Stryker/C-130 Pics

"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.

Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:57:02 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:

Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we?

I wonder if you have ever seen the reports of the NATO Arctic Small Arms
Trial held at Shilo in 1980. They had the early Diemaco or an M16A1,
proto-SA 80, several others and, for comparison's sake, a Steyr AUG.
According to the range officer, the AUG shot rings round all the rest.
(We bought the Canadian-made Diemaco, of course. Oh, well.)

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, and I can personally recall magazines falling out all
the time and once a cocking handle coming off in somebody's hand.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

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

Hmm, not very limiting. Atoms come significantly after the big bang.

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

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:14:42 +1000, L'acrobat
wrote:

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
task.

If you think that throwing money and machines at the problem will
crack a 2048 bit assymetric cipher, you nare a complete and utter
fool who knows nothing, I repeat *nothing* about encryption.

--
"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:

"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.


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.


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!


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.


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.


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.

-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
...
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.

-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

John Keeney wrote:

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

Hmm, not very limiting. Atoms come significantly after the big bang.
------------
You don't even understand the math, go the **** away and be 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

Fred Abse wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:53:32 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma. Bad practice
for a Nazi.
He didn't anticipate Colossus

Sorry, Steve, have to correct you here. Colossus had nothing to do with
Enigma, it was used on the Lorenz pseudo-random (more pseudo than random
to quote Tony Sale) teletype encryptor. (Codename Fish)
-------------
Ooops, sorry, you're right, but the Lorenz was a machine that used the
same basic principle as Enigma.


I've seen the replica running. The paper tape reader is awesome. 5000
characters a second.

The machines used on Enigma were called Bombes.
-------------
True, thanks for that!

-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

Fred Abse wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:27:27 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote:

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

You forgot Bruce Schneier.

And (taking a bit of a liberty), Claude Elwood Shannon (RIP).
------------
Yes, this all comes out of Claude's signal theory.
And a couple others as well!

-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