Stryker/C-130 Pics

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:08:36 -0400, John Hairell wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0000 (UTC), (Mike
Andrews) wrote:

In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

[stuff snipped]

I love it when people make blanket statements.

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.

I would be very surprised if modern symmetric and assymetric ciphers
are prone to cryptanalitic attack.

--
"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 Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:08:36 -0400, John Hairell wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0000 (UTC), (Mike
Andrews) wrote:

In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

[stuff snipped]

I love it when people make blanket statements.

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 ?



I would be very surprised if modern symmetric and assymetric ciphers
are prone to cryptanalitic attack.

With computers.....

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

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.

--
"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 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)

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

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:30:33 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

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

John Hairell )

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:43:47 -0400, John Hairell wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:30:33 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

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'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.

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

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 )