@John Makes for very interesting, reading. Do you think the critical opinions in the article was justified?
Rob From: a...@listbox.com To: a...@listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] Couple thoughts Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:21:58 +0200 Oh goody! Thanks John. I'll go check it out. From: a...@listbox.com To: a...@listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] Couple thoughts Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:17:53 -0500 There’s the Chinese quantum network and they’re building a first leg between Beijing and Shanghai. The claim is unhackable, see:http://english.caixin.com/2015-02-06/100782139.html John From: Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI [mailto:a...@listbox.com] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 6:58 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] Couple thoughts @Mike There is something unhackable, but we'll need to build it first.> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:22:08 -0800 > Subject: Re: [agi] Couple thoughts > From: a...@listbox.com > To: a...@listbox.com > > I get the feeling there is nothing left unhackable. Even a > typewriter, they can plant a effing video recorder somewhere and film > you typing. It used to be you made fun of the guy with tin foil on > his head to "block transmissions." > > On 3/2/15, John Rose via AGI <a...@listbox.com> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Matt Mahoney via AGI [mailto:a...@listbox.com] > >> > >> Peers need to know when two messages are from the same source. If a peer > >> earns a reputation for being a reliable source of information (like Google > >> or > >> your bank), then malicious peers will try to spoof messages from them. To > >> prevent this, peers sign their messages using a mutually agreed secret > >> key > >> chosen at random. After an initial exchange (using e.g. Diffie-Hellman), > >> I > >> send you a message and a signature like SHA256(message + key). You > >> receive > >> the message, compute the signature, and compare it to the signature that > >> I > >> sent you. Since nobody else knows the key, and the hash is not invertible, > >> you > >> know the message must have come from me. > >> > > > > > > Well, that's the same as using HTTPS or another application layer protocol > > over TLS/SSL with certificates signed by a certificate authority no? Though > > in your communications protocol you control the signing and encryption > > algorithm and everyone need not get a CA signed cert I suppose. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > AGI > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > > Modify Your Subscription: > > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.comAGI | Archives | Modify Your > Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
