Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159496 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 317 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 09:54 -0800
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-16 19:41 +0100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 21:11 +0100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 02:16 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 22:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 23:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 04:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-17 14:01 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:09 -0800
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 20:45 -0700
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-17 22:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 11:16 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:00 +1100
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-18 02:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-17 22:47 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:10 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 21:29 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:56 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 23:15 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:35 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-18 17:58 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-17 20:44 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 08:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 19:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 20:13 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:26 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 18:21 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 23:32 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:34 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 19:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 07:25 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 10:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:25 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 17:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:01 +1100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 16:26 -0800
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-21 13:52 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-21 18:51 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 15:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-20 16:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 15:59 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:36 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 17:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 18:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 19:48 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 16:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 18:17 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 21:33 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:23 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:48 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:56 -0800
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 23:18 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 15:33 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 20:00 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 01:51 -0700
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:40 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 23:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 10:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:56 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:50 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-19 16:54 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 17:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-20 08:30 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-20 15:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-20 10:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 11:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:27 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 09:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:53 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:15 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 17:55 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:19 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:46 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-18 18:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 14:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 09:28 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:19 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 10:24 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 12:27 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 00:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 18:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:41 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 07:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 08:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:50 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 13:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:33 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 21:04 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:03 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 19:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-18 20:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 21:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 14:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:43 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 04:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-21 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:08 -0800
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 18:10 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:52 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-19 16:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:13 -0600
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-16 17:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 14:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-17 12:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 07:38 -0700
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 16:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 16:11 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-17 12:05 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:39 -0800
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-16 16:44 -0400
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-16 15:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:20 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-17 18:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 16:46 +0100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0800
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 14:43 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 15:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 15:36 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:30 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 19:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 00:51 +0100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:45 +0000
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:01 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 10:16 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:19 -0700
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 17:46 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:08 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-23 16:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:58 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:40 +0000
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:06 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:44 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 17:08 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:41 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 09:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-21 10:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:48 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-21 18:40 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 01:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 18:36 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 00:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 09:37 +0100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:17 -0500
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:42 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:52 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 10:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-22 17:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 20:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 21:31 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-22 17:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 14:41 -0600
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:16 -0700
