Connect with us

messing with the power connection

Discussion in 'Electrical Engineering' started by [email protected], Feb 16, 2008.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. krw

    krw Guest

    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.
    I can't help it if you live in the third world.
     
  2. Guest

    | In article <>, phil-news-
    | says...
    |> | In article <>,
    |> | 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.
     
  3. Guest

    | In article <>,
    | 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.
     
  4. Guest

    | In article <>,
    | says...
    |>
    |> >> 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.
    |>
    |> 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.

    It was shown a few years back that DES-40 could be exhaustively scanned in
    under a day with less than $25,000 of computer equipment. At today's CPU
    powers and prices, it's probably a lot less than that, now. Of course, no
    one in their right mind (not enough of these to go around, unfortunately)
    would use DES-40 or even DES-56 these days.
     
  5. Guest

    | In article <>, phil-news-
    | says...
    |> | In article <>, phil-news-
    |> | says...
    |> |> | In article <>, phil-news-
    |> |> | says...
    |> |> |> | In article <>, phil-news-
    |> |> |> | says...
    |> |> |> |> | In article <>,
    |> |> |> |> | 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.
     
  6. krw

    krw Guest

    You're hopelessly lost.
     
  7. krw

    krw Guest



    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.
     
  8. krw

    krw Guest

    That was the attempt. Didn't work. RSA was "reinvented" outside
    the US, therefore set "free" of export laws.
    So don't. It really was that simple. The worms escaped and there
    was no way for the NSA to re-can them.
    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.
     
  9. krw

    krw Guest

    YOu have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
    Ah, so starts backtracking.
    Care to move the goal posts another ten yards?
     
  10. Guest

    | In article <>, phil-news-
    | says...
    |> | In article <>,
    |> | 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.
    |
    | That was the attempt. Didn't work. RSA was "reinvented" outside
    | the US, therefore set "free" of export laws.

    There was no "reinvention". It was a different implementation. It is the
    implementation that counted. The implementations made in the USA still
    could not be exported. For a USA company to be able to sell software with
    RSA or other strong encryption, it had to set up an office outside the USA
    (often in Israel) and "start over" with a new implementation of the same
    algorithm.


    |> 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.
    |
    | So don't. It really was that simple. The worms escaped and there
    | was no way for the NSA to re-can them.

    It did happen as described above until the goverment saw the error of
    their ways (e.g. it destroyed the domestic crypto industry and allowed
    it to flourish outside.


    |> 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.
     
  11. Guest

    | In article <>, phil-news-
    | says...
    |> | In article <>, phil-news-
    |> | says...
    |> |> | In article <>,
    |> |> | 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.


    |> 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.

    You know what, you sound like another net-idiot named Matthew L. Martin
    in another newsgroup. Same attitude problems. Same M.O.
     
  12. Guest

    | 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.

    How long ago was it you were in crypto? How isolated from the real world
    were you?
     
  13. krw

    krw Guest

    To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
    come by it naturally?
     
  14. krw

    krw Guest

    Setting net-idiots, like you and Dimmie, in their place? Sure.
     
  15. Guest

    | In article <>,
    | says...
    |> | In article <>, phil-news-
    |> | says...
    |
    | <snip>
    |
    |> |> 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.
    |
    | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
    | come by it naturally?

    Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
    invention and implementation?
     
  16. Guest

    | In article <>,
    | 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.
     
  17. krw

    krw Guest

    Dumbass! Learn to read.
    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?
     
  18. Guest

    | In article <>, phil-news-
    | says...
    |> | In article <>,
    |> | 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.
     
  19. krw

    krw Guest

    What a maroon!
     
  20. Guest

    | In article <>, phil-news-
    | says...
    |> | In article <>, phil-news-
    |> | says...
    |> |> | In article <>,
    |> |> | 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.
    |>
    | What a maroon!

    I like that color!
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-