Stryker/C-130 Pics

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

Has the Diemaco proved to be a disaster?

Not at all, especially if the foreign sales are taken into account.
However, for the first eight or so years there were bugs to be ironed out
(magazines and their lips primarily).
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Fred Abse wrote:

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 :-)
------------------------
We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the
number of atoms in the big bang!

-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 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)

"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.

"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.




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. everyone always thinks their codes
are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.



but you are.
--------------------
More of your meaningless blather and ridiculous self-covering.

Yawn.



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'.




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.

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)

-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

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.


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.


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.


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".


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.

-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

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Fred Abse wrote:

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 :-)
------------------------
We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the
number of atoms in the big bang!

-Steve
--


There were atoms in the Big Bang?
That should come as a surprise to science!

Dave

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 25 Sep 2003 10:03:00 -0700, Kevin Brooks
wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message
...
On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or
for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and
30mm.

I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are
more
effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in
other
words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.

Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably
have
a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper
(no
complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong).
Its
main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun
with
a limited traverse.

If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head
with a
tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
because that in the end is what it is going to be used as,

That's a good point. No reason you can't have both, of course.

The only cost advantage that a Jagdpanzer would have over a
conventional tank would be the turret and training mechanism which in
a modern tank is relatively small beer. The propulsion, electronics
and gun would be the same. Tanks using the Rheinmettal gun are almost
always limited by sight line rather than ballistic performance for
lethality so I don't see a lot of advantage to up-gunning to say, a 14
0mm tube. Since a Jagdpanzer gives up a lot in anything but a
set-piece defensive engagement compared to a tank, I don't think
there's much advantage-now-.

During WWII, the deletion of the turret speeded up production because
that was a bottle-neck item in German production and up-gunning one
size was a real advantage.

"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?




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.



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.



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.

Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'.



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.