MythDragon: hat'say why I always alktay in a odecay they antcay derstanduncay.Maybe dittybopper knows, if you unencrypt a plain text message using a key you end up with a reverse encrypted message that you must encrypt to get it back as readable text. Wouldn't this make it harder for another person to crack? They are spending all that time trying to unencrypt it, when they need to be encrypting it. Or is it pretty much the same thing, just figure out the key?
TheOnion: Until someone figures out how to quickly factor large prime numbers, modern public key encryption is effectively unbreakable. It's possible that the NSA has that kind of technology, but if they are withholding it they are holding back an incredibly important advancement in both mathematics and humanity. Which is probably the kind of thing they'd doJust read this, was great http://www.amazon.com/The-Code-Book-Break-Crack/dp/0385729138/ref=sr_ 1 _4?ie=UTF8&qid=1378428556&sr=8-4&keywords=the+code+book
Kahabut: dittybopper: NutWrench: FUD article.If "any code can be broken," then the the government wouldn't spend so much time trying to legally force you to incriminate yourself by making you hand over your passwords and encryption keys. They would simply decrypt your files without even bothering to contact you.This is a much more detailed article:http://www.propublica.org/article/the-nsas-secret-campaign-to-crack- un dermine-internet-encryptionThey've taken a multi-pronged approach:1. Working behind the scenes to keep the public encryption standards just weak enough that they can break them if they want to.2. Building back-doors into a lot of popular software.3. Working on things like keyloggers and other ways to pull the data off targeted devices without having to break the encryption.4. Working tirelessly on new decryption algorithms, and specialized supercomputers to run them effectively.Yes and even with all that, it gives them your CC number.Were there people stupid enough to think that SSL HTTPS was a secure standard? Despite the numerous times it's been shown to be either completely broken, or partially broken? Or the fact that you can simply MitM the server? SSL was designed to be secure against casual snooping, it was never designed to be secure for more than a few hours in any case.There is an old thought process about encryption. It goes roughly like this... How valuable is the material? How time sensitive is it? Now pick an algorithm that exceeds both those values.Because the bottom line has always been that nearly any encryption can be broken, you just need it to hold long enough to get past the useful time frame of the information. It's long been thought that SSL was good enough for it's use because criminal elements don't have the computer power required to crack it quickly (or at all), but that is utter fantasy land bullshiat. Distributed systems like botnets can crack through SSL like a hot knife through butter, and SETI and oth ...
dittybopper: MythDragon: hat'say why I always alktay in a odecay they antcay derstanduncay.Maybe dittybopper knows, if you unencrypt a plain text message using a key you end up with a reverse encrypted message that you must encrypt to get it back as readable text. Wouldn't this make it harder for another person to crack? They are spending all that time trying to unencrypt it, when they need to be encrypting it. Or is it pretty much the same thing, just figure out the key?I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Could you explain further?
MythDragon: Or does it not work like that?
dittybopper: Twilight Farkle: I'm okay with #3 and #4; that's in line with their mandate.Wrong. Their actual mandate is to monitor *FOREIGN* communications. That is what they were founded to do.I would have zero problem with 1 through 4 provided they stuck to that mandate, but as we are all aware, they haven't done that.
MythDragon: dittybopper: MythDragon: hat'say why I always alktay in a odecay they antcay derstanduncay.Maybe dittybopper knows, if you unencrypt a plain text message using a key you end up with a reverse encrypted message that you must encrypt to get it back as readable text. Wouldn't this make it harder for another person to crack? They are spending all that time trying to unencrypt it, when they need to be encrypting it. Or is it pretty much the same thing, just figure out the key?I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Could you explain further?You start with a plain text message."I like cheese"You encrypt it using whatever keyand you now have a coded message that you must unencrypt to read.But what if you take the plain text and decrypt it using the same key?You would have garbage that you'd have to encrypt to get it back to readable text right?Say you use basic letter subsitution. In this case we'll just use one letter higher to encrypt. A=B, B=C, Z=A."I like cheese" becomes "J MJLF DIFFTF"But if I decrypt "I like cheese" I get "H KHJD BFDDR" and if I try and use the key to unencrypt it I end up with "G JHIC AECCQ" which is still unreadable.It's really simple to figure out using such an easy key, but if you use something harder, like AES would it make it harder for someone to analyise it? They are trying to decrypt your message when they need to be encrypting it. Or does it not work like that?
UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I think I get what you're saying, but anything that you can run in reverse and get the original message is breakable. A good encryption is like a meat-grinder. If you run it backwards, you don't get your cow back, you just get finer ground hamburger.
MythDragon: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I think I get what you're saying, but anything that you can run in reverse and get the original message is breakable. A good encryption is like a meat-grinder. If you run it backwards, you don't get your cow back, you just get finer ground hamburger.I thought a good encryption was like sticking your dick in a pickle slicer.She gets fired too./Should have used that for the bad analogy thread.
Your Average Witty Fark User: NO ONE IS READING YOUR FARKING EMAIL
dittybopper: Pointy Tail of Satan: Whats actually bad about this, is that they cannot admit or use evidence from hacking, or they would be exposing their methods and capabilities. So what can they do? Generate false evidence? Use blackmail and extortion? Or in the case of outside the country, simply wack someone? There is a good reason why star chambers are forbidden in most countries.Actually, what they do is they have a special law enforcement unit of the DEA called the "Special Operations Division" that takes that information from agencies like the NSA and feeds it to law enforcement. It's like an "anonymous tip", but not really, because the ultimate source of the tip is an unconstitutional search:The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels and has grown from several dozen employees to several hundred.Today, much of the SOD's work is classified, and officials asked that its precise location in Virginia not be revealed. The documents reviewed by Reuters are marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive," a government categorization that is meant to keep them confidential."Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD."A spokesman with the Department of Justice, which oversees the DEA, declined to comment.But two senior DEA officials defended the program, and said trying to "recreate" an investigative trail is not only legal but a technique that is used almost daily.A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. "You'd be told only, 'Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said.
WayToBlue: Once again, wtf are you on about? "SSL" is basically just a wrapper/glue protocol around other cryptographic primitives. What in particular are you suggesting can be "sliced through."
WayToBlue: That is simply untrue. Whoever told you it was only supposed to be good for a few hours lied to you.
WayToBlue: Such as . . .
WayToBlue: The sad thing is you're not entirely wrong here, but not for any of the reasons you stated.
Kahabut: One time pads are by far the MOST secure system I know of, but they can hypothetically still be brute forced. It's just that the entropy inherent in that particular system is rather absurdly high. Doesn't mean you won't get lucky though, it just makes it a lot less likely. (absurdly less likely) I'm just being realistic though, nothing is unbreakable. NOTHING. OTPs are pretty close though.
Kittypie070: I don't think I believe Kahabut's hot air concerning the alleged "ease" of breaking one-time pad crypto unless he's an NSA operative.He doesn't sound like one.
WayToBlue: The only real attack against OTPs are when they aren't actually one-time (i.e. the pad is reused), or against the RNG that generated the pad. If you can find a bias in that then it can be broken, although still very difficult.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 27 2017 16:13:32
Runtime: 0.407 sec (407 ms)