messing with the power connection

[[email protected]]

| [email protected] wrote:
|> On 18 Feb 2008 06:17:56 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
|>
|>> When a whole drive is encrypted, or just a partition, to access that data
|>> it is necessary to first enter a passphase that decrypts a random bit
|>> array, or is the seed to generate one. After that is done, it is used
|>> to decrypt the data on the disk. But the key itself is only stored in
|>> RAM. If the machine is shutoff, the key is lost and the entry of the
|>> passphrase must be repeated. By taking the machine in its running state,
|>> the opportunity exists to examine the drive contents while the decryption
|>> is still active.
|>
|> If the drive is "opened" when they sieze it, why not just copy the
|> data right there?
|> In real life guys like the FBI and NSA can crack just about any
|> encryption with minimal effort. I know a guy who works in that arena
|> and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
|> 5 minutes.
|
| With 500+GByte disks household items these days - it can take quite a
| while copying the data off - even presuming a police officer was present
| who knew how to do it and had enough USB drives with him to do it.
|
| Whilst many encryption algorithms are easily breakable, MS Word springs
| to mind, others are a challenge - even for the NSA. The advantage of
| getting hold of a computer which has the suspect still logged in, is
| that a lot of encrypted stuff is available en clair - whilst that user
| is logged in. All this kit does is keep the computer in that state. Why
| spend (expensive) time and effort breaking encryption, when the stuff is
| available, unencrypted?

Ideally, do a RAM dump, and see if you can grab the buffered key. If the
computer is in a state it can continue to decrypt disk contents, capturing
that state itself is precious.


| Plus, it is possible to set up computers to run with no hard disk at
| all. They boot from the network and load their operating system from the
| network - into RAM. From a server that could be in another juristiction,
| or even on a different continent. Lose power and there is absolutely no
| evidence left to analyse. However, if someone has gone to the trouble of
| setting up a computer like this, for less than honest reasons, he is
| probably going to take a few more precautions, too*.
|
| *Which you will excuse me for not going into.

Yeah, it's off topic for this group. These things are frequently discussed
on various software related groups.

 

[[email protected]]

| [email protected] wrote:
|>
|> You've completely missed the mark. OTOH, this is not the first time you
|> have been fascinated by making personal attacks online.
|
|
| And you don't? YAWNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|

I don't start them. I defend when it happens.

 

[krw]

If the drive is "opened" when they sieze it, why not just copy the
data right there?
In real life guys like the FBI and NSA can crack just about any
encryption with minimal effort.

Absolute bullshit!

I know a guy who works in that arena
and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
5 minutes.

That's not "just about any encryption". It's meant to keep thieves
from stealing your data, not the NSA. Sheesh!

 

[krw]

Most small time crooks won't have any encryption at all and all but
the biggest master criminal will be running something these guys can
crack.

The point of ThinkPad encryption is to make the laptop useless to
the crook, not to hide data from the NSA.

If you are just trying to hide some messages there are lots of ways to
make it virtually uncrackable.

Encryption being the easiest and hardest to crack.

I think Phil is talking about a drive running commercial software and
transactional data, just using some commercial encryption.

"Commercial encryption" is uncrackable, even by the NSA, which
pisses them off no end.

 

[[email protected]]

| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] says...
|>
|> >Absolute bullshit!
|> >
|> >> I know a guy who works in that arena
|> >> and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
|> >> 5 minutes.
|> >
|> >That's not "just about any encryption". It's meant to keep thieves
|> >from stealing your data, not the NSA. Sheesh!
|>
|> Most small time crooks won't have any encryption at all and all but
|> the biggest master criminal will be running something these guys can
|> crack.
|
| The point of ThinkPad encryption is to make the laptop useless to
| the crook, not to hide data from the NSA.
|
|> If you are just trying to hide some messages there are lots of ways to
|> make it virtually uncrackable.
|
| Encryption being the easiest and hardest to crack.
|
|> I think Phil is talking about a drive running commercial software and
|> transactional data, just using some commercial encryption.
|
| "Commercial encryption" is uncrackable, even by the NSA, which
| pisses them off no end.

It might be advertised as "uncrackable". But commercial encryption sold
to the public is typically the low end stuff. Even what they sell to the
government is not the best around. Maybe the NSA might have a tough time
cracking it. Or maybe not.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

If the drive is "opened" when they sieze it, why not just copy the
data right there?
In real life guys like the FBI and NSA can crack just about any
encryption with minimal effort. I know a guy who works in that arena
and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
5 minutes.

