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 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 09:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <5ceecbdsu41datnnl2mq39c5kvfgfk31nr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159776 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:56:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <slrnncdsng.196.mausg@smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says... >> >> On 2016-02-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >> > On 2/18/2016 5:14 PM, JimP wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >> > Of course, ANY phone COULD contain info on terrorist activity. You >> > surely realize that governments (including ours, from the FBI down to >> > the county sheriff) will make ample use of that possibility. "Oh >> > shucks, it turned out that Jim wasn't involved in terrorist activity, >> > but while we were checking we found evidence of something else >> > illegal." or "He claimed he was buying stuff from AliBaba, but we >> > thought he was financing terrorists." >> > >> > And the governments of any country that Apple does business in, too. >> > >> > I'd give it a month before the software (or at least the functionality >> > of it) that Apple writes is in the hands of all sorts of parties, >> > including the Russian mob. >> > >> > >> >> I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There was >> a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most little >> devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably intertlccompany rivalry, >> "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a debate >> in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that even traffic >> wardens could access 'secure' data. > >If the NSA could read everything then the FBI would be getting their >boss to talk to the NSA boss, not threatening Apple. > >Simple fact, there is encryption strong enough that the NSA cannot break >it. Well, they have publically claimed there is unhackabe encryption to Congress. Which isn't evidence of any thing. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 16:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upHxy.5424$hN1.4972@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #159804 |
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:56:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" ><j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There was >>> a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most little >>> devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably intertlccompany rivalry, >>> "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a debate >>> in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that even traffic >>> wardens could access 'secure' data. >> >>If the NSA could read everything then the FBI would be getting their >>boss to talk to the NSA boss, not threatening Apple. >> >>Simple fact, there is encryption strong enough that the NSA cannot break >>it. > >Well, they have publically claimed there is unhackabe encryption to >Congress. Which isn't evidence of any thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 16:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnncei6o.3qv.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #159810 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:29:14 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:56:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" >><j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There was >>>> a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most little >>>> devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably intertlccompany rivalry, >>>> "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a debate >>>> in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that even traffic >>>> wardens could access 'secure' data. >>> >>>If the NSA could read everything then the FBI would be getting their >>>boss to talk to the NSA boss, not threatening Apple. >>> >>>Simple fact, there is encryption strong enough that the NSA cannot break >>>it. >> >>Well, they have publically claimed there is unhackabe encryption to >>Congress. Which isn't evidence of any thing. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad We did an experimental computer version of OTP back in the 8-bit days just to see how to do it. Governments and the military still use OTP when they want to keep things *really* secure. The book "Venona" will give you a feel for just how secure it is. It does,however, require the secure distribution of the pads or their electronic equivalent. -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 17:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160219175525.01fdcc3dbbbe6ccf73d49095@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #159812 |
On 19 Feb 2016 16:54:48 GMT Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: > We did an experimental computer version of OTP back in the 8-bit days > just to see how to do it. Governments and the military still use OTP > when they want to keep things *really* secure. It is the only unbreakable code - regardless of how much computing power you have, even infinite computing power won't help, every message of the same length is equally likely to be the original - unless you know something about the pad, the more you know the weaker the code. > The book "Venona" will give you a feel for just how secure it is. > It does,however, require the secure distribution of the pads or their > electronic equivalent. Securing the pad is of course one problem - as well as secure distribution you need secure retention, copy detection and rapid invalidation to feel safe. Another weakness is the quality of the pad, if it becomes possible to predict the rest of the pad (even partially) from that which has been used the code is broken. An unexpected pattern in a supposedly good random number generator could be a nasty surprise. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 08:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnncg913.88p.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #159821 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:55:25 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 19 Feb 2016 16:54:48 GMT > Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: > >> We did an experimental computer version of OTP back in the 8-bit days >> just to see how to do it. Governments and the military still use OTP >> when they want to keep things *really* secure. > > It is the only unbreakable code - regardless of how much computing > power you have, even infinite computing power won't help, every message of > the same length is equally likely to be the original - unless you know > something about the pad, the more you know the weaker the code. > >> The book "Venona" will give you a feel for just how secure it is. >> It does,however, require the secure distribution of the pads or their >> electronic equivalent. > > Securing the pad is of course one problem - as well as secure > distribution you need secure retention, copy detection and rapid > invalidation to feel safe. Another weakness is the quality of the pad, if it > becomes possible to predict the rest of the pad (even partially) from that > which has been used the code is broken. An unexpected pattern in a > supposedly good random number generator could be a nasty surprise. > There must, of course, only ever be two copies of the pad - one for the sender and one for the recipient, and they should *not* copy them. For random numbers, even back then pseudo-random number programs were regard as insecure. ERNIE, the generator of winning numbers for Premium Bond (UK) prizes counted cosmic rays to generate truly random numbers. I wrote a small assembler program that ran in the background on my TRS-80 and measured the time between keystrokes then hashed that to an 8-bit value. The times varied from a fraction of a second to hours, so a good spread. Run it for a few days and you had a floppy full of nicely random numbers. Ah! The good old days :-) We might have to resurrect all this stuff... -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 15:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160220152909.e61ab4f454a32a37b2b88e2d@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #159911 |
On 20 Feb 2016 08:30:27 GMT Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:55:25 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > On 19 Feb 2016 16:54:48 GMT > > Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: > > > >> We did an experimental computer version of OTP back in the 8-bit days > >> just to see how to do it. Governments and the military still use OTP > >> when they want to keep things *really* secure. > > > > It is the only unbreakable code - regardless of how much > > computing power you have, even infinite computing power won't help, > > every message of the same length is equally likely to be the original - > > unless you know something about the pad, the more you know the weaker > > the code. > > > >> The book "Venona" will give you a feel for just how secure it is. > >> It does,however, require the secure distribution of the pads or their > >> electronic equivalent. > > > > Securing the pad is of course one problem - as well as secure > > distribution you need secure retention, copy detection and rapid > > invalidation to feel safe. Another weakness is the quality of the pad, > > if it becomes possible to predict the rest of the pad (even partially) > > from that which has been used the code is broken. An unexpected pattern > > in a supposedly good random number generator could be a nasty surprise. > > > > There must, of course, only ever be two copies of the pad - one for > the sender and one for the recipient, and they should *not* copy them. Or permit them to be copied, or take any risk that they might be copied. > For random numbers, even back then pseudo-random number programs were > regard as insecure. ERNIE, the generator of winning numbers for > Premium Bond (UK) prizes counted cosmic rays to generate truly random > numbers. Yes, that sort of thing is good so long as there are no environmental influences distorting the measurements. > I wrote a small assembler program that ran in the background > on my TRS-80 and measured the time between keystrokes then hashed that > to an 8-bit value. The times varied from a fraction of a second to > hours, so a good spread. Run it for a few days and you had a floppy > full of nicely random numbers. > Ah! The good old days :-) > > We might have to resurrect all this stuff... Modern systems use all sorts of entropy sources to provide better random numbers - often used to seed PRNGs because they have a limited rate. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 10:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8737snqsc1.fsf@senguio.mx> |
| In reply to | #159911 |
Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> writes: > For random numbers, even back then pseudo-random number programs were > regard as insecure. ERNIE, the generator of winning numbers for > Premium Bond (UK) prizes counted cosmic rays to generate truly random > numbers. I wrote a small assembler program that ran in the background > on my TRS-80 and measured the time between keystrokes then hashed that > to an 8-bit value. The times varied from a fraction of a second to > hours, so a good spread. Run it for a few days and you had a floppy > full of nicely random numbers. > Ah! The good old days :-) > > We might have to resurrect all this stuff... There are notes available at Fourmilab's website for building a true RNG using a small radioactive check source. Twenty-plus years ago, I built a digital noise source using a simple warm zener diode, which gave several hundred kilobits of "quality" random bits. A little later, I went above-and-beyond by building a second noise-source using a 241-Am source from a smoke detector and a little pencil-sized G-M tube I got from Edmund Scientific. Mixing the relatively fast noise diode source with the slower quantum source gave "virtually perfect" random numbers. Alas, that's one of the things that I elected NOT to bring with me when I moved abroad... --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 11:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dirki5FiqckU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159937 |
