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 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 13:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87y4ahrew2.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #159685 |
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes: > On 2/17/2016 10:44 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> 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? >> > The feds will always make that claim, whether or not it is true. How > do you tell when they're lying? Easy: When they open their mouths, they're lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 17:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3130110196441a77989f89@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159640 |
In article <efb56603-7460-4b2a-b98a-822b58c05a0b@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > 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? This issue in this case seems to be that Apple refuses to hack the iphone in question in such a manner that it doesn't wipe itself after 10 failed login attempts, and the FBI apparently doesn't have the expertise necessary to pull out a memory chip and make a copy of it before doing the hack-and-wipe. Or perhaps there's something special about the chip that makes it uncopiable by that means?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 10:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <din2m4Fe15rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159725 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.3130110196441a77989f89@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <efb56603-7460-4b2a-b98a-822b58c05a0b@googlegroups.com>, > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> 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? > > This issue in this case seems to be that Apple refuses to hack the > iphone in question in such a manner that it doesn't wipe itself after 10 > failed login attempts, and the FBI apparently doesn't have the expertise > necessary to pull out a memory chip and make a copy of it before doing > the hack-and-wipe. There isnt a memory chip to pull in that phone. > Or perhaps there's something special about the chip that makes it > uncopiable by that means?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 21:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.313042284b0fd4b6989f92@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159736 |
In article <din2m4Fe15rU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww@gmail.com says... > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.3130110196441a77989f89@news.eternal-september.org... > > In article <efb56603-7460-4b2a-b98a-822b58c05a0b@googlegroups.com>, > > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > >> > >> 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? > > > > This issue in this case seems to be that Apple refuses to hack the > > iphone in question in such a manner that it doesn't wipe itself after 10 > > failed login attempts, and the FBI apparently doesn't have the expertise > > necessary to pull out a memory chip and make a copy of it before doing > > the hack-and-wipe. > > There isnt a memory chip to pull in that phone. That would be news to SK Hynix.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 13:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dine00FggjtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159749 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.313042284b0fd4b6989f92@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <din2m4Fe15rU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww@gmail.com says... >> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.3130110196441a77989f89@news.eternal-september.org... >> > In article <efb56603-7460-4b2a-b98a-822b58c05a0b@googlegroups.com>, >> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> >> >> 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? >> > >> > This issue in this case seems to be that Apple refuses to hack the >> > iphone in question in such a manner that it doesn't wipe itself after >> > 10 >> > failed login attempts, and the FBI apparently doesn't have the >> > expertise >> > necessary to pull out a memory chip and make a copy of it before doing >> > the hack-and-wipe. >> >> There isnt a memory chip to pull in that phone. > > That would be news to SK Hynix. And pulling it is completely useless when the data in it is encrypted anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 05:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3130b9aeadd056d9989f94@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159752 |
In article <dine00FggjtU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww@gmail.com says... > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.313042284b0fd4b6989f92@news.eternal-september.org... > > In article <din2m4Fe15rU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww@gmail.com says... > >> > >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:MPG.3130110196441a77989f89@news.eternal-september.org... > >> > In article <efb56603-7460-4b2a-b98a-822b58c05a0b@googlegroups.com>, > >> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > >> >> > >> >> 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? > >> > > >> > This issue in this case seems to be that Apple refuses to hack the > >> > iphone in question in such a manner that it doesn't wipe itself after > >> > 10 > >> > failed login attempts, and the FBI apparently doesn't have the > >> > expertise > >> > necessary to pull out a memory chip and make a copy of it before doing > >> > the hack-and-wipe. > >> > >> There isnt a memory chip to pull in that phone. > > > > That would be news to SK Hynix. > > And pulling it is completely useless when the data in it is encrypted > anyway. Perhaps, but your assertion was that there was no chip. In any case, the issue is that the phone erases its memory after 10 attempts. With the chip removed, copied, and replaced, this becomes much less of an issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 04:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dip2p4Ftg9kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159772 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.3130b9aeadd056d9989f94@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <dine00FggjtU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww@gmail.com says... >> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.313042284b0fd4b6989f92@news.eternal-september.org... >> > In article <din2m4Fe15rU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww@gmail.com says... >> >> >> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:MPG.3130110196441a77989f89@news.eternal-september.org... >> >> > In article <efb56603-7460-4b2a-b98a-822b58c05a0b@googlegroups.com>, >> >> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> >> >> >> >> 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? >> >> > >> >> > This issue in this case seems to be that Apple refuses to hack the >> >> > iphone in question in such a manner that it doesn't wipe itself >> >> > after >> >> > 10 >> >> > failed login attempts, and the FBI apparently doesn't have the >> >> > expertise >> >> > necessary to pull out a memory chip and make a copy of it before >> >> > doing >> >> > the hack-and-wipe. >> >> >> >> There isnt a memory chip to pull in that phone. >> > >> > That would be news to SK Hynix. >> >> And pulling it is completely useless when the data in it is encrypted >> anyway. > > Perhaps, No perhaps about it. > but your assertion was that there was no chip. There isn't one that can be pulled. > In any case, the issue is that the phone erases its memory after 10 > attempts. It isnt known that this phone will do that. > With the chip removed, copied, and replaced, > this becomes much less of an issue. But still prevents a brute force attack on the passcode, because it isnt going to be feasible to do that every 10 tries of the passcode so you get it eventually. And you have to get the passcode to be able to decrypt the data on the phone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C1FA76BFC02@aca432ec.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #159725 |
