On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:
And indeed, in a world where most messages are fairly weakly encrypted,
bursts of strongly-encrypted messages will stand out all the more and
possibly flag the need for other methods of investigation.
Doesn't figure: while it's easy to screen for
willing to concede that at his point I'm talking completely out of my
arse. (That will change when I get time to do some real homework in this
area, however.)
From: Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Echelon-like
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:
And of course you can package 'strong' encryption into a 'weak' encryption
envelope, so you will only know that 'strong' encryption has been used after
you've broken the 'weak' envelope.
Oh yeah. Interesting. Of course, this would be done only if
packaging strong crypto inside weak crypto
At 01:06 PM 10/13/2002 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Oh yeah. Interesting. Of course, this would be done only.
if the sender knew or supected how mass-scanning might be done.
And so the existence of another level of heavier encryption ...
might be a tip off
At 10:52 AM -0700 on 10/13/02, Bill Stewart wrote:
(You may not remember, but there was a program from fortify.net
that fixed 40-bit implementations of Netscape,
and there was even a one-liner Javascript signature-line program
that let you set Netscape to use 128 bits...
Not to mention the
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 anyone can
], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Echelon-like...
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:41:21 +0100
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
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 describe this
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 or less, yes.
PROTECTED]
To: Email List: Cypherpunks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Echelon-like...
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:01:12 +0100
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
]
Subject: Re: Echelon-like resources...
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:39:01 -0500
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
PROTECTED]
To: Email List: Cypherpunks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Echelon-like...
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:38:36 +0100
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 07:28 PM, anonimo arancio wrote:
The basic argument is that, if good encryption is available overseas
or easily downloadable
statistical patterns
indicating something's up, and causing a % of such messages to be hacked
and then sent for routine check for key words.
From: Adam Back [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Echelon-like
PROTECTED]
To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Echelon-like...
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:41:21 +0100
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
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
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 or less, yes. Lotus knew nobody would buy a 40 bit version
B
--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
+ ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
\|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
--*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/
: Echelon-like...
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:38:36 +0100
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 07:28 PM, anonimo arancio wrote:
The basic argument is that, if good encryption is available overseas
or easily downloadable, it doesn't make sense to make export of it
illegal.
Nope. The biggest name
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 07:28 PM, anonimo arancio wrote:
The basic argument is that, if good encryption is available overseas
or easily downloadable, it doesn't make sense to make export of it
illegal.
Nope. The biggest name in software right now is Microsoft, who wasn't
willing to
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 02:28:26AM -, anonimo arancio wrote:
[..]
But I am wondering if Cypherpunks have mentioned the 'obvious'.
The government knows exactly what it's doing. It wants to discourage the use of
encryption by any means necessary, because of sheer numbers.
Basically, the
Not only is EM correct, but:
* many attacks are possible without worrying about keylength. Got
Scarfo?
* NIST/NSA picked the lamest AES. If I told you what lame meant, I'd
have to kill you.
* (Lack of) User motivation (related to man-machine issues) is still the
spooks' best friend. As
well as
hi,
The government knows exactly what it's doing. It
wants to discourage the use of encryption by any
means necessary, because of sheer numbers.
Does n't govt intervension always increase the
numbers?
Basically, the more messages that are encypted,
the more hardware (and therefore $$$)
22 matches
Mail list logo