"Lawrence Statton NK1G" wrote: > Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> writes: >> For random numbers, even back then pseudo-random number programs were >> regard as insecure. ERNIE, the generator of winning numbers for >> Premium Bond (UK) prizes counted cosmic rays to generate truly random >> numbers. I wrote a small assembler program that ran in the background >> on my TRS-80 and measured the time between keystrokes then hashed that >> to an 8-bit value. The times varied from a fraction of a second to >> hours, so a good spread. Run it for a few days and you had a floppy >> full of nicely random numbers. >> Ah! The good old days :-) >> >> We might have to resurrect all this stuff... > > There are notes available at Fourmilab's website for building a true > RNG using a small radioactive check source. > > Twenty-plus years ago, I built a digital noise source using a simple > warm zener diode, which gave several hundred kilobits of "quality" > random bits. > > A little later, I went above-and-beyond by building a second > noise-source using a 241-Am source from a smoke detector and a little > pencil-sized G-M tube I got from Edmund Scientific. > > Mixing the relatively fast noise diode source with the slower quantum > source gave "virtually perfect" random numbers. > > Alas, that's one of the things that I elected NOT to bring with me when > I moved abroad... That's all good stuff. But it seems to me that a good PRNG would be much more practical and just as good for encryption except in a court of law. I have in mind RC4 with a nice big seed from your favorite source. Exchange the seed using RSA. I can't imagine a decrypt of such a message actually happening. It does suffer from the theoretical possibility that an alleged decrypt was successful. So you could end up with a farcical trial. like the OJ Simpson case, where the jury has a convoluted counter story they can pretend to believe. I don't think it's that hard to find six people who will believe what they want to believe. Or even one person But the use of a real random number generator has all kinds of practical hurdles involving physical media changing hands. In my mind, it comes down to theory vs.practice and I strongly favor the practical solution. Imagine waiting for an airplane chugging along at 600 mph to deliver a CD so you can translate an important message while you pace the floor. We have been spoiled by the invention of the telegraph. But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 16:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nag12n$g9j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159960 |
On 20-Feb-16 11:03, Osmium wrote: > But it seems to me that a good PRNG would be much more practical > and just as good for encryption except in a court of law. I have > in mind RC4 with a nice big seed from your favorite source. s/seed/key/ Congratulations; you just reinvented stream ciphers! > I can't imagine a decrypt of such a message actually happening. Folks _have_ figured out how to break RC4 and recover the key, which is why WEP (RC4) was so quickly replaced with WPA (AES). > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly, RC4 > is not a random number generator. It's not just theory; WEP was broken _because_ RC4 uses a PRNG rather than a true RNG. Some folks try to present stream ciphers as having the security of a one-time pad but with a smaller key, but if the key is even one bit shorter than the message, you're using a PRNG and not a one-time pad. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 16:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nag1rc$j2l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159821 |
On 19-Feb-16 11:55, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >> The book "Venona" will give you a feel for just how secure it is. >> It does,however, require the secure distribution of the pads or >> their electronic equivalent. > > Securing the pad is of course one problem - as well as secure > distribution you need secure retention, copy detection and rapid > invalidation to feel safe. Yes, which makes them incredibly difficult to use in practice. The canonical example is a spy sent with a unique preprinted codebook who burns each page after using it; that is perfectly secure, but when he uses up the entire book, he has to get a new one--and puts his entire operation at risk. > Another weakness is the quality of the pad, if it becomes possible > to predict the rest of the pad (even partially) from that which has > been used the code is broken. An unexpected pattern in a supposedly > good random number generator could be a nasty surprise. Indeed, which is why there are tests to judge the quality of alleged RNGs. Most PRNGs fail pretty quickly, but the nature of the tests is that it's impossible to pass; the only possible results are "fail" or "unknown". It's possible that what we _think_ are true RNGs will fail in the future due to having patterns sufficiently long that we just haven't detected them yet. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 09:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dj1hj4F495kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160138 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:nag1rc$j2l$1@dont-email.me... > On 19-Feb-16 11:55, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >>> The book "Venona" will give you a feel for just how secure it is. >>> It does,however, require the secure distribution of the pads or >>> their electronic equivalent. >> >> Securing the pad is of course one problem - as well as secure >> distribution you need secure retention, copy detection and rapid >> invalidation to feel safe. > > Yes, which makes them incredibly difficult to use in practice. Not when using them for doing what we are discussing, encrypting your phone. > The canonical example is a spy sent with a unique preprinted codebook who > burns each page after using it; that is perfectly secure, but when he > uses up the entire book, he has to get a new one--and puts his entire > operation at risk. Doesn’t happen when encrypting your phone. >> Another weakness is the quality of the pad, if it becomes possible >> to predict the rest of the pad (even partially) from that which has >> been used the code is broken. An unexpected pattern in a supposedly >> good random number generator could be a nasty surprise. > > Indeed, which is why there are tests to judge the quality of alleged > RNGs. Most PRNGs fail pretty quickly, but the nature of the tests is > that it's impossible to pass; the only possible results are "fail" or > "unknown". It's possible that what we _think_ are true RNGs will fail > in the future due to having patterns sufficiently long that we just > haven't detected them yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 05:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dip598Fu4t1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159812 |
"Stan Barr" <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote in message news:slrnncei6o.3qv.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de... > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:29:14 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> > wrote: >> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:56:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" >>><j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There was >>>>> a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most little >>>>> devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably intertlccompany >>>>> rivalry, >>>>> "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a debate >>>>> in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that even traffic >>>>> wardens could access 'secure' data. >>>> >>>>If the NSA could read everything then the FBI would be getting their >>>>boss to talk to the NSA boss, not threatening Apple. >>>> >>>>Simple fact, there is encryption strong enough that the NSA cannot break >>>>it. >>> >>>Well, they have publically claimed there is unhackabe encryption to >>>Congress. Which isn't evidence of any thing. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad > > We did an experimental computer version of OTP back in the 8-bit days > just to see how to do it. Governments and the military still use OTP > when they want to keep things *really* secure. > > The book "Venona" will give you a feel for just how secure it is. > It does,however, require the secure distribution of the pads or their > electronic equivalent. You don’t have to distribute the pads when you are encrypting the data on your own phone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160219185333.dc6209d6259ff4562b3e2570@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #159834 |
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 05:29:53 +1100 "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Stan Barr" <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote in message > news:slrnncei6o.3qv.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de... > > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:29:14 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> > > wrote: > >> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: > >>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:56:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" > >>><j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>>> I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There > >>>>> was a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most > >>>>> little devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably > >>>>> intertlccompany rivalry, > >>>>> "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a > >>>>> debate in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that > >>>>> even traffic wardens could access 'secure' data. > >>>> > >>>>If the NSA could read everything then the FBI would be getting their > >>>>boss to talk to the NSA boss, not threatening Apple. > >>>> > >>>>Simple fact, there is encryption strong enough that the NSA cannot > >>>>break it. > >>> > >>>Well, they have publically claimed there is unhackabe encryption to > >>>Congress. Which isn't evidence of any thing. > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad > > > > We did an experimental computer version of OTP back in the 8-bit days > > just to see how to do it. Governments and the military still use OTP > > when they want to keep things *really* secure. > > > > The book "Venona" will give you a feel for just how secure it is. > > It does,however, require the secure distribution of the pads or their > > electronic equivalent. > > You don’t have to distribute the pads when you are encrypting > the data on your own phone. You do have to keep it safe, that's not easy. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 09:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dipk3iF3dv9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159838 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message news:20160219185333.dc6209d6259ff4562b3e2570@eircom.net... > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 05:29:53 +1100 > "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "Stan Barr" <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote in message >> news:slrnncei6o.3qv.