Its just another "gadget" for the Govt to spend your tax dollars on.
Wait a couple of years and tons will be auctioned on e-bay from
municipal surplus auctions.

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P

 

[krw]

| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] says...
|>
|> >Absolute bullshit!
|> >
|> >> I know a guy who works in that arena
|> >> and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
|> >> 5 minutes.
|> >
|> >That's not "just about any encryption". It's meant to keep thieves
|> >from stealing your data, not the NSA. Sheesh!
|>
|> Most small time crooks won't have any encryption at all and all but
|> the biggest master criminal will be running something these guys can
|> crack.
|
| The point of ThinkPad encryption is to make the laptop useless to
| the crook, not to hide data from the NSA.
|
|> If you are just trying to hide some messages there are lots of ways to
|> make it virtually uncrackable.
|
| Encryption being the easiest and hardest to crack.
|
|> I think Phil is talking about a drive running commercial software and
|> transactional data, just using some commercial encryption.
|
| "Commercial encryption" is uncrackable, even by the NSA, which
| pisses them off no end.

It might be advertised as "uncrackable". But commercial encryption sold
to the public is typically the low end stuff. Even what they sell to the
government is not the best around. Maybe the NSA might have a tough time
cracking it. Or maybe not.

Bullshit. Google PGP. Strong encryption is nothing new.

 

[krw]

Some kid with a PC cracked DES 32 bit encryption (the best the federal
government would let you have in the Clinton administration) in about
15 hours with a pretty modest PC compared to a minimal Vista machine.

You're full of shit! DES has never had 32-bit keys. Even thirty
years ago DES-64 (or DES-56, depending on how you count) was the
standard. Double DES (two or three pass) is now quite common and
quite unbreakable by a kid in his bedroom.

I still say if you buried data in a BMP file nobody would ever find it
unless they had the algorythm you used to select the bytes you
changed.

Bytes? Change LSBs. It will look like (digitization) noise to
anyone who looks. Encrypt it while you're at it to make it look
more like noise.

Think about only using the 2 low order bits of each 8 bit color value
in a 24 bit pixel you altered, group them up for a 6 bit BCD
character. The slight shift in color would not be noticable and in
some cases it might even come out the same. The only thing the decoder
would need was the way you selected bytes. Simple would be one every
(pick a prime number) tougher yet would be a more complicated
algorythm. It would be like an enigma machine on steroids. To start
with you would have to know which image had the message.

It's called "steganography" and has been known for as long as
secrets have been kept. BTW, the Enigma machine had nothing to do
with steganography. Enigma is a block cypher.

Don't invent cryptography. There is plenty of *strong* crypto
publicly available and you will lose with your own.

 

[[email protected]]

| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>,
|> | [email protected] says...
|> |>
|> |> >Absolute bullshit!
|> |> >
|> |> >> I know a guy who works in that arena
|> |> >> and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
|> |> >> 5 minutes.
|> |> >
|> |> >That's not "just about any encryption". It's meant to keep thieves
|> |> >from stealing your data, not the NSA. Sheesh!
|> |>
|> |> Most small time crooks won't have any encryption at all and all but
|> |> the biggest master criminal will be running something these guys can
|> |> crack.
|> |
|> | The point of ThinkPad encryption is to make the laptop useless to
|> | the crook, not to hide data from the NSA.
|> |
|> |> If you are just trying to hide some messages there are lots of ways to
|> |> make it virtually uncrackable.
|> |
|> | Encryption being the easiest and hardest to crack.
|> |
|> |> I think Phil is talking about a drive running commercial software and
|> |> transactional data, just using some commercial encryption.
|> |
|> | "Commercial encryption" is uncrackable, even by the NSA, which
|> | pisses them off no end.
|>
|> It might be advertised as "uncrackable". But commercial encryption sold
|> to the public is typically the low end stuff. Even what they sell to the
|> government is not the best around. Maybe the NSA might have a tough time
|> cracking it. Or maybe not.
|
| Bullshit. Google PGP. Strong encryption is nothing new.

PGP was not invented as a commercial encryption. I'm talking about the
crap that gets passed off as encryption by companies like Microsoft.

