Stryker/C-130 Pics

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the
lifetime of
the serious user" ands so you did.
---------------------------
It *IS*!
If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
lengths that are do-able.

We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin.
We are discussing a Govt doing it.
---------------
You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
of govts.

And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which
belief
is more dangerous?
---------------------
Yours, because it's wrong.


Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong.



Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his
system
was
safe.
----------------
You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you
try
to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
qualitatively different than any systematically crackable
cipher.

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
-------------------
Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically.
It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
universe.

That is what you believe. you are wrong.
--------------
No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.

Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and
they
have always been wrong.
-------------------------
None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to
believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it.


Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon.



everyone always thinks their codes
are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
---------------
That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.

I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks
their
favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto
guys
quoted the math.
---------------------------
Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma.
Bad practice for a Nazi.
He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read
the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a
general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower
ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university
student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays.
Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages
by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes!


I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't
anticipating?



What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those
'puters
they
own?
playing Doom?
---------------------
Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.

But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot
anymore.
They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of
using
commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat
them,
while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are
totally
defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up
and
download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
firewall properly installed.

Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of
supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'.
------------------------------------
I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".

A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs.
-------------------
Irrelevant.


Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked.


Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'.
----------------------
If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then
they aren't too sharp.



Not proof, stevie boy, just the opinion of a fool.


Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals
systems
and I
assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him
that
there
was
no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
---------------------------
That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.

Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is
utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot.
-----------------------
Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
And you don't even know. Pitiful.

You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is
uncrackable.
--------------------------
That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself
pitifully.

Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and
you know it.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"Fred Abse" wrote in message
newsan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple
machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck
prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for
the
task.
------------------
BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
about right. (~10^22)

Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
good admirals codes.
-----------------------------
Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required,
it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself.
Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much
and how long it takes statistically for a given key length.

Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math.


Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.
-----------------------
You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you
pitiful.

And right.

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...

There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
that's not sitting there just generating heat.

Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.

Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
Navy not tell me what he did ?

Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
us it.


You really think anyone would answer that on usnet ?

Like others have said, never trust that your ciphers are secure.


--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 25 Sep 2003 06:23:38 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,

Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
quicker than 10 ms.

So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
spectrum.

OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
frequency in advance.

BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
into how many bands, roughly?

It uses the entire normal military VHF FM spectrum, 30-88 MHz. ISTR
that the steps in between are measured in 1 KHz increments, as opposed
to the old 10 KHz increments found in older FM radios like the
AN/VRC-12 family, so the number of different frequencies SINGCARS can
use is 58,000.

More than one 1 kHz slot is likely to be in use at anyone time,
since you need enough bandwidth for voice. Say 20, then about
1/3000th of the frequency space is in use at any one time.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Only if it were so...but thank goodness it is not.

Oh? So who can break AES/Rijndael?

Otherwise we would
have lost the value of one of our largest and most valuable intel
programs, and NSA would no longer exist. Even the cypher keys used by
our modern tactical radios (said keys being generated by NSA at the
top end, though we now have computers in the field capable of "key
generation" using input from that source) are not
unbreakable--instead, they are tough enough to break that we can be
reasonably assured that the bad guys will not be able to gain any kind
of *timely* tactical intel; enough computing power in the hands of the
crypto-geeks and they can indeed break them,

True, but "enough" happens to be more than all the computers in
existance right now, or likely to exist.

Assume: there are 1 billion computers, each of which can check 1
billion keys/second.

Then a brute-force search on a 128-bit keyspace would take about
10^60 years.

Well, I guess you ought to inform Congress that the NSA is a sham, then.

Brooks

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:28:35 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...

There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
that's not sitting there just generating heat.

Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.

Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
Navy not tell me what he did ?

Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
us it.

You really think anyone would answer that on usnet ?

IOW you are bull****ting. Thanks for admitting it.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:28:35 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...

There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
that's not sitting there just generating heat.

Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.

Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
Navy not tell me what he did ?

Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
us it.

You really think anyone would answer that on usnet ?

IOW you are bull****ting. Thanks for admitting it.


No, I was pointing out that even with my current clearance my brother-in-
law could'nt tell me what he was doing for the NSA computers.

Neither you nor I know if thay can or not.



--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:49:22 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:28:35 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...