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de... >> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:29:14 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> >> > wrote: >> >> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:56:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" >> >>><j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>> I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There >> >>>>> was a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most >> >>>>> little devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably >> >>>>> intertlccompany rivalry, >> >>>>> "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a >> >>>>> debate in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that >> >>>>> even traffic wardens could access 'secure' data. >> >>>> >> >>>>If the NSA could read everything then the FBI would be getting their >> >>>>boss to talk to the NSA boss, not threatening Apple. >> >>>> >> >>>>Simple fact, there is encryption strong enough that the NSA cannot >> >>>>break it. >> >>> >> >>>Well, they have publically claimed there is unhackabe encryption to >> >>>Congress. Which isn't evidence of any thing. >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad >> > >> > We did an experimental computer version of OTP back in the 8-bit days >> > just to see how to do it. Governments and the military still use OTP >> > when they want to keep things *really* secure. >> > >> > The book "Venona" will give you a feel for just how secure it is. >> > It does,however, require the secure distribution of the pads or their >> > electronic equivalent. >> >> You don’t have to distribute the pads when you are encrypting >> the data on your own phone. > > You do have to keep it safe, that's not easy. Trivially easy with a phone or tablet where all you have to do is have the phone or tablet delete the pad once it has decided that it needs to do that because either the device passcode can not be entered successfully or it fails the bio sensor verification of who is using it or both. Even holding a gun to the owner's head doesn’t work because all they have to do is supply a different passcode which signals that the owner has a gun held to its head so the device just wipes the data that matters and replaces it with what looks like valid data but which is in fact not the data it's protecting at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 14:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <na7q51$p8j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #159812 |
On 19/02/2016 11:54 AM, Stan Barr wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:29:14 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: >> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:56:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" >>> <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There was >>>>> a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most little >>>>> devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably intertlccompany rivalry, >>>>> "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a debate >>>>> in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that even traffic >>>>> wardens could access 'secure' data. >>>> >>>> If the NSA could read everything then the FBI would be getting their >>>> boss to talk to the NSA boss, not threatening Apple. >>>> >>>> Simple fact, there is encryption strong enough that the NSA cannot break >>>> it. >>> >>> Well, they have publically claimed there is unhackabe encryption to >>> Congress. Which isn't evidence of any thing. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad > > We did an experimental computer version of OTP back in the 8-bit days > just to see how to do it. Governments and the military still use OTP > when they want to keep things *really* secure. > > The book "Venona" will give you a feel for just how secure it is. > It does,however, require the secure distribution of the pads or their > electronic equivalent. > We worked on an ISA and developed tools for a microprocessor designed to resist reverse engineering by having an encripted binary whose keys changed with each compile. It too used a OTP for security. Very difficult (probably not impossible) to reverse engineer. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kf0fcbp3ggb17oaftrmola0mbfqr6bd7oq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159810 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:29:14 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:56:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" >><j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There was >>>> a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most little >>>> devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably intertlccompany rivalry, >>>> "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a debate >>>> in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that even traffic >>>> wardens could access 'secure' data. >>> >>>If the NSA could read everything then the FBI would be getting their >>>boss to talk to the NSA boss, not threatening Apple. >>> >>>Simple fact, there is encryption strong enough that the NSA cannot break >>>it. >> >>Well, they have publically claimed there is unhackabe encryption to >>Congress. Which isn't evidence of any thing. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad I know what a one time pad is from reading books about WW2. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 05:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dip4vsFu232U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159804 |