 

[krw]

| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>,
|> | [email protected] says...
|> |>
|> |> >Absolute bullshit!
|> |> >
|> |> >> I know a guy who works in that arena
|> |> >> and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
|> |> >> 5 minutes.
|> |> >
|> |> >That's not "just about any encryption". It's meant to keep thieves
|> |> >from stealing your data, not the NSA. Sheesh!
|> |>
|> |> Most small time crooks won't have any encryption at all and all but
|> |> the biggest master criminal will be running something these guys can
|> |> crack.
|> |
|> | The point of ThinkPad encryption is to make the laptop useless to
|> | the crook, not to hide data from the NSA.
|> |
|> |> If you are just trying to hide some messages there are lots of ways to
|> |> make it virtually uncrackable.
|> |
|> | Encryption being the easiest and hardest to crack.
|> |
|> |> I think Phil is talking about a drive running commercial software and
|> |> transactional data, just using some commercial encryption.
|> |
|> | "Commercial encryption" is uncrackable, even by the NSA, which
|> | pisses them off no end.
|>
|> It might be advertised as "uncrackable". But commercial encryption sold
|> to the public is typically the low end stuff. Even what they sell to the
|> government is not the best around. Maybe the NSA might have a tough time
|> cracking it. Or maybe not.
|
| Bullshit. Google PGP. Strong encryption is nothing new.

PGP was not invented as a commercial encryption. I'm talking about the
crap that gets passed off as encryption by companies like Microsoft.

Bullshit. PGP is *exactly* commercial encryption. Just because M$
is shit doesn't mean all "commercial" enterprises are shit.

 

[[email protected]]

| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> | [email protected] says...
|> |> | In article <[email protected]>,
|> |> | [email protected] says...
|> |> |>
|> |> |> >Absolute bullshit!
|> |> |> >
|> |> |> >> I know a guy who works in that arena
|> |> |> >> and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
|> |> |> >> 5 minutes.
|> |> |> >
|> |> |> >That's not "just about any encryption". It's meant to keep thieves
|> |> |> >from stealing your data, not the NSA. Sheesh!
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Most small time crooks won't have any encryption at all and all but
|> |> |> the biggest master criminal will be running something these guys can
|> |> |> crack.
|> |> |
|> |> | The point of ThinkPad encryption is to make the laptop useless to
|> |> | the crook, not to hide data from the NSA.
|> |> |
|> |> |> If you are just trying to hide some messages there are lots of ways to
|> |> |> make it virtually uncrackable.
|> |> |
|> |> | Encryption being the easiest and hardest to crack.
|> |> |
|> |> |> I think Phil is talking about a drive running commercial software and
|> |> |> transactional data, just using some commercial encryption.
|> |> |
|> |> | "Commercial encryption" is uncrackable, even by the NSA, which
|> |> | pisses them off no end.
|> |>
|> |> It might be advertised as "uncrackable". But commercial encryption sold
|> |> to the public is typically the low end stuff. Even what they sell to the
|> |> government is not the best around. Maybe the NSA might have a tough time
|> |> cracking it. Or maybe not.
|> |
|> | Bullshit. Google PGP. Strong encryption is nothing new.
|>
|> PGP was not invented as a commercial encryption. I'm talking about the
|> crap that gets passed off as encryption by companies like Microsoft.
|
| Bullshit. PGP is *exactly* commercial encryption. Just because M$
| is shit doesn't mean all "commercial" enterprises are shit.

It started as a free project. It went commercial as a branch later on.

 

[[email protected]]

| [email protected] wrote:
|>
|> | [email protected] wrote:
|> |> This is an amazing device:
|> |>
|> |> http://www.wiebetech.com/products/HotPlug.php
|> |>
|> |
|> |
|> | So how long have you worked for that company?
|>
|> Never have. I'm actually trying to figure out ways to defeat it.
|>
|> 1. Use a 240 volt circuit. The 240 volt version might not be in the USA.
|> 2. Use 48 volt DC to the PSU. They don't even make that.
|> 3. Use a power strip plug that shorts itself while not inserted.
|> 4. Configure the whole disk encryption to timeout regardless of activity.
|
| Put a jiggle switch in the PC case (or a microswitch under one of the
| feet) that forces a reboot if the system is moved or picked up. Put a
| tamper switch in the case to reboot it when opened as well.

I'll call it the "earthquake emergency fast shutdown" feature

 

[krw]

Put a jiggle switch in the PC case (or a microswitch under one of the
feet) that forces a reboot if the system is moved or picked up. Put a
tamper switch in the case to reboot it when opened as well.

Yank the plug.

