Are you familliar with the congressional hearings about this? It was
definately during the Reno DoJ and Reno was a minor political hack in
Miami when Clinton was in Arkansas.I suppose I could go find the
information on Thomas.LOC but yoiu would say that was bullshit too.
Have a nice life
BTW the same way you say distributing neighborhoods with one phase is
bullshit and I can take plenty of pictures of that in SW Florida
I guess the hearings in the spring of 1996 in the Senate and in the
house in 1999 were a figment of my imagination but the Congressional
Record has the same dillusion.
These were the same nazis who wanted the "clipper" and "skipjack" keys
on file with the government FOR ALL US CITIZENS.
phil-news- said:| 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]>, 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.
You are the clueless one here, about crypto and three phase power, both.
phil-news- said:| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] says...
|>
|> >"all the Clinton administration would let us use". DES-40 was dead
|> >long before the the swear word "Clinton" was known outside Arkansas.
|>
|> Are you familliar with the congressional hearings about this? It was
|> definately during the Reno DoJ and Reno was a minor political hack in
|> Miami when Clinton was in Arkansas.I suppose I could go find the
|> information on Thomas.LOC but yoiu would say that was bullshit too.
|> Have a nice life
|
| Yes, you are full of shit. There never has been any law against
| using any crypto you so desire. NEVER! There are export laws, that
| were easily gotten around by publishing crypto outside the US.
| ...and that was before Clinton. Give it up. You're hopelessly sans
| clue.
The export laws prevented any software that _originated_ in the USA to be
exported to any foreign country with a few exceptions.
Software that was
not originated in the USA was unaffected since it was not exported. But
if the software come _in_ to the USA and was in any way repackaged, the
law affected it.
That's why we had, for a while, web browsers with poor
security. One could go to an out-of-USA web site and get the browser with
strong security. One could get the strong security software _in_ the USA
with proof of USA citizenship or residency.
phil-news- said:| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | 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.
Sorry to bust your balloon, but DES-40 was indeed "trivial" to crack.
Please carefully note that "trivial" is _relative_ to the cryptographic
community.
The average person would NOT be able to do this. But a
knowledgeable and motivated person could. The NSA would have no problem.
DES-40 was in fact used for a while. I believe it is no longer used in
anything but unmaintained facilities.
|> That's why we had, for a while, web browsers with poor
|> security. One could go to an out-of-USA web site and get the browser with
|> strong security. One could get the strong security software _in_ the USA
|> with proof of USA citizenship or residency.
|
| One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
| "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
| thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
| bedrooms or not.
Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
| 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...
|> |> |>
|> |> |> >> 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.
|>
|> Sorry to bust your balloon, but DES-40 was indeed "trivial" to crack.
|
| YOu have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
|
|> Please carefully note that "trivial" is _relative_ to the cryptographic
|> community.
|
| Ah, so starts backtracking.
Getting deeper into technical details and semantics for someone that so
far doesn't get it.
Backtracking.
|> The average person would NOT be able to do this. But a
|> knowledgeable and motivated person could. The NSA would have no problem.
|> DES-40 was in fact used for a while. I believe it is no longer used in
|> anything but unmaintained facilities.
|
| Care to move the goal posts another ten yards?
Not moved at all.
Safety!
You know what, you sound like another net-idiot named Matthew L. Martin
in another newsgroup. Same attitude problems. Same M.O.
phil-news- said:| In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
| says...
|>
|> | I worked in commercial crypto for several years (commercial DES
|> | hardware, in fact) and my father was a power engineer (EE professor)
|> | who wanted them to bring the three-phase into the house that was
|> | clearly there. No Phil, you're the "six-star" idiot here.
|>
|> Everyone else here either knows what three phase really is, or knows they
|> don't know what three phase is. You are the one that is the sole exception.
|
| As usual, Phil, you're talking from where you should be sitting.
So how many people do you think are regulars here that do NOT fit the
description I gave?
|> How long ago was it you were in crypto? How isolated from the real world
|> were you?
|
| '90s. Not. Commercial crypto, you know, DES, 3-DES, did a DES40
| implementation (scrapped - no market), RSA, Diffie-Hellman, the
| usual suspects. In short I know a hell of a lot more about the
| subject than you can even pretend to, as hard as you try.
When you give incorrect facts and illiterate descriptions, you are unconvincing.
What a maroon!phil-news- said:| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> | says...
|> |>
|> |> | I worked in commercial crypto for several years (commercial DES
|> |> | hardware, in fact) and my father was a power engineer (EE professor)
|> |> | who wanted them to bring the three-phase into the house that was
|> |> | clearly there. No Phil, you're the "six-star" idiot here.
|> |>
|> |> Everyone else here either knows what three phase really is, or knows they
|> |> don't know what three phase is. You are the one that is the sole exception.
|> |
|> | As usual, Phil, you're talking from where you should be sitting.
|>
|> So how many people do you think are regulars here that do NOT fit the
|> description I gave?
|
| Dumbass! Learn to read.
|
|> |> How long ago was it you were in crypto? How isolated from the real world
|> |> were you?
|> |
|> | '90s. Not. Commercial crypto, you know, DES, 3-DES, did a DES40
|> | implementation (scrapped - no market), RSA, Diffie-Hellman, the
|> | usual suspects. In short I know a hell of a lot more about the
|> | subject than you can even pretend to, as hard as you try.
|>
|> When you give incorrect facts and illiterate descriptions, you are unconvincing.
|
| When you are pedantic you're a bigger ass than usual. That's an
| accomplishment. Are you sure you're not another of Dimmie's sock
| puppets?
That's an interesting, and new, definition.
