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 anyon
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 c
"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 des
> 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 o
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
significantly
"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 qu
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 smal
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
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 maxi
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 jus
[They want to exploit human persistance-of-vision vs. camcorder pixel
differences.
Seems to me that one could process the captured frames to eliminate
artifacts, though that
*is* another step required. In any case, insiders will have access to
the playback codes
opening the bits to duping.]
Jamm
Here's the cite for the Ramsey Clark quote.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 06:33:46PM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> 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.
At 06:33 PM 10/11/2002 +0200, Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
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 c
> > > > "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
> > > > necess
At 02:11 PM 10/11/2002 -0700, James Donald wrote:
> > > > "Our overriding purpose, from the
> > > > beginning through to the present
> > > > day, has been world domination -
.
> > > > Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
From: "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Sun is an alternative
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
Theres no huge explosion associated with its employment, there are no
pieces and
parts left behind that someone can analyze to say, this came from the
United States,
explains an unnamed Lockheed Martin official quoted in Aviation Week and
Space
Technology in July. The damage is localized, an
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. A
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
On Thursday 10 October 2002 13:13, Tim May wrote:
> This is why posting articles on Usenet is usually superior to putting
> them on a Web site in a censorious country (U.K., Germany, Saudi
> Arabia, U.S.A., Canada, etc.).
There are two advantages of web-based discussion fora over usenet:
propaga
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