J. Clarke wrote: > In article <efb56603-7460-4b2a-b98a-822b58c05a0b@googlegroups.com>, > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> 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? > > This issue in this case seems to be that Apple refuses to hack the > iphone in question in such a manner that it doesn't wipe itself after 10 > failed login attempts, and the FBI apparently doesn't have the expertise > necessary to pull out a memory chip and make a copy of it before doing > the hack-and-wipe. I find that very difficult to believe. > > Or perhaps there's something special about the chip that makes it > uncopiable by that means? > > Or they want Apple to provide the software to hack it rather than have Apple do a hack just to that phone. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 11:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <na4q1h$1mr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #159623 |
On 17/02/2016 8:41 PM, Peter Flass wrote: > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >> 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. > Apples public press release (I don't have a quick link but it should be easy to find) is a measured unemotional hear are the facts and asks for a public discussion. This is important for many reasons real security at every level. (I really like to do on line banking with a secure link). Apple/Tim Cooks argument is it is a court order to do something that doesn't exist. If they obey then it makes everyon's apple products less secure. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ibmekon <Ibmekon> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8g5ccb92qk52vv6c1o9f6vnrmp73m6cb13@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159623 |
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: <redacted> >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. It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their policy of scrapping all personal privacy. If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but it will damage their reputation and sales - the FBI will promise to only use the tech solution "in matters of national security". And suggest judicial agreement that in future they can make direct demands in secret to Apple - to shield Apple from customers anger. Carl Goldsworthy --- I could tell you, but then i'd have to kill you ! very difficult
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 20:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Jdqxy.112518$yJ4.19039@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #159709 |
Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass ><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > ><redacted> > >>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. > >It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >policy of scrapping all personal privacy. > >If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. > >If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the decryption key after 10 invalid PIN's. Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. And probably find zilch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ibmekon <Ibmekon> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 21:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f5dccbt2jl96bbr65h4a9lln8amjqudcpp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159718 |
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >><redacted> >> >>>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. >> >>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >> >>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >> >>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. > >The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the decryption >key after 10 invalid PIN's. > >Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. > >And probably find zilch. Tim Cook, Apple CEO "We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to-unlock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 13:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t2Fxy.150$gn2.130@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #159719 |
Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >wrote: > >>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>><redacted> >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>> >>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>> >>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >> >>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the decryption >>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >> >>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >> >>And probably find zilch. > >Tim Cook, Apple CEO >"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to-unlock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ > He's using hyperbole, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ibmekon <Ibmekon> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 14:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <688ecbpc31ap4m9rgtmskfnh3rfevkba5b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159782 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>wrote: >> >>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><redacted> >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>> >>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>> >>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>> >>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the decryption >>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>> >>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>> >>>And probably find zilch. >> >>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to-unlock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >> > > He's using hyperbole, of course. Well, Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked iphone ? If not, Cook is flat out lying. If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. I believe Cook. Carl Goldsworthy ... In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 09:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1leecb9o4ifhq729deeunvldpd466gkcd3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159788 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:12:48 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: >On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >wrote: > >>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><redacted> >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >>>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>>> >>>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >>>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>>> >>>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >>>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >>>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>>> >>>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the decryption >>>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>>> >>>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>>> >>>>And probably find zilch. >>> >>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to-unlock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>> >> >> He's using hyperbole, of course. >Well, >Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >iphone ? >If not, Cook is flat out lying. >If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >I believe Cook. > >Carl Goldsworthy >... >In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. I don't believe either of them. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C34BFB375E3@aca405fb.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #159806 |
