A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stryker/C-130 Pics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3  
Old September 27th 03, 05:30 PM
phil hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #5  
Old September 28th 03, 07:26 PM
phil hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #7  
Old September 28th 03, 11:30 PM
phil hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #10  
Old September 30th 03, 04:48 PM
John Hairell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 )
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
---California International Air Show Pics Posted!!!! Tyson Rininger Aerobatics 0 February 23rd 04 11:51 AM
TRUCKEE,CA DONNER LAKE 12-03 PICS. @ webshots TRUCKEE_DONNER_LAKE Instrument Flight Rules 3 December 19th 03 04:48 PM
Aviation Pics Tyson Rininger Aviation Marketplace 0 November 7th 03 01:04 AM
b-17C interior pics site old hoodoo Military Aviation 0 September 15th 03 03:42 AM
Nam era F-4 pilot pics? davidG35 Military Aviation 2 August 4th 03 03:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.