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 17:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:34 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 11:11 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 18:25 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 15:15 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:28 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 21:46 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:31 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-18 13:56 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-19 17:09 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:55 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-22 14:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 07:15 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:30 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-23 01:49 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:09 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:29 -0500
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:30 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:11 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 11:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 14:04 +0100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 13:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-21 23:28 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-21 12:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 14:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-17 15:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 21:31 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-18 08:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 17:04 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-17 04:08 -0400
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:04 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:57 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 16:43 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600
Page 2 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 16 Next page →
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 14:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <na2g1t$1nv9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #159595 |
On 17/02/2016 1:07 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > Furthermore, for many people (not just IT staff) security is just a > way of giving yourself the warm fuzzies. It doesn't matter whether > the measures are effective; what matters is the warm glow you get > from the knowledge that > Something Has Been Done. > > Security is difficult to measure, so many people fall back on a > totally inappropriate metric: how much it inconveniences legitimate > users. > Hard security has a lot of legislative opposition. Look at the problems RIM/BLACKBERRY ran into in many countries because there wasn't a backdoor to their encryption. Phil Zimmermann (author of PGP fame) at a conference I was at described a police conversation where the police couldn't believe that he didn't have a secret backdoor or the knowledge to break his own encryption algorithm to help them solve a child porn case. w.. Sorry charlie Thunderbird reply vs followup w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <402753368.477451511.025212.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159597 |
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > On 17/02/2016 1:07 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> >> Furthermore, for many people (not just IT staff) security is just a >> way of giving yourself the warm fuzzies. It doesn't matter whether >> the measures are effective; what matters is the warm glow you get >> from the > knowledge that >> Something Has Been Done. >> >> Security is difficult to measure, so many people fall back on a >> totally inappropriate metric: how much it inconveniences legitimate >> users. >> > Hard security has a lot of legislative opposition. Look at the problems > RIM/BLACKBERRY ran into in many countries because there wasn't a > backdoor to their encryption. > > Phil Zimmermann (author of PGP fame) at a conference I was at described > a police conversation where the police couldn't believe that he didn't > have a secret backdoor or the knowledge to break his own encryption > algorithm to help them solve a child porn case. > Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 18:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87oabe22hb.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #159623 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple > to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down > on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. in the past hardware reverse engineering technologies have been used to to recover such information ... and for single use should be less expensive than what they are asking Apple to do. It would seem to be justified assuming they were planning on wide spread use. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 20:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bziuywuj5.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #159627 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple >> to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down >> on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. > > in the past hardware reverse engineering technologies have been used to > to recover such information ... and for single use should be less > expensive than what they are asking Apple to do. It would seem to be > justified assuming they were planning on wide spread use. As I understand it, hardware reverse engineering wouldn't help here -- apparently, the issue is that there is no way to enter the unlock code except from the touchscreen. What the FBI wants is a scriptable way to enter it (so they can then brute-force unlocking the device).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 22:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <PpidnTjpd_ol1FjLnZ2dnUU7-UudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159633 |
Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects >>> Apple >>> to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come >>> down on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments >>> too. >> >> in the past hardware reverse engineering technologies have been used to >> to recover such information ... and for single use should be less >> expensive than what they are asking Apple to do. It would seem to be >> justified assuming they were planning on wide spread use. > > As I understand it, hardware reverse engineering wouldn't help here -- > apparently, the issue is that there is no way to enter the unlock code > except from the touchscreen. What the FBI wants is a scriptable way to > enter it (so they can then brute-force unlocking the device). Real forensics people would know what to do. First, take the phone apart, and remove the flash memory chip. Hopefully you could buy some board that enables you to mount it and read it out on a PC. if not, somebody would have to make up a board. once you have the contents of the flash memory in a PC, you could then attack whatever encryption might be on there. Apparently, the current difficulty is if you try too many times to enter the "access code" the phone will erase everything in memory. Just as with computer forensics, where you pull the hard drive out of the system and copy it using another system, this is what to do with an important piece of evidence on a cell phone. That still leaves encryption on the phone, but the NSA probably has ways to dig into that. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 11:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dimcjhF88ggU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159633 |