JimP wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:12:48 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: > >>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>wrote: >> >>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><redacted> >>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >>>>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>>>> >>>>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >>>>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>>>> >>>>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >>>>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >>>>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>>>> >>>>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>>>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the decryption >>>>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>>>> >>>>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>>>> >>>>>And probably find zilch. >>>> >>>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >>>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to-un lock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>>> >>> >>> He's using hyperbole, of course. >>Well, >>Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >>iphone ? >>If not, Cook is flat out lying. >>If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >>FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >>If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >>I believe Cook. >> >>Carl Goldsworthy >>... >>In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. > > I don't believe either of them. Of course; they're in the throes of a lawsuit. However, consider the virus which wrecked Iran's centrifuges. It was designed to apply to only that one site but is now out in the world. Any software which Apple develops and hands to the FBI or NSA to crack any security will be out on the web and getting used by the very people the FBI/NSA want to stop. A general cracking mechanism should not be given out. It will happen soon enough. The FBI can use the technique described in this newsgroup to access the data on that, and only that, particular phone. people are using their phones to manage all of their assets. if the method of cracking into the phone is availabe, all of their wealth can be transferred to some entity--a terrorism group or government. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 03:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diriirFia2sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159925 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C34BFB375E3@aca405fb.ipt.aol.com... > JimP wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:12:48 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>>>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><redacted> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >>>>>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >>>>>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >>>>>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on >>>>>>>themselves >>>>>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>>>>> >>>>>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>>>>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>>>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the > decryption >>>>>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>>>>> >>>>>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>>>>> >>>>>>And probably find zilch. >>>>> >>>>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >>>>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to-un > lock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> He's using hyperbole, of course. >>>Well, >>>Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >>>iphone ? >>>If not, Cook is flat out lying. >>>If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >>>FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >>>If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >>>I believe Cook. >>> >>>Carl Goldsworthy >>>... >>>In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. >> >> I don't believe either of them. > > Of course; they're in the throes of a lawsuit. However, consider > the virus which wrecked Iran's centrifuges. It was designed to > apply to only that one site but is now out in the world. Any > software which Apple develops and hands to the FBI or NSA to > crack any security will be out on the web and getting used > by the very people the FBI/NSA want to stop. Nice theory. Now try explaining why the iOS isnt. > A general cracking mechanism should not be given out. They aren't talking about a general cracking mechanism. > It will happen soon enough. Hasn’t happened with iOS. You can't even jailbreak iOS 9 systems. > The FBI can use the technique described in this newsgroup > to access the data on that, and only that, particular phone. Wrong. > people are using their phones to manage all of their assets. But getting into their phone doesn’t allow you to grab their assets. > if the method of cracking into the phone is availabe, > all of their wealth can be transferred to some entity-- > a terrorism group or government. BULLSHIT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 10:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8p5hcbhcl2bf39sfpku7m924rhf3g1bqn2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159925 |
On 20 Feb 2016 15:18:06 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >JimP wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:12:48 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>>>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><redacted> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >>>>>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >>>>>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >>>>>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >>>>>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>>>>> >>>>>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>>>>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>>>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the >decryption >>>>>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>>>>> >>>>>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>>>>> >>>>>>And probably find zilch. >>>>> >>>>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >>>>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to-un >lock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> He's using hyperbole, of course. >>>Well, >>>Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >>>iphone ? >>>If not, Cook is flat out lying. >>>If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >>>FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >>>If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >>>I believe Cook. >>> >>>Carl Goldsworthy >>>... >>>In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. >> >> I don't believe either of them. > >Of course; they're in the throes of a lawsuit. However, consider >the virus which wrecked Iran's centrifuges. It was designed to >apply to only that one site but is now out in the world. Any >software which Apple develops and hands to the FBI or NSA to >crack any security will be out on the web and getting used >by the very people the FBI/NSA want to stop. > >A general cracking mechanism should not be given out. It will >happen soon enough. The FBI can use the technique described >in this newsgroup to access the data on that, and only that, >particular phone. > >people are using their phones to manage all of their assets. >if the method of cracking into the phone is availabe, all >of their wealth can be transferred to some entity--a terrorism >group or government. > >/BAH Anyone who does bank or other money transactions on an unsecure device like a telephone is a fool that is going to be bitten and then feel a great amount of shock. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C4960209775@aca432a0.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #159953 |
