http://www.commsdesign.com/printableArticle?doc_id=OEG20030903S0013
GSM Association downplays mobile security concerns
By John Walko, CommsDesign.com
Sep 3, 2003 (5:41 AM)
URL: http://www.commsdesign.com/story/OEG20030903S0013
LONDON ± The GSM Association is playing down concerns raised by a
At 05:18 PM 9/7/2003 -0700, David Honig wrote:
A copy of the research was sent to GSM authorities in order to correct the
problem, and the method is being patented so that in future it can be used
by the law enforcement agencies.
Laughing my ass off. Since when do governments care about patents?
At 11:43 AM 9/8/2003 -0400, Anton Stiglic wrote:
I think this is different however. The recent attack focused on the A5/3
encryption algorithm, while the work of Lucky, Briceno, Goldberg, Wagner,
Biryukov, Shamir (and others?) was on A5/1 and A5/2 (and other crypto
algorithms of GSM, such as
-BEGIN PURE-CRYPTO SIGNED MESSAGE-
The development of the Pure Crypto Project has now finished
and the source code is finally released into the public domain.
http://senderek.de/pcp/release
There is a detailed explanation of the security mechanisms and
the background of PCP in
At 02:37 AM 9/9/2003 +1000, Greg Rose wrote:
At 05:18 PM 9/7/2003 -0700, David Honig wrote:
A copy of the research was sent to GSM authorities in order to correct the
problem, and the method is being patented so that in future it can be used
by the law enforcement agencies.
Laughing my ass off.
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:49:02AM -0600, Tolga Acar wrote:
On a second thought, that there is no key management algorithm
certified, how would one set up a SSL connection in FIPS mode?
It seems to me that, it is not possible to have a FIPS 140 certified
SSL/TLS session using the OpenSSL's
David Honig[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 02:37 AM 9/9/03 +1000, Greg Rose wrote:
At 05:18 PM 9/7/2003 -0700, David Honig wrote:
Laughing my ass off. Since when do governments care about patents?
How would this help/harm them from exploiting it? Not that
high-end LEOs haven't already
Trei, Peter wrote:
Why the heck would a government agency have to break the GSM encryption
at all?
Once upon a time, it used to be the favourite
sport of spy agencies to listen in on the
activities of other countries. In that case,
access to the radio waves was much more juicy
than access to
Trei, Peter wrote:
Why the heck would a government agency have to break the GSM encryption
at all? The encryption is only on the airlink,
and all GSM calls travel through the POTS land line system in the clear,
where they are subject to warranted wiretaps.
Breaking GSM is only of useful if you
John Doe Number Two wrote:
It's nice to see someone 'discovering' what Lucky Green already figured-out
years ago. I wonder if they'll cut him a check.
No, no, no! This is new work, novel and different from what was
previously known. In my opinion, it is an outstanding piece of research.
The Bear/Enforcer Project
Dartmouth College
http://enforcer.sourceforge.net
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~sws/abstracts/msmw03.shtml
How can you verify that a remote computer is the real thing, doing
the right thing? High-end secure coprocessors are expensive and
computationally limited;
At 05:04 PM 9/8/2003 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
David Honig[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 02:37 AM 9/9/03 +1000, Greg Rose wrote:
much more than a cellphone (without subsidies). Patenting the attack
prevents the production of the radio shack (tm) gsm scanner, so that it
at least requires
- Original Message -
From: Ian Grigg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Is cryptography where security took the wrong branch?
That's easy to see, in that if SSL was oriented
to credit cards, why did they do SET? (And,
SHTTP seems much closer to
At 05:04 PM 9/8/03 , Trei, Peter wrote:
Why the heck would a government agency have to break the GSM encryption at
all? The encryption is only on the airlink, and all GSM calls travel
through the POTS land line system in the clear, where they are subject to
warranted wiretaps.
A government
At 05:04 PM 9/8/03 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
Why the heck would a government agency have to break the GSM encryption
at all? The encryption is only on the airlink, and all GSM calls travel
through
the POTS land line system in the clear, where they are subject to
warranted wiretaps.
Breaking GSM
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:55:41PM +, David Wagner wrote:
Trei, Peter wrote:
Why the heck would a government agency have to break the GSM encryption
at all?
Well, one reason might be if that government agency didn't have lawful
authorization from the country where the call takes place.
- Original Message -
From: Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[anonymous funding of politicians]
Comments?
Simple attack: Bob talks to soon to be bought politician. Tomorrow you'll
recieve a donation of $50k, you'll know where it came from.
Next day,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=60331
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272787
http://www.cfp2000.org/papers/franklin.pdf
http://www.yale.edu/yup/books/092628.htm
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
Everyone knows that money is the life blood of
18 matches
Mail list logo
