Stryker/C-130 Pics

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message


Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.

That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum
computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible
factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional
computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number
encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds. And there is at least some
reason to beleive that QC is achievable within a couple of decades.

OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack,
but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of
the both the mechanism and the keys themselves). If they have the actual
keys, the eavesdroppers can decode RSA just as easily as the intended
recipients.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:47:07 +1000, L'acrobat
wrote:

"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from
now,

Ever heard of Moore's law?

I've got a pretty good idea. A typical PC now has a 2 GHz CPU, and
about 256 MB RAM.

Assume these double every 18 months. 10 years is about 7 doublings
so in 2003 we'll see PCs with 250 GHz CPUs and 32 GB of RAM.

Right. you are going to base national security matter on a rule of thumb
that relates to a typical PC.

Good move.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from
now,
let alone 30.
-----------------
Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.


"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.
----------------------
Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.


Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't
it?
------------------------
You have absolutely NO IDEA what the **** you're talking about.


See Mr Schoenes response.

It seems that you sir, have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe.

Thomas Schoene wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message


Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.

That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum
computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible
factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional
computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number
encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds. And there is at least some
reason to beleive that QC is achievable within a couple of decades.
-----------------------
Or DNA computing, sure.

Just an escalation, the power of operations easier one way than the
other persists and an increase in length results in the same safety.

For it to be otherwise you need to postulate that the govt will be
doing its own fundamental research, and it NEVER does, and that it
will develop QC to that level BEFORE the market sells it or the people
developing it steal it and spread it around to prevent a national
monopoly on power, and that's pretty unlikely.


OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack,
but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of
the both the mechanism and the keys themselves). If they have the actual
keys, the eavesdroppers can decode RSA just as easily as the intended
recipients.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
---------------------
Yes. Goes without saying.

-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:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from
now,
let alone 30.
-----------------
Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.


"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.
----------------------
Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.


Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't
it?
------------------------
You have absolutely NO IDEA what the **** you're talking about.


See Mr Schoenes response.

It seems that you sir, have no idea what the **** you are talking about.
-------------------
You're a lying **** and a bounder, and you're diddling yourself and
delaying the inevitable.


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.

-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 in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined
with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have
absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years
from
now,
let alone 30.
-----------------
Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.


"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was
secure.
----------------------
Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician
could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of
guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO
of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.


Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well,
didn't
it?
------------------------
You have absolutely NO IDEA what the **** you're talking about.


See Mr Schoenes response.

It seems that you sir, have no idea what the **** you are talking about.
-------------------
You're a lying **** and a bounder, and you're diddling yourself and
delaying the inevitable.


Not trying to argue your already discredited position anymore Stevie?

Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of
the serious user" ands so you did.



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, but you are.

What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own?
playing Doom?

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...

L'acrobat wrote:

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

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have
absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years
from
now,
let alone 30.
-----------------
Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.


"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was
secure.
----------------------
Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician
could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of
guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO
of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.


Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well,
didn't
it?
------------------------
You have absolutely NO IDEA what the **** you're talking about.


See Mr Schoenes response.

It seems that you sir, have no idea what the **** you are talking about.
-------------------
You're a lying **** and a bounder, and you're diddling yourself and
delaying the inevitable.

Not trying to argue your already discredited position anymore Stevie?
-----------------------
Ain't any such.


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.


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.


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


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 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.

-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

Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:12:21 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Greg Hennessy

Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial,
the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances.

One wonders why.

However, IDR's own sources indicate that among those taken were the
Diemaco C7 version of the M16A2 (as used by the UK SAS and SBS), the
Heckler & Koch G36, and the Steyr AUG.

Strange that, one must assume there was an 'improved' version of the SA80
available for spanish army trials last year, one wonders how if it faired
there if at all.

It is understood whichever
alternative weapon they used, none of the participants was able to match
the SA80 A2 in either accuracy or reliability during this demonstration.



Until there is independently verified proof of such assertions one is
inclined to take them with a large shovel of NaCL.


THe MOD has now wasted the price of 4 alternatives on each and every weapon
so far. It wouldn't be the 1st time one has heard the usual 'its working
now honest' honest from them.

I have received some comments from British soldiers returing from
Iraq. They had no complaints about the L85A2 performance. You can be
certain that after the huge - and seriously over-hyped - press row
about alleged early 'failures' of this weapon (see:
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2...1002111301.asp for what
REALLY happened), we would certainly have heard of any problems. One
commment was that the compact bullpup layout was much handier than the
much longer M16 when travelling in vehicles such as Land Rovers, and
it also helped to have the magazine more inboard.

Quite a contrast with the various news items about the jamming of
M16s, M249s and even the .50 M2...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

"L'acrobat" wrote

"phil hunt" wrote
L'acrobat wrote:

"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have
absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10
years from
now,

Ever heard of Moore's law?

I've got a pretty good idea. A typical PC now has a 2 GHz CPU, and
about 256 MB RAM.

Assume these double every 18 months. 10 years is about 7 doublings
so in 2003 we'll see PCs with 250 GHz CPUs and 32 GB of RAM.

Right. you are going to base national security matter on a rule of
thumb
that relates to a typical PC.

Good move.

Historically, each and every crypto shop has been sublimely convinced
that_its_cypher was unbreakable. As near as I can tell, each and every
one of them was wrong. What makes that conviction so remarkable is
that most crypto shops either were breaking or had allies who had
broken the opposition's codes.

After the Walker Ring compromised US Naval codes and KGs for years, I
read an article in USNI Proceedings by a communications specialist who
airily waved that damage away with "we've changed all the keys". There
are more ways than brute force to break COMSEC.

On 25 Sep 2003 23:53:17 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:


THe MOD has now wasted the price of 4 alternatives on each and every weapon
so far. It wouldn't be the 1st time one has heard the usual 'its working
now honest' honest from them.

I have received some comments from British soldiers returing from
Iraq. They had no complaints about the L85A2 performance. You can be
certain that after the huge - and seriously over-hyped - press row
about alleged early 'failures' of this weapon (see:
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2...1002111301.asp for what
REALLY happened),


Pardon my cynicism, it reads like a sales brochure TBH.


Quite a contrast with the various news items about the jamming of
M16s, M249s and even the .50 M2...


FWIH, specifically in the case of the minimi and M16 that was more to do
with the age of the weapons to the region combined with wholly unsuitable
lubrication for desert conditions.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c....1068348990445



Handing soldiers old and worn out weapons is always going to cause
problems.

http://www.strategypage.com/iraqless...onslearned.asp

" It was also noted that many of the 5.56mm M249 squad machine-guns, first
introduced in the early 1980s, were wearing out. The M249s got a work out
in Iraq and many literally fell apart, especially among the Marines"



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!