JimP wrote: > On 20 Feb 2016 15:18:06 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>JimP wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:12:48 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>>>>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>><redacted> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with their >>>>>>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the FBI >>>>>>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very difficult >>>>>>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on themselves >>>>>>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>>>>>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>>>>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the >>decryption >>>>>>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And probably find zilch. >>>>>> >>>>>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>>>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>>>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>>>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>>>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply >>>>>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>>>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>>>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to- un >>lock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> He's using hyperbole, of course. >>>>Well, >>>>Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >>>>iphone ? >>>>If not, Cook is flat out lying. >>>>If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >>>>FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >>>>If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >>>>I believe Cook. >>>> >>>>Carl Goldsworthy >>>>... >>>>In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. >>> >>> I don't believe either of them. >> >>Of course; they're in the throes of a lawsuit. However, consider >>the virus which wrecked Iran's centrifuges. It was designed to >>apply to only that one site but is now out in the world. Any >>software which Apple develops and hands to the FBI or NSA to >>crack any security will be out on the web and getting used >>by the very people the FBI/NSA want to stop. >> >>A general cracking mechanism should not be given out. It will >>happen soon enough. The FBI can use the technique described >>in this newsgroup to access the data on that, and only that, >>particular phone. >> >>people are using their phones to manage all of their assets. >>if the method of cracking into the phone is availabe, all >>of their wealth can be transferred to some entity--a terrorism >>group or government. >> >>/BAH > > Anyone who does bank or other money transactions on an unsecure device > like a telephone is a fool that is going to be bitten and then feel a > great amount of shock. If cracking code is produced, noone will be able to tell if their device is secure. So far, only Apple's marketing assures security. If they have to provide a general cracking code to law enforcement, noone's phone is secure. I understand your thinking and I would agree except this is not about accessing that one phone. The Apple vs FBI lawsuits have to do with making every phone accessible. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 03:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diu7osF8fohU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160037 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C4960209775@aca432a0.ipt.aol.com... > JimP wrote: >> On 20 Feb 2016 15:18:06 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> >>>JimP wrote: >>>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:12:48 +0000, Ibmekon <Ibmekon> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:48:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:56:09 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ibmekon <Ibmekon> writes: >>>>>>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:41:00 -0700, Peter Flass >>>>>>>>><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>><redacted> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It seems to me that the FBA wish to bring Apple into line with >>>>>>>>>their >>>>>>>>>policy of scrapping all personal privacy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is simply impossible to crack the phone - the >>>>>>>>>FBI >>>>>>>>>will create legislation to make it illegal - citing this case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If Apple argues it is possible to crack the phone, but very >>>>>>>>>difficult >>>>>>>>>and expensive - the FBI will suggest they make it easier on >>>>>>>>>themselves >>>>>>>>>in future by installing an "FBI Only" back door. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The FBI doesn't want apple to "crack the phone". What they want is >>>>>>>>for apple to produce a signed firmware image of the IOS operating >>>>>>>>software with one OS modification, such that it doesn't zap the >>>decryption >>>>>>>>key after 10 invalid PIN's. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Once the image is installed, the FBI can brute force the PIN. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And probably find zilch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Tim Cook, Apple CEO >>>>>>>"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we >>>>>>>believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done >>>>>>>everything that is both within our power and within the law to help >>>>>>>them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we >>>>>>>simply >>>>>>>do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They >>>>>>>have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." >>>>>>>http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-backdoor-to- > un >>>lock-san-bernardino-attackers-iphone/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> He's using hyperbole, of course. >>>>>Well, >>>>>Did the FBI make any request regarding future access to a locked >>>>>iphone ? >>>>>If not, Cook is flat out lying. >>>>>If they did, was it as represented by Cook - ie the ability for the >>>>>FBI to access data in anyones iphone - aka backdoor. >>>>>If not - it is open the the FBI correct what Cook stated. >>>>>I believe Cook. >>>>> >>>>>Carl Goldsworthy >>>>>... >>>>>In a "zero sum game" there are no winners. >>>> >>>> I don't believe either of them. >>> >>>Of course; they're in the throes of a lawsuit. However, consider >>>the virus which wrecked Iran's centrifuges. It was designed to >>>apply to only that one site but is now out in the world. Any >>>software which Apple develops and hands to the FBI or NSA to >>>crack any security will be out on the web and getting used >>>by the very people the FBI/NSA want to stop. >>> >>>A general cracking mechanism should not be given out. It will >>>happen soon enough. The FBI can use the technique described >>>in this newsgroup to access the data on that, and only that, >>>particular phone. >>> >>>people are using their phones to manage all of their assets. >>>if the method of cracking into the phone is availabe, all >>>of their wealth can be transferred to some entity--a terrorism >>>group or government. >>> >>>/BAH >> >> Anyone who does bank or other money transactions on an unsecure device >> like a telephone is a fool that is going to be bitten and then feel a >> great amount of shock. > > If cracking code is produced, It always has been. > noone will be able to tell if their device is secure. Wrong. It is completely trivial to determine whether it is or not. > So far, only Apple's marketing assures security. Nothing to do with marketing, its about sandboxing. > If they have to provide a general > cracking code to law enforcement, No one is requiring them to do that. > noone's phone is secure. Bullshit. > I understand your thinking No you don’t. > and I would agree except this is not about accessing > that one phone. The Apple vs FBI lawsuits have to > do with making every phone accessible. Bullshit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web