"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote: > Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects >>> Apple >>> to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come >>> down >>> on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. >> >> in the past hardware reverse engineering technologies have been used to >> to recover such information ... and for single use should be less >> expensive than what they are asking Apple to do. It would seem to be >> justified assuming they were planning on wide spread use. > > As I understand it, hardware reverse engineering wouldn't help here -- > apparently, the issue is that there is no way to enter the unlock code > except from the touchscreen. What the FBI wants is a scriptable way to > enter it (so they can then brute-force unlocking the device). I wonder if they are keeping the battery charged on that iphone instead of letting it run down on a shelf in the cops' property room?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 05:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dimhp3F9l6sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159686 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:dimcjhF88ggU1@mid.individual.net... > "Joe Pfeiffer" wrote: > >> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: >> >>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>>> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects >>>> Apple >>>> to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come >>>> down >>>> on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments >>>> too. >>> >>> in the past hardware reverse engineering technologies have been used to >>> to recover such information ... and for single use should be less >>> expensive than what they are asking Apple to do. It would seem to be >>> justified assuming they were planning on wide spread use. >> >> As I understand it, hardware reverse engineering wouldn't help here -- >> apparently, the issue is that there is no way to enter the unlock code >> except from the touchscreen. What the FBI wants is a scriptable way to >> enter it (so they can then brute-force unlocking the device). > > I wonder if they are keeping the battery charged on that iphone instead of > letting it run down on a shelf in the cops' property room? Doesn't matter. The data they want won't go away whichever approach they take.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 15:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diktvnFr8coU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159627 |
"Anne & Lynn Wheeler" <lynn@garlic.com> wrote in message news:87oabe22hb.fsf@garlic.com... > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects >> Apple >> to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come >> down >> on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. > in the past hardware reverse engineering technologies > have been used to to recover such information ... Not possible in this case. > and for single use should be less expensive > than what they are asking Apple to do. Dunno. They appear to be asking Apple to do a version of iOS that no longer delays between when you enter a bad passcode and when you can try another one and to allow that modified iOS to be loaded into that locked phone. That is certainly technically possible and wouldn’t cost much. > It would seem to be justified assuming > they were planning on wide spread use. Not justified in the sense that it is reasonable to demand Apple do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 02:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160217211400@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159623 |
On 2016-02-18, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple > to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down > on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. The "other side" are little more than gangsters. Utter and complete scum. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 22:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <na3enb$e7b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159623 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >> On 17/02/2016 1:07 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> >>> Furthermore, for many people (not just IT staff) security is just a >>> way of giving yourself the warm fuzzies. It doesn't matter whether >>> the measures are effective; what matters is the warm glow you get >>> from the >> knowledge that >>> Something Has Been Done. >>> >>> Security is difficult to measure, so many people fall back on a >>> totally inappropriate metric: how much it inconveniences legitimate >>> users. >>> >> Hard security has a lot of legislative opposition. Look at the problems >> RIM/BLACKBERRY ran into in many countries because there wasn't a >> backdoor to their encryption. >> >> Phil Zimmermann (author of PGP fame) at a conference I was at described >> a police conversation where the police couldn't believe that he didn't >> have a secret backdoor or the knowledge to break his own encryption >> algorithm to help them solve a child porn case. > > Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple > to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down > on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. I saw some talking heads saying that current iPhones could not be broken but this model could. Of course, no estimate as to how long that might take. I guess AAPL can fix this for the rest of it's customers by updating all their systems OS to current levels. I can't see how the government can stop them. I see no overriding, life threatening emergency to justify making a case out of this. On the other hand, AAPL could start a multi-million dollar project to break that phone and push the stock price up over the years. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 15:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dikuhuFrc9sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159634 |
"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message news:na3enb$e7b$1@dont-email.me... > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >>> On 17/02/2016 1:07 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Furthermore, for many people (not just IT staff) security is just a >>>> way of giving yourself the warm fuzzies. It doesn't matter whether >>>> the measures are effective; what matters is the warm glow you get >>>> from the >>> knowledge that >>>> Something Has Been Done. >>>> >>>> Security is difficult to measure, so many people fall back on a >>>> totally inappropriate metric: how much it inconveniences legitimate >>>> users. >>>> >>> Hard security has a lot of legislative opposition. Look at the problems >>> RIM/BLACKBERRY ran into in many countries because there wasn't a >>> backdoor to their encryption. >>> >>> Phil Zimmermann (author of PGP fame) at a conference I was at described >>> a police conversation where the police couldn't believe that he didn't >>> have a secret backdoor or the knowledge to break his own encryption >>> algorithm to help them solve a child porn case. >> >> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects >> Apple >> to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come >> down >> on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. > > I saw some talking heads saying that current iPhones could not be broken The current iphones have that stored in the cpu secure zone where it isnt accessible from outside it. > but this model could. Yes, that model doesn’t have the secure zone. > Of course, no estimate as to how long that might take. That obviously depends on the form the passcode takes. If the passcode is done by gestures, that's a problem for brute forcing it. > I guess AAPL can fix this for the rest of it's customers > by updating all their systems OS to current levels. It isnt the OS that is the problem, it’s the hardware with the current models. > I can't see how the government can stop them. The govt isnt wanting to stop anyone. > I see no overriding, life threatening emergency to > justify making a case out of this. The FBI clearly feels differently about that. > On the other hand, AAPL could start a multi-million dollar project > to break that phone and push the stock price up over the years. What ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 21:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87fuwq1t8g.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #159637 |
"hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> writes: > That obviously depends on the form the passcode takes. > If the passcode is done by gestures, that's a problem for > brute forcing it. hardware reverse engineering ... does non-distructive dissembly and then directly extract from the memory store. If it is encrypted, do brute force on the extracted copy. gestures, biometric, etc ... has sensor that converts to some encoded representation ... you don't reproduce the physical representation ... reproduce the encoded representation generated by sensor. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 17:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dil89oFth97U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159642 |
"Anne & Lynn Wheeler" <lynn@garlic.com> wrote in message news:87fuwq1t8g.fsf@garlic.com... > "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> writes: >> That obviously depends on the form the passcode takes. >> If the passcode is done by gestures, that's a problem for >> brute forcing it. > > hardware reverse engineering ... does non-distructive > dissembly and then directly extract from the memory store. That isn't reverse engineering, there is no reverse involved, it's just disassembly. And isn't even possible with the the current iphones, the hashed passcode is in the secure zone in the cpu where it can't be disassembled anyway. > If it is encrypted, do brute force on the extracted copy. Not even possible with the best encryption. What can certainly be done is brute force trying all the possibilities with the passcode, but to do that you need to stop the phone from wiping the contents of the phone after there have been 10 failures to provide the passcode. > gestures, biometric, etc ... has sensor that converts to some encoded > representation ... you don't reproduce the physical representation > ... reproduce the encoded representation generated by sensor. Sure, but the problem with gestures is that it makes it a lot harder to just try all the possible gestures to see what either unlocks the phone or produces the hashed passcode you have extracted from the phone by physical disassembly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 23:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87bn7e1oca.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #159644 |
"hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> writes: > That isn't reverse engineering, there is no > reverse involved, it's just disassembly. original post was "reverse engineering technologies" ... which starts with pealing all the pieces apart (or disassembly). getting down to chips ... they may even very carefully peal away chip layers and measuring charges in cells. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 18:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dilai2Fu286U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159646 |
"Anne & Lynn Wheeler" <lynn@garlic.com> wrote in message news:87bn7e1oca.fsf@garlic.com... > "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> writes: >> That isn't reverse engineering, there is no >> reverse involved, it's just disassembly. > original post was "reverse engineering technologies" ... Yes. > which starts with pealing all the pieces apart > (or disassembly). getting down to chips ... And that isnt what is involved here. It is well known just where the hashed passcode is stored, no reverse engineering required at all. > they may even very carefully peal away chip layers and > measuring charges in cells. In this case there isn't even any disassembly involved at all, just stopping the CODE from wiping the data once the passcode has been failed 10 times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 17:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87bn7d4g23.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #159642 |
Yes, the feds can hack your iPhone. No, it isn't easy. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/02/17/the-fbi-wants-to-set-a-legal-precedent-not-break-into-an-iphone/ It's possible, of course, for authorities to physically open the phone, pull out the computer chips and bombard them with lasers or radio frequencies to get at the information they need ...snip ... pealing chips and using scanning electron microscope for reverse engineering has been an issue for a number of decades. Past couple decades discussions have been about using the technique for attacks to compromise security chips. IBM Los Gatos VLSI lab had originally pioneered the technique for debuging chips (as opposed to reverse engineering). trivia, long ago and far away, I use to have a wing of offices and labs at the Los Gatos lab. Ex-NSA, CIA chief Michael Hayden sides with Apple in FBI iPhone encryption fight http://theweek.com/speedreads/606641/exnsa-cia-chief-michael-hayden-sides-apple-fbi-iphone-encryption-fight trivia: 90s, I was saying that I would take a $500milspec chip, cost reduce it by 2-3 orders of magnitude while making it more secure. I was on panel discussion with several CSOs in ballroom standing room only at: http://csrc.nist.gov/nissc/1998/index.html then top technical director for the information assurance directorate DDI (reporting to Hayden) is chairing panel discussion in the trusted computing track at the Intel Developer's Conference asks me to be on the panel to talk about my security chip work http://web.archive.org/web/20011109072807/http://www.intel94.com/idf/spr2001/sessiondescription.asp?id=stp+s13 Earlier in the 90s, the gov. was pushing hard for Key Escrow ... all keys had to be registered. I was member of the Key Escrow committee ... one of the last meetings was where I showed that private keys for digital signature use couldn't be escrowed because it would violate fundamental "PAIN" requirements, their response was people could cheat and use digital signature private keys for encryption. That was about the end of Key Escrow effort. past los gatos scanning electron microscope reference/posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm25.htm#2 Crypto to defend chip IP: snake oil or good idea? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#16 Computer of the century http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#55 Multics hardware (was Re: "Soul of a New Machine" Computer?) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#3 Ping: Anne & Lynn Wheeler http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003o.html#54 An entirely new proprietary hardware strategy http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004j.html#16 US fiscal policy (Was: Bob Bemer, Computer Pioneer,Father of ASCII,Invento http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007j.html#29 John W. Backus, 82, Fortran developer, dies http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007l.html#39 My Dream PC -- Chip-Based http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007l.html#47 My Dream PC -- Chip-Based http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007l.html#53 Drums: Memory or Peripheral? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#7 "Unhackable" Infineon Chip Physically Cracked - PCWorld http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#3 "Unhackable" Infineon Chip Physically Cracked - PCWorld http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010f.html#83 Notes on two presentations by Gordon Bell ca. 1998 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#43 Interesting presentation http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#50 The Credit Card Criminals Are Getting Crafty http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011m.html#7 Selectric Typewriter--50th Anniversary http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011n.html#94 Silicoin http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#0 By Any Other Name http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014j.html#24 UEFI? -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 13:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dindt1FgfseU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159748 |
"Anne & Lynn Wheeler" <lynn@garlic.com> wrote in message news:87bn7d4g23.fsf@garlic.com... > Yes, the feds can hack your iPhone. Easy to claim. > No, it isn't easy. > http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/02/17/the-fbi-wants-to-set-a-legal-precedent-not-break-into-an-iphone/ Just because someone claims something... > It's possible, of course, for authorities to physically open the > phone, pull out the computer chips and bombard them with > lasers or radio frequencies to get at the information they need Fat lot of good that is with encrypted data. And the passcode isnt stored anywhere in the phone, so even doing that won't get it. > ...snip ... > > pealing chips and using scanning electron microscope for reverse > engineering has been an issue for a number of decades. But isnt what need to be done to read this iphone. <reams of stuff irrelevant to what is being discussed snipped>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 20:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <efb56603-7460-4b2a-b98a-822b58c05a0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159623 |
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:41:01 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple > to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down > on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing those plans would save significant lives?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 08:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87si0qglpd.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #159640 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. > > But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds > had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing > those plans would save significant lives? The ends never justify the means. Ever. If they can't make their case some other way -- then the case does not need making.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 17:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <b0kccbdebojcihsqc7thrhc5g2t3a2b0ie@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159669 |
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:03:10 -0600, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. >> >> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds >> had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing >> those plans would save significant lives? > >The ends never justify the means. > >Ever. > >If they can't make their case some other way -- then the case does not >need making. That makes no sense. If the phone could contain info on additional terrorist activity then Apple should get off their collective ass and fix the phone so the info can be read. Dead terrorists have no privacy for anyone to be tauting fake concern for. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web