[Moderator's Note: Top posting is discouraged. --Perry]
What I meant was that the crypogram decrypted with a correct f(I)=1 key
yields the encrypted message Meet you at Starbucks at noon 0
whereas decryption with a wrong, f(I)=0, key yields Let's go down to Taco
Bell at midnight.
but also a proof that the source code one has is the source of the
implementation.
This is an unsolved problem for code in tamper-resistant devices. There are
precious few procedures to, for example, determine that the CAC card that
was issued to Pfc. Sally Green this morning bears any
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
IPsec operates at layer 3, where there are (generally)
no user contexts. This makes it difficult to bind
IPsec credentials to a user, which means that it
inherently can't be as simple to configure as ssh.
Put another way, when you tell an sshd whom you wish
to
Ian G wrote: (on Kerckhoffs's rules)
=
6. Finally, it is necessary, given the circumstances that command its
application, that the system be easy to use, requiring neither mental
strain nor the knowledge of a long series of rules to observe.
=
...
PS:
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
And, in fact, most VPN software of any type fails this test. My concern
is that an excessive focus on how hard is it to set this thing up? can
seriously obscure the important second half of the question and if you
set it up in the easiest possible way, is it safe?
At Sun, 04 May 2008 20:14:42 -0400,
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Marcos el Ruptor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All this open-source promotion is a huge waste of time. Us crackers
know exactly how all the executables we care about (especially all
the crypto and security related programs) work.
* Perry E. Metzger:
Marcos el Ruptor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nonsense. Total nonsense. A half-decent reverse engineer does not
need the source code and can easily determine the exact operation of
all the security-related components from the compiled executables,
extracted ROM/EPROM code
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Marcos el Ruptor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be sure that implementation does not contain back-doors, one needs
not only some source code but also a proof that the source code one
has is the source of the implementation.
Nonsense. Total nonsense. A half-decent reverse
Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that's blatantly untrue. For example, if I look at an AND
gate, I can be absolutely sure about its security properties.
An AND gate isn't Turing Equivalent.
Rice's theorem says you can't _always_ solve this problem. It says
nothing about figuring
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Perry E. Metzger:
Marcos el Ruptor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nonsense. Total nonsense. A half-decent reverse engineer does not
need the source code and can easily determine the exact operation of
all the security-related components from the
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that's blatantly untrue. For example, if I look at an AND
gate, I can be absolutely sure about its security properties.
An AND gate isn't Turing Equivalent.
Nor are most algorithms.
Rice's theorem says you can't _always_
Hi,
As a standard, this is specification is a disaster. Just from a quick
read, I see the following:
However, alternative orders for the input data fields may be used for
a KDF.
with a length specified by the function, an algorithm, or a protocol
which uses T as an input.
In feedback mode, the
[Moderator's note: Again, top posting is discouraged, and not editing
quoted material is also discouraged. --Perry]
Hi list,
Interesting. Great work! I had been looking *generic* predicate
encryption for some time. Encryption over specific predicates is much
older. Malware (e.g., virus) and
Nonsense. Total nonsense. A half-decent reverse engineer does not
need the source code and can easily determine the exact operation of
all the security-related components from the compiled executables,
extracted ROM/EPROM code or reversed FPGA/ASIC layout
I'm glad to know that you have managed
14 matches
Mail list logo