"JimP" <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5ceecbdsu41datnnl2mq39c5kvfgfk31nr@4ax.com... > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:56:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>In article <slrnncdsng.196.mausg@smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says... >>> >>> On 2016-02-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >>> > On 2/18/2016 5:14 PM, JimP wrote: >>> >> 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. >>> > >>> > Of course, ANY phone COULD contain info on terrorist activity. You >>> > surely realize that governments (including ours, from the FBI down to >>> > the county sheriff) will make ample use of that possibility. "Oh >>> > shucks, it turned out that Jim wasn't involved in terrorist activity, >>> > but while we were checking we found evidence of something else >>> > illegal." or "He claimed he was buying stuff from AliBaba, but we >>> > thought he was financing terrorists." >>> > >>> > And the governments of any country that Apple does business in, too. >>> > >>> > I'd give it a month before the software (or at least the functionality >>> > of it) that Apple writes is in the hands of all sorts of parties, >>> > including the Russian mob. >>> > >>> > >>> >>> I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There was >>> a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most little >>> devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably intertlccompany rivalry, >>> "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a debate >>> in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that even traffic >>> wardens could access 'secure' data. >> >>If the NSA could read everything then the FBI would be getting their >>boss to talk to the NSA boss, not threatening Apple. >> >>Simple fact, there is encryption strong enough that the NSA cannot break >>it. > > Well, they have publically claimed there is unhackabe encryption to > Congress. Which isn't evidence of any thing. But we also have the evidence that there is plenty they haven't been able to hack. If they could, Snowden would have been able to show it. He didn't, so they can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 04:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dip34nFtjebU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159774 |
<mausg@mail.com> wrote in message news:slrnncdsng.196.mausg@smaus.org... > On 2016-02-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >> On 2/18/2016 5:14 PM, JimP wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Of course, ANY phone COULD contain info on terrorist activity. You >> surely realize that governments (including ours, from the FBI down to >> the county sheriff) will make ample use of that possibility. "Oh >> shucks, it turned out that Jim wasn't involved in terrorist activity, >> but while we were checking we found evidence of something else >> illegal." or "He claimed he was buying stuff from AliBaba, but we >> thought he was financing terrorists." >> >> And the governments of any country that Apple does business in, too. >> >> I'd give it a month before the software (or at least the functionality >> of it) that Apple writes is in the hands of all sorts of parties, >> including the Russian mob. >> >> > > I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. It isnt. If they could, 9/11 and the London bombings could not have happened. There was > a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most little > devices (phones, etc). If that was true, the FBI wouldn’t have to get the court to force Apple to do what they are attempting to force Apple to do. After that, its probably intertlccompany rivalry, > "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a debate > in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that even traffic > wardens could access 'secure' data. Not in an iphone they can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160219181513.dfb1662be55751479370919d@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #159774 |
On 19 Feb 2016 10:48:36 GMT mausg@mail.com wrote: > I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There was Almost anything I might believe (although AIUI there isn't sufficient computing power in existence for some encryption unless there is some key weakness to exploit) but I really don't believe everything. I am quite willing to believe that they can throw more computing power and devious tricks around than anyone else, and that there may well be very little that they can't read given time and sufficient reason to use the resources (I think that it isn't too hard to encrypt things so that nobody can read them - BICBW). However even they have limited resources and won't read everything, the harder it is to read the more reason they'd need to even try, especially when it is likely to be easier and cheaper to find another way to get at the data. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 17:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a0ebc485-5a8f-4713-8e6e-e4b8e86dfa3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159763 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 12:55:53 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: > Of course, ANY phone COULD contain info on terrorist activity. You > surely realize that governments (including ours, from the FBI down to > the county sheriff) will make ample use of that possibility. "Oh > shucks, it turned out that Jim wasn't involved in terrorist activity, > but while we were checking we found evidence of something else > illegal." or "He claimed he was buying stuff from AliBaba, but we > thought he was financing terrorists." That's exactly what happened with former NY gov Spitzer. The Patriot Act allowed searching, and there were suspicious transactions. Turns out he was merely visiting a hooker. On the flip side, the government then was just doing a fishing expedition. In this case, they assert there may be terrorist data on the phone. Whether there is or not remains to be seen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web