 

[krw]

| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> | [email protected] says...
|> |> | In article <[email protected]>,
|> |> | [email protected] says...
|> |> |>
|> |> |> >Absolute bullshit!
|> |> |> >
|> |> |> >> I know a guy who works in that arena
|> |> |> >> and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
|> |> |> >> 5 minutes.
|> |> |> >
|> |> |> >That's not "just about any encryption". It's meant to keep thieves
|> |> |> >from stealing your data, not the NSA. Sheesh!
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Most small time crooks won't have any encryption at all and all but
|> |> |> the biggest master criminal will be running something these guys can
|> |> |> crack.
|> |> |
|> |> | The point of ThinkPad encryption is to make the laptop useless to
|> |> | the crook, not to hide data from the NSA.
|> |> |
|> |> |> If you are just trying to hide some messages there are lots of ways to
|> |> |> make it virtually uncrackable.
|> |> |
|> |> | Encryption being the easiest and hardest to crack.
|> |> |
|> |> |> I think Phil is talking about a drive running commercial software and
|> |> |> transactional data, just using some commercial encryption.
|> |> |
|> |> | "Commercial encryption" is uncrackable, even by the NSA, which
|> |> | pisses them off no end.
|> |>
|> |> It might be advertised as "uncrackable". But commercial encryption sold
|> |> to the public is typically the low end stuff. Even what they sell to the
|> |> government is not the best around. Maybe the NSA might have a tough time
|> |> cracking it. Or maybe not.
|> |
|> | Bullshit. Google PGP. Strong encryption is nothing new.
|>
|> PGP was not invented as a commercial encryption. I'm talking about the
|> crap that gets passed off as encryption by companies like Microsoft.
|
| Bullshit. PGP is *exactly* commercial encryption. Just because M$
| is shit doesn't mean all "commercial" enterprises are shit.

It started as a free project. It went commercial as a branch later on.

So you admit that you're talking out your ass.

 

[krw]

Whatever ... the fact still remains some european kid cracked it while
our government was trying to say that was all they would let us use.

You're still full of shit. There is no "DES-32" and never has been.
DES-64 (or more accurately DES-56) won't be "cracked" and certainly
not by some kid in his bedroom. I can be busted exhaustively, but
that's still a large problem. Double or Triple DES make that an
impossibility today.

 

[[email protected]]

| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] says...
|>
|> >> Some kid with a PC cracked DES 32 bit encryption (the best the federal
|> >> government would let you have in the Clinton administration) in about
|> >> 15 hours with a pretty modest PC compared to a minimal Vista machine.
|> >
|> >You're full of shit! DES has never had 32-bit keys. Even thirty
|> >years ago DES-64 (or DES-56, depending on how you count) was the
|> >standard. Double DES (two or three pass) is now quite common and
|>
|> Whatever ... the fact still remains some european kid cracked it while
|> our government was trying to say that was all they would let us use.
|>
| You're still full of shit. There is no "DES-32" and never has been.
| DES-64 (or more accurately DES-56) won't be "cracked" and certainly
| not by some kid in his bedroom. I can be busted exhaustively, but
| that's still a large problem. Double or Triple DES make that an
| impossibility today.

True, there was no DES-32. However, there was a DES-40. That was trivial
to crack. For a while, that was the only thing the US allowed to export.

 

[[email protected]]

| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> | [email protected] says...
|> |> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> |> | [email protected] says...
|> |> |> | In article <[email protected]>,
|> |> |> | [email protected] says...
|> |> |> |>
|> |> |> |> >Absolute bullshit!
|> |> |> |> >
|> |> |> |> >> I know a guy who works in that arena
|> |> |> |> >> and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
|> |> |> |> >> 5 minutes.
|> |> |> |> >
|> |> |> |> >That's not "just about any encryption". It's meant to keep thieves
|> |> |> |> >from stealing your data, not the NSA. Sheesh!
|> |> |> |>
|> |> |> |> Most small time crooks won't have any encryption at all and all but
|> |> |> |> the biggest master criminal will be running something these guys can
|> |> |> |> crack.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> | The point of ThinkPad encryption is to make the laptop useless to
|> |> |> | the crook, not to hide data from the NSA.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> |> If you are just trying to hide some messages there are lots of ways to
|> |> |> |> make it virtually uncrackable.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> | Encryption being the easiest and hardest to crack.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> |> I think Phil is talking about a drive running commercial software and
|> |> |> |> transactional data, just using some commercial encryption.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> | "Commercial encryption" is uncrackable, even by the NSA, which
|> |> |> | pisses them off no end.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> It might be advertised as "uncrackable". But commercial encryption sold
|> |> |> to the public is typically the low end stuff. Even what they sell to the
|> |> |> government is not the best around. Maybe the NSA might have a tough time
|> |> |> cracking it. Or maybe not.
|> |> |
|> |> | Bullshit. Google PGP. Strong encryption is nothing new.
|> |>
|> |> PGP was not invented as a commercial encryption. I'm talking about the
|> |> crap that gets passed off as encryption by companies like Microsoft.
|> |
|> | Bullshit. PGP is *exactly* commercial encryption. Just because M$
|> | is shit doesn't mean all "commercial" enterprises are shit.
|>
|> It started as a free project. It went commercial as a branch later on.
|
| So you admit that you're talking out your ass.

