messing with the power connection

YOu have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.

Ah, so starts backtracking.

Care to move the goal posts another ten yards?

Reply to
krw
Loading thread data ...

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:02:58 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , phil-news- | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:36:31 -0500 krw wrote: |> | In article , |> | snipped-for-privacy@aol.com says... |> |> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:50:16 -0500, krw wrote: |> |> |> |> >"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.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:04:09 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , phil-news- | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:50:16 -0500 krw wrote: |> | In article , phil-news- |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> |> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:43:42 -0500 krw wrote: |> |> | In article , |> |> | snipped-for-privacy@aol.com says... |> |> |> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:47:39 -0500, krw wrote: |> |> |> |> |> |> >> 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.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

| 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?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

As usual, Phil, you're talking from where you should be sitting.

'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.

Reply to
krw

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

Reply to
krw

Backtracking.

Safety!

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

Reply to
krw

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:00:47 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net | says... |> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:02:58 -0500 krw wrote: |> | In article , phil-news- |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... | | | |> |> 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?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:43:14 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net | says... |> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:59:39 -0500 krw wrote: |> |> | 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.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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?

Reply to
krw

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 06:36:19 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , phil-news- | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:43:14 -0500 krw wrote: |> | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net |> | says... |> |> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:59:39 -0500 krw wrote: |> |> |> |> | 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.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

What a maroon!

Reply to
krw

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:16:00 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , phil-news- | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 06:36:19 -0500 krw wrote: |> | In article , phil-news- |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> |> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:43:14 -0500 krw wrote: |> |> | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net |> |> | says... |> |> |> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:59:39 -0500 krw wrote: |> |> |> |> |> |> | 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!

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

That's no surprise.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

You should. It fits you perfectly, Doc.

Reply to
krw

Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not understand that you're an ass' behind?

Reply to
krw

They never do. :(

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:40:58 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , phil-news- | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:00:47 -0500 krw wrote: |> | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net |> | says... | |> |> | 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? | | Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not | understand that you're an ass' behind?

Of course I understand quotation marks. What do they have to do with invention vs. implementation?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:08:08 -0500 Michael A. Terrell wrote: | krw wrote: |> |> In article , phil-news- |> snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:00:47 -0500 krw wrote: |> > | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net |> > | says... |> |> > |> | 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? |> |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not |> understand that you're an ass' behind? | | | They never do. :(

I'm glad to see the two of you together. Now all I need to do is get the other 4 of your type from other newsgroups to job you, and you all will be together.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

"To job" What is that, some kinky thing you enjoy doing?

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.