On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:43:07 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:43:47 -0400, John Hairell wrote:

[stuff snipped]

You've got to be kidding - anybody who might know such a fact isn't
going to be so stupid as to post it here.

Yes, I know. That's why I said "evidence" not "knowledge". I have
posted my reasons for believing strong ciphers are secure, and I
note no-one has attempted to refute my argument.

What you call "evidence" may not lead to the correct "knowledge".
What you believe (based on inferences about NSA made from very
incomplete public information) may not be true.

You made the assertion that "strong cyphers" are supposedly secure, so
prove it. It's not our job to prove they are insecure, it's your job
to prove they are secure - after all you are the one making the
allegation. Also, please cross-post to sci.crypt so that they can get
the benefit of your posting.

As an aside, as previous posters have noted, the Germans thought that
their Enigmas were secure because they had over one hundred sextillion
(1.074586873273 x 10 to the 23rd) "states" but their various
cryptosystems were indeed penetrated.

You also stated in a previous posting that NSA's computers are used
for "processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly". Please prove
this also.

You also posted that OTPs are unbreakable. That's true in theory but
not in reality. Several OTP-based cryptosystems have been broken,
maybe not using purely cryptanalytic means but broken nonetheless.

John Hairell )