There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
that's not sitting there just generating heat.

Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.

Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
Navy not tell me what he did ?

Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
us it.

You really think anyone would answer that on usnet ?

IOW you are bull****ting. Thanks for admitting it.

No, I was pointing out that even with my current clearance my brother-in-
law could'nt tell me what he was doing for the NSA computers.

Neither you nor I know if thay can or not.

While it is impossible to know in detail everything about the NSA,
some things can be known or reasonably surmised.

1. we know for certain that some encryption schemes are unbreakable.
One-time pads, for example, or schemes where the ciphertext is
smaller than the key. Of course, as will all symmetric ciphers,
there's the key distribution problem, but in the context we were
discussing -- a battlefield internet -- there is a secure channel to
distribute keys, you can simply exchange data storage media around
the battalion. (Sometimes, there is no secure channel, which is when
public-key encryption gets useful).

2. we know for certain that some algorithms are computationally
intractable, i.e. there's no way to run them faster. This followes
from Turing's Halting Problem. It may be possible that in the future
quantum computing will have some effect on some such problems; but
that's entirely speculative.

3. we know for certain that ideas are often independently invented
by multiple people in multiple places; we can therefore reasonably
surmise that what the NSA knows now, others will know within a few
years.

4. we know for certain that the US govmt is encouraging people to
use AES in its civilian Internet infrastructure

5. we can reasonably surmise that the US govmt thinks that no
potential adversary will be able to crack AES in the forseeable
future. The largest potential adversary might be China, which has
about 1/10th the resources of the USA, which is equivalent to adding
3 bits on a symmetric key, or waiting 5 years for computers to get
faster.

6. From 3, 4, and 5, we can reasonably surmise that the NSA cannot
currently crack AES.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

L'acrobat wrote:

Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong.

Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon.

I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't
anticipating?

Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked.

Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and
you know it.
--------------------
You have said precisely nothing contentful.

You're merely spoiling for flame without even owning a brain.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:49:22 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:28:35 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...

There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
that's not sitting there just generating heat.

Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.

Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
Navy not tell me what he did ?

Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
us it.

You really think anyone would answer that on usnet ?

IOW you are bull****ting. Thanks for admitting it.

No, I was pointing out that even with my current clearance my brother-in-
law could'nt tell me what he was doing for the NSA computers.

Neither you nor I know if thay can or not.

While it is impossible to know in detail everything about the NSA,
some things can be known or reasonably surmised.

1. we know for certain that some encryption schemes are unbreakable.
One-time pads, for example, or schemes where the ciphertext is
smaller than the key. Of course, as will all symmetric ciphers,
there's the key distribution problem, but in the context we were
discussing -- a battlefield internet -- there is a secure channel to
distribute keys, you can simply exchange data storage media around
the battalion. (Sometimes, there is no secure channel, which is when
public-key encryption gets useful).

2. we know for certain that some algorithms are computationally
intractable, i.e. there's no way to run them faster. This followes
from Turing's Halting Problem. It may be possible that in the future
quantum computing will have some effect on some such problems; but
that's entirely speculative.

3. we know for certain that ideas are often independently invented
by multiple people in multiple places; we can therefore reasonably
surmise that what the NSA knows now, others will know within a few
years.

4. we know for certain that the US govmt is encouraging people to
use AES in its civilian Internet infrastructure

5. we can reasonably surmise that the US govmt thinks that no
potential adversary will be able to crack AES in the forseeable
future. The largest potential adversary might be China, which has
about 1/10th the resources of the USA, which is equivalent to adding
3 bits on a symmetric key, or waiting 5 years for computers to get
faster.

6. From 3, 4, and 5, we can reasonably surmise that the NSA cannot
currently crack AES.


Maybe they don't need to crack it..



--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:04 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


The Steyr may have shot rings around the rest, but by that standard
the first SA80 I ever fired was also wonderful and far better than my
old SLR. Meanwhile, in the real world, Aussies I have spoken to have
apparently experienced worse problems with the Steyr than I ever did
with the SA80,

Allegedly down to domestic production issues with non spec ingredients and
lack of QC.


FWIH Austrian produced models havent had similiar issues. Not surprising
given steyrs standard demo is to throw one picked at random into some
suitable mire, drive a truck over it, shake the water out and fire it.



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!