Maybe you should do your research.

 

[krw]

| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] says...
|>
|> >> Some kid with a PC cracked DES 32 bit encryption (the best the federal
|> >> government would let you have in the Clinton administration) in about
|> >> 15 hours with a pretty modest PC compared to a minimal Vista machine.
|> >
|> >You're full of shit! DES has never had 32-bit keys. Even thirty
|> >years ago DES-64 (or DES-56, depending on how you count) was the
|> >standard. Double DES (two or three pass) is now quite common and
|>
|> Whatever ... the fact still remains some european kid cracked it while
|> our government was trying to say that was all they would let us use.
|>
| You're still full of shit. There is no "DES-32" and never has been.
| DES-64 (or more accurately DES-56) won't be "cracked" and certainly
| not by some kid in his bedroom. I can be busted exhaustively, but
| that's still a large problem. Double or Triple DES make that an
| impossibility today.

True, there was no DES-32. However, there was a DES-40. That was trivial
to crack. For a while, that was the only thing the US allowed to export.

No, it wasn't "trivial" to crack. The so-called DES-40 was DES-56
with modified keys. It couldn't be "cracked" any more than DES-56
could be "cracked" and an exhaustive search isn't all that trivial
either. DES-40 keys are still 56bit, though have an "effective
length" of 40bits. An exhaustive attack isn't trivial, though
certainly within the comfortable range of the black-hats. That said,
DES-40 was never used for anything important and certainly never
"all the Clinton administration would let us use". DES-40 was dead
long before the the swear word "Clinton" was known outside Arkansas.

The point still stands. The story is bullshit.

 

[krw]

| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> | [email protected] says...
|> |> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> |> | [email protected] says...
|> |> |> | In article <[email protected]>,
|> |> |> | [email protected] says...
|> |> |> |>
|> |> |> |> >Absolute bullshit!
|> |> |> |> >
|> |> |> |> >> I know a guy who works in that arena
|> |> |> |> >> and he has a tool that broke the IBM encryption on my laptop in about
|> |> |> |> >> 5 minutes.
|> |> |> |> >
|> |> |> |> >That's not "just about any encryption". It's meant to keep thieves
|> |> |> |> >from stealing your data, not the NSA. Sheesh!
|> |> |> |>
|> |> |> |> Most small time crooks won't have any encryption at all and all but
|> |> |> |> the biggest master criminal will be running something these guys can
|> |> |> |> crack.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> | The point of ThinkPad encryption is to make the laptop useless to
|> |> |> | the crook, not to hide data from the NSA.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> |> If you are just trying to hide some messages there are lots of ways to
|> |> |> |> make it virtually uncrackable.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> | Encryption being the easiest and hardest to crack.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> |> I think Phil is talking about a drive running commercial software and
|> |> |> |> transactional data, just using some commercial encryption.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> | "Commercial encryption" is uncrackable, even by the NSA, which
|> |> |> | pisses them off no end.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> It might be advertised as "uncrackable". But commercial encryption sold
|> |> |> to the public is typically the low end stuff. Even what they sell to the
|> |> |> government is not the best around. Maybe the NSA might have a tough time
|> |> |> cracking it. Or maybe not.
|> |> |
|> |> | Bullshit. Google PGP. Strong encryption is nothing new.
|> |>
|> |> PGP was not invented as a commercial encryption. I'm talking about the
|> |> crap that gets passed off as encryption by companies like Microsoft.
|> |
|> | Bullshit. PGP is *exactly* commercial encryption. Just because M$
|> | is shit doesn't mean all "commercial" enterprises are shit.
|>
|> It started as a free project. It went commercial as a branch later on.
|
| So you admit that you're talking out your ass.

Maybe you should do your research.

Maybe you should shut up about things you are clueless about. It
makes you look even sillier.

 

[krw]

Hey I was giving up the bit count, it is still a fact DES was cracked

DES has not been "cracked", except exhaustively. No one has
"cracked" DES other than by exhausting the key-space and that is
*NOT* 32bits in *ANY form of DES. The article is a lie and you're
happily repeating it.