On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:29:53AM -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Harmon Seaver wrote...
Why the hell would anyone use lotus notes encryption for anything
whatsoever?
Lotus Notes or whatever, of course. The point here is that larger
Or whatever? What makes you think that anyone can
Harmon Seaver wrote...
Why the hell would anyone use lotus notes encryption for anything
whatsoever?
Lotus Notes or whatever, of course. The point here is that larger
organizations with decryption capabilities probably do not think on the
message-by-message level very often, just like
Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was Sweden. They didn't really have an excuse - over a year
earlier,
Lotus announced their International version with details of the
Work
Factor Reduction Field at the RSA Conference. I immediately invented
the term 'espionage enabled' to describe this
David Howe[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I assume everyone knows the little arrangement that lotus
reached with the NSA over its encrypted secure email?
I'm new here, so do tell if I am wrong. Are you referring to the two
levels
of Encryption available in Bogus Notes?
More or less, yes.
So as a follow on question...what kind of hardware does it take to break the
weak and strong versions of Bogus Notes? Is it possible that NSA or Echelon
have the ability to decode a large number of such messages?
And if the amount of hardware needed to break the strong version is
Or whatever? What makes you think that anyone can crack any of the strong
encryption?
I don't think they can. But your point seems to miss my own point. There
will certainly be a certain number of uncrackable mesages out there (as a
trained physicist I am fairly certain that even military
Sounds about right. 64 bit crypto in the strong version (which is
not that strong -- the distributed.net challenge recently broke a 64
bit key), and in the export version 24 of those 64 bits were encrypted
with an NSA backdoor key, leaving only 40 bits of key space for the
NSA to bruteforce to
Why the hell would anyone use lotus notes encryption for anything whatsoever?
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 09:37:52AM -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
OK, let's assume for the same of argument that it takes about 1 minute for
Echelon/NSA-like resources to break a weakly encypted lotus notes message.
OK, let's assume for the same of argument that it takes about 1 minute for
Echelon/NSA-like resources to break a weakly encypted lotus notes message.
And then let's assume that there's a whole LOT of these machines sitting
somewhere.
And as the grumpy Tim May has suggested, perhaps only a
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:29:53 -0400, you wrote:
War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses. --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933
At 10:54 AM 10/11/2002 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Which returns to my original point: the easy availability of strong
crypto products does not mean it is unprofitable for an agency to continue
to push populations towards lighter forms of encryption.
Assuming that the agency's goal is to
Anonymous wrote:
From: Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Durden lies, was: Echelon-like resources...
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 18:33:46 +0200 (CEST)
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:29:53 -0400, you wrote:
War is just a racket ... something
I read how they plan on doing this. I predict it will give a percentage
of the movie-going public screaming headaches. (Or at least make them
very uncomfortable.) These are the same people who are sensitive to the
flicker of cheap 60 hz office lighting.
Not that a bit of discomfort was any
Our overriding purpose, from the
beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination -
that is, to build and maintain
the capacity to coerce everybody
else on the planet: nonviolently,
if possible, and violently, if
necessary. But the purpose of US
You have to realize that there are any number of fedzis who subscribe to this
list, it's a well authenticated fact, matter of court testimony. And fedzis
aren't noted for brains, or even being able to read, which is why he attacked
you instead of me. And of course most fedzis positively foam at
On Friday 11 October 2002 14:13, Trei, Peter wrote:
If anonymous were a person of character...
Oxymoron, eh?
Pseudonymity has many socially acceptable features. Anonymity has all of
the practical benefits of pseudonymity and no additional advantages in
a conversational forum such as cpunks.
Yo! I didn't write anything of the kind.
Actually, this post mystifies me...even had I posted those quotations, as
scary as they may be, I don't understand Anonymous' reaction to them
(waitaminute...maybe I do understand...it's interesting to consider that the
sender seems to have gone to some
Uh, first of all can we get rid of the part of the subject line that says
Durden lies? (Particularly seeing how the quote attributed to me did not
originate from me.)
As for Chomsky lying, can you give us some specific citations? Did he lie
about our support for Sadam Hussein? Our support for
18 matches
Mail list logo
