-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/05/2013 06:48 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
> so you'd probably fail to observe any background activity that tested
> whether this information was plausible or not and then some chance
> event would occur that caused someone from Law Enforcemen
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> >To say the same thing the other way, I was always amazed that the Nazis
> were
> >unable to figure out that their crypto was broken during WWII. There were
> >experiments they could have done, such as sending out a few U-boats under
> >stric
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <52291a36.9070...@av8n.com>, John Denker
writes
>To say the same thing the other way, I was always amazed that the
>Nazis were unable to figure out that their crypto was broken during
>WWII. There were experiments they could have done, s
Sent from my difference engine
On Sep 5, 2013, at 9:22 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> John Denker writes:
>
>> To say the same thing the other way, I was always amazed that the Nazis were
>> unable to figure out that their crypto was broken during WWII. There were
>> experiments they could have d
John Denker writes:
>To say the same thing the other way, I was always amazed that the Nazis were
>unable to figure out that their crypto was broken during WWII. There were
>experiments they could have done, such as sending out a few U-boats under
>strict radio silence and comparing their longev
On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 16:56:38 -0700 John Denker wrote:
> > The generator can
> > be easily tested for correct behavior if it is simply a block
> > cipher.
>
> I wouldn't have said that.
>
> As Dykstra was fond of saying:
>Testing can show the presence of bugs;
>testing can never show the
I don't have any hard information or even any speculation about
BULLRUN, but I have an observation and a question:
Traditionally it has been very hard to exploit a break without
giving away the fact that you've broken in. So there are two
fairly impressive parts to the recent reports: (a) Brea
