Paul Bakker p.j.bak...@offspark.com writes:
So you agree we DO need an additional layer of symmetric and public key
encryption, don't you? Six layers might not be enough!!
Oh everyone knows that, if it doesn't have the full seven layers then you're
not even trying.
Peter.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 08:12:16PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
The US only applies to itself. Further, over the air, it's noise, the crypto
is undetectable and unprovable. And it's (guerilla) software, not physical
commercial product. Nor is this the old 'FCC says you can't encrypt
ham bands'
https://www.cdt.org/blogs/joseph-lorenzo-hall/2409-nist-sha-3
What the heck is going on with NIST’s cryptographic standard, SHA-3?
by Joseph Lorenzo Hall [1]
September 24, 2013
(Warning: this is a fairly technical post about cryptographic standards
setting.)
The cryptographic community has
On 9/27/13, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
I don't see how a ham running a repeater backbone can
prevent end to end encryption other than sniffing for
traffic and actively disrupting it. I'm not sure tampering
with transport is within ham ethics, though they definitely
don't understand
Fairly old, but Chaos by James Gleick was a huge influence on me as
a young man and has some responsibility for the academic path I chose
later.
@kylemaxwell
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:17 AM, jamescho...@austin.rr.com wrote:
Wolfram's book is about CAs and not chaos/fractals in general.
For
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 01:12:19PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
On 9/27/13, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
I don't see how a ham running a repeater backbone can
prevent end to end encryption other than sniffing for
traffic and actively disrupting it. I'm not sure tampering
with transport is
Age has nothing to do with it, the math doesn't change. As or AKNOS, their is
actually a lot of controversy over that book and the claims Wolfram makes.
Kyle Maxwell ky...@xwell.org wrote:
Fairly old, but Chaos by James Gleick was a huge influence on me as
a young man and has some
On 9/27/13, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 01:12:19PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
The mentioned tech has nothing to do with traditional 'ham'.
And without the crypto key they can't see it and can't disrupt
HamNet/AMPRNet ...
Of course they can see it, it's a TCP/IP
