________________________________________________

Send postings to <surfpunk@osc.versant.com>, subscription requests 
to <surfpunk-request@osc.versant.com>.  MIME encouraged.  
Xanalogical archive access soon.  For those who want to release new viruses.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________








                      
           No question of _writing_to_ Wild Children. They think in
           images -- prose is for them a code not yet fully digested &
           ossified, just as for us never fully trusted.
           
           You may write _about_ them, so that others who have lost the
           silver chain may follow. Or write _for_ them, making of
           STORY & EMBLEM a process of seduction into your own
           paleolithic memories, a barbaric enticement to liberty
           (chaos as CHAOS understands it).
           
           For this otherworld species or "third sex,"
           _les_enfants_sauvages_, fancy & Imagination are still
           undifferentiated. Unbridled PLAY: at one & the same time the
           source of our Art & of all the race's rarest eros.


